AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-av
April 28, 2002 - May 13, 2002
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | who can work on what on experimental aircraft |
In a message dated 04/27/2002 2:52:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "Cy Galley" | Date: | Apr 28, 2002 |
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Racemate alternator |
>
>I am looking at using a Racemate alternator (www.racemate.com) on my
>autoconversion aircraft engine. This utilizes a concentric alternator within
>the high performance water-pump - a neat and space-saving arrangement used by
>the Team-38 autoconversion.. Does anyone know of a failure mode for an
>alternator that might cause it to freeze solid and thus take out the
>water-pump with it?
That's pretty slick! What you see is an adaptation
of the same technology used in the B&C SD-8 and 200G
PM alternators into the pulley of a water pump.
Since there are no moving or wearing parts unique to
the alternator, this modification to the pump does
not increase the likelihood of wear-related failure.
There are magnets on the inside surface of the pulley
that COULD come loose and jam the pulley IF it were
not for the fact that centrifugal force pushes the
magnets away from the pole pieces while the pulley
is turning.
I see very little risk for having modified the
pump in this manner. My browser was unable to access
the descriptive literature on this product. Do
you know how many amps the alternator will
produce?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lightspeed wiring . . . |
>
>
>
>Bob
> I have a question regarding the starter contactor S702-1. Can a
>continous duty contactor S701-1 be used in this role? In my
>configuration it woul make a much cleaner installation.
>
>Jim Robinson
Folks have done it but you're almost certain to suffer
the sticking starter contactor syndrome . . . Starter
contactors are specifically designed for this service.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James B. Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 12:37:30 -0500
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Lightspeed wiring . . .
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Bob
> > I have a question regarding the starter contactor S702-1. Can a
> >continous duty contactor S701-1 be used in this role? In my
> >configuration it woul make a much cleaner installation.
> >
> >Jim Robinson
>
> Folks have done it but you're almost certain to suffer
> the sticking starter contactor syndrome . . . Starter
> contactors are specifically designed for this service.
>
> Bob . . .
Thanks Bob
I'll make the correct part function in its specific role.
Jim Robinson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Melvinke(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Racemate alternator |
Thankyou for your usual erudite response, Bob. Very reassuring. The
alternator comes as a single unit, delivering 35A, or a twin unit, delivering
50A total. Employs double belts for redundancy. Cleans up the accessory end
of the engine and avoids having to use mounting brackets with their potential
for failure. Ken Melvin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: who can work on what on experimental aircraft |
You are correct! But I think that if you fly IFR, some of the instruments
must be certified. I could be and am probably wrong but I know you have to
have a static and transponder check even if you are VFR for class C. Do you
think that a certified instrument tech will certify your non-standard
instrument? You can do it yourself on a homebuilt, but you have to buy a
certified standard to do the checking so it is cheaper to have it done by an
approved repair station. At least it was explained that way to me.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: <BAKEROCB(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: who can work on what on experimental aircraft
In a message dated 04/27/2002 2:52:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "Cy Galley" http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glong2" <glong2(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Charging one of two dual batteries |
About a week ago there was a discussion of charging the AUX battery in a two
battery all electronic system. If Figure Z-4 is used for the charging system
and the Aux battery drains for some unknown reason, then you must be able to
get to the aux battery with a charger to bring it back on line.
A worse scenario is that I fly into a field with no service and the grandson
turns on either the aux or main master (I would never fail to follow the
shutdown procedure) and one battery is discharged. In that situation, I
could start the engine with one battery, but never recharge the dead
battery!
To remedy this possibility, why not make the aux and main contactors look
just like the crossover contactor with the three diodes. Then if either
battery will start the engine, the alternators will charge the dead battery
once the engine is running.
The dead battery will not pull the good battery down before the engine
starts because it will not draw current until its input voltage is about
13.5V, which only happens after the engine has started.
Even if the pilot did not know one battery was dead, started the engine with
the normal procedure, the aux master would turn on and the
alternator/regulator would probably begin charging the dead battery as soon
as the engine started even if the pilot opened the cross-contactor. If the
pilot noticed the low voltage light, he would probably leave the cross-over
closed for 5-10 minutes to charge the battery with both alternators to
insure the battery had enough energy to maintain the regulator function,
then turn the cross-over off.
Am I missing something?
Gene Long
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Racemate alternator |
>
>Thankyou for your usual erudite response, Bob. Very reassuring. The
>alternator comes as a single unit, delivering 35A, or a twin unit, delivering
>50A total. Employs double belts for redundancy. Cleans up the accessory end
>of the engine and avoids having to use mounting brackets with their potential
>for failure. Ken Melvin.
I'll keep checking back on their website. I was unable to get
past the front page earlier today. I'd be interested
in getting copies of any technical data on their products
if you do put your hands on it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard D. Fogerson" <rickf(at)velocitus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Questions from Aeroelectric Book |
Sorry, I messed up. I should have said the wire from the Battery Contactor
solenoid to the Master Switch that grounds the solenoid and closes the Bat
Con switch.
Rick
> >5) One last question on another topic. With dual ignition and dual
> >batteries in the back, I want to put a hidden switch on the line from
> >main bat/con solenoid to the voltage regulator. What would work best, a
> >toggle switch, toggle switch with fuse, re-settable cb, or cb switch?
>
> I'm not visualizing what wire you're talking
> about. I'm not aware of any wire that runs from the battery
> contactors directly to the voltage regulator. What would
> be the function of the switch?
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging one of two dual batteries |
>
>
>About a week ago there was a discussion of charging the AUX battery in a two
>battery all electronic system. If Figure Z-4 is used for the charging system
>and the Aux battery drains for some unknown reason, then you must be able to
>get to the aux battery with a charger to bring it back on line.
>
>A worse scenario is that I fly into a field with no service and the grandson
>turns on either the aux or main master (I would never fail to follow the
>shutdown procedure) and one battery is discharged. In that situation, I
>could start the engine with one battery, but never recharge the dead
>battery!
How do you walk away from an airplane that has a nice, bright,
LOW VOLTS light flashing at you?
>To remedy this possibility, why not make the aux and main contactors look
>just like the crossover contactor with the three diodes. Then if either
>battery will start the engine, the alternators will charge the dead battery
>once the engine is running.
You could do that.
>The dead battery will not pull the good battery down before the engine
>starts because it will not draw current until its input voltage is about
>13.5V, which only happens after the engine has started.
Dead batteries don't pull down good batteries . . . the
watt-seconds of energy that transfers on initial connection
is quite small compared to the capacity of the good battery.
The good battery will deliver energy at 12.5 or below, the
discharged battery needs 13.0 and higher to take on any
significant charge.
>Even if the pilot did not know one battery was dead, started the engine with
>the normal procedure, the aux master would turn on and the
>alternator/regulator would probably begin charging the dead battery as soon
>as the engine started even if the pilot opened the cross-contactor. If the
>pilot noticed the low voltage light, he would probably leave the cross-over
>closed for 5-10 minutes to charge the battery with both alternators to
>insure the battery had enough energy to maintain the regulator function,
>then turn the cross-over off.
Don't need a third contactor . . . just use 4-terminal, continuous
duty contactors like our S702-2 (two diodes drive the
[+] side of the coil from both the battery and the bus side
of each battery master). The battery contactor can then be closed
using either the battery or whatever is on the bus from the
other battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | who can do what to an experimental aircraft |
In a message dated 04/29/2002 2:52:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "Cy Galley" | From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: who can do what to an experimental aircraft |
You are still right, but I NEVER said that what I wrote about pertained to
experimental. I just pointed out the weirdness of the FAA regs.
----- Original Message -----
From: <BAKEROCB(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: who can do what to an experimental aircraft
In a message dated 04/29/2002 2:52:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "Cy Galley" http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | hand held question |
| From: | lhdodge1(at)mmm.com |
22, 2000) at 04/30/2002 10:43:31 AM
In your reply below, do the zeners go from the + input to ground?
Thanks,
Larry Dodge
RV16LD
>I have made the sin of shutting off the battrey master before shutting
>the engine (912 Rotax). my handheld
transceiver.................................
If I were going to tie any hand helds into ship's power,
I would probably use a Radio Shack 270-030 noise filter
downstream of a small fuse (1A) and then put a couple
of 1N4745, glass zener diodes across the output feeding
the radio.
..............................
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com |
| Subject: | Starter solenoid |
Hi All,
I've heard about starter solenoids wich have a diode included
against electric arcs. It seems they are very different from the convential
STANCOR contactor that we can buy and find everywhere.
Does anybody know a trademark name for this type of product and where
I can purchase one of it ?
Thanks for your help.
Vincent.
France
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark C. Milgrom" <milgrom(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Space shuttle electric power system design |
I recently discovered this NASA website containing fascinating
information about the space shuttle:
http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/STS-105/scom.htm
Of particular interest to this list is the document
http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/scom/28.pdf which describes (starting on
page 20) the shuttle's electrical system.
Adobe Acrobat is required to view these documents. Enjoy.
Mark Milgrom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Starter solenoid |
I've used solenoids with diodes included that are made by Kissling, a
German Company. They'll set you back quite a bit more than the $14
solenoids from Aircraft Spruce.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
> Hi All,
>
> I've heard about starter solenoids wich have a diode included
> against electric arcs. It seems they are very different from
> the convential STANCOR contactor that we can buy and find everywhere.
>
> Does anybody know a trademark name for this type of product
> and where I can purchase one of it ?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Vincent.
> France
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Laurence" <plaurence(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Please forgive me for using this forum for a soapbox. But, I need to vent.
I decided to tackle Jim Weir's dimmer circuit that was published in
Kitplanes. I need some clarification on a subject and sent him an email. His
response was (take my course ans find out. Recently, I tryed to get so some
information on another item pertaining to the dimmer . With no respnse I
sent him several emails. Subsequently, I snail mailed him a cad drawing I
had done for a circuit board for this dimmer asking for an evauation with a
willingness to pay for his consultation time.I even enclosed a self
addressed envelope.
I realize that Mr. Weir is probable a busy person running a business.
However, If he chooses to take on a column in Kitplanes, he should
demonstrate some responsibilty to his readers.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>
>
>Please forgive me for using this forum for a soapbox. But, I need to vent.
>I decided to tackle Jim Weir's dimmer circuit that was published in
>Kitplanes. I need some clarification on a subject and sent him an email. His
>response was (take my course ans find out. Recently, I tryed to get so some
>information on another item pertaining to the dimmer . With no respnse I
>sent him several emails. Subsequently, I snail mailed him a cad drawing I
>had done for a circuit board for this dimmer asking for an evauation with a
>willingness to pay for his consultation time.I even enclosed a self
>addressed envelope.
>
>I realize that Mr. Weir is probable a busy person running a business.
>However, If he chooses to take on a column in Kitplanes, he should
>demonstrate some responsibilty to his readers.
If one chooses to be a simple disseminator of information,
"responsibility" can certainly be limited to making sure
the presentation is accurate. It matters not that the data
appears in an encyclopedia, magazine article or web-page.
However, if one chooses to be a teacher, then responsibilities
are broader. A teacher wants to know that the information is
understood and offers extra effort as needed to advance
understanding. The greatest joy a teacher can experience
is to see the successful application of knowledge to the
benefit of those who have applied themselves and were
willing to learn.
I am not familiar with the article you cited. Is it
accessible from the 'net? If not, can you e-mail or
fax me a copy. Let's see if we can run this confusion
=AND= frustration to ground.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter solenoid - Internal diodes |
>
>Hi All,
>
>I've heard about starter solenoids wich have a diode included
>against electric arcs. It seems they are very different from the convential
>STANCOR contactor that we can buy and find everywhere.
>
>Does anybody know a trademark name for this type of product and where
>I can purchase one of it ?
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>Vincent.
>France
It's a toss up. Many of the off-the-shelf automotive
contactors I've researched have a diode installed. If they
do, they'll be marked on the box or somewhere on the
device that a diode is included. The S702-1 contactor
offered from our website does include the built in
diode.
If you have an automotive contactor that is not so marked, then
it's easy to take advantage of the superior characteristics
of the product by adding your own diode. A 1N5400 series
device (3A, 50V or more) is just fine. Radio Shack sells
them here in states for about $1.25 in a package of 2
diodes. These are the same diodes we include externally
on our S701-1 contactors which you can see at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s701-1l.jpg
I'd go to the car-parts store and look at all the offerings
of starter contactors. If they look like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s702-1l.jpg
. . . then check the box and/or markings on the base of
the device to see if the word "diode" is mentioned. If
you find one so marked, fine and dandy. If you can't find
one at the first store, I'm not sure I'd spend much time
looking . . . adding the diode is cheap and easy.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russ Werner" <russ(at)maui.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ignition system noise |
Bob,
Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my message. I was wondering about the
possibility of substitution of wire normally used for ignition p-leads in
place of his RF coax cable. It seemed you had issues with the use of coax
as a shielded wire for non-RF uses.
Russ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ignition system noise
>
> >
> >Just a thought, but how about the shielded wire normally used for wiring
> >mags?
> >
> >Russ
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. . .
> we were talking about perceived value of adding
> capacitors to the input power of CDI ignitions
> and using RF grade coax as shielded wire. I'm
> not sure what you're asking here.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ignition system noise |
>
>Bob,
>
>Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my message. I was wondering about the
>possibility of substitution of wire normally used for ignition p-leads in
>place of his RF coax cable. It seemed you had issues with the use of coax
>as a shielded wire for non-RF uses.
I can see no reason why a modern (Tefzel and cousins)
shielded wire cannot be used in this application. Since
the black box is fitted with BNC connectors, your biggest
problem is to find a BNC connector for smaller shielded
wire -AND- a tool to install them. It might be more trouble
to find substitute materials and tooling than it is to
simply go with RG-400 coax . . . this gets you around
the problems everyone is reporting with the easy-to-melt
RG-58 and you'll be able to readily obtain matching
connectors and tooling.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: hand held question |
>
>In your reply below, do the zeners go from the + input to ground?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Larry Dodge
>RV16LD
>
>
> >I have made the sin of shutting off the battrey master before shutting
> >the engine (912 Rotax). my handheld
>transceiver.................................
>
> If I were going to tie any hand helds into ship's power,
> I would probably use a Radio Shack 270-030 noise filter
> downstream of a small fuse (1A) and then put a couple
> of 1N4745, glass zener diodes across the output feeding
> the radio.
>
> ..............................
I used to have a schematic of this filter . . . it was
published on my website some years ago but I've lost
it. Let's see if I can be lucid with words:
207-030 inductor goes in series with the power to
the radio. Capacitor from the kit goes from the
downstream (radio) side of inductor to power ground.
Observe polarity markings on capacitor.
I'd put two zeners across the capacitor to serve as
sacrificial crowbar ov protection . . . one would do
in most cases but their cheap and the second one
doesn't hurt and would stand in for the first if it
should fracture.
The banded end of the zener goes to the (+) side
of the capacitor.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard D. Fogerson" <rickf(at)velocitus.net> |
| Subject: | Hidden Switch Question Rephrased |
> Sorry, I messed up. I should have said the wire from the Battery
Contactor
> solenoid to the Master Switch that grounds the solenoid and closes the Bat
> Con switch.
> Rick
>
> > >5) One last question on another topic. With dual ignition and dual
> > >batteries in the back, I want to put a hidden switch on the line from
> > >main bat/con solenoid to the voltage regulator. What would work best, a
> > >toggle switch, toggle switch with fuse, re-settable cb, or cb switch?
> >
> > I'm not visualizing what wire you're talking
> > about. I'm not aware of any wire that runs from the battery
> > contactors directly to the voltage regulator. What would
> > be the function of the switch?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tony Cann <tony.cann(at)sun.com> |
| Subject: | Altimeter certification |
The discussion on who can work on instruments for an experimental
aircraft raises the following question:
If I build my own glass cockpit display and use a digital readout of a
certified altitude encoder to display altitude (corrected for altimeter
setting):
- Can I find someone to sign off an altimeter check on it?
- Am I legal to fly IFR?
My assumption on both is yes, but it appears to be a fuzzy area. I
could not get a straight answer from the FAA people at Oshkosh booths
last year. The answer I got was I would have to talk to the
certification people in the FAA (which did not make sense to me, since
they worry about certified aircraft).
Tony Cann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Al & Deb Paxhia" <paxhia2(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Weak radio transmission |
I have a Icom panel mount radio, reception is poor on the ground, fair in
the air. When flying at cruise 150 MPH, receiver and transmitter are bearly
readable with no transmission over 5 miles or so. Slow down enter the
pattern receiver is better transmitter is still weak but readable.
Where do I begin? Are there things I can do or is it time to visit the radio
shop?
Al
=======================================================================
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak radio transmission |
>
>I have a Icom panel mount radio, reception is poor on the ground, fair in
>the air. When flying at cruise 150 MPH, receiver and transmitter are bearly
>readable with no transmission over 5 miles or so. Slow down enter the
>pattern receiver is better transmitter is still weak but readable.
>Where do I begin? Are there things I can do or is it time to visit the radio
>shop?
>Al
I'd start with checking the antenna and coax cable
connections. Run end to end continuity checks on
the coax center conductor and shield . . . and make
sure they're not shorted to each other.
Is this a new condition or always been this way?
I'd put some kind of performance analysis device on the
antenna. I keep one of these things around for checking
out antennas and transmission lines:
http://www.mfjenterprises.com/products.php?prodid=MFJ-259B
If you're not inclined to add such a critter to
your toolbox, then a trip to the shop for a quick
look-see at the antenna with their test equipment
would be in order.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hidden Switch Question Rephrased |
>
Hidden switch? I presume this is for some form of
security function . . . the kind of switch is
immaterial . . .
> > Sorry, I messed up. I should have said the wire from the Battery
>Contactor
> > solenoid to the Master Switch that grounds the solenoid and closes the Bat
> > Con switch.
> > Rick
> >
> > > >5) One last question on another topic. With dual ignition and dual
> > > >batteries in the back, I want to put a hidden switch on the line from
> > > >main bat/con solenoid to the voltage regulator. What would work best, a
> > > >toggle switch, toggle switch with fuse, re-settable cb, or cb switch?
> > >
> > > I'm not visualizing what wire you're talking
> > > about. I'm not aware of any wire that runs from the battery
> > > contactors directly to the voltage regulator. What would
> > > be the function of the switch
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Miles McCallum" <milesm(at)avnet.co.uk> |
message posted by: "Peter Laurence"
>
>
> Please forgive me for using this forum for a soapbox. But, I need to vent.
> I decided to tackle Jim Weir's dimmer circuit that was published in
> Kitplanes. I need some clarification on a subject and sent him an email.
His
> response was (take my course ans find out. Recently, I tryed to get so
some
> information on another item pertaining to the dimmer . With no respnse I
> sent him several emails. Subsequently, I snail mailed him a cad drawing I
> had done for a circuit board for this dimmer asking for an evauation with
a
> willingness to pay for his consultation time.I even enclosed a self
> addressed envelope.
>
> I realize that Mr. Weir is probable a busy person running a business.
> However, If he chooses to take on a column in Kitplanes, he should
> demonstrate some responsibilty to his readers.
I'm not surprised: I had a similar run-in with Mr Weir over the question of
burying a copper tape antenna in the wing of my Europa specifically for a
handheld nav/com - although he did reply (post a message on
alt.rec.homebuilt and I might answer - he never did)
The truth of the matter is that you have to make a judgement call on the
confidence you have on the information in magazines (and elsewhere - like
the 'net) - it's the reason I decided not to renew my EAA membership: the
only benefit I get is the magazine (I live in England) and there were too
many stories that I felt were inaccurate, or missed the point, or were just
plain wrong... (as detailed by Bob in the past)
As it happens, I believe Jim Weir's info is fairly solid, but as he's pretty
much unapproachable, it's sometimes not that useful when you want to tailor
something specifically to your needs or wishes - in direct contrast to Bob
and the aeroelectric list. I'm probably interested in about 5% of the
traffic on this list, but the participants are clearly a clever lot and
throw up all sorts of questions (and answers) that you never thought to
ask - as well as catch Bob out occasionally! The fact that he sticks his
hand up right away and will issue a correction to all by return gives me
100% confidence in the information here. The philosophy, wiring
architecture, and most of the components for the electrical system of my
Europa are pure aeroelectric connection.
Miles
Miles McCallum
Technical editor, FLYER magazine
www.flyer.co.uk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Laurence" <plaurence(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: remote vs. local strobe supply? |
Please forgive me for using this forum for a soapbox. But, I need to vent.
I decided to tackle Jim Weir's dimmer circuit that was published in
Kitplanes. I need some clarification on a subject and sent him an email. His
response was (take my course ans find out. Recently, I tryed to get so some
information on another item pertaining to the dimmer . With no respnse I
sent him several emails. Subsequently, I snail mailed him a cad drawing I
had done for a circuit board for this dimmer asking for an evauation with a
willingness to pay for his consultation time.I even enclosed a self
addressed envelope.
I realize that Mr. Weir is probable a busy person running a business.
However, If he chooses to take on a column in Kitplanes, he should
demonstrate some responsibilty to his readers.
Sorry for this abrupt end--A glitch-
to continue;
I have sent Bob Nuckolls several emails in the past and he has answered
every one of them. I have also called him by telephone. He has always been
willing to talk and answer my not so astute questions. He is always been
helpful and gracious
OK I'm done.
Peter Laurence
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | 3-terminal contactor for alternator disconnect? |
Bob:
Confusion Abounds--
I have a OVM-14 to use with a 40 amp internal regulated alternator. I also
have a 70-111226 master relay with 3 leads. Can I use this relay in the
system??? If so please help me with the wiring. (I am aware of
the S701-1 relay, but I have the master relay)
You need a 4-terminal contactor like the one shown on
our website to do this task . . . The contactor needs
to energize by pulling-up-to bus as opposed to pulling down
to ground.
Another question??? If the OVM-14 is connected, as is done with an
external regulator, to the IG lead to the alternator--this should "kick
out" the alternator in an overvoltage condition. The OVM-14 would go to
ground, thus the 5 amp breaker would see the ground and trip?
Or is this NOT the way to go???? Of course the alternator is still in the
circuit--is it possible that the alternator can still produce power if the
IG has no voltage to it???
There are probably failure modes within the altenrator
that will allow the machine to produce uncontrolled output
in spite of having removed +12 v from the IG lead. This
is why we have to add the external contactor.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Space shuttle electric power system design |
>
>
>I recently discovered this NASA website containing fascinating
>information about the space shuttle:
>
> http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/STS-105/scom.htm
>
>Of particular interest to this list is the document
>http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/scom/28.pdf which describes (starting on
>page 20) the shuttle's electrical system.
>
>Adobe Acrobat is required to view these documents. Enjoy.
Thanks for the heads-up on this one. I've captured the document
for future reference . . . some of those distribution control
panels look like a mis-positioned switch looking for someplace
to liven up someone's day . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 05/01/2002 2:52:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
"The discussion on who can work on instruments for an experimental
aircraft raises the following question: If I build my own glass cockpit
display and use a digital readout of a certified altitude encoder to display
altitude (corrected for altimeter setting):
- Can I find someone to sign off an altimeter check on it?
- Am I legal to fly IFR?
My assumption on both is yes, but it appears to be a fuzzy area. I
could not get a straight answer from the FAA people at Oshkosh booths
last year. The answer I got was I would have to talk to the
certification people in the FAA (which did not make sense to me, since
they worry about certified aircraft). Tony Cann"
5/1/2002
Hello Tony, Yes there may be a bit of fuzz on your situation and maybe a
significant technical problem.
1) You are probably wasting your time asking hypothetical questions of most
FAA employees about experimental aircraft. The only blood that flows through
their brain is standard type certificated aircraft blood. It is not
necessarily their fault. Their regulations, their orders, and their training
are created / conducted by lawyers and bureaucrats who usually think only in
terms of standard type certificated aircraft. It is difficult for them (and
for us) to remember and try to figure out which regulations apply to
experimental aircraft and which ones don't. Unfortunately each individual
Part of the regulations do not make clear their coverage or exclusions.
2) Whether or not you will get your IFR cert can only be answered by the
person / agency who conducts the tests required by the FARs on your airplane.
Appendix E to Part 43 specifies the tests and criteria that your equipment
must meet. Will your equipment meet those criteria? If you know that it will
not even before you go to the tester then you are on a futile mission.
3) Question: I'm not an electronicly oriented person, but I'm under the
impression that encoders only put out digital altitude (actually flight
level) information in 100 foot intervals. Does this mean that your cockpit
read out will also only be in 100 foot intervals? If so, you can see by the
tables and other info in Appendix E to FAR Part 43 that the equipment will
not meet the testing criteria since many of the tolerances are much less than
100 feet.
4) The general rule of thumb (can be found in some FAA pubs, but I can't find
it in any FAR) is that an altimeter that shows greater than a 75 foot error
on the ground before flight is not considered reliable. Friction tolerance in
Table III of Appendix E to Part 43 is plus or minus 70 feet up to 5,000 feet.
I'd appreciate your (and anyone else's) response to the above.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Banks" <b2banks(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Rotax912ULS Alternator? |
Bob,
Received your book and WOW its a wealth of knowledge. Since I have not
received my engine (Rotax 912ULS) for our Skystar Kitfox Lite2. I was
wondering if you knew the Alternator configuration that comes standard. I
have been able to find from their web page that it is a 40A alternator, but
is it a permanent Magnet type with built in regulator, or can I use your
Alternator controller as the regulator on this Rotax engine. I will be
using the main bus/essential bus system as outlined in you book.
Thanks for creating a book that is easy to understand and also your great
Web Page that is chuck full of how-to aviation stuff.
Thanks for your reply in advance
In Las Vegas
The Banks Brothers Bruce
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Special buy on dimmer rheostats |
We've picked up a small quantity of dimming rheostats
that are similar to the devices used for single-lamp
panel dimming in the overhead of many Cessna single
engine aircraft.
Check it out on
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "royt.or" <royt.or(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Switch Physical Dimensions? |
Bob,
Can you please provide the physical dimensions for the S700 series of
switches, or a location to find the dimensions? I'm interested in space
required behind the panel as well as how "full-size bat-handle
actuators" compare to bat-handle actuators of typical (Potter &
Brumfield) switch-breakers?
Thanks,
Roy Thoma
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Switch Physical Dimensions? |
>
>Can you please provide the physical dimensions for the S700 series of
>switches, or a location to find the dimensions?
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s700dwg.jpg
> I'm interested in space
>required behind the panel as well as how "full-size bat-handle
>actuators" compare to bat-handle actuators of typical (Potter &
>Brumfield) switch-breakers?
Uggghhh! please don't use switch-breakers . . .
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax912ULS Alternator? |
>
>Bob,
>
>Received your book and WOW its a wealth of knowledge. Since I have not
>received my engine (Rotax 912ULS) for our Skystar Kitfox Lite2. I was
>wondering if you knew the Alternator configuration that comes standard. I
>have been able to find from their web page that it is a 40A alternator, but
>is it a permanent Magnet type with built in regulator, or can I use your
>Alternator controller as the regulator on this Rotax engine. I will be
>using the main bus/essential bus system as outlined in you book.
>Thanks for creating a book that is easy to understand and also your great
>Web Page that is chuck full of how-to aviation stuff.
Thank you for the kind words. I'm pleased that you are
pleased with your purchase. The power distribution diagram
and alternator wiring depicted in Figure Z-16 is applicable
to the 250 watt PM alternator. I downloaded a data sheet
at:
http://www.kodiakbs.com/engines/datasheets/912S.pdf
This publication clearly shows a small, probably Nipon Denso
alternator belt driven from a pulley behind the prop flange.
I suspect this is an optional feature.
If you choose to buy this feature (assuming it fits under
your cowl) then wiring diagram Z-13 would be more appropriate
and allow you to run both alternators with the 250 W
machine backing up the larger one.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "royt.or" <royt.or(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax912ULS Alternator? |
Bruce,
Bob is correct that the standard PM alternator for the Rotax 912ULS is 250W
(18A nominal). Rotax and other offer a belt driven 40A alternator as an
option. The optional alternator I have came from Aircarft Sales and Parts in
Vernon B.C. Canada. Ph (250) 549-1102. email asap(at)junction.net. [I have no
affiliation with ASAP and bought my alternator from one of the large Rotax
distributors.] The after market optional alternators appear to be much less
expensive than the Rotax option.
It MAY be possible to get all the parts of a second alternator kit EXCEPT
the (internally regulated) alternator and then order the B&C alternator
which requires the external regulator.
Bob: I'm having a difficult time choosing between using a battery contactor
(as in Z-16) or not (as in Z-17). What's the criteria for including the
battery contactor?
[I'm building an Zenair 601HDS with a Rotax 912S. All electric, night and
IFR legal, optional 40A ND alternator in addition to the 18A Rotax Dynamo.
Single Nav/GPS/Com, xponder, and intercom, Voltmeter/Loadmeter, integrated
Engine Instrument System, and capacitive fuel gauges. 85% done. 50% to go.]
Thanks for your contributions to this community.
Regards,
Roy Thoma
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rotax912ULS Alternator?
>
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >Received your book and WOW its a wealth of knowledge. Since I have not
> >received my engine (Rotax 912ULS) for our Skystar Kitfox Lite2. I was
> >wondering if you knew the Alternator configuration that comes standard.
I
> >have been able to find from their web page that it is a 40A alternator,
but
> >is it a permanent Magnet type with built in regulator, or can I use your
> >Alternator controller as the regulator on this Rotax engine. I will be
> >using the main bus/essential bus system as outlined in you book.
> >Thanks for creating a book that is easy to understand and also your great
> >Web Page that is chuck full of how-to aviation stuff.
>
> Thank you for the kind words. I'm pleased that you are
> pleased with your purchase. The power distribution diagram
> and alternator wiring depicted in Figure Z-16 is applicable
> to the 250 watt PM alternator. I downloaded a data sheet
> at:
>
> http://www.kodiakbs.com/engines/datasheets/912S.pdf
>
>
> This publication clearly shows a small, probably Nipon Denso
> alternator belt driven from a pulley behind the prop flange.
> I suspect this is an optional feature.
>
> If you choose to buy this feature (assuming it fits under
> your cowl) then wiring diagram Z-13 would be more appropriate
> and allow you to run both alternators with the 250 W
> machine backing up the larger one.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
BAKEROCB(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> 1) You are probably wasting your time asking hypothetical questions of most
> FAA employees about experimental aircraft. The only blood that flows through
> their brain is standard type certificated aircraft blood. It is not
*** Which brings up a historical something I've been wondering about:
* How and when did the US government get into the business of
"certificating" aircraft? Was it a particular horrific accident? What
was the first airplane to be "certificated"?
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "2000 PC PARTS" <pcparts2000(at)hotmail.com> |
THIS IS SPAM GET ME OFF THIS. NOW
----- Original Message -----
From: <jerry(at)tr2.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Cert
>
> BAKEROCB(at)aol.com wrote:
> >
> > 1) You are probably wasting your time asking hypothetical questions of
most
> > FAA employees about experimental aircraft. The only blood that flows
through
> > their brain is standard type certificated aircraft blood. It is not
>
> *** Which brings up a historical something I've been wondering about:
>
> * How and when did the US government get into the business of
> "certificating" aircraft? Was it a particular horrific accident?
What
> was the first airplane to be "certificated"?
>
> - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Miller Robert <rmiller3(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch Physical Dimensions? |
Dear Bob:
Could you elaborate on this? At first thought, a toggle switch that is also a
circuit
breaker seems attractive. What am I missing?
Thanks.
Robert Miller
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
> Uggghhh! please don't use switch-breakers . . .
>
> Bob. . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Al & Deb Paxhia" <paxhia2(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Weak radio transmission |
Hi Bob,
As you suggested , I did the continuity check first and that was the
problem. The center conductor had a wisker that missed the pin and was
shorting.
Thank You for your help, not only for this question but all the questions
of mine that others have asked and you have answered.
Al
"Moose" N526AP (19 hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>BAKEROCB(at)aol.com wrote:
> >
> > 1) You are probably wasting your time asking hypothetical questions of
> most
> > FAA employees about experimental aircraft. The only blood that flows
> through
> > their brain is standard type certificated aircraft blood. It is not
>
>*** Which brings up a historical something I've been wondering about:
>
> * How and when did the US government get into the business of
> "certificating" aircraft? Was it a particular horrific accident? What
> was the first airplane to be "certificated"?
http://www.faa.gov/apa/history/briefhistory.htm tells us that,
"The Air Commerce Act of May 20, 1926, was the cornerstone of the
Federal government's regulation of civil aviation. The Act
charged the Secretary of Commerce with fostering air commerce,
issuing and enforcing air traffic rules, licensing pilots,
certificating aircraft, establishing airways, and operating
and maintaining aids to air navigation."
http://users.mfi.net//~stearman/airshow/model4.html
This website talks about the first airplane to be certified with
a 300 hp P/W Wasp engine. This was in 1926. Since 1926
was the year that the Air Commerce Act One can presume there
were earlier instances of "certification"
Here's a piece that speaks to the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 that
created the CAA. The piece says, "Until that time, numerous
government agencies and departments had a hand in aviation policy."
http://www.air-transport.org/public/publications/display1.asp?nid=961
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Radio difficulties |
Bob Nuckolls reply to Al and Deb Paxhia (regarding radio trouble):
"I'd put some kind of performance analysis device on the antenna. I keep one
of these things around for checking out antennas and transmission lines:
http://www.mfjenterprises.com/products.php?prodid=MFJ-259B
If you're not inclined to add such a critter to your toolbox, then a
trip to the shop for a quick look-see at the antenna with their test
equipment would be in order."
... quite agree that 95% of radio troubles stem from poor or
neglected coaxial cable fittings. However, one warning: read the
instructions of the MFJ259B Verrry carefully - and you will note that it
must only measure the antenna and system - no signal on the radio. Many make
the mistake of 'trying' the transmitter with the 259 still attached. MFJ
will be glad to fix it for $100 or more...................... I have one for
our Amateur Radio club, but I use it on their systems because of the ease
with which they 'blow'.
Not to put radio techs out of work, but your local Ham Radio
club probably has someone who might be inclined to chase up your troubles.
www.arrl.org, "find on this site" - "Clubs".
Ferg Kyle
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard D. Fogerson" <rickf(at)velocitus.net> |
| Subject: | Questions on last chapter of Aeroelectric Book |
Hi Bob,
I finished reading the book and have questions on items 2 and 3 from
page 16-16:
Item 2) - you talk about a brass stud in the firewall to connect the
negative terminal of the battery to the engine crankcase. Is this for
composite airplanes only or metal ones too?
Item 3) - You say to run "DC power & control around the left side of the
cockpit". My RV3 will have two batteries in back but the trim cable and
throttle and mixture quadrant are on the left side. I think I heard
somewhere that power wires should not be run on the same side of
fuselage as these flight controlcables for some electrical reason????
Even if that is not the case, it would be harder to run the wires and
not conflict with the control cables. What do you think?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard D. Fogerson" <rickf(at)velocitus.net> |
Hi Bob,
The Yuasa NP 12-12 battery looks like just the ticket for my day VFR
only RV3 (dual ignition, dual batteries in the back, B&C alternator,
regulator, and alternator) with modest electrical needs.
It only weighs 8.8 lbs, has dimensions of only 5.9 X 3.9 X 3.8 inches,
and has a 12 Ahr capacity. Their small size and weight is great for
having two in back. Their 2 X 12 Ahr capacity would give plenty of
cranking and flying capacity with 24 Ahr total. And their cost of only
$47 each makes changing out one each year easy to take!
Tell me there's nothing wrong with it!
Thanks,
Rick Fogerson
RV3 fuselage
Boise, ID
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Francis, CMDR David" <David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au> |
| Subject: | sec: unclassified - MAINTAINING IFR SYSTEMS |
Folks,
There has been talk about maintenance of instruments for IFR use. Some
useful references are:
FAR 91.411, 91.413, Part 43 Appendixes D and E. If you are the manufacturer
of the aircraft you are one of the eligible persons to do test and
maintenance, subject I suppose to skill and equipment.
Here in Australia, which usually calls up FAR as references, experimental
aircraft do not have to have certified instruments, but do need to meet the
accuracy and maintenance requirements in them. Some manufacturers are
refusing to certify to a TSO or FAR, but do build and test to the FAR or
TSO. They can market the product cheaper by passing product liability on to
the aircraft manufacturer, who is us. Hence price reductions of 30% or more,
due to the absence of product liability insurance. The make the product test
data available so you and the inspectors can be satisfied the equipment
meets the mandated IFR accuracy requirements, even though not formally
certified.
The following data is drawn from a Kitplanes article about calibrating ASIs,
which can be done with a simple water manometer. I do not know where the
accuracy requirement for ASI is in the FAR. The table below is from the
article, which quoted prime source as AN 05-10-24. The date of the Kitplanes
article is not visible in the photocopy I have.
I hope this data helps someone, somewhere. David Francis,Canberra,
Australia, VH-ZEE
Knots Water InchesMPH Knots Water In PSI
50 1.63 50 43 1.26 0.042
60 2.35 70 60 2.47 0.084
70 3.21 90 77 4.09 0.139
80 4.19 110 95 6.11 0.207
90 5.31 130 112 8.53 0.29
100 6.56 150 129 11.4 0.388
110 7.95
120 9.48
130 11.14
140 12.94
150 14.87
160 16.95
170 19.17
180 21.54
190 24.05
200 26.71
210 29.51
220 32.47
230 35.58
240 38.84
250 42.27
____
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark C. Milgrom" <milgrom(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Space shuttle electric power system design
>
> I recently discovered this NASA website containing fascinating
> information about the space shuttle:
>
> http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/STS-105/scom.htm
>
> Of particular interest to this list is the document
> http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/scom/28.pdf which describes (starting on
> page 20) the shuttle's electrical system.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
From: Tony Cann <tony.cann(at)sun.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Altimeter certification
The discussion on who can work on instruments for an experimental
aircraft raises the following question:
If I build my own glass cockpit display and use a digital readout of a
certified altitude encoder to display altitude (corrected for altimeter
setting):
- Can I find someone to sign off an altimeter check on it?
- Am I legal to fly IFR?
My assumption on both is yes, but it appears to be a fuzzy area. I
could not get a straight answer from the FAA people at Oshkosh booths
last year. The answer I got was I would have to talk to the
certification people in the FAA (which did not make sense to me, since
they worry about certified aircraft).
Tony Cann
____
From: "Al & Deb Paxhia" <paxhia2(at)attbi.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Weak radio transmission
-
=======================================================================
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
____
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Yuasa battery |
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>The Yuasa NP 12-12 battery looks like just the ticket for my day VFR
>only RV3 (dual ignition, dual batteries in the back, B&C alternator,
>regulator, and alternator) with modest electrical needs.
>
>It only weighs 8.8 lbs, has dimensions of only 5.9 X 3.9 X 3.8 inches,
>and has a 12 Ahr capacity. Their small size and weight is great for
>having two in back. Their 2 X 12 Ahr capacity would give plenty of
>cranking and flying capacity with 24 Ahr total. And their cost of only
>$47 each makes changing out one each year easy to take!
>
>Tell me there's nothing wrong with it!
Click on :
http://www.batteryweb.com/yuasa.cfm
. . . and then click on the linked terminals
callouts for any battery with an "F1" terminal.
The F1 style is a .187" faston tab that is
far shy of that required to deliver hundreds
of amps of cranking current. The smallest
common battery with "NB" or "HP" style
terminals is the NP18-12B which is functionally
interchangeable with a dozen brands offering
the same style and capacity of battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch-breakers . . . |
>
>
>Dear Bob:
>
>Could you elaborate on this? At first thought, a toggle switch that is
>also a circuit
>breaker seems attractive. What am I missing?
>Thanks.
>Robert Miller
>
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
> > Uggghhh! please don't use switch-breakers . . .
> >
> > Bob. . .
Circuit protection is used to tap a bus and distribute
power to a useful location. If you have a row of switch-breakers
on the panel, now you've created a bus behind the panel that
is probably in addition to the ones already a part of fuse
blocks. If you're using breakers throughout the system, then
the inclusion of switch-breakers forces you to fabricate
a bus on the right side for the non-switching breakers and
another bus on the left side for all the switch breakers.
Fuseblocks keep the busses off the panel and provide you
with an convenient, compact, low parts count, bolt-on
alternative to the high parts count, costly, laborious
and real estate hungry breaker panels.
See also http://209.134.106.21/articles/fuseorcb.html
It's not that a switch-breaker is an inherently evil
device . . . but its use forces design issues counter
productive to the fabrication of low cost, failure
tolerant, easy to maintain systems.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions on last chapter of Aeroelectric Book |
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>I finished reading the book and have questions on items 2 and 3 from
>page 16-16:
>
>Item 2) - you talk about a brass stud in the firewall to connect the
>negative terminal of the battery to the engine crankcase. Is this for
>composite airplanes only or metal ones too?
Metal too . . . but with rear mounted batteries in a metal
airplane, you can ground the batteries to structure locally
-OR- run a battery ground to the firewall stud.
>Item 3) - You say to run "DC power & control around the left side of the
>cockpit". My RV3 will have two batteries in back but the trim cable and
>throttle and mixture quadrant are on the left side. I think I heard
>somewhere that power wires should not be run on the same side of
>fuselage as these flight controlcables for some electrical reason????
>Even if that is not the case, it would be harder to run the wires and
>not conflict with the control cables. What do you think?
>
Don't know why anyone would say this. Wires, controls, plumbing
and black boxes have lived in close proximity to each other
in the confined spaces of airplanes for years. There are
mechanical considerations for installation that are observed
to prevent interference with each others functions but I can
think of no practical reason why one take pains to avoid
sharing spaces. Note 3 suggests that power and signal wiring
not share spaces for noise-mitigation . . . but failure to
observe this is not an automatic guarantee of noise problems
either. It's just something easy to do on initial
installation that eliminates a hard-to-track-down-and-fix
possibility should a noise problem arise later.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello all !
Can anyone explain the generator system of the Yak 50/52 to me ?
It is the original russian design.
I am a Yak 50 operator in Germany.
thanks
Henning DE
Bremen / Germany
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Altitude tolerance |
"4) The general rule of thumb (can be found in some FAA pubs, but I can't
find it in any FAR) is that an altimeter that shows greater than a 75 foot
error
on the ground before flight is not considered reliable. Friction tolerance
in
Table III of Appendix E to Part 43 is plus or minus 70 feet up to 5,000
feet."
We were given this reason years ago why we must demonstrate
handflying transports within 50 feet of required altitude - to allow for 50%
error in handling. The idiots didn't specify the time interval, so most
instructors used to skip anything longer than about 10 seconds at 37,000
feet. It finally died. Imagine losing capability for twelve hours.
Ferg Kyle
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Yak electrics |
>
>Hello all !
>
>Can anyone explain the generator system of the Yak 50/52 to me ?
>It is the original russian design.
>I am a Yak 50 operator in Germany.
>
>thanks
>
>Henning DE
>Bremen / Germany
Not sure of what your question is. The operation of
generators as a power source for a vehicle of any
type is a rudimentary technology. Any number of tutorials
on automotive generators would explain the theory,
operation and practical maintenance in detail.
Is there some feature of the Yak 50 system unique
to the aircraft? One would have to have a copy
of the wiring diagrams (which I do not have)
to address these kinds of questions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Yak electrics |
Well Robert,
thanks for your response, but yes, the Yak system is a kind of special ( at least
to me ).
For example, there is a voltage regulator wich I hav not jet seen. You maybe know
it as a carbon pile regulator. This is 1950`electrics, and completely unknown
to germans.
And so the story goes on and on. As far as I can tell, and I am pretty familiar
with electrics, this system is completely diferent from anything i have seen.
The basics may be the same, but thats it !
Russian technology.....
Any help is welcome !
Henning DE
Bremen/Germany
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Yak electrics |
H30Damm(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Well Robert,
> thanks for your response, but yes, the Yak system is a kind of special ( at least
to me ).
> For example, there is a voltage regulator wich I hav not jet seen. You maybe
know it as a carbon pile regulator. This is 1950`electrics, and completely unknown
to germans.
> And so the story goes on and on. As far as I can tell, and I am pretty familiar
with electrics, this system is completely diferent from anything i have seen.
> The basics may be the same, but thats it !
> Russian technology.....
>
> Any help is welcome !
*** If it helps, I can read Russian....
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Brick" <jbrick(at)wolfenet.com> |
| Subject: | Pullable Breaker |
Just received a pullable 5A Potter & Brumfield cb from Van's. It doesn't
visibly pop when overloaded...can't see the white band that I see when
pulled manually. It works, i.e. it breaks the circuit, but without any
visual indication. Is that normal?
jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Screws vs Fastons |
| From: | Don Boardman <dboardm3(at)twcny.rr.com> |
Hi Guys,
Just saw this posting on the Cessna Cardinal List.
Good example of why Bob likes those Fastons.
From: robert patterson <cardinalflyer(at)attbi.com>
Subject: intermittent flaps
Rick,
Take a look at the back of the flaps circuit breaker too - my flaps became
intermittent/non-op a couple of summers ago, I tracked it down to a loose
screw on the back of the circuit breaker - tighten up the others while
you're under there too!
Bob Patterson
N34634, '73FG, 9B1 (Marlboro, MA)
Regards,
Don Boardman
SR3500#130 "The Muskie" M-14PF Aerocet 3500 amphibs, Rome, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pullable Breaker |
>
>Just received a pullable 5A Potter & Brumfield cb from Van's. It doesn't
>visibly pop when overloaded...can't see the white band that I see when
>pulled manually. It works, i.e. it breaks the circuit, but without any
>visual indication. Is that normal?
>
>jb
Hmmm . . . not for any breaker I've ever seen. After it breaks,
I presume you can reset it by pushing on the button . . . how
much travel does it have before the contacts close?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Brick" <jbrick(at)wolfenet.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Pullable Breaker |
More on this question: I tested this breaker by connecting two jumpers (the
colored wire, alligator clip, radio shack type) from the breaker terminals
to the battery terminals. This smoked the wires and I don't remember if the
breaker popped that time. Now there was no continuity in those jumper wires
so I tried another pair. This time the wires held and the results were as
described in my first post. The breaker tripped but not visibly. The breaker
was reset by pulling it open and pushing it back down. This was repeated
several times and it tripped every time.
When I tried to remove the screws from the breaker terminals, one was so
tight that I over torqued it and bent the terminal and cracked the case.
Evidently it welded when I smoked the wires. When I took the case apart I
was expecting to see a coil/moving metal core mechanism. No such thing...it
had one terminal connected to a metal strip (bi-metallic?), so it was
thermal, not magnetic.
Following Bob's architecture, this was the only breaker I planned to use and
it is for the alternator field. I should read the section on the crowbar
overvoltage circuit again, but doesn't it short the field wire to ground,
and isn't the breaker supposed to open in milliseconds?
Lots of questions. Faulty breaker? Too many amps for the breaker? Can that
type of breaker really open in milliseconds?
jb
-----Original Message-----
From: John Brick [mailto:jbrick(at)wolfenet.com]
Subject: Pullable Breaker
Just received a pullable 5A Potter & Brumfield cb from Van's. It doesn't
visibly pop when overloaded...can't see the white band that I see when
pulled manually. It works, i.e. it breaks the circuit, but without any
visual indication. Is that normal?
jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "2000 PC PARTS" <pcparts2000(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Pullable Breaker |
I unsuscribed from this spam and I am still getting it. WHAT IS WRONG WITH
THIS PICTURE.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brick" <jbrick(at)wolfenet.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Pullable Breaker
>
> More on this question: I tested this breaker by connecting two jumpers
(the
> colored wire, alligator clip, radio shack type) from the breaker terminals
> to the battery terminals. This smoked the wires and I don't remember if
the
> breaker popped that time. Now there was no continuity in those jumper
wires
> so I tried another pair. This time the wires held and the results were as
> described in my first post. The breaker tripped but not visibly. The
breaker
> was reset by pulling it open and pushing it back down. This was repeated
> several times and it tripped every time.
>
> When I tried to remove the screws from the breaker terminals, one was so
> tight that I over torqued it and bent the terminal and cracked the case.
> Evidently it welded when I smoked the wires. When I took the case apart I
> was expecting to see a coil/moving metal core mechanism. No such
thing...it
> had one terminal connected to a metal strip (bi-metallic?), so it was
> thermal, not magnetic.
>
> Following Bob's architecture, this was the only breaker I planned to use
and
> it is for the alternator field. I should read the section on the crowbar
> overvoltage circuit again, but doesn't it short the field wire to ground,
> and isn't the breaker supposed to open in milliseconds?
>
> Lots of questions. Faulty breaker? Too many amps for the breaker? Can that
> type of breaker really open in milliseconds?
>
> jb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Brick [mailto:jbrick(at)wolfenet.com]
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pullable Breaker
>
>
> Just received a pullable 5A Potter & Brumfield cb from Van's. It doesn't
> visibly pop when overloaded...can't see the white band that I see when
> pulled manually. It works, i.e. it breaks the circuit, but without any
> visual indication. Is that normal?
>
> jb
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Mills <courierboy(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | For: 2000 PC PARTS |
>
>
>I unsuscribed from this spam and I am still getting it. WHAT IS WRONG WITH
>THIS PICTURE.
Dear 2000 PC PARTS -
Only people with 2000 Macintosh parts can unsubscribe.
Seriously, scroll to the bottom of this note and click on "UN/SUBSCRIBE".
Better yet have some patience and stick around - Bob and the listers
will make it well worth your while in education, products, and
support.
Good luck in either case -
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Yak electrics |
>
>Well Robert,
>thanks for your response, but yes, the Yak system is a kind of special (
>at least to me ).
>For example, there is a voltage regulator wich I hav not jet seen. You
>maybe know it as a carbon pile regulator. This is 1950`electrics, and
>completely unknown to germans.
>And so the story goes on and on. As far as I can tell, and I am pretty
>familiar with electrics, this system is completely diferent from anything
>i have seen.
>The basics may be the same, but thats it !
>Russian technology.....
>
>Any help is welcome !
Carbon pile regulators were among the first successful
devices used for voltage and current control of DC machines.
Early electric street cars used large carbon pile resistors
to adjust current delivered to the traction motors. Even
today, if one wants a variable power resistor capable
of great wattage, the carbon pile is #1 choice. I use
them in several alternator test stands that I've built.
The "carbon pile" is a stack of disks or plates of carbon
with contacts at each end. Resistance of the stack is varied
by adjusting pressure on the stack . . . usually, the
motion is quite small . . . the stack's total length changes
very little with pressure. This characteristic yields
an opportunity to build a sort of mechanical amplifier wherein
voltage impressed across a coil of wire becomes a current
that produces magnetic force that manifests itself in a
variable resistance of considerable current handling
capabilities. You can stack up the carbon disks with
a constant tension supplied by a spring and hook the
stack in series with field supply to a generator (or
alternator). Absent any outside influence, the resistance
of the stack is low and output from the machine is high.
Now, arrange a coil of wire to tug on a magnetic
armature such that increasing current decreases
force on the stack, voila! Negative feedback that
tends to stabilize the system. Adjust the mechanical
positions and forces of the parts so that the desired
bus voltage falls somewhere near the middle of the
devices control slope and you have a regulator with
no moving/wearing parts of any consequence.
Here's a link to a page that shows a schematic of
a carbon pile regulated generator. A tad more complex
than the systems used on vehicles but representative
of an application for this technology.
http://www.gotopcs.net/stones.html
In my never very humble opinion, a rather elegant
solution. One can find carbon pile regulators still
in service in older turbine and piston aircraft here
in US as well. I don't
Here's a link to a discussion of the M14 engine and
accessories . . . a cousin if not sibling to the
engine in your airplane.
http://www.alltheweb.com/go/2/H/web/http/fred.abramson.com/m14p.htm
Carbon pile resistors are still used in modern
products, mostly battery testers and variable loads
for test bench uses. Here are some examples:
http://bach-simpson.com/iprod01.htm
http://www.autometer.com/test/specifications/sb5sp.htm
Folks in aviation still repair these devices. See:
http://www.alltheweb.com/go/1/H/web/http/www.montagar.com/~patj/ebjagabi12.htm
http://www.asapavionics.com/component_repair.htm
These are but a few of the hits I got on www.google.com
for a search on "carbon pile".
Troubleshooting the system is just the same as for
any other regulator. The generator field current needs
to be controlled in response to variations in bus
voltage and output current from the machine. Techniques
for isolating a faulty component in the generator/regulator
system are the same no matter what kind of regulator is
is used.
By-in-large, as long as the system is mechanically
intact (no broken wires, burned switches, burned
commutators or seized bearings, etc.) then system
instability or adjustment problems is almost always
attributable to a need for regulator overhaul.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pullable Breaker |
>
>More on this question: I tested this breaker by connecting two jumpers (the
>colored wire, alligator clip, radio shack type) from the breaker terminals
>to the battery terminals. This smoked the wires and I don't remember if the
>breaker popped that time. Now there was no continuity in those jumper wires
>so I tried another pair. This time the wires held and the results were as
>described in my first post. The breaker tripped but not visibly. The breaker
>was reset by pulling it open and pushing it back down. This was repeated
>several times and it tripped every time.
>
>When I tried to remove the screws from the breaker terminals, one was so
>tight that I over torqued it and bent the terminal and cracked the case.
>Evidently it welded when I smoked the wires. When I took the case apart I
>was expecting to see a coil/moving metal core mechanism. No such thing...it
>had one terminal connected to a metal strip (bi-metallic?), so it was
>thermal, not magnetic.
Magnetic breakers are $100 devices . . . very rare.
>Following Bob's architecture, this was the only breaker I planned to use and
>it is for the alternator field. I should read the section on the crowbar
>overvoltage circuit again, but doesn't it short the field wire to ground,
>and isn't the breaker supposed to open in milliseconds?
Yup, when wired into an airplane with a big battery to feed
the bus, fault currents that flow in the crowbar can be as
much as 300 amps . . .the breaker opens right smartly under this
kind of stess.
>Lots of questions. Faulty breaker? Too many amps for the breaker? Can that
>type of breaker really open in milliseconds?
The breaker you have must be defective . . although some of the
mechanical characteristics you describe lead one to question
design and quality as well. I'd recommend you pick up a Klixon
or Mechanical Products 5A miniature breaker from B&C.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Spam, spam, who's got the spam? |
>
>
>I unsuscribed from this spam and I am still getting it. WHAT IS WRONG WITH
>THIS PICTURE.
Forgive me sir but the only spam on this list is
a product of your lack of understanding of how
list servers work and what it takes to have your
wishes accommodated. It certainly won't happen with
mud slinging and YELLING at people who have no
control over the cause of your distress.
There must be some problem with the way your
e-mail address is batched with the server's list
of subscribers that will require the personal
attention of the man who so graciously offers
the space on his computers to service the needs
of others at NO CHARGE. I suggest simple, polite note
to the person listed at the top of the subscribe page
as list administrator . . .
"Matt Dralle"
. . . . explaining that you have been unsuccessful
in effecting an automatic un-subscribe to this
service. Would he please take some time out of
his busy day to open the data file to search for
and manually and delete the offending entry?
Matt's a nice guy and tries to be very helpful
so you be nice too . . . I think he'll be pleased to
accommodate you forthwith . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joel Harding <dsl10driver(at)ev1.net> |
Bob,
In a recent reply you recommended keeping your mags and using each one of
them with an electronic ignition until they need overhauling, then going
dual E.I. The mags that came with my engine are Bendix Shower of Sparks 200
series. I'm planning on using your electric airplane on a budget schematic
and I thought if I just used the E. I. for starting I could forget about the
vibrator. So....do you see any pitfalls and would you still make the same
recommendation????
Also, do you have any of those faston connectors left?
Thanks for your service to the homebuilt community.
Joel Harding
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Yak electrics |
The problem with the generator and carbon pile regulator on the M14P
engines is that they are big and heavy. B&C makes a small lightweight,
permanent magnet alternator for that engine that is a fraction of the
weight. It is a cousin to the SD-8 and I believe it delivers around 10
amps.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Yak electrics |
Well Bob,
thanks a lot !
You really helped me understanding the whole lot.
I tried Google to on that subject, but i did not found what you did.
Actually I think the fault does not lie in the Voltage regulator but in the differntial
relay, but thats another story.
Only today i got a publication on aviation electrics from Jeppesen.
I guess we can sort problems out now.
Thanks again
Henning
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>Bob,
>In a recent reply you recommended keeping your mags and using each one of
>them with an electronic ignition until they need overhauling, then going
>dual E.I. The mags that came with my engine are Bendix Shower of Sparks 200
>series. I'm planning on using your electric airplane on a budget schematic
>and I thought if I just used the E. I. for starting I could forget about the
>vibrator. So....do you see any pitfalls and would you still make the same
>recommendation????
Sounds good to me.
>Also, do you have any of those faston connectors left?
Which ones? The shrouded males? Yup. Put your order
in . . .
>Thanks for your service to the homebuilt community.
You're welcome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mprather(at)spro.net |
| Subject: | Re: Yak electrics |
There is a big capability difference between the original electrical
system and what the b&c can produce. The original is rated at something
like 107A and 28V which gives about 3kW. I guess the russian
instrumentation (and radios) were pretty power hungry - Apparently the
Yak18 (and probably others) had a very nice (but large and heavy)
non-tumbling AI in it. I can only imagine what they were using for
radios. Can you say vacuum tube? Not quite like the surface mount
stuff we have today. Rugged though.
If you can get along with something less than a 3kW power budget (I
know, that means you'll have to get an extension cord to run the
welder... ) then going to something from b&c would be a lot lighter.
Matt-
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Friday, May 3, 2002 9:19 am
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Yak electrics
>
> The problem with the generator and carbon pile regulator on the M14P
> engines is that they are big and heavy. B&C makes a small
> lightweight,permanent magnet alternator for that engine that is a
> fraction of the
> weight. It is a cousin to the SD-8 and I believe it delivers
> around 10
> amps.
>
> David Swartzendruber
> Wichita
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Yak electrics |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> Carbon pile regulators
[...]
>
> In my never very humble opinion, a rather elegant
> solution.
*** Wow! That _is_ elegant. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find such
on locomotives - there's a LOT of electrical power involved with those,
especially with reactive braking.
Another elegant regulator I once saw:
There was this high-current "semi-regulated" power supply for charging
telephone central office batteries. It had a power transformer with an
extra winding. A small amplifier pumped DC into the extra winding. This
DC would saturate the transformer, and the output voltage would dip. If it
dipped too far, you pumped in less DC. If it didn't dip enough, you pumped
in more DC....
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ned Thomas" <nthomas(at)mmcable.com> |
| Subject: | Hand tool battery charging - Little off Topic |
Hi gang,
I use a cordless drill quite a bit while building my Pulsar. It seems that
if I put the battery in the frig or freezer that I get a better charge on
the NICAD battery pack. Is there any reason not to do this?
Thanks,
Ned
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch-breakers . . . |
>
>So what about a situation where you need to control a dozen things with
>On-Off toggle switches? Fuse blocks are great, but if I have to put in a
>fuse block AND then run the wires to a console with toggle switches, and
>then to the item to be powered....wouldn't it end up being more time,
>money, and weight than just installing the switch-breakers? I like fuse
>blocks and they have some good merits but I'm still trying to decide if
>there's an advantage (or even a disadvantage) to using them in this case.
Everything that needs a switch gets a switch, everything needs circuit
protection and
gets it whether it's a breaker or fuse.
>One of my dilemma's (that leads to the fuse/toggle vs. breaker-switch
>question) is an ongoing concern over the ability to kill power to some
>individual item in the panel in the case of malfunction/smoke from a
>single piece of equipment. Perhaps I'm just paranoid after my experience
>(in the archives) where the transponder started smoking and wouldn't quit
>by just turning it off. Even though it was day VFR, the ability to pull
>the breaker was very useful. My dad who's a career GA pilot has also
>related experiences where for one reason or another it was nice to be able
>to break power to a piece of equipment using something other than it's own
>on-off switch. Another example if my memory serves correctly is the
>Swissair MD-ll that went down off the east coast a few years back...seems
>they had an electrical fire that did NOT blow the breaker/fuse, and the
>entire aircraft was lost (I think it was in the cabin entertainment
>system, which may not be built to the same standard as !the cockpit
>avionics, but was probly as robust as the sport aviation stuff in my
>panel). Examples in the panel on my RV-8A are planned pieces of equipment
>like the turn coordinator, the EIS-4000 engine monitor (has no On-off
>switch built in) and perhaps the Dynon unit as well...not sure if it has
>an on-off function but even if it does it's probly a software operated
>function and not a mechanical disconnect. Same goes for my GPS...it has a
>"soft" on-off switch. I want to be able to shut down these pieces of
>equipment during flight...either because they are acting erratically
>(which can create an annoyance at best or a dangerous display of
>misleading information at worst) or because they smoke without blowing the
>fuse, etc. Sure you can kill the master if something's burning up, but if
>that something is on the essential bus of my all-electric airplane and
>it's an IFR dark and stormy night, I'm dead....
why? some component putting out bad smells and smoke from
inside a black box may be an uncomfortable experience but it's
not hazardous. If it's on the e-bus, let 'er burn . . . it will
either stop in a few minutes or pop the fuse.
These cases are very rare . . .
>I know, I know...if I just design and wire it right and use good equipment
>and all that, I don't have to worry about this scenario, right? I'm still
>looking for a logical way to come to grips with the potential failure
>modes and their consequences, and am not completely convinced that
>inaccessible fuse blocks are the *safest* answer. Maybe the most
>reliable, inexpensive, and simple....but the safest???
>
>If anybody can put my mind at ease with a factual explanation of why my
>safety concerns are unfounded, I would welcome the input.
If you're worried about these kinds of problems, it's better that
you address all the worries rather than build the airplane to anyone
else's philosophy . . . the only cure for worry is to weigh
probability of an event and potential hazards against the notion
of adding complexity and pilot workload in an already busy situation.
About 200,000 Cessnas and Pipers were built with breakers that you
can't pull . . . if pull-ability were a big issue, why no proliferation
of STC's to replace the breakers?
My friend George Orndorff likes to have his builders build breaker
panels using Airpax rocker-switch/breakers. His builders have
LOTS of CONTROL over EVERYTHING . . . but at a price of dollars,
labor and panel space to install and the risks of encouraging
pilots to become systems failure analysts at inconvenient or
already stressful times.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick DeCiero <rsdec1(at)star.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1 amp noise filter |
Bob and others,
I think the schematic for this, minus the two diodes, is on Bob's web site.
Somewhere Bob
had mentioned that he thought he had done a schematic and could not find this info.
http://209.134.106.21/articles/noisfltr.pdf
Visual instructions at:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/filter/filter.html
Good Luck and thanks to all who contribute here.
Rick D.
Murphy Rebel N754SM
Hudson, MA
From: Steven Kay <skay(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Bendix King Handheld KX99
Bob,
I'd like to see a schematic to be sure of the configuration
when you can find the time. Sounds like cheap inssurance for
the goodies in the flight bag. -Steve
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
>
> If I were going to tie any hand helds into ship's power,
> I would probably use a Radio Shack 270-030 noise filter
> downstream of a small fuse (1A) and then put a couple
> of 1N4745, glass zener diodes across the output feeding
> the radio.
>
> The filter will take off the short duration gremlins
> that most radios don't care about. The zeners would function
> like the crowbar ov protection system used on the Grummans
> some years back . . . ov conditions of long duration would
> fail the diode shorted (without allowing the output
> to rise above 16 volts) and open the fuse.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Yak electrics |
>
>Well Bob,
>thanks a lot !
>You really helped me understanding the whole lot.
>I tried Google to on that subject, but i did not found what you did.
>Actually I think the fault does not lie in the Voltage regulator but in
>the differntial relay, but thats another story.
>Only today i got a publication on aviation electrics from Jeppesen.
>I guess we can sort problems out now.
>Thanks again
The reverse current cutout or differential relay
is another little piece of black magic . . . If
you find that this critter is bad and not
replaceable, there are ways to (1) replace the
relay with a fat diode or (2) build a little
forward voltage, reverse current sense
module to drive a plain-vanilla contactor
to do the same job.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Banks" <b2banks(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | 2SI rectifier meltdown |
Bob,
A friend of mine has a 2SI 35hp 2stroke engine (in his Aerolite 103 with a
lighting coil, with a rectifier to charge his battery. (hasn't charged it
yet) He keeps burning them up. (the rectifier that is) He was told that he
had to have a load of at least 1 amp. if he did not have this load, could
that be causing his rectifier problems. What is the best way to charge a
battery with this small electrical system. The only thing he is powering is
the starter. Electric Flaps and Strobe light. Thanks in advance for your
help. The Banks Brothers Bruce (in Las Vegas NV) We have your book if you
have any reference we need to look at.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2SI rectifier meltdown |
>
>Bob,
>A friend of mine has a 2SI 35hp 2stroke engine (in his Aerolite 103 with a
>lighting coil, with a rectifier to charge his battery. (hasn't charged it
>yet) He keeps burning them up. (the rectifier that is) He was told that he
>had to have a load of at least 1 amp. if he did not have this load, could
>that be causing his rectifier problems. What is the best way to charge a
>battery with this small electrical system. The only thing he is powering is
>the starter. Electric Flaps and Strobe light. Thanks in advance for your
>help. The Banks Brothers Bruce (in Las Vegas NV) We have your book if you
>have any reference we need to look at.
I am skeptical of the need to have a load to prevent
rectifier/regulator destruction . . . a minimum load
is commonly necessary to keep the voltage regulation
setpoint within reasonable bounds.
The simple act of placing a battery across the rectifier/
regulator's output (especially a discharged battery)
should be more than enough load to insure regulation
performance.
These regulators are pretty generic. I think I'd try
a regulator from B&C . . . they have one that goes
on their SD-8, 10A alternator that's proven to be
rather robust . . you can give Todd a call at
1.316.283.8000 and order one.
Does the airplane have a voltmeter in it? Did you
get any voltage readings on the system during periods
of operation before the regulator craps? How long
does the regulator last? Is it mounted on metal
with at least 30 square inches of exposed surface?
I suspect the critter is getting too hot an melting
it's bitty brains out.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "P Fischer" <ptf(at)execpc.com> |
I would like to replace the set of toggle switches on the over head
panel in my Exec90 with lighted pushbutton switches. That would make it
easier to see at dark and anytime as it's difficult to see which switch
is what. Anyway, I have a problem because the pushbutton switches are
rated at 2 amps while the current toggles are rated at 10 to 15 amps. I
could just replace them with more toggles but I would like the upgrade.
I had considered using relays but I worry about the extra drain (about
100ma per relay with at least 6 relays). Any suggestions would be
greatly appreciated. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
Depends on what they are driving. If they are simple things,
like a motor or lights, you could use a transistor (or FET)
instead of a relay. ASCII Art below (fixed fonts are best).
push button /------- Load ---+
| / |
--- B |/ C V
+-. .-------VVV--------| GND
| 1K |\ E
| \
V |
gnd +power
Transistor must be rated for the load, TIP-32's and TIP-42's
are probably adequate for 3-6Amps. If you are running higher,
then I would look into FET's.
I am not a big fan of relay's either. They seem so old
fashioned. If you subscribe to the smoke theory* of electronics,
then they are scarey.
*electronics run on smoke, let the smoke out, and they quit working.
P Fischer wrote:
>
> I would like to replace the set of toggle switches on the over head
> panel in my Exec90 with lighted pushbutton switches. That would make it
> easier to see at dark and anytime as it's difficult to see which switch
> is what. Anyway, I have a problem because the pushbutton switches are
> rated at 2 amps while the current toggles are rated at 10 to 15 amps. I
> could just replace them with more toggles but I would like the upgrade.
> I had considered using relays but I worry about the extra drain (about
> 100ma per relay with at least 6 relays). Any suggestions would be
> greatly appreciated. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch-breakers . . . |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Switch-breakers . . .
>I want to be able to shut down these pieces of
>equipment during flight...either because they are acting erratically
>(which can create an annoyance at best or a dangerous display of
>misleading information at worst) or because they smoke without blowing
the
>fuse, etc. Sure you can kill the master if something's burning up, but
if
>that something is on the essential bus of my all-electric airplane and
>it's an IFR dark and stormy night, I'm dead....
why? some component putting out bad smells and smoke from
inside a black box may be an uncomfortable experience but it's
not hazardous. If it's on the e-bus, let 'er burn . . . it will
either stop in a few minutes or pop the fuse.
These cases are very rare . . .
I agree it is very rare, but I'm not sure I completely agree about it
being non-hazardous....if it's a quick 'poof' with a mild odor (which is
common when something blows a fuse) that's no big deal, but if it lasts
much longer than that (30 sec or more), acrid electrical smoke can become
overpowering very quickly. Not to mention the rather distracting
psychological factor involved that something in the airplane with you is
on fire and you can't just jump out. At least that was my experience in
the two situations I can remember being in a vehicle with electrical
stuff smoking (one in an airplane, the other in a car...but that's
another story...). It's amazing how far away the ground seems even at
1000' agl on a clear sunny day when you can't breathe (and yes, the vents
were open, but I was ready to knock the window out and stick my head into
the slipstream for a breath.....I would have done it in the 172, but it's
a bit more complicated in an RV....).
>I know, I know...if I just design and wire it right and use good
equipment
>and all that, I don't have to worry about this scenario, right? I'm
still
>looking for a logical way to come to grips with the potential failure
>modes and their consequences, and am not completely convinced that
>inaccessible fuse blocks are the *safest* answer. Maybe the most
>reliable, inexpensive, and simple....but the safest???
>
>If anybody can put my mind at ease with a factual explanation of why my
>safety concerns are unfounded, I would welcome the input.
If you're worried about these kinds of problems, it's better that
you address all the worries rather than build the airplane to anyone
else's philosophy . . . the only cure for worry is to weigh
probability of an event and potential hazards against the notion
of adding complexity and pilot workload in an already busy situation
Agreed, but what I'm really trying to get at is a way to understand if
there's a REASON to be worried or not. As you pointed out, the
situations I'm describing ARE very rare, but in aircraft design we also
need to consider the potential impact of even very rare events. If they
are not hazardous as you maintain, it's a moot point. But if a rare
event can be catastrophic when it occurs, and there's a reasonable method
of eliminating the risk (adding a toggle switch or pullable/switchable
breaker), this would seem prudent to me.
One of the problems with some (most?) spam can designs is that they group
multiple pieces of equipment on a single breaker for space savings, cost,
etc. I think this may have contributed to the situation I experienced
where a piece of equipment was making smoke but not popping the
breaker....it was drawing enough current to smoke something but because
the breaker was sized to handle much larger loads, it did not pop (this
is just a theory and I can't recall the details of what other
components--if any--were on the same breaker....). At any rate this
particular issue can be eliminated by using fuseblocks because individual
fuses can be more readily assigned to each component, and therefore each
fuse can also be sized more closely to the equipment's true power
requirements.
Question is this: say my Grand Rapids EIS-4000 (on the Essential Bus)
only needs a 1 amp fuse because it's max current requirement is something
like .25 Amps. Is it physically impossible for a unit to produce smoke
for more than a second or two using less than the 1 amp required to blow
the fuse? What about a piece of equipment that has higher power
requirements (3 or 5 amp fuse)? If the physics of creating smoke from
any type of internal problem imaginable dictates that the current
required to do so MUST be greater than the properly sized fuse, then I
rest my case and will sleep well at night knowing that my equipment can't
possibly create more than a little puff before being extinguished by the
circuit protection. And I'll leave the needless extra toggle switches
out of my airplane....
About 200,000 Cessnas and Pipers were built with breakers that you
can't pull . . . if pull-ability were a big issue, why no
proliferation
of STC's to replace the breakers?
True....and I can't say how many people have experienced problems where
they needed to pull a breaker and couldn't....it's possible that in most
cases (however rare) where this situation was encountered, the master was
simply shut off killing all things electrical. In most spam cans, no big
deal really.....in the worst case scenario you pull out the flashlight on
your dark 'n' stormy night and shine it on you vacuum gyros : ) Not so
simple if your attitude information is electric and on the same bus as
the smoke-generator....
Thanks for the input,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A finish kit....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "P Fischer" <ptf(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | annunciator panel |
I'm looking for a control circuit for an annunciator panel.
Anyone know where I can find one? Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch-breakers . . . |
| From: | Joel Harding <dsl10driver(at)ev1.net> |
> Another example if my memory serves correctly is the Swissair MD-ll that went
>down off the east coast a few years back...seems they had an electrical fire
>that did NOT blow the breaker/fuse, and the entire aircraft was lost (I think
>it was in the cabin entertainment system, which may not be built to the same
>standard.....
Mark,
Since I fly DC-10s, I paid some attention to this accident and I'm pretty
sure that the final report blames a short in a map reading light in the
overhead panel that ignited some type of mylar insulation, which then
sustained the fire. I remember there was an FAA directive to change to a
different type of insulation.
I think the only time you'll really have life threatening situations, is
when some other surrounding material is ignited by the electrical fireworks.
I hope this will ease your mind a little.
Joel Harding
Larkspur, CO
Connecting the engine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Richard" <steve(at)oasissolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Battery charging |
I have 2 12v Gill RG batteries in my airplane (a Mooney Rocket conversion,
M20K). The batteries are in parallel, 12 volt system. I would like to use
a standard auto battery charger to recharge or boost the batteries per the
service instructions. I would like to charge them in the airplane (since
removing them is incredibly difficult) using the ground power adapter /
jumper cables. What is wrong or good about this picture?
Steve Richard
steve(at)oasissolutions.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | re: OV Protection |
Bob,
I'm a subscriber to your book and am wiring my RV6 the "Nuckolls Way" but I
have a couple of quick questions. My engine is coming from AeroSport Power
with a 40 amp alternator with an internal regulator, and I am going to add
the overvoltage protection as shown in your book. In figure Z-24 you show a
(2-10) switch as a OFF/BAT/ALT switch in which you could close the battery
contactor without closing the alternator OV disconnect contactor. I found
another diagram on your site that shows the circuit with a (2-3) switch and
a "Important" note that the battery and alternator should come on and off
at the same time. Is this a revision, and if so, what was the reason for it?
Either 2-3 or 2-10 can be used. The 2-3 simply brings altenrator and
battery on and off together
and you pull the alt field breaker to kill the alternator for ground
ops with where the
engine isn't running. The 2-10 allows you independent but interlocked
operation of battery
and alternator. Bottom is both OFF, mid positon is BATtery, upper
postion is BATtery/ALTernator.
Either alternative is entirely satisfactory . . . just depends on how
fancy you want to
get.
One other question about wiring one mag and one electronic ignition. Figure
Z-27 shows wiring to have the right electronic ignition disabled while
starting on the left (impulse coupler) mag. In the second paragraph under
note 2, page Z-5 you say that the electronic system on the right side
should be left on for start. Which is the best way to wire it?
Depends on what the supplier of your electronic ignition says. If they
recommend that it be on for starting -AND- the magneto is impulse coupled
then either or both systems can be on during cranking and no interlocking
of the ignition switches with starter control is necessary. However, if
you have a magneto that is NOT impulse coupled, I'd take some pains to make
sure that the starter cannot be engaged while this magneto is ON.
Thanks for a great book,
I'm pleased that you're finding it a good value!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Tiptoe through the cobwebs . . . |
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
> > Carbon pile regulators
>[...]
> >
> > In my never very humble opinion, a rather elegant
> > solution.
>
>*** Wow! That _is_ elegant. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find such
>on locomotives - there's a LOT of electrical power involved with those,
>especially with reactive braking.
>
> Another elegant regulator I once saw:
>
> There was this high-current "semi-regulated" power supply for charging
>telephone central office batteries. It had a power transformer with an
>extra winding. A small amplifier pumped DC into the extra winding. This
>DC would saturate the transformer, and the output voltage would dip. If it
>dipped too far, you pumped in less DC. If it didn't dip enough, you pumped
>in more DC....
Sounds like you may be talking about "saturable core reactor"
regulation. This was the non-silicon forerunner to the silicon
controlled rectifier.
Here's a schematic for a three-phase ac/dc power supply
using saturable core reactors just ahead of the
rectifiers.
http://209.134.106.21/temp/705scrps.pdf
I suspect what you saw at the telephone company
was pretty close to the same thing . . . perhaps single
phase as opposed to 3 phase . . .
This is a VERY mature technology . . . I taught saturable core
reactors for a time at a Navy E-tech school at Great Lakes
NTB in N. Chicago, IL. SatCore controlled power supplies were
very common aboard ships from about the first time they installed
AC power generation and distribution systems. It's STILL a
good technology. Here's one of many companies that still use
it in new product.
http://www.warnerpower.com/industrial_power_conversion/powersupplies.html
If you want to see something REALLY elegant, take a peek at
http://www.tpub.com/neets/book5/15k.htm
this page describes a critter called the "Amplidyne" . . . basically
an electromechanical, power operational amplifier. Push-pull 6L6's would
drive a field winding to the tune of +/- 100 milliamperes at 300 volts.
A really fat motor would spin the shaft to the tune of several horsepower
and the Amplidyne would respond to input from the vacuum tubes by
producing +/- 300 VDC at many amps. The system I taught at GLakes
was about a 20A machine that ran the radar antenna servo motor at the
top of the mast.
Haven't thought about saturable cores and Amplidynes in years. . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Trashing aviators |
"If this is true, there is sure as hell no substitute for a
"real" airline pilot. Notice how the article tries to pass off the Boeing
Test Pilots as "airline transport pilots." No way... if true, these guys
were just 500 hour junior corporate jockeys with less than NO savvy about
REAL flying!"
Let's not fill these pages with ignorant bias. The two jobs
(test and airline) are entirely different. EACH takes its toll on the other.
One takes intense interest on minutiae and requires concentration on one or
two details at a time. Accurate control for short periods is a necessity. I
would be tempted to place naval fighter jocks nearer the first category.
The airline pilot does not need to concentrate on one detail or
another, but to be steadfast and keep a larger picture in perspective. He
must do the same (bone-chilling) routine over and over with unwavering
regularity for the sake of the 'load'.
The two jobs are so dissimilar as to require special talent to
divert from one to the other. I've seen test pilots at the top of their
trade screw up a simple trip through lack of training and practice.
....and woe betide the poor airline driver who who attempts test flying
without the background.
Those who deride one or the other have usually done neither.
Ferg Kyle
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
>
>I'm looking for a control circuit for an annunciator panel.
>Anyone know where I can find one? Thanks.
I'm not aware of any generic and/or off-the-shelf
"control circuit" for annunciation. You need to make
a list of all critters about which you wish to be
notified and describe the sensor that detects the
event. Ordinary events signaled by switch closures
simply supply +14 or ground to a lamp circuit. Some
parameters like low bus voltage, temperatures,
pressures, etc. may require some additional intelligence
to convert the analog parameter to a discrete output
that will drive a lamp.
Virtually every annunciator system is custom to the
the application.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch-breakers . . . |
>
>One of the problems with some (most?) spam can designs is that they group
>multiple pieces of equipment on a single breaker for space savings, cost,
>etc. I think this may have contributed to the situation I experienced
>where a piece of equipment was making smoke but not popping the
>breaker....it was drawing enough current to smoke something but because
>the breaker was sized to handle much larger loads, it did not pop (this
>is just a theory and I can't recall the details of what other
>components--if any--were on the same breaker....). At any rate this
>particular issue can be eliminated by using fuseblocks because individual
>fuses can be more readily assigned to each component, and therefore each
>fuse can also be sized more closely to the equipment's true power
>requirements.
Most airplanes left the factory with one gizmo, one breaker. VERY
few systems (and they are generally tiny-draws) will share a
circuit protection device on an as-delivered airplane. It's so
damnably difficult to do the right thing on a certified ship
that future modifications will tend to go in with less than
elegant architecture . . .
>Question is this: say my Grand Rapids EIS-4000 (on the Essential Bus)
>only needs a 1 amp fuse because it's max current requirement is something
>like .25 Amps. Is it physically impossible for a unit to produce smoke
>for more than a second or two using less than the 1 amp required to blow
>the fuse? What about a piece of equipment that has higher power
>requirements (3 or 5 amp fuse)? If the physics of creating smoke from
>any type of internal problem imaginable dictates that the current
>required to do so MUST be greater than the properly sized fuse, then I
>rest my case and will sleep well at night knowing that my equipment can't
>possibly create more than a little puff before being extinguished by the
>circuit protection. And I'll leave the needless extra toggle switches
>out of my airplane....
You can create smoke and NOT open a 1A fuse or breaker . . . under
the right conditions. Obviously, the unrestrained power is limited
to 14 watts total . . . but this amount of energy shed from some
itty-bitty device inside a black box is toast. Fuses protect wire,
only wire, and never anything but wire . . . if there is a compelling
need to protect some piece of equipment, you do it differently.
I designed time limited, constant current controllers for the
landing gear on a LAIVP that used an actuator per landing gear.
This was to prevent what could be nearly instantaneous destruction
of a motor and/or mechanism should a limit switch fail and the
system drive to hard stops.
> About 200,000 Cessnas and Pipers were built with breakers that you
> can't pull . . . if pull-ability were a big issue, why no
>proliferation
> of STC's to replace the breakers?
>
>True....and I can't say how many people have experienced problems where
>they needed to pull a breaker and couldn't....it's possible that in most
>cases (however rare) where this situation was encountered, the master was
>simply shut off killing all things electrical. In most spam cans, no big
>deal really.....in the worst case scenario you pull out the flashlight on
>your dark 'n' stormy night and shine it on you vacuum gyros : ) Not so
>simple if your attitude information is electric and on the same bus as
>the smoke-generator...
It's going to be on either the main bus or the e-bus. If it's on
the main bus, you can shut that down. Things on the e-bus are
limited by design philosophy to things that have very low probability
of emitting hazardous vapors/smoke. I'd drive the attitude gyro from
the e-bus and d-gyro from the main bus. Actually, if it were my
airplane, I'd probably not have any gyros . . . I'd put in two
wing-levelers capable of drilling precision, GPS guided holes in
the sky.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hand tool battery charging |
>
>Hi gang,
>
>I use a cordless drill quite a bit while building my Pulsar. It seems that
>if I put the battery in the frig or freezer that I get a better charge on
>the NICAD battery pack. Is there any reason not to do this?
I am unable to put a physical rational to support
your observation . . . but it certainly wont hurt
anything.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ned Thomas" <nthomas(at)mmcable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hand tool battery charging |
I just figured that the charger senses the resistance of the battery and
shuts down the charging at a preset resistance. I assume that if the
battery is kept cold the resistance is lowered and thus the battery recieves
more charging.
Seems to work with my cell phones as well.
Does this not make logic?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Hand tool battery charging
>
> >
> >Hi gang,
> >
> >I use a cordless drill quite a bit while building my Pulsar. It seems
that
> >if I put the battery in the frig or freezer that I get a better charge on
> >the NICAD battery pack. Is there any reason not to do this?
>
>
> I am unable to put a physical rational to support
> your observation . . . but it certainly wont hurt
> anything.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hand tool battery charging |
Many battery packs have a temperature sensor that will shut it down if the
charge is too long or too high that heats up the battery. At least I have
found them in laptop battery packs. Starting with a cooler sensor might
delay this.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Hand tool battery charging
>
>Hi gang,
>
>I use a cordless drill quite a bit while building my Pulsar. It seems that
>if I put the battery in the frig or freezer that I get a better charge on
>the NICAD battery pack. Is there any reason not to do this?
I am unable to put a physical rational to support
your observation . . . but it certainly wont hurt
anything.
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark D. Dickens" <mddickens(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Nav Antenna Question |
Bob, would it be possible to use two bent whip COM antennas mounted
horizontally on the tail as VOR/LOC/GS antennas? I see that Comant sells
blade style antennas with a signal combiner, but this set up is very
expensive, so I'm trying to come up with something I can hide under my
horizontal stab (RV-8) on either side that costs a lot less.
Thanks!
Mark Dickens
Highlands Ranch, CO
RV-8 Fuse
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tiptoe through the cobwebs . . . |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> http://www.tpub.com/neets/book5/15k.htm
>
> this page describes a critter called the "Amplidyne" . . . basically
*** Woo hoo! Kind of like a dynamotor only with active field control.
Back when I was doing railroad software, one of our suppliers was
a maker of LARGE lightning suppressors. They had had a problem with testing
their suppressors: the power pulses involved was so large that they would
affect the city power grid for blocks around.
So they acquired a surplus generation unit from a hydroelectric
generation plant and drove it with a large electric motor. Zaps for test
were derived off the output of the generator, and the inertia of the motor
kept the instantaneous load off the city grid.
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lhdodge1(at)mmm.com |
22, 2000) at 05/06/2002 04:32:33 PM
I am building an RV-6 and wish to have IFR capability. What components,
avionics, and/or instruments need to be TSO'd?
Larry Dodge
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch-breakers . . . |
One things I started thinking about, is silly checklists.
In the Beech, and Cessna's I have flown, there is the
checklist item "make sure the CB's are all in" (paraphrasing).
So pilot A goes out flying, maybe at night or something,
a circuit breaker pops, and doesn't notice it. Walks in
the FBO turns in the key, and goes out for a beer after
a successful adventure.
Pilot B shows up the next day, the CB is poped out, so,
just like the check list says, mashes in said popped CB.
Flys around VFR day, no big deal.
Now that I am thinking about it, I hope I'll at least
think about that popped CB before taking flight. It is
a reminder that something is amiss (or at least a mechanic
might have been looking at something?). It won't be
a wrote, checklist item anymore.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
Jim Franz has an annunciator package with lights and processor.
You might give him a call. He is the one that sells the AOA. I
don't have his number here, but he is in all the publications. A real
nice guy to deal with.
Jim Robinson
>
>
> >
> >I'm looking for a control circuit for an annunciator panel.
> >Anyone know where I can find one? Thanks.
>
>
> I'm not aware of any generic and/or off-the-shelf
> "control circuit" for annunciation. You need to make
> a list of all critters about which you wish to be
> notified and describe the sensor that detects the
> event. Ordinary events signaled by switch closures
> simply supply +14 or ground to a lamp circuit. Some
> parameters like low bus voltage, temperatures,
> pressures, etc. may require some additional intelligence
> to convert the analog parameter to a discrete output
> that will drive a lamp.
>
> Virtually every annunciator system is custom to the
> the application.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> advertising on the Matronics Forums.
> members.
> http://www.matronics.com/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
Try www.proscanavionics.com. They displayed their systems at the recent
Twin Cities RV Forum.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 140 hours
> > >
> > >I'm looking for a control circuit for an annunciator panel. Anyone
> > >know where I can find one? Thanks.
> >
> >
> > I'm not aware of any generic and/or off-the-shelf
> > "control circuit" for annunciation. You need to make
> > a list of all critters about which you wish to be
> > notified and describe the sensor that detects the
> > event. Ordinary events signaled by switch closures
> > simply supply +14 or ground to a lamp circuit. Some
> > parameters like low bus voltage, temperatures,
> > pressures, etc. may require some additional intelligence
> > to convert the analog parameter to a discrete output
> > that will drive a lamp.
> >
> > Virtually every annunciator system is custom to the
> > the application.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav Antenna Question |
>
>
>Bob, would it be possible to use two bent whip COM antennas mounted
>horizontally on the tail as VOR/LOC/GS antennas? I see that Comant sells
>blade style antennas with a signal combiner, but this set up is very
>expensive, so I'm trying to come up with something I can hide under my
>horizontal stab (RV-8) on either side that costs a lot less.
The generic, tail mounted mouse-whiskers antennas
common to light aircraft of the 50's and 60's would
do just fine. It would be difficult to make a pair
of comm antennas interface with the coax feedline
as a single antenna. You might try using comm
antennas as standalone, dual antennas. The second
leg of a "dipole" formed by the second whisker adds
only marginally to total performance.
You can still use the coupler to get GS info off
one of the antennas.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hand tool battery charging (cold batteries) |
>
>Many battery packs have a temperature sensor that will shut it down if the
>charge is too long or too high that heats up the battery. At least I have
>found them in laptop battery packs. Starting with a cooler sensor might
>delay this.
This sounds logical.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Horsten" <chrishorsten(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
I've been hoping to see one come along too. But the pickings are thin.
So here's my wish list:
I want to be able to assemble an enunciator panel that exactly matches
my needs. There should be different sized trays into which I can insert
pre labelled switch-lamps. The lamps should flash ( and maybe sound an
alarm ) if a parameter is exceeded and then I should be able to
acknowledge the alarm by pressing the lamp. It would then continue to
glow solid until the out of limit parameter was fixed. Trays should come
in 3, 4,5,6 etc sizes, with a base control unit. The best alternative is
the EIS in my opinion, except not analog. I want the best of both
worlds.
Any takers?
ChrisH
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex
Peterson
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
-->
Try www.proscanavionics.com. They displayed their systems at the recent
Twin Cities RV Forum.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 140 hours
> > >
> > >I'm looking for a control circuit for an annunciator panel. Anyone
> > >know where I can find one? Thanks.
> >
> >
> > I'm not aware of any generic and/or off-the-shelf
> > "control circuit" for annunciation. You need to make
> > a list of all critters about which you wish to be
> > notified and describe the sensor that detects the
> > event. Ordinary events signaled by switch closures
> > simply supply +14 or ground to a lamp circuit. Some
> > parameters like low bus voltage, temperatures,
> > pressures, etc. may require some additional intelligence
> > to convert the analog parameter to a discrete output
> > that will drive a lamp.
> >
> > Virtually every annunciator system is custom to the
> > the application.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hand tool battery charging |
>
>I just figured that the charger senses the resistance of the battery and
>shuts down the charging at a preset resistance. I assume that if the
>battery is kept cold the resistance is lowered and thus the battery recieves
>more charging.
>
>Seems to work with my cell phones as well.
>
>
>Does this not make logic?
Measurement of internal impedance could be
a factor in some of the new smart chargers with
microprocessor control . . . many small
appliance batteries also have microprocessors
in them to compute total energy transfered during
charge and discharge cycles in order to maximize
battery performance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <matthew(at)mucker.net> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
I was thinking of building such a beast as I got closer to that point...
A few analog inputs with adjustable alarm setpoints, an audible alarm,
flashing lights...
All I'd need is a PIC chip and some A/D converters and some time. But I
know that I know just enough to be dangerous, so I haven't really done and
concrete design on it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Chris
> Horsten
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 8:47 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
>
>
>
>
> I've been hoping to see one come along too. But the pickings are thin.
> So here's my wish list:
>
> I want to be able to assemble an enunciator panel that exactly matches
> my needs. There should be different sized trays into which I can insert
> pre labelled switch-lamps. The lamps should flash ( and maybe sound an
> alarm ) if a parameter is exceeded and then I should be able to
> acknowledge the alarm by pressing the lamp. It would then continue to
> glow solid until the out of limit parameter was fixed. Trays should come
> in 3, 4,5,6 etc sizes, with a base control unit. The best alternative is
> the EIS in my opinion, except not analog. I want the best of both
> worlds.
>
> Any takers?
> ChrisH
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex
> Peterson
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
>
>
> -->
>
> Try www.proscanavionics.com. They displayed their systems at the recent
> Twin Cities RV Forum.
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 140 hours
>
> > > >
> > > >I'm looking for a control circuit for an annunciator panel. Anyone
> > > >know where I can find one? Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not aware of any generic and/or off-the-shelf
> > > "control circuit" for annunciation. You need to make
> > > a list of all critters about which you wish to be
> > > notified and describe the sensor that detects the
> > > event. Ordinary events signaled by switch closures
> > > simply supply +14 or ground to a lamp circuit. Some
> > > parameters like low bus voltage, temperatures,
> > > pressures, etc. may require some additional intelligence
> > > to convert the analog parameter to a discrete output
> > > that will drive a lamp.
> > >
> > > Virtually every annunciator system is custom to the
> > > the application.
> > >
> > > Bob . . .
> > >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
Thank you all for your input. I see there's quite a bit of interest. I
am pleasantly surprised at this. It would be nice if we collectively
could design a control circuit. Personally, I don't think it would be
very difficult but it sure could be alot of fun. Proscan avionics has
a beauty but $2500 bucks for about $150 bucks in parts seems a bit
excessive. I have already bought the annunciator lights. Honeywell
makes them. They are rectangular about one inch by a quarter of an
inch with two leds. This allows you to split the light and, if wanted,
have two annunciations per annunciator unit. I bought them from a
company called REM electronics. They're located in Ohio I think. These
little lights a bit pricey but not to bad. If you don't want fancy
annunciator lights most any led will suffice. The big thing is
designing a circuit. Lets say everyone wants the same basic stuff,
over voltage alert, low oil pressure, pitot heat, fuel, fuel pump, cyl
head temp, landing gear, (in my case I would like rotorhead speed). We
could compile a list and start to figure out a circuit. Each circuit
needs filtering, seperation from the other circuits, a way to be sure
the signal is valid etc. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. I'll
try to throw something together and maybe we can get Bob to nurse us
along since he's the expert and I sure have never done anything like
this before. Sure sounds like fun though. Thanks to you all.
"Matthew Mucker" wrote:
>
> I was thinking of building such a beast as I got closer to that
point...
>
> A few analog inputs with adjustable alarm setpoints, an audible
alarm,
> flashing lights...
>
> All I'd need is a PIC chip and some A/D converters and some time.
But I
> know that I know just enough to be dangerous, so I haven't really
done and
> concrete design on it.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Chris
> > Horsten
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 8:47 AM
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've been hoping to see one come along too. But the pickings are
thin.
> > So here's my wish list:
> >
> > I want to be able to assemble an enunciator panel that exactly
matches
> > my needs. There should be different sized trays into which I can
insert
> > pre labelled switch-lamps. The lamps should flash ( and maybe
sound an
> > alarm ) if a parameter is exceeded and then I should be able to
> > acknowledge the alarm by pressing the lamp. It would then continue
to
> > glow solid until the out of limit parameter was fixed. Trays
should come
> > in 3, 4,5,6 etc sizes, with a base control unit. The best
alternative is
> > the EIS in my opinion, except not analog. I want the best of both
> > worlds.
> >
> > Any takers?
> > ChrisH
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Alex
> > Peterson
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
> >
> >
> > -->
> >
> > Try www.proscanavionics.com. They displayed their systems at the
recent
> > Twin Cities RV Forum.
> >
> > Alex Peterson
> > Maple Grove, MN
> > RV6-A N66AP 140 hours
> >
> > > > >
> > > > >I'm looking for a control circuit for an annunciator panel.
Anyone
> > > > >know where I can find one? Thanks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not aware of any generic and/or off-the-shelf
> > > > "control circuit" for annunciation. You need to make
> > > > a list of all critters about which you wish to be
> > > > notified and describe the sensor that detects the
> > > > event. Ordinary events signaled by switch closures
> > > > simply supply +14 or ground to a lamp circuit. Some
> > > > parameters like low bus voltage, temperatures,
> > > > pressures, etc. may require some additional intelligence
> > > > to convert the analog parameter to a discrete output
> > > > that will drive a lamp.
> > > >
> > > > Virtually every annunciator system is custom to the
> > > > the application.
> > > >
> > > > Bob . . .
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>
> _-
=======================================================================
> _-
=======================================================================
messages.
> _-
=======================================================================
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
> _-
=======================================================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
>
>Thank you all for your input. I see there's quite a bit of interest. I
>am pleasantly surprised at this. It would be nice if we collectively
>could design a control circuit. Personally, I don't think it would be
>very difficult but it sure could be alot of fun. Proscan avionics has
>a beauty but $2500 bucks for about $150 bucks in parts seems a bit
>excessive. I have already bought the annunciator lights. Honeywell
>makes them. They are rectangular about one inch by a quarter of an
>inch with two leds. This allows you to split the light and, if wanted,
>have two annunciations per annunciator unit. I bought them from a
>company called REM electronics. They're located in Ohio I think. These
>little lights a bit pricey but not to bad. If you don't want fancy
>annunciator lights most any led will suffice. The big thing is
>designing a circuit. Lets say everyone wants the same basic stuff,
>over voltage alert, . . .
don't need ov annunciation but you do need lv warning. Got
the sensor and instructions coming on line in a few days.
> low oil pressure,
This is just a switch that operates a light
> pitot heat,
This is a current sensor you can make with a few turns
of wire around a reed switch that operates a light.
> fuel,
low fuel warning? floats holding magnets can close a
reed switch to light a light at calibrated level in tank.
Optical liquid level sensor mounted at desired level
in tank can sense low fuel. Either can light a light.
> fuel pump,
Pressure switch on output side of pump?
> cyl head temp,
Never seen a warning for cyl-hd temp in an airplane
but it's not hard. AD596 thermocouple conditioner
configured to light a light at a calibrated temperature
value is pretty easy to do.
> landing gear,
Lights on still more switches
> (in my case I would like rotorhead speed). We
>could compile a list and start to figure out a circuit. Each circuit
>needs filtering, seperation from the other circuits, a way to be sure
>the signal is valid etc. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. I'll
>try to throw something together and maybe we can get Bob to nurse us
Except for cyl-hd temp and lv warn, every function described
is the simple lighting of a light based on a switch closure.
LV warn sensor is readily available. Cyl-hd temp, if one really
wants one isn't difficult to gin up either. All=in=all, not
much to design or build . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> much to design or build . . .
>
*** Here's where I start getting serious "homebuilt envy". I don't want a
fancy panel full of blinking lights. I want one BIG RED (idiot) LIGHT
that means "there is a problem". This big red light would be in my
immediate scan. It would be driven by a little processor that would have
sensors for everything that could conceivably be a problem. As long as
that light's off, I can concentrate on flying the plane. When the light
goes on, I look at all the other stuff. Maybe include a voice annunciator
( or just Morse Code for us poor hams ) to say why the light went on. But
the main thing is that when all's ok, it's OFF, and I just have this one
item to scan to verify that.
The processor could have subtle logic to decide whether something's OK
or not.
"If this input blips less than 1ms less than 20 times, that's OK..."
"If this input is LOW and that one's HIGH, we've got trouble..."
"If the bus voltage is trending low and yet we have high RPMs..."
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark D. Dickens" <mddickens(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav Antenna Question |
Thanks, Bob. What got me thinking about this was Comant's blade antenna.
Somehow they're combining the signals from both blades. I assume (dangerous
word, I know) that their "signal combiner" is different from a traditional
diplexer, thus my question. Are you familiar with how the signal combiner
works?
Thanks for your time on this!
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Nav Antenna Question
>
> >
> >
> >Bob, would it be possible to use two bent whip COM antennas mounted
> >horizontally on the tail as VOR/LOC/GS antennas? I see that Comant sells
> >blade style antennas with a signal combiner, but this set up is very
> >expensive, so I'm trying to come up with something I can hide under my
> >horizontal stab (RV-8) on either side that costs a lot less.
>
>
> The generic, tail mounted mouse-whiskers antennas
> common to light aircraft of the 50's and 60's would
> do just fine. It would be difficult to make a pair
> of comm antennas interface with the coax feedline
> as a single antenna. You might try using comm
> antennas as standalone, dual antennas. The second
> leg of a "dipole" formed by the second whisker adds
> only marginally to total performance.
>
> You can still use the coupler to get GS info off
> one of the antennas.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne McMullen" <cmcmullen(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
Send me some of the details and I can design the circuits.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <ptf(at)execpc.com>
Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
>
> Thank you all for your input. I see there's quite a bit of interest. I
> am pleasantly surprised at this. It would be nice if we collectively
> could design a control circuit. Personally, I don't think it would be
> very difficult but it sure could be alot of fun. Proscan avionics has
> a beauty but $2500 bucks for about $150 bucks in parts seems a bit
> excessive. I have already bought the annunciator lights. Honeywell
> makes them. They are rectangular about one inch by a quarter of an
> inch with two leds. This allows you to split the light and, if wanted,
> have two annunciations per annunciator unit. I bought them from a
> company called REM electronics. They're located in Ohio I think. These
> little lights a bit pricey but not to bad. If you don't want fancy
> annunciator lights most any led will suffice. The big thing is
> designing a circuit. Lets say everyone wants the same basic stuff,
> over voltage alert, low oil pressure, pitot heat, fuel, fuel pump, cyl
> head temp, landing gear, (in my case I would like rotorhead speed). We
> could compile a list and start to figure out a circuit. Each circuit
> needs filtering, seperation from the other circuits, a way to be sure
> the signal is valid etc. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. I'll
> try to throw something together and maybe we can get Bob to nurse us
> along since he's the expert and I sure have never done anything like
> this before. Sure sounds like fun though. Thanks to you all.
>
>
> "Matthew Mucker" wrote:
>
> >
> > I was thinking of building such a beast as I got closer to that
> point...
> >
> > A few analog inputs with adjustable alarm setpoints, an audible
> alarm,
> > flashing lights...
> >
> > All I'd need is a PIC chip and some A/D converters and some time.
> But I
> > know that I know just enough to be dangerous, so I haven't really
> done and
> > concrete design on it.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> Chris
> > > Horsten
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 8:47 AM
> > > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've been hoping to see one come along too. But the pickings are
> thin.
> > > So here's my wish list:
> > >
> > > I want to be able to assemble an enunciator panel that exactly
> matches
> > > my needs. There should be different sized trays into which I can
> insert
> > > pre labelled switch-lamps. The lamps should flash ( and maybe
> sound an
> > > alarm ) if a parameter is exceeded and then I should be able to
> > > acknowledge the alarm by pressing the lamp. It would then continue
> to
> > > glow solid until the out of limit parameter was fixed. Trays
> should come
> > > in 3, 4,5,6 etc sizes, with a base control unit. The best
> alternative is
> > > the EIS in my opinion, except not analog. I want the best of both
> > > worlds.
> > >
> > > Any takers?
> > > ChrisH
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Alex
> > > Peterson
> > > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
> > >
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > > Try www.proscanavionics.com. They displayed their systems at the
> recent
> > > Twin Cities RV Forum.
> > >
> > > Alex Peterson
> > > Maple Grove, MN
> > > RV6-A N66AP 140 hours
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I'm looking for a control circuit for an annunciator panel.
> Anyone
> > > > > >know where I can find one? Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not aware of any generic and/or off-the-shelf
> > > > > "control circuit" for annunciation. You need to make
> > > > > a list of all critters about which you wish to be
> > > > > notified and describe the sensor that detects the
> > > > > event. Ordinary events signaled by switch closures
> > > > > simply supply +14 or ground to a lamp circuit. Some
> > > > > parameters like low bus voltage, temperatures,
> > > > > pressures, etc. may require some additional intelligence
> > > > > to convert the analog parameter to a discrete output
> > > > > that will drive a lamp.
> > > > >
> > > > > Virtually every annunciator system is custom to the
> > > > > the application.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob . . .
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _-
> =======================================================================
> > _-
> =======================================================================
> messages.
> > _-
> =======================================================================
> > _-
> =======================================================================
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Francis, CMDR David" <David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au> |
| Subject: | SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - RV6 - IFR STANDARDS |
Larry,
I am building an RV7 to an IFR standard.
My understanding is as follows:
a. alitmeter and ASI need to meet TSO standards.
b. comm radios need to meet TSO standards, and most do.
c. nav radios and indicators need to meet TSO.
d. GPS need to meet TSO C129, but you need to select the sub category
carefully.
e. I am not sure, but if you use an efis then I think it needs to meet extra
TSO requirements for redundancy and reliability. EFIS One might be a safe
bet.
Some useful references are:
FAR 91.411, 91.413, Part 43 Appendixes D and E, there are others too.
The engine, alternator and battery driving an all electric IFR plane do not
have to meet any TSO, but they better be good. Pay particular attention to
redundancy, you will need it one dark night. As a minimum you should
consider two alternators, one battery.
David Francis, VH-ZEE, Canberra, Australia
I am building an RV-6 and wish to have IFR capability. What components,
avionics, and/or instruments need to be TSO'd?
Larry Dodge
-
>
_
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Horsten" <chrishorsten(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
You're talking about the Grand Rapids EIS. It's a nice system and now
has a fuel flow option. One dummy light.
If you want to feel like your in a 777 then individual lights are the
order of the day.
Either way, if someone designs it, homebuilders will buy it.
Chris H
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jerry(at)tr2.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> -->
>
> much to design or build . . .
>
*** Here's where I start getting serious "homebuilt envy". I don't want
a fancy panel full of blinking lights. I want one BIG RED (idiot) LIGHT
that means "there is a problem". This big red light would be in my
immediate scan. It would be driven by a little processor that would have
sensors for everything that could conceivably be a problem. As long as
that light's off, I can concentrate on flying the plane. When the light
goes on, I look at all the other stuff. Maybe include a voice
annunciator ( or just Morse Code for us poor hams ) to say why the light
went on. But the main thing is that when all's ok, it's OFF, and I just
have this one item to scan to verify that.
The processor could have subtle logic to decide whether something's
OK or not.
"If this input blips less than 1ms less than 20 times, that's OK..."
"If this input is LOW and that one's HIGH, we've got trouble..."
"If the bus voltage is trending low and yet we have high RPMs..."
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Horsten" <chrishorsten(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
Wayne
I think what I want and maybe others too is to have analog style gauges
and dummy lights to go with them. I like the idea of a caution light
that stays on until an exceeded parameter is corrected. I have not read
it yet, but in this months SPORT AVIATION, there is an article about a
trike and it has a nice looking enunciator panel, minus the gauges I
think.
I don't know too much about it except that you almost need to have two
of every gauge? Else how does an analog or electric gauge trigger a
light and keep it lit while it is out of limit?
Chris H
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
McMullen
Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
-->
Send me some of the details and I can design the circuits.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <ptf(at)execpc.com>
Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
>
> Thank you all for your input. I see there's quite a bit of interest. I
> am pleasantly surprised at this. It would be nice if we collectively
> could design a control circuit. Personally, I don't think it would be
> very difficult but it sure could be alot of fun. Proscan avionics has
> a beauty but $2500 bucks for about $150 bucks in parts seems a bit
> excessive. I have already bought the annunciator lights. Honeywell
> makes them. They are rectangular about one inch by a quarter of an
> inch with two leds. This allows you to split the light and, if wanted,
> have two annunciations per annunciator unit. I bought them from a
> company called REM electronics. They're located in Ohio I think. These
> little lights a bit pricey but not to bad. If you don't want fancy
> annunciator lights most any led will suffice. The big thing is
> designing a circuit. Lets say everyone wants the same basic stuff,
> over voltage alert, low oil pressure, pitot heat, fuel, fuel pump, cyl
> head temp, landing gear, (in my case I would like rotorhead speed). We
> could compile a list and start to figure out a circuit. Each circuit
> needs filtering, seperation from the other circuits, a way to be sure
> the signal is valid etc. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. I'll
> try to throw something together and maybe we can get Bob to nurse us
> along since he's the expert and I sure have never done anything like
> this before. Sure sounds like fun though. Thanks to you all.
>
>
> "Matthew Mucker" wrote:
>
> >
> > I was thinking of building such a beast as I got closer to that
> point...
> >
> > A few analog inputs with adjustable alarm setpoints, an audible
> alarm,
> > flashing lights...
> >
> > All I'd need is a PIC chip and some A/D converters and some time.
> But I
> > know that I know just enough to be dangerous, so I haven't really
> done and
> > concrete design on it.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> Chris
> > > Horsten
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 8:47 AM
> > > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've been hoping to see one come along too. But the pickings are
> thin.
> > > So here's my wish list:
> > >
> > > I want to be able to assemble an enunciator panel that exactly
> matches
> > > my needs. There should be different sized trays into which I can
> insert
> > > pre labelled switch-lamps. The lamps should flash ( and maybe
> sound an
> > > alarm ) if a parameter is exceeded and then I should be able to
> > > acknowledge the alarm by pressing the lamp. It would then continue
> to
> > > glow solid until the out of limit parameter was fixed. Trays
> should come
> > > in 3, 4,5,6 etc sizes, with a base control unit. The best
> alternative is
> > > the EIS in my opinion, except not analog. I want the best of both
> > > worlds.
> > >
> > > Any takers?
> > > ChrisH
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Alex
> > > Peterson
> > > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
> > >
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > > Try www.proscanavionics.com. They displayed their systems at the
> recent
> > > Twin Cities RV Forum.
> > >
> > > Alex Peterson
> > > Maple Grove, MN
> > > RV6-A N66AP 140 hours
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I'm looking for a control circuit for an annunciator panel.
> Anyone
> > > > > >know where I can find one? Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not aware of any generic and/or off-the-shelf
> > > > > "control circuit" for annunciation. You need to make
> > > > > a list of all critters about which you wish to be
> > > > > notified and describe the sensor that detects the
> > > > > event. Ordinary events signaled by switch closures
> > > > > simply supply +14 or ground to a lamp circuit. Some
> > > > > parameters like low bus voltage, temperatures,
> > > > > pressures, etc. may require some additional intelligence
> > > > > to convert the analog parameter to a discrete output
> > > > > that will drive a lamp.
> > > > >
> > > > > Virtually every annunciator system is custom to the
> > > > > the application.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob . . .
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _-
> ======================================================================
>
> > _-
> ======================================================================
>
> messages.
> > _-
> ======================================================================
>
> > _-
> ======================================================================
>
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - RV6 - IFR STANDARDS |
> My understanding is as follows:
>
> a. alitmeter and ASI need to meet TSO standards.
If you read FAR 91.411, it says the TSO "are to be considered
tested and inspected as of the date of their manufacture". So two
years out, they don't and would be subject to standard pitot
static tests, just like non-TSO'd ones.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
Did anyone look at "Proprietary Software Systems" Jim Franz has
the hi intensity led's displays and the whole unit is very
competitively priced. His Email is lfranz(at)compuserve.com or his
phone # is 612 474-4154. It appears to be a very nice package.
Jim Robinson
Glasair 79R
>
>
> I've been hoping to see one come along too. But the pickings are thin. So
> here's my wish list:
>
> I want to be able to assemble an enunciator panel that exactly matches my
> needs. There should be different sized trays into which I can insert pre
> labelled switch-lamps. The lamps should flash ( and maybe sound an alarm )
> if a parameter is exceeded and then I should be able to acknowledge the
> alarm by pressing the lamp. It would then continue to glow solid until the
> out of limit parameter was fixed. Trays should come in 3, 4,5,6 etc sizes,
> with a base control unit. The best alternative is the EIS in my opinion,
> except not analog. I want the best of both worlds.
>
> Any takers?
> ChrisH
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex
> Peterson To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE:
> AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
>
>
> -->
>
> Try www.proscanavionics.com. They displayed their systems at the recent
> Twin Cities RV Forum.
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 140 hours
>
> > > >
> > > >I'm looking for a control circuit for an annunciator panel. Anyone
> > > >know where I can find one? Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not aware of any generic and/or off-the-shelf
> > > "control circuit" for annunciation. You need to make
> > > a list of all critters about which you wish to be
> > > notified and describe the sensor that detects the
> > > event. Ordinary events signaled by switch closures
> > > simply supply +14 or ground to a lamp circuit. Some
> > > parameters like low bus voltage, temperatures,
> > > pressures, etc. may require some additional intelligence
> > > to convert the analog parameter to a discrete output
> > > that will drive a lamp.
> > >
> > > Virtually every annunciator system is custom to the
> > > the application.
> > >
> > > Bob . . .
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> advertising on the Matronics Forums.
> members.
> http://www.matronics.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "P Fischer" <ptf(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
Thanks Bob. You input is much appreciated. Actually, I had designed a
circuit a year ago for my plane but then made the mistake of taking
helicopter lessons. Now my plane morphed into a helicopter so the panel was
put on hold. I thought I could use a "crow bar" type circuit to trigger the
enunciators lights with some filtering built in much like your crowbar
circuit for taking out an out-of-control alternator. Or perhaps something as
simple as a 3904 transistor used to isolate the enunciators from the source
of the signal via filtering. A series of these circuits, one for each
ennunciation, could be tied into a relay that could be used to test the
lamps simultaneously. An addition circuit would be required for a master
warning. Thought maybe some TTL would work for this or a programmable chip.
. Please post your ideas. I'm sure there's a better way then this. Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
>
> >
> >Thank you all for your input. I see there's quite a bit of interest. I
> >am pleasantly surprised at this. It would be nice if we collectively
> >could design a control circuit. Personally, I don't think it would be
> >very difficult but it sure could be alot of fun. Proscan avionics has
> >a beauty but $2500 bucks for about $150 bucks in parts seems a bit
> >excessive. I have already bought the annunciator lights. Honeywell
> >makes them. They are rectangular about one inch by a quarter of an
> >inch with two leds. This allows you to split the light and, if wanted,
> >have two annunciations per annunciator unit. I bought them from a
> >company called REM electronics. They're located in Ohio I think. These
> >little lights a bit pricey but not to bad. If you don't want fancy
> >annunciator lights most any led will suffice. The big thing is
> >designing a circuit. Lets say everyone wants the same basic stuff,
> >over voltage alert, . . .
>
> don't need ov annunciation but you do need lv warning. Got
> the sensor and instructions coming on line in a few days.
>
> > low oil pressure,
>
> This is just a switch that operates a light
>
> > pitot heat,
>
> This is a current sensor you can make with a few turns
> of wire around a reed switch that operates a light.
>
> > fuel,
>
> low fuel warning? floats holding magnets can close a
> reed switch to light a light at calibrated level in tank.
> Optical liquid level sensor mounted at desired level
> in tank can sense low fuel. Either can light a light.
>
>
> > fuel pump,
>
> Pressure switch on output side of pump?
>
>
> > cyl head temp,
>
> Never seen a warning for cyl-hd temp in an airplane
> but it's not hard. AD596 thermocouple conditioner
> configured to light a light at a calibrated temperature
> value is pretty easy to do.
>
>
> > landing gear,
>
> Lights on still more switches
>
> > (in my case I would like rotorhead speed). We
> >could compile a list and start to figure out a circuit. Each circuit
> >needs filtering, seperation from the other circuits, a way to be sure
> >the signal is valid etc. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. I'll
> >try to throw something together and maybe we can get Bob to nurse us
>
>
> Except for cyl-hd temp and lv warn, every function described
> is the simple lighting of a light based on a switch closure.
> LV warn sensor is readily available. Cyl-hd temp, if one really
> wants one isn't difficult to gin up either. All=in=all, not
> much to design or build . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Uvanni" <buvanni(at)us.ibm.com> |
05/08/2002 10:40:08 AM
Hey Bob: two quick question.
I have an old radio that I'd like to set up in my hanger to
listen to air traffic over head.
1) is there a way to build a cheap easy antenna that I can put on the roof
for
better reception?
2) can I use radio shack coax cable I a left over form a TV antenna install
to
run between the radio and antenna?
Thanks
BRUCE UVANNI
RV6A FWF & Panel
BUVANNI(at)US.IBM.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav Antenna Question |
>
>
>Thanks, Bob. What got me thinking about this was Comant's blade antenna.
>Somehow they're combining the signals from both blades. I assume (dangerous
>word, I know) that their "signal combiner" is different from a traditional
>diplexer, thus my question. Are you familiar with how the signal combiner
>works?
>
>Thanks for your time on this!
The "signal combiner" may indeed be a simple power mixer that
would work similarly to feed two receivers from a single antenna.
The black-magic part of the installation involves cutting feedlines
between combiner antennas and combiner so that the radiation
pattern (or reception pattern) produced is what is expected.
Without looking at typical patterns, I'm not sure whether they
work for and accept strong reception of the nose and tail and
let it fall on the sides or some other rational.
Bottom line is that you are certainly free to try anything and
go fly it. Tune in a distant station and fly a 360 turn while
observing whether or not you get deep and wide nulls in the
reception pattern. If you find something that's acceptable to
you, tell us all about it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | TSO Requirements |
In a message dated 05/08/2002 2:52:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com <>
writes:
" Larry,
I am building an RV7 to an IFR standard.
My understanding is as follows:
a. alitmeter and ASI need to meet TSO standards.
b. comm radios need to meet TSO standards, and most do.
c. nav radios and indicators need to meet TSO.
d. GPS need to meet TSO C129, but you need to select the sub category
carefully.
e. I am not sure, but if you use an efis then I think it needs to meet extra
TSO requirements for redundancy and reliability. EFIS One might be a safe
bet.
Some useful references are:
FAR 91.411, 91.413, Part 43 Appendixes D and E, there are others too.
The engine, alternator and battery driving an all electric IFR plane do not
have to meet any TSO, but they better be good. Pay particular attention to
redundancy, you will need it one dark night. As a minimum you should
consider two alternators, one battery. David Francis, VH-ZEE, Canberra,
Australia"
AeroElectric-List message posted by: lhdodge1(at)mmm.com
<< I am building an RV-6 and wish to have IFR capability. What components,
avionics, and/or instruments need to be TSO'd? Larry Dodge >>
5/8/2002
Hello David, I disagree with your understanding and believe that it falls
into the category of hearsay, gossip, and rumor. We ought to strive to do
better than that in this forum.
I assume that even though you are writing from Australia that you are
answering for IFR operations in the USA because you cited US Federal Aviation
Regulations. Is that correct?
If that is the case then what is required is in the US FAR's. Since those
Regulations are readily availabe in the public domain then one should be able
to cite the specific regulation that says in just so many words that "No one
may fly under IFR in US controlled airspace unless their XXXXXX equipment
meets the requirements of TSO YYYYYY."
I'm not aware of one single Regulation that reads like that. Case in point:
Even FAR 91.207 regarding ELT's doesn't say that one must have a new ELT that
meets some specific TSO. Just that 1) The ELT must be approved and in
operable condition, and 2) An ELT that meets the old TSO may not be used for
new installations after June 21, 1995.
The fact is that much of the equipment available to us as amateur builders of
experimental aircraft is TSO'd and
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch Breakers |
>
>Mark, in Cedar Rapids wrote...
>
>"...Another example if my memory serves correctly is the Swissair MD-ll
>that went down off the east coast a few years back...seems they had an
>electrical fire that did NOT blow the breaker/fuse, and the entire
>aircraft was lost (I think it was in the cabin entertainment system,
>which may not be built to the same standard as the cockpit avionics, but
>was probably as robust as the sport aviation stuff in my panel)."
>
>As an American Airlines MD-11 First Officer at the time Swissair crashed
>off the coast of Newfoundland, I was keenly interested in the event (for
>obvious reasons). When the dust settled and the investigation was
>complete, it was part of the official findings that the crew could
>easily have reached a suitable airfield with the time remaining, but
>opted to loiter while trying to troubleshoot. This decision was
>tragically fatal for hundreds of people and should be remembered for all
>time by all who fly airplanes.
>
>Designing your electrical system to be safe is great, but let's not
>forget the big picture. Nobody will ever second-guess your decision to
>LAND and then troubleshoot, but doing it in reverse order may have
>deadly consequences.
I seem to recall that the incident cited was ultimately
blamed on a wire bundle fire which ignited insulation.
The situation got worse with more rapidity than the
crew anticipated and they blew away get-on-the-ground-
quick time with a combination of troubleshooting efforts
and other distractions. If I'm recalling this incorrectly,
perhaps someone on the list can enlighten me.
If my recollection is correct, then outcome of this situation
would have been no different had fuses, breakers or switch-breakers
been in service on the faulted wiring . . . you can have a high
resistance fault that is also high energy output that does not
draw sufficient current to trip the protection. Much more common
in 28 and 115 volt systems than in 14 volt systems.
The likelihood of this condition existing in your homebuilt
is extremely remote and still . . . rather than try to
isolated and troubleshoot the problem, I'd shut the whole system
down and do hand-held nav/comm to some comfortable arrival spot.
If you'd like to keep a turn coordinator running, you could
arrange to power it from the battery bus via a miniature toggle
switch mounted next to the instrument.
Odds are greater that, the t/c is going to go t/u at some point
in the future due to corrosion of the switch than the odds
you'll need to run the t/c during a total blackout of the
panel due to smoke in the cockpit.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch breakers |
>
>
>One things I started thinking about, is silly checklists.
>In the Beech, and Cessna's I have flown, there is the
>checklist item "make sure the CB's are all in" (paraphrasing).
>
>So pilot A goes out flying, maybe at night or something,
>a circuit breaker pops, and doesn't notice it. Walks in
>the FBO turns in the key, and goes out for a beer after
>a successful adventure.
>
>Pilot B shows up the next day, the CB is poped out, so,
>just like the check list says, mashes in said popped CB.
>Flys around VFR day, no big deal.
>
>
>Now that I am thinking about it, I hope I'll at least
>think about that popped CB before taking flight. It is
>a reminder that something is amiss (or at least a mechanic
>might have been looking at something?). It won't be
>a wrote, checklist item anymore.
I wrote a checklist for our company Bonanza a few
years back that called for testing the OPERATION of
everything that could be conducted and observed from
the pilot's seat. It was insufficient to see that the
breaker was IN and simply assume that the piece of equipment
powered from that breaker was going to work.
Our shutdown checklist also included a check of the
breaker panel. If a breaker was found OUT, a tye-wrap
was to be placed around the extended breaker-button
and a squawk sheet cut on the pad of duplicate squawk
tickets keep in the map-case along with a supply of
miniature tie-wraps. A pullout copy of the squawk
sheet was left at the desk for routing to the appropriate
mechanic.
Anyone who came out to the airplane later could look
in the squawk book and see what items had been worked
since he last flew and what items were still open.
I don't recall that anyone ever elected to fly with
a breaker tied off. I was never presented the situation
myself. I can imagine that if a tied breaker were for
some accessory I didn't need, I might go ahead and
use the airplane anyhow . . . the bottom line was that
there was a system to check for operation as part
of preflight, alert others as to potential problems
both from a maintenance and operational perspective,
and a system to track fixes.
Whether you have a fuse panel or breaker panel, it
is incumbent upon the pilot to see that all the things
necessary and/or desirable for today's mission are
functional before takeoff irrespective of the condition
of a breaker or fuse. If something is found not
to work, an informed decision is possible as to whether
or not the mission gets scrubbed for maintenance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TSO Requirements |
BAKEROCB(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> b. comm radios need to meet TSO standards, and most do.
*** Don't think so. The King KX-170(A,B), possibly the most popular
general aviation navcom ever made, is not TSO'd. They also made a TSO'd
version, the KX-175. I've never seen a KX-175 installed in an airplane!
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TSO Requirements |
Wayne McMullen wrote:
>
>
> Does any know whart TSO means?
>
"Technical Standard Order".
Often, they just reference an industry document of some sort. For
example, the TSO for VSI's references an SAE ( Society of Automotive
Engineers ) document.
( I found this out when I wanted a 2 1/4 inch VSI for an old airplane
with a small panel. I was investigating buying a non-TSO'd instrument and
just testing it myself. )
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Christie" <billc(at)dancris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
It sounds like what you want is similar to the setup in an F-14. There is a
large yellow light right in front of the pilot that says "Master Caution"
and illuminates on any problem. You just push it in to reset it and then
glance down to the side to see which trouble light is lit. The ones on the
side panel stay lit. It shouldn't be too hard to rig such an animal and I
plan to put one in my RV-8A. I am building an all electric aircraft and
figure a few instances of signal conditioning or level shifting with several
OR gatesshould take care of most of it. Sourcing the light panel with the
custom lettering will be the hardest part. I can't see spending more than a
couple hundred for this.
Bill Christie, RV8A, Phoenix
----- Original Message -----
From: <jerry(at)tr2.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: annunciator panel
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
> >
> > much to design or build . . .
> >
>
> *** Here's where I start getting serious "homebuilt envy". I don't want a
> fancy panel full of blinking lights. I want one BIG RED (idiot) LIGHT
> that means "there is a problem". This big red light would be in my
> immediate scan. It would be driven by a little processor that would have
> sensors for everything that could conceivably be a problem. As long as
> that light's off, I can concentrate on flying the plane. When the light
> goes on, I look at all the other stuff. Maybe include a voice annunciator
> ( or just Morse Code for us poor hams ) to say why the light went on. But
> the main thing is that when all's ok, it's OFF, and I just have this one
> item to scan to verify that.
>
> The processor could have subtle logic to decide whether something's OK
> or not.
> "If this input blips less than 1ms less than 20 times, that's OK..."
> "If this input is LOW and that one's HIGH, we've got trouble..."
> "If the bus voltage is trending low and yet we have high RPMs..."
>
> - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | TSO Requirements 2 |
In a message dated 05/08/2002 2:52:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com <>
writes:
" Larry,
I am building an RV7 to an IFR standard.
My understanding is as follows:
a. alitmeter and ASI need to meet TSO standards.
b. comm radios need to meet TSO standards, and most do.
c. nav radios and indicators need to meet TSO.
d. GPS need to meet TSO C129, but you need to select the sub category
carefully.
e. I am not sure, but if you use an efis then I think it needs to meet extra
TSO requirements for redundancy and reliability. EFIS One might be a safe
bet.
Some useful references are:
FAR 91.411, 91.413, Part 43 Appendixes D and E, there are others too.
The ......skip.......... David Francis, VH-ZEE, Canberra, Australia"
AeroElectric-List message posted by: lhdodge1(at)mmm.com
<< I am building an RV-6 and wish to have IFR capability. What components,
avionics, and/or instruments need to be TSO'd? Larry Dodge >>
5/8/2002
Hello David, I disagree with your understanding and believe that it falls
into the category of hearsay, gossip, and rumor. We ought to strive to do
better than that in this forum.
I assume that even though you are writing from Australia that you are
answering for IFR operations in the USA because you cited US Federal Aviation
Regulations. Is that correct?
If that is the case then what is required is in the US FAR's. Since those
Regulations are readily availabe in the public domain then one should be able
to cite the specific regulation that says in just so many words that "No one
may fly under IFR in US controlled airspace unless their XXXXXX equipment
meets the requirements of TSO YYYYYY."
I'm not aware of one single Regulation that reads like that. Case in point:
Even FAR 91.207 regarding ELT's doesn't say that one must have a ELT that
meets some specific new TSO. Just that 1) The ELT must be approved and in
operable condition, and 2) An ELT that meets the old TSO may not be used for
new installations after June 21, 1995.
The fact is that much of the equipment available to us as amateur builders of
experimental aircraft is TSO'd and
(Oops, sorry about that. I got interrupted and distracted by the secretary of
war and inadvertently sent this before it was ready. Let me continue)
we can often benefit from choosing such equipment even though we are not
required to.
Again the issue of what is required / recommended by the Regulations and
Advisory Circulars for standard type certificated aircraft and what is
mandated by regulations for amateur built experimental aircraft are:
1) In many cases quite different, and
2) Not readily apparent unless one studies the Regulations / AC's in detail.
Case in point: AC No. 20-138 Subject: "Airworthiness Approval of GPS
Navigation Equipment For Use As A VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation
System". This AC describes a burdensome process to obtain such approval and
refers to TSO C129. But buried within the AC is this paragraph "8.a.
Application process. Operators wishing to obtain approval of Class A( ) GPS
equipment for IFR operations may do so via the type certificate (TC) or
supplemental type certificate (STC) process." Neither of these processes
pertain to amateur built experimental aircraft.
In passing please let me make two additional points about TSO's:
A) Many TSO's had a "Deviations" paragraph that says in effect that the FAA
has provisions for using alternate or equivalent means of compliance with the
TSO's criteria and applicants can go that route with a demonstration of
equivalence.
B) I stopped maintaining a library of TSO's quite a while ago because every
one seemed to be just two or three pages long that didn't say anything. But
they included a list of a bunch of references such as RTCA, ARINC, SAE, DOT,
etc, etc, documents. Without all the numerous references the TSO were mostly
useless when it came to technical information.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: TSO Requirements 2 |
I did some checking on TSOed equipment. My certified Bellanca does NOT have
any TSOed equipment. Surprised? Shouldn't be as TSOs only started in 1947
and is NOT the only way to get appliances that are approved for flight.
Here is Joe Norris' EAA peer re-viewed statement...
"Equipment does not need to be manufactured to a TSO, even for IFR flight.
A TSO (Technical Standard Order) is a guideline issued by FAA for the
manufacture of a component. It is a method of compliance with the
regulations regarding performance and accuracy, and as such can be used by a
manufacturer to streamline the approval process for a particular component.
A TSO is not THE ONLY means of compliance. In fact, so long as the
equipment in your aircraft meets the requirements spelled out in FAR 91.205
(as required by your operating limitations) and can be proven (through
flight or ground testing) to perform within the required tolerances, you're
good to go.
TSOs are relatively new." (They were first set-up in 1947 and heavily
revised in 1980.) "There are literally hundreds of aircraft flying today,
both type certificated and experimental, that don't have a single TSOed
radio or instrument installed. TSOs were developed to aid in the
manufacturing of aviation products, not as an approval for installation.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you have further questions.
Joe Norris
EAA Aviation Information Services
EAA Aviation Center, Oshkosh, WI
888-322-4636, extension 6806
jnorris(at)eaa.org
We are pleased to provide this info as an EAA membership benefit. To ensure
that this service continues, renew your membership or join EAA today by
calling 800-843-3612 or 920-426-5912.
Visit EAA on the web at http://www.eaa.org/"
If you would like to look at the history of TSO by the FAA go to ...
http://av-info.faa.gov/tso/Histry/hist96.htm which also has some information
on the application of TSOs.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: <BAKEROCB(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: TSO Requirements 2
In a message dated 05/08/2002 2:52:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com <>
writes:
" Larry,
I am building an RV7 to an IFR standard.
My understanding is as follows:
a. alitmeter and ASI need to meet TSO standards.
b. comm radios need to meet TSO standards, and most do.
c. nav radios and indicators need to meet TSO.
d. GPS need to meet TSO C129, but you need to select the sub category
carefully.
e. I am not sure, but if you use an efis then I think it needs to meet
extra
TSO requirements for redundancy and reliability. EFIS One might be a safe
bet.
Some useful references are:
FAR 91.411, 91.413, Part 43 Appendixes D and E, there are others too.
The ......skip.......... David Francis, VH-ZEE, Canberra, Australia"
AeroElectric-List message posted by: lhdodge1(at)mmm.com
<< I am building an RV-6 and wish to have IFR capability. What components,
avionics, and/or instruments need to be TSO'd? Larry Dodge >>
5/8/2002
Hello David, I disagree with your understanding and believe that it falls
into the category of hearsay, gossip, and rumor. We ought to strive to do
better than that in this forum.
I assume that even though you are writing from Australia that you are
answering for IFR operations in the USA because you cited US Federal
Aviation
Regulations. Is that correct?
If that is the case then what is required is in the US FAR's. Since those
Regulations are readily availabe in the public domain then one should be
able
to cite the specific regulation that says in just so many words that "No one
may fly under IFR in US controlled airspace unless their XXXXXX equipment
meets the requirements of TSO YYYYYY."
I'm not aware of one single Regulation that reads like that. Case in point:
Even FAR 91.207 regarding ELT's doesn't say that one must have a ELT that
meets some specific new TSO. Just that 1) The ELT must be approved and in
operable condition, and 2) An ELT that meets the old TSO may not be used for
new installations after June 21, 1995.
The fact is that much of the equipment available to us as amateur builders
of
experimental aircraft is TSO'd and
(Oops, sorry about that. I got interrupted and distracted by the secretary
of
war and inadvertently sent this before it was ready. Let me continue)
we can often benefit from choosing such equipment even though we are not
required to.
Again the issue of what is required / recommended by the Regulations and
Advisory Circulars for standard type certificated aircraft and what is
mandated by regulations for amateur built experimental aircraft are:
1) In many cases quite different, and
2) Not readily apparent unless one studies the Regulations / AC's in detail.
Case in point: AC No. 20-138 Subject: "Airworthiness Approval of GPS
Navigation Equipment For Use As A VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation
System". This AC describes a burdensome process to obtain such approval and
refers to TSO C129. But buried within the AC is this paragraph "8.a.
Application process. Operators wishing to obtain approval of Class A( ) GPS
equipment for IFR operations may do so via the type certificate (TC) or
supplemental type certificate (STC) process." Neither of these processes
pertain to amateur built experimental aircraft.
In passing please let me make two additional points about TSO's:
A) Many TSO's had a "Deviations" paragraph that says in effect that the FAA
has provisions for using alternate or equivalent means of compliance with
the
TSO's criteria and applicants can go that route with a demonstration of
equivalence.
B) I stopped maintaining a library of TSO's quite a while ago because every
one seemed to be just two or three pages long that didn't say anything. But
they included a list of a bunch of references such as RTCA, ARINC, SAE, DOT,
etc, etc, documents. Without all the numerous references the TSO were mostly
useless when it came to technical information.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 05/09/2002 2:52:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com <> writes:
<< BAKEROCB(at)aol.com wrote:
b. comm radios need to meet TSO standards, and most do.
*** Don't think so. The King KX-170(A,B), possibly the most popular
general aviation navcom ever made, is not TSO'd. They also made a TSO'd
version, the KX-175. I've never seen a KX-175 installed in an airplane!
Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) >>
5/9/2002
Hello Jerry, I appreciate your efforts to inform us and I further appreciate
your efforts to edit postings so that we don't have to wade through
extraneous material.
But in your editing please take care to get the right person attributed to
the right material. What you quoted above is an extract from some other
person's posting within my posting and my position is exactly the opposite of
what you included above.
Thank you.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern Darley, 11" <vern(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Pins-outs needed for Apollo GX 65 and KX-170B + advice |
RV-6A owner asked me to install a new intercom and get radios working on his newly-purchased
6A with a history of Avionics problems.
Request suggestions on how to approach install of new intercom along with tie in
to these two radios. Thanks! Vern
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Swissair and fire |
Cheers. The accident report is not complete in that the final cause
must be somewqhat conjectural, due to the destruction aspects.
" I seem to recall that the incident cited was ultimately blamed on a
wire bundle fire which ignited insulation.
The situation got worse with more rapidity than the crew anticipated
and they blew away get-on-the-ground-quick time with a combination of
troubleshooting efforts and other distractions. If I'm recalling this
incorrectly, perhaps someone on the list can enlighten me."
This is essentialy the conclusion reached. The extensive use of
kapton insulation brought about discovery that (a) time, (b) moisture and
(c) vibration caused the insulation to produce tiny cracks. These created
the occasional trip of C/Bs over time. The great danger was in the
re-saetting of the c/b, fuse, etc (no matter which). With the resurgence of
power small but very hot (1200deg) sparks brought the insulation well above
its specs and it became explosive. This has been demonstrated to destroy
accompanying bundled circuits or to bring other materials to high
temperature - in fact a video in the USN labs shows it blowing a steel plate
in two.
"If my recollection is correct, then outcome of this situation would
have been no different had fuses, breakers or switch-breakers been in
service on the faulted wiring . . . you can have a high resistance fault
that is also high energy output that does not draw sufficient current to
trip the protection. Much more common in 28 and 115 volt systems than in 14
volt systems."
Quite agree. The greatest effect seems to have been visitted on
USN F-18s operating off carriers in tropical waters (see above), which
accelerated the effects. These provided earlier warnings, but by then makers
had used the wire in a number of major carriers - mine included. the saving
grace may be that few are wet, or vibrate. The entertainment system
installed in the DC10 (or MD-something) used this wire, and the burn
patterns point to it as an early cause.
"The likelihood of this condition existing in your homebuilt is
extremely remote and still . . . rather than try to isolate and troubleshoot
the problem, I'd shut the whole system down and do hand-held nav/comm to
some comfortable arrival spot."
Exactly. Don't ever reset a C/B unless you KNOW why it safely
popped.
The details of the slow reaction of the crew was in line with
airline procedure, in that it appears the F/O wanted to land overweight, the
Captain insisted on detailed procedures as laid down.
Usual procedure in the event of "smoke of unknown origin" was to
shut off most of the various sections of the electrical system to establish
reduction of smoke, then rebuild the system bit by bit until only the faulty
section is left off. If I'd known then what I know now............Who
are we.............etc.etc.?
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mike.weed(at)acterna.com |
Okay guys, I guess I'll spill the beans.
I've been working on a series of annunciators, just the light part, and they are
pretty close to being done.
They are LED based, sunlight readable, dead-front, available in red, green, and
yellow, and can be matrix stacked in any x-y configuration. Physical size is 1w
x 0.375h x 1d, a little rectangular box. The legend area essentially covers the
entire front face. They should be priced at a point that would make then
attractive to the homebuilt crowd.
Each annunciator has a master caution output so it can activate the master
caution annunciator (on your glareshield or somewhere noticeable). Of course
you only want to light that for "bad" stuff.
Each annunciator also has a "lamp test" terminal so you can hook up a lamp test
push-button that lights all of the indicators at once. This is sort of
questionable for LED based indicators, but who doesn't like to see all the
pretty lights light up?
The annunciators activate on a "ground" input, but an inverter module is
available for input signals that go "high" for the desired annunciation
condition.
I also have a vibrating module, sort of like a pager, that could be slaved to
the master caution also. I find that if you place this in the seat cushion just
under your thigh, it really gets your attention.
One thing that has delayed me a bit is getting the packaging figured out so I
don't have a bunch of tooling costs. I've got some prototypes of what I think
will be a good solution just about ready.
The latest idea for ordering would be to order the color and a legend from a
standard set. If more than one annunciator is ordered, the customer will
provide the layout desired and they will be configured and wired up prior to
shipping. This is mostly because the bussed connectors (power, master caution
and lamp test) are not something the average builder would have the tooling for.
The sensor input is a standard tab. Custom legends could be accomodated, but
there would be some addtional costs for the art charges etc.
What do you think? Do these have market potential?
Years ago I also designed something I called a "Pilot's Associate". It took in
analog voltages and allowed you to set alarm thresholds, high and/or low. It
was designed to drive a set of annunciators (idiot lights). I tabled it when my
RV-4 project went into hibernation. So, I guess great minds think alike.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Pins-outs needed for Apollo GX 65 and KX-170B + advice |
>
>
>RV-6A owner asked me to install a new intercom and get radios working on
>his newly-purchased 6A with a history of Avionics problems.
>Request suggestions on how to approach install of new intercom along with
>tie in to these two radios. Thanks! Vern
What kinds of "problems" were experienced?
I would start by taking out the entire system and
go back in with my own wiring that connects bench-tested
black boxes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Your book, and welding cable for ground |
I"m building a GIII. Have all engine electrics from B&C. Will have about 10
ft of battery cable to starter, and various busses. You mentioned welding
cable for battery ground. Could it be used for all wiring calling for no. 2
cable? Or should I order no. 2 AC cable instead?
Given the total cost of building this machine and the
market value when completed, I think I'd go for 22759
wire for all the connections . . . but welding cable
can be used too. It's about 15% heavier.
Love your book, but I'm
still an electical putz. ABy the way, I'm planning an all electric plane.
Am using B&C 60 amp alt, and the 8 amp dynamo, all with the recommended
regulators and overvoltage stuff. Does one of your book's diagrams cover
what I should be shooting for, for redundancy?
Why 60A? Have you done a load analysis that shows you
need this kind of capacity. How about a 40A machine and
used the $saved$ to buy aircraft wire for the fat feeders?
The quest for "redundancy" has to be satisfied by an
analysis of how you intend to use your airplane and what
you consider to be the minimum equipment needed to do
the most complex mission.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
| People are far more willing to pay |
| for being amused than for anything else. |
| -Thomas Edison- |
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: subminiature connector |
Hey Bob,
I just ordered your book today and was browsing your web site. I was
looking for a connector for the MAC servos. I saw the one you made from
Radio shack but couldn't find it on their web site. Do you have a part
number or better yet, a better connector. Surely their must be a 6 pin
connector out their that will do the job.
The connectors I used were the 276-1537 and 276-1538 which you can
find on the website under wire-cable-hardware &
tools/connectors/miscellaneous
or by entering the part numbers in the search box. The connectors
are stocked by all the stores.
I was very pleased to find a product I have been looking for, the gooseneck
map lite. I ordered one of those today also.
Thanks for the help, and the great discussions on the Electric list,
I'm pleased that you find it useful.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Over voltage circuit |
A while back I ordered an over voltage circuit from AeroElectric Connection
in KS. In reading the material shipped with the order I noted that the
circuit is one time use, whereas it protects the VR by opening up the
circuit when an over voltage condition is sensed. From what I read the
circuit is a one time use. Am I wrong in my understanding?
No, when it triggers due to ov condition, it puts a dead short
downstream of your alternator field control breaker and causes it
to open up as it would be expected to do with any other fault
on the line. The breaker can be reset and the ov module can be
expected to perform its assigned task many, many times.
In discussion with another builder he advises that he is using a circuit
that energizes a relay when an over voltage condition is sensed. Are you
familiar with this device?
This is a technology used in decades past as the best
we knew how to do in 1975 . . . I've designed and presided
over the manufacture of tens of thousands of "OV Relays".
We went to crowbar ov protection in all of B&C's alternator
controller products about 1985. The OVM-14 crowbar module
was introduced to the market about 7 years ago. Over 700 have
been sold and I presume most are by now in service.
The reason this comes up is that on Saturday I had my first engine start
(Rotax 914) but did not have any charging of the battery. On advise of a
knowledgeable friend I used a Cessna split switch that turned on and off
the alternator separate from the battery. Information in the installation
manual states that the circuit I had that switch inserted must not be
opened else an over voltage condition will occur which will fail the VR if
a 22K MFD capacitor is not installed. I had a 22K MFD cap installed but it
apparently did not protect the circuit from the over voltage condition. Of
course there's always the possibility that I got a bad VR from the
start. Whatever the situation is, it would not have happened had I had I
at least had the over voltage circuit, I purchased, in place.
I cannot advise as to the validity of advice given without seeing
the schematic.
Are you familure with the Rotax charging system enough to explain the
reason for the over voltage situation that might have occurred on my engine
when the Alternator circuit was opened. I should add that this circuit,
that I had the switch in is fused. If that fuse were to fail the VR would
fail. Again the 22K MFD cap was suppose to "protect" from the over voltage.
Drop me a copy of how your airplane is wired and I'll see if
I can deduce the cause of your problem. The 22K mFd capacitor
is there for noise filtering and no other purpose. It CANNOT
protect against an overvoltage condition brought on by regulator
failure. It MIGHT mitigate an ov condition due to regulator
instability and in particular under light loads.
Suggest you study Figure Z-16 of a Revision 10 issue
of the AeroElectric Connection and consider wiring your
airplane as illustrated therein. If you don't have the
book, you can download the chapter at:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
I'll comment on the probable cause of your problem after I
see the wiring diagram.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: subminiature connector |
For a 6 pin connector, look at the DTM06-6SA Plug and DTM04-6PA
Receptacle available at www.laddinc.com.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
>
> Hey Bob,
>
> I was looking for a connector for the MAC servos. I saw the one
> you made from
> Radio shack but couldn't find it on their web site. Do you
> have a part
> number or better yet, a better connector. Surely their must
> be a 6 pin
> connector out their that will do the job.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TSO standards |
BAKEROCB(at)aol.com wrote:
> the right material. What you quoted above is an extract from some other
> person's posting within my posting and my position is exactly the opposite of
> what you included above.
>
*** Sorry about that!
- Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick DeCiero <rsdec1(at)star.net> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
Autometer makes a product called the Tri-Alert. It is a black box that takes a
signal from 3
of it's gauges(individually) and allows you to set the desired trip point for whatever
you
are monitoring. Upon hitting the set point it will give a 12 volt output that you
can use
hook up to a light and/or an alarm. I put one in and am monitoring for low oil
pressure, high
oil temp and low voltage. The box allows you to select whether you monitor high
or low
limits. I don't know if it will work with other manufacturer's gauges (electrical
senders).
It costs about $75.00 and I got it from Jeg's racing equipment.
Good luck,
Rick D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FSmith9890(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Nav Antenna Question |
Bob is right, one com antenna will serve for the Nav, Loc, and GS with a
diplexer, or you can use one com for the Nav & Loc, and the other for the GS
. In the RV series you don't have to put them externally on the tail, put
them in the wingtips. I have used this system on two airplanes and it works
fine. I hate to see an experimental airplane loaded up with external
antennas. The only two that need to be external is the transponder and the
com. The com antenna in the wingtip will also work as a com, but at a
reduced range. For whatever its worth. Frank
even for
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russ Werner" <russ(at)maui.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav Antenna Question |
On the subject of diplexers, is it okay to not use all of the outputs on the
diplexer? I have one that is designed to run 2 VOR/LOC receivers and 2 GS
receivers and I only have one of each. Any problem with capping off the
extra jacks?
Russ
----- Original Message -----
From: <FSmith9890(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Nav Antenna Question
>
> Bob is right, one com antenna will serve for the Nav, Loc, and GS with a
> diplexer, or you can use one com for the Nav & Loc, and the other for the
GS
> . In the RV series you don't have to put them externally on the tail, put
> them in the wingtips. I have used this system on two airplanes and it
works
> fine. I hate to see an experimental airplane loaded up with external
> antennas. The only two that need to be external is the transponder and
the
> com. The com antenna in the wingtip will also work as a com, but at a
> reduced range. For whatever its worth. Frank
>
>
> even for
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nav Antenna Question |
Russ Werner wrote:
>
> On the subject of diplexers, is it okay to not use all of the outputs on the
> diplexer? I have one that is designed to run 2 VOR/LOC receivers and 2 GS
> receivers and I only have one of each. Any problem with capping off the
> extra jacks?
>
*** I suspect that it is OK, but you have to cap them off with 50-ohm loads.
These are just a connector with a 50-ohm resistor built in. Or you can make
your own. The resistor would go from the center pin to the outside of the
connector. This will make the splitter "think" that the receivers it was
designed to drive, are actually connected.
Also, 75-ohm terminators are really common in high-tech surplus,
because Ethernet used to use them. Probably work fine....
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Francis, CMDR David" <David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au> |
| Subject: | SEC: UNCLASSFIIED - IFR REQUIREMENTS |
Hello David, I disagree with your understanding and believe that it falls
into the category of hearsay, gossip, and rumor. We ought to strive to do
better than that in this forum.
'OC' Baker
Yep, some of these threads get exciting. Hullo OC, yes I write from
Australia. The connection is that, like many countries, our regulator calls
up the FAR for airworthiness certification matters. So I get to read the
FARs at bedtime too. Not relevant, but I lived & flew in the US for two
years, great fun.
The picture for IFR in an experimental looks like this:
AC 20.27 para 7 says a special airworthiness certificate may be issued, with
any operational limitations the inspector thinks wise.
The limitations are expressed in Order 8130.2, which in turn calls up FAR
91.205, mandatory instruments & radios.
Where a FAR says an approved gadget is required, guidance as to what they
are likely to approve will generally be found in a TSO. They may also
approve other satisfactory equipment if convinced its safe.
So the lowest risk way to avoid any operating limitations for phase 2
listed in the special certificate of airworthiness is to have equipment that
performs closely to a TSO, which is not hard, particularly for nav radios,
they are freely available.
Have fun, David Francis
-----Original Message-----
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Yak electrics |
>
>There is a big capability difference between the original electrical
>system and what the b&c can produce. The original is rated at something
>like 107A and 28V which gives about 3kW. I guess the russian
>instrumentation (and radios) were pretty power hungry - Apparently the
>Yak18 (and probably others) had a very nice (but large and heavy)
>non-tumbling AI in it. I can only imagine what they were using for
>radios. Can you say vacuum tube? Not quite like the surface mount
>stuff we have today. Rugged though.
>
>If you can get along with something less than a 3kW power budget (I
>know, that means you'll have to get an extension cord to run the
>welder... ) then going to something from b&c would be a lot lighter.
You might call Bill at 316.283.8000 and talk to him about
his customer experience with the smaller PM alternators
on this genre' of airplane. I know there are quite a number
of these aircraft flying day/vfr with Bill's very light
alternator replacing the flame-throwing pig generator.
He would be in a better position to evaluate your needs
against his experience and products.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: base antenna |
>
>
>Hey Bob: two quick question.
>I have an old radio that I'd like to set up in my hanger to
>listen to air traffic over head.
>1) is there a way to build a cheap easy antenna that I can put on the roof
>for
>better reception?
Sure . . . see http://www.sadona.com/news/ant_jpole2.html
Multiply all dimensions shown by 1.15 to make it work
best in aircraft band.
>2) can I use radio shack coax cable I a left over form a TV antenna install
>to
>run between the radio and antenna?
This will work but it may be messy to get good
connections if it's an aluminum foil shield. RG-58
(real cheap from Radio Shack) might be easier to work
with.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lhdodge1(at)mmm.com |
22, 2000) at 05/10/2002 09:02:42 AM
A am planning to install an ammeter in my RV-6 panel. Which circuit should
be monitored - alternator or battery?
Regards,
Larry Dodge
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch for dimming light |
Bob
I am using the LR-3 alternator controlers for my Glasair, per Figure
Z-4. I seem to remember a thread awhile ago that the lamp output
to the warning lamp needed something to work with a LED. I
couldn't find the reference. Is there any problem using LED's
instead of regular light bulbs?
Jim Robinson
Glasair 79R
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>A am planning to install an ammeter in my RV-6 panel. Which circuit should
>be monitored - alternator or battery?
It's not a question of "should" . . .
eithe one yields certain useful information. If you're
going to subscribe to one of the power distribution
philosophies outlined in the 'Connection, then a battery
ammeter is very difficult to implement . . . alternator
loadmeter is easy.
In either case, please do plan on active notification
of low voltage (bus below 13.0 volts). Ammeters and
voltmeters are diagnostic instruments . . . the flashing
light is your first line of defense against the dark-panel-
syndrome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
I have 2 12v Gill RG batteries in my airplane (a Mooney Rocket conversion,
M20K). The batteries are in parallel, 12 volt system.
Why two batteries in parallel versus one big one?
I would like to use
a standard auto battery charger to recharge or boost the batteries per the
service instructions. I would like to charge them in the airplane (since
removing them is incredibly difficult) using the ground power adapter /
jumper cables. What is wrong or good about this picture?
No problem I can see. Many owner/operators have provided
some remote access to the batteries accessed by
come conveniently located connector. Would recommend a
5A fuse at the battery be used to protect this always
hot wire between batteries and charging connector. This
would of course, limit the output of your charger to
less than 5A . . . probably okay for most little
battery maintainers.
If your batteries are flooded cell products, how about
putting an RG battery in there and not have to worry
about an external battery charging connection. If you
don't run off and leave the master switch on, you
can about guarantee that the RG battery will be there
when you need it - without benefit of external charging
support.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mprather(at)spro.net |
| Subject: | Re: base antenna |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Date: Thursday, May 9, 2002 8:46 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: base antenna
> >2) can I use radio shack coax cable I a left over form a TV
> antenna install
> >to
> >run between the radio and antenna?
>
> This will work but it may be messy to get good
> connections if it's an aluminum foil shield. RG-58
> (real cheap from Radio Shack) might be easier to work
> with.
>
If you want to transmit with your base station, won't you
get pretty high SWR's with 75ohm tv cable? I think you could
recieve just fine, but I'll bet you won't be able to talk to
very distant aircraft. I am pretty sure the com radios are
50ohm output?
Regards,
Matt Prather
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | IFR Avionics requirements |
| From: | Victor Stahl <victor170(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I have been searching for FAR information which stipulates the avionics
requirements for IFR navigation. I am only interested in locating the
appropriate section which identifies the NECESSARY NAVIGATION RADIOS
required for IFR flight. I understand that somewhere in the FARs it mentions
something about only needing equipment for the type of navigation and
approaches which are required for a particular flight.
The issue is...... I want to set up a light IFR RV7A to punch through
overcasts when necessary..... That=B9s it, no real weather stuff to speak of.
I seem to remember that 1 VOR was the minimum, and that GPS alone could not
be approved as sole source IFR. I would like to set up a minimum IFR RV with
GPS only as my sole source of navigation and for non-precision approaches.
I
do not want to include the outdated VOR in my panel. Is this going to be
possible? Are the rules different in any way for experimental aircraft
flying under IFR.
Can someone answer my question properly or refer me to the FARs which are
applicable to my question.
Thank you.
Victor S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <Richard(at)riley.net> |
| Subject: | NavAid autopilot available |
I have a new, never installed NavAid AP1 and a crank S2 servo. I've had it
about 3 months, I've changed my mind and I'm going to use an S-Tek.
The new price is $1300 but they have a 6 month backlog. If anyone here
wants one now, I'll sell this for the same price.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Richard" <steve(at)oasissolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
Thanks for the info. I'm not sure why they chose 2 batteries over one,
especially since they put both of them in a big box that has to be hoisted
into the tail of the aircraft. Maybe because they are standard and can be
eaily ordered?
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery charging
I have 2 12v Gill RG batteries in my airplane (a Mooney Rocket conversion,
M20K). The batteries are in parallel, 12 volt system.
Why two batteries in parallel versus one big one?
I would like to use
a standard auto battery charger to recharge or boost the batteries per the
service instructions. I would like to charge them in the airplane (since
removing them is incredibly difficult) using the ground power adapter /
jumper cables. What is wrong or good about this picture?
No problem I can see. Many owner/operators have provided
some remote access to the batteries accessed by
come conveniently located connector. Would recommend a
5A fuse at the battery be used to protect this always
hot wire between batteries and charging connector. This
would of course, limit the output of your charger to
less than 5A . . . probably okay for most little
battery maintainers.
If your batteries are flooded cell products, how about
putting an RG battery in there and not have to worry
about an external battery charging connection. If you
don't run off and leave the master switch on, you
can about guarantee that the RG battery will be there
when you need it - without benefit of external charging
support.
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery charging |
It might have something to do with weight and balance. Check your W&B to
see if you can use a different battery. You may need the weight in that
location. FAA is rather particular about even the brand of battery that you
are legally permitted to use. I presume that your airplane configuration was
created by STC. To change the configuration from the STC takes a 337 with
field inspection. FSDO might even want you to run it past engineering.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Richard" <steve(at)oasissolutions.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery charging
Thanks for the info. I'm not sure why they chose 2 batteries over one,
especially since they put both of them in a big box that has to be hoisted
into the tail of the aircraft. Maybe because they are standard and can be
eaily ordered?
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery charging
I have 2 12v Gill RG batteries in my airplane (a Mooney Rocket conversion,
M20K). The batteries are in parallel, 12 volt system.
Why two batteries in parallel versus one big one?
I would like to use
a standard auto battery charger to recharge or boost the batteries per the
service instructions. I would like to charge them in the airplane (since
removing them is incredibly difficult) using the ground power adapter /
jumper cables. What is wrong or good about this picture?
No problem I can see. Many owner/operators have provided
some remote access to the batteries accessed by
come conveniently located connector. Would recommend a
5A fuse at the battery be used to protect this always
hot wire between batteries and charging connector. This
would of course, limit the output of your charger to
less than 5A . . . probably okay for most little
battery maintainers.
If your batteries are flooded cell products, how about
putting an RG battery in there and not have to worry
about an external battery charging connection. If you
don't run off and leave the master switch on, you
can about guarantee that the RG battery will be there
when you need it - without benefit of external charging
support.
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: base antenna |
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
>Date: Thursday, May 9, 2002 8:46 pm
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: base antenna
>
>
> > >2) can I use radio shack coax cable I a left over form a TV
> > antenna install
> > >to
> > >run between the radio and antenna?
> >
> > This will work but it may be messy to get good
> > connections if it's an aluminum foil shield. RG-58
> > (real cheap from Radio Shack) might be easier to work
> > with.
> >
>
>If you want to transmit with your base station, won't you
>get pretty high SWR's with 75ohm tv cable? I think you could
>recieve just fine, but I'll bet you won't be able to talk to
>very distant aircraft. I am pretty sure the com radios are
>50ohm output?
True . . but he said he wanted to simply LISTEN which
is the only thing he can legally do with that radio.
Either coax would work fine for listening and while
the SWR would be high with 75 ohm coax, he would
probably not notice any degradation of performance
should he choose to talk to someone too . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Avionics requirements |
>
>
>I have been searching for FAR information which stipulates the avionics
>requirements for IFR navigation. I am only interested in locating the
>appropriate section which identifies the NECESSARY NAVIGATION RADIOS
>required for IFR flight. I understand that somewhere in the FARs it mention>s
>something about only needing equipment for the type of navigation and
>approaches which are required for a particular flight.
>
>The issue is...... I want to set up a light IFR RV7A to punch through
>overcasts when necessary..... That=B9s it, no real weather stuff to speak of.
>I seem to remember that 1 VOR was the minimum, and that GPS alone could not
>be approved as sole source IFR. I would like to set up a minimum IFR RV with
>GPS only as my sole source of navigation and for non-precision approaches.
>I do not want to include the outdated VOR in my panel. Is this going to be
>possible? Are the rules different in any way for experimental aircraft
>flying under IFR.
>
>Can someone answer my question properly or refer me to the FARs which are
>applicable to my question.
Don't recall the specific FAR and I'm not sure I've read it.
My instructors taught that I could fly IFR for any mission
where the airplane was properly equipped for the task using
the nav-aids approved for the task. For example, if you plan
to do an ILS approach at the other end, then you need ILS
equipment. If you plan a VOR approach at the other end,
you need a VOR . . . etc. Many an IFR flight was launched
and completed with only an ADF and/or VOR receiver and gyros.
If all you want to do is punch through cloud layers, then
no ground based nav aids are needed to safely complete the
mission. ATC will tell you to climb/descend on a heading and
report reaching VMC. This can be safely accomplished
with radio communications contact, transponder and whatever
means you have on board to hold an accurate heading.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aucountry(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Avionics requirements |
regardless of what anyone says, a VOR is not required to take off and punch
through the clouds. Get an approach approved GPS, moving map, and CDI and
you are legal to fly any non-precision approach / IFR flight in the US.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stan Blanton" <stanb(at)door.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Avionics requirements |
snip
I would like to set up a minimum IFR RV with
> GPS only as my sole source of navigation and for non-precision approaches.
snip
>
> Can someone answer my question properly or refer me to the FARs which are
> applicable to my question.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Victor S.
>
Victor,
The archives have a lot on this subject but I think Mike Robertson(FAA) made
the best reference which was to AIM 1-1-21.b.1(b) which says you have to
have something else besides the GPS. I think this is because GPS units are
not yet "approved' for "primary" means of navigation.
Stan Blanton
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR Avionics requirements |
| From: | Victor Stahl <victor170(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Thank you for the info, looks like I won't have to install the VOR after
all. One day when the GPS (non-VOR) based precision approach is available I
can perhaps upgrade my panel.
For now I was hoping to install The following avionics in my panel for very
light IFR flight.......
UPSAT.....GX 50 with CDI
UPSAT.....SL40
UPSAT.....SL70 with encoder
On to the next step......
Victor S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | TSO Requirements |
In a message dated 05/10/2002 2:52:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com <>writes:
<< ....skip...... Where a FAR says an approved gadget is required, guidance
as to what they are likely to approve will generally be found in a TSO. They
may also
approve other satisfactory equipment if convinced its safe.
So the lowest risk way to avoid any operating limitations for phase 2
listed in the special certificate of airworthiness is to have equipment that
performs closely to a TSO, which is not hard, particularly for nav radios,
they are freely available. >>
5/10/2002
Hello David, Your point is well taken.
The FAA Inspector or the DAR (Designated Airworthiness Representative) has
significant judgemental powers at the time of the initial inspection. If the
inspector chooses to insist on a TSO'd piece of equipment even though one is
not required by Regulations then the builder is faced with a choice of:
1) Going over the Inspector's head up the bureaucratic chain of command in an
attempt to get a more favorable decision (some times not a wise move), or
2) Meeting the Inspector's requirements.
If the builder can determine in advance what may be required by an Inspector
at the time of the inspection, even if it is something not mandated by
Regulation, and build accordingly, he can save himself some grief.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: annunciator panel |
>
>Thanks Bob. You input is much appreciated. Actually, I had designed a
>circuit a year ago for my plane but then made the mistake of taking
>helicopter lessons. Now my plane morphed into a helicopter so the panel was
>put on hold. I thought I could use a "crow bar" type circuit to trigger the
>enunciators lights with some filtering built in much like your crowbar
>circuit for taking out an out-of-control alternator. Or perhaps something as
>simple as a 3904 transistor used to isolate the enunciators from the source
>of the signal via filtering. A series of these circuits, one for each
>ennunciation, could be tied into a relay that could be used to test the
>lamps simultaneously. An addition circuit would be required for a master
>warning. Thought maybe some TTL would work for this or a programmable chip.
>. Please post your ideas. I'm sure there's a better way then this. Thanks.
You're shoveling a lot of sand before you have identified
what holes need to be filled.
Make a list of every parameter you want to monitor and define
the sensor that will supply the data. Ordinary switches and
voltages applied to a system will drive annunciator lights directly.
Filters, transistors, etc are not needed. Somewhere on the
list you will want to monitor some analog signals that will
require some kind of signal conditioning . . . but this is
"sand" that cannot be defined until the "holes" are defined.
Make a list. Define the sensors. Define behavior of the annunciation.
Is it sufficient to have the light ON only during a monitored
event or do you want the light to latch ON if the monitored parameter
drops into the caution range only momentarily, etc, etc. Picking all
the little electro-goodies to accomplish the various tasks is
easy. You can save a lot of time and back-tracking if the tasks
are fully described and understood before you start worrying about
what parts are needed.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Latching (?) Relays |
Hi Bob, I am a homebuilder with a degree in electronic engineering and just
completed my Q200 homebuilt. I have designed and built many low-power
analog and digital circuits over the years and figure I have a good grasp
of how relays work and how you use them. However, while wiring my Q200 I
encountered a problem with relays latching on even when current to the coil
was removed and was hoping you might be able to shed some light on what was
happening.
1) Master relay - mounted in tail of aircraft next to battery. #4 wire
running forward to panel. One side of relay coil connected to battery +12V,
other side runs forward to master switch where it is switched to ground.
Ground and power wires were accidentally shorted at firewall (ends of bolts
touching conductor). I didn't check for a short before turning on the
master. I noticed within a couple of seconds that something wasn't right.
Immediately shutoff the master - but didn't hear a click. Smoke started
coming from #4 power and ground cables. Almost had a heart attack. After
about a minute I finally managed to cut the power cable to prevent a fire.
I assumed the master relay contacts had been fused closed but when I
checked it appeared to work completely normally. I fixed the short,
double-checked the wiring, replaced the relay and have been using the
circuit fine for the last 20 hours. So why did the relay not turn off when
power was removed from the relay coil? I assumed the relay was at fault
until I encountered a similar situation with the starter solenoid.
2) Starter solenoid wired in the normal way - +12V comes from start
terminal on magneto switch to relay coil, other side of coil goes to
ground. I had a temporary, very poor, connection to the battery. Turned the
mag switch to start, the B&C starter began turning the engine over very,
very, very slowly. It was obvious there was not enough voltage so I
switched the mag switch to off but the starter kept turning the engine. It
continued for about 30 seconds until I disconnected the battery. Again, I
double-checked the wiring, fixed the battery connection and have been using
the system fine for the last 20 hour
So my question is: how is possible for a relay to stay energized like this?
Is it possible the electric fields around the power cables due to the high
currents hold the relay on even when power to the coil is removed? Until I
figure this one out I carry wirecutters with me in the cockpit! Hope you
can shed some light on this puzzle.
It would be useful to know what parts are being used
as battery and starter contactors. If I were to make a
wild-assed-guess, both your battery and starter contactors
look like this . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s701-1l.jpg
These critters are designed to carry hundreds of amps but
only switch about 70A. Your first event was probably a
light "welding" of the battery contactor when it was
closed into a hard fault.
The second event was a similar event precipitated by
the use of a continuous duty contactor as a starter contactor.
Contactors suitable for starter control look like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s702-1l.jpg
This is a special breed of cat designed to SWITCH hundreds
of amps without sticking. It's an intermittent duty device
with very high contact pressure.
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
You can join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Thanks!
Bob . . .
| Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, |
| or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't |
| help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal |
| capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, |
| and execution is carried out automatically and without pity. |
| -Lazarus Long- |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Nav Antenna Question |
In a message dated 05/09/2002 6:42:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
FSmith9890(at)aol.com writes:
> In the RV series you don't have to put them externally on the tail, put
> them in the wingtips. I have used this system on two airplanes and it
> works
> fine. I hate to see an experimental airplane loaded up with external
> antennas. The only two that need to be external is the transponder and
> the
> com. The com antenna in the wingtip will also work as a com, but at a
> reduced range.
Well, we'll just see about that! I have installed a transponder antenna in
my right wheel pant on the RV-6A, behind the baffle. When my crimper and
RG-400 get here from Bob's web store, and my transponder gets out of the shop
(it got rainwater in it and died a slow kilo-voltage death by toasting), I
will plumb it up and let everyone know how it works. I have retained my oily
bell-mounted antenna for comparison purposes for the time being. Later, I
plan to do the same type of experiment with the comm whip antennas versus
wintgtip mount Archer-design (gamma-matched quarter wave) at both 122 and 146
MHz. Given the speed I tinker at, look for results in early 2004!
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: base antenna |
In a message dated 05/10/2002 10:35:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
mprather(at)spro.net writes:
> If you want to transmit with your base station, won't you
> get pretty high SWR's with 75ohm tv cable? I think you could
> recieve just fine, but I'll bet you won't be able to talk to
> very distant aircraft. I am pretty sure the com radios are
> 50ohm output?
>
With a 50 ohm antenna, it raises your minimum achievable VSWR to 1.5, I
think. No big deal. In fact, if you choose an odd multiple of quarter
wavelengths of the 75 ohm coax, and place a 100 ohm antenna (for example,
full-wave square loop) at the far end, the transmitter will see 50 ohms, for
a perfect match. Magic!
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>I would like to replace the set of toggle switches on the over head
>panel in my Exec90 with lighted pushbutton switches. That would make it
>easier to see at dark and anytime as it's difficult to see which switch
>is what. Anyway, I have a problem because the pushbutton switches are
>rated at 2 amps while the current toggles are rated at 10 to 15 amps. I
>could just replace them with more toggles but I would like the upgrade.
>I had considered using relays but I worry about the extra drain (about
>100ma per relay with at least 6 relays). Any suggestions would be
>greatly appreciated. Thanks.
The total additional draw of relays used to boost the
capability of your switches is insignificant in terms
of system loading. Our soon to be released solid state
relays will require only 10-15 mA for control and will have
no moving contacts . . . but the plain-vanilla relays
like our S704-1 can be used as well and without concern
for the power needed to close the relay . . . it is quite
small in the grand scheme of things.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Driving LED annunciator with LR3 Controller |
>
>
>Bob
>
>I am using the LR-3 alternator controlers for my Glasair, per Figure
>Z-4. I seem to remember a thread awhile ago that the lamp output
>to the warning lamp needed something to work with a LED. I
>couldn't find the reference. Is there any problem using LED's
>instead of regular light bulbs?
Yes. First, you need a resistor to "fool" the LR-3
into thinking that a regulator lamp is still there.
Use a 220 ohm, 1 watt resistor. Then, hook your LED
lamp fixture (and any resistor needed to ballast the
LED) in parallel with the 220 ohm resistor.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Avionics requirements |
Yeah, but the AIM is NOT regulatory.
> snip
> I would like to set up a minimum IFR RV with
> > GPS only as my sole source of navigation and for non-precision
approaches.
>
> snip
> >
> > Can someone answer my question properly or refer me to the FARs which
are
> > applicable to my question.
> The archives have a lot on this subject but I think Mike Robertson(FAA)
made
> the best reference which was to AIM 1-1-21.b.1(b) which says you have to
> have something else besides the GPS. I think this is because GPS units are
> not yet "approved' for "primary" means of navigation.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | IFR Avionics requirements |
I took this issue up with my local avionics shop and was told that there
was no way I was going to be able to get a GPS approved for approaches
without a VOR and annunciator also installed. An approach approved GPS
is not legal to use for an approach (according to the avionics tech)
until a ton of paperwork is signed off on by the FAA including test
flying and the tech's signature declaring that it performs as it is
supposed to. They offered to do the paperwork for somewhere around $1k.
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Aucountry(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Avionics requirements
regardless of what anyone says, a VOR is not required to take off and
punch
through the clouds. Get an approach approved GPS, moving map, and CDI
and
you are legal to fly any non-precision approach / IFR flight in the US.
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Avionics requirements |
it is really appalling how the FAA and the avionics shops have made the
wonderful world of GPS so complicated. GPS's take all of the guess work out
of navigating.
Yet, there are next to no standards for installing an ADF system, no tests,
no certifications, just a sign off by the avionics tech. Yet, the ADF is
just as likely to point at your left wing's strobe, or require you to shut
down your alternator so it can find the station you are tuned to. And all it
does is tell you approximately what direction it is. Not how far away it
is. Great way to shoot an approach while in the klag. Something wrong with
this picture??????
By the way the AC 120-38 (ADVISORY Circular) is good reading and will help
you understand what the avionics tech is saying has to be done to get a
panel mounted GPS installed and certified. Unfortunately the FSDO's have
taken this ADVISORY circular and made it the REGULATION for proper
installation of a GPS. Which has probably been very effective in ensuring
that only 25% of the potential GPS systems have been installed - the other
75% (or more, never got installed because of the extra $1000 required to do
the paper work - and then there are the other shops that don't even want to
go there because of the hassle from their local FSDO inspectors).
Really unfortunate!
> I took this issue up with my local avionics shop and was told that there
> was no way I was going to be able to get a GPS approved for approaches
> without a VOR and annunciator also installed. An approach approved GPS
> is not legal to use for an approach (according to the avionics tech)
> until a ton of paperwork is signed off on by the FAA including test
> flying and the tech's signature declaring that it performs as it is
> supposed to. They offered to do the paperwork for somewhere around $1k.
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <bruce.gray(at)snet.net> |
| Subject: | IFR Avionics requirements |
There are some who have the opinion that if you're flying an
experimental airplane, you don't need an FAA signoff to make your GPS
IFR legal. You, if you desire, can do the flight tests, radio
interference tests, and sign off the log book.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Ronnie Brown
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Avionics requirements
it is really appalling how the FAA and the avionics shops have made the
wonderful world of GPS so complicated. GPS's take all of the guess work
out
of navigating.
Yet, there are next to no standards for installing an ADF system, no
tests,
no certifications, just a sign off by the avionics tech. Yet, the ADF
is
just as likely to point at your left wing's strobe, or require you to
shut
down your alternator so it can find the station you are tuned to. And
all it
does is tell you approximately what direction it is. Not how far away
it
is. Great way to shoot an approach while in the klag. Something wrong
with
this picture??????
By the way the AC 120-38 (ADVISORY Circular) is good reading and will
help
you understand what the avionics tech is saying has to be done to get a
panel mounted GPS installed and certified. Unfortunately the FSDO's
have
taken this ADVISORY circular and made it the REGULATION for proper
installation of a GPS. Which has probably been very effective in
ensuring
that only 25% of the potential GPS systems have been installed - the
other
75% (or more, never got installed because of the extra $1000 required to
do
the paper work - and then there are the other shops that don't even want
to
go there because of the hassle from their local FSDO inspectors).
Really unfortunate!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR Avionics requirements |
Ed Holyoke wrote:
>
>
> I took this issue up with my local avionics shop and was told that there
> was no way I was going to be able to get a GPS approved for approaches
> without a VOR and annunciator also installed. An approach approved GPS
> is not legal to use for an approach (according to the avionics tech)
> until a ton of paperwork is signed off on by the FAA including
*** The "ton" of FAA paperwork is
* A 337 for the initial installation of the GPS. This is the same as
you would do for any radio.
* An FMS ( Flight Manual Supplement ) for the GPS. The mfgr should supply
a sample, but it needs to be customized for your particular airplane.
* A second 337 for the IFR approval of the GPS. The reason for two 337's
is the flight test: with only one 337 for the entire installation, you
or the shop would have to flight test an unairworthy airplane. Bad for
insurance.
A few years ago, this was all a big deal. But now the FSDOs and shops
should pretty well have it down to a science.
I installed my own GPS, did my own paperwork, and got it signed off by my
IA ( for the first 337 ) and a Repair Station ( for the second ). The
hardest part of the whole deal was finding the Repair Station to sign off
on the second 337: a busy avionics shop has very little interest in taking
on liability for work they didn't do.
OTOH, shops usually aren't very enthusiastic about doing paperwork, and
it just *might* be possible to get one to do the physical work - you do the
paperwork - they sign. How to do the paperwork? March right down to the
FSDO and ask...
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gabe and Marisol Ferrer" <ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Easy Battery Ammeter |
Grand Rapids is now offering Hall Effect sensors, to measure current, for
their EIS.
The current sensor is very easy to install. They look like a doughnought and
you just run the wire, in which you wish to measure the current, through its
middle.
Gabe A Ferrer
ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net
Cell: 561 758 8894
Night or FAX: 561 622 0960
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne McMullen" <cmcmullen(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Easy Battery Ammeter |
Is this unit for DC voltage? Who can I contact at Grand Rapids?
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe and Marisol Ferrer" <ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Easy Battery Ammeter
>
>
> Grand Rapids is now offering Hall Effect sensors, to measure current, for
> their EIS.
>
> The current sensor is very easy to install. They look like a doughnought
and
> you just run the wire, in which you wish to measure the current, through
its
> middle.
>
> Gabe A Ferrer
> ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net
> Cell: 561 758 8894
> Night or FAX: 561 622 0960
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne McMullen" <cmcmullen(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Avionics requirements |
The reliably of modern electronic (GPS) would make any experimental aircraft
usable for IFR. My concern is keeping the engine running with all that water
in the air.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Avionics requirements
>
> it is really appalling how the FAA and the avionics shops have made the
> wonderful world of GPS so complicated. GPS's take all of the guess work
out
> of navigating.
>
> Yet, there are next to no standards for installing an ADF system, no
tests,
> no certifications, just a sign off by the avionics tech. Yet, the ADF is
> just as likely to point at your left wing's strobe, or require you to shut
> down your alternator so it can find the station you are tuned to. And all
it
> does is tell you approximately what direction it is. Not how far away it
> is. Great way to shoot an approach while in the klag. Something wrong
with
> this picture??????
>
> By the way the AC 120-38 (ADVISORY Circular) is good reading and will help
> you understand what the avionics tech is saying has to be done to get a
> panel mounted GPS installed and certified. Unfortunately the FSDO's have
> taken this ADVISORY circular and made it the REGULATION for proper
> installation of a GPS. Which has probably been very effective in ensuring
> that only 25% of the potential GPS systems have been installed - the other
> 75% (or more, never got installed because of the extra $1000 required to
do
> the paper work - and then there are the other shops that don't even want
to
> go there because of the hassle from their local FSDO inspectors).
>
> Really unfortunate!
>
>
> > I took this issue up with my local avionics shop and was told that there
> > was no way I was going to be able to get a GPS approved for approaches
> > without a VOR and annunciator also installed. An approach approved GPS
> > is not legal to use for an approach (according to the avionics tech)
> > until a ton of paperwork is signed off on by the FAA including test
> > flying and the tech's signature declaring that it performs as it is
> > supposed to. They offered to do the paperwork for somewhere around $1k.
> >
> > Ed Holyoke
> >
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AML switches and LEDs |
>Bob
>
>This may be a stupid question but, on an AML34FBA4AC01 rocker
>switch does it matter how the connections are placed. It has only
>two connections (actually 2 pairs). Is there a preference as to
>which of the fast on post is the hot lead?
No. By-in-large, switches and light bulbs do not
have a preference for which terminal is "hot" . . .
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | lasar ignition noise |
I have a new engine on an rv-8 using the lasar ignition. The ignition
operates normally but I am hearing spark noise through the headsets at idle
only when receiving, transmissions are clear. When the engine is ran up to
say 1500, the added wind, engine and increased frequency of the spark noise
makes it hard to hear individual snaps (becomes more of a buzz).
I had the local avionics shop connect a box to the antenna cable and send
tones to the com and that all checks out fine, so it had to be the antenna.
We connected another antenna but on the top side of the plane with the same
results. I then called Bob and ran this by him. On his suggestion I then went
and cut the "blue" and "green" lasar wires (to L and R on the switch) which
made the mags hot all the time with neglegable results.
I have called unison several times, vision micro, and the antenna mfg in
addition to Bob. We have went through making sure there are no ground loops
in the heatset jacks, no bad ignition leads or plugs, lasar and start switch
both grounded at firewall.
Through all this it is believed that it is simply radiated and being picked
up by the antenna. This is somehting that will not prevent me from flying
(inspection this tues.) and may not even hear it in the air, but it would be
nice to figure this out.
any suggestions?
John Link
rv-8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <Richard(at)riley.net> |
| Subject: | Re: lasar ignition noise |
May or may not be applicable to the LASAR, but when I had the same problem
with a Klaus ignition it was fixed by using automotive resistive spark plug
wires.
>
>I have a new engine on an rv-8 using the lasar ignition. The ignition
>operates normally but I am hearing spark noise through the headsets at idle
>only when receiving, transmissions are clear. When the engine is ran up to
>say 1500, the added wind, engine and increased frequency of the spark noise
>makes it hard to hear individual snaps (becomes more of a buzz).
>
>I had the local avionics shop connect a box to the antenna cable and send
>tones to the com and that all checks out fine, so it had to be the antenna.
>We connected another antenna but on the top side of the plane with the same
>results. I then called Bob and ran this by him. On his suggestion I then went
>and cut the "blue" and "green" lasar wires (to L and R on the switch) which
>made the mags hot all the time with neglegable results.
>
>I have called unison several times, vision micro, and the antenna mfg in
>addition to Bob. We have went through making sure there are no ground loops
>in the heatset jacks, no bad ignition leads or plugs, lasar and start switch
>both grounded at firewall.
>Through all this it is believed that it is simply radiated and being picked
>up by the antenna. This is somehting that will not prevent me from flying
>(inspection this tues.) and may not even hear it in the air, but it would be
>nice to figure this out.
>
>any suggestions?
>John Link
>rv-8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
>>I noticed within a couple of seconds that something wasn't right.
Immediately shutoff the master - but didn't hear a click. Smoke started
coming from #4 power and ground cables. Almost had a heart attack. After
about a minute I finally managed to cut the power cable to prevent a fire.<<
Once a long time ago in a galaxy far away I remember that the design rules
was to size the battery cable so that if there were a dead short the battery
would go dead before the wire would catch on fire. Any other wires were
protected by fusible links. I'm sure, by looking at newer cars, that this
rule has been often ignored, but it made sense to me. Looks like a #4 wire
isn't big enough to protect against that failure mode. And relays welding
closed with a high-current short is not an uncommon occurrence.
Gary Casey
ES project
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: welding relays |
>
> >>I noticed within a couple of seconds that something wasn't right.
>Immediately shutoff the master - but didn't hear a click. Smoke started
>coming from #4 power and ground cables. Almost had a heart attack. After
>about a minute I finally managed to cut the power cable to prevent a fire.<<
>
> Once a long time ago in a galaxy far away I remember that the design rules
> was to size the battery cable so that if there were a dead short the
> battery
> would go dead before the wire would catch on fire. Any other wires were
> protected by fusible links. I'm sure, by looking at newer cars, that this
> rule has been often ignored, but it made sense to me. Looks like a #4 wire
> isn't big enough to protect against that failure mode. And relays welding
> closed with a high-current short is not an uncommon occurrence.
Hadn't heard of that one. Back in the hey-day of soggy-out-of-the-box
flooded batteries, this might have been a practical thing to do
but today's 25 a.h., RG batteries are capable of 1200A fault current
or better. Besides, a hard fault through sufficiently fat wires
on a flooded battery may not precipitate a fire but geysers of
hot, acid laden water are only slightly more appealing than
a wire-fire.
Of course, one has the option of installing current limiters like
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/ckrtprot/anl.jpg . . .
These are available in some really fat sizes for folks that
are worried about it.
Keep in mind that the first event cited in this discussion was a
fault generated by a wiring error. The second event was probably
due to soggy battery. It's unusual for the same system to suffer
both events so closely spaced . . . and had the wiring error not
occurred, it would have been a single-event story.
Hard, uncontrolled faults in battery feed wires are very rare.
I've never encountered one in a single engine aircraft personally
and I've never read of one either. That doesn't mean that it hasn't
happened but since this is a core technology feature of a 40+
year career, I think it's safe to say that likelihood of having
either (1) a hard fault downstream of a stuck battery contactor
or (2) a stuck starter contactor paired with a stuck battery
contactor is very low.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Jabiru 3300 dual alternator control |
Bob,
Bruce Banks asked about the Rotax 912 system, and you noted that
this has an optional 40 amp belt driven alternator in addition to the
standard 20 amp PM alternator. You recommended diagram Z13 for dual
alternators in this situation. My situation is similar, but not
identical. The Jabiru 3300 has a robust flywheel mounted PM alternator
that should be bulletproof, almost identical to the SD8--but of course
that hard working regulator might fail. I plan to add a B&C SD20
alternator to the spline fitting on the crankshaft. Tim at B&C assures
me that this will give 20 amps at 2750 rpm in a 14 volt system. I would
like to run both alternators simultaneously, as they are each about the
same capacity and could give a total of 40 amps. Would it be reasonable
to substitute the B&C SB1B-14 regulator for the LR3 listed on Z13, and
then have both units on simultaneously? I would fuselink the SD20
output and probably connect it to the battery side of the battery
contactor.
I worry about overvoltage protection from both systems being on in
parallel. Could, for example, the PM alternator trigger the OV system
and then bring down both paralleled alternators? I don't think it
would, but I'm not fully certain how the SB1B works. The SB1B is a
standby controller. The SB1B should keep field current at zero unless a
low bus voltage is detected. Thus, I speculate that it would not be set
to crowbar the field circuit of the SD20 and blow the field fuse. This
is of some general interest, as the Jabiru system is getting popular,
and those of us who want all electric systems with redundancy could use
this alternative.
My power budget may not require both alternators on simultaneously,
but this system has the advantage of automatic switching from PM
alternator to SD20 if the PM fails, and is thus one less item to
distract the pilot. In other words, it works like the dual alternator
diagram in fig. 17-8 of the 'Connection. My plane is a Jabiru J400 with
Blue Mountain EFIS (4amps), transponder, one NAV/COMM, one COMM, strobes
(7 amps), positions lights (6amps) and an autopilot which may suck
considerable power at times. In the future I may need pitot heat. I
will use all of your recommended systems: fast-on wiring, NylaFlow
conduit, battery bus, essential bus, main bus, single point ground,
fuses, and voltage and current monitor. The one battery, two alternator
system looks like a winner.
Jim Foerster
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | IFR Equipment Required |
In a message dated 05/11/2002 2:52:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes
(slightly edited):
<< I have been searching for FAR information which stipulates the avionics
requirements for IFR navigation. I am only interested in locating the
appropriate section which identifies the NECESSARY NAVIGATION RADIOS
required for IFR flight. I understand that somewhere in the FARs it mentions
something about only needing equipment for the type of navigation and
approaches which are required for a particular flight.
The issue is...... I want to set up a light IFR RV7A to punch through
overcasts when necessary..... That's it, no real weather stuff to speak of.
I seem to remember that 1 VOR was the minimum, and that GPS alone could not
be approved as sole source IFR. I would like to set up a minimum IFR RV with
GPS only as my sole source of navigation and for non-precision approaches.
(1) I do not want to include the outdated VOR in my panel. Is this going to
be
possible? (2) Are the rules different in any way for experimental aircraft
flying under IFR. (3) Can someone answer my question properly or refer me to
the FARs which are applicable to my question. >>
5/11/2002
Hello Victor, Thank you for opening this can of worms. I doubt that we'll all
agree and come to some common specific answers, but it should be fun (and
maybe a bit educational to try).
I've inserted some numbers into your posting above in front of each
individual question in order to make answering them easier.
Lets start with number (3). What FAR Section pertains? Your basic reference
is FAR Section 91.205. This Section identifies all of the equipment and
instruments needed for VFR, VFR Night, and IFR flight for standard category
US airworthiness certificated aircraft. Does that mean that Section 91.205
doesn't apply at all to amateur built experimental aircraft and those
experimental aircraft get to have whatever they want?
Not at all because the Operating Limitations that are issued at the time of
certification of your amateur built experimental aircraft will require the
aircraft to meet the appropriate requirements of Section 91.205 depending
upon the capability that you are seeking and the equipment that you are
providing for your aircraft.
Question (2): Once your amateur built experimental aircraft gets into phase
two (after the initial flight restrictions are flown off) and you file IFR
and take off with your properly equipped aircraft in accordance with your
Operation Limitations you should expect to be treated just like any standard
type certificated aircraft in the ATC system and you should be capable of
operating IFR like any standard type certificated aircraft.
Question (1): Can get by with no VHF (VOR) navigation equipment? My answer is
a question --Why? Our present national navigation system is built around VOR
stations. It will be that way for many, many, many more years to come --
maybe through out our entire flying career. If you have both GPS and
VHFnavigation capability in your aircraft you have some backup / alternate
flexibility. (I flew for many years with a single navigation capability
(TACAN only) in high performance aircraft -- having no back up really sucks).
Sure, other posters have told you that no VHF navigation capability is
"legal". I don't know how they intend to prove that, but you can bet the
first time some ATC controller starts out to help you do what you want to do
and he includes some VOR requirement and you tell him "Unable" what you may
very likely hear in return is "Well then, I'm unable also".
My recommendation: In your other posting you indicated that you were planning
on putting in a UPSAT SL-40 VHF Comm. Why not put in a UPSAT SL-30 VHF
NavComm instead? It is an extremely capable piece of equipment (can handle
two VOR station signals at the same time for intersection capability). If you
connect it to the external CDI that you are planning in such a fashion that
you can switch the external CDI feed from either the GPS or the VHF Nav you
will have a very flexible and capable system.
Now about "light IFR" and "punching through". I don't want to get up on my
soap box in this posting, but please let me make two philosophical
observations:
A) Many pilots have busted their ass in attempts to just "punch through"
(either going up or down) what was supposed to be "just a layer".
B) The phrase "Light IFR" is a lot like the phrase "a little bit pregnant".
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne McMullen" <cmcmullen(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Equipment Required |
I must agree. If you go IFR, be prepared to go FULL IFR.You could vectored
to a hold or some other IFR trap.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <BAKEROCB(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Equipment Required
>
> In a message dated 05/11/2002 2:52:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes
> (slightly edited):
>
> << I have been searching for FAR information which stipulates the avionics
> requirements for IFR navigation. I am only interested in locating the
> appropriate section which identifies the NECESSARY NAVIGATION RADIOS
> required for IFR flight. I understand that somewhere in the FARs it
mentions
> something about only needing equipment for the type of navigation and
> approaches which are required for a particular flight.
>
> The issue is...... I want to set up a light IFR RV7A to punch through
> overcasts when necessary..... That's it, no real weather stuff to speak
of.
> I seem to remember that 1 VOR was the minimum, and that GPS alone could
not
> be approved as sole source IFR. I would like to set up a minimum IFR RV
with
> GPS only as my sole source of navigation and for non-precision
approaches.
> (1) I do not want to include the outdated VOR in my panel. Is this going
to
> be
> possible? (2) Are the rules different in any way for experimental
aircraft
> flying under IFR. (3) Can someone answer my question properly or refer me
to
> the FARs which are applicable to my question. >>
>
> 5/11/2002
>
> Hello Victor, Thank you for opening this can of worms. I doubt that we'll
all
> agree and come to some common specific answers, but it should be fun (and
> maybe a bit educational to try).
>
> I've inserted some numbers into your posting above in front of each
> individual question in order to make answering them easier.
>
> Lets start with number (3). What FAR Section pertains? Your basic
reference
> is FAR Section 91.205. This Section identifies all of the equipment and
> instruments needed for VFR, VFR Night, and IFR flight for standard
category
> US airworthiness certificated aircraft. Does that mean that Section 91.205
> doesn't apply at all to amateur built experimental aircraft and those
> experimental aircraft get to have whatever they want?
>
> Not at all because the Operating Limitations that are issued at the time
of
> certification of your amateur built experimental aircraft will require the
> aircraft to meet the appropriate requirements of Section 91.205 depending
> upon the capability that you are seeking and the equipment that you are
> providing for your aircraft.
>
> Question (2): Once your amateur built experimental aircraft gets into
phase
> two (after the initial flight restrictions are flown off) and you file IFR
> and take off with your properly equipped aircraft in accordance with your
> Operation Limitations you should expect to be treated just like any
standard
> type certificated aircraft in the ATC system and you should be capable of
> operating IFR like any standard type certificated aircraft.
>
> Question (1): Can get by with no VHF (VOR) navigation equipment? My answer
is
> a question --Why? Our present national navigation system is built around
VOR
> stations. It will be that way for many, many, many more years to come --
> maybe through out our entire flying career. If you have both GPS and
> VHFnavigation capability in your aircraft you have some backup / alternate
> flexibility. (I flew for many years with a single navigation capability
> (TACAN only) in high performance aircraft -- having no back up really
sucks).
>
> Sure, other posters have told you that no VHF navigation capability is
> "legal". I don't know how they intend to prove that, but you can bet the
> first time some ATC controller starts out to help you do what you want to
do
> and he includes some VOR requirement and you tell him "Unable" what you
may
> very likely hear in return is "Well then, I'm unable also".
>
> My recommendation: In your other posting you indicated that you were
planning
> on putting in a UPSAT SL-40 VHF Comm. Why not put in a UPSAT SL-30 VHF
> NavComm instead? It is an extremely capable piece of equipment (can handle
> two VOR station signals at the same time for intersection capability). If
you
> connect it to the external CDI that you are planning in such a fashion
that
> you can switch the external CDI feed from either the GPS or the VHF Nav
you
> will have a very flexible and capable system.
>
> Now about "light IFR" and "punching through". I don't want to get up on my
> soap box in this posting, but please let me make two philosophical
> observations:
>
> A) Many pilots have busted their ass in attempts to just "punch through"
> (either going up or down) what was supposed to be "just a layer".
>
> B) The phrase "Light IFR" is a lot like the phrase "a little bit
pregnant".
>
> 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Jabiru 3300 dual alternator control |
Bob,
Bruce Banks asked about the Rotax 912 system, and you noted that
this has an optional 40 amp belt driven alternator in addition to the
standard 20 amp PM alternator. You recommended diagram Z13 for dual
alternators in this situation. My situation is similar, but not
identical. The Jabiru 3300 has a robust flywheel mounted PM alternator
that should be bulletproof, almost identical to the SD8--but of course
that hard working regulator might fail. I plan to add a B&C SD20
alternator to the spline fitting on the crankshaft. Tim at B&C assures
me that this will give 20 amps at 2750 rpm in a 14 volt system. I would
like to run both alternators simultaneously, as they are each about the
same capacity and could give a total of 40 amps. Would it be reasonable
to substitute the B&C SB1B-14 regulator for the LR3 listed on Z13, and
then have both units on simultaneously? I would fuselink the SD20
output and probably connect it to the battery side of the battery
contactor.
I worry about overvoltage protection from both systems being on in
parallel. Could, for example, the PM alternator trigger the OV system
and then bring down both paralleled alternators? I don't think it
would, but I'm not fully certain how the SB1B works. The SB1B is a
standby controller. The SB1B should keep field current at zero unless a
low bus voltage is detected. Thus, I speculate that it would not be set
to crowbar the field circuit of the SD20 and blow the field fuse. This
is of some general interest, as the Jabiru system is getting popular,
and those of us who want all electric systems with redundancy could use
this alternative.
My power budget may not require both alternators on simultaneously,
but this system has the advantage of automatic switching from PM
alternator to SD20 if the PM fails, and is thus one less item to
distract the pilot. In other words, it works like the dual alternator
diagram in fig. 17-8 of the 'Connection. My plane is a Jabiru J400 with
Blue Mountain EFIS (4amps), transponder, one NAV/COMM, one COMM, strobes
(7 amps), position lights (6amps) and an autopilot which may suck
considerable power at times. In the future I may need pitot heat. I
will use all of your recommended systems: fast-on wiring, NylaFlow
conduit, battery bus, essential bus, main bus, single point ground,
fuses, and voltage and current monitor. The one battery, two alternator
system looks like a winner if I can get reliable control.
Jim Foerster
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | PM alternator upgrade for reliability |
Bob,
While designing a second alternator for my Jabiru 3300, it occurred
to me that the major failure mode for a permanent magnet (PM) is
regulator failure. Unlike a field regulator which controls at most 5
amps, the poor PM regulator must pass the whole output. For the Rotax,
this is 18 amps, for the Jabiru about 20. Since the Rotax, Jabiru, and
SD-8 all have the permanent magnets mounted such that centrifugal force
just presses them into a seat, they can't fly out. The coils are fixed
with no sliding contacts. The Rotax and Jabiru alternators are part of
the flywheel, so there is no drive system to fail. Given these facts,
would a backup regulator be as good as a whole separate PM alternator?
Three S704-1 relays could switch the two coil leads and the output lead.
A fourth relay might be needed for the second OV circuit: the first OV
relay would automatically switch to the backup regulator. Before
committing this to copper, a failure analysis should be done, and I
don't have any field experience to back up the above line of reasoning.
What do think, Bob? Could this become another Z diagram? Cheaper and
lighter and simpler than a separate alternator.
Jim Foerster
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aucountry(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Equipment Required |
In a message dated 5/11/02 06:17:29 PM, BAKEROCB(at)aol.com writes:
<< Sure, other posters have told you that no VHF navigation capability is
"legal". I don't know how they intend to prove that, but you can bet the
first time some ATC controller starts out to help you do what you want to do
and he includes some VOR requirement and you tell him "Unable" what you may
very likely hear in return is "Well then, I'm unable also".
>>
Well, actually, the GPS he proposes will fly to any VOR just as easily as it
would any other fix. Punching in nearest VOR and direct to will reset the
GPS to fly to that station (target). There is no legal requirement to use
any ground based stations unless that is what you have in your plane.
No one ever said not having a backup nav aid was smart thinking. he asked if
he could fly IFR with a GPS only. The answer is yes.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Lawson <jwlawson(at)hargray.com> |
| Subject: | Question re: "basic" kit of essential tools/supplies |
Hi, Bob,
Just curious...for those of us who are inexperienced in dealing with things electrical...would
it be worth your time and $$ to put together and sell a basic kit of the tools
(crimper,
soldering tool, solder, and the most-used sizes of wire, connectors, splices, etc)?
I mention
this because I'm building an RV-6, and it would have been useful for me to have
had some of
those items (especially the basic tools) to do things like the wiring in my fuel
tank for the
capacitance fuel senders, and (coming up) the landing lights...not to mention the
Bob Archer
VOR antenna that I'm planning on putting in the wingtip...just a thought, might
be useful for
us novices who aren't sure what they need.
Semper Fi
John
RV-6 (left wing)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Equipment Required |
While I do agree with the intent of the below that IFR flight ops be taken
quite seriously, I would suggest that the statement that the VOR network
will be around for "many, many, many more years" may be incorrect.
With all the money that has been spent by the US govt. on GPS, with more
money going into "GPS II", there are efforts underway to realize some of the
advertised dollar savings. One avenue being explored by the FAA (and other
govts) is the possibility of using GPS for enroute navigation and shutting
down the VOR network. Lots of money is also being spent on enhanced GPS
landing systems (do a web search on LAAS and WAAS for more) which would
allow most (or all) ILS systems to be shutdown as well.
Yes, there are technical problems, but the costs savings available through
eliminating VOR and ILS ground equipment, maintenance personnel, flight
checking, etc. are big enough to keep this effort going. Plus there are
operational advantages such as being able to provide a precision approach
capability at most any location where one feels like doing the survey work.
The timetable of when to close down the existing VOR/ILS network is a highly
political thing when there is a big installed base of current users but it
will happen sometime. As more and more users start installing and using GPS
and discovering the operational advantages, the decision will get easier.
Back up and redundancy options are part of the equation too and have not
been overlooked.
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
(Did enough single TACAN IFR myself to learn not to like it...)
----- Original Message -----
From: <BAKEROCB(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Equipment Required
>
> In a message dated 05/11/2002 2:52:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes
> (slightly edited):
>
> << I have been searching for FAR information which stipulates the avionics
> requirements for IFR navigation. I am only interested in locating the
> appropriate section which identifies the NECESSARY NAVIGATION RADIOS
> required for IFR flight. I understand that somewhere in the FARs it
mentions
> something about only needing equipment for the type of navigation and
> approaches which are required for a particular flight.
>
> The issue is...... I want to set up a light IFR RV7A to punch through
> overcasts when necessary..... That's it, no real weather stuff to speak
of.
> I seem to remember that 1 VOR was the minimum, and that GPS alone could
not
> be approved as sole source IFR. I would like to set up a minimum IFR RV
with
> GPS only as my sole source of navigation and for non-precision
approaches.
> (1) I do not want to include the outdated VOR in my panel. Is this going
to
> be
> possible? (2) Are the rules different in any way for experimental
aircraft
> flying under IFR. (3) Can someone answer my question properly or refer me
to
> the FARs which are applicable to my question. >>
>
> 5/11/2002
>
> Hello Victor, Thank you for opening this can of worms. I doubt that we'll
all
> agree and come to some common specific answers, but it should be fun (and
> maybe a bit educational to try).
>
> I've inserted some numbers into your posting above in front of each
> individual question in order to make answering them easier.
>
> Lets start with number (3). What FAR Section pertains? Your basic
reference
> is FAR Section 91.205. This Section identifies all of the equipment and
> instruments needed for VFR, VFR Night, and IFR flight for standard
category
> US airworthiness certificated aircraft. Does that mean that Section 91.205
> doesn't apply at all to amateur built experimental aircraft and those
> experimental aircraft get to have whatever they want?
>
> Not at all because the Operating Limitations that are issued at the time
of
> certification of your amateur built experimental aircraft will require the
> aircraft to meet the appropriate requirements of Section 91.205 depending
> upon the capability that you are seeking and the equipment that you are
> providing for your aircraft.
>
> Question (2): Once your amateur built experimental aircraft gets into
phase
> two (after the initial flight restrictions are flown off) and you file IFR
> and take off with your properly equipped aircraft in accordance with your
> Operation Limitations you should expect to be treated just like any
standard
> type certificated aircraft in the ATC system and you should be capable of
> operating IFR like any standard type certificated aircraft.
>
> Question (1): Can get by with no VHF (VOR) navigation equipment? My answer
is
> a question --Why? Our present national navigation system is built around
VOR
> stations. It will be that way for many, many, many more years to come --
> maybe through out our entire flying career. If you have both GPS and
> VHFnavigation capability in your aircraft you have some backup / alternate
> flexibility. (I flew for many years with a single navigation capability
> (TACAN only) in high performance aircraft -- having no back up really
sucks).
>
> Sure, other posters have told you that no VHF navigation capability is
> "legal". I don't know how they intend to prove that, but you can bet the
> first time some ATC controller starts out to help you do what you want to
do
> and he includes some VOR requirement and you tell him "Unable" what you
may
> very likely hear in return is "Well then, I'm unable also".
>
> My recommendation: In your other posting you indicated that you were
planning
> on putting in a UPSAT SL-40 VHF Comm. Why not put in a UPSAT SL-30 VHF
> NavComm instead? It is an extremely capable piece of equipment (can handle
> two VOR station signals at the same time for intersection capability). If
you
> connect it to the external CDI that you are planning in such a fashion
that
> you can switch the external CDI feed from either the GPS or the VHF Nav
you
> will have a very flexible and capable system.
>
> Now about "light IFR" and "punching through". I don't want to get up on my
> soap box in this posting, but please let me make two philosophical
> observations:
>
> A) Many pilots have busted their ass in attempts to just "punch through"
> (either going up or down) what was supposed to be "just a layer".
>
> B) The phrase "Light IFR" is a lot like the phrase "a little bit
pregnant".
>
> 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gabe and Marisol Ferrer" <ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Easy Battery Ammeter. Where to Get Sensor. |
Contact Grand Rapids Technologies at 616 583 8000. Ask for Gregg.
The sensor works on DC.
Gabe A Ferrer
ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net
Cell: 561 758 8894
Night or FAX: 561 622 0960
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne McMullen" <cmcmullen(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Easy Battery Ammeter. Where to Get Sensor. |
Thanks for the reply.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe and Marisol Ferrer" <ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Easy Battery Ammeter. Where to Get Sensor.
>
> Contact Grand Rapids Technologies at 616 583 8000. Ask for Gregg.
>
> The sensor works on DC.
>
> Gabe A Ferrer
> ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net
> Cell: 561 758 8894
> Night or FAX: 561 622 0960
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick DeCiero <rsdec1(at)star.net> |
| Subject: | Re: welding relays |
This discussion makes a strong case for a mechanical disconnect switch instead
of an
electrical master battery solonoid.
Here is some advise that I hope will help others. I often see people ask a question,
then
stating that they had seen it before and cannot find it again. I have done the
same thing. In
an attempt to catalog the info where I might be able to find it, I copy what I
find is
interesting and anything that I think will be needed in the future and paste it
to a WORD
document and save it under an appropriate alphabetical folder within my electrical
folder.
Good luck,
Rick D.
>
> >>I noticed within a couple of seconds that something wasn't right.
>Immediately shutoff the master - but didn't hear a click. Smoke started
>coming from #4 power and ground cables. Almost had a heart attack. After
>about a minute I finally managed to cut the power cable to prevent a fire.<<
>
> Once a long time ago in a galaxy far away I remember that the design rules
> was to size the battery cable so that if there were a dead short the
> battery
> would go dead before the wire would catch on fire. Any other wires were
> protected by fusible links. I'm sure, by looking at newer cars, that this
> rule has been often ignored, but it made sense to me. Looks like a #4 wire
> isn't big enough to protect against that failure mode. And relays welding
> closed with a high-current short is not an uncommon occurrence.
Hadn't heard of that one. Back in the hey-day of soggy-out-of-the-box
flooded batteries, this might have been a practical thing to do
but today's 25 a.h., RG batteries are capable of 1200A fault current
or better. Besides, a hard fault through sufficiently fat wires
on a flooded battery may not precipitate a fire but geysers of
hot, acid laden water are only slightly more appealing than
a wire-fire.
Of course, one has the option of installing current limiters like
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/ckrtprot/anl.jpg . . .
These are available in some really fat sizes for folks that
are worried about it.
Keep in mind that the first event cited in this discussion was a
fault generated by a wiring error. The second event was probably
due to soggy battery. It's unusual for the same system to suffer
both events so closely spaced . . . and had the wiring error not
occurred, it would have been a single-event story.
Hard, uncontrolled faults in battery feed wires are very rare.
I've never encountered one in a single engine aircraft personally
and I've never read of one either. That doesn't mean that it hasn't
happened but since this is a core technology feature of a 40+
year career, I think it's safe to say that likelihood of having
either (1) a hard fault downstream of a stuck battery contactor
or (2) a stuck starter contactor paired with a stuck battery
contactor is very low.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR equipment required |
>
>
>Victor & Bob, I am deep into wiring (Keeping the smoke inside thanks to
>this great list) and have been told by the locale FAA Inspector that my
>plane will meet minimal IFR Standards at least by my Ohio Inspector.
> I have a Garmin 430, Apollo SL-30 & Garmin 327 Transponder. I won't
>be using an external VOR Head (SL-30 has a built in needle) and as these 2
>radios are approach certified. The sure death of VOR Navigation in the
>future, should I believe make this a non-issue with most DARS & FAA
>Inspectors.
> Thanks Bob for letting us talk a little about Avionics on your
>list.
It's not my list, it's YOUR list. Any discussion in search of
truth and/or the elegant solution is well within the Matt's
charter for the activities he hosts on his servers.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: welding relays |
>
> This discussion makes a strong case for a mechanical disconnect
> switch instead of an
>electrical master battery solonoid.
How so a STRONG case? We might just as well have been discussing
prop bolt failures, wing strut failures or any other event for which
the probability is small but not ZERO.
Let us take care lest we worry small probabilities into STRONG
cases with a resulting waste of intellectual resources, time and
dollars that INCREASES weight, parts count and burdens a pilot with more
things to worry about and be prepared to react to.
Before we can call this a STRONG case, I'll suggest some research
into all of the dark-n-stormy night stories and service difficulty
reports published over a substantial chunk of years would be in order.
I've not read them all but I've read a lot. I've also gathered a lot
of observations on other DC powered vehicles over the years. Welding
of contactors is very rare and most often induced by operational errors.
I've not experienced it even once in my lifetime.
>Here is some advise that I hope will help others. I often see people ask a
>question, then
>stating that they had seen it before and cannot find it again. I have done
>the same thing. In
>an attempt to catalog the info where I might be able to find it, I copy
>what I find is
>interesting and anything that I think will be needed in the future and
>paste it to a WORD
>document and save it under an appropriate alphabetical folder within my
>electrical folder.
>Good luck,
I'd like to think that we're all here to improve on the
odds of comfortable and enjoyable use of these machines
though considered discussion of the physics as opposed to
hoping for "luck" . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "basic" kit of essential tools/supplies |
>
>Hi, Bob,
>
>Just curious...for those of us who are inexperienced in dealing with
>things electrical...would
>it be worth your time and $$ to put together and sell a basic kit of the
>tools (crimper,
>soldering tool, solder, and the most-used sizes of wire, connectors,
>splices, etc)? I mention
>this because I'm building an RV-6, and it would have been useful for me to
>have had some of
>those items (especially the basic tools) to do things like the wiring in
>my fuel tank for the
>capacitance fuel senders, and (coming up) the landing lights...not to
>mention the Bob Archer
>VOR antenna that I'm planning on putting in the wingtip...just a thought,
>might be useful for
>us novices who aren't sure what they need.
>
>Semper Fi
>John
>RV-6 (left wing)
I'll suggest that some time browsing through our website
catalog will produce results very close to what you're
asking for.
Unlike catalogs of folks who are in the tools business,
our catalog was developed based upon a need to practice
techniques and skills described right here on the
AeroElectric List and others in which I've participated
over the years.
If you have NO tools whatsoever, then you would not be
wasting your dollars to simply acquire one of everything
we offer. There are no duplications of capabilities
across the spectrum of tools offered and there is very
low probability that you will not find several instances
where each of these tools will be needed in the completion
of your project.
Obviously, we did not choose to offer additional tools
commonly available elsewhere. You're going to need
screwdrivers, wrenches, pliers, wire cutters and strippers,
etc. But you can get these pretty much as needed and
when needed from local suppliers. The things we choose
to offer from our website are those items you won't
find at Sears.
Just for grins, I dug out the toolbox I developed for
my grab-it-and-run tasks at work. The toolbox is about
4" x 10" x 3" and fits in my briefcase. With the
items it contains, I have successfully tackled a lot
of tasks. The box contains:
Propane powered soldering iron
Propane powered heat gun
(Of course, propane powered tools were chosen
for their size and portability, plug-in-the-wall
devices are more suited for daily shop activities)
Small diagonal cutters (Craftsman - you
ARE going to break them some time,
Sears will replace for free which
makes them a bargain)
Cheap wire strippers
Small needle nose pliers (Craftsman again . . .)
Extraction tools for D-sub and MS34xx series
connector pins
Hex wrench set (type that folds up like
pocket knife)
X-acto knife (one that I built that holds
spare bladed in handle)
Xcellite tool set of slot and phillips
screwdrivers and nutdrivers through
3/8"
Open/box wrenches for 3/8, 7/16, 1/2"
Odd assortment of male/female pins for
connectors cited above.
RCT-3 D-sub crimp tool
Solder and solder wick
Cheap, super slim volt/ohmmeter from
Radio Shack . . . a rudimentary instrument
at best but capable of measuring and deducing
problems that a wet finger won't do.
Add to this list the extra compliment of crimp
tools from our website and I think you'll find that
the majority of wiring tasks for your airplane
are immanently doable.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RW 162f Electrical system |
| From: | Vince Ackerman <vack(at)teleport.com> |
Bob and anyone who can help:
I am building a Rotorway 162f helicopter which has two FADEC computers that
run the engine and electronic ignition. I have several questions about the
electrical system which seems to be designed rather poorly. I wish I could
upload a schematic or diagram so you could take a look at it but instead
I'll try and describe it instead.
It seems to be a simple system with basically two buses:
The "essential buss" has:
2 Fadec's
2 Fuel pumps
2 Ignition modules
Each Fadec has it's own 20 amp fuse
One of each fuel pump and ignition module are paired together off of a 15
amp fuse.
The buss is supplied by two wires (seem like 12 awg but can't be sure) that
run from the battery through two 30 amp fuses.
It is also supplied directly from the alternator by one of two b-lead wires,
the second of which goes directly to the 12v battery. They are both
protected by 30 amp inline fuses at the alternator.
There is no battery contactor or switch.
The second buss is interesting because:
In addition to the avionics and instrument power leading from it, they have
an alternator field switch coming off a 7.5 amp fuse that also supplies the
avionics.
The starter relay and key switch also come off this bus through a 7.5 amp
fuse that it shares with the instrument power tap.
This buss is supplied with power from the battery only through a third 30
amp fuse.
The alternator was an upgrade when I purchased their lighting kit from a 30
amp to a 54 amp. It doesn't seem to have included larger wire for the b
leads, one looks like 10 or 12 awg and the second is smaller, maybe 14 or 16
awg.
I intend to put a landing light, nav and strobes and instrument lights and
B/C dimmer on the second buss. There will also be a Garmin 250xl GPS/Comm
and 327 xnpdr off that buss.
The kit comes with a wiring harness that just plugs together so I'm a little
hesitant to mess around with it, but I'm at the stage where I can modify it
with out too much trouble. I'd like to change it to match the schematic for
a light acft that's in your book but don't want to add any weight.
My questions are these:
Why all the duplicate paths from battery to busses, and alternator to bus
and battery? If one side of the 30 amp supply from battery shorts or
overloads, wouldn't it just blow the other supply side too? Same with the
alternator B-leads.
I want to replace all the fuses with breakers. I don't like having
components sharing fuses, especially the fuel pumps and ignition modules.
Should I also put the alt field on the essential bus? How about the starter
relay? I bought a B/C crowbar OV device and plan to install it as well.
All the wiring diagrams in your book show the alternator going to the
contactor and then to the busses. Does the essential buss require the two 30
amp battery feeds plus the alternator feed?
I would like add a contactor for the battery and a battery master switch. I
picked up an 80 amp continuous duty relay from the local autoparts store
(Eclin STS 80?) that I thought was a copy of the ones I've seen on other
aircraft and thought I'd add the diode as per Bob's book. Will this work?
I also want to replace the two small wires with one larger cable from the
alternator to the output side of the contactor and eliminate the direct line
to the first buss. Would that be smart or would it cause other problems? If
there were a problem with the battery or contactor, the direct feed from the
alternator would still power the FADEC's. What wire size would be
appropriate for a 54 amp output? Should I put a fusable link to protect it?
Since this engine requires power to run the FADECs and ignition, what is the
minimum voltage the contactor requires to stay open? If the alternator dies,
will low voltage open the relay and kill the engine? I think the factory
told me that the FADEC's require 10v minimum. Am I adding a source of
failure when there was none to begin with?
A strobe power pack requires 7.5 amps, landing light 8 amps, nav and
instrument power and lights, radio and xnpdr consume (?). Will this overload
the second buss with only 30 amp protection?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions
Vince Ackerman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PM alternator upgrade for reliability |
>
>
>Bob,
> While designing a second alternator for my Jabiru 3300, it occurred
>to me that the major failure mode for a permanent magnet (PM) is
>regulator failure. Unlike a field regulator which controls at most 5
>amps, the poor PM regulator must pass the whole output. For the Rotax,
>this is 18 amps, for the Jabiru about 20. Since the Rotax, Jabiru, and
>SD-8 all have the permanent magnets mounted such that centrifugal force
>just presses them into a seat, they can't fly out. The coils are fixed
>with no sliding contacts. The Rotax and Jabiru alternators are part of
>the flywheel, so there is no drive system to fail. Given these facts,
>would a backup regulator be as good as a whole separate PM alternator?
Excellent question. To provide a good answer, we would have to
consider the field history on the existing rectifier/regulator
assemblies. I do recall a lot of unhappy discussion about the Rotax
912 regulator on Kitfox and Pulsar lists in years past but I've
not heard much lately (of course I don't participate on those
lists any more either . . . ) Does anyone have any current insight
to offer on these products?
>
>Three S704-1 relays could switch the two coil leads and the output lead.
> A fourth relay might be needed for the second OV circuit: the first OV
>relay would automatically switch to the backup regulator. Before
>committing this to copper, a failure analysis should be done, and I
>don't have any field experience to back up the above line of reasoning.
Here's the rub . . . as a general rule, relays are considered to
have the greatest negative impact on MTBF of any system. Now, that's
not to say that inclusion of relays makes system failure a frequent
certainty but given that the rectifier regulator is all solid state,
and has no relays, adding very many relays to the system might have
a more negative impact on total system reliability than could be
offset by having two regulators.
Given the weight and size of the regulator, I think I would
rather hang my hat on the concept of having an e-bus powered
with enough capacity to get me comfortably on the ground at
airport of intended destination. This is something that we
do ANYHOW and makes whatever else you do with respect to
alternator system reliability a mute point.
As long as you have a good e-bus/battery combo, then it wouldn't
add a lot of risk to try backing up the main regulator with a
relay-switched alternate . . . it just MIGHT perform as desired
but there is risk that the whole alternator system has become
less reliable due to inclusion of relays that are common to
both systems. We already have one relay in the output of both
a Rotax and SD-8 system for control and to implement OV
protection. (I'm toying with a ROBUST crowbar OV design
that would be able to pry open a 20A breaker . . . but I'm
still stuck with the problem of control . . . don't have
anything more elegant to propose than the OVM-14 and S704-1
combo . . . yet . . .)
The neat thing about an SD-8 or SD-20 backup alternator is
that they stand totally alone from the main system and
not run except when needed so that parts are not subject to
failures driven by service stress.
>
>What do think, Bob? Could this become another Z diagram? Cheaper and
>lighter and simpler than a separate alternator.
Is it? The SD-8 weighs in at about 4 pounds installed. How much
does a Rotax rectifier/regulator weigh? How much does it cost?
Much less than an SD-8?
Excellent questions worthy of good critical review. . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
| Subject: | IFR Equipment Required |
Basically I think that "OC" is on the money here. Your opinion may vary.
Two specific comments:
1. I still remember my IFR instructor drilling into my head that ... "you
are either IFR or VFR and never both. If you are IFR be prepared to do
EVERYTHING IFR...". Basically I took it as once I request IFR services and
enter the system, I must be prepared to do all the "basic" things that ATC
asks of me unless I have an emergency. I do understand though the need at
times to "bust through" what is a **KNOWN** light layer of fog etc. The
decision is yours of course.
2. In our RV6 that is being built as a *VFR* plane, it has the King KMD 150
moving map display (NOT IFR) and the UPSAT SL40 (comm only). But, it is
wired so that in the future a) the SL40 can be slid out and replaced with
the SL30 (tray and harnesses in for SL30), b) the CDI out of the KMD 150,
which is brought to an accessible terminal block and from there to the
NAVAID autopilot, can be easily connected to a CDI if we decide to put one
in the "reserved" hole for same. In the future the CDI out of the SL30 can
either replace the KMD 150 CDI out or be added via a switch for a "legit"
IFR setup. In this setup, we will have VOR/Localizer/ILS approaches
potentially available to us. The moving map GPS would be a visual aid in
this scenario.
You might want to consider something similar. The added cost is the delta
between the SL40 and the SL30 plus a CDI. If you want to be in the system,
it may well be worth the $2-3K.
James
[stuff deleted ...]
> Question (2): Once your amateur built experimental aircraft gets
> into phase
> two (after the initial flight restrictions are flown off) and you
> file IFR
> and take off with your properly equipped aircraft in accordance with your
> Operation Limitations you should expect to be treated just like
> any standard
> type certificated aircraft in the ATC system and you should be capable of
> operating IFR like any standard type certificated aircraft.
>
[stuff deleted ...]
> Sure, other posters have told you that no VHF navigation capability is
> "legal". I don't know how they intend to prove that, but you can bet the
> first time some ATC controller starts out to help you do what you
> want to do
> and he includes some VOR requirement and you tell him "Unable"
> what you may
> very likely hear in return is "Well then, I'm unable also".
>
> My recommendation: In your other posting you indicated that you
> were planning
> on putting in a UPSAT SL-40 VHF Comm. Why not put in a UPSAT SL-30 VHF
> NavComm instead? It is an extremely capable piece of equipment
> (can handle
> two VOR station signals at the same time for intersection
> capability). If you
> connect it to the external CDI that you are planning in such a
> fashion that
> you can switch the external CDI feed from either the GPS or the
> VHF Nav you
> will have a very flexible and capable system.
>
> Now about "light IFR" and "punching through". I don't want to get
> up on my
> soap box in this posting, but please let me make two philosophical
> observations:
>
> A) Many pilots have busted their ass in attempts to just "punch through"
> (either going up or down) what was supposed to be "just a layer".
>
> B) The phrase "Light IFR" is a lot like the phrase "a little bit
> pregnant".
>
> 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Handheld power conditioning |
Hello Bob,
after going through the seminar wirebook I've found Page V25, is this
exactly describing what you mention below? Unfortunately we have no seminars
over here in Europe where we could gain from your knowledge. Should the
whole setup be placed in a special metal case? I'm planing to have three
such ports available on my panel, should I separate them each in one case or
can they be put on one printboard. What does the note exactly mean?
Many thanks for your feedback
Werner (still many decisions to do electrical wise)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Bendix King Handheld KX99
>
> >
> >
> >To
> >I have made the sin of shutting off the battrey master before shutting
> >the engine (912 Rotax). my handheld transceiver KX-99 (Bendix King)
> ......................
>
>
> If I were going to tie any hand helds into ship's power,
> I would probably use a Radio Shack 270-030 noise filter
> downstream of a small fuse (1A) and then put a couple
> of 1N4745, glass zener diodes across the output feeding
> the radio.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Equipment Required |
>
>While I do agree with the intent of the below that IFR flight ops be taken
>quite seriously, I would suggest that the statement that the VOR network
>will be around for "many, many, many more years" may be incorrect.
>
>With all the money that has been spent by the US govt. on GPS, with more
>money going into "GPS II", there are efforts underway to realize some of the
>advertised dollar savings. One avenue being explored by the FAA (and other
>govts) is the possibility of using GPS for enroute navigation and shutting
>down the VOR network. Lots of money is also being spent on enhanced GPS
>landing systems (do a web search on LAAS and WAAS for more) which would
>allow most (or all) ILS systems to be shutdown as well.
>
>Yes, there are technical problems, but the costs savings available through
>eliminating VOR and ILS ground equipment, maintenance personnel, flight
>checking, etc. are big enough to keep this effort going. Plus there are
>operational advantages such as being able to provide a precision approach
>capability at most any location where one feels like doing the survey work.
>The timetable of when to close down the existing VOR/ILS network is a highly
>political thing when there is a big installed base of current users but it
>will happen sometime. As more and more users start installing and using GPS
>and discovering the operational advantages, the decision will get easier.
>Back up and redundancy options are part of the equation too and have not
>been overlooked.
From the manufacturing side of the issue, we KNOW that VOR, ILS,
ADF and GS technologies have far outlasted their practical
usefulness and persist only due to the lethargic, uninspired
and unmotivated pleasure of government.
We were told over a decade ago that ground based VOR and ADF
facilities were going to be phased out by attrition . . .as
they crapped out, they would not be repaired. Yeah . . . right.
In the mean time, great committees assigned guardianship of our
futures plod ever onward, oblivious of the fact that the value
of their deliberations is inversely proportional to the square
of the number of people working the task. The Coast Guard has
been navigating with one meter precision over our nation's waterways
using GPS navigation for many years . . . they pressed some old
low frequency beacon technology into service to provide wide area
dissemination of GPS error data to boats over a decade ago. Hmmm . . .
they obviously screwed up . . . not enough committees . . . they
just went out and did it.
You and I, out there working with what we can buy off the shelf
today are better equipped to evaluate what we can do as a matter
of routine than is the most dedicated of public servants. It's
all well and good to seek out "approved", "certified", or "TSO'd"
equipment and installations but NONE of this guarantees diddly-squat
with respect to the outcome of any venture into an IFR situation.
Plenty of faithfully blessed systems operated by qualified
pilots bite the big rock every year.
Bottom line is that it's really up to all of YOU to decide
what can comfortably navigated based on evaluation of
equipment you have and your skill to use it. When you're
over the top in the sun and want to penetrate down to 600'
ceilings below, the person from whom you request a clearance
isn't going to ask you if all your goodies are blessed and
whether or not you have the foggiest notion of what you're
doing. They have every right to expect that you wouldn't
ask for that clearance if you were not PERSONALLY confident
of the outcome. Just because all the stuff in your panel is
when you need it.
If you've flown that ADF or other non-precision approach into
your home field a dozen times VFR using a couple of Walmart
hand-held GPS receivers for reference, what critically
thinking scientist would think you were better off flying
that approach with the 30 year old radio on the panel? And
if you DO use those Walmart hand helds, the guy watching
you on radar may think you're the most skilled ADF pilot he's
ever seen! How many string-straight, 20kt crosswind
ADF approaches do you supposed he's witnessed?
Yeah, we gotta cross the T(s) and dot the I(s) to get shed
of bureaucratic attention - just to gain admittance to
the party. However, I'm not sure I'd purchase front row
tickets when the ones up in the nose-bleed section are
cheaper. After the bureaucrats smile and go away, I'll suggest
you are better off becoming good at what you understand,
can demonstrate that works and is more reliable because
you might have bought a number of el' cheapo flight
aids instead of one gold-plated one.
Yeah, roll it up in a ball and the bureaucrats will be all
over the wreckage. But what difference does it make then
as to the various blessings your stuff had or didn't have?
You set out to exercise an extraordinary skill that placed
certain demands on you and your equipment. For what ever reason,
the pieces just didn't fall into place . . . the NTSB
report will chronicle YOUR screw-up in black and white for
all of us to read for decades hence. I'll suggest that
gold-plated, holy-watered hardware doesn't do much to
improve the odds. Being a good scientist, understanding
the capabilities and limits of the tools you are crafting
and being practiced in their operation will go a LONG way
into improving your odds and enjoyment of the machine you're
building.
Government is pre-disposed to believe only they understand
the science which you are "qualified" to use only because
you read their book, took their course, passed their test every
6 months and saluted all their rules. I'm not suggesting
those things don't help . . . and certainly hundreds of
thousands of us have lived to tell the tales of life in
in that environment. However, NONE of their requirements
are based on your demonstrated UNDERSTANDING of the science
involved.
Your participation on this list and others says you're at
least interested in knowing and understanding the science.
Good science is good science, whether it happens in your
cockpit, here on this list, or in some meeting room in
Washington. Experience suggests that the best science
may happen any place but Washington.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru 3300 dual alternator control |
>
>
>Bob,
> Bruce Banks asked about the Rotax 912 system, and you noted that
>this has an optional 40 amp belt driven alternator in addition to the
>standard 20 amp PM alternator. You recommended diagram Z13 for dual
>alternators in this situation. My situation is similar, but not
>identical. The Jabiru 3300 has a robust flywheel mounted PM alternator
>that should be bulletproof, almost identical to the SD8--but of course
>that hard working regulator might fail. I plan to add a B&C SD20
>alternator to the spline fitting on the crankshaft. Tim at B&C assures
>me that this will give 20 amps at 2750 rpm in a 14 volt system.
Oops! That 20A output at "2750" rpm is based on gearing offered
at the vacuum pump pad of most aircraft engines. The alternator
needs to turn about 4,000 rpm to get you 20A. On a Lycoming with
about 1:1.3 pad ratio, the 20A statement at 2750 propeller RPM
is accurate.
> I would
>like to run both alternators simultaneously, as they are each about the
>same capacity and could give a total of 40 amps. Would it be reasonable
>to substitute the B&C SB1B-14 regulator for the LR3 listed on Z13, and
>then have both units on simultaneously? I would fuselink the SD20
>output and probably connect it to the battery side of the battery
>contactor.
What's the advantage of simultaneous operation to a single bus?
I'd think I'd rather have independent operation to separate busses
even if one of the batteries were quite small . . . just big enough
to stabilize the alternator.
> I worry about overvoltage protection from both systems being on in
>parallel. Could, for example, the PM alternator trigger the OV system
>and then bring down both paralleled alternators? I don't think it
>would, but I'm not fully certain how the SB1B works. The SB1B is a
>standby controller. The SB1B should keep field current at zero unless a
>low bus voltage is detected. Thus, I speculate that it would not be set
>to crowbar the field circuit of the SD20 and blow the field fuse. This
>is of some general interest, as the Jabiru system is getting popular,
>and those of us who want all electric systems with redundancy could use
>this alternative.
The SB1 has selective trip meaning that it wouldn't take
the SD-20 off line unless it detects that the SD-20 is in fact
the source of the OV condition. Okay, suppose you were running
a light load and the PM alternator goes out in OV trip but no
warning lights come on because the loads are well within the
capability of the remaining alternator. In this case,
you wouldn't use the SB-1 but the LS-1 which has low voltage
warning feature. Then, selective trip for OV isn't a big deal.
> My power budget may not require both alternators on simultaneously,
>but this system has the advantage of automatic switching from PM
>alternator to SD20 if the PM fails, and is thus one less item to
>distract the pilot. In other words, it works like the dual alternator
>diagram in fig. 17-8 of the 'Connection. My plane is a Jabiru J400 with
>Blue Mountain EFIS (4amps), transponder, one NAV/COMM, one COMM, strobes
>(7 amps), position lights (6amps) and an autopilot which may suck
>considerable power at times. In the future I may need pitot heat. I
>will use all of your recommended systems: fast-on wiring, NylaFlow
>conduit, battery bus, essential bus, main bus, single point ground,
>fuses, and voltage and current monitor. The one battery, two alternator
>system looks like a winner if I can get reliable control.
You could do this but you'll want to add active notification
of low voltage should the main alternator fail -AND- the
standby alternator becomes overloaded. The SB1 regulator has
a light that illuminates to tell you that the SB alternator
has picked up some load which could have this light illuminated
under NORMAL operations. You would want to add LV warning
also to assure you that irrespective of the combination
of operating alternators, loads on the bus are being supported.
It's a toss-up for one or two busses. Either will work for
you. I like the failure notification and isolation of dual
busses better. If you used a tiny battery on the aux
alternator, then you don't need a fat cross-feed contactor
because the aux battery would not be expected to aid cranking.
A smaller S704-1 relay or perhaps just a breaker to push in
for effecting interconnection of the two systems would suffice.
The biggest hurdle you may have to mount is the gearing of
the SD-20 to get reasonable output. Any way you could belt
drive a 40A ND machine for LOTS of good output?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 05/12/2002 2:52:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com <> writes:
<< Well, actually, the GPS he proposes will fly to any VOR just as easily as
it
would any other fix. Punching in nearest VOR and direct to will reset the
GPS to fly to that station (target). There is no legal requirement to use
any ground based stations unless that is what you have in your plane.
No one ever said not having a backup nav aid was smart thinking. he asked
if
he could fly IFR with a GPS only. The answer is yes.>>
5/12/2002
Hello Aucountry, His exact question was "I would like to set up a minimum IFR
RV with GPS only as my sole source of navigation and for non-precision
approaches.
I do not want to include the outdated VOR in my panel. Is this going to be
possible?"
So you may be right. A simple one word answer of "Yes" may meet legal,
regulatory, and theoretical requirements. But in reading the entire context
of his posting I think that he was owed a bit more. The word "possible" to me
meant that he wanted to have safe and practical subsequent IFR operations
after initial certification.
Can we do this if it is not too far off topic? Could we have a little survey?
Can we please hear from any pilot builders who have:
1a) Successfully certified their amateur built experimental aircraft in the
USA for IFR operations with only a GPS installed in their aircraft, and
1b) Subsequently flown that aircraft IFR in IMC in the USA and are satisfied
with their configuration.
2) Attempted to certify their amateur built experimental aircraft for IFR
operations in the USA with only a GPS installed in the aircraft and were
denied their IFR approval.
First hand pilot builder inputs only please, no "heard it from a friend of a
friend"
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
PS: Your words "just as easily" bring to mind the many words being written
currently in the aviation press about how difficult people are finding it to
manipulate their GPS's and fly (particularly in IMC) at the same time.
Sometimes the scarcest commodities in the cockpit are eyeballs and finger
tips. Flying single pilot IFR in IMC and manipulating a GPS consumes a lot of
both.
Rod Machado wrote recently about how the requirement to manipulate a GPS was
adversely impacting safe flight by the pilot involved. He suggested that GPS
should stand for Give it to the Person Sitting next to you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "P Fischer" <ptf(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RW 162f Electrical system |
Hi Bob, Appears we have another rotorway driver here that is not all to
happy with the wiring scheme on these ships. Any suggestions?
P.S. Vince, I have an Exec 90. The wiring is inadequate. One other serious
problem, the electronic ignition FAILS if the voltage drops below 9.6 volts.
Just like that no engine! And, there's no provision to for warn the driver
other than a real good preflight.... and there is no backup. We need some
sort of fail safe provision in case the voltage goes way down all at once.
Any suggestions?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Ackerman" <vack(at)teleport.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RW 162f Electrical system
>
> Bob and anyone who can help:
>
> I am building a Rotorway 162f helicopter which has two FADEC computers
that
> run the engine and electronic ignition. I have several questions about the
> electrical system which seems to be designed rather poorly. I wish I could
> upload a schematic or diagram so you could take a look at it but instead
> I'll try and describe it instead.
>
>
> It seems to be a simple system with basically two buses:
>
>
> The "essential buss" has:
>
> 2 Fadec's
> 2 Fuel pumps
> 2 Ignition modules
>
> Each Fadec has it's own 20 amp fuse
> One of each fuel pump and ignition module are paired together off of a 15
> amp fuse.
>
> The buss is supplied by two wires (seem like 12 awg but can't be sure)
that
> run from the battery through two 30 amp fuses.
>
> It is also supplied directly from the alternator by one of two b-lead
wires,
> the second of which goes directly to the 12v battery. They are both
> protected by 30 amp inline fuses at the alternator.
>
> There is no battery contactor or switch.
>
>
> The second buss is interesting because:
>
> In addition to the avionics and instrument power leading from it, they
have
> an alternator field switch coming off a 7.5 amp fuse that also supplies
the
> avionics.
>
> The starter relay and key switch also come off this bus through a 7.5 amp
> fuse that it shares with the instrument power tap.
>
> This buss is supplied with power from the battery only through a third 30
> amp fuse.
>
>
> The alternator was an upgrade when I purchased their lighting kit from a
30
> amp to a 54 amp. It doesn't seem to have included larger wire for the b
> leads, one looks like 10 or 12 awg and the second is smaller, maybe 14 or
16
> awg.
>
> I intend to put a landing light, nav and strobes and instrument lights and
> B/C dimmer on the second buss. There will also be a Garmin 250xl GPS/Comm
> and 327 xnpdr off that buss.
>
> The kit comes with a wiring harness that just plugs together so I'm a
little
> hesitant to mess around with it, but I'm at the stage where I can modify
it
> with out too much trouble. I'd like to change it to match the schematic
for
> a light acft that's in your book but don't want to add any weight.
>
> My questions are these:
>
> Why all the duplicate paths from battery to busses, and alternator to bus
> and battery? If one side of the 30 amp supply from battery shorts or
> overloads, wouldn't it just blow the other supply side too? Same with the
> alternator B-leads.
>
>
> I want to replace all the fuses with breakers. I don't like having
> components sharing fuses, especially the fuel pumps and ignition modules.
> Should I also put the alt field on the essential bus? How about the
starter
> relay? I bought a B/C crowbar OV device and plan to install it as well.
>
> All the wiring diagrams in your book show the alternator going to the
> contactor and then to the busses. Does the essential buss require the two
30
> amp battery feeds plus the alternator feed?
>
> I would like add a contactor for the battery and a battery master switch.
I
> picked up an 80 amp continuous duty relay from the local autoparts store
> (Eclin STS 80?) that I thought was a copy of the ones I've seen on other
> aircraft and thought I'd add the diode as per Bob's book. Will this work?
>
> I also want to replace the two small wires with one larger cable from the
> alternator to the output side of the contactor and eliminate the direct
line
> to the first buss. Would that be smart or would it cause other problems?
If
> there were a problem with the battery or contactor, the direct feed from
the
> alternator would still power the FADEC's. What wire size would be
> appropriate for a 54 amp output? Should I put a fusable link to protect
it?
>
> Since this engine requires power to run the FADECs and ignition, what is
the
> minimum voltage the contactor requires to stay open? If the alternator
dies,
> will low voltage open the relay and kill the engine? I think the factory
> told me that the FADEC's require 10v minimum. Am I adding a source of
> failure when there was none to begin with?
>
> A strobe power pack requires 7.5 amps, landing light 8 amps, nav and
> instrument power and lights, radio and xnpdr consume (?). Will this
overload
> the second buss with only 30 amp protection?
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any suggestions
>
>
> Vince Ackerman
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: welding relays |
>Electric Bob wrote:
> Let us take care lest we worry small probabilities into STRONG
> cases with a resulting waste of intellectual resources, time and
> dollars that INCREASES weight, parts count and burdens a pilot with more
> things to worry about and be prepared to react to.
Most of us could better ensure a long life by watching what we eat - fat,
salt, sugar etc. Play the odds, guys.
If it tastes good, spit it out.
hal
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR by GPS only |
| From: | Denis Walsh <deniswalsh(at)earthlink.net> |
Let me be the first to respond to the survey. My answer is : "Sort of."
Unfortunately my plane was certified five years ago and the boilerplate has
changed; however, my Operating Limitations said (paraphrased since I dont
have it with me). "Approved for night VFR and IFR, when properly equipped."
I was delighted to have that statement and I hope they have not changed it.
My only piece of navigation equipment was (and still is) a KLX 135A GPS/Com.
I have not ever filed IFR in it, since I have no current IFR rating; however
I believe it to be possible to do so, providing the plan requested was
within the capability of the installed equipment.
As a post script, I share the observation that manipulating the GPS for
precise navigation is a complex task. Watching most pilots I fly with
trying to work their GPS, us a frightening thing. Believe me I spent many
many hours both in flight and on the ground, training with this jewel to be
able to master it. And it is one of the most intuitive and user friendly
ones.
DLW
> From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Date: Sun, 12
> AeroElectric-List: IFR by GPS only
>
>
> In a message dated 05/12/2002 2:52:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com <> writes:
>
> << Well, actually, the GPS he proposes will fly to any VOR just as easily as
> it would any other fix. Punching in nearest VOR and direct to will reset the
> GPS to fly to that station (target). There is no legal requirement to use any
> ground based stations unless that is what you have in your plane.
>
> No one ever said not having a backup nav aid was smart thinking. he asked if
> he could fly IFR with a GPS only. The answer is yes.>>
>
> 5/12/2002
>
> Hello Aucountry, His exact question was "I would like to set up a minimum IFR
> RV with GPS only as my sole source of navigation and for non-precision
> approaches. I do not want to include the outdated VOR in my panel. Is this
> going to be possible?"
>
> So you may be right. A simple one word answer of "Yes" may meet legal,
> regulatory, and theoretical requirements. But in reading the entire context of
> his posting I think that he was owed a bit more. The word "possible" to me
> meant that he wanted to have safe and practical subsequent IFR operations
> after initial certification.
>
> Can we do this if it is not too far off topic? Could we have a little survey?
> Can we please hear from any pilot builders who have:
>
> 1a) Successfully certified their amateur built experimental aircraft in the
> USA for IFR operations with only a GPS installed in their aircraft, and
>
> 1b) Subsequently flown that aircraft IFR in IMC in the USA and are satisfied
> with their configuration.
>
> 2) Attempted to certify their amateur built experimental aircraft for IFR
> operations in the USA with only a GPS installed in the aircraft and were
> denied their IFR approval.
>
> First hand pilot builder inputs only please, no "heard it from a friend of a
> friend"
>
> 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
>
> PS: Your words "just as easily" bring to mind the many words being written
> currently in the aviation press about how difficult people are finding it to
> manipulate their GPS's and fly (particularly in IMC) at the same time.
> Sometimes the scarcest commodities in the cockpit are eyeballs and finger
> tips. Flying single pilot IFR in IMC and manipulating a GPS consumes a lot of
> both.
>
> Rod Machado wrote recently about how the requirement to manipulate a GPS was
> adversely impacting safe flight by the pilot involved. He suggested that GPS
> should stand for Give it to the Person Sitting next to you.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Equipment Required |
Handheld GPS for IFR...is it legal?
While NDB, DME, RNAV, ILS and GPS approaches my may brilliantly performed
using a handheld GPS, one had better have the "equipment appropriate to the
facilities to be used" on board. RIght?
I always remember the motto "SKIN, TIN, TICKET" and I add HOUSE. If I have
an accident while flying an NDB approach without an ADF receiver I suspect
that even if I save my skin, my ticket and possibly my home will be in
jeopardy. FAA will scoff up my ticket and lawyers will take everything
else while my insurance man shakes his head and smiles.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
Paso Robles, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR by GPS only |
I have an Apollo SL60 and MAP 360 in our 172. It is not approach certified
which means the damned thing isn't "automatically" sequencing waypoints for
you. From a human factors perspective, it is dangerous to automatically
change things like the next waypoint (especially since the FAA system has
too many variables - published, versus vectors, versus multiple approaches
to the same runway).
With the Apollo, I choose the next waypoint and it DOESN'T CHANGE until I
select the next one. I use it in conjunction with the FAA blessed LOC/GS
indicators. I can shoot a whole lot more accurate approach when I monitor
the GPS and the ILS-CDI than when I just use the CDI alone. Oh and the FAA
mandated GPS CDI is totally useless - another lamebrained piece of gear
added to satisfy the old farts who are used to chasing CDI needles and are
confounded by computers and smart display systems.
Using a GPS requires practice and study. You can't jump in the plane and
fly in the klag then try to learn how to use it!!! And yes it is more
complicated than a ILS/CDI and VOR radio, but it GIVES YOU SO MUCH MORE
INFORMATION AND SITUATIONAL AWARENESS - NO CONTEST!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | crowbotham <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/html
audio/x-midi
application/octet-stream
--- StripMime Errors ---
A message with no text/plain section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using plaintext formatting
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
| Subject: | Re: push to test? |
Bob
In the Z-4 diagram that I am using. The warning lights will light
when the Xfeed/starter is pressed to start or Xfeed position and the
lamp on the LR-3 will light at start do to low voltage. Am I correct
in this thinking? I therefore would not need a press to test button
for these lights.
Jim Robinson
Glasair 79R
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Jabiru 3300 dual alternator control |
Bob wrote:
"Oops! That 20A output at "2750" rpm is based on gearing offered
at the vacuum pump pad of most aircraft engines. The alternator
(SD20)
needs to turn about 4,000 rpm to get you 20A. On a Lycoming with
about 1:1.3 pad ratio, the 20A statement at 2750 propeller RPM
is accurate."
The reason I chose the SD20 was because of the perfect fit to the spline
on the crankshaft. I know that the table of shaft rpm vs. output listed
with the SD20 drawing says that at 3000 rpm, the output is 12 amps.
There is no lower rpm listed to interpolate to 2750 rpm. What I failed
to consider was that this output is for 28 volts: no mention of this on
the chart. Tim at B&C pointed out that at 14 volts the output could be
much greater at 2750 rpm. He claimed 20 amps. Additionally, the Jabiru
engine is rated at 120 HP at 3300 rpm, so in an emergency, the engine
could be run faster for more amps. The prop might not allow 3300 rpm,
but 3000 should be possible. Even with 12 amps, this is more than the
SD8 which gives 6.8 amps at 3000, and 5.7 amps at 2750. My essential
bus [EFIS/ONE, SL70 xponder, SL30 NavComm] totals 5.1 amps until I
transmit on the radio.
If the output of the SD20 is under 8 or 10 amps at 2750, then I would
be better off with the SD8. At some point, the field current of 5 amps
gets significant. I know that a belt driven ND alternator would give
40+ amps, but I'm not up to adding the belt drive. This dual bus system
with the EFIS/ONE do-everything is already more work than the standard
instrument panel, and blazes new ground. I prefer electrical challenges
to mechanical!
Let me know if you think I would be better off exchanging the SD20
for an SD8. Your advice to all of us is much appreciated.
Jim Foerster Jabiru J400/Jabiru 3300 engine/ 20% done.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Longer handles for PIDG crimper |
If you are struggling to complete the crimp with the bargain priced
RCT-1, which does a great crimp, consider lengthening the handles. It
is quite easy. I took 8 inches of 1/2 inch thinwall copper conduit, the
same stuff used for making a J comm antenna per Jim Weir's design, and
found that it formed onto the tool perfectly. Remove the red plastic
grips by using two screwdrivers to pry each side. Then tap the 8 inches
of tubing over each tang. If you want to use an end cap, put it on
before you tap, and solder it afterwards. Cut the copper tubing to
whatever length is most comfortable, but 8 inches should be plenty.
The BNC crimper, RCT-2, seems to have the same design and could
also be so modified.
Jim Foerster
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Francis, CMDR David" <David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au> |
| Subject: | sec: unclassified : IFR AVIONICS AGAIN |
Victor asked if he could use GPS only in US airspace as a lighweight IFR
kit.
I found guidance in AC 90.94, para 3c which states very clearly that you can
only use GPS in US airspace in IFR conditions when you also have a
terrestrial navaid fitted and serviceable. This is an advisory circular but
it has commanding language on this point. I suspect para 3c is a flow down
from a more mandatory requirement in the operational regs somewhere.
The GPS installation should follow guidance in AC120-138 (elsewhere
incorrectly quoted as 120-38, which talks about ozone). I am having internet
problems and cannot read AC120-138 to check it.
I have a suspicion that the reason GPS is still not trusted in comparison
with old technolgy VOR/ADF systems is that the satellite signal is very very
weak. The GPS reciever identifies the satellite signal by some very clever
signal processing. The problem seems to be that when conducting an approach
over an electronically noisy site, like a big city, stray strong electronic
emissions on the right frequency can simply overpower the clever GPS
processing and cause inaccurate readouts - a bit like an ADF at sunset you
might say.
Hope this helps, David Francis, VH-ZEE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Leonard" <dleonar1(at)maine.rr.com> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS Manipulation |
This thread on GPS manipulation is especially interesting to me. I fly a 72
Bellanca Vking, and it has a complement of old VORS and an ADF, and a single
axis autopilot.
I also have an older Garmin GPS 95 on the yoke, and a new Garmin Colormap
295 up on the passengers side glare shield (due to panel real estate)
I just got through a 2 hr instrumanet recurrency ride, and got a lecture on
not spending so much time pushing buttons on the GPS.
I never took the older unit out as it seems to work well, and it is in my
scan.
The instructor's observation, as well as mine, was the the old unit, with
the complete telephone keypad, is very fast to program identifiers in, the
new one is slow and requires a lot of busy work. It has a toggle rocker
swithch, and takes a while to get alpha characters input. The database is
big.
It seems as though this is a case of the simpler technology reducing the
workload.
If you are cleared to NOXXIS beacon, on the old GPS you just key in the
letters, there are enough buttons,each button is three characters.. hit
"abc" and you get "B", if you need "c" you hit the right arrow, left arrow
for "A"... hit go to, and bam, there's your bearing and range. The new one
requires much toggleing and attention..
The new GPS has much more information, frequencies, airport information,
etc, and the moving map is a wonderful piece of situational awareness. It
seems at it's highest use as a moving map, which is entirely automatic..
turn it on and it graphically displays your position. It is also a heck of
a radio guide,, "nearest" will get you the closest ten Airports, or Navaid,
or ARTCC frequency..
It is an incredibly useful tool, but it takes almost as much attention as
perusing a book.. not what you need to be doing while setting for a hold
entry to an instrument approach! My headings seem to wander if I don't have
the AP running while diddling the unit.
My procedure for IFR with this setup is now, when cleared to a fix, key it
into the Garmin 95xl (this is 1995 technology, with a database, still
updatable). Assume the heading, this can be done in 20 seconds. Then
stabilize the plane, and get the autopilot heading corresponding with the
GPS ground track. At this point I start setting up the VORs. Only then can
I fool with the 295.
Usually the destination airport is set up as the active waypoint, if you
want you can pre-program your filed route on the ground. This is very handy
as you can see all the intersections, navaids, airports etc. scrolling by on
the map, without doing any programming. When the immediate work is done,
and you settle into your enroute mode, you can then fool with the fancy GPS.
On an approach I set the 95XL for the outer marker, which is usually an
NDB(LOM). The ADF went south in the middle of one of my approaches.. I was
happy I had the GPS doing its thing! ADF's don't really give much time to
react..the GPS is really nice for knowing just how far you are outside the
outer marker, as the range information is right there. Once you are on the
ILS, you simply watch the ground track on that GPS, keep it on the ILS
inbound course, and it will keep the ILS needle pretty much glued in the
center.. very helpful with crosswinds on final.
The whole time the Garmin 295 is simply set on the moving map page, with the
"Track up" mode on.
It is really helpful to be able to see the outer marker, and the airport
ahead of you. It is also very nice on a radar vector approach to be able to
see exactly when you will intercept the localizer, graphically..it gives you
al lot of warning as to when the needle is going to start moving, and how
far out the controller is aiming you. On the missed the map is very nice
for seeing your course to re-intercept.
Anyway, these are just my observations, I actually have a hard time keeping
IFR current without annual instrument recurrency rides with an instructor.
Though it is important to know all of the instrument techniques, I
personally only fly ILS approaches...(well I prefer visuals).. I figure that
if that is all the scheduled carriers are allowed to fly, with pilots that
do it every day, then how can I hope to be more proficient then those guys..
I really like the vertical guidance and Radar vectors..it just seems safer,
and there are a lot of ILS approaches available. I'm also one of those 1000
foot AGL minimum people..I just feel like its too hard to practice enough to
be current flying to those 200 foot agl minimums as a pilot who doesn't
practice at least weekly. That being said, I sure like using the IFR system
for any kind of x-country work.
And here I sit,new Charts and Rating in hand looking at the weather system,
with a huge low centered around Columbus, OH, and my trip
scrubbed..thunderstorms, low ceilings, high winds.icing.the front goes from
there to Maine where I am.. who needs to be blundering around in a little
single engine airplane .... It looks like a good office day..
Dave Leonard N77FE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mprather(at)spro.net |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Equipment Required |
I agree that the satellites would be pretty tough to disable
by anyone other than the US government. However (sorry if this
seems black helicopter-ish), it would be possible (likely?)
that our guys disable GPS satellites for tactical reasons - like
they don't want someone else using them because they might pose
a threat to our own assets (in the form of weapons guidance). I
think it somewhat less likely that functioning GPS would provide
a threat to us on our home turf (the bad guys have to get the weps
onto the continent first - not impossible, but maybe less probable).
With that assumption in mind, does anyone have any idea whether GPS
can effectively be selectively disabled (over a region or continent)?
I suspect that if this capability exists, the US government would
choose this option rather than disrupting peaceful users outside
the scope of the perceived threat.
Matt Prather
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Date: Monday, May 13, 2002 9:01 am
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Equipment Required
>
> But VORs are not guarded. In rural areas they are back away from
> the roads
> so it is a long walk in. But destroying one is no different than
> when the
> government takes it out of service for maintenance.
>
> At present, it is very difficult to hit any satellite as one has to
> launch a
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aucountry(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS Manipulation |
In a message dated 5/13/02 08:25:02 AM, dleonar1(at)maine.rr.com writes:
<< If you are cleared to NOXXIS beacon, on the old GPS you just key in the
letters, there are enough buttons,each button is three characters.. hit
"abc" and you get "B", if you need "c" you hit the right arrow, left arrow
for "A"... hit go to, and bam, there's your bearing and range. The new one
requires much toggleing and attention.. >>
yes, but if you had a "Real" GPS, built in, you could punch "nrst" twice to
get the intersections, then select which one you wanted to fly to (usually
the one in the window already), then direct to. Your map would point right
to the intersection. If you had an approach GPS, it would overlay a course
for you to fly on the map window.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aucountry(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Equipment Required |
In a message dated 5/13/02 08:30:01 AM, mprather(at)spro.net writes:
<< With that assumption in mind, does anyone have any idea whether GPS
can effectively be selectively disabled (over a region or continent)?
I suspect that if this capability exists, the US government would
choose this option rather than disrupting peaceful users outside
the scope of the perceived threat. >>
Yes, the GPS can have it's accuracy altered, or completely turned off, in
areas as small as a few hundred square miles.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Voltage Warning Light |
>
>When the LR-3 regulator senses low voltage and illuminates the low
>voltage warning light, can the light be shut off by pulling the field
>breaker (or opening the Alternator switch if you have one)? In a single
>alternator system it would be nice to be able to extinguish the light
>after you recognize the low voltage situation....
No . . . in fact, the light is designed to illuminate
when ALL power is removed from the regulator to annunciate
the fact should a problem arise with either or both supply
leads to the regulator.
The usual technique for turning the light
OFF is to kill the main bus and go to e-bus until airport
is in sight and then bring the main bus back up if necessary
to complete the flight. This minimizes the amount of time
one works with the distractions of the lamp flashing.
If you want to switch it off you'll need to add a switch
to the bulb supply . . . or just unscrew the fixture.
You might also consider a dimmable lamp fixture.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: push to test? |
>
>
>Bob
>
>In the Z-4 diagram that I am using. The warning lights will light
>when the Xfeed/starter is pressed to start or Xfeed position and the
>lamp on the LR-3 will light at start do to low voltage. Am I correct
>in this thinking? I therefore would not need a press to test button
>for these lights.
Correct.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS Manipulation |
David A. Leonard wrote:
>
>
> The instructor's observation, as well as mine, was the the old unit, with
> the complete telephone keypad, is very fast to program identifiers in, the
> new one is slow and requires a lot of busy work. It has a toggle rocker
> swithch, and takes a while to get alpha characters input. The database is
> big.
>
[...]
>
> If you are cleared to NOXXIS beacon, on the old GPS you just key in the
> letters, there are enough buttons,each button is three characters.. hit
> "abc" and you get "B", if you need "c" you hit the right arrow, left arrow
> for "A"... hit go to, and bam, there's your bearing and range. The new one
> requires much toggleing and attention..
>
*** This sounds like a *natural* for voice recognition. Imagine, you press
a button on your yoke, and say "Direct Noxxis". A little screen pops up
on your GPS with a list of closest matches ( in order of probability: the
"Noxxis" that's 5 NM away is more probable than the "Nockit" that's 500
NM away ). You select the right one - whole thing just two or three button
presses.
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <matthew(at)mucker.net> |
| Subject: | IFR Equipment Required |
> In a message dated 5/13/02 08:30:01 AM, mprather(at)spro.net writes:
>
> << With that assumption in mind, does anyone have any idea whether GPS
> can effectively be selectively disabled (over a region or continent)?
> I suspect that if this capability exists, the US government would
> choose this option rather than disrupting peaceful users outside
> the scope of the perceived threat. >>
>
> Yes, the GPS can have it's accuracy altered, or completely turned off, in
> areas as small as a few hundred square miles.
>
I believe that this demonstrated functionality was a primary reason the
government gave when they turned off selective availability a few years ago.
I guess they were certain they could turn on SA in some geographical regions
when necessary and not affect accuracy in the US.
Of course, the govt has never guaranteed us that SA will never be turned on
again.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | deltaB(at)erols.com |
| Subject: | Re: Nav Antenna Question |
I'm pretty sure that ethernet was 50 ohms, but cable tv is 70-75
ohms. I picked up a 50 ohm terminating resistor with a BNC
connector on it at radio shack for 2 or three USD. As long as
you're not transmitting INTO it, this is more like what you are
looking for.
Bernie C.
jerry(at)tr2.com wrote:
>
>
> Russ Werner wrote:
> >
> > On the subject of diplexers, is it okay to not use all of the outputs on the
> > diplexer? I have one that is designed to run 2 VOR/LOC receivers and 2 GS
> > receivers and I only have one of each. Any problem with capping off the
> > extra jacks?
> >
> *** I suspect that it is OK, but you have to cap them off with 50-ohm loads.
> These are just a connector with a 50-ohm resistor built in. Or you can make
> your own. The resistor would go from the center pin to the outside of the
> connector. This will make the splitter "think" that the receivers it was
> designed to drive, are actually connected.
>
> Also, 75-ohm terminators are really common in high-tech surplus,
> because Ethernet used to use them. Probably work fine....
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS Manipulation during Approach |
Actually, on the Apollo SL60, all I have to do is press nearest, change the
list from airports, VORs, NDBs, or intersections and then check to make sure
that what I want is the closest (most of the time it is!), then hit the
direct to button. Really easy, even when bouncing around in the last parts
of the approach.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Walter S. Fellows" <fellowsw(at)mondexkorea.com> |
| Subject: | sec: unclassified : IFR AVIONICS AGAIN |
It can be jammed as well -- there was an incident near Albany NY where
an army unit had put a jamming unit in the warehouse and left it on. The
location was on one of the major flight paths into NYC and it was
causing the airline traffic flying on autopilot to veer of course when
it passed by.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Francis, CMDR
David
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:09 PM
> To: 'aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com'
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: sec: unclassified : IFR AVIONICS AGAIN
>
>
>
> Victor asked if he could use GPS only in US airspace as a lighweight
IFR
> kit.
>
> I found guidance in AC 90.94, para 3c which states very clearly that
you
> can
> only use GPS in US airspace in IFR conditions when you also have a
> terrestrial navaid fitted and serviceable. This is an advisory
circular
> but
> it has commanding language on this point. I suspect para 3c is a flow
down
> from a more mandatory requirement in the operational regs somewhere.
>
> The GPS installation should follow guidance in AC120-138 (elsewhere
> incorrectly quoted as 120-38, which talks about ozone). I am having
> internet
> problems and cannot read AC120-138 to check it.
>
> I have a suspicion that the reason GPS is still not trusted in
comparison
> with old technolgy VOR/ADF systems is that the satellite signal is
very
> very
> weak. The GPS reciever identifies the satellite signal by some very
clever
> signal processing. The problem seems to be that when conducting an
> approach
> over an electronically noisy site, like a big city, stray strong
> electronic
> emissions on the right frequency can simply overpower the clever GPS
> processing and cause inaccurate readouts - a bit like an ADF at sunset
you
> might say.
>
> Hope this helps, David Francis, VH-ZEE
>
>
April 28, 2002 - May 13, 2002
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-av