AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ax
May 26, 2002 - June 09, 2002
> I'm using the washer with the tab on it for locking the switch from
> behind the panel and would like to use a flat decorative washer on the
> front but haven't been able to locate any. I've tried using standard SS
> washers to ream out but is not working. I would think there is someone
> who sells these 15/32 ID decorative flat washers somewhere.
>
> Dave Ford
> RV6
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 12Volt relays |
Tom Barnes wrote:
>
> Tom,
> You stated that in order to make reverse happen, you supplied
> voltage to "reverse and go". Is this what you intended to mean?
> Secondly, I noticed in the specifications on the web site, that there
> are many pins on the processor and there are some drawings that show
> capacitors and resistors external to the unit. Is it true that for our
> application, one needs only to be concerned with the wires that you drew
> on your "simple ascii art? I like what I see.
The LMD18200 has a pin labled PWM. This is pulse width modulation.
Used for controlling the speed of the motor, slower smaller pulses
will run the motor slowly. Larger faster pulses drive it faster.
This can also be thought of as the GO connection, I mentioned before.
One large constant pulse, and the motor will turn. The other pin to
worry about is called DIR. This is the reverse connection, grounding
this pin will cause the PWM to drive the motor one way, pulling this
pin HI, will cause the PWM to drive the motor in the other direction.
If you are looking at the LMD18200 sheet, there are a couple
capicitors, across the powersupply. These are mostly there to
help isolate other components in the circuit. Mostly this would
be used in driving motors via computer, where the other
components would be sensitive to voltage sags, and other noise
(not necessarily damaged, but affected, even temporarily, how
low a voltage will that computer keep operating?).
It probably isn't a bad idea to put a capacitor across the motor
terminals anyway. Keeps electronic noises down. The LMD18200
prefers a capacitor from the two motor out pins (2 and 10 to 1
and 11 respectivly) for noise reasons, they call it bootstrap.
The LMD18200 has all kinds of features that you can or not use.
Dynamic braking is a great feature for a robot arm, helps minimize
overshoot. Temprature sensors, and current sense are good for
detecting motor stall. Grounding the brake pin means you don't have
to worry about it anymore (brake always off). The other sensor
pins you could hook to LED's or something as a warning if you want.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Francis, CMDR David" <David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au> |
| Subject: | SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - VACUUM OR ELECTRIC |
Folks, Paul McAllister asked if there was any hard data to guide the vacuum
versus all electric argument.
A couple of years ago the Australian Flight Safety magazine published by our
flight safety board published an article which stated that the normal life
of a vacuum pump is around 700 hrs and was regarded as the least reliable
system in most aircraft. In my experience the electrical system is the next
least reliable system.
For the typical factory build mixed system aeroplane that sounds like two
unreliable sytems. As Bob would say Hmmmm.....
So my line of thinking runs along the following lines. If the vacuum system
fails in the dark I get home on the electric instruments and systems. If the
electrical system fails in the dark I cant see the operating gyros (no a
torch in my mouth is not a serious option), I cant navigate because I have
lost nav/gps, I cant get a vector if in radar covererage because I have lost
comm, and air traffic lose sight of me bacause I have stopped squawking. So
if I lose electrical power I lose a lot more. So, even if I have a vacuum
system I definitely dont want to lose the electric systems because of the
far larger loss of safety sensitive services.
So I need a bullet proof electrical system no matter what. If I have a
bullet proof electrical system then I can simplify the whole plane by
eliminating the less reliable vacuum system and save its weight and
maintenanc effort. Hence I now look hard at two alternator, two battery
options for my IFR RV7.
Incidentally Jon Johansons book indicates he had one serius electrical
fault during his two round the world trips in his RV4 - a loose wire
terminal on the alternator. The last time I talked to him he indicated that
his electric standby AH in the RV4 was a lot more stable than his vacuum AH.
He also said the RV8 he is now building will be all electric, with two
alternators and a main and small standby battery. I hope he does not mind me
quoting this coversation, but I respect his experience.
Regards, David Francis VH-ZEE
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternator problem solved! |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Guys, just a quick FYI, I asked the List a week ago for ideas about what
might be wrong on my '67 Plymouth that was showing erratic
charge/discharge indications on the ammeter. I checked the brushes on
the alternator and they looked fine, as did the slip rings in the
alternator. Next I turned the ignition on per Bob's suggestion and
checked for voltage at the regulator....the input to the regulator from
the battery was showing 12 volts, but the output to the alternator field
was showing absolutely nothing. I pulled the regulator out and opened it
up....it's one of the mechanical types of course (probably the original
from when the car was new)...and it became immediately obvious that it
was bad. The points were severely deteriorated and it looked like they
had finally gotten stuck in one position. A quick trip to the local auto
parts store and I had a new solid state replacement regulator for a
whopping $9. Works great now....
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A finishing, '67 Plymouth Belvedere up and running again : )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | RE: vacuum systems |
<>
And don't forget the vacuum gage. The typical gage used in light aircraft
is the cheapest, most poorly designed hardware I have seen. If the vacuum
reading gradually drops over time it is more likely to be the gage than the
regulator. I've had two fail, both gradually and both times a vacuum pump
was replaced first, thinking it was the culprit.
Gary Casey
C177RG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Kay <skay(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - VACUUM OR ELECTRIC |
If the alternator/regulator fails you'd still have that excellent battery that
you've been taking
such good care of to get home. ??-Steve
"Francis, CMDR David" wrote:
> . If the
> electrical system fails in the dark I cant see the operating gyros (no a
> torch in my mouth is not a serious option),
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dpdt switch question |
Jim Robinson wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Jim Robinson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Can anyone give me some info on DPDT switches. question is --If
> > > one side of the switch fails does both sides fail also? Or better
> > > phrased - If the switch fails does the whole switch fail? The reason
> > > for the question is to determine a failure mode for the things using
> > > this switch. Any help appreciated.
> > >
> > > Jim Robinson
> > > Glasair 79R
> > >
> > 'It depends.'
> >
> > A mechanical failure will *probably* take out both sides of
> > the switch.
> >
> > Corrosion of contacts can happen in only one of the circuits
> > (but the other is likely to be close behind).
> >
> > Load on the contacts can make a difference in contact life.
> >
> > Charlie
>
> Charlie or anyone
> In conjunction with the previous question, When is a switch likely
> to fail? Would it fail at the initial connection or would it fail
> sometime after it had already been connected for awhile. The
> reason for the question is that it would be relatively easy to replace
> the switch if it fails at initial startup, less so in flight.
>
> Jim Robinson
If the failure isn't caused by 'external forces' like
overcurrent, then you are likely to see the failure upon
activation. Parts is parts, & switches are switches. Most
switch failures you see in every day life are noticed when
you attempt to turn them on.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dpdt switch question |
Thanks Charlie
That's kinda what I guessed
Jim
England
>
>
> Jim Robinson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim Robinson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can anyone give me some info on DPDT switches. question is --If one
> > > > side of the switch fails does both sides fail also? Or better
> > > > phrased - If the switch fails does the whole switch fail? The
> > > > reason for the question is to determine a failure mode for the
> > > > things using this switch. Any help appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Jim Robinson
> > > > Glasair 79R
> > > >
> > > 'It depends.'
> > >
> > > A mechanical failure will *probably* take out both sides of
> > > the switch.
> > >
> > > Corrosion of contacts can happen in only one of the circuits
> > > (but the other is likely to be close behind).
> > >
> > > Load on the contacts can make a difference in contact life.
> > >
> > > Charlie
> >
> > Charlie or anyone
> > In conjunction with the previous question, When is a switch likely to
> > fail? Would it fail at the initial connection or would it fail sometime
> > after it had already been connected for awhile. The reason for the
> > question is that it would be relatively easy to replace the switch if it
> > fails at initial startup, less so in flight.
> >
> > Jim Robinson
>
> If the failure isn't caused by 'external forces' like
> overcurrent, then you are likely to see the failure upon
> activation. Parts is parts, & switches are switches. Most
> switch failures you see in every day life are noticed when
> you attempt to turn them on.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> advertising on the Matronics Forums.
> members.
> http://www.matronics.com/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | villi.seemann(at)nordea.com |
28-05-2002 12:12:33,
Itemize by SMTP Server on THOR/Unibank_Ext02(Release 5.0.4a |July 24, 2000)
at
28-05-2002 12:11:30,
Serialize by Router on THOR/Unibank_Ext02(Release 5.0.4a |July 24, 2000)
at
28-05-2002 12:11:53,
Serialize complete at 28-05-2002 12:11:53
Mickey Ross wrote :
>I would like to test my entire electrical system on my RV6A before I
button
>up the top forward fuselage skin. What I would like to be able to do is
get
>my alternator turning so that it will be producing electricity and then
>check voltage regulators, engine monitoring systems etc. without having
the
>engine running. I am thinking of attaching a pulley wheel to an electric
>drill and connecting that to the alternator via a pulley. Any comments or
>other suggestions?
With a standard electric drill, usually running up to 2800 RPM and a box
spanner in the chub fitting the pulley nut, you easily spin the alternator
to a speed giving indication for charge. Usually hand drill guns are 700
watts or larger. 765 W is 1 Hp (input to the drill), output will be minus
the internal loss - expect 1/2 Hp - sufficient for minimal charge.
Regards
Villi H. Seemann
Senior Engineer
Infrastructure Network
Phone (+45) 3333 2101
FAX (+45) 3333 1130
CellPhn (+45)2220 7690
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Thompson <grobdriver(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: For Sale: Lightspeed QFR Headset |
--- racker(at)rmci.net wrote:
>
> New in box Lightspeed QFR Cross Country ANR Headset (product info at
> http://www.anrheadsets.com/productsqfrx.html), with original blank
> warranty
> card.
Should have timestamped that last note - 1245:33 Central time.
- Mike
=====
Michael E. Thompson (Grobdriver(at)yahoo.com)
Austin, TX, USA
RV-6 in progress, N140RV (Reserved)
EX-AX1 Sub Hunter, P-3 (B/B-TACMOD/C) Orion Aircrew,
PP-G,ASEL, Motorglider Driver and Unlimited Air Race Nut!
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: For Sale: Lightspeed QFR Headset |
racker(at)rmci.net wrote:
> Rob Acker (Avionics West added to the "do not buy from" list).
*** OK, they're off my "approved vendors" list too. Some time back, I
talked to that guy via email - I was asking about getting a GNS430. He
told me it was impossible, that only an approved shop could obtain and
install them.
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net> |
Jim,
I looked at building the relay circuit as a pleasurable thing to
do. If you want to trim some time from the project, lets see what
develops from the suggestion of using the lmd18200. The price is just
over $11.00 buying a single unit. If it is as simple as what Tom
Brusehaver says, you can wire the thing easily in an hour. And because
it is small, it can be mounted practically anywhere.
Tom Barnes
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Stone
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: trim systems?
Tom,
Van sells a relay circuit board to control the electric flaps in
conjunction
with the stick mounted switch. It sells for 40.00, and I was wondering
if
it is inferrior in any way to Paul Besings home built version. I tried
Paul's Radio Shack part #s for the relays and came up empty. If Vans
item
is comparable, 40 bucks saves a lot of time over doing it Pauls way. Do
you
agree?
Thanks,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: trim systems?
>
> Jim,
> I can't put my fingers on the drawing for the trim at this
> moment, but I found the one for the flaps. The trim is twice the
> circuitry. I used the drawing that Paul Besing presents at
> www.lacodeworks.com/besing/flap.htm . By the way, Paul's drawing uses
> DPDT relays. If you go onto Bob's site, you will find how he uses
> single pole relays in conjunction with limit switches to get the job
> done.
> If I can find the drawing for the trim, I'll post it, in the
> meantime, you might try searching the archives looking for "basing &
> trim & schematic" or permeations of it in the 1998 time frame.
>
> Tom Barnes -6
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
> Burley
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: trim systems?
>
>
>
> I'm familiar with the Ray Allen products - has anyone built their own
> trim system? If so, is a design and materials list available?
>
>
> >>
> >> Instead of relays, I advocate H bridges and other transistors.
> >>
> >> For a simple Trim motor, something like the National LMD18200
> >> would be the trick.
> >>
> > > <http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LMD18200.html>
> >>
> >> for really big motors, H-bridges are available build from FET's
> >> or transistors. They are talking 50-100Amps per motor!
> >>
> > > <http://www.dmillard.com/osmc/>
> >>
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <Richard(at)riley.net> |
| Subject: | Servo for a canopy lock |
I want to install a servo to lock my canopy (a Berkut) that I can unlock
with a keychain transmitter. I have the transmitter and receiver, I've
used them previously in a Long EZ in a similar application.
In the EZ I used a MAC trim servo, but it's a little expensive for the
application. All I need it to do is stick an arm out when it gets 12v, and
pull it's arm back when the voltage is reversed. It should have some form
of limit, but doesn't need to stop mid-throw.
Does anyone have a suggestion for something cheaper than the MAC servo?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Servo for a canopy lock |
Hello Richard,
try in the radio controll model market, they use such things in ships, for
special functions etc.
Kind regards
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Riley" <Richard(at)riley.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Servo for a canopy lock
>
> I want to install a servo to lock my canopy (a Berkut) that I can unlock
> with a keychain transmitter. I have the transmitter and receiver, I've
> used them previously in a Long EZ in a similar application.
>
> In the EZ I used a MAC trim servo, but it's a little expensive for the
> application. All I need it to do is stick an arm out when it gets 12v,
and
> pull it's arm back when the voltage is reversed. It should have some form
> of limit, but doesn't need to stop mid-throw.
>
> Does anyone have a suggestion for something cheaper than the MAC servo?
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Thompson <grobdriver(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Servo for a canopy lock |
--- Richard Riley wrote:
>
>
> I want to install a servo to lock my canopy (a Berkut) that I can
> unlock
> with a keychain transmitter. I have the transmitter and receiver,
> I've
> used them previously in a Long EZ in a similar application.
http://www.autotechs.com/cat13.htm
That's just one quick return from a google search on:
"keyless entry servo".
I've been looking into this too.
- Mike
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Servo for a canopy lock |
But what's the fail-safe incase something breaks?? What's the back door?
-Larry
--- Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>
> --- Richard Riley wrote:
> >
> >
> > I want to install a servo to lock my canopy (a Berkut) that I can
> > unlock
> > with a keychain transmitter. I have the transmitter and receiver,
> > I've
> > used them previously in a Long EZ in a similar application.
>
>
> http://www.autotechs.com/cat13.htm
>
> That's just one quick return from a google search on:
> "keyless entry servo".
>
> I've been looking into this too.
>
> - Mike
>
>
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Mireley <glcompair(at)mireley.tcimet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 05/28/02 |
-I want to install a servo to lock my canopy (a Berkut)
..
-Does anyone have a suggestion for something cheaper than the MAC servo?
Use a motor out of a small cordless drill.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Servo for Canopy Lock |
Richard,
Since you are using the remote transmitter and receiver, maybe you
should have taken the whole car, or at least the door. Inside the door
is a neat solenoid for locking and unlocking the car door. It should be
quite useful. Keep us informed on how this goes. It seems a nice
approach.
Eric M. Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Thompson <grobdriver(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Servo for a canopy lock |
--- Larry Bowen wrote:
>
>
> But what's the fail-safe incase something breaks?? What's the back
> door?
These would not be for use in flight!!! NO!!!!
Only for locking the canopy closed or to fly-in position (2-inch
crack)on the ground. A c/b would disable in case of accidental
inflight activation.
In my implementation, anyway...
Mike Thompson
Austin, TX
-6 N140RV (Reserved)
FWF
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Servo for a canopy lock |
In a message dated 5/29/2002 1:49:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Richard(at)riley.net writes:
> I want to install a servo to lock my canopy (a Berkut) that I can unlock
> with a keychain transmitter.
Take a look at the keyless entry locks available at Lowes/Home Depot etc. for
home entry door use. These are self contained dead bolt units with the
receiver, servo and mechanism in one unit. They could possibly be stripped
down for lightness and adapted for aircraft door/canopy use.
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Kitfox Outback, (out back in the garage)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Servo for a canopy lock |
I wasn't implying inflight use.
You've lock you canopy (on the ground) with the servos. Now the servos shorts
for some reason, or your battery dies, or you loose the fob. Now what? You
are locked out of the airplane. What's that failsafe? Coat hanger? Hammer?
-Larry
--- Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>
> --- Larry Bowen wrote:
> >
> >
> > But what's the fail-safe incase something breaks?? What's the back
> > door?
>
>
> These would not be for use in flight!!! NO!!!!
>
> Only for locking the canopy closed or to fly-in position (2-inch
> crack)on the ground. A c/b would disable in case of accidental
> inflight activation.
>
> In my implementation, anyway...
>
> Mike Thompson
> Austin, TX
> -6 N140RV (Reserved)
> FWF
>
>
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Thompson <grobdriver(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Servo for a canopy lock |
--- Larry Bowen wrote:
>
>
> I wasn't implying inflight use.
>
> You've lock you canopy (on the ground) with the servos. Now the
> servos shorts
> for some reason, or your battery dies, or you loose the fob. Now
> what? You
> are locked out of the airplane. What's that failsafe? Coat hanger?
> Hammer?
Ah. Of course.
Cars have a mechanical key to unlock in that event...
Lose your keys and you're out of luck no matter what lock you have
installed.
Now it's ugly again.
- Mike
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Servo for a canopy lock |
Was your plan to keep the mechanical key lock too? I assumed your plan was
servo only.
-Larry
--- Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>
> --- Larry Bowen wrote:
> >
> >
> > I wasn't implying inflight use.
> >
> > You've lock you canopy (on the ground) with the servos. Now the
> > servos shorts
> > for some reason, or your battery dies, or you loose the fob. Now
> > what? You
> > are locked out of the airplane. What's that failsafe? Coat hanger?
> > Hammer?
>
>
> Ah. Of course.
>
> Cars have a mechanical key to unlock in that event...
> Lose your keys and you're out of luck no matter what lock you have
> installed.
>
> Now it's ugly again.
>
> - Mike
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Ludeman" <bludeman(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List |
Digest: 7 Msgs - 05/28/02))
Greetings,
Why not use a purpose-built door lock actuator (or am I missing
something here)? Parts Express sells them for ten or eleven bucks.
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Mireley
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 7 Msgs -
05/28/02
-->
-I want to install a servo to lock my canopy (a Berkut)
..
-Does anyone have a suggestion for something cheaper than the MAC servo?
Use a motor out of a small cordless drill.
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Irvine <wgirvine(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Servo for canopy lock |
>
> I want to install a servo to lock my canopy (a
> Berkut) that I can unlock with a keychain
> transmitter....
> Does anyone have a suggestion for something cheaper
> than the MAC servo?
How about using the lock solenoid from any General
Motors or Ford car/truck that has electric door locks?
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <Richard(at)riley.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Servo for a canopy lock |
1) Intended for use on the ground only. In flight has a totally separate
mechanical latch system
2) Backup a) is a pair of leads that come from the servo to an accessible
part of the airplane, perhaps in a gear well. Put a 9v battery on the
leads and the servo opens
Backup B is drilling out the hidden latch on the baggage door, and getting
to the servo that way.
>
>Was your plan to keep the mechanical key lock too? I assumed your plan was
>servo only.
>
>-Larry
>
>--- Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- Larry Bowen wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I wasn't implying inflight use.
> > >
> > > You've lock you canopy (on the ground) with the servos. Now the
> > > servos shorts
> > > for some reason, or your battery dies, or you loose the fob. Now
> > > what? You
> > > are locked out of the airplane. What's that failsafe? Coat hanger?
> > > Hammer?
> >
> >
> > Ah. Of course.
> >
> > Cars have a mechanical key to unlock in that event...
> > Lose your keys and you're out of luck no matter what lock you have
> > installed.
> >
> > Now it's ugly again.
> >
> > - Mike
>
>http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <Richard(at)riley.net> |
AeroElectric-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 05/28/02))
It's been a long time since I've installed one of the automotive door lock
actuators, but back then at least they were pretty heavy solenoids. I've
seen door locks that seem to motor up and down, instead of moving with a
tremendous "THWAP" - are those actuators smaller and lighter?
>
>
>Greetings,
>Why not use a purpose-built door lock actuator (or am I missing
>something here)? Parts Express sells them for ten or eleven bucks.
>Bruce
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
>Mireley
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 7 Msgs -
>05/28/02
>
>
>-->
>
>-I want to install a servo to lock my canopy (a Berkut)
>..
>-Does anyone have a suggestion for something cheaper than the MAC servo?
>
>Use a motor out of a small cordless drill.
>
>
>>>>http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Thompson <grobdriver(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Servo for a canopy lock |
--- Larry Bowen wrote:
>
>
> Was your plan to keep the mechanical key lock too?
> I assumed your plan was servo only.
Had planned on servo only with local, hidden, "emergency" unlock
button.
Will have to consider mechanical override of some sort...
- Mike
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sanders, Andrew P" <andrew.p.sanders(at)boeing.com> |
| Subject: | DRE portable intercom available |
I have a DRE-404e portable intercom I'd like to sell to finance a DRE panel
mount. I thought I'd give the list a chance before putting it on E-Bay.
It's in good shape, works great. Lists for $400 at AS&S and I'm reducing my
asking price from $300 to $250. I'll hold off the auction for a couple of
days if anyone is interested in it.
Andrew
evenings at 425-788-5209 or
ap.sand(at)gte.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Servo for a canopy lock |
Richard Riley wrote:
>
> I want to install a servo to lock my canopy (a Berkut) that I can unlock with
a keychain
> transmitter. I have the transmitter and receiver,
>
> Does anyone have a suggestion for something cheaper than the MAC servo?
How about the power door lock motor from a newer automobile???
(The older ones were solenoids, the new ones are often motor driven.)
These are designed to do exactly what you want and should be inexpensive from an
auto wrecker.
--
Bob McC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Harrill <KHarrill(at)osa.state.sc.us> |
| Subject: | OV module question |
Bob and others,
I now have 9 hours and over a dozen flights on my all electric RV-6, using
Bob's OV modules. On at least five occasions the over voltage breaker has
tripped. It seems to happen during start up or shut down. After resetting
the breaker it functions normally for the rest of the flight.
Questions:
Is this normal? Does my system have unusual voltage spikes? Could I have a
defective breaker ( it is a used breaker) or voltage regulator? And most
importantly, is this a sign that a total failure is about to happen or is it
safe to just live with it?
Ken Harrill
RV-6 Classic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim V. Wickert" <JimW_btg(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Servo for a canopy lock |
Richard,
Get a JC Whitney they have electronic power door lock kits for $89.99 with
two actuators with dash or panel switch and can be connected to you remote
system quit easy. The actuators alone are $39.99 each. You can also get
these from Dakota Digital www.dakotadigital.com. They have the actuators
from $35.00 each and they have complete kits as well/ Plus they have door
poppers 9spring load plungers) that can be used to keep the canopy open
when on taxi.
Jim W
Vision #159
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim V. Wickert" <JimW_btg(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Servo for a canopy lock |
Larry
If you use a power lock actuator from the auto world you can attach a level
for inside manual actuation and I have located a piano wire pull from a
rear access port I have will have on my plane as well. With the Actuators
you have 12 to 40 lbs of locking force depending on the one you select.
Plus you have the door poppers to keep the canopy open during taxi as well.
Jim W
Vision 159
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Annunciators |
Mike,
You designed the exact thing we've been looking for.
Do you think you could start a small batch ? I'm quite sure once a few
samples are installed in an airplane, lots of people will ask for our
supplier's address.
If you decide to start a small series within the next few months, you can
count me for one set of annunciators, coupled with a master warning light
and custom legends.
Please keep me informed.
Thanks,
Gilles
Airplane wiring planned for next fall
>
>
> 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: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: trim systems? |
Tom,
Let us know how it turns out.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: trim systems?
>
> Jim,
> I looked at building the relay circuit as a pleasurable thing to
> do. If you want to trim some time from the project, lets see what
> develops from the suggestion of using the lmd18200. The price is just
> over $11.00 buying a single unit. If it is as simple as what Tom
> Brusehaver says, you can wire the thing easily in an hour. And because
> it is small, it can be mounted practically anywhere.
>
> Tom Barnes
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
> Stone
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: trim systems?
>
>
>
> Tom,
> Van sells a relay circuit board to control the electric flaps in
> conjunction
> with the stick mounted switch. It sells for 40.00, and I was wondering
> if
> it is inferrior in any way to Paul Besings home built version. I tried
> Paul's Radio Shack part #s for the relays and came up empty. If Vans
> item
> is comparable, 40 bucks saves a lot of time over doing it Pauls way. Do
> you
> agree?
> Thanks,
> Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net>
> To:
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: trim systems?
>
>
>
> >
> > Jim,
> > I can't put my fingers on the drawing for the trim at this
> > moment, but I found the one for the flaps. The trim is twice the
> > circuitry. I used the drawing that Paul Besing presents at
> > www.lacodeworks.com/besing/flap.htm . By the way, Paul's drawing uses
> > DPDT relays. If you go onto Bob's site, you will find how he uses
> > single pole relays in conjunction with limit switches to get the job
> > done.
> > If I can find the drawing for the trim, I'll post it, in the
> > meantime, you might try searching the archives looking for "basing &
> > trim & schematic" or permeations of it in the 1998 time frame.
> >
> > Tom Barnes -6
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
> > Burley
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: trim systems?
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm familiar with the Ray Allen products - has anyone built their own
> > trim system? If so, is a design and materials list available?
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> Instead of relays, I advocate H bridges and other transistors.
> > >>
> > >> For a simple Trim motor, something like the National LMD18200
> > >> would be the trick.
> > >>
> > > > <http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LMD18200.html>
> > >>
> > >> for really big motors, H-bridges are available build from FET's
> > >> or transistors. They are talking 50-100Amps per motor!
> > >>
> > > > <http://www.dmillard.com/osmc/>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Annunciators |
I'm interested in such a gadget. I'l have lots of pressure and temperature
sensors to be on my 13B rotary engine installation.. However, wouldn't such
a system be nearly a duplication of the engine monitor systems that already
have settable alarms?
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Annunciators
<Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> You designed the exact thing we've been looking for.
> Do you think you could start a small batch ? I'm quite sure once a few
> samples are installed in an airplane, lots of people will ask for our
> supplier's address.
> If you decide to start a small series within the next few months, you can
> count me for one set of annunciators, coupled with a master warning light
> and custom legends.
> Please keep me informed.
> Thanks,
>
> Gilles
> Airplane wiring planned for next fall
>
>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
Cheers,
I have just come from the fifth disassembly of a
slightly-offcentre unscrewing Philips-head fitting. I am soaked from the
frustration of;
(a) finding the one ideal "phillips" (or as we say in the local teenage
hardware, "Cross-head") driver that is the correct size and angle; and
(b) trying to unscrew at an angle of about 80deg to the centre, with its
attendant slipping and chipping- and all the other ills of this benighted
design.
If it weren't for the insular craft and guile of one fabled
Henry Ford, I would be done - sampling a cool one of another fabled firm -
and ready for the next phase. I refer of the legendary refusal of the baron
Ford to use the Robertson Screw and Gear company "Square-drive" (another
teenage term)
design of 1908 - from a small town twenty minutes from here in Milton,
Ontario. As I see it, Henry put the kibosh on the Robertson screw because it
was 'foreign'.
The Robertson has all the technical features of the Philips but
not the sweet beauty. It is easier to turn, takes superior torque, and is
more forgiving of mis-matched drivers. It is faster, more easily adapted to
torque-adjusted driver heads and cheaper because it's simpler. Unscrewing a
painted Robertson is half the fuss of a Philips, too. Why AN series screws
adopted the Philips in its stead must reflect the wisdom of centralised
government.
There, I feel better now - time to have another 'go' at that
@#$%
crosshead.
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick DeCramer" <diesel(at)rconnect.com> |
| Subject: | Stubborn Phillips |
Here is a tip on stubborn phillips screws...use a good, proper number
screwdriver for the screw but dip the tip in valve grinding compound to
help grip the screw. A tube of valve grinding compound in paste form
can be bought in tubes at the auto parts store cheaply and we keep a
tube in our toolboxes just for this. My tube must be 10 years old and
still 90% left.
Dick DeCramer
RV6 Wiring
N500DD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OV module question |
>
>
>
>Bob and others,
>
>I now have 9 hours and over a dozen flights on my all electric RV-6, using
>Bob's OV modules. On at least five occasions the over voltage breaker has
>tripped. It seems to happen during start up or shut down. After resetting
>the breaker it functions normally for the rest of the flight.
>Questions:
>Is this normal? Does my system have unusual voltage spikes? Could I have a
>defective breaker ( it is a used breaker) or voltage regulator? And most
>importantly, is this a sign that a total failure is about to happen or is it
>safe to just live with it?
How long have you had the OV module? We discovered the need
for a design change about a year ago. Seems that a small percentage
of airplanes can generate a very fast rise-time pulse onto the bus
that doesn't represent a hazard to anything in the airplane but
it triggers the SCR in the OV module. We discovered this on
a production run of A-36 Bonanzas about a year ago and made some
changes to the design. Older versions of the OVM-14 are fitted
with red/black wires, later versions are yellow/black.
This change is needed only if one experiences nuisance trips
such as you have described. If you'll mail me your OVM-14,
I'll modify it and return it to you for no charge.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
C'mon Ferg, ol' Henry was probably like most of us here in the States and
thought Ontario was just another northern state. There must've been another
reason he didn't use those funny screws, eh?
Actually, if I recall correctly, the real reason had to do with the torque
that could be developed with the superior Robertson screw head. Power tools
of the day, unlike today's consumer products that have an adjustable clutch,
would be able to develop sufficient torque to damage the threads, so the
inferior Phillips had a decided advantage. Obviously what is advantageous
going clockwise, is a disadvantage going counterclockwise (I think that's
anti-clockwise for our friends across the pond) Hank worried only about
building cars, not fixing them.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear
Airframe complete, expensive stuff ahead
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Fergus
Kyle
Subject: AeroElectric-List: OFF-TOPIC MOAN
If it weren't for the insular craft and guile of one fabled
Henry Ford, I would be done - sampling a cool one of another fabled firm -
and ready for the next phase. I refer of the legendary refusal of the baron
Ford to use the Robertson Screw and Gear company "Square-drive" (another
teenage term)
design of 1908 - from a small town twenty minutes from here in Milton,
Ontario. As I see it, Henry put the kibosh on the Robertson screw because it
was 'foreign'.
There, I feel better now - time to have another 'go' at that
@#$%
crosshead.
Ferg
Europa A064
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Heinrich Gerhardt" <hgerhardt(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | alternators and starters |
Why do we still use remote starter solenoids with modern PM starters that
have a solenoid built in? Anybody seen a modern car that had a second,
remote solenoid? Nope. If the starter solenoid were to stick, you could
just kill the master solenoid to deactivate it.
About internally-regulated alternators: In looking at the wiring diagrams in
my Aeroelectric Connection book, I see that Bob recommends putting a relay
in series with the output B-lead so that the unit can be isolated from the
rest of the wiring. Why? If you cut the power to the field terminal, how
can the alternator put out anything? Is it so that in case the internal
regulator shorts out somehow and full-fields the unit, it can still be
isolated? Also, what's the wisdom of putting a fuse in the B-lead? I
thought that an alternator can only put out as much current as it's rated
for, since at that point it reaches maximum magnetic flux.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternators and starters |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Heinrich Gerhardt" <hgerhardt(at)earthlink.net>
> Why do we still use remote starter solenoids with modern PM starters that
> have a solenoid built in? Anybody seen a modern car that had a second,
> remote solenoid? Nope. If the starter solenoid were to stick, you could
> just kill the master solenoid to deactivate it.
I spoke to a Sky Tec starter tech support guy about this. He said they show
the starter wired this way (and ship it wired this way) because most
certified aircraft use a starter solenoid. He also said the best way to
wire it is without this solenoid and use the internal one. That is what I
did on my 6A. I changed a jumper on the starter and used one of Bobs relays
(S-14?) wired to a push button on the panel.
Ross Mickey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternators and starters |
A gotcha here is that the remote starter solenoid will run on a 2 amp
breaker. I wired my velocity that way, then decided to eliminate the
solenoid and wire directly to the Skytec. When I tested the circuit
yesterday, the 2 amp starter breaker tripped.
Since the skytec's solenoid not only is a big contactor, it also pulls the
bendix into the flywheel. So it needs a 5 amp circuit. This wasn't
mentioned in the skytech literature that came with my starter.
Another lesson learned - test everything while you have the chance.
Alternator test is next!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternators and starters |
I would everybody suggest to read:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/strtctr.pdf
and to decide if you need a startert contactor or not.
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: alternators and starters
>
> A gotcha here is that the remote starter solenoid will run on a 2 amp
> breaker. I wired my velocity that way, then decided to eliminate the
> solenoid and wire directly to the Skytec. When I tested the circuit
> yesterday, the 2 amp starter breaker tripped.
>
> Since the skytec's solenoid not only is a big contactor, it also pulls the
> bendix into the flywheel. So it needs a 5 amp circuit. This wasn't
> mentioned in the skytech literature that came with my starter.
>
> Another lesson learned - test everything while you have the chance.
> Alternator test is next!
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re:starter solenoids |
I have seen many modern autos with a remote solenoid and a starter mounted
one. For example, your 1992 and up Ford fullsize and Taurus have both.
Steve
Springfield Auto Parts Co., Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 05/30/02 |
Dan Branstrom wrote:
> "History of Hardware," Ford objected to the cost of the royalty that he
> would have to pay Robertson, so he went with the Phillips. I agree that the
> square-drive is far superior. Hank was cheap. Of course, that's why his
*** Amazingly cheap. I read that he had designs drawn on the packing crates
for parts of the car to be cut out on delivery. And he conspired with a
friend named King to find a use for the copious sawdust produced in car
production. ( Hint: they named their company "Kingsford" ).
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternators and starters |
>
>
>
>Why do we still use remote starter solenoids with modern PM starters that
>have a solenoid built in? Anybody seen a modern car that had a second,
>remote solenoid? Nope. If the starter solenoid were to stick, you could
>just kill the master solenoid to deactivate it.
The built in starter contactors have VERY high inrush currents
on the order of 30A or more. You CAN use them as the sole control
for starter operations but it's very hard on your starter engagement
switch. See http://216.55.140.222/articles/strtctr.pdf
>About internally-regulated alternators: In looking at the wiring diagrams in
>my Aeroelectric Connection book, I see that Bob recommends putting a relay
>in series with the output B-lead so that the unit can be isolated from the
>rest of the wiring. Why? If you cut the power to the field terminal, how
>can the alternator put out anything? Is it so that in case the internal
>regulator shorts out somehow and full-fields the unit, it can still be
>isolated?
The little wire going into the back of internally regulated
alternators does not supply field current. It's only a control
lead to the electronics of the regulator. There are failure
modes in most internally regulated alternators that CANNOT
be controlled externally . . . hence the need for a disconnect
relay in the b-lead.
> Also, what's the wisdom of putting a fuse in the B-lead? I
>thought that an alternator can only put out as much current as it's rated
>for, since at that point it reaches maximum magnetic flux.
The fuse is to protect the system and wiring from shorted
diodes in the alternator which can produce a hard fault to
ground good for many hundreds of amps and much smoke. It's
and increasingly rare event with modern alternators . . . but
I wouldn't bet the rate is zero. The limiter is cheap
insurance.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mike.weed(at)acterna.com |
| Subject: | Re: Annunciators |
David,
If you're talking about the "Pilots Associate" thing that I mentioned, then yes,
there are many similar (and much fancier) systems out now. I designed that back
around 1993 and was more of an extension of something Jim Wier used to have in
his RST product offerings.
If you're talking about the annunciators, I have just recently seen something
sort of similar, but it does not appear to be as flexible in configuration and
was pretty pricey. Status update: Proof of concept mechanical prototypes
complete, no showstoppers so far. Evaluating some more LEDs now. I could sure
use some suggestions for the standard legend offerings (email me directly at
fl-mike(at)yahoo.com to keep this list clean).
Mike
From: "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Annunciators
I'm interested in such a gadget. I'l have lots of pressure and temperature
sensors to be on my 13B rotary engine installation.. However, wouldn't such
a system be nearly a duplication of the engine monitor systems that already
have settable alarms?
David Carter
....
> > 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | New server is up and about ready to come on line . |
. .
I see that our website server has gone dark. I've not been
able to access any features on the server since early this
morning.
I've been working with a friend of mine in San Diego to
acquire and architecture a new server that we'll share
between aeroelectric.com and americanstirling.com
This is a server that we own and, of course, have to
maintain ourselves. We've purchased a 1U (1-3/4" tall
by 19" wide) server with dual monster hard drives and
installed in in a rack in San Diego. It's serviced
by a very fast Internet connection. We're working the bugs
out of Brent's site first. My site is duplicated and
accessable at:
http://216.55.140.222/
You can't place orders on this service yet but I think
everything else is working. I'll invite our readers to browse
over this site and see what they think of the new, speedy
connection. Of course, I'd like to hear about any broken
links that are found.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: History of Hardware |
From the inventors page at about.com:
"Henry Ford invented the charcoal briquette in 1920 with the help of Thomas
Edison. Ford is the man who popularized the gas-powered car in America and
invented the assembly line for automobile manufacturing. Ford created the
briquette from the wood scraps and sawdust from his car factory. E.G.
Kingsford bought the invention and put the charcoal briquette into
commercial production."
I know this has nothing to do with the topic but I just like to know for
sure.
R
--snip--
> he conspired with a
> friend named King to find a use for the copious sawdust produced in car
> production. ( Hint: they named their company "Kingsford" ).
>
> - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <danobrien(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Question on Dual Alt/Single Battery setup |
Question for Bob Nuckolls (or anyone else):
I'm new to this electrical stuff, so forgive me if these are dumb questions. My
questions are about the difference between Figure 17-4 ("Adding the SD-8 Auxiliary
Alternator") and Figure Z-12 ("Single Battery, Dual Alternator") in the
book. If I understand
the diagrams correctly, in Figure 17-4 the SD-8 alternator
connects with the battery without crossing the battery contactor. In Figure Z-12,
on the other hand, current from the 20 amp alternator (the smaller one) has
to cross the battery contactor before reaching the battery. I have two questions.
1. What's the purpose for this difference?
2. In discussing the rationale for the dual alternator/dual
battery system, you mention that in a single battery system, loss of a battery
contactor could precipitate total loss of electrical power because alternators
do not run well without batteries. Given this, why doesn't the setup in Figure
17-4 dominate the setup in Figure Z-12? Doesn't 17-4 eliminate the battery
contactor as a single point of failure?
Appreciate the help,
Dan O'Brien
N624LD
Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Auto relay for aux batt contactor question |
Hi, Bob and all,
Our project is to have two batteries and a single Rotax alternator. My
intention is to use your Battery Management Module.
The aux battery will normally not be used for cranking, but just for peace
of mind, I'll keep an auto/on aux battery switch hidden somewhere near the
aux battery.
To minimize current draw, would it be safe to use a 70 amp/150 peak amp
Omron auto relay as an aux battery contactor ? (coil resistance is 80 ohm)
During normal operation such a relay would be adequate, but in the
infrequent event of a starter operation on the aux battery, would the 150
amp peak rating be sufficient ?
The Rotax starter is given for 0.6 kW, and their starter contactor is rated
at 75 amp permanent/300 amp one second peak.
To sum it up : Will the 70 amp Omron relay survive the starter inrush
current draw ?
This relay can be seen at :
http://www.omronauto.com/internal_pro.html
Thank you for any info,
Cheers
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Bendix RN-222B Nav Radio |
| From: | lhdodge1(at)mmm.com |
7, 2002) at 05/31/2002 03:04:05 PM
I have a Bendix RN-222B Nav w/GS and an IN224A indicator. Both are yellow
tagged from Nov. '73.
Does anyone have a wiring diagram for these? I have the original harness,
but need to double check the power/ground hook-ups.
Also, I need NEW cog belts that drive the frequency indicators. Does anyone
know
where these can be found?
Thanks,
Larry Dodge
lhdodge1(at)mmm.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
Bob
In a past thread you suggested a 200ohm,1watt resister across
terminal 3 & 5 0f the LR-3's for the use of LED lights. I went to
Radio Shack but they did not carry that size. I am not
knowledgeable enough to make a alternate decision. I could
special order if necessary. What are your suggestions?
Jim Robinson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Auto relay for aux batt contactor question |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi, Bob and all,
>
>Our project is to have two batteries and a single Rotax alternator. My
>intention is to use your Battery Management Module.
>The aux battery will normally not be used for cranking, but just for peace
>of mind, I'll keep an auto/on aux battery switch hidden somewhere near the
>aux battery.
>To minimize current draw, would it be safe to use a 70 amp/150 peak amp
>Omron auto relay as an aux battery contactor ? (coil resistance is 80 ohm)
>During normal operation such a relay would be adequate, but in the
>infrequent event of a starter operation on the aux battery, would the 150
>amp peak rating be sufficient ?
>The Rotax starter is given for 0.6 kW, and their starter contactor is rated
>at 75 amp permanent/300 amp one second peak.
>
>To sum it up : Will the 70 amp Omron relay survive the starter inrush
>current draw ?
>This relay can be seen at :
>http://www.omronauto.com/internal_pro.html
>
>
>Thank you for any info,
It's a bit dicey . . . the problem with running cranking
currents through this relay is exacerbated by the limits
and resistance on associated wiring as well. A 600 watt
starter implies 50A of draw 1t 12v. Every milliohm of resistance
you put in series with the starter drops 50 millivolts of
cranking voltage. So, when you drop out of the realm of
4 and 6AWG wire commonly used to wire this starter, the
size and lengths of wires start adding up.
What is your aux battery? Is it capable of delivering
this kind of current at a voltage useful for starting?
Since this is purely a ground ops issue, why worry about
it? If the main battery is discharged, you could still
get the airplane started with a ground power connection
and jumper cables to an automobile. I think this would
be a much more robust and reliable source for "extra-ordinary"
cranking energy than to place any degree of reliance on
the proposed relay and the wiring that it supports.
With a low voltage warning light, you're not going to walk
of leaving master switch on. With yearly preventative maintenance
change-out of the main battery, reliability of the battery
for cranking is VERY high . . . I don't think I'd even
concern myself with the issue of pressing an aux battery
into service as an engine cranking power source unless
it's at least a 10 a.h. device with connections and internal
impedance useful to the task -AND- its connection to the
system was robust enough to take on this task and feel
only lightly stressed.
What you propose may work but it's heavily stressed for
this service with little if any headroom in the design.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Phillips head screws versus ? |
In a message dated 05/31/2002 2:52:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "Fergus Kyle" writes:
<< Cheers, I have just come from the fifth disassembly of a
slightly-offcentre unscrewing Philips-head fitting. I am soaked from the
frustration of; (a) finding the one ideal "phillips" (or as we say in
the local teenage
hardware, "Cross-head") driver that is the correct size and angle; and
(b) trying to unscrew at an angle of about 80deg to the centre, with its
attendant slipping and chipping- and all the other ills of this benighted
design......skip.... The Robertson has all the technical features of the
Philips but
not the sweet beauty. It is easier to turn, takes superior torque, and is
more forgiving of mis-matched drivers. It is faster, more easily adapted to
torque-adjusted driver heads and cheaper because it's simpler. Unscrewing a
painted Robertson is half the fuss of a Philips, too.....skip.... Ferg
Europa A064 >>
5/31/2002
Hello Ferg, I feel that the best solution for our amateur built experimental
aircraft is to abandon Phillips head machine screws and use hex socket head
cap screws whenever possible. Here are your options for driving / removing
hex socket head screws:
1) Standard "L" shaped "allen" wrench. (Very inexpensive. Long arm can
generate significant torque).
2) Straight shaft hex wrench with a straight handle like a screw driver. (Can
be very long).
3) Short (1/4 inch hex drive) hex wrench insert bits that can be used with a
socket set or a cordless screw driver. There are handy little kits of these
bits that also come with a ratchet handle and screw driver handle. Chapman
makes some nice kits. Item B-MR-SDS4 from Small Parts (see below) is an
absolute jewel of a kit (does not use standard 1/4 inch hex insert bits
though).
4) Special ball tipped hex wrenches that allow one to drive or remove hex
socket head screws from an angle.
5) Special ball tipped hex wrenches with small spring ring around the ball
tip that will hold a hex socket head screw while you wave it around in the
air or try to start it in a hole that is difficult to access.
If you will look at some modern day aerospace vehicles (airplanes and space
craft) you will see extensive use of hex socket head screws and bolts.
Where to get these screws? My favorite source is Microfasteners who will be
happy to mail you their brief, but extensive selection, catalog:
url <<http://www.microfasteners.com>>
email: <>
phone: 800-892-6917 or 908-806-4050 (If you talk to John tell him I sent you.)
But there are other sources such as Small Parts <>.
Hex socket head hardware is available in both alloy and CRES (Corrosion
Resistant Steel) , commonly called stainless steel. I feel that we can make
extensive use of CRES hardware in our amateur built experimental aircraft.
There is such a thing as aviation structural quality CRES hardware. You may
have to dig a bit if you are adamant about aircraft quality hex socket head
hardware and a traceable lineage. Such things are obviously available, but
the people that make that kind of hardware sell in the thousands to companies
like Boeing and it is difficult to break into that loop.
John at Microfasteners may be able to help you. He got me 100 degree
countersink hex socket flat head machine screws in both alloy steel and
stainless steel. They were very costly, but other head designs such as the
normal knurled hex socket head, hex socket button head, and 82 / 87 degree
countersink flat hex socket head are not that expensive in either alloy steel
or CRES.
Just as amateur built experimental aircraft are leading the way in electrical
systems and avionics I feel that we can lead the way for better hardware in
general aviation aircraft.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
PS: If you are really in love with the square socket drive (Robertson)
hardware you need to change hobbies. The furniture industry makes extensive
use of that fastener design.
PPS: The next logical step in hardware drive design is the Torx Plus, but we
aren't quite there yet in terms of hardware and tool availability.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick DeCiero <rsdec1(at)star.net> |
If anyone out there has built, installed and used one of RST engineering's audio
panel/intercom/marker beacon ( RST - 564 or 565 ) could you please relay your
experience
with it.
Thank you,
Rick D.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Arthur Glaser" <airplane(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: Garmin Transponder] |
> This is for a friend. He would like to know if anyone has bought a
> Garmin Transponder with harness and possibly an encoder. He is
> interested in cost and service. I told him to call Stark Avionics but
> it is late and he got the answering machine.
>
> Please contact me on or off list and I will forward the information. He
> is currently flying a Long EZ and would like to use is airplane.
>
> Thanks much,
>
> Art Glaser
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Question on Dual Alt/Single Battery setup. |
Somehow my message go messed up and doesn't wrap
at the end of the page. I'll repeat my questions
so it's easier to read.
My questions are about the difference between Figure 17-4
("Adding the SD-8 Auxiliary Alternator") and Figure Z-12
("Single Battery, Dual Alternator") in the book.
If I understand the diagrams correctly, in Figure 17-4
the SD-8 alternator connects with the battery without crossing
the battery contactor. In Figure Z-12, on the other hand,
current from the 20 amp alternator (the smaller one) has to
cross the battery contactor before reaching the battery.
I have two questions:
1. What's the purpose for this difference?
2. In discussing the rationale for the dual alternator/dual
battery system, you mention that in a single battery system,
loss of a battery contactor could precipitate total loss of
electrical power because alternators do not run well without
batteries. Given this, why doesn't the setup in Figure 17-4
dominate the setup in Figure Z-12? Doesn't 17-4 eliminate the
battery contactor as a single point of failure?
Appreciate the help,
Dan O'Brien
N624LD
Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: RST audio panel |
At 13:26 1/06/2002, you wrote:
>
>If anyone out there has built, installed and used one of RST engineering's
>audio
>panel/intercom/marker beacon ( RST - 564 or 565 ) could you please relay
>your experience
>with it.
I built the RST-564, but haven't actually used it yet.
The short answer is that its a good kit. Go to
http://www.matronics.com/rv-list/bunnys-guide/rv/bunny/audio.htm to see the
long answer.
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Auto relay for aux batt contactor question |
Bob,
Thank you for your extensive answer.
> It's a bit dicey . . . the problem with running cranking
> currents through this relay is exacerbated by the limits
> and resistance on associated wiring as well. A 600 watt
> starter implies 50A of draw 1t 12v. Every milliohm of resistance
> you put in series with the starter drops 50 millivolts of
> cranking voltage. So, when you drop out of the realm of
> 4 and 6AWG wire commonly used to wire this starter, the
> size and lengths of wires start adding up.
>
> What is your aux battery? Is it capable of delivering
> this kind of current at a voltage useful for starting?
It's to be an SBS 8 Ah RG from Hawker Energy. Usually the MCRs run happily
with one such battery. My intention is to have two of them installed, so
either one is capable of cranking.
>
> Since this is purely a ground ops issue, why worry about
> it? If the main battery is discharged, you could still
> get the airplane started with a ground power connection
> and jumper cables to an automobile.
Perfectly right. This cranking possiblility is for my friend's peace of mind
;-)
> I think this would
> be a much more robust and reliable source for "extra-ordinary"
> cranking energy than to place any degree of reliance on
> the proposed relay and the wiring that it supports.
>
> With a low voltage warning light, you're not going to walk
> of leaving master switch on. With yearly preventative maintenance
> change-out of the main battery, reliability of the battery
> for cranking is VERY high . . . I don't think I'd even
> concern myself with the issue of pressing an aux battery
> into service as an engine cranking power source unless
> it's at least a 10 a.h. device with connections and internal
> impedance useful to the task -AND- its connection to the
> system was robust enough to take on this task and feel
> only lightly stressed.
>
> What you propose may work but it's heavily stressed for
> this service with little if any headroom in the design.
>
Thanks again for your advice. I'll convey this to my friend. Old ways of
thinking die hard, and his concern was "what if the main battery runs flat
in a remote field with no one around ?".
We agreed that a hidden locking switch could be a good compromise between
panel simplicity and a last resort option in case HE forgot the master on
overnight.
My intention was to never use that switch : in case my main battery is
discharged, I surely won't get airborne before everything is sorted out and
corrected.
But of course, if I play safe and use a standard battery contactor, it'll
permanently draw 1 amp of our already too scarce power supply.
We'll re-examine our choices.
Cheers,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question on Dual Alt/Single Battery |
setup.
>
>Somehow my message go messed up and doesn't wrap
>at the end of the page. I'll repeat my questions
>so it's easier to read.
>
>My questions are about the difference between Figure 17-4
>("Adding the SD-8 Auxiliary Alternator") and Figure Z-12
>("Single Battery, Dual Alternator") in the book.
>If I understand the diagrams correctly, in Figure 17-4
>the SD-8 alternator connects with the battery without crossing
>the battery contactor. In Figure Z-12, on the other hand,
>current from the 20 amp alternator (the smaller one) has to
>cross the battery contactor before reaching the battery.
>I have two questions:
>
>1. What's the purpose for this difference?
Z-12 is easily added to an existing and even
certified airplane . . . and especially one that doesn't
have an e-bus structure. Also, due to the greater
output of the SD-20, there's no pressing need to
take the battery contactor out of the loop to save
energy - HOWEVER, battery master contactor failure
is not well supported with Z-12 . . .
Figure 17-4 is also Figure Z-13. If it were MY airplane,
an SD-8 wired per Z-13 would be my choice.
>2. In discussing the rationale for the dual alternator/dual
>battery system, you mention that in a single battery system,
>loss of a battery contactor could precipitate total loss of
>electrical power because alternators do not run well without
>batteries.
Right . . .
> Given this, why doesn't the setup in Figure 17-4
>dominate the setup in Figure Z-12? Doesn't 17-4 eliminate the
>battery contactor as a single point of failure?
You got it. Z-12 is for the poor folks who have to
wrestle with bureaucratic ignorance and indifference
in their quest for improved system performance and
confidence.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | That Philips-head screwing |
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Phillips head screws versus ?
In a message dated 05/31/2002 2:52:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "Fergus Kyle" writes:
<< Cheers, I have just come from the fifth disassembly of a
slightly-offcentre unscrewing Philips-head fitting. I am soaked from the
frustration of; (a) finding the one ideal "phillips" (or as we say in
the local teenage hardware, "Cross-head") driver that is the correct size
and angle; and
(b) trying to unscrew at an angle of about 80deg to the centre, with
its
attendant slipping and chipping- and all the other ills of this benighted
design......skip.... The Robertson has all the technical features of the
Philips but not the sweet beauty. It is easier to turn, takes superior
torque, and is more forgiving of mis-matched drivers. It is faster, more
easily adapted to torque-adjusted driver heads and cheaper because it's
simpler. Unscrewing a painted Robertson is half the fuss of a Philips,
too.....skip.... Ferg
Europa A064 >>
"5/31/2002
Hello Ferg, I feel that the best solution for our amateur built experimental
aircraft is to abandon Phillips head machine screws and use hex socket head
cap screws whenever possible. Here are your options for driving / removing
hex socket head screws:
1) Standard "L" shaped "allen" wrench
2) Straight shaft hex wrench with a straight handle like a screw driver. 3)
Short (1/4 inch hex drive) hex wrench insert bits ........... Chapman
makes some nice kits. Item B-MR-SDS4 from Small Parts (see below) 4) Special
ball tipped hex wrenches that allow one to drive or remove hex
socket head screws from an angle.
5) Special ball tipped hex wrenches with small spring ring around the ball
tip "
"OC":
First of all, thank you for taking considerable time to answer
my diatribe. I almost regretted taking peoples time to read, but after a
bath and a cool one I slipped into the basement and typed for Liberty.
Secondly, yes - I have used most of the above alternates except
choice #5. All these while excellent are alternatives to the Robertson,
when - after scanning the torque surfaces of the various tools - I don't
honestly believe there IS an alternative to touch the simple security of the
R. I was really stumping the hustings for some recognition by the AN
folk - not much hope there. I appreciate your compiling the choices tho'!
"If you will look at some modern day aerospace vehicles (airplanes and space
craft) you will see extensive use of hex socket head screws and bolts."
Yes, I have and noted the solidity with which they matched the
need.
However, cleaning paint in order to unscrew remains a consideration
(much easier I feel with the R). In fact I managed to capture a tri-wing set
(like a Philips head, only three slotted) from a line engineer when driving
the inimitable Lockheed L-101. The check pilot on a London -Toronto leg
spied it in my bag and said, "We don't do their poop, and they don't do
ours". He did the take-off twenty minutes later and on liftoff, the whole
instrument panel ended up wedged in front of the yoke. I took the wheel
and he held the panel up. The upshot was I made him ask for the driver
and bits - and then asked "Is this their poop?"
"Where to get these screws? My favorite source is Microfasteners who will be
happy to mail you their brief, but extensive selection, catalog:
url <<http://www.microfasteners.com>>
email: <>
phone: 800-892-6917 or 908-806-4050 (If you talk to John tell him I sent
you.)
But there are other sources such as Small Parts <>.
Hex socket head hardware is available in both alloy and CRES (Corrosion
Resistant Steel) , commonly called stainless steel. I feel that we can make
extensive use of CRES hardware in our amateur built experimental aircraft. "
I will investigate these alternatives of course - and have come
across CRES standards - just didn't know the acronym.......
I only sent this to list because I wanted to thank you for
having taken the trouble, and for providing the addresses. Much obliged.
That's what Bob and Matt are doing for us as well - a service of
incomparable value.
"PS: If you are really in love with the square socket drive (Robertson)
hardware you need to change hobbies."
You are quite right. The only thing is I don't want my inspector
saying it............
Regards and thanks again,
Ferg
Europa A064 (1998 and counting)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Long EZ Z-13 electrical system |
eing.com>
>G'Day Bob,
>
>I have a 95% complete IO-360 Long EZ with dual electrical system in
>accordance with Drawing Z-13, with 20A and 60A alternators, main/aux bus
>etc, but I have dual LSE electronic ignition. I've read your book (thanks
>for your efforts there) and have some questions:
Z-13 shows the SD-8, how did you tie the SD-20 into the
system?
>I have had some trouble finding copper tube (to be used as a conduit) that
>has a wall thickness that correlates to a 2AWG wire. Heavy copper is easy to
>find.
HEAVY copper is not needed . . . 2AWG equivalent wire is .25" in diameter
for a cross section of 0.05 square inches of copper. A 3/4" tube with a
0.25" wall has 0.06 square inches of cross section. The conduit thing is
pretty labor intensive. Unless you're REALLY interested in
the convenience of being able to push/pull wires through the
hell-hole via conduit, I'd forego the effort to install one.
I built one airplane like that about 15 years ago . . . it was
a spook airplane for the military and needed to have an exceptionally
quiet electrical system. I think you'll find a pair of 2AWG
feeders running in close proximity parallel to each other to be
entirely satisfactory and will install in 1/10th the time.
This is why we've taken the conduit suggestion out of later
revisions of the book.
>If you feel this is the best solution to a Z13 implementation in a Long EZ,
>how would you adapt the Z-13 drawing to include a copper conduit?
>If so, do you know where I may be able to buy a copper tube that would
>contain 2 x 2AWG's and 2 x 4AWGs without being 1/8th wall?
Why so many fat wires? Unless you're really talking about
Figure Z-14 (dual battery-dual alternator) which is
horrible overkill for an EZ . . . why not go with Z-12
and tie the SD-20 into the system at the starter contactor
in the tail? You won't need any long, fat feeders for the
second alternator.
How about joining us on the AeroElectric List? These kinds
of discussions would benefit a lot of folks if conducted
there. See:
http://216.55.140.222/consulting.html
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solid state relays for trim system |
>
>
>Tom Barnes wrote:
>
> >
> > Tom,
> > You stated that in order to make reverse happen, you supplied
> > voltage to "reverse and go". Is this what you intended to mean?
> > Secondly, I noticed in the specifications on the web site, that there
> > are many pins on the processor and there are some drawings that show
> > capacitors and resistors external to the unit. Is it true that for our
> > application, one needs only to be concerned with the wires that you drew
> > on your "simple ascii art? I like what I see.
>
>
>The LMD18200 has a pin labled PWM. This is pulse width modulation.
>Used for controlling the speed of the motor, slower smaller pulses
>will run the motor slowly. Larger faster pulses drive it faster.
>This can also be thought of as the GO connection, I mentioned before.
>One large constant pulse, and the motor will turn. The other pin to
>worry about is called DIR. This is the reverse connection, grounding
>this pin will cause the PWM to drive the motor one way, pulling this
>pin HI, will cause the PWM to drive the motor in the other direction.
>
>If you are looking at the LMD18200 sheet, there are a couple
>capicitors, across the powersupply. These are mostly there to
>help isolate other components in the circuit. Mostly this would
>be used in driving motors via computer, where the other
>components would be sensitive to voltage sags, and other noise
>(not necessarily damaged, but affected, even temporarily, how
>low a voltage will that computer keep operating?).
Last paragraph, first column of page 7 speaks to this. For
MAC trim motors, the "fat" capacitor can be on the order
of 10-20uF, the transorb mentioned is not necessary.
>It probably isn't a bad idea to put a capacitor across the motor
>terminals anyway. Keeps electronic noises down.
Wouldn't do this. The MAC motors aren't that noisy anyhow.
Adding shunt capacitance across the motor only increases
transient inrush currents.
> . . . . . The LMD18200
>prefers a capacitor from the two motor out pins (2 and 10 to 1
>and 11 respectivly) for noise reasons, they call it bootstrap.
Those capacitors are not for noise, they're part of the
an artificially boosted power supply to turn on the upper
fets in the h-bridge. See first paragraph on page 8. For motors
as small as those used in trim systems, the INTERNAL bootstrap
capacitors are probably sufficient, the externals are not
needed.
>The LMD18200 has all kinds of features that you can or not use.
>Dynamic braking is a great feature for a robot arm, helps minimize
>overshoot. Temprature sensors, and current sense are good for
>detecting motor stall. Grounding the brake pin means you don't have
>to worry about it anymore (brake always off). The other sensor
>pins you could hook to LED's or something as a warning if you want.
The only warning output is a "thermal flag" on pin 9 which
goes low when the chip is overheated. Ain't gonna happen
in a trim system . . .
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Testing Electrical System Alternator |
>
>I would like to test my entire electrical system on my RV6A before I button
>up the top forward fuselage skin. What I would like to be able to do is get
>my alternator turning so that it will be producing electricity and then
>check voltage regulators, engine monitoring systems etc. without having the
>engine running. I am thinking of attaching a pulley wheel to an electric
>drill and connecting that to the alternator via a pulley. Any comments or
>other suggestions?
There have been a lot of good replies to this. My
approach would be to hook a 13.8 volt, plug-in-the-wall
power supply to the b-terminal of the alternator so that
the rest of the system can pretend the alternator
is working. Actual testing of the alternator can wait
until first engine run.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Gyros |
>
>
>The question I was posing was more in terms of total system reliability. Is
>an electrical AH & DG plus its supporting electrical feeds more reliable
>that a gyroscopic instrument and its supporting power source? (i.e. the
>vacuum pump)
>
>In the most simple analysis, does the MTBF of an electrical DG exceed the
>MTBF of a modern dry vacuum pump ? If it does then it would certainly
>exceed the aggregate reliability of a total vacuum based system. I am just
>curious to see the data that supports the assumption.that an all electric
>system is more reliable.
Unless one is skilled at doing the reliability tree analysis
for the whole flight system, discussions about the "MTBF of this
or weaknesses of that" are not terribly useful. We do a lot
of this kind of study for Part 25 ships in order to meet the
FAA's notions of what is "acceptable" . . . which I've often
suspected are numbers pulled out of you-know-where.
For our purposes, the task is simply this: From the time
your wheels break ground to the time they must absolutely
be back on the ground is a finite little window in the history
of your flight experience. The comforts to be acquired from
our deliberation come from the fact that the likelihood of
crapping TWO, must-have components in the same slice of
time needs to be very low . . . this has little to do with
the MTBF numbers or demonstrated reliability of the same
device in somebody else's airplane.
Let's assume that whatever DG you put in your airplane
has an MTBF of 500 hours and further assume that you can
buy it for $500 and overhaul it for $100. Would you be
willing to put that in along side an AH with similar
characteristics? I would . . . as long as I had faith
in the power supply. Single-source vacuum? Hmmm . . . single
point of failure for both devices. Three-source electrical?
That's a different story.
Is an "all-electric" system more reliable? . . . not the
way CBPM have done it for years but how about Figure
Z-11 with two batteries, Figure Z-13, Figure Z-14? NONE of these
configurations have ever existed in the airplanes
for which most of us have acquired our aviation
experience . . . the ONLY thing we've been allowed to
do by decree is look for what we hope is a more reliable,
"approved" part instead of designing a more reliable system
that is less sensitive to failure of individual parts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NAV antenna for COMM? |
><joberst@cox-internet.com>
>
>I have an extra NAV antenna embedded in the Glasair Super II I'm building.
>I've been thinking that even though it's not the correct length or
>orientation for COMM use, it may be a lot better than the rubber stick on
>top of my handheld backup COMM unit. So, I have been thinking about wiring
>this NAV antenna to a BNC connector on my console, so I can plug in my
>handheld comm unit in an emergency. (In fact, come to think of it, my
>handheld also has a VOR receiver in it.)
>
>Any experiences, or thoughtful opinions, on how well this would work
>compared to the rubber antenna?
Much better than any antenna inside the cockpit, much worse
than any antenna outside designed for communications duty.
Whether or not you will find this to be satisfactory
will depend on your experience . . . doesn't hurt to give
it a try.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PVC Insulation In ACK Technologies Encoder |
>
>
>I discovered today that my ACK Technologies A-30 encoder harness uses PVC
>insulation.
>
>I called ACK (Mike, at 408 287 8021 ext 1#) and Mike told me that they have
>sold over 80,000 units all with PVC harnesses.
>
>He claims that the FAA allows PVC to be used and that the A-30 passed their
>fire test (FAR 23.1359).
>
>However the FAA test does not require testing for toxicity on wires.
>
>I'm considering fabricating a Tefzel harness.
>
>Is this an overkill?
>
>If Bob or anyone has strong opinions about this issue or if you think that
>it's important to switch to Tefzel, please let me know.
If the wire is new . . . I'd leave it alone. If you pull
a harness out of an older airplane that has maybe 20 years
or more service on it, I'd probably replace the wire.
Remember, there are tens of thousands of Cessnas and other
singles pushing 50 years old with PVC wire in them. Look
through any number of NTSB accident reports and search for "PVC" . . .
I'd be surprised to find a single hit.
The PVC vs. Tefzel just isn't a big issue.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan DeNeal <rv6apilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | ICOM A200 getting Turn & Bank Gyro sound |
Bob,
I have just finished installing my ICOM A200 with DRE
244e intercom. My electrical system is configured with
toggle switches, main bus with blade fuses and a
common ground on the firewall where all ground wires
run to.
While sitting in the cockpit and enjoying John
Denver's CD, I could hear my Electric Turn & Bank Gyro
creating an anoying whirl in the headset. I pulled the
fuse on the gyro and the noise went away.
I did install the pilot's headphone & mic jacks on the
subpanel close to the gyro, but am lost at what may be
the culprit.
Dan DeNeal
Attended your seminar in George & Becky's Hangar just
before they moved to the private strip.
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 12Volt relays |
>
>I am going to roll my own relay decks to operate electric flaps and
>electric trim from stick-grip switches in the front and rear seats of my RV-4.
> Has anyone used relays from an auto-parts store which are normally used
> for switching/dimming spot-lights? They sell at about $6= each, and are
> rated for 12V and 20/30Amps, with spade type connectors, and mounting
> tabs so they can be screwed to a bulkhead/panel. They have NO and NC
> contacts. I suspect they should be fine for the flaps, but am wondering
> whether they would be good for the trim? Comments? Thanks ... John Kent
> (Ireland)
A tad oversized for itty bitty trim motors but they'd
work fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A bit more on the safety of electric versus vacuum |
driven
gyros.
>
>OK, curiosity got the cat with the recent responses to my question about
>the relative safety of vacuum and electrical systems. I searched the NTSB
>accident database for fatal accidents with the phrase "vacuum pump" and got
>462 hits. I looked at the first 40 hits, which ran from 1/2/83 to
>4/23/93. In 18 of the 40 cases, the FAA concluded that the vacuum pump
>FAILED, and in 6 additional cases, they concluded that it MAY HAVE
>FAILED. In the other 16 cases the vacuum pump was found not to be a
>factor. Most of these cases involved typical stupid pilot tricks, although
>three cases involved bad attitude indicators.
>
>I then searched the NTSB accident database for fatal accidents with the
>word "alternator" somewhere in the report. There were 154 hits, 8 of which
>occurred during the same period as the first 40 hits for "vacuum pump"
>(i.e., the period from 1/2/83 to 4/23/93) Of these 8 hits, in only 1
>instance was the alternator cited as a factor in a fatal accident, and in
>that case it was cited as "suspect in high load situations," whatever that
>means.
>
>We can't conclude from this that electric-driven gyros are necessarily
>safer than vacuum-driven gyros, because the general aviation experience is
>mostly with vacuum-driven gyros. Alternator failure hasn't caused much
>spatial orientation because the alternator rarely drives the attitude
>indicator. However, my own conclusion from this quick study is that there
>have been a significant number of instances in which vacuum failure has led
>to fatalities. There are enough instances that it is hard to understand
>why the vacuum pump retains its status as the power source for the most
>important spatial orientation instrument in the cockpit.
>
>The consensus seems to be that alternators are at least an order of
>magnitude more reliable than vacuum pumps. With the kind of redundancy
>that Bob proposes in his book (with back-ups that WORK WHEN ENGINE POWER IS
>NEEDED, unlike most standby vacuum systems), it seems pretty impossible
>not to conclude that electric gyros are the safer option.
>
>I suppose that as a new convert I'm singing mostly to the choir on this
>list......but, I'm always interested hearing alternative views.
But none of the incidents cited involve airplanes fitted with
B&C alternators, RG batteries, alternate feed paths to an
e-bus nor did they probably have a wing leveler that operated
independently of the panel displays for flight control. In
my not so humble opinion, looking through the archives accident
history on certified iron in order to achieve some sense of
how your experimental airplane should go together is like
walking into a fruit stand to buy some good steaks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Robertson" <res0rlvx(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Screw drive methods |
My company, a very large manufacturer of Semiconductor Processing equipment,
has standardized on Torx drive screws, because of the problems with stripped
head fasteners in the field (even socket head fasteners are not good). We
have many Stainless fasteners in Aluminum parts, and get quite a bit of
corrosion binding.
See this site for the description of Torx.
http://www.camcar.textron.com/torxplus/comparison.html
I have not done an exhaustive search on suppliers of fasteners, but since we
only need #6 and #8 in 100 degree countersink, and #8 in pan-head, it should
not be too hard.
Gordon Robertson
RV8 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A bit more on the safety of electric versus |
vacuum...
In a message dated 6/2/2002 3:18:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
> looking through the archives accident
> history on certified iron in order to achieve some sense of
> how your experimental airplane should go together is like
> walking into a fruit stand to buy some good steaks.
>
> Bob . . .
>
My gosh Bob, you crack me up with such a comparison. Isn't there at least
some merit in knowing what others have done wrong, or not so well, in the
certified world?
John Z.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RST audio panel |
Rick DeCiero wrote:
>
>
> If anyone out there has built, installed and used one of RST engineering's audio
> panel/intercom/marker beacon ( RST - 564 or 565 ) could you please relay your
experience
> with it.
> Thank you,
> Rick D.
>
Search the RV list for "RST&intercom&Charlie"
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gabe and Marisol Ferrer" <ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Antenna Placement |
Bob (or anyone), I couldn't find a section in your book about rule of thumb
antenna separation.
I will be installing two comm antennas and a transponder antenna in the
belly of my RV6.
How far apart should they be?
Thanks
Gabe A Ferrer (RV6, "final" electrical installation)
ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net
Cell: 561 758 8894
Night or FAX: 561 622 0960
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net> |
Rick,
I built the audio panel and marker beacon receiver and feel
rewarded by the experience. After it was all done, I sent it back to
RST for calibration and it check out just fine. Still not flying yet,
but I have now installed it in my panel and have my #2 comm (Microair
760) also installed and it works as advertised. I especially like the
way the intercom is married with all the other input devices. I have no
other experience with audio panels, but I just can not imagine any
features that this doesn't handle.
When I ordered the pair, I ordered the marker beacon with the
panel mount. If I were doing it again, I wouldn't bother with the panel
mount; I'd go with the remote mount, because the audio panel has the
duplicated enunciator lights. RST's product description didn't point
this fact out very well three years ago.
In summary, I'm in favor of "rolling your own" with this kit.
And in my sole opinion, if you never have to deal with the people at
RST, that would be beneficial. The main man is a technician, not a
"public relations" type, nor "business". But he is excellent at what he
does best.
Tom Barnes -6 all electric
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
DeCiero
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RST audio panel
If anyone out there has built, installed and used one of RST
engineering's audio
panel/intercom/marker beacon ( RST - 564 or 565 ) could you please
relay your experience
with it.
Thank you,
Rick D.
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
| Subject: | Re: warning lights (LED) |
Bob
I am trying to wire my switches and have a question. The wire from
the CB to the fuel pump switch is #18 with a 10 amp CB. I wanted
to use a short jumper from one side of the switch (DPST) to the
other and then # 20 or 22 wire to the LED warning light to ground.
Two questions:
Doesn't this configuration leave the small wire from the switch to
the LED unprotected?
Would there be a better way to wire this. I am concerned that if
the pump failed the light could still go on.
I have searched wire book drawings and don't seem to find a similar
situation.
18AWG----- pump-----gnd
CB-------switch[
22AWG------LED -----gnd
Jim Robinson
Fumbling in the dark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A bit more on the safety of electric versus vacuum... |
>
>In a message dated 6/2/2002 3:18:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
>
> > looking through the archives accident
> > history on certified iron in order to achieve some sense of
> > how your experimental airplane should go together is like
> > walking into a fruit stand to buy some good steaks.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
>
>My gosh Bob, you crack me up with such a comparison. Isn't there at least
>some merit in knowing what others have done wrong, or not so well, in the
>certified world?
Sorta . . . but take care lest we focus too closely
on the wrong things. For example: The present government
approach to airline safety is harass the devil out of
EVERYBODY in a search for ANYTHING that could conceivably
used as a weapon. I'm reading where major cities are sending
their law enforcement and investigation folks to (you
guessed it) Israel, for anti-terrorism training. They
come back and tell us stories about how the teachers
are shaking their heads in wonderment . . . WE spend
so much time and effort looking for weapons and so
little time and effort looking for terrorists.
Every accident and failure report will go into
great detail, after the fact, as to what happened.
This gizmo failed, or that pilot failed . . . . big
deal. We already KNOW that SOMETHING failed in a way
that the SYSTEM could not tolerate. Consider that
lots of the same things fail regularly and accidents
don't happen . . . Soooo . . . I would conclude that
pouring over MTBF numbers and certification testing
of components is not useful. Our time is much
better spent on studying how systems can be designed
to be more tolerant of failure . . . which may
never happen on the aircraft featured in those
reports.
The accident/failure reports tend to generate
the same response from people who gather and
publish such information for what they believe
is the public good. But if you read these things,
keep reminding yourself that a gyro, pump, radio
etc with a 500 hour MTBF or a 5,000 hour MTBF
can still fail (or become inoperative for ancillary
reasons) at ANY time. In a certified ship, the
only way you're allowed to improve your odds is
to replace the 500 hour device with the 5,000 hour
device, usually a great expense.
I'll suggest NTSB reports will contain little information
of value until they begin to focus on ways to make
flight systems better irrespective of component
failure rates. But of course, every NTSB investigator
will tell you that, "It's not my job. Besides,
if I do make a recommendation, there are a half
dozen alphabet organizations that will oppose
the idea for lots of reasons but none related to
the science."
Further, spending much time going over them and
trying to make some useful decisions for your own
airplane is like standing in line to get on an
airliner. After having run the exercise and
acquiring your seat aboard the airplane, are you
REALLY confident that we've done the best we
know how to do?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ICOM A200 getting Turn & Bank Gyro sound |
>
>Bob,
>
>I have just finished installing my ICOM A200 with DRE
>244e intercom. My electrical system is configured with
>toggle switches, main bus with blade fuses and a
>common ground on the firewall where all ground wires
>run to.
>
>While sitting in the cockpit and enjoying John
>Denver's CD, I could hear my Electric Turn & Bank Gyro
>creating an anoying whirl in the headset. I pulled the
>fuse on the gyro and the noise went away.
>
>I did install the pilot's headphone & mic jacks on the
>subpanel close to the gyro, but am lost at what may be
>the culprit.
There are a lot of turn coordinators that are
being manufactured under the guidelines in effect
at the time of their original entry into the
aviation market . . . at least 25 and
perhaps 35-40 years ago. We were not as sensitive
to effects of magnetic radiated noise then.
First, find a 12v battery. You might have to make
it up using a couple of 6v lantern batteries from
Walmart . . . get cheap ones unless you have a
lantern that can use them.
Use the batteries to power up the turn coordinator
independently of the aircraft power and see if the
noise goes away. If it does, then the noise is
electrically coupled via the aircraft power bus
to other devices in the system. The fix is a noise
filter like:
http://216.55.140.222/articles/filter/filter.html
If the noise only goes down but you can still hear
it, then you may have a coupling mode that includes
BOTH conducted electrical -AND- magnetic.
If the noise does not go away entirely on separate
battery power, then you'll need to add a shield
to the outside of the turn coordinator case. A strip
of thin magnetic material (like gutter flashing from
the lumber yard) that is wrapped two or three times
tightly around the outside of the case and held on
with tye-wraps will usually do the job.
You can make up a cylinder of coiled material and
put the tye-wraps on loosely so that the i.d. of
the cylinder is just larger than the T/C case.
Take the connector off and slip the cylinder over
the T/C from behind. Snug the tye-wraps down to
close the cylinder down on the instrument.
You may find it useful to put a strip of double
sided tape along the end of the shielding strip's
inside surface so that it can get a good friction
grip on the instrument. This allows you to twist
the coil of sheet metal down tightly from the
outside and get a good fit before putting the final
tensioning tugs on the tye-wraps.
>Dan DeNeal
>Attended your seminar in George & Becky's Hangar just
>before they moved to the private strip.
Did a seminar in the new hangar last spring. It's
a REALLY nice facility. I wrote to them about doing
another program this year but didn't hear back.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B & C Regulator |
Hello Bob,
I would like to bring following mail to your attention, it was posted in the
GlaStar List (not Matronics), maybe you can contact Robert once to clarify
things with him? I would very much appreciate, he had very bad luck with his
panel, frying twice very expensive parts.
Many thanks,
Werner
Werner, thanks for the heads-up on this. I've copied yourself, the
aeroelectric-list
and Mr. Simon with a recap and reply to his posted message. If you would care
to forward this to the Glastar folks too, I would appreciate it.
------------------------- original message -------------------------------
Topic: B & C regulators (1 of 1), Read 37 times
Conf: Building - Avionics, Panel & Electrical
From: Robert M. Simon rmsimon(at)ustek.com
Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 05:06 AM
I have had a host of electrical problems with N161GS. The first were caused
by an avionics tech cross wiring the two alternators and regulators. However
after that the problem was traced to a regulator that didn't regulate. B & C
insisted that this was due to latent unspecified damage to the regulator and
could not possibly be due to a design/performance defect in their unit.
Sounded like a cop-out to me but they charged me to repair their defective
unit.
Now a couple months later I read in Flying magazine an editor's story about
his B & C regulator that - guess what - did not regulate and the voltage ran
away, to 30 v as I recall the article.
Sounds like we have a design problem with the B & C units and that some
external protection is warranted: the internal system is just too
unreliable. Could anyone suggest a non- B & C solution?
Robert M. Simon
N161GS/#5430
Ferried Sun/Mon this weekend from Melbourne FL to Columbus Ohio. Finally she
sits in my hanger - not perfect, but home at last!
Robert,
By way of introduction, I publish the AeroElectric Connection (a design
manual and text on aircraft electrical system design and fabrication). I
also monitor the aeroelectric-list on matronics.com in order to share my
40+ years experience with aircraft electrical systems with the Owner
Built And Maintained aircraft community. I am also the original designer
of the B&C regulators. B&C hails from Newton, Kansas about 25 miles
north of me. I've known Bill and Celesta Bainbridge for about 25 years.
They are my favorite consulting clients . . . I don't have to make any
excuses for them professionally or from a business perspective.
The history of these devices is long and successful. LR-1
regulators flew the closed course mission on Voyager and by the
time the around-the-world mission launched in Dec '86, we'd made some
upgrades to the LR-2 series devices which flew around the world.
I don't know the exact figures but there are certainly thousands
of these devices in service in OBAM ships around the world and in
several hundreds of certified ships as regulators for the B&C SD-20
standby alternators and their close cousins.
I think this long, rich history of successful operation argues any
assertions alluding to design problems or unreliable operation. I'd
very much like to know which issue of Flying magazine cited the
incident you mentioned. I'd like to track down engineering details.
We've had several instances where builders were installing dual alternators
and got wires between the two systems intermixed . . . with variable
results ranging from benign to catastrophic damage to the regulators.
Be advised that these regulators MUST have a reliable system ground.
This is why the regulator is fitted with a ground terminal on the
terminal strip in addition to a ground stud on the case.
In a metal airplane, these two pathways are usually redundant to
a ground path that is created through the mounting bolts when
the regulator is mounted on the firewall. If the regulator is
mounted on a non-metalic or otherwise insulated surface, it is
important that ground-path integrity be assured with diligent
use of the ground terminals cited above.
If ground is lost, the regulator looses it's ability to
monitor bus voltage and make the right choices with respect
to alternator control and the system can go into overvoltage.
The problem is compounded because the crowbar ov protection
system depends upon good ground to open the field supply
breaker.
One might argue that this is "poor design" . . . I've
considered a number of alternatives to the design to
eliminate the loss of ground as a potential source of
uncontrolled runaway. Obviously, separation of the OV
protection system from the regulation system is one solution.
We've rejected all ideas to date because we believe it is
in our customer's best interest to sell them a system that
is complete and as capable as that which we would choose
to put in our own airplanes. Selling the OV protection,
regulation, and LV monitor as three separate devices would
be more expensive than the single, integrated device. Further,
it would give customers an opportunity to mix and match
B&C product(s) in ways that did not conform with our best
recommendations.
The bottom line is that dealing with the regulator's idiosyncrasy
for requiring redundant grounds was the "smallest of multiple
evils." Hence, the design has remained in the configuration
which you have installed on your airplane. We've worked this
same issue to the satisfaction of FAA and manufacturers
of the certified ships upon which this regulator (and closely
related cousins) are installed.
If you believe that B&C has lied to you or behaved in any
way that lacks integrity, I'd be pleased to look into it
for you to deduce and report the facts. Please be assured,
you will have to look long and hard to put together an
alternator control system package with value equal to or
exceeding that of the B&C product. I am confident that once
installed per requirements dictated by the design, you will enjoy
the same utility and reliability as thousands of our
brethren have experienced for almost 20 years.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Screw drive methods |
>
>
>My company, a very large manufacturer of Semiconductor Processing equipment,
>has standardized on Torx drive screws, because of the problems with stripped
>head fasteners in the field (even socket head fasteners are not good). We
>have many Stainless fasteners in Aluminum parts, and get quite a bit of
>corrosion binding.
>
>See this site for the description of Torx.
>http://www.camcar.textron.com/torxplus/comparison.html
>
>I have not done an exhaustive search on suppliers of fasteners, but since we
>only need #6 and #8 in 100 degree countersink, and #8 in pan-head, it should
>not be too hard.
>
>Gordon Robertson
>RV8 finishing
>
Did a quick search on "torx" "faseners" and "aircraft" and
got a gazillion hits. Here are few. If anyone wishes to
avail themselves of this superior screw driving technology,
it shouldn't be hard. . .
http://www.virtualforum.com/industrialhardware/
http://www.fastener-express.com/store.asp
http://www.fasteners.net/
http://www.fasteners.net/
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: warning lights (LED) |
Jim Robinson wrote:
>
>
> Bob
> I am trying to wire my switches and have a question. The wire from
> the CB to the fuel pump switch is #18 with a 10 amp CB. I wanted
> to use a short jumper from one side of the switch (DPST) to the
> other and then # 20 or 22 wire to the LED warning light to ground.
> Two questions:
> Doesn't this configuration leave the small wire from the switch to
> the LED unprotected?
> Would there be a better way to wire this. I am concerned that if
> the pump failed the light could still go on.
> I have searched wire book drawings and don't seem to find a similar
> situation.
> 18AWG----- pump-----gnd
> CB-------switch[
> 22AWG------LED -----gnd
>
> Jim Robinson
> Fumbling in the dark
Jim,
I'm not Bob, the short answer is:
Anything after the CB only has 10A of protection. The LED
will be lit unless the other load trips the breaker, whether
the pump is actually functioning or not. If you want to
monitor the pump's functioning, why not use the fuel
pressure guage?
BTW, you don't need a DPST switch for the above circuit. You
can just wire the LED's supply line to the same terminal as
the pump's supply line (SPST switch).
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: warning lights (LED) |
>
>
>Bob
>I am trying to wire my switches and have a question. The wire from
>the CB to the fuel pump switch is #18 with a 10 amp CB. I wanted
>to use a short jumper from one side of the switch (DPST) to the
>other and then # 20 or 22 wire to the LED warning light to ground.
>Two questions:
>Doesn't this configuration leave the small wire from the switch to
>the LED unprotected?
yes but if it's short (6" or less) we generally don't
worry about it
>Would there be a better way to wire this. I am concerned that if
>the pump failed the light could still go on.
correct . . . the light only says power is applied to
the pump . . . only a pressure switch on the pump's
output could be used to say that the pump was actually
working.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Batt/Alt switch - OVM module |
Bob,
Hope you had a good vacation; CA is a bit different than KS.
I am sure I have read in the past answers to the questions I ask, so please
bear with me as I cannot recall the references.
I am using an NSI Subaru on my GlaStar. This package is prewired and uses, I
believe, the 55 amp ND internally regulated alternator. I also believe the
starter contactor is integral to the starterI have the OVM-14 which I plan to
add per the instructions included. However, this drawing has some features
for which I cannot explain the requirement.
1) What is behind the comment on the drawing regarding the batt/alt switch
needing to switch the battery and altenator "on and off together" (which can
be accomplished with the usual split Cessna switch)? This question arises
because a couple of other same package builders are using separate toggle
switches or switchbreakers for the battery and alternator which would allow
non-coordinated switching. For some reason, I have come to understand
independent switching may not be a problem with the above (or other modern)
alternator(s) (apparently confirmed by they flipping their switches), but was
a problem with older equipment? If so, how does it become a problem when
utilizing the OVM? (I have convinced at least one of them to install the
OVM, but could not explain why the synchronized switching was necessary.) I
am using toggle switches; I believe you have a switch the emulates the
operational features of the Cessna switch (identification)?
2) What (again) is the purpose of the S701-1 contactor? Is it needed for my
installation/equipment?
3) I will be installing the loadmeter. What is the recommended installation
location of the ANL-80 current limiter and shunt?
Thanks in advance for your comments. Also looking forward to the release of
your parts list / kit for the low voltage warning indicator.
Regards, Doug Windhorn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert Gardner" <albert.gardner(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Screw drive methods |
http://www.smallparts.com/
These guys have a large catalog of small, unusual parts including screws. I
replaced most of the 8-32 screws with torx instead of phillips drive. Quick
service also.
Albert Gardner
Yuma, AZ
RV-9A: N872RV (Reserved)
Working on firewall forward
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Ford" <dford(at)michweb.net> |
I was thinking of using the RST audio panel but after looking at their
website I didn't see anything about the panel being stereo capable. I
haven't yet determined whether this is important enough to me since the
only thing I would have stereo would be a CD player. There may be
another way to hook up a stereo unit into the system--have any
suggestions?
Dave Ford
RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <Richard(at)riley.net> |
| Subject: | ATI horizion gyro mounting bracket |
I'm looking for an ATI bezel mounting bracket for a 3" Bendex AI. Any
ideas who might have one?
Richard Riley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Batt/Alt switch - OVM module |
>
>Bob,
>
>Hope you had a good vacation; CA is a bit different than KS.
You got that right . . .
>I am sure I have read in the past answers to the questions I ask, so please
>bear with me as I cannot recall the references.
>
>I am using an NSI Subaru on my GlaStar. This package is prewired and uses, I
>believe, the 55 amp ND internally regulated alternator. I also believe the
>starter contactor is integral to the starterI have the OVM-14 which I plan to
>add per the instructions included. However, this drawing has some features
>for which I cannot explain the requirement.
>
>1) What is behind the comment on the drawing regarding the batt/alt switch
>needing to switch the battery and altenator "on and off together" (which can
>be accomplished with the usual split Cessna switch)? This question arises
>because a couple of other same package builders are using separate toggle
>switches or switchbreakers for the battery and alternator which would allow
>non-coordinated switching. For some reason, I have come to understand
>independent switching may not be a problem with the above (or other modern)
>alternator(s) (apparently confirmed by they flipping their switches), but was
>a problem with older equipment?
"Modern" alternators have nothing to do with it. Unless you've
taken the time to evaluate alternator-only operations in your system
as configured, it's risky to allow it. We allow it on the A-36
Bonanza but we've taken the time and effort to show that it's useful
and doesn't pose a risk. Even if you DO find that the alternator runs
well self-excited, it's not a solid source of power. Momentary high
inrush currents (landing gear pumps, landing lights, etc) can "stall"
the system and turn the lights out anyhow.
Airframe designers are generally not cognizant of these conditions and
they tend to believe that what was fine on the 1946 C-140 is fine
for their new design.
> If so, how does it become a problem when
>utilizing the OVM? (I have convinced at least one of them to install the
>OVM, but could not explain why the synchronized switching was necessary.) I
>am using toggle switches; I believe you have a switch the emulates the
>operational features of the Cessna switch (identification)?
Yes, it's the S700-2-10 switch that will emulate the
split rocker action . . . or you can use the less expensive
S700-2-3 and just pull the field breaker for the relatively
rare instances when you want battery only ops with the
master switch ON.
>2) What (again) is the purpose of the S701-1 contactor? Is it needed for my
>installation/equipment?
Yes, there are failure modes within an alternator having
built in regulators that CANNOT be controlled by removing
power from the control lead. The additional contactor
insures that a misbehaving alternator gets completely
unhooked from your airplane in case of an ov event.
>3) I will be installing the loadmeter. What is the recommended installation
>location of the ANL-80 current limiter and shunt?
Both should be as close to the starter contactor as practical.
I would recommend you install the external contactor as shown
on all of our drawings. See:
http://216.55.140.222/articles/strtctr.pdf
>Thanks in advance for your comments. Also looking forward to the release of
>your parts list / kit for the low voltage warning indicator.
>
>Regards, Doug Windhorn
It will be awhile. Still wrestling problems with the website
server. It crashed Friday morning and we're sorta back up but
can't take orders yet.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Morrow" <dfmorrow(at)toast.net> |
| Subject: | AeroElectric website |
www.AeroElectric.com doesn't seem to be the old AeroElectric site anymore.
Is there a new name for it? http://209.134.106.21/articles.html works.
However, http://209.134.106.21 gets to a page which links back to
AeroElectric.com again.
Dan Morrow
RV8A Building Empennage slowly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric website |
>
>www.AeroElectric.com doesn't seem to be the old AeroElectric site anymore.
It's being worked on . . and will be back up as the original site
pretty soon (I hope).
>Is there a new name for it? http://209.134.106.21/articles.html works.
>However, http://209.134.106.21 gets to a page which links back to
>AeroElectric.com again.
this is an experimental server that presently hosts only the
downloadable materials and articles. There's a third
server being groomed to be a WHOLE NEW host at:
http://216.55.140.222/
As soon as we can resolve some IP address and DNS transfers,
this will be the new site which I hope will be much faster
and more stable.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | OV and Alternator lights |
Hi, Bob,
In case we use two batteries with a Rotax alternator OV module according to
fig Z-16, ALONG WITH your battery management module, should I wire TWO
separate annunciator lights, one for ALT Disconnect, and the other for LO
VOLTS ?
Or does only one LO VOLTS light triggered by removal of power from the bus
just cover the subject ?
thank you,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OV and Alternator lights |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi, Bob,
>
>In case we use two batteries with a Rotax alternator OV module according to
>fig Z-16, ALONG WITH your battery management module, should I wire TWO
>separate annunciator lights, one for ALT Disconnect, and the other for LO
>VOLTS ?
>Or does only one LO VOLTS light triggered by removal of power from the bus
>just cover the subject ?
One light from the battery management module ought to cover
it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Can the LR3-1 be mounted upside down?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "I-Blackler, Wayne R" <wayne.blackler(at)boeing.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long EZ Z-13 electrical system eing.co |
m>
Bob,
My apologies, I am using the Z14. It is overkill for my Long EZ, however, I
plan to fly the aircraft from the USA back to Australia in about 2 1/2
years, and want a proven redundant system to make the voyage.
I have now joined the list. Happy to get involved, and very much appreciate
your time and knowledge.
Regards
Wayne.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Long EZ Z-13 electrical system eing.com>
>G'Day Bob,
>
>I have a 95% complete IO-360 Long EZ with dual electrical system in
>accordance with Drawing Z-13, with 20A and 60A alternators, main/aux bus
>etc, but I have dual LSE electronic ignition. I've read your book (thanks
>for your efforts there) and have some questions:
Z-13 shows the SD-8, how did you tie the SD-20 into the
system?
>I have had some trouble finding copper tube (to be used as a conduit) that
>has a wall thickness that correlates to a 2AWG wire. Heavy copper is easy
to
>find.
HEAVY copper is not needed . . . 2AWG equivalent wire is .25" in
diameter
for a cross section of 0.05 square inches of copper. A 3/4" tube with a
0.25" wall has 0.06 square inches of cross section. The conduit thing is
pretty labor intensive. Unless you're REALLY interested in
the convenience of being able to push/pull wires through the
hell-hole via conduit, I'd forego the effort to install one.
I built one airplane like that about 15 years ago . . . it was
a spook airplane for the military and needed to have an exceptionally
quiet electrical system. I think you'll find a pair of 2AWG
feeders running in close proximity parallel to each other to be
entirely satisfactory and will install in 1/10th the time.
This is why we've taken the conduit suggestion out of later
revisions of the book.
>If you feel this is the best solution to a Z13 implementation in a Long EZ,
>how would you adapt the Z-13 drawing to include a copper conduit?
>If so, do you know where I may be able to buy a copper tube that would
>contain 2 x 2AWG's and 2 x 4AWGs without being 1/8th wall?
Why so many fat wires? Unless you're really talking about
Figure Z-14 (dual battery-dual alternator) which is
horrible overkill for an EZ . . . why not go with Z-12
and tie the SD-20 into the system at the starter contactor
in the tail? You won't need any long, fat feeders for the
second alternator.
How about joining us on the AeroElectric List? These kinds
of discussions would benefit a lot of folks if conducted
there. See:
http://216.55.140.222/consulting.html
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Marker Beacon Antenna |
I'm building a tailwind, which has a steel tube fuselage with fabric
covering. I'd like to install a marker beacon antenna in the fuselage. I
have the marker beacon receiver build from a kit by RST. ( I didn't
build it). This receiver does not work with the 'boat' type antennas,
only the 'sled-runner' type. I've seen an antenna made that used two
straight pieces of wire in the bottom of a wooden airplane. Would the
same sort of antenna work in the belly of a steel tube frame? What are
you're thoughts about mounting the ' sled runner' antenna internally in
the belly?
Thanks
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Marker Beacon Antenna |
>
>
>I'm building a tailwind, which has a steel tube fuselage with fabric
>covering. I'd like to install a marker beacon antenna in the fuselage. I
>have the marker beacon receiver build from a kit by RST. ( I didn't
>build it). This receiver does not work with the 'boat' type antennas,
>only the 'sled-runner' type. I've seen an antenna made that used two
>straight pieces of wire in the bottom of a wooden airplane. Would the
>same sort of antenna work in the belly of a steel tube frame? What are
>you're thoughts about mounting the ' sled runner' antenna internally in
>the belly?
The classic sled runner is a laid-over, 1/4 wave vertical antenna
with a coax tapped off the antenna at some point away from the
grounded front end of the runner. I think I would try routing
your coax back to the empennage, ground the shield to a lower
tube and attache a 40" piece of wire to the center conductor
and route it further aft to an upper tube . . put an insulator
a the end so the antenna is isolated from structure.
Then go fly it and see how well it works.
If results are not satisfactory, I'd try the 40" sled runner
as an external antenna. Same sort of deal . . . ground coax
shield to local structure and attach center conductor to
insulated, 40" antenna outside the airplane.
I kinda think the inside antenna will work fine. Marker beacons
are 5 watt transmitters driving gain antennas pointed straight
up to airplanes that fly over them at 1,000 feet or less. You
should be able to pick up marker beacons in the filings of your
teeth!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Long EZ electrical system |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>My apologies, I am using the Z14. It is overkill for my Long EZ, however, I
>plan to fly the aircraft from the USA back to Australia in about 2 1/2
>years, and want a proven redundant system to make the voyage.
>
>I have now joined the list. Happy to get involved, and very much appreciate
>your time and knowledge.
>
>Regards
>
>Wayne.
What are the longest legs you intend to fly on this
trip? What is the minimum electrical equipment list?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B & C Regulator |
>
>Can the LR3-1 be mounted upside down?
Yes. Take care that it's not at the top of a cavity
filled with other heat generating equipment.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Screw drive methods |
In a message dated 06/03/2002 2:51:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "Gordon Robertson"
writes:
<http://www.camcar.textron.com/torxplus/comparison.html
I have not done an exhaustive search on suppliers of fasteners, but since we
only need #6 and #8 in 100 degree countersink, and #8 in pan-head, it should
not be too hard. Gordon Robertson RV8 finishing >>
6/3/2002
Hello Gordon, Thanks for your input and optimism. A couple of comments /
questions if I may:
1) Is your company standardized on Torx or Torx Plus? Textron makes like the
difference is a big deal. I'm still under the impression that Torx Plus
hardware and tools are not readily available. Torx tools are described as a
field expedient for driving Torx Plus hardware.
2) I welcome you to the hunt for stainless steel aircraft structural quality
machine screws with hex socket head or Torx / Torx Plus drive in 100 degree
countersink flat head. I have been chasing that will 'o the wisp for a few
years now. Please keep us posted on your progress.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 06/03/2002 11:53:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ripsteel(at)edge.net writes:
<< Hi Owen! I saw your post to the Aeroelectric list regarding the 100 degree
hex
drive flat head screws and am awaiting a quote from John at Microfasteners
for 100 of the 8-32x5/8". (thanks for the lead!)
Have you received and used these screws yet, and are you satisfied with
them? I was curious about achieving sufficient torque without rounding
out the hex due to the small size of the wrench required. (would like to
use them for tank attach and inspection covers)
Thanks for any additional information! Mark Phillips - Columbia, TN >>
6/3/2002
Hello Mark, If you don't mind I'd like to include the AeroElectric-List in my
response to your email above. Other people on the list have also shown an
interest in this subject.
To answer your specific questions:
1) Yes, I have received both the alloy steel and stainless steel 8-32 by 1/2
inch hex socket flat head 100 degree counter sink machine screws from
Microfasteners.
2) Yes, I am satisfied with them except for cost (see below). I paid $85.00
US for 100 of the alloy screws and $95.00 US for 100 of the SS screws.
3) Your concern about the small hex wrench size generating enough torque or
stripping out the socket is valid, but so far this has not been a problem for
me. I also am using the screws for inspection / access covers, but intend to
use them when I attach my control surface hinges. Both of these applications
use anchor nuts and I've had no problems with lack of torque or socket strip
out in all of my assembly / disassembly work to date.
Comments:
A) Where a countersink flat head is not required / desirable I use either the
button head or the normal knurled cap screw head. The hex wrench size for the
knurled cap screw is larger than for the button head or flat head.
B) If someone is inclined to paint over their machine screws (I am not) then
the smaller hex sockets filled with paint could be a problem.
C) Cost: If we are going to use non aircraft standard hardware in our amateur
built experimental aircraft (which I feel is common / acceptable practice if
done with adequate research and judicious application) then there may be no
reason to insist that all of our countersink flat head machine screws be the
100 degree type. Therefore one could use good quality 80-87 (nominally 82)
degree countersink flat head machine screws at a considerable savings. I am
not aware however of a source of Tinnerman style countersink stainless steel
washers made to fit 80-87 degree countersink flat head machine screws. (I
have seen aircraft assembled with 80-87 degree countersink flat head machine
screws and 100 degree Tinnerman washers. The builder pilot seemed blissfully
unaware of any incompatibility).
D) If one were alert to not getting his different countersink screws mixed up
one could use standard aircraft structural grade MS 24694 Phillips drive 100
degree countersink flat head screws, either alloy steel (125,000-145,000 PSI
tensile strength) or stainless steel (85,000 PSI tensile strength) for
structural purposes (control surface hinges, etc.) and quality 80-87 degree
countersink flat head hex socket screws for non structural applications. Bear
in mind that some access panels do form part of the structure and need to be
fastened in place accordingly.
E) There are available 82 degree SS countersink finishing washers, but these
are the raised type, not recessed like the Tinnerman washers.
OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Screw drive methods |
In a message dated 06/03/2002 2:51:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "Albert Gardner"
writes:
<< http://www.smallparts.com/ These guys have a large catalog of small,
unusual parts including screws. I replaced most of the 8-32 screws with torx
instead of phillips drive. Quick service also. Albert Gardner>>
6/3/2002
Hello Albert, I'm puzzled. The only Torx / Torx Plus machine screws that I
see in the latest Small Parts Catalog # 22 are Torx Plus screws on page 188.
The largest of these are 4-40.
Do they have others in larger sizes that are available only by calling and
special ordering?
What head design are the 8-32 screws that you obtained -- flat countersinked
(what degree?) or something else?
Small Parts does have a pretty wide selection of hex socket head cap screws,
but of course all their hex socket flat head cap screws are 82 degree
countersink. And they have the standard cylindrical knurled hex socket head
cap screws.
Also they don't list any hex socket button head cap screws that could
conceivably be used in the place of pan head machine screws. Microfasteners
does carry the hex socket button head screws.
So I'm really curious about what screws you are using -- Many thanks.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RST audio panel |
>
> I was thinking of using the RST audio panel but after looking at their
> website I didn't see anything about the panel being stereo capable. I
> haven't yet determined whether this is important enough to me since the
> only thing I would have stereo would be a CD player. There may be
> another way to hook up a stereo unit into the system--have any
> suggestions?
Nope, the RST audio panel doesn't do stereo. You can hook
a stereo to it, mixing both channels. Not the highest
fidelity, but remember that big ol noise generator that
you are wearing headphones to filter out, pretty much
will whack the fidelity anyway.
You might consider the "front" speakers to be your headphones,
and put a couple speakers in the cabin, as the "rear" speakers
to listen to while on the ground.
The audio panel will automatically mute any music channel
whenever the COM radio selected has something happening.
A pretty nice feature, probably more important than the
highest fidelity.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Borne" <caborne3(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Marker Beacon Antenna |
Bill,
I too, have an RST marker beacon receiver kit (yet to be built) but was not
aware of its incompatability with the 'boat' type antennas which is exactly
what I was planning on using. Was this information located in the assembly
directions or was it general knowledge from the RST web site?
Thanks,
Chuck Borne
RV-4, fuselage
Napoleonville, LA
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Marker Beacon Antenna
>
> ... I have the marker beacon receiver build from a kit by RST. ( I didn't
> build it). This receiver does not work with the 'boat' type antennas,
> only the 'sled-runner' type...
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Placement |
>
>
>
>Bob (or anyone), I couldn't find a section in your book about rule of thumb
>antenna separation.
>
>I will be installing two comm antennas and a transponder antenna in the
>belly of my RV6.
>
>How far apart should they be?
>
>Thanks
I'd try to put the comm antennas at least 24" apart. The
transponder 12" from either of the comm antennas.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov> |
| Subject: | Permanent Magnet Alternator |
Most permanent magnet alternators have two wires coming out of the case for
attachment to the voltage regulator/rectifier. I have one that has three
wires, all the same size and color. Bob Nuckolls, can you tell me the
purpose and function of the third wire?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Permanent Magnet Alternator |
>
>Most permanent magnet alternators have two wires coming out of the case for
>attachment to the voltage regulator/rectifier. I have one that has three
>wires, all the same size and color. Bob Nuckolls, can you tell me the
>purpose and function of the third wire?
There is a new class of PM alternator wound for 3-phase
power generation. These are generally much more efficient
devices than the single-phase machines with which we
are most familiar.
These machines take a special regulator/rectifier designed
to work with the 3-phase output.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mprather(at)spro.net |
| Subject: | Re: Permanent Magnet Alternator |
My motorcycle buddy was asking me whether my pm alternator (b and c)
was 3 phase (he's another EE). I told him that I didn't think so. I
guess the 3 phase pm's are becoming common on cycles.
Bob, do you know if three phase pm's might be in the works from b and
c in the future? Can a single phase be rewound?
Thanks,
Matt Prather
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2002 8:06 am
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Permanent Magnet Alternator
>
> >
> >Most permanent magnet alternators have two wires coming out of the
> case for
> >attachment to the voltage regulator/rectifier. I have one that
> has three
> >wires, all the same size and color. Bob Nuckolls, can you tell me
> the>purpose and function of the third wire?
>
> There is a new class of PM alternator wound for 3-phase
> power generation. These are generally much more efficient
> devices than the single-phase machines with which we
> are most familiar.
>
> These machines take a special regulator/rectifier designed
> to work with the 3-phase output.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> _-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Permanent Magnet Alternator |
Hello Bob,
with other words this does not work with the current B&C regulator?
Will there be soon something availabel from you?
Kind regards
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Permanent Magnet Alternator
>
> >
> >Most permanent magnet alternators have two wires coming out of the case
for
> >attachment to the voltage regulator/rectifier. I have one that has three
> >wires, all the same size and color. Bob Nuckolls, can you tell me the
> >purpose and function of the third wire?
>
> There is a new class of PM alternator wound for 3-phase
> power generation. These are generally much more efficient
> devices than the single-phase machines with which we
> are most familiar.
>
> These machines take a special regulator/rectifier designed
> to work with the 3-phase output.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Permanent Magnet Alternator |
I don't know if it would be acceptable, but CPS sells a 3 phase voltage
regulator. Says it doesn't require a minimum load, if that matters.
R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Permanent Magnet Alternator
>
> >
> >Most permanent magnet alternators have two wires coming out of the case
for
> >attachment to the voltage regulator/rectifier. I have one that has three
> >wires, all the same size and color. Bob Nuckolls, can you tell me the
> >purpose and function of the third wire?
>
> There is a new class of PM alternator wound for 3-phase
> power generation. These are generally much more efficient
> devices than the single-phase machines with which we
> are most familiar.
>
> These machines take a special regulator/rectifier designed
> to work with the 3-phase output.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thoma, Roy" <roy.thoma(at)intel.com> |
| Subject: | Recommendation for "essential bus" devices? |
Bob/list members;
I'm struggling with what to include on the essential bus - of if I even need
an essential bus. I'd like to hear (read ?) recommendations about what you
would include on an essential bus. I'm building an all electric Zenith
Zodiac, CH601HDS with a Rotax 912S, including the optional 40A alternator.
I'm using Z-13 for my "template". Potential electrical loads are:
Rotax ignition
Electric powered Instruments:
Artificial Horizon, Direction Gyro, NavAid Device autopilot/Turn
Coordinator, microEndoder
Radio Stack:
Garmin GMA 340 Audio panel, Garmin GNS 430 GPS/Nav/Com, Garmin GTX 327
transponder.
Engine Instruments:
Volt/Load meter
3 capacitance fuel sensors + triple fuel gauge - 1 amp MAX current draw if
ALL three low fuel warning lights are active.
Engine Instrument Systems (EIS)
Primary and Secondary electric facet fuel pumps.
Instrument panel lights
Interior lights
Pitot heat
Position Lights
Landing light (55W)
Thanks for your comments.
Roy
N601RT (reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Recommendation for "essential bus" devices? |
>
>
>Bob/list members;
>
>I'm struggling with what to include on the essential bus - of if I even need
>an essential bus. I'd like to hear (read ?) recommendations about what you
>would include on an essential bus. I'm building an all electric Zenith
>Zodiac, CH601HDS with a Rotax 912S, including the optional 40A alternator.
>I'm using Z-13 for my "template". Potential electrical loads are:
>
>Rotax ignition
>
>Electric powered Instruments:
>Artificial Horizon, Direction Gyro, NavAid Device autopilot/Turn
>Coordinator, microEndoder
>
>Radio Stack:
>Garmin GMA 340 Audio panel, Garmin GNS 430 GPS/Nav/Com, Garmin GTX 327
>transponder.
>
>Engine Instruments:
>Volt/Load meter
>3 capacitance fuel sensors + triple fuel gauge - 1 amp MAX current draw if
>ALL three low fuel warning lights are active.
>Engine Instrument Systems (EIS)
>
>Primary and Secondary electric facet fuel pumps.
>
>Instrument panel lights
>Interior lights
>Pitot heat
>Position Lights
>Landing light (55W)
>
>Thanks for your comments.
Roy, With the optional 40A alternator add-on, I'd recommend
you wire per Figure Z-13. If it were my airplane, I'd
run audio, nav/com, transponder, turn coordinator (Nav-aid),
micro-encoder, panel lighting, fuel gages and voltmeter
from the e-bus.
I'd run fuel pumps from battery bus.
In case of main alternator failure, you shut of the battery
master, close the e-bus alternate feed switch and turn on
the standby alternator. Continue until airport is in sight
whereupon you can close the battery master to battery only
position and then add whatever lighting is needed for
comfortable arrival and completion of flight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Screw drive methods |
In a message dated 06/03/2002 2:51:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
writes:
<< Did a quick search on "torx" "faseners" and "aircraft" and
got a gazillion hits. Here are few. If anyone wishes to
avail themselves of this superior screw driving technology,
it shouldn't be hard. . .
http://www.virtualforum.com/industrialhardware/
http://www.fastener-express.com/store.asp
http://www.fasteners.net/
http://www.fasteners.net/ >>
6/4/2002
Hello Bob, You are correct, it shouldn't be hard, but it is -- very hard.
Once one digs into the subject in some depth and with some specifics as I
have over the past few years one finds a very tough nut to crack.
To be specific here is what I (and others) are looking for:
1) Hardware Item: Machine screw.
2) Head Design: 100 degree countersink flat head. Some builders will also
want pan head machine screws.
3) Drive: Torx or Torx Plus preferred, but will settle for hex socket head.
4) Material: Stainless steel. The preferred type of stainless steel is the
kind used in MS27039C pan head (Phillips drive) structural machine screws
(A286?). 125,000 PSI tensile strength. Acceptable could be the type of
stainless steel (Type 300?) used in MS24694C 100 degree countersink flat head
(Phillips drive) structural screws . 85,000 PSI tensile strength.
5) Size: 8-32 by 5/8 inch long would be a good starting point, but other
sizes / lengths would also be in demand.
6) Quantities: Two or three hundred would be a nominal amount for a single
builder. When I talk to distributors / vendors (It has not been possible to
talk directly to any manufacturers) they tend to use 2,000 screws minimum as
their break point before they will consider accepting an order / giving a
quote and even then they are not the least bit eager to expend their time /
energy on such a small amount.
7) Quality: Traceable aircraft structural quality is desired, but that may be
too much to ask for. Could settle for good quality / confirmed material
commercial quality screws.
8) Cost: Something less than one dollar per screw would be nice.
Some of the above specifications may be negotiable to a degree, but probably
not the drive specification. There are already available Phillips drive
screws that could meet all the other specs, but avoiding Phillips drive is
the point of the search.
So Bob, if you or anyone else out there is willing to take up the challenge
of the hunt I welcome your efforts and look forward eagerly to any results.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca> |
| Subject: | Screw drive methods |
> 6) Quantities: Two or three hundred would be a nominal amount for a single
>
> builder. When I talk to distributors / vendors (It has not been possible
> to
> talk directly to any manufacturers) they tend to use 2,000 screws minimum
> as
> their break point before they will consider accepting an order / giving a
> quote and even then they are not the least bit eager to expend their time
> /
> energy on such a small amount.
>
I imagine that you are not interested in becoming a "distributor",
however I would bet that if you found and bought , say a batch of 5000, 100
degree, 8-32 Torx head screws, you could easily resell them to other listers
such as myself in batches of 500. If you can find them at a reasonable
price, I'm certain that at least 10 others will want to upgrade from the
inferior "Phillips".
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
RE: AeroElectric-List: Screw drive methods
6) Quantities: Two or three hundred
would be a nominal amount for a single
builder. When I talk to distributors
/ vendors (It has not been possible to
talk directly to any manufacturers)
they tend to use 2,000 screws minimum as
their break point before they will
consider accepting an order / giving a
quote and even then they are not the
least bit eager to expend their time /
energy on such a small amount.
I imagine that you are not interested in becoming a
distributor, however I would bet that if you found and
bought , say a batch of 5000, 100 degree, 8-32 Torx head screws, you
could easily resell them to other listers such as myself in batches of
500. If you can find them at a reasonable price, I'm certain that at
least 10 others will want to upgrade from the inferior
Phillips.
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Screw drive methods |
A brief search turned up the following.
If you are willing to pay the price you can get as few as 10 pcs at
http://www.aaronssecurityscrews.com/.
A more reasonable price is available from http://www.mcmaster.com/ (search
for Torx) where 100 pcs are about half the 100 pc. price from Aaron.
Sample price from McMaster-Carr: 8-32 X 3/4 flat head, 18-8 SS pin in head
Torx, pkg of 25 pcs $9.70. The same product from Aaron is $69.43 per 100
(you don't want to know their 10 pc price)
Both distributors offer the flat head and button head types but a few
compromises are in order, for example, 82 deg vs. 100 deg flat head from
McMaster-Carr, and "not specified" at Aaron. Also 8-32 are not available in
5/8 in lgth from McMaster-Carr.
Forget about the specs. Commercial quality fasteners (but not from the
third world) are fine for any application where you would use a flat head or
button head screw. Do you really think (I ask rhetorically) that you'll
need A286 (good to 1500 deg F in an oxidizing atmosphere) for a composite,
wood, aluminum, or fabric covered aircraft? We're not building re-entry
vehicles here are we?
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Screw drive methods
In a message dated 06/03/2002 2:51:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
writes:
<< Did a quick search on "torx" "faseners" and "aircraft" and
got a gazillion hits. Here are few. If anyone wishes to
avail themselves of this superior screw driving technology,
it shouldn't be hard. . .
http://www.virtualforum.com/industrialhardware/
http://www.fastener-express.com/store.asp
http://www.fasteners.net/
http://www.fasteners.net/ >>
6/4/2002
Hello Bob, You are correct, it shouldn't be hard, but it is -- very hard.
Once one digs into the subject in some depth and with some specifics as I
have over the past few years one finds a very tough nut to crack.
To be specific here is what I (and others) are looking for:
1) Hardware Item: Machine screw.
2) Head Design: 100 degree countersink flat head. Some builders will also
want pan head machine screws.
3) Drive: Torx or Torx Plus preferred, but will settle for hex socket head.
4) Material: Stainless steel. The preferred type of stainless steel is the
kind used in MS27039C pan head (Phillips drive) structural machine screws
(A286?). 125,000 PSI tensile strength. Acceptable could be the type of
stainless steel (Type 300?) used in MS24694C 100 degree countersink flat
head
(Phillips drive) structural screws . 85,000 PSI tensile strength.
5) Size: 8-32 by 5/8 inch long would be a good starting point, but other
sizes / lengths would also be in demand.
6) Quantities: Two or three hundred would be a nominal amount for a single
builder. When I talk to distributors / vendors (It has not been possible to
talk directly to any manufacturers) they tend to use 2,000 screws minimum as
their break point before they will consider accepting an order / giving a
quote and even then they are not the least bit eager to expend their time /
energy on such a small amount.
7) Quality: Traceable aircraft structural quality is desired, but that may
be
too much to ask for. Could settle for good quality / confirmed material
commercial quality screws.
8) Cost: Something less than one dollar per screw would be nice.
Some of the above specifications may be negotiable to a degree, but probably
not the drive specification. There are already available Phillips drive
screws that could meet all the other specs, but avoiding Phillips drive is
the point of the search.
So Bob, if you or anyone else out there is willing to take up the challenge
of the hunt I welcome your efforts and look forward eagerly to any results.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "I-Blackler, Wayne R" <wayne.blackler(at)boeing.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Long EZ electrical system |
G'Day Bob,
I have Santa Barbara to Hawaii as the longest leg at this stage at 2063.5nm.
Electrical MEL. currently includes a B&C 12V 60A alternator, B&C SD-20 12V
20A alternator, duel B&C LR-3's, dual B&C 15AH 12V batteries (low Ri), main
and aux (essential) buses (using your fuse blocks) with cross feed, and dual
Lightspeed electronic ignition. FYI Engine is an IO-360. Avionic MEL has not
been determined at this stage.
Any comments on how you would set up an EZ for this task would be much
appreciated, particularly in terms of what you would run off the essential
bus. I want to set the aircraft up with the Z14 initially and add the
avionics required over time.
Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Long EZ electrical system
>
>
>Bob,
>
>My apologies, I am using the Z14. It is overkill for my Long EZ, however, I
>plan to fly the aircraft from the USA back to Australia in about 2 1/2
>years, and want a proven redundant system to make the voyage.
>
>I have now joined the list. Happy to get involved, and very much appreciate
>your time and knowledge.
>
>Regards
>
>Wayne.
What are the longest legs you intend to fly on this
trip? What is the minimum electrical equipment list?
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: lightning strikes a Glasair |
>
>Checkout the story (see http://www.aero-news.net/) concerning a
>Glasair I-FT that was struck by lightning on the ground in TN. The
>pictures are very dramatic! As a Glasair I-FT builder, I wonder what
>could have been done to prevent this - anything?
Probably not. I've seen automobiles struck (all four tires blown,
all light bulbs blown, everything with transistors fried, antenna
burned off to a nub, etc). About 40 years ago when I was in the
two-way radio business, I went out to a customer's remote site to see
why their base station had died. Transmitter worked fine, SWR on
coax up the tower was terrible. Climbed the 175' tower and checked
SWR at base of antenna . . . still bad. Unbolted the thing and hauled
it to the ground (Laid on ground for 30 minutes to rest up before
hauling antenna back to shop!). The antenna was about 8' long and
totally enclosed in a fiberglas tube with spherical dome
end at top. All I could see was a tiny pin hole in the dome with
some burned fiberglas around it . . . about 1/8" burn spot. Cut
the antenna open and internal workings were a shambles. All
the energy went through that little hole and destroyed the
antenna within.
Got to climb the tower again the next day with a new antenna
We got double time + .05 per foot for everything over 30' off
the ground so I was making $8.75 + $3.50/hour for most of
the effort! So when my base pay was $1.75, the opportunity to
climb a tower just to replace a light bulb was cause for
celebration, I'd take the wife out to dinner that night.
We do a lot of things to design and test electronics with the
notion that we're creating some degree of resistance to lightning
effects . . . but for me, all bets are off on little airplanes
that don't get the whole flight-system treatment for resistance
to lightning. Even then, I'd go to a lot of effort to steer clear
of the storm.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thoma, Roy" <roy.thoma(at)intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Recommendation for "essential bus" devices? |
Bob,
I did not see the electric Artificial Horizon or the electric Directional
Gyro mentioned in your response. Would I be correct to assume that if it
were your plane you would also include these on the essential bus?
Regards,
Roy
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Recommendation for "essential bus" devices?
>
>
>Bob/list members;
>
>I'm struggling with what to include on the essential bus - of if I even
need
>an essential bus. I'd like to hear (read ?) recommendations about what you
>would include on an essential bus. I'm building an all electric Zenith
>Zodiac, CH601HDS with a Rotax 912S, including the optional 40A alternator.
>I'm using Z-13 for my "template". Potential electrical loads are:
>
>Rotax ignition
>
>Electric powered Instruments:
>Artificial Horizon, Direction Gyro, NavAid Device autopilot/Turn
>Coordinator, microEndoder
>
>Radio Stack:
>Garmin GMA 340 Audio panel, Garmin GNS 430 GPS/Nav/Com, Garmin GTX 327
>transponder.
>
>Engine Instruments:
>Volt/Load meter
>3 capacitance fuel sensors + triple fuel gauge - 1 amp MAX current draw if
>ALL three low fuel warning lights are active.
>Engine Instrument Systems (EIS)
>
>Primary and Secondary electric facet fuel pumps.
>
>Instrument panel lights
>Interior lights
>Pitot heat
>Position Lights
>Landing light (55W)
>
>Thanks for your comments.
Roy, With the optional 40A alternator add-on, I'd recommend
you wire per Figure Z-13. If it were my airplane, I'd
run audio, nav/com, transponder, turn coordinator (Nav-aid),
micro-encoder, panel lighting, fuel gages and voltmeter
from the e-bus.
I'd run fuel pumps from battery bus.
In case of main alternator failure, you shut of the battery
master, close the e-bus alternate feed switch and turn on
the standby alternator. Continue until airport is in sight
whereupon you can close the battery master to battery only
position and then add whatever lighting is needed for
comfortable arrival and completion of flight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Transponder Encoder and GPS |
| From: | "Mike Gray" <mgray(at)graymatter.org> |
This has probably been asked a thousand times before but I can't find
any reference on any of the Matronics lists:
Can the average Blind Encoder feed two devices at one time, i.e. the
Transponder and the GPS - or do I need to buffer the encoder outputs -
and, if so - are the levels standard TTL or some variant designed to up
the cost of avionics?
Thanks
Mike Gray
(in Tokyo designing and building the avionics package for (probably) a
MCR-01)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Encoder and GPS |
>
>This has probably been asked a thousand times before but I can't find
>any reference on any of the Matronics lists:
>
>Can the average Blind Encoder feed two devices at one time, i.e. the
>Transponder and the GPS - or do I need to buffer the encoder outputs -
>and, if so - are the levels standard TTL or some variant designed to up
>the cost of avionics?
>
>Thanks
Yes . . . but to keep the two "receivers" of data from
talking to each other, a pair of diodes is usually included
as a "diode-or" function in each of the data data lines.
I'll have to dig through some of my installation manuals
to get the diode polarity . . . perhaps someone on the
list has some handier data. The general answer is "yes".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Recommendation for "essential bus" devices? |
>
>Bob,
>
>I did not see the electric Artificial Horizon or the electric Directional
>Gyro mentioned in your response. Would I be correct to assume that if it
>were your plane you would also include these on the essential bus?
>
>Regards,
>
>Roy
Oops, yes. I thought I'd included them. Your e-bus loads are
considerably higher than those recommended for airplanes with
single battery/single alternator wherein the battery is a
source of get-home power. With the second alternator, e-bus
loads can be equal to the output of the standby alternator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com> |
Gentlemen,
I am looking for the proper method of interconnecting various pieces of
avionics equipment. For instance, Comm 1, Comm 2, and the intercom all have
individual DB25 connectors. If I make up the wiring harness for each device
and plug the connector into the appropriate device, what is the proper
method of interconnection? I mean do I solder or crimp a wire directely
from the appropriate pin of the comm output to the appropriate pin of the
comm input on the intercom or do I run a wire from each and somehow splice
them together? Do I take them both to a terminal strip and make the
connection there? What is the best method of making these interconnections?
Thanks,
Vince Welch
RV-8A wiring
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Encoder and GPS |
I remember from those days that we used to play with
RS-232 terminals that we could to a certain point "tap
on" serial ports.
On a DB-25 connector, pin 2 was the transmit pin, pin
3 was the receive and pin 7 was the signal ground. It
was possible to tap in the transmit and signal ground,
but we could not use the hardware handshake or the
software handshake with the second device (software
handshake involves the receiving device to send a code
to stop and resume the flow of data).
--- "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
> Nuckolls, III"
>
> Gray"
> >
> >This has probably been asked a thousand times
> before but I can't find
> >any reference on any of the Matronics lists:
> >
> >Can the average Blind Encoder feed two devices at
> one time, i.e. the
> >Transponder and the GPS - or do I need to buffer
> the encoder outputs -
> >and, if so - are the levels standard TTL or some
> variant designed to up
> >the cost of avionics?
> >
> >Thanks
>
> Yes . . . but to keep the two "receivers" of data
> from
> talking to each other, a pair of diodes is
> usually included
> as a "diode-or" function in each of the data data
> lines.
> I'll have to dig through some of my installation
> manuals
> to get the diode polarity . . . perhaps someone
> on the
> list has some handier data. The general answer is
> "yes".
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
> Forum -
> Contributions of
> any other form
>
> latest messages.
> other List members.
>
> aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scot Stambaugh <sstambaugh(at)qualcomm.com> |
Just a bit more expansion. I just talked to John at Microfasteners. He
does not stock the 100 degree hex drive flat heads but he can get them as
special order. They are about $1.00 a screw. He mentioned that there
might be a price break point in higher quantities and would check on that
for us. However, I think we would have to promise a large order for him to
buy a large quantity on our behalf. He was surprised to find out that
there was a market for anything 100 degree. He seems like a nice guy and
just wants to do business and make money so if there is a few bucks in it
for him he will do it.
scot
At 07:53 PM 6/3/2002, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 06/03/2002 11:53:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>ripsteel(at)edge.net writes:
>
><< Hi Owen! I saw your post to the Aeroelectric list regarding the 100 degree
>hex
> drive flat head screws and am awaiting a quote from John at Microfasteners
>for 100 of the 8-32x5/8". (thanks for the lead!)
>
> Have you received and used these screws yet, and are you satisfied with
> them? I was curious about achieving sufficient torque without rounding
> out the hex due to the small size of the wrench required. (would like to
> use them for tank attach and inspection covers)
>
> Thanks for any additional information! Mark Phillips - Columbia, TN >>
>
>6/3/2002
>
>Hello Mark, If you don't mind I'd like to include the AeroElectric-List in my
>response to your email above. Other people on the list have also shown an
>interest in this subject.
>
>To answer your specific questions:
>
>1) Yes, I have received both the alloy steel and stainless steel 8-32 by 1/2
>inch hex socket flat head 100 degree counter sink machine screws from
>Microfasteners.
>
>2) Yes, I am satisfied with them except for cost (see below). I paid $85.00
>US for 100 of the alloy screws and $95.00 US for 100 of the SS screws.
>
>3) Your concern about the small hex wrench size generating enough torque or
>stripping out the socket is valid, but so far this has not been a problem for
>me. I also am using the screws for inspection / access covers, but intend to
>use them when I attach my control surface hinges. Both of these applications
>use anchor nuts and I've had no problems with lack of torque or socket strip
>out in all of my assembly / disassembly work to date.
>
>Comments:
>
>A) Where a countersink flat head is not required / desirable I use either the
>button head or the normal knurled cap screw head. The hex wrench size for the
>knurled cap screw is larger than for the button head or flat head.
>
>B) If someone is inclined to paint over their machine screws (I am not) then
>the smaller hex sockets filled with paint could be a problem.
>
>C) Cost: If we are going to use non aircraft standard hardware in our amateur
>built experimental aircraft (which I feel is common / acceptable practice if
>done with adequate research and judicious application) then there may be no
>reason to insist that all of our countersink flat head machine screws be the
>100 degree type. Therefore one could use good quality 80-87 (nominally 82)
>degree countersink flat head machine screws at a considerable savings. I am
>not aware however of a source of Tinnerman style countersink stainless steel
>washers made to fit 80-87 degree countersink flat head machine screws. (I
>have seen aircraft assembled with 80-87 degree countersink flat head machine
>screws and 100 degree Tinnerman washers. The builder pilot seemed blissfully
>unaware of any incompatibility).
>
>D) If one were alert to not getting his different countersink screws mixed up
>one could use standard aircraft structural grade MS 24694 Phillips drive 100
>degree countersink flat head screws, either alloy steel (125,000-145,000 PSI
>tensile strength) or stainless steel (85,000 PSI tensile strength) for
>structural purposes (control surface hinges, etc.) and quality 80-87 degree
>countersink flat head hex socket screws for non structural applications. Bear
>in mind that some access panels do form part of the structure and need to be
>fastened in place accordingly.
>
>E) There are available 82 degree SS countersink finishing washers, but these
>are the raised type, not recessed like the Tinnerman washers.
>
>OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | puzzled with switches |
Hello Bob,
I recently did order, more or less, all switches from B&C, for the decision
what to take, I did follow chapter 11 and came up as seen in Figure 11-20
and added also 1-3 for the essential bus. Yesterday night I had again a look
at the diagramms as currently VFR only is allowed in Switzerland with a very
simple cockpit I will go for diag 11 with the option later to upgrade to
Z-12.
Now every diag shows a switch 2-10 in combination with a 1-3 for the
essential bus. If I understand it correct, I will with my switch have not
the possibility to switch the Battery on without connecting the alternator
also. This would leave me in an overvoltage situation with only the
essential bus items.
Is this correct? Looking later on into an upgrade for IFR would you
recommend to go for the 2-10 from the begin?
Many thanks to give me some pro and cons.
Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Encoder and GPS |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> Yes . . . but to keep the two "receivers" of data from
> talking to each other, a pair of diodes is usually included
> as a "diode-or" function in each of the data data lines.
> I'll have to dig through some of my installation manuals
> to get the diode polarity . . . perhaps someone on the
> list has some handier data. The general answer is "yes".
*** I seem to remember that the encoder outputs are open-collector
active low. If that's the case, the diodes would be installed with
their cathodes facing toward the encoder.
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Encoder and GPS |
>
>I remember from those days that we used to play with
>RS-232 terminals that we could to a certain point "tap
>on" serial ports.
>
>On a DB-25 connector, pin 2 was the transmit pin, pin
>3 was the receive and pin 7 was the signal ground. It
>was possible to tap in the transmit and signal ground,
>but we could not use the hardware handshake or the
>software handshake with the second device (software
>handshake involves the receiving device to send a code
>to stop and resume the flow of data).
The altitude encoders use a special parallel, binary
weighted code to convey altitude info to the user
device so there's no ability to "listen in" by
multiple devices as was sometimes possible in the
RS232 world.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Harness |
>
>
>Gentlemen,
>
>I am looking for the proper method of interconnecting various pieces of
>avionics equipment. For instance, Comm 1, Comm 2, and the intercom all have
>individual DB25 connectors. If I make up the wiring harness for each device
>and plug the connector into the appropriate device, what is the proper
>method of interconnection? I mean do I solder or crimp a wire directely
>from the appropriate pin of the comm output to the appropriate pin of the
>comm input on the intercom or do I run a wire from each and somehow splice
>them together? Do I take them both to a terminal strip and make the
>connection there? What is the best method of making these interconnections?
You want to minimize the number of connections and the
number of additional hardware (like terminal strips) as
much as practical. This means going directly from a connector
pin on one device right to the connector pin on the other
device. I prefer the crimped, machined pins for these
connectors. You can view pins and tools at:
http://216.55.140.222/Catalog/connect/connect.html#S604
http://216.55.140.222/Catalog/tools/tools.html#dse-1
and
http://216.55.140.222/Catalog/tools/tools.html#rct-3
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Screw drive methods |
In a message dated 06/05/2002 2:52:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "Rob Housman"
writes:
<<.....skip..... Both distributors offer the flat head and button head types
but a few
compromises are in order, for example, 82 deg vs. 100 deg flat head from
McMaster-Carr, and "not specified" at Aaron. Also 8-32 are not available in
5/8 in lgth from McMaster-Carr.
Forget about the specs. Commercial quality fasteners (but not from the
third world) are fine for any application where you would use a flat head or
button head screw. Do you really think (I ask rhetorically) that you'll
need A286 (good to 1500 deg F in an oxidizing atmosphere) for a composite,
wood, aluminum, or fabric covered aircraft? We're not building re-entry
vehicles here are we? >>
6/5/2002
Hello Rob, Many thanks for your input. Yes I am aware of the screws from
McMaster-Carr, but for me the sticking point is the 82 degree countersink on
the flat head. Mainly because I will be using the 100 degree dimpled
Tinnerman washers for the more critical applications such as fastening
aluminum control surface hinges to fiberglass control surfaces.
If there were such things as stainless steel 82 degree dimpled Tinnerman
washers then I might have been persuaded to go with those and commercially
available stainless steel 82 degree countersink flat head Torx or Torx Plus
drive screws. Unfortunately I already have all my fiberglass control surfaces
countersinked at 100 degrees.
Your point regarding the quality of the screws and the material that they are
made of is well taken. I agree with you that A286 SS (stainless steel)
aircraft quality structural screws are an overkill and probably unobtainable
/ unreasonable.
But here is my problem. I know that there are many, many different kinds of
SS alloys and treatments such as work hardening that significantly affect the
strength of the material. Some of the SS alloys may be too weak for my
application. How can I be certain / find out?
When I talk to various distributors about either the design strength of their
screws or the SS alloy that they are made of in an attempt to get some handle
on screw quality or strength I get a "we don't know, is that important?"
response. So right up front I think it is important to specify that we need
to know that kind of information. The question is what is the best way to get
it?
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Screw drive methods |
BAKEROCB(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> But here is my problem. I know that there are many, many different kinds of
> SS alloys and treatments such as work hardening that significantly affect the
> strength of the material. Some of the SS alloys may be too weak for my
> application. How can I be certain / find out?
>
*** Get some and measure it? You could use a torque wrench to measure the
ultimate yield torque. You know, that torque that causes the metal to stretch
like taffy. Basically you turn the wrench until the torque stops increasing
linearly with your turning, and read the number.
Here's a snip from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:
--------- snip ------------------
There's one psychomotor gumption trap, muscular insensitivity, which
accounts for some real damage. It results in part from lack of kinesthesia,
a failure to realize that although the externals of a cycle are rugged,
inside the engine are delicate precision parts which can be easily damaged
by muscular insensitivity. There's what's called "mechanic's feel," which is
very obvious to those who know what it is, but hard to describe to those who
don't; and when you see someone working on a machine who doesn't have it,
you tend to suffer with the machine.
The mechanic's feel comes from a deep inner kinesthetic feeling for the
elasticity of materials. Some materials, like ceramics, have very little, so
that when you thread a porcelain fitting you're very careful not to apply
great pressures. Other materials, like steel, have tremendous elasticity,
more than rubber, but in a range in which, unless you're working with large
mechanical forces, the elasticity isn't apparent.
With nuts and bolts you're in the range of large mechanical forces and you
should understand that within these ranges metals are elastic. When you take
up a nut there's a point called "finger-tight" where there's contact but no
takeup of elasticity. Then there's "snug," in which the easy surface
elasticity is taken up. Then there's a range called "tight," in which all
the elasticity is taken up. The force required to reach these three points
is different for each size of nut and bolt, and different for lubricated
bolts and for locknuts. The forces are different for steel and cast iron and
brass and aluminum and plastics and ceramics. But a person with mechanic's
feel knows when something's tight and stops. A person without it goes right
on past and strips the threads or breaks the assembly.
A "mechanic's feel" implies not only an understanding for the elasticity of
metal but for its softness. The insides of a motorcycle contain surfaces
that are precise in some cases to as little as one ten-thousandth of an
inch. If you drop them or get dirt on them or scratch them or bang them with
a hammer they'll lose that precision. It's important to understand that the
metal behind the surfaces can normally take great shock and stress but that
the surfaces themselves cannot. When handling precision parts that are stuck
or difficult to manipulate, a person with mechanic's feel will avoid
damaging the surfaces and work with his tools on the nonprecision surfaces
of the same part whenever possible. If he must work on the surfaces
themselves, he'll always use softer surfaces to work them with. Brass
hammers, plastic hammers, wood hammers, rubber hammers and lead hammers are
all available for this work. Use them. Vise jaws can be fitted with plastic
and copper and lead faces. Use these too. Handle precision parts gently.
You'll never be sorry. If you have a tendency to bang things around, take
more time and try to develop a little more respect for the accomplishment
that a precision part represents.
--------- endsnip ---------------
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard D. Fogerson" <rickf(at)velocitus.net> |
| Subject: | Handheld GPS/Comm |
Hi All,
I'm considering getting handheld gps and comm as back up to the panel
mounts. I know their are fairly inexpensive handheld radios and gps's
and some combination nav/comm radios. Does anyone know of a handheld
combination gps/comm. It wouldn't have to have a moving map, just a
simple bearing and dme and radio to use only in backup if all else
fails. That would save having two things to carry and deal with. The
nav/comm probably would suffice, it's just I'm spoiled now.
Thanks,
Rick Fogerson
RV-3 fuselage
Boise, ID
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aucountry(at)aol.com |
Bob, I visited your web site and read about your suggestions for improving
the electrical systems and improving their reliability. Very, Very
interesting.
Does this constitute a major alteration vis-a-vis FAR Part 43 and thus
requiring a 337? Given the current mood of the FSDO (the one I deal with
locally) I get the impression they would rather I just apply for STCs than
for them to grant a field approval. It also seems that previous 337s
(approved data) from other FSDOs are being viewed with skepticism.
Recently, I replaced the fuses and switches in a plane with circuit breaker
switches. Did this constitute a major change? or minor? I also replaced
all of the rest of the fuses with circuit breakers. An IA that I talked know
suggested thet it was a minor change. I let it go at that.
Gary
PS. Recently, had an experience (different plane) where a 10 amp circuit
breaker (landing light) kept tripping. I wished it had been a fuse. I could
have put in a 15 amp fuse to see if it was a real overload or a short. Light
works fine, just trips after about 30 seconds. All new wiring.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | screws and countersink angles |
<>
Sorry about drifting slightly off the "electrical" subject, but I find the
discussion interesting. I haven't got to this point yet, but have used
these washers on my certified plane wingtips, etc. I usually countersink
the plastic parts oversize so that the "grip" of the fastener a straight
clamp load from the washer, not a wedging action from the countersink. The
plastic composite expansion coefficient must be several times that of the
screw, so the object is to provide compliance (spring action) in the
fastener to maintain a clamp load over temperature and time. Extend that
logic a little further and one could conclude that the 82-degree screw isn't
so bad and maybe better in that it essentially wedges in the washer and the
compliance of the washer could provide more holding power with thermal
expansion of the underlying material. Only problem with that is that I just
noticed that the washers are already made with a countersink angle larger
than 100 as a 100-degree screw has a little wobble. The 82-degree screw has
quite a bit more. Too much? Don't know. And I can't imagine that
countersinking a plastic material with an 18-degree (9 degrees per side)
could possibly be a problem - the plastic would easily yield more than that.
To install the 3/32, soft rivets in plastic for anchor nuts I have been
using an 82-degree countersink - maybe not optimum, but I don't know if
there is a problem. Another observation: At least in my ES kit it seems
like the strength of any of the fasteners that go into plastic are way, way
more than the plastic composite that surrounds them. I especially am
puzzled by the small flathead 6-32's used to attach panels. The plastic
would pull out from under the screw head if the screw were made from
alumininum, let alone worrying about what the heat-treat was of the
stainless steel. I would worry a lot about the heat treat and tensile
strength of screws into metal parts, but for plastic attachment it seems as
though most designs put way more weight into the fasteners than necessary.
For example, instead of a 10-32 directly into plastic use a 6-32 with a
dimpled washer. Doesn't look quite as good? Oh, well.
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Handheld GPS/Comm |
>
>
>Hi All,
>I'm considering getting handheld gps and comm as back up to the panel
>mounts. I know their are fairly inexpensive handheld radios and gps's
>and some combination nav/comm radios. Does anyone know of a handheld
>combination gps/comm. It wouldn't have to have a moving map, just a
>simple bearing and dme and radio to use only in backup if all else
>fails. That would save having two things to carry and deal with. The
>nav/comm probably would suffice, it's just I'm spoiled now.
Don't know of a GPS/Comm combo . . . right now, the GPS310/315
series handhelds from Magellan are my personal favorites for
hand-helds. Bought the last givaways for my my seminars at
just over $90.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John & Amy Eckel <eckel1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Handheld GPS/Comm |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard D. Fogerson" <rickf(at)velocitus.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Handheld GPS/Comm
>
> Hi All,
> I'm considering getting handheld gps and comm as back up to the panel
> mounts. I know their are fairly inexpensive handheld radios and gps's
> and some combination nav/comm radios. Does anyone know of a handheld
> combination gps/comm. It wouldn't have to have a moving map, just a
> simple bearing and dme and radio to use only in backup if all else
> fails. That would save having two things to carry and deal with. The
> nav/comm probably would suffice, it's just I'm spoiled now.
>
> Thanks,
> Rick Fogerson
> RV-3 fuselage
> Boise, ID
>
Garmin makes the GPSCOM 190, which is a great unit, but I am not
sure it is still made. The cost is around $1K.
Hope this helps.
John Eckel
Europa builder
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Grover" <grover(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Starter relay location |
Does the starter relay need to be mounted on the firewall? I was thinking
of mounting it next to the master relay on the battery tray in the aft area
of my RV-8 and then running the 2awg up front thru the firewall to the
starter. The Van's diagram shows a #2awg running from the master relay thru
the firewall to the starter relay and then to the starter. Is there a
performance issue with keeping the starter relay close to the starter?
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter relay location |
>
>Does the starter relay need to be mounted on the firewall? I was thinking
>of mounting it next to the master relay on the battery tray in the aft area
>of my RV-8 and then running the 2awg up front thru the firewall to the
>starter. The Van's diagram shows a #2awg running from the master relay thru
>the firewall to the starter relay and then to the starter. Is there a
>performance issue with keeping the starter relay close to the starter?
>
>David
Putting the starter contactor on the firewall gives you a place
to tap the system for feedpath to the main bus -AND- a place
to attach the feedpath from the alternator b-lead so that it
can avoid attachment to the main bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Handheld GPS/Comm |
While Garmin no longer makes the GPSCOM 190, many are still available on the used
market and the database updates are still available from Garmin. Major drawbacks
to the unit is that there is no alkaline battery pack available and no battery
strength indicator--since the battery draw is highly variable depending on how
you use the device, you never quite know just how much "juice" you have left
unless you keep it wired to ship's power. The headphone/power adaptor is also
a
bit Rube Goldberg but manageable if a RAM swivel mount (like for the Garmin 195)
is used.
Given today's products, it would probably be less costly and more user friendly
to get a cheap GPS (Magellan 310) and get the aviation database installed plus
a
seperate hand-held COM (with a panel mount BNC splice to the external
antenna)--unless you get a really good deal on the 190.
FWIW, since I have one and I'm used to it, I'll continue to use it as my backup
for the near future.
John & Amy Eckel wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard D. Fogerson" <rickf(at)velocitus.net>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Handheld GPS/Comm
>
>
> >
> > Hi All,
> > I'm considering getting handheld gps and comm as back up to the panel
> > mounts. I know their are fairly inexpensive handheld radios and gps's
> > and some combination nav/comm radios. Does anyone know of a handheld
> > combination gps/comm. It wouldn't have to have a moving map, just a
> > simple bearing and dme and radio to use only in backup if all else
> > fails. That would save having two things to carry and deal with. The
> > nav/comm probably would suffice, it's just I'm spoiled now.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rick Fogerson
> > RV-3 fuselage
> > Boise, ID
> >
> Garmin makes the GPSCOM 190, which is a great unit, but I am not
> sure it is still made. The cost is around $1K.
> Hope this helps.
> John Eckel
> Europa builder
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Screw drive methods |
First the disclaimer: although I've tried to find the best available
information with the least effort, my search was not exhaustive.
...and an opinion: A distributor selling fasteners that does not know the
mechanical properties of the products they sell is nothing more than a
hardware store. Any industrial distributor worthy of the name should either
know this information or be willing to get it from the manufacturer.
I consider the Aircraft Spruce catalog a reliable source of information
(especially since it is in agreement with the "Metals Handbook" and other
resources), and it is familiar to just about all of us, so that's my
starting point. A quick read reveals that if you want stainless steel
fasteners you are going to get 18-8 alloy with minimum yield strength of 70
ksi. The "non-stainless" alloys used for the MS and AN bolts and screws are
in the range of 55 to 145 ksi, but typically they are either 55 or 125 ksi.
A quick check of some fastener manufacturers' web sites also makes it
apparent that if we want SS bolts we are most likely going to get 18-8.
So, some SS hardware is stronger than the comparable fastener in alloy steel
and some is not as strong. To which I say, "big deal" because with the
exception of landing gear and engine mounts nothing on our little airplanes
really gets enough stress to require high strength fasteners. That's why I
recommend ignoring the specs and just buying good quality fasteners from a
reliable source. You rightly point out that various factors affect the
properties of fasteners (heat treat, cold work, etc.) but the strength of
the "joint" is also dependent on the pre-loaded stress on the fastener (the
torque). To further my argument that it matters not what the strength is
(within reasonable limits - I'm not advocating plastic screws here!)
consider that our kit manufacturers would specify torque limits if the
fastener were in a truly critical application.
The Torx product is available in 100 deg flat head style:
http://www.textronfasteningsystems.com/automotive/inchflathead100.html but I
haven't tried to find a distributor. There is a "contact us" link at that
URL so you should be able to find a distributor by asking Textron.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Screw drive methods
In a message dated 06/05/2002 2:52:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "Rob Housman"
writes:
<<.....skip..... Both distributors offer the flat head and button head types
but a few
compromises are in order, for example, 82 deg vs. 100 deg flat head from
McMaster-Carr, and "not specified" at Aaron. Also 8-32 are not available
in
5/8 in lgth from McMaster-Carr.
Forget about the specs. Commercial quality fasteners (but not from the
third world) are fine for any application where you would use a flat head
or
button head screw. Do you really think (I ask rhetorically) that you'll
need A286 (good to 1500 deg F in an oxidizing atmosphere) for a composite,
wood, aluminum, or fabric covered aircraft? We're not building re-entry
vehicles here are we? >>
6/5/2002
Hello Rob, Many thanks for your input. Yes I am aware of the screws from
McMaster-Carr, but for me the sticking point is the 82 degree countersink on
the flat head. Mainly because I will be using the 100 degree dimpled
Tinnerman washers for the more critical applications such as fastening
aluminum control surface hinges to fiberglass control surfaces.
If there were such things as stainless steel 82 degree dimpled Tinnerman
washers then I might have been persuaded to go with those and commercially
available stainless steel 82 degree countersink flat head Torx or Torx Plus
drive screws. Unfortunately I already have all my fiberglass control
surfaces
countersinked at 100 degrees.
Your point regarding the quality of the screws and the material that they
are
made of is well taken. I agree with you that A286 SS (stainless steel)
aircraft quality structural screws are an overkill and probably unobtainable
/ unreasonable.
But here is my problem. I know that there are many, many different kinds of
SS alloys and treatments such as work hardening that significantly affect
the
strength of the material. Some of the SS alloys may be too weak for my
application. How can I be certain / find out?
When I talk to various distributors about either the design strength of
their
screws or the SS alloy that they are made of in an attempt to get some
handle
on screw quality or strength I get a "we don't know, is that important?"
response. So right up front I think it is important to specify that we need
to know that kind of information. The question is what is the best way to
get
it?
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasins(at)email.ceat.okstate.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: screws and countersink angles |
I bought a lot of stainless fasteners 100 deg and others from Non-ferrous
Fasteners http://www.non-ferrousfastener.com/.
I got a very fast service and the prices were normal, much less than the
quoted $80 per 100.
And the sells people could sell me stuff by normal description without the
catalog #.
I did not use them for a several months, and it seems that they were bought
or merged so I do not know how would it work now. But it is worth to check.
Address: 5179 G Street, Chino, CA 91710 USA
PH: (909) 548-6726
(800) 842-4808
FAX: (909) 548-6234
Jerzy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: screws and countersink angles
>
> < washers then I might have been persuaded to go with those and commercially
> available stainless steel 82 degree countersink flat head Torx or Torx
Plus
> drive screws. Unfortunately I already have all my fiberglass control
> surfaces
> countersinked at 100 degrees.>>
>
> Sorry about drifting slightly off the "electrical" subject, but I find the
> discussion interesting. I haven't got to this point yet, but have used
> these washers on my certified plane wingtips, etc. I usually countersink
> the plastic parts oversize so that the "grip" of the fastener a straight
> clamp load from the washer, not a wedging action from the countersink.
The
> plastic composite expansion coefficient must be several times that of the
> screw, so the object is to provide compliance (spring action) in the
> fastener to maintain a clamp load over temperature and time. Extend that
> logic a little further and one could conclude that the 82-degree screw
isn't
> so bad and maybe better in that it essentially wedges in the washer and
the
> compliance of the washer could provide more holding power with thermal
> expansion of the underlying material. Only problem with that is that I
just
> noticed that the washers are already made with a countersink angle larger
> than 100 as a 100-degree screw has a little wobble. The 82-degree screw
has
> quite a bit more. Too much? Don't know. And I can't imagine that
> countersinking a plastic material with an 18-degree (9 degrees per side)
> could possibly be a problem - the plastic would easily yield more than
that.
> To install the 3/32, soft rivets in plastic for anchor nuts I have been
> using an 82-degree countersink - maybe not optimum, but I don't know if
> there is a problem. Another observation: At least in my ES kit it seems
> like the strength of any of the fasteners that go into plastic are way,
way
> more than the plastic composite that surrounds them. I especially am
> puzzled by the small flathead 6-32's used to attach panels. The plastic
> would pull out from under the screw head if the screw were made from
> alumininum, let alone worrying about what the heat-treat was of the
> stainless steel. I would worry a lot about the heat treat and tensile
> strength of screws into metal parts, but for plastic attachment it seems
as
> though most designs put way more weight into the fasteners than necessary.
> For example, instead of a 10-32 directly into plastic use a 6-32 with a
> dimpled washer. Doesn't look quite as good? Oh, well.
>
> Gary Casey
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Handheld GPS/Comm |
I have the GPSCOM 190, as does a friend of mine. I like the unit very much.
The battery on mine went bad, after a year of very little use. I charge it
and with the unit off it's dead in about 3 hrs. This post reminds me to order
a new battery before I can't get it anymore. When me and my friend fly cross
country it's the copilots job to keep an airport within the glide ring that
has 4000ft+ run ways, loaded on the handheld.
Because, one never knows.
SteveD
Europa A217
http://homepage.mac.com/sdunsmuir/Europa.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob, I visited your web site and read about your suggestions for improving
>the electrical systems and improving their reliability. Very, Very
>interesting.
>
>Does this constitute a major alteration vis-a-vis FAR Part 43 and thus
>requiring a 337? Given the current mood of the FSDO (the one I deal with
>locally) I get the impression they would rather I just apply for STCs than
>for them to grant a field approval. It also seems that previous 337s
>(approved data) from other FSDOs are being viewed with skepticism.
>
>Recently, I replaced the fuses and switches in a plane with circuit breaker
>switches. Did this constitute a major change? or minor? I also replaced
>all of the rest of the fuses with circuit breakers. An IA that I talked know
>suggested thet it was a minor change. I let it go at that.
If you read the definition of "minor" vs. "major" in FAR43 we
find:
Appendix A--Major Alterations, Major Repairs, and Preventive Maintenance
(a) Major alterations--(1) Airframe major alterations. Alterations of the
following parts and alterations of the following types, when not listed in
the aircraft specifications issued by the FAA, are airframe major
alterations:
(i) Wings.
(ii) Tail surfaces.
(iii) Fuselage.
(iv) Engine mounts.
(v) Control system.
(vi) Landing gear.
(vii) Hull or floats.
(viii) Elements of an airframe including spars, ribs, fittings, shock
absorbers, bracing, cowling, fairings, and balance weights.
(ix) Hydraulic and electrical actuating system of components.
(x) Rotor blades.
---------------------------- Here's a stumbling block (note 1)---------------
(xi) Changes to the empty weight or empty balance which result in an
increase in the maximum certificated weight or center of gravity limits of
the aircraft.
-----------------------------Here's the "killer" (note 2) -------------------
(xii) Changes to the basic design of the fuel, oil, cooling, heating,
cabin
pressurization, electrical, hydraulic, de-icing, or exhaust systems.
(xiii) Changes to the wing or to fixed or movable control surfaces which
affect flutter and vibration characteristics.
(2) Powerplant major alterations. The following alterations of a
powerplant
when not listed in the engine specifications issued by the FAA, are
powerplant major alterations.
(i) Conversion of an aircraft engine from one approved model to another,
involving any changes in compression ratio, propeller reduction gear,
impeller gear ratios or the substitution of major engine parts which
requires
extensive rework and testing of the engine.
(ii) Changes to the engine by replacing aircraft engine structural parts
with parts not supplied by the original manufacturer or parts not
specifically approved by the Administrator.
(iii) Installation of an accessory which is not approved for the engine.
(iv) Removal of accessories that are listed as required equipment on the
aircraft or engine specification.
(v) Installation of structural parts other than the type of parts approved
for the installation.
(vi) Conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a rating or
grade other than that listed in the engine specifications.
(3) Propeller major alterations. The following alterations of a propeller
when not authorized in the propeller specifications issued by the FAA are
propeller major alterations:
(i) Changes in blade design.
(ii) Changes in hub design.
(iii) Changes in the governor or control design.
(iv) Installation of a propeller governor or feathering system.
(v) Installation of propeller de-icing system.
(vi) Installation of parts not approved for the propeller.
(4) Appliance major alterations. Alterations of the basic design not made
in accordance with recommendations of the appliance manufacturer or in
accordance with an FAA Airworthiness Directive are appliance major
alterations. In addition, changes in the basic design of radio communication
and navigation equipment approved under type certification or a Technical
Standard Order that have an effect on frequency stability, noise level,
sensitivity, selectivity, distortion, spurious radiation, AVC
characteristics, or ability to meet environmental test conditions and other
changes that have an effect on the performance of the equipment are also
major alterations.
(b) Major repairs--(1) Airframe major repairs. Repairs to the following
parts of an airframe and repairs of the following types, involving the
strengthening, reinforcing, splicing, and manufacturing of primary
structural
members or their replacement, when replacement is by fabrication such as
riveting or welding, are airframe major repairs.
(i) Box beams.
(ii) Monocoque or semimonocoque wings or control surfaces.
(iii) Wing stringers or chord members.
(iv) Spars.
(v) Spar flanges.
(vi) Members of truss-type beams.
(vii) Thin sheet webs of beams.
(viii) Keel and chine members of boat hulls or floats.
(ix) Corrugated sheet compression members which act as flange material of
wings or tail surfaces.
(x) Wing main ribs and compression members.
(xi) Wing or tail surface brace struts.
(xii) Engine mounts.
(xiii) Fuselage longerons.
(xiv) Members of the side truss, horizontal truss, or bulkheads.
(xv) Main seat support braces and brackets.
(xvi) Landing gear brace struts.
(xvii) Axles.
(xviii) Wheels.
(xix) Skis, and ski pedestals.
(xx) Parts of the control system such as control columns, pedals, shafts,
brackets, or horns.
(xxi) Repairs involving the substitution of material.
(xxii) The repair of damaged areas in metal or plywood stressed covering
exceeding six inches in any direction.
(xxiii) The repair of portions of skin sheets by making additional seams.
(xxiv) The splicing of skin sheets.
(xxv) The repair of three or more adjacent wing or control surface ribs or
the leading edge of wings and control surfaces, between such adjacent ribs.
(xxvi) Repair of fabric covering involving an area greater than that
required to repair two adjacent ribs.
(xxvii) Replacement of fabric on fabric covered parts such as wings,
fuselages, stabilizers, and control surfaces.
(xxviii) Repairing, including rebottoming, of removable or integral fuel
tanks and oil tanks.
(2) Powerplant major repairs. Repairs of the following parts of an engine
and repairs of the following types, are powerplant major repairs:
(i) Separation or disassembly of a crankcase or crankshaft of a
reciprocating engine equipped with an integral supercharger.
(ii) Separation or disassembly of a crankcase or crankshaft of a
reciprocating engine equipped with other than spur-type propeller reduction
gearing.
(iii) Special repairs to structural engine parts by welding, plating,
metalizing, or other methods.
(3) Propeller major repairs. Repairs of the following types to a propeller
are propeller major repairs:
(i) Any repairs to, or straightening of steel blades.
(ii) Repairing or machining of steel hubs.
(iii) Shortening of blades.
(iv) Retipping of wood propellers.
(v) Replacement of outer laminations on fixed pitch wood propellers.
(vi) Repairing elongated bolt holes in the hub of fixed pitch wood
propellers.
(vii) Inlay work on wood blades.
(viii) Repairs to composition blades.
(ix) Replacement of tip fabric.
(x) Replacement of plastic covering.
(xi) Repair of propeller governors.
(xii) Overhaul of controllable pitch propellers.
(xiii) Repairs to deep dents, cuts, scars, nicks, etc., and straightening
of aluminum blades.
(xiv) The repair or replacement of internal elements of blades.
(4) Appliance major repairs. Repairs of the following types to appliances
are appliance major repairs:
(i) Calibration and repair of instruments.
(ii) Calibration of radio equipment.
(iii) Rewinding the field coil of an electrical accessory.
(iv) Complete disassembly of complex hydraulic power valves.
(v) Overhaul of pressure type carburetors, and pressure type fuel, oil and
hydraulic pumps.
----------------------------- Preventive Maintenance --------------------------
(c) Preventive maintenance. Preventive maintenance is limited to the
following work, provided it does not involve complex assembly operations:
(1) Removal, installation, and repair of landing gear tires.
(2) Replacing elastic shock absorber cords on landing gear.
(3) Servicing landing gear shock struts by adding oil, air, or both.
(4) Servicing landing gear wheel bearings, such as cleaning and greasing.
(5) Replacing defective safety wiring or cotter keys.
(6) Lubrication not requiring disassembly other than removal of
nonstructural items such as cover plates, cowlings, and fairings.
(7) Making simple fabric patches not requiring rib stitching or the
removal
of structural parts or control surfaces. In the case of balloons, the making
of small fabric repairs to envelopes (as defined in, and in accordance with,
the balloon manufacturers' instructions) not requiring load tape repair or
replacement.
(8) Replenishing hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic reservoir.
(9) Refinishing decorative coating of fuselage, balloon baskets, wings
tail
group surfaces (excluding balanced control surfaces), fairings, cowlings,
landing gear, cabin, or cockpit interior when removal or disassembly of any
primary structure or operating system is not required.
(10) Applying preservative or protective material to components where no
disassembly of any primary structure or operating system is involved and
where such coating is not prohibited or is not contrary to good practices.
(11) Repairing upholstery and decorative furnishings of the cabin,
cockpit,
or balloon basket interior when the repairing does not require
disassembly of
any primary structure or operating system or interfere with an operating
system or affect the primary structure of the aircraft.
(12) Making small simple repairs to fairings, nonstructural cover plates,
cowlings, and small patches and reinforcements not changing the contour
so as
to interfere with proper air flow.
(13) Replacing side windows where that work does not interfere with the
structure or any operating system such as controls, electrical equipment,
etc.
(14) Replacing safety belts.
(15) Replacing seats or seat parts with replacement parts approved for the
aircraft, not involving disassembly of any primary structure or operating
system.
(16) Trouble shooting and repairing broken circuits in landing light
wiring
circuits.
(17) Replacing bulbs, reflectors, and lenses of position and landing
lights.
(18) Replacing wheels and skis where no weight and balance computation is
involved.
(19) Replacing any cowling not requiring removal of the propeller or
disconnection of flight controls.
(20) Replacing or cleaning spark plugs and setting of spark plug gap
clearance.
(21) Replacing any hose connection except hydraulic connections.
(22) Replacing prefabricated fuel lines.
(23) Cleaning or replacing fuel and oil strainers or filter elements.
(24) Replacing and servicing batteries.
(25) Cleaning of balloon burner pilot and main nozzles in accordance with
the balloon manufacturer's instructions.
(26) Replacement or adjustment of nonstructural standard fasteners
incidental to operations.
(27) The interchange of balloon baskets and burners on envelopes when the
basket or burner is designated as interchangeable in the balloon type
certificate data and the baskets and burners are specifically designed for
quick removal and installation.
(28) The installations of anti-misfueling devices to reduce the
diameter of
fuel tank filler openings provided the specific device has been made a part
of the aircraft type certificiate data by the aircraft manufacturer, the
aircraft manufacturer has provided FAA-approved instructions for
installation
of the specific device, and installation does not involve the disassembly of
the existing tank filler opening.
(29) Removing, checking, and replacing magnetic chip detectors.
(30) The inspection and maintenance tasks prescribed and specifically
identified as preventive maintenance in a primary category aircraft type
certificate or supplemental type certificate holder's approved special
inspection and preventive maintenance program when accomplished on a primary
category aircraft provided:
(i) They are performed by the holder of at least a private pilot
certificate issued under part 61 who is the registered owner (including co-
owners) of the affected aircraft and who holds a certificate of competency
for the affected aircraft (1) issued by a school approved under Sec.
147.21(e) of this chapter; (2) issued by the holder of the production
certificate for that primary category aircraft that has a special training
program approved under Sec. 21.24 of this subchapter; or (3) issued by
another entity that has a course approved by the Administrator; and
(ii) The inspections and maintenance tasks are performed in accordance
with
instructions contained by the special inspection and preventive maintenance
program approved as part of the aircraft's type design or supplemental type
design.
(31) Removing and replacing self-contained, front instrument panel-mounted
navigation and communication devices that employ tray-mounted connectors
that
connect the unit when the unit is installed into the instrument panel,
(excluding automatic flight control systems, transponders, and microwave
frequency distance measuring equipment (DME)). The approved unit must be
designed to be readily and repeatedly removed and replaced, and pertinent
instructions must be provided. Prior to the unit's intended use, and
operational check must be performed in accordance with the applicable
sections of part 91 of this chapter.
(32) Updating self-contained, front instrument panel-mounted Air Traffic
Control (ATC) navigational software data bases (excluding those of automatic
flight control systems, transponders, and microwave frequency distance
measuring equipment (DME)) provided no disassembly of the unit is required
and pertinent instructions are provided. Prior to the unit's intended
use, an
operational check must be performed in accordance with applicable
sections of
part 91 of this chapter.
(Secs. 313, 601 through 610, and 1102, Federal Aviation Act of 1958 as
amended (49 U.S.C. 1354, 1421 through 1430 and 1502); (49 U.S.C. 106(g)
(Revised Pub. L. 97-449, Jan. 21, 1983); and 14 CFR 11.45)
[Doc. No. 1993, 29 FR 5451, Apr. 23, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 43-14, 37 FR
14291, June 19, 1972; Amdt. 43-23, 47 FR 41086, Sept. 16, 1982; Amdt. 43-24,
49 FR 44602, Nov. 7, 1984; Amdt. 43-25, 51 FR 40703, Nov. 7, 1986; Amdt. 43-
27, 52 FR 17277, May 6, 1987; Amdt. 43-34, 57 FR 41369, Sept. 9, 1992; Amdt.
43-36, 61 FR 19501, May 1, 1996]
Sorry to be so wordy with a response but I think it illustrates the
environment of the organization and mind-set of individual it employs
with respect to who should be allowed to do anything to an airplane
and under what circumstances.
Note 1: I would interpret this rule to mean any change that changes
the shape or bounds on the weight and balance ENVELOPE. Adding to or
deleting equipment items from the aircraft certainly alters the manner
in which the pilot can load the airplane in the future. Unless
some other feature of the modification warrants a "major" category, my
sense is that adjusting numbers and kinds of bolt-on gizmos in the
aircraft is not influenced by this rule. None-the-less, on more than
one occasion, I've had FAA folk interpret this rule to mean that
ANY change to empty weight of the aircraft was a major change.
Note 2: Given that they've gone to such great pains to list and put bounds
on approve/prohibited operations, what's the safest thing a bureaucrat
can say when you ask, "do my proposed changes constitute a change
to the basic design of the aircraft?". Hmmmm . . . what does
basic mean? Some have told me that changing fuses to a breaker is
a basic design change. Others have told me that replacing a generator
with an alternator is a change to the basic design. I've also been
told that upgrading a 40A alternator to a 60A alternator is a
change to the basic design.
Most of this attitude comes from the fact that job performance
in bureaucratic institutions is judged not by how much work is
AVOIDED but by how much work is DONE. Expansion of the department's
horizons in numbers of people or size of operating budgets is based on
how much work didn't get done because of "under" funding or staffing.
I further note that bureaucratic understand of the technological
and scientific underpinnings of how airplanes work steadily
decreasing. Sooo . . . I think it's a safe bet that the act of
(1) putting a diode in series with the normal feed to an
avionics bus, (2) turning the avionics master switch into an
E-bus alternate feed switch, (3) moving some non-avionics systems
to the avionics bus and (4) renaming the "avionics bus" switch to
"essential bus" will be considered a big deal major change.
To add insult to injury, a declining level of expertise in
the FAA promotes a desire not to do Form-337 approvals in
favor of full-blown STC programs for any meaningful
changes to a certified airplane.
May I suggest you sell your beloved Pimoocesscraft and buy/build
an RV?
>Gary
>PS. Recently, had an experience (different plane) where a 10 amp circuit
>breaker (landing light) kept tripping. I wished it had been a fuse. I could
>have put in a 15 amp fuse to see if it was a real overload or a short. Light
>works fine, just trips after about 30 seconds. All new wiring.
What size landing light? Have you tried replacing the breaker?
Was this the original breaker/lamp combination with
just new wires?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Screw drive methods |
In a message dated 06/06/2002 2:52:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com <>writes:
<< BAKEROCB(at)aol.com wrote: But here is my problem. I know that there are
many, many different kinds of SS alloys and treatments such as work
hardening that significantly affect the strength of the material. Some of the
SS alloys may be too weak for my application. How can I be certain / find
out?>>
*** Get some and measure it? You could use a torque wrench to measure the
ultimate yield torque. You know, that torque that causes the metal to
stretch
like taffy. Basically you turn the wrench until the torque stops increasing
linearly with your turning, and read the number.
Here's a snip from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:...skip....***
6/6/2002
Hello Jerry, Thanks for the input. The problem is that what I have been able
to find / purchase to date (SS and alloy steel, 100 degree countersunk head,
hex socket drive, special order from Microfastener) cost me about a dollar US
each screw and I had to order 100 minimum.
So running my own tests on several likely candidates could exhaust my screw
budget pretty quickly.
I appreciate your "zen" comments -- I almost ran out and bought a motorcycle.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Screw drive methods |
AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bartrim, Todd" >
In a message dated 06/06/2002 2:52:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com Scot Stambaugh
writes:
<< Just a bit more expansion. I just talked to John at Microfasteners. He
does not stock the 100 degree hex drive flat heads but he can get them as
special order. They are about $1.00 a screw. He mentioned that there
might be a price break point in higher quantities and would check on that
for us. However, I think we would have to promise a large order for him to
buy a large quantity on our behalf. He was surprised to find out that
there was a market for anything 100 degree. He seems like a nice guy and
just wants to do business and make money so if there is a few bucks in it
for him he will do it. scot>>
6/6/2002
Hello Todd and Scot, Thanks for your inputs. It is obvious that there is
considerable interest in this subject. I think that you are both on the right
track. I'm not inclined to go into the screw business and I don't think Matt
Dralle needs or wants people trying to run a semi for profit business on his
list service, but we should encourage someone who is already in business to
serve our needs.
Likely candidates are Microfasteners, B&C, and Terminal Town. After visiting
the Textron Camcar web site I'm inclined to agree with Bob Nuckolls that what
we really want (Torx Plus or Torx drive, SS, 100 degree countersink, etc.)
may be available. We should not have to settle for hex socket drive if the
superior Torx Plus or Torx drive screws are being manufactured and it is just
a matter of getting some distributor to realize the potential market and
stock up.
My proposal is that all of those interested in purchasing these kinds of
screws let John at Microfasteners <> know of your
interest by sending him an email. I'll kick it off by sending him a copy of
this posting.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
PS: John must have been aware of some demand out there because I've special
ordered 100 degree countersink flat head screws from him twice and we've
discussed their use and need.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Francis, CMDR David" <David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au> |
| Subject: | SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - WIRING |
G'day Listers.
Below is a blurb about a free internet wiring course that some might find
useful. I did a short course (90min) on soldering and it was informative. I
have not looked at this material so cannot vouch for its usefulness.
WHY DID TWA FLIGHT 800 GO DOWN?
Much has been talked, written and guessed at what happened to TWA flight
800 and why it came down into the Atlantic. After the NTSB released
their findings it became even more important to all in the aerospace
industry to heed what information the NTSB and FAA have written about
aircraft wiring. Take this excellent course from Glenair and learn about
electrical wiring problems in aircraft.
http://www.aerolearn.com/bin/redirect.pl?id=ES120
Regards, David Francis, VH-ZEE, RV7 wings finished.
Email: David.Francis(at)cbr.defence.gov.au
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Torx Drive Screws available |
6/6/2002
Hello Fellow Builders, With the help of Albert Gardner
(albert.gardner(at)worldnet.att.net) I have located some Torx drive screws that
may be of use to some of you.
These are stainless steel screws, 8-32, one half inch long. The head design
is called "cheese head", sort of like a pan head only not quite as large in
diameter. Small Parts <> (800-220-4242) has them as part
number U-VRK-832-8.
These screws do not appear in the current Small Parts catalog because they
are remnants and will no longer be stocked when the ones on hand are gone.
The largest TorxPlus screws in the current catalog are size 4-40.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Diesel considerations |
Bob,
I am taking in the british fly-in at Cranfield in two weeks and
there are a number of queries which beg for answers. First of all, I am
looking at the 120HP 3cyl inverted inline turbo Wilksch for my Europa (in
company with about a dozen others to begin with).
While I note with delight I would have no ignition switches nor
interference, and much of the usual load will be lightened with solidstate
instrumentation, I DO have the worry of turning over a compression ignition
engine which is rumoured to require a 400Amp starting current. There is
(Also?) a 180Amp Glowplug requirement although I suspect I can run those in
sequence.
This is a large battery demand. Overcoming the compression is
the largest load in the trip profile, but the recharging of the batteries
will be paramount for successive legs. It occurred to me that this is a
short demand however because once compression occurs, can ignition be far
behind?.....and one cylinder firing should produce three in quick order. The
other vital feed is of course to the fuel pumps which feed the high
compression engine pump and fuel injectors (I'm carb-free at last).
[1] Have you any recommendations for a electric service of such a
specific flight profile? The alternator is claimed to be a 28A affair, type
as yet unknown. I will be hoping you'd agree to a pair of 17Ah RG batteries,
exchanged per your suggested schedule.
[2] What details should I demand of the builder?
I hope your CA journey was a satisfying one.
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>G'day Listers.
>Below is a blurb about a free internet wiring course that some might find
>useful. I did a short course (90min) on soldering and it was informative. I
>have not looked at this material so cannot vouch for its usefulness.
>
>WHY DID TWA FLIGHT 800 GO DOWN?
>Much has been talked, written and guessed at what happened to TWA flight
>800 and why it came down into the Atlantic. After the NTSB released
>their findings it became even more important to all in the aerospace
>industry to heed what information the NTSB and FAA have written about
>aircraft wiring. Take this excellent course from Glenair and learn about
>electrical wiring problems in aircraft.
>http://www.aerolearn.com/bin/redirect.pl?id=ES120
>
>Regards, David Francis, VH-ZEE, RV7 wings finished.
I took a quick peek at this link. Didn't get into the
course materials much after I read that incentive
for taking the course was based upon NTSB report
about TWA800.
Not one single aviation engineering professional I
know believes that report. There are a whole lot of
other folk who don't belive it either. You can touch
the tip of the iceberg at http://www.twa800.com/index.htm
The whole premise of this presentation hinges on
keeping sparking things out of the tanks. Generally
not an issue for light aircraft. We have no
need to run high energy conductors through
fuel spaces so most of the caveats are mute.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard D. Fogerson" <rickf(at)velocitus.net> |
| Subject: | Electronic Digital DG |
Hi Bob,
Do you have any knowledge of the track record of the electronic digital
system TruTrak auto pilots use. I understand the technology consists of
a vibrating crystal and was developed for the RC airplane market
because of size and weight requirements. Their new Digitrack auto
pilot, developed to compete with Navaid, sounds pretty cool but I don't
know if this is proven technology or in the "yet to be determined"
category.
Thanks,
Rick Fogerson
RV-3 Fuselage
Boise, ID
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Wilson <pwilson(at)climber.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport Aviation AA battery article |
Hi Bob,
Good article.
Our climbing list had been thrashing this subject of some time and
they have settled on the "Energizer Photo Lithium". The climbers are
using headlamps, GPS, cameras, and radios so they are not to far off
from a cold cockpit. The lithium is a 1.78 volt AA battery designed
for digital cameras with a flash. The theory is that these batteries
can be justified for use a normal temperatures for all the gadgets.
At normal temps its hard to believe it would beat a Duracell U.
2900mAh lithium vs 3135+ mAh alkaline (per Energizer, unknown test
conditions)
Cost at WalMart one day revealed E Photo for $2.485 each and D Ultra
for $0.995 each, a big difference.
A lister posted:
>Backpacker , Oct. 2001 battery review.
>A comparison was done with Alkaline, lithium and the new lithium batteries.
Lithiums weigh 40 % less and following comparison testing Alkalines
ran 4 hrs and 10 minutes, old lithiums 5 hrs,. and 30 minutes, and
new lithiums 7 hour and 25 minutes. In subfreezing conditions, the
new lithiums ran 7 hours but the alkaline 1 hour.
Any chance you can test the lithium to see if it is in the ball
park? I suppose that there is a crossover with regard to temperature,
but the climbers seem the think the lithiums are the all around best
choice.
Regards, Paul
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: puzzled with switches |
>
>
>Hello Bob,
>
>I recently did order, more or less, all switches from B&C, for the decision
>what to take, I did follow chapter 11 and came up as seen in Figure 11-20
>and added also 1-3 for the essential bus. Yesterday night I had again a look
>at the diagramms as currently VFR only is allowed in Switzerland with a very
>simple cockpit I will go for diag 11 with the option later to upgrade to
>Z-12.
>
>Now every diag shows a switch 2-10 in combination with a 1-3 for the
>essential bus. If I understand it correct, I will with my switch have not
>the possibility to switch the Battery on without connecting the alternator
>also. This would leave me in an overvoltage situation with only the
>essential bus items.
>
>Is this correct? Looking later on into an upgrade for IFR would you
>recommend to go for the 2-10 from the begin?
If you use a 2-3 for DC power master, then you pull the breaker
to run the battery without also running the alternator -OR-
you can change the 2-3 to a 2-10 but if you've already got a 2-3,
I'd put it in. Figure Z-12 is the way the certified guys
have to do it . . . Bonanzas, Mooneys and Pipers are all
wired this way when then put a B&C SD-20 in the airplane.
If it were my airplane, I'd go with an SD-8 per Figure
Z-13. The SD-8 puts out about 10A which is PLENTY of
snort to keep your en route hardware humming and save
the battery for the decent and approach to landing
phases of the flight. Here the standby alternator drives
the battery directly and DC power master switch issues
go away.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Digital DG |
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>Do you have any knowledge of the track record of the electronic digital
>system TruTrak auto pilots use. I understand the technology consists of
>a vibrating crystal and was developed for the RC airplane market
>because of size and weight requirements. Their new Digitrack auto
>pilot, developed to compete with Navaid, sounds pretty cool but I don't
>know if this is proven technology or in the "yet to be determined"
>category.
If I were going to attack this task, I would not
do it much different than what the folks at TruTrak
have chosen. The technologies involved are quite
mature.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Digital DG |
Looking at the Digitrak and the Navaid, the Digitrak does not track GPS, It
uses the GPS signal to display heading. At each way point you must manually
adjust your heading to the new track.
SteveD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Yamokoski" <yamokosk(at)lmc.cc.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Connector for Electric Artificial Horizon |
Hi Folks,
Getting ready to install the RC Allen electric artificial horizon. It looks
like the electrical connection is via a 4 pin mini-DIN connector labeled MS3116E8-45
or equivalent. Does anyone know of a good mail order source for such
things? I'd appreciate any info and any peculiarities people have uncovered
in dealing witrh these units. Thanks in advance.
Bill Yamokoski
Hoping to fly the Glastar by September
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport Aviation AA battery article |
>
>Hi Bob,
> Good article.
>
> Our climbing list had been thrashing this subject of some time and
>they have settled on the "Energizer Photo Lithium". The climbers are
>using headlamps, GPS, cameras, and radios so they are not to far off
>from a cold cockpit. The lithium is a 1.78 volt AA battery designed
>for digital cameras with a flash. The theory is that these batteries
>can be justified for use a normal temperatures for all the gadgets.
>At normal temps its hard to believe it would beat a Duracell U.
Are these the batteries you're talking about?
http://209.134.106.21/articles/temp/l91.pdf
> 2900mAh lithium vs 3135+ mAh alkaline (per Energizer, unknown test
>conditions)
>
> Cost at WalMart one day revealed E Photo for $2.485 each and D Ultra
>for $0.995 each, a big difference.
I wasn't aware that there were any 1.5v lithium technologies.
I note that the 3v devices are lithium/manganese-dioxide while
the 1.5 volt devices are lithium/iron-disulfide.
The data sheet I've posted above has a constant resistance
performance curve on the first page. If one tracks up the
5-0hm ordinate line we find that it intersects the performance
curves in the 7-8 hour range . . . about the same as the
alkaline cells I tested and talked about in the article.
>A lister posted:
> >Backpacker , Oct. 2001 battery review.
> >A comparison was done with Alkaline, lithium and the new lithium batteries.
>Lithiums weigh 40 % less and following comparison testing Alkalines
>ran 4 hrs and 10 minutes, old lithiums 5 hrs,. and 30 minutes, and
>new lithiums 7 hour and 25 minutes. In subfreezing conditions, the
>new lithiums ran 7 hours but the alkaline 1 hour.
you speak of "new lithium" . . . can you point me to specific
part numbers and manufacturers?
> Any chance you can test the lithium to see if it is in the ball
>park? I suppose that there is a crossover with regard to temperature,
>but the climbers seem the think the lithiums are the all around best
>choice.
If you want to send me a pair of cells to test, I'd be happy
to run them over the ol' battery killer and see what the
numbers are.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connector for Electric Artificial Horizon |
>
>
>Hi Folks,
> Getting ready to install the RC Allen electric artificial
> horizon. It looks like the electrical connection is via a 4 pin
> mini-DIN connector labeled MS3116E8-45 or equivalent. Does anyone know
> of a good mail order source for such things? I'd appreciate any info
> and any peculiarities people have uncovered in dealing witrh these
> units. Thanks in advance.
>Bill Yamokoski
>Hoping to fly the Glastar by September
The folks at
http://www.skirrow.org/Classic%20Technology/connectors.htm
say they have this connector in stock for $6.30.
By the way, the last character in the part number
is an "S" not a "5"
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Digital DG |
>
>Looking at the Digitrak and the Navaid, the Digitrak does not track GPS, It
>uses the GPS signal to display heading. At each way point you must manually
>adjust your heading to the new track.
>
>SteveD
Looking at the Trutrak website we find the following:
"Basic directional control is provided by digital selection of a
GPS track to be flown. This replaces heading selection on the
DG, and eliminates drift as well as crosswind correction. It is
likely that the DG heading bug will become obsolete. In the
GPS NAV mode of operation the system responds to digital
guidance information so as to fly a complex navigation
program. This function has also been referred to as GPS
Steering."
Taking these words at face value I deduce that the system
uses cross track error from GPS to hold a course over
the ground irrespective of the aircraft's heading. This
means that if your GPS will allow you to set up an entire
trip with multiple waypoints, as the GPS detects
waypoint passage and switches to the next one, it would
display a new track value and the a/p would steer to match
it.
Their displays show a TRK and SEL value for course.
Given that there are no controls on the face of the
control head, I could guess that as long as
you are not set up to track to a waypoint GPS will
be outputting present course over the ground -AND- if
you are not overriding the autopilot with control wheel
inputs, the display would show your present track
and would steer to hold that value. If you input a
waypoint and ask the GPS to show how to get there,
then cross-track error output from the GPS becomes
active and the a/p display detects the GPS line
on the ground as a SELected track to make good.
The SEL value on the display becomes active and significant.
It's not up to the autopilot to monitor waypoints.
The only thing the a/p can do is watch data coming
from the GPS and react to it to either (1) lacking
cross track error signal [no waypoint entered] then
hold present course or (2) if cross track data is
available, then adjust course to drive cross track
to zero.
Suppose your desired track over ground has a
course of 200 degrees and you're presently 1 mile
left of that track. I would expect the Trutrak
display to show 200 degees SELected but present
TRK of say 220 degrees to steer toward the
programmed line on the ground. As you get closer
(cross track error approaches zero) the
TRK value would come down until cross track
error is zero whereupon TRK and SEL are the
same. Now, if you're flying in 30Kt crosswind
from the right, the airplanes HEADING might
be 230 degrees but the autopilot and GPS
don't know this and don't care.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
There is a wonderful unit conversion program, convert.exe, available as
shareware from http://www.joshmadison.com/software . If you are unable to
get it there, e-mail me and I will send you a copy. It will convert
nearly any units that I have ever encountered, including pressure, and
allows you to enter custom conversions for anything it doesn't already
include (how about torrs to pascals?).
Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting empennage
(snip)
>Most conversion charts / tables just ignore pressure conversion and when
one
>does dig into it the concept of absolute and gage pressure along with
units
>such as pounds per square inch, kilo pascals, atmospheres, bars, etc
nearly
>overwhelms any rational effort at standardization.
________________________________________________________________________________
Allow me to ask what may be a stupid question. Why do we need a vacuum
pump? We have a splendid source of vacuum that is available as long as
the engine is turning (even if not firing). It is the engine itself,
through the intake manifold vacuum. Both the magnitude and the volume
are far in excess of anything needed for instruments, but this would be
handled by a vacuum regulator. Introducing air into the manifold would
lean the mixture, but this would be compensated for when we adjust the
mixture, and the volume introduced would be constant, due to the vacuum
regulator. I am aware that there are "emergency" devices that do exactly
this, but why don't we use it for our primary, full-time source? Old
automobiles used to use windshield wiper motors run from the intake
manifold vacuum, but these were not good because the vacuum level varied
with engine load. However, we run relatively constant engine load,
compared to an automobile, and the vacuum regulator would compensate for
any differences that do occur. So what is the reason we don't do this?
Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting empennage
>From: "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov>
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electric Gyros
>I think that the concern has been with the reliability of the vacuum
pumps,
>not the instruments themselves. If the pump fails, the instruments are
>useless, no matter what their expected life.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Digital DG |
I called Trutrak today to ask about GPS input to the Digitrak. The tech told
me that the unit only acts upon the current heading from the gps unit. IE: If
the DigiTrak is set to fly a heading 180 and the gps says your heading is 180
the unit will fly that heading forever no matter what your next waypoint is.
If at your next waypoint your new heading is 190. You must press and hold the
"control stick button" turn to 190 and release. The auto pilot will then hold
190, its new heading.
SteveD
(Id be really happy if I'm wrong about all of this because I'd order one if
it tracks across multiple waypoints)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Digital DG |
I think the original comparison was meant for the new $1495 TruTrak Digitrak
vs the Navaid. http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsdigiflightslick.html
Their low-end unit does not have GPS Steering even as an option. Looks like
you have to pony up about $3000 for the Digiflight 100 with the GPS Steering
option.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
> III"
>
> >
> >Looking at the Digitrak and the Navaid, the Digitrak does
> not track GPS, It
> >uses the GPS signal to display heading. At each way point
> you must manually
> >adjust your heading to the new track.
> >
> >SteveD
>
>
> Looking at the Trutrak website we find the following:
>
> "Basic directional control is provided by digital selection of a
> GPS track to be flown. This replaces heading selection on the
> DG, and eliminates drift as well as crosswind correction. It is
> likely that the DG heading bug will become obsolete. In the
> GPS NAV mode of operation the system responds to digital
> guidance information so as to fly a complex navigation
> program. This function has also been referred to as GPS
> Steering."
>
> Taking these words at face value I deduce that the system
> uses cross track error from GPS to hold a course over
> the ground irrespective of the aircraft's heading. This
> means that if your GPS will allow you to set up an entire
> trip with multiple waypoints, as the GPS detects
> waypoint passage and switches to the next one, it would
> display a new track value and the a/p would steer to match
> it.
>
> Their displays show a TRK and SEL value for course.
> Given that there are no controls on the face of the
> control head, I could guess that as long as
> you are not set up to track to a waypoint GPS will
> be outputting present course over the ground -AND- if
> you are not overriding the autopilot with control wheel
> inputs, the display would show your present track
> and would steer to hold that value. If you input a
> waypoint and ask the GPS to show how to get there,
> then cross-track error output from the GPS becomes
> active and the a/p display detects the GPS line
> on the ground as a SELected track to make good.
> The SEL value on the display becomes active and significant.
>
> It's not up to the autopilot to monitor waypoints.
> The only thing the a/p can do is watch data coming
> from the GPS and react to it to either (1) lacking
> cross track error signal [no waypoint entered] then
> hold present course or (2) if cross track data is
> available, then adjust course to drive cross track
> to zero.
>
> Suppose your desired track over ground has a
> course of 200 degrees and you're presently 1 mile
> left of that track. I would expect the Trutrak
> display to show 200 degees SELected but present
> TRK of say 220 degrees to steer toward the
> programmed line on the ground. As you get closer
> (cross track error approaches zero) the
> TRK value would come down until cross track
> error is zero whereupon TRK and SEL are the
> same. Now, if you're flying in 30Kt crosswind
> from the right, the airplanes HEADING might
> be 230 degrees but the autopilot and GPS
> don't know this and don't care.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum pumps |
| From: | James Freeman <flyeyes(at)bellsouth.net> |
On Friday, June 7, 2002, at 11:08 AM, j1j2h3(at)juno.com wrote:
> However, we run relatively constant engine load,
> compared to an automobile, and the vacuum regulator would compensate for
> any differences that do occur. So what is the reason we don't do this?
The short answer is, most of the time during cruise we operate our engines
at WOT, where the difference between manifold and ambient pressure is
negligible. I used to own an airplane with this backup system, and
actually used it after a vacuum pump failure once. It was necessary to
reduce the MP at least 2-3 inches below WOT to spin up the AH. Obviously,
this resulted in a decrease in cruise speed (or a descent, depending on
altitude and load) but it was an easy tradeoff if the vacuum pump quit.
The system would be useless for an IFR takeoff/climb or normal cruise.
James Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Digital DG |
>
>I called Trutrak today to ask about GPS input to the Digitrak. The tech told
>me that the unit only acts upon the current heading from the gps unit. IE: If
>the DigiTrak is set to fly a heading 180 and the gps says your heading is 180
>the unit will fly that heading forever no matter what your next waypoint is.
>If at your next waypoint your new heading is 190. You must press and hold the
>"control stick button" turn to 190 and release. The auto pilot will then hold
>190, its new heading.
>
>SteveD
>(Id be really happy if I'm wrong about all of this because I'd order one if
>it tracks across multiple waypoints)
Okay, with this "option", the autopilot is only looking at
the present course data and is programmed to hold that
course. Not bad and a hell-of-a-lot better than a wing
leveler. I'm surprised at the price differential for
GPS course hold versus GPS track hold . . . it's just
software. The hard part is hardware to bring all the necessary
data together . . . the cost of adding the track
feature is pretty low
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mprather(at)spro.net |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum pumps |
Maybe you haven't driven a car with vacuum wipers... When you
put your foot down to go faster (opening the throttle), the
wipers slow down (unless you have a reservoir) because the intake
manifold is under much less vacuum. On takeoff in an airplane,
I think you would need as reliable a source of vacuum as you would
on approach. Because of the high powersetting, the available
vacuum would be very low - especially if your airplane has an
efficient air cleaner. Maybe you can pull 26" of mercury at full
power. That leaves a delta-p of only 3" of mercury. That's a little
less than the required 4"-6" generally required for the system. These
systems probably work okay for landing because the throttle is
pulled back and the manifold has had its big leak largely sealed
Brake boosters still use vacuum on cars because when you are on the
brakes, you are making vacuum, unless your one of those who drives
automatics with 2 feet... :)
Matt Prather
----- Original Message -----
From: j1j2h3(at)juno.com
Date: Friday, June 7, 2002 10:08 am
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Vacuum pumps
>
> Allow me to ask what may be a stupid question. Why do we need a
> vacuumpump? We have a splendid source of vacuum that is available
> as long as
> the engine is turning (even if not firing). It is the engine itself,
> through the intake manifold vacuum. Both the magnitude and the volume
> are far in excess of anything needed for instruments, but this
> would be
> handled by a vacuum regulator. Introducing air into the manifold
> wouldlean the mixture, but this would be compensated for when we
> adjust the
> mixture, and the volume introduced would be constant, due to the
> vacuumregulator. I am aware that there are "emergency" devices
> that do exactly
> this, but why don't we use it for our primary, full-time source? Old
> automobiles used to use windshield wiper motors run from the intake
> manifold vacuum, but these were not good because the vacuum level
> variedwith engine load. However, we run relatively constant
> engine load,
> compared to an automobile, and the vacuum regulator would
> compensate for
> any differences that do occur. So what is the reason we don't do
> this?
> Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting empennage
>
> >From: "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov>
> >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electric Gyros
>
>
>
> >I think that the concern has been with the reliability of the vacuum
> pumps,
> >not the instruments themselves. If the pump fails, the
> instruments are
> >useless, no matter what their expected life.
>
>
> _-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mprather(at)spro.net |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum pumps |
Oh yeah.... I almost forgot... Manifold vacuum really goes
away on a forced induction (turbo/supercharged) engine.
It was a good question though.
Matt-
----- Original Message -----
From: j1j2h3(at)juno.com
Date: Friday, June 7, 2002 10:08 am
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Vacuum pumps
>
> Allow me to ask what may be a stupid question. Why do we need a
> vacuumpump? We have a splendid source of vacuum that is available
> as long as
> the engine is turning (even if not firing). It is the engine itself,
> through the intake manifold vacuum. Both the magnitude and the volume
> are far in excess of anything needed for instruments, but this
> would be
> handled by a vacuum regulator. Introducing air into the manifold
> wouldlean the mixture, but this would be compensated for when we
> adjust the
> mixture, and the volume introduced would be constant, due to the
> vacuumregulator. I am aware that there are "emergency" devices
> that do exactly
> this, but why don't we use it for our primary, full-time source? Old
> automobiles used to use windshield wiper motors run from the intake
> manifold vacuum, but these were not good because the vacuum level
> variedwith engine load. However, we run relatively constant
> engine load,
> compared to an automobile, and the vacuum regulator would
> compensate for
> any differences that do occur. So what is the reason we don't do
> this?
> Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting empennage
>
> >From: "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov>
> >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electric Gyros
>
>
>
> >I think that the concern has been with the reliability of the vacuum
> pumps,
> >not the instruments themselves. If the pump fails, the
> instruments are
> >useless, no matter what their expected life.
>
>
> _-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum pumps |
>
>Allow me to ask what may be a stupid question. Why do we need a vacuum
>pump? We have a splendid source of vacuum that is available as long as
>the engine is turning (even if not firing). It is the engine itself,
>through the intake manifold vacuum. Both the magnitude and the volume
>are far in excess of anything needed for instruments, but this would be
>handled by a vacuum regulator. Introducing air into the manifold would
>lean the mixture, but this would be compensated for when we adjust the
>mixture, and the volume introduced would be constant, due to the vacuum
>regulator. I am aware that there are "emergency" devices that do exactly
>this . . .
A company founded by a former chief of flight test
at the Cessna single engine plant (circa 1970) named
Bill Thompson retired off to Bend Oregon and started
a company called Precise Flight. Bill's first product
was deployable spoilers for use on high performance
a/c . . . I flew a Mooney with this system installed.
Set up for 60 kts final and enough power to hold 500
FPM decent. Deploy spoilers and decent rate went to
1800 FPM . . . pull spoilers back in and rate is
immediately back to 500 FPM . . . Cool!
http://www.preciseflight.com/sb.html
Bill later developed the manifold driven standby
vacuum system . . .
http://www.preciseflight.com/standby.html
> but why don't we use it for our primary, full-time source? Old
>automobiles used to use windshield wiper motors run from the intake
>manifold vacuum, but these were not good because the vacuum level varied
>with engine load.
That's it! Vacuum in the intake manifold is a function of
DIFFERENCE between ambient pressure and manifold pressure.
So, if you want 5" of vacuum, you need to run a manifold
pressure that is 5" BELOW ambient. Can you maintain altitude
with this kind of power reduction? If you've just hit MDA
and want to go to full throttle for go-around, do you want
the gyros to be spinning down while you're climbing back
up into the crud?
> However, we run relatively constant engine load,
>compared to an automobile, and the vacuum regulator would compensate for
>any differences that do occur. So what is the reason we don't do this?
Except for the few minutes I spend climbing to cruising
altitude, the airplanes I fly run at wide open throttle -
zero differential between MAP and ambient. Next time I get
into an airplane with a manifold pressure gage, I'll see
if I can maintain altitude with a 5" manifold pressure
drop.
I've also looked at mounting a venturi in the engines
exhaust stacks. No icing problems and as long as the engine
is running, pumping energy is available too . . . but not
much . . . in fact, not enough. In spite of the fact that
the gasses coming out of an engine are hot, there isn't much
kinetic energy. Certainly not enough stoke up a venturi driving
two gyros.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Ludeman" <bludeman(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Connector for Electric Artificial Horizon |
Greetings All,
I'm not sure if everyone is aware that Google continues to make huge
strides in adding part numbers to their search engine. Whether you are
looking for aviation related parts or that obscure part for an old
swimming pool pump -- just type the number in and let Google surprise
you.
A quick check on Google for the part number requested showed 19 hits.
By chance I only entered the first 8 characters (I was lazy) and noticed
that the correct part number ends with an "S" rather than a "5". Had I
typed in the whole part number I would have received no hits, but my
confidence in Google would have resulted in me deleting a few characters
and trying again. By the way, not all of those 19 hits are vendors --
many of the them relate to news archives (Europa, RV) where others
discuss the wiring of this connector.
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
William Yamokoski
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Connector for Electric Artificial Horizon
-->
Hi Folks,
Getting ready to install the RC Allen electric artificial horizon.
It looks like the electrical connection is via a 4 pin mini-DIN
connector labeled MS3116E8-45 or equivalent. Does anyone know of a
good mail order source for such things? I'd appreciate any info and
any peculiarities people have uncovered in dealing witrh these units.
Thanks in advance.
Bill Yamokoski
Hoping to fly the Glastar by September
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick DeCiero <rsdec1(at)star.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 06/06/02 |
Gary and others,
Maybe this will work. Buy some of the 82 deg. c'sunk stainless finishing washers
P/N WF-8
from Aircraft Spruce page 94 of their 2001/2002 catalog 6 cents each. Then flatten
the outer
portion to replicate a tinnerman washer. Lets us know how it works if you try it.
Rick D.
Good luck, you'll need it.
From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: screws and countersink angles
<>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | I love this business . . . |
See: http://209.134.106.21/articles/temp/LOA_Lamp.jpg
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Unit conversion |
The one I use is freeware and does most anything you can think of. It's at:
http://vaibhavweb.tripod.com/programs/metric_converter_246.exe
R
----- Original Message -----
From: <j1j2h3(at)juno.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Unit conversion
>
> There is a wonderful unit conversion program, convert.exe, available as
> shareware from http://www.joshmadison.com/software . If you are unable to
> get it there, e-mail me and I will send you a copy. It will convert
> nearly any units that I have ever encountered, including pressure, and
> allows you to enter custom conversions for anything it doesn't already
> include (how about torrs to pascals?).
>
> Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting empennage
>
> (snip)
> >Most conversion charts / tables just ignore pressure conversion and when
> one
> >does dig into it the concept of absolute and gage pressure along with
> units
> >such as pounds per square inch, kilo pascals, atmospheres, bars, etc
> nearly
> >overwhelms any rational effort at standardization.
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Grosvenor" <dwg(at)iafrica.com> |
Does anyone have the pinout for an Ameri-King AK-350 Altitude Encoder? I
need to hook it up to a Narco AT-50A.
Thanks
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gabe and Marisol Ferrer" <ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Fast On Mating & Unmating |
Is there any "easy" way to mate & unmate fast on terminals?
Today I pulled off a spade off a rocker switch while removing a "fast on"
terminal.
Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Gabe A Ferrer (RV6 "final electrical wiring")
ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net
Cell: 561 758 8894
Night or FAX: 561 622 0960
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave" <dave(at)bestnetpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unit conversion |
I'll throw my 2 cents worth in here and share the converter I use at
work (and on my project). It's free and has the ability to leave a
converter "up" while you search and use another. It's at:
http://www.megaconverter.com/Mega2/
Dave Goff
Thorp S-18. Building and always doing some kind of wiring!
----- Original Message -----
From: j1j2h3(at)juno.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:42 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Unit conversion
There is a wonderful unit conversion program, convert.exe, available
as
shareware from http://www.joshmadison.com/software . If you are unable
to
get it there, e-mail me and I will send you a copy. It will convert
nearly any units that I have ever encountered, including pressure, and
allows you to enter custom conversions for anything it doesn't already
include (how about torrs to pascals?).
Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting empennage
(snip)
>Most conversion charts / tables just ignore pressure conversion and
when
one
>does dig into it the concept of absolute and gage pressure along with
units
>such as pounds per square inch, kilo pascals, atmospheres, bars, etc
nearly
>overwhelms any rational effort at standardization.
=
=
messages.
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carlfro(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Connector for Electric Artificial Horizon |
Aircraft Spruce sells the connector.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (FSDO inspection late this month)
Vienna, VA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
William Yamokoski
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Connector for Electric Artificial Horizon
Hi Folks,
Getting ready to install the RC Allen electric artificial horizon. It
looks like the electrical connection is via a 4 pin mini-DIN connector
labeled MS3116E8-45 or equivalent. Does anyone know of a good mail order
source for such things? I'd appreciate any info and any peculiarities
people have uncovered in dealing witrh these units. Thanks in advance.
Bill Yamokoski
Hoping to fly the Glastar by September
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Cameron" <toucan(at)78055.com> |
| Subject: | TruTrak Autopilot |
I have a TruTrak DFC250 autopilot system in my Lancair ES, and as
far as I'm concerned, it's the best thing since the pop-up toaster. It
flies the plane better than I can (no comments, please!), including
climbs to pre-selected altitude, turn anticipation on multi-leg flight
plans, etc., etc. Much superior to the S-Tec system I put in my first
ES.
Jim Cameron
Lancair Super ES N143ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | screws and countersink angles |
In a message dated 06/07/2002 2:54:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "Gary Casey"
writes:
OC wrote: "If there were such things as stainless steel 82 degree dimpled
Tinnerman washers then I might have been persuaded to go with those and
commercially available stainless steel 82 degree countersink flat head Torx
or Torx Plus drive screws. Unfortunately I already have all my fiberglass
control surfaces
countersinked at 100 degrees."
<< Gary responds: Sorry about drifting slightly off the "electrical"
subject, but I find the discussion interesting.>>
6/7/2002
Hello Gary, I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful comments. I'd like to
break your posting down into pieces and respond piecemeal below. Before I do
that though I would like to thank all other posters and readers for their
forbearance as we pursue this "slightly off topic" issue. I feel that we are
making progress toward a solution and I hope that that solution will be of
benefit to many.
<>
Just a word of caution. If your type certified airplane didn't have those
kinds of washers from the factory where you installed them, there are FAA
inspectors who will ground the airplane for not being in compliance with the
type certificate. A case similar to this is written up on page 25 of the
March 2002 issue of the FAA Aviation News magazine.
<>
Two comments:
1) The Tinnerman washer has a reflex shape to it so that when completely
tightened down flush the internal angle will be 100 degrees and fit the screw
head snugly. This same reflex shape gives the desirable clamping action that
you mention above.
2) One of my main objections to using an 80-82 degree screw with the 100
degree Tinnerman washer is the gap that remains around the periphery of the
screw head. Dirt, polish residue, and other junk gathers in this gap, holds
moisture and can cause problems.
<< And I can't imagine that countersinking a plastic material with an
18-degree (9 degrees per side) could possibly be a problem - the plastic
would easily yield more than that. To install the 3/32, soft rivets in
plastic for anchor nuts I have been
using an 82-degree countersink - maybe not optimum, but I don't know if
there is a problem.>>
Comments:
1) I would recommend that you use AN426AD (T4 condition 2117 aluminum) rivets
instead of AN426A (soft 1100 aluminum) if that is what you meant by "soft
rivets" above for installing anchor nuts.
2) I would recommend borrowing / purchasing a rivet squeezer for setting
these rivets (and many others) during the construction of your plane. I am
one aeronautical engineer and A&P who feels that beating on rivets with a
rivet gun is stone age technology.
3) I would recommend a 100 degree countersink with a #40 pilot for your 3/32
inch flat head rivets. You will be much happier / confident about the quality
of your work.
<< Another observation: At least in my ES kit it seems like the strength of
any of the fasteners that go into plastic are way, way more than the plastic
composite that surrounds them. I especially am puzzled by the small flathead
6-32's used to attach panels.>>
I agree, I think 6-32 screws are too tiny to be fiddling around with when
removing installing panels regardless of any strength considerations.
<>
I would not dismiss the strength of "plastic" (we engineers prefer to call it
"composite material") too casually. FRP's (Fiber Reenforced Plastic)
technology has produced some spectacularly strong (and light) structures.
Would you prefer to be shot at wearing an aluminum vest or a kevlar vest?
Yeah, I'm not really worried about getting the very best / strongest heat
treated stainless steel fasteners for my composite airplane, I just don't
want the very worst / weakest stainless steel fasteners. Since I'm not a
stainless steel expert I tend to go with the information / specifications
that are available to me from the milspec / aerospace industry. I don't have
any other criteria to use.
<>
You have a valid point, but realize that composite aircraft construction is
still in its infancy. As time goes on we'll reach a better balance between
fastener / structure weight / strength. Also realize that the quality of the
work done by the individual kit airplane amateur builder is not guanteed so
the kit manufacturer has a significant safety (and additional weight) factor
designed into his kit in an attempt to still make safe the poorest builder's
airplane (within reason).
True story: I worked on the development of a modern high tech composite
military aircraft. The government structural bureacrats knew only metal
technology so they insisted on hundreds of fasteners being used to fasten
together dozens of composite parts. These fasteners were contemptuously
referred to as "chicken rivets" by the composite savvy engineers designing
and building the aircraft. When the first items turned out to be overweight /
unsatisfactory the redesign had many, many fewer and much larger composite
parts and many, many fewer fasteners.
Thanks again for helping to kick the can down the road.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Diesel considerations |
>
>Bob,
> I am taking in the british fly-in at Cranfield in two weeks and
>there are a number of queries which beg for answers. First of all, I am
>looking at the 120HP 3cyl inverted inline turbo Wilksch for my Europa (in
>company with about a dozen others to begin with).
> While I note with delight I would have no ignition switches nor
>interference, and much of the usual load will be lightened with solidstate
>instrumentation, I DO have the worry of turning over a compression ignition
>engine which is rumoured to require a 400Amp starting current. There is
>(Also?) a 180Amp Glowplug requirement although I suspect I can run those in
>sequence.
> This is a large battery demand. Overcoming the compression is
>the largest load in the trip profile, but the recharging of the batteries
>will be paramount for successive legs. It occurred to me that this is a
>short demand however because once compression occurs, can ignition be far
>behind?.....and one cylinder firing should produce three in quick order. The
>other vital feed is of course to the fuel pumps which feed the high
>compression engine pump and fuel injectors (I'm carb-free at last).
>[1] Have you any recommendations for a electric service of such a
>specific flight profile? The alternator is claimed to be a 28A affair, type
>as yet unknown. I will be hoping you'd agree to a pair of 17Ah RG batteries,
>exchanged per your suggested schedule.
A new 17 a.h. RG battery will supply 400A for crankign without
breathing hard. A pair of them in parallel should do just fine
for both cranking and glo-plugs. How long do the plugs have
to be powered before you can hit the starter?
>[2] What details should I demand of the builder?
>
> I hope your CA journey was a satisfying one.
It was indeed. Thank you.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Microair Transponders are flowing!!!!!! |
>
>Bob,
>I sent you an e-mail here the first of the week but, don't know if you
>got it or not. (I probably sent it to your old sever)
>I thought I'd try the List this time. Anyway, I was wondering what the
>status of the transponders were and if I was still in line to get one
>from you? Kind of "squeeky wheel" and all that...
>
>Just Wondering,
>Jim Duckett, RV-7A
Jim, I got my first two transponders last week and I'm
developing the install kits for them now. Hope to ship
them out this weekend to the first two folks on the list.
I don't know when I'm going to get any more. They're
still trying to get the current vacuum filled in the
pipe. The good news is that these are not a myth,
they are REAL transponders and we're now seeing some
hardware.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum pumps |
| From: | Denis Walsh <deniswalsh(at)earthlink.net> |
An excellent exchange of views on vacuum systems.
I inspected a system used by Dean Hall in his RV-4 about five years ago. To
drive his vacuum gyros, he used a combination of a venturi mounted between
the exhaust pipes on the belly, and a manifold system. It used the
automatic switching system (perhaps the one mentioned below). I believe he
has developed a system which works very well with no vacuum pump; however
this might only work in a homebuilt type plane with lots of excess
horsepower, fixed gear, and exhaust on the belly.
He was very pleased with the set up. I suppose it would be a problem in
many installations, but in the RV-4 with 180HP ++, it works great. Dean's
observation was that the venturi was in very "dirty " air , that is,
turbulent and lots of drag anyway, hence the drag penalty for the venturi
was essentially nil. As a bonus, he noted the exhaust heat, and oily slime
helps prevent icing up.
So, what happens is, on taxiing out, the available vacuum is ample to get
the gyros spinning real good. At take off power the vacuum goes to zero
diff on the manifold, BUT in Dean's RV-4 it only takes a few seconds until
he has over 100 MPH IAS, and no gyro rpm decay is noted, since the venturi
is really whistling at that speed..
On landing approach, there is ample vacuum at any speeds below 100. In my
RV-6A, I usually see MP of less than 15 inches for 100 at 6,500 MSL pattern
altitude, which gives a delta of about nine inches.. A lot of vacuum.
I saw Dean, and his plane at Greeley, CO this afternoon, and it is obviously
still going strong!
Denis
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 15:52:20 -0500
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Vacuum pumps
>
>
>
>>
>> Allow me to ask what may be a stupid question. Why do we need a vacuum
>> pump? We have a splendid source of vacuum that is available as long as
>> the engine is turning (even if not firing). It is the engine itself,
>> through the intake manifold vacuum. Both the magnitude and the volume
>> are far in excess of anything needed for instruments, but this would be
>> handled by a vacuum regulator. Introducing air into the manifold would
>> lean the mixture, but this would be compensated for when we adjust the
>> mixture, and the volume introduced would be constant, due to the vacuum
>> regulator. I am aware that there are "emergency" devices that do exactly
>> this . . .
>
> A company founded by a former chief of flight test
> at the Cessna single engine plant (circa 1970) named
> Bill Thompson retired off to Bend Oregon and started
> a company called Precise Flight. Bill's first product
> was deployable spoilers for use on high performance
> a/c . . . I flew a Mooney with this system installed.
> Set up for 60 kts final and enough power to hold 500
> FPM decent. Deploy spoilers and decent rate went to
> 1800 FPM . . . pull spoilers back in and rate is
> immediately back to 500 FPM . . . Cool!
>
> http://www.preciseflight.com/sb.html
>
> Bill later developed the manifold driven standby
> vacuum system . . .
>
> http://www.preciseflight.com/standby.html
>
>
>> but why don't we use it for our primary, full-time source? Old
>> automobiles used to use windshield wiper motors run from the intake
>> manifold vacuum, but these were not good because the vacuum level varied
>> with engine load.
>
> That's it! Vacuum in the intake manifold is a function of
> DIFFERENCE between ambient pressure and manifold pressure.
> So, if you want 5" of vacuum, you need to run a manifold
> pressure that is 5" BELOW ambient. Can you maintain altitude
> with this kind of power reduction? If you've just hit MDA
> and want to go to full throttle for go-around, do you want
> the gyros to be spinning down while you're climbing back
> up into the crud?
>
>> However, we run relatively constant engine load,
>> compared to an automobile, and the vacuum regulator would compensate for
>> any differences that do occur. So what is the reason we don't do this?
>
> Except for the few minutes I spend climbing to cruising
> altitude, the airplanes I fly run at wide open throttle -
> zero differential between MAP and ambient. Next time I get
> into an airplane with a manifold pressure gage, I'll see
> if I can maintain altitude with a 5" manifold pressure
> drop.
>
> I've also looked at mounting a venturi in the engines
> exhaust stacks. No icing problems and as long as the engine
> is running, pumping energy is available too . . . but not
> much . . . in fact, not enough. In spite of the fact that
> the gasses coming out of an engine are hot, there isn't much
> kinetic energy. Certainly not enough stoke up a venturi driving
> two gyros.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Microair Transponders are flowing!!!!!! |
Bob,
Have you read about all the features of the Microair Transponders? It's
truly amazing.
Nice article in Sport Aviation. Answers lots of questions.
R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Microair Transponders are flowing!!!!!!
>
> >
> >Bob,
> >I sent you an e-mail here the first of the week but, don't know if you
> >got it or not. (I probably sent it to your old sever)
> >I thought I'd try the List this time. Anyway, I was wondering what the
> >status of the transponders were and if I was still in line to get one
> >from you? Kind of "squeeky wheel" and all that...
> >
> >Just Wondering,
> >Jim Duckett, RV-7A
>
> Jim, I got my first two transponders last week and I'm
> developing the install kits for them now. Hope to ship
> them out this weekend to the first two folks on the list.
> I don't know when I'm going to get any more. They're
> still trying to get the current vacuum filled in the
> pipe. The good news is that these are not a myth,
> they are REAL transponders and we're now seeing some
> hardware.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Screw drive methods |
In a message dated 06/07/2002 2:54:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "Rob Housman"
<RobH@hyperion-ef.com>writes:
<< First the disclaimer: although I've tried to find the best available
information with the least effort, my search was not exhaustive.>>
6/7/2002
Hello Rob, Thanks for hanging in there on this subject. I'd like to respond
to your posting piecemeal below.
<< ...and an opinion: A distributor selling fasteners that does not know the
mechanical properties of the products they sell is nothing more than a
hardware store. Any industrial distributor worthy of the name should either
know this information or be willing to get it from the manufacturer.>>
I agree. The problem arises when the distributor learns that you want him to
spend his time getting / dispensing information on a specialty item when the
order quantity is trivial in his opinion.
<>
Yep, I don't dispute anything that you write above. Like I wrote to Gary
Casey:
"I'm not really worried about getting the very best / strongest heat treated
stainless steel fasteners for my composite airplane, I just don't want the
very worst / weakest stainless steel fasteners. Since I'm not a stainless
steel expert I tend to go with the information / specifications that are
available to me from the milspec / aerospace industry. I don't have any other
criteria to use."
It boils down to just exactly how I can be sure to get, to use your words
above, "good quality fasteners from a reliable source." So far I haven't
found any source (other than the hex socket screws from Microfasteners) much
less a reliable one.
<>
All of the fasteners provided with my kit were MS / AN / aerospace standard
fasteners. The kit provider was doing his very best to make money. He would
have provided cheaper commercial fasteners if he felt they were adequate /
acceptable to the customer.
<http://www.textronfasteningsystems.com/automotive/inchflathead100.html but I
haven't tried to find a distributor. There is a "contact us" link at that
URL so you should be able to find a distributor by asking Textron.>>
Thanks for the URL. I have previously been to that contact link. My
subsequent communications with Textron resulted in them telling me that they
don't do the 100 degree fasteners in house, but have that licensed out. They
are supposed to be getting me licensee contact information. Nothing is easy.
I'll keep you all posted -- thanks again.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Digital DG |
> Okay, with this "option", the autopilot is only looking at
> the present course data and is programmed to hold that
> course. Not bad and a hell-of-a-lot better than a wing
> leveler. I'm surprised at the price differential for
> GPS course hold versus GPS track hold . . . it's just
> software. The hard part is hardware to bring all the necessary
> data together . . . the cost of adding the track
> feature is pretty low
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
I think it is abit more than software. The TruTrak folks have packaged the
DigiTrak in a completely new unit from the DigiFights and their top of the
line units. They are trying to compete with Navaid. As you have stated,
comparing the features of the two units and given the prices are almost the
same, the DigiTrak wins hands down. For less than $3000 you can have the
GPS Steering and alot more. This unit is competing with those who are
looking at the STec line. Again, dollar for dollar, feature for feature,
TruTrak wins. Yes, I own one....the DFC-250
Ross Mickey
RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
"...gps says your heading is 180 ..."
As Bob says, "...ain't no such thing." A simple GPS signal cannot provide a
heading. It doesn't care. Whoever thinks GPS and Heading are interconnected
is not ready for solo. Heading is which way the aircraft points, and GPS
doesn't know that.
Cheers,
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
Cheers,
The website at 'TruTrak' needs a housecleaning. While the
grammar is technically correct, the wording leaves a confused impression.
""Basic directional control is provided by digital selection of a
GPS track to be flown."
Correct.
" This replaces heading selection on the DG,..."
Correct.
"... and eliminates drift as well as crosswind correction."
Wrong. It simply ignores them. Drift and crosswind are still
there and active.
"It is likely that the DG heading bug will become obsolete."
Wrong. It already has. Inertial Navigation Systems saw to that
ten years before GPS was born. The heading arrow on a modern aircraft is
small and off to the wind side, and the compass system provides a wind arrow
on the screen.
The choice of words makes all the difference.
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Digital DG |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Yes, this is correct....I talked to the TruTrak guys at Anoka, MN fly-in
recently and was initially disappointed that the low end Digitrak unit
($1500) can't actually change headings at waypoints programmed into the
GPS. The Navaid can do this (if you get the option). However, I got to
thinking about it....how often do you change headings when following a
flightplan in GPS? Even in a fast homebuilt, I bet it's not very often.
When you're following VOR's this makes more sense to go from one to the
next, but usually with GPS you just punch in the destination and you're
on your way directly to it. If it's really a long XC trip you might put
in a few waypoints just for various reasons, but it's not a very big deal
to make a minor heading adjustment at these points. To me, I'm
absolutely sold that the Digitrak system's advantages (lighter weight, no
moving parts to wear out, and much greater precision) far outweigh this
one "disadvantage" compared to the Navaid. IMHO.
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A...was finishing until my house got flooded....
_______
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Electronic Digital DG
>
>I called Trutrak today to ask about GPS input to the Digitrak. The tech
told
>me that the unit only acts upon the current heading from the gps unit.
IE: If
>the DigiTrak is set to fly a heading 180 and the gps says your heading
is 180
>the unit will fly that heading forever no matter what your next waypoint
is.
>If at your next waypoint your new heading is 190. You must press and
hold the
>"control stick button" turn to 190 and release. The auto pilot will then
hold
>190, its new heading.
>
>SteveD
>(Id be really happy if I'm wrong about all of this because I'd order one
if
>it tracks across multiple waypoints)
Okay, with this "option", the autopilot is only looking at
the present course data and is programmed to hold that
course. Not bad and a hell-of-a-lot better than a wing
leveler. I'm surprised at the price differential for
GPS course hold versus GPS track hold . . . it's just
software. The hard part is hardware to bring all the necessary
data together . . . the cost of adding the track
feature is pretty low
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
<< "...gps says your heading is 180 ..." >>
Excuse me, Track, English as a second language is so confusing! : )
Cheers,
SteveD
Thanks for all your help, I was leaning toward the digitrak.
All that's left is to place the order.
________________________________________________________________________________
I just finished reading the review of Control Vison's Anywhere software
in the July Kitplanes magazine. It sounds great. Does anyone have any
experience with it?
Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting empennage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heading, track |
>
>Cheers,
> The website at 'TruTrak' needs a housecleaning. While the
>grammar is technically correct, the wording leaves a confused impression.
> ""Basic directional control is provided by digital selection of a
>GPS track to be flown."
> Correct.
>" This replaces heading selection on the DG,..."
> Correct.
> "... and eliminates drift as well as crosswind correction."
> Wrong. It simply ignores them. Drift and crosswind are still
>there and active.
It DOES eliminate drift by AUTOMATICALLY inserting a crosswind
correction.
> "It is likely that the DG heading bug will become obsolete."
> Wrong. It already has. Inertial Navigation Systems saw to that
>ten years before GPS was born. The heading arrow on a modern aircraft is
>small and off to the wind side, and the compass system provides a wind arrow
>on the screen.
> The choice of words makes all the difference.
You got that right!
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fast On Mating & Unmating |
"Gabe and Marisol Ferrer"
>Is there any "easy" way to mate & unmate fast on terminals?
>
>Today I pulled off a spade off a rocker switch while removing a "fast on"
>terminal.
>
>Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Hmmm . . . I'm wondering about the quality of the rocker
switch. The fast-ons do and should fit pretty tight else
they could not adequately do their job. Try to put
pure un-mating tension while gently rocking the
terminal on the tab.
The tabs on switches we sell have holes in the tabs
that will be engaged by a feature build into the
terminals we sell. When these features are present
on both tab and terminal, the removal forces can
go up significantly.
By in large, I can always get a terminal off with
just my fingers. If the situation makes it difficult
to get your hand in there or if the terminal fits
REALLY tight, use needle nose to grasp the terminal
at junction between the wire-grip and tab-grip and
apply the pull/rock motion to dislodge the terminal.
What kind of switches are you using?
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Your Cozy project |
John, why not join the AeroElecric List to carry on this
conversation? Everything we're talking about is of value
to many of those who hang out there. The sign-up page is
at http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
>The (one page) instructions for my Aeroflash strobes make no mention of
>shielded wire.
Hmmm . . . did the strobes come with an installation kit?
Does the schematic show shielded wire? (See chapter 1 in
the book).
> > Get the running loads for each item in amps. Pick the
> > next largest fuse to carry those amps and pick a wire rated
> > for those amps from the wire table in the book.
>OK. But I have a question here. Say I'm wiring the position lights, which
>each take 5 amps. Should I run 16AWG back to a T, then use 20AWG to each
>light?
Astute question. This is the one case where one has to account
for the TOTAL load of multiple small loads. Each lamp runs at
about 2A. The total is 6A. This means that the breaker/fuse
should be about 7A. If you have a 7A protection, then the ENTIRE
system should be wired for 7A loads irrespective of the fact
that each branch is loaded to only 2A. Bring 20AWG wires all
the way from each lamp to the back of your nav lights switch.
Crimp all three wires into a single blue terminal at the
switch. See;
http://209.134.106.21/articles/multiplewires/multiplewires.html
>I'm still trying to figure out what to use for various joints.
>Is there a permanent joint for RG58?
Sure. Look over the products at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/antenna/antenna.html
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#rct-2
and article at:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
http://209.134.106.21/articles/coaxconn/coaxconn.html
>What should I use to join the nav lights in the wing root? Knife splices
>seem a little inconvienient when the wing is removed and reinstalled.
If it were my airplane, I'd wire the wings with 10'
hunks of wire hanging out the root. When the wings
are installed, put a service loop of about 6" slack
at the root and route wires on into the fuselage
to the panel. IF and when you need to remove your
wings (I'm renting airplanes that are 40 years old
that probably have never had the wings removed) then
cut the wires and go back together with butt-splices
or next best think is knife-splices.
If your airplane gets routinely trailered and
you HAVE to repeatedly open the wire bundles,
then consider:
or the white plastic Waldom/Molex or Tyco/AMP
Mate-n-Lock with terminals applied like:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/matenlok/matenlok.html
>The one thing I'm missing now is the wish list of electrical parts that we
>worked on.
>
>For example:
>Starter Contactor
>Battery contactor
>Ground Blocks
>Fuse block
>switches
>...
>...
>I guess I can recreate it from the wiring diagrams.
>
>Sorry about all the questions. I'm new to all this and really want to get it
>right.
Understand. Suggest you take the time to browse all of
the catalog pages on our website and check out ALL the
articles. If you have a slow internet connection,
consider ordering the CD_Rom from the website which
is a mirror of the whole site plus a lot of other goodies.
You can browse and read the whole site from the CD
as if you were plugged right into the server.
There are certainly alternative materials and tools
for the task other than what's on my website . . . when
I set out to stock that site, I selected parts that
I would use if it were my airplane. So what you'll
find there is not like digging through the Aircraft
Spruce catalog where there are multiple choices for
everything.
Even if you choose to substitute parts, starting
with my website is a good baseline. Just about
everything there has some degree of relevance to
the configuration of your system. Once you've
got the architecture under control, THEN spend
some time working out what we might consider the
esthetic details (rockers vs. toggles, breakers
vs. fuses, etc.)
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
AeroElectric-List message posted by: ScramIt(at)aol.com
< Looking at the Digitrak and the Navaid, the Digitrak does not track GPS, It
uses the GPS signal to display heading. At each way point you must manually
adjust your heading to the new track. SteveD>
6/8/2002
Hello Steve, I don't want to be hypercritical here or split some semantical
frog hairs, but I don't think that you mean "heading".
GPS can determine the position of the aircraft (GPS antenna if you will) and
it can determine the direction of movement of the aircraft over a (brief)
period of time, but it cannot determine the aircraft's heading.
An aircraft's heading is the angular relationship at any one instant between
the longitudinal axis of the aircraft and the magnetic lines of force
(converted to true if one desires) in that immediate vicinity.
If we don't have common agreement on the meaning of words such as course,
track, and heading and use them consistent with that agreement pretty soon we
lose our ability to communicate effectively (and sometimes safely).
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aucountry(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 6/8/02 06:06:18 AM, VE3LVO(at)rac.ca writes:
<< Whoever thinks GPS and Heading are interconnected is not ready for solo.
Heading is which way the aircraft points, and GPS doesn't know that. >>
And some people think the dinosours died off just 5,000 years.
Call it whatever you want. Maybe the Global Positioning System itself
doesn't know which way your airplane is going, but the box in your airplane
that is using all the information can figure it out.
Heading: the direction your plane is facing. Really, who cares?
Drift, crosswind correction? likewise. who cares.
Now, I'm sure there are a few (too many) pilots out there who still like
looking at needles, comparing the headings on dual VORs, watching the ADF,
watching the DME, listening for the 4-course di-da's, or waiting for the
bon-fires, but there is a growing number of pilots who'd rather know their
ground track corresponds to the shortest distance between their departure
point and their destination.
Symantics aside, regarding direction of flight, all anyone flying from point
A to point B should be concerned with is "Are they going the right
direction?" Let's introduce a new term into the pilots venacular. Call it
GPS heading. That's what they are using. An they'll know that heading and
crosstrack error to within 30 feet.
This brings to mind the guy who simply asked if he needed a VOR to fly IFR
and the guy who asked if he really needed a Directional Gyro. Both guys were
chasitised because they wanted to do the logical thing instead of "what we've
always done.'
If you feel comfortable with needles and flying over the little house with
the red roof so you know where you are, great. Let's just all accept that
the good-old-days of needles and whiz-wheels are giving way to punching in
your destination and going there. AND. Knowing what the terrain is, and
knowing what road you flying over, and knowing how many minutes it'll be
until you get there, and a GREAT BIG IMPROVEMENT IN SITUATIONAL AWARENESS.
By-the-way. There was no such word as situational until just a few years
ago. Things change.
Happy GPS heading flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TruTrak Autopilot |
>
> I have a TruTrak DFC250 autopilot system in my Lancair ES, and as far
> as I'm concerned, it's the best thing since the pop-up toaster. It flies
> the plane better than I can (no comments, please!), including climbs to
> pre-selected altitude, turn anticipation on multi-leg flight plans, etc.,
> etc. Much superior to the S-Tec system I put in my first ES.
>
> Jim Cameron
> Lancair Super ES N143ES
>Thanks for the input!
I have the same unit and I am now in the process of finishing my
panel and beginning final assembly. I can hardly wait to get flying.
Jim Robinson
Glasair 79R
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Fast On Mating & Unmating |
AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gabe and Marisol Ferrer"
6/8/2002
Hello Gabe, I Too have had the problem of separation fast on's and their tab.
What has worked for me is to use a large flat blade screwdriver. Insert the
tip of the screwdriver blade between portions of the tab / screw and the fast
on and rotate the screwdriver to separate the two with a wedging action.
If you have fully insulated tabs and fast on's in mid wire then you have to
grip the internal insulator with a pair of pliers and then insert the
screwdrive blade tip between the side of the pliers and the end of the outer
insulator and twist to separate the two.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fig Z16 : killing the main bus ? Correction |
----- Message d'origine -----
De : "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
:
Envoy : samedi 8 juin 2002 21:41
Objet : Fig Z16 : killing the main bus ?
> Bob,
>
> While studying the Rotax OV wiring on fig Z 16, something occured to me.
> With the PM alternator what happens when one opens the master-alternator
> switch with the engine still running ?
>
> Since terminal C on the rectifier/regulator is hot as long as the
alternator
> is running, isn't there a risk the OV relay stays energized and there is
no
> way to isolate the PM alternator from the main bus ?
>
> Further, Rotax advises never to sever connection between terminal C and B.
>
> To prevent any problems, how about wiring the OV module as per your figure
Z
> 17, that is get voltage sense from the bus, and connect terminal C direct
to
> B ?
Hmm, I should not have mentionned fig Z17. I was just meaning get voltage
sense from the bus, and connect C and B together to the capacitor....
> Thank you for correcting me where I'm wrong.
>
> Last question : can running the alternator and regulator while
disconnected
> from the battery do any harm ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gilles
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fig Z16 : killing the main bus ? |
Bob,
While studying the Rotax OV wiring on fig Z 16, something occured to me.
With the PM alternator what happens when one opens the master-alternator
switch with the engine still running ?
Since terminal C on the rectifier/regulator is hot as long as the alternator
is running, isn't there a risk the OV relay stays energized and there is no
way to isolate the PM alternator from the main bus ?
Further, Rotax advises never to sever connection between terminal C and B.
To prevent any problems, how about wiring the OV module as per your figure Z
17, that is get voltage sense from the bus, and connect terminal C direct to
B ?
Thank you for correcting me where I'm wrong.
Last question : can running the alternator and regulator while disconnected
from the battery do any harm ?
Thanks,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul A. Franz, P.E." <paul(at)eucleides.com> |
At 08:55 AM 6/8/2002ScramIt(at)aol.com sez:
>Excuse me, Track, English as a second language is so confusing! : )
I am confused too and I don't know any other languages.
Paul Franz
PAF Consulting Engineers | 427 - 140th Ave NE
(425)641-8202 voice | Bellevue, WA 98005
(425)641-1773 fax |
<http://blackdog.bellevue.wa.us/>
________________________________________________________________________________
Has anyone used one of the EZ-trim Altitude Hold Units. I know the units are
not being made by Cliff anymore, but he has posted the code and a parts list
for the DIY crowd. I have most of the parts in old robots I've built. If the
units worked well I'd order some printed circuit boards. Anyone out there
flying the unit?
http://hometown.aol.com/ccady/eztrim.htm
Thanks,
SteveD
(Since I've made a mess of track and heading, I'm moving on to up and down.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
>
>
>In a message dated 6/8/02 06:06:18 AM, VE3LVO(at)rac.ca writes:
>
><< Whoever thinks GPS and Heading are interconnected is not ready for solo.
>Heading is which way the aircraft points, and GPS doesn't know that. >>
>
>And some people think the dinosours died off just 5,000 years.
>
>Call it whatever you want. Maybe the Global Positioning System itself
>doesn't know which way your airplane is going, but the box in your airplane
>that is using all the information can figure it out.
>
>Heading: the direction your plane is facing. Really, who cares?
>Drift, crosswind correction? likewise. who cares.
>
>Now, I'm sure there are a few (too many) pilots out there who still like
>looking at needles, comparing the headings on dual VORs, watching the ADF,
>watching the DME, listening for the 4-course di-da's, or waiting for the
>bon-fires, but there is a growing number of pilots who'd rather know their
>ground track corresponds to the shortest distance between their departure
>point and their destination.
>
>Symantics aside, regarding direction of flight, all anyone flying from point
>A to point B should be concerned with is "Are they going the right
>direction?" Let's introduce a new term into the pilots venacular. Call it
>GPS heading. That's what they are using. An they'll know that heading and
>crosstrack error to within 30 feet.
>
>This brings to mind the guy who simply asked if he needed a VOR to fly IFR
>and the guy who asked if he really needed a Directional Gyro. Both guys were
>chasitised because they wanted to do the logical thing instead of "what we've
>always done.'
>
>If you feel comfortable with needles and flying over the little house with
>the red roof so you know where you are, great. Let's just all accept that
>the good-old-days of needles and whiz-wheels are giving way to punching in
>your destination and going there. AND. Knowing what the terrain is, and
>knowing what road you flying over, and knowing how many minutes it'll be
>until you get there, and a GREAT BIG IMPROVEMENT IN SITUATIONAL AWARENESS.
>
>By-the-way. There was no such word as situational until just a few years
>ago. Things change.
>
>Happy GPS heading flying
>
Over the years I've occasionally seen very large crosswinds when on a
cross country, giving up to 25 degrees of drift. Or put another way,
there was a 25 degree difference between the aircraft heading, and
the track. If ATC had asked me to fly a particular heading for
traffic, and instead I flew that track, things could get interesting.
While I certainly agree that GPS is a wonderful thing, and everyone
should have one, we shouldn't let the presence of GPS cause our brain
to dump all everything it knows about navigation terminology or
practice.
Take care,
Kevin Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <Richard(at)riley.net> |
| Subject: | ati-3 bracket source? |
I have a 3" attitude gyro (110v, 400hz, 3 ph)) out of a big airplane. It
doesn't have any mounting holes on the face, it's made to slip in and out
of a quick change bracket called an ATI-3 (the -3 is for 3")
Anyone know where I can get one of the brackets?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <matthew(at)mucker.net> |
> Call it whatever you want. Maybe the Global Positioning System itself
> doesn't know which way your airplane is going, but the box in
> your airplane
> that is using all the information can figure it out.
I disagree. Don't call it whatever you want. "Heading" and "track" have
specific meanings. We should use the words accuratly, else information is
not conveyed properly, and we get threads like this one.
>
> Heading: the direction your plane is facing. Really, who cares?
> Drift, crosswind correction? likewise. who cares.
I'll grant that we're usually more concerned with track than heading, but
that doesn't give license to use the terms interchangabley. They're not the
same thing. GPS only knows about track, unless it's fed a compass or DG
input.
> Symantics aside, regarding direction of flight, all anyone flying
> from point
> A to point B should be concerned with is "Are they going the right
> direction?" Let's introduce a new term into the pilots
> venacular. Call it
> GPS heading. That's what they are using. An they'll know that
> heading and
> crosstrack error to within 30 feet.
No, they're not using "GPS heading." They're using the ground track from
GPS. Why would you introduce a new word into the vernacular when the word
"track" already means what you're trying to call "GPS heading?"
The more words we use improperly, the less accurately we're able to discuss
ideas with each other. Language is inherently limited by the words used to
express ideas. In this case, we have two words that have specific meanings.
As long as we use the words properly, we'll all understand each other. (And
threads like this will be avoided!)
-Matt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aucountry(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Heading, track |
In a message dated 6/8/02 06:06:18 AM, VE3LVO(at)rac.ca writes:
<< Whoever thinks GPS and Heading are interconnected is not ready for solo.
Heading is which way the aircraft points, and GPS doesn't know that. >>
And some people think the dinosours died off just 5,000 years.
Call it whatever you want. Maybe the Global Positioning System itself
doesn't know which way your airplane is going, but the box in your airplane
that is using all the information can figure it out.
Heading: the direction your plane is facing. Really, who cares?
Drift, crosswind correction? likewise. who cares.
Now, I'm sure there are a few (too many) pilots out there who still like
looking at needles, comparing the headings on dual VORs, watching the ADF,
watching the DME, listening for the 4-course di-da's, or waiting for the
bon-fires, but there is a growing number of pilots who'd rather know their
ground track corresponds to the shortest distance between their departure
point and their destination.
Symantics aside, regarding direction of flight, all anyone flying from point
A to point B should be concerned with is "Are they going the right
direction?" Let's introduce a new term into the pilots venacular. Call it
GPS heading. That's what they are using. An they'll know that heading and
crosstrack error to within 30 feet.
This brings to mind the guy who simply asked if he needed a VOR to fly IFR
and the guy who asked if he really needed a Directional Gyro. Both guys were
chasitised because they wanted to do the logical thing instead of "what we've
always done.'
If you feel comfortable with needles and flying over the little house with
the red roof so you know where you are, great. Let's just all accept that
the good-old-days of needles and whiz-wheels are giving way to punching in
your destination and going there. AND. Knowing what the terrain is, and
knowing what road you flying over, and knowing how many minutes it'll be
until you get there, and a GREAT BIG IMPROVEMENT IN SITUATIONAL AWARENESS.
By-the-way. There was no such word as situational until just a few years
ago. Things change.
Happy GPS heading flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aucountry(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | 337s and field approvals |
This is my second post on this. I either missed the reply or my emailer said
the post wasn't sent and I deleted it. At any rate,
I visited the AeroElectric web page and found the recommendations for a new
and improved wiring diagram for GA aircraft very facinating. How would one
go about getting such a change to the wiring diagram approved by the FAA?
Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN" <glastar(at)3rivers.net> |
Hear, hear Matt,
As a long time ago USAF navigator [before I got into pilot school], I also
take exception to the trivialliry people associate with such words a
"heading" track etc.
> Call it whatever you want. Maybe the Global Positioning System itself
> doesn't know which way your airplane is going, but the box in
> your airplane
> that is using all the information can figure it out.
I disagree. Don't call it whatever you want. "Heading" and "track" have
specific meanings. We should use the words accuratly, else information is
not conveyed properly, and we get threads like this one.
>
> Heading: the direction your plane is facing. Really, who cares?
> Drift, crosswind correction? likewise. who cares.
I'll grant that we're usually more concerned with track than heading, but
that doesn't give license to use the terms interchangabley. They're not the
same thing. GPS only knows about track, unless it's fed a compass or DG
input.
> Symantics aside, regarding direction of flight, all anyone flying
> from point
> A to point B should be concerned with is "Are they going the right
> direction?" Let's introduce a new term into the pilots
> venacular. Call it
> GPS heading. That's what they are using. An they'll know that
> heading and
> crosstrack error to within 30 feet.
No, they're not using "GPS heading." They're using the ground track from
GPS. Why would you introduce a new word into the vernacular when the word
"track" already means what you're trying to call "GPS heading?"
The more words we use improperly, the less accurately we're able to discuss
ideas with each other. Language is inherently limited by the words used to
express ideas. In this case, we have two words that have specific meanings.
As long as we use the words properly, we'll all understand each other. (And
threads like this will be avoided!)
-Matt
I believe Mr Baker explained it well below.
6/8/2002
Hello Steve, I don't want to be hypercritical here or split some semantical
frog hairs, but I don't think that you mean "heading".
GPS can determine the position of the aircraft (GPS antenna if you will) and
it can determine the direction of movement of the aircraft over a (brief)
period of time, but it cannot determine the aircraft's heading.
An aircraft's heading is the angular relationship at any one instant between
the longitudinal axis of the aircraft and the magnetic lines of force
(converted to true if one desires) in that immediate vicinity.
If we don't have common agreement on the meaning of words such as course,
track, and heading and use them consistent with that agreement pretty soon
we
lose our ability to communicate effectively (and sometimes safely).
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS
Buck Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <Richard(at)riley.net> |
Certainly the "definition" of heading and track are clear and very
different from each other. But the meanings of words drift over time. A
few hundred years ago "nice" meant stupid. 20 years ago "Deaf" meant a
hearing impairment, not "Good." Words really only mean what we all agree
that they mean.
That said, if ATC tells you to fly a certain heading, the only thing
they're referencing in their screen. Are they concerned with which way
your airplane is pointing, or which way it's going? I doubt they're
correcting for wind drift. If that's the case, they really want you to fly
that track.
I don't know for sure, and would appreciate verification from anyone who's
worked ATC
>
>
>Hear, hear Matt,
>
>As a long time ago USAF navigator [before I got into pilot school], I also
>take exception to the trivialliry people associate with such words a
>"heading" track etc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brucem(at)olypen.com |
| Subject: | Starter Contactor or Not |
Bob,
I reread your 1998 article about starter solenoids. The B&C Starter
solenoid described may draw up to 35A momentarily on engagement, but
I am using a SkyTec (skytecair.com) unit. A representative of
SkyTec says that their solenoid draws 20A momentarily (50 millisecs)
and then holds with 10A. The company recommends that experimental
aircraft use a starter switch on a 15A circuit with 14 gauge wire
directly to the starter solenoid instead of a separate starter
contactor. Do you see a problem with this approach so long at the
switch is 20A DC rated and protected with a diode?
This approach has another seeming advantage. The B lead from the
alternator could follow a very short path from the right front of my
Lycoming O-320 to a fuse on a bracket under the crankcase to the the
front left side starter lug where the #2 wire from the battery
connects. I would tap the battery wire somewhere in the cabin for
the primary bus.
As always your comments are much appreciated.
Regards,
Bruce
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
http://www.olypen.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org> |
| Subject: | Wiring supports in the fuselage |
I need to decide how to run my wires in the rear fuselage, and would like
some help.
I am leaning on using some black ribbed plastic conduit that is light and
split down the side. In which to run light power and rg400. I plan to run
the conduit along the bottom of the fuse, and it must hop over some "L"
stiffeners about 1 inch high.
To support the conduit along the bottom, I was going to use a "P" type
clamp. Since the wires are already encased in the plastic conduit, do I
really need to use the Adel type metal clamps with the rubber casing or can
I just use nylon "P" clamps? The nylon ones are lighter and cheaper.
To hop over the "L's", one builder told me they use a 3/8 inch piece of
nylon gas line as a standoff, in which a nylon tie wrap is inserted,
wrapped around the conduit, inserted back into the standoff, and into a
hole in the "L" and then into the tie wrap clasp. This sounds good to me,
but does anyone have a better method?
Thanks,
Gary Liming
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
> Since this thread is evolving, I decided to go to an ....
Why not take further evolution to a list concerned with symantics &
phaseology.
I joined this list to learn more about aircraft electronics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Mills <courierboy(at)earthlink.net> |
>
>> Since this thread is evolving, I decided to go to an ....
>Why not take further evolution to a list concerned with symantics &
>phaseology.
>I joined this list to learn more about aircraft electronics
Boyd -
I wish to respectfully take the "other side" and thank you very much
for asking ATC for an opinion in this matter and for reporting it
here - it is most informative for me.
All the best -
Bill Mills
RANS Courier in progress
SF bay area, Calif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard V. Reynolds" <rvreynolds(at)macs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ati-3 bracket source? |
Try
http://www.mspclamps.com/
Richard Reynolds RV-6A, Wiring almost finished.
Norfolk, VA
Richard Riley wrote:
>
> I have a 3" attitude gyro (110v, 400hz, 3 ph)) out of a big airplane. It
> doesn't have any mounting holes on the face, it's made to slip in and out
> of a quick change bracket called an ATI-3 (the -3 is for 3")
>
> Anyone know where I can get one of the brackets?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring supports in the fuselage |
Gary Liming wrote:
>
>
> I need to decide how to run my wires in the rear fuselage, and would like
> some help.
>
> I am leaning on using some black ribbed plastic conduit that is light and
> split down the side. In which to run light power and rg400. I plan to run
> the conduit along the bottom of the fuse, and it must hop over some "L"
> stiffeners about 1 inch high.
>
> To support the conduit along the bottom, I was going to use a "P" type
> clamp. Since the wires are already encased in the plastic conduit, do I
> really need to use the Adel type metal clamps with the rubber casing or can
> I just use nylon "P" clamps? The nylon ones are lighter and cheaper.
>
> To hop over the "L's", one builder told me they use a 3/8 inch piece of
> nylon gas line as a standoff, in which a nylon tie wrap is inserted,
> wrapped around the conduit, inserted back into the standoff, and into a
> hole in the "L" and then into the tie wrap clasp. This sounds good to me,
> but does anyone have a better method?
>
> Thanks,
> Gary Liming
>
Using plastic tubing as a standoff works well, but be aware
that nylon tie wraps can saw through 4130 steel if they
move. Some sort of protection for the aluminum L stiffeners
might be in order.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring supports in the fuselage |
> > To hop over the "L's", one builder told me they use a 3/8 inch piece of
> > nylon gas line as a standoff, in which a nylon tie wrap is inserted,
> > wrapped around the conduit, inserted back into the standoff, and into a
> > hole in the "L" and then into the tie wrap clasp. This sounds good to me,
> > but does anyone have a better method?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gary Liming
> >
>Using plastic tubing as a standoff works well, but be aware
>that nylon tie wraps can saw through 4130 steel if they
>move. Some sort of protection for the aluminum L stiffeners
>might be in order.
Would you recommend those adhesive blocks with the slits for the tie wraps,
or is there a better way to attach a tie wrap to a metal piece?
Gary Liming
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gabe and Marisol Ferrer" <ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Fast On Mating & Unmating |
Bob: I'm using a rocker switch made by "C&K" it's labeled " (5) series CA"
Thanks for the reply Bob & "OC" Baker.
Gabe A Ferrer (RV6, today I powered my panel, and nothing burned!)
ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net
Cell: 561 758 8894
Night or FAX: 561 622 0960
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 337s and field approvals |
>
>This is my second post on this. I either missed the reply or my emailer said
>the post wasn't sent and I deleted it. At any rate,
>
>I visited the AeroElectric web page and found the recommendations for a new
>and improved wiring diagram for GA aircraft very facinating. How would one
>go about getting such a change to the wiring diagram approved by the FAA?
In the good ol' days, one could have modified a
certified aircraft to include an e-bus and alternate
feedpath with a 90%+ chance of approval if an IA
submitted the change on a Form 337.
Today, the safest thing any bureaucrat can do is
make you jump all the hoops. I'm presently unaware
of anyone who has successfully re-architectured
a certified ship to accomplish this design change
under a Form 337 (or any other vehicle for that
matter).
Sooo . . . got lots of money, time and patience?
Do an STC on your airplane. Then you can sell
the STC to other folks willing to take it in
the shorts to follow your lead.
I have some customers working on this with high
hopes but no firm expectations. Will let you all
know when and if it happens (which is no guarantee
that it will ever happen again but at least
shows it's not impossible).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Contactor or Not |
>
>Bob,
>
>I reread your 1998 article about starter solenoids. The B&C Starter
>solenoid described may draw up to 35A momentarily on engagement, but
>I am using a SkyTec (skytecair.com) unit. A representative of
>SkyTec says that their solenoid draws 20A momentarily (50 millisecs)
>and then holds with 10A. The company recommends that experimental
>aircraft use a starter switch on a 15A circuit with 14 gauge wire
>directly to the starter solenoid instead of a separate starter
>contactor. Do you see a problem with this approach so long at the
>switch is 20A DC rated and protected with a diode?
Give it a try. If you don't get the results you would
like with respect to performance, then you can easily
change it later.
>This approach has another seeming advantage. The B lead from the
>alternator could follow a very short path from the right front of my
>Lycoming O-320 to a fuse on a bracket under the crankcase to the the
>front left side starter lug where the #2 wire from the battery
>connects.
If you're using the ANL current limiters, this makes it
a tad harder to mount the base under the engine. . .
> I would tap the battery wire somewhere in the cabin for
>the primary bus.
Please don't do this. Bring the appropriate feed wire
either from the starter hot terminal or the switched
side of the battery contactor.
If it were my airplane, I would still use the external
battery contactor as shown on the drawings.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the |
| discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Microair Transponders article |
>
>Bob,
>Have you read about all the features of the Microair Transponders? It's
>truly amazing.
>Nice article in Sport Aviation. Answers lots of questions.
>R
Which issue?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | John Slade - your questions |
John, why not join the AeroElecric List to carry on this
conversation? Everything we're talking about is of value
to many of those who hang out there. The sign-up page is
at http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
The (one page) instructions for my Aeroflash strobes make no mention of
shielded wire.
Hmmm . . . did the strobes come with an installation kit?
Does the schematic show shielded wire? (See chapter 1 in
the book).
> Get the running loads for each item in amps. Pick the
> next largest fuse to carry those amps and pick a wire rated
> for those amps from the wire table in the book.
OK. But I have a question here. Say I'm wiring the position lights, which
each take 5 amps. Should I run 16AWG back to a T, then use 20AWG to each
light?
Astute question. This is the one case where one has to account
for the TOTAL load of multiple small loads. Each lamp runs at
about 2A. The total is 6A. This means that the breaker/fuse
should be about 7A. If you have a 7A protection, then the ENTIRE
system should be wired for 7A loads irrespective of the fact
that each branch is loaded to only 2A. Bring 20AWG wires all
the way from each lamp to the back of your nav lights switch.
Crimp all three wires into a single blue terminal at the
switch. See;
http://209.134.106.21/articles/multiplewires/multiplewires.html
I'm still trying to figure out what to use for various joints.
Is there a permanent joint for RG58?
Sure. Look over the products at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/antenna/antenna.html
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#rct-2
and article at:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
http://209.134.106.21/articles/coaxconn/coaxconn.html
What should I use to join the nav lights in the wing root? Knife splices
seem a little inconvienient when the wing is removed and reinstalled.
If it were my airplane, I'd wire the wings with 10'
hunks of wire hanging out the root. When the wings
are installed, put a service loop of about 6" slack
at the root and route wires on into the fuselage
to the panel. IF and when you need to remove your
wings (I'm renting airplanes that are 40 years old
that probably have never had the wings removed) then
cut the wires and go back together with butt-splices
or next best think is knife-splices.
If your airplane gets routinely trailered and
you HAVE to repeatedly open the wire bundles,
then consider:
or the white plastic Waldom/Molex or Tyco/AMP
Mate-n-Lock with terminals applied like:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/matenlok/matenlok.html
The one thing I'm missing now is the wish list of electrical parts that we
worked on.
For example:
Starter Contactor
Battery contactor
Ground Blocks
Fuse block
switches
...
...
I guess I can recreate it from the wiring diagrams.
Sorry about all the questions. I'm new to all this and really want to get it
right.
Understand. Suggest you take the time to browse all of
the catalog pages on our website and check out ALL the
articles. If you have a slow internet connection,
consider ordering the CD_Rom from the website which
is a mirror of the whole site plus a lot of other goodies.
You can browse and read the whole site from the CD
as if you were plugged right into the server.
There are certainly alternative materials and tools
for the task other than what's on my website . . . when
I set out to stock that site, I selected parts that
I would use if it were my airplane. So what you'll
find there is not like digging through the Aircraft
Spruce catalog where there are multiple choices for
everything.
Even if you choose to substitute parts, starting
with my website is a good baseline. Just about
everything there has some degree of relevance to
the configuration of your system. Once you've
got the architecture under control, THEN spend
some time working out what we might consider the
esthetic details (rockers vs. toggles, breakers
vs. fuses, etc.)
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: killing the main bus ? |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Bob,
>
>While studying the Rotax OV wiring on fig Z 16, something occured to me.
>With the PM alternator what happens when one opens the master-alternator
>switch with the engine still running ?
>
>Since terminal C on the rectifier/regulator is hot as long as the alternator
>is running, isn't there a risk the OV relay stays energized and there is no
>way to isolate the PM alternator from the main bus ?
>
>Further, Rotax advises never to sever connection between terminal C and B.
I've not had a chance to put my hands on an operating
system to confirm this but I was told by a Rotax guru several
years back that the "C" lead was not an output but a control
lead. He and I talked about the crowbar ov protection scheme
I've illustrated and he blessed it.
>To prevent any problems, how about wiring the OV module as per your figure Z
>17, that is get voltage sense from the bus, and connect terminal C direct to
>B ?
>Thank you for correcting me where I'm wrong.
>
>Last question : can running the alternator and regulator while disconnected
>from the battery do any harm ?
If wired as shown, opening the pathway from bus bar through
the DC power master, ov crowbar breaker and to the relay
combined with the "c" lead should shut the output of the
regulator down. Granted, the PM alternator will still have
AC output voltage but the rectifier/regulator is supposed
to shut down. In any case, it becomes dison
If you find that this is not the case, I'd like to hear
about it. Working with Rotax has always been a pain in
the arse. I worked an accident case a few years back where
Rotax was one of the defendants. I needed some engineering
data from Rotax on their manufacturing methods and schematics
of the ignition system. I was pretty sure that nothing
in the design or manufacture of their engine caused the
accident but since I'd been hired by the plaintiff, they
weren't about to give me any data freely. I had to deduce
what I needed on my own.
At other times, I've asked for schematics of their
rectifier/regulator too so that I can understand exactly
how it works and help you folks get the best performance
possible . . . Rotax doesn't make their rectifier/regulators
and the folks that do couldn't care less about Rotax's
customers . . . catch 22 again.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 3-phase Permanent Magnet Alternator |
>
>My motorcycle buddy was asking me whether my pm alternator (b and c)
>was 3 phase (he's another EE). I told him that I didn't think so. I
>guess the 3 phase pm's are becoming common on cycles.
I think that's true. 3-phase is a good way to get
more energy from the same size alternator frame.
>Bob, do you know if three phase pm's might be in the works from b and
>c in the future?
We've talked about it and Bill is interested. Now all he needs
is a 36 hour day.
> Can a single phase be rewound?
Probably not, the stator stack poles and magnets need
to be re-configured too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Permanent Magnet Alternator |
>
>
>Hello Bob,
>
>with other words this does not work with the current B&C regulator?
I think that's correct.
>Will there be soon something availabel from you?
Nothing "in the works" this week . . . never
know about next week.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Long EZ electrical system |
>
>
>G'Day Bob,
>
>I have Santa Barbara to Hawaii as the longest leg at this stage at 2063.5nm.
>
>
>Electrical MEL. currently includes a B&C 12V 60A alternator, B&C SD-20 12V
>20A alternator, duel B&C LR-3's, dual B&C 15AH 12V batteries (low Ri), main
>and aux (essential) buses (using your fuse blocks) with cross feed, and dual
>Lightspeed electronic ignition. FYI Engine is an IO-360. Avionic MEL has not
>been determined at this stage.
>
>Any comments on how you would set up an EZ for this task would be much
>appreciated, particularly in terms of what you would run off the essential
>bus. I want to set the aircraft up with the Z14 initially and add the
>avionics required over time.
>
>Wayne
Given the service history of the B&C alternators I'm wondering
if the 2alt/2bat system isn't overkill . . . it's certainly
heavy. Would a 10A backup run everything you need for
continued flight en route to destination? The all electric
airplane on a budget is very close to the redundancy of
the 2alt/2bat system with only one battery. If you open
the DC power master and close the alternate feed system you
have an electrical system equal to that which has been flying
on thousands of EZ-type aircraft for about 15 years. If there's
a 'weak' link in this system, it's the regulator which can
be made more robust with extra heatsinking to keep it cool
under full load.
Closing the DC Power Master adds another alternator and lets
you power up heavier, but generally expendable loads for
en route operations.
This system would be about 20 pounds lighter and much
less expensive for equivalent performance. The only item
common to the two-layers of this system is the battery.
I would put in a fresh battery about 20 hours before the
trip to make sure you don't have one with a manufacturing
defect in it.
Just for grins, you could put a second S704-1
s/b alternator control relay in and use it to put a
small battery, say 4-6 a.h. on line the same time
as when the alternator is brought on line. Then feed the
second alternator directly to the e-bus so that it
bypasses the alternate feed switch. Now you have two
alternators and two batteries with a VERY high prospect
for availability of at least 10A of engine driven power
for continued flight. What stuff needs to be running
ALL the time and would 10A do it?
Would this get the job done? I understand your concerns
about reliablity based on what we've learned about
May 26, 2002 - June 09, 2002
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ax