AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ba

July 24, 2002 - August 12, 2002



Subject: RE: Heads-up on Blue Mountain
> > > > A question that comes to > > mind about your comment is why they would they lie to me? >How about higher profit margins on higher priced equipment? Successful car dealers that sell Caddies also offer lower priced models too. I'd be surprised and disappointed if anyone at Lancair believes they can enhance their business position by servicing FEWER potential customers. >Bob, >Have you read Greg Richter's description of what occured during that and >other visits? >If not, I think you should, as should anyone giving this Lancair commentary >any credence. >See http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/discus/messages/1/85.html?1027448310 >and scroll down to Greg's comments. > >Having read both sides of the story, my personal reaction is that there's >some very deliberate corporate politics going on here. If there are "politics" involved, there is nothing delicate about it. From a purely business perspective, neither Lancair's nor BMA's fortunes are tied to each other. It's obvious that they can do a lot to help each other. If impediments to that goal are rooted in politics, then one or both of them doesn't deserve the other. >Bob, presuming that you don't have an axe to grind either way I'd very much >like to read YOUR evaluation of the Blue Mountain EFIS box. In the meantime, >I'm saving up for one. I don't have any axe to grind and won't grind one for anyone else either. It's probably not useful to debate the 'tis-so-'taint- so surrounding WHY Lancair hasn't flown a system but I think everyone is agreed that this hasn't happened yet. Soggy UPS boxes and missed appointments not withstanding, I scanned through the thread you linked above and didn't find anyone else that has flown the system either. Kirk cited perfectly valid technical concerns which are easily addressed as: (1) "that's not a problem and here's how we fixed that", (2) "we recognize that as a possible problem and here's what we plan to do about it", (3) "hot damn! screwed that up, we'll get back with you when it's fixed." This is pretty routine gauntlet of critical review that any credible designer can run with ease. Been there and done that dozens of times in my career. Got to be "rock-thrower" a few weeks ago wherein the guy up front fielded every one. Everybody walked out of the meeting feeling great about the project. I'm helping review proposals for a multimillion dollar contract to develop a new pitch trim actuator for the Beechjet. A whole lot of us are going to sit around and throw big rocks at all of the wanna-be suppliers . . . the guy with the fewest bruises wins . . . if you were a Beechjet owner, would you want it any other way? Having also read both sides of the story, the most noteworthy feature of BMA's response was the lack of attention to technical concerns cited by Lancair. When ever someone questions the technical merits of a product, the easiest thing to do is jump to the "victim's" defense by stroking their "dedication" and "contribution" to the art while lambasting the "unbeliever". When Kirk asked if I would participate in a critical review, I'm certain that his interest had more to do with doing a better job for his customers IRRESPECTIVE of the merits of BMA's product. If it's a good product and we can tell folks about it, it's a GOOD thing. If the product has shortcomings making this info public is also a GOOD thing. Accurate and credible critical review never hurts anyone. Designers dedicated to and passionate about their craft welcome it. Informed consumers also welcome it (that's how Consumer Reports achieved stature!). Good critical review will either affirm the supplier's ability to address customer wishes or keep a bad product from going to production. That's win-win no matter how you slice it up. I'd probably "save up" for a Blue Mountain system too . . . but I wouldn't plunk down the cash until I'd flown behind the system in someone else's airplane -or- read a credible review from a knowledgeable, independent source. Manufacturers and designers are not qualified to write their own reviews. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 24, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Wire size confusion
> > > > > >I can't see any reason why I'd want nav lights off and position > > > > lights on, > > > > >or vice versa, so can I splice these wires up at the fitting > > and just run > > > > >one feed, or is that a no-no? > > > > >John Slade, Cozy IV > > > > > > > > You lost me. Which are the 'nav' and which are the 'position' > > > > lights? Around here the terms are interchangeable in referring > > > > to the red, white and green lights at the corners of the airframe. > > > > > > >Ah. By "Nav" lights I mean the red and green. By "Position" lights I mean > > >the white rearward facing lights. You're talking about the fittings. I'm > > >talking about the individual bulbs which each have a wire coming > > out of the > > >fitting. I guess I should just splice these together at or inside the > > >fitting. > > >John Slade > > > > > > Interesting. I've never heard that distinction made before. > > Anywho, around here we tie all the lights together on one > > circuit and power them up through about a 7A fuse/breaker > > with 20AWG or larger wire. > > > > Butt splices at any convenient place is okay . . . or, > > you can put three 20AWG wires into a single blue terminal > > for attachment to the switch. > > > If it were my airplane, I > > would bring all three wires right up to the switch. > > > > Bob . . . >Hmmm. Thats what I'm doing, but I'm left wondering... why am I doing this? >So I can still have some lights if one circuit fails? Not sure what this buys you. Position lights on airplanes are pretty lame compared to beacons and strobes. Can't imagine what kind of failure warrants special attention to a work-around. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff and Jill" <texasquadj(at)Prodigy.net>
Subject: Introduction
Date: Jul 24, 2002
Hello, My name is Jeff LeTempt and I am building Dragonfly (modifying a basically completed but unflown airplane is probably more accurate). I am documenting my progress at http://dragonflyjeff.tripod.com if anyone is interested. The plane will have a HAPI 1835 VW with dual electronic ignition, dual batteries, dual fuel pumps, single alternator, RMI MicroEncoder, comm radio, transponder, GPS, a tablet computer with moving map display, landing light, strobe lights, nav/position lights, 3 electric trim motors and an ICS. When I bought the plane the builder also gave me his copy of Bob's manual - man is that a great manual!! I downloaded the revisions a few months ago and it is now up-to-date. There is not a diagram in the back of the manual that is like what I will have, so I am basically modifying figure Z-11 and also using the article "What's all this Battery Isolator Stuff Anyhow?". I have drawn up some basic schematics and I would appreciate a few comments. Does this list allow attachments? If it doesn't (I suspect that it doesn't) I could post them on my web site or email them directly to anyone that would be willing to take a look at them. What I have attempted to do is design a system that has very good reduce, isolation capabilities, simplicity, and not prone to major problems if one minor component should happen to fail (guess that would be the goal of any electrical system). I have 2 designs that I am working on. One is very similar to Z-11 and one is very similar to the battery isolation article figure 2 (manual control option). I am leaning towards the latter option, but the first system is more simple. I also have a question about a low voltage idiot (smart) light. In the manual it says that there is a diagram in appendix K. I read in appendix Z that these additional appendices have been removed. Does any one have instructions for a DIY low voltage warning system? How about an inexpensive off-the-shelf model? Thanks in advance for your assistance. Jeff Dragonfly - N1277W ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Ford" <dford(at)michweb.net>
Subject: Re: SD-8 in dual battery configuration
Date: Jul 25, 2002
>Bob, > >I am using your Z-13 and Z-25 drawings for a dual battery configuration. >A main battery for all components and FADEC primary supply buss, a 7amp >battery for Ess. and FADEC secondary buss. My question concerns a "what >if" I were to leave a switch on for example in ground testing ESS buss >or left on FADEC power and ended up discharging 7 amp battery. Any time I do extended maintenance on an airplane that calls for closing a battery contactor, I hook a ground power supply to the system. The task of being a mechanic is not much different than being a pilot . . . many of the same hazards exist but the results are usually less lethal. Why anyone would do any extended ground ops battery-only is like taking off with low fuel. > There is >no way to bring the SD-8 "on line" as power for the relay comes via the >discharged battery. So the question is to get the SD-8 on line to >charge the backup battery, should I use a switch to temporarily bypass >the relay, or another relay to crossfeed the main battery/alternator to >charge the backup battery? If you're going to have two alternators and two batteries, then an architecture more like Z-14 is in order. I've had several folks express an interest in this combination. The major points are that the aux battery could be small (7A is fine), crossfeed relay and battery relays can downsize to 30A plastic relays like our S704-1, and you get the ability to put either or both batteries on line to bring up either alternator. I'd also suggest a ground power connection even if it's only rated for 20A or so. This lets you connect a product like http://www.samlexamerica.com/samlexhome.htm . . . and avoid both wear, tear and risk of deep-discharging your battery(s). By the way, has your FADEC been tested for ability to stay on line during brownout expected during normal cranking? So systems go brain-dead during cranking and need independent battery support during start up. Bob, The TCM system requires two independent and redundant power supplies to feed separate FADEC busses, one can control an essential buss but cannot be used for starting the engine. The FADEC system will operate without a glitch (except for indicator notification, buss voltage warning) even if it loses one of the two power supplies. What is the minimum battery voltage required to pull the aux. battery contactor closed in order to crossfeed main alternator to charge low aux. battery or vice versa as in figure Z-14? Dave Ford ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 25, 2002
From: "Alfred Buess" <Alfred.Buess(at)shl.bfh.ch>
Subject: Re: Wire size confusion
Bob, In my Europa kitplane I have Whelen A600 wingtip strobe and position lights. Due to limited space for the wires in the wings, I'd like to use one single wire in each wing as negative lead for both the strobe and the position lights. The wiring will be such that strobes may be on without the position lights, but the position lights may not be on without the strobes. Is there a problem with this single negative lead system? Alfred >>> bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net 07/24 3:37 >>> > > > > > Bob . . . >OK, thanks. One follow-on question if I may.... >I can't see any reason why I'd want nav lights off and position lights on, >or vice versa, so can I splice these wires up at the fitting and just run >one feed, or is that a no-no? >John Slade, Cozy IV You lost me. Which are the 'nav' and which are the 'position' lights? Around here the terms are interchangeable in referring to the red, white and green lights at the corners of the airframe. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 25, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Anl current limiter and ND alternator
>Hi Bob, > >I order from B&C an ANL current limiter (40) because I thought that my >alternator was a 40. I brought my ND alternator for a bench test this >week and the guy said me that it was a (50) which delivers actually 55 >amperes, normal in circumstances. B&C have two kinds of current limiter >the (40) and (60) which one, did you suggest. The 40A limiter will easily carry 60A continuous. See http://216.55.140.222/articles/anl/anlvsjjs.html and in particular: http://216.55.140.222/articles/anl/anlc.gif >Also, in a previous E-mail you suggest me how to wire my internally ND >alternator, my question now is: Is that better to use "shielded wires" to >do so? Shielded wire is of no benefit anywhere in the alternator system. Use shielded wire only where installation instructions for a product call for it. These are generally limited to magneto p-leads, strobe wires between flash tube heads and power supplies, and avionics. If you're planning to use an internally regulated alternator, then wire as shown in Figure Z-24 of the AeroElectric Connection. If you don't have the book you can download appendix Z at: http://216.55.140.222/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf >Thanks for your precious help. > > >Daniel >601HDS/wSOOB My pleasure sir. I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to share the information with as many folks as possible. You can join at . . . www.matronics.com/subscribe Thanks! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 25, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Wire size confusion
> > >Bob, > >In my Europa kitplane I have Whelen A600 wingtip strobe and position >lights. Due to limited space for the wires in the wings, I'd like to use >one single wire in each wing as negative lead for both the strobe and the >position lights. The wiring will be such that strobes may be on without >the position lights, but the position lights may not be on without the >strobes. Is there a problem with this single negative lead system? > >Alfred > Don't do this. The "ground" wire for strobes is carried inside the shielded wire that runs from power supply to strobe tube head. This should be totally independent of any other grounds to other devices. There should ALWAYS be room for the necessary wires and sharing grounds between systems injects single points of failure for all systems sharing the wire. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the | | discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 25, 2002
From: John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: Heads-up on Blue Mountain
John - I'd recommend you send Greg an email, cite the specific example and ask him to call so that you can hear his side of both problems. There are indeed two sides and I have talked to both Lancair and Greg about them. I personally believe that Greg can solve the problems - hopefully before we have to decide between glass and dials!. Cheers, John Schroeder John Top wrote: > > I talked to a major supplier of custom panels at Arlington who has > had a similar experience to Lancair's. > > Hope they get it working, I'd like to use it. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff and Jill" <texasquadj(at)Prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Introduction
Date: Jul 25, 2002
I posted the draft schematic to my web site at http://dragonflyjeff.tripod.com/miscelan.htm I would appreciate comments. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff and Jill" <texasquadj(at)Prodigy.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Introduction > > Hello, > > My name is Jeff LeTempt and I am building Dragonfly (modifying a > basically completed but unflown airplane is probably more accurate). I > am documenting my progress at http://dragonflyjeff.tripod.com if anyone > is interested. > > The plane will have a HAPI 1835 VW with dual electronic ignition, dual > batteries, dual fuel pumps, single alternator, RMI MicroEncoder, comm > radio, transponder, GPS, a tablet computer with moving map display, > landing light, strobe lights, nav/position lights, 3 electric trim > motors and an ICS. When I bought the plane the builder also gave me his > copy of Bob's manual - man is that a great manual!! I downloaded the > revisions a few months ago and it is now up-to-date. There is not a > diagram in the back of the manual that is like what I will have, so I am > basically modifying figure Z-11 and also using the article "What's all > this Battery Isolator Stuff Anyhow?". > > I have drawn up some basic schematics and I would appreciate a few > comments. Does this list allow attachments? If it doesn't (I suspect > that it doesn't) I could post them on my web site or email them directly > to anyone that would be willing to take a look at them. What I have > attempted to do is design a system that has very good reduce, isolation > capabilities, simplicity, and not prone to major problems if one minor > component should happen to fail (guess that would be the goal of any > electrical system). > > I have 2 designs that I am working on. One is very similar to Z-11 and > one is very similar to the battery isolation article figure 2 (manual > control option). I am leaning towards the latter option, but the first > system is more simple. > > I also have a question about a low voltage idiot (smart) light. In the > manual it says that there is a diagram in appendix K. I read in > appendix Z that these additional appendices have been removed. Does any > one have instructions for a DIY low voltage warning system? How about > an inexpensive off-the-shelf model? > > Thanks in advance for your assistance. > > Jeff > Dragonfly - N1277W > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russ Werner" <russ(at)maui.net>
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain Avionics Warning(s)
Date: Jul 25, 2002
Ken, Unlike you, I did cancel my EFIS Lite order. I have been told that I my deposit is refunded, but am still waiting for that to show up at my Bankcard center. They were very polite, though they did not return a phone message left for them regarding the refund. I also received an email from Greg and he was adamant that they had everything solved and they had only one, very vocal, customer who was unhappy (Lancair). I didn't bring up Sam's reviews. I told them that I would re-order if and when they started shipping a working product. When I originally ordered, Greg assured me everything was working and they were shipping units (SNF 2002). That turned out to be an untruth. I can deal with all this, but I think Greg should get the current features working properly and then work on improvements. Maybe then he can actually deliver product. I think the "supplier" excuse is lame. The product isn't ready for that. I sure hope they get it together. I'll let you get the bugs out and then I'll order mine! In the mean time, I'll hang on to my deposit and believe Greg's claims when I hear them from customers. Aloha, Russ HRII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 25, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Introduction
> > >Hello, > >My name is Jeff LeTempt and I am building Dragonfly (modifying a >basically completed but unflown airplane is probably more accurate). I >am documenting my progress at http://dragonflyjeff.tripod.com if anyone >is interested. > >The plane will have a HAPI 1835 VW with dual electronic ignition, dual >batteries, dual fuel pumps, single alternator, RMI MicroEncoder, comm >radio, transponder, GPS, a tablet computer with moving map display, >landing light, strobe lights, nav/position lights, 3 electric trim >motors and an ICS. When I bought the plane the builder also gave me his >copy of Bob's manual - man is that a great manual!! I downloaded the >revisions a few months ago and it is now up-to-date. There is not a >diagram in the back of the manual that is like what I will have, so I am >basically modifying figure Z-11 and also using the article "What's all >this Battery Isolator Stuff Anyhow?". I'm confused. What architecture in the battery isolator article differs from what's published in appendix Z? >I have drawn up some basic schematics and I would appreciate a few >comments. Does this list allow attachments? If it doesn't (I suspect >that it doesn't) I could post them on my web site or email them directly >to anyone that would be willing to take a look at them. What I have >attempted to do is design a system that has very good reduce, isolation >capabilities, simplicity, and not prone to major problems if one minor >component should happen to fail (guess that would be the goal of any >electrical system). If you take Figure Z-11 and add a second battery with busses for each battery, where would that fall short of your requirements? >I have 2 designs that I am working on. One is very similar to Z-11 and >one is very similar to the battery isolation article figure 2 (manual >control option). I am leaning towards the latter option, but the first >system is more simple. Figure Z-11 with Figure Z-30 option is an enhanced version of Figure 2 in the article. >I also have a question about a low voltage idiot (smart) light. In the >manual it says that there is a diagram in appendix K. I read in >appendix Z that these additional appendices have been removed. Does any >one have instructions for a DIY low voltage warning system? How about >an inexpensive off-the-shelf model? Appendix K was deleted some years ago. The low voltage warning light DIY schematic is at http://216.55.140.222/articles/lvwarn/9021-610.pdf We're testing the first articles on an off the self low-v warn assembly and a solid state relay. I'm arranging for outside production on both products and should be able to offer them by summer's end. Question. The PM alternator on that engine is limited in output. Do you have reliable figures for total output power available? You might not want to use two, hoggy battery contactors in your system. They draw about .8 to 1.0 amp each. A single battery installation like Figure Z-16 with a battery bus added to feed fuel pumps and ignition systems could be fitted with a manual battery switch to replace the contactor. This would make the full output of your alternator available for running goodies. A properly maintained RG battery has about the same order of reliability as your propeller attach fittings. Why not maintain one battery and keep the system simple? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 26, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain Avionics Warning(s)
> >Long-winded, so skip if not interested > >Howdy to Bob and Aeroelectric -listers! > Just returned from OSH and spent quite a good bit of time with Greg and >Co. at the Blue Mountain Avionics Booth and Forum. I'm well aware of the >criticisms from all sectors and have a vested interest in BMA's operation >since I am a customer-in-waiting. Perhaps I am more fortunate than some in >that our RV-8 is still about 16 mos. from being airworthy, and therefore >have the luxury of "not having to have it now." Here is what I came away >from OSH with: > >EFIS/One and its other iterations are, and will remain, a work-in-progress. >Greg and Rick are comitted to advancing the "bow echo" of leading edge >technology for experimental cockpit instrument systems. Probably no >argument there from y'all. Being one of the early customers (having plunked >down my EFIS/One down payment at OSH 2001), I have already been placed in a >position of my HARDWARE being antiquated before even receiving all my >components. However, every customer of BMA will fly the same software, and >let me tell you, I witnessed the 2.0 software on the new Transreflective >display (with integrated keypad controller) and it is phenomenal. How many pilots are flying it today? >I know that doesn't help you guys that need it now, but believe me when I >say that patience is a virtue and those of us who are, will be rewarded. >Greg has already fixed through flight testing and software changes the >problem that Sam Buchanan experienced with his EFIS/Lite dropping out after >270 degrees of constant bank turn. Greg discoved that the magnetometer was >too close to steel and/or EMR. So, for the rest of us (when you get your >hardware), make sure you take great care to mount it in such a way that it >is as far away from iron and electrical as possible. Greg says that 24 >inches away is needed for "best" operation and 6" is minimum. I am going to >mount my EFIS/One magnetometer at the junction of the VS leading edge and >aft fuselage (under the fiberglass). Still searching for a location for the >EFIS/Lite magnetometer (you don't want to mount them together). I sense that you are looking forward to being on the development team and I applaud your enthusiasm and sense of adventure. Your support could well be an invaluable component of the short path to BMA's success. I could easily find myself equally inclined were I in the same position of building an airplane and had the cash to spend. >Consider also that BMA is eight people and the company has only been in >existence for a little over a year. Do I think they could use a >professional office manager? Yep. Do I think they have been beset by >too-optimistic supplier time tables? Yep. Do I think it will take some >time for them to catch up with demand and be able to move product in a >timely, reliable manner? Yep. Am I convinced that they are doing all they >can to make things right for their customers? Yes I do. Am I bailing out >because they've made promises that they can't live up to? Abosolutely not, >because their product is so good it's worth waiting for. When you see the >3-D terrain mapping on the transreflective screen and the new shock-mounted >aluminum CPU case (where ALL connections are on the left end of the box) and >remember that you will always fly the latest and greatest software revision >at no extra cost, I think you will agree that they offer things that no >other manufacturer does for anywhere near the price. Who is asking or even suggesting that you bail out? You seem to believe you're adequately informed. >I fully understand other customers' frustrations and complaints. I share >most of them. All I can say is that if anyone decides to pull out and go >elsewhere, Greg will refund all their money and they can exercise their >right to seek other products from other companies. His heart is not in his >wallet; he does what he does for the enjoyment and excitement of creating >cutting edge technologies for experimental aircraft flyers, of which he is >also one. I will not be changing to the new transreflective screen because >I plan to have a rear seat display and I can wire them in parallel for only >the cost of the additional display. With the new display and the digital >vs. analog connection, I would also require an additional card in the CPU >and more expensive display, bringing the additional expense to over $2000. >Since I'll be flying the 2.0 software, I can live with the fact that my >display is not the latest and greatest. Ken, if you're pleased with how things are going, I'm pleased for you. sincerely hope that every one of BMA's customers are equally enthusiastic . . . say . . . two years from now. >If Lancair is upset with BMA because they can't have what they want when >they want it, they can (and probably will) go elsewhere. I'm going to hang >in there and try to be patient. I think the rewards will be great. That might indeed happen but nobody I know hopes that is the case. Please understand that Lancair Avionics, and (to a similar degree) the AeroElectric Connection are constantly asked to give advice to aid in product selection for people who simply want to own and operate the best we know how to do in high performance airplanes. They're burdened with the perspective of general aviation's near-term history which includes the likes of King, Collins, Narco, Terra, Garmin, etc and all the high-dollar, suck air iron gyros that go with them. While not necessarily "leading edge" they ARE a known quantity. The owner of a new Lancair with contemporary certified stuff on the panel would probably not feel cheated if his new airplane's panel suffered the same kinds of problems as his old airplane. I rather suspect that the majority of folks who read this list are in this category. They're not as excited as you and I might be for an opportunity to pay for the honor of helping de-bug a new, leading-edge product. After hammering on that pile of aluminum for 4-10 years, most are looking forward "flying-when-and-where-I-like" in what should look and behave like a new airplane. Lancair was indeed in a hurry to get a working sample of the BMA product so that they would have had time to install and test it before taking it to OSH on a company airplane. Got any idea what kind of investment that takes on the part of Lancair? They would have to rip out a panel and rebuild it . . . that's a task they charge customers tens of thousands of dollars to do. That would be a juicy plum for BMA too. There was also risk to Lancair. Suppose they'd spent a lot of time and dollars putting the BMA system in and it didn't work well? Now they have to put the old system back in to still make the show. If BMA was not ready to have Lancair look at their products, they would not be faulted for saying so and putting the effort off for a later time. There's risk for both BMA and Lancair should the airplane show up at OSH and the pilot has too many things to cite about short-fall on expected performance. When I use customer airplanes for test beds, they get the hardware for free in exchange for their much valued services. When B&C does a new STC and needs a customer's airplane to proof the kit, that too is a highly discounted if not free installation to the aircraft owner. When we offer the product for sale, we do our best to have a HISTORY of performance-as- advertised in at least one airplane. I will write to Greg and offer whatever services are at my disposal to assist in promoting his product. I suspect I could get a test pilot from Raytheon or Cessna to evaluate operational and performance aspects. I'd be pleased to look at hardware and do an article on our findings. I'll even offer to let Greg proof the article for factuality before it's published. I belive that some people still perceive this thread on "warnings" to be an effort to bash BMA. I'll suggest the real goal is to help everyone with an interest in this technology to be FULLY informed of what is being offered and making sure that it meets their expectations before they commit time, dollars and holes cut in the panel. In the mean time, if there are builders who don't mind the risks, believe they are fully informed and enjoy being part of the development effort on such an exciting product, by all means have at it. Nobody will be more pleased than I to see BMA shipping all the systems they can produce to customers delighted to own them. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "texasquadj(at)prodigy.net" <texasquadj(at)Prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Introduction
Date: Jul 26, 2002
Bob, Thank you very much for the information. I guess there is no difference in the article and what is appendix Z if you piece of few figures together thanks for the clarification. I do not have reliable amp requirements yet. I would actually like to eliminate both contactors and go with a simple switch of adequate capacity. I actually never said I had a PM alternator. My alternator is a 35 amp (I think) alternator (from a Subaru I think) that has been modified to be a direct drive unit where the magneto would normally go in the HAPI accessory case (original builder had someone do the mod). You are probably right about having a single battery system, but the extra battery will give me piece of mind with the ignition and fuel system that I have. In addition to having dual electronic ignition I also have an Ellison TB that will not run from gravity feed. Adding 10 pounds and a little complexity for that second battery, in my mind, is worth the trouble. Thanks for the low voltage information. Since I wrote my original email I had one of my electronic technicians for the airfield found a very simple low voltage warning system in his electronic encyclopedia. In a year or two I am going to ditch the VW and install a Corvair. When I do that I will have a distributor (instead of the dual electronic ignition) and will likely have a carb that will work from the pressure provided by gravity. I will eliminate some electrical system complexity when I change engines. Thanks, Jeff Original Message: ----------------- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 22:41:59 -0500 Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Introduction > > >Hello, > >My name is Jeff LeTempt and I am building Dragonfly (modifying a >basically completed but unflown airplane is probably more accurate). I >am documenting my progress at http://dragonflyjeff.tripod.com if anyone >is interested. > >The plane will have a HAPI 1835 VW with dual electronic ignition, dual >batteries, dual fuel pumps, single alternator, RMI MicroEncoder, comm >radio, transponder, GPS, a tablet computer with moving map display, >landing light, strobe lights, nav/position lights, 3 electric trim >motors and an ICS. When I bought the plane the builder also gave me his >copy of Bob's manual - man is that a great manual!! I downloaded the >revisions a few months ago and it is now up-to-date. There is not a >diagram in the back of the manual that is like what I will have, so I am >basically modifying figure Z-11 and also using the article "What's all >this Battery Isolator Stuff Anyhow?". I'm confused. What architecture in the battery isolator article differs from what's published in appendix Z? >I have drawn up some basic schematics and I would appreciate a few >comments. Does this list allow attachments? If it doesn't (I suspect >that it doesn't) I could post them on my web site or email them directly >to anyone that would be willing to take a look at them. What I have >attempted to do is design a system that has very good reduce, isolation >capabilities, simplicity, and not prone to major problems if one minor >component should happen to fail (guess that would be the goal of any >electrical system). If you take Figure Z-11 and add a second battery with busses for each battery, where would that fall short of your requirements? >I have 2 designs that I am working on. One is very similar to Z-11 and >one is very similar to the battery isolation article figure 2 (manual >control option). I am leaning towards the latter option, but the first >system is more simple. Figure Z-11 with Figure Z-30 option is an enhanced version of Figure 2 in the article. >I also have a question about a low voltage idiot (smart) light. In the >manual it says that there is a diagram in appendix K. I read in >appendix Z that these additional appendices have been removed. Does any >one have instructions for a DIY low voltage warning system? How about >an inexpensive off-the-shelf model? Appendix K was deleted some years ago. The low voltage warning light DIY schematic is at http://216.55.140.222/articles/lvwarn/9021-610.pdf We're testing the first articles on an off the self low-v warn assembly and a solid state relay. I'm arranging for outside production on both products and should be able to offer them by summer's end. Question. The PM alternator on that engine is limited in output. Do you have reliable figures for total output power available? You might not want to use two, hoggy battery contactors in your system. They draw about .8 to 1.0 amp each. A single battery installation like Figure Z-16 with a battery bus added to feed fuel pumps and ignition systems could be fitted with a manual battery switch to replace the contactor. This would make the full output of your alternator available for running goodies. A properly maintained RG battery has about the same order of reliability as your propeller attach fittings. Why not maintain one battery and keep the system simple? Bob . . . http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com>
Subject: Blue Mountain Avionics Warning(s)
Date: Jul 26, 2002
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. BMA could alleviate a lot of customer frustration with better communication. I don't understand BMA's resistance doing this. Putting the latest expectations on their webite would be easy. And free. I changed my EFIS/One order to the Lite three weeks ago. At that time I was given the standard two week lead time. Guess what, two weeks came and went. Nothing. At OSH, Greg said that all Lite deliveries were stopped, pending a resolution to the problems Sam B. was having with his Lite. Golly, that would be a great thing to communicate to the customers eagerly waiting for the delivery of their Lites. I think this expectation is justified considering they are holding a couple thousand dollars of mine. - Larry Bowen RV-8 canopy/panel/fwf Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On > Behalf Of Russ Werner > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 12:28 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Blue Mountain Avionics Warning(s) > > > > Ken, > > Unlike you, I did cancel my EFIS Lite order. I have been > told that I my deposit is refunded, but am still waiting for > that to show up at my Bankcard center. They were very > polite, though they did not return a phone message left for > them regarding the refund. > > I also received an email from Greg and he was adamant that > they had everything solved and they had only one, very vocal, > customer who was unhappy (Lancair). I didn't bring up Sam's > reviews. I told them that I would re-order if and when they > started shipping a working product. When I originally > ordered, Greg assured me everything was working and they were > shipping units (SNF 2002). That turned out to be an untruth. > > I can deal with all this, but I think Greg should get the > current features working properly and then work on > improvements. Maybe then he can actually deliver product. I > think the "supplier" excuse is lame. The product isn't ready > for that. > > I sure hope they get it together. I'll let you get the bugs > out and then I'll order mine! In the mean time, I'll hang on > to my deposit and believe Greg's claims when I hear them from > customers. > > Aloha, > > Russ > HRII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 26, 2002
From: Tim Cheatham <tcheat2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain Avionics Warning(s)
Bob, I am a lurker on this list, and just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your comments. I don't have a dog in the Blue Mountain fight, but I am intrigued by their product. I hope that you are able to get with Greg and test the product. I'm sure he could use your expertise and insight. Anyway, thanks for sharing your knowledge with us. Tim Cheatham --- "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > Nuckolls, III" > > Brooks" > > > >Long-winded, so skip if not interested > > > >Howdy to Bob and Aeroelectric -listers! > > Just returned from OSH and spent quite a good > bit of time with Greg and > >Co. at the Blue Mountain Avionics Booth and Forum. > I'm well aware of the > >criticisms from all sectors and have a vested > interest in BMA's operation > >since I am a customer-in-waiting. Perhaps I am > more fortunate than some in > >that our RV-8 is still about 16 mos. from being > airworthy, and therefore > >have the luxury of "not having to have it now." > Here is what I came away > >from OSH with: > > > >EFIS/One and its other iterations are, and will > remain, a work-in-progress. > >Greg and Rick are comitted to advancing the "bow > echo" of leading edge > >technology for experimental cockpit instrument > systems. Probably no > >argument there from y'all. Being one of the early > customers (having plunked > >down my EFIS/One down payment at OSH 2001), I have > already been placed in a > >position of my HARDWARE being antiquated before > even receiving all my > >components. However, every customer of BMA will > fly the same software, and > >let me tell you, I witnessed the 2.0 software on > the new Transreflective > >display (with integrated keypad controller) and it > is phenomenal. > > How many pilots are flying it today? > > > >I know that doesn't help you guys that need it now, > but believe me when I > >say that patience is a virtue and those of us who > are, will be rewarded. > >Greg has already fixed through flight testing and > software changes the > >problem that Sam Buchanan experienced with his > EFIS/Lite dropping out after > >270 degrees of constant bank turn. Greg discoved > that the magnetometer was > >too close to steel and/or EMR. So, for the rest of > us (when you get your > >hardware), make sure you take great care to mount > it in such a way that it > >is as far away from iron and electrical as > possible. Greg says that 24 > >inches away is needed for "best" operation and 6" > is minimum. I am going to > >mount my EFIS/One magnetometer at the junction of > the VS leading edge and > >aft fuselage (under the fiberglass). Still > searching for a location for the > >EFIS/Lite magnetometer (you don't want to mount > them together). > > I sense that you are looking forward to being on > the development > team and I applaud your enthusiasm and sense of > adventure. Your > support could well be an invaluable component of > the short path > to BMA's success. I could easily find myself > equally inclined > were I in the same position of building an > airplane and had the > cash to spend. > > > >Consider also that BMA is eight people and the > company has only been in > >existence for a little over a year. Do I think > they could use a > >professional office manager? Yep. Do I think they > have been beset by > >too-optimistic supplier time tables? Yep. Do I > think it will take some > >time for them to catch up with demand and be able > to move product in a > >timely, reliable manner? Yep. Am I convinced that > they are doing all they > >can to make things right for their customers? Yes > I do. Am I bailing out > >because they've made promises that they can't live > up to? Abosolutely not, > >because their product is so good it's worth waiting > for. When you see the > >3-D terrain mapping on the transreflective screen > and the new shock-mounted > >aluminum CPU case (where ALL connections are on the > left end of the box) and > >remember that you will always fly the latest and > greatest software revision > >at no extra cost, I think you will agree that they > offer things that no > >other manufacturer does for anywhere near the > price. > > > Who is asking or even suggesting that you bail > out? You seem to > believe you're adequately informed. > > > >I fully understand other customers' frustrations > and complaints. I share > >most of them. All I can say is that if anyone > decides to pull out and go > >elsewhere, Greg will refund all their money and > they can exercise their > >right to seek other products from other companies. > His heart is not in his > >wallet; he does what he does for the enjoyment and > excitement of creating > >cutting edge technologies for experimental aircraft > flyers, of which he is > >also one. I will not be changing to the new > transreflective screen because > >I plan to have a rear seat display and I can wire > them in parallel for only > >the cost of the additional display. With the new > display and the digital > >vs. analog connection, I would also require an > additional card in the CPU > >and more expensive display, bringing the additional > expense to over $2000. > >Since I'll be flying the 2.0 software, I can live > with the fact that my > >display is not the latest and greatest. > > Ken, if you're pleased with how things are > going, I'm pleased > for you. sincerely hope that every one of BMA's > customers are > equally enthusiastic . . . say . . . two years > from now. > > > >If Lancair is upset with BMA because they can't > have what they want when > >they want it, they can (and probably will) go > elsewhere. I'm going to hang > >in there and try to be patient. I think the > rewards will be great. > > That might indeed happen but nobody I know hopes > that is the > case. Please understand that Lancair Avionics, > and > (to a similar degree) the AeroElectric > Connection > are constantly asked to give advice to aid in > product selection > for people who simply want to own and operate > the best we know > how to do in high performance airplanes. They're > burdened with > the perspective of general aviation's near-term > history which > includes the likes of King, Collins, Narco, > Terra, Garmin, > etc and all the high-dollar, suck air iron gyros > that go with them. > > While not necessarily "leading edge" they ARE a > known quantity. > The owner of a new Lancair with contemporary > certified stuff > on the panel would probably not feel cheated if > his new airplane's > panel suffered the same kinds of problems as his > old airplane. > > I rather suspect that the majority of folks who > read this list > are in this category. They're not as excited as > you and I might > be for an opportunity to pay for the honor of > helping de-bug > a new, leading-edge product. After hammering on > that pile > of aluminum for 4-10 years, most are looking > forward > "flying-when-and-where-I-like" in what should > look and > behave like a new airplane. > === message truncated === http://health.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Heads-up on Blue Mountain
Date: Jul 26, 2002
I think all the discussion would stop, if Greg could just name a few customer, successfully flying with the EFIS lite/one. As this is a $$$$ investment I would like to get a confirmation before I buy or even better, the chance to fly with one. Kind regards Werner ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Heads-up on Blue Mountain
Date: Jul 26, 2002
FYI, here a crossposting from Sam Buchanan about his real experience here a cutout of the original posting about his experience July 13th) >The benchmark I initially used to test the AHRS >was to see if the system could remain stable in a 360 degree standard >rate turn. This is an essential function since the standard rate turn is >the maneuver upon which all IFR flight is based. Unfortunately, the AHRS >"cutout" after about 280 degrees of turn with a resulting drift into >erroneous bank and pitch displays, and this problem was repeatable and >predictable. What was especially troubling was that the error occurred >with no warning flag. And below his answer to Greg's statement from today. ----------------------------- insert ------------------------------------ I recently returned from OSH and wish to correct some mis-information that is being circulated by Greg Richter at Blue Mountain Avionics concerning the EFIS/lite installation in my RV-6. The points I am about to address were stated to me both by Greg himself and by Greg in his forum which I attended Tuesday afternoon. Greg is stating that the problems I experienced with the three EFIS/Lites I flew in my plane were due to magnetometer installation errors/problems. He correctly states that the magnetometer needs to be mounted well clear of iron and electrical circuits; consequently, I mounted the mag in the tail of the RV-6 on the horizontal deck beneath the vertical stabilizer. This is the same location he suggested to the audience at the OSH forum. The mag is secured with nylon cable ties. I was concerned about the proximity to the steel tailwheel spring, but the magnetometer worked very nicely and accurately displayed headings on the display of the Lite. Greg stated that the magnetometer was causing the AHRS errors I observed in the Lites. I find this explanation a bit implausible since the AHRS errors occurred even with the magnetometer disconnected. Matter of fact, the first unit I had was flown before the magnetometer was even installed! When the second unit displayed AHRS errors, I disconnected the magnetometer, rebooted the Lite, and the AHRS errors persisted. This error pattern was consistent and repeatable. Unit number three displayed the same problems. Greg was at DCU on the Friday before OSH to install new software in the RV-6 that is flying his EFIS/One. The pilot/owner told me following a 0.5 hr test flight that it appeared the AHRS situation was greatly improved (since he is not an instrumented-rated pilot, he hoped I would be able to further test the AHRS soon), and I sincerely hope this is the case. However, I am very disappointed that Greg Richter decided to place the blame for the problems I experienced on installation/magnetometer error. Greg laughed off the Lite problems by making the statement at the forum that I had thrown him a curve because I installed the Lite in a metal plane......and his test flying was in a glass plane. Think about that statement for a few moments!!!! ;-) I hope the AHRS problems are indeed solved; Greg has promised me another Lite soon. Once the unit arrives I will thoroughly test it to see if AHRS issues remain that would effect IFR flight. Sam Buchanan (RV-6) "The RV Journal" http://thervjournal.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 26, 2002
From: Freddie Freeloader <lists(at)stevet.net>
Subject: BMA
Hello Everyone, I have been lurking on this list for a while as well. I have also been following the development of the EFIS/One since OSH 2001. This is, without a doubt, the most radical departure from the overpriced avionics market to ever be offered to homebuilders. What Greg is doing is not only outstanding, but well worth our universal support. For those of you who have chosen to be early adopters, I have this to say. Stop moaning. It reminds me of the guy who is suing MacDonalds and Berger King and the like for making him fat. If you've given Greg money for a unit, be it the /One or the /Lite, know that you are an early adopter and know that there will be problems and delays. This is a revolutionary product. If you want to be on the leading edge and one who pushes the envelope, let the buyer beware! Is Greg a great marketeer and communicator? No, he is an extremely smart engineer. Is his company a smooth running operation? No, he is a start-up with a wildly revolutionary product. It appears to me that this has more promise of providing us homebuilders a chance at a reasonably priced panel than I have seen in my flying career of 20 years. I would be an early adopter if my project were at a place where I needed it. Sadly, it is not. But, for the rest of you who have chosen to be an early adopter, know that is what you are and expect what comes with that position. If you don't want to be an early adopter, go buy Garmin, King, or UPS. These are proven and expensive products. Any EFIS purchasers who question Greg's honesty and sincerity should simply ask for their money back and should go buy something else. For those who understand their position, help us all out by doing what you can to see this product succeed. But whatever you do, please stop whining. -- Best regards, Freddie mailto:lists(at)stevet.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 26, 2002
Subject: Newbie
From: Michael R Fortunato <wizard-24(at)juno.com>
Being a Zodiac builder, I recently subscribed to this list since I'm at the stage where the wiring for the panel begins. I've read the posts for the last couple of months, perused Bob's web site, and checked the archives. All of this research has resulted in one definite conclusion: I'M SCARED! Now that I got that out of my system, what's a rookie builder to do? (Not sure I could tell a bus bar from a bus stop). I'm not interested in becoming an electrical engineer, and this is the only airplane I'll probably ever have to wire. So, my question is...... Are there any sources out there for the guy that is staring dumbfounded at his soon-to-be instrument panel, not knowing what to do next? Maybe a "Wire Your Plane for Dummies" book? Something written in technical terms just (but not too far) beyond crayon? I'm sure the Aeroelectric stuff is terrific....but it's awfully difficult to understand (for me), and way beyond the scope of what I really want to know. My panel will have the normal instruments, including the basic gyros...yet I don't want to spend a zillion bucks for the latest goodies. I'm thinking I'll want to use breaker/switches to control most everything, and who knows -- maybe indicator lights too if not complicated. I looked into the simplicity of the EXP Bus, but couldn't make myself spend all that money. I'm thinking there HAS to be other builders out there just like me? Any help would be most appreciated. Mike F. Alta Loma, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Edgar Harriman" <edlindee(at)olypen.com>
Subject: Continuing Saga of BMA
Date: Jul 26, 2002
Freddie Freeloader is exactly right on ! As Uncle Bob can attest, not all great engineers make great communicators or marketers. What they do best is develop new and exciting technologies. A product such as what BMA is working on is well worth having an extra measure of patience and understanding for. I am almost ready to make my trusty old Cherokee into an experimental aircraft just to be able to install the EFIS. Best of luck to Greg, and hang in there guy, what you are doing is exciting to see. Edgar ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net>
Subject: Re: Newbie
Date: Jul 26, 2002
There are lots of us in the same situation, not much consolation to you I know. Suggest you connect with a local EAA chapter and try to find a Tech Counsellor. Also Bob Nuckolls is giving one of his weekend AeroElectric seminars in S California fairly soon I think. I took it a month or so back and it was excellent, really helps to pull things together. I still don't know nearly enough but at least I think I know what I don't know. Good luck ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael R Fortunato" <wizard-24(at)juno.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Newbie > > > Being a Zodiac builder, I recently subscribed to this list since I'm at > the stage where the wiring for the panel begins. I've read the posts for > the last couple of months, perused Bob's web site, and checked the > archives. All of this research has resulted in one definite conclusion: > > I'M SCARED! > > Now that I got that out of my system, what's a rookie builder to do? (Not > sure I could tell a bus bar from a bus stop). I'm not interested in > becoming an electrical engineer, and this is the only airplane I'll > probably ever have to wire. So, my question is...... > > Are there any sources out there for the guy that is staring dumbfounded > at his soon-to-be instrument panel, not knowing what to do next? Maybe a > "Wire Your Plane for Dummies" book? Something written in technical terms > just (but not too far) beyond crayon? I'm sure the Aeroelectric stuff is > terrific....but it's awfully difficult to understand (for me), and way > beyond the scope of what I really want to know. > > My panel will have the normal instruments, including the basic > gyros...yet I don't want to spend a zillion bucks for the latest goodies. > I'm thinking I'll want to use breaker/switches to control most > everything, and who knows -- maybe indicator lights too if not > complicated. I looked into the simplicity of the EXP Bus, but couldn't > make myself spend all that money. > > I'm thinking there HAS to be other builders out there just like me? Any > help would be most appreciated. > > Mike F. > Alta Loma, CA > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: mprather(at)spro.net
Subject: Re: Newbie
Date: Jul 26, 2002
I am not an authority on how to learn about this stuff from scratch, but I have some thoughts. Make a list of things in the airplane that will use power. Starter, lights, instruments, sensors, radios, nav equipment, etc. Find out (look it up, ask people) how much power each device will use (in amperes(A), or watts ( which when divided by 12Volts gives amperes) , and mark that beside each item on the list. Then make a list of things that provide power (alternator(s), battery(ies)). Then make a list of things that are needed to control the electricity (switches, contactors, relays). Select the size of wire(s) that will go to/from each device to be installed based on how much current will be produced/consumed. Look in Bob's book for this. Don't forget to consider that anything that uses or produces electricity has 2 electrical connects, minimum. One that is +voltage, and one that is -voltage (ground). If you are planning on pumping electrons into something, you have to let them out somewhere else. Sometimes the case of the device forms its ground path. The ground path must be able to carry as much current as the +voltage wire to it. Since you are building a metal airplane, sometimes you don't need a dedicated ground wire, but can use a portion of the airplane's aluminum as the ground. By and large, if you are using the airframe as ground, you don't want to provide an extra ground wire. Similarly, if you have decided a particular device needs a ground wire, its best to isolate its local connection to the airframe. These are noise and corrosion concerns. Typically, anything that has a complex circuit, or demands/produces power in pulses should have a non-airframe ground path. This includes strobes, radios, and the like. Nav lights often use the airframe as ground. This isn't a hard/fast rule. I think it is generally safer to use a dedicated ground than it is to use the airframe. Also, wiring should generally be distributed in a star, instead of daisy chained. ie, each device usually needs its own power and ground. There are a few specific counter examples. Once you have a list of the devices to be used, then I think it makes sense to draw a block diagram of all of the devices. For this, you can pretty much ignore where things will go in the airplane. Just group like items on the page together (lights in a group, radios in a group, instruments in a group, sensors in a group, circuit protection in a group). Consult some of the diagrams in Appendix Z of Bob's book for ideas on the symbols for each. Little boxes work, if all else fails. Then, on the block diagram, you need to draw wiring connections from each consumer to the supplier, or supply bus through whatever circuit protection that you like, and any switches you need in line. Sensors need to be connected to their instruments. Don't forget other control switches, like the push to talk, electric trim controls, and dimmers. These will likely make multiple connections to the same device. Oh, and mic and headset jacks... Once you have the logic of it figured out, then doing a symbolic layout of where things go in the airplane is the next step. Then, figure out how many wires, and of what kind go where in the airplane. Make these decisions based on the list of devices with wire sizes, and the block diagram. Then you are basically ready to start installing and wiring. Finally, I have found it very useful to look at certified or nice experimental aircraft when it comes to understand how something should be wired up. At least from the standpoint of methods of installation. If you rent airplanes, go to where you rent with a flashlight, a notepad, and list of things you want to understand, and make notes of how things are hooked up. If there is an aircraft mechanic with a shop close by, ask if you can stand and look around the engine compartment of something they are working on to get ideas. Be aware, however, that certified airplanes have some weird wiring ideosyncracies from the factory. The classic one, that Bob has made note of, is the shielded alternator wires on Cessnas. Often copied, and for no good reason. As you go, if you have questions that aren't in Bob's book, ask them of the forum. Finally, finally, I have heard good things about Tony Bingelis' books. They might be a good resource. That's how I am doing it. I apologize for the length. Matt- ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael R Fortunato <wizard-24(at)juno.com> Date: Friday, July 26, 2002 1:14 pm Subject: AeroElectric-List: Newbie > > > > Being a Zodiac builder, I recently subscribed to this list since > I'm at > the stage where the wiring for the panel begins. I've read the > posts for > the last couple of months, perused Bob's web site, and checked the > archives. All of this research has resulted in one definite > conclusion: > I'M SCARED! > > Now that I got that out of my system, what's a rookie builder to > do? (Not > sure I could tell a bus bar from a bus stop). I'm not interested in > becoming an electrical engineer, and this is the only airplane I'll > probably ever have to wire. So, my question is...... > > Are there any sources out there for the guy that is staring > dumbfoundedat his soon-to-be instrument panel, not knowing what to > do next? Maybe a > "Wire Your Plane for Dummies" book? Something written in technical > termsjust (but not too far) beyond crayon? I'm sure the > Aeroelectric stuff is > terrific....but it's awfully difficult to understand (for me), and way > beyond the scope of what I really want to know. > > My panel will have the normal instruments, including the basic > gyros...yet I don't want to spend a zillion bucks for the latest > goodies.I'm thinking I'll want to use breaker/switches to control most > everything, and who knows -- maybe indicator lights too if not > complicated. I looked into the simplicity of the EXP Bus, but couldn't > make myself spend all that money. > > I'm thinking there HAS to be other builders out there just like me? > Anyhelp would be most appreciated. > > Mike F. > Alta Loma, CA > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net>
Subject: Re: Newbie
Date: Jul 26, 2002
Get Bob's book 'The Aero-Electric Connection' I think I bought mine from www.buildersbookstore.com. Matt gave you some good advice on how to draw up your circuits. Once you have them drawn all you have to do is hook them up one at a time. I would have to warn you about one trap that it seems many of us fall into on this wiring thing, and that is the idea that you size the wire for the device that you are powering. This is not the case. You size the wire for the circuit protection device that is on that circuit. Here's the idea.... An electrical buss is basically a device that does not need any circuit protection because it is big enough to handle whatever current can be thrown at it by the device supplying the power. In our case the battery/alternator. Any buss that you use will likely be a fuse box that you buy or a piece of brass bar that is bolted to one side of a bunch of circuit breakers. Any circuit that comes off that buss should have a circuit protection device (either a breaker or a fuse) to protect the wire downstream of that device. The circuit protection device is not there to protect your widget, it is there to protect the wire and keep it from catching on fire. The CB/fuse should be sized for the smallest wire in that circuit. If that CB/fuse is too small for the devices that are being fed from that circuit DO NOT simply get a bigger CB/fuse without also putting in larger wire. 'The Book' has wire sizing charts that will help you figure all this out. Once you get your wiring diagram drawn (with the right sized wire and circuit protection) then go through a failure analysis on each wire. Say to yourself, "What would happen if this wire broke, shorted to ground, partially shorted, etc?" When the answer to the above question is either, "The circuit breaker trips before the wire burns" or "The widget turns off and I yawn". Then you are done and can start wiring. If the answer is, "The wire get's very hot" or "The airplane can't fly without that widget" then back to the drawing board. Airplane wiring is not all that complicated but it should be done right. Get Bob's book and don't be afraid to learn a few things and you'll do fine. If you get stuck then get back on this list and by all means ASK. Godspeed, Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) http://www.myrv7.com Fuselage Airplanes never win battles with the ground. The best the airplane can hope for is a draw. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael R Fortunato" <wizard-24(at)juno.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Newbie > > > Being a Zodiac builder, I recently subscribed to this list since I'm at > the stage where the wiring for the panel begins. I've read the posts for > the last couple of months, perused Bob's web site, and checked the > archives. All of this research has resulted in one definite conclusion: > > I'M SCARED! > > Now that I got that out of my system, what's a rookie builder to do? (Not > sure I could tell a bus bar from a bus stop). I'm not interested in > becoming an electrical engineer, and this is the only airplane I'll > probably ever have to wire. So, my question is...... > > Are there any sources out there for the guy that is staring dumbfounded > at his soon-to-be instrument panel, not knowing what to do next? Maybe a > "Wire Your Plane for Dummies" book? Something written in technical terms > just (but not too far) beyond crayon? I'm sure the Aeroelectric stuff is > terrific....but it's awfully difficult to understand (for me), and way > beyond the scope of what I really want to know. > > My panel will have the normal instruments, including the basic > gyros...yet I don't want to spend a zillion bucks for the latest goodies. > I'm thinking I'll want to use breaker/switches to control most > everything, and who knows -- maybe indicator lights too if not > complicated. I looked into the simplicity of the EXP Bus, but couldn't > make myself spend all that money. > > I'm thinking there HAS to be other builders out there just like me? Any > help would be most appreciated. > > Mike F. > Alta Loma, CA > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 26, 2002
From: RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Newbie
I know the list rules, but I have to say to Matt, very well done!! Roger Swanson CH II N571RS http://mywebpages.comcast.net/iflych2 ----- Original Message ----- From: <mprather(at)spro.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Newbie > > I am not an authority on how to learn about this stuff from scratch, > but I have some thoughts. > > Make a list of things in the airplane that will use power. Starter, > lights, instruments, sensors, radios, nav equipment, etc. Find out > (look it up, ask people) how much power each device will use (in > amperes(A), or watts ( which when divided by 12Volts gives amperes) , > and mark that beside each item on the list. Then make a list of things > that provide power (alternator(s), battery(ies)). Then make a list of > things that are needed to control the electricity (switches, contactors, > relays). > > Select the size of wire(s) that will go to/from each device to be > installed based on how much current will be produced/consumed. Look in > Bob's book for this. > > Don't forget to consider that anything that uses or produces electricity > has 2 electrical connects, minimum. One that is +voltage, and one that > is -voltage (ground). If you are planning on pumping electrons into > something, you have to let them out somewhere else. Sometimes the case > of the device forms its ground path. The ground path must be able to > carry as much current as the +voltage wire to it. > > Since you are building a metal airplane, sometimes you don't need a > dedicated ground wire, but can use a portion of the airplane's aluminum > as the ground. By and large, if you are using the airframe as ground, > you don't want to provide an extra ground wire. Similarly, if you have > decided a particular device needs a ground wire, its best to isolate > its local connection to the airframe. These are noise and corrosion > concerns. Typically, anything that has a complex circuit, or > demands/produces power in pulses should have a non-airframe ground > path. This includes strobes, radios, and the like. Nav lights often > use the > airframe as ground. This isn't a hard/fast rule. I think it is > generally safer to use a dedicated ground than it is to use the > airframe. Also, wiring should generally be distributed in a star, > instead of daisy chained. ie, each device usually needs its own power > and ground. There are a few specific counter examples. > > Once you have a list of the devices to be used, then I think it makes > sense to draw a block diagram of all of the devices. For this, you can > pretty much ignore where things will go in the airplane. Just group > like items on the page together (lights in a group, radios in a group, > instruments in a group, sensors in a group, circuit protection in a > group). Consult some of the diagrams in Appendix Z of Bob's book for > ideas on the symbols for each. Little boxes work, if all else fails. > > Then, on the block diagram, you need to draw wiring connections from > each consumer to the supplier, or supply bus through whatever circuit > protection that you like, and any switches you need in line. Sensors > need to be connected to their instruments. Don't forget other control > switches, like the push to talk, electric trim controls, and dimmers. > These will likely make multiple connections to the same device. Oh, and > mic and headset jacks... > > Once you have the logic of it figured out, then doing a symbolic layout > of where things go in the airplane is the next step. Then, figure out > how many wires, and of what kind go where in the airplane. Make these > decisions based on the list of devices with wire sizes, and the block > diagram. > > Then you are basically ready to start installing and wiring. > > Finally, I have found it very useful to look at certified or nice > experimental aircraft when it comes to understand how something should > be wired up. At least from the standpoint of methods of installation. > If you rent airplanes, go to where you rent with a flashlight, a > notepad, and list of things you want to understand, and make notes of > how things are hooked up. If there is an aircraft mechanic with a shop > close by, ask if you can stand and look around the engine compartment of > something they are working on to get ideas. Be aware, however, that > certified airplanes have some weird wiring ideosyncracies from the > factory. The classic one, that Bob has made note of, is the shielded > alternator wires on Cessnas. Often copied, and for no good reason. > > As you go, if you have questions that aren't in Bob's book, ask them of > the forum. Finally, finally, I have heard good things about Tony > Bingelis' books. They might be a good resource. > > That's how I am doing it. I apologize for the length. > > Matt- > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Michael R Fortunato <wizard-24(at)juno.com> > Date: Friday, July 26, 2002 1:14 pm > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Newbie > > > > > > > > > Being a Zodiac builder, I recently subscribed to this list since > > I'm at > > the stage where the wiring for the panel begins. I've read the > > posts for > > the last couple of months, perused Bob's web site, and checked the > > archives. All of this research has resulted in one definite > > conclusion: > > I'M SCARED! > > > > Now that I got that out of my system, what's a rookie builder to > > do? (Not > > sure I could tell a bus bar from a bus stop). I'm not interested in > > becoming an electrical engineer, and this is the only airplane I'll > > probably ever have to wire. So, my question is...... > > > > Are there any sources out there for the guy that is staring > > dumbfoundedat his soon-to-be instrument panel, not knowing what to > > do next? Maybe a > > "Wire Your Plane for Dummies" book? Something written in technical > > termsjust (but not too far) beyond crayon? I'm sure the > > Aeroelectric stuff is > > terrific....but it's awfully difficult to understand (for me), and way > > beyond the scope of what I really want to know. > > > > My panel will have the normal instruments, including the basic > > gyros...yet I don't want to spend a zillion bucks for the latest > > goodies.I'm thinking I'll want to use breaker/switches to control most > > everything, and who knows -- maybe indicator lights too if not > > complicated. I looked into the simplicity of the EXP Bus, but couldn't > > make myself spend all that money. > > > > I'm thinking there HAS to be other builders out there just like me? > > Anyhelp would be most appreciated. > > > > Mike F. > > Alta Loma, CA > > > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: mprather(at)spro.net
Subject: Re: Newbie
Date: Jul 26, 2002
Phil, You raised a good point about circuit protection. I think your way is a good one to help analyze safety once you have a design. I might state it slightly differently for when creating the design. The circuit protection should be able to comfortably (with maybe 20% margin) handle all the current demanded by the devices on the circuit. Then every wire on the circuit should be sized at least large enough to handle all of the current that might go through the breaker without tripping it. So, if a device draws as much as 8A, you need a 10A breaker,and wire for the complete circuit that will handle at least 10A, maybe a litte more, for safety. If you put a 4A capable wire somewhere in the circuit, and it shorts to ground, you have a fire hazard, even if the device on that leg of the circuit only draws 1A. It takes 10A to open the fuse or breaker and putting that much current through a 4A wire will heat it, and maybe dangerously. I haven't read the pertinant section in the 'Connection in a while, so I can't remember if he stated it more elegantly... :) Phil is right in bringing out that the breaker protects the wire (and hence the airplane), and not the device, and I think that is commonly not understood. That is precisely why its best to mount your circuit protection as close as practical to the battery. Matt- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net> Date: Friday, July 26, 2002 3:14 pm Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Newbie > > Get Bob's book 'The Aero-Electric Connection' I think I bought > mine from > www.buildersbookstore.com. Matt gave you some good advice on how > to draw up > your circuits. Once you have them drawn all you have to do is hook > them up > one at a time. I would have to warn you about one trap that it > seems many > of us fall into on this wiring thing, and that is the idea that you > size the > wire for the device that you are powering. This is not the case. > You size > the wire for the circuit protection device that is on that circuit. > Here's > the idea.... > > An electrical buss is basically a device that does not need any > circuitprotection because it is big enough to handle whatever > current can be thrown > at it by the device supplying the power. In our case the > batteryou buy or a piece of brass bar that is bolted to one side of > a bunch of > circuit breakers. Any circuit that comes off that buss should have a > circuit protection device (either a breaker or a fuse) to protect > the wire > downstream of that device. The circuit protection device is not > there to > protect your widget, it is there to protect the wire and keep it from > catching on fire. The CB/fuse should be sized for the smallest > wire in that > circuit. If that CB/fuse is too small for the devices that are > being fed > from that circuit DO NOT simply get a bigger CB/fuse without also > putting in > larger wire. 'The Book' has wire sizing charts that will help you > figureall this out. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 26, 2002
Subject: Re: Newbie
From: Grant Corriveau <grantC(at)total.net>
on 7/26/02 5:57 PM, mprather(at)spro.net at mprather(at)spro.net wrote: > > Phil, > > You raised a good point about circuit protection. I think your way > is a good one to help analyze safety once you have a design. I might > state it slightly differently for when creating the design. The circuit > protection should be able to comfortably (with maybe 20% margin) handle > all the current demanded by the devices on the circuit. Then every wire > on the circuit should be sized at least large enough to handle all of > the current that might go through the breaker without tripping it. fwiw... I notice that automotive applications reduce wire sizes to just a couple - mostly awg16. In most aircraft this size wire would handle most of the requirements and reduces the need to 'spec' each single wire, and stock small amounts of each size, and the associated cb/fuses... If I were wiring my aircraft again, I think I'd simplify by doing most of it in awg 16. The weight penalty wouldn't be much in a typical light aircraft...? Anyone agree/disagree? -- Grant Corriveau Montreal Zodiac 601hds/CAM100 C-GHTF www.theWingStayedON.ca ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David A. Leonard" <dleonar1(at)maine.rr.com>
Subject: Super Viking Electrical tremors
Date: Jul 27, 2002
Hey all, An ammeter question. On my 72 Superviking.. with an external regulator, and separate overvoltage relay. The Ammeter will remain steady generally in the center or a little on the charge side when first started. At Idle, if you turn on all the load ,pitot and two landing lites and nav lites... The needle pulses like the OV relay is kicking rythmically, like once a second. These pulses are about 1/4" of travel into the discharge side. As the revs come up, in cruise, with normal loads the needle will stay mostly centered showing a needle or so charge, and steady. When I turn on the pitot and landing lites on..a very fast vibration like a tremor,(nervous needle) less than 1/4 of a needle in phase travel.. very much different than the symptom of the 1 second big swings at idle. Is this a problem? My low voltage light never comes on, and the interior lights aren't strobing or doing anything wierd.. I flew along for 10 minutes or so at Max load..2 x100 watt landing lites, heated pitot, nav , strobe, interior, and all radios, and all ops were normal. The alternator has about 250hrs since rebuild, the regulator the same. I once had some problems with high resistance at the field wire on the master switch, causing a bouncy needle, but that one bounced in time with the engine vibrations.. but I tightened the fast on on the master switch field lugs and they went away...wiggling the wires back there seems to have no effect on this problem, on the old problem moving the connections very much fixed it. Thanks, Dave Leonard ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 27, 2002
From: Jaye and Scott Jackson <jayeandscott(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Super Viking Electrical tremors
Two things come immediately to mind: 1. Does it still bounce with the strobes turned off? 2. Do you have the Cessna-type split master and alternator rocker switch? This switch is notorious for quickly developing high resistance internally and causing a bouncing ammeter with, in some aircraft, an accompanying sound in the headphones. Scott in Vancouver ----- Original Message ----- From: "David A. Leonard" <dleonar1(at)maine.rr.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Super Viking Electrical tremors > > Hey all, > > An ammeter question. > > > On my 72 Superviking.. with an external regulator, and separate overvoltage > relay. > > The Ammeter will remain steady generally in the center or a little on the > charge side when first started. At Idle, if you turn on all the load ,pitot > and two landing lites and nav lites... The needle pulses like the OV relay > is kicking rythmically, like once a second. These pulses are about 1/4" of > travel into the discharge side. As the revs come up, in cruise, with normal > loads the needle will stay mostly centered showing a needle or so charge, > and steady. When I turn on the pitot and landing lites on..a very fast > vibration like a tremor,(nervous needle) less than 1/4 of a needle in phase > travel.. very much different than the symptom of the 1 second big swings at > idle. > > Is this a problem? My low voltage light never comes on, and the interior > lights aren't strobing or doing anything wierd.. I flew along for 10 minutes > or so at Max load..2 x100 watt landing lites, heated pitot, nav , strobe, > interior, and all radios, and all ops were normal. The alternator has about > 250hrs since rebuild, the regulator the same. > > I once had some problems with high resistance at the field wire on the > master switch, causing a bouncy needle, but that one bounced in time with > the engine vibrations.. but I tightened the fast on on the master switch > field lugs and they went away...wiggling the wires back there seems to have > no effect on this problem, on the old problem moving the connections very > much fixed it. > > Thanks, Dave Leonard > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LJoh896239(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 27, 2002
Subject: B&C Starter Contactor Question
The B&C starter contactor has the two smaller studs, one marked "S" and the other "I". Am I correct in thinking the "S" is wired to the starter switch and the "I" to firewall ground? Would the "I" also go to the "starter engaged" light? Am I also safe in assuming that the starting current can be wired to run through the contactor in either direction? Finally, some of the diagrams in the "Connection" refer to "case ground" in reference to the starter contactor. Does this mean grounding of the contactor case, and not grounding to the engine crankcase? My thanks to Bob for all your efforts on behalf of the homebuilders. Lance Johnson RV-8A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 27, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: B&C Starter Contactor Question
> >The B&C starter contactor has the two smaller studs, one marked "S" and the >other "I". Am I correct in thinking the "S" is wired to the starter switch >. . Yes. >and the "I" to firewall ground? No, the "I" terminal is an artifact left over from early days of 12 cars where they ran a 6v coil in series with a resistor to bring "points close" current down to appropriate levels. The "I" terminal was used to bypass the resistor during cranking to provide a hotter spark while the battery was heavily loaded by the starter motor. >Would the "I" also go to the "starter >engaged" light? It could. You need to put a fuse or fusible link right at the starter contactor and run a lead off to the cockpit to illuminate the lamp. > Am I also safe in assuming that the starting current can be >wired to run through the contactor in either direction? Yes > Finally, some of the >diagrams in the "Connection" refer to "case ground" in reference to the >starter contactor. Does this mean grounding of the contactor case, and not >grounding to the engine crankcase? Either would work but the handiest way to cover this requirement is to mount the starter contactor on a metalic firewall. The "S" terminal is one end of the contactor's coil, the other end is attached to the mounting base. If you have a composite firewall or the contactor needs to mount on a non-grounded surface, then a separate wire from contactor mounting flange to the firewall ground bus is in order. Further, if you have our S702-1 contactor, there is a diode built into the contactor assembly to shunt away the inductive spike from the coil. If you have one of B&C's STC'ed contactors you'll need to add a diode from "S" to mounting flange. Use a 3A device from Radio Shack (about $1 for blister pak of 2). Banded end of diode goes to "S", other end goes to flange. > My thanks to Bob for all your efforts on >behalf of the homebuilders. My pleasure sir. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the | | discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 28, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Figure Z-30
>Bob >For one or other reason I have been unable to download Z-30 from the site >quoted. Is there a possibility that I can Order a CD of your book, as the >postage to South Africa is generally More expensive than the cost of the >article itself. >Regards >Londt If you're trying to download Z-30 by itself, note that the list of individual files is for AutoCAD drawing files. If you don't have/use AutoCAD, download the entire suite of drawings at http://216.55.140.222/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf This is a LARGE file . . . right click the link and tell your browser where to store the file on your hard drive. Don't attempt to open it with Acrobat Reader until after the download is completed. The book is not available in CD form. The CD we offer has 130 MB or so of supplemental programs and files along with some updates to the book (including Appendix Z). The CD is $10 and would cost about $5 to send via Global Priority mail. The Book or Book AND CD together would mail to you for $9 via Global Priority Mail. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 28, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Super Viking Electrical tremors
> > >Hey all, > >An ammeter question. > > >On my 72 Superviking.. with an external regulator, and separate overvoltage >relay. > >The Ammeter will remain steady generally in the center or a little on the >charge side when first started. At Idle, if you turn on all the load ,pitot >and two landing lites and nav lites... The needle pulses like the OV relay >is kicking rythmically, like once a second. These pulses are about 1/4" of >travel into the discharge side. As the revs come up, in cruise, with normal >loads the needle will stay mostly centered showing a needle or so charge, >and steady. When I turn on the pitot and landing lites on..a very fast >vibration like a tremor,(nervous needle) less than 1/4 of a needle in phase >travel.. very much different than the symptom of the 1 second big swings at >idle. > >Is this a problem? My low voltage light never comes on, and the interior >lights aren't strobing or doing anything wierd.. I flew along for 10 minutes >or so at Max load..2 x100 watt landing lites, heated pitot, nav , strobe, >interior, and all radios, and all ops were normal. The alternator has about >250hrs since rebuild, the regulator the same. > >I once had some problems with high resistance at the field wire on the >master switch, causing a bouncy needle, but that one bounced in time with >the engine vibrations.. but I tightened the fast on on the master switch >field lugs and they went away...wiggling the wires back there seems to have >no effect on this problem, on the old problem moving the connections very >much fixed it. If wiggling joints on the master switch "fixed it" once, then I suspect that ALL joints in the regulator feedpath between bus and regulator need to be cleaned/upgraded. You might also consider renewing the master switch itself and perhaps the alternator field breaker. Many folk have repeated your experience thinking that the terminals wiggled were the single root cause of the problem when in fact, ALL of the intermediate joints are contributors to regulator instability. You reduced the resistance of one or two joints and brought the TOTAL resistance down to an acceptable level only to find that it crept upward into no-no territory a short time later. A complete re-furb of bus-to-regulator-feedpath components will restore operation to factory new. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the | | discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 28, 2002
From: John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Secondary Alternator
I stopped by the GAMI Booth at OSH this week and saw their "Supplenator", which is a standby alternator system that they are selling alone or as a mandatory item for their PRISM electronic ignition system. As I understand it, it is the same basic alternator as the S-20 that B&C sells. However, they are advertising that they'll get 38 amps out of it. That is almost a 100% increase. When asked why they wish to get such high amperage from the alternator, they replied that you need all of that it if the primary alternator fails. They say that with their special electronics (patent pending) and a cooling shroud the system will work. They also claim that it can be excited without any external voltage being applied. On top of all this, the price will be about $3,800 complete. They plan to certify both the alternator and the PRISM system. Perhaps their plan is to concentrate on the certified after market and they feel a package is the best way to go. Does anyone have any opinion on this alternator system? We are planning on a secondary alternator and PRISM is also a good possibility later on when it is proven, but having to buy their standby alternator for $3,800, and selling our old one for who knows what, certainly could be a deal killer. John Schroeder ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 28, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Secondary Alternator
> > >I stopped by the GAMI Booth at OSH this week and saw their "Supplenator", >which >is a standby alternator system that they are selling alone or as a >mandatory item >for their PRISM electronic ignition system. As I understand it, it is the same >basic alternator as the S-20 that B&C sells. However, they are advertising >that >they'll get 38 amps out of it. That is almost a 100% increase. When asked why >they wish to get such high amperage from the alternator, they replied that you >need all of that it if the primary alternator fails. They say that with their >special electronics (patent pending) and a cooling shroud the system will >work. >They also claim that it can be excited without any external voltage being >applied. On top of all this, the price will be about $3,800 complete. > >They plan to certify both the alternator and the PRISM system. Perhaps >their plan >is to concentrate on the certified after market and they feel a package is the >best way to go. > >Does anyone have any opinion on this alternator system? Can he deliver an STC'ed kit today? How many are flying? >We are planning on a secondary alternator and PRISM is also a good possibility >later on when it is proven, but having to buy their standby alternator for >$3,800, and selling our old one for who knows what, certainly could be a deal >killer. Looked at the website description. The cutaway view of the alternator looks like they've cloned the B&C SD-20 series devices even down to the drive parts and shear section. The B&C unit will produce more than "rated" snort but is cooling limited. If you want to build a cooling system, you can get more out of it. This was rejected on the B&C products for kit installation simplicity. 20A is ENOUGH to run about anything you need to get on the ground comfortably. I note that the GAMI product used built in regulation but the text mentions nothing about how or if ov protection is provided. If they start with the same "core" as the B&C L-40/SD-20 products, then using an internal regulator says that they're having the rotor rewound for 28v field. If so, then installing or otherwise providing for residual magnetism in the core assembly for self- excitation is a distinct possibility. Another issue to be explored is the quality of power delivered in the self-excited mode . . . a battery is the best filter in the system for alternator noise. If one designs to operate sans battery, then system noise becomes a stronger concern. Given the way experimental aircraft use the second alternator, (with very reliable, properly maintained RG batteries) self-excitation is not a show stopping issue. I think Kelly Aerospace is doing a geared-up alternator to run from the vacuum pump pad. A set of planetary gears in the front end-bell could allow a relatively small package to put out more snort as well . . . but I'm still mystified as to why anyone would want to do this. It increases cost, weight, parts count and drives reliability down. If we can design an electrical system to run during the en-route mode without overloading and SD-8 or even an SD-20, then our well maintained battery is sitting there ready to do the big jobs during the arrival phase of flight. This "amps-race" in stand-by alternators is fueled by fears one can easily stir up in the GA pilot populace aided and abetted by FAA notions that almost EVERYTHING needs to be operable in the so-called emergency mode. Amateur builders can be both proud and comfortable in the knowledge that we're figuring out how to be energy- efficient and system-simple at the same time. This means lower cost, easier to install and easier to operate without giving up flight system reliability. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 28, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: New gizmo on the block . . .
An AeroElectric-list reader just sent me a copy of a post on another list server to wit: ------------------------ Begin Quote ------------------------------ > Just thought I'd drop off a report about a new gizmo. > Last April, I bought one of those new Solargizer battery desulfator gizmos. > > Lead-acid batteries (in cars, boats and airplanes) will eventually die > because of sulfation, where the sulfuric acid breaks down and forms a sulfur > deposit on the battery's plates. As the sulfur builds up, the battery's > capacity drops. Eventually, the buildup is so bad, it won't hold a charge. > > The Solargizer rejuvenates your battery, allowing it to charge to its > maximum capacity, rather than slowly diminish in capacity over the months. > It works by pulsing the battery with a certain frequency of current, which > is supposed to "kick" the sulfur deposits off the plates, and it goes back > into solution. > > The Solargizer is a solar-powered. It gets its power to pulse the battery > from a small solar panel roughly the size of a dollar bill. Hook it up to > the plane's battery, and leave it there while its tied down. (If you have a > hangar, then buy one of the 110v powered units.) Over a long period of time > (weeks or months), the Solargizer will eventually restore the battery back > to its like-new condition. > > As of last March, my Concorde RG35-AXC battery turned 4 years old, and was > showing signs of needing replacement. Pressing the starter button, I'd have > to wait a 3-count before the blades even started turning. I mean it was so > weak, I couldn't light a cigarette and start the engine. A night in Alaska > would've been its last. The plane *barely* started to life before the > battery was totally pooped. > > I could buy a new battery for about $125.00, or a Solargizer for about the > same amount. Since I'm a sucker for shiny objects and new airplane gadgets, > and since I didn't *need* to really depend on the plane to go anywhere for > the next couple of months, I decided to get the Solargizer and see if it > would save my battery. > > I plug mine into the battery side of the starter solenoid, and the ground > clamp can go anywhere on the firewall. The solar panel goes out the oil > filler door to sit on top of the cowling. > > April: I hooked it up and let it sit out in the Southern California sun. > May : I did a test startup. ITS ALIVE! My battery is turning the prop, > well ... faster than it was. The Solargizer seems to be working, but it > will take more time to tell. > June : Flew from Southern Calif. to Tucson, Arizona for a few days. My > plane started up just fine. I still wouldn't say the battery was totally > rejuvenated, but it was doing very well. Certainly not on its last amps. > July : Did a test startup again. Seems like the RG35-AXC finally got its > "extra cranking power" back. Looks like this thing really works. I'm a > believer. > > The Solargizer is available from Aircraft Spruce for about $110.00. > If it doubles the life of my battery, it will have paid for itself. > Anything after that is a bonus as far as I'm concerned. > > NOTE: The Solargizer is a only a desulfator, not a recharger. You will > still need a battery recharger for the times you leave the master switch on > overnight. ---------------------------- End Quote ------------------------------- Obviously, someone has been sold on he efficacy of this gizmo to improve the perceived performance of a battery in his airplane. The first question that comes to mind, "what is the capacity of this resurrected battery?" If his alternator crapped today, how long would it run electro-whizzies in his airplane? He tells us the battery is an RG35 by Concord and is about 4 years old. Like many people who both drive cars -and- fly airplanes, they are lulled into a sense of security about battery goodness by the fact that it cranks the engine. I've done a bit of net searching on this gizmo. I'll share some links with the AeroElectric-List readers: Check out the variety of products along with technical explanations as to how the gizmo works at: http://www.pulsetech.com/ Here are some search results on "solarizer" http://www.global-defence.com/landsys/land6.htm http://freddie2.forscom.army.mil/reeng/Awards/Hammer/Hood_Battery.htm Seems the Army is sold on this product - see section 3 of this report: http://aec.army.mil/usaec/p2/fletpool.doc I've ordered one to analyze for its electrical characteristics. I've also sent a copy of the original post to some folks in the battery manufacturing business who should be able to shed some light on the physics of what's going on. Watch this space . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 28, 2002
From: John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: Secondary Alternator
Bob - Your comment about a re-winding for 28 volts fits with the thought that they are looking at the after market, especially that big fleet of Bonanzas. PRISM, GAMIjectors and a big secondary alternator could be a big seller - especially to those who already own the GAMIjectors and those who have a bad feeling that the demise of 100LL will make flying way more of a hassle. They seem to be a fine company and as much as I understand engines, the replay of that big bore 6 engine handling a burn of no lead 91-96 (?) octane fuel was impressive. Thanks for the cogent analysis. John Schroeder Looked at the website description. The cutaway view of the alternator > looks like they've cloned the B&C SD-20 series devices even down to the > drive parts and shear section. The B&C unit will produce more than > "rated" snort but is cooling limited. If you want to build a cooling > system, you can get more out of it. This was rejected on the B&C products > for kit installation simplicity. 20A is ENOUGH to run about anything you > need to get on the ground comfortably. > > I note that the GAMI product used built in regulation but the text > mentions nothing about how or if ov protection is provided. If > they start with the same "core" as the B&C L-40/SD-20 products, > then using an internal regulator says that they're having the > rotor rewound for 28v field. If so, then installing or otherwise > providing for residual magnetism in the core assembly for self- > excitation is a distinct possibility. Another issue to be > explored is the quality of power delivered in the self-excited > mode . . . a battery is the best filter in the system for alternator > noise. If one designs to operate sans battery, then system noise > becomes a stronger concern. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DJA727(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 28, 2002
Subject: Re: Secondary Alternator
In a message dated 7/28/2002 1:38:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes: > Looked at the website description. The cutaway view of the alternator > looks like they've cloned the B&C SD-20 series devices even down to the > drive parts and shear section. The B&C unit will produce more than > "rated" snort but is cooling limited. If you want to build a cooling > system, you can get more out of it. This was rejected on the B&C > products > for kit installation simplicity. 20A is ENOUGH to run about anything you > need to get on the ground comfortably. > > Can the SD20 put out 20 amps on a Rotax 914 engine vacuum pump drive? Dave Anderson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 28, 2002
From: John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: Secondary Alternator
Bob - I forgot to mention that there is an electronics box associated with their alternator. It is about 8"x10"x1.5". Maybe that has the OV protection. It was sitting on top of the engine that had the PRISM installed, but the rep said that the box was for the alternator. They do not have it STC'd yet, but are taking deposits for delivery when the certification comes through. They expect this to be late this year. John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FlyV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 28, 2002
Subject: Re: Secondary Alternator
In a message dated 7/28/02 2:04:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jschroeder(at)perigee.net writes: > GAMIjectors and those who have a bad feeling that the demise of 100LL will > make flying way > more of a hassle. They seem to be a fine company and as much as I > understand engines, the > replay of that big bore 6 engine handling a burn of no lead 91-96 (?) > octane fuel was > impressive. > > I'd like to know more about this comment. Did GAMI run an IO-520 or IO-550 on 91/96 octane fuel on their test stand? If so, what was the outcome? Cliff A&P/IA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <wsweet(at)attbi.com>
Subject: Re: New gizmo on the block . . .
Date: Jul 28, 2002
Is the sulfation process as pronounced in the B&C emulsified electrolyte battery as in the pure liquid form lead-acid batteries?? The reason I ask is that my first B&C battery lasted over 8 years ( and was still going strong) with several periods of 3 to 4 months of absolutely no activity (charging or discharging). That sort of service history would seem to surely have killed any "normal" lead-acid battery. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: New gizmo on the block . . . > > An AeroElectric-list reader just sent me a copy of a post on another > list server to wit: > > ------------------------ Begin Quote ------------------------------ > > Just thought I'd drop off a report about a new gizmo. > > Last April, I bought one of those new Solargizer battery desulfator gizmos. > > > > Lead-acid batteries (in cars, boats and airplanes) will eventually die > > because of sulfation, where the sulfuric acid breaks down and forms a > sulfur > > deposit on the battery's plates. As the sulfur builds up, the battery's > > capacity drops. Eventually, the buildup is so bad, it won't hold a charge. > > > > The Solargizer rejuvenates your battery, allowing it to charge to its > > maximum capacity, rather than slowly diminish in capacity over the months. > > It works by pulsing the battery with a certain frequency of current, which > > is supposed to "kick" the sulfur deposits off the plates, and it goes back > > into solution. > > > > The Solargizer is a solar-powered. It gets its power to pulse the battery > > from a small solar panel roughly the size of a dollar bill. Hook it up to > > the plane's battery, and leave it there while its tied down. (If you have a > > hangar, then buy one of the 110v powered units.) Over a long period of time > > (weeks or months), the Solargizer will eventually restore the battery back > > to its like-new condition. > > > > As of last March, my Concorde RG35-AXC battery turned 4 years old, and was > > showing signs of needing replacement. Pressing the starter button, I'd have > > to wait a 3-count before the blades even started turning. I mean it was so > > weak, I couldn't light a cigarette and start the engine. A night in Alaska > > would've been its last. The plane *barely* started to life before the > > battery was totally pooped. > > > > I could buy a new battery for about $125.00, or a Solargizer for about the > > same amount. Since I'm a sucker for shiny objects and new airplane gadgets, > > and since I didn't *need* to really depend on the plane to go anywhere for > > the next couple of months, I decided to get the Solargizer and see if it > > would save my battery. > > > > I plug mine into the battery side of the starter solenoid, and the ground > > clamp can go anywhere on the firewall. The solar panel goes out the oil > > filler door to sit on top of the cowling. > > > > April: I hooked it up and let it sit out in the Southern California sun. > > May : I did a test startup. ITS ALIVE! My battery is turning the prop, > > well ... faster than it was. The Solargizer seems to be working, but it > > will take more time to tell. > > June : Flew from Southern Calif. to Tucson, Arizona for a few days. My > > plane started up just fine. I still wouldn't say the battery was totally > > rejuvenated, but it was doing very well. Certainly not on its last amps. > > July : Did a test startup again. Seems like the RG35-AXC finally got its > > "extra cranking power" back. Looks like this thing really works. I'm a > > believer. > > > > The Solargizer is available from Aircraft Spruce for about $110.00. > > If it doubles the life of my battery, it will have paid for itself. > > Anything after that is a bonus as far as I'm concerned. > > > > NOTE: The Solargizer is a only a desulfator, not a recharger. You will > > still need a battery recharger for the times you leave the master switch on > > overnight. > ---------------------------- End Quote ------------------------------- > > > Obviously, someone has been sold on he efficacy of this gizmo to > improve the perceived performance of a battery in his airplane. > > The first question that comes to mind, "what is the capacity of > this resurrected battery?" If his alternator crapped today, how > long would it run electro-whizzies in his airplane? He tells us > the battery is an RG35 by Concord and is about 4 years old. Like > many people who both drive cars -and- fly airplanes, they are > lulled into a sense of security about battery goodness by the > fact that it cranks the engine. > > I've done a bit of net searching on this gizmo. I'll share some > links with the AeroElectric-List readers: > > Check out the variety of products along with technical explanations > as to how the gizmo works at: > > http://www.pulsetech.com/ > > Here are some search results on "solarizer" > > http://www.global-defence.com/landsys/land6.htm > http://freddie2.forscom.army.mil/reeng/Awards/Hammer/Hood_Battery.htm > > Seems the Army is sold on this product - see section > 3 of this report: > > http://aec.army.mil/usaec/p2/fletpool.doc > > > I've ordered one to analyze for its electrical characteristics. > I've also sent a copy of the original post to some folks in the > battery manufacturing business who should be able to shed some > light on the physics of what's going on. > > Watch this space . . . > > Bob . . . > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 28, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Secondary Alternator
> > >Bob - > >I forgot to mention that there is an electronics box associated with their >alternator. It is >about 8"x10"x1.5". Maybe that has the OV protection. It was sitting on top >of the engine that >had the PRISM installed, but the rep said that the box was for the alternator. > >They do not have it STC'd yet, but are taking deposits for delivery when >the certification >comes through. They expect this to be late this year. > >John Interesting! It could very well be that they're doing the same thing that B*C does . . . steer an adjustable, 0-15 volt power supply such that the desired output is maintained on a 28v system. Gee, that's a pretty big box. We did it in about 3 x 5 x 2 inches. I'm mystified about the self excited feature tho. The last time I fiddled with an L-40, it didn't have much residual flux retention. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 28, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Secondary Alternator
> >In a message dated 7/28/2002 1:38:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, >bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes: > > > > Looked at the website description. The cutaway view of the alternator > > looks like they've cloned the B&C SD-20 series devices even down to the > > drive parts and shear section. The B&C unit will produce more than > > "rated" snort but is cooling limited. If you want to build a cooling > > system, you can get more out of it. This was rejected on the B&C > > products > > for kit installation simplicity. 20A is ENOUGH to run about anything you > > need to get on the ground comfortably. > > > > > >Can the SD20 put out 20 amps on a Rotax 914 engine vacuum pump drive? > >Dave Anderson If it turns fast enough. I was told by another builder that there is an optional set of gears for the accessory drive pad that might help a lot. Has anyone else had any experience with "optional gearing" on the 912/914? I tried to contact my Rotax guru (Eric Tucker) in Canada but he doesn't respond to my e-mails. I might see him this fall at the Europa/Pulsar fly-in in Lawrence. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 28, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: New gizmo on the block . . .
> >Is the sulfation process as pronounced in the B&C emulsified electrolyte >battery as in the pure liquid form lead-acid batteries?? >The reason I ask is that my first B&C battery lasted over 8 years ( and was >still going strong) with several periods of 3 to 4 months of absolutely no >activity (charging or discharging). That sort of service history would seem >to surely have killed any "normal" lead-acid battery. >Wayne RG batteries are not juiced with anything different than a flooded battery. It's water and acid held in a fiberglas mat that looks something like Kleenex. B&C does sell one or more versions of a true gel-cell. Do you know which part number you were flying? An RG battery has a VERY low self discharge rate. If you didn't fly much but still flew several times a year, it's easy to see how an RG could retain the snort to crank an engine. A battery wears out on number and severity of discharge/ recharge cycles. A lightly used battery might have a VERY long service life. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 28, 2002
From: John Top <jjtop1(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: New gizmo on the block . . .
>Seems the Army is sold on this product - see section >3 of this report: Not exactly a new gizmo Bob see: July 95 Fort Hood Battery Life Prolonged A NEW device that prolongs the life of vehicle batteries has gotten a resounding thumbs up from Fort Hood soldiers who put it through the paces, and has been recommended for Armywide use. The Solargizer works by preventing the buildup of sulphur particles within a battery, extending the life of the battery and potentially saving millions of dollars in replacement costs. After testing on 28 tanks by companies B and D of the 2nd Armored Division's 3rd Battalion, 66th Armd. Regiment, Army Research Laboratories recommended that the Solargizer be acquired for use throughout the Army. The cost of such a comprehensive program is estimated at $87 million. -- 2nd Armd. Div. PAO Also it was reviewed in Aviation Consumer Nov 2000 (I think) -- John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 29, 2002
From: John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: Secondary Alternator
Cliff - I do not remember the model number of the engine, but the rep said that it was a turbocharged, 6 cyl and the engine that is the most prone to detonation of all the big bore engines. He said that if they can run and certify on this engine, all of the rest will easily follow that certification. Give George Braly a call at GAMI after OSH and talk with him. He is their chief engineer and he narrated the video of the engine run/test stand data. His number is: 580 436-4833. Pretty impressive stuff, especially when they showed the response data of a run on 91-96 octane and running the mixture from a full rich mixture to a lean of peak mixture in one swoop of the mixture control. Then they went back to full rich after it had stabilized. John Schroeder FlyV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > They seem to be a fine company and as much as I > > understand engines, the > > replay of that big bore 6 engine handling a burn of no lead 91-96 (?) > > octane fuel was > > impressive. > > > > > I'd like to know more about this comment. Did GAMI run an IO-520 or IO-550 > on 91/96 octane fuel on their test stand? If so, what was the outcome? > > Cliff A&P/IA > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FlyV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 29, 2002
Subject: Re: Secondary Alternator
In a message dated 7/29/02 5:45:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jschroeder(at)perigee.net writes: > I do not remember the model number of the engine, but the rep said that it > was a > turbocharged, 6 cyl and the engine that is the most prone to detonation of > all > the big bore engines. He said that if they can run and certify on this > engine, > all of the rest will easily follow that certification. Give George Braly a > call > at GAMI after OSH and talk with him. He is their chief engineer and he > narrated > the video of the engine run/test stand data. His number is: 580 436-4833. Now that you mention this I seem to remember it was and IO-540 Lycoming of 300 hp or more. > > Pretty impressive stuff, especially when they showed the response data of a > run > on 91-96 octane and running the mixture from a full rich mixture to a lean > of > peak mixture in one swoop of the mixture control. Then they went back to > full > rich after it had stabilized. > > John Schroeder > Pretty nice to know that there may be an alternative to the 100LL fuel for they many people who have engines that weren't certified on 91/96 if they ban it's use someday. Cliff ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 29, 2002
From: Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: B&C Alternators
I went to the B&C Specialty Products catalog site looking for the SD-20 and L-40 alternators. Neither were there. Only the SD-8 and the 200G alternators were described. Am I looking in the right place? Where can I find info about the B&C SD-20 and L-40 alternators. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 29, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: New gizmo on the block . . .
> > >Seems the Army is sold on this product - see section > >3 of this report: > >Not exactly a new gizmo Bob see: > >July 95 > >Fort Hood > >Battery Life Prolonged >Also it was reviewed in Aviation Consumer Nov 2000 (I think) >-- > >John Shows how much can get by you even when you're in the business. There must be something good going on here . . . just need to find out what it is and how it applies to OUR system designs. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: B&C Alternators
Date: Jul 29, 2002
Go to B&C's home page (www.bandcspecialty.com) and click on the "Products" button along the top of the screen. Next, click on the "Alternators" button on the left. Scroll down the page and you should find both the SD-20 and the L-40. David Swartzendruber Wichita > > > I went to the B&C Specialty Products catalog site looking for the SD-20 > and L-40 alternators. Neither were there. Only the SD-8 and the 200G > alternators were described. > > Am I looking in the right place? Where can I find info about the B&C > SD-20 and L-40 alternators. > > Charlie > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net>
Subject: Re: Newbie
Date: Jul 29, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: <mprather(at)spro.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Newbie > > Phil, > > You raised a good point about circuit protection. I think your way > is a good one to help analyze safety once you have a design. I might > state it slightly differently for when creating the design. The circuit > protection should be able to comfortably (with maybe 20% margin) handle > all the current demanded by the devices on the circuit. Then every wire > on the circuit should be sized at least large enough to handle all of > the current that might go through the breaker without tripping it. > > So, if a device draws as much as 8A, you need a 10A breaker,and wire for > the complete circuit that will handle at least 10A, maybe a litte more, > for safety. If you put a 4A capable wire somewhere in the circuit, and > it shorts to ground, you have a fire hazard, even if the device on that > leg of the circuit only draws 1A. It takes 10A to open the fuse or > breaker and putting that much current through a 4A wire will heat it, > and maybe dangerously. Yep you're right Matt that is a better way to think about it. We both get to the same place but you stated it better. > > I haven't read the pertinant section in the 'Connection in a while, so I > can't remember if he stated it more elegantly... :) Phil is right in > bringing out that the breaker protects the wire (and hence the > airplane), and not the device, and I think that is commonly not > understood. That is precisely why its best to mount your circuit > protection as close as practical to the battery. > > Matt- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 29, 2002
From: DJA727(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Secondary Alternator
In a message dated Sun, 28 Jul 2002 9:57:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes: > Anderson > > If it turns fast enough. I was told by another builder > that there is an optional set of gears for the accessory > drive pad that might help a lot. Has anyone else had > any experience with "optional gearing" on the 912/914? > > ##### I have not heard of this. I just installed the gears for the vacuum pump drive and if there are optional faster drive gears, that would be great since it was an easy one hour job. Dave Anderson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 29, 2002
From: Freddie Freeloader <lists(at)stevet.net>
Subject: BMA
Hello David, Saturday, July 27, 2002, 9:43:11 AM, you wrote: DA> We who have paid our money to BMA, some over a year ago, had no idea that we DA> were, as you phrase it, "early adopters". Then, shame on you. Are you one of these people who believe that if you buy the right snazzy sports car that the beautiful girls will line up at your door? Do your homework first; plop your money down later. -- Best regards, Freddie mailto:lists(at)stevet.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 28, 2002
From: David Aronson <aronsond(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: BMA
Freddie: Aren't we snippy?! Hope you feel better now... Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Freddie Freeloader" <lists(at)stevet.net> Subject: Re[2]: AeroElectric-List: BMA > > Hello David, > > Saturday, July 27, 2002, 9:43:11 AM, you wrote: > > > DA> We who have paid our money to BMA, some over a year ago, had no idea that we > DA> were, as you phrase it, "early adopters". > > > Then, shame on you. Are you one of these people who believe that if > you buy the right snazzy sports car that the beautiful girls will line up at > your door? Do your homework first; plop your money down later. > > -- > Best regards, > Freddie mailto:lists(at)stevet.net > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re[2]: BMA
> >Hello David, > >Saturday, July 27, 2002, 9:43:11 AM, you wrote: > > >DA> We who have paid our money to BMA, some over a year ago, had no idea >that we >DA> were, as you phrase it, "early adopters". > > >Then, shame on you. Are you one of these people who believe that if >you buy the right snazzy sports car that the beautiful girls will line up at >your door? Do your homework first; plop your money down later. > >-- >Best regards, > Freddie mailto:lists(at)stevet.net Gee Freddie . . . lighten up a little. If anyone is sorry for having accepted BMA promotional presentations at face value then they've already taken a heavier hit than any of us should be inclined to deliver. I'd like for us concentrate on (1) helping everyone be as informed as possible about both the technical merits and business practices of any wannabe supplier to XGA and (2) help those wannabes in whatever way makes sense so that those who will benefit most from success will realize their desires. Starting and running a successful business is generally MUCH more complicated than most starry entrepreneurs know. Been there and stubbed my own toes more than once. Anyone who buys into the "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" notions of how the world works has been reading too many fairy tales. No reason to believe that Greg's heart isn't in the right place. We KNOW that the pressures of whatever business binds he may be in now are NOT helping him slay technical dragons. Soooo . . . whether we're "early adopters", or whatever, the best modus operandi is to advise caution for those who are as yet undecided and do whatever we can to herald BMA's advancements while being mindful of those who are being or have been bruised. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: BMA
Ahh, yes. The power of hindsight. Paid BMA at SNF, still waiting "two weeks" for delivery, -Larry --- Freddie Freeloader wrote: > > Then, shame on you. Are you one of these people who believe that if > you buy the right snazzy sports car that the beautiful girls will line up at > your door? Do your homework first; plop your money down later. > > -- > Best regards, > Freddie mailto:lists(at)stevet.net http://health.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: BMA
Larry - Look at the bright side: You will now receive that much-enhanced, more professional-looking bezel that now contains the buttons and knobs of the controller panel. You will also get the new, more compact and much improved computer/processor box. In addition, the 2.0 software will be shipped with it. I can't do your cost benefit analysis, but the product is very much improved over what you would have received with an "on-time" delivery. Cheers, John Schroeder Larry Bowen wrote: > > Ahh, yes. The power of hindsight. > > Paid BMA at SNF, still waiting "two weeks" for delivery, > > -Larry > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: BMA
All true if I would have stayed with the EFIS/One, but I change to the Lite a month ago. I was told "two weeks" at that point too. -Larry --- John Schroeder wrote: > > > Larry - > > Look at the bright side: You will now receive that much-enhanced, more > professional-looking bezel that now contains the buttons and knobs of the > controller panel. You will also get the new, more compact and much improved > computer/processor box. In addition, the 2.0 software will be shipped with > it. > > I can't do your cost benefit analysis, but the product is very much improved > over > what you would have received with an "on-time" delivery. > > Cheers, > > John Schroeder > > > Larry Bowen wrote: > > > > > Ahh, yes. The power of hindsight. > > > > Paid BMA at SNF, still waiting "two weeks" for delivery, > > > > -Larry > > > http://health.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: richard(at)riley.net
Subject: Re: BMA
> >All true if I would have stayed with the EFIS/One, but I change to the Lite a >month ago. I was told "two weeks" at that point too. Trying to get product out the door a week before Oshkosh has caused schedules to slip for more than one small aviation company. I wouldn't be surprised if you get it shortly thereafter. (I've had a pair of master brake reservoirs on order from Spruce for 8 years. The airplane I ordered them for doesn't even exist anymore, but I want to see if the order will ever come through) Now that you're using the Lite, what are you doing for engine instruments? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <danobrien(at)cox.net>
Subject: "You'll need a $400 crimper"??
Date: Jul 30, 2002
Returned from Oshkosh where I chatted with some OEMs and avionics shops about the feasibility of building my own panel. One of the MAJOR OEMs, and one VERY reputable avionics shop, both of whom will remain nameless, said "the right crimper for building radio harnesses costs $400." The avionics shop also indicated that a shop had to build the harness if the plane was going to be approved for IFR. It was pretty clear that they were trying to discourage me from undertaking the project myself. Bob, I've got both d-sub crimpers offered on your site. Both cost less than $40. I haven't used the RCT-3 yet, but I have used the open barrel crimper to make what look to me to be very clean connections that pass the 5 lb. pull test. What should I make of what these guys told me? Were they feeding me hogwash (to use a technical term)? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Solargizer follow-up
I have received responses faster than anticipated on the Solargizer question. Here are the facts as I understand them today: (1) there IS a basis in physics for the notion that sulfates in aged batteries can be driven back into solution with application of short duration, high-current pulses. The energy in these pulses is NOT sufficient to change the battery's state of charge. Hence, the Solargizer products come in two flavors . . . sulfate mitigation and battery maintenance . . . different products for different tasks. (2) the US Navy battery testing facilities at Crane, Indiana have evaluated the Solargizer de-sulfating products and observe results that do not jive with the position attributed to US Army activities cited in: http://aec.army.mil/usaec/p2/fletpool.doc It's not that the physics behind the de-sulfating are not understood. The evaluations at Crane failed to confirm the cost/benefits ratio cited in the report. In fact, the folk at Crane admonished Solargizer against citing any office of the US Government as a "satisfied user" in their promotional literature. Analysis: The original post on the Beechcraft list spoke of resurrection for a battery that was 4 years old. I am skeptical that a battery this old was worthy of "resurrection" . . . the author of the post says nothing about having conducted a capacity test on the battery. He states only that a battery that was too weak to crank the engine will now do so. If this is a day-vfr only aircraft, and the pilot carries whatever standby communications/navigation equipment that may be needed in the flight bag, then the owner may be justified in squeezing the last bit of cranking performance out of a battery. I'll suggest there is risk associated with travel to airports off home base since a battery so conditioned is definitely at or very near the end of useful life. He could easily find himself away from home with a suddenly useless battery. As we've discussed on this list many times, cranking is not the only measure of battery performance. Depending on how you use your airplane, battery capacity becomes a critical issue with respect to judging a battery as airworthy. I hope that owner/operators of XGA aircraft will take the time to know both cranking and capacity performance of their batteries irrespective of any tools or techniques designed to enhance battery life. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the | | discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: "You'll need a $400 crimper"??
> >Returned from Oshkosh where I chatted with some OEMs and avionics shops >about the feasibility of building my own panel. One of the MAJOR OEMs, >and one VERY reputable avionics shop, both of whom will remain nameless, >said "the right crimper for building radio harnesses costs $400." The >avionics shop also indicated that a shop had to build the harness if the >plane was going to be approved for IFR. It was pretty clear that they >were trying to discourage me from undertaking the project myself. > >Bob, I've got both d-sub crimpers offered on your site. Both cost less >than $40. I haven't used the RCT-3 yet, but I have used the open barrel >crimper to make what look to me to be very clean connections that pass the >5 lb. pull test. > >What should I make of what these guys told me? Were they feeding me >hogwash (to use a technical term)? I'd class this more in the category of elephant hocky, or perhaps even duck squeeze . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: "You'll need a $400 crimper"??
Date: Jul 30, 2002
HOGWASH!!!!! and lots of it. The nav/com and panel GPS will need to be wired by a shop for most manufacturer's to honor their warranty. I got my Garmin 430, CDI, MicroAir 760, xponder and PMA4000 intercom/audio panel wired for $400 by an avionics shop. Then I wired everything else. The shop will do the static system/transponder certifications required for IFR. I will do the nav and GPS certifications using appropriate test verification procedures. ----- Original Message ----- From: <danobrien(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: "You'll need a $400 crimper"?? > > Returned from Oshkosh where I chatted with some OEMs and avionics shops about the feasibility of building my own panel. One of the MAJOR OEMs, and one VERY reputable avionics shop, both of whom will remain nameless, said "the right crimper for building radio harnesses costs $400." The avionics shop also indicated that a shop had to build the harness if the plane was going to be approved for IFR. It was pretty clear that they were trying to discourage me from undertaking the project myself. > > Bob, I've got both d-sub crimpers offered on your site. Both cost less than $40. I haven't used the RCT-3 yet, but I have used the open barrel crimper to make what look to me to be very clean connections that pass the 5 lb. pull test. > > What should I make of what these guys told me? Were they feeding me hogwash (to use a technical term)? > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Solargizer follow-up
Date: Jul 30, 2002
We have a prototype battery conditioner that we've built up here that uses the short duration pulses to desulfate the battery. The goal of the conditioner is to bring a Concorde SLA battery that is below 80% capacity back above 80% capacity so that it can be deemed airworthy. Our capacity tester has shown that the capacity of the battery can indeed be increased using this process. David Swartzendruber Wichita >. . . the author of the post > says nothing about having conducted a capacity > test on the battery. He states only that a battery > that was too weak to crank the engine will now > do so. > > As we've discussed on this list many times, cranking > is not the only measure of battery performance. > Depending on how you use your airplane, battery > capacity becomes a critical issue with respect > to judging a battery as airworthy. > > I hope that owner/operators of XGA aircraft will > take the time to know both cranking and capacity > performance of their batteries irrespective of > any tools or techniques designed to enhance > battery life. > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: Don Stewart <siinc(at)gwi.net>
Subject: Re: Solargizer follow-up
FWIW, Some time back I meandered back into the bowels of a battery rebuild shop (actually took a wrong turn looking for a bathroom). This battery house was one of those low budget, high volume kinda places. I stumbled into a room that had a floor full of batteries connected in some series/parallel arrangement driven by what looked like a standard upright commercial gas-station battery charger. But I was struck by the fact that the meter on the charger was cycling on and off at about 2 hertz or so. Hmmmm.. Don AZ "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > > > I have received responses faster than anticipated on the Solargizer > question. Here are the facts as I understand them today: > > (1) there IS a basis in physics for the notion that sulfates > in aged batteries can be driven back into solution with > application of short duration, high-current pulses. The > energy in these pulses is NOT sufficient to change the > battery's state of charge. Hence, the Solargizer products > come in two flavors . . . sulfate mitigation and battery > maintenance . . . different products for different > tasks. > > (2) the US Navy battery testing facilities at Crane, Indiana > have evaluated the Solargizer de-sulfating products and > observe results that do not jive with the position > attributed to US Army activities cited in: > > http://aec.army.mil/usaec/p2/fletpool.doc > > It's not that the physics behind the de-sulfating > are not understood. The evaluations at Crane > failed to confirm the cost/benefits ratio > cited in the report. In fact, the folk at Crane > admonished Solargizer against citing any office > of the US Government as a "satisfied user" in their > promotional literature. > > Analysis: > > The original post on the Beechcraft list spoke of > resurrection for a battery that was 4 years old. > I am skeptical that a battery this old was worthy > of "resurrection" . . . the author of the post > says nothing about having conducted a capacity > test on the battery. He states only that a battery > that was too weak to crank the engine will now > do so. > > If this is a day-vfr only aircraft, and the pilot > carries whatever standby communications/navigation > equipment that may be needed in the flight bag, > then the owner may be justified in squeezing the > last bit of cranking performance out of a battery. > > I'll suggest there is risk associated with travel > to airports off home base since a battery so > conditioned is definitely at or very near the > end of useful life. He could easily find himself > away from home with a suddenly useless battery. > > As we've discussed on this list many times, cranking > is not the only measure of battery performance. > Depending on how you use your airplane, battery > capacity becomes a critical issue with respect > to judging a battery as airworthy. > > I hope that owner/operators of XGA aircraft will > take the time to know both cranking and capacity > performance of their batteries irrespective of > any tools or techniques designed to enhance > battery life. > > Bob . . . > > |-------------------------------------------------------| > | Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the | > | discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy | > |-------------------------------------------------------| > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Becker and Microair status
While at Airventure, I met with both the EDMO/Microair rep and the Becker rep. It seems that the "talk" changes everytime I interract with them. From Becker: The unit was ready when I called several months ago. After, they had only the 175 watts, then, only the 250 watts and now, they are about to be ready to ship. From Microair: The unit was to be ready prior to Airventure 2001, then in the next few weeks and you know the rest... this year, the Microair representative assured me that they are producing, but still not at a rate sufficient to meet the demand. He says he is shipping 100 units a month to the US market. This was encouraging, so I asked to many of the resellers (JA Air, Gulf Coast, Pacific Coast, ACS and others) about the unit. So far, none received a single unit and they do not even want to speculate on delivery. I wonder who's the lucky guy that got all those hundred units that Microair claim to be delivering. Bob, you mentioned you received two units a while ago... did you receive any additional ones since then? Michel ===== ---------------------------- Michel Therrien CH601-HD http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601 http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby http://health.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: "You'll need a $400 crimper"??
Date: Jul 30, 2002
FYI, I wired up my entire panel, including ALL the harnesses without buying a $400+ crimper. I used a mix of Bob's crimpers and radio shack stuff. I wired a Nav/Comm, VOR, DME, Transponder, Intercom, GPS, Digital Engine Monitor, Lighting, Digital Clock, Hobbs Meter, Defrosters, etc.. without spending much money. Probably would have been easier with a specific crimper for all pins, but It works just fine. Best of Luck, Stein Bruch, RV6 Minneapolis, Prepping for paint. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of danobrien(at)cox.net Subject: AeroElectric-List: "You'll need a $400 crimper"?? Returned from Oshkosh where I chatted with some OEMs and avionics shops about the feasibility of building my own panel. One of the MAJOR OEMs, and one VERY reputable avionics shop, both of whom will remain nameless, said "the right crimper for building radio harnesses costs $400." The avionics shop also indicated that a shop had to build the harness if the plane was going to be approved for IFR. It was pretty clear that they were trying to discourage me from undertaking the project myself. Bob, I've got both d-sub crimpers offered on your site. Both cost less than $40. I haven't used the RCT-3 yet, but I have used the open barrel crimper to make what look to me to be very clean connections that pass the 5 lb. pull test. What should I make of what these guys told me? Were they feeding me hogwash (to use a technical term)? http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: BMA
True, but OSH was not a surprise event. If you're busy or plan to be, pad your leadtimes by a week. What a wonderful surprise it would be to find the EFIS on the doorstep a week before it was expected! And if the leadtime slips, send me an email or put a generic message on the website: "EFIS Lite orders #1075-2010 delayed one week due to component supply issues". Whatever. I would be soooo much more tolerant of these delays if BMA showed the smallest interest in customer service (esp. those of use who have already paid). ...Dismal customer service so far, even by aviation industry standards. AHHG! Now you go me goin' again! I ordered the Grand Rapids EIS engine monitor while at OSH. Not as pretty to look at, but a great value and many satisfied, flying customers. There are pictures of my panel interations in the Builder's Log on my web site. Cheers, Larry http://BowenAero.com --- richard(at)riley.net wrote: > > > > >All true if I would have stayed with the EFIS/One, but I change to the Lite > a > >month ago. I was told "two weeks" at that point too. > > Trying to get product out the door a week before Oshkosh has caused > schedules to slip for more than one small aviation company. I wouldn't be > surprised if you get it shortly thereafter. > > (I've had a pair of master brake reservoirs on order from Spruce for 8 > years. The airplane I ordered them for doesn't even exist anymore, but I > want to see if the order will ever come through) > > Now that you're using the Lite, what are you doing for engine instruments? > http://health.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: jerry(at)tr2.com
Subject: Re: "You'll need a $400 crimper"??
Date: Jul 30, 2002
danobrien(at)cox.net wrote: > > > What should I make of what these guys told me? Were they feeding me > hogwash (to use a technical term)? > > **** Just a little bit - such a little bit - of the ole corn patootie! An "Ideal" crimper will do a beautiful job on most splices for about $50. Or if you want something higher zoot with a nicer ratchet, get a Sargent for $80. And Bob's tool for the mil-spec barrel D-sub's works fine for around $40. - Jerry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Becker and Microair status
Do like I did and order one from Australia. Go in 10 days. They give home orders priority. Roger Swanson CH II N571RS http://mywebpages.comcast.net/iflych2 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Therrien" <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Becker and Microair status > > While at Airventure, I met with both the EDMO/Microair > rep and the Becker rep. It seems that the "talk" > changes everytime I interract with them. > > From Becker: The unit was ready when I called several > months ago. After, they had only the 175 watts, then, > only the 250 watts and now, they are about to be ready > to ship. > > From Microair: The unit was to be ready prior to > Airventure 2001, then in the next few weeks and you > know the rest... this year, the Microair > representative assured me that they are producing, but > still not at a rate sufficient to meet the demand. He > says he is shipping 100 units a month to the US > market. This was encouraging, so I asked to many of > the resellers (JA Air, Gulf Coast, Pacific Coast, ACS > and others) about the unit. So far, none received a > single unit and they do not even want to speculate on > delivery. I wonder who's the lucky guy that got all > those hundred units that Microair claim to be > delivering. > > Bob, you mentioned you received two units a while > ago... did you receive any additional ones since > then? > > Michel > > > ===== > ---------------------------- > Michel Therrien CH601-HD > http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby > http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601 > http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby > > http://health.yahoo.com > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <wsweet(at)attbi.com>
Subject: Re: "You'll need a $400 crimper"??
Date: Jul 30, 2002
I also wired my panel with standard needle nose pliers and the usual cheapo crimpers/strippers. Also, I installed all my IFR stuff, including the UPS GX50 IFR approach approved GPS, marker beacons and ILS receiver. EAA has a article about what is needed to get a IFR GPS approved for approaches; basically nothing more than a careful homebuilder would perform. Have no fear, you will be punching through the goo legally and hopefully with confidence (which rests more on your IFR currency). Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: <danobrien(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: "You'll need a $400 crimper"?? > > Returned from Oshkosh where I chatted with some OEMs and avionics shops about the feasibility of building my own panel. One of the MAJOR OEMs, and one VERY reputable avionics shop, both of whom will remain nameless, said "the right crimper for building radio harnesses costs $400." The avionics shop also indicated that a shop had to build the harness if the plane was going to be approved for IFR. It was pretty clear that they were trying to discourage me from undertaking the project myself. > > Bob, I've got both d-sub crimpers offered on your site. Both cost less than $40. I haven't used the RCT-3 yet, but I have used the open barrel crimper to make what look to me to be very clean connections that pass the 5 lb. pull test. > > What should I make of what these guys told me? Were they feeding me hogwash (to use a technical term)? > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Stevenson" <jonste(at)attbi.com>
Subject: Alternator open B+ Circut
Date: Jul 30, 2002
Bob Is it possible to harm a alternator by operating it with the output (bat) circuit open & field circuit energized? If so how & what internal parts? Thanks John Stevenson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
Subject: WAS "You'll need a $400 crimper"?? NOW: IFR Certifications/
test verification
From: ulf3(at)juno.com
Snip < The shop will do the static system/transponder certifications required for IFR. AND Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Solargizer follow-up
> > >We have a prototype battery conditioner that we've built up here that >uses the short duration pulses to desulfate the battery. The goal of >the conditioner is to bring a Concorde SLA battery that is below 80% >capacity back above 80% capacity so that it can be deemed airworthy. >Our capacity tester has shown that the capacity of the battery can >indeed be increased using this process. Interesting! This suggests that some battery capacity is lost due to sulfating in addition to other reasons like corrosion or non-reversible effects. Have you seen any data on bow big a step in capacity is achieved on a "79%" battery? Also, are you aware of how long that candidate batteries have been in service? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Becker and Microair status
> >While at Airventure, I met with both the EDMO/Microair >rep and the Becker rep. It seems that the "talk" >changes everytime I interract with them. > > From Becker: The unit was ready when I called several >months ago. After, they had only the 175 watts, then, >only the 250 watts and now, they are about to be ready >to ship. > > From Microair: The unit was to be ready prior to >Airventure 2001, then in the next few weeks and you >know the rest... this year, the Microair >representative assured me that they are producing, but >still not at a rate sufficient to meet the demand. He >says he is shipping 100 units a month to the US >market. This was encouraging, so I asked to many of >the resellers (JA Air, Gulf Coast, Pacific Coast, ACS >and others) about the unit. So far, none received a >single unit and they do not even want to speculate on >delivery. I wonder who's the lucky guy that got all >those hundred units that Microair claim to be >delivering. > >Bob, you mentioned you received two units a while >ago... did you receive any additional ones since >then? Yes. I've shipped the first one yesterday. Two more will go out tomorrow. They're telling me I might see one every month until my backorder quantity (6 transceivers) is fulfilled. I believe quite a number have been delivered world-wide. They got approvals in other countries long before our regulators could get off the dime. Demand for these products is high. 760VHF transceivers are in short supply right now too and I don't think it's because of any problems at Microair other than high demand on limited production resources. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the | | discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: NOW: IFR Certifications/ test verification
> > >Snip > >< The shop will do the static system/transponder certifications required >for IFR. > >AND > >verification procedures. > > > Does anyone have the FAA Regulation references for both of these >procedures handy?? First of all, they don't exist for ANY aircraft and even if they did exist for certified ships, the regs wouldn't apply to an OBAM airplane. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator open B+ Circut
> >Bob > Is it possible to harm a alternator by operating it with the output >(bat) circuit open & field circuit energized? If so how & what internal >parts? >Thanks >John Stevenson There is some risk . . . especially for older alternators. When you open the B lead, the regulator can't see the alternator output and it applies full field to the alternator. In this condition, the b-lead can rise to well over 100 volts at high rpms. This puts the diodes at risk for overvoltage failure. I've not seen this happen for a very long time. Modern alternators have very robust diodes in them. Do you have an alternator that has suffered this indignity? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Solargizer follow-up
Date: Jul 30, 2002
I'm not sure how long they have been in service, but I believe some have been brought all the way back to 100%. I'll see if I can find someone with some numbers. David Swartzendruber Wichita > > Interesting! > > This suggests that some battery capacity is lost > due to sulfating in addition to other reasons like > corrosion or non-reversible effects. Have you > seen any data on bow big a step in capacity > is achieved on a "79%" battery? Also, are > you aware of how long that candidate batteries > have been in service? > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Solargizer follow-up
> >FWIW, Some time back I meandered back into the bowels of a battery >rebuild shop (actually took a wrong turn looking for a bathroom). This >battery house was one of those low budget, high volume kinda places. I >stumbled into a room that had a floor full of batteries connected in >some series/parallel arrangement driven by what looked like a standard >upright commercial gas-station battery charger. But I was struck by the >fact that the meter on the charger was cycling on and off at about 2 >hertz or so. Hmmmm.. There is a version of this product that says it uses the battery's own energy to do the dirty job of shoveling sulfates. I've ordered one to analyze. See http://www.sklent.com/pulsprod.htm Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: Freddie Freeloader <lists(at)stevet.net>
Subject: Re[2]: BMA
Hello Robert, Monday, July 29, 2002, 10:27:05 PM, you wrote: RLNI> Gee Freddie . . . lighten up a little. Point well taken. Bob, you are absolutely correct. Sorry for being a bit of an ass. -- Best regards, Freddie mailto:lists(at)stevet.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 30, 2002
From: richard(at)riley.net
Subject: Re: Becker and Microair status
I got my Microair quite a while ago, I put down a deposit as soon as they announced. I haven't installed it yet, but just found out I need to send it back to them for a software fix. A friend of mine also got one, has been installed and flying now since last September. They're certainly running FAR behind, but they are producing. > >While at Airventure, I met with both the EDMO/Microair >rep and the Becker rep. It seems that the "talk" >changes everytime I interract with them. > > From Becker: The unit was ready when I called several >months ago. After, they had only the 175 watts, then, >only the 250 watts and now, they are about to be ready >to ship. > > From Microair: The unit was to be ready prior to >Airventure 2001, then in the next few weeks and you >know the rest... this year, the Microair >representative assured me that they are producing, but >still not at a rate sufficient to meet the demand. He >says he is shipping 100 units a month to the US >market. This was encouraging, so I asked to many of >the resellers (JA Air, Gulf Coast, Pacific Coast, ACS >and others) about the unit. So far, none received a >single unit and they do not even want to speculate on >delivery. I wonder who's the lucky guy that got all >those hundred units that Microair claim to be >delivering. > >Bob, you mentioned you received two units a while >ago... did you receive any additional ones since >then? > >Michel > > >===== >---------------------------- >Michel Therrien CH601-HD > http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby > http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601 > http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby > >http://health.yahoo.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Ford" <dford(at)michweb.net>
Subject: SD-8 in dual battery configuration
Date: Jul 31, 2002
... If you're going to have two alternators and two batteries, then an architecture more like Z-14 is in order... ,... and you get the ability to put either or both batteries on line to bring up either alternator ...By the way, has your FADEC been tested for ability to stay on line during brownout expected during normal cranking? So systems go brain-dead during cranking and need independent battery support during start up. Bob, I'm just wondering why the crossfeed connection on fig. Z-14 connects to the non-battery side of the battery contactor for the auxillary battery? Is it possible that the small aux battery's voltage may drop down to a point below the level to pull the S704-1 contactor closed and that way could never get the battery recharged by closing crossfeed relay? Ideally, I know the battery should never reach that level but.. The Teledyne/Cont. FADEC requires two independent and redundant power supplies to feed separate FADEC busses, one can control an essential buss but cannot be used for starting the engine. The FADEC system will operate without a glitch even if it loses one of the two power supplies. Dave Ford ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 31, 2002
From: "Paul A. Franz, P.E." <paul(at)eucleides.com>
Subject: Re: NOW: IFR Certifications/ test
verification At 07:42 PM 7/30/2002Robert L. Nuckolls, III sez: > First of all, they don't exist for ANY aircraft and even > if they did exist for certified ships, the regs wouldn't > apply to an OBAM airplane. > > Bob . . I liked the "XGA" term, but now you've gone and used one I can't figure out 'OBAM'. Open Book on Aircraft Maintenance? Old Bastion of Aviation Mythology? Huh? 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/> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: OBAM Aircraft
Date: Jul 31, 2002
I would guess that OBAM is for Owner Built And Maintained. David Swartzendruber Wichita Do no archive > > I liked the "XGA" term, but now you've gone and used one I can't figure > out > 'OBAM'. Open Book on Aircraft Maintenance? Old Bastion of Aviation > Mythology? > > Huh? > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 31, 2002
From: John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: SD-8 in dual battery configuration
Bob & Dave - After talking with the TCM FADEC people at OSH, the front-running plan for emergency power for the FADEC will be a small battery supplying power directly to the FADEC units. It will not be charged at all and changed out on a schedule - much like the ELT batteries are now. I cannot remember the figure that he used for the duration of the battery, but it was more than one hour. I am guessing that this will supply the power to FADEC during cranking, but do not have a clue as to how it will be wired. We are also interested in Z-14 and the FADEC to go on the IO-550 for our Lancair ES. Any insights you get would be most helpful. John Schroeder & Ron Szot > ...By the way, has your FADEC been tested for ability to stay > on line during brownout expected during normal cranking? > So systems go brain-dead during cranking and need independent > battery support during start up. > > Bob, > > I'm just wondering why the crossfeed connection on fig. Z-14 > connects to the non-battery side of the battery contactor for the > auxillary battery? Is it possible that the small aux battery's voltage > may drop down to a point below the level to pull the S704-1 contactor > closed and that way could never get the battery recharged by closing > crossfeed relay? Ideally, I know the battery should never reach that > level but.. > > The Teledyne/Cont. FADEC requires two independent and redundant > power supplies to feed separate FADEC busses, one can control an > essential buss but cannot be used for starting the engine. The FADEC > system will operate without a glitch even if it loses one of the two > power supplies. > > Dave Ford ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Cameron" <toucan(at)78055.com>
Subject: IFR approval for GPS installations in exptls
Date: Jul 31, 2002
FYI: I am presently going through the field approval process for my UPS/Apollo GX60/MX20 (installed in Lancair ES N143ES). I've been working with a very nice guy out of the San Antonio FSDO, but between weather delays and his schedule, we have set up and then scrubbed 4 or 5 dates to to a flight test checkout. He finally agreed to handle the paperwork by mail, and with some luck I'll have the approval in hand by next week, about two months after I started working on it. The documentation requirements are fairly involved, and also vague, because most of the reg's apply to spam cans whose installations get covered by FAA-approved shops on 337's. I think the biggest problem in moving this whole process along is that the inspector has only ever done one or two of these for exptl craft, and, being the totally correct fed employee, he is making sure that his backside is covered with lots of paper. A Flight Manual Supplement is required. UPS/Apollo supply a generic one on disk, also on their web site, that must be modified to conform to the individual installation. Even that's a little vague, because exptls don't have approved Flight Manuals. We compromised and called it a supplement to the POH. Then there's a checklist of ground and flight tests to be performed, which includes checking COMM interference on various frequencies and a list of other checks. Some other documents are also required, as well as A/C logbook entries that mumble something about having installed it according to AC20-138 (available through the AOPA website). You'd think that if you install a TSO'd box according to the mfr's specs, it'd be good to go, right? Umm .... where the feds are involved, nothing's ever simple. Also, I have a feeling that each inspector at each FSDO will approach it a little differently. Re-inventing the wheel. Jim Cameron Medina, Texas ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <wsweet(at)attbi.com>
Subject: Re: SD-8 in dual battery configuration
Date: Jul 31, 2002
Klaus Savier of Lightspeed Engineering has a circuit diagram for his dual CDI installation that uses a small motorcycle battery for emergency power in the event of aircraft electrical failure. The backup battery is charged but not used unless a switch is flipped. See: http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/ Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: SD-8 in dual battery configuration > > Bob & Dave - > > After talking with the TCM FADEC people at OSH, the front-running plan for > emergency power for the FADEC will be a small battery supplying power directly to > the FADEC units. It will not be charged at all and changed out on a schedule - > much like the ELT batteries are now. I cannot remember the figure that he used > for the duration of the battery, but it was more than one hour. I am guessing > that this will supply the power to FADEC during cranking, but do not have a clue > as to how it will be wired. > > We are also interested in Z-14 and the FADEC to go on the IO-550 for our Lancair > ES. Any insights you get would be most helpful. > > John Schroeder & Ron Szot > > > > ...By the way, has your FADEC been tested for ability to stay > > on line during brownout expected during normal cranking? > > So systems go brain-dead during cranking and need independent > > battery support during start up. > > > > Bob, > > > > I'm just wondering why the crossfeed connection on fig. Z-14 > > connects to the non-battery side of the battery contactor for the > > auxillary battery? Is it possible that the small aux battery's voltage > > may drop down to a point below the level to pull the S704-1 contactor > > closed and that way could never get the battery recharged by closing > > crossfeed relay? Ideally, I know the battery should never reach that > > level but.. > > > > The Teledyne/Cont. FADEC requires two independent and redundant > > power supplies to feed separate FADEC busses, one can control an > > essential buss but cannot be used for starting the engine. The FADEC > > system will operate without a glitch even if it loses one of the two > > power supplies. > > > > Dave Ford > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 31, 2002
From: Paul Wilson <pwilson(at)climber.org>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 07/28/02
Dave wrote: Can the SD20 put out 20 amps on a Rotax 914 engine vacuum pump drive? Dave Anderson Bob asked s similar question but coud not contact Rotax. =========== Answer: Here is the straight poop - The drive on all the 9xx Rotax's is driven by a 29 tooth gear on the prop shaft which in turn drives a 22 tooth gear for the accessory drive. This 22 tooth gear drives a spline couplng which is intended to drive various things like vacuum, hydraulic pumps. It is alleged that this coupling is an industry standard for common stuff used on certificated engines. One can add the stuff that goes internally to the gearbox and have it installed for about $400 or one could order the engine with the stuff supposedly for less money as an option. The bottom line is that the rpms of an alternator on this setup will turn about 3190 for the 912 and 2984 for the 912S/914 assuming a cruise engine setting of 5500. The B&C SD-20 A new ND unit (for about $700) would produce ~15-12 amps respectively. I gave up on this option before I figured out if the mechanical interface with the Rotax and the B&C are compatible. Comment: Not a very good value for the money considering that a belt drive setup could really spin the ND unit and result in as much as 45 amps. Another method: The B&C L-40 with a belt/pulley would be around $400 (same specs as the SD-20). B&C does not have the mount for the Rotax so a more cost is involved. The Rotax belt setup for about $1400 has a trick pulley that is two piece and is clamped to the prop flange. So a do it your self person would have to design/fabricate these two items. Dont know the Rotax electrical specs. Lockwood sells a third party belt drive setup for $795 (an increase since the catalog was printed) complete with the special adapters mentioned above. Lockwood did not know the mechanical or electrical specs of this unit so more research is required. The catalog picture looks like a ND unit. Good luck trying to fit the belt drive unit under the cowl. :-) One final note: All the above options require a high quality regulator such as the B&C LR3C-14 for around $228. Maybe Bob can direct the readers to a schematic for a 2 alternator one regulator setup, if such a thing is possible. Thanks to Tim at B&C, Rotax tech reps, and Lockwood tech rep who helped me figure out all this stuff at Osh. ---------- Then Bob wrote: I think Kelly Aerospace is doing a geared-up alternator to run from the vacuum pump pad. A set of planetary gears in the front end-bell could allow a relatively small package to put out more snort as well . . . but I'm still mystified as to why anyone would want to do this. It increases cost, weight, parts count and drives reliability down. If we can design an electrical system to run during the en-route mode without overloading and SD-8 or even an SD-20, then our well maintained battery is sitting there ready to do the big jobs during the arrival phase of flight. This "amps-race" in stand-by alternators is fueled by fears one can easily stir up in the GA pilot populace aided and abetted by FAA notions that almost EVERYTHING needs to be operable in the so-called emergency mode. Amateur builders can be both proud and comfortable in the knowledge that we're figuring out how to be energy- efficient and system-simple at the same time. This means lower cost, easier to install and easier to operate without giving up flight system reliability. Bob . . . ----- Makes me curious what the Kelly unit will sell for??? -------- But I dont want a backup, I just want more than the amps provided by Rotax. Regards, Paul -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 31, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Ground planes on graphic airplanes
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> Subject: Re: Antenna Ground plane First off I have to say your book is Great.... I have read and re-read sections as I work on my homebuilt project. Thank you! I have a question that seems to be confusing to not only me.... My home built aircraft has a carbon fiber skin.... I have comant antennas (purchased because I did not want to make them time wise) I have: CI 122 VHF Communications (belly mount 45 degree bent), CI 102 Marker beacon antenna (belly boat type) and a CI 305 transponder antenna (small fin). What my question is which is really not discussed in your book is: will the carbon fiber skin work for the antenna ground plates ??? Many folks are getting satisfactory performance using carbon fiber as ground plane . . . it's a bit of a crap shoot because you still need to get a reasonably good electrical connection between the base of the antenna (which ultimately connects to the coax shield) and the airframe. You might try simply installing the antennas as if the fuselage were made of aluminum and see how the antennas perform. If the SWR is high (over 3:1 anywhere in the comm range) or if your range is unsatisfactory, then adding a ground plane is probably useful. If not How would you install a ground plate... a metal piece is really not an option due to the fuse having a curve after mount of antenna foot print. How about a paint with copper in it ??? if yes, paint on the outside or inside ??? See http://www.lessemf.com/paint.html or EMI-RFI SHIELD 10-4807 at http://www.aedwis.com/gcchemicals.html Spray the inside surface of the fuselage with this stuff for a radius of 20" around base of antenna. Use copper or brass washers under nuts for antenna mounting bolts to insure good connection to this now conductive surface. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the | | discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 31, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re[2]: BMA
> >Hello Robert, > >Monday, July 29, 2002, 10:27:05 PM, you wrote: > >RLNI> Gee Freddie . . . lighten up a little. > >Point well taken. Bob, you are absolutely correct. Sorry for being a bit >of an >ass. No problem my friend . . . we've ALL been there! Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the | | discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 31, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: SD-8 in dual battery configuration
> > >Bob & Dave - > >After talking with the TCM FADEC people at OSH, the front-running plan for >emergency power for the FADEC will be a small battery supplying power >directly to >the FADEC units. It will not be charged at all and changed out on a schedule - >much like the ELT batteries are now. I cannot remember the figure that he used >for the duration of the battery, but it was more than one hour. I am guessing >that this will supply the power to FADEC during cranking, but do not have >a clue >as to how it will be wired. > >We are also interested in Z-14 and the FADEC to go on the IO-550 for our >Lancair >ES. Any insights you get would be most helpful. > >John Schroeder & Ron Szot I'm working with Lancair on a FADEC installation using Z-14 with dual 17 a.h. batteries (both used for cranking) and a mini-bat to support FADEC during cranking. This battery will be charged via automatic switching that is initialized by sensing that an alternator is on line (bus voltage jumps up). The third battery will require no panel controls and it gets tested at every engine start-up. Yearly changeout will be recommended. This system will be added to the Z-drawings at Revision 11. We're about out of books so Rev 11 has to get started muy pronto! Are you going to use the SD-8 or SD-20? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 31, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: OBAM Aircraft
> >I would guess that OBAM is for Owner Built And Maintained. > >David Swartzendruber Dave cheated . . . I think he and I had a discussion 4-5 years ago about how to differentiate REAL airplanes from the cookie cutter production machines. XGA is okay . . . I'd like to see us get past the word "experimental" . . . the machines you guys are building are head and shoulders above any experimental efforts. Further, the public does not share our perception of the word "experimental" - in politics, perception is reality. We need to dump the word if we're going to hold the FAA at arms length. Further, if our FAA can ever see the way clear to follow the Canadians in the concept of de-certification of out-of-production spam cans, then we need a term that will embrace those airplanes too. OBAM is purty close, any suggestions? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 31, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: SD-8 in dual battery configuration
> > > ... If you're going to have two alternators and two batteries, then > an architecture more like Z-14 is in order... > >,... and you get the ability to put either or both batteries > on line to bring up either alternator > >...By the way, has your FADEC been tested for ability to stay > on line during brownout expected during normal cranking? > So systems go brain-dead during cranking and need independent > battery support during start up. > > >Bob, > > I'm just wondering why the crossfeed connection on fig. Z-14 >connects to the non-battery side of the battery contactor for the >auxillary battery? Is it possible that the small aux battery's voltage >may drop down to a point below the level to pull the S704-1 contactor >closed and that way could never get the battery recharged by closing >crossfeed relay? Ideally, I know the battery should never reach that >level but.. The batteries should both be the same size. You can arrange battery contactors with the two-diode feed like the cross-feed contactor such that it can be closed from either self-contained battery power -or- power from the associated bus via the cross-feed. > The Teledyne/Cont. FADEC requires two independent and redundant >power supplies to feed separate FADEC busses, one can control an >essential buss but cannot be used for starting the engine. The FADEC >system will operate without a glitch even if it loses one of the two >power supplies. See my other post on FADEC support. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the | | discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 31, 2002
From: Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org>
Subject: Re: NOW: IFR Certifications/ test
verification > . > >I liked the "XGA" term, but now you've gone and used one I can't figure out >'OBAM'. Open Book on Aircraft Maintenance? Old Bastion of Aviation Mythology? > >Huh? Owner Built And Maintained. You need to get a copy of the FLA manual. (Four Letter Acronym.) ; ) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 31, 2002
From: Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net>
RV List
Subject: VOR/GPS Annunciator/Switch
I plan to have both VOR and an IFR capable GPS in my panel. I would like to be able to display the track info from both on a OBS instrument (probably the Narco 122D/GPS.) I need some sort of switch to select VOR or GPS and an annunciator to show which is selected. I also would like to use the same switch and display so my NAVAID autopilot can track either a VOR or GPS course. What have others used? I am open to all suggestions. Charlie Brame RV-6A N11CB (Res.) San Antonio ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Brian & Debi Shannon" <wings(at)theshannons.net>
Subject: EFIS One Photos
Date: Jul 31, 2002
Hi Everyone, I just added some photos and info links about the EFIS/One on my web page. I'm very interested in it but have not yet purchased anything. I have however been talking to Greg for the last year or so and have had nothing but good experiences with BMA. There are photos of the bezel, the PC board, the rate sensors and the AP servo. I also added some links to the Systron Donner website who produces the AQRS angular rate sensor that BMA uses in their EFIS/One units. Maybe someone with some design/electrical/inertial unit expertise & experience (maybe Bob) would care to comment on the suitability of this particular AQRS unit and on the PC board, etc... If anyone else has any good photos of the EFIS/One please email them to me and I'll post them for all to see... It sure would be nice if someone on the list got their EFIS/One flying and could report back on their findings!!! Here's the link: http://www.theshannons.net/EFISOnePage.html --Brian wings(at)theshannons.net --- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 31, 2002
From: Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: IFR approval for GPS installations in
exptls > > You'd think that if you install a TSO'd box according to the mfr's >specs, it'd be good to go, right? Umm .... where the feds are involved, >nothing's ever simple. Also, I have a feeling that each inspector at >each FSDO will approach it a little differently. Re-inventing the >wheel. > >Jim Cameron >Medina, Texas > Installing it according to the manufacturer's specs doesn't seem to be enough to avoid all problems though. I did quite a few flight tests on IFR GPS installations back when these things were just starting to get popular. Probably one in three installations done by avionics shops (who should be expected to know what they are doing), according to the manufacturer's specs, had some sort of problem. I saw interference from COMs, interference from DMEs, wrong scaling on HSI track bars, HSIs that wouldn't drop a flag if the GPS input failed, switching installations that would give misleading indications if a wire failed, etc. The paper work is only half the battle. The guidance that the inspectors have is fairly vague, so it is open to variable interpretations. It has to be vague, as it is not possible to predict all possible scenarios and write specific guidance to cover it. If the guidance was too clearly worded, it would end up ruling out perfectly acceptable possibilities. So we end up with vague guidance, and all the problems that ensue. -- Kevin Horton http://members.rogers.com/khorton/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 31, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: IFR approval for GPS installations in exptls
> >It seems like B and C was helping owneers get new 337's for their >alternators by providing copies of others' already successful 337's. >Would a stack of example paperwork from someone elses successful >experimental IFR cert streamline the process? - since the FAA doesn't >spell out what the FSDO can require. Experimental aircraft builders >and owners could help each other set a standard since it is our behinds >that ride around in these things, and have truly the most to lose, >compared to some FSDO inspector. While many governmental hoops to be >jumped through are nonsense, demonstrating the safety and integrity of >a design and install could be an opportunity to make better design. >This eventually could lower insurance premiums by helping us fly >better >airplanes. > >Anyone willing or interested in sharing copies of their paperwork? > >Bob, any suggestions on where this kind of info could be listed? An >appendix to the 'Connection? Maybe the EAA is already doing this? Don't know of any repository right now. I'd be willing to archive and catalog copies of paperwork and post them to my website. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: IFR approval for GPS installations in exptls
Date: Jul 31, 2002
We had an Apollo SL60 and Map 360 installed in our Cessna about three years ago. The local FSDO (Charlotte) wanted AC20-138 followed to the letter. Only thing she knew about GPS's so that's what she demanded before she would sign off. She even wanted the GPS operation in flight witnessed (only she was afraid of little planes) - so she sent an operations specialist to fly with us - that person only looked out the window for other airplanes fearing a midair. Two FAA employees spent half a day wasting our tax dollars. I guess they don't have anything else to do. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Horton" <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR approval for GPS installations in exptls > > > > > You'd think that if you install a TSO'd box according to the mfr's > >specs, it'd be good to go, right? Umm .... where the feds are involved, > >nothing's ever simple. Also, I have a feeling that each inspector at > >each FSDO will approach it a little differently. Re-inventing the > >wheel. > > > >Jim Cameron > >Medina, Texas > > > > Installing it according to the manufacturer's specs doesn't seem to > be enough to avoid all problems though. I did quite a few flight > tests on IFR GPS installations back when these things were just > starting to get popular. Probably one in three installations done by > avionics shops (who should be expected to know what they are doing), > according to the manufacturer's specs, had some sort of problem. I > saw interference from COMs, interference from DMEs, wrong scaling on > HSI track bars, HSIs that wouldn't drop a flag if the GPS input > failed, switching installations that would give misleading > indications if a wire failed, etc. > > The paper work is only half the battle. > > The guidance that the inspectors have is fairly vague, so it is open > to variable interpretations. It has to be vague, as it is not > possible to predict all possible scenarios and write specific > guidance to cover it. If the guidance was too clearly worded, it > would end up ruling out perfectly acceptable possibilities. So we > end up with vague guidance, and all the problems that ensue. > -- > Kevin Horton > http://members.rogers.com/khorton/ > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 31, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: dual battery configuration
> >Klaus Savier of Lightspeed Engineering has a circuit diagram for his dual >CDI installation that uses a small motorcycle battery for emergency power in >the event of aircraft electrical failure. The backup battery is charged but >not used unless a switch is flipped. >See: http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/ > >Wayne If you have one electronic ignition and one mag, each ignition SYSTEM is already backed up. If you plan to fly a properly maintained battery, then there is no need for a second battery just to run an electronic ignition. If you have dual electronic ignition, then you might want to consider some form of two-battery arrangement like a Z-30 addition to any other single battery architecture. However, if you have an all-electric airplane with two engine driven power sources, AND a properly maintained battery, then you've got reliability that our spam-can-flying brothers can only dream about and again, a second battery is only added complexity and weight until you take the next step and do a two-battery/two-alternator architecture . . . then you can run each electronic ignition from it's own battery bus. Until you add the second electronic ignition, there's nothing to worry about. Use up the dollar value in both mags you paid for before adding the second electronic ignition. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: jerry(at)tr2.com
Subject: Re: IFR approval for GPS installations in
Date: Jul 31, 2002
Kevin Horton wrote: > > Installing it according to the manufacturer's specs doesn't seem to > be enough to avoid all problems though. *** Assuming that is done. I had a harness made for my GNS-430. Before installing it in the airplane, I traced and ohmed out every wire. The shop had taken some shortcuts WRT separate fuse protection for the radio subsystems AND single point grounding. It probably would have worked anyway. Whatever, I was in no mood to take chances. I put in EVERY ground wire that Garmin specified, all the way out to my single point ground. I also breakered the GPS,COM, and NAV separately as specified. The system was solid as a rock. - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 31, 2002
Subject: Nav and GPS Certifications?
AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronnie Brown" <....skip.....The shop will do the static system/transponder certifications required for IFR.....skip......> Hello Ronnie, Understand and agree. These are required by FAR's 91.411 and 91.413. <....skip.....I will do the nav and GPS certifications using appropriate test verification procedures.....skip.....> Do not understand and do not agree. Where do you find these "appropriate test verification procedures" for amateur built experimental aircraft? Please be specific. What does this "certificate" that comes out of your "certification" process look like and who issues it? Please be specific. Thank you. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 31, 2002
Subject: IFR GPS Approaches
AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" "....skip....EAA has an article about what is needed to get a IFR GPS approved for approaches.....skip......" Wayne 7/31/2002 Hello Wayne, Something is "needed" for "approval" of IFR GPS approaches in amateur built experimental aircraft? What is needed, who gives this approval, and how? I have a copy of a 7/22/2002 Experimental Amateur Built Operating Limitations issued by the FAA FSDO. It says in part "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." No other wording regarding instrument flight appears in the operating limitations except that when filing IFR the remarks section of the flight plan should say that the aircraft is experimental. That tells me that if the amateur built experimental aircraft is "appropriately equipped" for instrument flight, including GPS approaches, then nothing else is "needed" and no further "approval" is required. Do you have information that explicitly says otherwise? 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Nav and GPS Certifications?
Date: Jul 31, 2002
As part of my homebuilt aircraft test plan, I will verify that the VOR/LOC, ILS and GPS functions operate as required for performing navigation to VOR's, localizers and follow the ILS glideslope. I plan to use the test plans that are contained in AC20-138 for IFR GPS units for the GPS navigation and approach functions. May not be required by the regs, but is certainly wise practice (before operating IFR!) ----- Original Message ----- From: <BAKEROCB(at)aol.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Nav and GPS Certifications? > > > <....skip.....The shop will do the static system/transponder certifications > required for IFR.....skip......> > > Hello Ronnie, Understand and agree. These are required by FAR's 91.411 and > 91.413. > > <....skip.....I will do the nav and GPS certifications using appropriate test > verification procedures.....skip.....> > > Do not understand and do not agree. Where do you find these "appropriate test > verification procedures" for amateur built experimental aircraft? Please be > specific. > > What does this "certificate" that comes out of your "certification" process > look like and who issues it? Please be specific. > > Thank you. > > 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Stevenson" <jonste(at)attbi.com>
Subject: Re: Alternator open B+ Circut
Date: Jul 31, 2002
Bob > > Is it possible to harm a alternator by operating it with the output > >(bat) circuit open & field circuit energized? If so how & what internal > >parts? > >Thanks > >John Stevenson > > > There is some risk . . . especially for older alternators. > When you open the B lead, the regulator can't see the > alternator output and it applies full field to the > alternator. In this condition, the b-lead can rise to > well over 100 volts at high rpms. This puts the > diodes at risk for overvoltage failure. > > I've not seen this happen for a very long time. > Modern alternators have very robust diodes in them. > Do you have an alternator that has suffered > this indignity? > > Bob . My problem is to much alt. output. I have a older ND (mid 1980s) 12 volt 38 amp rating (apparently capable of more at higher rpms) that I used # 8 wire & a 40amp circut breaker for protection (poor planing). Under certian conditions it is possible to apply over a 40 amp load to the alt. & open the 40 amp breaker (one of those automatic resetable ones that you do not approve of but so far it has been doing its job 600+ hours). I plan on upgrading wiring & circut protection some time in the future but I was just curious as to any possible damage to system as it is. Thanks John Stevenson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 31, 2002
From: John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: SD-8 in dual battery configuration
Bob - Right now, I'm voting for the SD-20. Any comments on this vs. the SD-8 in a Z-14 power system? I talked with Kirk Hammersmith (Lancair) at OSH and he said he will be using the Z-14 and probably a FADEC on the ES he is building. Looking forward to seeing your power distribution diagram for this system. I'm using AutoCAD so whenever it is ready, I'll download it. My build partner is not wild about a dual battery system to go with the dual alternator. If you have any good arguments, send them along. He thinks it is too complicated! And he was a DC-10 captain!! Cheers, John > > I'm working with Lancair on a FADEC installation using > Z-14 with dual 17 a.h. batteries (both used for cranking) > and a mini-bat to support FADEC during cranking. This > battery will be charged via automatic switching that > is initialized by sensing that an alternator is on > line (bus voltage jumps up). The third battery will > require no panel controls and it gets tested at every > engine start-up. Yearly changeout will be recommended. > > This system will be added to the Z-drawings at Revision > 11. We're about out of books so Rev 11 has to get > started muy pronto! > > Are you going to use the SD-8 or SD-20? > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <wsweet(at)attbi.com>
Subject: Re: IFR GPS Approaches
Date: Jul 31, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: <BAKEROCB(at)aol.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS Approaches > > > "....skip....EAA has an article about what is needed to get a IFR GPS > approved for approaches.....skip......" Wayne > > 7/31/2002 > > Hello Wayne, Something is "needed" for "approval" of IFR GPS approaches in > amateur built experimental aircraft? What is needed, who gives this approval, > and how? I will try to locate my reference. One suggestion would be to go to the EAA web site and use the CONTACT link to ask about IFR GPS approval process in a homebuilt. That was the route I used and have lost the link to that articale on my computer since installing XP. > I have a copy of a 7/22/2002 Experimental Amateur Built Operating Limitations > issued by the FAA FSDO. It says in part "After completion of Phase I flight > testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in > accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." > No other wording regarding instrument flight appears in the operating > limitations except that when filing IFR the remarks section of the flight > plan should say that the aircraft is experimental. > > That tells me that if the amateur built experimental aircraft is > "appropriately equipped" for instrument flight, including GPS approaches, > then nothing else is "needed" and no further "approval" is required. > > Do you have information that explicitly says otherwise? That is exactly what I was told by the inspector who "signed off" my plane. After I noted that my panel included all the reguired radios/instrument according to FAR 91, he simply said, "You will have IFR flight authorization". And like yours, nothing in the operating limitations prohibiting IFR flight. Wayne > > 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Solargizer follow-up
Date: Jul 31, 2002
The Concorde batteries that we've been able to bring back to 100% with our pulse conditioner, starting somewhere below 80%, were batteries that have never flown but had just sat on the shelf too long. I believe that some of the batteries we've brought back to at least 80% are from the field with flight time. I haven't found out any details about how much time they had yet. David Swartzendruber Wichita ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Ford" <dford(at)michweb.net>
Subject: SD-8 in dual battery configuration
Date: Aug 01, 2002
The batteries should both be the same size. You can arrange battery contactors with the two-diode feed like the cross-feed contactor such that it can be closed from either self-contained battery power -or- power from the associated bus via the cross-feed. Bob, You previously said: If you're going to have two alternators and two batteries, then an architecture more like Z-14 is in order. I've had several folks express an interest in this combination. The major points are that the aux battery could be small (7A is fine), crossfeed relay and battery relays can downsize to 30A plastic relays like our S704-1, and you get the ability to put either or both batteries on line to bring up either alternator. I'm a little confused now if my 7 amp battery and SD-8 alternator are suitable for this crossfeed configuration. I don't want to use the crossfeed to crank the engine, mainly to bring an alternator online in a temporary situation. Is a 17 amp main battery and 7amp backup battery compatable in this setup? Dave Ford ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net>
Subject: Ground planes on graphic airplanes
Date: Aug 01, 2002
I am having a similar dilemma. Building a Lancair Legacy with comm antennas on the underside of the fuselage. The hydraulic lines and whatnot run in this area also, so I was planning to coat the area with a layer of Jeffco tank sealer so I could spot and clean any leaks easily. My question is, if I use the cooper EMI shield spray/paint directly on the carbon, can I then paint over top of that with the tank sealer? --- Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ground planes on graphic airplanes From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> Subject: Re: Antenna Ground plane First off I have to say your book is Great.... I have read and re-read sections as I work on my homebuilt project. Thank you! I have a question that seems to be confusing to not only me.... My home built aircraft has a carbon fiber skin.... I have comant antennas (purchased because I did not want to make them time wise) I have: CI 122 VHF Communications (belly mount 45 degree bent), CI 102 Marker beacon antenna (belly boat type) and a CI 305 transponder antenna (small fin). What my question is which is really not discussed in your book is: will the carbon fiber skin work for the antenna ground plates ??? Many folks are getting satisfactory performance using carbon fiber as ground plane . . . it's a bit of a crap shoot because you still need to get a reasonably good electrical connection between the base of the antenna (which ultimately connects to the coax shield) and the airframe. You might try simply installing the antennas as if the fuselage were made of aluminum and see how the antennas perform. If the SWR is high (over 3:1 anywhere in the comm range) or if your range is unsatisfactory, then adding a ground plane is probably useful. If not How would you install a ground plate... a metal piece is really not an option due to the fuse having a curve after mount of antenna foot print. How about a paint with copper in it ??? if yes, paint on the outside or inside ??? See http://www.lessemf.com/paint.html or EMI-RFI SHIELD 10-4807 at http://www.aedwis.com/gcchemicals.html Spray the inside surface of the fuselage with this stuff for a radius of 20" around base of antenna. Use copper or brass washers under nuts for antenna mounting bolts to insure good connection to this now conductive surface. 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: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net>
Subject: Ground planes on graphic airplanes
Date: Aug 01, 2002
Also, on the lessemf.com page, are you suggested the Staticveil Paint, or the SuperShield Aresol? --- Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ground planes on graphic airplanes From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> Subject: Re: Antenna Ground plane First off I have to say your book is Great.... I have read and re-read sections as I work on my homebuilt project. Thank you! I have a question that seems to be confusing to not only me.... My home built aircraft has a carbon fiber skin.... I have comant antennas (purchased because I did not want to make them time wise) I have: CI 122 VHF Communications (belly mount 45 degree bent), CI 102 Marker beacon antenna (belly boat type) and a CI 305 transponder antenna (small fin). What my question is which is really not discussed in your book is: will the carbon fiber skin work for the antenna ground plates ??? Many folks are getting satisfactory performance using carbon fiber as ground plane . . . it's a bit of a crap shoot because you still need to get a reasonably good electrical connection between the base of the antenna (which ultimately connects to the coax shield) and the airframe. You might try simply installing the antennas as if the fuselage were made of aluminum and see how the antennas perform. If the SWR is high (over 3:1 anywhere in the comm range) or if your range is unsatisfactory, then adding a ground plane is probably useful. If not How would you install a ground plate... a metal piece is really not an option due to the fuse having a curve after mount of antenna foot print. How about a paint with copper in it ??? if yes, paint on the outside or inside ??? See http://www.lessemf.com/paint.html or EMI-RFI SHIELD 10-4807 at http://www.aedwis.com/gcchemicals.html Spray the inside surface of the fuselage with this stuff for a radius of 20" around base of antenna. Use copper or brass washers under nuts for antenna mounting bolts to insure good connection to this now conductive surface. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the | | discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy | |-------------------------------------------------------| = = = http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list = ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: SD-8 in dual battery configuration
>I'm a little confused now if my 7 amp battery and SD-8 alternator are >suitable for this crossfeed configuration. I don't want to use the >crossfeed to crank the engine, mainly to bring an alternator online in a >temporary situation. Is a 17 amp main battery and 7amp backup battery >compatable in this setup? Yes. You just eliminate the auto-crossfeed feature in the cross-feed control switch that causes the systems to parallel for cranking. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Ground planes on graphite airplanes
> > >I am having a similar dilemma. Building a Lancair Legacy with comm >antennas on the underside of the fuselage. The hydraulic lines and >whatnot run in this area also, so I was planning to coat the area with a >layer of Jeffco tank sealer so I could spot and clean any leaks easily. > >My question is, if I use the cooper EMI shield spray/paint directly on >the carbon, can I then paint over top of that with the tank sealer? Yes. You can cover the inside surface of the conductive materials as long as you leave the area around the antenna mounting clean so that the antenna mounting bolts have good access to the copper. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Ground planes on graphite airplanes
> > >Also, on the lessemf.com page, are you suggested the Staticveil Paint, >or the SuperShield Aresol? http://lessemf.com/paint.html Super Shield (Cat. #A285) ....... $24.95 Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: IFR approval for GPS installations in exptls
> >We had an Apollo SL60 and Map 360 installed in our Cessna about three years >ago. The local FSDO (Charlotte) wanted AC20-138 followed to the letter. >Only thing she knew about GPS's so that's what she demanded before she would >sign off. > >She even wanted the GPS operation in flight witnessed (only she was afraid >of little planes) - so she sent an operations specialist to fly with us - >that person only looked out the window for other airplanes fearing a midair. >Two FAA employees spent half a day wasting our tax dollars. I guess they >don't have anything else to do. I could give you a LONG list of other things they have to do . . . buy you don't want to see a grown man cry. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net>
Subject: RE: Ground planes on graphite airplanes
Date: Aug 01, 2002
Ok, makes sense. One more question....after mounting the antenna and getting the bolts in good contact with the copper, would there be a problem with then coating over this with the sealer? Or, can I just leave a small area around each washer/nut to do the conducting? What if I'm using nutplates to mount the antenna...spray them good, and then coat over them with the sealer? --- Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Ground planes on graphite airplanes > > >I am having a similar dilemma. Building a Lancair Legacy with comm >antennas on the underside of the fuselage. The hydraulic lines and >whatnot run in this area also, so I was planning to coat the area with a >layer of Jeffco tank sealer so I could spot and clean any leaks easily. > >My question is, if I use the cooper EMI shield spray/paint directly on >the carbon, can I then paint over top of that with the tank sealer? Yes. You can cover the inside surface of the conductive materials as long as you leave the area around the antenna mounting clean so that the antenna mounting bolts have good access to the copper. Bob . . . = = = http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list = ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 01, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Ground planes on graphite airplanes
> > >Ok, makes sense. One more question....after mounting the antenna and >getting the bolts in good contact with the copper, would there be a >problem with then coating over this with the sealer? Or, can I just >leave a small area around each washer/nut to do the conducting? What if >I'm using nutplates to mount the antenna...spray them good, and then >coat over them with the sealer? You could probably cover the finished assembly okay. Sure would be a bear to repair/replace later. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Lehman" <LehmansMtl(at)netzero.com>
Subject: Re: Alternator open B+ Circuit
Date: Aug 01, 2002
This is precisely why I like to power voltage regulators from the alternator side of the B+ breaker/fuse, not the battery/buss side. Span cans with the old Ford type mechanical voltage regulators operate this way by including an alternator field ON-OFF relay in the voltage regulator housing (controlled by the alternator side of the split master switch). Mike Bob > > Is it possible to harm a alternator by operating it with the output > >(bat) circuit open & field circuit energized? If so how & what internal > >parts? > >Thanks > >John Stevenson > > > There is some risk . . . especially for older alternators. > When you open the B lead, the regulator can't see the > alternator output and it applies full field to the > alternator. In this condition, the b-lead can rise to > well over 100 volts at high rpms. This puts the > diodes at risk for overvoltage failure. > > I've not seen this happen for a very long time. > Modern alternators have very robust diodes in them. > Do you have an alternator that has suffered > this indignity? > > Bob . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Doble" <mark_doble(at)hp.com>
Subject: Wingtip VOR antenna
Date: Aug 02, 2002
Hi List, i made the wingtip vor antenna detailed in Fig. 13-12 (page 13-16) in the Aeroelectric connection. The antenna will not fit into my wingtips....and was looking for alternate locations. I have a cowling with a large belly scoop for the carb airbox (Mustang II). I was planning on mounting the antenna here for lack of any other area to put it. I know i will be masking stations to the rear, etc...but will only be using the antenna with a splitter for GS and probably very little VOR use. Anyone tried this? Will it fail miserably in this location? Seeing if anyone has been down this path before. Dont really want to spend any more $$$ than i have to on another antenna...getting close to flight and low on cash! thanks, Mark ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 02, 2002
Subject: GPS Approval for Am Exp
AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Cameron" 7/2/2002 Hello Jim, Did you initiate this (in my opinion) totally unnecessary bureaucratic fiasco? How did the Feds get involved? I am not aware of anything in the FAR's or Advisory Circulars that require this approval action for amateur built experimental aircraft. Was there something in your Operating Limitations issued at the time of certification that required it? I have a copy of a 7/22/2002 Experimental Amateur Built Operating Limitations issued by an FAA FSDO. It says in part "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." No other wording regarding instrument flight prohibiting or limiting it in any way appears in this Operating Limitations except that when filing IFR the remarks section of the flight plan should say that the aircraft is Experimental. If your Operating Limits read that way and you were "appropriately equipped" what more were you absolutely required to do and by what directive? I'm not talking about common sense ensuring by you that your system is functional and safe, I'm asking about mandatory government directed action. Even if the addition of the equipment that you described above were considered a major change per FAR 21.93 (which I do not think it is) the Operating Limitations that I cited above permits that change to be made by the builder, tested by him for 5 hours, and accepted after a log book entry by him. Thanks in advance for your response. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 02, 2002
Subject: AM EXP GPS
AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronnie Brown" 7/2/2002 Hello Ronnie, Right on! I am with you and I applaud anyone's effort to thoroughly test his amateur built experimental aircraft's avionics / navigation system. But I object strongly to the implication by anyone that there are existing regulations or advisory circulars that require the builder to get involved with some bureaucratic no-value-added "certification" process over and above that provided by that aircraft's Operating Limitations. That is why I try to speak out whenever anyone puts out misleading or down right incorrect info on this subject. If anyone has specific, official, different direction please speak up so that we can resolve the issue. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 02, 2002
Subject: AM EXP IFR Cert
AeroElectric-List message posted by: mprather(at)spro.net 7/2/2002 Hello Matt, I applaud your concept of a central data base of useful information (the archives of this list are one good example) and safe flight by our community. But the IFR certification (or not) of an amateur built experimental aircraft is defined in the Operating Limitations written and issued at the time of inspection and certification of that aircraft. Here is a copy of a 7/22/2002 Experimental Amateur Built Operating Limitations issued by an FAA FSDO. It says in part "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." No other wording regarding instrument flight prohibiting or limiting it in any way appears in this Operating Limitations except that when filing IFR the remarks section of the flight plan should say that the aircraft is Experimental. To me that means that if the aircraft is "appropriately equipped" it is good to go for IFR flight from a regulatory viewpoint. Do you have anything that says otherwise? Do you have any copies of an Operating Limitation that says otherwise? The 337 process has nothing to do with amateur built experimental aircraft and we don't want to start up anything that has anything to do with anything like that (unless we want to play useless bureaucratic games). 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI" <jessevli(at)zeelandnet.nl>
Subject: Re: Wingtip VOR antenna
Date: Aug 03, 2002
Hi Mark, I would definitly look for an antenna that will fit. Cowlings will get dirty, we clean them every 50 hours as well as the engine, but still the cowlings will have some oil on them. After spend soo much money on your aircraft, you really shoudn't economize on the final parts. Good luck, Jesse ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Cameron" <toucan(at)78055.com>
Subject: Field approval for GPS
Date: Aug 03, 2002
Well, I'll have to get out the reg's and dig a bit, but I'm under the impression that in order for GPS to be used for non-precision approaches (not just enroute), a field approval is required. I'll let you know what I find out. Hope I'm not going through all this for naught. Jim Cameron, Lancair ES, N143ES ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 03, 2002
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: Field approval for GPS
Field approval is not required; installed GPS equipment just has to be TSO'ed for approaches. You also need pitot and transponder check every 24 months. All other equipment is per 91.205, and only the nav equipment necessary to complete the flight is required. Sam Buchanan "The RV Journal" http://thervjournal.com ============================== Jim Cameron wrote: > > > Well, I'll have to get out the reg's and dig a bit, but I'm under the > impression that in order for GPS to be used for non-precision approaches > (not just enroute), a field approval is required. I'll let you know what I > find out. Hope I'm not going through all this for naught. > > Jim Cameron, Lancair ES, N143ES ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Field approval for GPS
Date: Aug 03, 2002
As Bob says, make sure you don't ratchet the Certified spam can stuff down to BOAM experimentals. snip > > Well, I'll have to get out the reg's and dig a bit, but I'm under the > impression that in order for GPS to be used for non-precision approaches > (not just enroute), a field approval is required. I'll let you know what I > find out. Hope I'm not going through all this for naught. > > Jim Cameron, Lancair ES, N143ES > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 03, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Battery De-sulfators follow-up
> > >The Concorde batteries that we've been able to bring back to 100% with our >pulse conditioner, starting somewhere below 80%, were batteries that have >never flown but had just sat on the shelf too long. I believe that some of >the batteries we've brought back to at least 80% are from the field with >flight time. I haven't found out any details about how much time they had >yet. > >David Swartzendruber >Wichita Okay, I've been researching the subject a bit on the net. I've also acquired one of Solargizer's self-powered desulfator and did a bit of behavior characterization. I hooked a .25 ohm resistor in series with the critter and got these traces: http://216.55.140.222/articles/desulfator/Solargizer_Traces.pdf Here's a copy of an old patent on the subject too: http://216.55.140.222/articles/desulfator/US3963976.pdf Here's a website dedicated to the research and development of you-it-yerself desulfators: http://members.shaw.ca/pferlow/desulfynator.htm I've found quite a lot of activity on the Internet on this topic. Pulsetech is only one of several companies that make similar devices. I'm going to do some work with the purchased critter and some of the homebuilt varieties while I continue to research the literature on the physics of how the thing works. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LJoh896239(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 03, 2002
Subject: Battery Contactor Question
Today I attempted to power up the core of my electrical system by turning on the battery switch and closing the battery contactor. My intent was to then connect the the main and essential busses and periferal circuits. The system is wired IAW the "Connection" using the B&C contactor. As soon as the switch was closed the 22AWG wire from the grounding bus and thru the switch to the terminal at the upstream side of the diode (away from the band) heated up. The contactor did not close. The + side of the battery is connected to the large terminal by the diode and the - terminal goes to the grounding bus. My limited knowledge leaves me stumped, and I would appreciate any input. My apologies if I haven't provided enough info, and thanks. Lance Johnson RV-8A finish Salt Lake City ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 03, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Contactor Question
> >Today I attempted to power up the core of my electrical system by turning on >the battery switch and closing the battery contactor. My intent was to then >connect the the main and essential busses and periferal circuits. The system >is wired IAW the "Connection" using the B&C contactor. As soon as the switch >was closed the 22AWG wire from the grounding bus and thru the switch to the >terminal at the upstream side of the diode (away from the band) heated up. >The contactor did not close. The + side of the battery is connected to the >large terminal by the diode and the - terminal goes to the grounding bus. > >My limited knowledge leaves me stumped, and I would appreciate any input. My >apologies if I haven't provided enough info, and thanks. > >Lance Johnson >RV-8A finish >Salt Lake City Hmmm . . . sounds like the diode is bad or marked backwards (rare but it has happened). Temporarily remove the diode and see the contactor operates normally. If so, get a new diode from Radio Shack (3A rated at any voltage) and install it on the contactor per http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s701-1l.jpg If this fixes it, I'd like to get the original diode back for analysis. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LJoh896239(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 03, 2002
Subject: Re: Battery Contactor Question
Thaanks Bob, I'll give that a try....Lance ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 03, 2002
Subject: Navigation Select Switch
I plan to have both VOR and an IFR capable GPS in my panel. I would like to be able to display the track info from both on a OBS instrument (probably the Narco 122D/GPS.) I need some sort of switch to select VOR or GPS and an annunciator to show which is selected. I also would like to use the same switch and display so my NAVAID autopilot can track either a VOR or GPS course. What have others used? I am open to all suggestions. Charlie Brame> 8/3/2002 Hello Charlie, I have a Garmin 430, an UPS AT (Apollo) SL-30, and a Navaid AP1 autopilot in my panel. Regarding selection / annunciation, my Garmin 106A CDI has built in lights that tell what is feeding it. For the GPS input from the GNS 430 it says "GPS". For the VHF nav input from the GNS 430 it says "V/LOC". For the SL-30 input it reads "NAV". In addition the input selector push button to choose between the GNS 430 and the SL-30 is split horizontally and illuminated so that when the GNS 430 is selected that part of the button is lit up and reads "GNS430". When the SL-30 is selected that part of the button is lit up and reads "SL-30". So there should not be much confusion about what is feeding the CDI. Also whatever is feeding the CDI is also feeding the Navaid Autopilot. There are a lot of things to be switched when shifting from one to the other and the many shifting relays are in a Northern Airborne Technologies relay box. If you want more details please let me know. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LJoh896239(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 03, 2002
Subject: Re: Battery Contactor Question
Bob, thanks for the timely response. I removed the diode, turned on the battery switch, and....Voila! The contact clunked shut and the halogen lamp I had hooked up lit up the basement. I will send you the diode and hook up another. I quess what they say about the only stupid question is the one you don't ask is true. Lance Johnson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 03, 2002
Subject: IFR and VFR Certs
I absolutely agree that we shouldn't try to drag more paperwork into documenting and justifying the capabilities of our aircraft. However, where it implicitly states that we may operate our aircraft night/IFR, it says that the aircraft must be equipped appropriately. It seems that for aircraft that were inspected and signed off with the equipment installed, you are in business. In the case where someone wants to add the equipment to an already inspected airplane, is the situation/requirement different?> 8/3/2002 Hello Matt, You have raised many issues and asked many questions in your posting. I will attempt to break it into pieces and answer as best I can. For your question immediately above let me again quote from the same specific aircraft Operating Limitations that I quoted from earlier: "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." FAR's are written in the manner that says "No person may xxxxxxxx". One does not get "permission" from the FAR's, one gets "prohibitions". Do you see anything about prohibiting adding "appropriate IFR equipment" later? Neither do I. This particular aircraft had neither a VFR cert or an IFR cert (more about those later) at the time it received its approved Operating Limitations. Without those certs one could not know whether or not the aircraft had "appropriate IFR equipment". It should be obvious that IFR equipment that is not functional is not "appropriate". The Operating Limitations also contain instructions about what one must do if a "major change" as described in FAR 21.93 is made to the airplane. Such changes are doable. Please read FAR 21.93 to see if you think adding "appropriate IFR equipment" is a major change. I don't, but even if I did, it is still permitted by the Operating Limitations. Anyone, I say again, ANYONE, including your neighbor's girl friend whose uncle bought the aircraft third hand is not prohibited from working on an amateur built experimental aircraft. If she, or anyone else, makes a major change to the aircraft as defined in FAR 21.93 then she (or someone) must comply with the Operating Limitation's instruction regarding major changes. Previous Operating Limitations required notification of the FSDO when these changes were made. Currently written Operating Limitations require only 5 hours of flight testing and a log book entry. That is the totality of the paperwork required. If it is not a major change there is no paper work required. It doesn't matter who does what work or for whom. It has no effect on the Operating Limitation requirements. No. Lets get this "cert" business clear. Go get a copy of FAR 91.413. Read it, no study it in detail. It will tell you who must have a "VFR cert". It applies to both type certificated and amateur built experimental aircraft -- no exceptions (except for aircraft with no electicity). It will tell you who is authorized to issue the VFR cert. It will tell you (by reference) what tests he must run. It will tell you how often the cert must be renewed. You will be an expert on "VFR certs". Now go to FAR 91.411. Same song and dance for an "IFR cert". Read the first sentence very carefully and slowly -- that is why it is called an "IFR cert". Not every body wants one or needs one. Note that this paragraph deals only with altimetry. It has nothing to do with any IFR navigational avionics. Any questions? Where does this obsession with "signing off" come from? Can you show me the requirement? Go back to the Operating Limitations again. See that reference to FAR 91.205? Go read FAR 91.205. There is your requirement. To repeat, NO ONE is prohibited from working on an amateur built experimental aircraft. What regulation is there that requires who to "sign off" what? There is a specific requirement for a conditon inspection within the previous 12 months and some specific direction on who can perform that condition inspection and the sign off that he must make. Some people like to infer that the conditon inspector is "signing off" all work done and all modifications made during the previous 12 months. Not so by regulation and not feasible in real life. A great place to start. And if that parallel handling of paperwork means carefully reading and understanding the Operating Limitations, the applicable FAR's, and the applicable FAA orders then I'm all for it. The "paperwork" to be "handled" is minimal unless you go ask some bureaucrat to "approve" something that he isn't required to approve, or sign his name to something that is required by regulation for type certificated aircraft, but not for your amateur built experimental. Then you may never see the end of the paperwork maze that you have entered. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff and Jill" <texasquadj(at)Prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Contactor Question
Date: Aug 03, 2002
Bob, What is the purpose of this diode? Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery Contactor Question > > > > >Today I attempted to power up the core of my electrical system by turning on > >the battery switch and closing the battery contactor. My intent was to then > >connect the the main and essential busses and periferal circuits. The system > >is wired IAW the "Connection" using the B&C contactor. As soon as the switch > >was closed the 22AWG wire from the grounding bus and thru the switch to the > >terminal at the upstream side of the diode (away from the band) heated up. > >The contactor did not close. The + side of the battery is connected to the > >large terminal by the diode and the - terminal goes to the grounding bus. > > > >My limited knowledge leaves me stumped, and I would appreciate any input. My > >apologies if I haven't provided enough info, and thanks. > > > >Lance Johnson > >RV-8A finish > >Salt Lake City > > Hmmm . . . sounds like the diode is bad or > marked backwards (rare but it has happened). > Temporarily remove the diode and see the > contactor operates normally. If so, > get a new diode from Radio Shack (3A rated > at any voltage) and install it on the contactor > per http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s701-1l.jpg > > If this fixes it, I'd like to get the original > diode back for analysis. > > Bob . . . > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <wsweet(at)attbi.com>
Subject: Re: IFR and VFR Certs
Date: Aug 04, 2002
I installed a GX50 in my MustangII in 1999 based on a document sent to me via email from someone (as memory servers me) at EAA. I have recently email EAA and got the reference applicable to "store bought" aircraft, so even the EAA have disconnects. But in the aforementioned document, which in my log book has only these identifying numbers; "2452603 8110-47". The last, 8110-47 looks like an FAA order (see http://av-info.faa.gov/dst/reference.htm#Orders ), but not exactly. I have since in the last 3 years changed computers, "cleaned up" both my home office and hangar. I am very busy doing an overhauled engine installation just now, but will soon do another hangar search. I can't image I would simply toss out the reference; I distinctly remember reading it to several fellow EAA types with the exclamation that finally at least one FAA regulation has a common since interpretation. When one thinks about this, 1) the GPS satellites are government certified (their used by the good 'ol USA military anyway, with great accuracy), 2) the FAA approved UPS GX50 (in my case) is IFR approach/enroute approved, 3) in my case I installed it exactly according to the UPS Avionics "approved" installation procedures and 4) I tested it both on the ground and in a VFR flight test to verify the accuracy according to the UPS installation documents, again presumably FAA approved. What the hell more is needed?? If those who build and fly IFR capable experimental aircraft can't do a competent flight test of something as simple as a navigational aid, then what does that say about allowing us to flight test the aircraft itself? We are not flight testing the GPS approach system (the FAA has already done that), but just the mere installation of the airborne receiver. FAA bureaucrats don't know how to make a decision based on the FAA regulations (Mr. Baker's comment is exactly on target), other than CYA. Just don't ask and they will truly appreciate not being involved with a situation they can't deal with comfortably, other than evoking the full power and force of the original certification process. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: <BAKEROCB(at)aol.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR and VFR Certs > > > > I absolutely agree that we shouldn't try to drag more paperwork into > documenting and justifying the capabilities of our aircraft. However, where > it > implicitly states that we may operate our aircraft night/IFR, it says that > the aircraft must be equipped appropriately. It seems that for aircraft that > were inspected and signed off with the equipment installed, you are in > business. In the case where someone wants to add the equipment to an > already inspected airplane, is the situation/requirement different?> > > 8/3/2002 > > Hello Matt, You have raised many issues and asked many questions in your > posting. I will attempt to break it into pieces and answer as best I can. > > For your question immediately above let me again quote from the same specific > aircraft Operating Limitations that I quoted from earlier: "After completion > of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or > instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated > under VFR, day only." > > FAR's are written in the manner that says "No person may xxxxxxxx". One does > not get "permission" from the FAR's, one gets "prohibitions". Do you see > anything about prohibiting adding "appropriate IFR equipment" later? Neither > do I. This particular aircraft had neither a VFR cert or an IFR cert (more > about those later) at the time it received its approved Operating > Limitations. Without those certs one could not know whether or not the > aircraft had "appropriate IFR equipment". It should be obvious that IFR > equipment that is not functional is not "appropriate". > > The Operating Limitations also contain instructions about what one must do if > a "major change" as described in FAR 21.93 is made to the airplane. Such > changes are doable. Please read FAR 21.93 to see if you think adding > "appropriate IFR equipment" is a major change. I don't, but even if I did, it > is still permitted by the Operating Limitations. > > original manufacturer could install the equipment with (maybe) no paperwork > as long as significant changes (which might void the airworthiness > certificate) to the airframe aren't made.> > > Anyone, I say again, ANYONE, including your neighbor's girl friend whose > uncle bought the aircraft third hand is not prohibited from working on an > amateur built experimental aircraft. If she, or anyone else, makes a major > change to the aircraft as defined in FAR 21.93 then she (or someone) must > comply with the Operating Limitation's instruction regarding major changes. > Previous Operating Limitations required notification of the FSDO when these > changes were made. Currently written Operating Limitations require only 5 > hours of flight testing and a log book entry. That is the totality of the > paperwork required. If it is not a major change there is no paper work > required. > > the original builder?> > > It doesn't matter who does what work or for whom. It has no effect on the > Operating Limitation requirements. > > > > No. Lets get this "cert" business clear. Go get a copy of FAR 91.413. Read > it, no study it in detail. It will tell you who must have a "VFR cert". It > applies to both type certificated and amateur built experimental aircraft -- > no exceptions (except for aircraft with no electicity). It will tell you who > is authorized to issue the VFR cert. It will tell you (by reference) what > tests he must run. It will tell you how often the cert must be renewed. You > will be an expert on "VFR certs". > > Now go to FAR 91.411. Same song and dance for an "IFR cert". Read the first > sentence very carefully and slowly -- that is why it is called an "IFR cert". > Not every body wants one or needs one. Note that this paragraph deals only > with altimetry. It has nothing to do with any IFR navigational avionics. Any > questions? > > > Where does this obsession with "signing off" come from? Can you show me the > requirement? > > > Go back to the Operating Limitations again. See that reference to FAR 91.205? > Go read FAR 91.205. There is your requirement. > > > To repeat, NO ONE is prohibited from working on an amateur built experimental > aircraft. What regulation is there that requires who to "sign off" what? > > There is a specific requirement for a conditon inspection within the previous > 12 months and some specific direction on who can perform that condition > inspection and the sign off that he must make. Some people like to infer that > the conditon inspector is "signing off" all work done and all modifications > made during the previous 12 months. Not so by regulation and not feasible in > real life. > > > A great place to start. > > > And if that parallel handling of paperwork means carefully reading and > understanding the Operating Limitations, the applicable FAR's, and the > applicable FAA orders then I'm all for it. The "paperwork" to be "handled" is > minimal unless you go ask some bureaucrat to "approve" something that he > isn't required to approve, or sign his name to something that is required by > regulation for type certificated aircraft, but not for your amateur built > experimental. Then you may never see the end of the paperwork maze that you > have entered. > > 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 04, 2002
From: Rob Mokry <robmokry(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: IFR and VFR Certs
BACKEROCB........thanks for your string on this issue. My experimental airworthiness cert. read exactly as yours and I had similar interpretations of it for IFR flight (although not quite as confident). My inspector did the initial inspection and did not come out for a Phase 1 completion inspection, instead requiring me to self-inspect and log the standard verbage. Added to it was......"This aircraft is controlable and has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features for aerobatic flight as exhibited during the phase 1 test flights. This aircraft is appropriatly equipped for night and instrument flight in accordance with FAR 91.205." Self test, self inspect, self certify! Harmon Rocket II ser.12 N540RM 189hrs. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 04, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Contactor Question
> > >Bob, > >What is the purpose of this diode? > >Jeff See: http://216.55.140.222/articles/spikecatcher.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 04, 2002
Subject: GPS Approval
AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Cameron" "Well, I'll have to get out the reg's and dig a bit, but I'm under the impression that in order for GPS to be used for non-precision approaches (not just enroute), a field approval is required. I'll let you know what I find out. Hope I'm not going through all this for naught. Jim Cameron." 8/4/2002 Hello Jim, Field approvals (Form 337) do not apply to amateur built experimental aircraft. The Operating Limitations of an amateur built experimental aircraft give the required guidance for subsequent modifications of that aircraft. What does your aircraft's Operating Limitations say about modifications? No, I don't think that your efforts will be for naught because when you get through you can tell all of us what you have learned both about the paperwork and the actual testing. I don't think that you will get much help from the regs, but AC 20-138 will give you some insight. Read the first sentences of paragraphs 7a and 8a carefully. Do you see words like TC and STC? The T in those terms stands for "type". Amateur built experimental aircraft are definitely not built to any "type" in the sense that FAA uses that term. One can therefore conclude that those paragraphs cannot apply to amateur built experimental aircraft. Similarly note that Appendix 1 talks about using the Form 337 for follow on installations. The Form 337 process does not apply to amateur built experimental aircraft. Note very carefully that I do not suggest that a person should cook up his own GPS receiver / installation, give it a 5 minute VMC flight check and then launch off into an IMC approach. What I do state is that the rules and regulations for standard type certificated aircraft and amateur built experimental aircraft are in many instances totally different and that difference needs to be understood. A good part of the problem in determining what applies to amateur built experimental aircraft is that the FAR's are written by lawyers and enforced by bureaucrats that are firmly focused on standard type certificated aircraft. That is the way they write, and think, and act. One does not find words like "This paragraph applies only to standard type certificated aircraft" at the beginning of certain paragraphs even though that is exactly the case. Experimental aircraft are more of an "Oh! by the way" issue to those lawyers and bureaucrats and the majority of the FAA employees have little or no knowledge of the experimental community. Another contributor to the problem is that many of the FAR's are structured in a reference mode. Unless one is willing to search out the true meaning of every other part / paragraph referenced then something erroneous may be concluded. Please keep us informed. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Avionics Systems" <hk53(at)his.com>
Subject: re: Navigation select switch
Date: Aug 04, 2002
When you select an indicator to display information from two different radios, make sure that it's compatible with the outputs available from both units. For instance, some indicators only accept VOR composite information (all right-left, to-from, and valid flag info on one wire), while others accept only analog inputs (right-left, to-from, valid flag info each has it's own wire). If you purchased an indicator that only accepted analog inputs (such as the Garmin GI-106A), and a radio that only outputs composite nav info (such as a King KX-155), you would not be able to interface them unless you added an expensive VOR converter. A little research before purchasing will save headaches down the road. David Buckwalter Avionics Systems, LLC. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: Strob light power supply
Date: Aug 04, 2002
I'm building a Harmon Rocket and I am considering both types of strobe power setups (single, and remote). Can anyone comment on potential disadvantages of them. One disadvantage of the remote located power supplies would possibly be not being able to use internal wingtip mounted Com and or Nav antenna. All inputs welcomed. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2002
From: Rob Mokry <robmokry(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: RE:Strob light power supply
Jim, I used the aeroflash strobes with the remote power sources. The only drawback I can find is the extra weight. The supply to strobe wires can be kept extremely short and not run through the airframe (where they tend to cause havoc). I am using a wingtip vor/localizer/glideslope antenna as well as a marker beacon antenna. The wingtip comm antennas did not work as well (very directionally sensitive and poor performance at low altitudes). Most Rocket drivers use a bent belly mounted whip antenna (at a cost of 2 mph). Strob light power supply I'm building a Harmon Rocket and I am considering both types of strobe power setups (single, and remote). Can anyone comment on potential disadvantages of them. One disadvantage of the remote located power supplies would possibly be not being able to use internal wingtip mounted Com and or Nav antenna. All inputs welcomed. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Strobe light power supply
> >I'm building a Harmon Rocket and I am considering both types of strobe >power setups (single, and remote). Can anyone comment on potential >disadvantages of them. One disadvantage of the remote located power >supplies would possibly be not being able to use internal wingtip >mounted Com and or Nav antenna. >All inputs welcomed. >Jim It's relatively easy to filter power supply noise to make it radio friendly. It's very difficult to filter noise radiated from the strobe tube. If you're going to have a problem, it's more likely to be the later noise source. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Antennas and Strobe light power supply
> >Jim, >I used the aeroflash strobes with the remote power sources. The only >drawback I can find is the extra weight. The supply to strobe wires can >be kept extremely short and not run through the airframe (where they >tend to cause havoc). I am using a wingtip vor/localizer/glideslope >antenna as well as a marker beacon antenna. The wingtip comm antennas >did not work as well (very directionally sensitive and poor performance >at low altitudes). Most Rocket drivers use a bent belly mounted whip >antenna (at a cost of 2 mph). I'm skeptical of the 2 mph drag figure but it's a demonstrable fact that the very best performing antennas are outside the vehicle. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: RE:Strob light power supply
Date: Aug 05, 2002
Funny you should mention the Aeroflash strobes. My research indicates they do not meet FAR minimum candle power. At half the price of the Whelens, they are a great buy, assuming your DAR does not know the difference. It appears as though the best way to go is power supplies with strobes very nearby, and comm antennas as far away as possible. Rob, Did you try the wingtip antennas personally? Thanks, Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Mokry" <robmokry(at)pacbell.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE:Strob light power supply > > Jim, > I used the aeroflash strobes with the remote power sources. The only > drawback I can find is the extra weight. The supply to strobe wires can > be kept extremely short and not run through the airframe (where they > tend to cause havoc). I am using a wingtip vor/localizer/glideslope > antenna as well as a marker beacon antenna. The wingtip comm antennas > did not work as well (very directionally sensitive and poor performance > at low altitudes). Most Rocket drivers use a bent belly mounted whip > antenna (at a cost of 2 mph). > > Strob light power supply > > > > I'm building a Harmon Rocket and I am considering both types of strobe > power setups (single, and remote). Can anyone comment on potential > disadvantages of them. One disadvantage of the remote located power > supplies would possibly be not being able to use internal wingtip > mounted Com and or Nav antenna. > All inputs welcomed. > Jim > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "rv6tc" <rv6tc(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: electronics 101
Date: Aug 05, 2002
I'm trying to build a dimmer that was featured in Kitplanes last summer. If the designer calls for a "mylar" capacitor, can I use an electrolytic or ceramic instead? I can't find a mylar one locally. Also he called for a TIP 125 PNP transistor. I couldn't find that, but I found a MJ2955, which looks about the same except it'll handle a lot more power. Is there any problem with using that instead. Sorry for the entry level questions. I'm getting to where I can build simple circuits, but I can't modify or troubleshoot them. Keith Denver ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "bob999" <bob999(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: RE:Strob light power supply
Date: Aug 05, 2002
Can I ask where did you find this requirement? I was told that it had to have a min- 100,000 candle power per flash. Thanks in advance Bob N601XL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE:Strob light power supply > > Funny you should mention the Aeroflash strobes. My research indicates they > do not meet FAR minimum candle power. At half the price of the Whelens, > they are a great buy, assuming your DAR does not know the difference. > It appears as though the best way to go is power supplies with strobes very > nearby, and comm antennas as far away as possible. > Rob, > Did you try the wingtip antennas personally? > Thanks, > Jim > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rob Mokry" <robmokry(at)pacbell.net> > To: > Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE:Strob light power supply > > > > > > Jim, > > I used the aeroflash strobes with the remote power sources. The only > > drawback I can find is the extra weight. The supply to strobe wires can > > be kept extremely short and not run through the airframe (where they > > tend to cause havoc). I am using a wingtip vor/localizer/glideslope > > antenna as well as a marker beacon antenna. The wingtip comm antennas > > did not work as well (very directionally sensitive and poor performance > > at low altitudes). Most Rocket drivers use a bent belly mounted whip > > antenna (at a cost of 2 mph). > > > > Strob light power supply > > > > > > > > I'm building a Harmon Rocket and I am considering both types of strobe > > power setups (single, and remote). Can anyone comment on potential > > disadvantages of them. One disadvantage of the remote located power > > supplies would possibly be not being able to use internal wingtip > > mounted Com and or Nav antenna. > > All inputs welcomed. > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 05, 2002
Subject: Using Your GPS
8/5/2002 Hello Fellow Listers, There has been an ongoing thread in the last few weeks about equipping our amateur built experimental aircraft with IFR capable GPS (including approach capable GPS) and the approval process one should go through in order to get his aircraft "certified" with this equipment. I have taken the position that no requirement (or process) for such certification exists other than that found in that particular aircraft's Operating Limitation, the FAR's that are referenced therein, and the applicable General Operating and Flight Rules (FAR Part 91). The FAA published procedures for airworthiness criteria for approval of GPS installations in type certificated aircraft do not apply. That is still my position. But I would like to point out that actually using that fabulously capable (and complex) GPS equipment in IMC while on an IFR flight plan can be a very complex process and one needs to be very proficient in operating his avionics equipment as well as flying his airplane and understanding the rules in order to have a safe and legal operation. To that end I would make two offerings: 1) Get a recent (2002) edition of the Aeronautical Information Manual. Read the entire paragraph 5-4-5 Instrument Approach Procedure Charts, paying particular attention to sub paragraph [i] Area Navigation (RNAV) Instrument Approach Charts. (The [ ] symbol indicates a change from the 2001 edition). 2) Read the article below** that I have copied from my FAA July 2002 Designee Update. (I am not a designee, just a lowly CFII). I hope that these two readings will give you a greater appreciation of the operational aspects of using GPS equipment installed in any aircraft, either type certificated or amateur built experimental. I hope that our amateur built experimental community will not do anything irresponsible operationally that would jeapordize the great freedom that we have been given in building, modifying, and flying our aircraft. Regards, 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? **RNAV (GPS) approaches with VNAV RNAV (GPS) approaches such as the RNAV (GPS) RWY 6 approach at Birmingham are becoming very common today. Every revision of the IAP charts has several new RNAV (GPS) charts included. Since June, 2001 some of these RNAV (GPS) approaches also have VNAV minimums that are significantly lower than the LNAV minimums. The problem is that many pilots have only started to learn the basic GPS approach and have never heard of the VNAV approach that gives true vertical guidance. In fact, their Garmin or King GPS has a VNAV function so why can't this be used for the VNAV approach? I have visited with 10 professional pilots and 25 instrument or instrument instructor pilot applicants and only one of the professional pilots even knew what I was talking about. The rest assumed they could use the lower minimums (that actually require the use of VNAV vertical guidance) with their Garmin or King basic GPS equipment that are certified only for LNAV approaches. The RNAV (GPS) RWY 6 approach at Birmingham is an example of an approach where you must know your minimums and the limitations of your equipment. The VNAV minimums are 360 feet lower than the LNAV minimums (MDA) and are 109 feet lower than a prominent obstruction that is only about 3 miles from the end of the runway. The only equipment legal and safe to go down to the 940 foot decision altitude will have a statement in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) or an AFM supplement explicitly stating the RNAV system is certified for IFR VNAV approaches. This VNAV equipment will have glide slope information displayed on the HSI much like an ILS approach. The VNAV function of a King or Garmin GPS will tell you the descent rate necessary to go from where you are to where you want to go but it will never tell you that descent rate might take you right into an obstacle. It can not show if you are below the required glide path . The FAA Advisory Circular AC 90-97 Use of Barometric Vertical Navigation(VNAV) for Instrument Approach Operations Using Decision Altitude (http://terps.faa.gov/directiv/AC90-97.pdf) covers the requirements and operation of the VNAV portion of these approaches. Briefly, the requirements are: 1) Approved FMS System where GPS is an active component. 2) RNP system approved for RNP 0.3 NM Operations in IFR conditions. 3) Barometric VNAV capability. 4) Database includes the waypoints, VNAV angles and altitudes that pertain. 5) A temperature below the limits for a particular approach requires that you descend only to the LNAV MDA. 6) You must select the appropriate VNAV mode - Vertical speed is not acceptable for VNAV approaches. 7) A current altimeter setting for the landing airport is required. The RNAV (GPS) approaches with VNAV are marvelous approaches with great accuracy and lower minimums. There will be many more of them in the very near future. They will be available in remote areas and require only a local altimeter setting for equipment on the ground. Pilots just need to be absolutely sure that we know how to do the procedure correctly. Here is a link to the approach chart. http://download.aopa.org/iap/20020418/se4of4/bhm_rnav_gps_rwy_6.pdf Thanks for this article from Lowell Weir, DPE Des Moines, IA lwpilot(at)mchsi.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gabe and Marisol Ferrer" <ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: B&C Voltage Regulator
Date: Aug 05, 2002
Bob, please: While testing the B&C LR3B-14 voltage regulator, using only the airplane's battery, I noticed that terminal 6 (field voltage) on the voltage regulator read approximately 1.6 volts dc when the alternator field switch is set to "off". The bus voltage sense terminal was reading 12.6 volts. The voltage lamp was cycling on and off. When I turned the alternator field voltage switch to on, terminal 6 read 12.6 volts. Is this normal? Additional question: What is the approximate minimum bus voltage which will turn the over voltage lamp off? Thanks Gabe A Ferrer (RV6, "final' electrical wiring) ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net Cell: 561 758 8894 Night or FAX: 561 622 0960 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: RE:Strob light power supply
Date: Aug 05, 2002
FAR 23.1401 sez your strobe must put out at least 400 Candel power in either white or red. The Aeroflash units produce only half that (200cp), sooo, they are not legal. I had to call Aeroflash to get that info, understandedly, they don't provide that info in their advertisements. The Spruce cataloge has a short review of the reiquirments at the beginning of the STROBES section. Hope this helps. Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "bob999" <bob999(at)worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE:Strob light power supply > > Can I ask where did you find this requirement? > I was told that it had to have a min- 100,000 candle power per flash. > > Thanks in advance > > Bob > N601XL > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> > To: > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE:Strob light power supply > > > > > > > Funny you should mention the Aeroflash strobes. My research indicates > they > > do not meet FAR minimum candle power. At half the price of the Whelens, > > they are a great buy, assuming your DAR does not know the difference. > > It appears as though the best way to go is power supplies with strobes > very > > nearby, and comm antennas as far away as possible. > > Rob, > > Did you try the wingtip antennas personally? > > Thanks, > > Jim > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rob Mokry" <robmokry(at)pacbell.net> > > To: > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE:Strob light power supply > > > > > > > > > > > Jim, > > > I used the aeroflash strobes with the remote power sources. The only > > > drawback I can find is the extra weight. The supply to strobe wires can > > > be kept extremely short and not run through the airframe (where they > > > tend to cause havoc). I am using a wingtip vor/localizer/glideslope > > > antenna as well as a marker beacon antenna. The wingtip comm antennas > > > did not work as well (very directionally sensitive and poor performance > > > at low altitudes). Most Rocket drivers use a bent belly mounted whip > > > antenna (at a cost of 2 mph). > > > > > > Strob light power supply > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm building a Harmon Rocket and I am considering both types of strobe > > > power setups (single, and remote). Can anyone comment on potential > > > disadvantages of them. One disadvantage of the remote located power > > > supplies would possibly be not being able to use internal wingtip > > > mounted Com and or Nav antenna. > > > All inputs welcomed. > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 05, 2002
From: Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com>
Subject: Re: RE:Strob light power supply
> > Can I ask where did you find this requirement? > I was told that it had to have a min- 100,000 candle power per flash. Been researching this myself. It isn't just X candles per flash, it is laid out in section 25.1401 of the FAR's: Anticollision light system. Color, and angle are as important. The actual brightness of the lights is defined by integrating the instantaneous intensity and the effective intensity. you only need 400 effective candles in the horizontal plane (0-5degrees). <http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*47430385!mtd*41!var*20!cgi*/cgi-bin/get_file!buf*66!src*_landings/pages/regulations.html!ref*FAR/part_25/toc.html> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2002
From: Rob Mokry <robmokry(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: RE:Strob light power supply
Re: AeroElectric-List: RE:Strob light power supply Jim, I used Archer wingtip comm, Van's VOR, and copper slug and snail strip marker beacon. The wingtip comm antenna worked, but range, altitude and directional authority were much enhanced by the belly mount. Flying in and under class bravo and IMC - I want the best comm available. VOR and marker beacon still very pleased with. Don't know about the strobe question, but it may also annoy you that with three power supplies, they do not fire together. Funny you should mention the Aeroflash strobes. My research indicates they do not meet FAR minimum candle power. At half the price of the Whelens, they are a great buy, assuming your DAR does not know the difference. It appears as though the best way to go is power supplies with strobes very nearby, and comm antennas as far away as possible. Rob, Did you try the wingtip antennas personally? Thanks, Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: battery brands
>Hello Bob >Would you please comment on what brands are actual RG design? For example >the Odyssey? Do you have a favourite for price/performance? >Thanks >Peter Just about any lead-acid battery you buy today is going to be an RG/VSLA/Starved-Electrolyte technology. Gel-Cells are rare but they're still out there . . . you have to look for them. See http://216.55.140.222/articles/rg_bat.html and http://216.55.140.222/articles/bat_thd.pdf If you subscribe to the notion of good preventative maintenance on a battery . . . See http://216.55.140.222/articles/battest.pdf . . . then you can get good value from about ANY battery that will crank your engine. This means that irrespective of the battery's electrical size, it must have terminals that accept bolted-on, 4AWG wires and it must be able to dump out 300+ amps at 8.5V when new. My personal favorites are the 17-20 a.h. class batteries by Hawker, Powersonic, Panasonic, Yuasa, and dozens of others. These batteries are typically 3" x 6" x 7" in size, cost $50-120. You can find them in almost any "Batteries-Are-Us" store front in addition to hundreds of websites. Further, if you subscribe to (1) yearly change out or (2) periodic capacity testing, you're free to explore the less expensive offerings in comfort that you'll NEVER suffer a battery failure. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the | | discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: initial plans for wiring a Cozy IV
Date: Aug 06, 2002
Bob, I'm finalizing my plan for the basic wiring on my rotary powered Cozy IV and would like to run it by you. I've put a picture of the firewall layout at http://kgarden.com/firewall.jpg I'd prefer like to avoid buying a $400 alternator and a $200+ regulator so I'm planning on 2 batteries and a stock Mazda alternator with crowbar OV protector. As I see it, I need 4 contactors - one for each battery, one for the starter and one for the alternator field. I'd like the switching to be as close as possible to the spam cans I'm used to, so I'm planning on installing a "left, right, both, start" ignition switch. I was thinking that the left and right positions would switch the two battery contactors. This way I can switch the ignition off in case of electrical problems. The fuel injection computer/s and duel pumps would be powered from the battery buses. I know you don't like these, but I also have a Cessna split master / alternator switch. My plan is to wire the alternator field through one side and the main / essential bus to the other. One of the things I'm not sure how to wire is the EFI computer (from Tracy Crook) which has duel computers but only one power feed. Should I give it a supply from both battery busses? If I do, won't this permanently cross connect the two batteries, and is this a bad thing to do? As you can probably tell - I'm struggling a bit here..... The main and essential busses are installed under the right armrest see http://kgarden.com/cz556.jpg Is there anything in the above plan that scares you? Regards, John Slade ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net>
Subject: Re: RE:Strob light power supply
Date: Aug 06, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE:Strob light power supply > > FAR 23.1401 sez your strobe must put out at least 400 Candel power in either > white or red. The Aeroflash units produce only half that (200cp), sooo, > they are not legal. FAR part 23 only applies to aircraft that are 'certified' to Part 23. Our OBAM aircraft do not have to meet these requirements. Godspeed, Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) http://www.myrv7.com Fuselage Airplanes never win battles with the ground. The best the airplane can hope for is a draw. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2002
From: Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: OV Protection module - where?
Where and how should we mount the OV-14 protection module? Should it be attached directly to the breaker and hanging by the wires? Should it be in front of the firewall? How do we fix it in a position? Thanks! Michel ===== ---------------------------- Michel Therrien CH601-HD http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601 http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby http://health.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: TC pinouts
Date: Aug 06, 2002
I did some panel diving on my Navion to fix a couple problems and found it's like sausage - you're not going to like what's inside. One of the problems is my turn coordinator. Some bozo had just plugged the wires directly to the pins using bayonet plugs which came loose, i.e. there was no Cannon plug. I've ordered the connector but need to know which pins are power and ground. It's a 3 pin connector. Thanks. Regards, Greg Young - Houston (DWH) RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2002
From: Kent/Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net>
Subject: Re: initial plans for wiring a Cozy IV
John, I have a similar setup in my cozy Mk IV with two lightspeed ignitions. I used two 17 AH batteries from B&C and an additional solinoid as a crossover solinoid so that I can connect the two batteries for engine start or use one battery to power both busses. If I was doing it again, I would just use one larger battery for engine start, no crossover, and a smaller backup battery to power the lightspeed if I lost all power. I'll see if I have a picture of my installation. I've got a lot of wiring but it works OK --Kent Ashton John Slade wrote: > > Bob, > I'm finalizing my plan for the basic wiring on my rotary powered Cozy IV and > would like to run it by you. I've put a picture of the firewall layout at > http://kgarden.com/firewall.jpg > I'd prefer like to avoid buying a $400 alternator and a $200+ regulator so > I'm planning on 2 batteries and a stock Mazda alternator with crowbar OV > protector. As I see it, I need 4 contactors - one for each battery, one for > the starter and one for the alternator field. > > I'd like the switching to be as close as possible to the spam cans I'm used > to, so I'm planning on installing a "left, right, both, start" ignition > switch. I was thinking that the left and right positions would switch the > two battery contactors. This way I can switch the ignition off in case of > electrical problems. The fuel injection computer/s and duel pumps would be > powered from the battery buses. I know you don't like these, but I also have > a Cessna split master / alternator switch. My plan is to wire the alternator > field through one side and the main / essential bus to the other. One of the > things I'm not sure how to wire is the EFI computer (from Tracy Crook) which > has duel computers but only one power feed. Should I give it a supply from > both battery busses? If I do, won't this permanently cross connect the two > batteries, and is this a bad thing to do? As you can probably tell - I'm > struggling a bit here..... > > The main and essential busses are installed under the right armrest see > http://kgarden.com/cz556.jpg > > Is there anything in the above plan that scares you? > Regards, > John Slade > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: TC pinouts
Date: Aug 06, 2002
On the back of the run coordinator in my hand A is power, B is ground and C is not used. A is bottom left B is centered top (opposite the key) and C is lower right when looking in the instrument end my plug is labled and they go counter-clockwise around from the key on the plug. Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh Editor, EAA Safety Programs cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org Always looking for articles for the Experimenter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: TC pinouts I did some panel diving on my Navion to fix a couple problems and found it's like sausage - you're not going to like what's inside. One of the problems is my turn coordinator. Some bozo had just plugged the wires directly to the pins using bayonet plugs which came loose, i.e. there was no Cannon plug. I've ordered the connector but need to know which pins are power and ground. It's a 3 pin connector. Thanks. Regards, Greg Young - Houston (DWH) RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "texasquadj(at)prodigy.net" <texasquadj(at)Prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: RE:Strob light power supply
Date: Aug 06, 2002
Maybe I am missing something, but what does FAR Part 25 have to do with experimental airplanes? Jeff Original Message: ----------------- From: Tom Brusehaver cozytom(at)mn.rr.com Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 22:15:55 +0000 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE:Strob light power supply > > Can I ask where did you find this requirement? > I was told that it had to have a min- 100,000 candle power per flash. Been researching this myself. It isn't just X candles per flash, it is laid out in section 25.1401 of the FAR's: Anticollision light system. Color, and angle are as important. The actual brightness of the lights is defined by integrating the instantaneous intensity and the effective intensity. you only need 400 effective candles in the horizontal plane (0-5degrees). <http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*47430385!mtd*41!var*20!cgi*/cgi-bin /get_file!buf*66!src*_landings/pages/regulations.html!ref*FAR/part_25/toc.ht ml> http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 06, 2002
Subject: anticollision light rqmt
Can I ask where did you find this requirement? I was told that it had to have a min- 100,000 candle power per flash. Thanks in advance Bob N601XL> 8/6/2002 Hello Bob, The regulatory audit trail will go something like this. Your aircraft Operating Limitations will reference FAR 91.205. FAR 91.205 (c) will tell you what you have to have for VFR night flight. Subparagraph FAR 91.205 (c) (3) will tell you that you have to have an "approved anticollision light system" and that it must meet the standards of (among others) FAR Part 23. FAR Part 23.1401 describes the requirements for an anti collision light system. Sub paragraph FAR 23.1401 (f) gives the minimum effective intensities required in candles. I think that we "manufacturers" should have access to the appropriate FAR's and be able to follow them properly. It is our obligation to the rest of the amateur builders of experimental aircraft to not to screw up a really good freedom that we enjoy. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2002
Subject: SD-8 alternator and Ess bus switch combo??
From: czechsix(at)juno.com
Hi Bob, I'm going with the "All Electric on a Budget" per Z-11. Just wondering if there's a compelling reason why there needs to be separate toggle switches for the SD-8 alternator and the Essential bus. Couldn't I use a DPDT switch just like the master switch that controls the main bus and main alternator to switch both the SD-8 and Ess bus at the same time? In the rare instance that I might want to have the Ess bus ON and the SD-8 OFF, I could just pull the 5 A field breaker for the SD-8 (same as I would to shut off the main alternator when the Master is ON). Or if I wanted to turn on the SD-8 to supplement the output of the main alternator (i.e. during touch and goes in the pattern with the landing lights on for extended periods of time??) I could still just switch it ON and the fact that the Ess bus also happens to be ON doesn't seem to be an issue since it's just an alternate path... Not trying to split hairs on your design, just don't see a point in adding one more toggle switch if it's not really advantageous from a safety or operational standpoint... Thanks for your time, --Mark Navratil Cedar Rapids, Iowa RV-8A N2D finishing... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tony Cann - SunPS <Tony.Cann(at)Sun.COM>
Date: Aug 06, 2002
Subject: RE: Antennas and Strobe Light Power Supply
Whelen sells shielded position light/strobes for a modest price increase over the normal lights. Does anyone have any experience with their impact on radio noise with a wingtip mounted NAV antenna? Are they worth the extra cost? Tony Cann N42HR reserved, HRII wings > > > I'm building a Harmon Rocket and I am considering both types of strobe > power setups (single, and remote). Can anyone comment on potential > disadvantages of them. One disadvantage of the remote located power > supplies would possibly be not being able to use internal wingtip > mounted Com and or Nav antenna. > All inputs welcomed. > Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: electronics 101
> >I'm trying to build a dimmer that was featured in Kitplanes last summer. > >If the designer calls for a "mylar" capacitor, can I use an electrolytic or >ceramic instead? I can't find a mylar one locally. Also he called for a >TIP 125 PNP transistor. I couldn't find that, but I found a MJ2955, which >looks about the same except it'll handle a lot more power. Is there any >problem with using that instead. > >Sorry for the entry level questions. I'm getting to where I can build >simple circuits, but I can't modify or troubleshoot them. Give them a try. If the circuit doesn't work, then you KNOW what deviations you've applied that MIGHT be the cause. Generally, a circuit that calls for mylar or other very low-leakage/low-drift characteristics has a good reason but it might work with a subsititute. Digikey has polyester caps that are excellent substitutes for the hard to find mylars. See page 582 of current catalog at: http://info.digikey.com/T022/V5/0581-0583.pdf The TIP125 is a jelly-bean (rudimentary specifications) device . . . as is the MJ2955 . . . I suspect you'll have no substitution problems there. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Life in the FARS lane . . .
> > >"texasquadj(at)prodigy.net" wrote: > > > > > > Maybe I am missing something, but what does FAR Part 25 have to do with > > experimental airplanes? > > > > Jeff > > > >Nothing >-- >Bob McC One caveat . . . those of us who have spent most of a lifetime rubbing elbows and butting heads with folks who purport to know more about airplanes than we do, have a justifiably low regard of bureaucratic fondness for no-value-added-hoop-jumping. The FARS, certification checklists, and other documents are invaluable reminders of things to consider in a SEARCH for value-added activities. Generally, the good things are easy to cull out from the chaff. For example, be wary of requirements that incrementally escalate over time with no apparent justification. For example, did accident rates involving mid-air collisions go down when the light output requirement for strobes was jacked up? Did rates of accidents due to loss of an equipment item go down when MELs were slapped onto anything with wings? Did fewer airplanes fall out of the sky when the post office demanded that packages over 1# mailed with stamps be personally handed to a clerk? People who are bringing a totally new design to life would do well to be FAMILIAR with lessons-learned as documented by many authors and proffered by the experiences of our gray-bearded brothers . . . So don't discount the FARS or ol' farts as learning tools to guide your own critical analysis of what is best for your project. At the same time, be critical of EVERYTHING, irrespective of the source, that cannot be explained to you in terms you can understand and personally embrace as useful. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: anticollision light rqmt (OT?)
> >There seems to be a difference in interpretation of how rules >should apply to our aviation activities. One camp of people >seems to say that if rules don't apply to something, then we are >free to engineer a solution that makes sense to us and doesn't >hurt our pocketbooks too much. This group of people seems more >comfortable designing and testing (experimenting with) solutions >to various of the technical issues that are encountered, and >maybe they don't want to have it all spelled out for them. > >The other group of people, who it seems, by and large haven't >studied the FAR's as well, want to have the rules and requirements >specifying certain equipment to be layed out in terms of what is >allowed and needed in an organized format. They want to get the >list of required parts, install them into their airplanes, and get >on with flying them. They don't want to get into a fight with their >FSDO/DAR/A&P about what's okay on their plane. > >I think I am in the second group of people. I find the FAR's to >be a convoluted mish mash that wasn't written with regard to what >we want to do with our airplanes. While I find the design and >development process to be intellectually interesting, I am more >excited about climbing into my newer-than-1940's-technology-fun- >cross-country-traveler, than I am about working on it. > >I, however, do like to work on my plane because it helps me know better >how it functions and because it gives me confidence in how things are >carried out on it. I am willing to accept the liability involved with >doing my own work, and don't want to have to pay my mechanic's liability >insurance to cover his work on my airplane. I am not comforted in any >way by the coverage he carries. I figure that if I crash, sueing my >mechanic won't make me a lot happier about it. > >I suspect there are others like me. > >The way I see it is that we experimental aviators are operating in >a loop hole in using our airplanes as transportation and entertainment. >Being in a loop hole means that sometimes the rules and regs might seem >ambiguous or contradictory. > >I think the effort to reclassify some of our aircraft as Owner Built And >Maintained is a good one. I don't believe that making the rules >and regs pertaining to what we do more clear is something that would >necessarily impede our freedoms. Further, I think that if we continue >on our current path, where the existing FAR's are interpreted in various >ways, we are exposing ourselves to even more risk. Especially of a >somewhat loose interpretation of these rules leads to a chain of events >which causes an accident that becomes a media event. > >I foresee that if we as a community get truly crossthreaded with the >Feds (or the non-flying public), the types of restrictions that might be >placed on us might become truly unpleasant. I could imagine that IFR >ops might go away, along with night VFR ops. We might be limited from >entering controlled airspace, and might be required to have 'cetified' >equipment be used. Or maybe we would be required to get an engineers >signoff before any "experiment" could take place. Or I could see that >our airworthiness certs suddenly developed an expiration date -requiring >renewal following inspection. All of this in the name of SAFETY >(bah!). > >By the same token, I think that maybe the people who truly wish to >experiment with their airplanes should have unchanged freedom to do >that. We need people to continue to solve airplane problems in new >and better ways. > >I may be off-base here, so I invite criticism and comment. Well considered . . . and that's what makes it "on-base" . . . mindless and ill-considered reverence for anything marked "official opinion" is what's truly off-base in the OBAM world. >Matt "I'd own a 172 if I didn't think it was such overpriced junk" >Prather I'm kinda looking around for a serviceable Tri-Pacer to use for some STC and OBAM product development . . . it's junk that is priced just about right for what it can do. In my never humble opinion, one of the best values out there in a certified ship. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: OV Protection module - where?
> >Where and how should we mount the OV-14 protection >module? Schematically - anywhere downstream of your ALT FieLD breaker. >Should it be attached directly to the breaker and >hanging by the wires? Should it be in front of the >firewall? How do we fix it in a position? Physically, I'd tie it right into a handy wire bundle. Some folks have drilled a small hole in the crimped flat spot on the end away from wires to allow a small tye-wrap or string-tie to secure the far end while tye-wrap or string-tie on other end simply hugs the wires. Exact location is not terribly important. If it were my airplane, I'd place it as close as practical to the field breaker but I have installed them on the under side of a Ford style regulator . . . solder wires to A/S terminals and case ground. Use spot of RTV to attach OVM to bottom of regulator (there's a cavity about 5/8" deep that houses the little critter nicely). Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the | | discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: SD-8 alternator and Ess bus switch combo??
> >Hi Bob, > >I'm going with the "All Electric on a Budget" per Z-11. Just wondering if >there's a compelling reason why there needs to be separate toggle switches >for the SD-8 alternator and the Essential bus. Couldn't I use a DPDT >switch just like the master switch that controls the main bus and main >alternator to switch both the SD-8 and Ess bus at the same time? In the >rare instance that I might want to have the Ess bus ON and the SD-8 OFF, I >could just pull the 5 A field breaker for the SD-8 (same as I would to >shut off the main alternator when the Master is ON). Or if I wanted to >turn on the SD-8 to supplement the output of the main alternator (i.e. >during touch and goes in the pattern with the landing lights on for >extended periods of time??) I could still just switch it ON and the fact >that the Ess bus also happens to be ON doesn't seem to be an issue since >it's just an alternate path... > >Not trying to split hairs on your design, just don't see a point in adding >one more toggle switch if it's not really advantageous from a safety or >operational standpoint... Understand. I don't think I'd recommend a simple two-pole switch for dual control . . . this means that you cannot use the alternate feed path without also having the SD-8 on line. If the SD-8 were mis-behaving for any reason, you'd be giving up independent control. However, if you were to wire a 2-10 switch so that down is both OFF, mid is E-bus ALT FEED, and up position is ALT FEED + AUX ALT, this would accomplish your goal of single switch operation of both systems -AND- maintain independent control of the alternator. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the | | discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 06, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: initial plans for wiring a Cozy IV
> >Bob, >I'm finalizing my plan for the basic wiring on my rotary powered Cozy IV and >would like to run it by you. I've put a picture of the firewall layout at >http://kgarden.com/firewall.jpg >I'd prefer like to avoid buying a $400 alternator and a $200+ regulator so >I'm planning on 2 batteries and a stock Mazda alternator with crowbar OV >protector. As I see it, I need 4 contactors - one for each battery, one for >the starter and one for the alternator field. Correct . . . except that the 4th is for Alternator B-lead. >I'd like the switching to be as close as possible to the spam cans I'm used >to, so I'm planning on installing a "left, right, both, start" ignition >switch. I was thinking that the left and right positions would switch the >two battery contactors. This way I can switch the ignition off in case of >electrical problems. The fuel injection computer/s and duel pumps would be >powered from the battery buses. I know you don't like these, but I also have >a Cessna split master / alternator switch. My plan is to wire the alternator >field through one side and the main / essential bus to the other. One of the >things I'm not sure how to wire is the EFI computer (from Tracy Crook) which >has duel computers but only one power feed. Doesn't sound like he's learned much from studying the FARs. > Should I give it a supply from >both battery busses? If I do, won't this permanently cross connect the two >batteries, and is this a bad thing to do? As you can probably tell - I'm >struggling a bit here..... Can't help your discomfort much. The justification behind each of the architectures described in the book has been pretty well thrashed out over the years - and as always, we're continuously looking for improved alternatives. How do you plan to handle battery maintenance? Have you written a checklist of how to notice and then react to alternator and/or contactor failures? >The main and essential busses are installed under the right armrest see >http://kgarden.com/cz556.jpg > >Is there anything in the above plan that scares you? Nothing "scary" . . . as long as you understand the system and are prepared to deal with what ever idiosyncrasies are built into it. It poses no greater threat to your well being than the stuff flying around in virtually every spam-can. My only disappointment would be based on your willingness to bring the artifacts of aviation antiquity into what could be a throughly modern machine. I get several e-mails a month from folks who praise the content of the 'Connection and then seek my blessing on things they choose to do differently. I find it useful to observe the teachings of a 13th century philosopher, William of Occam. See: http://wotug.ukc.ac.uk/parallel/www/occam/occam-bio.html and . . . http://www.weburbia.com/physics/occam.html When you launch into any system design, make it work first and then see how many parts you can take out without compromising utility and performance. So when folks want to make changes, I ask them to explain in what ways their proposed modifications make the system perform better. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the | | discomfort of thought. ~ John F. Kennedy | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: initial plans for wiring a Cozy IV
> > >John, > I have a similar setup in my cozy Mk IV with two lightspeed ignitions. I >used two 17 AH batteries from B&C and an additional solinoid as a crossover >solinoid so that I can connect the two batteries for engine start or use one >battery to power both busses. Is this like Z-11 + Z-30 . . . don't you have 4 busses? > If I was doing it again, I would just use one larger battery for engine >start, no crossover, and a smaller backup battery to power the lightspeed if I >lost all power. I'll see if I have a picture of my installation. Why? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: B&C Voltage Regulator
> > >Bob, please: > >While testing the B&C LR3B-14 voltage regulator, using only the airplane's >battery, I noticed that terminal 6 (field voltage) on the voltage regulator >read approximately 1.6 volts dc when the alternator field switch is set to >"off". This is normal . . . >The bus voltage sense terminal was reading 12.6 volts. The voltage lamp was >cycling on and off. This is also normal . . . >When I turned the alternator field voltage switch to on, terminal 6 read >12.6 volts. > >Is this normal? Yup . . . >Additional question: > >What is the approximate minimum bus voltage which will turn the over voltage >lamp off? 13.0 volts +/- 0.2 volts. The light is supposed to flash if your alternator is not working. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | There is a great difference between knowing and | | understanding: you can know a lot about something and | | not really understand it. -C.F. Kettering- | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2002
From: John Rourke <john@allied-computer.com>
Subject: Connecting the LR3B
Hi, Bob, I got the LR3B from you some time ago, and will be using it with a modified Mitsubishi alternator, that has been modified to have three wires coming out: Ground, Field and Stator. The Ground and Field connections are obvious; is the Stator the same as the B lead? (I'll ask the guy who is supplying the alternator, Mark Landoll, but I don't know if he is familiar with the LR3B so I thought it best to check with you as well.) Thanks, -John Rourke ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2002
From: Peter Laurence <dr.laurence(at)mbdi.org>
Subject: Re: electronics 101
Keith, You can find the TIP 125 and Mylar capacitors at Jameco Http://www.Jameco.com BTW, Mylar is a brand name --these are polyester film capacitors Peter > I'm trying to build a dimmer that was featured in Kitplanes last summer. > > If the designer calls for a "mylar" capacitor, can I use an electrolytic or > ceramic instead? I can't find a mylar one locally. Also he called for a > TIP 125 PNP transistor. I couldn't find that, but I found a MJ2955, which > looks about the same except it'll handle a lot more power. Is there any > problem with using that instead. > > Sorry for the entry level questions. I'm getting to where I can build > simple circuits, but I can't modify or troubleshoot them. > > Keith > Denver > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: initial plans for wiring a Cozy IV
Date: Aug 07, 2002
> As I see it, I need 4 contactors - one for each > battery, one forthe starter and one for the alternator field. > > Correct . . . except that the 4th is for Alternator B-lead. Right. Thanks. The B-lead goes through the heavy contacts and the field goes through the switch and the small connectors on the contactor. Am I understanding this right? Should I put a breaker on the panel for the alt field? What size? > > Should I give it a supply from > >both battery busses? If I do, won't this permanently cross > connect the two > >batteries, and is this a bad thing to do? As you can probably tell - I'm > >struggling a bit here..... > > Can't help your discomfort much. The justification behind each of the > architectures described in the book has been pretty well thrashed out > over the years - and as always, we're continuously looking > for improved > alternatives. Yes, but given the limitation, whats the best way to supply power to a single feed EFI computer? Essential bus? Both battery busses? One battery bus? > How do you plan to handle battery maintenance? Have you > written a checklist of how to notice and then react to alternator > and/or contactor failures? Battery maintenance will be per your annual swap scheme. No checklist yet. Any help you can offer in that area would be much appreciated. > Nothing "scary" . . . as long as you understand the system and > are prepared to deal with what ever idiosyncrasies are built into it. Well, Bob. You see that's my problem. I DON'T really understand the system I've designed or it's idiotsyncrasies. I've studied your book in depth and have probably taken in 60% of it. Given unlimited available funds I'd follow you're diagrams to the letter, and be comfortable in the knowledge that I've wired the plane in the optimum way based on the best advice I can get. As soon as I deviate from the drawings (i.e. because of the restrictions of the single feed computer or the need for a low cost automotive alternator) I'm on my own. My novice thinking is that the spare battery will give me plenty of time to deal with the rare occurance of a dead alternator or regulator, and the OV module will prevent the batteries frying if the alternator goes beserk, so I'm protected from the two worst danger areas. Perhaps I won't be able to continue a 4 hour flight without breaking a sweat, but I'll have an hour or so to find a roosting spot. What am I missing? > My only disappointment would > be based on your willingness to bring the artifacts of aviation > antiquity into what could be a throughly modern machine. I guess you're refering to the switching. Is this such a bad thing? If so - please say why. Switches are not a cost issue. I have over 1000 hours and 37 years under this switching scheme and felt that the familiararity would be an advantage. Could you deliniate the disadvantages of going this way? > I get several e-mails a month from folks who praise the content > of the 'Connection and then seek my blessing on things they > choose to do differently. I find it useful to observe the > teachings of a 13th century philosopher, William of Occam. Ah yes, good old Bill and his razor. I used to live just up the road from him. > So when folks want to make changes, I > ask them to explain in what ways their proposed modifications > make the system perform better. I wasnt really seeking you're blessing - rather the opposite. I was asking for details of what I was giving up. I'm not trying to make the system better, I'm trying to make it CHEAPER. As with almost everything, there's a compromise. You've probably heard the saying "two types of airplanes - perfect ones and flying ones". If my economies are giving away more safety margin than I find acceptible, now is the time to arrest my plans. I guess what I need is more knowledge on what I'm giving up. Thanks for you're thoughtful input. John Slade ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 07, 2002
Subject: FAR 91.205
Bob Nuckolls wrote previously: "FAR91 reads in part: Sec. 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.....skip..... One one might argue that OBAM aircraft are not "certificated".....skip....." 8/7/2002 Hello Bob, I was expecting that someone might say someday "Hey, FAR 91.205 doesn't apply to our amateur built experimental aircraft (what you have taken to calling OBAM) therefore we can xxxxxxxxx or don't have to yyyyyyyy". No one has said that to date, but since you have touched on that issue please let me comment. It is correct that a reading of FAR 91.205 shows that it explicitly does not apply to amateur built experimental aircraft. But the Operating Limitations for that aircraft will invariably reference FAR 91.205 and require compliance. The moral of the story is that while we may not have to be lawyers to remain in compliance in this arena it behooves us to read and research in detail and with an open mind. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2002
From: Van Caulart <etivc(at)iaw.on.ca>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 25 Msgs - 08/06/02
>Matt "I'd own a 172 if I didn't think it was such overpriced junk" >Prather I'm kinda looking around for a serviceable Tri-Pacer to use for some STC and OBAM product development . . . it's junk that is priced just about right for what it can do. In my never humble opinion, one of the best values out there in a certified ship. Bob . . . Except maybe a '68 150 hp Cardinal. Good utility, cheap and simple. I couldn't resist the comment because mine is turning out to be a great test bed. PeterVC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: FAR 91.205
> >Bob Nuckolls wrote previously: > >"FAR91 reads in part: Sec. 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard >category U.S. >airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment >requirements.....skip..... >One one might argue that OBAM aircraft are not "certificated".....skip....." > >8/7/2002 > >Hello Bob, I was expecting that someone might say someday "Hey, FAR 91.205 >doesn't apply to our amateur built experimental aircraft (what you have taken >to calling OBAM) therefore we can xxxxxxxxx or don't have to yyyyyyyy". > >No one has said that to date, but since you have touched on that issue please >let me comment. It is correct that a reading of FAR 91.205 shows that it >explicitly does not apply to amateur built experimental aircraft. But the >Operating Limitations for that aircraft will invariably reference FAR 91.205 >and require compliance. > >The moral of the story is that while we may not have to be lawyers to remain >in compliance in this arena it behooves us to read and research in detail and >with an open mind. FAR91 covers flight operations for ALL aircraft, spam-can or OBAM . . . if the operations call for certain kinds of lighting, I would expect to comply . . . the line gets fuzzy when another FAR is quoted in part 91 . . . I WOULD work to produce a flight system that does a good job of complying with the intent of the lesser FARS -AND- satisfies my own notions of "meets the intended purpose" which may or may not be certifiable on a type certificated aircraft. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | There is a great difference between knowing and | | understanding: you can know a lot about something and | | not really understand it. -C.F. Kettering- | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: electronics 101
> >Keith, > >You can find the TIP 125 and Mylar capacitors at Jameco >Http://www.Jameco.com > >BTW, Mylar is a brand name --these are polyester film capacitors > >Peter Good call! I'd forgotten why the term "mylar" had become so rare in the catalogs. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | There is a great difference between knowing and | | understanding: you can know a lot about something and | | not really understand it. -C.F. Kettering- | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Connecting the LR3B
><john@allied-computer.com> > >Hi, Bob, I got the LR3B from you some time ago, and will be using it >with a modified Mitsubishi alternator, that has been modified to have >three wires coming out: Ground, Field and Stator. >The Ground and Field connections are obvious; is the Stator the same as >the B lead? Yes . . . this should be a fat terminal on the order of 1/4" or so. > (I'll ask the guy who is supplying the alternator, Mark >Landoll, but I don't know if he is familiar with the LR3B so I thought >it best to check with you as well.) He should be. It's been out there as a competitor of his for about 15 years. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | There is a great difference between knowing and | | understanding: you can know a lot about something and | | not really understand it. -C.F. Kettering- | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2002
From: John Rourke <john@allied-computer.com>
Subject: Re: Connecting the LR3B
Hi Bob - I talked to Mark today, he didn't seem to know where the stator lead should go on the LR3B, claiming ignorance of the specifics (even though he said he does know Bill) oh well... I do have a "fat terminal" B-lead, which of course comes off 3 of the diodes that lead to one end of the three stator windings, as shown in your diagram in chapter 3 - (and of course which also connects to the other 3 diodes that go to ground...) I kind of got him to agree that the "Stator" lead is probably the common lead at the other end of the three stator windings, but he actually didn't sound sure, says he sends it out for someone else to modify - and you seem to indicate in Chapter three that the other end of the stator windings could go to either ground or B+; I believe it was mentioned that it usually is grounded internally, but now you say that it is "the same" as the B-lead... and Mark said that it is used to energize the windings, but I thought that was the job of the field terminal, on the armature, correct? Gee, I'm having to reach back to my 7th grade science fair project for all these terms - and I'm still not getting a definite answer (my science fair project wasn't three-phase..)! I'm not sure if it really matters, actually, since the diodes act as a full-wave bridge anyway - but if I connect it to ground, I'm thinking it would tend to cut the output in half since the negative half of the cycle would not exist - I think. And wouldn't that be the converse if connecting it to Bat? Maybe it should just be left unconnected? But then the return current has to go through the other windings, that's not right is it? (At this point maybe it would have been eaiser to have just spent the $500 on the B&C... but I cannot justify that high of a price, if I paid that for everything I would have given up on X-Av a long time ago... ) Thanks, -John Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > >><john@allied-computer.com> >> >>Hi, Bob, I got the LR3B from you some time ago, and will be using it >>with a modified Mitsubishi alternator, that has been modified to have >>three wires coming out: Ground, Field and Stator. >> > > >>The Ground and Field connections are obvious; is the Stator the same as >>the B lead? >> > > Yes . . . this should be a fat terminal on the order of 1/4" or so. > >> (I'll ask the guy who is supplying the alternator, Mark >>Landoll, but I don't know if he is familiar with the LR3B so I thought >>it best to check with you as well.) >> > > He should be. It's been out there as a competitor of his for > about 15 years. > > Bob . . . > > |-------------------------------------------------------| > | There is a great difference between knowing and | > | understanding: you can know a lot about something and | > | not really understand it. -C.F. Kettering- | > |-------------------------------------------------------| > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Connecting the LR3B
Date: Aug 08, 2002
The stator terminal on an alternator is sometimes called the aux terminal as well. It is not used with a B&C regulator. The stator terminal is connected internally to one of the three stator windings on the other side of the diode and therefore gives you an AC output rather than DC. The average voltage of the stator terminal is roughly 1/2 bus voltage. This terminal is sometimes used in aircraft to determine alternator failure. The signal is conditioned and if the average voltage falls below some determined value, the alternator fail light is turned on. David Swartzendruber Wichita ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Rourke" <john@allied-computer.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Connecting the LR3B <john@allied-computer.com> > > Hi Bob - I talked to Mark today, he didn't seem to know where the stator > lead should go on the LR3B, claiming ignorance of the specifics (even > though he said he does know Bill) oh well... > > I do have a "fat terminal" B-lead, which of course comes off 3 of the > diodes that lead to one end of the three stator windings, as shown in > your diagram in chapter 3 - (and of course which also connects to the > other 3 diodes that go to ground...) I kind of got him to agree that the > "Stator" lead is probably the common lead at the other end of the three > stator windings, but he actually didn't sound sure, says he sends it out > for someone else to modify - and you seem to indicate in Chapter three > that the other end of the stator windings could go to either ground or > B+; I believe it was mentioned that it usually is grounded internally, > but now you say that it is "the same" as the B-lead... and Mark said > that it is used to energize the windings, but I thought that was the job > of the field terminal, on the armature, correct? Gee, I'm having to > reach back to my 7th grade science fair project for all these terms - > and I'm still not getting a definite answer (my science fair project > wasn't three-phase..)! > > I'm not sure if it really matters, actually, since the diodes act as a > full-wave bridge anyway - but if I connect it to ground, I'm thinking it > would tend to cut the output in half since the negative half of the > cycle would not exist - I think. And wouldn't that be the converse if > connecting it to Bat? > > Maybe it should just be left unconnected? But then the return current > has to go through the other windings, that's not right is it? > > (At this point maybe it would have been eaiser to have just spent the > $500 on the B&C... but I cannot justify that high of a price, if I paid > that for everything I would have given up on X-Av a long time ago... ) > > Thanks, > -John > > > Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > > > > >><john@allied-computer.com> > >> > >>Hi, Bob, I got the LR3B from you some time ago, and will be using it > >>with a modified Mitsubishi alternator, that has been modified to have > >>three wires coming out: Ground, Field and Stator. > >> > > > > > >>The Ground and Field connections are obvious; is the Stator the same as > >>the B lead? > >> > > > > Yes . . . this should be a fat terminal on the order of 1/4" or so. > > > >> (I'll ask the guy who is supplying the alternator, Mark > >>Landoll, but I don't know if he is familiar with the LR3B so I thought > >>it best to check with you as well.) > >> > > > > He should be. It's been out there as a competitor of his for > > about 15 years. > > > > Bob . . . > > > > |-------------------------------------------------------| > > | There is a great difference between knowing and | > > | understanding: you can know a lot about something and | > > | not really understand it. -C.F. Kettering- | > > |-------------------------------------------------------| > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 08, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Connecting the LR3B
><john@allied-computer.com> > >Hi Bob - I talked to Mark today, he didn't seem to know where the stator >lead should go on the LR3B, claiming ignorance of the specifics (even >though he said he does know Bill) oh well... I'm disappointed that someone who has been offering products to customers such as yourself for lots of years cannot articulate the functionality of their product in detail . . . > I do have a "fat terminal" B-lead, which of course comes off 3 of the >diodes that lead to one end of the three stator windings, as shown in >your diagram in chapter 3 - (and of course which also connects to the >other 3 diodes that go to ground...) I kind of got him to agree that the >"Stator" lead is probably the common lead at the other end of the three >stator windings, but he actually didn't sound sure, says he sends it out >for someone else to modify - and you seem to indicate in Chapter three >that the other end of the stator windings could go to either ground or >B+; I believe it was mentioned that it usually is grounded internally, >but now you say that it is "the same" as the B-lead... and Mark said >that it is used to energize the windings, but I thought that was the job >of the field terminal, on the armature, correct? Gee, I'm having to >reach back to my 7th grade science fair project for all these terms - >and I'm still not getting a definite answer (my science fair project >wasn't three-phase..)! If you have a fat terminal known to be the b-lead or power output terminal IN ADDITION to an "auxiliary" or "stator" terminal, then you can ignore this extra output. Some DELTA wound alternators will have an extra set of 3 diodes that drive what might be called an auxiliary output. Some Wye wound alternators of yesteryear also brought the central-node of the stator windings out to a terminal. The output from this terminal was used to close a field relay on some systems and/or provide field excitation for normal operations after the alternator was coaxed alive via a "sneak path" through the alternator failure warning light. Before the engineers got smart, failure of this light bulb could keep an alternator from coming on line after the engine started. Later cars with this system put a resistor around the lamp bulb to maintain this sneak path even if the bulb was burned out. This extra output was monitored on some aircraft installations as a means for deducing alternator failure. I know of no modern installations that can make good use of this output and it can be ignored. >I'm not sure if it really matters, actually, since the diodes act as a >full-wave bridge anyway - but if I connect it to ground, I'm thinking it >would tend to cut the output in half since the negative half of the >cycle would not exist - I think. And wouldn't that be the converse if >connecting it to Bat? No, leave it open. >Maybe it should just be left unconnected? But then the return current >has to go through the other windings, that's not right is it? > >(At this point maybe it would have been eaiser to have just spent the >$500 on the B&C... but I cannot justify that high of a price, if I paid >that for everything I would have given up on X-Av a long time ago... ) The alternator you have may very well do the job you need done. I'm sure it's incapable of duplicating the track record of the B&C products but just because it has an extra terminal needed to address system design philosophies of 30 years ago doesn't mean it won't be a good value for you. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 08, 2002
From: "William Yamokoski" <yamokosk(at)lmc.cc.mi.us>
Subject: Alternator/OV Module Question
Hi Folks, I'm installing an Eggenfellner Subaru in my Glastar. Their installation uses the EXP Bus, which I'm not going to do. I'll be using Bob's basic 2 battery, one alternator design. Here's the question. The 35a alternator that comes with the Subaru has an internal regulator. Perusing the many good articles on Bob's site leads me to want to use the crowbar overvoltage protector with a separate alternator contactor, as per Bob's drawing. Somewhere I read the phrase "If you're willing to modify your alternator..." in connection with that design. What alternator modifications are called for? I don't have the alternator specifics, so I can't say exactly what model alternator it is. But in general, what modofications am I looking at? Thanks very much for any help on this. Bill Yamokoski, N4970Y ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca>
Subject: Wheelchair Battery ?
Date: Aug 08, 2002
Hi Bob; Last week I had a friend fly up here to Canada from Tucson, to visit & fly his RV-6. As he was preparing to leave, his battery "failed". Not died, but failed in that the positive terminal separated from the internal plates. Now as I've read most everything that you've written on the subject & understand that this is quite rare, I was quite surprised by this until I asked how old the battery is. Apparently it is the one that came with his kit -- 15 years ago. Now I'm surprised that the battery didn't die before this. What I also find surprising is that this guy is an electronics engineer & he routinely flies in the Canadian Arctic & down in remote areas of South America (he has extended range tanks). I would expect that he would have a strict battery maintenance schedule, as he should know better. Aircraft batteries are not available locally, so we just went down to our local "Battery Warehouse" to find something suitable to get him home. We were able to get a wheelchair battery that was exactly the same physical dimensions as his failed 20AH Concorde, with a slightly different terminal. It is an RG battery, 33AH, and it load tested at 750 cranking amps. 2 year warranty, $129 Canadian Pesos. Approx. the same weight. ( didn't have any scales handy-- used the "feels about the same" method). He has since reported to me that it is working great, including 2 flooded, hot starts that required extended cranking and he has no plans to change this out with a "real" aircraft battery. Of course he was also satisfied with a battery that far exceeded it expected useful life. Since I am just finishing my RV-9 and will soon require a battery myself, I am now considering this, as it will save me considerable $$$, since I will be avoiding shipping, brokerage fees & poor exchange rates. What are your thoughts on this? Are all RG batteries created equally? Is there anything special about the aircraft type? Or is this just the same battery with a different label? Thanks for your input. S. Todd Bartrim 13B rotary powered RV-9endurance (finish kit) C-FSTB (reserved) http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm Wheelchair Battery ? Hi Bob; Last week I had a friend fly up here to Canada from Tucson, to visit fly his RV-6. As he was preparing to leave, his battery failed. Not died, but failed in that the positive terminal separated from the internal plates. Now as I've read most everything that you've written on the subject understand that this is quite rare, I was quite surprised by this until I asked how old the battery is. Apparently it is the one that came with his kit -- 15 years ago. Now I'm surprised that the battery didn't die before this. What I also find surprising is that this guy is an electronics engineer he routinely flies in the Canadian Arctic down in remote areas of South America (he has extended range tanks). I would expect that he would have a strict battery maintenance schedule, as he should know better. Aircraft batteries are not available locally, so we just went down to our local Battery Warehouse to find something suitable to get him home. We were able to get a wheelchair battery that was exactly the same physical dimensions as his failed 20AH Concorde, with a slightly different terminal. It is an RG battery, 33AH, and it load tested at 750 cranking amps. 2 year warranty, $129 Canadian Pesos. Approx. the same weight. ( didn't have any scales handy-- used the feels about the same method). He has since reported to me that it is working great, including 2 flooded, hot starts that required extended cranking and he has no plans to change this out with a real aircraft battery. Of course he was also satisfied with a battery that far exceeded it expected useful life. Since I am just finishing my RV-9 and will soon require a battery myself, I am now considering this, as it will save me considerable $$$, since I will be avoiding shipping, brokerage fees poor exchange rates. What are your thoughts on this? Are all RG batteries created equally? Is there anything special about the aircraft type? Or is this just the same battery with a different label? Thanks for your input. S. Todd Bartrim 13B rotary powered RV-9endurance (finish kit) C-FSTB (reserved) http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 08, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator/OV Module Question
> > >Hi Folks, > I'm installing an Eggenfellner Subaru in my Glastar. Their > installation uses the EXP Bus, which I'm not going to do. I'll be using > Bob's basic 2 battery, one alternator design. Here's the > question. The 35a alternator that comes with the Subaru has an internal > regulator. Perusing the many good articles on Bob's site leads me to > want to use the crowbar overvoltage protector with a separate alternator > contactor, as per Bob's drawing. Somewhere I read the phrase "If you're > willing to modify your alternator..." in connection with that > design. What alternator modifications are called for? I don't have > the alternator specifics, so I can't say exactly what model alternator it > is. But in general, what modofications am I looking at? Thanks very > much for any help on this. >Bill Yamokoski, N4970Y If you have an external regulator, then you don't need to modify anything. For the fact that your regulator may not be a "ford" style, you should be able to use Figure Z23 as a guide. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 09, 2002
Subject: Non Phillips Drive Screws
pulsar-builders(at)caseyk.org, jschroeder(at)perigee.net 8/9/2002 Hello Fellow Builders, You may recall that a few weeks back this subject was discussed in some detail and John Fleisher of Micro Fasteners agreed to attempt to have some 8-32 X 5/8 inch long, 100 degree countersink, flat head, stainless steel, Torx drive screws manufactured and stock them in purchasable quantities by individual builders. A product like this had heretofore not been available except in very large special order quantities not feasible for individual builders. John has now reported that he has these screws in stock. I will quote his email: "Subj: 8-32x5/8 100 degree flat head torx screwsThe subject screws, our part number FCMXS0810, are now available. They are made from 302 stainless steel and require a torx T20 driver. The price is $14.50/100 in packages of 100 only. Shipping for orders of up to $100 is $5. If you would like to see samples first, send your mailing address and we will send 6 pieces at no charge. You may order on our website at www.microfasteners.com, which we suggest if you want to email credit card information. The screws are under the "socket screw" category on the site. If you prefer to call or fax, use 800-892-6917 or 908-236-8120 for voice, 908-236-8721 for fax. Whether and when we order additional sizes will depend upon the response to this message. If even 1/4 of those who have expressed interest order these screws we will order 6-32's and 10-32's immediately. Thanks for your interest and for your patience. John Fleisher Micro Fasteners" If any of you are members of groups that you feel would benefit from having this information please pass it on to them. I would like to express my appreciation to John for his efforts on our behalf. I had been attempting for 4 plus years to obtain such a product without success until now. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? PS: Micro Fasteners also stocks a varitey of hex socket head drive screws in alloy and stainless steel. I have made extensive use of these hex socket head drive stainless steel fasteners in both button head and standard knurled head configuration in my project. They are vastly superior to the Phillips drive screws in speed and convenience of use. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 09, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Wheelchair Battery ?
> > >Hi Bob; > Last week I had a friend fly up here to Canada from Tucson, to visit >& fly his RV-6. As he was preparing to leave, his battery "failed". Not >died, but failed in that the positive terminal separated from the internal >plates. Now as I've read most everything that you've written on the subject >& understand that this is quite rare, I was quite surprised by this until I >asked how old the battery is. Apparently it is the one that came with his >kit -- 15 years ago. Now I'm surprised that the battery didn't die before >this. What I also find surprising is that this guy is an electronics >engineer & he routinely flies in the Canadian Arctic & down in remote areas >of South America (he has extended range tanks). I would expect that he would >have a strict battery maintenance schedule, as he should know better. All of us who "should know better" are caught with their maintenance down . . . it's all too easy to do. > Aircraft batteries are not available locally, so we just went down >to our local "Battery Warehouse" to find something suitable to get him home. >We were able to get a wheelchair battery that was exactly the same physical >dimensions as his failed 20AH Concorde, with a slightly different terminal. >It is an RG battery, 33AH, and it load tested at 750 cranking amps. 2 year >warranty, $129 Canadian Pesos. Approx. the same weight. ( didn't have any >scales handy-- used the "feels about the same" method). > He has since reported to me that it is working great, including 2 >flooded, hot starts that required extended cranking and he has no plans to >change this out with a "real" aircraft battery. Of course he was also >satisfied with a battery that far exceeded it expected useful life. > Since I am just finishing my RV-9 and will soon require a battery >myself, I am now considering this, as it will save me considerable $$$, >since I will be avoiding shipping, brokerage fees & poor exchange rates. > What are your thoughts on this? Are all RG batteries created >equally? Is there anything special about the aircraft type? Or is this just >the same battery with a different label? What ever you can find in a truly RG battery will be just fine for an airplane. RG batteries are so benign in their mess-making-modes that the Post Office allows you to mail the things. I'd recommend a 17-20 a.h. battery in any brand you can find that will allow you to bolt 4AWG wires to it. I'm surprised that a 33AH rated battery would be so close to the same size and weight as a 20AH Concord . . . I'm suspicious of the commercial battery's true capacity. If it were my airplane, I'd put a 17-20 a.h. battery in from any source you can find locally. The battery should be about 3 x 6 x 7 inches and weight 13-15 pounds . . . and cheap. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 09, 2002
From: "William Yamokoski" <yamokosk(at)lmc.cc.mi.us>
Subject: Re: Alternator/OV Module Question
Thanks very much Bob. Is Z23 available in anything other than dwg format? My steam powered home computer can't seem to handle it. Is it the same drawing that is referred to in the catalog section that includes the OV Module? I do have those. Thanks again. Bill Yamokoski <<< "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 8/ 8 11:35p >>> > > >Hi Folks, > I'm installing an Eggenfellner Subaru in my Glastar. Their > installation uses the EXP Bus, which I'm not going to do. I'll be using > Bob's basic 2 battery, one alternator design. Here's the > question. The 35a alternator that comes with the Subaru has an internal > regulator. Perusing the many good articles on Bob's site leads me to > want to use the crowbar overvoltage protector with a separate alternator > contactor, as per Bob's drawing. Somewhere I read the phrase "If you're > willing to modify your alternator..." in connection with that > design. What alternator modifications are called for? I don't have > the alternator specifics, so I can't say exactly what model alternator it > is. But in general, what modofications am I looking at? Thanks very > much for any help on this. >Bill Yamokoski, N4970Y If you have an external regulator, then you don't need to modify anything. For the fact that your regulator may not be a "ford" style, you should be able to use Figure Z23 as a guide. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: initial plans for wiring a Cozy IV
Date: Aug 09, 2002
Bob, I posted the following a couple of days ago. I've seen a bunch of questions and answers go by since then, so I'm thinking that you probably missed or didnt get my post.......... > As I see it, I need 4 contactors - one for each > battery, one forthe starter and one for the alternator field. > > Correct . . . except that the 4th is for Alternator B-lead. Right. Thanks. The B-lead goes through the heavy contacts and the field goes through the switch and the small connectors on the contactor. Am I understanding this right? Should I put a breaker on the panel for the alt field? What size? > > Should I give it a supply from > >both battery busses? If I do, won't this permanently cross > connect the two > >batteries, and is this a bad thing to do? As you can probably tell - I'm > >struggling a bit here..... > > Can't help your discomfort much. The justification behind each of the > architectures described in the book has been pretty well thrashed out > over the years - and as always, we're continuously looking > for improved > alternatives. Yes, but given the limitation, whats the best way to supply power to a single feed EFI computer? Essential bus? Both battery busses? One battery bus? > How do you plan to handle battery maintenance? Have you > written a checklist of how to notice and then react to alternator > and/or contactor failures? Battery maintenance will be per your annual swap scheme. No checklist yet. Any help you can offer in that area would be much appreciated. > Nothing "scary" . . . as long as you understand the system and > are prepared to deal with what ever idiosyncrasies are built into it. Well, Bob. You see that's my problem. I DON'T really understand the system I've designed or it's idiotsyncrasies. I've studied your book in depth and have probably taken in 60% of it. Given unlimited available funds I'd follow you're diagrams to the letter, and be comfortable in the knowledge that I've wired the plane in the optimum way based on the best advice I can get. As soon as I deviate from the drawings (i.e. because of the restrictions of the single feed computer or the need for a low cost automotive alternator) I'm on my own. My novice thinking is that the spare battery will give me plenty of time to deal with the rare occurance of a dead alternator or regulator, and the OV module will prevent the batteries frying if the alternator goes beserk, so I'm protected from the two worst danger areas. Perhaps I won't be able to continue a 4 hour flight without breaking a sweat, but I'll have an hour or so to find a roosting spot. What am I missing? > My only disappointment would > be based on your willingness to bring the artifacts of aviation > antiquity into what could be a throughly modern machine. I guess you're refering to the switching. Is this such a bad thing? If so - please say why. Switches are not a cost issue. I have over 1000 hours and 37 years under this switching scheme and felt that the familiararity would be an advantage. Could you deliniate the disadvantages of going this way? > I get several e-mails a month from folks who praise the content > of the 'Connection and then seek my blessing on things they > choose to do differently. I find it useful to observe the > teachings of a 13th century philosopher, William of Occam. Ah yes, good old Bill and his razor. I used to live just up the road from him. > So when folks want to make changes, I > ask them to explain in what ways their proposed modifications > make the system perform better. I wasnt really seeking you're blessing - rather the opposite. I was asking for details of what I was giving up. I'm not trying to make the system better, I'm trying to make it CHEAPER. As with almost everything, there's a compromise. You've probably heard the saying "two types of airplanes - perfect ones and flying ones". If my economies are giving away more safety margin than I find acceptible, now is the time to arrest my plans. I guess what I need is more knowledge on what I'm giving up. Thanks for you're thoughtful input. John Slade ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 09, 2002
From: "Paul A. Franz, P.E." <paul(at)eucleides.com>
Subject: Re: Wheelchair Battery ?
At 12:23 PM 8/9/2002Robert L. Nuckolls, III sez: > I'm surprised that a 33AH rated battery would be so close to > the same size and weight as a 20AH Concord . . . I'm suspicious > of the commercial battery's true capacity. If it were my > airplane, I'd put a 17-20 a.h. battery in from any source > you can find locally. The battery should be about 3 x 6 x 7 > inches and weight 13-15 pounds . . . and cheap. When I phone a battery dealer they seem to have "cranking minutes" or reserve cranking minutes listed, no weight but dimensions of the batteries. Their catalogues work best with make and model of vehicle or part number for reference. Do you have a few part numbers so I can have some batteries looked up bia cross referencing and from looking at a battery how can I be absolutely sure it is an RG battery? Thanks. 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/> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 09, 2002
From: "Paul A. Franz, P.E." <paul(at)eucleides.com>
Subject: Re: Wheelchair Battery ?
At 12:23 PM 8/9/2002Robert L. Nuckolls, III sez: > What ever you can find in a truly RG battery will be just fine > for an airplane. RG batteries are so benign in their mess-making-modes > that the Post Office allows you to mail the things. I'd recommend > a 17-20 a.h. battery in any brand you can find that will allow > you to bolt 4AWG wires to it. > > I'm surprised that a 33AH rated battery would be so close to > the same size and weight as a 20AH Concord . . . I'm suspicious > of the commercial battery's true capacity. If it were my > airplane, I'd put a 17-20 a.h. battery in from any source > you can find locally. The battery should be about 3 x 6 x 7 > inches and weight 13-15 pounds . . . and cheap. > > Bob . . . I found a battery made by Sonnenschein (German) that is carried by Les Schwab. $49.95. No shipping charge. The battery is model ES18-12, 18 AH, wt. 13.1 lbs. Dimensions in plan view 2.99" x 7.13" - 6.37" tall. Nut and bolt posts flush with top surface. Front and side cable access. This appears to be a great deal for anyone in the Western US because there are 335 Les Schwab Tire dealers and you can get it at any one of them for $49.95 plus tax but shipping is included. So just call and pick them up. You can find your closest Les Schwab dealer jumping into the yellow pages on yahoo. The Les Schwab rep faxed me the page showing this battery out of their catalog. It is the lower right battery on the page of Sonneschein batteries. You can see the orientation of the posts if you blow it up a bit. I talked to Jamie at Schwab HQ (514)416-5132. <http://www.eucleides.com/fax00005.tif> 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/> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 09, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Off line until Wednesday . . .
Dee just finished grading the final exam for a summer class she's been teaching and we're headed off to the mountains to goof off a few days. No particular place to be between now and Monday night but then we'll be looking for a dark mountaintop from which to view the Perseids meteor shower. It's supposed to peak Monday night. Will be back on line Wednesday morning. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | There is a great difference between knowing and | | understanding: you can know a lot about something and | | not really understand it. -C.F. Kettering- | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu>
Subject: Drawings in App Z
Date: Aug 09, 2002
Bob - apologies for a dumb question. In the past I have down loaded and opened some of the drawings in App Z with no problem and I don't have Autocad. I have recently rebuilt my PC and now cant. You indicate you have some downloads that will read them. Where do you keep them? Thanks, Steve. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: Screws
Date: Aug 11, 2002
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Non Phillips Drive Screws pulsar-builders(at)caseyk.org, jschroeder(at)perigee.net 8/9/2002 "Hello Fellow Builders, You may recall that a few weeks back this subject was discussed in some detail ....... " Actually the discussion was as a result of my rant regarding the stupidity of Philips head versus Robertson screws, thanks to the intransigence of Henry Ford and his ambitions to own the world, and the US Government's recognition of a far less worthy replacement (the @#$% Philips ) just in time for WW II. "........and John Fleisher of Micro Fasteners agreed to attempt to have some 8-32 X 5/8 inch long, 100 degree countersink, flat head, stainless steel, Torx drive screws manufactured and stock them in purchasable quantities by individual builders. A product like this had heretofore not been available except in very large special order quantities not feasible for individual builders." That the US feds would ignore a far superior screw in favour of a home-grown inferior design is understandable in view of the tenor of the times - but to admit TORX without later considering Robertson is the mistake of the century. I have no quarrel with "OC" on his husbanding of the noted screws, as they have a necessary part to play in connecting some vital parts, but the nonsense of the Philips prevails and I admire Baker's endeavours. Nevertheless, I was disappointed in the lack of serious response to my previous message. The Robertson ("square drive") is entitled to frank and open consideration. I repeat that a group should engage in developping a demand for the stronger, easier, and cheaper design. It is no longer a xenophobic subject since the present maker bought the Canadian rights and is an American firm. The Robertson is now legion in Canada and deserves the nomination for acceptability as a superior fastener. There is no question that its qualities will eventually overwhelm many fields of fabrication and OBAM aircraft should lead, not follow. Show me a cheap, strong screw you can instal downward with one hand that isn't a Robertson and I will concede. Respectfully, Ferg Europa A064 "PS: Micro Fasteners also stocks a variety of hex socket head drive screws in alloy and stainless steel. ............. They are vastly superior to the Phillips drive screws in speed and convenience of use." What isn't? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2002
From: Clay Smith <cbsmith(at)nf.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Icom Installation
I'm installing an Icom IC-A200 and read in the instructions to "use 2 pairs of #18 AWG for power and power grounding wiring" What is 2 pairs of 18 AWG? Would that be 2 #18 wires tied together?? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Clay ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 12, 2002
From: "Alfred Buess" <Alfred.Buess(at)shl.bfh.ch>
Subject: Navigation Select Switch
I plan to have both VOR and an IFR capable GPS in my panel. I would like to be able to display the track info from both on a OBS instrument (probably the Narco 122D/GPS.) I need some sort of switch to select VOR or GPS and an annunciator to show which is selected. I also would like to use the same switch and display so my NAVAID autopilot can track either a VOR or GPS course. What have others used? I am open to all suggestions. Charlie Brame> 8/3/2002 I have a similar question: In my Europa XS aircraft, the panel is equipped with an Apollo SL-30 Nav/Comm, a Garmin 195 GPSMAP, a MD200-306 Indicator for track and glideslope and a Navaid autopilot. I need a switch to select the indicator and the autopilot input between the Nav and the GPS. Pacific Coast Avionics sell an Eaton Annuciator Switch for GPS/NAV, but I have no specific information about it and don't know if it handles the data given by the SL-30 and the GARMIN 195 correctly. Pacific Coast Avionics don't reply to emails asking for more information. Does anyone know the Eaton Annuciator Switch for GPS/NAV or even have any experiences? Or is there a better solution for this switching task? Thanks in advance for all replies! Alfred Buess Europa HB-YKI ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net>
Subject: Re: Navigation Select Switch
Date: Aug 12, 2002
Alfred, I did a Google search and found this http://63.97.220.44/products.html It is Eaton's web site, they might respond direct to your questions. Good luck > Pacific Coast Avionics sell an Eaton Annuciator Switch for GPS/NAV, but I have no specific information about it and >don't know if it handles the data given by the SL-30 and the GARMIN 195 correctly. Pacific Coast Avionics don't reply >to emails asking for more information. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 12, 2002
From: "Paul A. Franz, P.E." <paul(at)eucleides.com>
Subject: Battery update
This battery was placed on a scale today and found to weigh 14.5 lbs. The book lists it at 13.1 lbs. The sales rep said that the book weight is less when it doesn't include the weight of the electrolyte but since it is sealed this shouldn't apply. These batteries can be shipped by any method without being classified as a hazardous material. So if you are not in the far western states and can't find some place local to buy this battery, give them a call and they will ship it to you. At 05:47 PM 8/9/2002Paul A. Franz, P.E. sez: > > >At 12:23 PM 8/9/2002Robert L. Nuckolls, III sez: > > What ever you can find in a truly RG battery will be just fine > > for an airplane. RG batteries are so benign in their mess-making-modes > > that the Post Office allows you to mail the things. I'd recommend > > a 17-20 a.h. battery in any brand you can find that will allow > > you to bolt 4AWG wires to it. > > > > I'm surprised that a 33AH rated battery would be so close to > > the same size and weight as a 20AH Concord . . . I'm suspicious > > of the commercial battery's true capacity. If it were my > > airplane, I'd put a 17-20 a.h. battery in from any source > > you can find locally. The battery should be about 3 x 6 x 7 > > inches and weight 13-15 pounds . . . and cheap. > > > > Bob . . . > >I found a battery made by Sonnenschein (German) that is carried by Les >Schwab. $49.95. No shipping charge. The battery is model ES18-12, 18 AH, >wt. 13.1 lbs. Dimensions in plan view 2.99" x 7.13" - 6.37" tall. Nut and >bolt posts flush with top surface. Front and side cable access. > >This appears to be a great deal for anyone in the Western US because there >are 335 Les Schwab Tire dealers and you can get it at any one of them for >$49.95 plus tax but shipping is included. So just call and pick them up. >You can find your closest Les Schwab dealer jumping into the yellow pages >on yahoo. > >The Les Schwab rep faxed me the page showing this battery out of their >catalog. It is the lower right battery on the page of Sonneschein >batteries. You can see the orientation of the posts if you blow it up a >bit. I talked to Jamie at Schwab HQ (514)416-5132. > ><http://www.eucleides.com/fax00005.tif> 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/> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net>
Subject: The old AV Master debate
Date: Aug 12, 2002
Bob (or others), I have researched and read your articles and threads on the antiquity of the AMS. However, I believe I have a unique situation that an AMS is the only logical solution I can find. I'm hoping you can help. BACKGROUND: Lancair Legacy 2000 Supercharged IO-550 Planning a dual 17Ah bat, dual 70A alternator system The "glass cockpit" avionics package I am pursuing consists of a pair of Chelton/Sierra Flight Systems EFIS 2000 computers, along with a Crossbow AHRS. I have placed the basic needed equipment on the ESS bus, and the rest on the PRI bus. However, with using the smaller 17Ah batteries, both will be required for starting. With the typical equipment in my stack (PS audio panel, garmin 430, garmin 330) having switches on them, this doesn't present a problem; just make sure I have them all off when I start the engine if I was worried about any undervoltage problems. However, the EFIS and AHRS don't have power switches on the units; therefore, it seems to me that they would require an AMS. Not only that, but since one EFIS is on the PRI bus, and one is on the ESS bus (with the AHRS), it would follow that I would need 2 AMS's, one for each bus. With this said, and as it would seem that 2 AMS's are required, what would you suggest as a backup to throw power to the ESS bus if the ESS AMS fails (per your recommendation in http://216.55.140.222/articles/avmaster.pdf)? Would a simple switch to control power to the avionics busses be best, or would a switch that feeds a contactor be more robust and trustworthy? I ask, because the contactor solution would provide a simpler solution to the backup question in the previous paragraph. Thoughts? --- Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: mprather(at)spro.net
Subject: Re: The old AV Master debate
Date: Aug 12, 2002
Off the top of my head, it sure seems like you might need at least one larger battery, if a 17Ah won't get the job done - Bob says that they will produce several hundred CCA when used for starting. I realize that having 2 of the same size is nice from the 'replace one annually school of thought.' I am surprised that you can't get a reasonably sized (small) RG battery to crank your big Continental. How many CCA's do they say you need? Also, is the concern that the EFIS units can be damaged by a low voltage condition? Or is it they are only garanteed to operate and provide good data over a certain voltage range? I guess maybe you might encounter an engine out scenario while IFR (big bummer, but possible, if you were planning to fly a lot of hard IFR) where you'd like to be able to crank the engine, and not have it wipe out your primary instruments, but that seems a little extreme. I think if that were truly your concern, I'd just go ahead and have 2 batteries that will each crank the engine on its own. If you are concerned about low voltage damage, DO160 says this about that: "Power Interruptions: Test for all manner of interruption and brownout. Your gizmo should not be damaged by any downward excursions of power supply for any duration and levels down to and including zero volts. The gizmo can fail to function below 10.5 volts but should come back to normal operation without pilot intervention when the bus returns to normal." If you are spending many thousands of dollars on a piece of gear to go in the panel, I'd insist that it be compliant to this standard. I agree with Bob, this standard isn't that tough. Otherwise, if you aren't concerned about having to crank the engine in flight (where, if the engine isn't mechanically toast, you get windmilling), don't sweat having the EFIS not be accurate - you're on the ground. I DO have a question for Bob however (though he's on vacation). Is there a reason why the starting circuit can't be always hot - like its wired on lots of cars? That way you could crank the engine with the master off, but the mags/ei on. Then once every thing is running, kick the master on, and away you go.... ....Actually, I just looked at schematic Z-17, and found it almost the way I am suggesting, except that it looks like power to the starting switch comes off the master powered bus. You could wire as always hot, instead - maybe only safe if you have a key switch? The other concern here is if the starter is not physically near the battery, you are stuck with mounting the starter contactor close to the battery, which eliminates being able to use the heavy battery cables to carry the alternator output. Or, you could mount the starter contactor close to the starter (far from the battery), and live with having a heavy guage always hot cable - not good. I'd go the first route. One more thought: Since you are going to have dual alternators, I'd plan on this as your redundancy. Plan on one bigger battery to run the starter, and if the design of your alternators won't run if your battery conks out, then get a SMALL battery to keep at least one alternator stable. I'd have a tough time installing 2 70A alternators if they didn't actually provide any redundancy (won't run on their own). Matt- N34RD ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> Date: Monday, August 12, 2002 12:34 pm Subject: AeroElectric-List: The old AV Master debate > > Bob (or others), > > I have researched and read your articles and threads on the > antiquity of > the AMS. However, I believe I have a unique situation that an AMS is > the only logical solution I can find. I'm hoping you can help. > > BACKGROUND: Lancair Legacy 2000 > Supercharged IO-550 > Planning a dual 17Ah bat, dual 70A alternator > system > > The "glass cockpit" avionics package I am pursuing consists of a > pair of > Chelton/Sierra Flight Systems EFIS 2000 computers, along with a > CrossbowAHRS. I have placed the basic needed equipment on the ESS > bus, and the > rest on the PRI bus. However, with using the smaller 17Ah batteries, > both will be required for starting. With the typical equipment in my > stack (PS audio panel, garmin 430, garmin 330) having switches on > them,this doesn't present a problem; just make sure I have them all > off when ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: The old AV Master debate
Date: Aug 12, 2002
Shannon, Just because you feel the need for a switch on the EFIS doesn't dictate an Avionics Master Switch, i.e. tying all the avionics gear into one switch. The main argument against the AMS is that it is a single point of failure that can take down multiple pieces of equipment. If you need or want to switch a single unit (or dependant units) then by all means do so. There is no need to switch the whole avionics buss just to add a power switch for the EFIS. Regards, Greg Young - Houston (DWH) RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A > --> >


July 24, 2002 - August 12, 2002

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ba