AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-bi
October 31, 2002 - November 05, 2002
> > the dirty side down and pointy end forward while
> > I sorted things out and got my adrenaline levels
> > back down.
> >
>
>Good Evening Bob,
>
>I think that would be great! My only question is. If one fails, how do
you
>know which one is the good one?
You fly on one and keep the other in reserve. I would use
alternate wing levelers on inbound-outbound legs of trip
to exercise both.
>The only way that I am aware of is to revert to some sort of rate based
>flying.
The wing levelers are rate based and VERY simple electronically.
GPS engines are now well under $100. Each device could have
it's own gps receiver and rate sensor. Software would watch
cross-track error and turn rate and light a lamp when it is
determined that steering commands are not driving loop errors
in the right direction. The most probable failures are easy
to spot in software and raise the flag.
>I keep hoping that some of the new solid state attitude devices will
become
>available at a weight and cost that works.
>
>In the meantime though, I strongly recommend the installation of two
old
>fashioned needle and ball instruments. Not those abominable pieces of
junk
>known as Turn Coordinators. I think they are very useful as a sensor
for an
>autopilot, but I think they are the reason nobody can fly partial panel
these
>days. I could beat that to death, but I won't.
The wing levelers do just that . . . the rate sensor is canted off
vertical to give some degree of look-ahead for an impending turn.
>I do recommend the dual T&B because it is so easy to tell which one is
>telling you the truth. If it wiggles at all, it is telling you enough
to
>save your tail. If it doesn't wiggle, it is no darn good. No voting
or
>analysis required. Also, unlike the Turn Coordinator, it will never
tell you
>a lie.
>
>The T&B s still relatively cheap, light weight, non tumbling and very
>reliable.
My friend Terry had a working attitude indicator and a working
turn coordinator. Flying needle-ball-airspeed with your pucker
factor at red-line out is a mixed bag no matter how many working
instruments you have of any kind.
>Until the solid state stuff comes up to speed, I think the T&B is the
best
>bet available.
The solid state stuff IS up to speed . . . has been for almost ten
years.
The COST of implementing gps aided wing leveling with precision
sky-hole
boring has been too high to compete with contemporary, off-the-shelf
products. With the availability of low cost rate sensors (about $40)
and
gps engines (about $60), jelly-bean processors that run at 50 Mhz
($5)
there are no more excuses. The technology is laying on the ground and
dirt cheap (pun intended).
Bob . . .
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
Did some research, and it appears the instrument I'm putting in my panel
in a 2.25" size is a T&B. The winged instrument in my 182RG is a turn
coordinator. However, my research didn't turn up what the differences
are and why one is better over the other.
---
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
Shannon Knoepflein
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . .
I may be mistaken, but I think the solid state stuff is ready. The
Trutrak has its own built in gyros from what I understand. They aren't
as fancy as the Xbow500 AHRS or anything, as they don't have to be, but
they work great from what I hear. Might be something to check out.
Which one is the T&B and which one is the Turn coord? I'm not sure I've
been alive long enough :) to know the difference. The one I'm planning
has the ball, obviously, and then has the flag at the 12oclock position
that moves left and right. The one in my 182RG I currently fly has a
little airplane that tilts. Which is which, and why is one better than
the other?
---
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
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . .
In a message dated 10/29/02 12:02:57 PM Central Standard Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
> If I were building ANY class airplane in which it
> was my intent to spend lots of time in clouds,
> I would have dual, gps guided wing levelers
> running from independent power sources. This
> ensures that I have at least one system to keep
> the dirty side down and pointy end forward while
> I sorted things out and got my adrenaline levels
> back down.
>
Good Evening Bob,
I think that would be great! My only question is. If one fails, how do
you
know which one is the good one?
The only way that I am aware of is to revert to some sort of rate based
flying.
I keep hoping that some of the new solid state attitude devices will
become
available at a weight and cost that works.
In the meantime though, I strongly recommend the installation of two old
fashioned needle and ball instruments. Not those abominable pieces of
junk
known as Turn Coordinators. I think they are very useful as a sensor
for an
autopilot, but I think they are the reason nobody can fly partial panel
these
days. I could beat that to death, but I won't.
I do recommend the dual T&B because it is so easy to tell which one is
telling you the truth. If it wiggles at all, it is telling you enough
to
save your tail. If it doesn't wiggle, it is no darn good. No voting or
analysis required. Also, unlike the Turn Coordinator, it will never
tell you
a lie.
The T&B s still relatively cheap, light weight, non tumbling and very
reliable.
Until the solid state stuff comes up to speed, I think the T&B is the
best
bet available.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu> |
| Subject: | RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
The T&B senses rate of turn. The turn coordinator senses rate of turn and
senses roll, due to inclination of the gyro. "Better" is very subjective in
this area. I like the T&B better - the turn coordinator seems "twitchy" in
comparison. Of course, this is exactly what some like about it - it will
give a more immediate indication.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Shannon Knoepflein
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . .
Did some research, and it appears the instrument I'm putting in my panel
in a 2.25" size is a T&B. The winged instrument in my 182RG is a turn
coordinator. However, my research didn't turn up what the differences
are and why one is better over the other.
---
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
Shannon Knoepflein
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . .
I may be mistaken, but I think the solid state stuff is ready. The
Trutrak has its own built in gyros from what I understand. They aren't
as fancy as the Xbow500 AHRS or anything, as they don't have to be, but
they work great from what I hear. Might be something to check out.
Which one is the T&B and which one is the Turn coord? I'm not sure I've
been alive long enough :) to know the difference. The one I'm planning
has the ball, obviously, and then has the flag at the 12oclock position
that moves left and right. The one in my 182RG I currently fly has a
little airplane that tilts. Which is which, and why is one better than
the other?
---
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
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . .
In a message dated 10/29/02 12:02:57 PM Central Standard Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
> If I were building ANY class airplane in which it
> was my intent to spend lots of time in clouds,
> I would have dual, gps guided wing levelers
> running from independent power sources. This
> ensures that I have at least one system to keep
> the dirty side down and pointy end forward while
> I sorted things out and got my adrenaline levels
> back down.
>
Good Evening Bob,
I think that would be great! My only question is. If one fails, how do
you
know which one is the good one?
The only way that I am aware of is to revert to some sort of rate based
flying.
I keep hoping that some of the new solid state attitude devices will
become
available at a weight and cost that works.
In the meantime though, I strongly recommend the installation of two old
fashioned needle and ball instruments. Not those abominable pieces of
junk
known as Turn Coordinators. I think they are very useful as a sensor
for an
autopilot, but I think they are the reason nobody can fly partial panel
these
days. I could beat that to death, but I won't.
I do recommend the dual T&B because it is so easy to tell which one is
telling you the truth. If it wiggles at all, it is telling you enough
to
save your tail. If it doesn't wiggle, it is no darn good. No voting or
analysis required. Also, unlike the Turn Coordinator, it will never
tell you
a lie.
The T&B s still relatively cheap, light weight, non tumbling and very
reliable.
Until the solid state stuff comes up to speed, I think the T&B is the
best
bet available.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
In a message dated 10/31/02 5:13:00 AM Central Standard Time,
kycshann(at)kyol.net writes:
> Which one is the T&B and which one is the Turn coord? I'm not sure I've
> been alive long enough :) to know the difference. The one I'm planning
> has the ball, obviously, and then has the flag at the 12oclock position
> that moves left and right. The one in my 182RG I currently fly has a
> little airplane that tilts. Which is which, and why is one better than
> the other?
>
Good Morning Shannon,
This may not be the proper venue for this discussion. If not, I hope Bob will
let us know.
The turn needle was one of the first instruments that was developed to help
the pilot maintain control of the aircraft in cloud.
It consisted of a gyroscope and some small springs and they arranged in a
manner such that it will show yaw of the instrument.
The instrument is normally mounted so that the face of the instrument is
parallel to the vertical axis of the aircraft. That places the normal axis
of the instrument parallel to the fore and aft or roll axis of the aircraft.
When mounted correctly, it shows nothing but yaw, no pitch and no roll.
If the aircraft were to do a perfect, no yaw, roll, the needle would not move
at all.
I doubt if anyone would be able to do that, but that is the way it works.
The very earliest Turn needles were sometimes hinged at the top and sometimes
at the bottom. There may have been other presentations of which I am not
aware, but the iteration that became the standard was the one where we have
needle hinged at the bottom of the face of the instrument. The needle has a
pointer, or, as you say, a flag at the top which is normally lined up with a
"dog house" or other fixed block at the top when the aircraft is not yawing
(or turning). There are often other dog houses each side of the center one to
aid in determining a standard rate turn.
The Turn Coordinator consists of the same mechanism mounted at an angle to
the roll axis of the aircraft. In that position, it will respond to both
roll and yaw.
The most common presentation on the face of the Turn Coordinator is a
horizontal movable portion which looks not unlike an artificial horizon. In
some cases, the presentation does look like a small airplane.
The Turn Coordinator came about when someone realized that if the turn needle
was mounted with the front end up, it would respond to roll as well as yaw.
To my knowledge, a "canted gyro" was first used in that manner on an
autopilot developed by a professor at IIT. It was later picked up by the
Tactair and Brittain autopilot folks, among others.
Someone then realized that if that same indication were to be given to the
human pilot, the roll indication would tell that human pilot that he was
dropping a wing and that he should get ready to take action to get the wings
back to level so a yaw would not develop.
Sounds good doesn't it?
Well, things haven't worked out quite that way.
A method was developed out such that the indication of either a roll or a yaw
was presented as an Artificial Horizon "look alike" indication.
The Turn Coordinator shows the same indication for both a roll or a yaw.=20=A0
Therefore, it never tells you, for sure, what is happening. Ergo, it is
always telling a lie.
If you are flying a steady knife edge, it will show that the wings are level.
=A0 Pure fabrication on it's part.
It presents a picture that looks very similar to an artificial horizon.
That tends to make one think of leveling the wings whereas the important
thing is to stop the turn.
If the aircraft does not turn, it will survive=A0=A0=A0 -----=A0=A0 period!
When we get confused and don't know quite what is happening, it is very
difficult to convince ourselves that the sensations that we feel are
incorrect. That is why pilots so often input a control that rolls the
aircraft in the wrong direction. Most of us don't have anywhere near as
much resistance to accepting that we are turning when our senses tell us that
we are not as we do in accepting the fact that we have a wing down when the
aircraft is actually level.
With a turn needle, there is absolutely no way to interpret it as anything
other than a device that tells us whether we are turning or not turning.
If we forget about the wings being level and just accept that we must stop
the turn whether the wings are level or not, it is much easier to make the
proper correction.
The fact that we still think the wings are not level doesn't make any
difference at all.
If the airplane doesn't turn, we will survive!
I have absolutely no scientific research to back up these thoughts, but the
accident statistics do show that aircraft upset accidents have become common
since the advent of the turn coordinator. There are training complications
involved, but I strongly feel that placing the emphasis on turning instead of
placing the emphasis on wings level is the primary point.
The T&B directs our thoughts toward the turn.
The Turn Coordinator tends to make us think about the position of the wings.
That is what our minds find so difficult to accept when we have lost our
equilibrium.
The FAA now says that the first thing we should do is to level the wings.
I think the first thing that we should think about is to stop the turn.
If that includes leveling the wings, so much the better, but if our mind
tells us that the
wings are not level, but the aircraft is not turning, we have already saved
the day.
The T&B is relatively low cost.
It is the most reliable gyro instrument that we have ever had.
It is light weight.
It is very easy to spot a failure, if it wiggles, it is working!
That's about it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
Hey Bob,
By chance are you a Lawyer?
Interesting thoughts.
One question. If the flag or needle that swings back and forth with yaw,
what does the ball indicate? I was under the impression that the ball
indicated yaw and the needle indicated rate of turn (as evidenced by the
standard rate turn indication at top of display).
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . .
>
> In a message dated 10/31/02 5:13:00 AM Central Standard Time,
> kycshann(at)kyol.net writes:
>
> > Which one is the T&B and which one is the Turn coord? I'm not sure I've
> > been alive long enough :) to know the difference. The one I'm planning
> > has the ball, obviously, and then has the flag at the 12oclock position
> > that moves left and right. The one in my 182RG I currently fly has a
> > little airplane that tilts. Which is which, and why is one better than
> > the other?
> >
>
> Good Morning Shannon,
>
> This may not be the proper venue for this discussion. If not, I hope Bob
will
> let us know.
>
> The turn needle was one of the first instruments that was developed to
help
> the pilot maintain control of the aircraft in cloud.
>
> It consisted of a gyroscope and some small springs and they arranged in a
> manner such that it will show yaw of the instrument.
>
> The instrument is normally mounted so that the face of the instrument is
> parallel to the vertical axis of the aircraft. That places the normal
axis
> of the instrument parallel to the fore and aft or roll axis of the
aircraft.
>
> When mounted correctly, it shows nothing but yaw, no pitch and no roll.
>
> If the aircraft were to do a perfect, no yaw, roll, the needle would not
move
> at all.
> I doubt if anyone would be able to do that, but that is the way it works.
>
> The very earliest Turn needles were sometimes hinged at the top and
sometimes
> at the bottom. There may have been other presentations of which I am not
> aware, but the iteration that became the standard was the one where we
have
> needle hinged at the bottom of the face of the instrument. The needle has
a
> pointer, or, as you say, a flag at the top which is normally lined up with
a
> "dog house" or other fixed block at the top when the aircraft is not
yawing
> (or turning). There are often other dog houses each side of the center one
to
> aid in determining a standard rate turn.
>
> The Turn Coordinator consists of the same mechanism mounted at an angle to
> the roll axis of the aircraft. In that position, it will respond to both
> roll and yaw.
>
> The most common presentation on the face of the Turn Coordinator is a
> horizontal movable portion which looks not unlike an artificial horizon.
In
> some cases, the presentation does look like a small airplane.
>
> The Turn Coordinator came about when someone realized that if the turn
needle
> was mounted with the front end up, it would respond to roll as well as
yaw.
> To my knowledge, a "canted gyro" was first used in that manner on an
> autopilot developed by a professor at IIT. It was later picked up by the
> Tactair and Brittain autopilot folks, among others.
>
> Someone then realized that if that same indication were to be given to the
> human pilot, the roll indication would tell that human pilot that he was
> dropping a wing and that he should get ready to take action to get the
wings
> back to level so a yaw would not develop.
>
> Sounds good doesn't it?
>
> Well, things haven't worked out quite that way.
>
> A method was developed out such that the indication of either a roll or a
yaw
> was presented as an Artificial Horizon "look alike" indication.
>
> The Turn Coordinator shows the same indication for both a roll or a
yaw.=20=A0
> Therefore, it never tells you, for sure, what is happening. Ergo, it is
> always telling a lie.
>
> If you are flying a steady knife edge, it will show that the wings are
level.
> Pure fabrication on it's part.
>
> It presents a picture that looks very similar to an artificial horizon.
> That tends to make one think of leveling the wings whereas the important
> thing is to stop the turn.
>
> If the aircraft does not turn, it will survive=A0=A0=A0 -----=A0=A0
period!
>
> When we get confused and don't know quite what is happening, it is very
> difficult to convince ourselves that the sensations that we feel are
> incorrect. That is why pilots so often input a control that rolls the
> aircraft in the wrong direction. Most of us don't have anywhere near as
> much resistance to accepting that we are turning when our senses tell us
that
> we are not as we do in accepting the fact that we have a wing down when
the
> aircraft is actually level.
>
> With a turn needle, there is absolutely no way to interpret it as anything
> other than a device that tells us whether we are turning or not turning.
>
> If we forget about the wings being level and just accept that we must stop
> the turn whether the wings are level or not, it is much easier to make the
> proper correction.
>
> The fact that we still think the wings are not level doesn't make any
> difference at all.
>
> If the airplane doesn't turn, we will survive!
>
> I have absolutely no scientific research to back up these thoughts, but
the
> accident statistics do show that aircraft upset accidents have become
common
> since the advent of the turn coordinator. There are training complications
> involved, but I strongly feel that placing the emphasis on turning instead
of
> placing the emphasis on wings level is the primary point.
>
> The T&B directs our thoughts toward the turn.
>
> The Turn Coordinator tends to make us think about the position of the
wings.
> That is what our minds find so difficult to accept when we have lost our
> equilibrium.
>
> The FAA now says that the first thing we should do is to level the wings.
>
> I think the first thing that we should think about is to stop the turn.
>
> If that includes leveling the wings, so much the better, but if our mind
> tells us that the
> wings are not level, but the aircraft is not turning, we have already
saved
> the day.
>
> The T&B is relatively low cost.
>
> It is the most reliable gyro instrument that we have ever had.
>
> It is light weight.
>
> It is very easy to spot a failure, if it wiggles, it is working!
>
> That's about it!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | digital linearization |
<>
I'm not the one that actually did it, but here is a way we have done it
without a microprocessor. You need an A/D chip (included in a lot of
processors) and then use the output to point to a memory location of a PROM.
The prom replies with the value in that location, which then goes to a D/A
chip that converts it back into an analog voltage. If you have an 8-bit
A/D, certainly adequate for this purpose, you need 256 memory locations in
the PROM programmed with values. Rudimentary, but works. All you need is
someone with a PROM burner (you might be able to buy one at an antique
store).
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring a fuel injection fuel pump |
>
>Bob,
>I'm wiring my EFI pumps and trying to decide what gauge wire to use. When
>running the pumps seem to draw a max of about 1.6 amps (tested with my new
>multi-meter - thanks). Clearly stamped on the pump casing is "Requires 20
>AMP fuse".
Was the pump "loaded" while you were making the
current measurement or just running free.
Do you have any data on the pump's performance at
the pressures and flows for your fuel delivery
system?
>I'm confused. What gauge wire and what size fuse should I use?
20A seems horrible overkill . . . let's see if
we can deduce what's really appropriate.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Gyro question |
>
>I am having the exact same problem with my RC Allen attitude indicator. My
>set up is also the same with this instrument on my essential bus. My engine
>is running and the flag will not go away until I turn on the essential bus
>switch.
>
>The readings on my radio master bus is 13.4 while the reading on my essentail
>bus is only 12.4. I am getting a big drop through the diode.
13.4 is way too low on your main bus. It should be 14.2 to 14.6.
Is your regulator adjustable?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electric Gyro question |
Yes ... I am using the L-40 alternator from B&C as well as the SD-8 backup.
I will turn it up.
Thanks !!
Len Leggette RV-8A
N901LL (res)
Greensboro, N.C.
Flying !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> The turn needle was one of the first instruments that was developed to help
[...]
>
> When mounted correctly, it shows nothing but yaw, no pitch and no roll.
>
>
> It presents a picture that looks very similar to an artificial horizon.
> That tends to make one think of leveling the wings whereas the important
> thing is to stop the turn.
>
> If the aircraft does not turn, it will survive=A0=A0=A0 -----=A0=A0 period!
>
*** I have also been told that since the TC's are by nature more "twitchy"
than the old fashioned turn&slip instrument, they are also much more highly
damped.
My Sundowner comes with a TC instead of a turn&slip. But I guess I'm
stuck with it because it's also an autopilot ( Century I ). Strangely
enough, the Century 1 also has the doghouses presentation.
One interesting "backup gyro" scheme was used by Cirrus: a switch next
to the TC that can power it off a pair of 9V rectangular batteries. Seemed
like a great idea to me, and I mentioned it to my FSDO inspector when I was
doing some other avionics work. He was less than enthusiastic about the
idea.
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mprather(at)spro.net |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
This might be an issue of semantics. Here's my interpretation of
the terms. Yaw is the rotation of the aircraft about its vertical
axis. By this definition, the ball doesn't provide any direct
information about yaw. The ball indicates a relationship between
roll (rotation of the airplane around its longitudinal axis) and yaw,
or maybe more importantly indicates lateral airflow around the
airplane. Obviously, its possible to fly in a straight line (no yaw)
with the ball slid out to the side (cross controlled - slipping).
I haven't done this, but I would imagine that in non-turning, cross-
controlled flight, the turn needle would be centered, but the ball
would be slid out (I can confirm this part). This is no yaw, and no
roll flight.
Matt Prather
N34RD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
Date: Thursday, October 31, 2002 7:54 am
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . .
>
> Hey Bob,
> By chance are you a Lawyer?
> Interesting thoughts.
> One question. If the flag or needle that swings back and forth
> with yaw,
> what does the ball indicate? I was under the impression that the ball
> indicated yaw and the needle indicated rate of turn (as evidenced
> by the
> standard rate turn indication at top of display).
> Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glenn Rainey <nimbusaviation(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | solenoid / master disconnect |
thought experiment...
Recent discussions on the canard list re. 'shock
worthiness' of solenoids, and other issues, got me
thinking about my original notion of a master SWITCH
rather than solenoid - in my Long-EZ. Maybe some
weight saving here, also reduced complexity...
maybe... arguable... But one reply pointed out that
in a crash, the solenoid might disconnect if the
master switch / earth lead is severed - hopefully
taking away some of the risks of sparks.
Rather than hope for severance of a wire, why not
build in a G-activated (normally closed) switch /
'fuse' in the master control circuit, a device with
the characteristics of an ELT-actuator switch, so that
when the turf arrives MUCH too fast, that solenoid is
chopped??? OK - and a bypass switch to bring it back
if the 'fuse' breaks in flight for some reason. Too
complex? Unnecessary?
A thought experiment...... anyone?
Glenn Rainey
Long-EZ
Scotland
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
Shannon:
Ed here in the back ground watching your system planning. As you might
remember I am doing the Lancair ES. In regard to your T&B. My experience as
retired Naval Aviator, the T&B was the only thing you could really trust. In
the 70's & 80's as an instructor, we took students on "Bravo, Charlie"
patterns which involved climb, descents, change in A/S. We would frequently
fail the A/H and DG, and ask for a time turn and descent. In the multi engine
training, we used to teach with a simulated engine failure, idle power, to
"STEP ON THE BALL,' this always worked even with us military pilots who can
get temporarily disoriented but never lost. In my opinion the T&B would be
far better than a Turn coordinator unless it is associated as a source for
the autopilot. For the money, you can't wrong. More money doesn't always mean
better. If we can keep the guide line of the KISS principal and concentrate
on something that is practicable, reasonably priced. I think we can keep a
lot of the junk and the pretty toys out of the cockpit of which many of them
don't live up to what the origin says they will do. Keep up the good work, we
are all learning.
Regards,
Ed Silvanic
N823MS
Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jaye and Scott Jackson <jayeandscott(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
>
>
> If the airplane doesn't turn, we will survive!
In theory, yes.
In reality, only true if the aircraft has not already entered a spiral dive.
Few airplanes are overstressed in a spiral, it is when it is way beyond its
trimmed speed and returned to wings level that an extremely strong nose-up
force is applied by the elevators without any input from the pilot as the
aircraft naturally seeks to return to its trim speed.
That would make the proper way to use the turn and bank-if the aircraft has
already subtly slipped into a descending turn- is to note the direction of
turn, then always look at the airspeed. If it is high, and it would be
trending in that direction, power to idle, start trimming nose down as the
bank is very slowly reduced. This will reduce the overstressing tendency as
the wings come back level.
I have a needle and ball in my -6...
Scott in VAncouver
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring a fuel injection fuel pump |
> Was the pump "loaded" while you were making the
> current measurement or just running free.
Not with fuel. I put my finger over the end and let it suck vacuum. This
bumped up the draw from 0.6amp to 1.5 amp. I guess I could load it with
fuel, but the max possible draw is probably if it gets stalled by a piece of
crud or something. I'd probably WANT the fuse to blow in this situation.
> Do you have any data on the pump's performance at
> the pressures and flows for your fuel delivery
> system?
85psi. 35 gals/min
> 20A seems horrible overkill . . . let's see if
> we can deduce what's really appropriate.
OK. Does the above help?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
In a message dated 10/31/02 8:56:12 AM Central Standard Time,
jrstone(at)insightbb.com writes:
> One question. If the flag or needle that swings back and forth with yaw,
> what does the ball indicate? I was under the impression that the ball
> indicated yaw and the needle indicated rate of turn (as evidenced by the
> standard rate turn indication at top of display).
> Jim
>
Good Morning Jim,
Not a lawyer and never even played one on TV!
The ball just shows how good your coordination is.
The early Turn needles didn't even have the ball. Some airplanes had a
marine style inclinometer installed to serve the purpose and the instrument
manufacturers were quick to add that feature to the Turn Needle unit so it
became the "Needle and Ball."
That eventually started to be called the "Turn and Bank" instrument.
If you yaw the airplane at a sufficient rate to keep the needle on the side
dog house, it will be turning at a standard rate turn. If the ball is in the
middle, it will be a nice coordinated turn. If the ball is not in the middle,
it will be skidding or slipping turn, but as long as the needle is on the
appropriate dog house, the turn will be at standard rate. As an aside, some
instruments don't have the side doghouses. On those, you just set the needle
over to one side or the other a specified amount to get a standard rate turn,
thus the description of a one needle width or a two needle width turn.
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
The Turn needle will show only yaw, provided that it is mounted properly.
If it is canted a bit up or down, there will be some influence from roll.
The gyroscope that is used in a Turn Coordinator is purposely mounted at an
angle to the fore and aft axis. Some of the early ones were at 45 degrees
and some were as low as 39 degrees. I am not sure what angle the current
production units are, but believe it to be somewhere around 38 to 40 degrees.
If you ever get a chance to look behind the instrument panel of an airplane
with an early Brittain autopilot, you will see the old converted Turn and
Bank instrument mounted with the front end up in the air. The newer
instruments use a much smaller gyroscope and mount it within a standard sized
instrument case. Therefore, you can no longer tell by looking that it has a
canted gyro inside.
As an aside, almost all current production Turn and Bank instruments are made
by the same folks who make most of the Turn Coordinators. Since the
gyroscope for the TC needs to be so small, they now manufacture a smaller
gyro that is used in both the TC and the T&B. As a consequence, the new
production Turn and Banks are not as high a quality, and are not as
responsive, as the ones made during and immediately following WWII.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
In a message dated 10/31/02 9:42:30 AM Central Standard Time, jerry(at)tr2.com
writes:
> My Sundowner comes with a TC instead of a turn&slip. But I guess I'm
> stuck with it because it's also an autopilot ( Century I ). Strangely
> enough, the Century 1 also has the doghouses presentation.
>
>
Good Afternoon Jerry,
My Bonanza also came with a Century I wing leveler/single axis autopilot.
That was during the days when the Mooney had the PC. Piper and Beech both
offered something similar, but it wasn't on full time unless the pilot
desired to do it that way.
I have retained the Century I as a backup autopilot. What I did is move the
instrument over to a position above the glove box. That way, I can still
reach the controls, but I don't have to look at it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
This has been quite an interesting thread on T&B vs Turn Coordinators. Does
anyone have an opinion on the usefulness of the built in T&B that is part of
the Navaid Autopilot? I use the term T&B because it appears the the LED's
simulate the old turn needle.
Vince
>From: N823ms(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . .
>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:58:13 EST
>
>
>Shannon:
>
> Ed here in the back ground watching your system planning. As you
>might
>remember I am doing the Lancair ES. In regard to your T&B. My experience as
>retired Naval Aviator, the T&B was the only thing you could really trust.
>In
>the 70's & 80's as an instructor, we took students on "Bravo, Charlie"
>patterns which involved climb, descents, change in A/S. We would frequently
>fail the A/H and DG, and ask for a time turn and descent. In the multi
>engine
>training, we used to teach with a simulated engine failure, idle power, to
>"STEP ON THE BALL,' this always worked even with us military pilots who
>can
>get temporarily disoriented but never lost. In my opinion the T&B would be
>far better than a Turn coordinator unless it is associated as a source for
>the autopilot. For the money, you can't wrong. More money doesn't always
>mean
>better. If we can keep the guide line of the KISS principal and concentrate
>on something that is practicable, reasonably priced. I think we can keep a
>lot of the junk and the pretty toys out of the cockpit of which many of
>them
>don't live up to what the origin says they will do. Keep up the good work,
>we
>are all learning.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Silvanic
>N823MS
>Lancair ES
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Wiring a fuel injection fuel pump |
>
> > Was the pump "loaded" while you were making the
> > current measurement or just running free.
>Not with fuel. I put my finger over the end and let it suck vacuum. This
>bumped up the draw from 0.6amp to 1.5 amp. I guess I could load it with
>fuel, but the max possible draw is probably if it gets stalled by a piece of
>crud or something. I'd probably WANT the fuse to blow in this situation.
>
> > Do you have any data on the pump's performance at
> > the pressures and flows for your fuel delivery
> > system?
>85psi. 35 gals/min
>
> > 20A seems horrible overkill . . . let's see if
> > we can deduce what's really appropriate.
>OK. Does the above help?
Gals/minute or gallons/hour? 35gal/min @ 85 psi
works out to about 1.7 hp at 100% efficiency
. . .that's a BIG fuel pump! Also, I presume
this is the max capability of the pump. What is
the relief valve set at for operation in your airplane?
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
In a message dated 10/31/02 10:09:55 AM Central Standard Time,
jayeandscott(at)shaw.ca writes:
> In theory, yes.
> In reality, only true if the aircraft has not already entered a spiral
> dive.
>
Good Afternoon Jay,
It won't help if you have already hit the ground either!
However, stopping the turn will work to get the airplane out of a spiral
dive.
Whether it works successfully is dependent on many factors, including, but
not limited to, the slipperiness of the airplane and the structural strength
of the subject aircraft.
The University Of Illinois Institute of Aviation did some studies many years
ago under the auspices of AOPA. They had a program they called the 180
Program.
The idea was to set up something where even a non instrument trained pilot
could do a 180 turn and get back to suitable weather. They told the
participants to trim the aircraft for level flight, then sit on their hands
and fly the airplane using nothing but the rudders. They were to use the
Turn and Bank instrument as their sole reference as to directional control.
That is just a brief description of a fairly complete training program, but
it did work well.
I have demonstrated the effectiveness of the procedure in all manner of light
aircraft including the Bonanza.
It works and works well.
The most important thing required to keep from getting into a grave yard
spiral is to be able to recognize a turn. The only practical away to get out
of that spiral is to stop the turn. How the airplane handles the recovery
will be dependent on conditions such as specified above.
If you happen to be flying a stock 220 HP Boeing 75 Kaydet, as designed by
Mr. Stearman, you don't need any instrumentation and you don't have to do a
thing.
The Stearman will not exceed it's red line airspeed without power.
Regardless of what attitude it gets into, even a graveyard spiral or a fully
developed spin, the aircraft will not come apart and will not go fast enough
to get in trouble. Obviously, if there is insufficient visual reference for
the pilot to effect a recovery, the airplane will crash. At night over unlit
terrain, it will undoubtedly crash, but it won't come apart. If the thing
falls out of the clouds with enough room for the pilot to effect a recovery,
it is a no brainer.
If the Stearman happens to have a Turn and Bank (as does mine) recovery from
any maneuver to level flight is easy, provided there is sufficient space
between the aircraft and surrounding obstacles.
I don't recommend that non-instrument pilots get into clouds and use the 180
to get back out. I think the fallacy of that maneuver is that, by the time
that the average scud runner figures out that he/she can't maintain VFR, it
is already too late for a 180.
My point is that the T&B does work under all flight conditions. It will not
tumble and it can be used in a spin or a graveyard spiral to effect a
recovery if sufficient altitude remains and if the aircraft is capable of
sustaining the loads that are applied.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DHartley(at)aascworld.com |
| Subject: | RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
The portable Garmin 196 display seems to be pretty usable as a backup T/B. I
don't know how it would display in turbulence, but works very good in smooth
air.
David L. Hartley
dhartley(at)aascworld.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Vincent Welch [mailto:welchvincent(at)hotmail.com]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . .
This has been quite an interesting thread on T&B vs Turn Coordinators. Does
anyone have an opinion on the usefulness of the built in T&B that is part of
the Navaid Autopilot? I use the term T&B because it appears the the LED's
simulate the old turn needle.
Vince
>From: N823ms(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . .
>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:58:13 EST
>
>
>Shannon:
>
> Ed here in the back ground watching your system planning. As you
>might
>remember I am doing the Lancair ES. In regard to your T&B. My experience as
>retired Naval Aviator, the T&B was the only thing you could really trust.
>In
>the 70's & 80's as an instructor, we took students on "Bravo, Charlie"
>patterns which involved climb, descents, change in A/S. We would frequently
>fail the A/H and DG, and ask for a time turn and descent. In the multi
>engine
>training, we used to teach with a simulated engine failure, idle power, to
>"STEP ON THE BALL,' this always worked even with us military pilots who
>can
>get temporarily disoriented but never lost. In my opinion the T&B would be
>far better than a Turn coordinator unless it is associated as a source for
>the autopilot. For the money, you can't wrong. More money doesn't always
>mean
>better. If we can keep the guide line of the KISS principal and concentrate
>on something that is practicable, reasonably priced. I think we can keep a
>lot of the junk and the pretty toys out of the cockpit of which many of
>them
>don't live up to what the origin says they will do. Keep up the good work,
>we
>are all learning.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Silvanic
>N823MS
>Lancair ES
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | TSO'd Avionics and Instruments Required? |
10/31/2002
Hello Fellow Builders, I hope that you will find the following exchange of
emails between Joe Norris of EAA and myself useful.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
In a message dated 10/31/2002 12:59:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jnorris(at)eaa.org writes:
O.C., Mark passed your message on to me, as I've been doing some extensive
research on the issue of IFR operation of amateur-built aircraft. While my
research is not quite complete, I am fairly well along with the process and
can offer the following comments.
Your response to the builder is completely correct. In support of your
response, I offer the following excerpts from the info I have gathered on
this subject. Remember that these are only excerpts from a larger document,
but I think you'll find the info useful:
"Another question to be answered is what, if any, of the equipment needs to
be "TSO'ed". In order to address this question, it's helpful to understand
what a "TSO" is. TSO stands for Technical Standard Order, which is defined
in 14 CFR Part 21, section 21.601(b)(1) as "....a minimum performance
standard for specified articles (for the purpose of this subpart, articles
means materials, parts, processes, or appliances) used on civil aircraft."
As you can see from this definition, a TSO is actually a performance
standard to which an article can be manufactured.
When someone says an article is "TSO'ed", what they really mean is that the
unit was manufactured under a TSO authorization. Section 21.601(b)(2) says,
"A TSO authorization is an FAA design and production approval issued to the
manufacturer of an article which has been found to meet a specific TSO".
You'll note that the TSO and TSO authorization deal specifically with design
and manufacture, and have nothing to do with installation or operation.
Now we have an idea what a TSO is, but we still haven't answered the
question of whether or not our instruments and avionics in a homebuilt need
to be "TSO'ed". Our OpLims state that we have to equip the aircraft in
accordance with 91.205, and 91.205 lists the minimum equipment required, but
nowhere is there mention of a requirement for TSO'ed equipment."
The above is basically an expanded explanation of the comments you made to
the builder in your response.
Also, there is some helpful guidance found in FAA Flight Standards Handbook
Bulletin for Airworthiness (HBAW) 02-03. This HBAW is expanded guidance
related to FAA Order 8300.10, Airworthiness Inspectors Handbook. The info
in HBAW 02-03 will be incorporated in Change 15 of Order 8300.10.
Included in the general definitions section of the HBAW is a definition of
the term "meet the minimum standards established in a TSO". The definition
is as follows:
"The equipment need not have TSO approval, but only needs to meet the
requirements set by the TSO."
A particular piece of equipment might offer manufacturers specs that
illustrate that it meets the standards set by a TSO, or this requirement
might be met through flight or ground testing of the individual
installation. It must be remembered again that a TSO (Technical Standard
Order) relates to design and manufacture, and has nothing to do with
installation or operation.
Still, the basic fact is that amateur-built operating limitations call out
Part 91.205 as the governing regulation for IFR operation of homebuilts. As
this regulation does not require any type of TSO on any equipment, the
builder is allowed to use equipment of his/her choice.
As for transponders, here is what I have compiled so far (again this is an
excerpt from my research):
"It's interesting to note that 91.205 does not list a transponder as
required in order to operate under IFR. While this is true, our current
airspace system as well as the advantages for use in both IFR and VFR
operations makes a transponder a popular choice for builders when outfitting
their aircraft.
The requirements for transponder equipment and operation are found in
91.215, which has this to say about the equipment requirements:
(a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not
conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder equipment
installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements of any
class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude
reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112
(Mode S).
Note that, while it is required that the transponder equipment meet the
performance and environmental requirements of the applicable TSO, it is not
required that the equipment be manufactured under a TSO authorization. In
theory, this means that you could actually build your own transponder, so
long as you can document that it meets the requirements of the applicable
TSO. However, the easiest way to be assured that your transponder meets the
requirements of 91.215(a) is to install one that has been built under a TSO
authorization.
The requirements for altitude reporting equipment associated with the
transponder are called out in 91.217(c), which states that, the altimeters
and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88,
respectively. TSO-C10b applies to the sensitive altimeter itself, and
TSO-C88 applies to the automatic altitude reporting equipment. Again the
equipment is required to meet the standards of the applicable TSO's, but not
necessarily be produced under a TSO authorization. But as with the
transponder, the easiest way for a builder to meet this requirement is to
install equipment manufactured under a TSO authorization.
Remember that, in order to legally operate this equipment under IFR, you
must also comply with the maintenance and testing requirements of parts
91.411 (for altimeter and altitude reporting equipment) , and 91.413 (for
the transponder). Note that the requirements of 91.413 apply even if the
aircraft is operated only under VFR."
As you can see, even for transponders and encoders there is no hard and fast
requirement that the equipment be manufactured under TSO approval. The
equipment must only meet the standards set forth by the TSO.
Hopefully, this info will help you and your builder. Let me know if you
have further questions!
Joe Norris
EAA Aviation Information Services
EAA Aviation Center, Oshkosh, WI
888-322-4636, extension 6806
jnorris(at)eaa.org
-----Original Message-----
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com [mailto:BAKEROCB(at)aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:52 PM
To: mforss(at)eaa.org
Cc: aerocyber(at)chesapeake.net
Subject: TSO'd Avionics and Instruments Required?
10/30/2002
Dear Mr. Forss, Copied below is an exchange of postings between myself and a
fellow amateur builder of experimental aircraft on the subject of whether or
not these aircraft are required to be equipped with TSO'd instruments and
avionics in order to fly under IFR in the USA. Can you please correct or
add anything to my response the the fellow builder? Many thanks for your
help in this matter.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
A) Fellow Builder Wrote: ".....skip......It seems that one of our local
builders had his plane inspected and ran into trouble getting the inspector
to sign off
on it for IFR flight. Whom ever it was doing the inspection wanted him to
change out flight instruments and radios that were not TSOed for certified
aircraft if he was going to sign it off for IFR flight.....skip....."
B) I responded: "Since there is no regulatory requirement for an amateur
built experimental aircraft to be fitted with TSO'd avionics and instruments
for IFR flight in IMC it is unclear to me upon what basis or authority an
inspector can force such a requirement upon a builder. Allowing an inspector
to enforce such a personal bias upon someone in our amateur built
experimental aircraft community is not in our best interests.
For example, there are some extremely capable, cutting edge, high tech, EFIS
(Electronic Flight Instrument Systems) being developed, sold, and installed
in some very sophisticated high performance amateur built experimental
aircraft. This equipment is not TSO'd and these builders fully expect to fly
these aircraft under IFR in IMC. Our aircraft are categorized as
experimental
in order to permit us to experiment, not to require us to meet some standard
existing requirement arbitrarily imposed by some bureaucrat.
To quote from a recently issued Experimental Amateur Built Operating
Limitations signed by an FAA Inspector: "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". This is standard FAA terminology.
This wording places only two limitations upon the aircraft itself prior to
IFR flight in IMC: 1) Completion of Phase I testing and 2) Equipment in
accordance with FAR Sec.91.205. No TSO requirement exists in Sec 91.205.
Of course there are several other operational equipment related requirements
throughout the FAR's imposed on persons before they can fly IFR. Some
requirements that are pertinent to this discussion state that "No person
may.." and then they go on to cover such items as transponders (91.215 and
91.413), and altimeter / static / altitude reporting systems (91.411). But
the testing and certification of these systems is done by specifically
qualified personnel / organizations and is independent of the initial
airworthiness inspection of the aircraft."
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ed's Lancair ES - System Planning |
Bob:
Here is my second pass.
Main Power Distribution Bus:
Main Alt Fld
Main Alt OVLV Sense
Strobe Light
Nav Light
Position lights--I am installing the three way wing tip light. I
believe this is the white light at the rear of this unit.
Landing light
Taxi light left installed in the original red/green wing tip area.
Taxi light right
Electric flaps
Pitot heat
Cabin Fan
Door seal pump
starter
Left Mag
Electric DG
Map gauge
RPM
Oil/Temp
Ultimate bar Graph
FP5-L
Cabin lights, 4 individual eyeball lights that have there own on/off
switch.
instrument bar flood light
spare
spare
Aux Power Distribution:
Aux Alt Fld
Aux Alt Low volts
Aud/ com G 340
GNS-530
GNS-430
GTX-327
Trutrak Auto pilot--200 0r 250.
BMA EFIS/Lite or Dynon EFIS 10
Instrument lightening rings
Yaw trim
Pitch trim
Roll trim
A/H
AOA
Fuel boost pump? Here there is a dual speed pump. don't know if you
can separate the power sources for these speeds.
GI-106a
GI-102
Main Battery Bus:
Amp/volt gauge. Is there a switch that will allow me to go back in
forth from the main to aux bus loads?
Electronic ignition - right side. Have no clue when using this EI if
it matters what side it is on when you have only one. I am going to take your
advise and use one mag until it goes then use the other one. When that goes
I'll install a second EI.
GNS-530/430 memory, clock
Aux Battery Bus:
Hobbs meter
Future second EI
Power receptacle for the handheld nav/com/GPS
Utility lighting:
Cabin overhead light-timer
Cargo light-timer.
In this planning process, I see that a Aux Alt 20amp may not be
enough? Instrument wise; I have to decide whether or not to go with BMA
EFIS/Lite, or the Dynon EFIS -10; or simply complete with steam gauges. Steam
gauges electric wise are expensive and vacuum gauges look a failure rates
with the pump. Though I have about 6 months before the panel goes in, perhaps
some of these EFIS products will prove them selves as the two that I
mentioned are reasonably priced.
Open for comments
Ed SIlvanic
N823MS(at)aol.com
Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Phillips <ripsteel(at)edge.net> |
| Subject: | Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coord- was Shannons Lancair stuff |
> This has been quite an interesting thread on T&B vs Turn Coordinators. Does
> anyone have an opinion on the usefulness of the built in T&B that is part of
> the Navaid Autopilot? I use the term T&B because it appears the the LED's
> simulate the old turn needle.
And to stretch it a little longer- anybody know if the solid-state gyros that have
started popping up behave the same as a T&B as far as turn (yaw?) indication, and
can
this reliably offer the same benefits as the T&B over the A/H?
From the PossumWorks- changing the subject line- too bad someone didn't do this
about
20 messages ago!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: TSO'd Avionics and Instruments Required? |
In a message dated 10/31/02 3:43:26 PM Central Standard Time,
BAKEROCB(at)aol.com writes:
> "It's interesting to note that 91.205 does not list a transponder as
> required in order to operate under IFR. While this is true, our current
> airspace system as well as the advantages for use in both IFR and VFR
> operations makes a transponder a popular choice for builders when
> outfitting
> their aircraft.
>
Good Afternoon OC,
Good Stuff.
People tend to forget that the major difference between TSO and non TSO'd
stuff is the testing for environmental conditions.
We part 91 folks don't need no stinkin' TSO'd stuff!
Often neglected is the fact that very little is required for IFR flight in
the US National Airspace System.
We must have the ability to communicate as appropriate. That is generally
interpreted as requiring that one have a 720 channel comm unit. In actual
practice, it is possible to get by with a ninety channel job if no one asks
you to use a frequency that you don't have!
However, the FAA has stated that they have the right to utilize any of the
720 available channels in any venue at any time. They won't use the ones
from 135.0 on up that are available on the 760 channel sets.
It reasonable to say that one 720 channel comm unit meets the minimum FAA
requirements.
Beyond that, you must have navigational equipment pertinent to the route to
be flown.
If you can find a route to be flown that can be flown with an ADF, then all
you would be required to have for a navigational device is an ADF.
I don't know of anywhere within the US NAS that such a place can be found,
but surely, someone will find a place and I will be wrong!
For all practical purposes, a VOR is required to fly in our airspace. No
localizer or Glide Path receiver is required, but you must be sure that your
chosen alternate has weather that meets alternate requirements for the
equipment you do have.
Everything beyond the single comm radio and single VOR is just icing on the
cake!
Thanks for the information given.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS A transponder will definitely make relations with the air traffic control
folks work better!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
Well, for the first time in my avionics panel, it looks like I picked
the older of several choices when I chose the T&B instead of the TC.
Most of you are probably saying its about time :) I take comfort
knowing it is one instrument I can almost always trust. I'm wondering
if it shouldn't be on my ESS list in place of the electric back up AI?
From the things I'm reading, I'm beginning to think so. Thanks for all
the help.
---
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
DHartley(at)aascworld.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . .
The portable Garmin 196 display seems to be pretty usable as a backup
T/B. I
don't know how it would display in turbulence, but works very good in
smooth
air.
David L. Hartley
dhartley(at)aascworld.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Vincent Welch [mailto:welchvincent(at)hotmail.com]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . .
.
This has been quite an interesting thread on T&B vs Turn Coordinators.
Does
anyone have an opinion on the usefulness of the built in T&B that is
part of
the Navaid Autopilot? I use the term T&B because it appears the the
LED's
simulate the old turn needle.
Vince
>From: N823ms(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . .
>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:58:13 EST
>
>
>Shannon:
>
> Ed here in the back ground watching your system planning. As
you
>might
>remember I am doing the Lancair ES. In regard to your T&B. My
experience as
>retired Naval Aviator, the T&B was the only thing you could really
trust.
>In
>the 70's & 80's as an instructor, we took students on "Bravo, Charlie"
>patterns which involved climb, descents, change in A/S. We would
frequently
>fail the A/H and DG, and ask for a time turn and descent. In the multi
>engine
>training, we used to teach with a simulated engine failure, idle power,
to
>"STEP ON THE BALL,' this always worked even with us military pilots
who
>can
>get temporarily disoriented but never lost. In my opinion the T&B would
be
>far better than a Turn coordinator unless it is associated as a source
for
>the autopilot. For the money, you can't wrong. More money doesn't
always
>mean
>better. If we can keep the guide line of the KISS principal and
concentrate
>on something that is practicable, reasonably priced. I think we can
keep a
>lot of the junk and the pretty toys out of the cockpit of which many of
>them
>don't live up to what the origin says they will do. Keep up the good
work,
>we
>are all learning.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Silvanic
>N823MS
>Lancair ES
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Wiring a fuel injection fuel pump |
> Gals/minute or gallons/hour?
Oops. I meant 35 gals/hr.
> What is the relief valve set at for operation in your airplane?
Relief valve? Do you mean the regulator on the rail? I didnt get that far
yet.
I called the supplier, Tracy Crook. He says the pump draws about 4 amps on
cruise, perhaps 8 amps max during startup. He thinks the recommendation to
fuse at 20amps is to avoid a blown fuse in case of "current rush" /
unusually high draw during start.
So, how about a 20 amp fuse, and 20 guage wire?
Does this make sense?
John Slade
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
In a message dated 10/31/02 1:46:37 PM Central Standard Time,
DHartley(at)aascworld.com writes:
> The portable Garmin 196 display seems to be pretty usable as a backup T/B. I
> don't know how it would display in turbulence, but works very good in
> smooth
> air.
>
>
> David L. Hartley
>
Good Afternoon David,
I haven't had an opportunity to try the 196 yet, but a couple of years ago,
when I first bought my Garmin 295, a friend and I went up to check it out. I
was placed under a hood that consisted of a blanket covering may head and
everything in the airplane except the 295.
My safety pilot then put the aircraft in unusual attitudes such as those
encountered on an instrument check flight. I did as I should and kept my
eyes closed until he said: "you got it".
We found that I could easily recover from whatever attitude into which he had
placed the aircraft and I could return to assigned headings and altitude by
reference to nothing other than the 295 and the seat of my pants.
I found the easiest presentation for me to use was the one where it shows a
simulated HSI. Other folks might find some other presentation easier.
I was very impressed with the unit's capability, accuracy and speed of
refreshment.
I suppose the 196 will be even better!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave O'Donnell" <daveodonnell(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Wiring a fuel injection fuel pump |
I would think that you need to pump a non-compressible fluid of similar
viscosity. Air or the lack of it is very compressible and very thin
(not viscose); I would not expect it to properly load a fluid pump.
Total vacuum (your fluid pump will not get to close) amounts to
something less than 15 psi (forgot the real #) pressure differential,
again not near enough to properly load your 85 psi pump.
Dave O
-----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: Wiring a fuel injection fuel pump
>
> > Was the pump "loaded" while you were making the
> > current measurement or just running free.
>Not with fuel. I put my finger over the end and let it suck vacuum.
This
>bumped up the draw from 0.6amp to 1.5 amp. I guess I could load it with
>fuel, but the max possible draw is probably if it gets stalled by a
piece of
>crud or something. I'd probably WANT the fuse to blow in this
situation.
>
> > Do you have any data on the pump's performance at
> > the pressures and flows for your fuel delivery
> > system?
>85psi. 35 gals/min
>
> > 20A seems horrible overkill . . . let's see if
> > we can deduce what's really appropriate.
>OK. Does the above help?
Gals/minute or gallons/hour? 35gal/min @ 85 psi
works out to about 1.7 hp at 100% efficiency
. . .that's a BIG fuel pump! Also, I presume
this is the max capability of the pump. What is
the relief valve set at for operation in your airplane?
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
Regarding the good post by Old Bob about T&B as compared to TC's:
> It presents a picture that looks very similar to an
> artificial horizon. That tends to make one think of leveling
> the wings whereas the important thing is to stop the turn.
>
If leveling the wings isn't how one stops the turn, what is the method?
It is important to clarify that a TC does not give any information about
roll position, only roll rate and, obviously, yaw rate. If the little
wings are centered, the plane is not turning AND the roll rate is zero.
Think of a TC as a T&B with an anticipator circuit. Zero either
instrument, and you are not turning.
I don't believe there is a "better" choice between the two, probably
just go with what you were trained on.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 219 hours (FYI: 280 landings on Van's junky tires, with
about 40 more before changing)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
In a message dated 10/31/02 6:02:41 PM Central Standard Time,
alexpeterson(at)usjet.net writes:
> >It presents a picture that looks very similar to an
> >artificial horizon. That tends to make one think of leveling
> >the wings whereas the important thing is to stop the turn.
> >
>
> If leveling the wings isn't how one stops the turn, what is the method?
>
Good Evening Alex,
The flip answer is: Just boot the rudder! That will stop the turn regardless
of where the wings are, or where we think they are.
More completely though, I think this is where the answer lies.
This is still just a theory on my part, but it has to do with mind set.
I feel that when we are in that mode which we commonly call vertigo, none of
us really knows what is going on.
I want the pilot to be thinking turn, not wings level. I think that if we
can get people to think that way, they will go ahead and stop the turn even
though they are convinced, by whatever method, that the wings are level.
The TC leaves some doubt in one's mind. Have you ever noticed that a TC will
occasionally show a wing down while the airplane is still solidly on the
ground?
That can happen during a takeoff when a turn has been made just before
opening the throttle. The damping is such that it can take a considerable
length of time to get the indication back to level after it has been
displaced.
And of course, we have already commented on what it looks like in knife edge
flight.
When the TC first came on the market, I replaced several T&Bs with the new
improved instrument. The TC.
It was only after several years that I observed a noticeable loss in partial
panel proficiency among folks with whom I flew.
I found that those who had a turn needle on their panel tended to do better
than those whose airplanes were equipped with a TC.
I think one reason is that those who have T&Bs tend to work harder at
maintaining a standard rate turn instead of just holding a specified angle of
bank. That means that they are using the instrument regularly in their
normal flying and find it easier to use following the failure of an attitude
instrument.
I have no doubt that such regular use of a TC to determine when the aircraft
was making a standard rate turn would serve the same purpose. It just seems
to me that folks don't tend to use the TC that way as much as they do when
they have a T&B.
Have you ever tried to use a TC to recover from a spin while on instruments?
It will not work anywhere near as well as will a T&B.
By indicating a roll, the TC does give an indication of an impending turn.
However, if you lose an engine on a twin, the TC will indicate a "wing drop"
when the airplane has only yawed.
Since the TC shows exactly the same indication for a roll as it does for a
yaw, there is no way for anyone to know what it is showing without reference
to secondary instrumentation.
If a turn needle shows a turn, the nose has swung. When an engine is out,
I'll take a T&B over a TC anytime. Leveling the wings will not necessarily
stop the airplane from turning.
To summarize:
The T&B always tells the truth, the TC does not.
It is my theory, no proof possible, that we humans are better able to accept
the indications of a T&B when we are in that horrible situation where our
senses are telling us one thing and the instruments indicate something else.
Regardless of what we think is happening, if we just get that needle stopped
in the center, everything else will eventually work out fine.
There is nothing else on the panel that looks anything at all like a T&B. No
one will ever confuse it with an attitude gyro.
The TC makes a fine sensor for a low cost autopilot. Hopefully we will have
cheap solid state sensors soon that will be better, cheaper and lighter than
anything we have thus far been presented. Jim Younkin has a very good
looking offering available now.
However, if I have to fly the airplane when my mind is confused, I want an
instrument that always tells the truth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russ Werner" <russ(at)maui.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Wiring a fuel injection fuel pump |
>
> So, how about a 20 amp fuse, and 20 guage wire?
> Does this make sense?
No, you need to size the wire to be able to handle 20A, otherwise your wire
becomes the fuse. Short the wire and the wire will burn before the fuse
blows.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Chalmers <David(at)ChalmersFamily.com> |
| Subject: | RE: 'linearizing' a fuel gauge |
Don't remember if someone already posted devices like this but I just found
this 16 point linearizing fuel gauge. Looks like a drop-in replacement for
my current (very non-linear) gas gauge.
http://www.blackwatchmarine.com/products/NZ1008/datasheet_NZ1008_FU30.asp
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: gilles.thesee [mailto:Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: 'linearizing' a fuel gauge
<Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
:
Envoy : mercredi 30 octobre 2002 05:36
Objet : AeroElectric-List: RE: 'linearizing' a fuel gauge
>
> >
> >
> >I just ordered the $19 development system from Digikey. This has got to
be
> >about the simplest microcontroller project you could ask for. What is
the
> >max number of fuel probes any one airplane will have? I would think that
> >two would be common, (one in each wing). One fuel signal conditioner
could
> >"linearize" both fuel probes.
>
> I was wondering about that but I think the pwm timer will
> only drive one port at a time . . . but at about $3 a chip,
> who cares if it takes two?
>
> >The connections would then be:
> >+12V
> >GND
> >Sender1
> >Sender2
> >Fuel Gauge 1
> >Fuel Gauge 2
> >and as Jerry suggested, you could have
> >Low Fuel Lamp 1
> >Low Fuel Lamp 2
> >
> >One 9-pin D-sub could handle it all, and the whole board may fit in the
> >D-Sub Backshell like you've done before Bob.
>
> Funny you should think about that. I think I'd go for
> the 15-pin d-sub shell just to get the real-estate inside
> the shell. Or go 9-pin on an open board like
> http://216.55.140.222/temp/MVC-138X.JPG
>
>
> Bob . . .
Bob and all,
Here's a link to the fuel-level senders we'll be using
http://www.datcon.com/prelease/printelli.htm
Cheers,
Gilles
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
Wow, I feel like an ant. Bob, you are a very wise man, and have thought
about these little gyro creatures more than I've flown. I still have a
couple very little issues with what you've said, but email method would
take days to banter back and forth...
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 219 hours
> In a message dated 10/31/02 6:02:41 PM Central Standard Time,
> alexpeterson(at)usjet.net writes:
>
> > >It presents a picture that looks very similar to an
> > >artificial horizon. That tends to make one think of leveling
> > >the wings whereas the important thing is to stop the turn.
> > >
> >
> > If leveling the wings isn't how one stops the turn, what is the
> > method?
> >
>
> Good Evening Alex,
>
> The flip answer is: Just boot the rudder! That will stop the
> turn regardless
> of where the wings are, or where we think they are.
>
> More completely though, I think this is where the answer lies.
>
> This is still just a theory on my part, but it has to do with
> mind set.
>
> I feel that when we are in that mode which we commonly call
> vertigo, none of
> us really knows what is going on.
>
> I want the pilot to be thinking turn, not wings level. I
> think that if we
> can get people to think that way, they will go ahead and stop
> the turn even
> though they are convinced, by whatever method, that the wings
> are level.
>
> The TC leaves some doubt in one's mind. Have you ever
> noticed that a TC will
> occasionally show a wing down while the airplane is still
> solidly on the
> ground?
>
> That can happen during a takeoff when a turn has been made
> just before
> opening the throttle. The damping is such that it can take a
> considerable
> length of time to get the indication back to level after it has been
> displaced.
>
> And of course, we have already commented on what it looks
> like in knife edge
> flight.
>
> When the TC first came on the market, I replaced several T&Bs
> with the new
> improved instrument. The TC.
>
> It was only after several years that I observed a noticeable
> loss in partial
> panel proficiency among folks with whom I flew.
>
> I found that those who had a turn needle on their panel
> tended to do better
> than those whose airplanes were equipped with a TC.
>
> I think one reason is that those who have T&Bs tend to work harder at
> maintaining a standard rate turn instead of just holding a
> specified angle of
> bank. That means that they are using the instrument
> regularly in their
> normal flying and find it easier to use following the failure
> of an attitude
> instrument.
>
> I have no doubt that such regular use of a TC to determine
> when the aircraft
> was making a standard rate turn would serve the same purpose.
> It just seems
> to me that folks don't tend to use the TC that way as much as
> they do when
> they have a T&B.
>
> Have you ever tried to use a TC to recover from a spin while
> on instruments?
> It will not work anywhere near as well as will a T&B.
>
> By indicating a roll, the TC does give an indication of an
> impending turn.
> However, if you lose an engine on a twin, the TC will
> indicate a "wing drop"
> when the airplane has only yawed.
>
> Since the TC shows exactly the same indication for a roll as
> it does for a
> yaw, there is no way for anyone to know what it is showing
> without reference
> to secondary instrumentation.
>
> If a turn needle shows a turn, the nose has swung. When an
> engine is out,
> I'll take a T&B over a TC anytime. Leveling the wings will
> not necessarily
> stop the airplane from turning.
>
> To summarize:
>
> The T&B always tells the truth, the TC does not.
>
> It is my theory, no proof possible, that we humans are better
> able to accept
> the indications of a T&B when we are in that horrible
> situation where our
> senses are telling us one thing and the instruments indicate
> something else.
>
> Regardless of what we think is happening, if we just get that
> needle stopped
> in the center, everything else will eventually work out fine.
>
> There is nothing else on the panel that looks anything at all
> like a T&B. No
> one will ever confuse it with an attitude gyro.
>
> The TC makes a fine sensor for a low cost autopilot.
> Hopefully we will have
> cheap solid state sensors soon that will be better, cheaper
> and lighter than
> anything we have thus far been presented. Jim Younkin has a
> very good
> looking offering available now.
>
> However, if I have to fly the airplane when my mind is
> confused, I want an
> instrument that always tells the truth!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
>
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
> Search Engine:
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> ===========
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
In a message dated 10/31/02 8:54:39 PM Central Standard Time,
alexpeterson(at)usjet.net writes:
> I still have a
> couple very little issues with what you've said, but email method would
> take days to banter back and forth...
>
> Alex Peterson
>
Good Evening Alex,
If you care to discuss any of this further, I am always interested in hearing
other views. That is how we develop and prove or disprove theories. That is
what my anti TC crusade is based on, strictly theory
Why not take it off Bob's excellent AeroEelectrical site and contact me
directly at BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Finley" <Jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
| Subject: | RE: 'linearizing' a fuel gauge |
Dave,
I have this very guage in my Q2. It is hooked to a standard float sender. I love
it and have found it to be very accurate.
Jon Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 440 Hrs. TT - 0 Hrs Engine
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: David Chalmers <David(at)ChalmersFamily.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:54:31 -0800
>
>
>Don't remember if someone already posted devices like this but I just found
>this 16 point linearizing fuel gauge. Looks like a drop-in replacement for
>my current (very non-linear) gas gauge.
>
>http://www.blackwatchmarine.com/products/NZ1008/datasheet_NZ1008_FU30.asp
>
>
>Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pazmany Newsletter" <pazmanynewsletter(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . .
>
> I may be mistaken, but I think the solid state stuff is ready. The
> Trutrak has its own built in gyros from what I understand. They aren't
> as fancy as the Xbow500 AHRS or anything, as they don't have to be, but
> they work great from what I hear. Might be something to check out.
>
> Which one is the T&B and which one is the Turn coord? I'm not sure I've
> been alive long enough :) to know the difference. The one I'm planning
> has the ball, obviously, and then has the flag at the 12oclock position
> that moves left and right. The one in my 182RG I currently fly has a
> little airplane that tilts. Which is which, and why is one better than
> the other?
>
> ---
> 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
> BobsV35B(at)aol.com
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . .
>
>
> In a message dated 10/29/02 12:02:57 PM Central Standard Time,
> bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
> > If I were building ANY class airplane in which it
> > was my intent to spend lots of time in clouds,
> > I would have dual, gps guided wing levelers
> > running from independent power sources. This
> > ensures that I have at least one system to keep
> > the dirty side down and pointy end forward while
> > I sorted things out and got my adrenaline levels
> > back down.
> >
>
> Good Evening Bob,
>
> I think that would be great! My only question is. If one fails, how do
> you
> know which one is the good one?
>
> The only way that I am aware of is to revert to some sort of rate based
> flying.
>
> I keep hoping that some of the new solid state attitude devices will
> become
> available at a weight and cost that works.
>
> In the meantime though, I strongly recommend the installation of two old
>
> fashioned needle and ball instruments. Not those abominable pieces of
> junk
> known as Turn Coordinators. I think they are very useful as a sensor
> for an
> autopilot, but I think they are the reason nobody can fly partial panel
> these
> days. I could beat that to death, but I won't.
>
> I do recommend the dual T&B because it is so easy to tell which one is
> telling you the truth. If it wiggles at all, it is telling you enough
> to
> save your tail. If it doesn't wiggle, it is no darn good. No voting or
>
> analysis required. Also, unlike the Turn Coordinator, it will never
> tell you
> a lie.
>
> The T&B s still relatively cheap, light weight, non tumbling and very
> reliable.
>
> Until the solid state stuff comes up to speed, I think the T&B is the
> best
> bet available.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
>
>
> >
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
Hey Bob,
Well I am still not convinced that yaw moves the needle. When I was flying
Navy Jets, I remember back in the training command doing standard rate turns
as practice partial panel scanning. We did not use rudder to make yaw and
move the needle, we used aileron. The ball typically sat in the middle and
we turned as a result of angle of bank not yaw.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . .
>
> In a message dated 10/31/02 8:56:12 AM Central Standard Time,
> jrstone(at)insightbb.com writes:
>
> > One question. If the flag or needle that swings back and forth with
yaw,
> > what does the ball indicate? I was under the impression that the ball
> > indicated yaw and the needle indicated rate of turn (as evidenced by the
> > standard rate turn indication at top of display).
> > Jim
> >
>
> Good Morning Jim,
>
> Not a lawyer and never even played one on TV!
>
> The ball just shows how good your coordination is.
>
> The early Turn needles didn't even have the ball. Some airplanes had a
> marine style inclinometer installed to serve the purpose and the
instrument
> manufacturers were quick to add that feature to the Turn Needle unit so it
> became the "Needle and Ball."
>
> That eventually started to be called the "Turn and Bank" instrument.
>
> If you yaw the airplane at a sufficient rate to keep the needle on the
side
> dog house, it will be turning at a standard rate turn. If the ball is in
the
> middle, it will be a nice coordinated turn. If the ball is not in the
middle,
> it will be skidding or slipping turn, but as long as the needle is on the
> appropriate dog house, the turn will be at standard rate. As an aside,
some
> instruments don't have the side doghouses. On those, you just set the
needle
> over to one side or the other a specified amount to get a standard rate
turn,
> thus the description of a one needle width or a two needle width turn.
>
> Any help?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> The Turn needle will show only yaw, provided that it is mounted properly.
>
> If it is canted a bit up or down, there will be some influence from roll.
>
> The gyroscope that is used in a Turn Coordinator is purposely mounted at
an
> angle to the fore and aft axis. Some of the early ones were at 45 degrees
> and some were as low as 39 degrees. I am not sure what angle the current
> production units are, but believe it to be somewhere around 38 to 40
degrees.
>
> If you ever get a chance to look behind the instrument panel of an
airplane
> with an early Brittain autopilot, you will see the old converted Turn and
> Bank instrument mounted with the front end up in the air. The newer
> instruments use a much smaller gyroscope and mount it within a standard
sized
> instrument case. Therefore, you can no longer tell by looking that it has
a
> canted gyro inside.
>
> As an aside, almost all current production Turn and Bank instruments are
made
> by the same folks who make most of the Turn Coordinators. Since the
> gyroscope for the TC needs to be so small, they now manufacture a smaller
> gyro that is used in both the TC and the T&B. As a consequence, the new
> production Turn and Banks are not as high a quality, and are not as
> responsive, as the ones made during and immediately following WWII.
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
How can I tell for certain how many amps my TC draws? I am armed with a
$9 meter and I'm not afraid to use it! (I'm just not sure how....)
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
Hi Bob,
You have raised my curiosity with this discussion. I log about 100 hours a
year and I have been instrument rated for the last 3. I think in that time
I have only accumulated about 6 hours of actual and I am very aware as a
weekend pilot that my skills are never highly proficient.
I have been building my Europa for the last 4 years and I have elected to
use the "standard 6 pack" of instruments, but instead of a turn coordinator
I have substituted a Navaids Wing leveler. My reasoning was that this would
back up a vacuum failure if it ever occurred in actual. The vacuum system
has a pressure switch to alert me if the pump fails.
My question is two fold. Firstly I'd be interested in your view of my
approach of using the Navaid to back up the vacuum system. The second is
now that I have seen your message I am wondering about the wisdom of adding
a T&B and vertical card compass as additional back up.
I'd be interested in your views.
Thanks and regards,
Paul McAllister http://europa363.versadev.com
> If you care to discuss any of this further, I am always interested in
hearing
> other views. That is how we develop and prove or disprove theories. That
is
> what my anti TC crusade is based on, strictly theory
>
> Why not take it off Bob's excellent AeroEelectrical site and contact me
> directly at BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
In a message dated 10/31/02 9:44:05 PM Central Standard Time,
jrstone(at)insightbb.com writes:
> Hey Bob,
> Well I am still not convinced that yaw moves the needle. When I was flying
> Navy Jets, I remember back in the training command doing standard rate
> turns
> as practice partial panel scanning. We did not use rudder to make yaw and
> move the needle, we used aileron. The ball typically sat in the middle and
> we turned as a result of angle of bank not yaw.
> Jim
>
Good Evening Jim.
Just take any standard T&B, supply it with power, hold it in your hand and
twist it around. You will find that you can hold it perfectly upright and it
will show a turn as you rotate it about. Lean it over sideways, as you would
in a normal coordinated turn, and it will still show a turn. Hold it
straight ahead and level to the floor, then rotate it around it's fore and
aft axis. The needle won't move at all.
Next time you are in one of those fancy jets, boot the rudder a bit and you
will see that needle wiggle back and forth as the nose swings from side to
side.
Since a turn is nothing more than a continuous yaw, the needle shows that the
instrument is turning. If the instrument is mounted in an airplane, that
continuous yaw is a continuous turn. If the airplane is flown in what we
normally consider to be coordinated flight, the ball will be in the middle.
If you are willing to keep the wings level while you force the nose around
with nothing but rudder, the airplane will change direction, very
inefficiently, but the heading will change. That is a turn and the airplane
is yawing in the sense that the nose is moving from one heading to another.
Neither a TC or T&B cares whether or not the turn is coordinated. All it
knows is that the heading is changing. The inclinometer does care about
coordination and it will show the hapless aviator how good a job he/she is
doing while the aircraft is turning.
My experience in jet fighter type aircraft is very limited, though I do have
four and a half hours in a T-38. I know it is considered a trainer and not a
fighter (even though it was originally designed to be a fighter as well as a
trainer), but that is as close to a fighter as anything I have flown! There
is no doubt that the T-38 can be flown successsfully with one's feet on the
floor. However, even that machine can be skidded by use of the rudder. When
the rudder is pushed from side to side, the nose will swing from side to side
and the turn needle will show a wiggle from side to side.
I call that yaw.
The following definitions are from Webster.
Hypertext Webster Gateway: "yaw"
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Yaw \Yaw\, n. (Naut.) A movement of a vessel by which she temporarily alters
her deviation from a straight course in steering.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Yaw \Yaw\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. {Yawing}.] [Cf. {Yew
}, v. i.] To ise in blisters, breaking in white froth, as cane juice in the
clarifiers in sugar works.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Yaw \Yaw\, v. i. & t. [Cf. Prov. G. gagen to rock, gageln to totter, shake,
Norw. gaga to bend &db=*">backward, Icel. gagr bent back, gaga to throw the neck
back.] (Naut.) To steer wild, or out of the line of her deviate
from her course, as when struck by a heavy said of a ship. Just as he
would lay the ship's course, all yawing being out of the question. --Lowell.
From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
yaw n : an erratic deflection from an intended course [syn: {swerve}] v 1: be
wide open [syn: {gape}, {yawn}] 2: deviate erratically form a set course, as
of a ship, for example 3: become deflected
It appears to me that the first and last definitions fit my interpretation
rather well.
What do you think?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
In a message dated 10/31/02 10:13:49 PM Central Standard Time,
paul.mcallister(at)qia.net writes:
> My question is two fold. Firstly I'd be interested in your view of my
> approach of using the Navaid to back up the vacuum system. The second is
> now that I have seen your message I am wondering about the wisdom of adding
> a T&B and vertical card compass as additional back up.
>
Good Evening Paul,
Unfortunately, I am not at all familiar with the Navaid unit.
As to the wisdom of adding a T&B and vertical card compass, I would advise
the addition of a T&B, but I think I would prefer a standard whiskey compass.
The vertical card compass adds another layer of complexity and another place
for failure to occur.
A compass is required for a certificated airplane. I am not familiar enough
with homebuilt rules to know if one is required there or not.
If the Navaid unit provides turn indications as plainly as does the T&B, I
would imagine it would be acceptable.
The thing I like about the T&B is that it does only one thing and looks
nothing like anything else on the panel. I find it easy to place my faith in
that instrument when all else has me thoroughly confused.
Not only that, it is cheap, light and reliable.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
Been doing a little research on a wing leveler for the other buss. My
first search sent me to Trutrak (Jim Younkin), where I'm getting my
dfc-250 2 servo. Turns out (pun intended) that Trutrak has just such a
little beast. Its their entry-line product, the Digitrak.
http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsproducts.html#Digitrak
you can see the features there. Even though it's the entry-line
simplest unit they offer, its touted as more than just a wing leveler.
It has its own built in slaved gyro, all solid state sensors, and
something called true control wheel steering. The only required
external input is GPS-RS-232, so if I understand correctly, the control
wheel steering makes the unit synchronize to the direction of flight
over the ground, not to bank angle or turn rate. To me, that sounds
pretty slick...totally stand alone it seems. My only question would be
what if the GPS signal was lost.
I'm going to call Jim and find out more details.
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/documents/Digitrakinstall.pdf
answered my own question....page 1.... "because the ap contains a
built-in magnetometer for a backup source of heading in the event of GPS
loss, it is important...."
now my question is should I consider putting this unit in PLACE of the
AI or TB in my panel, as it fits in a 2.25" opening?
---
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
Shannon Knoepflein
Subject: AeroElectric-List: wing leveler
Been doing a little research on a wing leveler for the other buss. My
first search sent me to Trutrak (Jim Younkin), where I'm getting my
dfc-250 2 servo. Turns out (pun intended) that Trutrak has just such a
little beast. Its their entry-line product, the Digitrak.
http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsproducts.html#Digitrak
you can see the features there. Even though it's the entry-line
simplest unit they offer, its touted as more than just a wing leveler.
It has its own built in slaved gyro, all solid state sensors, and
something called true control wheel steering. The only required
external input is GPS-RS-232, so if I understand correctly, the control
wheel steering makes the unit synchronize to the direction of flight
over the ground, not to bank angle or turn rate. To me, that sounds
pretty slick...totally stand alone it seems. My only question would be
what if the GPS signal was lost.
I'm going to call Jim and find out more details.
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DWENSING(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 10/31/02 10:54:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Larry(at)BowenAero.com writes:
> How can I tell for certain how many amps my TC draws? I am armed with a
> $9 meter and I'm not afraid to use it! (I'm just not sure how....)
>
First, is the meter rated high enough to measure the current flow? Should be
rated for at least 2 amps.
Hook up the meter in line to the TC.
i.e.Temporily remove the power wire to the TC. Connect the + (red) of the
meter to the power lead and the - (black) to the power terminal on the TC.
Turn on the power to the TC and read the meter.
Dale
Aero Plantation NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wing leveler |
>
>
>Been doing a little research on a wing leveler for the other buss. My
>first search sent me to Trutrak (Jim Younkin), where I'm getting my
>dfc-250 2 servo. Turns out (pun intended) that Trutrak has just such a
>little beast. Its their entry-line product, the Digitrak.
>
>http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsproducts.html#Digitrak
>
>you can see the features there. Even though it's the entry-line
>simplest unit they offer, its touted as more than just a wing leveler.
>It has its own built in slaved gyro,
. . . more like a slaved gyro SIMULATOR . . . given once
per second updates of course over the ground via GPS, the
device is capable of boring much more precise holes in the
sky than the free-running wing levelers of days gone by
which makes the unit BEHAVE as if it were getting steering
data from a slaved directional gyro.
If GPS disappears, the system reverts to something that
may or may not be as useful as the old T/C based wing
levelers . . . see below
> all solid state sensors, and
>something called true control wheel steering.
Don't know what this is in the context of their current
offering. In the past, control wheel steering meant that
you press a button, set up new heading, release button
and new heading will be held.
>The only required
>external input is GPS-RS-232, so if I understand correctly, the control
>wheel steering makes the unit synchronize to the direction of flight
>over the ground, not to bank angle or turn rate.
The fast response sensor is a turn-coordinator like rate sensor
that takes care of responses to turbulence and provides
just enough of a platform for guidance that once/second
updates from GPS can be evaluated over several input
intervals for very smooth decision making routines in
software.
> To me, that sounds
>pretty slick...totally stand alone it seems. My only question would be
>what if the GPS signal was lost.
It becomes a stand alone wing-leveler . . . which may or may
not be REALLY useful depending on how they handle rate sensor
drift. The original turn coordinators used to drive wing-levelers
had a panel mounted drift adjustment knob so that you could
trim the system to minimize heading drift . . .
The nice thing about GPS aided is that you can use a horrible
rate sensor and wash out offset and drift in software based on
once per second GPS updates of position.
If GPS becomes unavailable, then just about EVERY rate based
wing leveler will need some form of panel control for
pilot input to trim out drift.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: wing leveler |
>
>
>http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/documents/Digitrakinstall.pdf
>
>answered my own question....page 1.... "because the ap contains a
>built-in magnetometer for a backup source of heading in the event of GPS
>loss, it is important...."
>
>
>now my question is should I consider putting this unit in PLACE of the
>AI or TB in my panel, as it fits in a 2.25" opening?
Many OBAM aircraft have used the display associated with
their rate-based, radio-aided wing levelers as a replacement
for the turn coordinator. They are not a suitable replacement
for any other panel mounted instrument.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | "Turn co-ordinators" |
Cheers,
"Until the solid state stuff comes up to speed, I think the T&B is the
best bet available. Happy Skies, Old Bob Ancient Aviator"
Although a bit leery of ancient aviators (balloons?) "old Bob"
has it on the button. "Needle, ball and airspeed" was dunned into our heads
from the beginning of our training. The needle gives the rate of turn, the
ball tells you if it's co-ordinated and the airspeed tells you what state
you're in.
If Bob Nuckolls' pal in the Cessna could translate those three
from spin to spiral dive, he'd be alive today. I've been tricked and diddled
about with ever since some dilletante decided the name should describe the
instrument - so we have 'horizontal situation indicators' which are charts
and 'attitude director indicators' which are artificial horizons.
"Turn co-ordinators" are attitude director indicators are
artificial horizons are useful but not necessary. Needle, Ball and
Airspeed - also known as 'limited panel' - are vital. I believe Old Bob will
agree that every pilot should fly limited panel with a safety pilot every
month or so until he's content with his skill.
It's not whether he can afford to, it's whether he can afford
not to...........
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>How can I tell for certain how many amps my TC draws? I am armed with a
>$9 meter and I'm not afraid to use it! (I'm just not sure how....)
Ammeters measure electrons per second of current flow
past the point where they are inserted into the circuit.
It stand to reason that this measurement must be made
in a manner that all the current flowing into the device
being characterized must past THROUGH the instrument . . .
therefore, it is hooked in series. You have to break into
the power supply lead and insert the ammeter in the open
hole.
When measuring installed equipment, you can open a breaker
or pull a fuse and put the ammeter in the "open hole" where
the circuit protection used to be to make the measurement.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: wing leveler |
In a message dated 11/1/02 7:54:25 AM Central Standard Time,
kycshann(at)kyol.net writes:
> now my question is should I consider putting this unit in PLACE of the
> AI or TB in my panel, as it fits in a 2.25" opening?
>
>
I guess that depends on whether you wear a belt and suspenders!
Seriously, I would be likely to keep something old fashioned until such time
that the new stuff has proven itself. My vote would be to keep a T&B, but I
would prefer one larger than the 2.25 size. The reliability of those
instruments has not been great. I wouldn't waste the panel space on a back
up attitude gyro.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wing leveler |
A little bit of drift shouldn't hurt anything though...it will still
keep the belly side down, which is my reasoning behind it, for when
things get hectic and the adrenaline is 1000%.
So, does this look like a good choice for a stand alone wing leveler?
Is this what you had in mind?
---
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: wing leveler
>
>
>Been doing a little research on a wing leveler for the other buss. My
>first search sent me to Trutrak (Jim Younkin), where I'm getting my
>dfc-250 2 servo. Turns out (pun intended) that Trutrak has just such a
>little beast. Its their entry-line product, the Digitrak.
>
>http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsproducts.html#Digitrak
>
>you can see the features there. Even though it's the entry-line
>simplest unit they offer, its touted as more than just a wing leveler.
>It has its own built in slaved gyro,
. . . more like a slaved gyro SIMULATOR . . . given once
per second updates of course over the ground via GPS, the
device is capable of boring much more precise holes in the
sky than the free-running wing levelers of days gone by
which makes the unit BEHAVE as if it were getting steering
data from a slaved directional gyro.
If GPS disappears, the system reverts to something that
may or may not be as useful as the old T/C based wing
levelers . . . see below
> all solid state sensors, and
>something called true control wheel steering.
Don't know what this is in the context of their current
offering. In the past, control wheel steering meant that
you press a button, set up new heading, release button
and new heading will be held.
>The only required
>external input is GPS-RS-232, so if I understand correctly, the control
>wheel steering makes the unit synchronize to the direction of flight
>over the ground, not to bank angle or turn rate.
The fast response sensor is a turn-coordinator like rate sensor
that takes care of responses to turbulence and provides
just enough of a platform for guidance that once/second
updates from GPS can be evaluated over several input
intervals for very smooth decision making routines in
software.
> To me, that sounds
>pretty slick...totally stand alone it seems. My only question would be
>what if the GPS signal was lost.
It becomes a stand alone wing-leveler . . . which may or may
not be REALLY useful depending on how they handle rate sensor
drift. The original turn coordinators used to drive wing-levelers
had a panel mounted drift adjustment knob so that you could
trim the system to minimize heading drift . . .
The nice thing about GPS aided is that you can use a horrible
rate sensor and wash out offset and drift in software based on
once per second GPS updates of position.
If GPS becomes unavailable, then just about EVERY rate based
wing leveler will need some form of panel control for
pilot input to trim out drift.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
Bob,
How many amps will the diode you sell on your site handle?
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn Coordinators vs Yaw Rate Indicators |
We might consider changing the subject line on this
discussion. It's really important for folks who are trying
to use the list as a source of information on a specific
topic to not have to sort through all the messages
when subject lines don't match the topic.
The debate over turn coordinators versus pure yaw
rate sensors has raged on in various aviation groups
for decades and ranks right up there with the discussions
about whether you should use full flaps on every landing
irrespective of wind conditions and whether or not turning
down wind at low IAS values is a dangerous thing to do.
My personal observations have been that the turn
coordinator came into being primarily to aid the designers
of wing-levelers that were trying to get the best possible
performance of an automatic steering device with
input from a single simple sensor that was already
on the panel. Early attempts to stabilize heading using
pure yaw rate data from the original needle-n-ball instrument
produced behavior that caused bank angle entering a
leveler guided maneuver to oscillate. This was because
a substantial amount of wing roll would precede any
significant changes in heading by a second or two
and by the time the desired rate of heading change
had been established, the roll angle was too great
and the wings had to be rolled back toward level
which would overshoot again but by some smaller
value.
This produced a very sloppy behavior. Remember, the
first wing levelers were purely mechanical/pneumatic
systems . . . no electronics . . . no anticipatory
(first derivative calculation) capabilities. Tailoring
aileron servo behavior to perturbations of airframe
attitude had to be done by adjusting valve orifice
shape and mechanical gearing between the rate gyro
and the valve. Early designers found that if they
canted the axis of the rate sensor off horizontal
a few degrees, the sensors output became partially
sensitive to roll rate as well as yaw rate.
Rotating the sensor up say 30 degrees gave the sensor
about 1/2 of full scale sensitivity assigned to the
roll axis and reduced sensitivity in the yaw axis by
only 15%. This feature gave the purely mechanical
rate sensors the ability to notify the control system
of an IMPENDING change in heading. This allowed the
system to generate commands to the ailerons to drive
turning forces toward zero BEFORE the aircraft achieved
a significant turning rate. VERY useful in turbulent
air.
This sensitivity to roll rate has been the core
of many debates as to which is better but may
I suggest this:
It doesn't matter if you're learning to ride
a bike, get up on water skis or fly an airplane.
As human bio-machines with limits on our
calculating power have to be replaced by programming
reactions based on a suite of perceptions.
We have to EDUCATE our action output processing
to respond in the appropriate manner to our
input sensing to achieve the desired behavior
of the flight system.
Some have called the T/C display "erroneous"
because it implies measurement of something it
cannot measure . . . bank angle. This has
be acknowledged by those who build these
devices by labeling them with the words
"no attitude information displayed" or some
such set of weasel-words. Why they picked the
display common to most turn-coordinators is
probably buried in some ancient pile of bureaucratic
decision making processes . . . but it doesn't
matter.
The fact that a turn coordinator has some
sensitivity to roll gives a pilot the same
anticipatory input to deduce an impending turn
that the original designers of wing-levelers
found so useful 50 years ago. Any notion that
information vitally useful to a first-order servo
system trying to fly an airplane in a smooth
way is NOT equally useful to a pilot for the
same reasons defies any reasoning I can apply
to the analysis.
When one considers that the t/c and the
original yaw rate sensors are just that, rate
sensors, then it's easy to see that once you have
established a bank angle appropriate to a
particular turning rate . . . roll rate has become
zero and the instrument is displaying exactly
the same data as the old pure-yaw sensor . . .
but with an added feature . . . if turbulence
or pilot input to the controls causes roll
angle to DEPART from the value you're trying
to hold, you get the little wiggles on the
instrument that flag you to this condition
and allow you to ANTICIPATE the potential
change in turning rate before it becomes
significant.
Folks have complained that the T/C is "twitchy",
I prefer to call it SENSITIVE to a condition
of the airframe's behavior that I WANT TO KNOW
ABOUT . . . whether I am a bio-machine or a hunk
of software, the end and means to achieve the
goal are the same.
This gets us back to the need for calibrating
the responses to stimuli whether it's done
by tweaking values in software, adjusting
size of a metering orifice or sitting beside
an instructor while we LEARN how to do it.
There are a variety of airframe behaviors,
sensory inputs and human capabilities that have
to be harmonized for optimum performance with
THAT combination of equipment. Folks who have
flown a C-210 for a few hundred hours can feel
pretty far behind the 8-ball in a C-150 until
they get re-calibrated. To make the re-calibration
process still more interesting, take your
C-210 pilot out for a couple of no gyro-
approaches in the 210 with a turn-coordinator
and then repeat the experiment in a 150 with
a pure yaw rate display.
Personal preferences aside, I can tell you that
the canted rotation axis of a T/C offers
additional and useful data about airframe
motion that once you've learned to use it,
makes your pilotage of the airplane smoother.
This is born out by the fact that the
simplest of autopilots don't fly worth
a damn on pure yaw rate sensing.
You can bet that the yaw rate sensors in
the Nav-Aid, True-Trak or any other rate
based piloting aid are canted up from
horizontal to give the electronics a sense
of roll rate as well as yaw rate. If any
of these devices has a panel display of
"turn rate" then it will be synchronized with
the output from their internal sensor system
and will be equivalent to a turn coordinator
type of performance.
Many builders have replace their original
turning rate instrument with a Nav-Aid and
found the display to be as useful as the
instrument they replaced.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wing leveler |
>
>
>A little bit of drift shouldn't hurt anything though...it will still
>keep the belly side down, which is my reasoning behind it, for when
>things get hectic and the adrenaline is 1000%.
>
>So, does this look like a good choice for a stand alone wing leveler?
>Is this what you had in mind?
Sure. This is an excellent example of several products
out there that do 98% of everything you want an autopilot
to do for virtual peanuts . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "Turn co-ordinators" |
>
>Cheers,
>
>"Until the solid state stuff comes up to speed, I think the T&B is the
>best bet available. Happy Skies, Old Bob Ancient Aviator"
>
> Although a bit leery of ancient aviators (balloons?) "old Bob"
>has it on the button. "Needle, ball and airspeed" was dunned into our heads
>from the beginning of our training. The needle gives the rate of turn, the
>ball tells you if it's co-ordinated and the airspeed tells you what state
>you're in.
> If Bob Nuckolls' pal in the Cessna could translate those three
>from spin to spiral dive, he'd be alive today. I've been tricked and diddled
>about with ever since some dilletante decided the name should describe the
>instrument - so we have 'horizontal situation indicators' which are charts
>and 'attitude director indicators' which are artificial horizons.
> "Turn co-ordinators" are attitude director indicators are
>artificial horizons are useful but not necessary. Needle, Ball and
>Airspeed - also known as 'limited panel' - are vital. I believe Old Bob will
>agree that every pilot should fly limited panel with a safety pilot every
>month or so until he's content with his skill.
> It's not whether he can afford to, it's whether he can afford
>not to...........
Used to ride shotgun for one of my techs at Videmation while
he kept his instrument ticket current. He used to cover up both
gyros and fly all his practice approaches using a vertical card
compass and turn coordinator . . . and did it without telling
approach he had "no gyros" . . .
Watched him shoot 6 approaches in a row with typical Kansas
summertime cross-winds and never more than one-dot off
center on the needles.
Riding a tricycle is easier than riding a bicycle is easier
than riding a unicycle . . . none the less, all can be mastered
by those who have the desire/need to do so. Personally, I've
had more turning rate instruments go belly up en-route than gyros.
Not all decks of cards deal the same hands . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>How many amps will the diode you sell on your site handle?
They're rated at 25A on a heat sink. To minimize voltage
drop, one may use a really hefty junction rating compared
to the actual load . . . or us a Schottky diode. How
much current are you anticipating?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: t/c versus yaw rate gyro |
>
>
>Regarding the good post by Old Bob about T&B as compared to TC's:
>
> > It presents a picture that looks very similar to an
> > artificial horizon. That tends to make one think of leveling
> > the wings whereas the important thing is to stop the turn.
> >
>
>If leveling the wings isn't how one stops the turn, what is the method?
>
>It is important to clarify that a TC does not give any information about
>roll position, only roll rate and, obviously, yaw rate. If the little
>wings are centered, the plane is not turning AND the roll rate is zero.
>Think of a TC as a T&B with an anticipator circuit. Zero either
>instrument, and you are not turning.
>
>I don't believe there is a "better" choice between the two, probably
>just go with what you were trained on.
Exactly . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Wiring a fuel injection fuel pump |
>
> > Gals/minute or gallons/hour?
>Oops. I meant 35 gals/hr.
>
> > What is the relief valve set at for operation in your airplane?
>Relief valve? Do you mean the regulator on the rail? I didnt get that far
>yet.
>
>I called the supplier, Tracy Crook. He says the pump draws about 4 amps on
>cruise, perhaps 8 amps max during startup. He thinks the recommendation to
>fuse at 20amps is to avoid a blown fuse in case of "current rush" /
>unusually high draw during start.
Okay, that sounds better. Are you using fuses (fast) or breakers (slow)?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Shannon's Lancair system . . . |
>
>
>Well, for the first time in my avionics panel, it looks like I picked
>the older of several choices when I chose the T&B instead of the TC.
>Most of you are probably saying its about time :) I take comfort
>knowing it is one instrument I can almost always trust. I'm wondering
>if it shouldn't be on my ESS list in place of the electric back up AI?
> From the things I'm reading, I'm beginning to think so. Thanks for all
>the help.
See column 2, page 17-4 and column 1 on page 17-5
But if you have a dual-bat/dual-alternator system, you
don't need an e-bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <danobrien(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn Coordinators vs Yaw Rate Indicators |
> Any notion that
> information vitally useful to a first-order servo
> system trying to fly an airplane in a smooth
> way is NOT equally useful to a pilot for the
> same reasons defies any reasoning I can apply
> to the analysis.
Bob,
That was BEAUTIFUL. I'm glad to know that I can keep my two TC's confident that
it is at least possible to make a well-reasoned case for choosing them over
T&B's.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coord |
>
> > This has been quite an interesting thread on T&B vs Turn
> Coordinators. Does
> > anyone have an opinion on the usefulness of the built in T&B that is
> part of
> > the Navaid Autopilot? I use the term T&B because it appears the the LED's
> > simulate the old turn needle.
>
>And to stretch it a little longer- anybody know if the solid-state gyros
>that have
>started popping up behave the same as a T&B as far as turn (yaw?)
>indication, and can
>this reliably offer the same benefits as the T&B over the A/H?
It depends on how the rate sensor's axis of sensitivity is
oriented with respect to the airframe's vertical axis. If the
solid state turning rate sensor is used to drive ailerons -AND-
an instrument panel display, then it's a sure bet the critter
is slightly off vertical and emulates a turn coordinator.
If it's not part of a flight control system, you need to check
the manufacturer's specs for the instrument and see how it's
built.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Wiring a fuel injection fuel pump |
> Okay, that sounds better. Are you using fuses (fast) or
> breakers (slow)?
Fuses. I wouldn't dare subscribe to this list if I was using "them other
things"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Turn co-ordinators" |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> Used to ride shotgun for one of my techs at Videmation while
> he kept his instrument ticket current. He used to cover up both
> gyros and fly all his practice approaches using a vertical card
> compass and turn coordinator . . . and did it without telling
> approach he had "no gyros" . . .
>
*** I flew my first 200 hours in aircraft without DG or
AI, just needle, ball, airspeed & whiskey compass. When the S hits the F,
you go back to your earliest training.
I hear there's an intensive IFR training place in the midwest somewhere
( GATTS ) that does the whole thing partial panel. First lesson to
checkride, you never see an AI.
OTOH, I'm told that the kind of airplane makes a difference. In a low
performer, partial panel is trivial. In a jet, it's deadly. That's why
big jets have three independant Attitude Indicators. Bob, can you verify?
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
It looks like 16.2 amps (22.2 went the COM is TX). I bought the one on
your site, not sure if it is going to be big enough. Can the other set
of terminals be utilized and wire the internal diodes in parallel, or
should I just get a different part? Any suggestions on another part?
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
to the actual load . . . or us a Schottky diode. How
much current are you anticipating?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: "Turn co-ordinators" |
In a message dated 11/1/02 11:42:03 AM Central Standard Time, jerry(at)tr2.com
writes:
> OTOH, I'm told that the kind of airplane makes a difference. In a low
> performer, partial panel is trivial. In a jet, it's deadly. That's why
> big jets have three independant Attitude Indicators. Bob, can you verify?
>
Good Afternoon Jerry,
I am not sure which Bob your comment is addressed to, but I have flown many
airliners that were equipped with three attitude gyros and no turn
instrument.
The largest airplane I flew that had a standard T&B installed was the Boeing
720.
I was flying that at the time (circa 1970?) that the FAA said they wanted a
third attitude gyro installed.
As an incentive to make the cost of that installation more palatable, the
airlines were allowed to remove the T&Bs when the third AH was installed.
As to whether or not an airplane of that size and speed was able to be
controlled by reference to the Needle Ball and Airspeed, we did it all of the
time before they were removed.
Did I miss the T&B when they were removed?
I didn't think I would, however, I found myself looking at the spot in the
panel where it had been located every time that I got into turbulence.
Had you asked me before that time what I was using to fly the airplane in
turbulence, I would not have included the T&B in my answer.
Nevertheless, I did find that I had been using it a lot. It took me while to
adjust my scan to one that provided adequate information to replace that
which I had not realized I had been using.
The fastest airplane I have flown is the T-38. I didn't fly any IFR in that
airplane, but I think I could have kept it right side up on a partial panel.
The largest airplane I have flown is the 747.
The 747s that I flew were not equipped with T&Bs. I do feel that I could
have flown one comfortably on a partial panel. I imagine it would not have
made much difference whether it was partial panel based on a TC or on a T&B.
As I have stated before, the TC seemed like a good idea when I first started
to use them. I liked the early warning capability that it has.
It wasn't until many years later that I began to think that it was training
pilots to think of wings level instead of turn.
It is my theory, totally unproven, that the emphasis should be placed on
stopping the turn, not leveling the wings. Obviously, leveling the wings
will stop the turn most of the time.
The problem is in getting a totally confused pilot to disregard the feelings
he/she has as to what his/her seat of the pants feelings are saying about the
aircraft's attitude.
I think that establishing a mind set that wants to stop the turn first is
what is needed.
The T&B emphasizes the Turn.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Weekend Seminar Nashville, TN |
A date and place for the Nashville, TN program has been
selected. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/seminars/Nashville.html
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>It looks like 16.2 amps (22.2 went the COM is TX). I bought the one on
>your site, not sure if it is going to be big enough. Can the other set
>of terminals be utilized and wire the internal diodes in parallel, or
>should I just get a different part? Any suggestions on another part?
At these current levels, I'd recommend something like
the Schottky rectifier assembly that Eric Jones was
talking about earlier here on the list.
Eric, are you listening in? Shannon needs a killer diode.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dual alternators running simultaneously |
>
>I'm doing the all-electric on a budget with main alternator plus SD-8
>backup on the vacuum pad. Is it possible to run both alternators at
>once? I should think not because the regulators would do funny things if
>not perfectly calibrated for the same bus voltage. But I thought I'd ask
>because my load analysis shows continuous loads of over 40 amps
>possible. I'll probly have to move up to a bigger alternator unless it's
>possible to augment the 40 A unit with the 8-10 A SD-8 when needed...
Sure, the gain on the SD-8's regulator is so low that it
will run pretty happily in parallel with another alternator.
Just set it's voltage about .5 volt low so that it picks up
the difference from what the 40A will carry.
Now, how did you get over 40A? The largest continuous
IFR running load I've calculated for a single-engine
light plane was 27A . . . running toe warmers or something?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Thanks Bob.
I sent Shannon info on the Schottky. Have a bunch potted and equipped with 8-32
terminals.
Anyone interested can contact me off the list.
I didn't send you one but I will if you want to test it.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Voltage measurements questions |
Hi, Bob and all
May I ask your advice about some measurements I made last week-end on a a
finished airplane similar to ours ?
The kit is powered by a Rotax 914 with a 20 amps alternator. It had just
performed it's first flight the day before. Maybe some of the numbers can be
of interest to people with Rotax aircraft.
The battery is an Exide EX 18, 17,5 Ah capacity.
I took some current draw measurements with a 'clamp' type digital ammeter,
with the engine stopped.
Battery contactor : 0.75 amps
Fuel pump (main or boost) alone : 1.45 amp
Radios : 0.8 amps (TX : 5 amps)
Trim : 2.5 amps
Aileron trim : 0.25 amps
Flap extension : 15,8 amps
Total draw (cruise configuration, no strobe) : 6,74 amps
Total draw (takeoff configuration, no strobe) : 7.57 amps
Then I took some voltage readings (on the ramp) :
Battery (engine stopped) : 11.9 volts
Battery (engine running @ 2000 RPM, cruise configuration) : 12.4 volts
Battery (engine running @ 3000 RPM, cruise configuration) : 13.1 to 13.3
volts
Idem, flap extension : 12.2 volts
I found those values rather disapointing, as I was expecting around 14
volts.
My questions :
-Is this particular battery an RG model ?
-Are the current draw numbers realistic ?
-Should I have measured the pump draw with the engine running ?
-Taking those numbers into account, do you think the alternator will be up
to it's task with a safe margin ?
Now for those low voltage readings :
- Assuming the non adjustable regulator is not broke, what could be the
reasons for the low voltage readings ?
-Could the location otf this regulator remote from the alternator (below the
front seats, next to the battery) be the cause ? Rotax says the difference
between battery and terminal C of the regulator should not exceed 0.2 volts.
Thanks for your opinion,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com> |
My meter is rated to a max of 2 amps, if I'm reading this right. I guess it's
time to invest in a 'real' meter.
Thanks,
LB
--- DWENSING(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/31/02 10:54:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> Larry(at)BowenAero.com writes:
>
>
> > How can I tell for certain how many amps my TC draws? I am armed with a
> > $9 meter and I'm not afraid to use it! (I'm just not sure how....)
> >
> First, is the meter rated high enough to measure the current flow? Should be
> rated for at least 2 amps.
>
> Hook up the meter in line to the TC.
> i.e.Temporily remove the power wire to the TC. Connect the + (red) of the
> meter to the power lead and the - (black) to the power terminal on the TC.
> Turn on the power to the TC and read the meter.
> Dale
> Aero Plantation NC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
Larry Bowen wrote:
>
>
> My meter is rated to a max of 2 amps, if I'm reading this right. I guess it's
> time to invest in a 'real' meter.
>
*** Nah. Just invest in a resistor. Suppose you want to measure 20A, and
your meter has a 0-.2 Volt scale:
You want to stick a resistor in series with your UUT ( Unit Under Test )
such that a current of 20A will generate .2V across the resistor. Ohms
Law says that R = E/I, or .2/20, or 0.01 ohms.
Now, that's a pretty small resistor. You won't pick that up at the Radio
Shack. What you can pick up, however, is some thin wire. Say, some 24gauge
"magnet wire". You find the copper table in the Amateur Radio Handbook ( or
in some other electrical reference ). This will tell you the ohmage of your
wire in ohms per 1000'. It's easy to figure out the exact length of wire
you need for the resistance you want. It won't be all that long, for such
a small ohmage.
Such a resistor is called a "current shunt" in the metering trade.
I found a copper table on the Web here:
http://www.physics.montana.edu/edl/documents/edlpages/copperwiretable.htm
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Wiring a fuel injection fuel pump |
>
> > Okay, that sounds better. Are you using fuses (fast) or
> > breakers (slow)?
>Fuses. I wouldn't dare subscribe to this list if I was using "them other
>things"
Aww gee . . . circuit breakers aren't all bad. If you've
got the dollars, panel space and really want breakers, they'll
do just fine. Can't be less than a 1.5 million breakers flying around
out there now . . .
But if one selects breakers because of some perceived ADVANTAGE
over fuses in terms safety, performance or cost of ownership, then
then I'd sure like to know how they excel . . .
I think you'll be fine with a 10A fuse and 16AWG wire for your
fuel pump.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage measurements questions |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>
>Hi, Bob and all
>
>May I ask your advice about some measurements I made last week-end on a a
>finished airplane similar to ours ?
>
>The kit is powered by a Rotax 914 with a 20 amps alternator. It had just
>performed it's first flight the day before. Maybe some of the numbers can be
>of interest to people with Rotax aircraft.
>
>The battery is an Exide EX 18, 17,5 Ah capacity.
>I took some current draw measurements with a 'clamp' type digital ammeter,
>with the engine stopped.
>
>Battery contactor : 0.75 amps
>Fuel pump (main or boost) alone : 1.45 amp
>Radios : 0.8 amps (TX : 5 amps)
>Trim : 2.5 amps
>Aileron trim : 0.25 amps
>Flap extension : 15,8 amps
>Total draw (cruise configuration, no strobe) : 6,74 amps
>Total draw (takeoff configuration, no strobe) : 7.57 amps
>
>
>Then I took some voltage readings (on the ramp) :
>
>Battery (engine stopped) : 11.9 volts
>Battery (engine running @ 2000 RPM, cruise configuration) : 12.4 volts
>Battery (engine running @ 3000 RPM, cruise configuration) : 13.1 to 13.3
>volts
>Idem, flap extension : 12.2 volts
>I found those values rather disapointing, as I was expecting around 14
>volts.
>
>
>My questions :
>-Is this particular battery an RG model ?
I belive it is.
>-Are the current draw numbers realistic ?
Yes . .
>-Should I have measured the pump draw with the engine running ?
Probably wouldn't change much
>-Taking those numbers into account, do you think the alternator will be up
>to it's task with a safe margin ?
Your running loads are certainly well within the
advertised capabilities of the alternator
>Now for those low voltage readings :
>- Assuming the non adjustable regulator is not broke, what could be the
>reasons for the low voltage readings ?
Was the battery fully charged? It may have been soaking
up so much snort that the alternator was momentarily
"overloaded" . . .
>-Could the location otf this regulator remote from the alternator (below the
>front seats, next to the battery) be the cause ? Rotax says the difference
>between battery and terminal C of the regulator should not exceed 0.2 volts.
How much current flows into terminal C? If terminal C
is a sense lead, added voltage drop in the wiring causes
the regulator to perceive a bus voltage that is less than
the true value . . . this generally causes alternator output
to be HIGHER than normal, not lower.
While the engine is running 3000 rpm, put your clamp-on ammeter
on one of the battery leads and see how much current
is flowing there.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | 2002 List Fund Raiser - Please Support Your Lists... |
Dear Listers,
During November of each year, I have a voluntary Email List Fund Raiser to
support the continued operation, development, maintenance and upgrade of
the Email Forums sponsored here. Your Contributions go directly into
improvements in the systems that support the Lists and to pay for the
Internet connectivity primarily dedicated to supporting the Lists.
The traffic on the Lists continues to grow and the numbers are nothing
short of impressive! Here are some statistics that show much traffic the
Lists generated last year alone:
11/01/2001 - 10/31/2002
Web server hits: 8,700,000 (727,000/mo)
Incoming Email Posts: 51,259 (4,271/mo) *
* This number is multiplied by the total number of email addresses
subscribed to the given List. The actual number of email message processed
is in the 50,000,000 range for last year!!
The new Internet provider, Speakeasy, has been providing extremely fast and
reliable service over the last year, and this has certainly been a
refreshing change from previous providers!
There were a couple of new features added at the tail-end of last year
including the new List Browse Feature ( http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse
), and the List Photoshare which have been both very popular. Many people
have written to say how much they enjoy the on-line browsing capability of
current week's messages. The 184 new Photoshares (
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare ) added over the last year attests to
its acceptance and appreciation in the community as well.
I have upgraded both the email and web server OS systems recently to the
latest - well almost the latest - version of Redhat Linux and Kernel
2.4.19, both of which have been working very well and quite reliably.
What does the future hold? Well, something pretty exciting I'm
hoping... I am currently evaluating a new, commercially available software
package that runs under Linux and provides a complete web-based Email List
service akin to what those other guys use. The difference will be that
there won't be any annoying advertisements and popup ads on the Matronics
system!! The system will continue to be dedicated to furthering Lists
activities and not trying to sell you something you don't want. My hope is
to keep most if not all of the current functionality in place and add the
new software system over the top. Some of the system will be replaced
(like majordomo), but the lists will work much like they do today - only
BETTER! As I mentioned, I am currently in the evaluation stage of this and
have yet to select a final product. Suffice to say some facelifts are
definitely on the way!
Unlike many of the other "list servers" on the web these days, I have a
strict no-commercial-advertisement policy on the Matronics Lists and
associated List websites. I have been approached by a number of vendors
recently with advertising deals that have been very tempting. However, my
commitment to providing a grass-roots, non-commercial environment
prevails! Commercialism on the Internet seems to be increasing
exponentially every year with more and more SPAM and pop up ads, not to
mention the ever increasing Virus attacks. My goal with the Matronics List
Service is to provide my members with a commercial-free, safe, and
high-performance system in which to share information, ideas, and
camaraderie.
I recoup my upgrade, maintenance, and operating costs by having a List Fund
Raiser once a year during November. During this time, I ask List members
to donate a small amount of money to support the continued operation of the
Lists over the upcoming year. Contributions in the $20, $30, and $50 range
are common. This year I have completely revamped the Contribution website,
and have added the ability to use PayPal to make your Contribution in
addition to the traditional Visa/MC and Personal Check Options. Its easier
and faster than ever before to make your Contribution!! For those who are
accustomed to using PayPal to make Internet purchases, will appreciate the
ease and speed of using this handy method of payment to make their List
Contribution.
The best news this year, however, is that I have a couple of fantastic Gift
offers to support the List Fund Raiser! Andy Gold of The Builder's
Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com ) will be generously donating a
FREE Jeppesen Flight Bag to anyone making a $50 or more List Contribution
during the Fund Raiser! This is a great bag and something you'll surely
what to get your hands on. Thanks Andy, for this great incentive!!
In addition to the great Flight Bag, I will also be offering a FREE
Matronics List Archive CDROM for a $50 or greater Contribution! This is a
complete set of archives for all Email Lists currently hosted by
Matronics. The Archives date back to the beginning of the each List. In
the case of the RV-List, for example, this includes archives all the way
back to 1990! That's about 133Mb alone! Also included on the CD is a copy
of Chip Gibbion's Windows Archive Search Utility and a precompiled
search-index for each archive on the CD.
Better yet?! You can get BOTH the Flight Bag AND the Archive CD for a
Contribution of $75 or more which is actually LESS than the combined retail
price on the two items!!! How can you go wrong? Get some great stuff AND
support your Lists at the same time!
Over the next month I'll be posting a few reminder messages about the List
Fund Raiser, and I ask for your patience and understanding during the
process. Remember that the Lists are *completely* funded through the
generous Contributions of its members. That's it! There's no support from
a bloated advertising budget or deep pockets somewhere. Its all made
possible through YOUR support!
I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who supports the
List this year. Your generosity contributes directly to the quality of the
experience here.
To make your List Contribution using a Visa or MasterCard, PalPal, or with
a Personal Check, please go to the URL link below. Here you can find
additional details on this year's great free Gifts as well as additional
information on the various methods of payment.
SSL Secure Contribution Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contributions
Again, I would like to thank everyone who supports the Lists this
year! Your Contributions truly make it all possible!!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald A. Cox" <racox(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 44 Msgs - 10/31/02 |
> Rather than hope for severance of a wire, why not
> build in a G-activated (normally closed) switch /
> 'fuse' in the master control circuit, a device with
> the characteristics of an ELT-actuator switch, so that
> when the turf arrives MUCH too fast, that solenoid is
> chopped??? OK - and a bypass switch to bring it back
> if the 'fuse' breaks in flight for some reason. Too
> complex? Unnecessary?
>
> A thought experiment...... anyone?
>
> Glenn Rainey
> Long-EZ
> Scotland
Glenn:
I would think this would be pretty simple to put together, using one of
those marine supply disconnect knife-type switches.
Simply figure out how many G's you want to require to trip it, and size a
weight accordingly, with the switch oriented in the proper direction, and
the weight would open the switch.
If it's reachable, or remotely resettable, it could even be used as a
display/airshow disconnect to keep fiddly fingers from hurting anything.
Shouldn't be too tough, if you feel it's necessary.
Ron Cox
Glasair Super II about to start wiring!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | An observation ----- |
Matt,
It's been a few moons since I stumbled across one of the most
useful lists I can imagine - the AeroElectric list. It has saved my bacon,
and widened my understanding beyond measure. It is with great thanks that I
contribute my little part each year.
However, I think you might emphasize one point in your FAQ and
rules section :
Replying.
I find more and more I am scrolling page after page of a
previous history which has long since ceased to be connected with the
present exchange. Only at the distant bottom of the message is the truth
confirmed - six or seven Signoff copies, proving the last sender hasn't
bothering one whit to edit out the unnecessary blather - nor had his
predecessors. The discovery immediately denigrates the quality of message
coming from such a sloth - so he (and they) lose in the long run.
Other than that, your service to us all is faultless and not of
your doing anyway.
Many thanks again,
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald A. Cox" <racox(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Contributions to the host |
I have just made my contribution, and I hope everyone will contribute to
Matt's operation of these invaluable lists. I suspect you all feel, as I
do, that building these things would be a lot tougher, if not impossible,
without the incredible help offered by Bob N. and the other users here on
the lists Matt hosts.
I think it's important that we all support this kind of interchange of
information, so it will remain available.
As I think Bob has said in the past, a few of skipped cheeseburgers from
each of us (as if I'd miss them!) is all it takes. It's worth it.
Ron Cox
Glasair Super II F/T under construction
____
> From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: 2002 List Fund Raiser - Please Support Your
Lists...
>
>
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> During November of each year, I have a voluntary Email List Fund Raiser to
> support the continued operation, development, maintenance and upgrade of
> the Email Forums sponsored here. Your Contributions go directly into
> improvements in the systems that support the Lists and to pay for the
> Internet connectivity primarily dedicated to supporting the Lists.
>
> . . .
>
> To make your List Contribution using a Visa or MasterCard, PalPal, or with
> a Personal Check, please go to the URL link below. Here you can find
> additional details on this year's great free Gifts as well as additional
> information on the various methods of payment.
>
> SSL Secure Contribution Web Site:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contributions
>
> Again, I would like to thank everyone who supports the Lists this
> year! Your Contributions truly make it all possible!!
>
> Thank you!
>
> Matt Dralle
> Matronics Email List Administrator
>
>
> Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
> 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
> http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
Hi all,
I have two Fawcet fuel transfer pumps and one aux. EFI fuel pump. I am
wondering if I would be wise to use the toggle switches on the panel to
close relays which supply power to the pumps? I ask as I have read
about switch failures in the past and I wonder if reducing the amount of
load going through each switch would help with this problem.
Be gentle, electronics is still a black art to me..... :-)
Jon Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 440 Hrs. TT - 0 Hrs Engine
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of Relays?? |
Hey Jon, are you gonna be by your hangar this afternoon?
I'll stop by, we can talk electronics.
Tom B (Cozy4, that marv hides every winter).
Jon Finley wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have two Fawcet fuel transfer pumps and one aux. EFI fuel pump. I am
> wondering if I would be wise to use the toggle switches on the panel to
> close relays which supply power to the pumps? I ask as I have read
> about switch failures in the past and I wonder if reducing the amount of
> load going through each switch would help with this problem.
>
> Be gentle, electronics is still a black art to me..... :-)
>
> Jon Finley
> N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 440 Hrs. TT - 0 Hrs Engine
> Apple Valley, Minnesota
> http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
> wondering if I would be wise to use the toggle switches on the panel to
> close relays which supply power to the pumps?
Funny, but my wife asked me the very same question this morning. Trying to
sound like I knew what I was doing, I replied that we dont want to introduce
another point of failure. It's better to use good quality switchs and have
two pumps. This sounded good, and got the required response, but I wonder if
I was right.
John Slade.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 44 Msgs - 10/31/02 |
"Ronald A. Cox" wrote:
>
>
> > Rather than hope for severance of a wire, why not
> > build in a G-activated (normally closed) switch /
> > 'fuse' in the master control circuit, a device with
> > the characteristics of an ELT-actuator switch, so that
> > when the turf arrives MUCH too fast, that solenoid is
> > chopped??? OK - and a bypass switch to bring it back
> > if the 'fuse' breaks in flight for some reason. Too
> > complex? Unnecessary?
> >
> > A thought experiment...... anyone?
> >
> > Glenn Rainey
> > Long-EZ
> > Scotland
>
> Glenn:
>
> I would think this would be pretty simple to put together, using one of
> those marine supply disconnect knife-type switches.
>
> Simply figure out how many G's you want to require to trip it, and size a
> weight accordingly, with the switch oriented in the proper direction, and
> the weight would open the switch.
>
> If it's reachable, or remotely resettable, it could even be used as a
> display/airshow disconnect to keep fiddly fingers from hurting anything.
>
> Shouldn't be too tough, if you feel it's necessary.
>
> Ron Cox
> Glasair Super II about to start wiring!
>
The use of that switch would also allow shedding around 2 amps of load (from the
master contactor coil).
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Voltage measurements questions |
>
> >Now for those low voltage readings :
>
>
> >- Assuming the non adjustable regulator is not broke, what could be the
> >reasons for the low voltage readings ?
>
> Was the battery fully charged? It may have been soaking
> up so much snort that the alternator was momentarily
> "overloaded" . . .
>
Should have thought of that. I was already blaming the installation.
The battery was definetly not fully charged since its voltage reading was
only 11.9 volts before turning anything on. (For comparison, my car battery
reads 12.5 V when stopped and 14.2 V when running)
>
> How much current flows into terminal C? If terminal C
> is a sense lead, added voltage drop in the wiring causes
> the regulator to perceive a bus voltage that is less than
> the true value . . . this generally causes alternator output
> to be HIGHER than normal, not lower.
>
> While the engine is running 3000 rpm, put your clamp-on ammeter
> on one of the battery leads and see how much current
> is flowing there.
>
Will make those additionnal measurements next week end.
While we are at it, do you see other readings I could take to help better
understand the Roax system ?
Thanks again,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of Relays?? |
>
>Hi all,
>
>I have two Fawcet fuel transfer pumps and one aux. EFI fuel pump. I am
>wondering if I would be wise to use the toggle switches on the panel to
>close relays which supply power to the pumps? I ask as I have read
>about switch failures in the past and I wonder if reducing the amount of
>load going through each switch would help with this problem.
>
>Be gentle, electronics is still a black art to me..... :-)
But did the story tellers know why the switch failed? I've
observed over the years that most switches fail of old age
and dis-use . . . not from electrical stresses. Relays
are among the least reliable of switching devices due to
their mechanical complexity and the need for winding solenoid
coils from very fine, SOLID wire and a few other sundry
features unique to relays.
With all other things being equal, the most reliable
systems are those with the lowest parts count. Parts
count includes ALL parts . . . screws, lockwashers,
internal springs, terminals, pieces of wire, moving
contacts, etc, etc.
The ultimate reliability in a fuel delivery system has
the fewest possible parts and an operating mode that
is most TOLERANT of a failure of any single system
component. It is good to look at higher failure
probability components like switches and pumps because
they are the most complex in terms of pieces and the
most highly stressed cause they have to do WORK under
less than ideal conditions. But this doesn't eliminate
the need to consider power sources, skill in applying
terminals to wires and configuring the system so that
if something doesn't work as you originally intended,
you have a plan of action for comfortable completion
of the flight.
I'll suggest a review of chapter 17 may be useful
to you . . .
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>My meter is rated to a max of 2 amps, if I'm reading this right. I guess it's
>time to invest in a 'real' meter.
Two amps should be fine for measuring your t/c current draw.
Momentary inrush currents during motor spin up may "peg" the
instrument but it won't hurt it. You should find that running
current is less than an amp . . . but tell us what you DO
find.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Schottky Diode |
>
>Thanks Bob.
>
>I sent Shannon info on the Schottky. Have a bunch potted and equipped with
>8-32 terminals.
>Anyone interested can contact me off the list.
>
>I didn't send you one but I will if you want to test it.
That's not necessary. I did get your box of goodies and I'm
planning on taking the big kahuna over to LeeAir next week
to test on their high current bench. I had one here for a RAC
project about a year ago but dismantled it after the task
was complete.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Falcon <rsdec1(at)isp01.net> |
| Subject: | electrical loading |
Mark,
In my single engine light IFR airplane I was unable to get the typical night
VFR flight loads under 32.6 amps. And that would be if I am very careful not
to turn other things on. This would violate the 80% of alt capacity recommendation
if using a 40 amp alt. I know that the landing light should only be an intermittent
load but guess what, I am guilty of leaving it on sometimes, and will
probably do it again, only to be discovered when setting up for landing. In
the winter I like to run
the seat heaters at 7.5A each. There is also no pitot heat or defroster fan allowance
in that scenario. I had to go with the 60 amp alternator. I could not justify
loads lower than those listed below, IFR or night VFR. Here are some options,
lower current draw landing, position and strobe lights, mechanical batt
master contactors, mags only(no elect ign), assume that you will not leave the
landing light on or need pitot heat or the defroster fan or Nav/com 2. I have
changed the batt
contactors from elect to mechanical but that was not enough reduction to drive
me to the 40 amp alt.
Good luck, you'll need it.
"bash not, lest ye be bashed"
RD
bat 1 contactor 1.0
bat 2 contactor 1.0
elect ign 1.2
alt field 1.0
strobe p/s 7.5 (Whelan HDF,CF)
position lts 7.4 (Whelan A600-PG and -PR)
landing lt 7.0
xpdr & enc 2.0
nav/com1 1.5
nav/com2 1.5
int lighting 1.5
TOTAL 32.6 A
Shannon, what kind of strobes and position lights are you using that draw only
2.75 amps each for a total of 5.5 A? Is this a t 24 V ?
Good luck, you'll need it even more.
RD
Subject: AeroElectric-List: dual alternators running simultaneously
From: czechsix(at)juno.com
I'm doing the all-electric on a budget with main alternator plus SD-8 backup
on the vacuum pad. Is it possible to run both alternators at once? I
should think not because the regulators would do funny things if not
perfectly calibrated for the same bus voltage. But I thought I'd ask
because my load analysis shows continuous loads of over 40 amps possible.
I'll probly have to move up to a bigger alternator unless it's possible to
augment the 40 A unit with the 8-10 A SD-8 when needed...
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D finishing...
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: dual alternators running simultaneously
>
>I'm doing the all-electric on a budget with main alternator plus SD-8
>backup on the vacuum pad. Is it possible to run both alternators at
>once? I should think not because the regulators would do funny things if
>not perfectly calibrated for the same bus voltage. But I thought I'd ask
>because my load analysis shows continuous loads of over 40 amps
>possible. I'll probly have to move up to a bigger alternator unless it's
>possible to augment the 40 A unit with the 8-10 A SD-8 when needed...
Sure, the gain on the SD-8's regulator is so low that it
will run pretty happily in parallel with another alternator.
Just set it's voltage about .5 volt low so that it picks up
the difference from what the 40A will carry.
Now, how did you get over 40A? The largest continuous
IFR running load I've calculated for a single-engine
light plane was 27A . . . running toe warmers or something?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Falcon <rsdec1(at)isp01.net> |
| Subject: | electrical loading |
Shannon,
What landing light are you using that draws just 4.0 amps? Are you planning
just one 55W halogen? 55W/14VDC= 3.93A
RD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage measurements questions |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> >
> > >Now for those low voltage readings :
> >
> >
> > >- Assuming the non adjustable regulator is not broke, what could be the
> > >reasons for the low voltage readings ?
> >
> > Was the battery fully charged? It may have been soaking
> > up so much snort that the alternator was momentarily
> > "overloaded" . . .
> >
>
>Should have thought of that. I was already blaming the installation.
>The battery was definetly not fully charged since its voltage reading was
>only 11.9 volts before turning anything on. (For comparison, my car battery
>reads 12.5 V when stopped and 14.2 V when running)\
Good deduction based on analysis of data . . .
>Will make those additionnal measurements next week end.
>While we are at it, do you see other readings I could take to help better
>understand the Roax system ?
None I can think of at the moment but I'll consider it.
I've been thinking that I should get my hands on an installed
Rotax system to do some studies of my own. Thanks for the offer.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Downloadables and Microair radios |
>
>Another subject. I have in iherited a number of miniature switches from a
>retired A&E who also had In&El rating. Most are Cutler Hammer. They have
>MS24656-xxx where the xxx is 231, 221 and 211. No currrent or voltage
>rating. Two questions. Are they worth using at low load rating (1 to 5A)
>or insufficient info to tell? For these (or any switch) is the current
>rating per pole or cumulative for the total poles on the switch?
Don't know why not. Here's the catalog for those
parts which includes specifications.
http://aerospace.eaton.com/pdfs/power/toggle.pdf
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: electrical loading |
>
>Mark,
> In my single engine light IFR airplane I was unable to get the
> typical night VFR flight loads under 32.6 amps. And that would be if I am
> very careful not to turn other things on. This would violate the 80% of
> alt capacity recommendation if using a 40 amp alt. I know that the
> landing light should only be an intermittent load but guess what, I am
> guilty of leaving it on sometimes, and will probably do it again, only to
> be discovered when setting up for landing. In the winter I like to run
>the seat heaters at 7.5A each. There is also no pitot heat or defroster
>fan allowance in that scenario. I had to go with the 60 amp alternator. I
>could not justify loads lower than those listed below, IFR or night VFR.
>Here are some options, lower current draw landing, position and strobe
>lights, mechanical batt master contactors, mags only(no elect ign),
>assume that you will not leave the landing light on or need pitot heat or
>the defroster fan or Nav/com 2. I have changed the batt
>contactors from elect to mechanical but that was not enough reduction to
>drive me to the 40 amp alt.
>
>Good luck, you'll need it.
>"bash not, lest ye be bashed"
>RD
>
>
>bat 1 contactor 1.0
>bat 2 contactor 1.0
>elect ign 1.2
>alt field 1.0
>strobe p/s 7.5 (Whelan HDF,CF)
>position lts 7.4 (Whelan A600-PG and -PR)
>landing lt 7.0
>xpdr & enc 2.0
>nav/com1 1.5
>nav/com2 1.5
>int lighting 1.5
>
>TOTAL 32.6 A
I wouldn't include the landing light in this analysis. This is
not a cruising condition load. Also, unless you have some pretty
ancient radios, 1.5A seems a bit much for the nav/coms. Have
you ever put a meter in series with these to see what the
standby current really is?
Alternator field is normally not added to your "load"
analysis . . . alternators are rated for useful output
and generally considers the fact that the machine may have
to supply up to 3A of their own operating current.
I've measured lots of strobe systems and find that the
ENERGY required to run the system is supplied at
average currents about 1/2 the peak currents. While
you want to wire and protect for the peak current, the
average current is probably much less than the value
you cited. 1.5 amps for lighting is a lot too . . .
how do you light your panel and how much current does
it REALLY draw when you're running in a night cruise
condition? Except for a few minutes during twilight,
I find that night cruise illumination runs about 20%
of max bright . . . maybe less.
If I were to take a WAG at your real loads, I'd judge
them to be on the order of 18A. This is one of the
things I like about alternator load meters calibrated
in percent . . . unlike the battery ammeter which
is only a diagnostic tool, the loadmeter can hand
you really USEFUL operating information.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: digital linearization |
>
><you need an extra device to flash the EPROM ?>>
>
>I'm not the one that actually did it, but here is a way we have done it
>without a microprocessor. You need an A/D chip (included in a lot of
>processors) and then use the output to point to a memory location of a PROM.
>The prom replies with the value in that location, which then goes to a D/A
>chip that converts it back into an analog voltage. If you have an 8-bit
>A/D, certainly adequate for this purpose, you need 256 memory locations in
>the PROM programmed with values. Rudimentary, but works. All you need is
>someone with a PROM burner (you might be able to buy one at an antique
>store).
This works. The best thing about using the processor is
the ability to build in self calibration routines. I've been
thinking over how the uP approach would evolve into a product
and have considered the problem of building the lookup tables.
I think I'd put a switch on the linearizing board with three
positions OPERATE-LEARN-(CAPTURE). The OPERATE position is
self explanatory. Placing the switch to the mid position would
cause the processor to go into a data entry mode. The program
would assume that the first time you move to the CAPTURE position,
your fuel tank has been drained down to zero usable fuel and
the airplane is on blocks as needed to trim attitude to
cruising flight. You add fuel equal to 5% of usable and
hit CAPTURE again. Keep adding 5% quantities of fuel
to the tank and hitting capture until you reach 100% and
hit the switch for the 21st time.
Move the switch back to OPERATE. Then adjust a potentiometer
on the board to make whatever instrument you're using read
100% of full scale. The processor's learn software would
do a linear interpolation of data points intermediate to
the 5% values you've provided and build a lookup table
that would slice up the input range into 256 parts to
provide jitter free and accurate display of remaining
fuel.
This architecture allows a single product to address a
wide variety of sender/instrument combinations. It also
gives a owner the ability to calibrate the system without
the need of additional tools or services from the
supplier of the system.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
| Subject: | electrical loading |
I made a mistake in my calculations. They will be more like 75W, so
150W total, so about 11A. Sorry. Adds to the fun :)
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
Shannon,
What landing light are you using that draws just 4.0 amps? Are you
planning just one 55W halogen? 55W/14VDC= 3.93A
RD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Phillips <ripsteel(at)edge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 44 Msgs - 10/31/02 |
You might go to a junkyard and pull the G-force activated fuel pump cutoff switch
out of an early '90s Ford Escort/Mercury Tracer (& probably other vehicles as
well). It's located on top of the right rear shock tower, behind the cover panel,
with a little access plug in the panel. How do I know this? My dear daughter
slid off the road one night whilst "avoiding an animal" and crunched into a fence
pole- (daughter fine, lesson learned!) and the car would not re-start. Whipped
out the trusty Haynes manual and it led me to the scene of the switch, with the
reset button on top!
Not sure how much force to activate, but she took a pretty good wallop...
From the PossumWorks in TN
Mark Phillips
"Ronald A. Cox" wrote:
>
> > Rather than hope for severance of a wire, why not
> > build in a G-activated (normally closed) switch /
> > 'fuse' in the master control circuit, a device with
> > the characteristics of an ELT-actuator switch, so that
> > when the turf arrives MUCH too fast, that solenoid is
> > chopped??? OK - and a bypass switch to bring it back
> > if the 'fuse' breaks in flight for some reason. Too
> > complex? Unnecessary?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | fuel pump switch |
I wouldn't recommend a Ford, they are notorious for deactivating themselves
for no apparent reason. I know of several people this happened to including
my girlfriend. She came to visit and the car would not start when she tried
to leave. She did not hit anything, but I had to reset the switch before
the car would start. I only knew about it from hearing it from many others
it happened to.
R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Phillips" <ripsteel(at)edge.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 44 Msgs -
10/31/02
>
>
> You might go to a junkyard and pull the G-force activated fuel pump cutoff
switch
> out of an early '90s Ford Escort/Mercury Tracer (& probably other vehicles
as
> well). It's located on top of the right rear shock tower, behind the
cover panel,
> with a little access plug in the panel. How do I know this? My dear
daughter
> slid off the road one night whilst "avoiding an animal" and crunched into
a fence
> pole- (daughter fine, lesson learned!) and the car would not re-start.
Whipped
> out the trusty Haynes manual and it led me to the scene of the switch,
with the
> reset button on top!
>
> Not sure how much force to activate, but she took a pretty good wallop...
>
> From the PossumWorks in TN
> Mark Phillips
>
> "Ronald A. Cox" wrote:
>
> >
> > > Rather than hope for severance of a wire, why not
> > > build in a G-activated (normally closed) switch /
> > > 'fuse' in the master control circuit, a device with
> > > the characteristics of an ELT-actuator switch, so that
> > > when the turf arrives MUCH too fast, that solenoid is
> > > chopped??? OK - and a bypass switch to bring it back
> > > if the 'fuse' breaks in flight for some reason. Too
> > > complex? Unnecessary?
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Measuring temperatures during fly-off |
I'm building an experimental Jabiru J400, and plan to measure many
temperatures during the fly-off. This list is being used to present
examples of planning, most recently the system planning for Ed's Lancair ES.
I would like some guidance which might help others with measuring
temperature.
I would like some help in choosing the method of measuring temperatures
during the first 40 hours for my plane. Chapter 14 of the 'Connection lists
many temperatures to monitor at this time: oil, voltage regulator,
alternator stator winding and diode array, fuel pumps, gascolator, vacuum
pump, magneto housing, cylinder heads (to check baffling and find out which
runs the hottest), EGT each cylinder (checks fuel mixture distribution), top
radio in stack, dimmer heatsinks, electro-hydraulic power pack motor. I
also want to permanently monitor spar temperature and tail cone temperature
on my fiberglass plane, as I plan to use some color on the fuselage, and
there are some limits here for safety.
Questions:
1. Since only the pilot can be in the plane during the fly-off, should this
be done with data loggers? This can either feed a portable computer
directly-and there are plug-in cards that fit the PC card slot in most
portables-or else a 'brick' that has 4 to 8 channels that will record
voltage, or else direct thermocouple inputs, every few seconds to few
minutes. These download to a computer directly into a spreadsheet, or
even directly onto a graph. The commercial data loggers run $100 to $480
(Omega DP470-T-C2 has 6 thermocouple inputs, software to program it and
later display the results, and it has a display for the temperature, too.
It will send all 6 temperatures to a portable computer every few seconds via
a serial link. This may well be more than most people want to spend).
If a data logger is not used, then the pilot needs to write down the
temperature from the multichannel instrument that we build. This may be OK
for one or two values, but worries me in terms of safety. What if we need
to find a maximum temp of the voltage regulator, for instance? Can't be
watching a meter all the time. Furthermore, I want at least 6 channels of
temperature: I have a 6 cylinder engine which should be have CHT done
simultaneously. This leads me to conclude that the data logger is
essential. There is a 4 channel data logger for $95, and of course two of
these could be used simultaneously.
http://www.onsetcomp.com/Products/3654_temp.html This unit runs one year on
the battery, and is smaller than a pack of cigarettes. There is software
available, from $14 to $95, so no building is needed for this. OK, we've
established that data loggers are needed.
2. What temperature probe should be used? The LM35 is a $4 tiny 3 wire
TO-46 metal can IC that could be soldered to three wires, and it puts out
10mv per degree centigrade, 0 to 150 degrees. It can go to minus 40 C with
this addition of a resistor and a negative voltage source. It needs about
160 microamps per device. It would work for everything except CHT and EGT.
If you already have a dedicated engine monitor, this may be the way to go.
I'm planning on two of these with a cheap $7 digital panel meter for the
tailcone and spar temperature, and it might be good for carburetor temp,
too. But what if you need to measure something hotter than 150 C?
The advantage of thermocouple wire is that it is self-calibrated and cheap.
About $32 per 100 feet at Omega for 20 gauge type J, insulation good to 480
C, you just make the unit as long as you want with no splices. However,
for accuracy, a AD594 IC is needed to convert the very low thermocouple
voltage to 10 mv per degree C, and also provide cold junction compensation.
Six or 8 of these in a box, with a battery and appropriate connectors could
go to the 'cheap' $95 data loggers. Otherwise, for $695 Omega would be
pleased to sell you a PC-TC6 thermocouple input card which plugs into the
PCcard port on your portable computer. Or, for $999 the OM-CP-OCTTEMP 8
channel thermocouple based datalogger which needs no computer at all. Nice,
but more expensive than any of us are likely to spend for just the fly-off
time. Probably a _good_ thing for an EAA chapter to have for loan to
members.
Anyone interested in building a 6 or 8 channel box with a battery, and the
circuitry for the AD594? The unit needs power, ground, and signal
connections. The AD594, for type J thermocouples, and the AD595 for type K,
both cost $14 at the lowest cost source. So, 8 channels would cost $112,
plus the $190 for the two Onsetcomputer data loggers, plus $14 or $95 for
software to look at the results, plus $32 for 100 feet of type J wire.
$348 for 8 channels, or $196 for 4 channels. I'm thinking that the PC board
could be made with at least 8 pads for the AD594, and each of us would wire
in as many AD594s as we needed and could afford. Is anyone interested?
Does anyone want to design the board and send it to a company that does
cheap low volume PC board production? Probably could get two or four units
per board, then cut the board apart on a jig saw.
Finally, there is a $50 programmable Basic Stamp derivative, which has 8 ten
bit analog to digital converters, and will do on board data logging. Add
this to the above board--and no need for a data logger! Programming in
Basic is easy, and only one of us would need to do it. This board would
just send serial temperature and time data to your computer like any other
data logger. see http://www.basicx.com This project _would_ be a commitment
to design, and Bob sure doesn't have time to do it. He might be willing to
sell the needed PC board on his web site, though.
If you are interested in either of these board projects, reply to this topic
on this list.
Jim Foerster
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: "Turn co-ordinators" |
In a message dated 11/1/02 11:42:03 AM Central Standard Time, jerry(at)tr2.com
writes:
> OTOH, I'm told that the kind of airplane makes a difference. In a low
> performer, partial panel is trivial. In a jet, it's deadly. That's why
> big jets have three independant Attitude Indicators. Bob, can you verify?
>
Good Evening Jerry,
This paragraph could be construed as meaning that you have been told that the
reason the third horizon was added was because there was some question as to
whether or not a T&B was an adequate back up in case of attitude gyro
failure.
That was not the case at all. The third horizon was added after a 727 was
lost just off the coast near Los Angeles. The airplane had a catastrophic
electrical failure which took out all instrumentation.
The result was that all airliners were required to be equipped with some sort
of standby battery powered attitude instrument. The first ones actually had a
small separate battery installed in the cockpit. Some of the newer airliners
have been permitted to have the backup instrument powered off an emergency
battery buss.
The standby instruments have developed into quite sophisticated units. They
often have self contained solid state attitude sensors along with heading and
slip-skid data available. Most also have the capability of presenting raw
data track and glide path CDI indications if there are navigational signals
still available. The price range for those little buggers varies from
$25,000.00 to $45,000.00. Pretty nice if you can afford it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Pack" <jpack(at)igs3.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring temperatures during fly-off |
> If a data logger is not used, then the pilot needs to write down the
> temperature from the multichannel instrument that we build. This may be
OK
> for one or two values, but worries me in terms of safety. What
Perhaps a tape recorder would work instead of pen & paper. Then transcribe
it when you get on the ground.
- Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring temperatures during fly-off |
At pcbexpress or expresspcb .com you can get 3 circuit boards for $60. They
have the software to sketch out the traces on the website. I was going to
use these guys for the same thing - making a board for the termocouple
AD594's. I'm in for splitting the cost but have no time to lay it out right
now.
Gary K.
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)attbi.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Measuring temperatures during fly-off
> I would like some guidance which might help others with measuring
> temperature.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Walter S. Fellows" <fellowsw(at)mondexkorea.com> |
| Subject: | Fwd: Simple Light Dimmer? |
I was unable to open the second set pdf file.
-----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: Fwd: Simple Light Dimmer?
Bob,
I once made a light dimmer from an 2N3055 power transistor, 560 ohm
resistor, a 0-5000 ohm pot and a capacitor to stop it from occillating.
But, now I don't know how to wire it.(?) I mounted it right on the back
of
the pot and it works ok in my Long EZ. Do you have a forum or something?
Where I can access your stuff. I did find your website.
Thanks, John Perry
I proposed just the gizmo you're describing to Cessna
single engine facilities in 1966.
See: http://216.55.140.222/temp/1966Dimmer.pdf
The single engine facility decided it wasn't a good
it in the 310/320 series aircraft a few months later.
This was the best we knew how to do in 1966. Problems
with it then and now is the lack of robustness and
the fact that the circuit is not a good voltage regulator.
Little bumps in bus voltage will flash the panel lamps.
A more modern approach is described at
http://216.55.140.222/temp/DimFab.pdf
This dimmer is a true output votlage regulator. Further,
momentary shorts on the controller's output doesn't
send the silicon off to the happy hunting grounds.
The 1966 technique was used on MANY production aircraft
up through the mid 80's . . .
As far as I know, we did the first short circuit proof,
true regulating lighting controllers for the Barons and
Bonanzas while I worked at Electro-Mech about 1985.
Bob . . .
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Simple Light Dimmer? |
No problem here, I just opened both of them.
R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter S. Fellows" <fellowsw(at)mondexkorea.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Fwd: Simple Light Dimmer?
>
> I was unable to open the second set pdf file.
>
> -----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
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fwd: Simple Light Dimmer?
>
>
>
>
> Bob,
> I once made a light dimmer from an 2N3055 power transistor, 560 ohm
> resistor, a 0-5000 ohm pot and a capacitor to stop it from occillating.
> But, now I don't know how to wire it.(?) I mounted it right on the back
> of
> the pot and it works ok in my Long EZ. Do you have a forum or something?
>
> Where I can access your stuff. I did find your website.
> Thanks, John Perry
>
>
> I proposed just the gizmo you're describing to Cessna
> single engine facilities in 1966.
>
> See: http://216.55.140.222/temp/1966Dimmer.pdf
>
> The single engine facility decided it wasn't a good
> it in the 310/320 series aircraft a few months later.
>
> This was the best we knew how to do in 1966. Problems
> with it then and now is the lack of robustness and
> the fact that the circuit is not a good voltage regulator.
> Little bumps in bus voltage will flash the panel lamps.
> A more modern approach is described at
>
> http://216.55.140.222/temp/DimFab.pdf
>
> This dimmer is a true output votlage regulator. Further,
> momentary shorts on the controller's output doesn't
> send the silicon off to the happy hunting grounds.
> The 1966 technique was used on MANY production aircraft
> up through the mid 80's . . .
>
> As far as I know, we did the first short circuit proof,
> true regulating lighting controllers for the Barons and
> Bonanzas while I worked at Electro-Mech about 1985.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> >
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Mills <courierboy(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring temperatures during fly-off |
>Perhaps a tape recorder would work instead of pen & paper. Then transcribe
>it when you get on the ground.
>
>- Jim
That's a good idea.
Ed Kolano described this in his flight test techniques class:
Put the small microphone from your cassete recorder in your headset
earpiece. Use the voice activated intercom to record your
observations as you fly along talking to yourself.
He also suggests providing your ground/air crew with a duplicate
check list of the items you want to explore during that particular
flight. This way (if your hands are full) you won't have to read your
checklist - they can read it to you over the air-to-air frequency.
Bill Mills
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fwd: Ed's Lancair ES - System Planning |
From: N823ms(at)aol.com
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:46:24 EST
Subject: Ed's Lancair ES - System Planning
Bob:
Here is my second pass.
Main Power Distribution Bus:
Main Alt Fld
Main Alt OVLV Sense
Strobe Light
Nav Light
Position lights--I am installing the three way wing tip light. I
believe this is the white light at the rear of this unit.
Landing light
Taxi light left installed in the original red/green wing tip area.
Taxi light right
Electric flaps
Pitot heat
Cabin Fan
Door seal pump
starter
Left Mag
Electric DG
Map gauge
RPM
Oil/Temp
Ultimate bar Graph
FP5-L
Cabin lights, 4 individual eyeball lights that have there own on/off
switch.
instrument bar flood light
spare
spare
Aux Power Distribution:
Aux Alt Fld
Aux Alt Low volts
Aud/ com G 340
GNS-530
GNS-430
GTX-327
Trutrak Auto pilot--200 0r 250.
BMA EFIS/Lite or Dynon EFIS 10
Instrument lightening rings
Yaw trim
Pitch trim
Roll trim
A/H
AOA
Fuel boost pump? Here there is a dual speed pump. don't know if you
can separate the power sources for these speeds.
GI-106a
GI-102
Main Battery Bus:
Amp/volt gauge. Is there a switch that will allow me to go back in
forth from the main to aux bus loads?
Electronic ignition - right side. Have no clue when using this EI if
it matters what side it is on when you have only one. I am going to take your
advise and use one mag until it goes then use the other one. When that goes
I'll install a second EI.
GNS-530/430 memory, clock
Aux Battery Bus:
Hobbs meter
Future second EI
Power receptacle for the handheld nav/com/GPS
Utility lighting:
Cabin overhead light-timer
Cargo light-timer.
In this planning process, I see that a Aux Alt 20amp may not be
enough? Instrument wise; I have to decide whether or not to go with BMA
EFIS/Lite, or the Dynon EFIS -10; or simply complete with steam gauges. Steam
gauges electric wise are expensive and vacuum gauges look a failure rates
with the pump. Though I have about 6 months before the panel goes in, perhaps
some of these EFIS products will prove them selves as the two that I
mentioned are reasonably priced.
Open for comments
Ed SIlvanic
N823MS(at)aol.com
Lancair ES
Bob:
Here is my second pass.
Main Power Distribution Bus:
Main Alt Fld
Main Alt OVLV Sense
Strobe Light
Nav Light
Position lights--I am installing the three way wing tip light. I believe this
is the white light at the rear of this unit.
Landing light
Taxi light left installed in the original red/green wing tip area.
Taxi light right
Electric flaps
Pitot heat
Cabin Fan
Door seal pump
starter
Left Mag
Electric DG
Map gauge
RPM
Oil/Temp
Ultimate bar Graph
FP5-L
Cabin lights, 4 individual eyeball lights that have there own on/off switch.
instrument bar flood light
spare
spare
Aux Power Distribution:
Aux Alt Fld
Aux Alt Low volts
Aud/ com G 340
GNS-530
GNS-430
GTX-327
Trutrak Auto pilot--200 0r 250.
BMA EFIS/Lite or Dynon EFIS 10
Instrument lightening rings
Yaw trim
Pitch trim
Roll trim
A/H
AOA
Fuel boost pump? Here there is a dual speed pump. don't know if you can separate
the power sources for these speeds.
GI-106a
GI-102
Main Battery Bus:
Amp/volt gauge. Is there a switch that will allow me to go back in forth from
the main to aux bus loads?
Electronic ignition - right side. Have no clue when using this EI if it matters
what side it is on when you have only one. I am going to take your advise and
use one mag until it goes then use the other one. When that goes I'll install
a second EI.
GNS-530/430 memory, clock
Aux Battery Bus:
Hobbs meter
Future second EI
Power receptacle for the handheld nav/com/GPS
Utility lighting:
Cabin overhead light-timer
Cargo light-timer.
In this planning process, I see that a Aux Alt 20amp may not be enough? Instrument
wise; I have to decide whether or not to go with BMA EFIS/Lite, or the Dynon
EFIS -10; or simply complete with steam gauges. Steam gauges electric wise
are expensive and vacuum gauges look a failure rates with the pump. Though I
have about 6 months before the panel goes in, perhaps some of these EFIS products
will prove them selves as the two that I mentioned are reasonably priced.
Open for comments
Ed SIlvanic
N823MS(at)aol.com
Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Prather <mprather(at)spro.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring temperatures during fly-off |
James Foerster wrote:
>
>I'm building an experimental Jabiru J400, and plan to measure many
>
>Questions:
>1. Since only the pilot can be in the plane during the fly-off, should this
>be done with data loggers? This can either feed a portable computer
>directly-and there are plug-in cards that fit the PC card slot in most
>
I am under the impression that the definition of 'minimum crew' is somewhat
flexible. I have heard of several new aircraft being flown with 2
people with
the justification being that the 2nd person was required in order to
fulfill some of
the mission duties (ie datalogging). This seems like its stretching
things a bit. I
would also have to have a fairly large sense of comfort with my new
airplane
before hauling a passenger with me, but I see this as a personal
decision. You
might call your FSDO with respect to this and see what their take is.
Matt Prather
N34RD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: G-force battery deactivation |
>
> > Rather than hope for severance of a wire, why not
> > build in a G-activated (normally closed) switch /
> > 'fuse' in the master control circuit, a device with
> > the characteristics of an ELT-actuator switch, so that
> > when the turf arrives MUCH too fast, that solenoid is
> > chopped??? OK - and a bypass switch to bring it back
> > if the 'fuse' breaks in flight for some reason. Too
> > complex? Unnecessary?
> >
> > A thought experiment...... anyone?
> >
> > Glenn Rainey
> > Long-EZ
> > Scotland
>
>Glenn:
>
>I would think this would be pretty simple to put together, using one of
>those marine supply disconnect knife-type switches.
>
>Simply figure out how many G's you want to require to trip it, and size a
>weight accordingly, with the switch oriented in the proper direction, and
>the weight would open the switch.
>
>If it's reachable, or remotely resettable, it could even be used as a
>display/airshow disconnect to keep fiddly fingers from hurting anything.
>
>Shouldn't be too tough, if you feel it's necessary.
A couple of years ago, I was at lunch with one of
my fellow engineers at RAC where the topic of conversation
was accident analysis. He said that he'd never seen a post
crash fire where the battery was ejected from the airplane
but that every accident he recalled that did have a post-
crash fire retained the battery aboard.
Now, this kind of anecdotal observation seems rather
profound. It's a certainty that some fires are started
by electrical ignition sources but it's not a sure bet
that ejecting your battery immediately prior to impact
is going to keep the pieces from becoming toast either.
However, it did start some discussions about the value
of an impact sensing switch on the battery master
contactor.
After some consideration, we discarded the idea because
the POH already tells one to kill all power on the airplane
while on short final to the rocks. If you don't KNOW that
you're on short final to the rocks, then there are many
other pre-crash preparations that will go unattended.
In the first case, speeds at impact are reduced and
attitude is more-or-less controlled. In the later case,
impacts are at or above cruise speeds; adding
a feature to shut off the battery automatically isn't
going to do much to make your day come out any better.
Adding such a device to the battery control system
increases potential for loss of battery due to failure
of the system that has became more complex just to
achieve an action with a very small probability
of benefit.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Capacitance Fuel Quantity Systems |
11/2/2002
Hello Bob Nuckolls, Can I please get some education on capacitance fuel
quantity systems? I'll list some questions, but please feel free to
extemporize (keeping in mind that my electrical / electronic knowledge is
extremely limited).
The situation: Envision a concentric aluminum cylindrical structure with
inner solid rod and outer tube partially submerged in aviation gasoline.
Separate wires are connected to the rod and the tube. The level of the
aviation gasoline varies in the tank in which the aluminum cylindrical
structure is submerged.
1) What electrical quantity is being measured from the two wires? Resistance
(ohms), capacitance (farads), or_____________ ?
2) What is the most rudimentary analog electrical circuitry that can be
connected to the two wires to make the electrical quantity being measured in
1) useful to drive an analog fuel quantity guage? Only 12 volts DC is
available.
3) What electrical quantity would be the desired output to the analog guage
from the circuitry in 2)?
4) How would one make the circuitry in 2) above adjustable so that the analog
guage needle could be made to read at one extreme when the tube structure was
completely submerged in fuel and at the other extreme when the tube structure
was completely exposed to air?
5) If one wanted to use the output from the the two wires in 1) above to
drive a digital fuel quantity guage what would be your recommended guage type
and circuitry to drive that guage?
6) If one wanted to ensure that the guage in 5) above would show accurate
fuel level over the range of the tube immersion length despite non uniform
tank dimensions what would be your recommended method to accomplish that?
Many thanks for helping me (and maybe a few others) to better understand
these systems.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitance Fuel Quantity Systems |
OC, I think this should answer any questions you have:
http://www.airstuff.com/fuelmon.html
R
----- Original Message -----
From: <BAKEROCB(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Capacitance Fuel Quantity Systems
>
> 11/2/2002
>
> Hello Bob Nuckolls, Can I please get some education on capacitance fuel
> quantity systems? I'll list some questions, but please feel free to
> extemporize (keeping in mind that my electrical / electronic knowledge is
> extremely limited).
>
> The situation: Envision a concentric aluminum cylindrical structure with
> inner solid rod and outer tube partially submerged in aviation gasoline.
> Separate wires are connected to the rod and the tube. The level of the
> aviation gasoline varies in the tank in which the aluminum cylindrical
> structure is submerged.
>
> 1) What electrical quantity is being measured from the two wires?
Resistance
> (ohms), capacitance (farads), or_____________ ?
>
> 2) What is the most rudimentary analog electrical circuitry that can be
> connected to the two wires to make the electrical quantity being measured
in
> 1) useful to drive an analog fuel quantity guage? Only 12 volts DC is
> available.
>
> 3) What electrical quantity would be the desired output to the analog
guage
> from the circuitry in 2)?
>
> 4) How would one make the circuitry in 2) above adjustable so that the
analog
> guage needle could be made to read at one extreme when the tube structure
was
> completely submerged in fuel and at the other extreme when the tube
structure
> was completely exposed to air?
>
> 5) If one wanted to use the output from the the two wires in 1) above to
> drive a digital fuel quantity guage what would be your recommended guage
type
> and circuitry to drive that guage?
>
> 6) If one wanted to ensure that the guage in 5) above would show accurate
> fuel level over the range of the tube immersion length despite non uniform
> tank dimensions what would be your recommended method to accomplish that?
>
> Many thanks for helping me (and maybe a few others) to better understand
> these systems.
>
> 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Simple Light Dimmer? - .pdf download problem |
>
>
>I was unable to open the second set pdf file.
Some folk's browser/acrobat setup has a problem with slow
downloads causing acrobat to appear to load the document
but shows only blank page(s) on the screen.
Try right-clicking any troublesome link to a .pdf
file and tell your browser were to store the file
on your hard drive. When the download is completed,
then use acrobat to open the file.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring temperatures during fly-off |
>
>
>I'm building an experimental Jabiru J400, and plan to measure many
>temperatures during the fly-off. This list is being used to present
>examples of planning, most recently the system planning for Ed's Lancair ES.
>I would like some guidance which might help others with measuring
>temperature.
>
>I would like some help in choosing the method of measuring temperatures
>during the first 40 hours for my plane. Chapter 14 of the 'Connection lists
>many temperatures to monitor at this time: oil, voltage regulator,
>alternator stator winding and diode array, fuel pumps, gascolator, vacuum
>pump, magneto housing, cylinder heads (to check baffling and find out which
>runs the hottest), EGT each cylinder (checks fuel mixture distribution), top
>radio in stack, dimmer heatsinks, electro-hydraulic power pack motor. I
>also want to permanently monitor spar temperature and tail cone temperature
>on my fiberglass plane, as I plan to use some color on the fuselage, and
>there are some limits here for safety.
Had a task to do for RAC about a year ago. Needed a quick-n-dirty
data gathering box for 24 analogs readings, two discrete (switch
closings) and also a need to remotely control a couple of valves
in the nose of a Beechjet while sitting in the cabin with a laptop
computer.
I needed to put the system together in less than a week. I found
a suite of data acquisition and control modules from Weeder Technologies
http://www.weedtech.com/
and chose their 8-channel, 12-bit analog board and the 8-bit
digital i/o board.
I assembled them into a box fabricated from copper clad as
shown in
http://216.55.140.222/temp/Temp_Logging/MVC-036X.JPG
http://216.55.140.222/temp/Temp_Logging/MVC-037X.JPG
http://216.55.140.222/temp/Temp_Logging/MVC-038X.JPG
and
http://216.55.140.222/temp/Temp_Logging/MVC-039X.JPG
The analog modules have a 0-4096 mV input range
directly compatible with the LM35 temperature sensing
chips. Other temps required thermocouples so I
populated some perfboard with AD596 thermocouple
conditioning chips as shown in
http://216.55.140.222/temp/Temp_Logging/MVC-041X.JPG
I considered doing an ExpressPCB board for the
thermocouple conditioners but needed to get the system
running ASAP nd didn't want to insert the 4-day
turn-around delay for boards into my program. The
AD596 has very few connections and is easy to wire
up on perfboard.
If you peek carefully under the analog converter
in http://216.55.140.222/temp/Temp_Logging/MVC-039X.JPG,
just under the bundle of insulating sleeves, there is
a 28v input, +/- 15v output power supply to power
up the AD596 chips. Each of the Weeder boards has
its own power regulator that will take up to 30v input.
The dip switch on the Weeder boards lets you set
an "address" for each board. A simple program
in basic talks to the board to interrogate each
one in turn and get a reply back as to what it
reads.
Flew this system about a dozen times investigating
some de-icing problems with pitot tubes. Got
nice data.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
Maybe it wasn't necessary, but I bought a nice meter from Sears. It's
good to 20 amps and has many other nice features for $40.
The TC shows 1.04 amps at power-on and stablizes at .26 amps after it
spins up. Are these numbers believable?
So, going by the table in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/wiresize.pdf , I can use 22AWG wire
for the turn coordinator.
Are there a discrepencies between Bob's wire table and the one in Van's
construction manual, chapter 5? Van's table uses heavier wire. Or am I
reading it wrong?
-
Larry Bowen
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 Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 12:50 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: TC Amps?
>
>
> -->
>
> >-->
> >
> >My meter is rated to a max of 2 amps, if I'm reading this right. I
> >guess it's time to invest in a 'real' meter.
>
>
> Two amps should be fine for measuring your t/c current draw.
> Momentary inrush currents during motor spin up may "peg" the
> instrument but it won't hurt it. You should find that running
> current is less than an amp . . . but tell us what you DO
> find.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LED Dimmer Switch |
Bob,
If you don't mind a plug for you're products....
I followed all the discussion about dimming LEDs thinking how nice it would
be to make one of these puppies to dim the two 3000 MCD red LED's I'm using
for panel lights. Today I wired up the gooseneck map light I got from B&C
and was delighted to find that the dimmer which comes with it has five
seperate dimmable feeds and, as a bonus, it dims my LEDs perfectly. It
reduces the voltage, not the current - right?
My only negative is that the dimming function (for all the lights) doesn't
quite go far enough toward zero. I don't suppose there's an easy way to
increase the range is there?
Regards, and thanks for a neat product.
John Slade
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard M. Martin" <martinrm(at)ncplus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: G-force battery deactivation |
-----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: G-force battery deactivation
>
> > Rather than hope for severance of a wire, why not
> > build in a G-activated (normally closed) switch /
> > 'fuse' in the master control circuit, a device with
> > the characteristics of an ELT-actuator switch, so that
> > when the turf arrives MUCH too fast, that solenoid is
> > chopped??? OK - and a bypass switch to bring it back
> > if the 'fuse' breaks in flight for some reason. Too
> > complex? Unnecessary?
> >
> > A thought experiment...... anyone?
> >
> > Glenn Rainey
> > Long-EZ
> > Scotland
>
>Glenn:
>
>I would think this would be pretty simple to put together, using one of
>those marine supply disconnect knife-type switches.
>
>Simply figure out how many G's you want to require to trip it, and size a
>weight accordingly, with the switch oriented in the proper direction, and
>the weight would open the switch.
>
>If it's reachable, or remotely resettable, it could even be used as a
>display/airshow disconnect to keep fiddly fingers from hurting anything.
>
>Shouldn't be too tough, if you feel it's necessary.
A couple of years ago, I was at lunch with one of
my fellow engineers at RAC where the topic of conversation
was accident analysis. He said that he'd never seen a post
crash fire where the battery was ejected from the airplane
but that every accident he recalled that did have a post-
crash fire retained the battery aboard.
Now, this kind of anecdotal observation seems rather
profound. It's a certainty that some fires are started
by electrical ignition sources but it's not a sure bet
that ejecting your battery immediately prior to impact
is going to keep the pieces from becoming toast either.
However, it did start some discussions about the value
of an impact sensing switch on the battery master
contactor.
After some consideration, we discarded the idea because
the POH already tells one to kill all power on the airplane
while on short final to the rocks. If you don't KNOW that
you're on short final to the rocks, then there are many
other pre-crash preparations that will go unattended.
In the first case, speeds at impact are reduced and
attitude is more-or-less controlled. In the later case,
impacts are at or above cruise speeds; adding
a feature to shut off the battery automatically isn't
going to do much to make your day come out any better.
Adding such a device to the battery control system
increases potential for loss of battery due to failure
of the system that has became more complex just to
achieve an action with a very small probability
of benefit.
Bob . . .
I think that there is a place for G-force activated switches in home built
aircraft with electonic fuel injection and electric fuel pumps.
This past summer while testing our new original designed helicopter, it made
a hard landing. The rotor blades cut off the tail, causing the helicopter
to do a 180 degree turn. During the turn the main rotor blades hit the
ground and departed. Also the nose mounted battery departed. The Subaru
engine continued to run on alternator power, also the two fuel pumps also
continued to pump fuel. A fire stated and consumed the whole helicopter.
In our next helicopter, we will be installing two G-force activated switches
in the wiring to the fuel pumps. These switches will be Ford switches
similar to the ones the Rotorway Exec 162 helicopter uses.
Richard
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andy Karmy" <andy(at)karmy.com> |
Question for you all...
How do you wire up an Oil Temp probe on a Lycoming? It has 2 white unmarked wires
comming out of the probe. My EIS manual says that I should have one as a sensor
and 1 as ground, but I imagine that the probe is nicely grounded as it's
a large brass part screwed into the crankcase.
So how can I tell which wire is the sense vs ground? it reads about 12K across
the 2 leads.
- Andy Karmy
RV9A - FWF wiring...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Battery capacity calculations |
Hi, Bob and all,
Here are some question on how to size the battery capacity on a Rotax
powered aircraft.
It seems our kit manufacturer successfully installs 9 ah RG batteries in his
two seaters.
The heavier and ELECTRICALLY DEPENDANT four seaters are fitted with 17 Ah
batteries.
My intenetion was to split this capacity into two 9 Ah batteries, to obtain
redundancy.
However, there have been hangar tales around about this 9 Ah capacity 'being
insufficient for more than three attempts' in case of engine starting
difficulties.
My questions :
To sort these stories out, as there are very few four seaters flying at the
moment, I'm wondering if the following calculations could make sense.
Granted we have at least one main battery with 4 ah capacity left, each
attemp consisting of a 10 second actuation of the starter motor.
Considering during each attempt the starter draws the max allowable current
through the starter contactor, that is 1 second at 300 amps, then 9 seconds
at 75 amps (according to the starter contactor data in the rotax
installation manual)
Taking into account the current drawn by the battery contactor and the two
fuel pumps, i.e. 3.7 amps.
Is it legitimate to try to estimate the number of 10 second attemps in the
following manner ?
According to the above data, each attemps draws around 1015 amp.seconds.
Since the battery remaining capacity is considered 144000 amp.seconds, this
allows us to make largely more than 3 attempts (maybe more than 10 ?) before
running the battery flat.
Of course WHO would make several 10 second starting attempts without trying
to sort the engine problem out ?
Thus running the starter from a 9 Ah main battery should not pose any
problems in case of starting difficulties.
Please tell me where I'm wrong.
Thanks,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring temperatures during fly-off |
From what I'm been told, the minimum crew is the pilot, period. The approved
use of a second person is a myth. If the FAA approved the 2nd person, It
would then require this after the test period. You would never be able to
fly solo.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Measuring temperatures during fly-off
>
>
> James Foerster wrote:
>
> >
> >I'm building an experimental Jabiru J400, and plan to measure many
> >
> >Questions:
> >1. Since only the pilot can be in the plane during the fly-off, should
this
> >be done with data loggers? This can either feed a portable computer
> >directly-and there are plug-in cards that fit the PC card slot in most
> >
> I am under the impression that the definition of 'minimum crew' is
somewhat
> flexible. I have heard of several new aircraft being flown with 2
> people with
> the justification being that the 2nd person was required in order to
> fulfill some of
> the mission duties (ie datalogging). This seems like its stretching
> things a bit. I
> would also have to have a fairly large sense of comfort with my new
> airplane
> before hauling a passenger with me, but I see this as a personal
> decision. You
> might call your FSDO with respect to this and see what their take is.
>
> Matt Prather
> N34RD
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity calculations |
In a message dated 11/3/2002 6:25:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr writes:
> Hi, Bob and all,
>
> Here are some question on how to size the battery capacity on a Rotax
> powered aircraft.
> It seems our kit manufacturer successfully installs 9 ah RG batteries in
> his
> two seaters.
> The heavier and ELECTRICALLY DEPENDANT four seaters are fitted with 17 Ah
> batteries.
>
> My intenetion was to split this capacity into two 9 Ah batteries, to obtain
> redundancy.
> However, there have been hangar tales around about this 9 Ah capacity
> 'being
> insufficient for more than three attempts' in case of engine starting
> difficulties.
>
>
> My questions :
>
> To sort these stories out, as there are very few four seaters flying at the
> moment, I'm wondering if the following calculations could make sense.
>
> Granted we have at least one main battery with 4 ah capacity left, each
> attemp consisting of a 10 second actuation of the starter motor.
> Considering during each attempt the starter draws the max allowable current
> through the starter contactor, that is 1 second at 300 amps, then 9 seconds
> at 75 amps (according to the starter contactor data in the rotax
> installation manual)
> Taking into account the current drawn by the battery contactor and the two
> fuel pumps, i.e. 3.7 amps.
>
> Is it legitimate to try to estimate the number of 10 second attemps in the
> following manner ?
>
> According to the above data, each attemps draws around 1015 amp.seconds.
> Since the battery remaining capacity is considered 144000 amp.seconds, this
> allows us to make largely more than 3 attempts (maybe more than 10 ?)
> before
> running the battery flat.
>
> Of course WHO would make several 10 second starting attempts without trying
> to sort the engine problem out ?
>
> Thus running the starter from a 9 Ah main battery should not pose any
> problems in case of starting difficulties.
>
> Please tell me where I'm wrong.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gilles
>
>
Gilles,
I don't like the idea of counting every calorie for engine start or in my
diet for that matter. Your calculations will be plagued with temperature
variations and engine prime status, choke history, etc. I think you need to
have ample capacity to start an engine regardless of the conditions. We
should leave the counting of gnat's asses to the NASA guys. Our airplanes
should be able to leave the earth under most all conditions and a wimpy
battery set up is not my idea of the way to accomplish this.
For redundancy, how about wiring in two 9 AH batteries in parallel with each
other, with each battery having a ground point that can be disconnected via a
switch or a contactor, or even a manual knife switch etc. You could start
the engine with both batteries grounded and after some run time to recover
the energy used on start up, you pull the ground on one of them. The
ungrounded battery is now isolated from the system and is a true standby
battery.
There are some hazards with this arrangement:
1. One good battery must be grounded at all times or equipment damage will
occur.
2. In the event of a battery in flight failure (say the in-service battery
internally shorts a cell or two) the standby battery must be grounded to be
put into service and will suffer the load of the bad battery until the bad
battery's ground is opened.
A "make" before "break" 2 pole switch is a possibility, but it would have to
work in either direction. I would prefer a pair of manual knife switches for
best reliability.
Hey, how about some sort of mechanical latching mechanism that will not allow
both switches to be open at the same time? A home brewed "rocker" knife
switch pair assembly of some sort that will allow both to close, but only one
at a time to open?
Hmmmmm.
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Outback, (out back in the garage)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "C J Heitman" <cjh(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: G-force battery deactivation |
Pegasus Auto Racing Supplies sells an inertia activated fuel pump cutoff
switch (or master battery contactor cutoff switch). Part No. 1108 $64.95
with harness & mounting hardware. It's on page 35 of their catalog. Here is
a link:
http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/
Catalog page: (you might have to splice the link if it wrapped to a 2nd
line)
http://www.catalogs.google.com/catalogs?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&issue=6814&ca
tpage=35
I like the idea of a bypass as suggested below although it does add
complication.
Chris Heitman
(my wife and I own Pegasus once again)
Dousman WI
RV-9A N94ME (reserved)
Attaching wings today!
http://my.execpc.com/~cjh/rv9a.html
-----Original Message-----
>
> > Rather than hope for severance of a wire, why not
> > build in a G-activated (normally closed) switch /
> > 'fuse' in the master control circuit, a device with
> > the characteristics of an ELT-actuator switch, so that
> > when the turf arrives MUCH too fast, that solenoid is
> > chopped??? OK - and a bypass switch to bring it back
> > if the 'fuse' breaks in flight for some reason. Too
> > complex? Unnecessary?
> >
> > A thought experiment...... anyone?
> >
> > Glenn Rainey
> > Long-EZ
> > Scotland
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "C J Heitman" <cjh(at)execpc.com> |
Andy,
I believe it is just a thermistor and is not polarity sensitive. I randomly
picked one to ground and it works as it should.
Chris Heitman
Dousman WI
RV-9A N94ME (reserved)
http://my.execpc.com/~cjh/rv9a.html
-----Original Message-----
How do you wire up an Oil Temp probe on a Lycoming? It has 2 white unmarked
wires comming out of the probe. My EIS manual says that I should have one as
a sensor and 1 as ground, but I imagine that the probe is nicely grounded as
it's a large brass part screwed into the crankcase.
So how can I tell which wire is the sense vs ground? it reads about 12K
across the 2 leads.
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity calculations |
> Gilles,
>
> I don't like the idea of counting every calorie for engine start or in my
> diet for that matter. Your calculations will be plagued with temperature
> variations and engine prime status, choke history, etc. I think you need
to
> have ample capacity to start an engine regardless of the conditions.
There we are : how does one actually determine what 'ample capacity' is ?
Apart from letting other fellows do the trial and error business...
Very few people in this country know the principles promoted by bob
Nuckolls, so without any comparison we are on our own.
We are sure two 1 Ah batteries isn't enough. Two 35 Ah batteries is overkill
for the Rotax.
My purpose was to sort out those hangar tales, and achieve a rough estimate.
Of course, my intention wasn't to count starter time by the second, but just
make sure 9 Ah IS ample capacity for normal operation.
>
> For redundancy, how about wiring in two 9 AH batteries in parallel with
each
> other, with each battery having a ground point that can be disconnected
via a
> switch or a contactor, or even a manual knife switch etc. You could start
> the engine with both batteries grounded and after some run time to recover
> the energy used on start up, you pull the ground on one of them. The
> ungrounded battery is now isolated from the system and is a true standby
> battery.
>
We've considered adapting one of Bobs Rotax diagrams with two batteries.
Old stories die hard, so any proposal I make among the homebuilders around
me MUST be thoroughly documented before they accept to examine it.
I must have solid answers to all those 'what if' questions.
My buddy homebuilder is an engineer, so when it comes to determine what
option is best regarding our wiring, hard numbers is something he does
understand.
A good news, though, he's just downloaded mosst of the info on Bob's website
;-)
Cheers,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Oil Temp probe? |
>
>Andy,
>
>I believe it is just a thermistor and is not polarity sensitive. I randomly
>picked one to ground and it works as it should.
>
>Chris Heitman
>Dousman WI
>RV-9A N94ME (reserved)
>http://my.execpc.com/~cjh/rv9a.html
I agree.
Bob . . .
>-----Original Message-----
>How do you wire up an Oil Temp probe on a Lycoming? It has 2 white unmarked
>wires comming out of the probe. My EIS manual says that I should have one as
>a sensor and 1 as ground, but I imagine that the probe is nicely grounded as
>it's a large brass part screwed into the crankcase.
>
>So how can I tell which wire is the sense vs ground? it reads about 12K
>across the 2 leads.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Maybe it wasn't necessary, but I bought a nice meter from Sears. It's
>good to 20 amps and has many other nice features for $40.
>
>The TC shows 1.04 amps at power-on and stablizes at .26 amps after it
>spins up. Are these numbers believable?
Very much so. Thanks for the feedback. There's no substitute
for measured data.
>So, going by the table in
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/wiresize.pdf , I can use 22AWG wire
>for the turn coordinator.
>
>Are there a discrepencies between Bob's wire table and the one in Van's
>construction manual, chapter 5? Van's table uses heavier wire. Or am I
>reading it wrong?
Haven't seen Van's data. Given that 22AWG is good for about 10A
for 40C rise in clear air and 5A for 40C rise inside wire bundles,
.26A will produce a temperature rise on the order of 2C in
a wire bundle . . . irrespective of anyone's wire tables or
recommendations, these too are measured data upon which
rational decisions can be made.
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>Mr. Nuckolls,
>
>Does the diagram you posted for the gear warning tone generator contain
>three separate CD4093 ICs or just one IC shown three different places on the
>diagram for simplicity?
>
>Thanks for the help.
The CD4093 is a quad 2-input nand gate with Schmidt
trigger inputs. One may show each section as a separate
entity for the purposes of crafting a lucid schematic
but in fact, all four sections are contained within the
single device.
See:
http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/CD/CD4093BC.pdf
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | Measuring temperatures during fly-off |
I might suggest he simply install some of the little tattle tale temperature
"dots" on all of that equipment.
Run it on the ground. Check the temps. If OK, go fly - - briefly - - check
the temps. Then fly longer, higher, slower, etc, stopping to check the
tattle tale devices, each time.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: Cy Galley [mailto:cgalley(at)qcbc.org]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Measuring temperatures during fly-off
From what I'm been told, the minimum crew is the pilot, period. The approved
use of a second person is a myth. If the FAA approved the 2nd person, It
would then require this after the test period. You would never be able to
fly solo.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Measuring temperatures during fly-off
>
>
> James Foerster wrote:
>
> >
> >I'm building an experimental Jabiru J400, and plan to measure many
> >
> >Questions:
> >1. Since only the pilot can be in the plane during the fly-off, should
this
> >be done with data loggers? This can either feed a portable computer
> >directly-and there are plug-in cards that fit the PC card slot in most
> >
> I am under the impression that the definition of 'minimum crew' is
somewhat
> flexible. I have heard of several new aircraft being flown with 2
> people with
> the justification being that the 2nd person was required in order to
> fulfill some of
> the mission duties (ie datalogging). This seems like its stretching
> things a bit. I
> would also have to have a fairly large sense of comfort with my new
> airplane
> before hauling a passenger with me, but I see this as a personal
> decision. You
> might call your FSDO with respect to this and see what their take is.
>
> Matt Prather
> N34RD
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | re: Electric Heat in RV-8 |
> Hi
>Im building an RV-8 and there is a problem getting heat to the rear
>cockpit so im installing an electric heater which draws 25 amps. I would
>like to wire the heater through the landing/taxi switches so that the
>heater cannot be on when the lights are turned on to avoid over loading
>the alternator and possibly blowing the current limiter at night close to
>the ground. Do you have any suggestions as to what switch I should use or
>is the idea not feasable. thanks for your time, I have sure enjoyed your book.
Thank you for the kind words!
The idea is feasible but not necessary. First,
unlike generators, alternators are inherently
current limited in their ability to put be loaded
severely beyond rated capacity. When an
alternator becomes overloaded, the bus voltage
simply sags down to the point were the battery
makes up the difference. Sooo . . . an alternator
is not capable of blowing it's own properly sized
b-lead protection.
Should the condition you're concerned about come
to pass, your low-voltage warning light should begin
flashing to let you know that some loads need to
be shed.
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
You can join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Thanks!
Bob . . .
|---------------------------------------------------|
| A lie can travel half way around the world while |
| the truth is till putting on its shoes . . . |
| -Mark Twain- |
|---------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LED Dimmer Switch |
Sounds like a nice set-up.
Are the LEDs bare, or in a fixture?
Where can I find out more info on them?
You used Bob's medium-duty dimmer?
How did you mount the gooseneck light?
Any pictures?
Thanks,
-
Larry Bowen
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 John Slade
> Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 12:35 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: LED Dimmer Switch
>
>
> -->
>
> Bob,
> If you don't mind a plug for you're products....
> I followed all the discussion about dimming LEDs thinking how
> nice it would be to make one of these puppies to dim the two
> 3000 MCD red LED's I'm using for panel lights. Today I wired
> up the gooseneck map light I got from B&C and was delighted
> to find that the dimmer which comes with it has five seperate
> dimmable feeds and, as a bonus, it dims my LEDs perfectly. It
> reduces the voltage, not the current - right?
>
> My only negative is that the dimming function (for all the
> lights) doesn't quite go far enough toward zero. I don't
> suppose there's an easy way to increase the range is there?
> Regards, and thanks for a neat product. John Slade
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity calculations |
In a message dated 11/3/2002 10:14:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr writes:
> We are sure two 1 Ah batteries isn't enough. Two 35 Ah batteries is overkill
> for the Rotax.
> My purpose was to sort out those hangar tales, and achieve a rough
> estimate.
> Of course, my intention wasn't to count starter time by the second, but
> just
> make sure 9 Ah IS ample capacity for normal operation.
>
>
Gilles,
Suppose we decide on how many seconds (minutes) is a desired cranking time
for most situations and choose a battery capacity that is large enough to
provide it. All of the calculations on your fingers, toes and abacus won't
give you the true story like a field test can. Temperature is everything
when it comes to calculating battery capacity. A field test would be needed
to remove most variables. At some standard temperature (say 40 degrees) you
crank your Rotax in ten second bursts (ignition and fuel off) until the
battery is low enough to not crank it briskly enough to be viable.
Decide how many ten second bursts are practical for your needs and figure
what capacity was expended in those cranking bursts. If you can get 20 burst
out of an 18 ah battery and 8 out of a 9 ah battery and you feel 5 cranks is
plenty, go for the 9 ah.
Everyone has had this experience: You start your car every day and it may
crank for just 1 to 3 seconds before it starts up. Your 6-year-old, failing
battery is plenty for this. Then cooler weather arrives and the engine needs
a couple more seconds of cranking to start. Your 6-year-old soft battery
can't do it at the current temperature that morning. You go back out and
fire it right up at noon the same day.
I guess my gut feeling is that I would want at least 5 ten-second bursts of
available power with a 50% reserve to cover low temperature conditions.
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Outback, (out back in the garage)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Phillips <ripsteel(at)edge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring temperatures during fly-off |
James Foerster wrote:
> I'm building an experimental Jabiru J400, and plan to measure many
> temperatures during the fly-off.
On a somewhat related note: Would an appropriate temp probe located at the center
of the cowling outlet, perhaps above and between the exhaust pipes (and possibly
shielded from them) be useful for early detection of an engine fire? Or does such
an event typically mainfest itself in obvious ways that would make this
unnecessary? I was considering using one of the aux channels on the EIS for
something like this, with the alarm limit set somewhere in the 1000-1200 degree
range (or at a temp maybe 100 degrees above what would be seen under worst-case
normal conditions, such as extended taxiing), but had not heard of such monitoring
before. Any potential here?
Just Curious at The PossumWorks
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity calculations |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi, Bob and all,
>
>Here are some question on how to size the battery capacity on a Rotax
>powered aircraft.
>It seems our kit manufacturer successfully installs 9 ah RG batteries in his
>two seaters.
>The heavier and ELECTRICALLY DEPENDANT four seaters are fitted with 17 Ah
>batteries.
>
>My intenetion was to split this capacity into two 9 Ah batteries, to obtain
>redundancy.
>However, there have been hangar tales around about this 9 Ah capacity 'being
>insufficient for more than three attempts' in case of engine starting
>difficulties.
Sounds to me like the 9 Ah product is less than it could
be. We did some cranking tests of a 10 Ah battery on a
high-compression IO-320 using a Hawker 10 Ah battery several
years ago. The battery gave up the ghost toward the end
of the FIFTH, 10-second cranking interval.
>My questions :
>
>To sort these stories out, as there are very few four seaters flying at the
>moment, I'm wondering if the following calculations could make sense.
>Granted we have at least one main battery with 4 ah capacity left, each
>attemp consisting of a 10 second actuation of the starter motor.
>Considering during each attempt the starter draws the max allowable current
>through the starter contactor, that is 1 second at 300 amps, then 9 seconds
>at 75 amps (according to the starter contactor data in the rotax
>installation manual)
>Taking into account the current drawn by the battery contactor and the two
>fuel pumps, i.e. 3.7 amps.
>
>Is it legitimate to try to estimate the number of 10 second attemps in the
>following manner ?
>
>According to the above data, each attemps draws around 1015 amp.seconds.
>Since the battery remaining capacity is considered 144000 amp.seconds, this
>allows us to make largely more than 3 attempts (maybe more than 10 ?) before
>running the battery flat.
>
>Of course WHO would make several 10 second starting attempts without trying
>to sort the engine problem out ?
>
>Thus running the starter from a 9 Ah main battery should not pose any
>problems in case of starting difficulties.
>
> Please tell me where I'm wrong.
I'm puzzled by the focus on being able to conduct multiple
cranking cycles. What condition do you anticipate wherein
such battery performance will be needed? I presume that
since this is not a certified airplane, your attention to
details like engine tune up, monitoring the condition of
fuel delivery components, doing preventative maintenance
on high stress components in the system will combine to
give you an engine that starts very readily with a minimum
of SHORT attempts. Further, should you find that an engine that
used to start in a few blades has become increasingly
difficult to start, I would suppose the cause for degraded
performance will be investigated and fixed.
The paper analysis you propose falls apart at very high
loading values on any battery. It's a well known fact that
as loading increases, apparent capacity of the battery is
reduced due to increased losses INTERNAL to the battery.
This is not a linear function but a squared function.
Internal heating rate is proportional to watts of power
lost which is equal to the SQUARE of current times
the internal resistance.
Therefore, our nice little calculation for deducing
battery size needed to carry an e-bus load of 2-4
amps becomes highly suspect when we're expecting
sustained performance at 60-200A. There's a BIG
difference in brands and styles of battery that
can deliver good performance at 10x the one-hour
current rating of the battery.
Right now, I'm aware of only one brand of battery
in the 9-10 Ah class with internal guts sufficiently
robust to produce a series of consecutive cranking
attempts. That battery comes from Hawker. Two
such batteries are certain to provide the level
of robustness you seem to want . . . but I am
also suspicious of a design or a maintenance and
operating philosophy that suggests such performance
may even be necessary.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Simple flap servo system |
>Hi Bob,
>
>Do you know how the flap controls work in a Cessna 152? I'm talking about
>the flap control handle that you put at 10 degrees and the flaps mirror
>that setting. I'm not interested in having preset positions. In the 152,
>when you put the control handle on 13 degrees, for example, the flaps
>mirrored that setting. Any help you could give on this subject would be
>appreciated as I would like to use the same control on the RV-7A I'm building.
The flaps control system used on these Cessnas is an
excellent example of a closed loop servo system. I'll
see if I can get some pictures of how the parts look and
work together to publish but here's a rough cut at
explaining it in words.
Moving the flap control handle only operates a cam
that is positioned to actuate one of two "micro-
switches" . . . one switch causes the motor to
extend flaps, the other retract.
The switches are mounted on a plate that is hinged
on the same shaft as the cam. When you move the flap
handle toward extend, the cam depresses the extend
switch and flaps begin to move.
A push-pull control wire running inside a tightly
spiral wound jacket connects the switch plate to
the flap mechanism in the wing. This method
of getting motion transported from one place to
another has been around almost since the beginning
of automobiles and probably before that in other
venues. My 1941 Pontiac had a knob on the panel
for manually operating the choke on the carburetor
as a cold-weather starting assist. These are
often referred to as Bowden controls.
As the flaps move in the commanded direction,
the switch plate is linked to the flaps by means
of the Bowden control such that the switch
presently closed will eventually fall into a
notch on the cam and the motor will stop.
It's a rather elegant system that's easy to
build, calibrate and maintain. Get the service
and parts catalogs for a 152 or 172 and study the
components and the service manual instructions
for repair and adjustment.
> If this type of circuit is covered in your book, let me know. I'm
> planning on purchasing a copy as I get closer to the wiring stage of the
> project.
I've had a lot of calls over the years where
a builder says, "I've been working on this
project for years. All the tin-bending is done,
the paint is on, the engine is installed, the
upholstery will go in next week. I'm ready to
wire 'er up. Send me your book."
If you anticipate needing the book at all, buy it now.
You need to be thinking about the electrical system
LONG before the time comes to string first wires.
When you get the book, read chapter 17 first.
Further, I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
You can join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Thanks!
Bob . . .
|---------------------------------------------------|
| A lie can travel half way around the world while |
| the truth is till putting on its shoes . . . |
| -Mark Twain- |
|---------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity calculations |
>
>
>Gilles,
>
>I don't like the idea of counting every calorie for engine start or in my
>diet for that matter. Your calculations will be plagued with temperature
>variations and engine prime status, choke history, etc. I think you need to
>have ample capacity to start an engine regardless of the conditions. We
>should leave the counting of gnat's asses to the NASA guys. Our airplanes
>should be able to leave the earth under most all conditions and a wimpy
>battery set up is not my idea of the way to accomplish this.
Agreed . . . except it IS possible to acquire relatively small
batteries with very stout hearts . . . 9-10 Ah need not
imply any degree of wimpiness . . .
>For redundancy, how about wiring in two 9 AH batteries in parallel with each
>other, with each battery having a ground point that can be disconnected via a
>switch or a contactor, or even a manual knife switch etc. You could start
>the engine with both batteries grounded and after some run time to recover
>the energy used on start up, you pull the ground on one of them. The
>ungrounded battery is now isolated from the system and is a true standby
>battery.
>
>There are some hazards with this arrangement:
>
>1. One good battery must be grounded at all times or equipment damage will
>occur.
>
>2. In the event of a battery in flight failure (say the in-service battery
>internally shorts a cell or two) the standby battery must be grounded to be
>put into service and will suffer the load of the bad battery until the bad
>battery's ground is opened.
RG batteries, (ESPECIALLY RG batteries maintained as if
we really depend on them) don't fail. In fact, the vast
majority (if not all) of incidences where batteries were not
available when needed can be traced to simple wear-out. It is
disingenuous to run a battery for 3-4 years, discharge it flat
a couple of times by leaving the master switch on, jump-start
or hand-prop the airplane a few times and then call it
a "battery failure" when there's not enough snort in a battery
to satisfy a perfectly predictable operating requirement.
>A "make" before "break" 2 pole switch is a possibility, but it would have to
>work in either direction. I would prefer a pair of manual knife switches for
>best reliability.
>
>Hey, how about some sort of mechanical latching mechanism that will not allow
>both switches to be open at the same time? A home brewed "rocker" knife
>switch pair assembly of some sort that will allow both to close, but only one
>at a time to open?
John,
The dual battery philosophy and practical means for implementing
it has been discussed in detail in downloads from www.aeroelectric.com,
our publication The AeroElectric Connection and in multitudinous
threads on this list-server. You can download appendix Z to the
book from the website at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
. . . you may also find the chapter on electrical system reliability
useful which you can find at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch17-9.pdf
I'd like to welcome you to the AeroElectric-List and
invite you to join in the discussion of options for
building what are inarguably the finest airplanes
to have ever flown!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Phillips <ripsteel(at)edge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: G-force battery deactivation |
C J Heitman wrote:
> Pegasus Auto Racing Supplies sells an inertia activated fuel pump cutoff
> switch (or master battery contactor cutoff switch). Part No. 1108 $64.95
> with harness & mounting hardware. It's on page 35 of their catalog. Here is
> a link:
>
> http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/
I whole-hearted agree with the excellent Mr. Nuckolls regarding minimizing
failure points and proper emergency landing procedures i.e. master "off" when
appropriate- I am, however, concerned about the prospect of finding Bambi or
related critters in my landing zone at night, or even a nasty gust of unexpected
air on arrival/departure which could lead to undesired g-force- Shoot, finding
Bugs' front door with my nosewheel on a dirt strip could prove unpleasant, and
totally unexpected- "Master Switch OFF" would probably enter my mind only after
the dust had settled... Reminds me of tales of pilots instantly reaching for
the "gear down" lever as soon as the plane grinds to a halt! Too paranoid, or
just too many options?
From The PossumWorks
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity calculations |
Bob,
Thanks once more for your reply.
Your advice is invaluable in making our collective decisions.
> >However, there have been hangar tales around about this 9 Ah capacity
'being
> >insufficient for more than three attempts' in case of engine starting
> >difficulties.
>
> Sounds to me like the 9 Ah product is less than it could
> be. We did some cranking tests of a 10 Ah battery on a
> high-compression IO-320 using a Hawker 10 Ah battery several
> years ago. The battery gave up the ghost toward the end
> of the FIFTH, 10-second cranking interval.
>
Ah, this is he kind of data I needed.
The batteries we have considered happen to be made by Hawker.
>
> I'm puzzled by the focus on being able to conduct multiple
> cranking cycles. What condition do you anticipate wherein
> such battery performance will be needed? I presume that
> since this is not a certified airplane, your attention to
> details like engine tune up, monitoring the condition of
> fuel delivery components, doing preventative maintenance
> on high stress components in the system will combine to
> give you an engine that starts very readily with a minimum
> of SHORT attempts. Further, should you find that an engine that
> used to start in a few blades has become increasingly
> difficult to start, I would suppose the cause for degraded
> performance will be investigated and fixed.
>
You're perfectly right and I was not anticipating ANY starting difficulties,
since Rotax engines I know of invariably start up within the first second or
so.
But as you may have understood, we in France have often to answer 'yes but
what if' questions and address many hangar tales issues when it comes to
things electrical in sport planes.
So the options I propose do have to be heavily supported by hard data and/or
calculations.
And by advices from helpful gurus across the pond ;-)
>
> Right now, I'm aware of only one brand of battery
> in the 9-10 Ah class with internal guts sufficiently
> robust to produce a series of consecutive cranking
> attempts. That battery comes from Hawker. Two
> such batteries are certain to provide the level
> of robustness you seem to want . . . but I am
> also suspicious of a design or a maintenance and
> operating philosophy that suggests such performance
> may even be necessary.
>
No, no, our engine WILL start at the first attempt or will be investigated.
But not everyone this side of the Atlantic is impervious to story tellers
;-)
To sum it up, your messages conforts me in the opinion the best compromise
for our electrically dependant engine is two 9 Ah Hawker batteries with
a battery management module or something.
Thanks a lot,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: re: Electric Heat in RV-8 |
The amount of heat you will get from a 25 amp heater is not very much. About
300 watts.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: re: Electric Heat in RV-8
>
>
> > Hi
> >Im building an RV-8 and there is a problem getting heat to the rear
> >cockpit so im installing an electric heater which draws 25 amps. I would
> >like to wire the heater through the landing/taxi switches so that the
> >heater cannot be on when the lights are turned on to avoid over loading
> >the alternator and possibly blowing the current limiter at night close to
> >the ground. Do you have any suggestions as to what switch I should use
or
> >is the idea not feasable. thanks for your time, I have sure enjoyed your
book.
>
> Thank you for the kind words!
>
> The idea is feasible but not necessary. First,
> unlike generators, alternators are inherently
> current limited in their ability to put be loaded
> severely beyond rated capacity. When an
> alternator becomes overloaded, the bus voltage
> simply sags down to the point were the battery
> makes up the difference. Sooo . . . an alternator
> is not capable of blowing it's own properly sized
> b-lead protection.
>
> Should the condition you're concerned about come
> to pass, your low-voltage warning light should begin
> flashing to let you know that some loads need to
> be shed.
>
> I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
> to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
> share the information with as many folks as possible.
> You can join at . . .
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |---------------------------------------------------|
> | A lie can travel half way around the world while |
> | the truth is till putting on its shoes . . . |
> | -Mark Twain- |
> |---------------------------------------------------|
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Signal splitting |
Bob,
I have a Comant CI182 VOR/Glideslope antenna that I am installing in the top of
my VS of my RV6A.
In the instrument panel is a SL30 NAV/COM radio which has VOR and GS functions...so-far,
so-good...one NAV radio - one NAV antenna.
I would also like to incorporate a NARCO NAV-122D/GPS into this installation.
The NARCO requires that the signal be split to two antenna leads. Not an issue
as I can get a COMANT CI507 diplexer (or similar parts of at least two other
brands) to split the signal for this.
The part that I can't seem to pull together is how to share the antenna between
the SL-30 and the diplexer. Every splitter that I can find breaks out the signal.
Do I need to get something like a CI1125 which splits the signal into two
NAV's and two GS's and use the CI507 backwards to put a pair of them back together
for my SL30? Initially, I thought that a coax T fitting should do the
sharing part - but I want to make sure that it really could be that simple.
Your thoughts...please,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Simple flap servo system, Etc. |
I wrote an article on the MAC8A servo, wherein I ripped out most of it and turned
it into a true servo trim. This can be operated by a little wheel ( ala Cessna)
instead of two push buttons. This uses the MC33030 DC Servomotor Controller
Drive, see:
http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/MC33030-D.PDF
email me if you want to see the article on this subject....and hey!...I'm selling
modification kits too.
I also make a couple suggestions regarding how to beef up the MAC8A. (and I'm working
on a neat "Cessna-type" trim wheel too.
On another topic: What "g" force impact level and in what axes would one want
to have a "cutoff switch"?
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Simple flap servo system, Etc. |
> On another topic: What "g" force impact level and in what
> axes would one want to have a "cutoff switch"?
For what?
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 222 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity calculations |
>
>You're perfectly right and I was not anticipating ANY starting difficulties,
>since Rotax engines I know of invariably start up within the first second or
>so.
>But as you may have understood, we in France have often to answer 'yes but
>what if' questions and address many hangar tales issues when it comes to
>things electrical in sport planes.
>So the options I propose do have to be heavily supported by hard data and/or
>calculations.
>And by advices from helpful gurus across the pond ;-)
Yeah, but when the questions about "what if" get down to
the same order of probability as the wings falling
off or shedding a prop,
> >
> > Right now, I'm aware of only one brand of battery
> > in the 9-10 Ah class with internal guts sufficiently
> > robust to produce a series of consecutive cranking
> > attempts. That battery comes from Hawker. Two
> > such batteries are certain to provide the level
> > of robustness you seem to want . . . but I am
> > also suspicious of a design or a maintenance and
> > operating philosophy that suggests such performance
> > may even be necessary.
> >
>
>No, no, our engine WILL start at the first attempt or will be investigated.
>But not everyone this side of the Atlantic is impervious to story tellers
>;-)
Do such individuals drive design decisions and operating philosophy?
>To sum it up, your messages conforts me in the opinion the best compromise
>for our electrically dependant engine is two 9 Ah Hawker batteries with
>a battery management module or something.
Don't even need a battery management module as long as you have
SOME form of active notification of alternator failure. There
is PLENTY of time to react to this situation even if you don't
have automatic battery disconnect designed into your system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: G-force battery deactivation |
>
>C J Heitman wrote:
>
> > Pegasus Auto Racing Supplies sells an inertia activated fuel pump cutoff
> > switch (or master battery contactor cutoff switch). Part No. 1108 $64.95
> > with harness & mounting hardware. It's on page 35 of their catalog. Here is
> > a link:
> >
> > http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/
>
>I whole-hearted agree with the excellent Mr. Nuckolls regarding minimizing
>failure points and proper emergency landing procedures i.e. master "off" when
>appropriate- I am, however, concerned about the prospect of finding Bambi or
>related critters in my landing zone at night, or even a nasty gust of
>unexpected
>air on arrival/departure which could lead to undesired g-force- Shoot,
>finding
>Bugs' front door with my nosewheel on a dirt strip could prove unpleasant, and
>totally unexpected- "Master Switch OFF" would probably enter my mind only
>after
>the dust had settled... Reminds me of tales of pilots instantly
>reaching for
>the "gear down" lever as soon as the plane grinds to a halt! Too paranoid, or
>just too many options?
When you look at the sum total of accidents, how many involve
the scenarios you describe? And of those, how many experienced
post crash fires? We can theorize at great lengths concerning
all kinds of scenarios and how to improve our chances of surviving
them . . . I'll suggest prudent design and operating philosophy
concentrates on dealing well with the majority of causes gleaned
from a study of accident histories.
Government gets what it wants from us by instilling a fear of
living; religion gets what it wants by making us afraid of dying.
Ol' hangar tales perpetuated without perspective and reasoning
makes us fear both.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ira Rampil <rampil(at)anesthes.sunysb.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 51 Msgs - 10/23/02 |
> >
> > Anyone know why the Odyssey Battery(#680) has a metal case. Doesn't seem
> to
> > be removable. Could it be used as a battery box? Thanks.
> >
> > Byron
> >
>
Its not too hard to remove, its held on by 2-3 globs of silastic about 1/2 way
down the long sides. Use a letter opener
or some such long sharp device. There are 4 drilled holes in the bottom for mounting,
but I think the A/C bending moments
on a bottom fixed battery for a sharp decel would have your batteries preceding
you out of the A/C.
Still, I bought the shells and their small additional weight for "environmental"
protection in the engine bay.
Ira
N224XS wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lundquist <lundquist(at)ieee.org> |
| Subject: | Transponder Recommendations |
Not sure if this falls under the list's subject matter but here goes...
I've got a C150 with a older and getting progressively flakier RT359A
transponder. I've kind of made up my mind to replace it rather than throw
more money at keeping it alive a little longer. The Garmin GTX320A looks
like the clear favorite to me. Fully solid state, and reasonably priced.
It look like everything else out there is still tube based but really not
any cheaper. Everybody seems to advertise the 320 for $1249. Anybody
gotten any better prices?
I'm an EE, Ham Radio, General Radio Telepone license type guy and have a
cooperative A&P who will work with me. We're not completely sure an A&P
can sign off the install although it looks that way. Still would need to
follow that up with a certification by a radio shop before using it, but I
don't believe the install needs to be certified. Can anybody answer this?
Regards,
Dave Lundquist
lundquist(at)ieee.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Recommendations |
Dave:
Check out Navasota avionics @ 941-358-1404, ask for Jeff Smith.
Regards,
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LED Dimmer Switch |
Hi Larry
I didnt realize this message was for me.
> Are the LEDs bare, or in a fixture?
I made an annunciator panel where the LEDs are mounted in a cut down
breadboard.
I'm still experimenting on where to put the panel light LEDs. They don't
light the panel very well from an oblique angle, but they put out a
spotlight that'll light up the seat back from the panel. I'm considering
moving them to the seatback so they'll shine over my shoulder and light the
panel from there. Two or three of these babies are enough to illuminate the
entire panel.
> Where can I find out more info on them?
Radio Shack 3000 MCD LEDs. I added a 470ohm resitor in series.
> You used Bob's medium-duty dimmer?
The one that comes with his goose neck light. I'm not sure if its the same
one he sells seperately.
> How did you mount the gooseneck light?
Next to the passenger headrest in the verticle part of the seatback (Cozy
IV)
> Any pictures?
They'll be on my web site ( http://kgarden.com/cozy ) soon.
Regards,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator capacity/loading .... |
A quick question for you Bob (and the list). Hopefully since I don't have
all the data before me the short version will suffice to get the question
across.
My partner and I have a recently completed RV6 with Van's 35A alternator.
When flying, all (electrically) works fine ... no smoke escapes and all
items work as expected. :-)
BUT ...
If after landing (or engine at idle during landing), I have on strobes
(Whelen - 7A), landing light + taxi light (cannot remember if we have 55
watt or 100 watt bulbs but they are from RMD lighting kit ... let's assume
55 watts each and thus about 5+5 A = 10 amps) and nav lights (<5A ??) , the
voltage DROPS from 14+ to < 12 and I (appropriately so ) get low voltage
warning and a big drain on the battery. I awitch them off and battery starts
getting about a 10 A or so charge and voltage goes back to 14+.
QUESTION(S):
1. Does this seem to be the symptom of an undersized alternator or
1a. a weak/failing battery?
1b. a weak/failing alternator?
If I rev the engine up (don't remember how high I have to go) then all is
well.
My suspicion is that this alternator is not producing anything near rated
output at the lower RPMs.
The battery is an 18 amp/hr "sealed" (Powersonic RG ... I *think*).
THanks,
James
p.s. There is other stuff like Electroair E. I., a master contactor, KMD 150
multifunction display, SL40 radio, KT76A transponder, CD player. But I
thought these not germane to the question.
"If you don't make dust, you eat dust"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alfred Buess" <Alfred.Buess(at)shl.bfh.ch> |
| Subject: | Power consumption of LVM-14 |
Bob,
As I am completing the load analysis for my Europa, I wonder how much power the
LVM-14 you sold until recently is drawing in normal operation mode. Any experiences?
Alfred Buess
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Williams" <rw_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Recommendations |
I installed a GTX320A this spring in my Bellanca to replace a flakey Narco
AT150 that had already been repaired about 4 times to no avail. I have been
very satisfied with the Garmin and recommend it.
The GTX320A is well built and solid with crisp control knob actuation. It
is fairly heavy - more than the Narco it replaced.
The sheet metal portion of the tray is unfortunately somewhat cheaply made
of thin gauge material, and it is slightly wider (about .010 to .020 wider)
than the trays used by other manufacturers. This may cause a clearance
problem if you have support structure built to the width of your currently
installed trays. I had to do some filing to get the Garmin tray to fit.
Also the Garmin tray was built with a thick removable pot-metal backing
plate that screws to the back end of the sheet-metal tray. The backing
plate has the transponder alignment pins and recesses for the connectors.
It is convenient to be able to remove this plate in order to easily access
the connectors, but it is unfortunately kind of heavy.
Another small gotcha is that the Garmin is relatively short, so it may not
pick up support structure built to support the rear of "normal" length King
& Narco trays. The short length of the Garmin could come in handy for
restricted spaces, though.
If you're willing to spend an extra 150 bucks or so Garmin offers tray
adapters for the King and Narco transponders, which can save the
installation hassle. Don't know if they have one for the Cessna, try
calling Garmin.
On net the Garmin was pretty easy to install and has proven to be a reliable
unit in the fourty or so hours of flight time I've used it since
installation. It is a good no-frills transponder.
The Apollo transponder is also a good one, with altitude readout and smaller
height, but it is more expensive and harder to get on short notice at least
when I tried to find one.
Russell Williams
http://www.russellw.com
Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband. Join now!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring temperatures during fly-off |
Thanks to you all for comments and suggestions. I continue to believe that
data logging is needed, even if the lone pilot can talk into a recorder,
because the pilot should not be watching the gauges all the time to detect
peaks, etc.
The Weeder Technologies site is interesting, and the 8 channel A/D serial
output board is only $69. This is nice, but requires connection to a
portable computer for the whole system to operate. The BasicX board had an
app note showing how to use the 32K eeprom as a data buffer for data
logging. About 1700 time samples of 8 channels can be accomodated. With
the 8 channel A/D, this might be a 'one chip' answer to the data logging.
Bob mentioned using the AD596, rather than the AD594/5 for thermocouple
conditioning. The 596 is cheaper, meant to be used in ovens where the IC is
kept between 25 and 100 C. Although it is spec'ed for +/-4 degrees C, and
the older AD594 is +/- 3, the temperatures of interest for us--100 to 750
C--work out much better with the 596 part, looking through the table of
temperatures vs. output for both devices. Unfortunately, the AD596 is a bit
harder to find, especially in small numbers. Newark has them for $17.96 in
1-9 quantity. Pioneer Standard has them for $14.70.
Next step is to get some thermocouple wire, make up some units, get the
developement board for the BasicX chip, and see if I can do a PC board for
the AD596/7. Bob says that his favorite TC wire is covered in Kapton, but
this has no better temperature limit than the Teflon PFA insulation from
Omega. I wonder if it is worth getting stranded wire: the 20 gauge is
available in 7x28 stranding.
Jim Foerster
Jim Foerster
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitance Fuel Quantity Systems |
R Swanson's question about Capacitance Fuel Measuring:
Jim Weir published a 3-part article in Kitplanes a couple years ago. It's
available online at:
http://www.rst-engr.com/kitplanes/
Omega (the temperature people) has a great book on this and other techniques
and it's available to download at
(What a great time to be alive and have a fast internet connection!)
http://www.omega.com/literature/transactions/Transactions_Vol_IV.pdf
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
Can anyone provide the pin-outs for an Ameri-King AK-350 encoder? I've got
an SL-70 xpndr I want to install that is already wired for an ACK A-30 but
the Navion has an AK-350. I'm sure I wouldn't get lucky enough that 2 mfg
would use the same pin-outs, so I'll need to rewire the xpndr or build a
short DB15-DB15 adapter. Can anyone help?
Regards,
Greg Young
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Recommendations |
try stark avionics for a good price; check the archives, and tell him you're
on the RV list (even if it's for a Cessna!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator capacity/loading .... |
| From: | Denis Walsh <deniswalsh(at)earthlink.net> |
In my non professional opinion, the answer depends on the size of your
alternator pulley, the size of your flywheel pulley, the tightness of same,
and the idle RPM.
If you are on the low side on all these (except pulley size) then what you
are experiencing could be perfectly normal. BTW my Nav lights pull at least
as much as the strobes and or the landing lights, so I think your load could
be around 30A.
Given it is a good alternator, as I guess, then I would rejoice, that now
you have a bench mark of what it can do. This will allow you to easily load
test it and recognize quickly when it begins to fail.
Hope this helps,
Denis
> From: "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com>
> Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 00:28:05 -0500
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator capacity/loading ....
>
>
>
> A quick question for you Bob (and the list). Hopefully since I don't have
> all the data before me the short version will suffice to get the question
> across.
>
> My partner and I have a recently completed RV6 with Van's 35A alternator.
>
> When flying, all (electrically) works fine ... no smoke escapes and all
> items work as expected. :-)
>
> BUT ...
>
> If after landing (or engine at idle during landing), I have on strobes
> (Whelen - 7A), landing light + taxi light (cannot remember if we have 55
> watt or 100 watt bulbs but they are from RMD lighting kit ... let's assume
> 55 watts each and thus about 5+5 A = 10 amps) and nav lights (<5A ??) , the
> voltage DROPS from 14+ to < 12 and I (appropriately so ) get low voltage
> warning and a big drain on the battery. I awitch them off and battery starts
> getting about a 10 A or so charge and voltage goes back to 14+.
>
> QUESTION(S):
>
> 1. Does this seem to be the symptom of an undersized alternator or
> 1a. a weak/failing battery?
> 1b. a weak/failing alternator?
>
> If I rev the engine up (don't remember how high I have to go) then all is
> well.
>
> My suspicion is that this alternator is not producing anything near rated
> output at the lower RPMs.
>
> The battery is an 18 amp/hr "sealed" (Powersonic RG ... I *think*).
>
>
> THanks,
>
> James
>
> p.s. There is other stuff like Electroair E. I., a master contactor, KMD 150
> multifunction display, SL40 radio, KT76A transponder, CD player. But I
> thought these not germane to the question.
>
>
> "If you don't make dust, you eat dust"
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Flap control like Cessna |
<the flap control handle that you put at 10 degrees and the flaps mirror
>that setting. I'm not interested in having preset positions. In the 152,
>when you put the control handle on 13 degrees, for example, the flaps
>mirrored that setting. Any help you could give on this subject would be
>appreciated as I would like to use the same control on the RV-7A I'm
building.
Bob replied:
The flaps control system used on these Cessnas is an
excellent example of a closed loop servo system. I'll
see if I can get some pictures of how the parts look and
work together to publish but here's a rough cut at
explaining it in words.
It's a rather elegant system that's easy to
build, calibrate and maintain. Get the service
and parts catalogs for a 152 or 172 and study the
components and the service manual instructions
for repair and adjustment.>>
After years of flying Cessnas I decided to design the same system into my
Lancair ES. The change I made is that to keep the wiring complexity in one
place I put the micro-switches at the flap mechanism instead of under the
panel as in a Cessna. I can send a picture of the cam & switch assembly if
someone wants. There will be a rotary knob on the panel with a flap-shaped
handle horizontal for up and about 90 degrees from that for down. The cable
will then go from there to the flap mechanism under the back seat, keeping
the behind-the-panel space as free as possible. The only disadvantage of
this arrangement is that it is not possible to put a flap position indicator
in the dash. However, in years of flying these planes I don't remember ever
looking at the flap position indicator - on the ground before takeoff I look
at the flaps. In the air I can feel whether the flaps are working or not
and there is no reason to look. I will put flap position marks on the flaps
themselves. In any event you can put the switches behind the panel, but it
requires about 5 wires to go to the flap motor area instead of 1.
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Good" <chrisjgood(at)lycos.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator capacity/loading .... |
James,
I had a similar problem on my 6A with Van's 35 amp alternator. It was fine for
the first 250 hrs, then I got a low voltage warning in flight. I don't have
an ammeter, only a voltmeter. I reduced the load, by switching off the wig-wag
landing lights, & got my normal charging voltage back. I estimated that the
alternator was putting out about 12 amps. Someone later told me that it was
probably a diode failure in the alternator, & that it is fairly common for Van's
rebuilt car alternators to last only a few hundred hours.
I assume that if a 35 amp alternater will put out x% of 35 amps at engine idle,
then a 12 amp alternator will put out x% of 12 amps at idle, so your low voltage
at idle could be partial alternator failure like mine.
I never did get the alternator fixed, as Oshkosh was the following week & I replaced
it with a B&C 40 amp unit. Should have spent the big bucks in the first
place!
Regards,
--
Chris Good
RV-6A N86CG 475 hrs
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 00:28:05
James E. Clark wrote:
>
>A quick question for you Bob (and the list). Hopefully since I don't have
>all the data before me the short version will suffice to get the question
>across.
>
>My partner and I have a recently completed RV6 with Van's 35A alternator.
>
>When flying, all (electrically) works fine ... no smoke escapes and all
>items work as expected. :-)
>
>BUT ...
>
>If after landing (or engine at idle during landing), I have on strobes
>(Whelen - 7A), landing light + taxi light (cannot remember if we have 55
>watt or 100 watt bulbs but they are from RMD lighting kit ... let's assume
>55 watts each and thus about 5+5 A = 10 amps) and nav lights (<5A ??) , the
>voltage DROPS from 14+ to < 12 and I (appropriately so ) get low voltage
>warning and a big drain on the battery. I awitch them off and battery starts
>getting about a 10 A or so charge and voltage goes back to 14+.
>
>QUESTION(S):
>
Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get 25MB Storage, POP3 Access,
Advanced Spam protection with LYCOS MAIL PLUS.
http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Electric Heat in RV-8 |
11/4/2002
Unknown person previously wrote:
"Hi, Im building an RV-8 and there is a problem getting heat to the rear
cockpit so im installing an electric heater which draws 25 amps. I would
like to wire the heater through the landing/taxi switches so that the
heater cannot be on when the lights are turned on to avoid over loading
the alternator and possibly blowing the current limiter at night close to
the ground. Do you have any suggestions as to what switch I should use or
is the idea not feasable. thanks for your time, I have sure enjoyed your
book."
Hello Unknown, Suggest that you consider electrically heated clothing -- much
more efficient than an electric heater.
Check out <<http://www.gerbing.com/>> (800-646-5916) for one source. Big time
Harley Davidson stores also carry a line of electrically heated clothing.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Low Voltage Schematic |
Hi Bob
On the Low Voltage Warning schematic Ref Z103 the LM285-2.5 diode has three
legs. Which one goes where? On the schematic R104 resistor is 4.7K on the
bill of materials it says 2.49K. Which one is correct?
Cash Copeland
RV6 Oakland, Ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ed's Lancair System planning |
Bob:
Have you had the chance to look at my second pass in relation to the
Z14 plan?
Regards,
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AK-350 pin-out |
Dave,
Thanks much! That's exactly what I needed. For everyone's benefit, the pin-outs
for the Ameri-King AK-350 and ACK A-30 encoders are exactly the same. The wire
color coding is different but the signals, power and ground are on the same
pins and have the same DB15 gender. There's either a defacto standard or I'm
just living right. Either way I'm a happy man.
Regards,
Greg Young
> Hi Greg
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Regards
> Dave Grosvenor
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 4:18 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: AK-350 pin-out
>
>
> >
> > Can anyone provide the pin-outs for an Ameri-King AK-350 encoder? I've got
> > an SL-70 xpndr I want to install that is already wired for an ACK A-30 but
> > the Navion has an AK-350. I'm sure I wouldn't get lucky enough that 2 mfg
> > would use the same pin-outs, so I'll need to rewire the xpndr or build a
> > short DB15-DB15 adapter. Can anyone help?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg Young
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power consumption of LVM-14 |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>As I am completing the load analysis for my Europa, I wonder how much
>power the LVM-14 you sold until recently is drawing in normal operation
>mode. Any experiences?
0.015 amperes . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Microair T2000 transponder obsoleted? |
>
>
>I belong to local EAA Chapter 103. The group bought a avionics for about 12
>airplanes. The person who organized the group buy said he was told by
>Aircraft Spruce and Specialty that the T2000 was obsoleted and would be
>shipping the new model in 9 mo's. All I know is very 2nd hand so maybe it
>isn't true?
Haven't heard this from the distributor and Microair doesn't talk about
it on their website. Further, "obsolete" usually says that some version
HAS BEEN replaced by a newer model . . . 9 months is a long way
off . . . most folks don't manufacture hundreds of "obsolete" radios
while announcing a future replacement. Who would want to buy a brand
new "obsolete" radio?
I'm very skeptical of this rumor.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Can anyone provide the pin-outs for an Ameri-King AK-350 encoder? I've got
>an SL-70 xpndr I want to install that is already wired for an ACK A-30 but
>the Navion has an AK-350. I'm sure I wouldn't get lucky enough that 2 mfg
>would use the same pin-outs, so I'll need to rewire the xpndr or build a
>short DB15-DB15 adapter. Can anyone help?
>
>Regards,
>Greg Young
You may not have to rewire anything. Except for
avaiability of an extra power pint being assigned to
pin 7 on the ACK_A30, the two appear to be wired
identically.
See:
http://215.55.140.222/temp/AK_350.pdf
http://216.55.140.222/temp/ACK_A30.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Miller <rmill2000(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | BoB: Comm Radio Preference |
Hello
I am in the market for a good comm radio. Bob, in your opinion, which
unit maximizes the equation: Best built, best performance etc. (quality)
vs. (cost) = Value?
Thanks
Rob
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Switch with solder lug |
Hi Bob,
Some of the toggle switches we found have small sodler lugs or pins.
What would be a good way to hook them up ?
We had first considered faston connections, but for space considerations,
only those smaller solder switches will do.
Thank you,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator capacity/loading .... |
>
>
>A quick question for you Bob (and the list). Hopefully since I don't have
>all the data before me the short version will suffice to get the question
>across.
>
>My partner and I have a recently completed RV6 with Van's 35A alternator.
>
>When flying, all (electrically) works fine ... no smoke escapes and all
>items work as expected. :-)
>
>BUT ...
>
>If after landing (or engine at idle during landing), I have on strobes
>(Whelen - 7A), landing light + taxi light (cannot remember if we have 55
>watt or 100 watt bulbs but they are from RMD lighting kit ... let's assume
>55 watts each and thus about 5+5 A = 10 amps) and nav lights (<5A ??) , the
>voltage DROPS from 14+ to < 12 and I (appropriately so ) get low voltage
>warning and a big drain on the battery. I awitch them off and battery starts
>getting about a 10 A or so charge and voltage goes back to 14+.
>
>QUESTION(S):
>
>1. Does this seem to be the symptom of an undersized alternator or
>1a. a weak/failing battery?
Probably not.
>1b. a weak/failing alternator?
Maybe. Do you have a loadmeter on the alternator or
just a battery ammeter?
Is this a new condition or has it always behaved this way?
What size pulley are you using on the alternator.
If you increase engine RPM to say 2,000 RPM, will the
voltage come up and the light go out with all these
same accessories running?
>If I rev the engine up (don't remember how high I have to go) then all is
>well.
Oh, okay.
>My suspicion is that this alternator is not producing anything near rated
>output at the lower RPMs.
Still need to know about pulley size. Many builders have
opted for oversized pulleys based on Van's recommendations.
The notion was that the alternator will last longer at
slower speeds.
This is sort of true . . . but the reason turns out to be
more a problem with rotor balance taking out bearings
than a function of rapid wear out at higher alternator
RPM.
B&C leaves the small pulleys on and balances the rotors
to very tight requirements. By and large, these
alternators have a good chance of running the lifetime
of the airplane and certainly the lifetime of the engine.
Best yet, the small pulley gives you nice output at
ramp idle and taxi speeds.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch with solder lug |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Some of the toggle switches we found have small sodler lugs or pins.
>What would be a good way to hook them up ?
>We had first considered faston connections, but for space considerations,
>only those smaller solder switches will do.
>
>Thank you,
Yup . . . soldering wires to them and covering the finished
joints with semi-rigid heat shrink will give you a very solid
connection.
If you are cramped for space, solder terminal switches
are THE way to go.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | AK-350 pin-out (OOPS! Fixed a typo) |
>
>Can anyone provide the pin-outs for an Ameri-King AK-350 encoder? I've got
>an SL-70 xpndr I want to install that is already wired for an ACK A-30 but
>the Navion has an AK-350. I'm sure I wouldn't get lucky enough that 2 mfg
>would use the same pin-outs, so I'll need to rewire the xpndr or build a
>short DB15-DB15 adapter. Can anyone help?
>
>Regards,
>Greg Young
You may not have to rewire anything. Except for
avaiability of an extra power pint being assigned to
pin 7 on the ACK_A30, the two appear to be wired
See:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/ACK_A30.pdf
http://216.55.140.222/temp/AK_350.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Voltage Schematic |
>
>Hi Bob
>
>On the Low Voltage Warning schematic Ref Z103 the LM285-2.5 diode has three
>legs. Which one goes where? On the schematic R104 resistor is 4.7K on the
>bill of materials it says 2.49K. Which one is correct?
Either would work here but 4.K is probably better.
Thanks for the heads up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lundquist <lundquist(at)ieee.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Recommendations |
Thanks to all for the info. Ordered the Garmin 320A from Stark Avionics.
Good Price, Nice guy. I'll let you all know how I make out.
Regards,
Dave Lundquist
'77 Cessna 150M flying.
RV-6 building.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Irvine <wgirvine(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Minimum crew during flyoff |
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
> From what I'm been told, the minimum crew is the
> pilot, period. The approved
> use of a second person is a myth. If the FAA
> approved the 2nd person, It
> would then require this after the test period. You
> would never be able to
> fly solo.
Can you quote this reg?
Bill
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Kaidor" <jerry(at)tr2.com> |
| Subject: | Re: digital linearization |
Bob Nuckolls wrote:
> This works. The best thing about using the processor is
> the ability to build in self calibration routines. I've been
> thinking over how the uP approach would evolve into a product
> and have considered the problem of building the lookup tables.
>
> I think I'd put a switch on the linearizing board with three
> positions OPERATE-LEARN-(CAPTURE).
*** The problem I see with this is the possibility of the gadget
"forgetting" its settings. I'd
be most comfortable if the thing could program its own flash. Or maybe a
serial EEPROM,
those don't take much wiring.
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: digital linearization |
>
>Bob Nuckolls wrote:
>
> > This works. The best thing about using the processor is
> > the ability to build in self calibration routines. I've been
> > thinking over how the uP approach would evolve into a product
> > and have considered the problem of building the lookup tables.
> >
> > I think I'd put a switch on the linearizing board with three
> > positions OPERATE-LEARN-(CAPTURE).
>
>*** The problem I see with this is the possibility of the gadget
>"forgetting" its settings. I'd
>be most comfortable if the thing could program its own flash. Or maybe a
>serial EEPROM,
>those don't take much wiring.
The chip set I would contain program writable flash. All
memory volatile and otherwise is on the one chip.
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | BoB: Comm Radio Preference |
>
>Hello
>
>I am in the market for a good comm radio. Bob, in your opinion, which
>unit maximizes the equation: Best built, best performance etc. (quality)
>vs. (cost) = Value?
I really don't have any personal experience that samples
the range of options. I think the 760VHF comm from Microair
is an excellent value. The jury is still out for cost of
ownership and long term customer satisfaction. They're a
relatively new player in the world-wide market. What I've
seen of their construction techniques is encouraging.
Haven't had an excuse to open a radio up to peek inside
yet.
I think the 760VHF would be my personal first choice
but I can't give you specifics that compare features
across the various brands. Perhaps others on the list
have a broader experience base from which to offer
advice.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring temperatures during fly-off |
>
>
>Thanks to you all for comments and suggestions. I continue to believe that
>data logging is needed, even if the lone pilot can talk into a recorder,
>because the pilot should not be watching the gauges all the time to detect
>peaks, etc.
>
>The Weeder Technologies site is interesting, and the 8 channel A/D serial
>output board is only $69. This is nice, but requires connection to a
>portable computer for the whole system to operate. The BasicX board had an
>app note showing how to use the 32K eeprom as a data buffer for data
>logging. About 1700 time samples of 8 channels can be accomodated. With
>the 8 channel A/D, this might be a 'one chip' answer to the data logging.
Consider at least 12-bits of a/d . . .
>Bob mentioned using the AD596, rather than the AD594/5 for thermocouple
>conditioning. The 596 is cheaper, meant to be used in ovens where the IC is
>kept between 25 and 100 C. Although it is spec'ed for +/-4 degrees C, and
>the older AD594 is +/- 3, the temperatures of interest for us--100 to 750
>C--work out much better with the 596 part, looking through the table of
>temperatures vs. output for both devices. Unfortunately, the AD596 is a bit
>harder to find, especially in small numbers. Newark has them for $17.96 in
>1-9 quantity. Pioneer Standard has them for $14.70.
OOPS . . . slip of the keyboard. I uses the 594/5 chips in all of
my T/C work. Consider another option: Since you don't need to make
a lot of FAST measurements, you could build a multiplexer board
with dpdt relays, use a single AD594 chip driving one channel of
the A/D board. Use a digital I/O board to control the relays.
>Next step is to get some thermocouple wire, make up some units, get the
>developement board for the BasicX chip, and see if I can do a PC board for
>the AD596/7. Bob says that his favorite TC wire is covered in Kapton, but
>this has no better temperature limit than the Teflon PFA insulation from
>Omega. I wonder if it is worth getting stranded wire: the 20 gauge is
>available in 7x28 stranding.
I've used up all the Kapton I had stocked up on years ago. More
recently, the Teflon is less expensive and in 20AWG solid, it
crimps very nicely into machined d-sub pins.
See http://www.omega.com/ppt/pptsc.asp?ref=GG_T_TC_WIRE&Nav=temh06
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pazmany Newsletter" <pazmanynewsletter(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: digital linearization |
Not to beat a dead horse, but once you've got the unit calibrated, the
microprocessor would also allow you to make a poor man's fuel flow
indicator. Just multiply the amount of fuel consumed each minute by 60 and
you'll get fuel flow per hour. Of course, you'll need another instrument on
your panel to display the calculated flow value - or maybe an indicator that
illuminates when the fuel flow exceeds some preset level.
Not as accurate as the instantaneous readings one gets from a flow sensor in
the fuel line, but it would definitely show you if you've left the fuel cap
off and you're siphoning fuel overboard.
Ken Brown
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: digital linearization
>
> >
> >< >you need an extra device to flash the EPROM ?>>
> >
> >I'm not the one that actually did it, but here is a way we have done it
> >without a microprocessor. You need an A/D chip (included in a lot of
> >processors) and then use the output to point to a memory location of a
PROM.
> >The prom replies with the value in that location, which then goes to a
D/A
> >chip that converts it back into an analog voltage. If you have an 8-bit
> >A/D, certainly adequate for this purpose, you need 256 memory locations
in
> >the PROM programmed with values. Rudimentary, but works. All you need
is
> >someone with a PROM burner (you might be able to buy one at an antique
> >store).
>
> This works. The best thing about using the processor is
> the ability to build in self calibration routines. I've been
> thinking over how the uP approach would evolve into a product
> and have considered the problem of building the lookup tables.
>
> I think I'd put a switch on the linearizing board with three
> positions OPERATE-LEARN-(CAPTURE). The OPERATE position is
> self explanatory. Placing the switch to the mid position would
> cause the processor to go into a data entry mode. The program
> would assume that the first time you move to the CAPTURE position,
> your fuel tank has been drained down to zero usable fuel and
> the airplane is on blocks as needed to trim attitude to
> cruising flight. You add fuel equal to 5% of usable and
> hit CAPTURE again. Keep adding 5% quantities of fuel
> to the tank and hitting capture until you reach 100% and
> hit the switch for the 21st time.
>
> Move the switch back to OPERATE. Then adjust a potentiometer
> on the board to make whatever instrument you're using read
> 100% of full scale. The processor's learn software would
> do a linear interpolation of data points intermediate to
> the 5% values you've provided and build a lookup table
> that would slice up the input range into 256 parts to
> provide jitter free and accurate display of remaining
> fuel.
>
> This architecture allows a single product to address a
> wide variety of sender/instrument combinations. It also
> gives a owner the ability to calibrate the system without
> the need of additional tools or services from the
> supplier of the system.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low Voltage Schematic |
Hi Bob
On the Low Voltage Warning schematic Ref Z103 the LM285-2.5 diode has three
legs. Which one goes where? On the schematic R104 resistor is 4.7K on the
bill of materials it says 2.49K. Which one is correct?
Cash Copeland
RV6 Oakland, Ca
> Either would work here but 4.K is probably better.Thanks for the heads up.
Bob . . .
Bob I still need to know how the three leads on the LM285-2.5 diode are used
in the circuit.
Cash Copeland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator capacity/loading .... |
Thanks Bob.
Comments below ....
James
>
>
> Maybe. Do you have a loadmeter on the alternator or
> just a battery ammeter?
>
Van's ammeter that the drownstream side of the shut is connected to the
alternator and thus we get "0" when all is well. Some "+" amount when
alternator is feeding the battery with some significant current and some "-"
amount when the battery is having to be the source.
> Is this a new condition or has it always behaved this way?
I think it has always been there ... We have about 14 hours and I recently
noticed it when I turned on the lights at left them all on after landing.
>What size pulley are you using on the alternator.
I do not know what size pulley is used. Whatever Van's shipped.
> If you increase engine RPM to say 2,000 RPM, will the
> voltage come up and the light go out with all these
> same accessories running?
>
>
> >If I rev the engine up (don't remember how high I have to go) then all is
> >well.
>
> Oh, okay.
At about 1800 + RPM (definitely by 2000) all seems to be well.
>
>
> >My suspicion is that this alternator is not producing anything near rated
> >output at the lower RPMs.
>
> Still need to know about pulley size. Many builders have
> opted for oversized pulleys based on Van's recommendations.
> The notion was that the alternator will last longer at
> slower speeds.
>
> This is sort of true . . . but the reason turns out to be
> more a problem with rotor balance taking out bearings
> than a function of rapid wear out at higher alternator
> RPM.
>
> B&C leaves the small pulleys on and balances the rotors
> to very tight requirements. By and large, these
> alternators have a good chance of running the lifetime
> of the airplane and certainly the lifetime of the engine.
> Best yet, the small pulley gives you nice output at
> ramp idle and taxi speeds.
>
> Bob . . .
Again, thanks.
James
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Minimum crew during flyoff |
During the fly-off period, the Operating Limitations allow the use of a
second person "if required for the intended flight operation." Quote may
not be verbatim. I guess it isn't a quote, then. Oh, well, disregard the
quotation marks, but that is essentially what my Operating Limitations say
and I "think" they all do.
Sam Chambers
Glasgow, KY
Long-EZ N775AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Irvine" <wgirvine(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Minimum crew during flyoff
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
>
> > From what I'm been told, the minimum crew is the
> > pilot, period. The approved
> > use of a second person is a myth. If the FAA
> > approved the 2nd person, It
> > would then require this after the test period. You
> > would never be able to
> > fly solo.
>
>
> Can you quote this reg?
> Bill
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | New List Digest Feature!! [Please Read] |
Dear Listers,
I've added a new feature to the Digest format of the Lists tonight. At the
top of each digest you will find a new Index Listing of all of the messages
found within that Digest including the Message Number, Subject, Poster, and
Time of Day posted.
I've also added a "Message Number" header to each message within the Digest
so that its easy to find 'just the message' you were looking for!
Sorry for the double posting of the digests tonight - the first time I
didn't quite have the code right and a few "bogus" entries made it into the
Index. I went ahead and reposted the Digest so that everyone could see how
the Index-to-Message mapping really worked.
Special 'thanks' to Gary Hall for not only suggesting a Digest Index, but
also supplying a few samples on how it might look. Gary, I think you'll be
quite pleased with the format!
Don't forget that were right in the middle of this year's List Fund Raiser
and if you haven't already made your Contribution, you own it to yourself
to check out the great free Gifts that are available this year with your
qualifying Contribution.
The Lists are operated completely though the support of it members, and so
its up to YOU to get that credit card out and make that $20, $30, or $50
show of support for the continued operation of the Lists.
Won't you take a couple of minutes and make a quick Contribution on the all
new, streamlined List Support web site? I've also added a
Payment-through-PayPal option this year, and this is proving a very popular
method of payment. Don't forget to check out the great free gifts you can
get with a qualifying Contribution this year. I can't believe how popular
they've been this year! Hurry and get your's today and support the Lists
at the same time!
Here's the SSL Secure URL for making your Contribution:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your Support!!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator output |
>My suspicion is that this alternator is not producing anything near rated
>output at the lower RPMs.
It's more than a suspicion - it's a fact. Alternators are able to put out
current (at a constant voltage) that is roughly proportional to rpm up to
their rated current, which is at about 4,000 to 5,000 rpm. So if you have a
2:1 pulley ratio you will not be able to generate full current below about
2,000 rpm. At 1,000 engine rpm a "40 amp" alternator is capable of
producing about 20 amps. In cars alternators are sized so they might barely
keep up with demand at idle, but in aircraft the assumption is that full
continuous loads are only used in flight when the engine is turning more
than 2,000 rpm. Night operation on the ground might result in a low-voltage
light, which is considered acceptable (cars don't have low-voltage lights).
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Voltage Schematic |
>
>Hi Bob
>
>On the Low Voltage Warning schematic Ref Z103 the LM285-2.5 diode has three
>legs. Which one goes where? On the schematic R104 resistor is 4.7K on the
>bill of materials it says 2.49K. Which one is correct?
>
>Cash Copeland
>RV6 Oakland, Ca
>
> > Either would work here but 4.K is probably better.Thanks for the heads up.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>Bob I still need to know how the three leads on the LM285-2.5 diode are used
>in the circuit.
You can get the poopsheet on the part at
http://www.national.com/ds/LM/LM185-2.5.pdf
Basically, the two outside leads can go to ground,
the middle lead is "hot". This is one three-legged
part that works no matter which way you stick it into
the holes on your etched circuit board!
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Capen"<recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Coax bulkhead fittings |
Bob / et al,
Are the coax bulkhead fittings supposed to be isolated from the metal airframe
to prevent multiple ground paths or are they supposed to be grounded at their
attachments?
I am installing the coax for my VOR/LOC/GS antenna in the top of my VS and I'm
planning on a couple of bulkhead fittings to facilitate maintenance. I could
use regular male/female connectors with standoffs if necessary.
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
RV6A
wrote:
> "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
> "Jerry Kaidor"
> >
> >Bob Nuckolls wrote:
> >
> > > This works. The best thing about using
> the processor is
> > > the ability to build in self
> calibration routines. I've been
> > > thinking over how the uP approach would
> evolve into a product
> > > and have considered the problem of
> building the lookup tables.
> > >
> > > I think I'd put a switch on the
> linearizing board with three
> > > positions OPERATE-LEARN-(CAPTURE).
> >
> >*** The problem I see with this is the
> possibility of the gadget
> >"forgetting" its settings. I'd
> >be most comfortable if the thing could program
> its own flash. Or maybe a
> >serial EEPROM,
> >those don't take much wiring.
>
> The chip set I would contain program
> writable flash. All
> memory volatile and otherwise is on the one
> chip.
>
> Bob. . .
>
>
> This Month --
> Gifts!)
> Click on the Contribution
> year's Terrific Free Gifts!
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> Email Forum -
> the Contributions of
> ads or any other form
> Forums.
> view the latest messages.
> other List members.
> aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> http://www.matronics.com/
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: digital linearization "Software Magic" |
>
>
>Not to beat a dead horse, but once you've got the unit calibrated, the
>microprocessor would also allow you to make a poor man's fuel flow
>indicator. Just multiply the amount of fuel consumed each minute by 60 and
>you'll get fuel flow per hour. Of course, you'll need another instrument on
>your panel to display the calculated flow value - or maybe an indicator that
>illuminates when the fuel flow exceeds some preset level.
>
>Not as accurate as the instantaneous readings one gets from a flow sensor in
>the fuel line, but it would definitely show you if you've left the fuel cap
>off and you're siphoning fuel overboard.
>
>Ken Brown
That's the magic of software. For decades we've had to work
within the confines of limited sensor capabilities hardwired
to equally limited displays. Once you stick a microprocessor
in the loop, the ways in which you can use data grow
tremendously.
For example, you can add the "low fuel" warning light output
with a few lines of code in the processor. You can use the
level sensing system to command fuel transfer systems that
keep right and left sides equalized. And, as you've noted
above, you can raise warning flags should fuel consumption
rates fall outside practical limits. All these super-whizzy
features add but a few percent to the cost of the hardware
over and above the basic fuel quantity display.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Capen"<recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Coax bulkhead fittings |
Sorry for the repost - found it in the archives...
> Capen"
>
> Bob / et al,
>
> Are the coax bulkhead fittings supposed to be
> isolated from the metal airframe
> to prevent multiple ground paths or are they
> supposed to be grounded at their
> attachments?
>
> I am installing the coax for my VOR/LOC/GS
> antenna in the top of my VS and I'm
> planning on a couple of bulkhead fittings to
> facilitate maintenance. I could
> use regular male/female connectors with
> standoffs if necessary.
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph Capen
> RV6A
>
> Nuckolls, III"
> wrote:
>
> > "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >
> > "Jerry Kaidor"
> > >
> > >Bob Nuckolls wrote:
> > >
> > > > This works. The best thing about
> using
> > the processor is
> > > > the ability to build in self
> > calibration routines. I've been
> > > > thinking over how the uP approach
> would
> > evolve into a product
> > > > and have considered the problem of
> > building the lookup tables.
> > > >
> > > > I think I'd put a switch on the
> > linearizing board with three
> > > > positions OPERATE-LEARN-(CAPTURE).
> > >
> > >*** The problem I see with this is the
> > possibility of the gadget
> > >"forgetting" its settings. I'd
> > >be most comfortable if the thing could
> program
> > its own flash. Or maybe a
> > >serial EEPROM,
> > >those don't take much wiring.
> >
> > The chip set I would contain program
> > writable flash. All
> > memory volatile and otherwise is on the
> one
> > chip.
> >
> > Bob. . .
> >
> >
> > This Month --
> > Gifts!)
> > Click on the Contribution
> > year's Terrific Free Gifts!
> > -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> > Email Forum -
> > the Contributions of
> > ads or any other form
> > Forums.
> > view the latest messages.
> > other List members.
> > aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> > http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> > http://www.matronics.com/search
> > http://www.matronics.com/archives
> > http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> > http://www.matronics.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> This Month --
> Gifts!)
> Click on the Contribution
> year's Terrific Free Gifts!
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> Email Forum -
> the Contributions of
> ads or any other form
> Forums.
> view the latest messages.
> other List members.
> aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> http://www.matronics.com/
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Minimum crew during flyoff |
I evidently was not correct. Here is what the EAA has written on the subject.
FLIGHT INSTRUCTION DURING THE FLIGHT TEST PHASE OF AN
AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT
Many members have asked, "Can I receive flight instruction in my new homebuilt
during the flight testing phase of its operating limitations?"
EAA
EAA discourages anyone from receiving flight training in his or her experimental
amateur-built aircraft during the flight test phase of its operating limitations.
Flying homebuilt aircraft is not inherently dangerous however, flight testing
is a serious business. If you are not comfortable with your flight currency
in your new aircraft, do not fly it. The flight testing phase of an amateur-built
aircraft is the most likely time that an in-flight emergency will occur
and there is no reason to endanger two rather than one person.
FAA
The FAA states that during the flight testing phase, "No person may be carried
in this aircraft during flight unless that person is essential to the purpose
of the flight and has been advised of the content of this authorization and of
the airworthiness status of the aircraft." So what does this mean? There is
no black or white answer to this question. If you are in an accident in the
first few hours of flight time, the FAA may violate you under 91.13 for careless
and reckless operation of an aircraft. Further FAA Advisory Circular 20-27D
states, "Flight instruction will not be allowed in the aircraft while in the
flight test area."
The FAA has, however, allowed some dual flight after the initial test flights have
been completed as long as the additional pilot is deemed as required for the
flight. What is considered to be sufficient initial test flights to not warrant
a violation under 91.13 is a judgment call of an FAA inspector.
MANUFACTURERS
A number of the larger kit manufacturers maintain aircraft in the "experimental
crew training" category, in which they can charge for the aircraft used for instruction
and or maintain a company demonstration aircraft, in which they only
charge for the instructor, not the aircraft.
WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?
Consult an EAA Flight Advisor. An EAA Flight Advisor can help you determine your
best course of action. If you are not ready to solo the aircraft, an EAA Flight
Advisor can help you find a test pilot to do the initial flights, find a
fellow EAA member with the same model aircraft in which you can receive dual
time, or help you develop a training plan that would simulate your aircraft's
characteristics. Finally, if available, go to the factory to receive training
in the factory aircraft.
TRAINING EXEMPTION
During their August 1997 meeting, the NTSB recommended to the FAA that it revise
its policies and or rules to make it easier for builders to receive instruction
in an experimental aircraft model similar to the one they have built prior
to flying their own aircraft. The NTSB suggested that under conditions to be
determined by the FAA, some experimental amateur-built aircraft could be rented
for the purpose of flight training. A training exepmtion has been granted
to the EAA,NAFI,SAMA allowing the compensation
gov/testphas.doc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Chambers" <schamber@glasgow-ky.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Minimum crew during flyoff
>
> During the fly-off period, the Operating Limitations allow the use of a
> second person "if required for the intended flight operation." Quote may
> not be verbatim. I guess it isn't a quote, then. Oh, well, disregard the
> quotation marks, but that is essentially what my Operating Limitations say
> and I "think" they all do.
>
> Sam Chambers
> Glasgow, KY
> Long-EZ N775AM
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Irvine" <wgirvine(at)yahoo.com>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Minimum crew during flyoff
>
>
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
> >
> > > From what I'm been told, the minimum crew is the
> > > pilot, period. The approved
> > > use of a second person is a myth. If the FAA
> > > approved the 2nd person, It
> > > would then require this after the test period. You
> > > would never be able to
> > > fly solo.
> >
> >
> > Can you quote this reg?
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Miller <rmill2000(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Minimum crew during flyoff |
I went through the FAA Inspection in September. The Inspector from Fresno
FSDO brought up the issue and was very pointed, "You are not to have
anyone else in this aircraft except the pilot during the first 25 hours.
No traffic spotters, no data collectors, no one else, period. Is that
clear?"
This guy was very pleasant throughout the entire inspection but he was
very blunt when this subject was discussed. I believe him.
Rob Miller N262RM Finally Flying!
--- Bill Irvine wrote:
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
>
> > From what I'm been told, the minimum crew is the
> > pilot, period. The approved
> > use of a second person is a myth. If the FAA
> > approved the 2nd person, It
> > would then require this after the test period. You
> > would never be able to
> > fly solo.
>
>
> Can you quote this reg?
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> Contribution
> _->
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Coax bulkhead fittings |
>
>Bob / et al,
>
>Are the coax bulkhead fittings supposed to be isolated from the metal airframe
>to prevent multiple ground paths or are they supposed to be grounded at their
>attachments?
>
>I am installing the coax for my VOR/LOC/GS antenna in the top of my VS and I'm
>planning on a couple of bulkhead fittings to facilitate maintenance. I could
>use regular male/female connectors with standoffs if necessary.
>
>Thanks,
>Ralph Capen
>RV6A
It's only in very special cases where it's
necessary or advisable to isolate bulkhead fittings
from the airframe. I wouldn't worry about it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Yamokoski" <yamokosk(at)lmc.cc.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Radio/Intercom Noise |
Hi Folks,
Still digging around trying to get at the root of my radio noise. I was finally
able to hear what my radio sounds like....The headset mike (brand new Lightspeed
20XL) seems to pick up every ambient noise within 10 feet of the airplane.
I could hear the engine growling away quite clearly....not electrical
noise, the engine itself. A perusal through the archives showed Bob's opinion
that the mike itself could be the problem, some being much better than others
at dealing with ambient noise. Have any of you Lightspeed owners had a mike
problem? One lister mentioned the possibility of adjusting the mike gain at
the headset. I'm not sure how that can be done. I've got the MicroAir 760
and Flightcom 430 intercom. I want to satisfy myself that the mike itself
is not the problem before tackling the radio mike gain. Thanks for any thoughts
on this.
Bill Yamokoski
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Coax bulkhead fittings |
Coaxial bulkhead connectors are designed to be double nutted as they pass
through the hole in a bulkhead. and thus are expected to be securely
grounded...
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Coax bulkhead fittings
Capen"
>
> Sorry for the repost - found it in the archives...
>
wrote:
>
> > Capen"
> >
> > Bob / et al,
> >
> > Are the coax bulkhead fittings supposed to be
> > isolated from the metal airframe
> > to prevent multiple ground paths or are they
> > supposed to be grounded at their
> > attachments?
> >
> > I am installing the coax for my VOR/LOC/GS
> > antenna in the top of my VS and I'm
> > planning on a couple of bulkhead fittings to
> > facilitate maintenance. I could
> > use regular male/female connectors with
> > standoffs if necessary.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ralph Capen
> > RV6A
> >
> > Nuckolls, III"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> > >
> > > "Jerry Kaidor"
> > > >
> > > >Bob Nuckolls wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This works. The best thing about
> > using
> > > the processor is
> > > > > the ability to build in self
> > > calibration routines. I've been
> > > > > thinking over how the uP approach
> > would
> > > evolve into a product
> > > > > and have considered the problem of
> > > building the lookup tables.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think I'd put a switch on the
> > > linearizing board with three
> > > > > positions OPERATE-LEARN-(CAPTURE).
> > > >
> > > >*** The problem I see with this is the
> > > possibility of the gadget
> > > >"forgetting" its settings. I'd
> > > >be most comfortable if the thing could
> > program
> > > its own flash. Or maybe a
> > > >serial EEPROM,
> > > >those don't take much wiring.
> > >
> > > The chip set I would contain program
> > > writable flash. All
> > > memory volatile and otherwise is on the
> > one
> > > chip.
> > >
> > > Bob. . .
> > >
> > >
> > > This Month --
> > > Gifts!)
> > > Click on the Contribution
> > > year's Terrific Free Gifts!
> > > -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> > > Email Forum -
> > > the Contributions of
> > > ads or any other form
> > > Forums.
> > > view the latest messages.
> > > other List members.
> > > aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > > http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> > > http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> > > http://www.matronics.com/search
> > > http://www.matronics.com/archives
> > > http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> > > http://www.matronics.com/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > This Month --
> > Gifts!)
> > Click on the Contribution
> > year's Terrific Free Gifts!
> > -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> > Email Forum -
> > the Contributions of
> > ads or any other form
> > Forums.
> > view the latest messages.
> > other List members.
> > aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> > http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> > http://www.matronics.com/search
> > http://www.matronics.com/archives
> > http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> > http://www.matronics.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Radio/Intercom Noise |
This is going to sound stupid so don't take it the wrong way.
Noise cancelling microphones have a pickup point (hole) on the back side
of the mike. This pickup point is to sample ambient noise and subtract
it from your spoken voice coming in the front side of the mike. Some
mikes have larger holes on their backsides that can look like the front
side of the mike. So, please make sure you're talking into the correct
side of the microphone.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
William Yamokoski
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio/Intercom Noise
Hi Folks,
Still digging around trying to get at the root of my radio noise. I
was finally able to hear what my radio sounds like....The headset mike
(brand new Lightspeed 20XL) seems to pick up every ambient noise within
10 feet of the airplane. I could hear the engine growling away quite
clearly....not electrical noise, the engine itself. A perusal through
the archives showed Bob's opinion that the mike itself could be the
problem, some being much better than others at dealing with ambient
noise. Have any of you Lightspeed owners had a mike problem? One
lister mentioned the possibility of adjusting the mike gain at the
headset. I'm not sure how that can be done. I've got the MicroAir
760 and Flightcom 430 intercom. I want to satisfy myself that the mike
itself is not the problem before tackling the radio mike gain. Thanks
for any thoughts on this.
Bill Yamokoski
October 31, 2002 - November 05, 2002
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-bi