AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-bk

November 17, 2002 - November 28, 2002



      >     work out a way to mount the regulator back there too,
      >     wire it with more appropriate wire and add OV protection.
      >
      >     Bob . . .
      >
      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator, ammeter questions ....
> >This is an old Chrysler unit. I'll take it back first thing Monday morning. >Wish I could find a simple 2-terminal transistorized unit. Looked through ALL >the guy's illustrated catalogs and didn't see a damn thing I could really use. . . . probably 'cause you didn't know that "extra" terminals sometimes don't create a problem . . . >Bummer. Guess I'll go to wreck yard and get a jap alternator with internal >regulator. Trouble is, anything under 10-12 years old has serpentine belts so >I'll have to make a pulley. >Thanks .... Jim S. How about a 4-wire regulator that you only hook two wires to? Check out http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/VR166.JPG you can buy one of these for cheap at http://www.globemotorists.com/TVI%20Products/tvi_voltage_regulators.htm but I've purchased them through local stores for $7 to $22 in various brands. All worked just fine. Be sure you have good OV protection with this or any other alternator/regulator combination. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Electrical system drawings posted
> > >> >>Yeah, I could save as pdfs, using OS X's built in pdf generator. >>They'll be one page per file though, as each one is a separate >>document, and I don't want to mess around figuring out how to >>concatenate them. >> >>I'll start converting them later on tonight. I'll load them onto my >>server, and post a message back here with the URL once they're up. > > Kevin, I have Acrobat 5.0 and can put the collection > together into a single document if you wish. If you'd > put them together into a single .zip file so I can > download them, I'll be glad to assemble them and > put the new file up where you can snatch it. > > Bob . . . > Thanks for the offer Bob, but its probably not worth the trouble at this stage. The drawing are very much a work-in-progress. It seems like every other time I use them I make ink additions or corrections, and I go back and update the electronic version periodically. Mostly the changes are to make the wire numbers or component identifications consistent between the drawings and the indexes. Maybe once I've finished all the electrical system installation I'll consider them to be frozen and then it would make sense to combine them into one document. -- Kevin Horton RV-8 (baffles, induction air, oil cooler) Ottawa, Canada http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: "Jim V. Wickert" <JimW_btg(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: LED position lights
Jim, I believe the formula for conversion of the LED intensity from mcd to Lumens is( current in ma x mcd = lumens). This is what I have seen listed in several suppliters specs? Typical bright white LED was @20mA(mcd rating)=3000 Lumens. Jim W ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N823ms(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 17, 2002
Subject: colors/sizes
Bob: Any colors you like. I prefer white for all wires. Colors add a little convenience but a LOT of hassle in procurement and effort in trying to adhere to a standard once you adopt one. I stock a few colors for my ready to install harnesses and other products but only enough to make it easy for me to do an installation drawing that's clear for my customer to use. If I were wiring my own airplane, I wouldn't make any special effort to color the wires. OK so I will order white; now how much wire should I order 50,' 100' and white gauge wire should I order,i.e. 12,14,16,18,20,22,24? What would be a good common assortment? As I mentioned to you before, Lancair sells a kit with various gauges for $300.00. What do you recommend? Thanks, Ed Silvanic Lancair ES ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: LED position lights
> > >Jim, > >I believe the formula for conversion of the LED intensity from mcd to >Lumens is( current in ma x mcd = lumens). This is what I have seen listed >in several suppliters specs? Typical bright white LED was @20mA(mcd >rating)=3000 Lumens. > >Jim W Check out http://www.pge.com/003_save_energy/003b_bus/pdf/lit_measure.pdf Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator, ammeter questions ....
<... probably 'cause you didn't know that "extra" terminals sometimes don't create a problem . . .> Knew that. Couldn't find out which terminals were which. Like just the very solid state regulator I'm looking for, with a 4-wire harness coming out to a custom plug. No labels, vague references to applications in the 70s and 80s. Or two wires with different terminals, no labels, vague application information. <... How about a 4-wire regulator that you only hook two wires to? Check out http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/VR166.JPG ...> Perfect! Looks like I jump the "A" and "S" terminals together as regulator input. Is this unit the VR-101 listed on the TVI site? I could find no application guide on their online catalog. <... Be sure you have good OV protection with this or any other alternator/regulator combination ...> I've heard of that. How does it work? Where do I get one? Thanks a bunch! Feel like I'm finally getting somewhere. Jim S. "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > > > > >This is an old Chrysler unit. I'll take it back first thing Monday morning. > >Wish I could find a simple 2-terminal transistorized unit. Looked through ALL > >the guy's illustrated catalogs and didn't see a damn thing I could really use. > > . . . probably 'cause you didn't know that "extra" terminals > sometimes don't create a problem . . . > > >Bummer. Guess I'll go to wreck yard and get a jap alternator with internal > >regulator. Trouble is, anything under 10-12 years old has serpentine belts so > >I'll have to make a pulley. > >Thanks .... Jim S. > > How about a 4-wire regulator that you only hook two > wires to? Check out > http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/VR166.JPG > > you can buy one of these for cheap at > http://www.globemotorists.com/TVI%20Products/tvi_voltage_regulators.htm > > but I've purchased them through local stores for > $7 to $22 in various brands. All worked just fine. > Be sure you have good OV protection with this or > any other alternator/regulator combination. > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: LED position lights redux
> > > > > > > >Jim, > > > >I believe the formula for conversion of the LED intensity from mcd to > >Lumens is( current in ma x mcd = lumens). This is what I have seen listed > >in several suppliters specs? Typical bright white LED was @20mA(mcd > >rating)=3000 Lumens. > > > >Jim W > > Check out http://www.pge.com/003_save_energy/003b_bus/pdf/lit_measure.pdf > > Bob . . . I quoted the link above in a hurry . . . it's a fair discussion of light measurement but suffers from slightly tortured semantics. Here are some better discussions. http://www.electro-optical.com/whitepapers/candela.htm Here's a nice link to folks who work in LED technologies http://www.ledtronics.com/pages/downloads/light_measurement_terms.pdf Here's a site that specializes in replacing incandescent lamps with LEDs . . http://www.theledlight.com/ and some discussions on the physics of light measurement http://www.theledlight.com/lumens.html who also offers to source some killer leds at: http://www.theledlight.com/led-specs.html another lucid discussion of quantifying light http://www.intl-light.com/handbook/intens.html |-------------------------------------------------------| | The man who does not read good books has no advantage | | over the man who cannot read them. | | - Mark Twain | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: James Robinson <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net>
Subject: Re: LR-3
Bob Does the LR-3 warning light output indicate over voltage and low voltage. Jim Robinson N79R getting close ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: re: Alternator, ammeter questions ....
> ><... probably 'cause you didn't know that "extra" terminals sometimes >don't create a problem >. . .> >Knew that. Couldn't find out which terminals were which. Like just the >very solid state >regulator I'm looking for, with a 4-wire harness coming out to a custom >plug. No labels, >vague references to applications in the 70s and 80s. Or two wires with >different terminals, >no labels, vague application information. > ><... How about a 4-wire regulator that you only hook two wires to? Check out > http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/VR166.JPG ...> >Perfect! Looks like I jump the "A" and "S" terminals together as >regulator input. Is this >unit the VR-101 listed on the TVI site? No, the VR166 . . . > I could find no application guide on their online >catalog. It's just a catalog. Alternator regulators for automotive applications are pretty generic. I've designed perhaps a dozen regulators that have gone into production for aviation. I don't recall becoming aware of any situation where one of my regulators didn't work in a mix-n-match situation with any alternator. ><... Be sure you have good OV protection with this or any other >alternator/regulator >combination ...> >I've heard of that. How does it work? Where do I get one? Goto http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html and find article on "Roll-ur-Own Crowbar OV Module". Also download the appendix Z update for Revision 10 and look over the power distribution diagrams where you will find various examples of how the Crowbar OV Module is used both for alternator runaway protection and protection from the wrong voltage from a ground power cart. >Thanks a bunch! Feel like I'm finally getting somewhere. That's what were here for. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net>
Subject: Re: LED position lights
Jim, So a Radio Shack 5000 mcd LED that draws 36 ma max (say 30 normal) at 2.0 volts gives off 150,000 lumens. bundle up 6 or 7 of these and you've got nearly a million lumens. How does that compare to the incandescent bulbs we're using now?? Sounds like a lot to me, but I don't remember how big a lumen is .... Jim S. "Jim V. Wickert" wrote: > > Jim, > > I believe the formula for conversion of the LED intensity from mcd to > Lumens is( current in ma x mcd = lumens). This is what I have seen listed > in several suppliters specs? Typical bright white LED was @20mA(mcd > rating)=3000 Lumens. > > Jim W > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Electrical system drawings posted
> >Thanks for the offer Bob, but its probably not worth the trouble at >this stage. The drawing are very much a work-in-progress. It seems >like every other time I use them I make ink additions or corrections, >and I go back and update the electronic version periodically. Mostly >the changes are to make the wire numbers or component identifications >consistent between the drawings and the indexes. Maybe once I've >finished all the electrical system installation I'll consider them to >be frozen and then it would make sense to combine them into one >document. What ever works for you. I wouldn't mind doing it several times as your project evolves. I think it's important for examples of clear reasoning and good craftsmanship to be made available for those who are interested in learning how it's done. If I can assist in the process of making a good piece of work visible to the greatest number of folks, then it's time well spent. Holler if I can help. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: Dennis Golden <dgolden@golden-consulting.com>
Subject: Re: LED position lights
John & Amy Eckel wrote: > > As a start do a search on position/clearance lights for trucks. > There are many in different shapes and colors. I too am > interested is using LEDs, but it will be awhile before I am ready. > John There was a company that had various versions of LED lights including position lights at OSH a few years ago. I haven't seen anything since, so I'm guessing that they never were approved. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson(at)climber.org> > To: > Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED position lights > > > >> >> I just noted that the position light draw 3.5 amps each. Can anyone >>help me figure out how to convert out how to convert to LED lights >>that will give similar lumens? >> >>Thanks, Paul Regards, Dennis -- Dennis Golden Golden Consulting Services, Inc. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: colors/sizes
> >Bob: > > > Any colors you like. I prefer white for all wires. Colors > add a little convenience but a LOT of hassle in procurement > and effort in trying to adhere to a standard once you > adopt one. I stock a few colors for my ready to install > harnesses and other products but only enough to make > it easy for me to do an installation drawing that's > clear for my customer to use. If I were wiring my own > airplane, I wouldn't make any special effort to color > the wires. > > OK so I will order white; now how much wire should I order 50,' 100' >and white gauge wire should I order,i.e. 12,14,16,18,20,22,24? What would be >a good common assortment? As I mentioned to you before, Lancair sells a kit >with various gauges for $300.00. What do you recommend? I'd be surprised if you spend more than $300 to do the whole airplane including terminals contactors, connectors, switches and circuit protection. There's no way I could accurately recommend an "assortment" that would fit any particular project. Wire is cheap. I'd lay in a couple hundred feet of 22AWG, perhaps 80 feet of 20AWG and then measure requirements for the rest. You've done a load analysis (that I still need to get back to) and you know more about what your wire requirement are than anyone. Each device on power distribution needs wire from the bus to perhaps a switch and then out to the device and back to ground. Estimate how much say 14AWG you're going need for the pitot heater, add 10' to that and buy it. It's the same process for the rest of the less than skinny wires (20 and 22AWG). 90% of your wiring will be the skinny wires with the rest being distributed over the range of 2 to 18AWG based on a very few systems that carry more than 5 or 7 amps. Make a list of goodies, establish wire routes, lay the tape measure to them, add a few feet for good measure and add it to your purchasing list. The very worst thing that happens is you need to make a few phone calls and order some more wire . . . you'll spend more time trying to accurately predict how much to order than it takes to just string 'em into place and go get some more if you run out. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: LED position lights
><dgolden@golden-consulting.com> > >John & Amy Eckel wrote: > > > > > As a start do a search on position/clearance lights for trucks. > > There are many in different shapes and colors. I too am > > interested is using LEDs, but it will be awhile before I am ready. > > John > >There was a company that had various versions of LED lights including >position lights at OSH a few years ago. I haven't seen anything since, >so I'm guessing that they never were approved. . . . or never produced the quality of light to be considered for "approval". The only commercially available LED position light I am aware of is made my Whelen and for the moment, it is offered only in white. See. http://www.whelen.com/pdfs/11182.pdf and http://www.whelen.com/hires/70805.jpg You don't want to know what this thing costs! After several years of butting heads with our favorite flying fuzz the device is now being used on the Beechjet in hopes that it will cure a long standing issue with lamp life on the tail of this airplane (which I believe is a acoustic vibration problem). Other colors need to toe the mark with respect to color, intensity and coverage in order to meet with TSO requirements for certification. Believe me, there are folks with pretty deep pockets funded by your purchases of TSO'd hardware that are diligently working these issues. I would hope that nobody doing an OBAM aircraft has illusions of getting "approved" with any sort of experimental substitute for the venerable and holy-watered fixtures rooted in nearly a century of tradition. I truly encourage anyone with an interest in pursuing the possibilities to study what's out there and even craft substitutes acceptable to YOU as the builder and flyer of the airplane. To strive and hope for "blessings" at this stage of relationship between those who write rules and those who choose to obey is certain to be a disappointing expenditure of your time and money. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N823ms(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 17, 2002
Subject: wire order
Bob: Thanks for your reply on the wire. I will take a look at the wirebook I am trying to create. I probably should have started there in the first place. Thanks for the homework. Regards, Ed Silvanic N823MS Lancair ES ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Chalmers <David(at)ChalmersFamily.com>
Subject: LED lumens
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From reading the links Bob posted, I don't think this is correct. mcd stands for milli-candela. i.e. 1000 mcd = 1 candela. Candela is the light intensity in one direction. To get lumens you need to sum the light output in all directions. Referring to http://www.intl-light.com/handbook/intens.html, if a source emits 1 candela in all directions then it is generating 12.6 lumens. I don't believe that multiplying by the current will tell you anything useful. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jim V. Wickert [mailto:JimW_btg(at)compuserve.com] Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LED position lights Jim, I believe the formula for conversion of the LED intensity from mcd to Lumens is( current in ma x mcd = lumens). This is what I have seen listed in several suppliters specs? Typical bright white LED was @20mA(mcd rating)=3000 Lumens. Jim W http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: Matt Prather <mprather(at)spro.net>
Subject: Re: LED position lights
You might consider looking at http://www.goodrich-hella.com. They list LED nav light asseblies in both red and green. In the search window at the top right, enter 2LA 455 358-00. I don't know if they are actually being sold anywhere. Additionally, they are 28V lights, which would add a further challenge. Power-wise, they are great, at only 7W. None the less, it may be a case of deciding what your time is worth when reinventing the wheel. Matt Prather N34RD Paul Wilson wrote: > > I just noted that the position light draw 3.5 amps each. Can anyone >help me figure out how to convert out how to convert to LED lights >that will give similar lumens? > >Thanks, Paul > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: Paul Wilson <pwilson(at)climber.org>
Subject: Re: LED position lights
All these references are interesting and enlightening but something does not play. Lumileds is bragging about their 17 lumen LED saying its a break thru. My handbook indicates that typical tungsten 25 watt bulb would produce 266, 1170 or 1750 lumens. Thus it would take 16 or more of the 17 lumen LED's to match the not so bright tungsten bulb. I would never be able to package them in my Whelen wing tip units. This is a guess, but pretty much confirmed by the Whelen LED array used for this purpose. See the units picture at http://www.whelen.com/hires/70805.jpg. I do not know about the conversions below but the result is very high lumens. I guess its like Bob said its a big problem to replace the tungsten bulbs with LEDs with any chance of getting it correct. I guess my solution is to revert to the second alternator to get enough amps. Not an easy fix for a belt drive on the Rotax 912 and a tight cowl but its just mechanical so it is doable. Thanks for all the input. Paul =================== > >Jim, >So a Radio Shack 5000 mcd LED that draws 36 ma max (say 30 normal) >at 2.0 volts gives off 150,000 lumens. bundle up 6 or 7 of these >and you've got nearly a million lumens. How does that compare to >the incandescent bulbs we're using now?? Sounds like a lot to me, >but I don't remember how big a lumen is .... Jim S. > > >"Jim V. Wickert" wrote: > >> >> >> Jim, >> >> I believe the formula for conversion of the LED intensity from mcd to > > Lumens is( current in ma x mcd = lumens). This is what I have >seen listed in several suppliters specs? Typical bright white LED >was @20mA(mcd rating)=3000 Lumens. > > > > Jim W >> -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stan Blanton" <stanb(at)door.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator field breaker trips update
Date: Nov 17, 2002
snip > > > > > > > >I'm looking for help with diagnosing the cause of a tripped > >alternator > > > >field > > > > > >breaker on a Cherokee 235. > > > > > > > >snip > > > > > >I checked the field voltage this morning. No discernable output from the > >ammeter between 500-1900 rpm with all possible loads applied. Bus vaoltage > >was about 11.7 - 11.8v with engine off / 11.2 with engine running. > >Field voltage was between 4.4 - 4.55v taken directly off the field terminal > >of the Chrysler alternator. > > snip > > A with the bus voltage this low, a properly working regulator would > be applying full bus voltage to the alternator. The 4.5 volt reading > suggests the regulator is bad. This does not jive with a tripping > breaker . . . > > I'd do a temporary installation of a generic Ford regulator > to see if the alternator comes back alive. If it does, replace > the regulator. > > There MAY be something else going on that trips the breaker. > Let's see what happens after the alternator is back up and > running. > > Bob . . . > While I had the cowling off to check the field voltage I went ahead and pulled the alternator. I took it to a shop and had it tested. The shop said it had a short in the rotor. When I picked it up after repair the shop said they had replaced everything inside including the field windings, diodes, and rotor - everything in fact but the housing and pulley. A ground test and short flight both had bus voltage between 13.85 & 14.15v. Problem seems to be solved for now. Thanks for all the help, Stan Blanton ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
Subject: E Buss
Date: Nov 17, 2002
Hi Bob, I am building a Europa and I have been giving my approach to wiring some more thought of late. I like the concept of an essential bus, but the panel in the Europa does not lend its self well to mounting two fuse blocks. Actually a lot of people use a few panel mounted circuit breakers and leave it at that. I have managed to mount a 24 fuse block, but adding a second one somewhere would be a real pain. I was wondering if I used a main contactor with a low "hold in" current would I be giving much up not having an essential bus? If I had in in-flight failure of the PM alternator I could turn off all but the essential things for continued flight. Am I missing something here ? I'd appreciate your views. Thanks & regards Paul McAllister http://europa363.versadev.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: LR-3 warning light
> > >Bob > >Does the LR-3 warning light output indicate over voltage >and low voltage. The LR-3's warning light comes on any time the bus voltage drops below 13.0 volts . . . it annunciates only low voltage. Low voltage can happen for lots of reasons having to do with failure of some part in the system that renders the alternator incapable of doing its job. Interestingly enough, an over voltage condition does the same thing . . . because in a few tens of milliseconds after onset of an OV condition, your OV protection system should operate and render the alternator incapable of doing its job. So, while the light annunciates only a low voltage condition, an overvoltage condition is over so quickly that there is no value or reason to annunciate it . . . 'cause a low voltage condition is the ultimate, steady-state condition very soon thereafter. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DWENSING(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 17, 2002
Subject: Re: CHT & EGT connectors
I have the Rocky Mountain engine monitor. The connectors supplied for the EGT and CHT probes seam too large to use with the small wires of the probes. Could other RMI engine monitor users comment on their success or lack of it using the supplied "bullet" connectors. Does anybody have experience with other connectors for this application? Dale Ensing ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2002
From: Tammy and Mike Salzman <arrow54t(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: colors/sizes
Ed, What is working well for me so far is to take your schematics and look at each wire, one by one. (The schematics need to be complete before you buy any wire.) Think about where that wire will be run, just get close here, don't try to get it exact because it will take you too long to get through it all. You need to do this anyway in order to size the wires. Use AC 43-13, you need the current and length to get size (AWG) required (don't forget the ground wires). Make an Excel database and you can total all the like sizes when you are done. I printed out my schematics and marked each wire with a hilighter pen as I went along to prevent counting one twice. Once you have completed the database add about 25% more to the total lengths for practice and uh-ohs. Good luck, Mike Salzman LNCE Fairfield, CA --- N823ms(at)aol.com wrote: . > > OK so I will order white; now how much wire should I order > 50,' 100' > and white gauge wire should I order,i.e. 12,14,16,18,20,22,24? What > would be > a good common assortment? As I mentioned to you before, Lancair sells > a kit > with various gauges for $300.00. What do you recommend? > > Thanks, > > Ed Silvanic > Lancair ES > > > > Contribution > Gifts! > _-> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net>
Subject: Re: CHT & EGT connectors
Date: Nov 17, 2002
> I have the Rocky Mountain engine monitor. The connectors > supplied for the EGT > and CHT probes seam too large to use with the small wires of > the probes. > Could other RMI engine monitor users comment on their success > or lack of it > using the supplied "bullet" connectors. Does anybody have > experience with > other connectors for this application? I recall stripping several times the necessary length of wire, and tripling it over on itself prior to crimping. Alex Peterson Maple Grove, MN RV6-A N66AP 229 hours www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)attbi.com>
Subject: Ground noise in thermocouple CHT
Date: Nov 17, 2002
Bob, I've just designed my first PC board using ExpressPCB, for the purpose of setting up 6 thermocouple(TC) amplifiers. I used the AD596, which is optimised for a circuit temperature of 25 to 100 C, but is otherwise about identical to the AD594 which you have used. The application note says that there must be a ground return for some tiny bias current to flow, and if the thermocouple isn't grounded to the engine, then one side of the thermocouple should be connected to ground on the AD596. The app note for the AD594/5 says the same thing, except it mentions use of a resistor of up to 1000 ohms so that noise won't be all converted to differential mode. In other words, the amp will still have some common mode rejection left. How often does a thermocouple probe have significant and variable resistance to ground? Can I just leave this resistor out? If I need it, should I make it larger than 1000 ohms? The larger it is, the greater the offset error-a constant which I hardly care about- and the greater the common mode rejection. The fraction of the common mode noise converted to differential is proportional to the resistance of the thermocouple wire divided by the resistance of the thermocouple wire plus the resistor to ground. Input bias current is listed as 0.1 microamp, so a 1000 ohm resistor would give an offset of 0.1 mv which is only 0.01 degree in the 10 mv per degree scale. Also, even though I will use a single point ground for power, the TC is clearly *not* a single point ground, and the bias resistor, if installed, might lead to ground loop problems---hmmm, this is not clear. The instrumentation amp in the AD596 is there precisely to null out ground loop problems inherent to the grounded TC probe, and I can't make it worse with this bias resistor, can I? I put the mounting points for the resistor in the PCB, but I don't need to use it. The 6 amps fit on a PC board that is 1.9 by 2.5 inches. The TO-100 can for the AD596 really saves space. My minimum order for PC boards will give me six of these boards, unless I redesign to put a DB9 connector on the board. I'm feeding the output of this into a Blue Mountain EFIS/One, so there is no easy way to multiplex the channels. Jim Foerster ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Overheating 10 AWG fan wire fused for 30 amps
>Bob, > >Thanks for the reply & I'm glad my e-mail sparked (no pun intended) >something good for you. > >One last thing: The "fast-on" tabs (unplated, for sure) are integral to the >Ford "resistor block", so I can't eliminate them. So, again, would some >kind of "conductive jelly" or silicone rubber "potting" be a reasonable >approach for sealing/reducing corrosion of the fast-on tab (which will have >a B&C plated PIDG female fast-on instead of the Ford end)? Silicon grease might help. >I throught of a recent thread which would suggest running two parallel wires >to carry the load but can't since there's only one fast-on tab on the >resistor block for each side of the circuit. I have to deal with the male >fast-on tab by trying to reduce corrosion. Better yet, solder the hummers on. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ken Harrill <KHarrill(at)osa.state.sc.us>
Subject: Re: 12 Ah battery anyone?
Date: Nov 18, 2002
I just purchased a Panasonic 20 AH battery from DigiKey for $41.00 plus $8 shipping. This battery has the same physical dimensions as the 17/18 AH batteries Ken Harrill RV-6, 110 hours Columbia, SC Give it a try . . . it can't do anything worse than fall short of your expectations. Personally, I'd stay with the 18 ah battery for one reason . . . cost of ownership. This particular form factor of RG battery is so popular and made by so many different companies that they've become available from lots of sources and at attractive prices. I think the opportunities for lowering cost of ownership with the 18 ah package are a better. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Ground noise in thermocouple CHT
> > >Bob, > I've just designed my first PC board using ExpressPCB, for the purpose >of setting up 6 thermocouple(TC) amplifiers. I used the AD596, which is >optimised for a circuit temperature of 25 to 100 C, but is otherwise about >identical to the AD594 which you have used. The application note says that >there must be a ground return for some tiny bias current to flow, and if the >thermocouple isn't grounded to the engine, then one side of the thermocouple >should be connected to ground on the AD596. The app note for the AD594/5 >says the same thing, except it mentions use of a resistor of up to 1000 ohms >so that noise won't be all converted to differential mode. In other words, >the amp will still have some common mode rejection left. How often does a >thermocouple probe have significant and variable resistance to ground? Can >I just leave this resistor out? If I need it, should I make it larger than >1000 ohms? The larger it is, the greater the offset error-a constant which >I hardly care about- and the greater the common mode rejection. The >fraction of the common mode noise converted to differential is proportional >to the resistance of the thermocouple wire divided by the resistance of the >thermocouple wire plus the resistor to ground. Input bias current is listed >as 0.1 microamp, so a 1000 ohm resistor would give an offset of 0.1 mv which >is only 0.01 degree in the 10 mv per degree scale. Also, even though I will >use a single point ground for power, the TC is clearly *not* a single point >ground, and the bias resistor, if installed, might lead to ground loop >problems---hmmm, this is not clear. The instrumentation amp in the AD596 is >there precisely to null out ground loop problems inherent to the grounded TC >probe, and I can't make it worse with this bias resistor, can I? I put the >mounting points for the resistor in the PCB, but I don't need to use it. I use these devices in lots of instrumentation applications where it's not uncommon to have the t/c leads disconnected and re-connected usually at places remote to the instrumentation amplifier. Avoiding both noise -AND- protecting the chip from stray electrostatic stresses is important . . . especially since the damned things are so expensive. By the way, I like the 8-pin dip package on sockets so that I can easily replace a zapped chip. I tie each t/c input pin on the chip to ground via 100 ohm resistor. this puts the equivalent of 200 ohms across your t/c which has a total source impedance of less than 2 ohms . . . this puts a negligible shift on the temperature readings but adds considerable protection to the chips by tying each input to ground through a relatively low resistance. As a noise mitigation technique, I always try to electrically insulate the t/c from local ground. For temporary installations I'll "paint" a surface with a thin coat of 5-min epoxy. Then epoxy the t/c down to the "insulated" surface after the first coat sets up. Other times I've found it useful to epoxy the t/c into the barrel of an un-insulated ring terminal. Dip the t/c into 5-min epoxy to put a thin insulation layer on it then use a really rugged epoxy like JB Weld to epoxy the thermocouple into the terminal. The ring-hole in the terminal then offers a handy way to mount the t/c probe. >The 6 amps fit on a PC board that is 1.9 by 2.5 inches. The TO-100 can for >the AD596 really saves space. My minimum order for PC boards will give me >six of these boards, unless I redesign to put a DB9 connector on the board. I would encourage you to put a d-sub connector on your assembly so that you can bring thermocouple wires right up to the board and terminate them in machined pins. Your "reference" junctions will be at those pins. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: re: high dollar strippers
Hi Bob; Dave here. A long time reader of "The Connection", and a big fan of your tips, insight, and techniques. Just re-read your "Wire Stripping . . . Facts and Myths" article. Having "done my time" with a variety of strippers, I'm at the point where I'd like to invest a bit in one of the "high dollar" tools you mention. Some level of grip / stroke automation would be nice, to address those 'one handed' operations behind a panel, etc. Do you have a recommendation? I do mostly stacks, so something in the range of 16 to 26 AWG would probably be about right.. If there are interchangeable dies for larger sizes, that would be great! And, I'm not into "prestige", so a "best bang for the buck" is what I'm hoping for. Anything you sell through AeroElectric? I'd appreciate any advice and referrals... My personal favorite is the Ideal 45-187 which is fully described at http://www.idealindustries.com/ They are sold at http://www.alliedelec.com/cart/partlookup.asp enter "45-187" as manufacturer's part and hit "submit" Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | The man who does not read good books has no advantage | | over the man who cannot read them. | | - Mark Twain | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: 12 Ah battery anyone?
I have been using the 17ah version of the Panasonic Battery for a few weeks and am very pleased with the cranking performance. I cannot tell any difference in the ability to stir up the air between the "little" battery and the original Concorde RG25 when cranking the O-320 in my RV-6. I have tried it with both a Skytec and Prestolite starter and it works fine with both. I mounted the new battery on the engine side of the firewall so the master contactor could be easily located near the battery and starter with no fat wires penetrating the firewall. I have since found a similar battery for $18.00 at a local battery discount store! Sam Buchanan "The RV Journal" http://thervjournal.com ============================ Ken Harrill wrote: > > > I just purchased a Panasonic 20 AH battery from DigiKey for $41.00 plus $8 > shipping. This battery has the same physical dimensions as the 17/18 AH > batteries > > Ken Harrill > RV-6, 110 hours > Columbia, SC > > > > Give it a try . . . it can't do anything worse than fall > short of your expectations. Personally, I'd stay with > the 18 ah battery for one reason . . . cost of ownership. > > This particular form factor of RG battery is so popular > and made by so many different companies that they've become > available from lots of sources and at attractive prices. > > I think the opportunities for lowering cost of ownership > with the 18 ah package are a better. > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: mprather(at)spro.net
Subject: Eliminate the Alternator Switch
Date: Nov 18, 2002
Bob, I wonder whether I need to make my alternator seperately switchable. I (as I have described before) have a day VFR O-200 powered Varieze with a B&C dynamo. I have one mag and one EI. The EI is run from an always hot fuse panel. What I am contemplating is running one pair of wires (ground, and master-switched hot) from the battery to the back of the airplane. In the back is mounted the overvoltage module, the regulator and the disconnect relay. I envision that under normal circumstances, I'll turn on the panel master which will close the battery relay. This will energize the disconnect relay, and provide sense voltage for the regulator and ov module. If I develop a runaway alt-reg, the ov module will open the fuse connection driving the regulator and disconnect relay, and leave the system running on battery power. If I develop a failure where the regulator is dragging the system down (but not beyond the main fuse rating for the alternator feed), my low voltage light will start flashing, and I open the battery contactor - closing it only when near to the airport, and needing to communicate. Actually, I don't know whether the 2nd failure mode is likely, but it was the only other one that I could think of. What led me to think about this is that I ran out of 22g wire over the weekend, and I started wondering whether I really needed it or not. Can you think of operational or emergency considerations that I haven't mentioned? With the engine off, how much power might I expect the regulator to burn? Thanks and regards, Matt Prather N34RD ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DWENSING(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 18, 2002
Subject: Re: re: high dollar strippers
Re: the subject line.......shucks! I was thinking I was going to se something else ... do not archive ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Neil McLeod" <bedrock(at)theriver.com>
Subject: Re: re: high dollar strippers
Date: Nov 18, 2002
I also found these at Jenson Tools for 125.00 + shipping. www.jensentools.com Neil ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: re: high dollar strippers > > Hi Bob; > > Dave here. A long time reader of "The Connection", and a big fan of your > tips, insight, and techniques. Just re-read your "Wire Stripping . . . > Facts and Myths" article. Having "done my time" with a variety of > strippers, I'm at the point where I'd like to invest a bit in one of the > "high dollar" tools you mention. > > Some level of grip / stroke automation would be nice, to address those 'one > handed' operations behind a panel, etc. Do you have a recommendation? I do > mostly stacks, so something in the range of 16 to 26 AWG would probably be > about right.. If there are interchangeable dies for larger sizes, that > would be great! And, I'm not into "prestige", so a "best bang for the buck" > is what I'm hoping for. Anything you sell through AeroElectric? > > I'd appreciate any advice and referrals... > > My personal favorite is the Ideal 45-187 which is > fully described at http://www.idealindustries.com/ > > They are sold at http://www.alliedelec.com/cart/partlookup.asp > enter "45-187" as manufacturer's part and hit "submit" > > 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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Eliminate the Alternator Switch
> >Bob, > >I wonder whether I need to make my alternator seperately switchable. I >(as I have described before) have a day VFR O-200 powered Varieze with >a B&C dynamo. I have one mag and one EI. The EI is run from an always >hot fuse panel. What I am contemplating is running one pair of wires >(ground, and master-switched hot) from the battery to the back of the >airplane. In the back is mounted the overvoltage module, the regulator >and the disconnect relay. > >I envision that under normal circumstances, I'll turn on the panel >master which will close the battery relay. This will energize the >disconnect relay, and provide sense voltage for the regulator and ov >module. If I develop a runaway alt-reg, the ov module will open the >fuse connection driving the regulator and disconnect relay, and leave >the system running on battery power. If I develop a failure where the >regulator is dragging the system down (but not beyond the main fuse >rating for the alternator feed), my low voltage light will start >flashing, and I open the battery contactor - closing it only when near >to the airport, and needing to communicate. You don't have an endurance bus? > Actually, I don't know >whether the 2nd failure mode is likely, but it was the only other one >that I could think of. > >What led me to think about this is that I ran out of 22g wire over the >weekend, and I started wondering whether I really needed it or not. Can >you think of operational or emergency considerations that I haven't >mentioned? With the engine off, how much power might I expect the >regulator to burn? Don't understand "engine off". Depending on failure mode, the current drawn by an alternator field through the regulator can be as much as 3 amps. Further, suppose your regulator/alternator combination becomes unstable and you'd like to shut it off without taking the battery off line? If you're using a relay to provide local sensing for the regulator, I'd still power that relay from a 5A breaker on the panel with the ov module downstream of that breaker. So, even if your battery master is just a single pole switch to close the battery contactor, you have cockpit control of the alternator via a pullable breaker (that can also be reset if you get an ov nuisance trip) . . . I don't recommend using the ov module downstream of fuses. If you understand the limitations of what you propose and are willing to live them, there's no compelling reason not to wire it as you wish. Personally, I'd go buy another 20' of wire. and maybe a 5A breaker too. Further, if you don't have an e-bus, perhaps you might wish to re-think that situation as well. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Garfield Willis <garwillis(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Ground noise in thermocouple CHT
Date: Nov 18, 2002
wrote: >How often does a >thermocouple probe have significant and variable resistance to ground? Can >I just leave this resistor out? This has to do with the "type" of TC you're dealing with, not so much 'variability' of the TC's impedance to ground. There are two common types of TCs, ungrounded (or 'floating') and grounded. The ungrounded type have the tip of the TC insulated from the sheath (and shield), and this type you MUST provide an external ground reference/path for the AD chip's input bias (hence the bias resistor). The grounded type have their tip connected to the sheath (which is often also attached to the shield). The grounded type don't require any input bias connections/resistors when using the AD chips. You can get either type of TC, but IIRC for aircraft apps (and auto racing apps), in either EGT or CHT usage, the commonplace is for *grounded* TCs. (Easy to tell which kind you have just by buzzing the two TC leads; if they appear shorted to the probe/sheath/shield, you have a grounded type. Floating types should show high impedance between either TC lead and the sheath). The upNdown sides of each type are: (1) the ungrounded allows for avoiding ground loops in very sensitive and multiple probe setups, (2) but the ungrounded have a longer thermal response time. For OBAM use, neither issue is usually critical. Most TC interfaces for industrial instrumentation use have jumpers you can install/remove for each type of probe. But for OBAM work, grounded probes and leaving *off* the local gnd ref/bias resistor on the AD chips seems like the best/simplest approach. But DO check to make sure you have the required most common grounded probe type. There are numerous discussions of TC connection techniques, depending on which kind of TC you have, that you can find on the web, if you want to explore further. HTH, Gar Gar Willis Principal Engineer EGOR Techno 3491 Edison Way Menlo Park, CA 94025 650-216-9874 garwillis(at)msn.com (email) www.egortech.com (website; view with IE) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: mprather(at)spro.net
Subject: Re: Eliminate the Alternator Switch
Date: Nov 18, 2002
Thanks for the timely reply. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Date: Monday, November 18, 2002 9:01 am Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Eliminate the Alternator Switch > >the system running on battery power. If I develop a failure where > the>regulator is dragging the system down (but not beyond the main > fuse>rating for the alternator feed), my low voltage light will start > >flashing, and I open the battery contactor - closing it only when > near>to the airport, and needing to communicate. > > You don't have an endurance bus? > I had just about decided that I didn't need one. The only consumers that I can think to put on an e-bus are the com radio, and the electrically powered oil pressure guage. I don't think I absolutely NEED either of those to complete 99% of my flights. Adding a switch and another fuse panel at a later date seems like it will be pretty easy, if I decide I do need them. > > > Actually, I don't know > >whether the 2nd failure mode is likely, but it was the only other one > >that I could think of. > > > >What led me to think about this is that I ran out of 22g wire over > the>weekend, and I started wondering whether I really needed it or > not. Can > >you think of operational or emergency considerations that I haven't > >mentioned? With the engine off, how much power might I expect the > >regulator to burn? > > Don't understand "engine off". > Engine at 0RPM, not charging (sitting on the ground). For debug, I can hook up a charger. While listening to ATIS, and getting departure clearance, I don't want my battery to go dead because I am driving the alternator field. > Depending on failure mode, the current drawn by an > alternator field through the regulator can be as much as > 3 amps. Further, suppose your regulato combination becomes > unstable and you'd like to shut > it off without taking the battery off line? If you're > using a relay to provide local sensing for the regulator, > I'd still power that relay from a 5A breaker on the > panel with the ov module downstream of that breaker. > So, even if your battery master is just a single > pole switch to close the battery contactor, you have > cockpit control of the alternator via a pullable > breaker (that can also be reset if you get an ov > nuisance trip) . . . I don't recommend using the > ov module downstream of fuses. Not sure what you mean by not having the ov module downstream of fuses. Is it different to have it downstream from a breaker? I'd like to design away from nuisance trips - isn't that what you suggest? Like I said above, most of my flights won't require any of this equipment to function, so having the battery only driving the EI would probably be okay with me. None the less, having access to my com radio will give me more options when deciding where to land and debug. Adding the wire and switch with protection is easy, and I will go ahead and do it. I'll have to think about the e-bus. Like I said in the first post, running out of wire made me re-think what was really necessary. I think I have a handle on the impact of my suggested design. > > If you understand the limitations of what you propose > and are willing to live them, there's no compelling > reason not to wire it as you wish. Personally, I'd > go buy another 20' of wire. and maybe a 5A breaker > too. Further, if you don't have an e-bus, perhaps > you might wish to re-think that situation as well. > > Bob . . . > > Fair enough. Thanks again for the quick and thoughtful response. Matt Prather N34RD ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: Overheating 10 AWG fan wire fused for 30 amps
Date: Nov 18, 2002
Clear lacquer spray bomb will do a good job of resisting corrosion - Krylon is one brand... Denny ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Overheating 10 AWG fan wire fused for 30 amps > > >Bob, > > > >Thanks for the reply & I'm glad my e-mail sparked (no pun intended) > >something good for you. > > > >One last thing: The "fast-on" tabs (unplated, for sure) are integral to the > >Ford "resistor block", so I can't eliminate them. So, again, would some > >kind of "conductive jelly" or silicone rubber "potting" be a reasonable > >approach for sealing/reducing corrosion of the fast-on tab (which will have > >a B&C plated PIDG female fast-on instead of the Ford end)? > > Silicon grease might help. > > >I throught of a recent thread which would suggest running two parallel wires > >to carry the load but can't since there's only one fast-on tab on the > >resistor block for each side of the circuit. I have to deal with the male > >fast-on tab by trying to reduce corrosion. > > Better yet, solder the hummers on. > > Bob . . . > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Overheating 10 AWG fan wire fused for 30 amps
> > >Clear lacquer spray bomb will do a good job of resisting corrosion - Krylon >is one brand... > >Denny I wouldn't use this to corrosion proof connectors! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: davepetrv6(at)comcast.net
Subject: Backup Attitude Indicators
I have purchased and received a Blue Mountain EFIS system which I am currently bench testing. The AHRS , Magnetometer and GPS + terrain map seem to be working fine so far . There are still some things to be worked out in the mapping software and I am still awaiting some of the autopilot hardware. My question to this group is about backup systems . I am going to install the dual alternator , dual battery electrical system and get rid of the vacuum system and all associated vacuum gyros. I intend to install a 2 1/4 inch airspeed, 2 1/4 inch altimeter and a vertical card compass as backup together with ?. According to the FAR's I believe that I need a turn coordinator to be IFR legal - I would much prefer to have an electric AI as my backup . Has anyone got a waiver from the local FSDO to do this; and next does anyone have good options for an electric AI . So far I find that the one from Falcon gauge made in China is around $1100, the RC Allen one is $1700 , Goodrich JET make a 2 !/4 unit with battery I think for $7000. I think I can get a Ferranti Mk 6 military surplus 115V with inverter for around $600. Anyone with experience of any of these units and any bright ideas welcome . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N823ms(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 18, 2002
Subject: Re: Backup Attitude Indicators
I am considering the EFIS/Lite as my primary PFD, though it was meant to be used as a backup. Have you considered this? Ed N823MS Lancair ES ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Electrical system drawings posted
> > > >> >>Thanks for the offer Bob, but its probably not worth the trouble at >>this stage. The drawing are very much a work-in-progress. It seems >>like every other time I use them I make ink additions or corrections, >>and I go back and update the electronic version periodically. Mostly >>the changes are to make the wire numbers or component identifications >>consistent between the drawings and the indexes. Maybe once I've >>finished all the electrical system installation I'll consider them to >>be frozen and then it would make sense to combine them into one >>document. > > What ever works for you. I wouldn't mind doing it several > times as your project evolves. I think it's important for > examples of clear reasoning and good craftsmanship to be > made available for those who are interested in learning > how it's done. If I can assist in the process of making > a good piece of work visible to the greatest number of > folks, then it's time well spent. Holler if I can help. > > Bob . . . > Well, there certainly seems to be an interest in looking at electrical system drawings. The page with the links to the pdf files has had over 300 hits in less than a day and a half. And the version optimized for on-line viewing has had close to 200 hits. Must be nothing on TV :) I didn't expect over a few dozen hits a day. I'm glad I don't have a bandwidth limit on my account. -- Kevin Horton RV-8 (baffles, induction air, oil cooler) Ottawa, Canada http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Backup Attitude Indicators
> >I am considering the EFIS/Lite as my primary PFD, though it was meant to be >used as a backup. Have you considered this? > >Ed >N823MS >Lancair ES On what track record and/or learned flight test report are you basing your consideration? I've had a number of communications from Greg suggesting that he'll stop in Wichita on his way by as soon as possible. I've got at least two and perhaps three pilots from RAC who are interested in seeing this system, flying it and offering their much more learned judgment than mine as to the value and merits of the system being offered. I am still waiting to conduct this hands-on study . . . so for the time being, I wouldn't recommend the system for use in airplanes, back-up, primary or otherwise. Perhaps there are others with more illuminating experiences than mine. What's the scuttlebutt these days on Blue Mountain? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: Tammy and Mike Salzman <arrow54t(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Relay diode connection
Bob and the group, I have the S704-1 12v DPST relays. Do these guys need the spike catching diodes? If so, how best to include it in a fast-on terminal along with a 22 AWG wire? I've seen the ring terminal application for the larger contactors, but that not gonna work with fast-on terminals unless I can put the diode lead into the fast-on along a 22 AWG wire somehow. Thanks in advance, Mike Salzman LNCE Fairfield, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Branstrom" <swedan(at)pcmagic.net>
Subject: Re: LED position lights
Date: Nov 18, 2002
I got into a conversation with a Whelen rep. at the AOPA convention, and I asked him about LED position lights. He was nice enough to pull out the LED tail light that Whelen had developed for (I assume) the Beechjet. He hooked it up to a 24V power supply, and it was BRIGHT. I couldn't look directly at it from a distance of 4 or 5 feet. It was about 50 LED's that were mounted integerally on a PC board. The cost he quoted me was $800. Of course, that includes the cost of getting it sprinkled with holy water. His pitch was, can you imagine telling the CEO that you're flying somewhere that you can't go because the tail light is out? It's my understanding that as homebuilders, we can put anything we want on the plane, but lights do have to meet the brightness and coverage standards. When we get our plane certified in the Experimental category, we are attesting that they meet those standards. (Correct me if I'm wrong). I have noticed LED's used on trucks and on stop lights recently, so I thought that the price of LED's in groups might come down. NAPA auto parts didn't have any, but at a Flying A truck stop, they had an LED replacement unit for a stop light for $32 retail. I wasn't about to buy one and tear it apart, but it tells me that they are coming. I would imagine that in order to lighten (no pun intended) the load on automotive electrical systems so they don't have to convert to 44 volt, as has been suggested, automotive companies may go to LED's as well. The advantages are low power usage and long life. Disadvantage: cost. I suppose that if Detroit starts using them in cars, the cost will go way down. I don't know about weight. The Whelen LED tail light seemed a little heavier than what it replaced. Dan Branstrom > ____________________________________ > > > From: Paul Wilson <pwilson(at)climber.org> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LED position lights > > > All these references are interesting and enlightening but something > does not play. > Lumileds is bragging about their 17 lumen LED saying its a break thru. > > My handbook indicates that typical tungsten 25 watt bulb would > produce 266, 1170 or 1750 lumens. Thus it would take 16 or more of > the 17 lumen LED's to match the not so bright tungsten bulb. I would > never be able to package them in my Whelen wing tip units. This is a > guess, but pretty much confirmed by the Whelen LED array used for > this purpose. See the units picture at > http://www.whelen.com/hires/70805.jpg. > I do not know about the conversions below but the result is very high lumens. > > I guess its like Bob said its a big problem to replace the tungsten > bulbs with LEDs with any chance of getting it correct. > > I guess my solution is to revert to the second alternator to get > enough amps. Not an easy fix for a belt drive on the Rotax 912 and a > tight cowl but its just mechanical so it is doable. > > Thanks for all the input. > Paul > =================== > > > > > >Jim, > >So a Radio Shack 5000 mcd LED that draws 36 ma max (say 30 normal) > >at 2.0 volts gives off 150,000 lumens. bundle up 6 or 7 of these > >and you've got nearly a million lumens. How does that compare to > >the incandescent bulbs we're using now?? Sounds like a lot to me, > >but I don't remember how big a lumen is .... Jim S. > > > > > >"Jim V. Wickert" wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Jim, > >> > >> I believe the formula for conversion of the LED intensity from mcd to > > > Lumens is( current in ma x mcd = lumens). This is what I have > >seen listed in several suppliters specs? Typical bright white LED > >was @20mA(mcd rating)=3000 Lumens. > > > > > > Jim W ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: Backup Attitude Indicators
There is no way, let me repeat, NO WAY to realistically bench test an AHRS system! You are going to have to take my word on this about the Blue Mountain EFIS........I KNOW what I am talking about! ;-) It is interesting to me that a builder would commit to designing the entire panel of their aircraft, the most expensive part of the plane, around a totally unproven system. Before you write me off as just an old-fashioned jerk who doesn't like new technology, let me inform you that I have unsuccessfully attempted, but still plan to eventually incorporate, AHRS in my RV-6. When a builder is so committed to a particular system that is as flight critical to safety as the flight instruments, and that system has NEVER successfully flown with ALL components operational (let's hear some testimonials if I am incorrect in this assessment...) ........big, red flags should be waving!! I don't want to rain on anybody's parade, but flight instruments that are unproved are not suitable for use in marginal VMC or IMC conditions! I realize that some builders assume that the kinks will be worked out by the time their plane is flying. I certainly hope they are right; but........will the system have flown enough hours for you to stake your life on the integrity of the system? It matters not how enthusiastic we may have been about a particular company or designer if we end up chasing our plane into a smoking hole because the system decided to reboot at a bad time...... I "flew" an AHRS system all over my bench, and it looked great. After five minutes of flight testing in the RV-6, it was very obvious that the system that flew well on the bench was a disaster in the air. I say this to impress us with the fact that just because an AHRS can keep its senses on the bench is no guarantee that it will work properly once it is subjected to sustained and prolonged yaw and heading changes while tilted into a roll. Once again.........I speak from experience. As far as FARS go, if AHRS satisfies the "gyroscopic" portion of FAR 91.205, then you do not need any mechanical backups; however, prudence may dictate otherwise. If the FAA does not bless AHRS with "gyroscopic" status, then I guess you need a whole panel full of conventional flight instruments in addition to the EFIS. No doubt the FAA is going to have to come to grips with the new technology soon so DARs will know whether to include the magic "approved for IFR flight" line in our flight limitations. I hope we soon see some reasonably priced AHRS platforms available for our custom-built aircraft. I firmly believe it is the way of the near future.......but unfortunately, there are no non-TSO'ed flight-proven systems available yet. Sam Buchanan (RV-6) "The RV Journal" http://thervjournal.com ================== davepetrv6(at)comcast.net wrote: > > > I have purchased and received a Blue Mountain EFIS system which I am currently bench testing. The AHRS , Magnetometer and GPS + terrain map seem to be working fine so far . There are still some things to be worked out in the mapping software and I am still awaiting some of the autopilot hardware. My question to this group is about backup systems . I am going to install the dual alternator , dual battery electrical system and get rid of the vacuum system and all associated vacuum gyros. I intend to install a 2 1/4 inch airspeed, 2 1/4 inch altimeter and a vertical card compass as backup together with ?. According to the FAR's I believe that I need a turn coordinator to be IFR legal - I would much prefer to have an electric AI as my backup . Has anyone got a waiver from the local FSDO to do this; and next does anyone have good options for an electric AI . So far I find that the one from Falcon gauge made in China is around $1100, the RC Allen one is $1700 , Goodrich JET make! > a 2 !/4 unit with battery I think for $7000. I think I can get a Ferranti Mk 6 military surplus 115V with inverter for around $600. Anyone with experience of any of these units and any bright ideas welcome . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN" <glastar(at)3rivers.net>
Subject: Intercom Wiring/Pinout Diagram
Date: Nov 18, 2002
I need a wiring/pinout diagram for a Pacific Coast Avionics PCA 400 intercom. Sorry to say that I don't have a FAX. I think I can down-load pdf files. My snail mail address is: Buck Buchanan PO Box 595 Valier MT-59486- Thanks much, Buck Buchanan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
Subject: E Buss
Date: Nov 18, 2002
Hi Bob, I posted this message a couple of days ago. I'd certainly appreciate your views when you get to it. Thanks, Paul I am building a Europa and I have been giving my approach to wiring some more thought of late. I like the concept of an essential bus, but the panel in the Europa does not lend itself well to mounting two fuse blocks. Actually a lot of people use a few panel mounted circuit breakers and leave it at that. I have managed to mount a 24 fuse block, but adding a second one somewhere would be a real pain. I was wondering if I used a main contactor with a low "hold in" current would I be giving much up not having an essential bus? If I had in in-flight failure of the PM alternator I could turn off all but the essential things for continued flight. Am I missing something here ? I'd appreciate your views. Thanks & regards Paul McAllister http://europa363.versadev.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com>
Subject: Re: Electrical system drawings posted
Date: Nov 18, 2002
Kevin, I think that what this highlights is that there are a LOT of people out there trying to find a good combination of real systems built around the "Nuckolls Philosophy" **AND** some simple and easy to use tools that would allow most anyone to leverage the knowledge and contributions of those like yourself. Others on the List, Anyone know of a simple (non-AutoCAD look-alike) tool, (maybe a "Visio Lite") that would allow one to *simply* leverage the knowledge and experience of Bob and the specifics Kevin and others???? James >[SNIP] > > Well, there certainly seems to be an interest in looking at > electrical system drawings. The page with the links to the pdf files > has had over 300 hits in less than a day and a half. And the version > optimized for on-line viewing has had close to 200 hits. Must be > nothing on TV :) > > I didn't expect over a few dozen hits a day. I'm glad I don't have a > bandwidth limit on my account. > > -- > Kevin Horton RV-8 (baffles, induction air, oil cooler) > Ottawa, Canada > http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/ > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: E-Buss
> > >Hi Bob, > >I posted this message a couple of days ago. I'd certainly appreciate your >views when you get to it. > >Thanks, Paul > >I am building a Europa and I have been giving my approach to wiring some >more thought of late. I like the concept of an essential bus, but the >panel in the Europa does not lend itself well to mounting two fuse >blocks. Actually a lot of people use a few panel mounted circuit breakers >and leave it at that. I have managed to mount a 24 fuse block, but adding >a second one somewhere would be a real pain. What does the "panel" have to do with fuse blocks? Fuse blocks are best mounted anywhere but on the panel. A 24-slot fuse block? I would think a single 10 and a single 6 would give you plenty of distribution for the kinds of systems carried around in most Rotax powered ships. Have you done a load analysis and listed EVERYTHING in your airplane that will draw current from the battery/alternator system? >I was wondering if I used a main contactor with a low "hold in" current >would I be giving much up not having an essential bus? How about a manually operated battery switch? Zero holding current and a whole lot less expensive. >If I had in in-flight failure of the PM alternator I could turn off all >but the essential things for continued flight. Am I missing something >here ? I'd appreciate your views. I agree that you probably don't have enough hardware and energy generating capacity to justify a very "fancy" distribution system . . . especially if you don't plan to fly at night. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | The man who does not read good books has no advantage | | over the man who cannot read them. | | - Mark Twain | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: Matt Prather <mprather(at)spro.net>
Subject: Re: E Buss
Paul, I am not Bob, but I wonder whether you can mount a fuse panel somewhere other than the panel. One of the ideas behind using fuses is that there isn't any reason to access them while in flight. Mounting them closer to the main power source (battery) is more practical. Matt Prather N34RD Paul McAllister wrote: > >Hi Bob, > >I posted this message a couple of days ago. I'd certainly appreciate your views when you get to it. > >Thanks, Paul > >I am building a Europa and I have been giving my approach to wiring some more thought of late. I like the concept of an essential bus, but the panel in the Europa does not lend itself well to mounting two fuse blocks. Actually a lot of people use a few panel mounted circuit breakers and leave it at that. I have managed to mount a 24 fuse block, but adding a second one somewhere would be a real pain. > >I was wondering if I used a main contactor with a low "hold in" current would I be giving much up not having an essential bus? If I had in in-flight failure of the PM alternator I could turn off all but the essential things for continued flight. Am I missing something here ? I'd appreciate your views. > > >Thanks & regards > >Paul McAllister >http://europa363.versadev.com > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Intercom Wiring/Pinout Diagram
> > >I need a wiring/pinout diagram for a Pacific Coast Avionics PCA 400 >intercom. >Sorry to say that I don't have a FAX. I think I can down-load pdf files. >My snail mail address is: Buck Buchanan > PO Box 595 > Valier MT-59486- > >Thanks much, > >Buck Buchanan I'm sorry. That particular piece of equipment is not listed in my library of diagrams. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Relay diode connection
> > >Bob and the group, > >I have the S704-1 12v DPST relays. Do these guys need the spike >catching diodes? If so, how best to include it in a fast-on terminal >along with a 22 AWG wire? I've seen the ring terminal application for >the larger contactors, but that not gonna work with fast-on terminals >unless I can put the diode lead into the fast-on along a 22 AWG wire >somehow. Yup, that works. See http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/s704inst.jpg Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | The man who does not read good books has no advantage | | over the man who cannot read them. | | - Mark Twain | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Brick" <jbrick(at)wolfenet.com>
Subject: Backup Attitude Indicators
Date: Nov 18, 2002
As far as FARS go, if AHRS satisfies the "gyroscopic" portion of FAR 91.205, then you do not need any mechanical backups; however, prudence may dictate otherwise. If the FAA does not bless AHRS with "gyroscopic" status, then I guess you need a whole panel full of conventional flight instruments in addition to the EFIS. No doubt the FAA is going to have to come to grips with the new technology soon so DARs will know whether to include the magic "approved for IFR flight" line in our flight limitations. Sam, Could you explain how any of us could get the magic "approved for IFR flight" line in our flight limitations. It is my understanding that the current version of FAA Order 8130.2D (Change 3) 134. ISSUANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR-BUILT OPERATING LIMITATIONS is issued to everybody as written. With respect to IFR, it says... (7) This aircraft is to be operated under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), day only. (8) 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. (9) Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. Any maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records. I intend to equip my RV for IFR and would be happy to receive the limitations as written...shouldn't I? jb ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Electrical system drawings posted
> > >Kevin, > >I think that what this highlights is that there are a LOT of people out >there trying to find a good combination of real systems built around the >"Nuckolls Philosophy" **AND** some simple and easy to use tools that would >allow most anyone to leverage the knowledge and contributions of those like >yourself. > >Others on the List, > >Anyone know of a simple (non-AutoCAD look-alike) tool, (maybe a "Visio >Lite") that would allow one to *simply* leverage the knowledge and >experience of Bob and the specifics Kevin and others???? People's impressions of AutoCAD and similar programs are not "simple" . . . to be sure, looking through EVERYTHING that even the simplest version of AutoCAD can do leads one to believe that learning to use it effectively is a really big task. Consider this: Out of all of AutoCAD's commmands, here are the ones I've abbreviated into handy 1 and 2 keystroke equivalents . . . something AutoCAD lets you to in a simple text file ending in .pgp. CI, *CIRCLE CO, *COPY E, *ERASE QUIT, *EXIT L, *LINE LA, *LAYER M, *MOVE P, *PAN PL, *PLINE R, *REDRAW Z, *ZOOM B, *BREAK BL, *BLOCK WB, *WBLOCK XP, *EXPLODE CH, *CHAMFER I, *INSERT AR, *ARRAY P, *PURGE XT, *EXTEND F, *FILLET T, *TRIM MI, *MIRROR C, *CHANGE V, *VIEW OS, *OSNAP PG, *POLYGON RO, *ROTATE OF, *OFFSET S, *STRETCH SC, *SCALE ED, *DDEDIT Z, *ZOOM W, *WINDOW CR, *CROSSING Out of 2000 commands that AutoCAD understands, here you see a list of 34 commands that does 99% of everything I need to do with AutoCAD . . . It isn't that hard folks. Further, it's a real drafting program, not an illustrating program . . . this can make a profound difference in the appearance of your final documents. Don't get wrapped around the axle of learning a new task in the middle of trying to get your airplane flying. Document your system development in a 3-ring notebook using a #2 pencil and a pink-pearl eraser. Get a straight edge and circle guide if it helps to be a little neater. When it comes to accurate documentation, neat doesn't count, content does. I see drawings every day at RAC done in CATIA . . . a VERY expensive, VERY capable 3d drafting program . . . that puts out information no better than that which the draftsman puts in . . . just 'cause the drawings look sexy doesn't mean squat about the accuracy or value of what they portray. Take Kevin's drawings and mark them up as needed to fit your needs -or- use them verbatim if they fit. ADD more drawings in pencil to fill in the gaps. Get your airplane flying first, de-bugged and documented first. Then learn how to use the commands listed above and put your drawings into a nice format to be stored and shared. It's really nice when some of our members can take early advantage of what CAD systems have to offer but it's not a requirement to do the best possible job getting your project flying. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 18, 2002
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: Backup Attitude Indicators
John, I was very loosely paraphrasing line 8 that you referenced. The question I raised was whether or not AHRS platforms satisfy the "equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205" portion of the limitation. I don't know if the FAA has really addressed this issue in regards to aircraft with experimental certificates. More than likely the turbines and jets with AHRS platforms retain mechanical gyro backups, but they are intended for Part 135 ops........so I am not sure where that leaves us. This may be one of those deals where you get different answers from various FSDO's. Yes, you should be happy and content to get the limitations you stated! :-) Those are the same I received for my RV-6.......but I still don't know how an experimental aircraft with only AHRS in the panel fits in the regs. Sam Buchanan ========================= John Brick wrote: > > > > As far as FARS go, if AHRS satisfies the "gyroscopic" portion of FAR > 91.205, then you do not need any mechanical backups; however, prudence > may dictate otherwise. If the FAA does not bless AHRS with "gyroscopic" > status, then I guess you need a whole panel full of conventional flight > instruments in addition to the EFIS. No doubt the FAA is going to have > to come to grips with the new technology soon so DARs will know whether > to include the magic "approved for IFR flight" line in our flight > limitations. > > Sam, > > Could you explain how any of us could get the magic "approved for IFR > flight" line in our flight > limitations. It is my understanding that the current version of FAA Order > 8130.2D (Change 3) > 134. ISSUANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR-BUILT OPERATING LIMITATIONS is issued > to everybody as written. > > With respect to IFR, it says... > > (7) This aircraft is to be operated under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), day > only. > > (8) 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. > > (9) Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 > must be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part > 91. Any maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the > aircraft maintenance records. > > I intend to equip my RV for IFR and would be happy to receive the > limitations as written...shouldn't I? > > jb > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2002
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: [PLEASE READ] - Why Do I Have A Fund Raiser Each Year?
Dear Listers, I got to thinking today that perhaps I should explain why I have a Fund Raiser and also take the opportunity to express why I think the List Services here provide a far better experience than the commercial equivalents. I use the List Fund Raiser each year to offset the costs involved with running a high performance email list site such as this one. With the annual support from the List members through the PBS-like Fund Raiser, I have found I can run the entire site without having to inflect any of the members with those annoying banner ads flashing up all the time trying to sell Toner Cartridge Refills or other garbage nobody wants or needs. From the comments I've received over the years regarding the Lists, the great majority of the members really appreciate the non-commercialism of my List systems and don't mind my 'go-team-go' banter once a year to encourage members to support the Lists. I believe that the Lists services that I provide here offer a great many benefits over the commercial equivalents in a number of ways. The first feature I believe to be particularly significant is that you *cannot* receive a computer v*rus from any of my Lists directly. I've been on a few other List servers and have been unfortunate enough to download infected files people have innocently or not-so-innocently included with their posts. This just can't happen with my Lists; each incoming message is filtered and attachments stripped off prior to posting. I provide a Photo and File Share feature that allows members to share files and bitmaps with other members and everyone can be assured that these files will be prescanned for any sort of v*rus before they are posted. Safe and simple. Also, with this photo and file sharing technique, the Archives don't get loaded up with a huge amounts of bitmap "data" that slows the Archive Search times. Another feature of this system is the extensive List Archives that are available for download, browsing, and searching. The Archives go all the way back to the very beginning of each List and with the super fast Search Engine, the huge size of the Archives is a non-issue in quickly finding the data you're looking for. Another feature of the Archives, in my opinion, is that they have been primarily stripped of all the useless email header data and all the other header garbage that seems to build up in a typical email thread. I have received an extremely positive response from Listers regarding the List Browse feature and the consensus is that the format and ease of use is outstanding. Members report that having the previous 7 days worth of messages online for easy browsing and sorting is hugely beneficial. And again, as with the real time distribution of List email, the messages are stripped of all the unnecessary email headers and potentially dangerous v*ruses. I am currently working on the additional ability to post and/or reply directly from the List Browse interface. More on this upcoming feature in the next week or so. I've been running email Lists and services under the matronics.com domain since about 1989 starting with RV-List and 30 guys who I knew and who where also building RVs. It has grown into over 40 different aviation-related Email Lists and an associated web site that receives over 9,000,000 hits each year!! Additionally, the List email system forwards well over 50,000,000 (yes, that 50 MILLION) email messages to subscribers each year! With all the dot.bombs these days, I think there's a lot of value in supporting a service that has gone the long haul and is still providing and improving a high quality service at a price that's nearly free. I have to admit running these Lists is a labor of love and I hope it shows in the quality of the experience that you receive when you get a List Email Message, Search the Archives, or use the List Browser. The Lists will be here for a long time to come. If you just want to lurk a while for free, that's great and I encourage you to do so. If you use, appreciate, and receive value from these Lists, then please support them during the Annual List Fund Raiser! Thank you, Matt Dralle Email List Administrator ------------------------------------------ The SSL Secure Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2002
From: Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: RE: Electrical system drawings posted
> > >> >> >>Kevin, >> >>I think that what this highlights is that there are a LOT of people out >>there trying to find a good combination of real systems built around the >>"Nuckolls Philosophy" **AND** some simple and easy to use tools that would >>allow most anyone to leverage the knowledge and contributions of those like >>yourself. >> >>Others on the List, >> >>Anyone know of a simple (non-AutoCAD look-alike) tool, (maybe a "Visio >>Lite") that would allow one to *simply* leverage the knowledge and > >experience of Bob and the specifics Kevin and others???? > > > Don't get wrapped around the axle of learning a new task > in the middle of trying to get your airplane flying. > Document your system development in a 3-ring notebook > using a #2 pencil and a pink-pearl eraser. Get a straight > edge and circle guide if it helps to be a little neater. > > When it comes to accurate documentation, neat doesn't > count, content does. I see drawings every day at > RAC done in CATIA . . . a VERY expensive, VERY > capable 3d drafting program . . . that puts out > information no better than that which the draftsman > puts in . . . just 'cause the drawings look sexy doesn't > mean squat about the accuracy or value of what they > portray. > I started out using pencil and eraser, but I found after three or four revisions to the main drawing that it became almost unreadable. So I looked on my Mac to see what software I had that might be useful. I ended up using AppleWorks, which is sort of like Microsoft Works. It has a very basic drawing module that was perfect. I set the program to force every object to match a grid with 1/20 inch spacing. This forced things to line up nicely, and ensured that wires ended up on switch terminals, etc. Then I realized that while it took a few minutes to draw a switch, I could then copy and paste that switch and reuse it in seconds. So, every time I created a new component I made a copy and saved all these in one symbols document. The first drawing I created probably took me three or four times as long as drawing it with pencil and circle/rectangle guide. But once I had created all the types of switches, busses, lamps etc that I needed, I found that I could probably go as fast or faster than using pencil and paper, and I could make as many changes as I wished without having to start over. You certainly don't need a CAD program. But if you have some sort of basic easy to use drawing program it is a good option. But if all you have is paper and pencil, that works too. -- Kevin Horton RV-8 (baffles, induction air, oil cooler) Ottawa, Canada http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: Overheating 10 AWG fan wire fused for 30 amps
Date: Nov 19, 2002
After the wires/connectors are are final assembled together, Bob - not before... I don't understand your reaction... It is standard practice to lacquer/urethane coat wire terminations in humid/hostile environments, e.g. mines, sea water environments, sewage plants, chemical machinery, and so forth... In fact the majority of electronic PC boards are sprayed or dipped after fabrication and stuffing... The gentleman asked how he could reduce long term corrosion of connectors and I told him.... Denny ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Overheating 10 AWG fan wire fused for 30 amps > > > > > > >Clear lacquer spray bomb will do a good job of resisting corrosion - Krylon > >is one brand... > > > >Denny > > I wouldn't use this to corrosion proof connectors! > > Bob . . . > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: Backup Attitude Indicators
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Within months I will also be looking to populate the panel and I am strongly considering the new technology... However, it has been my understanding that Blue Mountain is definitely a work in progress, as opposed to proven technology and software... Keep us posted on how you are making out... Denny... ----- Original Message ----- From: <davepetrv6(at)comcast.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Backup Attitude Indicators > > I have purchased and received a Blue Mountain EFIS system which I am currently bench testing. The AHRS , Magnetometer and GPS + terrain map seem to be working fine so far . There are still some things to be worked out in the mapping software and I am still awaiting some of the autopilot hardware. My question to this group is about backup systems . I am going to install the dual alternator , dual battery electrical system and get rid of the vacuum system and all associated vacuum gyros. I intend to install a 2 1/4 inch airspeed, 2 1/4 inch altimeter and a vertical card compass as backup together with ?. According to the FAR's I believe that I need a turn coordinator to be IFR legal - I would much prefer to have an electric AI as my backup . Has anyone got a waiver from the local FSDO to do this; and next does anyone have good options for an electric AI . So far I find that the one from Falcon gauge made in China is around $1100, the RC Allen one is $1700 , Goodrich JET make! > a 2 !/4 unit with battery I think for $7000. I think I can get a Ferranti Mk 6 military surplus 115V with inverter for around $600. Anyone with experience of any of these units and any bright ideas welcome . > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: Backup Attitude Indicators
Date: Nov 19, 2002
I'm watching the AHRS/EFIS scene carefully also, Sam... But, I suspect that I will wind up with traditional steam gauges for attitude control and a flat screen for engine/fuel monitoring... Denny - bangin' rivets ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Buchanan" <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Backup Attitude Indicators > > There is no way, let me repeat, NO WAY to realistically bench test an > AHRS system! You are going to have to take my word on this about the > Blue Mountain EFIS........I KNOW what I am talking about! ;-) > > It is interesting to me that a builder would commit to designing the > entire panel of their aircraft, the most expensive part of the plane, > around a totally unproven system. Before you write me off as just an > old-fashioned jerk who doesn't like new technology, let me inform you > that I have unsuccessfully attempted, but still plan to eventually > incorporate, AHRS in my RV-6. > > When a builder is so committed to a particular system that is as flight > critical to safety as the flight instruments, and that system has NEVER > successfully flown with ALL components operational (let's hear some > testimonials if I am incorrect in this assessment...) ........big, red > flags should be waving!! I don't want to rain on anybody's parade, but > flight instruments that are unproved are not suitable for use in > marginal VMC or IMC conditions! > > I realize that some builders assume that the kinks will be worked out by > the time their plane is flying. I certainly hope they are right; > but........will the system have flown enough hours for you to stake your > life on the integrity of the system? It matters not how enthusiastic we > may have been about a particular company or designer if we end up > chasing our plane into a smoking hole because the system decided to > reboot at a bad time...... > > I "flew" an AHRS system all over my bench, and it looked great. After > five minutes of flight testing in the RV-6, it was very obvious that the > system that flew well on the bench was a disaster in the air. I say this > to impress us with the fact that just because an AHRS can keep its > senses on the bench is no guarantee that it will work properly once it > is subjected to sustained and prolonged yaw and heading changes while > tilted into a roll. > > Once again.........I speak from experience. > > As far as FARS go, if AHRS satisfies the "gyroscopic" portion of FAR > 91.205, then you do not need any mechanical backups; however, prudence > may dictate otherwise. If the FAA does not bless AHRS with "gyroscopic" > status, then I guess you need a whole panel full of conventional flight > instruments in addition to the EFIS. No doubt the FAA is going to have > to come to grips with the new technology soon so DARs will know whether > to include the magic "approved for IFR flight" line in our flight > limitations. > > I hope we soon see some reasonably priced AHRS platforms available for > our custom-built aircraft. I firmly believe it is the way of the near > future.......but unfortunately, there are no non-TSO'ed flight-proven > systems available yet. > > Sam Buchanan (RV-6) > "The RV Journal" http://thervjournal.com > > ================== > > davepetrv6(at)comcast.net wrote: > > > > > > I have purchased and received a Blue Mountain EFIS system which I am currently bench testing. The AHRS , Magnetometer and GPS + terrain map seem to be working fine so far . > There are still some things to be worked out in the mapping software > and I am still awaiting some of the autopilot hardware. My question to > this group is about backup systems . I am going to install the dual > alternator , dual battery electrical system and get rid of the vacuum > system and all associated vacuum gyros. I intend to install a 2 1/4 inch > airspeed, 2 1/4 inch altimeter and a vertical card compass as backup > together with ?. According to the FAR's I believe that I need a turn > coordinator to be IFR legal - I would much prefer to have an electric AI > as my backup . Has anyone got a waiver from the local FSDO to do this; > and next does anyone have good options for an electric AI . So far I > find that the one from Falcon gauge made in China is around $1100, the > RC Allen one is $1700 , Goodrich JET make! > > a 2 !/4 unit with battery I think for $7000. I think I can get a Ferranti Mk 6 military surplus 115V with inverter for around $600. Anyone with experience of any of these units and any bright ideas welcome . > > > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
Subject: Re: E-Buss
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Bob, Thanks for your reply. I have a couple more questions if you please. > > What does the "panel" have to do with fuse blocks? Fuse > blocks are best mounted anywhere but on the panel. Your correct here, I was thinking of accessibly in flight which may not be a requirement. I guess the block can go anywhere > > Have you done a load analysis and listed EVERYTHING > in your airplane that will draw current from the > battery/alternator system? Could you take a moment to look at my spread sheet. I assume that the list server strips them off and I will have to post it separately. > How about a manually operated battery switch? Zero holding current > and a whole lot less expensive. Yes, but I am counting amps, and a contactor represents 5% of the systems total capacity. > I agree that you probably don't have enough hardware and > energy generating capacity to justify a very "fancy" distribution > system . . . especially if you don't plan to fly at night. Well I generally try not to fly at night, but it happens and I would like the capability if possible. Thanks, Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Overheating 10 AWG fan wire fused for 30 amps
> > >After the wires/connectors are are final assembled together, Bob - not >before... I don't understand your reaction... >It is standard practice to lacquer/urethane coat wire terminations in >humid/hostile environments, e.g. mines, sea water environments, sewage >plants, chemical machinery, and so forth... In fact the majority of >electronic PC boards are sprayed or dipped after fabrication and stuffing... >The gentleman asked how he could reduce long term corrosion of connectors >and I told him.... I've sprayed gallons of polyurethane on thousands of boards for the protection of permanent connections but never on an array of Fast-On terminals nor into the guts of any form of connector that can be mated and de-mated. The Fast-On application that started this thread involves a mediocre quality set of terminals (un-plated brass) pushed past their practical electrical limits for service life. Spraying these terminals with any sealant would be like spraying pins in the d-sub connectors on the back of your computer . . . while it may be beneficial to controlling corrosion on otherwise vulnerable surfaces, it would only add to the non- conductive contamination of the areas where electrical conductivity is trying to take place. Silicon grease is about the only magic gunkum I can think of that might be beneficial . . . it's physical properties are such that it tends to extrude out of the high pressure areas where the connector is working the hardest to maintain conductivity. We used to stuff coaxial connectors with Dow Corning DC-4 during assembly to keep moisture out of coaxes joints exposed to weather. Polyurethane dries down to solids that are as much or worse a contaminant in a semi-mobile joint as corrosion. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N823ms(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Subject: BMA
Bob: BMA has a new COO, Mr. Thomson. I have talked to him and Greg several times. They have had a few people order the EFIS/Lite as primary PFD's with backup instruments. I have talked to one guy who had his in a YAK and was doing acro in it. Yourright, there is not much data out there that has proven any reliability on the EFIS/ONE let alone the EFIS/Lite. Mr. Thomson was the former CEO of the Mustang Kit company and did well there. Whether he can help BMA or not will be only a matter of time. Still a lot of scuttle butt going on. Another EFIS company is Dynondevelopment.com, it has the EFIS-10. They seem to be more of an established company. So I have the outline of both of these products on my panel. With backup gauges around them, it looks a lot like the A300 I fly now. In any event regardless of what data is out there; to fly without a backup AH and other essential gauges is nuts. Remember I am awaiting your comments on my second pass. The nice thing about BMA, Dynon, is that they are about the same size, 4x4, so a standard gauge can fit in its place or taken out to fit these in. When I say these I mean that both companies are considering a glass HSI, like Sandal. TruTrak is even considering this as well. Reason: So many people now already have enough situational awareness with their GPS MFD's. With everybody getting away from vacuum gauges now and going to electric, there also going simple glass to get away from all the moving parts in the electric. A complete proven EFIS system today is $40,000.00++++. BMA is now at 12,000++, there Lite is 3400+++and Dynon is 2000.00+ which includes the cables and sensors. Not a bad deal if they have proven data. Unfortunately some of us may become test beds for these products which I don't care to do. Regards, Ed Silvanic N823MS Lancair ES ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N823ms(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Subject: Re: Backup Attitude Indicators
I agree! Ed N823MS Lancair ES ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wendell & Jean Durr" <legacy147(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Re: Backup Attitude Indicators
Date: Nov 19, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: <davepetrv6(at)comcast.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Backup Attitude Indicators > > I have purchased and received a Blue Mountain EFIS system which I am currently bench testing. Why not get an Efis/lite from BMA or a similar unit from Dycom (?) as a stand alone backup. To add suspenders to your belt you might also get a Garmin196 with its virtual gyro panel page and backup battery power . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2002
From: Randy Pflanzer <F1Rocket(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Backup Attitude Indicators
Great post Sam. Your message is a very important one. The experimental, low-cost EFIS marketplace is in its infancy and is still evolving. I too, want one of these shiny flat screen, miracles in my panel but caution is the word. I find the different approaches used by Blue Mountain and Dynon to introduce their products to the marketplace very interesting. I have always been uncomfortable with Blue Mountain because, in my opinion, they've offered their equipment out there before it was ready. On the other hand, Dynon has taken a lot of hits for doing just the opposite, witholding their product until they are satisfied it works as advertised. Personally, I hope they both enjoy great success. But I agree that it may be unwise to trust either product too much until their reliability can be evaluated and established. Randy Pflanzer F1 Rocket http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> Date: Monday, November 18, 2002 10:18 pm Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Backup Attitude Indicators > > There is no way, let me repeat, NO WAY to realistically bench test an > AHRS system! You are going to have to take my word on this about the > Blue Mountain EFIS........I KNOW what I am talking about! ;-) > > It is interesting to me that a builder would commit to designing the > entire panel of their aircraft, the most expensive part of the plane, > around a totally unproven system. Before you write me off as just an > old-fashioned jerk who doesn't like new technology, let me inform you > that I have unsuccessfully attempted, but still plan to eventually > incorporate, AHRS in my RV-6. > > When a builder is so committed to a particular system that is as > flightcritical to safety as the flight instruments, and that > system has NEVER > successfully flown with ALL components operational (let's hear some > testimonials if I am incorrect in this assessment...) ........big, red > flags should be waving!! I don't want to rain on anybody's parade, but > flight instruments that are unproved are not suitable for use in > marginal VMC or IMC conditions! > > I realize that some builders assume that the kinks will be worked > out by > the time their plane is flying. I certainly hope they are right; > but........will the system have flown enough hours for you to > stake your > life on the integrity of the system? It matters not how > enthusiastic we > may have been about a particular company or designer if we end up > chasing our plane into a smoking hole because the system decided to > reboot at a bad time...... > > I "flew" an AHRS system all over my bench, and it looked great. After > five minutes of flight testing in the RV-6, it was very obvious > that the > system that flew well on the bench was a disaster in the air. I > say this > to impress us with the fact that just because an AHRS can keep its > senses on the bench is no guarantee that it will work properly > once it > is subjected to sustained and prolonged yaw and heading changes while > tilted into a roll. > > Once again.........I speak from experience. > > As far as FARS go, if AHRS satisfies the "gyroscopic" portion of FAR > 91.205, then you do not need any mechanical backups; however, prudence > may dictate otherwise. If the FAA does not bless AHRS with > "gyroscopic"status, then I guess you need a whole panel full of > conventional flight > instruments in addition to the EFIS. No doubt the FAA is going to have > to come to grips with the new technology soon so DARs will know > whetherto include the magic "approved for IFR flight" line in our > flightlimitations. > > I hope we soon see some reasonably priced AHRS platforms available for > our custom-built aircraft. I firmly believe it is the way of the near > future.......but unfortunately, there are no non-TSO'ed flight-proven > systems available yet. > > Sam Buchanan (RV-6) > "The RV Journal" http://thervjournal.com > > ================== > > davepetrv6(at)comcast.net wrote: > > > > > > I have purchased and received a Blue Mountain EFIS system which > I am currently bench testing. The AHRS , Magnetometer and GPS + > terrain map seem to be working fine so far . > There are still some things to be worked out in the mapping software > and I am still awaiting some of the autopilot hardware. My > question to > this group is about backup systems . I am going to install the dual > alternator , dual battery electrical system and get rid of the vacuum > system and all associated vacuum gyros. I intend to install a 2 > 1/4 inch > airspeed, 2 1/4 inch altimeter and a vertical card compass as backup > together with ?. According to the FAR's I believe that I need a turn > coordinator to be IFR legal - I would much prefer to have an > electric AI > as my backup . Has anyone got a waiver from the local FSDO to do this; > and next does anyone have good options for an electric AI . So far I > find that the one from Falcon gauge made in China is around $1100, the > RC Allen one is $1700 , Goodrich JET make! > > a 2 !/4 unit with battery I think for $7000. I think I can get > a Ferranti Mk 6 military surplus 115V with inverter for around > $600. Anyone with experience of any of these units and any bright > ideas welcome . > > > > > _- > ======================================================================== > Terrific Free Gifts! > _-> _- > =======================================================================_ -= - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum - > _- > =======================================================================_ -= !! NEWish !! > _- > =======================================================================_ -= List Related Information > _- > ======================================================================= > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2002
From: Rob Miller <rmill2000(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: BOB: Wiring 14v Artificial Horizon
Hello After plunking down nearly $2000 for a new RC Allen 14v electric Artificial Horizon, I noticed that the folks at folks at RCA do not even bother to include a wiring diagram or installation instructions with their unit--absolutely no paper in the box at all! The back of the unit does specify ground and power though. My question, how much current will this thing use and what wire/fuse size would you recommend? Thanks Robert RV-8 N262RM "Bad Cat" Flying ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2002
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: BMA
N823ms(at)aol.com wrote: > The nice thing about BMA, Dynon, is > that they are about the same size, 4x4, so a standard gauge can fit in its > place or taken out to fit these in. Just as a point of reference, the BMA EFIS/Lite is physically much larger than the Dynon. The Lite will not fit in a standard stack if the instruments are located close together, and will require the panel to be "hacked" so the display can be accommodated. The Dynon that I saw at OSH is indeed sized so it can be a "bolt in" replacement for a flight instrument. There is another trend in the EFIS development cycle that causes some concern to me. When I first contemplated the installation of an EFIS over a year ago, the BMA EFIS/Lite was intended to be a stand-alone unit that would provide all flight data independent of any other system (it was even touted to have an independent battery). However, in the pursuit of trying to get the unit to maintain its "balance" in all flight maneuvers, it was deemed necessary by the designer to incorporate a GPS receiver after my flight testing (of supposedly "production" units) revealed the magnetometer was not up to the task of keeping the AHRS honest. Now......instead of having a completely independent flight system (that is advertised as a backup to the EFIS/One, and by implication is the last resource available to the glass cockpit pilot) we are looking at a system that is dependent on an external system (GPS) for maintaining its integrity! I realize the GPS architecture is *usually* quite reliable, but I am not sure if I want the last barrier between me and the cold, hard earth to be dependent on a weak little radio signal from a distant satellite..... Ok.....so the argument is made that it would be folly to have an EFIS system on board without mechanical backups. If that be the case.....then why install an EFIS /Lite???? It appears that BMA has negated the very reason for the existence of the Lite. If a prudent pilot requires backups for the Lite, then it does not fulfill its role as a "backup". If the prudent pilot is uncomfortable about having his primary flight instrument dependent on GPS, then it fails to fill its function as a primary display in a simplified IFR panel. I realize that eventually GPS may be an integral, readily accepted, component of flight systems. My concern is directed toward many builders who seem to be swallowing, hook line and sinker, the EFIS philosophy without completely thinking through the issue. I readily admit that it is very easy to be lead into the role of cheerleader for a particular EFIS product (been there...done that....!) but we must still consider all ramifications of our decisions about filling the panel in our plane. Sam Buchanan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N823ms(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Subject: Re: Backup Attitude Indicators
In a message dated 11/19/2002 9:47:44 AM Central Standard Time, F1Rocket(at)comcast.net writes: > Great post Sam. > > Your message is a very important one. The experimental, low-cost EFIS > marketplace is in its infancy and is still evolving. I too, want one > of these shiny flat screen, miracles in my panel but caution is the > word. > > I find the different approaches used by Blue Mountain and Dynon to > introduce their products to the marketplace very interesting. I have > always been uncomfortable with Blue Mountain because, in my opinion, > they've offered their equipment out there before it was ready. On the > other hand, Dynon has taken a lot of hits for doing just the opposite, > witholding their product until they are satisfied it works as > advertised. > > Personally, I hope they both enjoy great success. But I agree that it > may be unwise to trust either product too much until their reliability > can be evaluated and established. > > Randy Pflanzer > F1 Rocket > Randy: I could not agree with you more. Lets hope for the best for these companies, additionally, as Electric Bob would say, we should all bug the heck out of them to not only develope a product like this but have the proof to support it. Ed Silvanic N823MS Lancair Es ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Subject: Re: BMA
In a message dated 11/19/02 10:05:30 AM Central Standard Time, sbuc(at)hiwaay.net writes: > I realize that eventually GPS may be an integral, readily accepted, > component of flight systems. My concern is directed toward many builders > who seem to be swallowing, hook line and sinker, the EFIS philosophy > without completely thinking through the issue. I readily admit that it > is very easy to be lead into the role of cheerleader for a particular > EFIS product (been there...done that....!) but we must still consider > all ramifications of our decisions about filling the panel in our plane. > > Sam Buchanan > Good Morning Sam, I don't mean to start another discussion of the merits of a Turn Needle as compared to a Turn Coordinator, but I would strongly suggest that all of you folks who want to go all glass (I do as well, someday!) at least consider spending a thousand bucks or so of your hard earned dollars for flight training that gives you enough confidence to be comfortable flying your airplane using just a rate gyro and normal airspeed and altitude instrumentation. I still think the T&B is a more positive training device, but proficiency can be gained by anyone using either instrument in twenty hours or so of concentrated practice. Both the T&B and the Turn Coordinator are completely non tumbling instruments. While I have had examples of both fail, they have not failed as often as have attitude gyros. My experience with attitude gyros has been that the pneumatically powered ones, either pressure or vacuum, have been more reliable than the electric. A single rate gyro and reasonable proficiency in it's use would be a nice backup to all of that new stuff. I have never flown an airplane (from J-3 to 747) that I could not keep right side up using nothing more than a turn needle. All it takes is a little practice. That's a lot cheaper and more reliable than all of the other options available. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Boeing/Stearman N3977A PS I have practiced unusual attitude recovery in a Bonanza using nothing other than the HSI presentation of a Garmin 295. Works great! The 196 should be even better. Combine that with a T&B and you have it all. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N823ms(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Subject: Re: BMA
In a message dated 11/19/2002 10:05:30 AM Central Standard Time, sbuc(at)hiwaay.net writes: > The nice thing about BMA, Dynon, is > > that they are about the same size, 4x4, so a standard gauge can fit in > its > > place or taken out to fit these in. > > > Just as a point of reference, the BMA EFIS/Lite is physically much > larger than the Dynon. The Lite will not fit in a standard stack if the > instruments are located close together, and will require the panel to be > "hacked" so the display can be accommodated. > > I have down loaded there templets and your right they are different in size but not by much. In fact the BMA is 4 1/4 x 3 1/2, the Dynon is 3 3/4 x 4 1/2, that's why I said basically 4 x 4. There is another trend in the EFIS development cycle that causes some concern to me. When I first contemplated the installation of an EFIS over a year ago, the BMA EFIS/Lite was intended to be a stand-alone unit that would provide all flight data independent of any other system (it was even touted to have an independent battery). However, in the pursuit of trying to get the unit to maintain its "balance" in all flight maneuvers, it was deemed necessary by the designer to incorporate a GPS receiver after my flight testing (of supposedly "production" units) revealed the magnetometer was not up to the task of keeping the AHRS honest. Your absolutely correct. It was not meant to be a stand alone unit. However, those are only words, the fact of the matter, the EFIS/Lite is just a smaller version of the EFIS/ONE without the rolling map. It does not know and does not care whether it is PFD or backup. The AHRS is the same unit. I found the EFIS/ONE to big of a unit. Ok.....so the argument is made that it would be folly to have an EFIS system on board without mechanical backups. If that be the case.....then why install an EFIS /Lite???? Well, my friend I am flying an A300 Airbus, which has a PFD, ND and all the steam gauges around it which are my stby gauges. Even the 777 has backup gauges. Perhaps, maybe we should ask Airbus or Boeing. Flying professionally for a living, I thought it would be nice to have my personal plane as close to my office at work; kind of a standardization thing. I realize that eventually GPS may be an integral, readily accepted, component of flight systems. My concern is directed toward many builders who seem to be swallowing, hook line and sinker, the EFIS philosophy without completely thinking through the issue. I readily admit that it is very easy to be lead into the role of cheerleader for a particular EFIS product (been there...done that....!) but we must still consider all ramifications of our decisions about filling the panel in our plane. Your right! But I am not one of them. Simply having this discussion hopefully will alarm others who have a similar idea, as I have stated. Perhaps maybe somebody should forward this to Dynondevelopment.com and Bluemountainavionics.com bulletins boards/ E-mail boxes. How else will they learn if they don't know how we feel their products. Regards, N823MS Lancair Es A300/CAPT ________________________________________________________________________________
From: jerry(at)tr2.com
Subject: Re: BMA
Date: Nov 19, 2002
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > > I have never flown an airplane (from J-3 to 747) that I could not keep right > side up using nothing more than a turn needle. > > All it takes is a little practice. That's a lot cheaper and more reliable > than all of the other options available. > *** Gee, I don't know... How much do those 747's rent for, anyway? ;). - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Subject: Re: BMA
In a message dated 11/19/02 11:20:13 AM Central Standard Time, jerry(at)tr2.com writes: > Gee, I don't know... How much do those 747's rent for, anyway? > Good Morning Jerry, I have been told that you can find them as low as ten thousand bucks per hour. Fortunately, mastering the T&B can be done in a J-3 or any other small airplane. The techniques used in a J-3 work just fine in everything I have ever flown. That even includes the supersonic T-38 trainer. An airplane is an airplane is an airplane. Every airplane requires differences training. The Jet Jockeys need to learn a few things to fly the J-3 properly and the J-3 pilots need a bit of transition training to move to the jets, but the principles are all the same. Happy Skies, Old Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: BMA
Date: Nov 19, 2002
OK, but if we are going to ask Boeing or Airbus what we should have in our panel, let's be sure to tell them that it is about 24" wide and 12" high. Terry RV-8A Well, my friend I am flying an A300 Airbus, which has a PFD, ND and all the steam gauges around it which are my stby gauges. Even the 777 has backup gauges. Perhaps, maybe we should ask Airbus or Boeing. Flying professionally for a living, I thought it would be nice to have my personal plane as close to my office at work; kind of a standardization thing. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Wiring an AT50A transponder
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Bob, I just received a used Narco AT 50A transponder with no connector. It needs a 17 pin edge connector and what I think is a power lead that looks like a BNC connection. Any idea where I can get the connectors? Also, the ACK A-30 encoder I'm wiring it to came with a pinout diagram for the AT50A which references a pin 18. There's a seperate hole next to the 17 pin edge. Could this be the 18th pin? It doesnt look like a connection point. Thanks for any help you or anyone else can provide. Regards, John Slade Cozy IV ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2002
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: BMA
N823ms(at)aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/19/2002 10:05:30 AM Central Standard Time, > sbuc(at)hiwaay.net writes: > > > The nice thing about BMA, Dynon, is > > > that they are about the same size, 4x4, so a standard gauge can fit in > > its > > > place or taken out to fit these in. > > > > > > Just as a point of reference, the BMA EFIS/Lite is physically much > > larger than the Dynon. The Lite will not fit in a standard stack if the > > instruments are located close together, and will require the panel to be > > "hacked" so the display can be accommodated. > > > > > > I have down loaded there templets and your right they are different in > size but not by much. In fact the BMA is 4 1/4 x 3 1/2, the Dynon is 3 3/4 x > 4 1/2, that's why I said basically 4 x 4. Actually the differences are much greater than the dimensions would indicate. I have had both units in my hands; the Dynon is designed with a rectangular display that mounts on the outside (pilot side) of the panel, but the body of the unit is cylindrical and fits in a standard 3 1/8" hole instrument hole. The unit is installed from the front of the panel. In comparison, the EFIS/Lite is huge. It is designed for the display to mount on the backside of the panel, and the bulky, rectangular box will not fit in the space commonly found between standard instruments, plus a rectangular hole has to be cut in the panel. > > There is another trend in the EFIS development cycle that causes some > concern to me. When I first contemplated the installation of an EFIS > over a year ago, the BMA EFIS/Lite was intended to be a stand-alone unit > that would provide all flight data independent of any other system (it > was even touted to have an independent battery). However, in the pursuit > of trying to get the unit to maintain its "balance" in all flight > maneuvers, it was deemed necessary by the designer to incorporate a GPS > receiver after my flight testing (of supposedly "production" units) > revealed the magnetometer was not up to the task of keeping the AHRS > honest. > > Your absolutely correct. It was not meant to be a stand alone unit. No, no, you mis-read my statement! I said "the BMA EFIS/Lite was intended to be a stand-alone unit". > However, those are only words, the fact of the matter, the EFIS/Lite is just > a smaller version of the EFIS/ONE without the rolling map. It does not know > and does not care whether it is PFD or backup. The AHRS is the same unit. I > found the EFIS/ONE to big of a unit. Correct. > > Ok.....so the argument is made that it would be folly to have an EFIS > system on board without mechanical backups. If that be the case.....then > why install an EFIS /Lite???? > > Well, my friend I am flying an A300 Airbus, which has a PFD, ND and > all the steam gauges around it which are my stby gauges. Even the 777 has > backup gauges. Perhaps, maybe we should ask Airbus or Boeing. Flying > professionally for a living, I thought it would be nice to have my personal > plane as close to my office at work; kind of a standardization thing. Once again, you missed the point of what I wrote. My contention is that since the EFIS/Lite is primarily marketed as a backup for the EFIS/One (check BMA's web site), but the unproven reliability of the Lite would lead many prudent builders to install mechanical backups in addition to the Lite ...... then what is the purpose of installing a "backup" that requires backups? Why not just go with the mechanical gyros and forget the "backup" EFIS/Lite? > > I realize that eventually GPS may be an integral, readily accepted, > component of flight systems. My concern is directed toward many builders > who seem to be swallowing, hook line and sinker, the EFIS philosophy > without completely thinking through the issue. I readily admit that it > is very easy to be lead into the role of cheerleader for a particular > EFIS product (been there...done that....!) but we must still consider > all ramifications of our decisions about filling the panel in our plane. > > Your right! But I am not one of them. Simply having this discussion > hopefully will alarm others who have a similar idea, as I have stated. > Perhaps maybe somebody should forward this to Dynondevelopment.com and > Bluemountainavionics.com bulletins boards/ E-mail boxes. How else will they > learn if they don't know how we feel their products. I can assure you that Greg Richter knows precisely how I feel about his products and company! ;-) Having said that, I sincerely hope that all the fledgling EFIS companies find a way to bring good, reliable, affordable products to market......and I think it is only a matter of time before these products arrive. Sam Buchanan P.S. Cap't, It would be nice if you would sign your name..... > Regards, > N823MS > Lancair Es > A300/CAPT ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: BOB: Wiring 14v Artificial Horizon
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Hello Robert, just got mine hooked up on a batterie and got the Amps measured for my load analysis, I have an RCA26AK-4 brandnew: startup: 1.45 A running: 0.75A Hope it helps Werner ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Miller" <rmill2000(at)yahoo.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: BOB: Wiring 14v Artificial Horizon > > Hello > > After plunking down nearly $2000 for a new RC Allen 14v electric > Artificial Horizon, I noticed that the folks at folks at RCA do not even > bother to include a wiring diagram or installation instructions with their > unit--absolutely no paper in the box at all! The back of the unit does > specify ground and power though. > > My question, how much current will this thing use and what wire/fuse size > would you recommend? > > Thanks > > Robert > > RV-8 N262RM "Bad Cat" Flying > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2002
From: Mark Phillips <ripsteel(at)edge.net>
Subject: Re: Backup Attitude Indicators
Can the Navaid control head TC display (it IS a gyro-driven device) be considered to meet this requirement? I know this was discussed a few months ago, but I don't recall a definate answer. Anybody been certified for IFR with this instrument meeting the "requirements"? From the PossumWorks in TN Mark Phillips According to the FAR's I believe that I need a turn coordinator to be IFR legal - I would much prefer to have an electric AI as my backup . Has anyone got a waiver from the local FSDO to do this; and next does anyone have good options for an electric AI . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Wiring an AT50A transponder
> >Bob, >I just received a used Narco AT 50A transponder with no connector. It needs >a 17 pin edge connector and what I think is a power lead that looks like a >BNC connection. Any idea where I can get the connectors? Also, the ACK A-30 >encoder I'm wiring it to came with a pinout diagram for the AT50A which >references a pin 18. There's a seperate hole next to the 17 pin edge. Could >this be the 18th pin? It doesnt look like a connection point. Here's what I have on the transponder http://216.55.140.222/temp/AT50.pdf here's the encoder. http://216.55.140.222/temp/ACK_A30.pdf I think the connector for the transponder are AMP-leaf, card edge connectors. It's been a long time since I've looked at a Narco Transponder. Can you send me a digital picture of the back of the transponder? The Narco drawing calls out an 18-pin connector. The "BNC" looking thing is probably your antenna connection. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N823ms(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Subject: Re: BMA
In a message dated 11/19/2002 1:42:44 PM Central Standard Time, sbuc(at)hiwaay.net writes: > P.S. Cap't, It would be nice if you would sign your name..... > > > > Regards, > > N823MS > > Lancair Es > > A300/CAPT At the beginning of this discussion, I signed my named, sometimes just in a hurry. The fact that you have both units in your hands, it sounds like the Dynon EFIS-10 is the better way to go if it ever gets up and running. Until then I will be searching for an electric AH and DG. RC Allen's are expensive. Goodrich is an over kill. Do you have any recommendations? Is there a market of used/reconditioned gauges around? Are non TSO'd gauges OK? Chief aircraft parts has both a AH and DG for half the price of RC Allen. Just trying to buy some time before a good EFIS comes out. If all else fails, I'll just go with good steam gauges! Regards, Ed Silvanic N823MS Lancair ES ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N823ms(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Subject: Re: BMA
In a message dated 11/19/2002 12:05:57 PM Central Standard Time, terry(at)tcwatson.com writes: > OK, but if we are going to ask Boeing or Airbus what we should have in our > panel, let's be sure to tell them that it is about 24" wide and 12" high. > > Terry > RV-8A > Terry: You missed my point. The question was:Why have all these backups when installing an EFIS system or partial glass cockpit? The majors are doing it, I suppose the FAA has a lot to say about their panels. I do not in any way want to ask them how to do my own panel. Just curious about their philosophy. Regards, Ed Silvanic ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N823ms(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Subject: Re: BMA
In a message dated 11/19/2002 11:30:28 AM Central Standard Time, BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes: > > > Gee, I don't know... How much do those 747's rent for, anyway? > > > > Go to Davis Moffet, there are plenty of them out there. I am sure you will get a good price. Getting it air worthy will be a fortune. Ed ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Wiring an AT50A transponder
Date: Nov 19, 2002
> I think the connector for the transponder are AMP-leaf, > card edge connectors. I searched around without any luck. Wheres a good place to go for one of these? > Can you send me a digital picture of the back of the transponder? See: http://kgarden.com/cozy/trans2.jpg http://kgarden.com/cozy/trans1.jpg > The Narco drawing calls out an 18-pin connector. One (perhaps #1) must be unused. There are definately 17 brass connectors. There's space for an 18th on the left hand side. Which way do the numbers go? > The "BNC" looking thing > is probably your antenna connection. Duh! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com>
Subject: BMA
Date: Nov 19, 2002
I'm waiting on the Dynon myself. I tried the BMA route, but got my money back after several broken promises. My Dynon installation will have it's own switch or pull breaker so it can be turned off if it goes crazy. Backups are traditional ASI, ALT, and TC with the panel-mounted Garmin 196 and TruTrak 200VS helping too. That's my plan and I'm stickin' to it!! (unless someone convinces me to do otherwise...) - Larry Bowen RV-8, carving panel... 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 N823ms(at)aol.com > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 6:12 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: BMA > > > > In a message dated 11/19/2002 1:42:44 PM Central Standard Time, > sbuc(at)hiwaay.net writes: > > > > P.S. Cap't, It would be nice if you would sign your name..... > > > > > > > Regards, > > > N823MS > > > Lancair Es > > > A300/CAPT > > > At the beginning of this discussion, I signed my > named, sometimes just > in a hurry. The fact that you have both units in your hands, > it sounds like > the Dynon EFIS-10 is the better way to go if it ever gets up > and running. > Until then I will be searching for an electric AH and DG. RC > Allen's are > expensive. Goodrich is an over kill. Do you have any > recommendations? Is > there a market of used/reconditioned gauges around? Are non > TSO'd gauges OK? > Chief aircraft parts has both a AH and DG for half the price > of RC Allen. > Just trying to buy some time before a good EFIS comes out. If > all else fails, > I'll just go with good steam gauges! > > Regards, > > Ed Silvanic > N823MS > Lancair ES > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2002
From: davepetrv6(at)comcast.net
Subject: AHRS Backup
I agree with John Brick's reading of the FAR's that if we satisfy 91.205 then we are legal for IFR flight . 91.205 d3 says that a gyroscopic rate of turn indicator is required. I would prefer an electric AI instead . I would be comfortable with this, a compass, airspeed and altitude as backups (not to mention that I have a navcom and probably a handheld GPS) . If I had to I would use the T/C instead of an AI - I don't like them much notwithstanding recent comments about T/B vs T/C . I do not wish to back up the EFIS One with the EFIS Lite as the gyro system is the same technology. I can see some reasons why the EFIS lite might be a more difficult technical issue and Sam Buchanan and others have had problems . The (cheap) solid state gyros have short term drift on these systems and are corrected by filter algorithms and then by the GPS position in the case of the EFIS One, The Lite did not have a GPS in it's original configuration. In answer to the question about Blue Mountain - here's what I know so far :- The original INS solution combined the magnetometer and the gyros - this did not work well and the magnetometer has been taken out of the INS solution and now drives only the HSI. The maps which were originally images took up too much of the processor time and are being replaced with generated maps - these are not yet complete. The Autopilot servos are being delivered but not yet the processor and software . The hardware has been redesigned , looks much better and we are beginning to see a more professional approach - they have definitely had problems keeping up and this is probably the biggest risk in the whole equation. In terms of the other risks, the plane will fly VFR with minimal instrumentation and I don't think anyone should set off into the clouds without thoroughly testing the system and a good backup plan. I don't think our current systems are that great - I have had 2 vacuum gyros fail in 600 hours on my RV - I am flying on a vacuum system with known poor reliability ( that's all of them not mine specifically ) backed up by a turn coordinator and a whiskey compass. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2002
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: BMA
Please accept my apology, Ed, for missing your name in the earlier post. Like you, I am anxiously awaiting to see who will get a reliable EFIS in the air. The Dynon folks seem to be very conscientious and up front about getting it right before they launch their product. I really like the form factor of the Dynon, it will be very easy to retrofit it into an assembled panel. I wish I could recommend specific gyros and such but I can't since I haven't done my homework in that area; please keep us informed as to what you find. Non-TSO'ed instruments are perfectly legal in our experimental aircraft, even for IFR use. The only TSO'ed stuff we need is the transponder and encoder, and, depending on who you ask, GPS if you use it for GPS approaches. Best regards, Sam Buchanan "The RV Journal" http://thervjournal.com ======================== N823ms(at)aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/19/2002 1:42:44 PM Central Standard Time, > sbuc(at)hiwaay.net writes: > > > P.S. Cap't, It would be nice if you would sign your name..... > > > > > > > Regards, > > > N823MS > > > Lancair Es > > > A300/CAPT > > At the beginning of this discussion, I signed my named, sometimes just > in a hurry. The fact that you have both units in your hands, it sounds like > the Dynon EFIS-10 is the better way to go if it ever gets up and running. > Until then I will be searching for an electric AH and DG. RC Allen's are > expensive. Goodrich is an over kill. Do you have any recommendations? Is > there a market of used/reconditioned gauges around? Are non TSO'd gauges OK? > Chief aircraft parts has both a AH and DG for half the price of RC Allen. > Just trying to buy some time before a good EFIS comes out. If all else fails, > I'll just go with good steam gauges! > > Regards, > > Ed Silvanic > N823MS > Lancair ES > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2002
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: Backup Attitude Indicators
Mark Phillips wrote: > > > Can the Navaid control head TC display (it IS a gyro-driven device) be considered to meet this requirement? I know this was discussed a few months ago, but I don't recall a definate answer. Anybody been certified for IFR with this instrument meeting the "requirements"? > > >From the PossumWorks in TN > Mark Phillips > > According to the FAR's I believe that I need a turn coordinator to be IFR legal - I would much prefer to have an electric AI as my backup . Has anyone got a waiver from the local FSDO to do this; and next does anyone have good options for an electric AI . > Mark, there are no "certified for IFR" experimental aircraft! :-) As was mentioned in an earlier post, the only allusion to IFR in our flight limitations is the line that states the plane should be operated only day VFR unless "equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205". That's it. Your question about the Navaid is a good one, and falls into the same question as to whether or not the new equipment with solid state sensors (AHRS) will be recognized as properly adhering to 91.205. I suspect the final arbitrators for quite a while in this area are going to be the insurance companies. I just betcha that if a pilot piles up his RV or Glasair while on an instrument flight plan, and all the investigators can find in the panel is non-TSO'ed solid state and glass stuff........the insurance people are going to try every way possible to wiggle out of paying, claiming the equipment doesn't meet 91.205! It will probably take a few court decisions to force the FAA up to speed and prompt them to start the process of amending 91.205 with a definition of exactly what "gyroscopic" includes. Until then, we are sorta in no man's land when we contemplate filing IFR with one of the new EFIS systems. I don't think you will be able to get a consistent answer from FAA officials on this question! Please correct this rambling if there has been clarification of this issue that I am not aware of. Sam Buchanan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: BMA
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Ed, Maybe I did miss your point, but every time I re-read it, I get the point as being that since Boeing and Airbus have backups to their primary instruments, and they know what they are doing, we should too. My point is that I have limited panel space and a limited budget. The Bluemountain EFIS one gives me all of the engine gauges, the air data information, plus an attitude reference and GPS moving map. OK, now the hard part is how much of that do I need to duplicate with back-up gauges. My decision so far, subject to being influenced by knowledgeable people like you, is that I want it to be VFR legal if the plug connecting the central processor to the screen falls out, and I want the barest minimum that will give me a chance of getting through a cloud deck if I am on top of it when the plug falls out. My Garmin 196 gives me a moving map, groundspeed, and sort-of altitude. It also gives me a turn coordinator, but I don't know just how good it is. Reports have been favorable. I also have an Angle of Attack indicator, and to meet the above VFR legal requirements I need airspeed and altitude, although without the VFR legal requirement the Garmin would approximate those. I need a fuel gauge, tach, manifold pressure, oil pressure, and oil temperature gauges. I think I should have a gyro based turn and bank, if I don't think the Garmin GPS based turn coordinator is good enough. An attitude gyro would be the fourth instrument to keep me right side up. (EFIS, Garmin 196, Turn & Bank). When I am trying to find space in my panel and budget for another instrument, that one doesn't seem like the most helpful or cost effective. I don't think I have any illusions about the Blue Mountain EFIS-one being a sure-fire solution to my instrumentation. Unless and until it proves itself, my airplane will be strictly VFR. It if proves itself, I will consider upgrading the airplane and me to IFR. I like the Dynon. I have looked at it, and I live just a few miles from their office so there is incentive to deal with local people, some of whom I have met and been impressed by. But the Dynon does not yet have the engine instruments or the moving map, and it's not shipping. I think it has great potential as a back-up, maybe even as a back-up for a BMA EFIS-one. I have the BMA EFIS-one on order and I don't expect it for five or six months. I consider my decision to go that way a risk but a worthwhile one. Helpful comments about my plan for my panel are more than welcome, they are requested. Terry Watson RV-8A #80729 Seattle Terry: You missed my point. The question was:Why have all these backups when installing an EFIS system or partial glass cockpit? The majors are doing it, I suppose the FAA has a lot to say about their panels. I do not in any way want to ask them how to do my own panel. Just curious about their philosophy. Regards, Ed Silvanic ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2002
From: Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com>
Subject: Re: LED position lights
> I have noticed LED's used on trucks and on stop lights recently, so I > thought that the price of LED's in groups might come down. NAPA auto parts > didn't have any, but at a Flying A truck stop, they had an LED replacement > unit for a stop light for $32 retail. I wasn't about to buy one and tear it > apart, but it tells me that they are coming. I would imagine that in order > to lighten (no pun intended) the load on automotive electrical systems so > they don't have to convert to 44 volt, as has been suggested, automotive the main reason they want to go to 42volts (14V x 3) actually is to have skinny wires. Yes LEDs and other things reduce the load, allowing the manufacturers to wait even longer to switch over. With electric valves, and all the other electrical stuff, 12V won't be the standard too much longer. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Francis, CMDR David" <David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au>
Subject: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - SOLDER CORROSION
Date: Nov 20, 2002
G'day Folks, Two weeks ago I breadboarded a LED circuit and used liquid flux to get the solder flowing. Now half the solder connections are discoloured by corrosion. What should I have done to prevent this? Email: David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au ________________________________________________________________________________
From: jerry(at)tr2.com
Subject: Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - SOLDER CORROSION
Date: Nov 19, 2002
Francis, CMDR David wrote: > > > > G'day Folks, > Two weeks ago I breadboarded a LED circuit and used liquid flux to get the > solder flowing. Now half the solder connections are discoloured by > corrosion. > > What should I have done to prevent this? > *** You should have used rosin-core "radio/electronics" solder. Put the liquid flux back with your plumbing supplies. - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2002
From: Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com>
Subject: Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - SOLDER CORROSION
Francis, CMDR David wrote: > > > G'day Folks, > Two weeks ago I breadboarded a LED circuit and used liquid flux to get the > solder flowing. Now half the solder connections are discoloured by > corrosion. > > What should I have done to prevent this? > > Email: David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au > David, The flux was probably corrosive. The container should have specified an effective cleaner to remove the flux after soldering. If you use electronics grade solder, additional flux is rarely needed when soldering copper. Most electronics grade solder has a non-corrosive flux imbedded in the solder itself. Prior to soldering, cleaning the wire & circuit board of corrosion (making the shiny copper show) using something as crude as a knife edge or a (clean) screwdriver blade is usually enough to allow a good connection. After prepping the components & mechanically making up the joint, pre-heat the iron. Wipe the hot iron's tip on a damp cloth or sponge to remove any loose scale, tin the tip lightly with the solder & move the freshly cleaned & tinned tip to the joint. For small joints like LED leads, etc., only a second or two of heat should be needed before feeding the solder into the joint, touching the joint, NOT the iron. Another second or two & you should have a smooth, sound joint. Remove the iron & allow the joint to cool in still air. If the solder is shiny without bubbles or a rough appearance, you probably have a good joint. Note that some cheap connectors can be difficult to solder. If their terminals are very shiny, almost chrome looking, then abrading the terminal to cut through the plating and pre-tinning with solder will help. Cleaning/tinning the iron improves heat transfer from the iron to the joint. This might be a bit counter-intuitive, but poorer heat transfer can result in overheating the wire or component because the extra heating time required can allow the heat to travel away from the joint into the component or up the wire overheating the insulation. More than you really wanted to know? Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2002
From: Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net>
Subject: Re: BMA
<... I also have an Angle of Attack indicator, and to meet the above VFR legal requirements I need airspeed and altitude, although without the VFR legal requirement the Garmin would approximate those. I need a fuel gauge, tach, manifold pressure, oil pressure, and oil temperature gauges. I think I should have a gyro based turn and bank, if I don't think the Garmin GPS based turn coordinator is good enough ...> If I had an EFIS that displayed everything in the world, I would regard its failure as an emergency, and I would be looking for the very nearest suitable landing strip. Since I'm going most direct route to the nearest safe strip, I don't much need tach, fuel gauge, manifold pressure, oil pressure/temp, etc. I don't see how knowing what my oil temperature or manifold pressure is would alter anything. Steam gauges that are primary indicators fail all the time. Do we back them up? Who backs up ANY of the stuff we've listed here? If I had handheld GPS, I would regard needle ball as mandatory. Altimeter would be nice, as would airspeed, but not critical. Just these few would get me through a cloud deck and lined up to land at the nearest air patch. Decidedly austere flying. That's why we call them BACKUPs. Just a theory .... Jim S. Terry Watson wrote: > > Ed, > > Maybe I did miss your point, but every time I re-read it, I get the point as > being that since Boeing and Airbus have backups to their primary > instruments, and they know what they are doing, we should too. > > My point is that I have limited panel space and a limited budget. The > Bluemountain EFIS one gives me all of the engine gauges, the air data > information, plus an attitude reference and GPS moving map. OK, now the > hard part is how much of that do I need to duplicate with back-up gauges. > My decision so far, subject to being influenced by knowledgeable people like > you, is that I want it to be VFR legal if the plug connecting the central > processor to the screen falls out, and I want the barest minimum that will > give me a chance of getting through a cloud deck if I am on top of it when > the plug falls out. My Garmin 196 gives me a moving map, groundspeed, and > sort-of altitude. It also gives me a turn coordinator, but I don't know > just how good it is. Reports have been favorable. > > I also have an Angle of Attack indicator, and to meet the above VFR legal > requirements I need airspeed and altitude, although without the VFR legal > requirement the Garmin would approximate those. I need a fuel gauge, tach, > manifold pressure, oil pressure, and oil temperature gauges. I think I > should have a gyro based turn and bank, if I don't think the Garmin GPS > based turn coordinator is good enough. > > An attitude gyro would be the fourth instrument to keep me right side up. > (EFIS, Garmin 196, Turn & Bank). When I am trying to find space in my panel > and budget for another instrument, that one doesn't seem like the most > helpful or cost effective. > > I don't think I have any illusions about the Blue Mountain EFIS-one being a > sure-fire solution to my instrumentation. Unless and until it proves > itself, my airplane will be strictly VFR. It if proves itself, I will > consider upgrading the airplane and me to IFR. > > I like the Dynon. I have looked at it, and I live just a few miles from > their office so there is incentive to deal with local people, some of whom I > have met and been impressed by. But the Dynon does not yet have the engine > instruments or the moving map, and it's not shipping. I think it has great > potential as a back-up, maybe even as a back-up for a BMA EFIS-one. > > I have the BMA EFIS-one on order and I don't expect it for five or six > months. I consider my decision to go that way a risk but a worthwhile one. > > Helpful comments about my plan for my panel are more than welcome, they are > requested. > > Terry Watson > RV-8A #80729 > Seattle > > Terry: > > You missed my point. The question was:Why have all these backups when > installing an EFIS system or partial glass cockpit? The majors are doing it, > I suppose the FAA has a lot to say about their panels. I do not in any way > want to ask them how to do my own panel. Just curious about their > philosophy. > > Regards, > > Ed Silvanic > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: brucem(at)olypen.com
Subject: RE: Backup Attitude Indicator
Date: Nov 20, 2002
FAR 91 requires three gyroscopic instruments for IFR flight in all aircraft operating under that Chapter, regardless if experimental or not. Usually the FAA will accept another means of compliance only if "an equivalent level of safety" will result. Without an expensive engineering study, the best way to convince the FAA is with their own words. This issue is addressed in FAR 23.1311 which concerns EFIS in certificated aircraft. This would probably work for the equivalent level in experimentals. The problem is the backup requirement. The only instruments and accessories on a conventional IFR panel that an EFIS would replace are the TC and DG (assuming a second alternator offsets the vacuum pump). Hardly worth the increased complexity and thousands of dollars of added expense in my opinion. Regards, Bruce McGregor --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail. http://www.olypen.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2002
From: Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Backup Attitude Indicators
> >John, I was very loosely paraphrasing line 8 that you referenced. The >question I raised was whether or not AHRS platforms satisfy the >"equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205" >portion of the limitation. > >I don't know if the FAA has really addressed this issue in regards to >aircraft with experimental certificates. More than likely the turbines >and jets with AHRS platforms retain mechanical gyro backups, but they >are intended for Part 135 ops........so I am not sure where that leaves >us. > >This may be one of those deals where you get different answers from >various FSDO's. > >Yes, you should be happy and content to get the limitations you stated! >:-) Those are the same I received for my RV-6.......but I still don't >know how an experimental aircraft with only AHRS in the panel fits in >the regs. > >Sam Buchanan Actually some current production airliner and business jet types have AHRS technology backup attitude indicators. There are many airliners and business jets flying around with no gyros whatsoever, notwithstanding the wording of FARs 91.205 and 121.305. In the aircraft certification side of the house we have a process called "Equivalent Level of Safety" (FAR 21.21 b 1), where we can approve something that doesn't meet the explicit requirements if the applicant can show that his design has other compensating features that make it equivalently safe to what is required by the regs. I've never seen anything like this concept described in the operational rules side of the house, but it seems that they must be using a similar process, but doing it informally. I expect at some point the FAA will do what we in Canada did a few years ago - our aircraft equipment requirements were changed to remove the word "gyroscopic", in recognition of the new technology that was now available. -- Kevin Horton RV-8 (baffles, induction air, oil cooler) Ottawa, Canada http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net>
Subject: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - SOLDER CORROSION
Date: Nov 20, 2002
I don't know what kind of flux you used, but only rosin core solder (or fluxes appropriate for wave soldering) should be used. Then spray or brush with a paint brush lacquer thinner on both sides of the board to remove the flux. The flux's purpose is to corrode the metals so that the solder will wet it out, and it does it fast when the temperature is 700F or so, much slower, but persistently, at room temperature. Alex Peterson Maple Grove, MN RV6-A N66AP 229 hours www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson > G'day Folks, > Two weeks ago I breadboarded a LED circuit and used liquid > flux to get the solder flowing. Now half the solder > connections are discoloured by corrosion. > > What should I have done to prevent this? > > Email: David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N823ms(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 20, 2002
Subject: Re: BMA
In a message dated 11/19/2002 6:07:59 PM Central Standard Time, sbuc(at)hiwaay.net writes: > > Please accept my apology, Ed, for missing your name in the earlier post. > > Sam: Thank you, I will let all know about my investigation about electric AH/DG. I wish TruTrak had decided to develop their Gyro Trak which is listed in Aircraft Spruce in the autopilot section. At 750.00, that would have been nice. Chief aircraft parts wants $1,000.00 for their non-tso'd AH/DG; That's still half of RC Allen. The DG gauge being one of the most redundant gauges on the panel, i.e., compass, GPS readout, I believe I would buy two of the non-tso'd AH's instead of one RC Allen AH. I am going to bet on the Dynon to come through, like you I like their idea of not letting loose of something until proven. Stay in touch. All the Best, Ed Silvanic N823MS Lancair ES ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N823ms(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 20, 2002
Subject: Re: BMA
In a message dated 11/19/2002 5:32:46 PM Central Standard Time, Larry(at)BowenAero.com writes: > > That's my plan and I'm stickin' to it!! (unless someone convinces me to > do otherwise...) > > - > Larry Bowen > RV-8, carving panel... > Larry(at)BowenAero.com > http://BowenAero.com > > > Larry: That's a good plan, stick to it. Good Luck Ed Silvanic N823MS Lancair ES ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2002
Subject: ground strap path
From: "Robert Dickson" <robert@thenews-journal.com>
what is the acceptable method of preventing the engine-to-firewall ground strap from rubbing on or contacting stuff near its path? I'm planning on using one of B&C's braided bonding straps in my RV-6A and I know I want it to be as flexible as possible, but it's apparent in my installation that I'll need to prevent it from possibly rubbing on/contacting other items along this path. Can I use the usual clamping methods or should I encase the strap in something? I've had a ground strap break on me before (bonanza) so I'd like to do this right. thanks Robert Dickson RV-6A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 20, 2002
Subject: Re: RE: Backup Attitude Indicator
In a message dated 11/19/02 11:47:04 PM Central Standard Time, brucem(at)olypen.com writes: > The problem is the backup requirement. The only instruments and > accessories on a conventional IFR panel that an EFIS would replace > are the TC and DG (assuming a second alternator offsets the vacuum > pump). Hardly worth the increased complexity and thousands of > dollars of added expense in my opinion. > Good Morning Bruce, Just a comment. (Kinda long though) The FAA is attempting to "Raise The Bar." There has been no requirement to back up anything in the past. All of our classic certificated airplanes are allowed to fly with one engine, one generator, one pilot, etc., ad infinitum. Even the requirement that we have an attitude gyro and a heading gyro was added not to provide redundancy, but to reduce training time. For the first thirty years or so of practical and successful instrument flight, only a single gyroscopic instrument was required, the turn needle. When I started flying instruments, they also required that we have a sensitive altimeter and a rate of climb instrument in addition to those instruments required for VFR flight. I am not certain when those two instruments were added to the list. Many of us flew happily along for many years before the advent of a required "full panel" in the mid fifties. All it took was practice. If questioned, the FAA will justify their addition of back up equipment as an effort to increase safety. However, they really can't show that the lack of backup equipment has been a significant factor in aircraft accidents over the years. The Air Line Pilot's Association has long advocated dual everything. When the Terminal Control Areas were first proposed, ALPA went on record as suggesting that a minimum requirement to allow anyone to operate into a TCA be that the aircraft have at least two engines and two pilots. That proviso has been included in their response every time the FAA has called for comments on any new airspace designations. The requirement that there be a dual source of power for flight instrumentation to get an approval for IFR flight is a result of the large number of accidents that have occurred following the loss of attitude gyros. Had those pilots been able to handle the aircraft on partial panel as good at the time of failure as they had when they received their instrument rating, possibly, we wouldn't be stuck with the dual source requirement. I say possibly because I have been told by more than one FAA type that what they are trying to do is eliminate those who operate at the bottom of the heap. They want to move the bar up each time that regulations are reviewed. That sounds OK, because most of us don't feel that we are at the bottom of the heap when it comes to our safety consciousness. Nevertheless, if they keep cutting off the bottom folks, how long will it take for them to get to you or me! The AOPA folks have been trying to raise the bar to the two man, two engine minimum for years. Eventually, no one will be able to fly. I think we need to fight strongly for our right to flying anything we want with no back up at all. It should be up to each of us to decide how much back up is required for us to feel comfortable. Records do show that what we have decided upon in the past has met acceptable levels of safety. Let's all be vigilante out there! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Piper Pacer N2858P ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Backup Attitude Indicator
Date: Nov 20, 2002
Bob, I've been a member of AOPA for at least ten years and this is the first time I have heard of this being their position. Did you mean ALPA? Bill Glasair ----- Original Message ----- From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Backup Attitude Indicator > > The AOPA folks have been trying to raise the bar to the two man, two engine > minimum for years.> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: jerry(at)tr2.com
Subject: Re: RE: Backup Attitude Indicator
Date: Nov 20, 2002
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > > The AOPA folks have been trying to raise the bar to the two man, two engine > minimum for years. > *** ALPA, right? No WAY would *AOPA* push for something like that! - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 20, 2002
Subject: Re: RE: Backup Attitude Indicator
In a message dated 11/20/02 9:08:39 AM Central Standard Time, n744bh(at)bellsouth.net writes: > Bob, > I've been a member of AOPA for at least ten years and this is the first > time > I have heard of this being their position. Did you mean ALPA? > Bill > Glasair > Good Morning Bill, Thanks for catching my typo. It is, of course, ALPA. That was why I spelled it out completely the first time. I didn't want anyone to be confused. I should have spelled it out completely the second time and I wouldn't have made that dumb typo. Happy Skies, Old Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Wiring an AT50A transponder
> > > I think the connector for the transponder are AMP-leaf, > > card edge connectors. >I searched around without any luck. Wheres a good place to go for one of >these? Do we know for sure that it IS AMP-Leaf? I'd need to see the connector in some detail to be sure. Or, check out these links: Exposed card edge to mate with connector would have to meet these requirements: http://catalog.tycoelectronics.com/TE/common/images/PartImages/pcbw113d.gif The connector generally looks like this http://catalog.tycoelectronics.com/TE/common/images/PartImages/4786136a.gif Here's a dimensional drawing for the connector http://catalog.tycoelectronics.com/TE/docs/pdf/7/22/184227.pdf Does this look like the critter you need? >One (perhaps #1) must be unused. There are definately 17 brass connectors. >There's space for an 18th on the left hand side. Which way do the numbers >go? Usually, the numbers are hot-molded into the body of the connector. They can be very tiny and hard to see on the generally black colored plastic. Look real close and see if they are there. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | The man who does not read good books has no advantage | | over the man who cannot read them. | | - Mark Twain | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Wiring 14v Artificial Horizon
> >Hello > >After plunking down nearly $2000 for a new RC Allen 14v electric >Artificial Horizon, I noticed that the folks at folks at RCA do not even >bother to include a wiring diagram or installation instructions with their >unit--absolutely no paper in the box at all! The back of the unit does >specify ground and power though. > >My question, how much current will this thing use and what wire/fuse size >would you recommend? Another list member posted his measured data which will be a good starting place. 22AWG feeder with 5A breaker or even smaller fuse would be fine. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 20, 2002
Subject: Re: RE: Backup Attitude Indicator
In a message dated 11/20/02 9:16:35 AM Central Standard Time, jerry(at)tr2.com writes: > *** ALPA, right? No WAY would *AOPA* push for something like that! > > - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) > Good Morning Jerry, Well, it's nice to know at least two folks read my comment! Happy Skies. Old Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: ground strap path
><robert@thenews-journal.com> > >what is the acceptable method of preventing the engine-to-firewall ground >strap from rubbing on or contacting stuff near its path? I'm planning on >using one of B&C's braided bonding straps in my RV-6A and I know I want it >to be as flexible as possible, but it's apparent in my installation that >I'll need to prevent it from possibly rubbing on/contacting other items >along this path. Can I use the usual clamping methods or should I encase the >strap in something? I've had a ground strap break on me before (bonanza) so >I'd like to do this right. Can't you arrange for the jumper to make a graceful loop between the crankcase and the firewall with just enough slack to allow deflections of the mounts without rubbing on anything? If it has to hang close to something like an engine mount tube, ect. you might slip a piece of hose over the strap and then string-tie the hose segment to structure. Bob . . . |-------------------------------------------------------| | The man who does not read good books has no advantage | | over the man who cannot read them. | | - Mark Twain | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: E Buss
> >Paul, > >I am not Bob, but I wonder whether you can mount a fuse panel somewhere >other than the panel. One of the ideas behind using fuses is that there >isn't any >reason to access them while in flight. Mounting them closer to the main >power >source (battery) is more practical. Obviously, bus structures need to be convenient to the task of running wires around the airplane . . . one wouldn't want to put fuse blocks or any other accessory in the tailcone just because it might be easy to get at. You'll want to consider maintenance effort but you'll probably find that no matter what you decide to do, NOTHING on an airplane is easy to get at ('cept maybe the fuel filler caps!). If you subscribe to the notion that fuses should only be fiddled with on the ground then sure, figure out a good place to put the fuseblocks to make your wiring job as easy and/or neat as possible. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DHPHKH(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 20, 2002
Subject: Re: ground strap path
Bob and gang, Why do we use a *braided* ground strap anyway? Is there any electrical difference between a braided strap and a #2 wire? Or is it merely a question of mechanics, ie, the strap is more flexible when used in a short length? Dan Horton ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: ground strap path
> >Bob and gang, > Why do we use a *braided* ground strap anyway? Is there any electrical >difference between a braided strap and a #2 wire? Or is it merely a question >of mechanics, ie, the strap is more flexible when used in a short length? > >Dan Horton Super flexible and very resistant to breakage due to engine vibration. Welding cable would work good too. Try to "bend" a window and it breaks, yet strands of glass fiber are quite flexible. Many tiny strands are much better than fewer, heavier strands . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Wiring an AT50A transponder
Date: Nov 20, 2002
> Do we know for sure that it IS AMP-Leaf? No. But Narco says the latest AT150 units are a push-in replacement for the AT50A, so this must be the standard NARCO transponder connector. > Exposed card edge to mate with connector would have to meet > these requirements: The spacing between connectors is right at 0.156 Card thickness is 1/16 Width of the card edge is about 2.8 Depth of the connectors is about .35 The holes in the tray are 3.25 apart > Does this look like the critter you need? I don't think so. The holes are 3.4 apart on the diagram. > Usually, the numbers are hot-molded into the > body of the connector. They can be very tiny and > hard to see on the generally black colored plastic. > Look real close and see if they are there. But Bob. The connector is the part I don't have! I guess I could always solder the wires into the holes on the board and use any 18 pin connector... if I knew which end the pin numbers started. Surely Narco has a standard connector I could get. John Slade ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Wiring an AT50A transponder
> > > Usually, the numbers are hot-molded into the > > body of the connector. They can be very tiny and > > hard to see on the generally black colored plastic. > > Look real close and see if they are there. >But Bob. The connector is the part I don't have! > >I guess I could always solder the wires into the holes on the board and use >any 18 pin connector... if I knew which end the pin numbers started. Okay. It must be a different connector. Narco buys their connectors from somebody, they don't make them. Is there an avionics shop nearby that might let you look at the service manual or even the installation manual? They might even stock a replacement connector. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: Wiring an AT50A transponder
Date: Nov 20, 2002
Bob, I called Narco. The connector is the same as the one used in their latest models. They supply an installation kit for $81 which includes the plug, screws etc. This will allow me to set up the tray to be compatible with the 50A or a new 150 if/when I upgrade. It may be a lot for a plastic plug, but this seems like the way to go. Thanks for your efforts. John Slade Now.... about my Narco Mk 16 Nav/Com... Do you have any pin info? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2002
Subject: Re: ground strap path
From: "Robert Dickson" <robert@thenews-journal.com>
> >>what is the acceptable method of preventing the engine-to-firewall ground >>strap from rubbing on or contacting stuff near its path? I'm planning on >>using one of B&C's braided bonding straps in my RV-6A and I know I want it >>to be as flexible as possible, but it's apparent in my installation that >>I'll need to prevent it from possibly rubbing on/contacting other items >>along this path. Can I use the usual clamping methods or should I encase the >>strap in something? I've had a ground strap break on me before (bonanza) so >>I'd like to do this right. > > Can't you arrange for the jumper to make a graceful > loop between the crankcase and the firewall with just > enough slack to allow deflections of the mounts without > rubbing on anything? > > If it has to hang close to something like an engine mount > tube, ect. you might slip a piece of hose over the strap > and then string-tie the hose segment to structure. I guess I'm just being cautious about the *possibility* of the strap rubbing on something, but, you're right, I can probably arrange it so it doesn't. As I said before, one broken ground strap (it WAS thick, stiff wire) was enough to get my attention. I just wanted to know exactly what you said - that it's ok to cover the strap if I need to. The shrink tube idea also seems pretty good. Thanks for the responses. Robert Dickson RV-6A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Ground Strap
Date: Nov 20, 2002
Since we are having these ground strap threads I thought I'd ask a question that hasn't been addressed yet. All references to the ground strap indicate that it should be substantially connected to the engine block. I used one of the 1/4" bolts that hold the oil sump to the engine to connect my ground strap. Is this adequate? Is it acceptable? Vince Welch RV-8A FWF MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2002
From: Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Wiring an AT50A transponder
John Slade wrote: > > Bob, > I called Narco. The connector is the same as the one used in their latest > models. They supply an installation kit for $81 which includes the plug, > screws etc. > > Now.... about my Narco Mk 16 Nav/Com... Do you have any pin info? Didn't the guy who told you about the 50A connector have that? For another $80? And $80 more for the connector, and $..... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2002
From: John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Backup Attitude Indicator
Bob - I have been a member of AOPA for many years. This statement from you, regarding AOPA's advocacy of raising the bar to 2 engine/2 pilot flying for everyone, is the first I've heard, read or received in any interaction I've had with AOPA. Thank you for your wise and interesting commentary on most every other topic on this net Bill Hibbing wrote: > > > Bob, > I've been a member of AOPA for at least ten years and this is the first time > I have heard of this being their position. Did you mean ALPA? > Bill > Glasair > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com> > To: > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Backup Attitude Indicator > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2002
From: John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Backup Attitude Indicator
Bob - Shoulda minded an old sage: sit on it over night before posting it. I'm sorry for not at least scanning the rest of the mail box. Thanks for the clarification. John Schroeder BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/20/02 9:08:39 AM Central Standard Time, > n744bh(at)bellsouth.net writes: > > > Bob, > > I've been a member of AOPA for at least ten years and this is the first > > time > > I have heard of this being their position. Did you mean ALPA? > > Bill > > Glasair > > > > Good Morning Bill, > > Thanks for catching my typo. > > It is, of course, ALPA. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Brian & Debi Shannon" <wings(at)theshannons.net>
Subject: Air Operated Squat Switch
Date: Nov 20, 2002
Hi Everyone, Does anyone have any of the air pressure type squat switches around that they could get some numbers off of for me. I know Lancair sells them but I'd rather not pay their price and also wanted to do it on my own... Specifically I need to know what the switch pressure set point should be (to open or close the switch at a given airspeed) in either PSI, mbar or in. H2O???? Maybe someone here knows how to figure this out??? Thanks in advance! -- Brian ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Air Operated Squat Switch
> > >Hi Everyone, > > Does anyone have any of the air pressure type squat switches around that >they could get some numbers off of for me. "squat" switches . . . these are normally ordinary basic switches that sense when the aircraft's weight is on the wheels. Squat switches are used to prevent gear retraction, dump cabin pressure, etc. > I know Lancair sells them but >I'd rather not pay their price and also wanted to do it on my own... >Specifically I need to know what the switch pressure set point should be (to >open or close the switch at a given airspeed) in either PSI, mbar or in. >H2O???? Maybe someone here knows how to figure this out??? Thanks in >advance! Sounds like you're asking about an airspeed sensing switch (for landing gear warning?). If so, you're interested in a switch that changes state at about 50 to 70 knots or a static-total pressure differential of .04 to .08 inches of water. Digikey has some switches rated to operated over this range at: http://info.digikey.com/T023/V5/0988.pdf check out the PSF-102 series which appear to have hose barbs that will let you plumb the switch into the pitot static system to read IAS pressure for about $14 each. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DHPHKH(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 21, 2002
Subject: Re: Ground Strap
<> Somebody mentioned a ground point next to the base of the Lycoming oil filler neck. Found it, and looks like it was designed for the purpose. Thanks. Dan Horton ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Air Speed / Gear warn
> Hi Bob, >Thanks for the quick response....And yes you were right on the money as to >my intentions! Here's a quick followup. Sorry my browser didn't give me >the "reply" option so I'm sending this direct! >In the response below, you mentioned the .04 to .08 inches of water range. > >A). Is there a formula for this? I was giving you numbers in PSI . . . a formula that works pretty good though 150kts or so is; P = (V 2)/1467 where P is dynamic pressure inches of water, V is velocity in Kts. The sign is used to denote power, i.e. you need to square the velocity value. >B). The pressure switch you recommended, PSF-102, (which is the exact one >I was looking at by the way!) says that it has "Adjustable set points from >0.1" to 100.0" H20" This is outside the range you gave me (.04-.08) for the >equivalent 50-70 knot airspeed range... so I'm a little confused! The .04 - .08 was PSI and would have covered an airspeed range of 40 to 70 MPH, or 43 to 60 Knots. >Is there a typo somewhere? Nope, just got my tongue tangled around my eyeteeth and couldn't see what I was saying. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Ground Strap
> ><> > > Somebody mentioned a ground point next to the base of the Lycoming oil >filler neck. Found it, and looks like it was designed for the purpose. >Thanks. > >Dan Horton We had a thread on this about 10 days ago. Several folks identified attach holes on the accessory case and/or crankcase that seem to be better places to ground a high current conductor. I'd look for 5/16" or larger threaded fastener. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Air Speed / Gear warn
Date: Nov 21, 2002
> The .04 - .08 was PSI and would have covered an airspeed > range of 40 to 70 MPH, or 43 to 60 Knots. I'm still confused. Whats the conversion of Inches of water to PSI? Using the forumla P (inches of water) = V (Kts) squared/1467 for 40kts & 70kts, P would be 1.09. & 3.34 inches of water. The nearest to that would be: PSF102 384-1017-ND with a H2O range of 2 to 17. Is this the one we want? John Slade ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Air Speed / Gear warn
Date: Nov 21, 2002
Just out of interest, the switch right below, PSF109 looks good for detecting a vacuum failure...if I only knew how many PSI to expect from a vacuum system. Speaking of vacuum systems, what pipe are people using to transmit vacuum 8 feet in a pusher? John Slade ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stan Blanton" <stanb(at)door.net>
Subject: Re: Air Speed / Gear warn
Date: Nov 21, 2002
snip > Just out of interest, the switch right below, PSF109 looks good for > detecting a vacuum failure...if I only knew how many PSI to expect from a > vacuum system. > > Speaking of vacuum systems, what pipe are people using to transmit vacuum 8 > feet in a pusher? > John Slade > > Here's a link to World Magnetics, the manufacturer of the PSF-102 switches. I'm going to use one of their switches for a low vacuum annunciator. Stan Blanton ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Air Speed / Gear warn
> > > The .04 - .08 was PSI and would have covered an airspeed > > range of 40 to 70 MPH, or 43 to 60 Knots. >I'm still confused. Whats the conversion of Inches of water to PSI? See http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/pressure PSI * 27.68 = in-H20 >Using the forumla P (inches of water) = V (Kts) squared/1467 for 40kts & >70kts, P would be 1.09. & 3.34 inches of water. The nearest to that would >be: > > PSF102 384-1017-ND with a H2O range of 2 to 17 > >Is this the one we want? >John Slade Note that the catalog listing has three columns of pressure range for each device. The far left column is In-H2O which shows that the second device has an adjustment range of 0.5 to 2.0 In-H2O and .018 to .072 PSI. This device would give you 17 to 54 Kts trip point. The next device (384-1017) covers 2-15 In-H2O for a range of 54 to 148 Kts adjustment range. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Air Speed / Gear warn
> >Just out of interest, the switch right below, PSF109 looks good for >detecting a vacuum failure...if I only knew how many PSI to expect from a >vacuum system. Nominal is 5 In-Hg, I suppose I'd set a warning at 4 In-Hg or about 2 PSI. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Branstrom" <swedan(at)pcmagic.net>
Subject: Re: Air Operated Squat Switch
Date: Nov 21, 2002
> > > > > > >Hi Everyone, > > > > Does anyone have any of the air pressure type squat switches around that > >they could get some numbers off of for me. > > "squat" switches . . . these are normally ordinary basic > switches that sense when the aircraft's weight is on > the wheels. Squat switches are used to prevent gear > retraction, dump cabin pressure, etc. > > > > I know Lancair sells them but > >I'd rather not pay their price and also wanted to do it on my own... > >Specifically I need to know what the switch pressure set point should be (to > >open or close the switch at a given airspeed) in either PSI, mbar or in. > >H2O???? Maybe someone here knows how to figure this out??? Thanks in > >advance! > > Sounds like you're asking about an airspeed sensing switch > (for landing gear warning?). If so, you're interested in > a switch that changes state at about 50 to 70 knots or > a static-total pressure differential of .04 to .08 inches > of water. Digikey has some switches rated to operated > over this range at: > > http://info.digikey.com/T023/V5/0988.pdf > > check out the PSF-102 series which appear to have hose > barbs that will let you plumb the switch into the pitot > static system to read IAS pressure for about $14 each. > > Bob . . . Believe it or not, but the the original air pressure sensing switches on the Lancairs were really water level sensing switches from washing machines. They work off of the air column that is compressed by the rising water. At least that's what's on my friend's Lancair 360. Dan Branstrom ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stan Blanton" <stanb(at)door.net>
Subject: Re: Air Speed / Gear warn
Date: Nov 21, 2002
snip >Just out of interest, the switch right below, PSF109 looks good for > >detecting a vacuum failure...if I only knew how many PSI to expect from a > >vacuum system. > > > Nominal is 5 In-Hg, I suppose I'd set a warning at 4 In-Hg > or about 2 PSI. > > Bob . . . > Just got off the phone with World Magnetics(Larry in sales). For a low vacuum switch he suggested a PSF-102 series. The low port housings are used for vacuum with the high ports for pressure. The side not used takes a cover which is an option available when ordered. They talk in inches water so he suggested a -713 switch which has a range from 15 - 100 inches water ( about 1.1 - 7.3 " Hg). The switch is Normally open, field adjustable, and can be preset at the factory to a starting value. Stan Blanton ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Air Operated Squat Switch
Date: Nov 21, 2002
Could something like this be use to detect fuel levels? If you built a T into the fuel line and attach a tube then the fuel level in that tube would do the same thing? > Believe it or not, but the the original air pressure sensing switches on the > Lancairs were really water level sensing switches from washing machines. > They work off of the air column that is compressed by the rising water. Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: KahnSG(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 21, 2002
Subject: Check out Molex
Check out www.molex.com for their KK 2578 series terminal. Narco used them on a lot of their early products. I have purchased them from Mouser in the past. Click here: Molex Welcome Connectors Interconnects electrical,electronic, fiber optic and industrial components, Header, Plug, 3.96mm (.156") Pitch KK Crimp Terminal 2578, 22-26 AWG, Bag, Brass, 0.38m (15") Selective Gold (Au) Do a search for the following part no. or 2578 series. Part No. 08-55-0106 Steve ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sanders, Andrew P" <andrew.p.sanders(at)boeing.com>
Subject: Re: Pressure switch
Date: Nov 21, 2002
Is that really .04 to .08 inches of water or is it PSI? The switches specified only go down to .1 inches of water Original Message: From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Air Operated Squat Switch ... SNIP ... Sounds like you're asking about an airspeed sensing switch (for landing gear warning?). If so, you're interested in a switch that changes state at about 50 to 70 knots or a static-total pressure differential of .04 to .08 inches of water. Digikey has some switches rated to operated over this range at:
http://info.digikey.com/T023/V5/0988.pdf check out the PSF-102 series which appear to have hose barbs that will let you plumb the switch into the pitot static system to read IAS pressure for about $14 each. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Low fuel pressure switch?
> >Could something like this be use to detect fuel levels? If you built a T >into the fuel line and attach a tube then the fuel level in that tube would >do the same thing? Fuel weighs about 3/4 that of water. Soooooo . . . if you wanted to operate a switch at say 3" of fuel level in a tank this translates to 2.25" of water. So a 384-1016 or 1017 switch seems to have some possibilities for this. You would need some signal conditioning to filter the effects of slosh . . . or perhaps plumb the switch to a standpipe with very small holes in it. A similar technology was played with about 30 years ago. A diaphragm built into the bottom of a tank was fitted with contacts to close when the column weight of fuel was above a certain level. It worked but had poor service life . . . nobody had figured out how to do the switch contacts to make them last. It's 30 years later and things are probably much better in this regard . . . it's probably worth trying and the risks are low. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: mprather(at)spro.net
Subject: Sheiled Wire
Date: Nov 21, 2002
Is it practical or prudent to try to use the sheild on sheilded aircraft as a current carrying conductor (like coax)? Is there a gauge equivalent spec for the material of the sheild? Thanks, Matt Prather N34RD ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: Diodes, Voice-Warning and Wig-Wags
Date: Nov 21, 2002
Small book note: Radio Shack may no longer be making #276-1185 with the faston lug connectors. They now only have leads poking out. This same part with fastons is available elsewhere. I am selling the Schottkys and am contemplating a different power control device with even better characteristics...but more parts. Maybe by Christmas. I have watched with interest the discussions on "Audio Warning Module". I have designed such a module with the following features: a) Message duration of 12 second. (I can get these same chips up to 16 Minutes [!] duration, but 12 seconds seems adequate). The message could be anything you can get into the mic...including tones and whistles. b) Message programming with standard aircraft headset and mic. c) Low power...in fact, no power needed to save the message--Message retention 100 years. d) Four-way input trigger. Up to four logic "AND" inputs, like landing gear switches, throttle closed switch, etc. e) 6-18 VDC input. f) The whole thing is 1.03" X 1.50" X 0.30"-- Same as the LVMAABMM. Same as a domino. Weighs 1/2 oz. g) Cheap. But I don't know what to charge for the thing yet. Wig-wag light flashing module: I am now supplying this in the same 1.03" X 1.50" X 0.30"-- tiny case. Weighs 1/2 oz. Fabulous! And cheap. I am sending one to Bob for test. Website is coming sometime soon. Contact me off-list for further info. Regards, Eric M. Jones ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: e-bus Diodes
> >Small book note: Radio Shack may no longer be making #276-1185 with the >faston lug connectors. They now only have leads poking out. This same part >with fastons is available elsewhere. It still shows on their website and I've seen them in the stores in the past several weeks. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: e-bus Diodes
Date: Nov 21, 2002
Hi Bob, Will a 10 amp. diode unit do the job for the e-bus application? I happen to have one it is what you describe in almost every respect. The exception is that the cube has no facet at the + connect corner. Jim in Kelowna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: e-bus Diodes > > > > >Small book note: Radio Shack may no longer be making #276-1185 with the > >faston lug connectors. They now only have leads poking out. This same part > >with fastons is available elsewhere. > > It still shows on their website and I've seen them > in the stores in the past several weeks. > > Bob . . . > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: e-bus Diodes
Date: Nov 21, 2002
Hi, Again, Having brought the diode unit into much better light I now see a part number; KBPC3510. Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: e-bus Diodes > > Hi Bob, > > Will a 10 amp. diode unit do the job for the e-bus application? I happen to > have one it is what you describe in almost every respect. The exception is > that the cube has no facet at the + connect corner. > > Jim in Kelowna > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> > To: > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: e-bus Diodes > > > > > > > > > > > >Small book note: Radio Shack may no longer be making #276-1185 with the > > >faston lug connectors. They now only have leads poking out. This same > part > > >with fastons is available elsewhere. > > > > It still shows on their website and I've seen them > > in the stores in the past several weeks. > > > > Bob . . . > > > > > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: e-bus Diodes
> >Hi, Again, > >Having brought the diode unit into much better light I now see a part >number; KBPC3510. That's a 35A 1000v device. Quite suitable. The larger current rated devices will have slightly lower voltage drop at the low currents we operate them. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Shielded Wire
> >Is it practical or prudent to try to use the sheild on >sheilded aircraft as a current carrying conductor (like >coax)? Is there a gauge equivalent spec for the material >of the sheild? I've often used the shield as a ground return for a remotely powered device. This can provide OPTIMUM control of magnetically coupled noise. Just for grins, I took two samples of shielded wire we stock and compared the resistance of the shield and interior conductors. The 22AWG shielded single measured 15 milliohms/foot (about what we would expect from 22AWG wire) and the shield measured 18 milliohms/foot . . . slightly higher than 22AWG wire but not enough greater to call it 23AWG equivalent. A shielded trio of 22AWG wires showed 16 milliohms/ foot for the wires and 10 milliohms/foot for the shield (20AWG equivalent). I once used shielded wire to monitor some super-critical wiring in a power distribution system. The notion was that if a wire were being compromised mechanically due to rubbing or other intrusion, potential faults would have to intersect the shields FIRST. So, I powered up all the shields in series with a relay so that if any one shield came to ground, the relay pulled in and annunicated the potential fault long before a real fault made it through to the center conductor. Aside from odd-ball situations like this, the only currents I would generally flow on shields are ground returns. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2002
From: Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net>
Subject: LED Position Lights ....
I was looking at a Radio Shack catalog and saw a 5,000 mcd Red LED that I thought would cluster up nicely for a position light. Sadly, they don't offer a Green one. Where can I get some of these? Am I reinventing the wheel (I saw a web site recently with LED position lights, but they were hideously expensive). I envision clustering up 5 -7 or however many I could fit, with the attendant resistors, on a 1" disc, pot it all up, fasten it to the metal case of an old tail light (or used up position light) barrel and plug it right in. It would cost more than a new bulb, but should last forever and draw a small fraction of the current of my present system. Any thoughts? I don't want to reinvent the wheel here .... Jim S. PS My new Ford regulator works GREAT !! Looking for a crowbar overvoltage protector. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Sheiled Wire
Date: Nov 22, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: <mprather(at)spro.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Sheiled Wire > > Is it practical or prudent to try to use the sheild on > sheilded aircraft as a current carrying conductor (like > coax)? Is there a gauge equivalent spec for the material > of the sheild? > > Thanks, > > Matt Prather > N34RD > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2002
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: List Value?
Dear Listers, We are quickly approaching the end of November and the official end of the List Fund Raiser. If you look forward to checking your List email everyday (and a lot of you have written to say that you do!), then you're probably getting at least $20 or $30 worth of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that for a subscription to some lame magazine or even a dinner out. Isn't the List worth at least that much to you? Wouldn't it be great if you could pay that same amount and get a well-managed media source free of advertising, SPAM, and viruses? Come to think of it, you do... :-) Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support YOUR Lists. Contribution Page: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Again, I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made possible exclusively through YOUR generosity!! Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
Subject: Re: LED position lights redux
Date: Nov 22, 2002
Jim try, http://www.ledtronics.com/ http://www.lumileds.com Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: LED position lights redux > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Jim, > > > > > >I believe the formula for conversion of the LED intensity from mcd to > > >Lumens is( current in ma x mcd = lumens). This is what I have seen listed > > >in several suppliters specs? Typical bright white LED was @20mA(mcd > > >rating)=3000 Lumens. > > > > > >Jim W > > > > Check out http://www.pge.com/003_save_energy/003b_bus/pdf/lit_measure.pdf > > > > Bob . . . > > > I quoted the link above in a hurry . . . it's a fair discussion > of light measurement but suffers from slightly tortured semantics. > Here are some better discussions. > > http://www.electro-optical.com/whitepapers/candela.htm > > Here's a nice link to folks who work in LED technologies > > http://www.ledtronics.com/pages/downloads/light_measurement_terms.pdf > > Here's a site that specializes in replacing incandescent lamps > with LEDs . . > > http://www.theledlight.com/ > > and some discussions on the physics of light measurement > > http://www.theledlight.com/lumens.html > > who also offers to source some killer leds at: > > http://www.theledlight.com/led-specs.html > > another lucid discussion of quantifying light > > http://www.intl-light.com/handbook/intens.html > > > |-------------------------------------------------------| > | 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: "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Wiring an AT50A transponder
Date: Nov 22, 2002
Bob, FYI. I just got the following email from Narco: > The edge connector for the AT50A is Narco part #41316-0009 and is > available for order from stock at $9.23 each. The contacts, Narco part > #41317-0001 are available separately from stock at $.74 each. The > connector does not include any contacts. > Regards, Narco I wonder why didnt the customer service rep mention this instead of selling me the $81 install kit? regards, John Slade ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Wiring an AT50A transponder
> >Bob, >FYI. I just got the following email from Narco: > > > The edge connector for the AT50A is Narco part #41316-0009 and is > > available for order from stock at $9.23 each. The contacts, Narco part > >#41317-0001 are available separately from stock at $.74 each. The > > connector does not include any contacts. > > Regards, Narco > >I wonder why didnt the customer service rep mention this instead of selling >me the $81 install kit? Customer service rep or order takers fresh out of high school? My favorite source of avionics information is a gray-haired ol' fart buddy of mine that runs a shop on a little airport about 15 miles east of town. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net>
Subject: BMA
Date: Nov 22, 2002
There are reliable EFIS in the air, the Sierra Flight System line. --- 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 Sam Buchanan Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: BMA Please accept my apology, Ed, for missing your name in the earlier post. Like you, I am anxiously awaiting to see who will get a reliable EFIS in the air. The Dynon folks seem to be very conscientious and up front about getting it right before they launch their product. I really like the form factor of the Dynon, it will be very easy to retrofit it into an assembled panel. I wish I could recommend specific gyros and such but I can't since I haven't done my homework in that area; please keep us informed as to what you find. Non-TSO'ed instruments are perfectly legal in our experimental aircraft, even for IFR use. The only TSO'ed stuff we need is the transponder and encoder, and, depending on who you ask, GPS if you use it for GPS approaches. Best regards, Sam Buchanan "The RV Journal" http://thervjournal.com ======================== N823ms(at)aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/19/2002 1:42:44 PM Central Standard Time, > sbuc(at)hiwaay.net writes: > > > P.S. Cap't, It would be nice if you would sign your name..... > > > > > > > Regards, > > > N823MS > > > Lancair Es > > > A300/CAPT > > At the beginning of this discussion, I signed my named, sometimes just > in a hurry. The fact that you have both units in your hands, it sounds like > the Dynon EFIS-10 is the better way to go if it ever gets up and running. > Until then I will be searching for an electric AH and DG. RC Allen's are > expensive. Goodrich is an over kill. Do you have any recommendations? Is > there a market of used/reconditioned gauges around? Are non TSO'd gauges OK? > Chief aircraft parts has both a AH and DG for half the price of RC Allen. > Just trying to buy some time before a good EFIS comes out. If all else fails, > I'll just go with good steam gauges! > > Regards, > > Ed Silvanic > N823MS > Lancair ES > == Contribution = = = http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list = ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2002
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: BMA
Shannon Knoepflein wrote: > > > There are reliable EFIS in the air, the Sierra Flight System line. > Reliable yes, but unfortunately mega$$$$$$$...... But.......maybe there is a reason it costs that much.......... ;-) Sam Buchanan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N823ms(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 22, 2002
Subject: Re: BMA
In a message dated 11/22/2002 2:04:23 PM Central Standard Time, kycshann(at)kyol.net writes: > There are reliable EFIS in the air, the Sierra Flight System line. > > --- > Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net > > Shannon: I am aware of this EFIS system, I believe they are over priced, and Lancair for some reason is pushing this product. In talking with Lancair they were pretty much against BMA, however, there defense was the fact that Sierrra Flight system has been proven to work, I don't no anybody, that even that system sometimes can take up to 500 hours to tweak out. ED ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Misunderstanding the role of ABMM ?
Date: Nov 22, 2002
Hi Bob, After our recent discussion about the ABMM, I had completed a power distribution diagram I was satisfied with. I had even achieved a reasonable success with Autocad. But after some discussion off-list it appears I may have completely missed the philosophy behind the idea of the ABMM. Our project is to have an electrically dependent engine. The idea was to have a dual battery single alternator system, with main and e-bus on the main battery, and an aux bus on the aux battery. I had considered managing the aux battery with your ABMM device. I had thought the ABMM was to OPEN the aux battery contactor anytime the main battery bus is BELOW about13 volts. And energize the aux battery contactor coil, thus CLOSING it's contact anytime the alternator is alive, that is when the main bus is ABOVE 13 volts. The idea was to isolate the aux battery when the alternator goes off-line or when the master switch is off. At least that's how I understood one of your articles "What's this battery isolator stuff...". Where am I wrong ? Or has the philosophy changed ? Would it help if I sent you my diagram ? Thanks, Gilles ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2002
From: RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: LED Position Lights ....
I have Radio Shack 5000 mcd red leds lighting some instruments from inside their cases. The light pattern is very narrow and it took three to get adequate light for gauges. I'm not sure it would be satisfactory for position lights without using a great many at different angles. But it still might be worth a try. R ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Sower" <canarder(at)starband.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED Position Lights .... > > I was looking at a Radio Shack catalog and saw a 5,000 mcd Red > LED that I thought would cluster up nicely for a position > light. Sadly, they don't offer a Green one. Where can I get > some of these? Am I reinventing the wheel (I saw a web site > recently with LED position lights, but they were hideously > expensive). I envision clustering up 5 -7 or however many I > could fit, with the attendant resistors, on a 1" disc, pot it > all up, fasten it to the metal case of an old tail light (or > used up position light) barrel and plug it right in. It would > cost more than a new bulb, but should last forever and draw a > small fraction of the current of my present system. > > Any thoughts? I don't want to reinvent the wheel here .... Jim > S. > PS My new Ford regulator works GREAT !! Looking for a crowbar > overvoltage protector. > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2002
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Fund Raiser Free Gift Shipping Status...
Dear Listers, A couple of people have written asking what the shipping status was of their free List Contribution Gifts. Seemed like some status was in order and I thought I detail where we're at... Flight Bag Requests ------------------- On 11/20/02 I shipped out the first batch of Flight Bag-Only (FBO) gift requests. I shipped all FBO gift requests I had received from 11/1 to 11/19 except for 3 (Sorry guys!) - I ran out of my first shipment flight bags! Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com ) is supplying me with another batch flight bags which should arrive in about 2 weeks. By the way, these are REALLY nice Flight Bags. Extremely well built and very professional looking. Folds down into a very small size, but will hold a huge amount of stuff. If you fly, and you've got a lot of stuff, they you WANT one of these guys. Surf over to the List Contribution page for details on how to get one of your own!!! http://www.matronics.com/contribution The Flight Bags have been shipped out US Mail Parcel Post in a large, and I mean LARGE, padded white plastic envelope. According to the Post Office, worse case delivery time would be 8 days to destinations on the East Coast, but indicated it would likely take a lot less time. Archive CDROM Requests ---------------------- The Archive CDROMs will be mastered and burned on or about December 1 and should ship out shortly there after. Shipping will be US Mail, Media Rate in a big padded white envelope. The Archive List data included will be up to November 30th. Flight Bag and Archive CDROM Requests ------------------------------------- These combination orders will ship out when the Archive CDROMs are complete as described above, likely a little after December 1. The Flight Bag and the CDROM will be shipped together in the same Giant white padded envelope! Again, I want to thank Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore for providing these awesome Flight Bags to support the List Fund Raiser. Andy has gone way beyond the call of duty with regard to his support of the Lists this year and to show your gratitude I would ask that you have a look at his web site and great media offerings. You'll find some excellent deals on some very useful material. http://www.buildersbooks.com And finally, I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution so far this year! Your generosity and kindness is greatly appreciated. If you've been putting off making a Contribution, now's a great time show your appreciation in plenty of time to make it onto this year's List of Contributors AND get your free gift with qualifying Contribution!!! List Contribution Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution/ Thank you! Matt Dralle 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 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2002
From: Jim Sower <canarder(at)starband.net>
Subject: Re: LED Position Lights ....
RSwanson wrote: > > The light pattern is very narrow and it took three to get adequate light for > gauges. You're right - the view angle is only 30 deg. There are others at RS with 45, 54 and even 100 deg view angles, but not the brightness I need. > I'm not sure it would be satisfactory for position lights without using a great > many at different angles. I'll have to try and track one down that has a wider view angle. Need green ones too. > But it still might be worth a try Perhaps for floods, but not position lights. Jim S. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Misunderstanding the role of ABMM ?
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > >Hi Bob, > >After our recent discussion about the ABMM, I had completed a power >distribution diagram I was satisfied with. >I had even achieved a reasonable success with Autocad. > >But after some discussion off-list it appears I may have completely missed >the philosophy behind the idea of the ABMM. > >Our project is to have an electrically dependent engine. >The idea was to have a dual battery single alternator system, with main and >e-bus on the main battery, and an aux bus on the aux battery. > >I had considered managing the aux battery with your ABMM device. >I had thought the ABMM was to OPEN the aux battery contactor anytime the >main battery bus is BELOW about13 volts. >And energize the aux battery contactor coil, thus CLOSING it's contact >anytime the alternator is alive, that is when the main bus is ABOVE 13 >volts. >The idea was to isolate the aux battery when the alternator goes off-line or >when the master switch is off. At least that's how I understood one of your >articles "What's this battery isolator stuff...". > >Where am I wrong ? Or has the philosophy changed ? >Would it help if I sent you my diagram ? My friend, I'm sorry if you're still agonizing over this. I thought we'd put this one to bed a couple of weeks ago. First, the "philosophy" of the ABMM is not a mandate nor law, it's just an idea. I was struck by two points in our discussion. (1) you selected an auxiliary battery with the same degree of cranking ability as your main battery but planned not to use it for cranking because (2) you wanted to arrange the physical layout of your switch panel to avoid having to train pilots to do anything different than they might in a C-172. I thought my arguments were focused on these two points, NEITHER ONE OF WHICH had any significant effect on how well or reliably your airplane would perform. I think my last comments noted the fact that you were certainly not obligated to configure or operate your airplane in accordance with anyones wishes or ideas but your own. I further noted that your airplane included features which (like many other OBAM aircraft) made it a standout above the airplanes we've all grown up with - it was not my intent to leave you with any impression that what you were proposing was evil or ugly. In short, there's nothing "wrong" with the philosophy you described and if I came off as a harbinger of misery or hazard, please forgive me. My personal view of the discussion as we left it was that all the ideas had been laid out, explained, (and I thought) understood, and decided upon. If there are lingering doubts with respect to understanding, then take responsibility for that and hope this note will clear things up. My personal wish for activity here on the List is not to have you do it MY way but for folks to have lots of well explained and UNDERSTOOD lots of gardeners who disagree about the BEST way to apply lots of GOOD IDEAS to their craft . . . but they ALL grow really fine tomatoes. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Misunderstanding the role of ABMM ? Errors corrected
I missed some significant editing errors in the first post of this reply. Please disregard and consider the following: ><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > >Hi Bob, > >After our recent discussion about the ABMM, I had completed a power >distribution diagram I was satisfied with. >I had even achieved a reasonable success with Autocad. > >But after some discussion off-list it appears I may have completely missed >the philosophy behind the idea of the ABMM. > >Our project is to have an electrically dependent engine. >The idea was to have a dual battery single alternator system, with main and >e-bus on the main battery, and an aux bus on the aux battery. > >I had considered managing the aux battery with your ABMM device. >I had thought the ABMM was to OPEN the aux battery contactor anytime the >main battery bus is BELOW about13 volts. >And energize the aux battery contactor coil, thus CLOSING it's contact >anytime the alternator is alive, that is when the main bus is ABOVE 13 >volts. >The idea was to isolate the aux battery when the alternator goes off-line or >when the master switch is off. At least that's how I understood one of your >articles "What's this battery isolator stuff...". > >Where am I wrong ? Or has the philosophy changed ? >Would it help if I sent you my diagram ? My friend, I'm sorry if you're still agonizing over this. I thought we'd put this one to bed a couple of weeks ago. First, the "philosophy" of the ABMM is not a mandate nor law, it's just an idea. I was struck by two points in our discussion. (1) you selected an auxiliary battery with the same degree of cranking ability as your main battery but planned not to use it for cranking because (2) you wanted to arrange the physical layout of your switch panel to avoid having to train pilots to do anything different than they might in a C-172. I thought my arguments were focused on these two points, NEITHER ONE OF WHICH had any significant effect on how well or reliably your airplane would perform. I think my last comments noted the fact that you were certainly not obligated to configure or operate your airplane in accordance with anyones wishes or ideas but your own. I further noted that your airplane included features which (like many other OBAM aircraft) made it a standout above the airplanes we've all grown up with - it was not my intent to leave you with any impression that what you were proposing was evil or ugly. In short, there's nothing "wrong" with the philosophy you described and if I came off as a harbinger of misery or hazard, please forgive me. My personal view of the discussion as we left it was that all the ideas had been laid out, explained, understood (I thought), and decided upon. If there are lingering doubts with respect to understanding, then I take responsibility for that and hope this note will clear things up. My personal wish for activity here on the List is not to have you do it MY way but for folks to have lots of well explained and UNDERSTOOD ideas from which they can plan THEIR OWN way. I know lots of gardeners who disagree about the BEST way to apply many GOOD ideas to their craft . . . but they ALL grow really fine tomatoes. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Misunderstanding the role of ABMM ?
Date: Nov 23, 2002
Bob Thanks once again for responding. > > My friend, I'm sorry if you're still agonizing over this. I > thought we'd put this one to bed a couple of weeks ago. > First, the "philosophy" of the ABMM is not a mandate nor > law, it's just an idea. We DO like the idea. I was struck by two points in our > discussion. (1) you selected an auxiliary battery with the > same degree of cranking ability as your main battery but > planned not to use it for cranking because (2) you wanted > to arrange the physical layout of your switch panel to > avoid having to train pilots to do anything different > than they might in a C-172. > Yes, but we can change on that. We 'll have many more passes at the architecture. No problem here. - it was not my intent to leave you with any > impression that what you were proposing was evil > or ugly. > Not at all. I really appreciated those discussions. In fact, my new doubts have nothing to do with our discussions here. While exchanging messages with a knowledgeable person, it suddenly occured to me I could have missed something in the physical working of the ABMM. I had always assumed the device energized the relay (connect coil to ground) when the main bus was ABOVE 13 volts. And this person was saying it would do so when the voltage would be BELOW 13 volts. The real question is (please don't laugh) : What does the ABMM do when the bus voltage is HIGH ? And what does it do when voltage is LOW ? Apart from my sudden doubts, we're mentally rehearsing every situation with every configuration we discussed here. Thus we try to find witch setup best suits our needs or tastes. Thanks again, Gilles ________________________________________________________________________________
From: George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: RE: Master relay diode
Date: Nov 23, 2002
Bob, Interesting event. I was testing a circuit the other day. Had a signal wire hooked up to the switch side of the solenoid, so that as the master relay switch was opened, the signal line would go HIGH and be sensed as high or low by some other high impedance components. This was on a bench test. There was no diode across the coil on the 14 volt solenoid. The signal line circuit included a 1/10th watt 100 ohm series surface mount resistor followed by a 22v TVS device and some other high impedance stuff downstream. Without the diode, there was enough "umphf" (good engineering term? ) coming out of the coil and through the resistor to fry the 1/10th watt resistor when the 22V TVS shunted it to ground. It took several cycles of the solenoid switch, but it fried the resistor after 3 or 4 cycles. Replaced the resistor and tried it again before I noticed that the diode was missing. Put the diode across the coil and the problem stopped. Regards, George ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Misunderstanding the role of ABMM ?
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > > >Bob > > >Thanks once again for responding. > > > > > My friend, I'm sorry if you're still agonizing over this. I > > thought we'd put this one to bed a couple of weeks ago. > > First, the "philosophy" of the ABMM is not a mandate nor > > law, it's just an idea. > > >We DO like the idea. > >I was struck by two points in our > > discussion. (1) you selected an auxiliary battery with the > > same degree of cranking ability as your main battery but > > planned not to use it for cranking because (2) you wanted > > to arrange the physical layout of your switch panel to > > avoid having to train pilots to do anything different > > than they might in a C-172. > > >Yes, but we can change on that. We 'll have many more passes at the >architecture. No problem here. > >- it was not my intent to leave you with any > > impression that what you were proposing was evil > > or ugly. > > > >Not at all. I really appreciated those discussions. > >In fact, my new doubts have nothing to do with our discussions here. >While exchanging messages with a knowledgeable person, it suddenly occured >to me I could have missed something in the physical working of the ABMM. >I had always assumed the device energized the relay (connect coil to ground) >when the main bus was ABOVE 13 volts. You are correct. > And this person was saying it would do so when the voltage >would be BELOW 13 volts. Not correct. Referring to the diagram 9021-620 sheet 1 of 2, comparator U107 biased to change states via voltage divider R105/R106 that places 2.5 volts on U107-2 when the bus is at 13.0 volts. A precision zener (Z103) holes Z107-3 at 2.5 volts. As bus voltage passes 13.0 volts in an increasing direction, the output of the comparator (pin 7) trips from a low to a high state and does two things: (1) Q114 turns on and pulls the control wire of the aux battery contactor to ground and . . . (2) diode Z109 couples the high state to the lamp flasher U110 forcing its timing capacitor to a high state forcing the output of the flasher to a low state and keeps the LV warning light off. As the voltage falls below 13.0 volts, U107-7 goes low, Q114 goes off, aux battery contactor de-energizes. At the same time, the hold-high clamp on C111 is removed which allows it to discharge through R112 via flasher chip U110-3. When it discharges sufficiently, U110-3 goes high, the LV warn light comes on and the C111 beings to charge. In a few hundred milliseconds, voltage rise on C111 causes U110-3 to go low again causing the LV warning light to go off. The cycle continues to repeat thus flashing the LV warning light until the bus voltage rises above 13.0 volts whereupon the aux battery contactor re-energizes and the LV warn light flasher is forced to and held in an off state. >Apart from my sudden doubts, we're mentally rehearsing every situation with >every configuration we discussed here. Thus we try to find witch setup best >suits our needs or tastes. Perhaps the options to be considered were based on a misunderstanding of how the circuit works. Does the explanation help? I have the first production batch of the ABMM stuffed and tested. I'm working on the installation instructions. Should have the package up on the website this weekend. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Misunderstanding the role of ABMM ?
Date: Nov 24, 2002
........... it suddenly occured > >to me I could have missed something in the physical working of the ABMM. > >I had always assumed the device energized the relay (connect coil to ground) > >when the main bus was ABOVE 13 volts. > > You are correct. > [ sigh of relief ] > > And this person was saying it would do so when the voltage > >would be BELOW 13 volts. > > Not correct.Referring to the diagram 9021-620 sheet 1 of 2, > comparator U107 biased to change states via voltage divider > R105/R106 that places 2.5 volts on U107-2 when the bus > is at 13.0 volts. A precision zener (Z103) holes Z107-3 > at 2.5 volts. As bus voltage passes 13.0 volts in > an increasing direction, the output of the comparator > (pin 7) trips from a low to a high state and does two things: > > (1) Q114 turns on and pulls the control wire of the aux > battery contactor to ground and . . . > > (2) diode Z109 couples the high state to the lamp flasher > U110 forcing its timing capacitor to a high state > forcing the output of the flasher to a low state > and keeps the LV warning light off. > > As the voltage falls below 13.0 volts, U107-7 goes > low, Q114 goes off, aux battery contactor de-energizes. > At the same time, the hold-high clamp on C111 is removed which > allows it to discharge through R112 via flasher chip U110-3. > When it discharges sufficiently, U110-3 goes high, > the LV warn light comes on and the C111 beings to charge. > > In a few hundred milliseconds, voltage rise on C111 causes U110-3 > to go low again causing the LV warning light to go off. > > The cycle continues to repeat thus flashing the LV warning > light until the bus voltage rises above 13.0 volts whereupon > the aux battery contactor re-energizes and the LV warn light > flasher is forced to and held in an off state. > Thanks for the detailed explanation. I'll better understand the internal workings of the module instead of just hooking it in place like a black box. > > Perhaps the options to be considered were based on a misunderstanding > of how the circuit works. Does the explanation help? Thanks to your numerous messages and articles, we have nothing to change. I'm sure now the circuit will work as expected. You've restored my confidence. > > I have the first production batch of the ABMM stuffed and > tested. I'm working on the installation instructions. Should > have the package up on the website this weekend. Much interested. Thanks again Bob, Gilles ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net>
Subject: BMA
Date: Nov 24, 2002
They are pushing it because it works, that's why. The other systems don't work, at least not yet. Even when they are working, I would be hesitant to buy a system that uses OTC computer parts, but I guess time and flight testing will tell the tale. My whole point is the SFS works, its not unreasonably priced at all (a good HIS and engine monitor cost about 18k...the SFS starts at 18k). Lancair pushes it because it works. --- 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 N823ms(at)aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: BMA In a message dated 11/22/2002 2:04:23 PM Central Standard Time, kycshann(at)kyol.net writes: > There are reliable EFIS in the air, the Sierra Flight System line. > > --- > Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net > > Shannon: I am aware of this EFIS system, I believe they are over priced, and Lancair for some reason is pushing this product. In talking with Lancair they were pretty much against BMA, however, there defense was the fact that Sierrra Flight system has been proven to work, I don't no anybody, that even that system sometimes can take up to 500 hours to tweak out. ED == Contribution = = = http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list = ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net>
Date: Nov 24, 2002
Subject: BMA
I'll second that!!! Jim Robinson 79R With the panel lit! > > > They are pushing it because it works, that's why. The other systems > don't work, at least not yet. Even when they are working, I would be > hesitant to buy a system that uses OTC computer parts, but I guess > time and flight testing will tell the tale. > > My whole point is the SFS works, its not unreasonably priced at all (a > good HIS and engine monitor cost about 18k...the SFS starts at 18k). > Lancair pushes it because it works. > > --- > 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 > N823ms(at)aol.com To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: > AeroElectric-List: BMA > > > In a message dated 11/22/2002 2:04:23 PM Central Standard Time, > kycshann(at)kyol.net writes: > > > > There are reliable EFIS in the air, the Sierra Flight System line. > > > > --- > > Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net > > > > > > Shannon: > > I am aware of this EFIS system, I believe they are over priced, > and Lancair for some reason is pushing this product. In talking with > Lancair they were pretty much against BMA, however, there defense was > the fact that Sierrra Flight system has been proven to work, I don't > no anybody, that even that system sometimes can take up to 500 hours > to tweak out. > > > ED > > > == > Contribution > > > > November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on the Contribution > direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. > other List members. > http://www.matronics.com/ > === > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2002
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: All New List FAQs!
Dear Listers, I got to looking at the Email List FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) today and realized that they where miserably out of date. I spent a wad of time today completely revising them and adding in documentation on all of the many new features such as the List Browse and Photoshare. Many of the little-known features are documented in there now, too, so even if you're a seasoned List veteran, you might want to give it a read. Never know what you might discover. At the bottom of this message in the Trailer you will find a new link item called "List FAQ" with a URL for this specific List. Just click on it and print it out or read it online. Don't forget that November is the List Fund Raiser month! The "2002 List of Contributors" is just days away and I know you'll want to make sure your name is on it!! Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation of these List Services! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DHPHKH(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 25, 2002
Subject: Single Ignition Operation
I'm new to this list; I'd like to thank Bob, Matt, and the participants for a terrific resource. May I offer a subject for comment? We all want dual ignition systems, on the assumption that we can continue on one if the other fails. Independent magneto ignition is the norm. For those of us who choose dual electronic ignition, we arrange the electrical system to provide independent power to both, and/or ensure power to at least one to the limits of battery endurance. Some choose the one mag/one electronic route, and expect to continue on the single magneto following an electrical problem. Here's the comment: How do you know your engine will operate reliably under all conditions on one ignition? Ok, now you're thinking "this guy is crazy". After all, we check single ignition operation during runup (at full rich, and usually less than full power). Probably hundreds of airplanes fly home with a dead mag every year. Here's the basis: Dual plugs are not just for redundancy. They also ensure complete combustion in less time. You're lighting the mixture in two places. If you light it with just one plug, the time interval necessary for the flame front to travel across the very wide av-engine combustion chamber is considerably lengthened. Detonation is a function of pre-flame front chemical reaction. Heat and pressure re-form relatively stable hydrocarbon chains into configurations that ignite spontaneously. With more time available, the chance of forming unstable chains increases. With enough detonation you will lose the use of that cylinder. You'll lose it very quickly if it cascades into preignition. Mixture, compression ratio, and swirl play a part, because they all affect flame front speed. Octane plays a part; octane ratings are increased by refining for more stable chains or by using additives that intercede in the pre-flame front process. Engine speed plays a part, because low RPM means a longer period near TDC. On the plus side, effective igntion timing is retarded during single plug operation, delaying peak pressure and lowering MEP (that's why you have a mag drop). Point is, there are a lot of variables. In the case of a stock engine, we "know" the certification test program covered single ignition operation. However, the FAR's spell out separate requirements. See 33.37 (requires dual ignition) and 33.47 (detonation testing). There doesn't seem to be an FAR that spells out detonation testing on one ignition. However, it's probably in a certification AC somewhere, and I'd like to think it is checked at all mixture and power settings. Anybody know for sure? In the experimental airplane world, builders modify engines. If you're running a modified engine, I'll suggest that all bets are off. I'll further suggest that the new fuel standard will add another wild card. I doubt custom engine builders include single ignition detonation tolerance in their dyno runs, and they don't yet have the new fuel. The two most signficant pro-detonation modifications are an increase in compression ratio and an increase in manifold pressure/inlet temperature (read "turbo"). Unlike cars, we don't have the luxury of detonation detection/ignition retard. Some of the electronic ignitions advance based on manifold pressure. How is all this relevant to aero-electrics? We plan our electrical systems with an operation plan in mind. The plan may include operation on one ignition following some sort of electrical problem or simple ignition failure. Depending on engine configuration, power setting, and mixture setting, caution may be in order. It would be a real bummer to lose cylinders following what was supposed to be a "flip a few switches and continue" operations plan. If you have not already considered it in your single ignition operations plan, think about reducing engine load and enriching the mixture (Is that in a POH somewhere?). Since some e-bus plans don't include engine instruments (and I'm not suggesting that they should), you might consider adding some single ignition flight testing to your 40 hr plan. Might be good to look at CHT and EGT while you have instruments. Sorry to be so long. I was considering single ignition operation for electrical power conservation after alternator failure and rejected the idea. Thought the group might be interested. BTW, as a matter of personal policy I'm delighted to be wrong if I learn something in the process. Dan Horton ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil>
Subject: Single Ignition Operation
Date: Nov 25, 2002
Dan, I think you are worrying too much. After all it is an emergency condition, not an everyday one, though it may be prudent to throttle back a little and enrich. John -----Original Message----- From: DHPHKH(at)aol.com [mailto:DHPHKH(at)aol.com] Subject: AeroElectric-List: Single Ignition Operation I'm new to this list; I'd like to thank Bob, Matt, and the participants for a terrific resource. May I offer a subject for comment? We all want dual ignition systems, on the assumption that we can continue on one if the other fails. Independent magneto ignition is the norm. For those of us who choose dual electronic ignition, we arrange the electrical system to provide independent power to both, and/or ensure power to at least one to the limits of battery endurance. Some choose the one mag/one electronic route, and expect to continue on the single magneto following an electrical problem. Here's the comment: How do you know your engine will operate reliably under all conditions on one ignition? Ok, now you're thinking "this guy is crazy". After all, we check single ignition operation during runup (at full rich, and usually less than full power). Probably hundreds of airplanes fly home with a dead mag every year. Here's the basis: Dual plugs are not just for redundancy. They also ensure complete combustion in less time. You're lighting the mixture in two places. If you light it with just one plug, the time interval necessary for the flame front to travel across the very wide av-engine combustion chamber is considerably lengthened. Detonation is a function of pre-flame front chemical reaction. Heat and pressure re-form relatively stable hydrocarbon chains into configurations that ignite spontaneously. With more time available, the chance of forming unstable chains increases. With enough detonation you will lose the use of that cylinder. You'll lose it very quickly if it cascades into preignition. Mixture, compression ratio, and swirl play a part, because they all affect flame front speed. Octane plays a part; octane ratings are increased by refining for more stable chains or by using additives that intercede in the pre-flame front process. Engine speed plays a part, because low RPM means a longer period near TDC. On the plus side, effective igntion timing is retarded during single plug operation, delaying peak pressure and lowering MEP (that's why you have a mag drop). Point is, there are a lot of variables. In the case of a stock engine, we "know" the certification test program covered single ignition operation. However, the FAR's spell out separate requirements. See 33.37 (requires dual ignition) and 33.47 (detonation testing). There doesn't seem to be an FAR that spells out detonation testing on one ignition. However, it's probably in a certification AC somewhere, and I'd like to think it is checked at all mixture and power settings. Anybody know for sure? In the experimental airplane world, builders modify engines. If you're running a modified engine, I'll suggest that all bets are off. I'll further suggest that the new fuel standard will add another wild card. I doubt custom engine builders include single ignition detonation tolerance in their dyno runs, and they don't yet have the new fuel. The two most signficant pro-detonation modifications are an increase in compression ratio and an increase in manifold pressure/inlet temperature (read "turbo"). Unlike cars, we don't have the luxury of detonation detection/ignition retard. Some of the electronic ignitions advance based on manifold pressure. How is all this relevant to aero-electrics? We plan our electrical systems with an operation plan in mind. The plan may include operation on one ignition following some sort of electrical problem or simple ignition failure. Depending on engine configuration, power setting, and mixture setting, caution may be in order. It would be a real bummer to lose cylinders following what was supposed to be a "flip a few switches and continue" operations plan. If you have not already considered it in your single ignition operations plan, think about reducing engine load and enriching the mixture (Is that in a POH somewhere?). Since some e-bus plans don't include engine instruments (and I'm not suggesting that they should), you might consider adding some single ignition flight testing to your 40 hr plan. Might be good to look at CHT and EGT while you have instruments. Sorry to be so long. I was considering single ignition operation for electrical power conservation after alternator failure and rejected the idea. Thought the group might be interested. BTW, as a matter of personal policy I'm delighted to be wrong if I learn something in the process. Dan Horton ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Radio Mounting
Date: Nov 25, 2002
Hey guys, I am at that point where I am starting to seriously consisder my instrument panel. I have looked in several books but have not seen the subject of the physical mounting of the radios discussed in any detail. What is the preferred method of mounting the radios? Is .063 angle riveted to the rear of the panel and screwed to the trays adequate? Are the trays long enough that there should be some type of rear support? If rear support is needed, how is it arranged? If you support it off the structure in the rear somewhere, how do you remove the panel for maintenance? Does anyone have any pictures on their websites? Does anyone have any JPEGs that they can email? Is there a website out there that gives detailed mounting instructions? I am building a RV-8A if that makes any difference. Vince Welch Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ________________________________________________________________________________
From: mprather(at)spro.net
Subject: Re: Single Ignition Operation
Date: Nov 25, 2002
My understanding is that with LSE ignition, running 2 plugs per cylinder over one per cylinder results in a very small increase in RPM (<25, maybe). I imagine that running single plugs may reduce the ability to run lean of peak egt (LOP) becuase with the reduced spark comes reduced spark reliability. This may effect your fuel economy by 5% or so. Encountering more than forecasted headwinds is more likely, and can have a much greater effect on your ability to reach your destination. None the less, I think your point is well taken. I think most probably haven't considered how well (or poorly) their engine might run with only one ignition source. Single ignition ops probably aren't really considered when modifying engines. As far as the electrical system is concerned, the architectures described here don't necessarily involve shutting off either ignition for any single point of failure. This is one feature that allows you to continue in the event of an electrical supply problem. Having an ignition malfunction is a different issue. Personally, if one of my ignition sources fails, I will start to re-consider how to avoid crossing long stretches of hostile terrain (or weather), even if it means I won't get all of the way to my destination. Regards, Matt Prather N34RD ----- Original Message ----- From: DHPHKH(at)aol.com Date: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:42 am Subject: AeroElectric-List: Single Ignition Operation > > I'm new to this list; I'd like to thank Bob, Matt, and the > participants > for a terrific resource. May I offer a subject for comment? > > We all want dual ignition systems, on the assumption that we > can continue > on one if the other fails. Independent magneto ignition is the > norm. For > those of us who choose dual electronic ignition, we arrange the ..... > don't include engine instruments (and I'm not suggesting that they > should), > you might consider adding some single ignition flight testing to > your 40 hr > plan. Might be good to look at CHT and EGT while you have > instruments. > Sorry to be so long. I was considering single ignition > operation for > electrical power conservation after alternator failure and rejected > the idea. > Thought the group might be interested. > > BTW, as a matter of personal policy I'm delighted to be wrong > if I learn > something in the process. > > Dan Horton > > > > _- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2002
From: Peter Laurence <dr.laurence(at)mbdi.org>
Subject: thermal fuse?
Considering placing a fire monitor in a Velocity. I thought I would use a fuse in series with the coil of a relay. Failure of the fuse would trip the relay and light a LED. Can anyone tell me where I would fine a "thermal" fuse that would fail at approx 400 degrees? Is there such a Thing? Peter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: Single Ignition Operation
Date: Nov 25, 2002
Re: single sparks on a dual spark system: Dan, Let me provide you a definitive response. We can see and measure this directly on the engine test stand which has internal combustion cylinder pressure transducers installed on each cylinder. >>How do you know your engine will operate reliably under all conditions on one ignition?<< >>Here's the basis: Dual plugs are not just for redundancy. They also ensure complete combustion in less time. You're lighting the mixture in two places. If you light it with just one plug, the time interval necessary for the flame front to travel across the very wide av-engine combustion chamber is considerably lengthened. Detonation is a function of pre-flame front chemical reaction. Heat and pressure re-form relatively stable hydrocarbon chains into configurations that ignite spontaneously. With more time available, the chance of forming unstable chains increases. With enough detonation you will lose the use of that cylinder. You'll lose it very quickly if it cascades into preignition. Mixture, compression ratio, and swirl play a part, because they all affect flame front speed. Octane plays a part; octane ratings are increased by refining for more stable chains or by using additives that intercede in the pre-flame front process. Engine speed plays a part, because low RPM means a longer period near TDC. On the plus side, effective igntion timing is retarded during single plug operation, delaying peak pressure and lowering MEP (that's why you have a mag drop). Point is, there are a lot of variables.<< In the case of a stock engine, we "know" the certification test program covered single ignition operation. However, the FAR's spell out separate requirements. See 33.37 (requires dual ignition) and 33.47 (detonation testing). There doesn't seem to be an FAR that spells out detonation testing on one ignition. However, it's probably in a certification AC somewhere, and I'd like to think it is checked at all mixture and power settings. Anybody know for sure? << ********************************** Yes. We do know - - for sure even! Detonation is not checked at any power setting other than full power on both mags with the CHTS held to redline and the fuel flow reduced from full rich to about 90% of a full rich mixture. As a practical matter, the change in *effective* timing is so profound when you loose one magneto, that the effectively retarded timing dominates all of the other issues that you have raised. Thus, one of the ways to stop detonation (or even, sometimes, pre-ignition) is to shut off one magneto!!! We can demonstrate this by operating the big 350Hp TIO-540 J2B engine on the test stand - - on 87octane MOGAS - - and then shutting down one mag while it is detonating. We do these kinds of demonstrations - - live - - in real time - - during the Adv. Pilot Seminar Engine Management course we conduct every other month, here in Ada at the GAMI facility. No need to guess or wonder - - or take somebody else's word for it - - you can see it for yourself and make up your own mind. ************************************ >> BTW, as a matter of personal policy I'm delighted to be wrong if I learn something in the process. << That is an excellent policy for all of us! Regards, George Braly = http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "I-Blackler, Wayne R" <wayne.blackler(at)boeing.com>
rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Radio Mounting
Date: Nov 25, 2002
Vince and list, http://www.rv-8.com/Panel.htm is a pretty good one I believe. Picture is shown about half way down the page. I'll be doing mine similarly, with the addition of aluminium sheet to tie the racks together on each side (probably just not shown in this particular picture). I checked out the back of a few Avionics panel shops at OSH, and they did it likewise. Might be worth a calculation or two to see what load is involved, and more importantly, what loads you envisage your panel components to experience for the flying you plan on doing. If you plan on aerobatics (not sure from your email), you will want to consider aft mounting, and perhaps what you take with you on an aerobatic flight if you plan on doing so anyway.. RV-8.com seems to be a pretty good website all round in my opinion. Great quality workmanship with equally great close-up high quality pictures with explanations. Tells a thousand words... Cheers Wayne Blackler IO-360 Long EZ, 95% done Seattle, USA -----Original Message----- From: Vincent Welch [mailto:welchvincent(at)hotmail.com] Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio Mounting Hey guys, I am at that point where I am starting to seriously consisder my instrument panel. I have looked in several books but have not seen the subject of the physical mounting of the radios discussed in any detail. What is the preferred method of mounting the radios? Is .063 angle riveted to the rear of the panel and screwed to the trays adequate? Are the trays long enough that there should be some type of rear support? If rear support is needed, how is it arranged? If you support it off the structure in the rear somewhere, how do you remove the panel for maintenance? Does anyone have any pictures on their websites? Does anyone have any JPEGs that they can email? Is there a website out there that gives detailed mounting instructions? I am building a RV-8A if that makes any difference. Vince Welch Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail = http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list http://www.matronics.com/FAQs/AeroElectric-List.FAQ.html ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net>
Subject: Single Ignition Operation
Date: Nov 25, 2002
Since George mentioned it, I'll have to comment. I just came back from George's (and Walter and John Deakin) Advanced Pilot Seminar at GAMI in Ada, OK, the weekend before last. All I can say is WOW!!!. What a great learning experience and tool. I'm an engineer by day, and very interested in engine management, so I had done quite a bit of research and testing before I went, and though I had a good understanding. I considered myself well above the average person in engine understanding and management. However, I learned so much at this seminar that I can't describe it. I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT TO EVERYONE. Thanks George. --- 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 George Braly Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Single Ignition Operation Re: single sparks on a dual spark system: Dan, Let me provide you a definitive response. We can see and measure this directly on the engine test stand which has internal combustion cylinder pressure transducers installed on each cylinder. >>How do you know your engine will operate reliably under all conditions on one ignition?<< >>Here's the basis: Dual plugs are not just for redundancy. They also ensure complete combustion in less time. You're lighting the mixture in two places. If you light it with just one plug, the time interval necessary for the flame front to travel across the very wide av-engine combustion chamber is considerably lengthened. Detonation is a function of pre-flame front chemical reaction. Heat and pressure re-form relatively stable hydrocarbon chains into configurations that ignite spontaneously. With more time available, the chance of forming unstable chains increases. With enough detonation you will lose the use of that cylinder. You'll lose it very quickly if it cascades into preignition. Mixture, compression ratio, and swirl play a part, because they all affect flame front speed. Octane plays a part; octane ratings are increased by refining for more stable chains or by using additives that intercede in the pre-flame front process. Engine speed plays a part, because low RPM means a longer period near TDC. On the plus side, effective igntion timing is retarded during single plug operation, delaying peak pressure and lowering MEP (that's why you have a mag drop). Point is, there are a lot of variables.<< In the case of a stock engine, we "know" the certification test program covered single ignition operation. However, the FAR's spell out separate requirements. See 33.37 (requires dual ignition) and 33.47 (detonation testing). There doesn't seem to be an FAR that spells out detonation testing on one ignition. However, it's probably in a certification AC somewhere, and I'd like to think it is checked at all mixture and power settings. Anybody know for sure? << ********************************** Yes. We do know - - for sure even! Detonation is not checked at any power setting other than full power on both mags with the CHTS held to redline and the fuel flow reduced from full rich to about 90% of a full rich mixture. As a practical matter, the change in *effective* timing is so profound when you loose one magneto, that the effectively retarded timing dominates all of the other issues that you have raised. Thus, one of the ways to stop detonation (or even, sometimes, pre-ignition) is to shut off one magneto!!! We can demonstrate this by operating the big 350Hp TIO-540 J2B engine on the test stand - - on 87octane MOGAS - - and then shutting down one mag while it is detonating. We do these kinds of demonstrations - - live - - in real time - - during the Adv. Pilot Seminar Engine Management course we conduct every other month, here in Ada at the GAMI facility. No need to guess or wonder - - or take somebody else's word for it - - you can see it for yourself and make up your own mind. ************************************ >> BTW, as a matter of personal policy I'm delighted to be wrong if I learn something in the process. << That is an excellent policy for all of us! Regards, George Braly = http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list = ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net>
Subject: Single Ignition Operation
Date: Nov 25, 2002
You hit it right on the head when you said the statement below. Effective ignition timing is retarded during single plug operation, as the flame front is only coming from one source. This delays peak pressure and lowers ICP as the pressure event is spread out over a longer time with a lower peak. This is all GOOD, as this discourages detonation. One mag (or ignition) operation is actually a way to get rid of detonation, not start it. This was proven to me at GAMI a couple weekends ago by George, John, and Walter of the Advanced Pilot Seminars (www.advancedpilot.com). Highly recommended. --- Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net You wrote>>>> means a longer period near TDC. On the plus side, effective igntion timing is retarded during single plug operation, delaying peak pressure and lowering MEP (that's why you have a mag drop). Point is, there are a lot of variables. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net>
Subject: Single Ignition Operation
Date: Nov 25, 2002
I think what would be more surprising would be the number of engines that are running around with one bad spark plug. These engines pass a low power ground run-up and mag check. However, in the air in high power cruise, they have a bad plug. My engine was one of these until last week. How many of you have done a high power LOP mag check lately? I think the results might surprise you. My engine has less than 150 hours with new plugs, and one of them was bad. You have NOTHING to worry about when discussing increasing detonation on one ignition system. It just WON'T happen. One plug means reduced effective timing, which means the event happens slower and later and has a lower peak cylinder pressure. One ignition operation will reduce CHT's, increase EGT's (retarded spark, higher EGT), lower ICP, and leave your engine in a happier state :) Don't worry about it, its NOT an issue. Good point of discussion though..... --- 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 mprather(at)spro.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Single Ignition Operation My understanding is that with LSE ignition, running 2 plugs per cylinder over one per cylinder results in a very small increase in RPM (<25, maybe). I imagine that running single plugs may reduce the ability to run lean of peak egt (LOP) becuase with the reduced spark comes reduced spark reliability. This may effect your fuel economy by 5% or so. Encountering more than forecasted headwinds is more likely, and can have a much greater effect on your ability to reach your destination. None the less, I think your point is well taken. I think most probably haven't considered how well (or poorly) their engine might run with only one ignition source. Single ignition ops probably aren't really considered when modifying engines. As far as the electrical system is concerned, the architectures described here don't necessarily involve shutting off either ignition for any single point of failure. This is one feature that allows you to continue in the event of an electrical supply problem. Having an ignition malfunction is a different issue. Personally, if one of my ignition sources fails, I will start to re-consider how to avoid crossing long stretches of hostile terrain (or weather), even if it means I won't get all of the way to my destination. Regards, Matt Prather N34RD ----- Original Message ----- From: DHPHKH(at)aol.com Date: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:42 am Subject: AeroElectric-List: Single Ignition Operation > > I'm new to this list; I'd like to thank Bob, Matt, and the > participants > for a terrific resource. May I offer a subject for comment? > > We all want dual ignition systems, on the assumption that we > can continue > on one if the other fails. Independent magneto ignition is the > norm. For > those of us who choose dual electronic ignition, we arrange the ..... > don't include engine instruments (and I'm not suggesting that they > should), > you might consider adding some single ignition flight testing to > your 40 hr > plan. Might be good to look at CHT and EGT while you have > instruments. > Sorry to be so long. I was considering single ignition > operation for > electrical power conservation after alternator failure and rejected > the idea. > Thought the group might be interested. > > BTW, as a matter of personal policy I'm delighted to be wrong > if I learn > something in the process. > > Dan Horton > > > > _- = ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob Housman" <RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
Subject: thermal fuse?
Date: Nov 25, 2002
You can get a fusible link (search on that term) at http://www.mcmaster.com/ and mount it with one fixed end and the other spring loaded so when the fusing temperature is reached the link will separate and open the circuit. The available "set points" are 360 and 520 deg F, but no 400 deg F. I am using a fusible link to slam shut a stainless steel "door" to close the air vent through the firewall. Best regards, Rob Housman Europa XS Tri-Gear A070 Airfarame complete Irvine, CA -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Peter Laurence Subject: AeroElectric-List: thermal fuse? Considering placing a fire monitor in a Velocity. I thought I would use a fuse in series with the coil of a relay. Failure of the fuse would trip the relay and light a LED. Can anyone tell me where I would fine a "thermal" fuse that would fail at approx 400 degrees? Is there such a Thing? Peter ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2002
From: DHPHKH(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Single Ignition Operation
George writes: <> Excellent information George, thank you. Understand effective timing, and it's good to know the dyno shows it to be the dominant variable. I assume you feel it applies to all conventional av engines, ie all similar bore/stroke and chamber shapes. BTW, we have a mutual friend (Monty), so I'm happy to accept your word as gospel. I hear you do some serious research. Dan Horton ________________________________________________________________________________
From: George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: Single Ignition Operation
Date: Nov 25, 2002
Dan, Theses engines share much more in their similarities than they will ever be noted for in differences. So, yes, the exact same consideration applies for other engines where the spark plugs are located on different sides of the cylinder. Monty Barrett is an exceptionally bright engine head! Regards, George -----Original Message----- From: DHPHKH(at)aol.com [mailto:DHPHKH(at)aol.com] Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Single Ignition Operation George writes: <> Excellent information George, thank you. Understand effective timing, and it's good to know the dyno shows it to be the dominant variable. I assume you feel it applies to all conventional av engines, ie all similar bore/stroke and chamber shapes. BTW, we have a mutual friend (Monty), so I'm happy to accept your word as gospel. I hear you do some serious research. Dan Horton ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2002
From: Jim Bean <jim-bean(at)att.net>
Subject: Alternator TA terminal
hi, My alternator has a terminal labeled TA. What is it? Just curious. Jim Bean RV-6 wiring ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DHPHKH(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 26, 2002
Subject: Re: Single Ignition Operation
Hello George, <> Know at least one converse example, stand alone air-cooled jugs but not an av engine. Higher compression, worse port angles, more ignition advance. Not the same, true. <> He says the same about you. If you have time and inclination, I'd enjoy talking about your torsional telemetry work. Off list I suppose, as that's getting far from aero-electric. Dan Horton ________________________________________________________________________________
From: George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: Single Ignition Operation
Date: Nov 26, 2002
>> Know at least one converse example, stand alone air-cooled jugs but not an av engine. Higher compression, worse port angles, more ignition advance. Not the same, true.<< I'm not sure what you mean. Help me out. Why would a stand alone air-cooled jug(s) with/without higher compression and with/without worse port angles - - make any difference ? If one has two spark plugs located on different sides of the cylinder - - shutting down one of the two plugs will always cause the effective timing to be retarded. Only if both plugs are essentially co-located (ie, Orenda, for example) will the failure of one plug not result in effectively retarded timing - - and then, it essentially remains the same. You really need to come by here sometime and see the combustion events live and in real time to appreciate this. Would be glad to talk about the crankshaft torsional data acquisition efforts. Regards, George ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2002
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: WLAS
Dear Listers, There are only a few days left until the November List of Contributors. I thought I'd take another opportunity to pass along some of the really nice things people have been saying recently about the Lists and how much they mean to them. If you receive value from the Lists in the form of ideas, assistance, comradery, moral support, inspiration, or just plain 'ol good entertainment, then won't take a moment to make a Contribution to support the continued operation and upgrade of them? Secure List Contribution Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution What does the List mean to you? Here's what some of your fellow contributing List members have said... ------------------------- What Listers Are Saying ------------------------- Great service for aviation types like me. Larry H Best investment I've made. Harley B I've been on this list since around 1996 and used it to help me finish my RV-6A three years ago. I'm still here because I still learn from it and use it to help others like me who may be where nobody else is building a RV. Thanks for your service to our community. It's appreciated. Jim S [List] people are a great break away from politics, religion and other sordid subjects. Robert B This site is a great confidence builder for the amateur builder. Gene L Great service! Barry P Very handy list to have, a good place for a beginner to get great answers from those who already experienced it. ...sure enjoy reading it. Joel R ...valuable service! Chris & Indira K This is the better than any morning paper - the best and most frequent service that I use on the Internet. Great job! This will make building the RV doable for me. Pete E I enjoy all of the ideas, suggestions and humor that comes with this list. I don't think I could build my RV4 with out everyone's help. Ross S GRRRRRRRRRRRREAT! James W The list is a great source of information, motivation, entertainment, passionate debate, and light-hearted back slapping. I wouldn't be without it. Roger H ...would still be looking for plans to hook-up s-tec auto pilot without your service! David S The new [digest] format is good. Graham S Great information you can't get anywhere else. Lots of nice people who have "Been there...done that." George D My normal morning routine: 1 Kiss "the princess" 2 Good cup of coffee 3 Log onto "List" A wonderful means of exchanging ideas, asking questions, gathering information, and sharing experiences. Robert G Great lists. Not only are the lists professionally and efficiently managed, but the *people* on the lists are very helpful, friendly and fun to chat with. Thank you for this wonderful resource. Ihab A Thanks a million, well maybe not a million!!! (: Ken H I need this fix every morning or I get grumpy... Wayne P Very useful lists Paul E This communication medium that you created, nurtured and continue to maintain is the best thing since AN rivets! Jim J The information I gleaned off the list has always been helpful. Kenneth B I've been a subscriber to varied lists for several years now. The knowledge provided has been extremely useful throughout. David P Enjoy everyone's input even though I am not a builder...just a flyer. Douglas P Just laughin' and a scratchin' Dennis N It is a real asset and good for comic relief. Ross S I can't build my plane without your service! Kent H Great info on the lists! Wesley H I'm very new to the List but have already benefited greatly. Jim S The "List" has been my best source for information concerning my aviation projects. Besides, it also brings a bunch of people together to share their interests and knowledge. Thanks for providing a state of the art, easy to use resource tool. David A I have saved a lot of grief and dollars from referencing this site. It is truly an extension of Van's product support. Joseph C Terrific asset this List is to the builder! Scott J Great service! Tony B Look forward to the list each and every day. John B I could not cope up here in this lonely island without the help of the List and all the wonderful helpful people that have the experience of aircraft building and flying for fun. Johann J This list is part of my daily routine. I'm addicted. Terry D Great forum! John H This list is my main interest in the Internet. George R Great list. The best out there on any subject. Kevin H Been on the list since 1998 and I still look forward to reading the list every day. A most valuable tool. I have picked up many useful tips during the construction of my RV-4. Jerry I Thanks for all of your hard work on the lists. It is one of the reasons I bought a CJ-6A. Without the Yak-list, I believe it would have been much more difficult to get all the information that I need for safe operation and maintenance of this fine aircraft. David L The List has been an amazing source of useful information. I consider it one of my best builder tools. Gunter M An excellent channel of information. I have gained a wealth of knowledge on both building and flying Kolb aircraft. Jim B Enjoy the wealth of information that is shared. Richard N Fine service. Beauford T [The] List is the first stop of the day. Made lot of friends from it. Orie S The information I gleaned off the List has always been helpful. Kenneth B Over the 3+ years that I have been building, I check it several times each day. I have learned a lot of very useful tips that have helped me in my building. Richard D Not only is it worth a contribution for the info gleaned from it but the personalities alone are pure entertainment! Stephen F This is great stuff!!! Entertaining, too!! Fast answers from those who really know... Bob R I am building an RV-9A and have received help from the lists and occasionally been able to give help to others. Alden Van W This list has saved me countless hours of work and worry already, and I'm only halfway there! Undoubtedly the most important aid I have yet found in this sometimes intimidating process of building an aircraft. Paul H I've been a member since '96 and have learned so much from the vast knowledge of the listers. Gary Z Outstanding List, exceptionally maintained. David S Thanks for all the improvements you've made this year. The Photoshare feature definitely proves "one picture is worth a thousand words". Richard H I finished my RV6A this year. It is a much better airplane because of the help I found on the RV and Aeroelectric Lists. Dale W Can't imagine building without the list. Larry H The list continues to be a great resource of information and advice. Jeff O ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2002
From: richard(at)riley.net
Subject: Re: Air Speed / Gear warn
Velocity sells an airspeed switch for gear warning for VERY little money (under $20, IIRC, but it's late and I'm jet lagged) I seem to recall someone saying there was a switch out of a gas clothes dryer that would do it for about $3 > > > > > Hi Bob, > >Thanks for the quick response....And yes you were right on the money as to > >my intentions! Here's a quick followup. Sorry my browser didn't give me > >the "reply" option so I'm sending this direct! > > > >In the response below, you mentioned the .04 to .08 inches of water range. > > > >A). Is there a formula for this? > > I was giving you numbers in PSI . . . a formula that works > pretty good though 150kts or so is; > > P = (V >2)/1467 where P is dynamic pressure inches of water, > V is velocity in Kts. The > sign is used to denote power, i.e. > you need to square the velocity value. > > >B). The pressure switch you recommended, PSF-102, (which is the exact one > >I was looking at by the way!) says that it has "Adjustable set points from > >0.1" to 100.0" H20" This is outside the range you gave me (.04-.08) for the > >equivalent 50-70 knot airspeed range... so I'm a little confused! > > The .04 - .08 was PSI and would have covered an airspeed > range of 40 to 70 MPH, or 43 to 60 Knots. > > > >Is there a typo somewhere? > > Nope, just got my tongue tangled around my eyeteeth and > couldn't see what I was saying. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Single Ignition Operation
> >Hello George, ><spark plugs are located on different sides of the cylinder.>> > > Know at least one converse example, stand alone air-cooled jugs but > not >an av engine. Higher compression, worse port angles, more ignition advance. >Not the same, true. > ><> > > He says the same about you. > > If you have time and inclination, I'd enjoy talking about your > torsional >telemetry work. Off list I suppose, as that's getting far from >aero-electric. Don't know how all the others feel about it but it sure doesn't bother me . . . I'm interested in and pleased to hear about any facts of physics that help me understand how things work. Just 'cause it's not airframe 'lectrics doesn't mean we can't discuss the finer characteristics of fasteners or how to measure the strain in the crankshaft of an operating engine. Those who are not interested can very easily pass over the conversation. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: mprather(at)spro.net
Subject: Re: Single Ignition Operation
Date: Nov 26, 2002
I have another question regarding aircraft ignition systems. Actually, its more of an instrumentation question. Are there thermocouple, or other sensors available that will survive directly in the combustion chamber environment? My impression is thatchamber temps are often higher than egt's, though I am not sure of this. Maybe a better idea is to measure cylinder head temp closer to the chamber than is normal allowed with CHT probes - ie insulate the probe only slightly from the chamber gasses. What I am going for is faster response time to the events going on in the chamber. Any ideas? Matt Prather N34RD ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 26, 2002
Subject: Re: Single Ignition Operation
In a message dated 11/26/02 9:57:00 AM Central Standard Time, mprather(at)spro.net writes: > Are there thermocouple, or other sensors available that will survive > directly in the combustion chamber environment? My impression is > thatchamber temps are often higher than egt's, though I am not sure of > this. > Good Morning Matt, You do what George Braly is doing. Measure the actual cylinder pressure developed on every single combustion event! He does that by modifying a spark plug so that the pressures can be read via an adapter that reads that pressure right at the base of the spark plug threads. Works quite well I am told. Rumor has it that he is close to developing a spark plug which will do that without requiring a special adapter. Reading the pressures are even better than reading the temperatures. The temperatures tend to be averages whereas the pressures are read at all points throughout the combustion process. If detonation even begins to rear it's ugly head, it will show up immediately on the pressure trace. Ain't science grand? Happy Skies, Old Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: mprather(at)spro.net
Subject: Re: Single Ignition Operation
Date: Nov 26, 2002
Good morning to you 'Old Bob.' ----- Original Message ----- From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:06 am Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Single Ignition Operation > > In a message dated 11/26/02 9:57:00 AM Central Standard Time, > mprather(at)spro.net writes: > > > Are there thermocouple, or other sensors available that will survive > > directly in the combustion chamber environment? My impression > is > > thatchamber temps are often higher than egt's, though I am not > sure of > > this. > > > > Good Morning Matt, > > You do what George Braly is doing. Measure the actual cylinder > pressure > developed on every single combustion event! > > He does that by modifying a spark plug so that the pressures can be > read via > an adapter that reads that pressure right at the base of the spark > plug > threads. > > Works quite well I am told. > > Rumor has it that he is close to developing a spark plug which will > do that > without requiring a special adapter. > > Reading the pressures are even better than reading the > temperatures. The > temperatures tend to be averages whereas the pressures are read at > all points > throughout the combustion process. I agree that the slow time response of temperature sensors causes an averaging effect on the readings. I believe that thermocouples made from finer wire have faster response time than do those of thicker wire. I would have guessed that trends in temperature over a number of combustion events would have been a good enough predictor. > > If detonation even begins to rear it's ugly head, it will show up > immediately > on the pressure trace. I was under the impression that temperature rise was the precursor to the pressure rise caused by preignition. I may have the facts a bit backwards though. Maybe its a PV=nRT type thing with a little Boyles law thrown in for good measure. Increase in pressure cause increase in temperature which causes increase in pressure, etc. > > Ain't science grand? Absolutely! > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > > Thanks for the quick response. I didn't realize that the in- cylinder instrumentation was moving toward pressure measurement. That's interesting. I am seeing useful applications toward better ignition advance control. Regards, Matt Prather ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2002
From: "Jim Pack" <jpack(at)igs3.com>
Subject: Static Dischargers
I see Static Dischargers on planes & in the different supplier catalouges. When are these needed? Should I put some on my RV? if so, where? - Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 26, 2002
Subject: Re: Static Dischargers
In a message dated 11/26/02 11:43:16 AM Central Standard Time, jpack(at)igs3.com writes: > I see Static Dischargers on planes &in the different supplier catalouges. > When are these needed? Should I put some on my RV? if so, where? > Good Morning Jim, If you plan on relying on LORAN as your basic IFR navigation device, the Static Discharge Wicks may help it to perform a bit better. For all other purposes, I would suggest you leave them off. I have experienced some minimal static interference once or twice in VHF navigation and communications equipment during the last fifty plus years of using such things, but it has never been a problem of long enough duration to bring me to attach those little abominations to any airplane I own. They definitely helped HF communications and helped reduce the static when trying to fly the Low Frequency Range stations. Even then, the improvement was not complete, just a little better than nothing at all. Save the money and buy a handheld GPS, it will do you a LOT more good than will static wicks. Incidentally, back in the days of long wire antennas for those HF radios, we found that the precipitation static could be reduced a considerable amount by transmitting for a few seconds on the HF radio. Of course, it might have made a difference in that we were using one hundred watt transmitters. I don't recall that helping when using the low powered transmitters we had in light aircraft of the day. Happy Skies, Old Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Another EFIS
Date: Nov 26, 2002
Hello, I've just seen a new (at least for me) EFIS in the January edition of Kitplanes. www.optechnologies.com I know with 23k$ it is a bit more expensive then a Blue Mountain, does anybody have seen this EFIS in a working (flying) plane? They are using a solid state platform from watson industries: http://www.watson-gyro.com/PDF/AHRS_E304_Brochure.pdf Would appreciate your comments. Kind regards Werner ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net>
Subject: Another EFIS
Date: Nov 26, 2002
The guys at Lancair Avionics have had considerable trouble with the Watson AHRS. They have had better luck with the Crossbow AHRS. I'm planning on the Xbox500. --- 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 Werner Schneider Subject: AeroElectric-List: Another EFIS Hello, I've just seen a new (at least for me) EFIS in the January edition of Kitplanes. www.optechnologies.com I know with 23k$ it is a bit more expensive then a Blue Mountain, does anybody have seen this EFIS in a working (flying) plane? They are using a solid state platform from watson industries: http://www.watson-gyro.com/PDF/AHRS_E304_Brochure.pdf Would appreciate your comments. Kind regards Werner = ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net>
Subject: Re: Single Ignition Operation
Date: Nov 26, 2002
The combustion chamber can get up over 3-4000 degrees during an event, maybe even 5000. George would know better than I. However, that doesn't really matter, as we are just looking for a peak typically to signify that we are at stoichametric ratio. The absolute best idea in measuring what is going on during a combustion event is exactly what George is doing with his PRISM system. The PRISM system uses pressure transducers in each cylinder to measure the cylinder pressure, or ICP. The beauty of this is that from the 50kHz sampling George is using, we can see and quantify detonation, see where the peak ICP is to optimize timing, and calculate HP by integrating and subtracting the areas under the ICP curve (before TDC is negative work, so subtract it off) to get the work done. This is way more useful than any temperature we can get from a thermocouple. Incredible system. I strongly suggest everyone stop by Ada, OK and see GAMI's dyno facility and watch the engine run on PRISM. The future of GA looks good :) --- 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 mprather(at)spro.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Single Ignition Operation I have another question regarding aircraft ignition systems. Actually, its more of an instrumentation question. Are there thermocouple, or other sensors available that will survive directly in the combustion chamber environment? My impression is thatchamber temps are often higher than egt's, though I am not sure of this. Maybe a better idea is to measure cylinder head temp closer to the chamber than is normal allowed with CHT probes - ie insulate the probe only slightly from the chamber gasses. What I am going for is faster response time to the events going on in the chamber. Any ideas? Matt Prather N34RD = ________________________________________________________________________________
From: mprather(at)spro.net
Subject: Re: Single Ignition Operation
Date: Nov 26, 2002
Sounds cool. Thanks for the explanation. Regards, Matt- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:33 pm Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Single Ignition Operation > > The combustion chamber can get up over 3-4000 degrees during an event, > maybe even 5000. George would know better than I. However, that > doesn't really matter, as we are just looking for a peak typically to > signify that we are at stoichametric ratio. > > The absolute best idea in measuring what is going on during a > combustionevent is exactly what George is doing with his PRISM > system. The PRISM > system uses pressure transducers in each cylinder to measure the > cylinder pressure, or ICP. The beauty of this is that from the 50kHz > sampling George is using, we can see and quantify detonation, see > wherethe peak ICP is to optimize timing, and calculate HP by > integrating and > subtracting the areas under the ICP curve (before TDC is negative > work,so subtract it off) to get the work done. This is way more > useful than > any temperature we can get from a thermocouple. Incredible system. > > I strongly suggest everyone stop by Ada, OK and see GAMI's dyno > facilityand watch the engine run on PRISM. The future of GA looks > good :) > > --- > 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 > mprather(at)spro.net > To: mprather(at)spro.net; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Single Ignition Operation > > > I have another question regarding aircraft ignition systems. > Actually, its more of an instrumentation question. > > Are there thermocouple, or other sensors available that will survive > directly in the combustion chamber environment? My impression is > thatchamber temps are often higher than egt's, though I am not sure of > this. > > Maybe a better idea is to measure cylinder head temp closer to the > chamber than is normal allowed with CHT probes - ie insulate the probe > only slightly from the chamber gasses. What I am going for is faster > response time to the events going on in the chamber. Any ideas? > > Matt Prather > N34RD > > > > > > _- > > _-> _- > - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum - > _- > ======================================================================_-!! NEWish !! > _- > ======================================================================_-List Related Information > _- > ====================================================================== > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: LED Position Lights
Date: Nov 26, 2002
Making LED position lights is not difficult, but some of the engineering is messy, especially the photometric units (A whale tallow candles and laser beam stew). But try this. (Applies to all position lamps but I will consider only the white tail lamp since it is in some ways the hardest). We know the FAA wants 20 candlepower (same thing as 20 Candelas) in a hemisphere dome pointing rearward (it's a bit more complicated but this will do). Now given the numbers published by the LED manufacturers, one would think we would start with the LED's Luminous Intensity, but this is completely backwards. It is necessary to realize that we need to cover a hemispherical angle with LEDs that usually emit less than a full hemispherical angle (someday this will be a 1-LED job). Imagine the multi-armed goddess Shiva in a domed tent with a bunch of flashlights. We want an outside observer to see a smooth light distribution instead of the beams of the individual flashlights. Overlapping is good too. So... If the tent is one meter in radius, the surface area of the dome is 2XPi or 6.28 square meters (or feet or whatever) in area. You can skip all length units since they cancel out. I am skipping the steradians and some of the math, etc.; just trust me on this. So how many cones of LED light are needed to fill the area of the domed tent? We have to select an LED and find out how much area it will cover on the dome. A little trigonometry says we take the half-angle of the LED beam, set hypotenuse1 meter (or whatever) and the opposite side is the sine of the angle. For example if the LED cone of light is 20 degrees, then the sine of 10 degrees is 0.17. (This then is the radius of the spot on the tent wall. (Geometrists will note this is not quite correct but ignore them...they have no souls). And the area of the LED lighted spot on the domed tent surface is then AreaPi X R X R 0.09 Square Whatevers. Now from this we gather that 6.28 Square Whatevers require 67 evenly distributed LEDs of 20 degrees cone angle to cover the surface since 6.28/0.0966.29...LEDs. Now what luminous Intensity must each LED be? The FAA requires 20 Candelas so 20/67 0.300 candelas or 300 mcd (millicandelas). Note that in this example you cannot get away with fewer than 67 LEDs (and a few more might be better). But if we get wider angle LEDs, say 30 degree LEDs, then we can get away with 30 LEDs. And then we need 20 candelas/30 or 667 mcd each. The LEDs are $1.50 each or so. The GE #93 or #94 lamp common to aircraft tail light applications is rated and annoyingly short 100 Hrs., 1.14 Amps (at 14.5 V). A similar-brightness white LED version would be 0.6A, and 100,000 hours. But in reality there are LEDs that have accumulated 300,000 hours and they show no signs of wearing out. So who knows? I hope this helps. Eric M. Jones ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "fellowsw" <fellows.w(at)ewcapital.net>
Subject: Static Dischargers
Date: Nov 27, 2002
I believe that static wicks will not help much on a composite airplane. To be effective on an aluminum airplane, the parts must be bonded together. I have heard of composite airplanes with so much static buildup that, vhf com audio was very degraded. Any experiences out there to share? It also seems that the same sort of methods used for "lightning protection" with wicks will help prevent static buildup on composite aircraft. -----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: Static Dischargers In a message dated 11/26/02 11:43:16 AM Central Standard Time, jpack(at)igs3.com writes: > I see Static Dischargers on planes &in the different supplier catalouges. > When are these needed? Should I put some on my RV? if so, where? > Good Morning Jim, If you plan on relying on LORAN as your basic IFR navigation device, the Static Discharge Wicks may help it to perform a bit better. For all other purposes, I would suggest you leave them off. I have experienced some minimal static interference once or twice in VHF navigation and communications equipment during the last fifty plus years of using such things, but it has never been a problem of long enough duration to bring me to attach those little abominations to any airplane I own. They definitely helped HF communications and helped reduce the static when trying to fly the Low Frequency Range stations. Even then, the improvement was not complete, just a little better than nothing at all. Save the money and buy a handheld GPS, it will do you a LOT more good than will static wicks. Incidentally, back in the days of long wire antennas for those HF radios, we found that the precipitation static could be reduced a considerable amount by transmitting for a few seconds on the HF radio. Of course, it might have made a difference in that we were using one hundred watt transmitters. I don't recall that helping when using the low powered transmitters we had in light aircraft of the day. Happy Skies, Old Bob = ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DHPHKH(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 27, 2002
Subject: Re: Single Ignition Operation
Hello George, <> Sorry, didn't mean to be obtuse. The converse example that jumped to mind was the 1970's boxer BMW twin. When leaded high-test became unavailable at the corner pump, R90/6 and /S owners had detonation problems. A popular fix was to drill the head and install an opposing plug. Reduced compression ratio or retarded timing also worked, but with a loss of performance. The problem was mostly at mid-RPM (2000-3500). Later models had lowered compression and a re-curved advance, moving full-in from about 2200 to the lower 3000 area. (Note; I'm working with old memory here.) "Stand alone" and "air cooled" were references to the vague similarity with av-engines. Compression ratio was 9 to 9.4 depending on model, somewhat higher than most av-engines. Port alignment did little to promote swirl, turbulent motion, or anthing else very helpful, being aimed straight across the axis of the valves. No offset like the Lycoming. Why does any of this make a difference? Heck, that's what I'm curious about. In this example going to dual plugs cured a detonation problem, but the reason may be found in some other variable not addressed here. It was too long ago and I have too little data to do much more than guess. I thought about it today (very little, it was a busy day), and the root cause may have been as simple as cyclic variation with design variables set close to the detonation threshold. Dual plugs merely ensured consistent ignition. I don't recall if the timing was re-set (retarded) with the dual plug setup. Anyway, it's interesting to think about. <> Absolutely, and I appreciate your observation about it being the dominant variable in the case of single ignition operation. Curiosity question: Have you ever experimented to determine the degree of effective retard? Maybe set operating parameters for detonation, killed one plug, then advanced timing to again reach the detonation threshold? BTW, what method are you using to induce detonation? <> Thank you, I'd like that very much. Dan Horton ________________________________________________________________________________
From: George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: Single Ignition Operation
Date: Nov 27, 2002
>>Curiosity question: Have you ever experimented to determine the degree of effective retard? << Yes. >>Maybe set operating parameters for detonation, killed one plug, then advanced timing to again reach the detonation threshold? << Much better than that. See www.engineteststand.com Note the combustion pressure traces? We can directly measure the combustion time to the point at which 50% of the charge is burned by doing some real-time calculations with the pressure curves. >>BTW, what method are you using to induce detonation?<< The old fashion way! What is the old song about faster horses, younger women, and more whiskey? More MP; Earlier Sparks; Higher CHTs Lower octane fuel. We have been known to run the 350Hp 49"MP non-intercooled TIO-540J2B Navajo Chieftain engine on 87 R+M/2 MOGAS... (briefly... ) Seriously, with PRISM we can run that engine to rated power with the CHTs at 500F (not a typo) and using UNleaded AVgas (About 92MON.) The engine will only run to about 240Hp on 87 MOGAS before the detonation becomes intolerable. Regards, George ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: LED Position Lights
Date: Nov 27, 2002
> So how many cones of LED light are needed to fill the area of the domed tent? We have to select an LED and find out how much area it will cover on the dome. A little trigonometry says we take the half-angle of the LED beam, set hypotenuse1 meter (or whatever) and the opposite side is the sine of the angle. For example if the LED cone of light is 20 degrees, then the sine of 10 degrees is 0.17. (This then is the radius of the spot on the tent wall. (Geometrists will note this is not quite correct but ignore them...they have no souls). And the area of the LED lighted spot on the domed tent surface is then AreaPi X R X R 0.09 Square Whatevers. > > Now from this we gather that 6.28 Square Whatevers require 67 evenly distributed LEDs of 20 degrees cone angle to cover the surface since 6.28/0.0966.29...LEDs. Now what luminous Intensity must each LED be? The FAA requires 20 Candelas so 20/67 0.300 candelas or 300 mcd (millicandelas). > > Note that in this example you cannot get away with fewer than 67 LEDs (and a few more might be better). But if we get wider angle LEDs, say 30 degree LEDs, then we can get away with 30 LEDs. And then we need 20 candelas/30 or 667 mcd each. > The LEDs are $1.50 each or so. > Hello Eric check http://www.eled.com/product.asp?catalog_name=LEDs&category_name=&product_idE7104QWC-D 34 deg viewing angle so with your calculation: 0.26square which gives say 24 LED's "only" 20/24 with 883 mcd, they offer 2200, so 2.5 times brighter, should be no problem, with the green and red even less are needed! As soon as my Glastar is finished, I believe I will go and replace my aeroflash bulbs through such a setup. Now if just the flashing unit could also be replaced! Thanks for the insight Werner ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: Static Dischargers
Date: Nov 27, 2002
Flying from Cleveland across Lake Erie in cold, dry snow in a Super Viking.... The Viking has a steel tube frame covered with fabric and wood wings... Even with wicks, the roar of the static completely covered the ATC transmissions on both com radios... I finally declared a radio outage and informed ATC that I was flying the route as filed since I could not hear them... NOrth of Detroit the snow ended and so did the deafening roar in the radios... Denny ----- Original Message ----- From: "fellowsw" <fellows.w(at)ewcapital.net> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Static Dischargers > > I believe that static wicks will not help much on a composite airplane. > To be effective on an aluminum airplane, the parts must be bonded > together. I have heard of composite airplanes with so much static > buildup that, vhf com audio was very degraded. Any experiences out there > to share? It also seems that the same sort of methods used for > "lightning protection" with wicks will help prevent static buildup on > composite aircraft. > > -----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: Static Dischargers > > > In a message dated 11/26/02 11:43:16 AM Central Standard Time, > jpack(at)igs3.com > writes: > > > I see Static Dischargers on planes &in the different supplier > catalouges. > > When are these needed? Should I put some on my RV? if so, where? > > > > Good Morning Jim, > > If you plan on relying on LORAN as your basic IFR navigation device, the > > Static Discharge Wicks may help it to perform a bit better. > > For all other purposes, I would suggest you leave them off. > > I have experienced some minimal static interference once or twice in VHF > > navigation and communications equipment during the last fifty plus years > of > using such things, but it has never been a problem of long enough > duration to > bring me to attach those little abominations to any airplane I own. > > They definitely helped HF communications and helped reduce the static > when > trying to fly the Low Frequency Range stations. Even then, the > improvement > was not complete, just a little better than nothing at all. > > Save the money and buy a handheld GPS, it will do you a LOT more good > than > will static wicks. > > Incidentally, back in the days of long wire antennas for those HF > radios, we > found that the precipitation static could be reduced a considerable > amount by > transmitting for a few seconds on the HF radio. Of course, it might > have > made a difference in that we were using one hundred watt transmitters. > I > don't recall that helping when using the low powered transmitters we had > in > light aircraft of the day. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: Single Ignition Operation
Date: Nov 27, 2002
What about 92 octane mogas, George? I will parenthetically point out to the group that 49 inches of manifold pressure and no intercooling means a, near to the diesel point, hot intake charge and not the way that engines are normally operated, especially on mid grade mogas.... Denny ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Single Ignition Operation > > > >>Curiosity > question: Have you ever experimented to determine the degree of effective > retard? << > > Yes. > > >>Maybe set operating parameters for detonation, killed one plug, then > advanced timing to again reach the detonation threshold? << > > Much better than that. See www.engineteststand.com > > Note the combustion pressure traces? > > We can directly measure the combustion time to the point at > which 50% of the charge is burned by doing some real-time calculations with > the pressure curves. > > > >>BTW, what method are you using to induce detonation?<< > > The old fashion way! > > What is the old song about faster horses, younger women, and more > whiskey? > > > More MP; > > Earlier Sparks; > > Higher CHTs > > Lower octane fuel. > > > We have been known to run the 350Hp 49"MP non-intercooled TIO-540J2B Navajo > Chieftain engine on 87 R+M/2 MOGAS... (briefly... ) > > Seriously, with PRISM we can run that engine to rated power with the CHTs > at 500F (not a typo) and using UNleaded AVgas (About 92MON.) > > The engine will only run to about 240Hp on 87 MOGAS before the detonation > becomes intolerable. > > Regards, George > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: My other life . . .
I haven't been ignoring you folks, just tied up in the final efforts to check out and install a recovery parachute controller on our experimental flight test Premier. The chute is launched with explosive devices triggered in sequence by applying a 5A constant current source to each initiator bridge-wire in turn. There are redundant channels of command and control that blow off the tail cone fairing, cut the static pressure trailing cone from the top of the vertical fin, drive a locking pin into the lanyard post to attache the 'chute to the airplane and finally, trigger separate bridge-wires in each of two initiators that ignite the charge to launch the chute. The chute is cut away from the airplane by separate initiators that drive a cutter through the lanyard. The system contains a total of 16 bridge-wires, each of which has it's own firing relay. I've published a few pictures of this system at http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp2 I've finished the bench testing and will box it all up for a trip out to the experimental flight hangar to install it in the airplane and test it some more. Should be finished with the installation today so I can get back to "fun" things here at home. Will try to catch up on AeroElectric-List things this weekend. 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: Single Ignition Operation
Date: Nov 27, 2002
"92octane mogas" is... 92 calculated as (R+M)/2 and it means the motor octane number (MON) is down around 86. Pure 100LL - - but without the lead additive package - - has a MON of about 92 to 96. So do NOT get confused about the car gas octane ratings. There is no car gas "standard" - - the gas in Texas at the pump is very different than the gas in California at the pump! Regards, George -----Original Message----- From: Dennis O'Connor [mailto:doconnor(at)chartermi.net] Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Single Ignition Operation What about 92 octane mogas, George? I will parenthetically point out to the group that 49 inches of manifold pressure and no intercooling means a, near to the diesel point, hot intake charge and not the way that engines are normally operated, especially on mid grade mogas.... Denny ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Single Ignition Operation > > > >>Curiosity > question: Have you ever experimented to determine the degree of effective > retard? << > > Yes. > > >>Maybe set operating parameters for detonation, killed one plug, then > advanced timing to again reach the detonation threshold? << > > Much better than that. See www.engineteststand.com > > Note the combustion pressure traces? > > We can directly measure the combustion time to the point at > which 50% of the charge is burned by doing some real-time calculations with > the pressure curves. > > > >>BTW, what method are you using to induce detonation?<< > > The old fashion way! > > What is the old song about faster horses, younger women, and more > whiskey? > > > More MP; > > Earlier Sparks; > > Higher CHTs > > Lower octane fuel. > > > We have been known to run the 350Hp 49"MP non-intercooled TIO-540J2B Navajo > Chieftain engine on 87 R+M/2 MOGAS... (briefly... ) > > Seriously, with PRISM we can run that engine to rated power with the CHTs > at 500F (not a typo) and using UNleaded AVgas (About 92MON.) > > The engine will only run to about 240Hp on 87 MOGAS before the detonation > becomes intolerable. > > Regards, George > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Billie Lamb" <N254BL(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: My other life . . .
Date: Nov 27, 2002
All we need now are pictures of the chute opening in flight. Bill Lamb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: My other life . . . > > I haven't been ignoring you folks, just tied up in the > final efforts to check out and install a recovery parachute > controller on our experimental flight test Premier. > > The chute is launched with explosive devices triggered > in sequence by applying a 5A constant current source to > each initiator bridge-wire in turn. There are redundant > channels of command and control that blow off the tail cone > fairing, cut the static pressure trailing cone from > the top of the vertical fin, drive a locking pin into > the lanyard post to attache the 'chute to the airplane > and finally, trigger separate bridge-wires in each of > two initiators that ignite the charge to launch the chute. > > The chute is cut away from the airplane by separate > initiators that drive a cutter through the lanyard. The > system contains a total of 16 bridge-wires, each of which > has it's own firing relay. > > I've published a few pictures of this system at > http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp2 > > I've finished the bench testing and will box it all > up for a trip out to the experimental flight hangar to > install it in the airplane and test it some more. > > Should be finished with the installation today so > I can get back to "fun" things here at home. Will try > to catch up on AeroElectric-List things this weekend. > > > Bob . . . > > |-------------------------------------------------------| > | The man who does not read good books has no advantage | > | over the man who cannot read them. | > | - Mark Twain | > |-------------------------------------------------------| > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: My other life . . .
> >All we need now are pictures of the chute opening in flight. > >Bill Lamb I've got a video . . . anyone know how to get it .mpg'ed? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2002
From: klehman <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Single Ignition Operation
The megasquirt do-it-yourself fuel injection group by Bruce Bowling and AL Grippo has shipped over a 1000 efi kits at $110. and has a very active group on Yahoo. An upcoming project is a do-it-yourself ion ignition kit probably within a few months. Ion sensing applies several hundred volts to the spark plug immediately after the main ignition event and measures the current flow. By measuring the ionization you in fact are measuring the cylinder pressure. That gives you lots of warning of an impending detonation before it occurs and is used to optimise spark timing in real time (by individual cylinder if you wish). Just thought I'd add that to this thread since there seems to be a little interest. I believe this technique was pioneered by Saab but available shortly for probably a couple of hundred dollars. Ken >Thanks for the quick response. I didn't realize that the in- >cylinder instrumentation was moving toward pressure measurement. >That's interesting. I am seeing useful applications toward better >ignition advance control. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ageless Wings" <harley(at)AgelessWings.com>
Subject: Re: My other life . . .
Date: Nov 27, 2002
>All we need now are pictures of the chute opening in flight. > >Bill Lamb >>I've got a video . . . anyone know how to get it .mpg'ed?<< I have a TV card with a composite input...can copy into the computer and edit it out as mpg, avi, real video or windows media. Used it to make some windows media movies of the robot I sold on Ebay. http://www.agelesswings.com/images/HERO1/dance300.wmv This was a little over 1 MB and a pretty short flick...The chute opening one could be a pretty large file, depending on how long the tape, how much you want to see of it, and what format and how much compression. If you don't know anyone near you with a TV card, I'd be glad to do it if your video is compatible with mine (VHS or VHS-c) and you can figure out a way to get it here. Harley harley(at)agelesswings.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: placement of goose neck light
Date: Nov 27, 2002
Hello, I've just received the gooseneck light from B&C, now I'm wondering, what the best place would be to locate the socket, so the flexible light is as much of use for any situation. Is there anybody out there which is using this light and can tell me his experience? I'm building a side by side Glastar. Many thanks Werner ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: placement of goose neck light
Date: Nov 27, 2002
Werner, I put mine in the center of the shoulder rest in my Cozy IV. From there it should be useful to either front seat, and will light up pretty much any part of the panel. When not in use it tucks away into the center map pocket. I mounted the circuit board about an inch behind the panel at the top. The dimmer is painted black, just above my "basic T" of instruments. John Slade ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2002
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: New Gift Selection Added - List Fund Raiser! [Please
Read] Dear Listers, I've just added a great new last minute Gift Selection to this year's List Fund Raiser line up! I have a very limited number of sets of a wonderful collection of Aircraft Technical books by Jeppesen entitled "The A&P Technical Series Book Set". This is a great opportunity to make a generous Contribution to support the Lists and walk away with a great set of reference manuals at the same time. This set of books normally retails for over $117 PLUS shipping, but you can pick up your set AND make this year's List Contribution for a cool C-note - that's a $100, by the way! :-) I'm thinking "Great Christmas Gift"... There's more information on the books and making your Contribution at the List Contribution web site: Email List Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution We're coming close to the official end of this year's List Fund Raiser and if you haven't yet made your Contribution, there's still time get your name on that List of Contributors! The percentage of contributors is kind of low this year but I'm hoping many of you are just holding out until the last minute! I want to thank each and everyone of you that has already made a donation to support the continued operation and upgrade of these List Services. As I've mentioned in the past, running these Lists is a labor of love for me and the hours upon hours of code development, system maintenance, and upgrades are MY Contribution to support this great resource for Builders and Flyer's alike. Won't your take a minute and make YOUR Contribution today? I want to thank you for your support both during the Fund Raiser but also throughout the year in the form of kind words and moral support. A nice comment from a List member about how much the lists have helped them is always a sure way to brighten my day! Thank you to all! Matt Dralle 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: "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Wiring a Narco AT-50A transponder
Date: Nov 28, 2002
Bob, I have a few questions about the pin out info you kindly provided for my Narco AT50A transponder. 1. Can/should I connect the "Dimmer" terminal to the panel light / goose neck dimmer I got from you? 2. I presume "Remote Ident" is for a remotely place 12v light if needed 3. What are the following: Switched digitizer power out Digitizer common Ext Suppr positive External Suppr negative By the way, the "install kit" arrived from narco - the plug is made by Molex as one builder suggested. Apart from the plug and a few screws, nuts and washers, they included two of the wrong BNC connector and none of the right one. My first impression of Narco is not a good one. John Slade ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Narco Mk 16 nav Com
Date: Nov 28, 2002
I obtained a Narco Mk 16 and was thinking of using it for navigation (presuming I have to use it in receive only mode). The unit seems fine, except that the waxed bands / cords that drive the numbers have deteriorated. Can I obtain these anywhere, or is there a viable alternative? Comments, including use it as a boat anchor, welcome. John Slade ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wendell & Jean Durr" <legacy147(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Narco Mk. 12E pinout, etc
Date: Nov 28, 2002
Could anyone supply me a pin out for a Narco Mark12E and King marker beacon receiver KMA 24? Also, does the Mk. 12E work with a KI209 or a KI225 indicator? All were removed from my plane by the buyer and returned to me, but without that info. I need all the help I can get, and all will be appreciated. Thanks in advance Wendell Durr ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David A. Leonard" <dleonar1(at)maine.rr.com>
Subject: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS vs. VOR?
Date: Nov 28, 2002
After just completing an IFR/VFR ride through NYC class B airspace in my Viking, I fopund myself wondering about various "Trusting Technology" scenarios. It seems like the FAA has a deep distrust of handheld and portable GPS's, to the point of recently trying to ban the use of portable moving map GPS's in aircraft (thank AOPA for shutting this one down!) I was using my old Garmin 195 for fast picking up of intersections, and the Garmin 295 map for in depth information, and visual confirmation that I was heading towards the fix I was directed to. Once I was established on the correct course to the next intersection, I would tune the VOR, if the airway was along a radial. Magically, the VOR needle seems to stay locked in the middle with this procedure. In the 7 or 8 years that I have flown with GPS, once I moved the antennas to good locations, I have never lost a GPS signal, (I did lose it in the Lincoln Tunnel in my car later that day)or had any problems whatsoever with thier performance. The same can't be said for my old kx170b/VOR setup.. the indicator seems to need frequent dialing in with the little screw down inside of the knob.. it was 20 degrees off of the #2 VOR, which seems to be consistenly accurate. So the question: In the esteemed opinions of this group, how dependable do you think these hand helds are in comparison to the certified and TSO's equipment out there? It seems to me these solid state, burned in chip operating system units approach a level of reliability beyond that of any mechanical piece of equipment I have ever encountered..I feel like my engine is much more failure prone than either of my GPS's (not that it has ever missed a beat..but you get the idea). From time to time I hear people go on about not "becoming dependant on technology". I feel quite "dependant" on the engine continuing to spin the prop, and I don't feel that by using GPS's that my dependance is much greater. I feel that the Situational Awareness and safety enhancements of being able to see where you are in relation to the land, on the map, and being able to find range and bearing to any fix, far outweigh the extra mental energy it takes to use a VOR to interpolate a line of position, with no range information, spinning a dial and trying to think about relative positions, while in a cloud, in busy airspace. It seems to me that any of the GPS's on the market are vastly superior to the older land based radio nav systems, simply because you can always tell exactly where you are.. I really can't understand the FAA's unwillingness to certify portable units for IFR operations..it seems like a great setback in safety. I think I'm preaching to the choir here! Happy Thanksgiving David Leonard ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 28, 2002
Subject: Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS vs. VOR?


November 17, 2002 - November 28, 2002

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-bk