AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-bs
February 28, 2003 - March 09, 2003
> >
> > Since press-to-test ONLY test LAMP and has nothing to do with
> > testing associated SYSTEMS, how about going with an LED annunciator
> > and dispense with the PTT system entirely . . . this is a feature
> > that needs to fade off into the sunset along with vacuum pumps.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>Bob: Would you have a wirebook sheet on an annunciator panel with LED's.
>If so,
>could you past a .dwg file on it.
I've never done a drawing for the annunciator system per se . . .
Each light is more closely associated with the system that drives
it and I'll show the wiring for each light on drawings for the
associated system . . . like the low voltage warning light
on the alternator drawings, or low oil pressure light on the
hobbs/oil-p drawing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Benford2(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Limitations of float-based fuel gauges |
In a message dated 2/28/2003 10:25:38 AM Mountain Standard Time,
mladejov(at)ced.utah.edu writes:
>
>
> After bending the arms downward, it improved the accuracy of the
> gauges near the Empty end, at the expense of the Full end. Now
> each gauge will continue to read Full while the first three gallons
> are burned, then the indications decrease linearly until there are
> 2 gallons in the right tank, and 3 gallons in the left tank,
> respectively. With the senders suspended 1/4" above the bottom
> of the tank, it takes about 2 to 3 gallons of fuel to "float" the
> sender to where it begins to move and effect the gauge reading.
>
>
A longer float arm will do the same thing and give you an accurate reading
during the first few gallons of consumption. But if this is a CERTIFIED bird
then your hands are tied, infact what ya did will let your Insurance Co deny
a claim if you ever damage the plane.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | DC Power Master Switch |
My set up does not have a common switch for the battery and alternator.
There is little chance the alternator would be on without the battery
being connected, but it is physically possible.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | DC Power Master Switch |
My apologies. The previous message got sent before I finished.
My set up does not have a common switch for the battery and alternator.
There is little chance the alternator would be on without the battery
being connected, but it is physically possible.
With reference to your statement about making sure the alternator
doesn't run while the battery is not connected: what are the
consequences of doing this?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: self exciting alternator |
I too have a "self Exciting one wire Alternator." I was told by the
supplier, Powermaster, that the alternator senses current and "turns on the
regulator." Mine is a Power Master Model 8162. Which is their version of
the Denso that has been weight reduced to 5.68lbs and rated at 50amps. I
was also told that a battery is required and that if the battery is isolated
form the alternator it will cause the alternator to output "extremely" high
voltage.....
However, there is only one wire conected to the alternator at the Battery
lead. There is no field wire connection.
http://www.powermastermotorsports.com/Racing/Denso_Alternators/denso_alterna
tors.html
Ned
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: self exciting alternator
>
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >It is my understanding the the alternator has one wire
> >connection.
>
> Understand. This alternator is probably not "self
> exciting" . . . you still need a battery connnected
> to the b-lead. Figure Z-24 still applies . . . you
> just eliminate the small wire between alternator
> and disconnect contactor.
>
> >The self exciting feature feeds the field without a
> >separate circuit coming to the alternator.
>
> The term "self exciting" has been classically used to describe
> an alternator that retains enough residual magnetism to come
> on line with no battery assist. Virtually all commonly
> available alternators require external power to come alive.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
Randy,
Thanks for the information, it is very helpful. Where did you get the twelve
pin connector?
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Pflanzer" <F1Rocket(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wing wiring
>
> Darwin,
>
> You can run these together. There should not be a problem. You can
> check out http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/ for pictures of how I
> ran the exact same wires in the wings of my F1 Rocket. Go to the F1
> Rocket Project section and click on the Wings section. The pictures
> also show using the spar as the ground point for the landing and
> position lights as well as the use of a quick disconnect fitting at the
> wing root.
>
> Randy
> F1 Rocket #95
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ktlkrn(at)cox.net
> Date: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:35 pm
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wing wiring
>
> >
> > Here's the layout. RV7QB. Existing holes with snap in bushings
> > were drilled out for a 1/2" ID conduit. I have ran the landing
> > light wire, the nav light wire and the strobe wires (Whelens)in
> > the conduit. I also want to mount a comm antenna in one wing tip
> > and a nav in the other.
> >
> > I'd like to know if I can run the coax for the nav and comm
> > antennas in the conduit with the other wiring? Is there a
> > potential interference problem? And, if so, how far apart should
> > they be run?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Darwin N. Barrie
> > Chandler AZ
> >
> >
> > _-
> >
> ======================================================================_-
> = - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> > _-
> >
> ======================================================================_-
> = !! NEWish !!
> > _-
> >
> ======================================================================_-
> = List Related Information
> > _-
> > ======================================================================
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: DC Power Master Switch |
>
>
>My apologies. The previous message got sent before I finished.
>
>My set up does not have a common switch for the battery and alternator.
>There is little chance the alternator would be on without the battery
>being connected, but it is physically possible.
If it's "connected" all the time, then it's ready to go to
work as soon as the bus comes up with battery voltage. Once
you're past this milestone, how do you turn it OFF?
>With reference to your statement about making sure the alternator
>doesn't run while the battery is not connected: what are the
>consequences of doing this?
Suppose you have smoke in the cockpit and you want to shut
down the whole system? How do you do this if the alternator
You can turn the battery of, the alternator continues to
run self-excited, and smoke continues to roll.
wire it up such that it truly has ultimate control over
all power sources in the airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | How to feed the carburator solenoid |
I am installing a Holley 5200 carburator on a Subaru
EA-81 engine. This carburator has a solenoid that
allows gas to flow and I need to give it 12V.
Normally, this wire is attached to the ignition 12V
wire (the coil). But I am using two ignition coils
and I would like the 12V from any of the two activated
coils to feed the solenoid.
Two possibilities that I see. Using two diodes (one
from each ignition source), but I don't know how the
solenoid will behave when getting low on battery power
(in case of an alternator failure).
The other possibility I see is using two relays, one
from each ignition circuit. In a situation where I
would activate both ignition, these two circuits would
essentially be connected together through this
solenoid circuit.
How should I do it?
Michel
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Randy Pflanzer <F1Rocket(at)comcast.net> |
I got it from Digikey. www.digikey.com. Look in their catalog for
Mate-n-Loc connectors.
----- Original Message -----
From: <ktlkrn(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wing wiring
>
> Randy,
>
> Thanks for the information, it is very helpful. Where did you get the
twelve
> pin connector?
>
> Darwin N. Barrie
> Chandler AZ
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randy Pflanzer" <F1Rocket(at)comcast.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wing wiring
>
>
>
> >
> > Darwin,
> >
> > You can run these together. There should not be a problem. You can
> > check out http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/ for pictures of how I
> > ran the exact same wires in the wings of my F1 Rocket. Go to the F1
> > Rocket Project section and click on the Wings section. The pictures
> > also show using the spar as the ground point for the landing and
> > position lights as well as the use of a quick disconnect fitting at the
> > wing root.
> >
> > Randy
> > F1 Rocket #95
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: ktlkrn(at)cox.net
> > Date: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:35 pm
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wing wiring
> >
> > >
> > > Here's the layout. RV7QB. Existing holes with snap in bushings
> > > were drilled out for a 1/2" ID conduit. I have ran the landing
> > > light wire, the nav light wire and the strobe wires (Whelens)in
> > > the conduit. I also want to mount a comm antenna in one wing tip
> > > and a nav in the other.
> > >
> > > I'd like to know if I can run the coax for the nav and comm
> > > antennas in the conduit with the other wiring? Is there a
> > > potential interference problem? And, if so, how far apart should
> > > they be run?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance.
> > >
> > > Darwin N. Barrie
> > > Chandler AZ
> > >
> > >
> > > _-
> > >
> > ======================================================================_-
> > = - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> > > _-
> > >
> > ======================================================================_-
> > = !! NEWish !!
> > > _-
> > >
> > ======================================================================_-
> > = List Related Information
> > > _-
> > > ======================================================================
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Subject: | Heat Sink Necessary?? |
I'm in the process of determining where to put stuff in my electrical system. I
plan to use Bob's Z-13 as the basis. There will be a diode between the main and
e-buss. Does this diode need a heat sink? and if so, does anyone have a part
number and source?
The plan now is to mount the diode on a piece of 0.032 thick aluminum between the
fuse blocks. It will be easy (I think) to accomodate a heat sink at this stage.
Thanks in advance.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "kc" <samdacat(at)elp.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: fast on connectors |
??Where is "locally"??
----- Original Message -----
From: <MikeEasley(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: fast on connectors
>
> I have an electronic surplus store locally that has quite a good selection
of
> the right kind of ring and fast-on connectors. I've bought most of my
> quantities from B&C and A/S.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Heat Sink Necessary?? |
In a message dated 2/28/2003 5:34:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net writes:
> I'm in the process of determining where to put stuff in my electrical
> system. I plan to use Bob's Z-13 as the basis. There will be a diode
> between the main and e-buss. Does this diode need a heat sink? and if so,
> does anyone have a part number and source?
>
> The plan now is to mount the diode on a piece of 0.032 thick aluminum
> between the fuse blocks. It will be easy (I think) to accomodate a heat
> sink at this stage.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Bill
>
Hello Bill,
Radio Shack is a quick source for a bridge rectifier that is packaged in a
case that you can mount right to your aluminum sheet between your fuse
blocks. That will be all of the heat sinking you will need. It has a single
hole in it's center to bolt it home with a little dab of heat sink compound.
Radio Shack used to carry one rated for 50 amps and one rated for 25 amps. I
dug one of the lighter versions out of my stash of electronic goodies
tonight. It is part number 276-1185. It is a full wave bridge with fast-on
tabs.
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Kitfox Outback, (out back in the garage)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Heat Sink Necessary?? |
Bill,
I forgot to mention that this bridge rectifier is suggested because of it's
ease in mounting, heat sinking, fast-on tabs and high current handling
capability. You only need to hook up one of it's diodes in your circuit.
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Kitfox Outback, (out back in the garage)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Ford Motrorcraft alternator |
In a message dated 02/27/2003 10:39:32 PM Central Standard Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
> I thought we'd talked about this but maybe it was with someone
> else. If I've already bought and paid for a Ford alternator,
> I'd go ahead and run it. It will work fine with the B&C regulators.
> Who knows, I may have an alternator that's running at the top
> of the bell-curve.
>
> First time it craps, make a decision based on how it died
> and how long it took to make the fix/replace decision. That
> could be many years off and since you have two alternators,
> this approach presents zero risk.
>
> This re-enforces the idea that a system designed to be
> failure tolerant is more reliable than one wherein
> designers hope to gain reliability by specification
> and other forms of wishful thinking.
>
> Bob . . .
>
Yes, I was the same guy that talked to you about this Ford alternator. I
don't mean to bug you twice on something, but when your at stages of building
the engine, and someone gives you an option, you tend to lean toward the
expertise that is out there. At this point you have persuaded me to go with
it. For me, I feel better that this alternator does not have an internal
controller. I talked to Bill At B&C today, he will be at Sun&Fun. So parts
for the Z-14 will begin to come in.
Thanks
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jmfpublic(at)attbi.com |
Subject: | re: How to feed the carburator solenoid |
Michel,
Use the diode approach: far more reliable than the relays, and the 0.6 volt
drop through the diode won't affect anything. Once actuated, the solenoid
likely will stay activated down to 5 or 6 volts. Besides, if you do have an
alternator failure, you have sized your battery so that you can comfortably
complete your flight. You do expect to replace it every year, and you will
have a voltmeter, right?
If you are not using a magneto type of ignition, but need battery power to make
the spark, you should have either two batteries, two alternators, or both (as
in the famous Z-14 revision J schematic from the 'Connection.)
Jim Foerster
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Heat Sink Necessary?? |
>
>
>I'm in the process of determining where to put stuff in my electrical
>system. I plan to use Bob's Z-13 as the basis. There will be a diode
>between the main and e-buss. Does this diode need a heat sink? and if so,
>does anyone have a part number and source?
Depends on how big your e-bus continuous loads are. For continuous
running loads of up to 5A, you can mount the assembly on a non-heat
conducting surface. For up to 10A, mount it on an aluminum surface
of 25 sq-in or more . . . thin sheet metal is okay. I hope your
e-bus isn't BIGGER than 10A!
>The plan now is to mount the diode on a piece of 0.032 thick aluminum
>between the fuse blocks. It will be easy (I think) to accomodate a heat
>sink at this stage.
>
You'll probably be fine with what you have described
with no additional heat sinking.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | BCT-1 Tool and Molex ECB Pins |
> Bob: will the BCT-1 crimper be suitable for use on Molex 4366GL
> pins(wire to board used on King, Icom called KK type...etc)...???
>Thanks
>Bill
I took a look at these terminals on the Molex website. I think
the BCT-1 will do a good job on these terminals.
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
You can join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Thanks!
Bob . . .
|---------------------------------------------------|
| A lie can travel half way around the world while |
| the truth is till putting on its shoes . . . |
| -Mark Twain- |
|---------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MikeEasley(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: fast on connectors |
"Locally" for me is Colorado Springs. The surplus store is full of wire,
electronics components, hardware, etc. I actually picked up the connector
for my turn coordinator there. I'm not sure if every town has a store like
this one, but it's been a real timesaver on several occasions. Instead of
waiting 3 days for an A/S package to arrive with 30 cents worth of goodies, I
can just run down there and find what I need most times. They have plenty of
the "wrong" ring and fast-on connectors, but for most sizes they have the
"right" kind too. It's worth a check of the Yellow Pages to see if one is
hiding in your town.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: re: How to feed the carburator solenoid |
In a message dated 2/28/2003 9:52:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jmfpublic(at)attbi.com writes:
> Michel,
> Use the diode approach: far more reliable than the relays, and the 0.6 volt
>
> drop through the diode won't affect anything. Once actuated, the solenoid
> likely will stay activated down to 5 or 6 volts. Besides, if you do have
> an
> alternator failure, you have sized your battery so that you can comfortably
>
> complete your flight. You do expect to replace it every year, and you will
>
> have a voltmeter, right?
>
> If you are not using a magneto type of ignition, but need battery power to
> make
> the spark, you should have either two batteries, two alternators, or both
> (as
> in the famous Z-14 revision J schematic from the 'Connection.)
>
> Jim Foerster
>
>
>
Jim,
I agree with your answer for Michel (use of steering diodes instead of
relays) but, I am wondering if that carb's fuel solenoid is even needed at
all. I believe some carbs were fitted with those solenoids for a number of
years to prevent "dieseling" in very lean tuned cars prior to catalytic
converters making their entrance to automotive engineering.
Could this fuel solenoid be bypassed or removed entirely? Is an electrical
fuel shut off device needed anywhere at all? Is this an area where KISS is
more appropriate?
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Kitfox Outback, (out back in the garage)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Benford2(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: re: How to feed the carburator solenoid |
In a message dated 3/1/2003 6:46:34 AM Mountain Standard Time,
KITFOXZ(at)aol.com writes:
>
> Jim,
>
> I agree with your answer for Michel (use of steering diodes instead of
> relays) but, I am wondering if that carb's fuel solenoid is even needed at
> all. I believe some carbs were fitted with those solenoids for a number of
>
> years to prevent "dieseling" in very lean tuned cars prior to catalytic
> converters making their entrance to automotive engineering.
>
> Could this fuel solenoid be bypassed or removed entirely? Is an electrical
>
> fuel shut off device needed anywhere at all? Is this an area where KISS is
>
> more appropriate?
>
>
All Holley carbs I have seen have a soleniod thats attached to the linkage
and when activated it raises the idle speed. If this soleniod really cuts off
the fuel supply to the float bowl it would make a great mixture control
circuit. Tell us exactly where this thing is placed on the carb and maybe we
can figure out what ya got there. Ben Haas N801BH.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
Subject: | Wing-Tip VOR Antenna |
Bob, your drawing in Figure 13-12 of your manual (page 13-16) shows the
center conductor of the coax feedline connected to the short strip of 2.5"
aluminum. I suggest we are receiving signals with frequency centered around
113 MHZ having a wave length of 2.65 meters or 104". I suggest 1/4 of 104
is a lot more than 2.5"
I just wanted to double check that this is the correct connection having the
center conductor with the 2.5" strip and to help make sure I am not
misreading your drawing. Are you suggesting the majority of the rest of the
antenna structure that grounds the shielding is somehow enhancing the 2.5"
so it works like 26" even though it is not 26" long? Is that what you
mean by writing on page 13-15, "It is a quarter-wave, grounded base antenna
with a 'gamma matching' network for the coaxial feedline.?"
Thanks,
Larry in Indiana
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Eric Schlanser <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
I found some trailer clearance lights at the local Autovalue store. They are PMLights
3 LED lights and are only 7/8" tall for $15. They would be the right size.
Does anyone know if they are bright enough? Check out pmlights.com and look
for the Pirahna lights V160KR series clearance light kits. Unfortunately, they
only are available in red or amber. Maybe the manufacturer would make some
in green if asked.
:Eric - in Michigan
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: fast on connectors |
<>
Gee Bob, you really know how to hurt a guy
My comments were directed to the concept of using quality heat shrink as
a method of terminal insulation and prevention of wire fatigue. It also
looks better than squashed nylon and requires less physical space. The
trade-off is some additional time investment. I'm not running a production
line.
As for the uninsulated terminals themselves, I merely said "good
quality". Maybe I wasn't specific enough. I'd prefer to think that the
average guy on this list can figure out the difference between garbage and
good. Decent Type 2 brazed barrel ring terminals are easy to find in small
sizes. The style you carry on the AC webside are best for big terminals.
Most wiring in the average airplane terminates with something other than
a Faston style terminal. However, you'll be amused to know I use Amp PIDG
Fastons when needed, and yes, I have the installation tool. You'll be
further amused to hear that if you place one butt first on the bench, it
takes a single tangent stroke of a knife to remove the nylon insulation
sheath. You can prep 20 in about 2 minutes. Double crimp it, apply some 3
to 1 1/4" adhesive heat shrink, and it nicely matches all the other wiring.
Since removing the average Faston from it's tab usually involves
wiggling/pulling on the attached wire, I trust adhesive heat shrink to
maintain integrity far more than that little bitty insulation crimp.
I fully agree that you should not use substitutes without due dilligence,
including simple tests in your own shop.
Old buddy, I ain't trying to teach you how to suck eggs. It's just an
alternate method.
Dan Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carlfro(at)erols.com> |
Subject: | Wing-Tip VOR Antenna |
Larry - the short strip of aluminum is not the antenna - it is part of the
gamma match. The gamma match is an impedance transform network to match the
impedance of the antenna to the feed line.
Note RF is very much different than DC. This antenna is at DC ground
potential, but certainly not grounded for RF. Unless you can find yourself
a local amateur radio operator (that has been around the block a few times)
to walk you through this just copy the drawing exactly.
I am using a much modified wing tip antenna for my comm radio and am quite
please with its performance- but I have been playing with antennas for 30
years and have the necessary test equipment to make them work.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (flying)
Vienna, VA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
LarryRobertHelming
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wing-Tip VOR Antenna
Bob, your drawing in Figure 13-12 of your manual (page 13-16) shows the
center conductor of the coax feedline connected to the short strip of 2.5"
aluminum. I suggest we are receiving signals with frequency centered around
113 MHZ having a wave length of 2.65 meters or 104". I suggest 1/4 of 104
is a lot more than 2.5"
I just wanted to double check that this is the correct connection having the
center conductor with the 2.5" strip and to help make sure I am not
misreading your drawing. Are you suggesting the majority of the rest of the
antenna structure that grounds the shielding is somehow enhancing the 2.5"
so it works like 26" even though it is not 26" long? Is that what you
mean by writing on page 13-15, "It is a quarter-wave, grounded base antenna
with a 'gamma matching' network for the coaxial feedline.?"
Thanks,
Larry in Indiana
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | DC Power Master Switch |
I should have been more explicit.
I am using the Z-13, All Electric on a Budget system with a couple of
minor modifications. My setup has separate Alternator and DC Power
switches. The "DC Power" switch is a key operated, automotive style,
OFF-ON-AUX switch. The ON or "Main" position will control the Battery
Contactor, thus all battery powered busses except the Battery Bus. The
AUX or "Essential Power" position will power an Essential bus via the
Battery bus. A separate ON-Off-ON lever lock toggle switch controls the
main and aux alternators (both alternators cannot be on at the same
time, with both being off when the switch is centered.) It will take
moving two separate switches to completely shut off electrical power -
no big deal in my opinion, except...
What concerned me was your statement that the alternator should not be
running if the battery master was turned off and I am still wondering if
there are any serious consequences of the alternator running without the
Master (DC Power) switch ON?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
--------------------
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: DC Power Master Switch
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >My apologies. The previous message got sent before I finished.
> >
> >My set up does not have a common switch for the battery and
> alternator.
> >There is little chance the alternator would be on without the battery
> >being connected, but it is physically possible.
>
>
> If it's "connected" all the time, then it's ready to go to
> work as soon as the bus comes up with battery voltage. Once
> you're past this milestone, how do you turn it OFF?
>
>
> >With reference to your statement about making sure the alternator
> >doesn't run while the battery is not connected: what are the
> >consequences of doing this?
>
> Suppose you have smoke in the cockpit and you want to shut
> down the whole system? How do you do this if the alternator
> You can turn the battery of, the alternator continues to
> run self-excited, and smoke continues to roll.
>
> wire it up such that it truly has ultimate control over
> all power sources in the airplane.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Shaun Simpkins" <shauns(at)hevanet.com> |
Subject: | Re: LED nav lights |
Pirahnas are pretty good LEDs, but there are some very restrictive FAA
requirements on the luminosity and
beam pattern for position lights that make trailer clearance lights
generally unacceptable.
There is a very sharp cutoff to the rear for side position
lights, and a strongly forward biased beam pattern that requires most of the
light to be between dead ahead
and 30 degrees off dead ahead. The intensity has to be very high; it's
only be recently that super bright
LEDs with adequate beam spread have come on market that can meet these
needs.
A further problem with LEDs is that they are a diffuse light source - so the
trick that incandescent position
lights use - beam shaping lenses and reflectors - doesn't work. Instead,
arrays of LEDs must be configured
so as to give the proper beam shape.
Look at Whelen's website for their latest LED position lights. The tail
light, having the widest required beam
pattern, consists of 72 (!) white LEDs in a curved array. Their Red and
White position lights consist of 6
super bright LEDs mounted in 3 rows of two with reflecting panels.
Some ultrabright white, red, and green LEDs called Luxeon Stars (
http://www.luxeon.com ) have come on
market that are promising. They come in 1 and 5 watt sizes, and are being
designed in to many commercial
fixtures. In general, it appears that an LED solution for incandescent
replacement of position lights will be
able to save perhaps 1/2 to 2/3 of the power, as long as the beam shaping
demands are not too great.
Shaun
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Schlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED nav lights
>
>
> I found some trailer clearance lights at the local Autovalue store. They
are PMLights 3 LED lights and are only 7/8" tall for $15. They would be the
right size. Does anyone know if they are bright enough? Check out
pmlights.com and look for the Pirahna lights V160KR series clearance light
kits. Unfortunately, they only are available in red or amber. Maybe the
manufacturer would make some in green if asked.
>
> :Eric - in Michigan
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: DC Power Master Switch |
>
>
>I should have been more explicit.
>
>I am using the Z-13, All Electric on a Budget system with a couple of
>minor modifications. My setup has separate Alternator and DC Power
>switches. The "DC Power" switch is a key operated, automotive style,
>OFF-ON-AUX switch. The ON or "Main" position will control the Battery
>Contactor, thus all battery powered busses except the Battery Bus. The
>AUX or "Essential Power" position will power an Essential bus via the
>Battery bus. A separate ON-Off-ON lever lock toggle switch controls the
>main and aux alternators (both alternators cannot be on at the same
>time, with both being off when the switch is centered.) It will take
>moving two separate switches to completely shut off electrical power -
>no big deal in my opinion, except...
>
>What concerned me was your statement that the alternator should not be
>running if the battery master was turned off and I am still wondering if
>there are any serious consequences of the alternator running without the
>Master (DC Power) switch ON?
The drawings published are the result of many years
of consideration of operating details, failure modes
and effects, and cost of ownership. Your minor modifications
may not be so minor. Without sitting down to thrash through
all of the ramifications, I can only advise that as the
designer and builder of your own airplane, you're certainly
entitled to build in any features or conveniences you've
deduced as useful and appropriate.
Without testing a particular alternator/regulator combination
for no-battery behavior, the outcome cannot be predicted.
The hardware used on Bonanzas and Barons have been tested
and deemed acceptable (these alternators are also "self
exciting" in that they will come on line without a battery).
There is risk that your particular combination will behave
poorly under some conditions. To insure that this is never
a problem, all of our drawings depict techniques that force
the alternator off any time the battery is off. Certain
additions such as the e-bus alternate feedpath and a second
engine driven power source make for a very robust, failure
tolerant system.
Departures from what's shown are not discouraged as long
as the builder has taken the time to deduce all the
ramifications and make sure that what's perceived as
an "improvement" really turns out to be something else.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
This topic has come up many times over the years. Should
have done this article sooner. Anyhow, better late than
never. Took the camera over to the Bonanza line yesterday
and got illustrations for this comic book . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
As usual, sir, an excellent job! The pics really are worth a thousand
words in this case.
R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
>
> This topic has come up many times over the years. Should
> have done this article sooner. Anyhow, better late than
> never. Took the camera over to the Bonanza line yesterday
> and got illustrations for this comic book . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)direcway.com> |
Subject: | Re: LED nav lights |
Eric,
If you wanted to make LED nav lights you might look at
http://www.stores.ebay.com/id=70930951
It is an EBAY store - a company in the Far East selling mostly strong
Megabright LEDs and LED gadgets. They have greens, whites and reds
(right now there is no listing for reds but I checked and they have
them). The typical output is 5cd per diode, and typical beam spread is
10 degrees, but they might have different stuff too. Prices are good,
they sell them in hundreds for ~ $15/100. There is a shipment charge of
$10.
Jerzy
Eric Schlanser wrote:
>
>
>I found some trailer clearance lights at the local Autovalue store. They are PMLights
3 LED lights and are only 7/8" tall for $15. They would be the right size.
Does anyone know if they are bright enough? Check out pmlights.com and look
for the Pirahna lights V160KR series clearance light kits. Unfortunately, they
only are available in red or amber. Maybe the manufacturer would make some
in green if asked.
>
>:Eric - in Michigan
>
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
Bob,
Thanks, talk about timing, I am just about ready to do a couple of
penetrations and had been trying to figure out a neat way to do it.
Sam Chambers
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
>
> This topic has come up many times over the years. Should
> have done this article sooner. Anyhow, better late than
> never. Took the camera over to the Bonanza line yesterday
> and got illustrations for this comic book . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ron <rondefly(at)pacbell.net> |
Subject: | Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
For a second thought on penetrations. I am a building contractor and found I
could use several different type of stainless rails or towel racks. One I am
using has about a 2"DX1/8"thick flange with 5/8" stainless tube welded to
it. I cut the tube off to 1" long. Fits well with the tube going through the
firewall, the wire going through the tube then fill the tube overflowing
with fire stop caulking. We use it all the time for Wall penetrations into a
corridor. You can get the caulk in varying safety degree's. Most of the
flanges have two holes drilled in them and you could attach to the firewall
squished with fire caulk and stainless screws.
Ron Triano
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Sam
Chambers
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
<schamber@glasgow-ky.com>
Bob,
Thanks, talk about timing, I am just about ready to do a couple of
penetrations and had been trying to figure out a neat way to do it.
Sam Chambers
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
>
> This topic has come up many times over the years. Should
> have done this article sooner. Anyhow, better late than
> never. Took the camera over to the Bonanza line yesterday
> and got illustrations for this comic book . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
Ron, got a manufacturer name and/or part number and typical source for the
item?
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron" <rondefly(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
>
> For a second thought on penetrations. I am a building contractor and found
I
> could use several different type of stainless rails or towel racks. One I
am
> using has about a 2"DX1/8"thick flange with 5/8" stainless tube welded to
> it. I cut the tube off to 1" long. Fits well with the tube going through
the
> firewall, the wire going through the tube then fill the tube overflowing
> with fire stop caulking. We use it all the time for Wall penetrations into
a
> corridor. You can get the caulk in varying safety degree's. Most of the
> flanges have two holes drilled in them and you could attach to the
firewall
> squished with fire caulk and stainless screws.
>
> Ron Triano
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
Bob,
Excellent pictures. What is the white "sheet" of material wrapped around
the wires in the engine compartment (coming out of the stainless steel
firewall fitting)? Is it "white fire sleeve" or something else?
Fire stop putty might have a tendancy to "migrate" out from under the clamp?
So, strips of fire sleeve material, as you showed, would be firmer and tend
to stay in place better - could put a small amount of fire putty inside
in/amongst the wires, under the wire sleeve "packing band". Do I have the
correct idea here?
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
>
> This topic has come up many times over the years. Should
> have done this article sooner. Anyhow, better late than
> never. Took the camera over to the Bonanza line yesterday
> and got illustrations for this comic book . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Subject: | Contactor Locations |
First, Thanks for the responses on the heat sink for the diode. I don't believe
that the e-bus loads will be 10 amps, but I thought it would give me some safety
factor since nothing is actually wired yet.
The nest question I have is to see if there are any problems with where I plan
to physically locate the various contactors in the aircraft. (The aircraft is
a Wittman Tailwind.) The battery is behind the seat and the battery contactor
(and battery bus) will mount near the battery. There will be a 2AWG wire running
to the starter contactor. I'm planning to locate the starter contactor on the
engine side of the firewall, about 5 feet from the battery. The b-lead from
the alternator will run back to the battery side of the starter contactor. The
ground power plug will also connect to the battery side of the starter contactor.
The ground power plug will be located on the firewall and accessed through
a hole in the cowl.
Are there any major problems with locating things where indicated? Also, is there
any need to protect the battery side of the starter contactor from the possibility
of an arc to the firewall? The terminal, with three pretty big wires on
it, will be about an inch away from the firewall (stainless steel). I haven't
seen any of the little rubber boots that would accomodate 3 wires like this.
Thanks again for the help.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ron <rondefly(at)pacbell.net> |
Subject: | Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
Stainless towel bars are available almost anywhere you buy towels. If you
need larger you could make one from stainless or use handicap grab bars.
Ron Triano
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of David
Carter
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
Ron, got a manufacturer name and/or part number and typical source for the
item?
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron" <rondefly(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
>
> For a second thought on penetrations. I am a building contractor and found
I
> could use several different type of stainless rails or towel racks. One I
am
> using has about a 2"DX1/8"thick flange with 5/8" stainless tube welded to
> it. I cut the tube off to 1" long. Fits well with the tube going through
the
> firewall, the wire going through the tube then fill the tube overflowing
> with fire stop caulking. We use it all the time for Wall penetrations into
a
> corridor. You can get the caulk in varying safety degree's. Most of the
> flanges have two holes drilled in them and you could attach to the
firewall
> squished with fire caulk and stainless screws.
>
> Ron Triano
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tinnemaha" <Tinnemaha(at)charter.net> |
Subject: | De-Rate Mini Switches? |
Hello List,
This is my first post. I am building a 12 Volt system and want to incorporate
Alco Ultra-Mini Toggle switches wherever possible but I need advice:
The catalog says the switches are rated for 6 amps at 125 V AC and 4 amps at 28
V DC: Can I assume they are rated for 8 amps at 14 V?
AC 43-13 requires de-rating factors to be applied to switches (factors vary according
to voltage & type of load): Do you apply the same de-rating factors?
Do you know if miniature switches with a higher amperage rating are available?
Thanks,
Grant
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
Subject: | Re: De-Rate Mini Switches? |
No, the rating at 14V would be essentially the same as 28V. The switch
ratings are based on two factors: the steady state current handling
capacity of the contacts and, when switched from on to off, the ability
to break the current carried by the switch and quench the internal arc
caused by opening the switch contacts.
The ratings you quote indicate that the physical current handling
capacity is 6 amps steady state - which limits the 125VAC rating. The
reason the DC rating is less is due to the second limitation. With AC,
the current goes through zero 120 times per second,which serves very
nicely to quench the arc when switching a load off. With DC, the
current is continuous so the contacts have to open wide enough to cause
the internal arc to quench.
Bottom line - do not use this switch for more than 4A continuous at 14 VDC.
Dick Tasker
Tinnemaha wrote:
>
>Hello List,
>
>This is my first post. I am building a 12 Volt system and want to incorporate
Alco Ultra-Mini Toggle switches wherever possible but I need advice:
>
>The catalog says the switches are rated for 6 amps at 125 V AC and 4 amps at 28
V DC: Can I assume they are rated for 8 amps at 14 V?
>
>AC 43-13 requires de-rating factors to be applied to switches (factors vary according
to voltage & type of load): Do you apply the same de-rating factors?
>
>Do you know if miniature switches with a higher amperage rating are available?
>
>
Thanks,
>
Grant
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bernie_c(at)erols.com |
Subject: | Re: SPEAKING OF DIODES] |
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: SPEAKING OF DIODES
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:04:53 -0500
From: bernie_c(at)erols.com
This is what I read fairly recently to re-educate myself about what
was going on with the currents during these events. It shows the
diode in parallel with the coil, oriented to block the current
through the diode with the switch closed.
<<http://www.hedonline.com/Documents/Coils.pdf>>
That's NOT hedonism. The HED is Hydro Electronic Devices, Inc.
2001
Bernie C.
William Mills wrote:
>
>
> Scott -
>
> Go to:
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html
> Scroll down to "How it works", and click on:
> "An illustrated discussion about spike catching diodes and how they work."
>
> It's all there. I had to read it slooowly a few times but Bob makes
> it quite clear.
>
> Bill
>
> >I really want to understand where the diode goes on a relay. Which senario
> >is correct. It goes from the small terminal which is switched to 12v, or
> >to ground?
> >
> >
> >Scott Bilinski
> >Eng dept 305
> >Phone (858) 657-2536
> >Pager (858) 502-5190
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Excellent pictures. What is the white "sheet" of material wrapped around
>the wires in the engine compartment (coming out of the stainless steel
>firewall fitting)? Is it "white fire sleeve" or something else?
That is silicon rubber covered, fiberglas sleeving . . .
similar to the stuff we sell in our fusible link kits.
This is not a necessary component of the fire-stopping
abilities of technique described.
>Fire stop putty might have a tendancy to "migrate" out from under the clamp?
Don't know why it would . . .
>So, strips of fire sleeve material, as you showed, would be firmer and tend
>to stay in place better - could put a small amount of fire putty inside
>in/amongst the wires, under the wire sleeve "packing band". Do I have the
>correct idea here?
The putty has been used for a very long time in this an similar
applications. I don't think I'd diddle with the technique without
substantive testing or analysis as to what benefits it might
offer.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Contactor Locations |
>
>
>First, Thanks for the responses on the heat sink for the diode. I don't
>believe that the e-bus loads will be 10 amps, but I thought it would give
>me some safety factor since nothing is actually wired yet.
>
>The nest question I have is to see if there are any problems with where I
>plan to physically locate the various contactors in the aircraft. (The
>aircraft is a Wittman Tailwind.) The battery is behind the seat and the
>battery contactor (and battery bus) will mount near the battery. There
>will be a 2AWG wire running to the starter contactor. I'm planning to
>locate the starter contactor on the engine side of the firewall, about 5
>feet from the battery. The b-lead from the alternator will run back to the
>battery side of the starter contactor. The ground power plug will also
>connect to the battery side of the starter contactor. The ground power
>plug will be located on the firewall and accessed through a hole in the cowl.
Many production aircraft connect ground power as you have
described. I favor the wiring shown in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
for several reasons.
Ground power cannot be applied to your aircraft without
also having ship's battery across the supply . . . batteries
are strong filters and reasonable mitigators of poor power
quality.
Ground power tied right to the battery can be used to charge
the battery where it sits in the airplane without having
to power up the whole airplane.
In your case, the line mechanic will appreciate it if
your ground power jack is further away from the prop.
>Are there any major problems with locating things where indicated? Also,
>is there any need to protect the battery side of the starter contactor
>from the possibility of an arc to the firewall? The terminal, with three
>pretty big wires on it, will be about an inch away from the firewall
>(stainless steel). I haven't seen any of the little rubber boots that
>would accomodate 3 wires like this.
How are these wires going to "get loose" and/or what articles
of equipment located nearby are likely to come into contact
with the terminal? If there are candidate conditions that
put the system at risk, it's usually easier and better
design to eliminate them as opposed to guarding against
them. The bus bars on production aircraft are good examples.
They are large areas of un-insulated, high current conductors
that are waving out there in the breeze . . . but with no
concerns because of their construction integrity and controlled
environment. It's akin to operating your airplane in a way
that eliminates the need for guards around your propeller
to keep body parts out of them.
The soft rubber, insulating booties found on many fat-wire
terminals may be useful for keeping the band of your wrist
watch from coming into contact with a hot terminal . . . but
that's about all. They have no structural integrity and
should not be depended upon to "protect" your system
from the results of poor planning and/or mechanical
design.
Bob . . .
>Thanks again for the help.
>
>Bill
>
>
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
Subject: | Z-14 add the RV6A (or 7A) ???? |
GlacierI am now working on an RV6A that I plan to make "all electric" per
Z-14.
Has anyone out there on the list implemented Bob's "Z-14" (dual battery/dual
alternator) on the RV6/7A???
If so I have a few questions:
1. Which batteries did you use? (Bill of B&C recommends 2 of their 12AH
batteries ... fine by me)
2. Did you mount your batteries inside the cabin or on the firewall?
3. If you mounted them on the firewall (where I wish to), how did you do it
... one per side? Both on same side?
4. What about the mounting of the contactors?
5. If you mounteed them one per side, how was the wire run for
"interconnect" handled?
Part of the problem I seem to be having is that I do not see how I can mount
the two batteries on the same side and I have not been able to find
batteries that are both suitable and much smaller.
Any advice (and especially pictures) would be appreciated before I go and
re-invent the wheel.
Thanks in advance.
James
p.s. The RV6 that my partner and I built and are flying, has the single
battery (PC680) mounted on the firewall and all if fine ... so I am a little
bit familiar with some of the issues.
"If you don't make dust, you eat dust"
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: De-Rate Mini Switches? |
>
>Hello List,
>
>This is my first post. I am building a 12 Volt system and want to
>incorporate Alco Ultra-Mini Toggle switches wherever possible but I need
>advice:
>
>The catalog says the switches are rated for 6 amps at 125 V AC and 4 amps
>at 28 V DC: Can I assume they are rated for 8 amps at 14 V?
>
>AC 43-13 requires de-rating factors to be applied to switches (factors
>vary according to voltage & type of load): Do you apply the same de-rating
>factors?
Be wary of AC43-13 and in particular any sense you may
have that what's offered is in any way a REQUIREMENT for
you as the builder of an airplane. AC43-13 contains some
really good information but it's rife with little pockets
of junk science and outright errors.
Everything AC43-13 purports to do for system reliability
is ALWAYS predicated on increasing longevity through
quality enhancement, little tricks-of-the-trade like de-rating
certain parts, and a reverence for things "certified" for both
hardware and the people who are allowed to work on airplanes.
No place in AC43-13 or any other holy-watered document will
you see a discussion of architecture that produces system
reliability by way of a failure tolerant design.
Take peek at the article on switch ratings at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/swtchrat.pdf
I wouldn't discourage you from your quest to build
with small switches but keep in mind the following
considerations as physical size goes down in a switch.
(1) assuming most switches have about the same on-resistance,
smaller switches will run warmer at the same current levels
thus exacerbating degradation of contacts during the ON times.
Loads like landing lights and pitot heaters are best handled
by a relay (like S704-1 on our website) which is in turn
controlled by a miniature switch.
(2) if you have magnetos and choose to be rid of the
Jurassic key-switch, then be aware of voltage breakdown
limitations on the small switches in their OPEN position.
I would be wary of a miniature toggle switch's ability
to stand off the several hundred, fast rate-of-rise volts
that are present on p-leads of a mag. After some
years in service, a miniature switch may acquire enough
contaminates to be vulnerable to this kind of stress even
though it worked fine upon initial installation. The result
would be a rough running mag that is being sapped of
spark energy by arcing at the switch. If you're
contemplating electronic ignition, this isn't a concern.
Choose good quality switches. Brands like C&K or
Cuttler-Hammer and ALCO are mechanically more robust
than miniature switches of unknown pedigree found
in many parts catalogs.
Finally, plan ahead. Should you find at some time
in the future that your choice of switches produced
less than satisfactory performance, will surgery
to your panel be a major or minor effort?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: De-Rate Mini Switches? |
>
>
>No, the rating at 14V would be essentially the same as 28V. The switch
>ratings are based on two factors: the steady state current handling
>capacity of the contacts and, when switched from on to off, the ability
>to break the current carried by the switch and quench the internal arc
>caused by opening the switch contacts.
>
>The ratings you quote indicate that the physical current handling
>capacity is 6 amps steady state - which limits the 125VAC rating. The
>reason the DC rating is less is due to the second limitation. With AC,
>the current goes through zero 120 times per second,which serves very
>nicely to quench the arc when switching a load off. With DC, the
>current is continuous so the contacts have to open wide enough to cause
>the internal arc to quench.
>
>Bottom line - do not use this switch for more than 4A continuous at 14 VDC.
>
>Dick Tasker
Good answer . . . I agree.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: De-Rate Mini Switches? |
Hi Bob,
I am thinking through rewiring my RV6A. It has a Chevy V6 engine which has
an older style ignition system. A dual point distributer and dual coils
provide one backup to the spark plugs thru a coil selector. Current is
passed thru a ballast resistor before entering the coils.
I would like to provide power supply redundancy that would deal with either
a shorted out battery or a loss of an alternator. I recently had a battery
short causing an OV and the panel 60 amp breaker to pop. I also recently
had an alternator OV and try to fry the battery.
I have been studying the "the book" and am wondering how to configure the
most reliable, simple system. I am thinking of replacing the vacuum pump
with a PM Alternator along the lines of Z-13 or possibly Z-14. I am looking
to find a PM alternator that will run without the battery so it can feed the
ignition system independantly. I am thinking that I would like to
incorporate Z-29 or Z-30 to keep the ignition circuit always hot but can't
quite see how to isolate the battery from the ignition in the event of the
battery shorting.
Any comments appreciated.
Thanks,
Ned
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: De-Rate Mini Switches?
>
> >
> >Hello List,
> >
> >This is my first post. I am building a 12 Volt system and want to
> >incorporate Alco Ultra-Mini Toggle switches wherever possible but I need
> >advice:
> >
> >The catalog says the switches are rated for 6 amps at 125 V AC and 4 amps
> >at 28 V DC: Can I assume they are rated for 8 amps at 14 V?
> >
> >AC 43-13 requires de-rating factors to be applied to switches (factors
> >vary according to voltage & type of load): Do you apply the same
de-rating
> >factors?
>
> Be wary of AC43-13 and in particular any sense you may
> have that what's offered is in any way a REQUIREMENT for
> you as the builder of an airplane. AC43-13 contains some
> really good information but it's rife with little pockets
> of junk science and outright errors.
>
> Everything AC43-13 purports to do for system reliability
> is ALWAYS predicated on increasing longevity through
> quality enhancement, little tricks-of-the-trade like de-rating
> certain parts, and a reverence for things "certified" for both
> hardware and the people who are allowed to work on airplanes.
>
> No place in AC43-13 or any other holy-watered document will
> you see a discussion of architecture that produces system
> reliability by way of a failure tolerant design.
>
> Take peek at the article on switch ratings at:
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/swtchrat.pdf
>
> I wouldn't discourage you from your quest to build
> with small switches but keep in mind the following
> considerations as physical size goes down in a switch.
>
> (1) assuming most switches have about the same on-resistance,
> smaller switches will run warmer at the same current levels
> thus exacerbating degradation of contacts during the ON times.
> Loads like landing lights and pitot heaters are best handled
> by a relay (like S704-1 on our website) which is in turn
> controlled by a miniature switch.
>
> (2) if you have magnetos and choose to be rid of the
> Jurassic key-switch, then be aware of voltage breakdown
> limitations on the small switches in their OPEN position.
> I would be wary of a miniature toggle switch's ability
> to stand off the several hundred, fast rate-of-rise volts
> that are present on p-leads of a mag. After some
> years in service, a miniature switch may acquire enough
> contaminates to be vulnerable to this kind of stress even
> though it worked fine upon initial installation. The result
> would be a rough running mag that is being sapped of
> spark energy by arcing at the switch. If you're
> contemplating electronic ignition, this isn't a concern.
>
> Choose good quality switches. Brands like C&K or
> Cuttler-Hammer and ALCO are mechanically more robust
> than miniature switches of unknown pedigree found
> in many parts catalogs.
>
> Finally, plan ahead. Should you find at some time
> in the future that your choice of switches produced
> less than satisfactory performance, will surgery
> to your panel be a major or minor effort?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: De-Rate Mini Switches? |
Bob,
Will the S704-1 relay work for an Infinity grip starter switch setup?
> Loads like landing lights and pitot heaters are best handled
> by a relay (like S704-1 on our website) which is in turn
> controlled by a miniature switch.
Thanks,
Bob Trumpfheller
Building a RV7A QB in Western Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Aucountry(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: De-Rate Mini Switches? |
In a message dated 03/02/03 09:51:49 AM, bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
> >The ratings you quote indicate that the physical current handling
> >capacity is 6 amps steady state - which limits the 125VAC rating.=A0 The
> >reason the DC rating is less is due to the second limitation.=A0 With AC,
> >the current goes through zero 120 times per second,which serves very
> >nicely to quench the arc when switching a load off.=A0 With DC, the
> >current is continuous so the contacts have to open wide enough to cause
> >the internal arc to quench.
> >
>
What about putting a diode across the contacts? Would that help with the
transients? How would this diode be attached?
Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: De-Rate Mini Switches? |
>
>
>In a message dated 03/02/03 09:51:49 AM, bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
>
> > >The ratings you quote indicate that the physical current handling
> > >capacity is 6 amps steady state - which limits the 125VAC rating.=A0 The
> > >reason the DC rating is less is due to the second limitation.=A0 With AC,
> > >the current goes through zero 120 times per second,which serves very
> > >nicely to quench the arc when switching a load off.=A0 With DC, the
> > >current is continuous so the contacts have to open wide enough to cause
> > >the internal arc to quench.
> > >
> >
>
>What about putting a diode across the contacts? Would that help with the
>transients? How would this diode be attached?
>
>Gary
No help here. It's not a 'transient' . . . when contacts FIRST
open, the air gap is measured in nano-inches . . . any voltage
level will form an arc in this gap. The secret is to increase
contact mass (to take heat out) and increase spreading velocity
(to stretch arc so fast it doesn't have time to heat things up)
and increase air gap for opened switch. All of these things
are physically limited when you miniaturize a switch.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: De-Rate Mini Switches? |
>
>Bob,
>
>Will the S704-1 relay work for an Infinity grip starter switch setup?
sure. relays can be used to boost the current handling
ability of any switching device. That's what starter and
battery contactors do too. You wouldn't want to put 200+
amp rated switches on your control panel for these tasks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Radio Wiring question |
From: | Vince Ackerman <vack(at)mac.com> |
I'm a total novice so forgive me for the dumb questions. I can't get
any tech support on weekends so I thought I'd ask here first.
I'm trying to connect a DRE 244e intercom to a Garmin 250xl gps/com.
The 250xl has the com wires coming from the rack labeled as follows:
Each is a two wire twisted pair with shield
1st bundle
Mic Audio Hi - white
Mic Audio Key - blue/white (is this the PTT?)
Mic Audio low - shield
2nd bundle
Com Audio Hi - white
Com Audio Low - blue/white
Not labeled - shield (present but not labeled)
The DRE 244e diagram shows a RAD cable from intercom connected to a
radio as follows:
green wire -- Earphone
red wire -- Mic
white wire -- PTT
black and shield wire -- Gnd
I'm not sure how to go about wiring this up. What does low/high on the
250xl mean? Is low the ground in the reference to DRE 244e diagram?
The unlabeled shield on the com audio should be connected to what?
Could anyone give me some help?
Also, I need to make the instrument/ radio panel removable. Can I use
molex type connectors between the radio rack wiring and the DRE 244?
Will this cause interference/noise problems?
I also have two PTT switch's located on my stick grips . The DRE 244e
diagram shows these as wired off of the Pilot and Copilot headset wire
bundles on the intercom, from each black wire (looks like it's the
upper contact on the mike jack) and ground (shield) wire that run to
the mic/headphone jacks. Rather than running another set of wires from
the jacks, Can I intercept/splice into these wires closer to the
intercom unit without worrying about inducing some sort of noise
problems. They pass right next to the sticks. Also, Do the wires to
the stick grips need to be twisted pair?
Hope this is clear enough to figure out what I'm struggling with.
Thanks for your assistance
George Ackerman
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: De-Rate Mini Switches? |
You might look at the Shogun alternator. It's rated at 15 amps, super
simple and very small. I know of several people who run them on their
racecars and have seen at least one airplane using one.
R
http://www.shogunindustries.com/cgi-local/Web_store/ws400CS.cgi
----- Original Message -----
From: <315(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: De-Rate Mini Switches?
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I am thinking through rewiring my RV6A. It has a Chevy V6 engine which
has
> an older style ignition system. A dual point distributer and dual coils
> provide one backup to the spark plugs thru a coil selector. Current is
> passed thru a ballast resistor before entering the coils.
>
> I would like to provide power supply redundancy that would deal with
either
> a shorted out battery or a loss of an alternator. I recently had a
battery
> short causing an OV and the panel 60 amp breaker to pop. I also recently
> had an alternator OV and try to fry the battery.
>
> I have been studying the "the book" and am wondering how to configure the
> most reliable, simple system. I am thinking of replacing the vacuum pump
> with a PM Alternator along the lines of Z-13 or possibly Z-14. I am
looking
> to find a PM alternator that will run without the battery so it can feed
the
> ignition system independantly. I am thinking that I would like to
> incorporate Z-29 or Z-30 to keep the ignition circuit always hot but
can't
> quite see how to isolate the battery from the ignition in the event of
the
> battery shorting.
>
> Any comments appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Ned
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: De-Rate Mini Switches?
>
>
>
> >
>
> > >
> > >Hello List,
> > >
> > >This is my first post. I am building a 12 Volt system and want to
> > >incorporate Alco Ultra-Mini Toggle switches wherever possible but I
need
> > >advice:
> > >
> > >The catalog says the switches are rated for 6 amps at 125 V AC and 4
amps
> > >at 28 V DC: Can I assume they are rated for 8 amps at 14 V?
> > >
> > >AC 43-13 requires de-rating factors to be applied to switches (factors
> > >vary according to voltage & type of load): Do you apply the same
> de-rating
> > >factors?
> >
> > Be wary of AC43-13 and in particular any sense you may
> > have that what's offered is in any way a REQUIREMENT for
> > you as the builder of an airplane. AC43-13 contains some
> > really good information but it's rife with little pockets
> > of junk science and outright errors.
> >
> > Everything AC43-13 purports to do for system reliability
> > is ALWAYS predicated on increasing longevity through
> > quality enhancement, little tricks-of-the-trade like de-rating
> > certain parts, and a reverence for things "certified" for both
> > hardware and the people who are allowed to work on airplanes.
> >
> > No place in AC43-13 or any other holy-watered document will
> > you see a discussion of architecture that produces system
> > reliability by way of a failure tolerant design.
> >
> > Take peek at the article on switch ratings at:
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/swtchrat.pdf
> >
> > I wouldn't discourage you from your quest to build
> > with small switches but keep in mind the following
> > considerations as physical size goes down in a switch.
> >
> > (1) assuming most switches have about the same on-resistance,
> > smaller switches will run warmer at the same current levels
> > thus exacerbating degradation of contacts during the ON times.
> > Loads like landing lights and pitot heaters are best handled
> > by a relay (like S704-1 on our website) which is in turn
> > controlled by a miniature switch.
> >
> > (2) if you have magnetos and choose to be rid of the
> > Jurassic key-switch, then be aware of voltage breakdown
> > limitations on the small switches in their OPEN position.
> > I would be wary of a miniature toggle switch's ability
> > to stand off the several hundred, fast rate-of-rise volts
> > that are present on p-leads of a mag. After some
> > years in service, a miniature switch may acquire enough
> > contaminates to be vulnerable to this kind of stress even
> > though it worked fine upon initial installation. The result
> > would be a rough running mag that is being sapped of
> > spark energy by arcing at the switch. If you're
> > contemplating electronic ignition, this isn't a concern.
> >
> > Choose good quality switches. Brands like C&K or
> > Cuttler-Hammer and ALCO are mechanically more robust
> > than miniature switches of unknown pedigree found
> > in many parts catalogs.
> >
> > Finally, plan ahead. Should you find at some time
> > in the future that your choice of switches produced
> > less than satisfactory performance, will surgery
> > to your panel be a major or minor effort?
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: System architecture decisions |
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I am thinking through rewiring my RV6A. It has a Chevy V6 engine which has
>an older style ignition system. A dual point distributer and dual coils
>provide one backup to the spark plugs thru a coil selector. Current is
>passed thru a ballast resistor before entering the coils.
>
>I would like to provide power supply redundancy that would deal with either
>a shorted out battery or a loss of an alternator. I recently had a battery
>short causing an OV and the panel 60 amp breaker to pop.
I am having trouble figuring out what kind of failure
would produce the symptoms (breakers opening) that you
describe. A shorted battery wouldn't produce these
effects . . . and if you had an RG battery installed,
likelihood of shorting goes down to very small orders
of probability.
> I also recently
>had an alternator OV and try to fry the battery.
Did you have any kind of ov protection installed? If so, then the
ov protection device should have done its job and shut down the
failed alternator system. After that, assuming you've done
your homework for calculating and supporting endurance loads,
your battery should have been ready, willing and able to put
you on the ground comfortably.
>I have been studying the "the book" and am wondering how to configure the
>most reliable, simple system. I am thinking of replacing the vacuum pump
>with a PM Alternator along the lines of Z-13 or possibly Z-14. I am looking
>to find a PM alternator that will run without the battery so it can feed the
>ignition system independantly. I am thinking that I would like to
>incorporate Z-29 or Z-30 to keep the ignition circuit always hot but can't
>quite see how to isolate the battery from the ignition in the event of the
>battery shorting.
RG batteries don't short. Maintained flooded batteries
don't short. If you conduct event he most relaxed protocols
of preventative maintenance on your airplane, the battery
is an extremely reliable source of energy. You'll be replacing
the battery long before its quality degrades to the
conditions characteristic of shorted cells in flooded
batteries.
The automotive coil and distributor ignition system is
also very reliable . . . aside from wires breaking off
(easy to control with good craftsmanship and periodic
inspection) these systems seldom fail catastrophic
and with easy. low cost preventative maintenance, they
don't wear out and get flaky either.
I would agree that in light of your cited experiences,
some attention to power generation reliability is in
order. Your selection of alternator, regulator and
ov protection can go a long way toward preventing
recurrent experiences. All-electric is another good
option to consider. But I'll suggest that if you drive
your ignition directly from a well maintained RG battery
and provide backup to the main alternator as shown
in Z-13, your system will be quite reliable with no
further concerns for keeping the ignition coil
happily fed with electrons.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Z-14 add the RV6A (or 7A) ???? |
>
>
>GlacierI am now working on an RV6A that I plan to make "all electric" per
>Z-14.
>
>Has anyone out there on the list implemented Bob's "Z-14" (dual battery/dual
>alternator) on the RV6/7A???
>
>If so I have a few questions:
>
>1. Which batteries did you use? (Bill of B&C recommends 2 of their 12AH
>batteries ... fine by me)
>2. Did you mount your batteries inside the cabin or on the firewall?
>3. If you mounted them on the firewall (where I wish to), how did you do it
>... one per side? Both on same side?
>4. What about the mounting of the contactors?
>5. If you mounteed them one per side, how was the wire run for
>"interconnect" handled?
>
>Part of the problem I seem to be having is that I do not see how I can mount
>the two batteries on the same side and I have not been able to find
>batteries that are both suitable and much smaller.
>
>
>Any advice (and especially pictures) would be appreciated before I go and
>re-invent the wheel.
As I recall, Van's plans call for a 24 a.h. battery
on centerline, just behind the firewall. Given that
a pair of 12 a.h. batteries has about the same footprint
as a single 24 a.h. battery, could they not be mounted
side-by-side in the same place as a 24 a.h. battery?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
Subject: | Re: De-Rate Mini Switches? |
>
>
>What about putting a diode across the contacts? Would that help with the
>transients? How would this diode be attached?
>
Alas, that will not help. The arc across the switch is caused by
current flowing in the normal direction. A diode would not do anything
since if it was placed on the switch to absorb/shunt the current it
would allow whatever the switch was switching to be on all the time. If
it was placed on the switch in the reverse manner, it would not do anything.
When switching resistive loads (lights, instruments, etc.) any internal
arc is just caused by the physical act of opening the contacts. As the
contacts go from closed to fully open, the space between them increases.
At first, when the space is infinitesimal, the current continues to
flow as a plasma is created between the contacts. This continues until
the spacing is large enough that the plasma breaks down and the circuit
opens. The larger the current flow, the greater the space required to
quench the plasma (think electrical arc welding on a miniature scale).
However, unlike inductive loads (coils, relays, etc.), there is no
energy storage that will increase the voltage as the circuit opens - so
if the manufacturer does his design job correctly and rates the switch
properly, you can expect a long and useful life from the switch (if you
use it within its ratings).
A diode MUST be placed across any coils or relays that are switched (see
numerous descriptions and comments on this in Aeroelectric Connection,
et. al.) to prevent damage to the device doing the switching. This
protects the switch from transients caused by the relay/coil by
eliminating or minimizing the transient in the first place. Without
this protection, the switch will fail quite quickly (and probably just
when you need it to work properly :-) ).
The switch ratings noted in the previous discussion are real and cannot
be improved upon (except by the manufacturer). You can, however,
effectively reduce the ratings and destroy the switch very quickly by
not doing anything to eliminate switching transients.
Dick Tasker
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: fast on connectors |
>
><>
>
> Gee Bob, you really know how to hurt a guy
>
> My comments were directed to the concept of using quality heat
> shrink as
>a method of terminal insulation and prevention of wire fatigue. It also
>looks better than squashed nylon and requires less physical space. The
>trade-off is some additional time investment. I'm not running a production
>line.
>
> I fully agree that you should not use substitutes without due
> dilligence,
>including simple tests in your own shop.
>
> Old buddy, I ain't trying to teach you how to suck eggs. It's just an
>alternate method.
Understand my friend . . . and no offense intended. I'm just
trying to reason through the value of adopting an alternative
technology. Aside from the savings in "physical space", how
do we gain by adopting an second technology requiring
yet another tool to install a more labor-and-materials
intensive substitute for the first choice which uses tools
we may already have? I suppose one could decide to go non-PIDG
throughout the project and opt instead to purchase tools that
apply only un-insulated terminals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
Subject: | Re: Radio Wiring question |
Partial answers below:
Vince Ackerman wrote:
>
>I'm a total novice so forgive me for the dumb questions. I can't get
>any tech support on weekends so I thought I'd ask here first.
>
>I'm trying to connect a DRE 244e intercom to a Garmin 250xl gps/com.
>The 250xl has the com wires coming from the rack labeled as follows:
>
>Each is a two wire twisted pair with shield
>
>1st bundle
>Mic Audio Hi - white
>Mic Audio Key - blue/white (is this the PTT?)
>Mic Audio low - shield
>
>2nd bundle
>Com Audio Hi - white
>Com Audio Low - blue/white
> Not labeled - shield (present but not labeled)
>
>The DRE 244e diagram shows a RAD cable from intercom connected to a
>radio as follows:
>
>green wire -- Earphone
>red wire -- Mic
>white wire -- PTT
>black and shield wire -- Gnd
>
1st bundle
Mic Audio Hi - white > to >> DRE green
Com Audio Low - blue/white >> to >> DRE black
Not labeled - shield (present but not labeled)
>
>I'm not sure how to go about wiring this up. What does low/high on the
>250xl mean? Is low the ground in the reference to DRE 244e diagram?
>The unlabeled shield on the com audio should be connected to what?
>Could anyone give me some help?
>
Hi usually means audio; low usually means audio return or audio ground.
Look at the radio's hookup diagram & be sure they aren't sending the
'high' to a speaker & the 'low' to the headphones.
Audio 'grounds' are usually kept isolated from the airframe to prevent
'ground loops', or noise in the audio circuits.
Hard to say about the unlabeled shield; it could be intended to provide
noise shielding for the audio output wires & left floating at the other end.
>
>Also, I need to make the instrument/ radio panel removable. Can I use
>molex type connectors between the radio rack wiring and the DRE 244?
>Will this cause interference/noise problems?
>
Unlikely to cause problems, but each install is different.
>
>I also have two PTT switch's located on my stick grips . The DRE 244e
>diagram shows these as wired off of the Pilot and Copilot headset wire
>bundles on the intercom, from each black wire (looks like it's the
>upper contact on the mike jack) and ground (shield) wire that run to
>the mic/headphone jacks. Rather than running another set of wires from
>the jacks, Can I intercept/splice into these wires closer to the
>intercom unit without worrying about inducing some sort of noise
>problems. They pass right next to the sticks. Also, Do the wires to
>the stick grips need to be twisted pair?
>
Many intercoms are designed to allow the pilot's PTT & mic audio to
override the passenger's. This would mean running the wires as shown in
the DRE diagram to preserve the 'priority' feature. Does the DRE's
manual mention this feature?
Twisted pair is probably good enough for the PTT switches, but if you've
got the wire for the mic/PTT/sheild lines anyway, why not use it? The
PTT ties the white to shield when pushed (closed).
Charlie
>
>Hope this is clear enough to figure out what I'm struggling with.
>
>Thanks for your assistance
>
>George Ackerman
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Alternator Alternatives? |
>
>You might look at the Shogun alternator. It's rated at 15 amps, super
>simple and very small. I know of several people who run them on their
>racecars and have seen at least one airplane using one.
>R
>http://www.shogunindustries.com/cgi-local/Web_store/ws400CS.cgi
This appears to be an adaptation of the PM alternator
common to many garden tractors a-la Kubota, etc. If
you can belt drive a second alternator, you might
want to look at spare parts for tractors.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Wing-Tip VOR Antenna |
>
>Larry - the short strip of aluminum is not the antenna - it is part of the
>gamma match. The gamma match is an impedance transform network to match the
>impedance of the antenna to the feed line.
>Note RF is very much different than DC. This antenna is at DC ground
>potential, but certainly not grounded for RF. Unless you can find yourself
>a local amateur radio operator (that has been around the block a few times)
>to walk you through this just copy the drawing exactly.
>I am using a much modified wing tip antenna for my comm radio and am quite
>please with its performance- but I have been playing with antennas for 30
>years and have the necessary test equipment to make them work.
>
>Carl Froehlich
>RV-8A (flying)
>Vienna, VA
Thanks for fielding this one Carl . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tinnemaha" <Tinnemaha(at)charter.net> |
Subject: | Re: De-Rate Mini Switches? |
Thank You Richard,
I will not put more than 4 Amps on one of these switches even in my 14 V system.
Can you tell me if higher rated mini switches are available? Where?
What about the de-rating of switches mentioned in AC 43-13? Do you follow that
or is it too conservative?
Grant
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Radio Wiring question |
From: | Vince Ackerman <vack(at)mac.com> |
Charlie
Thanks for the info!
The wiring diagram for the 250xl comm shows the 2 Comm audio leads
coming out as a hi and low, both going to an "audio panel." It doesn't
really specify what goes to what. It also shows the shield wire, with a
note to ground the shield at the audio panel. On the shield end of the
250xl, the diagram indicates that the shield doesn't appear to be
connected to anything, unlike other shields such as the Mic. Should I
assume the shield for the comm goes to ground with the rest (the black
and shield wires on the DRE)? It's a little confusing how this works.
The DRE does override the passenger audio. Both wire bundles for the
Pilot and Pax go past the control sticks so instead of running wires
back from the jacks by the headrests I was just going to splice into
the bundles near each stick to go to the PTT 's on the grips.
Thanks
George
On Sunday, Mar 2, 2003, at 11:38 US/Pacific, Charlie & Tupper England
wrote:
> Hi usually means audio; low usually means audio return or audio ground.
> Look at the radio's hookup diagram & be sure they aren't sending the
> 'high' to a speaker & the 'low' to the headphones.
>
> Audio 'grounds' are usually kept isolated from the airframe to prevent
> 'ground loops', or noise in the audio circuits.
>
> Hard to say about the unlabeled shield; it could be intended to provide
> noise shielding for the audio output wires & left floating at the
> other end.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
Subject: | Z-14 AND the RV6A (or 7A) ???? |
Van's now mounts the battery on the firewall (under the cowl).
That is what we did on our "6" (done before Van did his) and I wish to mount
on the firewall this time, thus the problem.
If I were to put the inside the cabin on the floor next to the firewall all
would be fine but I have this other "preference".
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
> L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 2:02 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-14 add the RV6A (or 7A) ????
>
>
> III"
>
> >
> >
> >GlacierI am now working on an RV6A that I plan to make "all electric" per
> >Z-14.
> >
> >Has anyone out there on the list implemented Bob's "Z-14" (dual
> battery/dual
> >alternator) on the RV6/7A???
> >
> >If so I have a few questions:
> >
> >1. Which batteries did you use? (Bill of B&C recommends 2 of their 12AH
> >batteries ... fine by me)
> >2. Did you mount your batteries inside the cabin or on the firewall?
> >3. If you mounted them on the firewall (where I wish to), how
> did you do it
> >... one per side? Both on same side?
> >4. What about the mounting of the contactors?
> >5. If you mounteed them one per side, how was the wire run for
> >"interconnect" handled?
> >
> >Part of the problem I seem to be having is that I do not see how
> I can mount
> >the two batteries on the same side and I have not been able to find
> >batteries that are both suitable and much smaller.
> >
> >
> >Any advice (and especially pictures) would be appreciated before I go and
> >re-invent the wheel.
>
> As I recall, Van's plans call for a 24 a.h. battery
> on centerline, just behind the firewall. Given that
> a pair of 12 a.h. batteries has about the same footprint
> as a single 24 a.h. battery, could they not be mounted
> side-by-side in the same place as a 24 a.h. battery?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John H. Wiegenstein" <johnw(at)hellerwiegenstein.com> |
Subject: | Shop Light Interference with Radio |
Hi listers, I've been lurking a bit recently as my project gets into the
'lectrical phase, and have been perusing Bob's various diagrams and options
over the last several months. Today, though, I have a more generalized
question. I have commercial flourescent lights with electronic ballasts in
my shop, and while they do a good job and are efficient, they also generate
a hell of a lot of noise on the shop FM radio. Any suggestions on how to
cure this, so I can listen to more than one station? Reception is great
with the lights off, but with them on its a real bear - moving the radio and
power cord around don't do much..... TIA
John Wiegenstein
Hansville, WA
RV-6 N727JW (reserved) - engine hung, cowl and electrical in progress
johnw(at)hellerwiegenstein.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Pack" <jpack(at)igs3.com> |
Subject: | Re: Z-14 AND the RV6A (or 7A) ???? |
In the 9A, Vans puts the battery on the engine side of the firewall, pilots
side. I just added another battery on the CoPilot's side, same place. 17AH
batteries each.
- Jim
> Van's now mounts the battery on the firewall (under the cowl).
>
> That is what we did on our "6" (done before Van did his) and I wish to
mount
> on the firewall this time, thus the problem.
>
> If I were to put the inside the cabin on the floor next to the firewall
all
> would be fine but I have this other "preference".
>
> James
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
Subject: | Shop Light Interference with Radio |
John,
I had a similar problem with my cheap stereo in the shop that has a
telescoping antenna. The problem was corrected by turning the FM antenna to
near horizontal.
Terry
Hi listers, I've been lurking a bit recently as my project gets into the
'lectrical phase, and have been perusing Bob's various diagrams and options
over the last several months. Today, though, I have a more generalized
question. I have commercial flourescent lights with electronic ballasts in
my shop, and while they do a good job and are efficient, they also generate
a hell of a lot of noise on the shop FM radio. Any suggestions on how to
cure this, so I can listen to more than one station? Reception is great
with the lights off, but with them on its a real bear - moving the radio and
power cord around don't do much..... TIA
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Shop Light Interference with Radio |
I bought a XM (satellite) radio for the shop and plane. I think it's the
best deal on the planet. I get no interference from my 18 double florescent
light fixtures.
> I have commercial flourescent lights with electronic ballasts in
> my shop, and while they do a good job and are efficient, they also generate
> a hell of a lot of noise on the shop FM radio.
Bob Trumpfheller
Building a RV7A QB in Western Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Leonard Garceau" <lhgcpg(at)westriv.com> |
Subject: | Re: Radio Wiring question |
I need some help finding a connector for an in tank highpressure fuel pump.
I need a connector that is gasoline proof and won't leak. I looked at an
automotive pump but couldn't find the connector. Any ideas how to run a
wire for my fuel pumps out of my tank.
Leonard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Ackerman" <vack(at)mac.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio Wiring question
>
> I'm a total novice so forgive me for the dumb questions. I can't get
> any tech support on weekends so I thought I'd ask here first.
>
> I'm trying to connect a DRE 244e intercom to a Garmin 250xl gps/com.
> The 250xl has the com wires coming from the rack labeled as follows:
>
> Each is a two wire twisted pair with shield
>
> 1st bundle
> Mic Audio Hi - white
> Mic Audio Key - blue/white (is this the PTT?)
> Mic Audio low - shield
>
> 2nd bundle
> Com Audio Hi - white
> Com Audio Low - blue/white
> Not labeled - shield (present but not labeled)
>
> The DRE 244e diagram shows a RAD cable from intercom connected to a
> radio as follows:
>
> green wire -- Earphone
> red wire -- Mic
> white wire -- PTT
> black and shield wire -- Gnd
>
> I'm not sure how to go about wiring this up. What does low/high on the
> 250xl mean? Is low the ground in the reference to DRE 244e diagram?
> The unlabeled shield on the com audio should be connected to what?
> Could anyone give me some help?
>
> Also, I need to make the instrument/ radio panel removable. Can I use
> molex type connectors between the radio rack wiring and the DRE 244?
> Will this cause interference/noise problems?
>
> I also have two PTT switch's located on my stick grips . The DRE 244e
> diagram shows these as wired off of the Pilot and Copilot headset wire
> bundles on the intercom, from each black wire (looks like it's the
> upper contact on the mike jack) and ground (shield) wire that run to
> the mic/headphone jacks. Rather than running another set of wires from
> the jacks, Can I intercept/splice into these wires closer to the
> intercom unit without worrying about inducing some sort of noise
> problems. They pass right next to the sticks. Also, Do the wires to
> the stick grips need to be twisted pair?
>
> Hope this is clear enough to figure out what I'm struggling with.
>
> Thanks for your assistance
>
> George Ackerman
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
Subject: | Re: De-Rate Mini Switches? |
Higher rated switches are available, but I do not what physical size you
are referring to so I do not know if they meet your size requirements.
As far as AC43-13 goes, the derating factors there are for maximizing
the life of a switch used for a particular application. Since you have
a 12V system and since a lot of your loads are effectively resistive,
there is no derating there anyway. If you (religiously!) use a diode on
each and every relay or coil, then the diode is absorbing the energy
that would normally go into the switch at turnoff so the switch should
not need to be derated there either. Switches controlling motors should
be derated since it is difficult to predict what transients the motors
might generate at turn-on or turn-off. Lamps draw enormous currents at
turn-on so the switch should be derated appropriately or you might find
that you cannot turn it off after the contacts weld together. Of
course, if you have a "keep alive" or a "soft start" circuit for the
lamp filaments, that eliminates the turn-on surge.
Is a particular switch essential to the completion of the flight? Then
derate it appropriately. If not, then use your best judgement and
common sense.
Dick Tasker
Tinnemaha wrote:
>
>Thank You Richard,
>
>I will not put more than 4 Amps on one of these switches even in my 14 V system.
Can you tell me if higher rated mini switches are available? Where?
>
>What about the de-rating of switches mentioned in AC 43-13? Do you follow that
or is it too conservative?
>
> Grant
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Shop Light Interference with Radio |
>
>
>Hi listers, I've been lurking a bit recently as my project gets into the
>'lectrical phase, and have been perusing Bob's various diagrams and options
>over the last several months. Today, though, I have a more generalized
>question. I have commercial flourescent lights with electronic ballasts in
>my shop, and while they do a good job and are efficient, they also generate
>a hell of a lot of noise on the shop FM radio. Any suggestions on how to
>cure this, so I can listen to more than one station? Reception is great
>with the lights off, but with them on its a real bear - moving the radio and
>power cord around don't do much..... TIA
Have the same problem in a lab out at RAC . . . put up an outside
antenna with coax to bring signals into receiver. Extra signal +
more distance from interference did the trick.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
Subject: | Z-14 AND the RV6A (or 7A) ???? |
Are you using "Z-14 (Dual/Dual)"??
If so, how did you handle running the wire for interconnects?
Thanks,
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
> Pack
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 7:25 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-14 AND the RV6A (or 7A) ????
>
>
>
> In the 9A, Vans puts the battery on the engine side of the
> firewall, pilots
> side. I just added another battery on the CoPilot's side, same
> place. 17AH
> batteries each.
>
> - Jim
>
>
> > Van's now mounts the battery on the firewall (under the cowl).
> >
> > That is what we did on our "6" (done before Van did his) and I wish to
> mount
> > on the firewall this time, thus the problem.
> >
> > If I were to put the inside the cabin on the floor next to the firewall
> all
> > would be fine but I have this other "preference".
> >
> > James
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: De-Rate Mini Switches? |
>
>
>Higher rated switches are available, but I do not what physical size you
>are referring to so I do not know if they meet your size requirements.
>
>As far as AC43-13 goes, the derating factors there are for maximizing
>the life of a switch used for a particular application. Since you have
>a 12V system and since a lot of your loads are effectively resistive,
>there is no derating there anyway. If you (religiously!) use a diode on
>each and every relay or coil, then the diode is absorbing the energy
>that would normally go into the switch at turnoff so the switch should
>not need to be derated there either. Switches controlling motors should
>be derated since it is difficult to predict what transients the motors
>might generate at turn-on or turn-off. Lamps draw enormous currents at
>turn-on so the switch should be derated appropriately or you might find
>that you cannot turn it off after the contacts weld together. Of
>course, if you have a "keep alive" or a "soft start" circuit for the
>lamp filaments, that eliminates the turn-on surge.
>
>Is a particular switch essential to the completion of the flight?
Name a switch falls into this category . . .
>Then derate it appropriately. If not, then use your best judgement and
>common sense.
Most switches in light aircraft die of old age with fewer
than 10% of the manufacturer's rated operations.
De-rating is a useful thing to do for a commercial
airplane that sees perhaps 10-30 operating cycles per day. Owner
operated light aircraft see typically 50-100 operations per
YEAR . . . works out to .15 to .3 operations per day.
The guts of switches offered from B&C's website catalog
are the same as the rockers installed in single engine
Cessnas back in the 60's . . . the vast majority of those
ORIGINAL switches are still in service. Using miniature
switches is a whole new ball-game that may indeed call
for buffering (relay) for known high-stress tasks
like pitot heat and big lamps.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Pack" <jpack(at)igs3.com> |
Subject: | Re: Z-14 AND the RV6A (or 7A) ???? |
I put the battery contactors at the top of the firewall with the crossfeed
contactor between the battery contactors. The batteries are on the lower
two sides of the firewall.
- Jim
>
> Are you using "Z-14 (Dual/Dual)"??
>
> If so, how did you handle running the wire for interconnects?
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
> >
> > In the 9A, Vans puts the battery on the engine side of the
> > firewall, pilots
> > side. I just added another battery on the CoPilot's side, same
> > place. 17AH
> > batteries each.
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Wire bundles through firewall . . . |
A few days ago, a general question popped up about wire bundles
through the firewall with specific question about EMI problems
that drive a requirement to separate some bundles. I put off
answering the question until after finishing the comic book
at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
. . . but now, I can't find the original message. If the
questioner is on the list, check out the link above and know
that this particular airplane runs ALL wires that pass through
the firewall in the same bundle. The firewall fitting illustrated
is the only one on the airplane for wires. Everything else goes
through eye-balls or all metal bulkhead fittings for fluid
lines. There are no concerns for inter-system interference
by virtue of having routed all the wires together (This
is another thing that DO-160 does for us).
Some folks are enamored of putting connectors in
wire bundles so that removing an engine doesn't require
so much attention to disconnecting and re-connecting
individual conductors. For a time, Lancair even provided/
recommended an AMP CPC bulkhead feed-through for this
purpose. I wouldn't recommend any kind of plastic fitting
through a firewall.
If you want to include convenience connectors in large
wire count bundles, CPC connectors are fine but make
them cable/cable connectors pendant on a short bundle
of wires inside the engine compartment. You can wrap this
junction with a couple of layers of silicone guide-line
tape to reduce effects of environment on the connector.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Neville Kilford" <nkilford(at)etravel.org> |
Subject: | Aerial spacing requirements |
Hello all,
I'm currently building a Jodel D150 (2-seat side-by-side wooden tourer) in
the UK, and just running some cabling through the back of the plane before
sheeting over the turtledeck.
I'm mounting the aerials (transponder, NAV, COM) inside the fuselage, but I
can't find any information about aerial spacing. Is it critical for the
aerials to be a certain distance apart or will they work alright if they're
close together?
Any advice or information would be much appreciated. Many thanks in
anticipation.
Kind regards.
Neville Kilford
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MikeEasley(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: fast on connectors |
I agree with Bob that we sometimes spend too much time trying to improve
something that doesn't really need improving. But that's the way we
experimental aircraft builders think. I, personally, don't like
experimenting too much on my experimental aircraft. From the outset, I
purchased a Palladin CrimpALL ratcheting crimper with interchangable dies. I
have 6 sets of dies now and won't crimp anything on my aircraft without the
right size connector pin, and the right die set. We talk a lot on here about
failure points. I trying really hard to eliminate ME as a failure point by
using the right wire, connectors, tools, etc. AND not straying away from
proven techniques.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
\"aeroelectric-list\""
Subject: | What magnetic heading input? |
Just visited your web site ( http://www.fdatasystems.com/contact_information.htm
). Noticed the "winds" calculation feature. Didn't see a "magnetic heading"
input to the box, which is a "traditional" requirement to calculate winds.
Do you calculate wind differently, having enough other data, using ground track
and ground speed from GPS and TAS to calculate backwards to get "wind speed
and direction"?
If you can do this then you should also be able to calculate "mag heading" and
display it. Would be a nice poor man's stabilized mag compass - airborne only
- (based on GPS & ADC TAS info).
- Stabilized mag compass systems are quite expensive - this "solid state"
"back door calculated value" method would be a real financial boon to the homebuilt
aircraft market.
- When you package it in a round case, you could provide an analog type display
of a "gyro compass", in addition to the other items you already plan to
display. That way, I could select the "round dial stabilized mag compass" page
and put the instrument right below my attitude indicator to use as my "gyro
compass" in the instrument cross check.
David Carter
409-722-7259
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: fast on connectors |
>
>I agree with Bob that we sometimes spend too much time trying to improve
>something that doesn't really need improving. But that's the way we
>experimental aircraft builders think. I, personally, don't like
>experimenting too much on my experimental aircraft. From the outset, I
>purchased a Palladin CrimpALL ratcheting crimper with interchangable dies. I
>have 6 sets of dies now and won't crimp anything on my aircraft without the
>right size connector pin, and the right die set. We talk a lot on here about
>failure points. I trying really hard to eliminate ME as a failure point by
>using the right wire, connectors, tools, etc. AND not straying away from
>proven techniques.
Incremental changes are the core of considered experimentation.
Burt Rutan used to advise "Wanna work on a new engine? Bolt
it to a C-172, Wanna build a new airplane? Bolt a Lycoming into
it." I'm paraphrasing but I think the meaning is clear. The
way to deal with a new idea is to incorporate it into a system
that is already stable. Once you're a few feet off the
ground, overall system stability is of paramount importance.
The prudent design and testing philosophy minimizes the numbers
of things which place pilot and machine at risk for any given
investigation.
I'm not suggesting that the thread discussing terminal
alternatives produced any threat or increased risk. In
fact, Figure 9-3 in the 'Connection illustrates a similar,
alternative technique which has been used for years to produce
entirely satisfactory terminal installations using solder
no less. My briefcase toolbox has a gas powered soldering
iron in it. I wouldn't hesitate to effect a field repair
on a wire using solder -OR- crimp on a bare terminal supported
with heat-shrink. I wouldn't worry about replacing the
terminal with PIDG when the airplane reaches friendlier
shop facilities.
Dan's suggestion is yet another alternative thoughtfully
reviewed and tested in his shop.
My thoughts about using this or any similar technique
for terminal installation IN ADDITION to PIDG technology
wasn't attractive. If you already have a PIDG tool for
small terminals, then a conscious effort to mix in another
technology that called for another tool wasn't cost/labor
effective.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
"aeroelectric-list"
Subject: | Fw: What magnetic heading input? |
For RV-list and Aeroelectric, here's the response re "magnetic heading" and
"wind" - reply is from the ADC vendor
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Newman" <support(at)fdatasystems.com>
Subject: Re: What magnetic heading input?
> David,
>
> Thanks for your question.
>
> There are three values the user must input to our
> unit. Heading, Barometric Pressure and Fuel added to
> tanks. When the "wind" page is selected on the
> AFP-30, the heading will initially show the GPS track.
> The user must then adjust it a few degrees to agree
> with his magnetic compass or DG to get an accurate
> winds aloft reading.
>
> I wish we could find the heading via a "back door"
> method, but it is not mathematically possible. We are
> searching for an economical magnetic heading sensor to
> feed realtime heading to our computer and perhaps a
> stand alone indicator as you suggested. For now it
> will require a small turn of the knob.
>
>
> Thanks for your interest,
>
> Charles Newman
> 831-662-9502
>
>
> --- David Carter wrote:
> > Just visited your web site (
> > http://www.fdatasystems.com/contact_information.htm
> > ). Noticed the "winds" calculation feature. Didn't
> > see a "magnetic heading" input to the box, which is
> > a "traditional" requirement to calculate winds. Do
> > you calculate wind differently, having enough other
> > data, using ground track and ground speed from GPS
> > and TAS to calculate backwards to get "wind speed
> > and direction"?
> >
> > If you can do this then you should also be able to
> > calculate "mag heading" and display it. Would be a
> > nice poor man's stabilized mag compass - airborne
> > only - (based on GPS & ADC TAS info).
> > - Stabilized mag compass systems are quite
> > expensive - this "solid state" "back door calculated
> > value" method would be a real financial boon to the
> > homebuilt aircraft market.
> > - When you package it in a round case, you
> > could provide an analog type display of a "gyro
> > compass", in addition to the other items you already
> > plan to display. That way, I could select the
> > "round dial stabilized mag compass" page and put the
> > instrument right below my attitude indicator to use
> > as my "gyro compass" in the instrument cross check.
> >
> > David Carter
> > 409-722-7259
> >
>
>
> =====
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Thread creep . . . |
There's been a rash of new messages to the list generated
by simply hitting "reply" to a message with an un-related
topic in the subject line. This makes it difficult for folks
too follow a specific conversation . . . it also places
the new message at risk of being ignored by folks who are
not participating in the topic listed in the subject line.
If you want to open a new topic, do you fellow list members and
yourself a favor . . . edit the subject line to reflect the
nature of your new topic.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Thomas Johnson" <thomas.r.johnson(at)attbi.com> |
Subject: | gps noise in intercom |
I have a handheld Garmin 196 gps mounted on the panel which is causing a faint
hum in the intercom. It sounds like about 2400hz and it is not strong enough
to break squelch but can be heard whenever squelch is broken. This is something
I could ignore but I would really like to know what is going on here. Here
are a few other data points:
1) The on/off state of other panel items has no effect.
2) Unplugging the gps remote antenna has no effect.
3) Unplugging the gps power cord (gps now on internal battery) reduces the noise
slightly.
4) Changing gps backlight state has no effect.
5) As I move my hand closer to the gps unit the noise gets louder, as I pull my
hand away it gets softer.
6) It occurs with both my Lightspeed QFR and Peltor 7004 headsets, but it is worse
with the Peltor.
It seems the Garmin 196 is radiating something through my body and it ends up as
an audible hum in the intercom. Any comments or suggestions on this?
Tom Johnson, RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Fw: What magnetic heading input? |
>
>
>For RV-list and Aeroelectric, here's the response re "magnetic heading" and
>"wind" - reply is from the ADC vendor
>
>David
Dave, thanks for rattling his cage and publishing the results.
Good info . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Julia <wings97302(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Need Help Understanding the electrical Diagram? |
Dear Bob:
Pardon my primitive electrical questions, but I started out wiring My RV following
your ideas and need some basic help getting the groundwork layed once my
basic circuits are layed I think I can take it from there. I really hate to
ask all this, but I really need some guidance here. The diagram Im following
has the following headings: Typical Wiring for Internal Regulator & OVM Installation
& Page 2.0 revised 2/20/01.
Questions:
1. The Alternator Disconnect (S701-1) the two small terminals, they are
not marked, does it matter which way they are used? Like the right might be
used as the top on the diagram or it could be used as the bottom one?
2. Out of the Starter Contactor (top Right of diagram) the upper small
terminal line goes to a sqwiggly line does that mean it goes to the Main buss
which also has a sqwiggly line at the bottom?
3. Out of the Battery Contactor (upper Left of diagram) you have a line
which goes to a 20 AWG fuselink then to a dot with an X whats the dot & X
all about? And where does it go to?
4. Is the OVM-14 the same thing as a Crowbar OV protection module mentioned
in other diagrams?
5. How do I fit an Essential bus into this picture? My guess is as follows:
run a line from the Main buss shown in the diagram to a diode and then
to the E-Bus. Then from the Positive side of the battery, I just run line with
a fusable link in it and then a switch and then to the E-Bus hey thats about
what it looks like comes out of the Battery Contactor (Left side top terminal)
the line with the black dot and X - is that what thats all about? (ref. item
3 above).
6. On the Battery/alternator Master Switch pins #3 and #6 do not go anywhere?
Whats up with that? Are they not used for this layout just left blank?
Ive already mounted some items and begun wiring so I really need to proceed with
this layout. Your help would be much appreciated.
Thanks.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "MARK H DELANO" <delano60(at)email.msn.com> |
I recently purchased a $300 non TSOd electric turn and bank. The unit is very small
and looks great, however when the com is turned on it sounds like a vacuum
cleaner. I have never heard RF interference to this extreme. Any suggestions
as to a fix. I placed a .01 cap across the power with no change. Is this typical
of these inexpensive turn & banks.
Thanks
Mark Delano
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Noise & Wire Routing |
My shielded strobe wires are going be about 6 inches from my Com antenna
cable (RG-400) at the closest point. Will this be ok?
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: RF interference |
>
>
>I recently purchased a $300 non TSOd electric turn and bank. The unit is
>very small and looks great, however when the com is turned on it sounds
>like a vacuum cleaner. I have never heard RF interference to this extreme.
>Any suggestions as to a fix. I placed a .01 cap across the power with no
>change. Is this typical of these inexpensive turn & banks.
Most of these devices will give it up to a line noise
filter. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/filter/filter.html
don't forget to download the linked wiring diagram at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/filter/filter.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aerial spacing requirements |
>
>
>Hello all,
>
>I'm currently building a Jodel D150 (2-seat side-by-side wooden tourer) in
>the UK, and just running some cabling through the back of the plane before
>sheeting over the turtledeck.
>
>I'm mounting the aerials (transponder, NAV, COM) inside the fuselage, but I
>can't find any information about aerial spacing. Is it critical for the
>aerials to be a certain distance apart or will they work alright if they're
>close together?
>
>Any advice or information would be much appreciated. Many thanks in
>anticipation.
>
>Kind regards.
>Neville Kilford
Every manufacturer of a device that uses an antenna will
tell you that the best performance will be had if HIS
antenna is at least 100 yards away from everyone else's
antenna. Given that we're wiring airplanes instead of football
fields, you just do the best you can. It's a good idea to
keep antennas of near frequency (nav and comm, transponder and
dme) as far from each other as practical . . . but they
work quite happily near antennas that are several factors
away in operating frequency.
Antennas on an airplane don't have to be ideal. Virtually
all aviation radio services are line of sight. Your radios
would perform at some useful level using a wet string hung
out the window. Putting a "more efficient" antenna on will
only make things better . . . don't loose any sleep over
how much abuse you're heaping on the radios by making
them share limited antenna space on your airframe.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Need Help Understanding the electrical |
Diagram?
>
>
>Dear Bob:
>
>
>Pardon my primitive electrical questions, but I started out wiring My RV
>following your ideas and need some basic help getting the groundwork
>layed once my basic circuits are layed I think I can take it from
>there. I really hate to ask all this, but I really need some guidance
>here. The diagram Im following has the following headings: Typical Wiring
>for Internal Regulator & OVM Installation & Page 2.0 revised 2/20/01.
>
>
>Questions:
>
>1. The Alternator Disconnect (S701-1) the two small terminals,
>they are not marked, does it matter which way they are used? Like the
>right might be used as the top on the diagram or it could be used as the
>bottom one?
>
>
>2. Out of the Starter Contactor (top Right of diagram) the upper
>small terminal line goes to a sqwiggly line does that mean it goes to the
>Main buss which also has a sqwiggly line at the bottom?
>
>
>3. Out of the Battery Contactor (upper Left of diagram) you have
>a line which goes to a 20 AWG fuselink then to a dot with an X whats the
>dot & X all about? And where does it go to?
>
>
>4. Is the OVM-14 the same thing as a Crowbar OV protection module
>mentioned in other diagrams?
>
>
>5. How do I fit an Essential bus into this picture? My guess is
>as follows: run a line from the Main buss shown in the diagram to a diode
>and then to the E-Bus. Then from the Positive side of the battery, I just
>run line with a fusable link in it and then a switch and then to the
>E-Bus hey thats about what it looks like comes out of the Battery
>Contactor (Left side top terminal) the line with the black dot and X -
>is that what thats all about? (ref. item 3 above).
First, keep in mind that all of our drawings are COLLECTIONS of features,
not all of which may apply to your project. You need to make a list of
electrical items in your airplane and decide if they will be powered from
the main bus, e-bus or battery bus.
Let's ignore the drawings that come with the OVM-14 . . . they need to
be very generic and cover as many bases as possible because the OVM-14
gets installed in a LOT of different airplanes.
Let's start with the latest Figure 11 which is being prepared for
Rev 11 of the book. Download it from
http://216.55.140.222/temp/z11h.pdf
. . . start over and develop you list of questions from this drawing
only . . .
>6. On the Battery/alternator Master Switch pins #3 and #6 do not
>go anywhere? Whats up with that? Are they not used for this layout just
>left blank?
Yes, connections cited but unconnected are treated just as they
are shown . . . no connection.
>Ive already mounted some items and begun wiring so I really need to
>proceed with this layout. Your help would be much appreciated.
Okay, let's drop back a few steps and start over. Get
the drawing cited above. . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
Subject: | gps noise in intercom |
Shoot. I have a panel mounted 196 also. I don't have enough of the
wiring done to test this condition, but hope to soon. Let us know what
you learn.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
2003 - The year of flight!
> -----Original Message-----
> -->
>
> I have a handheld Garmin 196 gps mounted on the panel which
> is causing a faint hum in the intercom. It sounds like about
> 2400hz and it is not strong enough to break squelch but can
> be heard whenever squelch is broken. This is something I
> could ignore but I would really like to know what is going on
> here. Here are a few other data points:
>
> 1) The on/off state of other panel items has no effect.
> 2) Unplugging the gps remote antenna has no effect.
> 3) Unplugging the gps power cord (gps now on internal
> battery) reduces the noise slightly.
> 4) Changing gps backlight state has no effect.
> 5) As I move my hand closer to the gps unit the noise gets
> louder, as I pull my hand away it gets softer.
> 6) It occurs with both my Lightspeed QFR and Peltor 7004
> headsets, but it is worse with the Peltor.
>
> It seems the Garmin 196 is radiating something through my
> body and it ends up as an audible hum in the intercom. Any
> comments or suggestions on this?
>
> Tom Johnson, RV6
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: gps noise in intercom |
<>
Interesting. I had a borrowed Garmin 195 strapped to my leg
while flying an open biplane to OSH a few years ago. No intercom, just a
David Clark headset patched to an Icom handheld. Kept hearing a strange
"zing, zing" kind of noise, and finally figured out it got louder when I
moved the headset closer to the GPS. Haven't thought about it since.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
It should be pointed out that LEDs that have high luminous output always have low
angular coverage, since one is dependent on the other. Whenever one sees "6000
mcd" the small print says "10 degrees". The LEDs needed for Nav (or other
beacon lamps) are very wide angle, NOT high brightness. The high brightness/small
angle lamps are only good for flashlights (Okay...great flashlights...!).
For a (simple) engineering discussion of using LEDs in Nav lights and how to calculate
the basics, see my website www.PerihelionDesign.com under Builders Aids.
Thanks Jerzy Krasinski for the eBay LED site. Good source.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
Subject: | Re: Wire bundles through firewall . . . |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>A few days ago, a general question popped up about wire bundles
>through the firewall with specific question about EMI problems
>that drive a requirement to separate some bundles. I put off
>answering the question until after finishing the comic book
>at
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>
>. . . but now, I can't find the original message. If the
>questioner is on the list, check out the link above and know
>that this particular airplane runs ALL wires that pass through
>the firewall in the same bundle. The firewall fitting illustrated
>is the only one on the airplane for wires. Everything else goes
>through eye-balls or all metal bulkhead fittings for fluid
>lines. There are no concerns for inter-system interference
>by virtue of having routed all the wires together (This
>is another thing that DO-160 does for us).
>
>Some folks are enamored of putting connectors in
>wire bundles so that removing an engine doesn't require
>so much attention to disconnecting and re-connecting
>individual conductors. For a time, Lancair even provided/
>recommended an AMP CPC bulkhead feed-through for this
>purpose. I wouldn't recommend any kind of plastic fitting
>through a firewall.
>
>If you want to include convenience connectors in large
>wire count bundles, CPC connectors are fine but make
>them cable/cable connectors pendant on a short bundle
>of wires inside the engine compartment. You can wrap this
>junction with a couple of layers of silicone guide-line
>tape to reduce effects of environment on the connector.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
FWIW, in the non-aviation world, cross-talk reduction among various
cables is normally handled by having the cables cross rather than
parallel each other. The premise is that this minimizes electromagnetic
coupling between the wires. I would think that various cables
converging at a single hole in the firewall and then diverging on the
other side would approximate this technique.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
Subject: | Re: Radio Wiring question |
Vince Ackerman wrote:
>
>Charlie
>
>Thanks for the info!
>
>The wiring diagram for the 250xl comm shows the 2 Comm audio leads
>coming out as a hi and low, both going to an "audio panel." It doesn't
>really specify what goes to what. It also shows the shield wire, with a
>note to ground the shield at the audio panel. On the shield end of the
>250xl, the diagram indicates that the shield doesn't appear to be
>connected to anything, unlike other shields such as the Mic. Should I
>assume the shield for the comm goes to ground with the rest (the black
>and shield wires on the DRE)? It's a little confusing how this works.
>
It's quite likely that 'hi & lo' are audio & audio return if they are
both routed to the audio panel. Use an ohm meter to check for continuity
between the 'low' wire & ground in the 250. A reading anywhere near
zero means it's the return for the 'hi' wire.
I would tie the shield to the audio panel ground if that's specified in
the 250's diagram.
>
>The DRE does override the passenger audio. Both wire bundles for the
>Pilot and Pax go past the control sticks so instead of running wires
>back from the jacks by the headrests I was just going to splice into
>the bundles near each stick to go to the PTT 's on the grips.
>
That should work fine.
>
>Thanks
>
>George
>
>On Sunday, Mar 2, 2003, at 11:38 US/Pacific, Charlie & Tupper England
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi usually means audio; low usually means audio return or audio ground.
>>Look at the radio's hookup diagram & be sure they aren't sending the
>>'high' to a speaker & the 'low' to the headphones.
>>
>>Audio 'grounds' are usually kept isolated from the airframe to prevent
>>'ground loops', or noise in the audio circuits.
>>
>>Hard to say about the unlabeled shield; it could be intended to provide
>>noise shielding for the audio output wires & left floating at the
>>other end.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Noise & Wire Routing |
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>My shielded strobe wires are going be about 6 inches from my Com antenna
>cable (RG-400) at the closest point. Will this be ok?
>
Sure . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Wire bundles through firewall . . . |
>
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
>FWIW, in the non-aviation world, cross-talk reduction among various
>cables is normally handled by having the cables cross rather than
>parallel each other. The premise is that this minimizes electromagnetic
>coupling between the wires. I would think that various cables
>converging at a single hole in the firewall and then diverging on the
>other side would approximate this technique.
>
>Charlie
Never encountered an interference problem that propagated
across parallel cables where the cables are carefully
configured . . . twisted pair, properly shielded, etc.
There are many systems aboard an aircraft that are
FORCED to share wire routing. DO-160 requirements
put considerable emphasis on designing it right the
first time.
It really isn't hard or expensive to do . . .
It's so routine that one seldom even thinks about
it in the process of configuring a new product
for aviation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
Over the years, I've been able to supply a number of
pin-out diagrams for some of the golden oldie radios
and a few of the newer ones as well. I've placed a
compendium of recent requests on:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data
If you don't find what you need there at any time, drop
me a note and I'll see if I can add your request to
the archive. This is a permanent addition to the
website.
Also, the latest CD_Rom has been uploaded to
http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC7_1.zip
Would be interested in getting feedback from folks
who have successfully downloaded and unpacked the
latest edition.
Thanks!
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
Downloaded just fine. Unzipped just fine. Thanks!
Using Internet Explorer 6.0 and Winzip.
Ned
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: New Feature on aeroelectric.com
>
> Over the years, I've been able to supply a number of
> pin-out diagrams for some of the golden oldie radios
> and a few of the newer ones as well. I've placed a
> compendium of recent requests on:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data
>
> If you don't find what you need there at any time, drop
> me a note and I'll see if I can add your request to
> the archive. This is a permanent addition to the
> website.
>
> Also, the latest CD_Rom has been uploaded to
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC7_1.zip
>
>
> Would be interested in getting feedback from folks
> who have successfully downloaded and unpacked the
> latest edition.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Wingtip VHF antenna in carbon fiber airplane |
Hi Bob and all,
We're building a carbon fiber kit. We would like to install the VHF antenna
in one of the glass fiber wingtips. The wingtip shape is similar to a large
'horn' with a sweeping curve from horizontal at the end of the wing, to
vertical.
In my opinion, the antenna in itself should not be much of a problem, but
what about the ground plane ? The curved form of the wingtip may provide a
very odd form for the conductive strips.
Maybe I could send Bob a photo of the wingtip to clarify things.
Any advice ?
Thanks,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MikeEasley(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Noise & Wire Routing |
Lancairs have been running the wingtip strobe and nav antenna cables through
a 1" conduit for years, haven't heard of any real problems. Most guys use
RG58U. That's almost 15' of parallel contact.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Freddie Freeloader <lists(at)stevet.net> |
Subject: | Re: New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
Hello Robert,
Monday, March 3, 2003, 9:46:22 PM, you wrote:
<>
RLNI> Also, the latest CD_Rom has been uploaded to
RLNI> http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC7_1.zip
RLNI> Would be interested in getting feedback from folks
RLNI> who have successfully downloaded and unpacked the
RLNI> latest edition.
RLNI> Thanks!
RLNI> Bob . . .
I downloaded and unzipped just fine. Download speed was
intermittent but I got the whole thing in 6 minutes. Using
Mozilla 1.2.1 browser and WinRAR to unpack on a Cox cable
modem. Looks real good.
Thanks so much for all you do, Bob.
--
Best regards,
Freddie mailto:lists(at)stevet.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
Subject: | New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
Was able to download. Just clicked on the URL.
Took about 12 minutes I think (RoadRunner Cable modem)
UNZIP seems to have worked.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
> L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 12:46 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: New Feature on aeroelectric.com
>
>
> III"
>
> Over the years, I've been able to supply a number of
> pin-out diagrams for some of the golden oldie radios
> and a few of the newer ones as well. I've placed a
> compendium of recent requests on:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data
>
> If you don't find what you need there at any time, drop
> me a note and I'll see if I can add your request to
> the archive. This is a permanent addition to the
> website.
>
> Also, the latest CD_Rom has been uploaded to
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC7_1.zip
>
>
> Would be interested in getting feedback from folks
> who have successfully downloaded and unpacked the
> latest edition.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Radio Wiring question |
From: | Vince Ackerman <vack(at)mac.com> |
I talked to a guy at Garmin and DRE today. The DRE guy had me check the
same thing on the audio low with respect to continuity. It doesn't
appear to be a ground. Then after talking to the Garmin tech rep I
found that the low comes off a transformer to act as a sort of noise
filter and therefore won't show continuity. He said it "floats" and I
should connect it also to the intercom ground. I'm going to finish
hooking it up today and see if it works.
Thanks again for all the good info
George
On Monday, Mar 3, 2003, at 18:58 US/Pacific, Charlie & Tupper England
wrote:
>>
>> The wiring diagram for the 250xl comm shows the 2 Comm audio leads
>> coming out as a hi and low, both going to an "audio panel." It
>> doesn't
>> really specify what goes to what. It also shows the shield wire, with
>> a
>> note to ground the shield at the audio panel. On the shield end of the
>> 250xl, the diagram indicates that the shield doesn't appear to be
>> connected to anything, unlike other shields such as the Mic. Should I
>> assume the shield for the comm goes to ground with the rest (the black
>> and shield wires on the DRE)? It's a little confusing how this works.
>>
> It's quite likely that 'hi & lo' are audio & audio return if they are
> both routed to the audio panel. Use an ohm meter to check for
> continuity
> between the 'low' wire & ground in the 250. A reading anywhere near
> zero means it's the return for the 'hi' wire.
> I would tie the shield to the audio panel ground if that's specified in
> the 250's diagram.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Julia <wings97302(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Need Help Understanding the electrical Diagram? |
March 4, 2003
Dear Bob:
OK Ill go with this diagram (Z-11 Ref. 03/03/03).
Question #1. Can I run the F output on the Alternator to the #4 pin on the Master
Switch (thereby eliminating the voltage regulator). My alternator already
has a built in regulator its an auto alternator one which Im told has been
good in experimentals (I dont know off the top of my head exactly what it is).
#2. Is the line out of the B lead on the Alternator the line on which the Ampmeter
Shunt would go? Also, you show an ANL60 I already own an ANL80 (off another
diagram I was following) is that ok?
Thanks.
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
>
>Dear Bob:
>
>
>Pardon my primitive electrical questions, but I started out wiring My RV
>following your ideas and need some basic help getting the groundwork
>layed once my basic circuits are layed I think I can take it from
>there. I really hate to ask all this, but I really need some guidance
>here. The diagram Im following has the following headings: Typical Wiring
>for Internal Regulator & OVM Installation & Page 2.0 revised 2/20/01.
>
>
>Questions:
>
>1. The Alternator Disconnect (S701-1) the two small terminals,
>they are not marked, does it matter which way they are used? Like the
>right might be used as the top on the diagram or it could be used as the
>bottom one?
>
>
>2. Out of the Starter Contactor (top Right of diagram) the upper
>small terminal line goes to a sqwiggly line does that mean it goes to the
>Main buss which also has a sqwiggly line at the bottom?
>
>
>3. Out of the Battery Contactor (upper Left of diagram) you have
>a line which goes to a 20 AWG fuselink then to a dot with an X whats the
>dot & X all about? And where does it go to?
>
>
>4. Is the OVM-14 the same thing as a Crowbar OV protection module
>mentioned in other diagrams?
>
>
>5. How do I fit an Essential bus into this picture? My guess is
>as follows: run a line from the Main buss shown in the diagram to a diode
>and then to the E-Bus. Then from the Positive side of the battery, I just
>run line with a fusable link in it and then a switch and then to the
>E-Bus hey thats about what it looks like comes out of the Battery
>Contactor (Left side top terminal) the line with the black dot and X -
>is that what thats all about? (ref. item 3 above).
First, keep in mind that all of our drawings are COLLECTIONS of features,
not all of which may apply to your project. You need to make a list of
electrical items in your airplane and decide if they will be powered from
the main bus, e-bus or battery bus.
Let's ignore the drawings that come with the OVM-14 . . . they need to
be very generic and cover as many bases as possible because the OVM-14
gets installed in a LOT of different airplanes.
Let's start with the latest Figure 11 which is being prepared for
Rev 11 of the book. Download it from
http://216.55.140.222/temp/z11h.pdf
. . . start over and develop you list of questions from this drawing
only . . .
>6. On the Battery/alternator Master Switch pins #3 and #6 do not
>go anywhere? Whats up with that? Are they not used for this layout just
>left blank?
Yes, connections cited but unconnected are treated just as they
are shown . . . no connection.
>Ive already mounted some items and begun wiring so I really need to
>proceed with this layout. Your help would be much appreciated.
Okay, let's drop back a few steps and start over. Get
the drawing cited above. . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
Bob,
I downloaded it and open it up. Do you really need to have AEC7_0.zip in
there also?
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)direcway.com> |
Subject: | Re: New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
Well, I was less lucky.
The AEC7_1.zip file was loaded with NETSCAPE, size over a Mb, but trying
to unzip it with WINZIP I got a SCREENSAVER! What?! I repeated
loading with EXPLORER and the result was the same - another SCREENSAVER .
Will try later on another computer.
Jerzy.
>
>RLNI> http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC7_1.zip
>
>
>RLNI> Would be interested in getting feedback from folks
>RLNI> who have successfully downloaded and unpacked the
>RLNI> latest edition.
>
>RLNI> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
Subject: | New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
Bob,
It worked fine for me. IE 6 and winzip.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerzy
Krasinski
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: New Feature on aeroelectric.com
Well, I was less lucky.
The AEC7_1.zip file was loaded with NETSCAPE, size over a Mb, but trying
to unzip it with WINZIP I got a SCREENSAVER! What?! I repeated
loading with EXPLORER and the result was the same - another SCREENSAVER
.
Will try later on another computer.
Jerzy.
>
>RLNI> http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC7_1.zip
>
>
>RLNI> Would be interested in getting feedback from folks
>RLNI> who have successfully downloaded and unpacked the
>RLNI> latest edition.
>
>RLNI> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | switch mounting nuts |
this feels like a dumb question, but what do you do with the second nut on
toggle switches? My guess is that it's probably for spacing the switch
somehow, but if I just want to mount the switches flush against the panel do
I still need it?
ignorant minds want to know. . .
Robert Dickson
RV-6A electrical
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: switch mounting nuts |
><robert@thenews-journal.com>
>
>this feels like a dumb question, but what do you do with the second nut on
>toggle switches? My guess is that it's probably for spacing the switch
>somehow, but if I just want to mount the switches flush against the panel do
>I still need it?
>
>ignorant minds want to know. . .
You should not put any tension on the bushing-to-switch-housing
interface. All clamp-up forces that mount a switch to the
panel should be carried between two nuts on the bushing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
>
>
>Well, I was less lucky.
>The AEC7_1.zip file was loaded with NETSCAPE, size over a Mb, but trying
>to unzip it with WINZIP I got a SCREENSAVER! What?! I repeated
>loading with EXPLORER and the result was the same - another SCREENSAVER .
>Will try later on another computer.
>Jerzy.
Right-Click the link and tell your browser where to store it
on your hard drive. The finished file should be on the order of
130 Megabytes. Dunno about the screensaver . . . that's a new
one on me.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Calling Paul Bowmar . . . |
If anyone has a good e-mail address for Paul Bowmar
I'd appreciate getting it. He tried to contact me about
firewall fittings via my website e-mail queary form and
he keyed in a wrong e-mail address . . . my reply to him
bounced.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Subject: | Re: LED nav lights |
Mark,
Okay, ah..........but that's because it used to be called Builder's aids....etc.
Thanks Werner.
Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Subject: | Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
Here's my Airplane Builder's Epiphany (or it could be something I ate):
-----The extreme amount of care in putting wires through the firewall is a bogus
deal. Maybe this is left over from the days when the airplane was all wood except
the engine compartment.
Can anyone point to a single case where this care was rewarded? The auto makers
decided long ago that a little rubber and UL 94 V-O plastic bulkhead connector
was good enough. As for me, I can't imagine a fire situation where concern about
the feedthroughs would make any sense. If my engine is on fire...some fire
putty wouldn't be worth a tinker's dam (which is also made of putty...)
Opinions? Anybody been there and done that?
Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
Think "blow torch" into your lap through the hole(s) 10 seconds after your
fuel fire melts your rubber and aluminum cheapo shields.
Think "car fire in engine compartment, black spot beside hiway" where driver
pulled over and got out and watched the car burn up. Can't do that in an
airplane.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
>
> Here's my Airplane Builder's Epiphany (or it could be something I ate):
>
> -----The extreme amount of care in putting wires through the firewall is a
bogus deal. Maybe this is left over from the days when the airplane was all
wood except the engine compartment.
>
> Can anyone point to a single case where this care was rewarded? The auto
makers decided long ago that a little rubber and UL 94 V-O plastic bulkhead
connector was good enough. As for me, I can't imagine a fire situation where
concern about the feedthroughs would make any sense. If my engine is on
fire...some fire putty wouldn't be worth a tinker's dam (which is also made
of putty...)
>
> Opinions? Anybody been there and done that?
>
> Eric
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
>
>Here's my Airplane Builder's Epiphany (or it could be something I ate):
>
>-----The extreme amount of care in putting wires through the firewall is a
>bogus deal. Maybe this is left over from the days when the airplane was
>all wood except the engine compartment.
>
>Can anyone point to a single case where this care was rewarded? The auto
>makers decided long ago that a little rubber and UL 94 V-O plastic
>bulkhead connector was good enough. As for me, I can't imagine a fire
>situation where concern about the feedthroughs would make any sense. If my
>engine is on fire...some fire putty wouldn't be worth a tinker's dam
>(which is also made of putty...)
>
>Opinions? Anybody been there and done that?
>
>Eric
Fuel-fed fires are fortunately rare but when they do happen,
the potential for total loss of the day is very high. The
concern is not for "wood aft of the wirewall" but people
and hardware aft of the firewall. It doesn't take a very large hole
to admit noxious stuff into the cockpit. Make the hole larger
yet and you get flames and/or enough hot gasses to start
doing the nasty on things behind the panel . . . tefzel,
like it's cousin teflon, has hazardous products of combustion.
Here's an excerpt from Part 23 that we have to build to
for certification:
Sec. 23.1191 Firewalls.
(a) Each engine, auxiliary power unit, fuel burning heater, and other
combustion equipment, must be isolated from the rest of the airplane by
firewalls, shrouds, or equivalent means.
(b) Each firewall or shroud must be constructed so that no hazardous
quantity of liquid, gas, or flame can pass from the compartment created by
the firewall or shroud to other parts of the airplane.
(c) Each opening in the firewall or shroud must be sealed with close
fitting, fireproof grommets, bushings, or firewall fittings.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Each firewall and shroud must be fireproof and protected against
corrosion.
(f) Compliance with the criteria for fireproof materials or components must
be shown as follows:
(1) The flame to which the materials or components are subjected must be
2000 +/- 150 deg.F.
(2) Sheet materials approximately 10 inches square must be subjected to the
flame from a suitable burner.
(3) The flame must be large enough to maintain the required test
temperature over an area approximately five inches square.
(g) Firewall materials and fittings must resist flame penetration for at
least 15 minutes.
(h) The following materials may be used in firewalls or shrouds without
being tested as required by this section:
(1) Stainless steel sheet, 0.015 inch thick.
(2) Mild steel sheet (coated with aluminum or otherwise protected against
corrosion) 0.018 inch thick.
(3) Terne plate, 0.018 inch thick.
(4) Monel metal, 0.018 inch thick.
(5) Steel or copper base alloy firewall fittings.
(6) Titanium sheet, 0.016 inch thick.
The 15 minute thing was selected with two possible outcomes in
mind (1) you can get on the ground in that period of time and/or
if you have fuel shutoff valves at the firewall and the engine
shuts down, fuel flow available to feed the fire would likely
run out within 15 minutes.
I know of two in-flight fires in amateur built aircraft in the
past 5 years. Both ended poorly. In one case, the pilot exited
the aircraft at altitude (things in the cockpit too hot or
too smokey?).
It's one of those things that while rare, is not difficult
to take advantage of things learned in a century of airplane
building to mitigate the risk.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)direcway.com> |
Subject: | Re: New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
It loaded just fine on another computer. I do not understand the
reasons it did not work on the first one, which unzipped many other
programs. Probably a peculiarity of Windows.
Jerzy
Jerzy Krasinski wrote:
>
>Well, I was less lucky.
>The AEC7_1.zip file was loaded with NETSCAPE, size over a Mb, but trying
>to unzip it with WINZIP I got a SCREENSAVER! What?! I repeated
>loading with EXPLORER and the result was the same - another SCREENSAVER .
>Will try later on another computer.
>Jerzy.
>
>
>
>
>>RLNI> http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC7_1.zip
>>
>>
>>RLNI> Would be interested in getting feedback from folks
>>RLNI> who have successfully downloaded and unpacked the
>>RLNI> latest edition.
>>
>>RLNI> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
> Think "blow torch" into your lap ....
Think about putting the engine on the "Wright" end of the airplane.
John Slade
Cozy IV
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Randy Pflanzer <F1Rocket(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
Eric,
A few years ago, a new RV-8 builder/pilot had an inflight fire when his
engine put a connecting rod through the crankcase. The resulting
engine fire was catostrophic. For reasons unknown, he exited his
airplane while still in the air. Sadly, he did not survive.
I don't recall anyhting in the NTSB report to indicate that the fire
has made it's way into the cockpit. There was scortching on the right
side of his windshield and canopy.
Fires do happen. When you consider the speed at which aluminum melts,
I think some concern for protecting the integrity of the firewall is
prudent. Whether one wants to go to the extent of fabricating
stainless tubing for wire pass throughs is an individual builder
decision.
Randy
F1 Rocket #95
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2003 9:18 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
>
> Here's my Airplane Builder's Epiphany (or it could be something I
> ate):
> -----The extreme amount of care in putting wires through the
> firewall is a bogus deal. Maybe this is left over from the days
> when the airplane was all wood except the engine compartment.
>
> Can anyone point to a single case where this care was rewarded?
> The auto makers decided long ago that a little rubber and UL 94 V-
> O plastic bulkhead connector was good enough. As for me, I can't
> imagine a fire situation where concern about the feedthroughs
> would make any sense. If my engine is on fire...some fire putty
> wouldn't be worth a tinker's dam (which is also made of putty...)
>
> Opinions? Anybody been there and done that?
>
> Eric
>
>
> _-
>
======================================================================_-
= - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> _-
>
======================================================================_-
= !! NEWish !!
> _-
>
======================================================================_-
= List Related Information
> _-
> ======================================================================
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
There is a silicone that is used to seal wires through the fire wall that
will swell up and seal the opening when exposed to flame. Aircraft Spruce
sells it.
>
>Here's my Airplane Builder's Epiphany (or it could be something I ate):
>
>-----The extreme amount of care in putting wires through the firewall is a
>bogus deal. Maybe this is left over from the days when the airplane was all
>wood except the engine compartment.
>
>Can anyone point to a single case where this care was rewarded? The auto
>makers decided long ago that a little rubber and UL 94 V-O plastic bulkhead
>connector was good enough. As for me, I can't imagine a fire situation where
>concern about the feedthroughs would make any sense. If my engine is on
>fire...some fire putty wouldn't be worth a tinker's dam (which is also made
>of putty...)
>
>Opinions? Anybody been there and done that?
>
>Eric
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Subject: | Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
>Think "blow torch" into your lap through the hole(s) 10 seconds after your
>fuel fire melts your rubber and aluminum cheapo shields.
I'd rather not thanks....
>Think "car fire in engine compartment, black spot beside hiway" where driver
>pulled over and got out and watched the car burn up. Can't do that in an
>airplane.
True, but if you don't count old rotted rubber fuel hoses (like in VWs) the number
would be VERY close to zero.
Yes that's true. However, long before that, my fiberglass cowling would be gone.
And I am not saying one shouldn't take care, but I think routine modern stuff
is more than adequate. How about regular multipin bulkhead connectors (industrial,
automotive or Mil) covered with a couple wraps of NASA "Rocket Tape"--?
Have you seen some of the V0 plastic, or 3M dot paper (Nextel)? They are very
good.
>Sec. 23.1191 Firewalls
Those are the rules, but I'm not suggesting violating them. What I am saying is
that we should think about safety and fire control. NOT ( it sounds to me like)
building some kind of fireplace.
Fuel/electrical cutoff, no flammable materials in engine compartment and plumbed
fire extinguisher. That makes better sense. Thanks!
Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
Gang,
Couple years back I needed to some check firewall issues in a one-off
project for which weight was critical. Couldn't get the specific burn test
info out of the government printing office. Turned out that it wasn't very
hard to set up a simple shop test based on the regs Bob quoted.
You need a simple fixture to hold a common O/A torch with a rosebud
tip. Also a simple fixture to hold the material under test, something you
can slide forward and backward on the bench with the test material centered
in the flame. Fire up the torch, put a sheet of thin copper flashing
material in the holding fixture, slide it forward toward the flame a little
bit at a time. When it melts a hole, you've found the 2000 F position in the
flame. Without changing the torch settings, just substitute your test
material at the same position.
Copper flashing is a good calibration material. Copper melts at 1981 F.
Being thin, it responds quickly to slight changes in temperature.
So, if you really want to know how well that fire putty, magic paint,
Fiberfrax, or whatever holds up under fire....
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bill Steer" <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
I don't know if it's comparable to the material Scott mentions, but Home Depot
sells something called Fire Barrier that's used to seal openings in floors and
walls. I've seen it in both the electrical and plumbing sections. It's about
$10 a tube.
Bill
>
> There is a silicone that is used to seal wires through the fire wall that
> will swell up and seal the opening when exposed to flame. Aircraft Spruce
> sells it.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
>
>True, but if you don't count old rotted rubber fuel hoses (like in VWs)
>the number would be VERY close to zero.
>
>Yes that's true. However, long before that, my fiberglass cowling would be
>gone.
Maybe not. The distribution of combustion energy under the cowl is
affected by air-flow or lack thereof. Testing of penetrations
under 23.1191 takes the broad-brush approach and assumes
the fitting MIGHT be located in a hot spot for any particular
event. The flow of air through the cowl carries the combustion
energies with it. Stagnation of flow near the inside surface of the
cowl and in restricted volumes will drop the stresses to a small
fraction of test levels.
> And I am not saying one shouldn't take care, but I think routine modern
> stuff is more than adequate.
How big is "adequate"?
> How about regular multipin bulkhead connectors (industrial, automotive
> or Mil) covered with a couple wraps of NASA "Rocket Tape"--? Have you
> seen some of the V0 plastic, or 3M dot paper (Nextel)? They are very good.
How big is "very good"?
Not very good engineering terms.
An engineer told me of tests he conducted some years ago
on an airframe that demonstrated less than 30% of the expected
stresses hit upon certain "protected" areas on firewalls . . . I think
the upper outboard corners. This wasn't a Cessna with a floating cowl.
He was able to certify some less-robust penetration protection
based on his tests . . . The folks who are paid to worry about
such things are generally friendly to departures from generally
accepted techniques when backed by test data . . .
Got a letter from a builder who wished not to participate in this
conversation on the list. His Lancair plastic feed-thrus are now covered
with thin, stainless dog-houses that are two-piece and easily
removed to expose the connectors. He used ordinary grommets
under fire-stop to support the bundle as it exits from the
doghouse.
He hasn't tested this two-layer approach but it borrows
from proven techniques to add some protection over an
already installed connector. He allowed as how he wouldn't
use plastic again but the modification made him feel better
about the one already installed. It wouldn't be difficult
to test this approach to see if it would certify.
> >Sec. 23.1191 Firewalls
>
>Those are the rules, but I'm not suggesting violating them. What I am
>saying is that we should think about safety and fire control. NOT ( it
>sounds to me like) building some kind of fireplace.
>
>Fuel/electrical cutoff, no flammable materials in engine compartment and
>plumbed fire extinguisher. That makes better sense. Thanks!
Sure. Those firewall mounted oil filters with hoses
always gave me the willies . . . the only time I
came close to setting my car on fire was from an
atomizing sized hole in an oil line on my '41 Pontiac.
The numbers of lines and fittings under the cowl
can be reduced by design but when a rod comes
thorough the crankcase the most careful designs become moot.
Again, rare but it has happened. The neat thing I
noticed about the technique used on the airplanes-who-
shall-remain-nameless is that they stopped using
fire-stop inside the fire-sleeve . . . messy to
rework. The modified technique is simple,
maintenance friendly and easy to implement. Given
that it's so easy to do, I can conceive no
good reason not to do it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dave Grosvenor" <dwg(at)iafrica.com> |
Subject: | Re: New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
Hi Bob
Is there any chance of having a seperate zip file on the site with just the
updates from the one CD version to the next, or is that a real hassel? If
someone has downloaded 7.0, it's another big download to get 7.1.
Regards
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: New Feature on aeroelectric.com
>
> Also, the latest CD_Rom has been uploaded to
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC7_1.zip
>
>
> Would be interested in getting feedback from folks
> who have successfully downloaded and unpacked the
> latest edition.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob,
>
>I downloaded it and open it up. Do you really need to have AEC7_0.zip in
>there also?
Don't think it's in there also . . . when you put the .zip file into
a directory and unzip it, the contents end up in the same directory
unless you specify otherwise. The original .zip file is still
there when you're done.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | William Shaffer <shafferaviation(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:--> AeroElectric-List message
posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>True, but if you don't count old rotted rubber fuel hoses (like in VWs)
>the number would be VERY close to zero.
>
>Yes that's true. However, long before that, my fiberglass cowling would be
>gone.
Maybe not. The distribution of combustion energy under the cowl is
affected by air-flow or lack thereof. Testing of penetrations
under 23.1191 takes the broad-brush approach and assumes
the fitting MIGHT be located in a hot spot for any particular
event. The flow of air through the cowl carries the combustion
energies with it. Stagnation of flow near the inside surface of the
cowl and in restricted volumes will drop the stresses to a small
fraction of test levels.
> And I am not saying one shouldn't take care, but I think routine modern
> stuff is more than adequate.
How big is "adequate"?
> How about regular multipin bulkhead connectors (industrial, automotive
> or Mil) covered with a couple wraps of NASA "Rocket Tape"--? Have you
> seen some of the V0 plastic, or 3M dot paper (Nextel)? They are very good.
How big is "very good"?
Not very good engineering terms.
An engineer told me of tests he conducted some years ago
on an airframe that demonstrated less than 30% of the expected
stresses hit upon certain "protected" areas on firewalls . . . I think
the upper outboard corners. This wasn't a Cessna with a floating cowl.
He was able to certify some less-robust penetration protection
based on his tests . . . The folks who are paid to worry about
such things are generally friendly to departures from generally
accepted techniques when backed by test data . . .
Got a letter from a builder who wished not to participate in this
conversation on the list. His Lancair plastic feed-thrus are now covered
with thin, stainless dog-houses that are two-piece and easily
removed to expose the connectors. He used ordinary grommets
under fire-stop to support the bundle as it exits from the
doghouse.
He hasn't tested this two-layer approach but it borrows
from proven techniques to add some protection over an
already installed connector. He allowed as how he wouldn't
use plastic again but the modification made him feel better
about the one already installed. It wouldn't be difficult
to test this approach to see if it would certify.
> >Sec. 23.1191 Firewalls
>
>Those are the rules, but I'm not suggesting violating them. What I am
>saying is that we should think about safety and fire control. NOT ( it
>sounds to me like) building some kind of fireplace.
>
>Fuel/electrical cutoff, no flammable materials in engine compartment and
>plumbed fire extinguisher. That makes better sense. Thanks!
Sure. Those firewall mounted oil filters with hoses
always gave me the willies . . . the only time I
came close to setting my car on fire was from an
atomizing sized hole in an oil line on my '41 Pontiac.
The numbers of lines and fittings under the cowl
can be reduced by design but when a rod comes
thorough the crankcase the most careful designs become moot.
Again, rare but it has happened. The neat thing I
noticed about the technique used on the airplanes-who-
shall-remain-nameless is that they stopped using
fire-stop inside the fire-sleeve . . . messy to
rework. The modified technique is simple,
maintenance friendly and easy to implement. Given
that it's so easy to do, I can conceive no
good reason not to do it.
Bob . . .
As an old drag racer from the 60's and 70's AA/FUEL ALTERED AND AA/FUEL DRAGSTER
owner and driver, I have ridden more than one car down with a fuel fire and
I had a nomix fire suit it is no fun I will do every thing posable to keep fire
out of the cockpit
W.P. Shaffer
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
I used winzip to look at what was there. I clicked on size and aec7_0.zip
shows up near the end with a size of 20,663,300 with a location os
AEROELECTRIC\seminars.
when I extracted it and then tried to unzip it, it came back with an erro :
"not a valid archive"
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: aec7_1.zip
>
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >I downloaded it and open it up. Do you really need to have AEC7_0.zip in
> >there also?
>
> Don't think it's in there also . . . when you put the .zip file into
> a directory and unzip it, the contents end up in the same directory
> unless you specify otherwise. The original .zip file is still
> there when you're done.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Need Help Understanding the electrical |
Diagram?
>
>
>March 4, 2003
>
>
>Dear Bob:
>
>
>OK Ill go with this diagram (Z-11 Ref. 03/03/03).
>
>
>Question #1. Can I run the F output on the Alternator to the #4 pin on
>the Master Switch (thereby eliminating the voltage regulator). My
>alternator already has a built in regulator its an auto alternator one
>which Im told has been good in experimentals (I dont know off the top of
>my head exactly what it is).
You would modify Z-11 with the changes shown in Figure Z-24. You'll
need to add the external disconnect contactor to assist in unhooking
a failed alternator from the airplane's electrical system.
>#2. Is the line out of the B lead on the Alternator the line on which the
>Ampmeter Shunt would go? Also, you show an ANL60 I already own an ANL80
>(off another diagram I was following) is that ok?
What kind of ammeter do you have? The ANL80 will be okay.
Thanks for reminding me. I've added a loadmeter shunt
in the b-lead for the alternator. You can download the
update at
http://216.55.140.222/temp/z11h_2.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | RE: New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
>
>Bob,
>
>It worked fine for me. IE 6 and winzip.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
Thanks for the feedback on this guys. Even with
cable modem, it takes 1.5 hours to upload these
fat CDs . . . I'm wary of hoping for a totally
error free upload. I appreciate your help with
quality assurance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Julia <wings97302(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Need Help Understanding the electrical Diagram? |
Bob:
Any chance of getting you to add these changes so I don't make a mistake? I would
really appreciate it. This would be just Z-11 with the modes mentioned in
Z-24 added.
It seems there must be a bunch of builders using internally regulated alternators
- if you added this change to Z-11 - then we'd have just what we need.
The ampmeter I have is the one Vans sells - an inexpensive one.
Thanks.
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:--> AeroElectric-List message
posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
>March 4, 2003
>
>
>Dear Bob:
>
>
>OK Ill go with this diagram (Z-11 Ref. 03/03/03).
>
>
>Question #1. Can I run the F output on the Alternator to the #4 pin on
>the Master Switch (thereby eliminating the voltage regulator). My
>alternator already has a built in regulator its an auto alternator one
>which Im told has been good in experimentals (I dont know off the top of
>my head exactly what it is).
You would modify Z-11 with the changes shown in Figure Z-24. You'll
need to add the external disconnect contactor to assist in unhooking
a failed alternator from the airplane's electrical system.
>#2. Is the line out of the B lead on the Alternator the line on which the
>Ampmeter Shunt would go? Also, you show an ANL60 I already own an ANL80
>(off another diagram I was following) is that ok?
What kind of ammeter do you have? The ANL80 will be okay.
Thanks for reminding me. I've added a loadmeter shunt
in the b-lead for the alternator. You can download the
update at
http://216.55.140.222/temp/z11h_2.pdf
Bob . . .
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
Eric,
"Very close to zero" ??? I've personally assisted 2 motorists with
carb/fuel fires at side of road, 1 successful, 1 not. Also watched an RX-7
burn up in the Auto Parts store parking lot 4 months ago. RV-6 pilot
jumped to his death 2 or so years ago when fire up front breached into the
cockpit - he chose to die suddenly from sudden stop at the ground rather
than burn to death.
- I can't count high enough to tell you of the "black spots by the side of
the road" that I've seen. It happens ALL THE TIME.
I'll be buying a sheet of stainless sheet to put under my RV-6 belly from
firewall back to main spar area. Fire can flow under firewall and melt the
skin under my feet - not going to happen to me with the "firewall" extended
further back. I figure the heat and density of heat back at the spar and
beyond (aft) will be diluted by ambient airflow so that fire won't breach
baggage compartment.
Yes, I've also got the halon fire extinguishers bookmarked in my web browser
and fully plan to have a spray system in cockpit in front of me and also a
spray system in the engine compartment, along with a hand-held in cockpit.
I've also borrowed and copied 4 volumes of Harry Robertson's U.S. Army
manuals on fire- and crash-worthy design factors. He is the major player in
reducing lethal fires in Army helicopters. His business has expanded
greatly - one of most respected folks in the field.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
>
> >Think "blow torch" into your lap through the hole(s) 10 seconds after
your
> >fuel fire melts your rubber and aluminum cheapo shields.
>
> I'd rather not thanks....
>
> >Think "car fire in engine compartment, black spot beside hiway" where
driver
> >pulled over and got out and watched the car burn up. Can't do that in an
> >airplane.
>
> True, but if you don't count old rotted rubber fuel hoses (like in VWs)
the number would be VERY close to zero.
>
> Yes that's true. However, long before that, my fiberglass cowling would be
gone. And I am not saying one shouldn't take care, but I think routine
modern stuff is more than adequate. How about regular multipin bulkhead
connectors (industrial, automotive or Mil) covered with a couple wraps of
NASA "Rocket Tape"--? Have you seen some of the V0 plastic, or 3M dot paper
(Nextel)? They are very good.
>
>
> >Sec. 23.1191 Firewalls
>
> Those are the rules, but I'm not suggesting violating them. What I am
saying is that we should think about safety and fire control. NOT ( it
sounds to me like) building some kind of fireplace.
>
> Fuel/electrical cutoff, no flammable materials in engine compartment and
plumbed fire extinguisher. That makes better sense. Thanks!
>
> Eric
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Julia <wings97302(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Electric Fuel Booster Pump - Auto Pressure Switch |
With the electric booster pump, might it be a good idea to put a pressure switch
in the fuel line so if the fuel pressure dropped, the electric pump would automatically
come on? This way if you where landing or departing, and forgot to
turn this booster pump on and the regular mechanical pump failed, it would
kick on automatically.
The problem I see might be that once the electric pump built pressure in the line,
the presssure switch would turn the pump off - once pressure dropped it would
turn on again- you might end up with a pulsating system. What you might
want is some system which would basically flip ON the manual switch. How might
this be done electrically? maybe a relay system could be used where either
an electrical pulse from the pressure switch or a pulse from the dash switch would
turn the pump on? Above this dash switch you might have a bulb to indicate
that the electric fuel pump is ON - that way if in normal flight the mechanical
pump failed, you would have some way of knowing it. It sounds like a neat
idea to me. www.periheliondesign.com has some really neat little solid state
relays which might be used in such a design?
Imagine, your engine quits on take off, you forget about the booster pump and trash
your airplane only to find that if the electrical boost pump had just gone
on automatically, you would still be flying!
I'd be really interested in a slick electrical design for such a system.
thanks
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Canyon <steve.canyon(at)verizon.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
David Carter wrote:
>Yes, I've also got the halon fire extinguishers bookmarked in my web
>browser
>and fully plan to have a spray system in cockpit in front of me and
>also a
>spray system in the engine compartment, along with a hand-held in
>cockpit.
---
If you are familiar with halon's effects, you might pull this off
effectively. For those unfamiliar, be prepared to suffocate quickly
without proper provision for independent air/oxygen supply for breathing.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Need Help Understanding the electrical |
Diagram?
>
>
>Bob:
>
>Any chance of getting you to add these changes so I don't make a
>mistake? I would really appreciate it. This would be just Z-11 with the
>modes mentioned in Z-24 added.
>
>
>It seems there must be a bunch of builders using internally regulated
>alternators - if you added this change to Z-11 - then we'd have just what
>we need.
Okay . . . but this still isn't "exactly" what you
want. There will be decisions to make about other
features both shown and not shown. You need to redraw
the schematic on an 11x17 sketch pad. This exercise
is something akin to typing your handwritten notes
after class. More than a simple duplication of prior
work but a cementing of ideas in the gray matter.
Download this:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/Zxx.pdf
and then redraw it. Use #2 pencil. straight edge, and
a pink-pearl eraser to help make changes.
Take the list of electro-goodies I suggested
in my earlier reply and start noting their
feed-points from the various busses. Eliminate
the ones already there that you're not going
to use.
This drawing will be a work in process that may
never be complete. It serves two tasks to (1)
help you become conversant in the language
of the art and (2) provide a record of how
your airplane is assembled. You don't need
to be a computer graphics driver . . .
a simple pad, straight-edge, pencil and
eraser will take care of the whole task.
>The ampmeter I have is the one Vans sells - an inexpensive one.
I think this one has a zero-center scale designed for use
as a battery ammeter. This instrument is compatible with
the 1940's electrical system architectures common to most
certified aircraft; not compatible architectures published
in the 'Connection.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Julia <wings97302(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Need Help Understanding the electrical Diagram? |
Bob:
Thank you very very much - that sure looks to me like the perfect setup for me.
I look forward to further discussions about what else needs to be considered
with this set up.
have a great day.
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:--> AeroElectric-List message
posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
>Bob:
>
>Any chance of getting you to add these changes so I don't make a
>mistake? I would really appreciate it. This would be just Z-11 with the
>modes mentioned in Z-24 added.
>
>
>It seems there must be a bunch of builders using internally regulated
>alternators - if you added this change to Z-11 - then we'd have just what
>we need.
Okay . . . but this still isn't "exactly" what you
want. There will be decisions to make about other
features both shown and not shown. You need to redraw
the schematic on an 11x17 sketch pad. This exercise
is something akin to typing your handwritten notes
after class. More than a simple duplication of prior
work but a cementing of ideas in the gray matter.
Download this:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/Zxx.pdf
and then redraw it. Use #2 pencil. straight edge, and
a pink-pearl eraser to help make changes.
Take the list of electro-goodies I suggested
in my earlier reply and start noting their
feed-points from the various busses. Eliminate
the ones already there that you're not going
to use.
This drawing will be a work in process that may
never be complete. It serves two tasks to (1)
help you become conversant in the language
of the art and (2) provide a record of how
your airplane is assembled. You don't need
to be a computer graphics driver . . .
a simple pad, straight-edge, pencil and
eraser will take care of the whole task.
>The ampmeter I have is the one Vans sells - an inexpensive one.
I think this one has a zero-center scale designed for use
as a battery ammeter. This instrument is compatible with
the 1940's electrical system architectures common to most
certified aircraft; not compatible architectures published
in the 'Connection.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Miles Simon" <Simon.Miles(at)skynet.be> |
Subject: | Re: Aerial spacing requirements |
Bob,
Why not simply supply the manual with pages punched for both U.S. and
overseas standards? I've got your manual here in front of me and the U.S.
standard holes in the pages you supply seem to be suitably different from
the A4 standard used here in Europe.
Simon Miles
> >BTW, not strictly on-topic, but many thanks for the excellent manual.
USPS
> >does a great shipping here. All I need to do now is find a US-style ring
> >binder and I'll be laughing.
>
> That's been a problem. I've had a number of folks
> over the pond remark how difficult it is some times
> to find the right binder. I elected to not ship binders
> early on to reduce packaging and postage costs. I might
> be well advised to add an "overseas option" for the
> book where a binder is included. It would only
> add $4 to cost of book but the book would no longer
> fit into the flat-rate, global priority mail envelope.
> Shipping increases could be breathtaking.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
Steve, study it before making such an inaccurate and alarming comment.
According to what I've read and phoned and talked about (what do I know,
other than that?), and considering the environment, you don't understand
enough yet. I apologize in advance for using "you" and pointing the finger
and being blunt, simply the time to wax tactful and elequent. Your opinion
deserves as much attention as mine. I just think we have different info
and/or understanding of the info available. Sorry, not mad at you, etc,
etc, etc.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Canyon" <steve.canyon(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
>
> David Carter wrote:
> >Yes, I've also got the halon fire extinguishers bookmarked in my web
> >browser
> >and fully plan to have a spray system in cockpit in front of me and
> >also a
> >spray system in the engine compartment, along with a hand-held in
> >cockpit.
> ---
> If you are familiar with halon's effects, you might pull this off
> effectively. For those unfamiliar, be prepared to suffocate quickly
> without proper provision for independent air/oxygen supply for breathing.
>
> Steve
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
Subject: | Re: Electric Fuel Booster Pump - Auto Pressure Switch |
It is a very simple circuit to make a latching relay that once the pressure
switch trips the it closes a a relay that runs the pump and that relay has
another set of contacts that would hold supply power to itself so that it
stays on until power is removed. This is how we do platform shutdowns in my
business. Once the triggering event comes in we make sure it is latched
until the operator has time to deal with it.
I can envision a switch that has three positions, Off, Auto, On. Off
removing power from the system (also resetting the latch), Auto lets the
pressure switch control the pump and On bypasses everything and runs the
pump. I guess you would leave the switch in Auto. There would need to be an
indicator light to warn the pilot that the pressure switch tripped.
If you leave the switch in Auto all the time when you turn on the master the
fuel pump comes on. Start the engine and reset the fuel pump. Now you
simply leave the switch in Auto until you shut down the engine. Shut the
engine down and the fuel pump comes on. Turn off the master and all goes
off. Now if you use the switch to turn the pump off you don't have these
problems but then you have to remember to turn the switch back to Auto,
before take off.
Now this begs the question. Is this simpler and more reliable than the good
old fashioned On/Off switch? It is not simpler to build, but it may be
simpler to operate. More reliable? Probably not since the part count goes
up but if all this stuff fails you still have the On position of the switch
and that circuit is no different that the one we started with. Just some
thoughts.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Fuselage
http://www.myrv7.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julia" <wings97302(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electric Fuel Booster Pump - Auto Pressure
Switch
>
>
> With the electric booster pump, might it be a good idea to put a pressure
switch in the fuel line so if the fuel pressure dropped, the electric pump
would automatically come on? This way if you where landing or departing,
and forgot to turn this booster pump on and the regular mechanical pump
failed, it would kick on automatically.
>
> The problem I see might be that once the electric pump built pressure in
the line, the presssure switch would turn the pump off - once pressure
dropped it would turn on again- you might end up with a pulsating system.
What you might want is some system which would basically flip ON the manual
switch. How might this be done electrically? maybe a relay system could be
used where either an electrical pulse from the pressure switch or a pulse
from the dash switch would turn the pump on? Above this dash switch you
might have a bulb to indicate that the electric fuel pump is ON - that way
if in normal flight the mechanical pump failed, you would have some way of
knowing it. It sounds like a neat idea to me. www.periheliondesign.com
has some really neat little solid state relays which might be used in such a
design?
>
> Imagine, your engine quits on take off, you forget about the booster pump
and trash your airplane only to find that if the electrical boost pump had
just gone on automatically, you would still be flying!
>
> I'd be really interested in a slick electrical design for such a system.
>
> thanks
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>I used winzip to look at what was there. I clicked on size and aec7_0.zip
>shows up near the end with a size of 20,663,300 with a location os
>AEROELECTRIC\seminars.
>
>when I extracted it and then tried to unzip it, it came back with an erro :
>"not a valid archive"
>
>Bob
Oh . . . THAT .zip file! I haven't the foggiest
notion of where it came from or how it got there.
It's a fragment of the earlier CD .zip file. I was
surprised at how much version 7.1 "grew" over 7.0 . . .
didn't think I'd added that much.
Anywho, thanks for the heads up on the stowaway
file. Got it cleaned out and fixed some other little
details on version 7.1 before I uploaded the smaller
version.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Canyon <steve.canyon(at)verizon.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . . |
David Carter wrote:
>Steve, study it before making such an inaccurate and alarming comment.
I've done that -- I refer you to one of many references:
http://www.google.com/search?q=halon%2Bsafety&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Confined spaces, such as offered by a cockpit, are not good places to
turn it loose. Words have meaning -- reread my message carefully. If
you are familiar with all the ramifications of Halon, please do as you
see fit. I offered my caution for those who may not be as familiar.
Regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . ] |
Fair enough, Steve. I guess my main opinion is that halon is still legal
and still used as about the acceptable agent inside airliner passenger
compartments, etc. (etc, means I don't know a lot of details).
You are right - safety of this stuff is a function of the degree of
confinement and availability or lack thereof of fresh air.
- The prinicple fact that has to be understood is that halon, in low
concentrations, (17% or 27% - whatever it says in the literature) is enough
to smother fires. It does so quickly and, at those concentrations, with no
harm to people.
- I plan to have 2 "pull lanyards" - and only pull one for cockpit
long enough to smother the fire, then let go. Its not even an issue for the
engine compartment fire, which is where this thread started - keeping the
heat FORWARD of the firewall. If a person was really worried, he could
limit his halon spray to engine compartment - none in cockpit, except a
hand-held.
- There are two principle scenarios: Airborne (lots of potential for
fresh air in from outside scoops/ducts) and on sitting on ground immediately
after an otherwise survivable crash: I don't worry about using it in the
air. On the gnd, I'd open or break the canopy - there would be zero danger
of asphixiation at that point.
-- So, summarizing my limited concept of ops, I see no significant
danger is using the stuff.
-- On the other hand, I see lots of advantages in gettin the fire
out, and then quickly venting the area and surviving the fire. I don't see
much chance of the halon being anywhere near as lethal as the postulated
fire.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Canyon" <steve.canyon(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
>
> David Carter wrote:
> >Steve, study it before making such an inaccurate and alarming comment.
>
> I've done that -- I refer you to one of many references:
>
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=halon%2Bsafety&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&
oe=utf-8
>
> Confined spaces, such as offered by a cockpit, are not good places to
> turn it loose. Words have meaning -- reread my message carefully. If
> you are familiar with all the ramifications of Halon, please do as you
> see fit. I offered my caution for those who may not be as familiar.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
I have a Halotron I extinguisher for my plane. Isn't that's all that's
available now? I thought they no longer sold Halon. Does anyone know if
it any safer for us or just the atmosphere?
R
----snip----
> - The prinicple fact that has to be understood is that halon, in low
> concentrations, (17% or 27% - whatever it says in the literature) is
enough
> to smother fires. It does so quickly and, at those concentrations, with
no
> harm to people.
> - I plan to have 2 "pull lanyards" - and only pull one for cockpit
> long enough to smother the fire, then let go. Its not even an issue for
the
> engine compartment fire, which is where this thread started - keeping the
> heat FORWARD of the firewall. If a person was really worried, he could
> limit his halon spray to engine compartment - none in cockpit, except a
> hand-held.
> - There are two principle scenarios: Airborne (lots of potential
for
> fresh air in from outside scoops/ducts) and on sitting on ground
immediately
> after an otherwise survivable crash: I don't worry about using it in the
> air. On the gnd, I'd open or break the canopy - there would be zero
danger
> of asphixiation at that point.
> -- So, summarizing my limited concept of ops, I see no
significant
> danger is using the stuff.
> -- On the other hand, I see lots of advantages in gettin the
fire
> out, and then quickly venting the area and surviving the fire. I don't
see
> much chance of the halon being anywhere near as lethal as the postulated
> fire.
>
> David
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Canyon <steve.canyon(at)verizon.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall penetrations |
for wires . ]
David Carter wrote:
> -- So, summarizing my limited concept of ops, I see no
> significant
>danger is using the stuff.
There is a link near the bottom of the links I sent that will take you
to a study of Halon substitutes for commercial aircraft conducted at
Wright-Patterson, I believe. Note that it is sponsored by the FAA
searching for suitable replacements.
As another caution, most experts agree that 7% concentration of the
best formulation of Halon (there are many, all called Halon) is
considered about max for even a large room like you might find in a
data center. Human safety concerns center on not only asphyxiation but
serious central nervous system trauma, sudden cardiac arrest, or severe
disorientation and mere unconsciousness for smaller doses.
> -- On the other hand, I see lots of advantages in gettin the
> fire
>out, and then quickly venting the area and surviving the fire. I
>don't see
>much chance of the halon being anywhere near as lethal as the postulated
>fire.
This is a tough choice, as you have conflicting needs, if you actually
have a cockpit fire, and at a time when you need your best wits about
you. On the one hand, you don't want a lot of air blasting through
there to create a blast furnace -- on the other, you must have lots of
air if you turn loose the Halon or you will suffocate anyway. Which is
why I suggested an independent source of air or oxygen (only if it can
be arranged in such a way as to not contribute to the fire) for safely
breathing only.
Frankly, I think you'll be much better off with better tradeoffs than a
Halon spray in the cockpit. But that's just my opinion. If you
thoroughly understand the complete system dynamics and all anticipated
external factors and feel you have the right answer to the dilemma
presented, far be it for me to tell you not to implement it. In the
scenario you described, there are no good choices any way you go if
things have gotten that bad in the cockpit. But I'll bet on preventing
it getting there as a better choice. My highest priority would be
placed on electrical and fuel management and proper firewall techniques.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
>
>Hi Bob
>
>Is there any chance of having a seperate zip file on the site with just the
>updates from the one CD version to the next, or is that a real hassel? If
>someone has downloaded 7.0, it's another big download to get 7.1.
Sorry . . . it IS a big hassle. There are small changes
all over the website weekly, to keep track of them and
try to offer an organized set up updated files would be
too much.
The CD's were offered for
sale in deference to those who had slow Internet connections.
If one has a fast connection, there's a lot of software out
there (WebZip being one) that will rip and entire site and
it's published links to a directory on your hard drive . . .
in other words, do the same thing as we're offering with
the .zip file.
Posting the .zip file just means that you don't need to
get Webzip, we've already zipped it. It's obviously
no help for slow connections. Do you know anybody
with a fast connection that can download it for you?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
I talked to an engineer at the outfit that makes halotron, and asked him
what the scoop was between halon and halotron. He said that pound for
pound, halotron is about 80% (going on memory here, but the number is
close) as effective in fire fighting as halon. Shouldn't be any
more/less safe than halon for us, but it makes the greenies happy. Of
course, we need to burn more fuel to lift the extra pound of halotron
around, so I guess there are no free lunches. The halon that is still
available is from reclaimed sources, as it is no longer legal to
manufacture halon. Either one puts out fires by displacing oxygen and
removing enormous amounts of heat through evaporation.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 265 hours, dragging an extra pound of extinguisher with the
whole way
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
>
> I have a Halotron I extinguisher for my plane. Isn't that's
> all that's available now? I thought they no longer sold
> Halon. Does anyone know if it any safer for us or just the
> atmosphere? R
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Z-14 considerations |
Anybody able to help on this:
=A0=A0 I plan to use your Z-14 in my velocity. A few questions have come up. I
am
planning on dividing the avionics between the main bus and aux bus. Ie=A0 main
bus will have Blue Mountain Efis/One, UPS SL-30 nav com, transponder ect. and
aux bus will have Dynon EFIS, Garmin 530 nav- comm- GPS ect=A0 This gives total
redundancy of IFR avionics on each electrical system. I would really like to
have redundancy in the event of a alt. failure and also a cross feed
contactor failure.=A0 In this scenario there are no avionics masters and I know
Bob Nuckolls said this is not needed but I am using two different EFIS
systems niether of which probably meet those standards that Bob mentioned in
his seminar. I have also copied the info below from blue mountain web sight
where Greg Richter thier main engineer talks about starter spikes frying his
product and also others. Could you comment on my plan to seperate avionics on
different busses and do I need to do something to protect these EFIS boxes
from starter problems.=A0 Thanks=A0 Tim Rhodenbaugh
By >Greg Richter on Friday, June 14, 2002 - 12:18 pm
Engine start can throw spikes big enough to barbeque radios, transponders,
and EFII (if that's the right plural). Next issue is that most start
batteries can't keep the buss voltage high enough during engine start to run
much of anything. I've seen as low as 6 volts!
All our EFII (I kinda like that) require 10.5 volts min to run. Might be
worth putting a separate battery buss as noted above to keep the electronics
running during engine start. If you do, make sure you put suppressors across
the line to keep the really big spikes out
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Z-14 considerations |
>
>Anybody able to help on this:
>=A0=A0 I plan to use your Z-14 in my velocity. A few questions have come
>up. I am
>planning on dividing the avionics between the main bus and aux bus. Ie=A0 main
>bus will have Blue Mountain Efis/One, UPS SL-30 nav com, transponder ect. and
>aux bus will have Dynon EFIS, Garmin 530 nav- comm- GPS ect=A0 This gives
>total
>redundancy of IFR avionics on each electrical system. I would really like to
>have redundancy in the event of a alt. failure and also a cross feed
>contactor failure.=A0
The probability of two such failures on any one tank full
of fuel is on the same order as a propeller flying off.
If you're using B&C alternators, do good preventative
maintenance on the batteries and belts, you're going
to have a failure tolerant system our spam can flying
brothers can only dream about. Why are you worrying about it?
> In this scenario there are no avionics masters and I know
>Bob Nuckolls said this is not needed but I am using two different EFIS
>systems niether of which probably meet those standards that Bob mentioned in
>his seminar.
Have you talked to Dynon?
> I have also copied the info below from blue mountain web sight
>where Greg Richter thier main engineer talks about starter spikes frying his
>product and also others.
I'm disappointed that Greg is echoing this traditional
techno-drivel . . .
> Could you comment on my plan to seperate avionics on
>different busses and do I need to do something to protect these EFIS boxes
>from starter problems.=A0 Thanks=A0 Tim Rhodenbaugh
>By >Greg Richter on Friday, June 14, 2002 - 12:18 pm
>
>Engine start can throw spikes big enough to barbeque radios, transponders,
>and EFII (if that's the right plural). Next issue is that most start
>batteries can't keep the buss voltage high enough during engine start to run
>much of anything. I've seen as low as 6 volts!
>
>All our EFII (I kinda like that) require 10.5 volts min to run. Might be
>worth putting a separate battery buss as noted above to keep the electronics
>running during engine start. If you do, make sure you put suppressors across
>the line to keep the really big spikes out
Tim. I've been getting your queries on this topic. I'm
having some conversation with Greg about the validity
and/or necessity for his advice. If he can produce numbers
on the risks to his product along with a good excuse as
to why he can't handle them, fine. But I'm going to hold
his feet to the fire. Hang tight. Will get to it as soon as I can.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | richard(at)riley.net |
Subject: | Re: Z-14 considerations |
>
> Tim. I've been getting your queries on this topic. I'm
> having some conversation with Greg about the validity
> and/or necessity for his advice. If he can produce numbers
> on the risks to his product along with a good excuse as
> to why he can't handle them, fine. But I'm going to hold
> his feet to the fire. Hang tight. Will get to it as soon as I can.
Add me to the list of inquirers. I'm guessing the thinking is that adding
an avionics master adds almost nothing in weight and cost, and not having
it might - just barely might - fry a $16k system. So they're erroring on
what they believe to be the side of caution.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Re: New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
Bob,
I'd like to thank you for your efforts to educate us. My operating system is Windows
2000 Pro. Using Internet Explorer 6.01 Service Pack 1, I successfully
downloaded the zip file. Download started at 39 kps accelerating up to 75 kps
over a 10 minute span. Download took 24 minutes with a DSL connection. As an experiment,
I've downloaded it again using Netscape 6.2.3 Download started at
75 kps, accelerating up to 78 kps. Download was completed in 23 minutes.
I would suggest to those listers using Windows, who are having trouble, that they
visit the Microsoft Windows Update site. Scan for updates and install ALL
critical updates to their computer. If you are still using IE 5 or 5.5, IE 6.01
SP1 is a nice improvement.
Charlie Kuss
>
>Over the years, I've been able to supply a number of
>pin-out diagrams for some of the golden oldie radios
>and a few of the newer ones as well. I've placed a
>compendium of recent requests on:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data
>
>If you don't find what you need there at any time, drop
>me a note and I'll see if I can add your request to
>the archive. This is a permanent addition to the
>website.
>
>Also, the latest CD_Rom has been uploaded to
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC7_1.zip
>
>
>Would be interested in getting feedback from folks
>who have successfully downloaded and unpacked the
>latest edition.
>
>Thanks!
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Subject: | Re: Z-14 considerations |
Hi Tim - We are building a Lancair Super ES and are planning almost the same
avionics as you. All of our avionics are on the small bus (20 amp) and the Dynon
will probably be changed to a battery bus or the Large bus. We are planning on
the Aerosance FADEC and have one channel of that on one battery bus and the
second channel on the other battery bus.
Bob is working on a solution to the brownout of the FADEC due to starting
voltage drop. I'm not sure what we will do for the EFIS/ONE. Greg ought to be
working on a similar solution for the EFIS. We might try a very small, third
battery for Dynon, EFIS and FADEC to use for starting and for last ditch
electrical power.
Any other ideas?
I have a lot of Z-14 and our systems in an AutoCAD wirebook, along with a spread
sheet of components in Excel. You are welcome to a copy if you wish.
Cheers,
John Schroeder
I plan to use your Z-14 in my velocity. A few questions have come up. I am
>planning on dividing the avionics between the main bus and aux bus. Ie=A0 main
>bus will have Blue Mountain Efis/One, UPS SL-30 nav com, transponder ect. and
>aux bus will have Dynon EFIS, Garmin 530 nav- comm- GPS ect=A0 This gives total
>redundancy of IFR avionics on each electrical system. I would really like to
>have redundancy in the event of a alt. failure and also a cross feed
>contactor failure.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Benford2(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Triple pole double throw switch |
Bob, On my 801 I am running a V-8 Ford with duel MDS ignitions. In the
process of switching between both ignition boxes I will also need to switch
the tach leads too. Do you have or have you seen a 3 pole double throw
toggle switch. I will be powering one box off the main buss and the other box
gets fed right off a fused link coming straight from the battery so in this
layout I need three common pins to switch from. Thanks in advance and once
again THANK you for all the time you spend answering all our questions. Ben
Haas N801BH.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: 10378 Fluent |
>Thanks for the quick response Bob!
>
>Yesterday I inquired about the battery eliminator for an Icom A22. Are
>you referring to a dimmer circuit such as the one in the AeroElectric
>Connection in chapter 12 with the LM317 integrated circuit?
>
>Looking in the Icom manual, I see that the radio requires 12-15 volts.
>What that said, what is the main function of the dimmer circuit? To act
>as a filter or is there still a danger with high or low voltage? I plan
>on putting in the high voltage protection.
Okay, if your voltage requirements are that high, then
you can tie the incoming ship's power directly to
the battery terminals that drive the radio.
If you experience any kind of noise problems (don't
know what, if any, noise filtering may be part of
Icom's adapter), you may need to do something
like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/filter/filter.html
to clean up ship's power to the Icom's liking.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Z-14 considerations |
>
>
> >
> > Tim. I've been getting your queries on this topic. I'm
> > having some conversation with Greg about the validity
> > and/or necessity for his advice. If he can produce numbers
> > on the risks to his product along with a good excuse as
> > to why he can't handle them, fine. But I'm going to hold
> > his feet to the fire. Hang tight. Will get to it as soon as I can.
>
>Add me to the list of inquirers. I'm guessing the thinking is that adding
>an avionics master adds almost nothing in weight and cost, and not having
>it might - just barely might - fry a $16k system. So they're erroring on
>what they believe to be the side of caution.
if that floats your boat . . . by all means.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Triple pole double throw switch |
>
>Bob, On my 801 I am running a V-8 Ford with duel MDS ignitions. In the
>process of switching between both ignition boxes I will also need to switch
>the tach leads too. Do you have or have you seen a 3 pole double throw
>toggle switch. I will be powering one box off the main buss and the other box
>gets fed right off a fused link coming straight from the battery so in this
>layout I need three common pins to switch from.
Go to alliedelec.com and search for:
Mfr.'s Part # 4TL1-1
Allied Stock #:642-2199
Manufacturer:HONEYWELL / MICROSWITCH
Description:Switch, Toggle, 4P, 15 Amps
It's a 4-pole switch . . . just ignore
the unneeded pole. They have several dozen
in stock
Bob . . .
> Thanks in advance and once
>again THANK you for all the time you spend answering all our questions. Ben
>Haas N801BH.
My pleasure
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Subject: | Re: Z-14 considerations |
> >
>> > Tim. I've been getting your queries on this topic. I'm
>> > having some conversation with Greg about the validity
>> > and/or necessity for his advice. If he can produce numbers
>> > on the risks to his product along with a good excuse as
>> > to why he can't handle them, fine. But I'm going to hold
>> > his feet to the fire. Hang tight. Will get to it as soon as I can.
>>
>>Add me to the list of inquirers. I'm guessing the thinking is that adding
>>an avionics master adds almost nothing in weight and cost, and not having
>>it might - just barely might - fry a $16k system. So they're erroring on
>>what they believe to be the side of caution.
>
> if that floats your boat . . . by all means.
>
> Bob . . .
Tim -
If you need/want your engine instruments for starting and initial engine
running, you'll need EFIS/ONE on line. An avionics master won't do this for you.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Lonnie Benson" <lonben(at)erols.com> |
Subject: | Solid State Voltage Regulator |
The Firewall Forward Kit for my Murphy Rebel contains a solid state voltage
regulator that has no information on it except a stock number? 61751-9HD and
a "Made in USA" stamp. (I remember years ago passing through a Japanese
town named USA). I did a Google search for info on this regulator but had
no luck. Does anyone on this list have any suggestions on where I can find
information on this regulator?
Lonnie
Murphy Rebel
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Julia <wings97302(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | BRIGHT FLASHING LED'S? Where do we get them? |
Where can I get bright flashing LED's - any ideas?
must be high intensity, mounted in a solid casing - not a flimsy unit. maybe mounts
in a 3/8 in hole??? What do they use on Fighter Jets? Where can we get
something the military might use in this case? I would prefer the flashing
be something built into the LED - rather than an external flasher - they do make
them this way.
thanks
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engine startup issues . . . |
>
>
> > >
> >> > Tim. I've been getting your queries on this topic. I'm
> >> > having some conversation with Greg about the validity
> >> > and/or necessity for his advice. If he can produce numbers
> >> > on the risks to his product along with a good excuse as
> >> > to why he can't handle them, fine. But I'm going to hold
> >> > his feet to the fire. Hang tight. Will get to it as soon as I can.
> >>
> >>Add me to the list of inquirers. I'm guessing the thinking is that adding
> >>an avionics master adds almost nothing in weight and cost, and not having
> >>it might - just barely might - fry a $16k system. So they're erroring on
> >>what they believe to be the side of caution.
> >
> > if that floats your boat . . . by all means.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>Tim -
>
>If you need/want your engine instruments for starting and initial engine
>running, you'll need EFIS/ONE on line. An avionics master won't do this
>for you.
Let's examine the contemporary concerns about startup . . .
We were all taught by our instructors to keep our eyes
glued to the oil pressure gage on startup; and be
spring-loaded to shut 'er down if we don't see some
immediate response after the engine starts.
Okay, has anyone ever heard or experienced a case where
the oil pump on an engine died while the airplane was
parked? Has anyone every heard or experienced an instance
of an oil pump dying on ANY engine in ANY vehicle
while the vehicle was parked? Yeah, cold oil
in airplane engines is really stiff and stresses
of pushing putty-like oil through small holes
are indeed greater than normal . . . do oil pumps
operate so close to ultimate stress limits that
they are truly at risk of failure on cold startups?
What are the other concerns for engine settings at
startup? Mixture full rich . . . no problem here.
Prop Full Increase . . . again no problem. Throttle
. . . open "1/x" inches. Hmmm . . . I rent a lot
of different aircraft and the largest single variable
is throttle setting . . . some airplanes come up
to a faster idle for the same throttle setting.
So? As soon as the engine catches, you throttle
back . . . do you NEED tachometer guidance
for this action?
Aside from oil pressure becoming active, what
are the really valid concerns for say, 2, 3, even
10 seconds after the engine starts? If you have
some form of electronic gaging system that
takes time to wake up, what are the real
risks to the health and well being of your
engine?
Really CONCERNED about the oil pressure thing?
How about an oil pressure operated hour-meter
with a double-throw pressure switch. Use
the low-pressure contact to light a LOW OIL P
annunciator. This will go out immediately
upon sensing that the oil pump is working and
let one breathe easy while some doggy electronics
decides to go to work.
Are we making design and operating decisions
based on physics . . . or simply accommodating
yet another tidbit of poor instruction
carved into aviator's gray matter for decades?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Solid State Voltage Regulator |
>
>The Firewall Forward Kit for my Murphy Rebel contains a solid state voltage
>regulator that has no information on it except a stock number? 61751-9HD and
>a "Made in USA" stamp. (I remember years ago passing through a Japanese
>town named USA). I did a Google search for info on this regulator but had
>no luck. Does anyone on this list have any suggestions on where I can find
>information on this regulator?
Have you talked to the folks who supply the kit?
What are your questions about the part?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Engine startup issues . . . |
Bob wrote:
> As soon as the engine catches, you throttle
> back . . . do you NEED tachometer guidance
> for this action?
Lately, I have started heeding the advice I found in the Sac Sky Ranch
Engineering Manual, to idle my Lycoming O-320 at 1150 rpm after startup for
optimal initial lubrication of the cam and followers. These are splash-lubed
parts, and yes, I do use the tach function of my Grand Rapids system as soon
as I can get it booted, to follow this parameter. Unfortunately, 1150 rpm
proves a bit too much throttle for slow taxi downhill from the hangar to the
home strip, so I can't leave it set there very long. It is probably more of
an issue in the first few seconds, anyway, if it is even an issue at all.
I suppose there will be quite a diversity of opinion on this one, but since
the startup is the period of highest wear on engines, it is not altogether
trivial.
Submitted for your consideration; YMMV.
Bill B
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dave Grosvenor" <dwg(at)iafrica.com> |
Subject: | Re: New Feature on aeroelectric.com |
No problem Bob, it was just a thought. It shouldn't be too long before we
get fast (512k!!!) connections in this part of the world.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: New Feature on aeroelectric.com
>
> >
> >Hi Bob
> >
> >Is there any chance of having a seperate zip file on the site with just
the
> >updates from the one CD version to the next, or is that a real hassel?
If
> >someone has downloaded 7.0, it's another big download to get 7.1.
>
> Sorry . . . it IS a big hassle. There are small changes
> all over the website weekly, to keep track of them and
> try to offer an organized set up updated files would be
> too much.
>
> The CD's were offered for
> sale in deference to those who had slow Internet connections.
> If one has a fast connection, there's a lot of software out
> there (WebZip being one) that will rip and entire site and
> it's published links to a directory on your hard drive . . .
> in other words, do the same thing as we're offering with
> the .zip file.
>
> Posting the .zip file just means that you don't need to
> get Webzip, we've already zipped it. It's obviously
> no help for slow connections. Do you know anybody
> with a fast connection that can download it for you?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Engine startup issues . . . |
In a message dated 3/6/03 10:44:44 AM Central Standard Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
> Has anyone every heard or experienced an instance
> of an oil pump dying on ANY engine in ANY vehicle
> while the vehicle was parked?
Good Morning Bob,
Don't know if this qualifies or not.
Several years ago, I dropped my Stearman off at a Stearman guru shop for an
annual. Took a couple of weeks. During that time, they changed the oil and
ran the engine as part of the annual. I came to pick it up about a week
after they had run it.
When I started the engine, lo and behold, no oil pressure. We did all the
usual priming and such but still could not get pressure.
The pump was removed and rebuilt following which the pressure was fine.
This shop is the local Stearman place to go. The father started dusting with
them just after WWII and the sons have been working on them all their lives.
I won't say that the pump failed between the time they changed the oil and
when I started it up, but it would no longer pump oil even after the gurus
tried every trick they or I had heard of.
For What It's Worth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mark Steitle <msteitle(at)mail.utexas.edu> |
Subject: | Re: BRIGHT FLASHING LED'S? Where do we get |
them?
Have you checked out www.superbrightleds.com for suitable applications?
>
>
>Where can I get bright flashing LED's - any ideas?
>
>must be high intensity, mounted in a solid casing - not a flimsy
>unit. maybe mounts in a 3/8 in hole??? What do they use on Fighter
>Jets? Where can we get something the military might use in this
>case? I would prefer the flashing be something built into the LED -
>rather than an external flasher - they do make them this way.
>
>thanks
>
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Mireley <mireley(at)pilot.msu.edu> |
Subject: | Re: BRIGHT FLASHING LED'S? Where do we get them? |
Julia wrote:
>
>
>Where can I get bright flashing LED's - any ideas?
>
>must be high intensity, mounted in a solid casing - not a flimsy unit. maybe
mounts in a 3/8 in hole??? What do they use on Fighter Jets? Where can we get
something the military might use in this case? I would prefer the flashing
be something built into the LED - rather than an external flasher - they do
make them this way.
>
>thanks
>
>
>
>
Red navigation
https://ssl.kundenserver.de/s7906728.shoplite.de/sess/utn153e6790051da2d/shopdata/index.shopscript?expand=1
Green navigation
https://ssl.kundenserver.de/s7906728.shoplite.de/sess/utn153e6790051da2d/shopdata/index.shopscript?expand=1
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
Marc,
I have made this a net message because my claim of delamination
due to kerosene atmosphere (heating) has yet to see proper confirmation.
The story of a barnbuilt aircraft wing coming apart in the air
was related to me by my 'boss' in a museum WW II rebuild about ten years
ago. he said he knew the victim and that the aircraft was brought down (with
disasterous results) not far from Hamilton ON. I locked the story away in
the "gotta Remember" file and renewed it on net.
You put a 'call' on the details admirably and when I returned to
the airport and questioned oldtimers at both EAA and RAA meetings, no one
had heard of the specific cause. The 'boss' had since departed this life and
the story remains unproven. I have not checked givvermint records but would
be surprised that none in this small av community recalling it if it were
recorded.
So, Marc, good on ya _ I retract the claim utterly (but in some
embarrassment for not having checked back at the time). Nevertheless I'm not
heating by kerosene!
Regards,
Ferg
Europa A064
PS The EAA has admitted to dropping the record of Chapter 65 by
mistake and has 're-recognized' same, so I'm not orphaned after all.....
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Z-14 considerations |
Bob I'm not so afraid of two failures on one tank of gas as I am trying to
design an electrical system that with very little extra cost and time is
triple redundant for the following reason. When I fly I would like to have a
plane that is always able to get me home from a trip IFR before It will
require repair. For instance if I fly to the bahamas and happen to loose an
alternator. I dont want to spend my vacation tracking down another one and
rounding up the tools to fix it. I want to be able to fly back home with a
still redundant system (for my peace of mind) and then make the repairs at
home where I have all the tools and can wait to get the parts and have the
time to fixt it. I guess I have gotten stuck too many times in places where I
dont want to be forced to have the plane worked on. Does this seem
illogical?
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Z-14 considerations |
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Z-14 considerations |
Hi John:
I am also using the aerosance fadec continental. Have you got yours yet? Im
still waiting. What I am trying to do is design a electrical system around
Z-14 that has as much redundancy as practical. I want to be able to fly
somewhere and if a failure occurs not have to worry about it, not only for
that flight but until I actually get home which could be several flights
later. I have been stuck before in places where I had to spend my vacation
time or had to delay my flights to get something fixed. Anywhere except home
I dont have my tools, may not have a ready sorce of replacement parts and the
time to fix it. In Z-14 in order to continue a IFR flight I have to have at
least one alternator going. If all your avionics are on one aux bus as you
said yours might be then if you loose your Aux Alt you are completely
dependent on the cross feed contactor for power from the other alt. This is
now a single sorce of failure for all you avionics. I see two possable ways
of dealing with this. 1. split your redundant avionics on to the two main
and Aux. busses or put in an endurance buss with an alt path from each of the
two electrical systems. I was thinking of this approach but am concerned
about too many amp going through the diode. I dont know if that is a problem
or not. I would appreciate you input on all these thoughts Thanks Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Lonnie Benson" <lonben(at)erols.com> |
Subject: | Re: Solid State Voltage Regulator |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Solid State Voltage Regulator
>. Does anyone on this list have any suggestions on where I can find
> >information on this regulator?
>
> Have you talked to the folks who supply the kit?
>
> What are your questions about the part?
>
> Bob . . .
>
Bob, I emailed the Murphy Engineer but he was on his way to the Phillipines
and will not return for several weeks.
My main question is, if I add over voltage protection per Fig. Z-11, will
this regulator be suitable for use in the airplane, or would I be wise to go
out and buy a generic Ford regulator? I will be using this airplane for
day VFR.
I would like to know what criteria Murphy used in picking this particular
regulator.
Thanks for your help.
Lonnie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Z-14 considerations |
>
>Hi John:
>I am also using the aerosance fadec continental. Have you got yours yet? Im
>still waiting. What I am trying to do is design a electrical system around
>Z-14 that has as much redundancy as practical. I want to be able to fly
>somewhere and if a failure occurs not have to worry about it, not only for
>that flight but until I actually get home which could be several flights
>later. I have been stuck before in places where I had to spend my vacation
>time or had to delay my flights to get something fixed. Anywhere except home
>I dont have my tools, may not have a ready sorce of replacement parts and the
>time to fix it. In Z-14 in order to continue a IFR flight I have to have at
>least one alternator going. If all your avionics are on one aux bus as you
>said yours might be then if you loose your Aux Alt you are completely
>dependent on the cross feed contactor for power from the other alt. This is
>now a single sorce of failure for all you avionics.
Sounds like you need the super quad feed essential bus. One
bus with all your avionics on it with diode feeds from
both aux and main busses plus alternate feed switches
from each battery bus . . .
> I see two possable ways
>of dealing with this. 1. split your redundant avionics on to the two main
>and Aux. busses or put in an endurance buss with an alt path from each of the
>two electrical systems. I was thinking of this approach but am concerned
>about too many amp going through the diode.
You can buy ANY size diode you need.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Subject: | Re: Z-14 considerations |
Hi Tim :
I've learned through the years that if you lose a primary system, you fix it
before you fly again. If I lose the #2 alt. and the crossfeed fails (very long
odds, BTW), I still have the battery and that is good enough in IFR to have all
the avionics I need to get down with the fuel that I have. I really believe that
Z-14 is about as safe as you can get re: the electrical system in an airplane
like ours. But to takeoff with anything less, because one does not want to "get
marooned" really begs for trouble. Remember, with a FADEC, you are totally
dependent on electrical power to keep the engine going. This makes VFR flight
with less than a complete system as bad as it would be in IFR.
We have not taken delivery of the IOF-550 yet.
Just my thoughts and self-imposed rules. I'd welcome additional commentary.
Cheers,
John
3/6/2003 7:32:05 PM, TimRhod(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Hi John:
>I am also using the aerosance fadec continental. Have you got yours yet? Im
>still waiting. What I am trying to do is design a electrical system around
>Z-14 that has as much redundancy as practical. I want to be able to fly
>somewhere and if a failure occurs not have to worry about it, not only for
>that flight but until I actually get home which could be several flights
>later.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Duncan McBride <duncanmcbride(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: 10378 Fluent |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 10378 Fluent
> If you experience any kind of noise problems (don't
> know what, if any, noise filtering may be part of
> Icom's adapter), you may need to do something
> like:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/filter/filter.html
>
> to clean up ship's power to the Icom's liking.
>
> Bob . . .
>
I have the MicroAir 760 in my Rotax 912 powered Kolb Twinstar. It's wired
as in your diagram, with the shields from the headphone and mic going to the
mic lo pin on the MicroAir. The only wires going to the panel ground are
from the two ground pins and the intercom ground, through a switch. I'm
getting a very loud alternator or ignition whine when I use the PTT or
intercom switch. The noise frequency and volume is directly proportional to
rpm. Same noise with transmit or intercom, so would it be the antenna? I
have a computer grade electrolytic capacitor in the charging circuit 14V,
22k mf (wiring is appendix Z-7 all the way) Would trying the RadioShack
filter above be the next thing to try?
Maybe not related, when I checked the 760 wiring after noticing the noise,
I realized I had forgotten to hook up the ground wires. Except for the
noise it had worked just fine. Hooking the ground wires up didn't change
anything. Must be that the chassis is grounded where it fastens to the
panel, or is that a problem too? Thanks for your help.
P.S. I downloaded AEC7_1.zip in about ten minutes on a cable modem. No
problems.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Solid State Voltage Regulator |
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
>To:
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Solid State Voltage Regulator
>
>
> >. Does anyone on this list have any suggestions on where I can find
> > >information on this regulator?
> >
> > Have you talked to the folks who supply the kit?
> >
> > What are your questions about the part?
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
>Bob, I emailed the Murphy Engineer but he was on his way to the Phillipines
>and will not return for several weeks.
>
>My main question is, if I add over voltage protection per Fig. Z-11, will
>this regulator be suitable for use in the airplane, or would I be wise to go
>out and buy a generic Ford regulator? I will be using this airplane for
>day VFR.
the regulator you have will be fine . . .
>I would like to know what criteria Murphy used in picking this particular
>regulator.
it was probably the right price and said "alternator regulator"
on the box . . . and 99% of the time this is quite sufficient.
Alternator are very forgiving of performance from a regulator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Z-14 considerations |
In a message dated 3/6/2003 8:18:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
Why would you need duel feeds from both of the main and aux bus when you have
duel alt feeds from both battery busses?
> Sounds like you need the super quad feed essential bus. One
> bus with all your avionics on it with diode feeds from
> both aux and main busses plus alternate feed switches
> from each battery bus . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Z-14 considerations |
John :
appreciate the comments. I would totally agree with you about not taking
off with anything less than primary and secondary systems working. In most
planes this is one alt and one batt. However if you have Z-14 with one alt
failure you still have one alt and two batts . Still better than conventional
systems. But this is dependent on the crossfeed contactor if all your
avionics are on one bus with no alternate feed capabilities. I would like an
alt feed to my avionics to cover this scenario,hence my idea of splitting up
the avionics on seperate busses or duel alt feeds to an essential buss. It
doesnt seem to be much work or cost to create this in the design. Comments?
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Z-14 considerations |
In a message dated 3/6/2003 8:18:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
> Sounds like you need the super quad feed essential bus. One
> bus with all your avionics on it with diode feeds from
> both aux and main busses plus alternate feed switches
> from each battery bus . . .
>
Why do you need duel feeds through diodes from main and aux buss if you have
duel alterrnate feeds from each battery bus? I may have the answer to my
own question. If you have both an Alternator failure and crossfeed contactor
failure. With duel feeds through diodes from each bus you as pilot are
still not required to engage the alt feed switch thus eliminating one
additional pilot task? is this correct?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Z-14 considerations |
>
>In a message dated 3/6/2003 8:18:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
>Why would you need duel feeds from both of the main and aux bus when you have
>duel alt feeds from both battery busses?
>
> > Sounds like you need the super quad feed essential bus. One
> > bus with all your avionics on it with diode feeds from
> > both aux and main busses plus alternate feed switches
> > from each battery bus . . .
If one were to cover every conceivable combination of
multiple failure then feedpaths from each of all four
sources would be indicated.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Z-14 considerations |
>
>In a message dated 3/6/2003 8:18:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
> > Sounds like you need the super quad feed essential bus. One
> > bus with all your avionics on it with diode feeds from
> > both aux and main busses plus alternate feed switches
> > from each battery bus . . .
> >
>
>Why do you need duel feeds through diodes from main and aux buss if you have
>duel alterrnate feeds from each battery bus? I may have the answer to my
>own question. If you have both an Alternator failure and crossfeed contactor
>failure. With duel feeds through diodes from each bus you as pilot are
>still not required to engage the alt feed switch thus eliminating one
>additional pilot task? is this correct?
Well, there are battery contactors to be lost too in which
case the attendant alternator may not be available either
so your down to an alternate feed path directly from the
battery(s). One can hypothesize quite an array of multiple
failures . . . The simplest catch-all is exemplified in
many bizjets by the multiple-feed essential bus which at a
minimum has diode feeds from both mains and direct support
from a battery . . . since biz jets generally have only one
battery, it's called a triple-feed essential bus, if you
have two batteries, the you're a candidate for a quad-feed
essential bus. Pilot tasks are seldom the issue here.
What's another page or two in a POH that's already
200 pages?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)direcway.com> |
Subject: | Re: BRIGHT FLASHING LED'S? Where do we get them? |
Julia,
Check
http://www.stores.ebay.com/chiwingledproductshop/plistings/list/all/dept1/page2.html,
or go straight to the item
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2513366932. It is
one of the positions in an EBAY store., located in Hong Kong.
Recently I got these diodes and I am really impressed. They are the
best attention getters I have ever seen. They flash red-green-blue in a
fast sequence and after a few seconds they change to a slow
red-green-blue sequence and back again, sort of like a police car that
stops you when you were speeding. They are VERY bright, they are around
1$ a piece. All the driving electronics is inside, you have to provide
only a current limiting resistor ~600 ohms. Unfortunately these diodes
have no mounts but you can get them easy in a surplus store, or maybe
even in Radio Shack.
Jerzy
Julia wrote:
>
>
>Where can I get bright flashing LED's - any ideas?
>
>must be high intensity, mounted in a solid casing - not a flimsy unit. maybe
mounts in a 3/8 in hole??? What do they use on Fighter Jets? Where can we get
something the military might use in this case? I would prefer the flashing
be something built into the LED - rather than an external flasher - they do
make them this way.
>
>thanks
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Ammeters |
>
>Hi Ken,
>
>I Think that the hall effect that B&C has available comes with their standby
>alternator regulator kit:
>
>http://www.bandcspecialty.com/14-SB1B.pdf
>
>Ned
that's a hall sensor that drives an output current
detector in the SB-1 regulator. It doesn't provide
any kind of output to drive an instrument.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)direcway.com> |
Actually halons do much more than just "displacing oxygen and removing
enormous amounts of heat through evaporation". Halons absorb a lot of
radiation from the flame, mostly in the infrared, and they prevent
excitation of molecules ahead of the front of the flame. Excited
molecules of fuel and oxygen have electrons far away from the core of
the molecule, and such excited molecules are very eager to get involved
in a transfer of these electrons to other molecules, which is the base
of chemical reactions. Excitation of molecules ahead of the flame by
radiation heating is the basic mechanism for a flame propagation.
Chemically inert halons absorbing radiation prevent excitation of fuel
and oxygen molecules ahead of the front of the flame, and they make
propagation of the flame difficult or impossible. Even as little as a
few percent of halon stops propagation of the flame which makes it easy
to blow it off - halons are extremely efficient as fire
extinguishers. You would need much higher concentration for a
conventional displacement of oxygen like in a CO2 extinguisher. A few
percent concentration would not make any difference if the displacement
was the main mechanism. Classical cooling by small amounts of halon is
not that important in fighting fire because chemical reaction of burning
fuel generates huge amounts of heat, and cold gasoline vapor burns quite
well anyway. I worked on halons some thirty years ago.
Jerzy
Alex Peterson wrote:
>
>I talked to an engineer at the outfit that makes halotron, and asked him
>what the scoop was between halon and halotron. He said that pound for
>pound, halotron is about 80% (going on memory here, but the number is
>close) as effective in fire fighting as halon. Shouldn't be any
>more/less safe than halon for us, but it makes the greenies happy. Of
>course, we need to burn more fuel to lift the extra pound of halotron
>around, so I guess there are no free lunches. The halon that is still
>available is from reclaimed sources, as it is no longer legal to
>manufacture halon. Either one puts out fires by displacing oxygen and
>removing enormous amounts of heat through evaporation.
>
>Alex Peterson
>Maple Grove, MN
>RV6-A N66AP 265 hours, dragging an extra pound of extinguisher with the
>whole way
>www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
>
>
>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob(at)RobsGlass.com> |
Subject: | European hole spacing |
Why not simply supply the manual with pages punched for both U.S. and
overseas standards? I've got your manual here in front of me and the U.S.
standard holes in the pages you supply seem to be suitably different from
the A4 standard used here in Europe.
Hey Simon,
Why not just repunch it yourself and then buy an A4 binder? I suspect that the
number Bob mails to the UK and Europe probably don't justify his setting up to
punch them for A4 but a chap who can build a plane should be able to handle
this for himself I would imagine ;-]
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
RV9A N919RV Fuselage.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
Where do you get these halon systems? Does the bottle get mounted remote
from the firewall and then plumbed through a fitting in the firewall? Is the
acuation of these systems mechanical or electrical?
Thanks
Ron Raby
N829R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerzy Krasinski" <krasinski(at)direcway.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Halon
>
> Actually halons do much more than just "displacing oxygen and removing
> enormous amounts of heat through evaporation". Halons absorb a lot of
> radiation from the flame, mostly in the infrared, and they prevent
> excitation of molecules ahead of the front of the flame. Excited
> molecules of fuel and oxygen have electrons far away from the core of
> the molecule, and such excited molecules are very eager to get involved
> in a transfer of these electrons to other molecules, which is the base
> of chemical reactions. Excitation of molecules ahead of the flame by
> radiation heating is the basic mechanism for a flame propagation.
> Chemically inert halons absorbing radiation prevent excitation of fuel
> and oxygen molecules ahead of the front of the flame, and they make
> propagation of the flame difficult or impossible. Even as little as a
> few percent of halon stops propagation of the flame which makes it easy
> to blow it off - halons are extremely efficient as fire
> extinguishers. You would need much higher concentration for a
> conventional displacement of oxygen like in a CO2 extinguisher. A few
> percent concentration would not make any difference if the displacement
> was the main mechanism. Classical cooling by small amounts of halon is
> not that important in fighting fire because chemical reaction of burning
> fuel generates huge amounts of heat, and cold gasoline vapor burns quite
> well anyway. I worked on halons some thirty years ago.
> Jerzy
>
> Alex Peterson wrote:
>
> >
> >I talked to an engineer at the outfit that makes halotron, and asked him
> >what the scoop was between halon and halotron. He said that pound for
> >pound, halotron is about 80% (going on memory here, but the number is
> >close) as effective in fire fighting as halon. Shouldn't be any
> >more/less safe than halon for us, but it makes the greenies happy. Of
> >course, we need to burn more fuel to lift the extra pound of halotron
> >around, so I guess there are no free lunches. The halon that is still
> >available is from reclaimed sources, as it is no longer legal to
> >manufacture halon. Either one puts out fires by displacing oxygen and
> >removing enormous amounts of heat through evaporation.
> >
> >Alex Peterson
> >Maple Grove, MN
> >RV6-A N66AP 265 hours, dragging an extra pound of extinguisher with the
> >whole way
> >www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
Jerzy, thanks for the clarification. I was just going on what the
engineer at the company that makes halotron extinguishers (and
previously halon) said. Silly me. Everything is always more
interesting at a second look.
Alex
> -->
>
> Actually halons do much more than just "displacing oxygen
> and removing
> enormous amounts of heat through evaporation". Halons absorb
> a lot of
> radiation from the flame, mostly in the infrared, and they prevent
> excitation of molecules ahead of the front of the flame. Excited
> molecules of fuel and oxygen have electrons far away from the core of
> the molecule, and such excited molecules are very eager to
> get involved
> in a transfer of these electrons to other molecules, which
> is the base
> of chemical reactions. Excitation of molecules ahead of the flame by
> radiation heating is the basic mechanism for a flame propagation.
> Chemically inert halons absorbing radiation prevent
> excitation of fuel
> and oxygen molecules ahead of the front of the flame, and they make
> propagation of the flame difficult or impossible. Even as
> little as a
> few percent of halon stops propagation of the flame which
> makes it easy
> to blow it off - halons are extremely efficient as fire
> extinguishers. You would need much higher concentration for a
> conventional displacement of oxygen like in a CO2
> extinguisher. A few
> percent concentration would not make any difference if the
> displacement
> was the main mechanism. Classical cooling by small amounts of
> halon is
> not that important in fighting fire because chemical reaction
> of burning
> fuel generates huge amounts of heat, and cold gasoline vapor
> burns quite
> well anyway. I worked on halons some thirty years ago.
> Jerzy
>
> Alex Peterson wrote:
>
> >-->
> >
> >I talked to an engineer at the outfit that makes halotron, and asked
> >him what the scoop was between halon and halotron. He said
> that pound
> >for pound, halotron is about 80% (going on memory here, but
> the number
> >is
> >close) as effective in fire fighting as halon. Shouldn't be any
> >more/less safe than halon for us, but it makes the greenies
> happy. Of
> >course, we need to burn more fuel to lift the extra pound of halotron
> >around, so I guess there are no free lunches. The halon
> that is still
> >available is from reclaimed sources, as it is no longer legal to
> >manufacture halon. Either one puts out fires by displacing
> oxygen and
> >removing enormous amounts of heat through evaporation.
> >
> >Alex Peterson
> >Maple Grove, MN
> >RV6-A N66AP 265 hours, dragging an extra pound of extinguisher with
> >the whole way www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ==========
> Matronics Forums.
> ==========
> List members.
> ==========
> ==========
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
<>
I think there are two likely reasons for no oil pressure, both making
themselves known at first start-up: First is no oil and that is most likely
to happen on initial start-up (someone forgot to refill). The other is a
failure of the pump to prime as was posted earlier. This could be from a
combination of a worn pump and servicing which allowed air into the suction
line, maybe from cleaning the suction screen. There are also cases of a
leak in the suction line, which causes no problem during operation, but can
prevent the pump from priming if it's worn or has been inactive for a long
time, allowing oil to drain. What to do? Bob probably has the only logical
idea and that is to install a low oil pressure light with a mechanical
switch. That's what I plan to do.
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)direcway.com> |
Ron,
Halons fire extinguishers are harder and harder to get, but there are
still many of them in industrial supply fire extinguisher houses. Do
not bother to look for them in Kmart or Sears. Check telephone book of a
bigger city in your area under fire extinguisher, look for something
that might be a place specialized in fire extinguishers and give them a
call.
Another option is to check racing car supply house.
Probably the easiest and most efficient way is to type "halon" on EBAY
search. You will get a page or two of halon fire extinguishers offered
for sale, some big, some small, and chances are that none of them
matches your needs. When you get these listings check other items
offered by these sellers. If you see several extinguishers offered by
the same guy, chances are that he is a dealer, so contact him and ask
for the type and size you want.
There are several different models of halon extinguishers, a standard
looking extinguisher with an operating handle for installation on a
wall , remotely activated (with a cable) halon bottles for racing cars,
and automatic fire extinguishers activated when temperature increases
above a set point, for use in boat engine compartments. They come in
all spectrum of sizes anywhere from around 2.5 pound to sky is the limit.
Jerzy
Ron Raby wrote:
>
>
>Where do you get these halon systems? Does the bottle get mounted remote
>from the firewall and then plumbed through a fitting in the firewall?
Is the
>acuation of these systems mechanical or electrical?
>
>Thanks
>
>Ron Raby
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
This web site has the most info: http://www.h3r.com/ Has lots of
informative articles explaining Halon and its use and legal status.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Halon
>
>
> Where do you get these halon systems? Does the bottle get mounted remote
> from the firewall and then plumbed through a fitting in the firewall? Is
the
> acuation of these systems mechanical or electrical?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ron Raby
>
> N829R
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerzy Krasinski" <krasinski(at)direcway.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Halon
>
>
>
> >
> > Actually halons do much more than just "displacing oxygen and removing
> > enormous amounts of heat through evaporation". Halons absorb a lot of
> > radiation from the flame, mostly in the infrared, and they prevent
> > excitation of molecules ahead of the front of the flame. Excited
> > molecules of fuel and oxygen have electrons far away from the core of
> > the molecule, and such excited molecules are very eager to get involved
> > in a transfer of these electrons to other molecules, which is the base
> > of chemical reactions. Excitation of molecules ahead of the flame by
> > radiation heating is the basic mechanism for a flame propagation.
> > Chemically inert halons absorbing radiation prevent excitation of fuel
> > and oxygen molecules ahead of the front of the flame, and they make
> > propagation of the flame difficult or impossible. Even as little as a
> > few percent of halon stops propagation of the flame which makes it easy
> > to blow it off - halons are extremely efficient as fire
> > extinguishers. You would need much higher concentration for a
> > conventional displacement of oxygen like in a CO2 extinguisher. A few
> > percent concentration would not make any difference if the displacement
> > was the main mechanism. Classical cooling by small amounts of halon is
> > not that important in fighting fire because chemical reaction of burning
> > fuel generates huge amounts of heat, and cold gasoline vapor burns quite
> > well anyway. I worked on halons some thirty years ago.
> > Jerzy
> >
> > Alex Peterson wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> > >I talked to an engineer at the outfit that makes halotron, and asked
him
> > >what the scoop was between halon and halotron. He said that pound for
> > >pound, halotron is about 80% (going on memory here, but the number is
> > >close) as effective in fire fighting as halon. Shouldn't be any
> > >more/less safe than halon for us, but it makes the greenies happy. Of
> > >course, we need to burn more fuel to lift the extra pound of halotron
> > >around, so I guess there are no free lunches. The halon that is still
> > >available is from reclaimed sources, as it is no longer legal to
> > >manufacture halon. Either one puts out fires by displacing oxygen and
> > >removing enormous amounts of heat through evaporation.
> > >
> > >Alex Peterson
> > >Maple Grove, MN
> > >RV6-A N66AP 265 hours, dragging an extra pound of extinguisher with
the
> > >whole way
> > >www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
> contact him and ask for the type and size you want.
Ah, what might that be?
I've been following this discussion with interest. I'd like to mount a
remotly activated extinguisher somewhere under my (canard pusher) cowl. What
size and type would I need?
Regards,
John Slade
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: BRIGHT FLASHING LED'S? Where do we get |
them?
>
>
>Where can I get bright flashing LED's - any ideas?
>
>must be high intensity, mounted in a solid casing - not a flimsy
>unit. maybe mounts in a 3/8 in hole??? What do they use on Fighter
>Jets? Where can we get something the military might use in this
>case? I would prefer the flashing be something built into the LED -
>rather than an external flasher - they do make them this way.
Flashing LED's are around but account for a VERY
TINY proportion of the market . . . you're not
likely to find a flasher added to the new super-bright
devices.
As to mounting, this has always been a challenge with
the little two-leaded, plastic beasties. One solution
developed here in our shops is illustrated at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/LVWarn-ABMM.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
thanks David, I looked around and found one from a race car supply house
http://www.howeracing.com/cockpit/cockpit4/indexbottle.htm
They have 2lb and 5lb models. Do you know what size would be needed?
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Halon
>
> This web site has the most info: http://www.h3r.com/ Has lots of
> informative articles explaining Halon and its use and legal status.
>
> David Carter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Halon
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Where do you get these halon systems? Does the bottle get mounted remote
> > from the firewall and then plumbed through a fitting in the firewall? Is
> the
> > acuation of these systems mechanical or electrical?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ron Raby
> >
> > N829R
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jerzy Krasinski" <krasinski(at)direcway.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Halon
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Actually halons do much more than just "displacing oxygen and
removing
> > > enormous amounts of heat through evaporation". Halons absorb a lot of
> > > radiation from the flame, mostly in the infrared, and they prevent
> > > excitation of molecules ahead of the front of the flame. Excited
> > > molecules of fuel and oxygen have electrons far away from the core of
> > > the molecule, and such excited molecules are very eager to get
involved
> > > in a transfer of these electrons to other molecules, which is the
base
> > > of chemical reactions. Excitation of molecules ahead of the flame by
> > > radiation heating is the basic mechanism for a flame propagation.
> > > Chemically inert halons absorbing radiation prevent excitation of fuel
> > > and oxygen molecules ahead of the front of the flame, and they make
> > > propagation of the flame difficult or impossible. Even as little as a
> > > few percent of halon stops propagation of the flame which makes it
easy
> > > to blow it off - halons are extremely efficient as fire
> > > extinguishers. You would need much higher concentration for a
> > > conventional displacement of oxygen like in a CO2 extinguisher. A
few
> > > percent concentration would not make any difference if the
displacement
> > > was the main mechanism. Classical cooling by small amounts of halon is
> > > not that important in fighting fire because chemical reaction of
burning
> > > fuel generates huge amounts of heat, and cold gasoline vapor burns
quite
> > > well anyway. I worked on halons some thirty years ago.
> > > Jerzy
> > >
> > > Alex Peterson wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > >
> > > >I talked to an engineer at the outfit that makes halotron, and asked
> him
> > > >what the scoop was between halon and halotron. He said that pound
for
> > > >pound, halotron is about 80% (going on memory here, but the number is
> > > >close) as effective in fire fighting as halon. Shouldn't be any
> > > >more/less safe than halon for us, but it makes the greenies happy.
Of
> > > >course, we need to burn more fuel to lift the extra pound of halotron
> > > >around, so I guess there are no free lunches. The halon that is
still
> > > >available is from reclaimed sources, as it is no longer legal to
> > > >manufacture halon. Either one puts out fires by displacing oxygen
and
> > > >removing enormous amounts of heat through evaporation.
> > > >
> > > >Alex Peterson
> > > >Maple Grove, MN
> > > >RV6-A N66AP 265 hours, dragging an extra pound of extinguisher with
> the
> > > >whole way
> > > >www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
I think I remember seeing halon extinguishers in more manageable sizes at
Wicks, ACS, etc. 1.5, 3 and 5 pounds maybe. Aren't those sizes more
typical of what you see in small aircraft?
--
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
2003: The Year of Flight!
Ron Raby said:
>
>
> thanks David, I looked around and found one from a race car supply house
> http://www.howeracing.com/cockpit/cockpit4/indexbottle.htm
>
> They have 2lb and 5lb models. Do you know what size would be needed?
>
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Halon
>
>
>
>>
>> This web site has the most info: http://www.h3r.com/ Has lots of
>> informative articles explaining Halon and its use and legal status.
>>
>> David Carter
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
No, don't know how much needed for engine compartment wands/spray nozzle
system, not in cockpit (probably defer to other fellow's comments and not
flood the cockpit - probably just use the hand held to point it where it
needs to go.)
I'd think "copy what the race cars are doing". How big are their systems?
If you find out, from the racing supply store, let us know the range of
options or opinions.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Halon
>
> thanks David, I looked around and found one from a race car supply house
> http://www.howeracing.com/cockpit/cockpit4/indexbottle.htm
>
> They have 2lb and 5lb models. Do you know what size would be needed?
>
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Halon
>
>
>
> >
> > This web site has the most info: http://www.h3r.com/ Has lots of
> > informative articles explaining Halon and its use and legal status.
> >
> > David Carter
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Halon
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Where do you get these halon systems? Does the bottle get mounted
remote
> > > from the firewall and then plumbed through a fitting in the firewall?
Is
> > the
> > > acuation of these systems mechanical or electrical?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Ron Raby
> > >
> > > N829R
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jerzy Krasinski" <krasinski(at)direcway.com>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Halon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually halons do much more than just "displacing oxygen and
> removing
> > > > enormous amounts of heat through evaporation". Halons absorb a lot
of
> > > > radiation from the flame, mostly in the infrared, and they prevent
> > > > excitation of molecules ahead of the front of the flame. Excited
> > > > molecules of fuel and oxygen have electrons far away from the core
of
> > > > the molecule, and such excited molecules are very eager to get
> involved
> > > > in a transfer of these electrons to other molecules, which is the
> base
> > > > of chemical reactions. Excitation of molecules ahead of the flame by
> > > > radiation heating is the basic mechanism for a flame propagation.
> > > > Chemically inert halons absorbing radiation prevent excitation of
fuel
> > > > and oxygen molecules ahead of the front of the flame, and they make
> > > > propagation of the flame difficult or impossible. Even as little as
a
> > > > few percent of halon stops propagation of the flame which makes it
> easy
> > > > to blow it off - halons are extremely efficient as fire
> > > > extinguishers. You would need much higher concentration for a
> > > > conventional displacement of oxygen like in a CO2 extinguisher. A
> few
> > > > percent concentration would not make any difference if the
> displacement
> > > > was the main mechanism. Classical cooling by small amounts of halon
is
> > > > not that important in fighting fire because chemical reaction of
> burning
> > > > fuel generates huge amounts of heat, and cold gasoline vapor burns
> quite
> > > > well anyway. I worked on halons some thirty years ago.
> > > > Jerzy
> > > >
> > > > Alex Peterson wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >I talked to an engineer at the outfit that makes halotron, and
asked
> > him
> > > > >what the scoop was between halon and halotron. He said that pound
> for
> > > > >pound, halotron is about 80% (going on memory here, but the number
is
> > > > >close) as effective in fire fighting as halon. Shouldn't be any
> > > > >more/less safe than halon for us, but it makes the greenies happy.
> Of
> > > > >course, we need to burn more fuel to lift the extra pound of
halotron
> > > > >around, so I guess there are no free lunches. The halon that is
> still
> > > > >available is from reclaimed sources, as it is no longer legal to
> > > > >manufacture halon. Either one puts out fires by displacing oxygen
> and
> > > > >removing enormous amounts of heat through evaporation.
> > > > >
> > > > >Alex Peterson
> > > > >Maple Grove, MN
> > > > >RV6-A N66AP 265 hours, dragging an extra pound of extinguisher
with
> > the
> > > > >whole way
> > > > >www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Interesting thread. May I help, ahhh, fuel the discussion?
A cabin or engine compartment fire doesn't start without fuel, oxygen,
and an ignition source. Let's assume those elements are present and the fire
is burning. Trigger the halon, and the fire (hopefully) goes out.
Following the Halon deployment, the cabin must be ventilated to sustain
the humans. The engine cowl is self ventilating. All three conditions
necessary for fire are again quite likely present. What now?
"Ah" you say, "it depends!". Start with a fire under the cowl. Yes, if
it was a fuel fire, and you've shut the firewall feed, and most of the
spilled fuel has already burned, it's just a glider ride. If the ignition
source was a breached exhaust pipe and you've shut down the engine, you may
not have an ignition source. Other than these two circumstances, shouldn't
we expect the fire to re-ignite?
Fire in the cockpit: What fuel and ignition source could you expect?
Leaky fuel line, and the pilot is a chain smoker? If you didn't use vinyl
wire, wire insulation is unlikely to be a fuel source supporting open flame.
The key issue with an electrical "fire" is smoke, not flame, and Halon is
useless in this regard. If anything it makes things it worse; the issue is a
pilot breathing problem.
I'm thinking Halon in the engine compartment might be useful under
limited conditions. It's sorta like a parachute, good to have, might save
your butt if everything goes right. I can't see any reason to put Halon in
the cockpit. I'd suggest that most builders would be better off to put the
money and maintenance time into better firewall systems, fire/smoke retardant
interior materials, careful electrical system design/installation, and some
thought.
Want some examples? Consider the popular practice of gluing an
insulation blanket to the cabin side of a metal firewall. Consider what
happens when the metal is cherry red, the 2000F standard previously
discussed. Will your insulation blanket generate smoke in close proximity to
hot metal? Easy to check.
Consider the famous case of the RV-8 pilot who jumped following an
engine compartment fire. Let's assume his firewall was solid. Let's further
assume his concern was the cowling burning away and allowing flame to stream
back along the outside of the fuselage. Is that your concern? Very thin
stainless foil is available in rolls. You might consider bonding a sheet to
the inside of the fiberglass cowl along the rear edge. It would probably buy
a lot of time, and again, it's not very hard to test.
Just opinions and ideas. You gotta do what you think best.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Canyon <steve.canyon(at)verizon.net> |
DHPHKH(at)aol.com wrote:
> Interesting thread. May I help, ahhh, fuel the discussion?
---
I couldn't agree more with your post -- right on target.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Pack" <jpack(at)igs3.com> |
Subject: | PC/Monitor noise on Recording Equipment |
It's not Aero, but you guys seem to know everything electric.
I've just put music recording equipement in the same portable case as my PC
mixing equipement. I now have a static sound. I think it is caused by the
monitor/cables or PC Fans. What can I do to isolate these systems from the
recording equipement while keeping them all in the same physical box? Can
it be done electrically? Or is there some sort of shealding I should use
around the PC & monitor/cables?
thanks,
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | ccadkins <ccadkins(at)dragg.net> |
Subject: | Microair Transponder harness and encoder package??? |
Bob,
I know that you guys pulled the Microair xpndr from your site for the time
being due to delivery pipeline problems, but are you still offering the
previously mentioned harness and encoder "package" for the T2000 SFL ?
I've managed to finally take delivery of one, and would like to take
advantage of the "up front work" you guys have done on the harness.
Let me know.
Thanks,
Chris Adkins
ccadkins(at)dragg.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Julia <wings97302(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Firewall Wire Penetration |
I have a aircraft stainless steel welder interested in adding to his product line
a firewall penetration product RV builders might purchase. His question is
what might the best thing look like?
I"m picturing an Stainless flange to which is welded a tube with a 90 degree bend
in it. What size tubing would work best. Would it be better to have a small
one on each side, or all wires run through one larger tube? After all wires
were run, you could fill the remaining space with fireproof putty. Let's
put our heads together and see what might work best and he'll build it for us.
We've all got to run wires throught a firewall somehow.
thanks
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu> |
Subject: | Firewall Wire Penetration |
What is the purpose of the 90 degree bend? I would have thought a tube &
flange plus two bits of firesleeve and two clamps as (I think) in one of the
recent pictures Bob posted would be ideal.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Julia
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall Wire Penetration
I have a aircraft stainless steel welder interested in adding to his product
line a firewall penetration product RV builders might purchase. His
question is what might the best thing look like?
I"m picturing an Stainless flange to which is welded a tube with a 90
degree bend in it. What size tubing would work best. Would it be better to
have a small one on each side, or all wires run through one larger tube?
After all wires were run, you could fill the remaining space with fireproof
putty. Let's put our heads together and see what might work best and he'll
build it for us. We've all got to run wires throught a firewall somehow.
thanks
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Julia <wings97302(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Firewall Wire Penetration |
I think the purpose of the 90 degree bend is to make it more fireproof - imagine
flames blowing at it off the engine - if it's bent 90degrees it would certainly
take longer to burn through - instead of a staight one like you suggest.
Steve Sampson wrote:--> AeroElectric-List message
posted by: "Steve Sampson"
What is the purpose of the 90 degree bend? I would have thought a tube &
flange plus two bits of firesleeve and two clamps as (I think) in one of the
recent pictures Bob posted would be ideal.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Julia
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall Wire Penetration
I have a aircraft stainless steel welder interested in adding to his product
line a firewall penetration product RV builders might purchase. His
question is what might the best thing look like?
I"m picturing an Stainless flange to which is welded a tube with a 90
degree bend in it. What size tubing would work best. Would it be better to
have a small one on each side, or all wires run through one larger tube?
After all wires were run, you could fill the remaining space with fireproof
putty. Let's put our heads together and see what might work best and he'll
build it for us. We've all got to run wires throught a firewall somehow.
thanks
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
Subject: | Firewall Wire Penetration |
I would think that you'd want to match the ID of the common firesleve
sizes.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Julia
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall Wire Penetration
I have a aircraft stainless steel welder interested in adding to his
product line a firewall penetration product RV builders might purchase.
His question is what might the best thing look like?
I"m picturing an Stainless flange to which is welded a tube with a 90
degree bend in it. What size tubing would work best. Would it be
better to have a small one on each side, or all wires run through one
larger tube? After all wires were run, you could fill the remaining
space with fireproof putty. Let's put our heads together and see what
might work best and he'll build it for us. We've all got to run wires
throught a firewall somehow.
thanks
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Firewall Wire Penetration |
>
>
>I have a aircraft stainless steel welder interested in adding to his
>product line a firewall penetration product RV builders might
>purchase. His question is what might the best thing look like?
>
> I"m picturing an Stainless flange to which is welded a tube with a 90
> degree bend in it. What size tubing would work best. Would it be better
> to have a small one on each side, or all wires run through one larger
> tube? After all wires were run, you could fill the remaining space
> with fireproof putty. Let's put our heads together and see what might
> work best and he'll build it for us. We've all got to run wires
> throught a firewall somehow.
I'll welcome your friend to the problems of deciding
how to best serve a market where the combinations
for what's needed/wanted are endless. Should he offer
1/2" fittings, 3/4" fittings, 1" fittings, right
angle, straight, etc . . .? Sure, there are folks
out there interested in ALL of the above. Can he
try to satisfy everybody and still justify his
participation in the market? One hopes so, but
nothing is guaranteed.
I and the people I've worked for have wrestled
with these questions for decades . . . and on
occasion, we make a decision that makes both
the customer and the boss really happy.
If I were going to address that market,
I'd offer 3/4" straight and right angle
adapters as parts of a kit that included
stainless steel hardware for mounting, a
10" piece of firesleeve (6" for the outside
and 4" to cut into strips for packing) and
two hose clamps.
Is this "magic" advice? Nope, but it's
certainly a middle of the road approach to
putting one's toes into the water and deciding
whether or not you want to go swimming.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Firewall Wire Penetration |
>
>
>What is the purpose of the 90 degree bend? I would have thought a tube &
>flange plus two bits of firesleeve and two clamps as (I think) in one of the
>recent pictures Bob posted would be ideal.
Check over the posting I did on this technique and you'll
find both straight and right angle fittings. It depends
on how you want to handle the wire bundle once it enters
the engine compartment . . . My personal preference
would be for a right angle so that wire bundles can spread
out on the firewall . . . Bringing them straight through
presents some challenges for neat routing on most airplanes.
The airplane using the straight fitting illustrated in
my article needed to take the whole bundle through some
baffles immediately forward of the firewall so it made
better sense to come out straight. I suspect builders
will discover requirements unique to their projects
that will suggest the best way to go.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jmfpublic(at)attbi.com |
Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Ammeters |
For another source of inexpensive Hall effect units, with helpful application
notes, see http://www.amploc.com/ Prices run 12 to 25 dollars.
These will output a voltage equal to 1/2 of supply voltage at zero current
input, and thus need a regulated 5 volts DC. Not hard to get at low current in
a small 3 wire device.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: PC/Monitor noise on Recording Equipment |
>
>It's not Aero, but you guys seem to know everything electric.
>
>I've just put music recording equipement in the same portable case as my PC
>mixing equipement. I now have a static sound. I think it is caused by the
>monitor/cables or PC Fans. What can I do to isolate these systems from the
>recording equipement while keeping them all in the same physical box? Can
>it be done electrically? Or is there some sort of shealding I should use
>around the PC & monitor/cables?
No really good way to know. You need to find out what
the propagation mode between victim and antagonist
and then break that path. It can be radiated or
conducted and take time and effort to ferret out.
I'd hesitate to recommend any particular action
without doing some "sniffing" in the lab with equipment
designed to assist in deducing the answers. You can
certainly try combinations of shielding, filters,
and magnetic barriers (low hardness steel sheet
between the combatants) . . . you might get lucky
and find that the solution is simple.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Firewall Wire Penetration |
As mentioned before, dont forget about the sealant that expands and seals
the opening when exposed to flame.
>
>
>I think the purpose of the 90 degree bend is to make it more fireproof -
>imagine flames blowing at it off the engine - if it's bent 90degrees it
>would certainly take longer to burn through - instead of a staight one like
>you suggest.
>
> Steve Sampson wrote:--> AeroElectric-List
>message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
>
>What is the purpose of the 90 degree bend? I would have thought a tube &
>flange plus two bits of firesleeve and two clamps as (I think) in one of the
>recent pictures Bob posted would be ideal.
>
>Steve
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Julia
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall Wire Penetration
>
>
>I have a aircraft stainless steel welder interested in adding to his product
>line a firewall penetration product RV builders might purchase. His
>question is what might the best thing look like?
>
>I"m picturing an Stainless flange to which is welded a tube with a 90
>degree bend in it. What size tubing would work best. Would it be better to
>have a small one on each side, or all wires run through one larger tube?
>After all wires were run, you could fill the remaining space with fireproof
>putty. Let's put our heads together and see what might work best and he'll
>build it for us. We've all got to run wires throught a firewall somehow.
>
>thanks
>
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Engine Startup issues... |
On startup with any engine, the sooner the oil comes up to pressure, the
better. I even like the idea of a small, red LED idiot bulb that goes out
when the pressure is up, just to feel better about that 'spensive bag of
bolts out front... Just my opinion.
Jerry Cochran
RV6a/FWF
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Engine Startup issues... |
From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
And if you had a pre-oiler you could tell whether it was actually working
or not.... Kind of like starting a diesel - wait for the GP light to go
out before
turning over.
Regards,
Matt-
>
> On startup with any engine, the sooner the oil comes up to pressure, the
> better. I even like the idea of a small, red LED idiot bulb that goes
> out when the pressure is up, just to feel better about that 'spensive
> bag of bolts out front... Just my opinion.
>
> Jerry Cochran
> RV6a/FWF
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Ammeters |
>
>For another source of inexpensive Hall effect units, with helpful application
>notes, see http://www.amploc.com/ Prices run 12 to 25 dollars.
>
>These will output a voltage equal to 1/2 of supply voltage at zero current
>input, and thus need a regulated 5 volts DC. Not hard to get at low
>current in
>a small 3 wire device.
I've used these several times. Disappointing offset stability
with temperature and pretty high retentivity . . . hit them
with a 50A pulse and "zero" shifts up about an amp. Reverse
the stimulus and zero moves to minus 1 amp. Their output
per ampere-turn was reasonably stable. Fortunately, the few
times I've found them useful was taking measurements on
currents that went to zero every operating cycle. I could write
software that washed out the "wobbly" zero-current value.
This is the type of sensor used on the B&C SB-1 alternator
controller for driving the overcurrent light. In this case,
current is always the same direction and a 5% tolerance
on calibration was insignificant to the operation of the
system.
Within limitations cited above, they are indeed a handy,
reasonably priced sensor.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Firewall Wire Penetration |
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>As mentioned before, dont forget about the sealant that expands and seals
>the opening when exposed to flame.
The technique cited in my article replaced sealant in the
firesleeve with a wrapping of firesleeve cut down the side
to make some "firesheet". You can see in the last photo
how this was compressed down by the second hose clamp
to fill the voids.
Much friendlier to future addition or removal of wires.
The only place they used sealant was to close the gap
between the firewall sheet and flange of the penetration
fitting.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engine Startup issues... |
>
>On startup with any engine, the sooner the oil comes up to pressure, the
>better. I even like the idea of a small, red LED idiot bulb that goes out
>when the pressure is up, just to feel better about that 'spensive bag of
>bolts out front... Just my opinion.
>
>Jerry Cochran
>RV6a/FWF
That's what a pressure switch driven lamp would do for us. The
same switch could run the hour-meter.
see http://216.55.140.222/temp/HourMeter-LowOilP.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Hall effect ammeters |
In a message dated 03/07/2003 2:58:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com Bob Nuckolls writes:
<<.....skip.... This technology hasn't been developed into a productby either
B&C or AEC as of this writing. Since that chapter was written, some MUCH more
accurate devices using Hall technology combined with an integrated circuit
gives you a sensor like the closed loop sensors at:
http://www.sypris.com/stm/content.asp?page_id=323
consider the CLN-200 on
http://www.sypris.com/stm/content.asp?page_id=401
as the core sensor for a DIY ammeter. I can
provide a suggested schematic for using
these devices. They need about 150 milliamperes
of +/- 12 or 15 volts. A bit of a hassle but
getting easier all the time.
I've used a number of these sensors in instrumentation
tasks over the past 10 years. Really predictable
and stable output compared to the older, open
loop devices.
The MicroMonitor uses a hall effect device. The
last time I saw one installed they were using
a Honeywell product. You can browse the
complete line of Honeywell current sensors
at
http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/current/
check out the CSLA1CF open loop sensor at
http://catalog.sensing.honeywell.com/printfriendly.asp?FAM=current&PN=CSLA1CF
and a closed loop sensor at
http://catalog.sensing.honeywell.com/printfriendly.asp?FAM=current&PN=CSNA111-
500
Didn't find anyone other than MicroMonitor taking advantage of this
technology in a
product. Bob . . . >>
3/7/2003
Hello Bob, How about the Vision Microsystems Hall effect sensor installed on
the alternator B cable to create the eventual amperage read out on their
proprietary display? Does it qualify?
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Hall effect ammeters |
The Vision Microsystems sensor requires 10V and ground supplied to it. The
signal back from it is 5V relative to it's ground at zero amps. It
increases something like .0323V/A. That would make a signal of 8.23V at 100
amps.
Dave in Wichita
----- Original Message -----
From: <BAKEROCB(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Hall effect ammeters
>
> In a message dated 03/07/2003 2:58:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com Bob Nuckolls writes:
>
> <<.....skip.... This technology hasn't been developed into a productby
either
> B&C or AEC as of this writing. Since that chapter was written, some MUCH
more
> accurate devices using Hall technology combined with an integrated circuit
> gives you a sensor like the closed loop sensors at:
>
> http://www.sypris.com/stm/content.asp?page_id=323
>
> consider the CLN-200 on
>
> http://www.sypris.com/stm/content.asp?page_id=401
>
> as the core sensor for a DIY ammeter. I can
> provide a suggested schematic for using
> these devices. They need about 150 milliamperes
> of +/- 12 or 15 volts. A bit of a hassle but
> getting easier all the time.
>
> I've used a number of these sensors in instrumentation
> tasks over the past 10 years. Really predictable
> and stable output compared to the older, open
> loop devices.
>
> The MicroMonitor uses a hall effect device. The
> last time I saw one installed they were using
> a Honeywell product. You can browse the
> complete line of Honeywell current sensors
> at
>
> http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/current/
>
> check out the CSLA1CF open loop sensor at
>
>
http://catalog.sensing.honeywell.com/printfriendly.asp?FAM=current&PN=CSLA1C
F
>
> and a closed loop sensor at
>
>
http://catalog.sensing.honeywell.com/printfriendly.asp?FAM=current&PN=CSNA11
1-
>
> 500
>
> Didn't find anyone other than MicroMonitor taking advantage of this
> technology in a
> product. Bob . . . >>
>
> 3/7/2003
>
> Hello Bob, How about the Vision Microsystems Hall effect sensor installed
on
> the alternator B cable to create the eventual amperage read out on their
> proprietary display? Does it qualify?
>
> 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu> |
Bob - two questions concerning the MAC trim system to be installed in an
RV9a.
1. Although MAC say I can drive the trim directly from the stick I plan
to put a relay between the stick and relay as you previously advised.
Presumably I would need 2 of your P/N S704-1 relays, one for up and one for
down? Assuming yes are there not appropriate relays which mimic the 2-7
switch?
2. Are there any solid state parts that would mimic the 2-7 and act as
a relay. Surely this would be cheaper and more reliable?
Sorry if you have covered this before but I could not find it.
Regards, Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engine Startup issues... |
That is exactly how I set mine up, and am happy with it. The red idiot
light is high on the panel, so I can tell if I've left the master on
from outside the plane. The other side of the switch (NO) side connects
the battery bus to the hour-meter, so it always ticks whenever the
engine is running.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 264 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
>
> That's what a pressure switch driven lamp would do for us. The
> same switch could run the hour-meter.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "nhulin" <nhulin(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: PC/Monitor noise on Recording Equipment |
Jim,
I agree with Bob that we can't tell without some investigation but I work
with a lot of live audio gear and radio mics. The setup continually varies
depending on the venue and the event. The RF from the PC can be getting into
the audio gear by radiation, through the common ground, or through the
power. Most likely you are picking something up in your mic preamps.
First things to try are orientation and distance. This will tell you if it
is being coupled by radiation or via the physical connections. If it goes
away when you relocate the equipment then you can guess that it is being
radiated and then tackle that problem.
If relocating the equipment doesn't help, then unplug or power down each
item one at a time to determine who the "antagonist" is.
In general terms look at the quality of your low signal level cables. Use
good quality XLR connectors and shielded cables. If you have doubtful
cables, swap them out. Cable routing is another item to consider. Keep the
interconnects short and direct. Keep audio away from power.
If you suspect the noise is entering through the common ground, prove this
by powering the recording equipment off a different cct than the PC
equipment. This will likely introduce 60Hz hum but it proves the
interference mechanism.
Another suggestion is that you put the mic preamps out front and run
everything to the recording equipment as line level. Might be worth a try if
it provides a reliable solution.
...neil
Cincinnati Ohio
Zodiac 601XL
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PC/Monitor noise on Recording Equipment
>
>
> >
> >It's not Aero, but you guys seem to know everything electric.
> >
> >I've just put music recording equipement in the same portable case as my
PC
> >mixing equipement. I now have a static sound. I think it is caused by
the
> >monitor/cables or PC Fans. What can I do to isolate these systems from
the
> >recording equipement while keeping them all in the same physical box?
Can
> >it be done electrically? Or is there some sort of shealding I should use
> >around the PC & monitor/cables?
>
> No really good way to know. You need to find out what
> the propagation mode between victim and antagonist
> and then break that path. It can be radiated or
> conducted and take time and effort to ferret out.
>
> I'd hesitate to recommend any particular action
> without doing some "sniffing" in the lab with equipment
> designed to assist in deducing the answers. You can
> certainly try combinations of shielding, filters,
> and magnetic barriers (low hardness steel sheet
> between the combatants) . . . you might get lucky
> and find that the solution is simple.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Hall effect ammeters |
>
>In a message dated 03/07/2003 2:58:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com Bob Nuckolls writes:
>
>
>
> Didn't find anyone other than MicroMonitor taking advantage of this
>technology in a
> product. Bob . . . >>
>
>3/7/2003
>
>Hello Bob, How about the Vision Microsystems Hall effect sensor installed on
>the alternator B cable to create the eventual amperage read out on their
>proprietary display? Does it qualify?
Yup, that's the MicroMonitor I mentioned . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Bob - two questions concerning the MAC trim system to be installed in an
>RV9a.
>
>1. Although MAC say I can drive the trim directly from the stick I plan
>to put a relay between the stick and relay as you previously advised.
>Presumably I would need 2 of your P/N S704-1 relays, one for up and one for
>down? Assuming yes are there not appropriate relays which mimic the 2-7
>switch?
>2. Are there any solid state parts that would mimic the 2-7 and act as
>a relay. Surely this would be cheaper and more reliable?
>
>Sorry if you have covered this before but I could not find it.
>
>Regards, Steve
The MAC actuators draw about 100 ma . . . QUITE within
the capability of stick mounted switches and the wiring
normally associated with them. You need
a TWO-pole, double-throw, spring-loaded center off
switch like the 2-7. These CAN be acquired in miniature
switches. One such source is Newark Electronics
Cat# 21F657 C & K COMPONENTS C and K 7000 Series
Miniature Toggle Switch, DP3T Circut at $8.04 each
C&K p/n 7205SYZQE
You can find dimension data for this switch at:
http://www.ittcannon.com/media/pdf/catalogs/7000togl.pdf
See page A-4
There are some electronic interfaces that would convert
a single pole switch to this task . . . it takes a couple
of power transistors, 4 resistors, 2 capacitors. Relatively
easy but perhaps you might want to look into the size
issues for the C&K 7205 first.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jos Okhuijsen <josok(at)ukolo.fi> |
Subject: | Re: Audio Isolation Amp |
Mark Phillips wrote:
>dielectric strength and 400V would be OK as long as the capacitance is
>correct? There are almost 50 pages of just non-electrolytics! And most
>moronic of all, is 1uF = 1000pF? (aaarghh!)
>
>
Higher voltages will be larger and heavier, for the rest better
The order is 1 pico= 0.000 000 000 0001F, 1 nano=0.000 000 0001F, 1
micro= 0.000 0001F,
So 1 uF = 1 000 000 pF
>I'd like to use the clad board technique Bob demonstrates at
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/cladboard/cladboard.html
>
>In the back of the Mouser catalog (p844) is "Vectorboard General
>Purpose" prototyping board described as "CEM 1 Epoxy glass comp", .062
>thk, 4-1/2"x17" Is this the right stuff? (for $20!!!!!- probably only
>need about 5 bucks worth!)
>
>I'm sure most of you tech-types just got all this stuff laying around
>your workbench and could slop one together in yer sleep that works
>perfectly, but I could sure use some advice- I really don't want to take
>out time to go back & grind through all the fundamentals, but if any of
>y'all have a specific parts list put together for this thing, DigiKey,
>Mouser or whatever, I could sure use it! Better yet, throw the parts in
>a baggie, mail it to me and I'll send you some bucks! Maybe one day Bob
>will add a comic strip on this critter to his other great stuff, but I'm
>not sure if enough builders like me (cheap!) actually go about making
>one of these things to justify his time- I feel guilty just THINKING
>about asking him...
>
And how about your soldering technique? Better to find a hobbiest i guess?
Jos
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
Subject: | Re: Audio Isolation Amp |
Here is a Mouser part number list of acceptable components.
Description Qty Mouser #
Cost (ea) Comments
470 ohm resistor 7 299-470
0.08 Min. qty. is 10 pieces
27 ohm resistor 5 299-27
0.08 Min. qty. is 10 pieces
0.01uf/50V ceramic capacitor 2 80-C315C103K5R 0.13 Polarity
insensitive, axial lead
Choose one:
1uf/50V ceramic capacitor 7 581-SR215E105M 0.35 Polarity
insensitive, axial lead
1uf/25V electrolytic capacitor 7 140-XRL25V1.0 0.05 Polarity
sensitive, radial lead
1uf/100V electrolytic capacitor 7 140-XAL100V1.0 0.25
Polarity sensitive, axial lead
Choose one:
10uf/15V electrolytic capacitor 4 140-XAL16V10 0.25 Polarity
sensitive, axial lead
10uf/15V electrolytic capacitor 4 140-XRL16V10 0.05 Polarity
sensitive, radial lead
The selection of resistors and 0.01uf capacitor is straightforward.
The other capacitors are optional based on what you want and feel
comfortable with. If you are building the circuit using Bob's method
and you use the electrolytic capacitors, you probably want to use the
axial leaded versions (the leads come out of the two ends) for ease of
assembly. You have a choice with the 1uf capacitors of electrolytic or
ceramic - the ceramic is more expensive but is doesn't matter which end
you connect to what in the circuit. With the electrolytics you MUST
connect the positive end (marked on the case) to the flat plate side
shown on the schematic. The resistors can be connected however you want.
I didn't specify a DB-15 connector style because that is dependent on
how you want to mount everything. Look at the catalog or on the web site.
>and I have learned how totally ignerant I am and little else! I "think"
>I have found the LM386 (Mouser #513-NJM386BD) and the LM7808 (Mouser
>#513-NJM7808FA),
>
These are correct, although you could also use a 513-NJM78L08A (lower
power, smaller version).
>is this a minimum rating for
>dielectric strength and 400V would be OK as long as the capacitance is
>correct?
>
Yes, although 400V would probably be rather large :-) .
>There are almost 50 pages of just non-electrolytics! And most
>moronic of all, is 1uF = 1000pF? (aaarghh!)
>
No. 1uf = 1,000,000 pf
>In the back of the Mouser catalog (p844) is "Vectorboard General
>Purpose" prototyping board described as "CEM 1 Epoxy glass comp", .062
>thk, 4-1/2"x17" Is this the right stuff? (for $20!!!!!- probably only
>need about 5 bucks worth!)
>
You can use FR-4 or CEM (do not get FR-2). The stuff is expensive
because this material has holes in it. The holes make it easier to use
(you can stick the components leads through the holes before soldering)
and you can cut grooves in teh copper to separate sections.
If you are prepared to spend $20, you might consider 574-3797-2
($18.66). It has a general purpose circuit pattern on it that you can
use to mount all your components on (lots of separated circuit
sections). It will allow a much neater layout than Bob's method
(nothing wrong with his method though if you have the PCB material he
specifies). Take a look on the mouser web site.
>I'm sure most of you tech-types just got all this stuff laying around
>your workbench and could slop one together in yer sleep that works
>perfectly, but I could sure use some advice- I really don't want to take
>out time to go back & grind through all the fundamentals, but if any of
>y'all have a specific parts list put together for this thing, DigiKey,
>Mouser or whatever, I could sure use it! Better yet, throw the parts in
>a baggie, mail it to me and I'll send you some bucks!
>
Sorry I don't have all the parts on hand or I would do so.
If you have any other questions (or if I have confused you even more :-)
) email me.
Dick Tasker, 90573 RV9A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Aux battery Low Voltage notification |
Bob,
Our project is single alternator, dual battery with LVW-ABMM.
Concerning your LVW-ABMM diagram, I'd like to have a 'Aux Bat Low Voltage'
notification for the aux battery, instead of the 'Aux Bat On' light.
Do the following solutions make sense ?
- Discard the light, and install a LVW module sensing the Aux Bat voltage,
but fed from the Main Power Bus, to avoid illumination when the master
switch is off.
OR
-Replace the light with a small relay, and drive the annunciator from the
Main Power Bus, via the NC contact.
Or is there a more elegant -or more correct - solution to achieve this goal
?
Thanks,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Audio Isolation Amp |
> >
> >I'm sure most of you tech-types just got all this stuff laying around
> >your workbench and could slop one together in yer sleep that works
> >perfectly, but I could sure use some advice- I really don't want to take
> >out time to go back & grind through all the fundamentals, but if any of
> >y'all have a specific parts list put together for this thing, DigiKey,
> >Mouser or whatever, I could sure use it! Better yet, throw the parts in
> >a baggie, mail it to me and I'll send you some bucks! Maybe one day Bob
> >will add a comic strip on this critter to his other great stuff, but I'm
> >not sure if enough builders like me (cheap!) actually go about making
> >one of these things to justify his time- I feel guilty just THINKING
> >about asking him...
This is not a very good first-time project for
the neophyte assembler. First, there are some minor
errors on the drawing that the ol' salts would
catch. Second, this circuit has not been actually
assembled and tried out. Again, someone with
experience in tailoring gains and frequency
response wouldn't have a hard time with it.
I've laid out an etched circuit board for a
close approximation of the diagram I published.
The whole amplifier fits on a 1.9 x 2.5" ECB.
I'll order boards tonight and should have them
Friday of next week . . . although I'll be
out of town Friday through Wednesday next. In any
case, let me stuff one board and make sure
that we don't need to tweak some values. The
minimum order on boards is six . . . if
there are no serious errors, I'll have 5 or
six boards to offer for those who would like
to take a whack at their own iso-amp . . .
and I'll publish the board layout files
(Experesspcb.com) and some pictures as to
how it goes together.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aux battery Low Voltage notification |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Bob,
>
>Our project is single alternator, dual battery with LVW-ABMM.
>Concerning your LVW-ABMM diagram, I'd like to have a 'Aux Bat Low Voltage'
>notification for the aux battery, instead of the 'Aux Bat On' light.
>Do the following solutions make sense ?
>
>- Discard the light, and install a LVW module sensing the Aux Bat voltage,
>but fed from the Main Power Bus, to avoid illumination when the master
>switch is off.
You need either (1) relay to control aux battery power to the LVW
module when the system is shut down. The LVW module draws
about 10mA which is about 30-100 times the self-discharge
current of your RG battery . . . will run it down in due
course -OR- (2) make the AUX battery master a two-pole switch
and use second pole to control power to the LVW module.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Amit Dagan" <amitdagan(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Galls flasher FS039 |
Q:
Does anyone have actual experience with this flasher in an RV ?
Instead of hard-wiring the flasher to the power and using the built-in
switch to control the lights, can you leave the built-in switch permanently
on, and install a switch on the instrument panel to control the power TO the
unit with the same functionality ?
Thanks,
Amit.
PS:
http://www.galls.com/shop/viewProductDetail.jsp?item=FS039
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Ring-terminal sizes needed? |
From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Can someone tell me the stud sizes for the following items so I'll know
what size ring terminals to get for them?
B&C L-40 Alternator B-lead stud
ANL-40 Current Limiter studs
Fuseblock Stud
24 Tab Groundblock bolt
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D firewall forward and wiring...
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Min. wire size for mic/headphone wiring? |
From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
I have some twisted-shielded and triple-shielded wire given to me by a
friend and I'm not sure exactly what gauge it is, but it looks pretty
small--24 or 26 awg perhaps. Is this adequate for wiring my
intercom-to-mic and -headphone jacks? I'm assuming so, but not
absolutely certain since there's no min size wiring stated in the
literature for my Flightcom 403 intercom.
Also, even if the wire gauge is adequate electrically, is anything
smaller than 22 awg physically robust enough to stand up to long-term
vibration? I'd rather buy some heavier wire and do it right the first
time than have to fix it later....
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D firewall forward and wiring....
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Aux battery Low Voltage notification |
>
> You need either (1) relay to control aux battery power to the LVW
> module when the system is shut down. The LVW module draws
> about 10mA which is about 30-100 times the self-discharge
> current of your RG battery . . . will run it down in due
> course -OR- (2) make the AUX battery master a two-pole switch
> and use second pole to control power to the LVW module.
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
Thank you for your response. Any suggestions for the type of relay ? Or will
just any miniature 12 V relay do ?
Cheers
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Ring-terminal sizes needed? |
----- Message d'origine -----
De :
:
Envoy : dimanche 9 mars 2003 09:02
Objet : AeroElectric-List: Ring-terminal sizes needed?
>
> Can someone tell me the stud sizes for the following items so I'll know
> what size ring terminals to get for them?
>
> B&C L-40 Alternator B-lead stud
> ANL-40 Current Limiter studs
> Fuseblock Stud
> 24 Tab Groundblock bolt
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D firewall forward and wiring...
>
Hi all,
May I add B&C 5 amp circuit breaker to this list?
Thanks,
Gilles Thesee
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aux battery Low Voltage notification |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> >
> > You need either (1) relay to control aux battery power to the LVW
> > module when the system is shut down. The LVW module draws
> > about 10mA which is about 30-100 times the self-discharge
> > current of your RG battery . . . will run it down in due
> > course -OR- (2) make the AUX battery master a two-pole switch
> > and use second pole to control power to the LVW module.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>Bob,
>
>Thank you for your response. Any suggestions for the type of relay ? Or will
>just any miniature 12 V relay do ?
Anything will do.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Min. wire size for mic/headphone wiring? |
>
>I have some twisted-shielded and triple-shielded wire given to me by a
>friend and I'm not sure exactly what gauge it is, but it looks pretty
>small--24 or 26 awg perhaps. Is this adequate for wiring my
>intercom-to-mic and -headphone jacks? I'm assuming so, but not
>absolutely certain since there's no min size wiring stated in the
>literature for my Flightcom 403 intercom.
any size is fine electrically . . .
>Also, even if the wire gauge is adequate electrically, is anything
>smaller than 22 awg physically robust enough to stand up to long-term
>vibration? I'd rather buy some heavier wire and do it right the first
>time than have to fix it later....
>
>Thanks,
The risks are at the joints where support of the wire
near the joint is needed. PIDG does this automatically.
Heatshink on soldered connections to jacks and back shells
on connectors takes care of the rest of the joints.
Heat shrink large enough to go over the terminal on
a headset or mic jack won't close down enough to
support even a 20 or 22AWG wire. You can build up
the diameter of the smaller wire with two layers
of small heatshrink before you solder it to the
jack and install the larger heatshrink to stabilize
the whole thing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
Subject: | Re: Ring-terminal sizes needed? |
Mark,
FWIW
- My B&C L-60A alternator B lead stud is 1/4"
- The ANL fuseholder in which I have a L-60 fuse has 5/16" terminals
- My fuse blocks from Aeroelectric have #10 studs
- My 24/48 tab groundblock from Aeroelectric has a 5/16" bolt
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
-6A FWF wired, fitting cowl, N331RD (reserved)
czechsix(at)juno.com wrote:
>
>
> Can someone tell me the stud sizes for the following items so I'll know
> what size ring terminals to get for them?
>
> B&C L-40 Alternator B-lead stud
> ANL-40 Current Limiter studs
> Fuseblock Stud
> 24 Tab Groundblock bolt
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D firewall forward and wiring...
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Ring-terminal sizes needed? |
<< B&C L-40 Alternator B-lead stud>> Probably 6mm, 1/4" ring is fine
<> 5/16"
<> Don't know. #10 or 1/4 is my guess
<<24 Tab Groundblock bolt>> 5/16"
<<5 amp circuit breaker >> Usually #8. Buy a bag of #6 too; you'll use them
up.
Don't forget to order what you'll need for wire stabilization. Easier
to have it on hand so you can judge wire routing as you string and terminate.
For example, the alternator B-lead will likely need three MS cushion clamps.
One stabilizes the wire on the back of the alternator, one might tie to the
engine case halfway along the run to keep the wire forever clear of bad
things, and one might tie to a motor mount tube before going to a
firewall-mounted ANL terminal. In this example the wire's "flex section" is
between the case tie point and the motor mount tie point. Nothing is allowed
to wobble a wire termination.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Ring-terminal sizes needed? |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>
>----- Message d'origine -----
>De :
> :
>Envoy : dimanche 9 mars 2003 09:02
>Objet : AeroElectric-List: Ring-terminal sizes needed?
>
>
> >
> > Can someone tell me the stud sizes for the following items so I'll know
> > what size ring terminals to get for them?
> >
> > B&C L-40 Alternator B-lead stud
> > ANL-40 Current Limiter studs
> > Fuseblock Stud
> > 24 Tab Groundblock bolt
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --Mark Navratil
> > Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> > RV-8A N2D firewall forward and wiring...
> >
>
>Hi all,
>
>May I add B&C 5 amp circuit breaker to this list?
Most are #6 screws. There are a few that are #8
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Ring-terminal sizes needed? |
From: | Joel Harding <cajole76(at)ispwest.com> |
Mark,
I think I can help you out.
Alt B-lead 1/4 "
Current Limiter 5/16"
Fuseblock 3/16"
Ground block 5/16"
Joel Harding
On Sunday, March 9, 2003, at 01:02 AM, czechsix(at)juno.com wrote:
>
> Can someone tell me the stud sizes for the following items so I'll know
> what size ring terminals to get for them?
>
> B&C L-40 Alternator B-lead stud
> ANL-40 Current Limiter studs
> Fuseblock Stud
> 24 Tab Groundblock bolt
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D firewall forward and wiring...
>
>
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Noise in 760 installation |
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
>To:
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 10378 Fluent
>
> > If you experience any kind of noise problems (don't
> > know what, if any, noise filtering may be part of
> > Icom's adapter), you may need to do something
> > like:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/filter/filter.html
> >
> > to clean up ship's power to the Icom's liking.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
>
>I have the MicroAir 760 in my Rotax 912 powered Kolb Twinstar. It's wired
>as in your diagram, with the shields from the headphone and mic going to the
>mic lo pin on the MicroAir. The only wires going to the panel ground are
>from the two ground pins and the intercom ground, through a switch. I'm
>getting a very loud alternator or ignition whine when I use the PTT or
>intercom switch. The noise frequency and volume is directly proportional to
>rpm. Same noise with transmit or intercom, so would it be the antenna? I
>have a computer grade electrolytic capacitor in the charging circuit 14V,
>22k mf (wiring is appendix Z-7 all the way) Would trying the RadioShack
>filter above be the next thing to try?
Try running the radio from a 12 battery independent of
the ship's electrical system. A couple of 6v lantern
batteries from WalMart will work fine. If the radio
is quiet with independent battery, then a filter
like the one cited will probably fix it.
February 28, 2003 - March 09, 2003
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-bs