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
Date: Feb 28, 2003
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2003
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <315(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: self exciting alternator
Date: Feb 28, 2003
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>
Subject: Re: Wing wiring
Date: Feb 28, 2003
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 > > _- > > ====================================================================== > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2003
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/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2003
From: Randy Pflanzer <F1Rocket(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Wing wiring
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??
Date: Feb 28, 2003
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
Date: Feb 28, 2003
??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. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: KITFOXZ(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 28, 2003
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: KITFOXZ(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 28, 2003
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N823ms(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 28, 2003
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
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2003
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
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: KITFOXZ(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2003
From: Eric Schlanser <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: 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: DHPHKH(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 > > > --------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 | > |-------------------------------------------------------| > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 > > >--------------------------------- > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sam Chambers" <schamber@glasgow-ky.com>
Subject: Re: Firewall penetrations for wires . . .
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 | > |-------------------------------------------------------| > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 . . .
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 . . .
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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?
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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) ????
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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" ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <315(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: De-Rate Mini Switches?
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N67BT(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 . . . > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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?
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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) ????
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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) ????
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N67BT(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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) ????
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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 > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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) ????
Date: Mar 02, 2003
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. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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?
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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?
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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 > > > > > ===== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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>
Subject: RF interference
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2003
From: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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 | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DHPHKH(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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>
Subject: LED nav lights
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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. >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2003
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 | |-------------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <315(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: New Feature on aeroelectric.com
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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 | > |-------------------------------------------------------| > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Wingtip VHF antenna in carbon fiber airplane
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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 | > |-------------------------------------------------------| > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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>
Subject: aec7_1.zip
Date: Mar 04, 2003
Bob, I downloaded it and open it up. Do you really need to have AEC7_0.zip in there also? Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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! > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2003
Subject: switch mounting nuts
From: "Robert Dickson" <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. . . Robert Dickson RV-6A electrical ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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 . . .
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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 . . .
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2003
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 . . .
Date: Mar 04, 2003
> Think "blow torch" into your lap .... Think about putting the engine on the "Wright" end of the airplane. John Slade Cozy IV ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 > _- > ====================================================================== > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
From: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
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 . . .
Date: Mar 05, 2003
>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: DHPHKH(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 . . .
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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>
Subject: Re: aec7_1.zip
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 . . .
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 . . .
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 > > > --------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: aec7_1.zip
> >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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 . ]
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
From: RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Halon
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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>
Subject: Re: Halon
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TimRhod(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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>
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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>
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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 --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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 > > >--------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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>
Subject: Delamination
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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..... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TimRhod(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TimRhod(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 06, 2003
Subject: Re: Z-14 considerations
________________________________________________________________________________
From: TimRhod(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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
Date: Mar 06, 2003
----- 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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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>
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TimRhod(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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 . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TimRhod(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TimRhod(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2003
From: Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)direcway.com>
Subject: 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: "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob(at)RobsGlass.com>
Subject: European hole spacing
Date: Mar 06, 2003
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>
Subject: Re: Halon
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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>
Subject: Re: Halon
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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>
Subject:
Date: Mar 07, 2003
<> 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2003
From: Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)direcway.com>
Subject: Re: Halon
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>
Subject: Re: Halon
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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>
Subject: Re: Halon
Date: Mar 07, 2003
> 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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>
Subject: Re: Halon
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2003
Subject: Re: Halon
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>
Subject: Re: Halon
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DHPHKH(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 07, 2003
Subject: Re: Halon
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2003
From: Canyon <steve.canyon(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Halon
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
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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???
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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 --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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 --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2003
From: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
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
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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
Date: Mar 07, 2003
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>
Subject: Trim Relays
Date: Mar 08, 2003
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...
Date: Mar 08, 2003
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
Date: Mar 08, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Trim Relays
> > >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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Glles.Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Aux battery Low Voltage notification
Date: Mar 09, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2003
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
Date: Mar 09, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2003
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... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2003
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.... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Glles.Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Aux battery Low Voltage notification
Date: Mar 09, 2003
> > 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Glles.Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Ring-terminal sizes needed?
Date: Mar 09, 2003
----- 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2003
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2003
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... > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DHPHKH(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 09, 2003
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2003
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2003
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... > > > _- > ====================================================================== > _- > ====================================================================== > _- > ====================================================================== > _- > ====================================================================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2003
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