AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-by
April 24, 2003 - May 06, 2003
> once . . . after talking to my favorite suppliers it
> didn't take long to recover my senses.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Lamp" <tlamp(at)genesishcs.org> |
04/24/2003 01:02:13 PM
Thanks bob, I've sent you an order via your online ordering page.
Terry
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,, snip >>>>>>>>>>>
My price on this radio is $270 in either the ni-cad or
alkaline battery pack version. My personal favorite is
the alkaline battery pack . . . I pitched the rechargeable
pack for mine a year ago.
Can have one shipped direct to you from the distributor
yet this week.
Bob . . .
*************************************************************************
*****************Confidentiality Notice:******************************
*************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail message, including any
attachments, is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named above (addressee). This e-mail may contain information
that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, copying or other use of the communication or its
substance is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please reply to this e-mail indicating you are not the intended
recipient and immediately destroy all copies of this e-mail. Receipt
by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any
privileged information.
**********************************************************************************
*eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals and malicious content*
**********************************************************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
I talked to Bill, but didn't really find out a lot. He readily admits
he's no expert when it comes to belt tension. What he did know was that
he has yet to see one of the front bearings fail in the ND alternator,
so that is at least encouraging.
He went on to say that he had a consultant from Gates do the
calculations when he had it done, and didn't recall much about it. He
did recall the bearing was a NSK sealed ball bearing, 46mm OD, 15mm ID,
14mm thick.
Any other insight from anyone? Any automotive engineers our there?
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ALT questions
>
>
>Bob, in your alternator design, what belt tension do you recommend?
>What belt tension will the bearings tolerate in your alternator?
>
>I ask because my alternator is belt driven along with my supercharger
>from a large pulley behind the spinner on the front of the engine. The
>supercharger sits on one side (copilot) and the alternator on the other
>(pilot). The pulley is 12", and the belt is 10 rib. See attached pic.
>There is an idler/tensioner pulley on each side (see pic).
>
>What is a good way to calculate the belt tension of this setup and to
>figure out if I will alternator bearing problems? The tensioner/idler
>pulley is "pulled up tight" by use of a 10-32 screw that screws into a
>tapped hole in the very top of the bracket that holds the
>tensioner/idler pulley. This screw pushes against the top (of the 2)
>bolt that secures the tensioner/idler assembly. This bolt is torqued
to
>45in-pounds. The belt feels sorta loose, looks like normal automotive
>belt tension. Does the force on this bolt/screw directly correspond to
>the tension on the belt, so 45in-pounds? Or is it 90 in-pounds as
there
>are 2 tensioners?
>
>This late in the day my force diagrams from physics are escaping my
>grasp.
>
>Thanks for the help.
Bill Bainbridge would be better for this question. Give
him a call at 316.283.8000 and let us know what he
says . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aircraft antenna VS Hand held antenna |
If a hand held will pick up the VOR 50 miles out with its own antenna,will
there be a improvement inistance if the hand held is hooked up to the
aircraft antenna?
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Belt tension |
Shannon,
I've done some work with other kinds of Gates belts (not v-belts). Gates puts
excellent information in the technical pages of their belt catalogs, best
in the business. Might check their website for pdf versions.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
I'm not an automotive engineer but I know how to find things. Try
http://www.cptbelts.com/pdf/catalogs/vbelt_all.pdf and go to page 290 to the
section titled "V-BELT TENSIONING" to find how to determine the correct
tension for your application. See especially Figure 26 on p. 292 for an
easy method.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airfarame complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Shannon
Knoepflein
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Belt tension
I talked to Bill, but didn't really find out a lot. He readily admits
he's no expert when it comes to belt tension. What he did know was that
he has yet to see one of the front bearings fail in the ND alternator,
so that is at least encouraging.
He went on to say that he had a consultant from Gates do the
calculations when he had it done, and didn't recall much about it. He
did recall the bearing was a NSK sealed ball bearing, 46mm OD, 15mm ID,
14mm thick.
Any other insight from anyone? Any automotive engineers our there?
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ALT questions
>
>
>Bob, in your alternator design, what belt tension do you recommend?
>What belt tension will the bearings tolerate in your alternator?
>
>I ask because my alternator is belt driven along with my supercharger
>from a large pulley behind the spinner on the front of the engine. The
>supercharger sits on one side (copilot) and the alternator on the other
>(pilot). The pulley is 12", and the belt is 10 rib. See attached pic.
>There is an idler/tensioner pulley on each side (see pic).
>
>What is a good way to calculate the belt tension of this setup and to
>figure out if I will alternator bearing problems? The tensioner/idler
>pulley is "pulled up tight" by use of a 10-32 screw that screws into a
>tapped hole in the very top of the bracket that holds the
>tensioner/idler pulley. This screw pushes against the top (of the 2)
>bolt that secures the tensioner/idler assembly. This bolt is torqued
to
>45in-pounds. The belt feels sorta loose, looks like normal automotive
>belt tension. Does the force on this bolt/screw directly correspond to
>the tension on the belt, so 45in-pounds? Or is it 90 in-pounds as
there
>are 2 tensioners?
>
>This late in the day my force diagrams from physics are escaping my
>grasp.
>
>Thanks for the help.
Bill Bainbridge would be better for this question. Give
him a call at 316.283.8000 and let us know what he
says . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft antenna VS Hand held antenna |
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>If a hand held will pick up the VOR 50 miles out with its own antenna,will
>there be a improvement inistance if the hand held is hooked up to the
>aircraft antenna?
>
>
>Scott Bilinski
>Eng dept 305
>Phone (858) 657-2536
>Pager (858) 502-5190
>
Any antenna will pick up or talk to a facility that it can "see" . . .
I've used hand helds in passenger aircraft and experienced amazing
performance . . . elevating your antenna to 30K feet can overcome
some pretty huge deficiencies in antenna location and capabilities.
A rubber duck inside a fuselage is at a disadvantage, especially
in high wing all metal light planes. Bubble canopy aircraft are
friendlier and especially the glass and plastic variety. But a
rubber-duck is a POOR antenna compared with any full sized
antenna, especially one mounted on outside of the airframe.
If you plan to use a hand held as a "backup" and you want
more that to call the tower 5 miles out, then make provisions
for hooking it to an external antenna.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave O'Donnell" <daveodonnell(at)direcway.com> |
Some empirical comments regarding belt tension.
My Archer II came with the air conditioner initially. This means that
the alternator used the small v-belts (NOT GOOD). I learned the hard
way that high tension on the ground would result in a broken belt as the
LARGE aluminum pulley on the prop got hot and expanded. Sometimes I
would find broken belt strands before failure. Aluminum has a high
thermal expansion coefficient. Modern belts do not, do not stretch like
the ones of old. If over tightened they tend to break. Non-believers
should check tension in the summer after some ramp time, let that big
pulley get hot! We all check cold before starting.
Tension too loose and the belt would twist in a higher speed descent
(short length exposed to intake cooling air) become damaged and break.
This got real old fast. Tried everything, what worked was removing the
air-con, replacing the alternator pulleys, & belt with the standard
size. The std (large) size belt is stiffer, will tolerate the high
speed air and it can be run loose enough that expansion of the large
pulley on the prop will not result in a broken belt. Truth is, this
larger belt would likely bend brackets before breaking.
If the belt contact arc (in terms of angle) on the alternator is large
the need for tension to achieve drive is greatly diminished. Never have
I had a problem with inadequate drive on the alternator. I run the std
belt rather loose given my experience. This will directly result in
lower bearing loads. Hope some of this helps.
Regards
Dave O
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Shannon Knoepflein
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Belt tension
I talked to Bill, but didn't really find out a lot. He readily admits
he's no expert when it comes to belt tension. What he did know was that
he has yet to see one of the front bearings fail in the ND alternator,
so that is at least encouraging.
He went on to say that he had a consultant from Gates do the
calculations when he had it done, and didn't recall much about it. He
did recall the bearing was a NSK sealed ball bearing, 46mm OD, 15mm ID,
14mm thick.
Any other insight from anyone? Any automotive engineers our there?
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ALT questions
>
>
>Bob, in your alternator design, what belt tension do you recommend?
>What belt tension will the bearings tolerate in your alternator?
>
>I ask because my alternator is belt driven along with my supercharger
>from a large pulley behind the spinner on the front of the engine. The
>supercharger sits on one side (copilot) and the alternator on the other
>(pilot). The pulley is 12", and the belt is 10 rib. See attached pic.
>There is an idler/tensioner pulley on each side (see pic).
>
>What is a good way to calculate the belt tension of this setup and to
>figure out if I will alternator bearing problems? The tensioner/idler
>pulley is "pulled up tight" by use of a 10-32 screw that screws into a
>tapped hole in the very top of the bracket that holds the
>tensioner/idler pulley. This screw pushes against the top (of the 2)
>bolt that secures the tensioner/idler assembly. This bolt is torqued
to
>45in-pounds. The belt feels sorta loose, looks like normal automotive
>belt tension. Does the force on this bolt/screw directly correspond to
>the tension on the belt, so 45in-pounds? Or is it 90 in-pounds as
there
>are 2 tensioners?
>
>This late in the day my force diagrams from physics are escaping my
>grasp.
>
>Thanks for the help.
Bill Bainbridge would be better for this question. Give
him a call at 316.283.8000 and let us know what he
says . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
Problem is if I let it run too loose, the belt will slip and the
supercharger (and alternator) won't turn, which means no power :(
(well, less power anyway)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
O'Donnell
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Belt tension
Some empirical comments regarding belt tension.
My Archer II came with the air conditioner initially. This means that
the alternator used the small v-belts (NOT GOOD). I learned the hard
way that high tension on the ground would result in a broken belt as the
LARGE aluminum pulley on the prop got hot and expanded. Sometimes I
would find broken belt strands before failure. Aluminum has a high
thermal expansion coefficient. Modern belts do not, do not stretch like
the ones of old. If over tightened they tend to break. Non-believers
should check tension in the summer after some ramp time, let that big
pulley get hot! We all check cold before starting.
Tension too loose and the belt would twist in a higher speed descent
(short length exposed to intake cooling air) become damaged and break.
This got real old fast. Tried everything, what worked was removing the
air-con, replacing the alternator pulleys, & belt with the standard
size. The std (large) size belt is stiffer, will tolerate the high
speed air and it can be run loose enough that expansion of the large
pulley on the prop will not result in a broken belt. Truth is, this
larger belt would likely bend brackets before breaking.
If the belt contact arc (in terms of angle) on the alternator is large
the need for tension to achieve drive is greatly diminished. Never have
I had a problem with inadequate drive on the alternator. I run the std
belt rather loose given my experience. This will directly result in
lower bearing loads. Hope some of this helps.
Regards
Dave O
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Shannon Knoepflein
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Belt tension
I talked to Bill, but didn't really find out a lot. He readily admits
he's no expert when it comes to belt tension. What he did know was that
he has yet to see one of the front bearings fail in the ND alternator,
so that is at least encouraging.
He went on to say that he had a consultant from Gates do the
calculations when he had it done, and didn't recall much about it. He
did recall the bearing was a NSK sealed ball bearing, 46mm OD, 15mm ID,
14mm thick.
Any other insight from anyone? Any automotive engineers our there?
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ALT questions
>
>
>Bob, in your alternator design, what belt tension do you recommend?
>What belt tension will the bearings tolerate in your alternator?
>
>I ask because my alternator is belt driven along with my supercharger
>from a large pulley behind the spinner on the front of the engine. The
>supercharger sits on one side (copilot) and the alternator on the other
>(pilot). The pulley is 12", and the belt is 10 rib. See attached pic.
>There is an idler/tensioner pulley on each side (see pic).
>
>What is a good way to calculate the belt tension of this setup and to
>figure out if I will alternator bearing problems? The tensioner/idler
>pulley is "pulled up tight" by use of a 10-32 screw that screws into a
>tapped hole in the very top of the bracket that holds the
>tensioner/idler pulley. This screw pushes against the top (of the 2)
>bolt that secures the tensioner/idler assembly. This bolt is torqued
to
>45in-pounds. The belt feels sorta loose, looks like normal automotive
>belt tension. Does the force on this bolt/screw directly correspond to
>the tension on the belt, so 45in-pounds? Or is it 90 in-pounds as
there
>are 2 tensioners?
>
>This late in the day my force diagrams from physics are escaping my
>grasp.
>
>Thanks for the help.
Bill Bainbridge would be better for this question. Give
him a call at 316.283.8000 and let us know what he
says . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shaun Simpkins" <shauns(at)hevanet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Aviator Pilot |
At the risk of being confirmed a know-it-not,
I seem to recall that the VOR CDI works by detecting the
phase between two signals broadcast from the VOR station;
10 degrees phase difference 10 degrees off track. Being
able to detect 1 degree of phase error reliably in a quiet
environment is a pretty impressive thing ( particularly back
in the mid-20th century when this system was invented )
and requires that both the transmitter and receiver conditions
be stable for it to work.
I wonder if the reason that you can't get a stable signal is
because the antenna isn't locked down. Moving the antenna
around might change the received phase relationships radically
and unpredictably. Have you tried the CDI with the radio hooked
in to the plane's VOR antenna, or with the radio duct-taped to
the canopy?
If it still doesn't work after that, well...have any ICOM portable
owners out there had similar problems?
Shaun Simpkins
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
Cheers,
Excuse this one off-topic message, but the frustration over SARS
here is monstrous.
First of all, SARS was imported to Toronto by two travellers
from Hong Kong - it did not originate here, nor is there any
"outbreak"...... EVERY person connected with these two has been traced and
either quarantined as 'suspect' for the requisite 10 days, or hospitalised
and treated or released as clear. Of the 7000 people thus affected, 15 or so
have died - none under 60 years old or suffering immunity deficiency. All
the rest are either absolved of any infection or never were touched by it.
All other transmission is by unsuspecting health workers on the job, traced
and treated. The incubation period for SARS is 10 days for aperson, 24 hours
for an infected surface. ALL this has been pioneered here. There has not
been a new infectee for over a week. In Australia, the claim that a Canadian
infected a family there has been proven false. The other claim of infection
overseas was not a Canadian.
Singapore has done a super job in containing its infestation but
only by some Draconian measures (by our standards). The abject harm that The
WHO has done by including the pioneer city in the contamination of whole
provinces of China is proving to be about 12 million dollars a day damage to
the city. that will be billions by the time it retracts its asinine warning.
The only people seen wearing masks here are either precious
dilletantes (those who were too cowardly to fly on 12SEP01) or health
workers enroute.
If you are looking for terror, watch one billion people over the
Pacific. This event is like watching idiots panic when someone shouts "Fire
Extinguisher!"
There, I can sleep now.
ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ivorphillips" <ivor(at)ivorphillips.flyer.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Aviator Pilot |
I brought the Icon A23 from OSH last year expressly for the VOR backup
facility, it worked fine on the ground around oskosh but on my first flight
in a europa tracking towards Dover VOR I was unable to get a stable signal
until about 10 miles out at 3000 ft,
On my own Europa I am at present fitting Bob archers wingtip VOR antenna
which I am hoping will resolve the problem,
Until my plane is flying I cant give a definite answer on the Icom except
as a transceiver it is excellent.
Ivor phillips
europa XS and still building
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shaun Simpkins" <shauns(at)hevanet.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Yaesu Aviator Pilot
>
> At the risk of being confirmed a know-it-not,
> I seem to recall that the VOR CDI works by detecting the
> phase between two signals broadcast from the VOR station;
> 10 degrees phase difference 10 degrees off track. Being
> able to detect 1 degree of phase error reliably in a quiet
> environment is a pretty impressive thing ( particularly back
> in the mid-20th century when this system was invented )
> and requires that both the transmitter and receiver conditions
> be stable for it to work.
>
> I wonder if the reason that you can't get a stable signal is
> because the antenna isn't locked down. Moving the antenna
> around might change the received phase relationships radically
> and unpredictably. Have you tried the CDI with the radio hooked
> in to the plane's VOR antenna, or with the radio duct-taped to
> the canopy?
>
> If it still doesn't work after that, well...have any ICOM portable
> owners out there had similar problems?
>
> Shaun Simpkins
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall connector |
> > electrical signal wires, I was hoping to use a mile spec C5015 subtype K
> > circular
> > bulkhead and mating plug connector for 18 16ga wires. I finally found a
> > local stocking distributor here in the former home of several major
> > military aircraft manufacturers (Long Island).
> > But wait: over $300 for a single mating pair, not including any
> > accessories.
> > Wow...
> >
> > Does anyone have any idea about more reasonable sources for firewall
> > connectors
the AMP CPC (circular plastic connector?) is a plastic copy of the mil spec
bendix-type connector and uses the same mil pins. I believe the plastic has
a pretty high temp rating. cost is $2-3 and they come in a large variety of
sizes. Don't let the price fool you, they work very well and you can get
o-rings and strain relief accessories. I think they also accept regular
D-sub pins but the mil pins are worth the extra money. They're available
from most electrical catalogs (allied, digikey, newark). They're so cheap I
got extra ones for test connectors and temporary wire harnesses. A nice way
to make a modular system. Of course, the fewer connectors the better for
reliability, but in the right places they help in regards to maintainability
and upgrades.
gary k
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall connector |
>
> > > electrical signal wires, I was hoping to use a mile spec C5015 subtype K
> > > circular
> > > bulkhead and mating plug connector for 18 16ga wires. I finally found a
> > > local stocking distributor here in the former home of several major
> > > military aircraft manufacturers (Long Island).
> > > But wait: over $300 for a single mating pair, not including any
> > > accessories.
> > > Wow...
> > >
> > > Does anyone have any idea about more reasonable sources for firewall
> > > connectors
>
>the AMP CPC (circular plastic connector?) is a plastic copy of the mil spec
>bendix-type connector and uses the same mil pins. I believe the plastic has
>a pretty high temp rating. cost is $2-3 and they come in a large variety of
>sizes. Don't let the price fool you, they work very well and you can get
>o-rings and strain relief accessories. I think they also accept regular
>D-sub pins but the mil pins are worth the extra money. They're available
>from most electrical catalogs (allied, digikey, newark). They're so cheap I
>got extra ones for test connectors and temporary wire harnesses. A nice way
>to make a modular system. Of course, the fewer connectors the better for
>reliability, but in the right places they help in regards to maintainability
>and upgrades.
. . . and should NEVER be used to take wires through a firewall.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Aviator Pilot |
>
>
>I brought the Icon A23 from OSH last year expressly for the VOR backup
>facility, it worked fine on the ground around oskosh but on my first flight
>in a europa tracking towards Dover VOR I was unable to get a stable signal
>until about 10 miles out at 3000 ft,
typical performance for the rubber duck antenna . . .
>On my own Europa I am at present fitting Bob archers wingtip VOR antenna
>which I am hoping will resolve the problem,
>Until my plane is flying I cant give a definite answer on the Icom except
>as a transceiver it is excellent.
you will see a marked improvement in performance on a
full size, external antenna.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Aviator Pilot |
In a message dated 04/24/2003 10:55:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
shauns(at)hevanet.com writes:
> I wonder if the reason that you can't get a stable signal is
> because the antenna isn't locked down. Moving the antenna
> around might change the received phase relationships radically
> and unpredictably. Have you tried the CDI with the radio hooked
> in to the plane's VOR
My experience with the King KX-99 years ago sugests that the problem lies
with Yaesu/Vertex engineering and not with the concept of a portable receiver
in a noisy environment. This is both surprising and disappointing, since in
my ham experience, the Yaesu FT-23R is one of the best handheld FM HT designs
ever produced, and is my personal favorite over anything that Kenwood or Icom
were offering in its day...
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rondefly" <rondefly(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall connector |
Ron Triano Quicker one Q-200, 90% Done with 90% to go
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Firewall connector
>
> > > electrical signal wires, I was hoping to use a mile spec C5015 subtype
K
> > > circular
> > > bulkhead and mating plug connector for 18 16ga wires. I finally found
a
> > > local stocking distributor here in the former home of several major
> > > military aircraft manufacturers (Long Island).
> > > But wait: over $300 for a single mating pair, not including any
> > > accessories.
> > > Wow...
> > >
> > > Does anyone have any idea about more reasonable sources for firewall
> > > connectors
>
>the AMP CPC (circular plastic connector?) is a plastic copy of the mil spec
>bendix-type connector and uses the same mil pins. I believe the plastic
has
>a pretty high temp rating. cost is $2-3 and they come in a large variety
of
>sizes. Don't let the price fool you, they work very well and you can get
>o-rings and strain relief accessories. I think they also accept regular
>D-sub pins but the mil pins are worth the extra money. They're available
>from most electrical catalogs (allied, digikey, newark). They're so cheap
I
>got extra ones for test connectors and temporary wire harnesses. A nice
way
>to make a modular system. Of course, the fewer connectors the better for
>reliability, but in the right places they help in regards to
maintainability
>and upgrades.
. . . and should NEVER be used to take wires through a firewall.
Bob . . .
Before I would say NEVER, I would like to see some spec on this
connector, Don't just not use it because it is plastic, or
fibreglass as some have a much better fire ratings than most other
materials. Just look at what happened to the space shuttle when
a
piece broke off. Maybe Bob's never is some electrical reason? Still
using my stainless tube with a welded flange and fire caulking.
Ron Triano
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan&Patty Krueger <pndkrueg(at)infionline.net> |
Adolf Wenning ,
"aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com" ,
Al Marretta , Ann & Grey Jewett
| Subject: | [Fwd: credit reporting info] |
From: "Betty Enfinger" <bettyenfinger(at)cox.net>
"Larry Spikes" ,
"Francis Enfinger" ,
"Mark at Home" < enfinger(at)tampabay.rr.com>,
"Lisa Jones" ,
"Vivian Faircloth" ,
"Susan Madden" ,
"Rosie Taylor" ,
"Prentiss Frazier" ,
"Patty Krueger" ,
"Pat Ready" ,
"Nancy Gressler" ,
"Marilyn at Work" ,
"Linda Tillery" ,
"Jody Webb" ,
"Joan Highsmith" ,
"Jill McMahon" ,
"Helen Gibson" ,
"Gloria Dawson" ,
"Gary Wilson" ,
"Fred Schwenk" ,
"Carmen Jones" < carmen.jones(at)amsouth.com>,
"Barbara Paulin" ,
"Barbara Allison Hurlbutt"
Subject: credit reporting info
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:26:21 -0500
To All,
Very important...Please read...
Your Credit: Personal Information goes public Starting July 1st, 2003,
the four major credit bureaus in the US (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union,
etc.) will be allowed to release credit info, mailing addresses, phone
numbers, etc., to ANYONE who requests it. If you do not want to be included
in this release of your personal information, you can call 1-888-567-8688.
Once the message starts you will want option #2 (even though option #1
refers to this email, push #2) and then option #3.
Be sure to listen closely, the first option is only for a two-year period.
Make sure you! wait until they prompt for the third option, which opts
you out FOREVER. You should receive their paperwork in the mail confirming
the "opting out" in less than one week after making the call.
PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO ALL IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK, FRIENDS AND FAMILY.
Here is the web site: http://www.pirg.org/consumer/credit/bureaus.htm
To All,
Very important...Please read...
Your Credit: Personal
Information goes public Starting July 1st, 2003,
the four major credit
bureaus in the US (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union,etc.) will be allowed to
release credit info, mailing addresses, phone numbers, etc., to ANYONE who
requests it. If you do not want to be included in this release of your
personal information, you can call 1-888-567-8688. Once the message starts
you will want option #2 (even though option #1 refers to this email, push #2)
and then option #3.
Be sure to listen closely, the first option is only for a two-year
period.
Make sure you! wait until they prompt for the third option, which
opts
you out FOREVER. You should receive their paperwork in the mail
confirmingthe "opting out" in less than one week after making the
call.
PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO ALL IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK, FRIENDS AND
FAMILY.
Here is the web site: http://www.pirg.org/consumer/credit/bureaus.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Aviator Pilot |
In a message dated 04/25/2003 11:05:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
SportAV8R(at)aol.com writes:
> My experience with the King KX-99 years ago sugests that the problem lies
> with Yaesu/Vertex engineering
Let me add to my own post by saying that the King handheld would read the
exact reciprocal of the VOR heading if the bus voltage in my RANS was not
reduced to about 12.6 volts by the addition of some series dropping diodes of
the 1N4004 variety. I discovered this quirk by accident comparing readings
on a familiar VOR using battery vs. ship's mains power, before I ever tried
to navigate far from home with it - fortunately! Drop the voltage down to
what the KX-99 wanted to see, and SHAZAAM!, the radial display changed 180
degrees to the correct one.
-Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ageless Wings" <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: credit reporting info] HOAX |
THIS IS A HOAX...DO NOT CALL...HERE'S SOME MORE INFO ON IT..
While the phone number and it's purpose are legitimate, the rest of the
message is not. The message was started early in 2001 and was the result of
someone mixing up two different situations.
In 2001, because of implementation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (also known
as the Financial Services Modernization Act) the banking, insurance, and
securities industries are now allowed to sell customer information just as
the credit bureaus ALREADY did. Congress added a provision to the act
requiring that all financial service companies send privacy notices
providing a "reasonable opportunity" to opt out of this information-sharing
to all their customers by July 1, 2001.
The credit bureaus have been able to sell this information, however, they do
not and cannot sell any of your information, including your social security
number, to "anyone who requests it" as the message says. Under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act of 1997, businesses seeking to obtain personal
information from credit bureaus must have a "permissible purpose" in order
to access credit reports. (Permissible purposes include checking the
backgrounds of persons to determine their creditworthiness before selling or
renting property to them, extending them loans or credit, or considering
them for employment.) This restriction remains in force, it did not change
on July 1, and it still applies whether or not you call the number listed.
Like I said, someone just managed to mix the two issues up last year, and
the information is old anyway.
Harley
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>> Dan&Patty Krueger
>> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 11:38 AM
>> To: Martha Beck; Adolf Wenning; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; Al
>> Marretta; Ann & Grey Jewett
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: [Fwd: credit reporting info]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Betty Enfinger" <bettyenfinger(at)cox.net>
>> To: "Mark Snyder" ,
>> "Larry Spikes" ,
>> "Francis Enfinger" ,
>> "Mark at Home" < enfinger(at)tampabay.rr.com>,
>> "Lisa Jones" ,
>> "Vivian Faircloth" ,
>> "Susan Madden" ,
>> "Rosie Taylor" ,
>> "Prentiss Frazier" ,
>> "Patty Krueger" ,
>> "Pat Ready" ,
>> "Nancy Gressler" ,
>> "Marilyn at Work" ,
>> "Linda Tillery" ,
>> "Jody Webb" ,
>> "Joan Highsmith" ,
>> "Jill McMahon" ,
>> "Helen Gibson" ,
>> "Gloria Dawson" ,
>> "Gary Wilson" ,
>> "Fred Schwenk" ,
>> "Carmen Jones" < carmen.jones(at)amsouth.com>,
>> "Barbara Paulin" ,
>> "Barbara Allison Hurlbutt"
>> Subject: credit reporting info
>> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:26:21 -0500
>>
>>
>> To All,
>> Very important...Please read...
>>
>> Your Credit: Personal Information goes public Starting July 1st, 2003,
>> the four major credit bureaus in the US (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union,
>> etc.) will be allowed to release credit info, mailing addresses, phone
>> numbers, etc., to ANYONE who requests it. If you do not want to
>> be included
>> in this release of your personal information, you can call
>> 1-888-567-8688.
>> Once the message starts you will want option #2 (even though option #1
>> refers to this email, push #2) and then option #3.
>>
>> Be sure to listen closely, the first option is only for a
>> two-year period.
>> Make sure you! wait until they prompt for the third option, which opts
>> you out FOREVER. You should receive their paperwork in the mail
>> confirming
>> the "opting out" in less than one week after making the call.
>>
>> PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO ALL IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK, FRIENDS AND FAMILY.
>>
>> Here is the web site: http://www.pirg.org/consumer/credit/bureaus.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To All,
>> Very important...Please read...
>>
>> Your Credit: Personal
>> Information goes public Starting July 1st, 2003,
>> the four major credit
>> bureaus in the US (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union,etc.) will be
>> allowed to
>> release credit info, mailing addresses, phone numbers, etc., to
>> ANYONE who
>> requests it. If you do not want to be included in this release of your
>> personal information, you can call 1-888-567-8688. Once the
>> message starts
>> you will want option #2 (even though option #1 refers to this
>> email, push #2)
>> and then option #3.
>>
>> Be sure to listen closely, the first option is only for a two-year
>> period.
>> Make sure you! wait until they prompt for the third option, which
>> opts
>> you out FOREVER. You should receive their paperwork in the mail
>> confirmingthe "opting out" in less than one week after making the
>> call.
>>
>> PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO ALL IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK, FRIENDS AND
>> FAMILY.
>>
>> Here is the web site: > href"http://www.pirg.org/consumer/credit/bureaus.htm">http://www.
>> pirg.org/consumer/credit/bureaus.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [Fwd: credit reporting info] HOAX ALERT!!! |
This is a HOAX.. For details go to http://police2.ucr.edu/hoax.html
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airfarame complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dan&Patty
Krueger
Marretta; Ann & Grey Jewett
Subject: AeroElectric-List: [Fwd: credit reporting info]
From: "Betty Enfinger" <bettyenfinger(at)cox.net>
"Larry Spikes" ,
"Francis Enfinger" ,
"Mark at Home" < enfinger(at)tampabay.rr.com>,
"Lisa Jones" ,
"Vivian Faircloth" ,
"Susan Madden" ,
"Rosie Taylor" ,
"Prentiss Frazier" ,
"Patty Krueger" ,
"Pat Ready" ,
"Nancy Gressler" ,
"Marilyn at Work" ,
"Linda Tillery" ,
"Jody Webb" ,
"Joan Highsmith" ,
"Jill McMahon" ,
"Helen Gibson" ,
"Gloria Dawson" ,
"Gary Wilson" ,
"Fred Schwenk" ,
"Carmen Jones" < carmen.jones(at)amsouth.com>,
"Barbara Paulin" ,
"Barbara Allison Hurlbutt"
Subject: credit reporting info
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:26:21 -0500
To All,
Very important...Please read...
Your Credit: Personal Information goes public Starting July 1st, 2003,
the four major credit bureaus in the US (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union,
etc.) will be allowed to release credit info, mailing addresses, phone
numbers, etc., to ANYONE who requests it. If you do not want to be included
in this release of your personal information, you can call 1-888-567-8688.
Once the message starts you will want option #2 (even though option #1
refers to this email, push #2) and then option #3.
Be sure to listen closely, the first option is only for a two-year period.
Make sure you! wait until they prompt for the third option, which opts
you out FOREVER. You should receive their paperwork in the mail confirming
the "opting out" in less than one week after making the call.
PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO ALL IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK, FRIENDS AND FAMILY.
Here is the web site: http://www.pirg.org/consumer/credit/bureaus.htm
To All,
Very important...Please read...
Your Credit: Personal
Information goes public Starting July 1st, 2003,
the four major credit
bureaus in the US (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union,etc.) will be allowed to
release credit info, mailing addresses, phone numbers, etc., to ANYONE who
requests it. If you do not want to be included in this release of your
personal information, you can call 1-888-567-8688. Once the message starts
you will want option #2 (even though option #1 refers to this email, push
#2)
and then option #3.
Be sure to listen closely, the first option is only for a two-year
period.
Make sure you! wait until they prompt for the third option, which
opts
you out FOREVER. You should receive their paperwork in the mail
confirmingthe "opting out" in less than one week after making the
call.
PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO ALL IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK, FRIENDS AND
FAMILY.
Here is the web site: http://www.pirg.org/co
nsumer/credit/bureaus.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harold Kovac" <kayce(at)sysmatrix.net> |
"Adolf Wenning" ,
"Al Marretta" , "Ann & Grey Jewett"
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: credit reporting info] |
This be a hoax
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan&Patty Krueger" <pndkrueg(at)infionline.net>
; ; "Al Marretta"
; "Ann & Grey Jewett"
Subject: AeroElectric-List: [Fwd: credit reporting info]
>
>
> From: "Betty Enfinger" <bettyenfinger(at)cox.net>
> To: "Mark Snyder" ,
> "Larry Spikes" ,
> "Francis Enfinger" ,
> "Mark at Home" < enfinger(at)tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Lisa Jones" ,
> "Vivian Faircloth" ,
> "Susan Madden" ,
> "Rosie Taylor" ,
> "Prentiss Frazier" ,
> "Patty Krueger" ,
> "Pat Ready" ,
> "Nancy Gressler" ,
> "Marilyn at Work" ,
> "Linda Tillery" ,
> "Jody Webb" ,
> "Joan Highsmith" ,
> "Jill McMahon" ,
> "Helen Gibson" ,
> "Gloria Dawson" ,
> "Gary Wilson" ,
> "Fred Schwenk" ,
> "Carmen Jones" < carmen.jones(at)amsouth.com>,
> "Barbara Paulin" ,
> "Barbara Allison Hurlbutt"
> Subject: credit reporting info
> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:26:21 -0500
>
>
> To All,
> Very important...Please read...
>
> Your Credit: Personal Information goes public Starting July 1st, 2003,
> the four major credit bureaus in the US (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union,
> etc.) will be allowed to release credit info, mailing addresses, phone
> numbers, etc., to ANYONE who requests it. If you do not want to be
included
> in this release of your personal information, you can call 1-888-567-8688.
> Once the message starts you will want option #2 (even though option #1
> refers to this email, push #2) and then option #3.
>
> Be sure to listen closely, the first option is only for a two-year period.
> Make sure you! wait until they prompt for the third option, which opts
> you out FOREVER. You should receive their paperwork in the mail
confirming
> the "opting out" in less than one week after making the call.
>
> PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO ALL IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK, FRIENDS AND FAMILY.
>
> Here is the web site: http://www.pirg.org/consumer/credit/bureaus.htm
>
>
>
>
> To All,
> Very important...Please read...
>
> Your Credit: Personal
> Information goes public Starting July 1st, 2003,
> the four major credit
> bureaus in the US (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union,etc.) will be allowed to
> release credit info, mailing addresses, phone numbers, etc., to ANYONE who
> requests it. If you do not want to be included in this release of your
> personal information, you can call 1-888-567-8688. Once the message starts
> you will want option #2 (even though option #1 refers to this email, push
#2)
> and then option #3.
>
> Be sure to listen closely, the first option is only for a two-year
> period.
> Make sure you! wait until they prompt for the third option, which
> opts
> you out FOREVER. You should receive their paperwork in the mail
> confirmingthe "opting out" in less than one week after making the
> call.
>
> PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO ALL IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK, FRIENDS AND
> FAMILY.
>
> Here is the web site:
href"http://www.pirg.org/consumer/credit/bureaus.htm">http://www.pirg.org/co
nsumer/credit/bureaus.htm
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: credit reporting info] HOAX ALERT!!! |
Those who are so stupid gullible that they believe a breathless announcement
that comes as an email that you MUST do this or that to avoid some
catastrophe, deserve exactly what they get...
Why are we wasting our time on OT crap trying to protect the stupid from
themselves?
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Housman" <RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: [Fwd: credit reporting info] HOAX ALERT!!!
<RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
>
> This is a HOAX.. For details go to http://police2.ucr.edu/hoax.html
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob Housman
> Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
> Airfarame complete
> Irvine, CA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Dan&Patty
> Krueger
> To: Martha Beck; Adolf Wenning; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; Al
> Marretta; Ann & Grey Jewett
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: [Fwd: credit reporting info]
>
>
>
>
> From: "Betty Enfinger" <bettyenfinger(at)cox.net>
> To: "Mark Snyder" ,
> "Larry Spikes" ,
> "Francis Enfinger" ,
> "Mark at Home" < enfinger(at)tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Lisa Jones" ,
> "Vivian Faircloth" ,
> "Susan Madden" ,
> "Rosie Taylor" ,
> "Prentiss Frazier" ,
> "Patty Krueger" ,
> "Pat Ready" ,
> "Nancy Gressler" ,
> "Marilyn at Work" ,
> "Linda Tillery" ,
> "Jody Webb" ,
> "Joan Highsmith" ,
> "Jill McMahon" ,
> "Helen Gibson" ,
> "Gloria Dawson" ,
> "Gary Wilson" ,
> "Fred Schwenk" ,
> "Carmen Jones" < carmen.jones(at)amsouth.com>,
> "Barbara Paulin" ,
> "Barbara Allison Hurlbutt"
> Subject: credit reporting info
> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:26:21 -0500
>
>
> To All,
> Very important...Please read...
>
> Your Credit: Personal Information goes public Starting July 1st, 2003,
> the four major credit bureaus in the US (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union,
> etc.) will be allowed to release credit info, mailing addresses, phone
> numbers, etc., to ANYONE who requests it. If you do not want to be
included
> in this release of your personal information, you can call 1-888-567-8688.
> Once the message starts you will want option #2 (even though option #1
> refers to this email, push #2) and then option #3.
>
> Be sure to listen closely, the first option is only for a two-year period.
> Make sure you! wait until they prompt for the third option, which opts
> you out FOREVER. You should receive their paperwork in the mail
confirming
> the "opting out" in less than one week after making the call.
>
> PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO ALL IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK, FRIENDS AND FAMILY.
>
> Here is the web site: http://www.pirg.org/consumer/credit/bureaus.htm
>
>
>
>
> To All,
> Very important...Please read...
>
> Your Credit: Personal
> Information goes public Starting July 1st, 2003,
> the four major credit
> bureaus in the US (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union,etc.) will be allowed to
> release credit info, mailing addresses, phone numbers, etc., to ANYONE who
> requests it. If you do not want to be included in this release of your
> personal information, you can call 1-888-567-8688. Once the message starts
> you will want option #2 (even though option #1 refers to this email, push
> #2)
> and then option #3.
>
> Be sure to listen closely, the first option is only for a two-year
> period.
> Make sure you! wait until they prompt for the third option, which
> opts
> you out FOREVER. You should receive their paperwork in the mail
> confirmingthe "opting out" in less than one week after making the
> call.
>
> PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO ALL IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK, FRIENDS AND
> FAMILY.
>
> Here is the web site:
href"http://www.pirg.org/consumer/credit/bureaus.htm">http://www.pirg.org/co
> nsumer/credit/bureaus.htm
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey" <dump(at)relaypoint.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Aviator Pilot |
Where is a picture of Bob Archers Wingtip VOR antenna... I can't see to find
it searching the internet.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "ivorphillips" <ivor(at)ivorphillips.flyer.co.uk>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Yaesu Aviator Pilot
>
> I brought the Icon A23 from OSH last year expressly for the VOR backup
> facility, it worked fine on the ground around oskosh but on my first
flight
> in a europa tracking towards Dover VOR I was unable to get a stable signal
> until about 10 miles out at 3000 ft,
> On my own Europa I am at present fitting Bob archers wingtip VOR antenna
> which I am hoping will resolve the problem,
> Until my plane is flying I cant give a definite answer on the Icom except
> as a transceiver it is excellent.
>
> Ivor phillips
> europa XS and still building
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shaun Simpkins" <shauns(at)hevanet.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Yaesu Aviator Pilot
>
>
>
> >
> > At the risk of being confirmed a know-it-not,
> > I seem to recall that the VOR CDI works by detecting the
> > phase between two signals broadcast from the VOR station;
> > 10 degrees phase difference 10 degrees off track. Being
> > able to detect 1 degree of phase error reliably in a quiet
> > environment is a pretty impressive thing ( particularly back
> > in the mid-20th century when this system was invented )
> > and requires that both the transmitter and receiver conditions
> > be stable for it to work.
> >
> > I wonder if the reason that you can't get a stable signal is
> > because the antenna isn't locked down. Moving the antenna
> > around might change the received phase relationships radically
> > and unpredictably. Have you tried the CDI with the radio hooked
> > in to the plane's VOR antenna, or with the radio duct-taped to
> > the canopy?
> >
> > If it still doesn't work after that, well...have any ICOM portable
> > owners out there had similar problems?
> >
> > Shaun Simpkins
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Sa <carlosfsa(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Bob Archers Wingtip VOR antenna |
Is this what you are looking for?
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/sportcraft.htm
--- Jeffrey wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted
by:
"Jeffrey"
>
> Where is a picture of Bob Archers Wingtip VOR antenna... I can't see to find
> it searching the internet.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randy Pflanzer <F1Rocket(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Aviator Pilot |
I have a picture of it in my construction photos. Go the the F1
Project page, and then go to the final bullet under "wings". It may or
may not be what you are looking for, but it shows how I installed the
antenna in my wingtip.
Randy
F1 Rocket
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey <dump(at)relaypoint.net>
Date: Friday, April 25, 2003 1:02 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Yaesu Aviator Pilot
>
> Where is a picture of Bob Archers Wingtip VOR antenna... I can't
> see to find
> it searching the internet.
>
> Jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ivorphillips" <ivor(at)ivorphillips.flyer.co.uk>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Yaesu Aviator Pilot
>
>
>
> >
> > I brought the Icon A23 from OSH last year expressly for the VOR
> backup> facility, it worked fine on the ground around oskosh but
> on my first
> flight
> > in a europa tracking towards Dover VOR I was unable to get a
> stable signal
> > until about 10 miles out at 3000 ft,
> > On my own Europa I am at present fitting Bob archers wingtip VOR
> antenna> which I am hoping will resolve the problem,
> > Until my plane is flying I cant give a definite answer on the
> Icom except
> > as a transceiver it is excellent.
> >
> > Ivor phillips
> > europa XS and still building
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Shaun Simpkins" <shauns(at)hevanet.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Yaesu Aviator Pilot
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > At the risk of being confirmed a know-it-not,
> > > I seem to recall that the VOR CDI works by detecting the
> > > phase between two signals broadcast from the VOR station;
> > > 10 degrees phase difference 10 degrees off track. Being
> > > able to detect 1 degree of phase error reliably in a quiet
> > > environment is a pretty impressive thing ( particularly back
> > > in the mid-20th century when this system was invented )
> > > and requires that both the transmitter and receiver conditions
> > > be stable for it to work.
> > >
> > > I wonder if the reason that you can't get a stable signal is
> > > because the antenna isn't locked down. Moving the antenna
> > > around might change the received phase relationships radically
> > > and unpredictably. Have you tried the CDI with the radio hooked
> > > in to the plane's VOR antenna, or with the radio duct-taped to
> > > the canopy?
> > >
> > > If it still doesn't work after that, well...have any ICOM portable
> > > owners out there had similar problems?
> > >
> > > Shaun Simpkins
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> _-
>
======================================================================_-
= - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> _-
>
======================================================================_-
= !! NEWish !!
> _-
>
======================================================================_-
= List Related Information
> _-
> ======================================================================
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Steer" <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: credit reporting info] HOAX ALERT!!! |
Thanks for your helpful note, Denny. It certainly emphasizes the need for the
Delete button. I'm sure we'll all carefully consider your advice the next time
you post a note to this list.
Bill
>
> Those who are so stupid gullible that they believe a breathless announcement
> that comes as an email that you MUST do this or that to avoid some
> catastrophe, deserve exactly what they get...
> Why are we wasting our time on OT crap trying to protect the stupid from
> themselves?
>
> Denny
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shaun Simpkins" <shauns(at)hevanet.com> |
| Subject: | Shunt-parallelled alternators? |
I came across an interesting article the other day:
http://www.kellyaerospace.com/articles/VoltageReg.pdf
This article shows an aircraft electrical system that's quite
different than Bob's diagrams, and I wonder if Bob or others
would care to comment. Specifically:
1. The article shows a single electrical bus fed by two alternators.
(no essential bus)
2. The article promotes a type of regulator which permits load
balancing through a current-sensing circuit in each alternator
output and a feedback mechanism that allows the regulators
to balance their current outputs. They call this shunt-parallelling
and contrast it to field-parallelling, in which no current-sensing
is done.
3. Why is this type of regulator and electrical system design
desirable? It appears to be most relevant to twin engine aircraft...
4. This seems like an another way of providing automatic system
redundancy, with multiple power sources feeding the same bus.
If one alternator goes, it can be taken off line, but a reconfiguration of
the
system isn't necessary to keep operating. An essential bus
could be provided, but the Z-14 style electrical system with
manual crossfeeds and separated load/power groups would
appear to be unnecessary.
Just another rumination on trying to achieve a near-zero pilot intervention
redundant electrical system, like Cirrus'...
Shaun
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall connector |
> >to make a modular system. Of course, the fewer connectors the better for
> >reliability, but in the right places they help in regards to
>maintainability
> >and upgrades.
>
> . . . and should NEVER be used to take wires through a firewall.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Before I would say NEVER, I would like to see some spec
> on this
> connector, Don't just not use it because it is plastic, or
> fibreglass as some have a much better fire ratings than
> most other
> materials. Just look at what happened to the space
> shuttle when a
> piece broke off. Maybe Bob's never is some electrical
> reason? Still
> using my stainless tube with a welded flange and fire
> caulking.
>
> Ron Triano
The CPC connector housings are UL 94V-0 stabilized, heat resistant
thermoplastic.
This is the fire safety specification for most of the insulating
materials used
in commercial electronics. Do a websearch on "UL 94V-0" and you'll get
tens of thousands of hits. It's been awhile since I looked up the spec
but as I recall, the test says it won't sustain combustion on its own
and when it melts out of a fueled flame, the dripping matter is not
also flaming.
The specification says only that this material will not exacerbate
a fire, it says nothing about maintaining shape or strength while
subjected
to fire.
Operating temperature ratings of thermoplastics top out about 150
degrees C.
They wouldn't last but a minute or two in the fuel-fed flame tests
required of
all fire wall penetration techniques qualified for use on certified
aircraft.
Therefore I would say NEVER use these or any other plastic material in
a way
that might compromise firewall performance unless the manufacturer
specifically
states that his product has been tested for firewall service. To date, I
am aware of no plastic that would qualify and UL 94V-0 is certainly not
one of them.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Aviator Pilot |
>
>Where is a picture of Bob Archers Wingtip VOR antenna... I can't see to find
>it searching the internet.
>
>Jeff
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/sportcraft.htm
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Shunt-parallelled alternators? |
This is fine if either alternator in the system is capable of handling full
system loads. The beauty of Bob's Endurance buss architecture is that with
the flip of a couple of switches you shed all the non-essential electrical
loads, without having to think about it. This simplifies a situation that
could tend to be stressful. If you lose the primary alternator flip these
two switches on and that one off. The load shedding procedure does not have
to be written on a checklist because it was designed into the system.
The alternative would be that if you lose the primary alternator you would
have to turn off all the circuits that you don't need until you get the
system to a point where the secondary alternator could keep up. Obviously
if either alternator could handle the load then this is a non-issue.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Fuselage
http://www.myrv7.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shaun Simpkins" <shauns(at)hevanet.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shunt-parallelled alternators?
>
> I came across an interesting article the other day:
> http://www.kellyaerospace.com/articles/VoltageReg.pdf
>
> This article shows an aircraft electrical system that's quite
> different than Bob's diagrams, and I wonder if Bob or others
> would care to comment. Specifically:
>
> 1. The article shows a single electrical bus fed by two alternators.
> (no essential bus)
>
> 2. The article promotes a type of regulator which permits load
> balancing through a current-sensing circuit in each alternator
> output and a feedback mechanism that allows the regulators
> to balance their current outputs. They call this shunt-parallelling
> and contrast it to field-parallelling, in which no current-sensing
> is done.
>
> 3. Why is this type of regulator and electrical system design
> desirable? It appears to be most relevant to twin engine aircraft...
>
> 4. This seems like an another way of providing automatic system
> redundancy, with multiple power sources feeding the same bus.
> If one alternator goes, it can be taken off line, but a
reconfiguration of the
> system isn't necessary to keep operating. An essential bus
> could be provided, but the Z-14 style electrical system with
> manual crossfeeds and separated load/power groups would
> appear to be unnecessary.
>
> Just another rumination on trying to achieve a near-zero pilot
intervention
> redundant electrical system, like Cirrus'...
>
> Shaun
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Comm VS VOR antenna |
Comm and VOR antennas are the same right?
If the above is correct, would a internal wing tip VOR antenna work better
than a VOR/COMM antenna on the belly?
Will the VOR internal wing tip antenna work as a COM antenna also?
The reason I am asking is that I want to add another antenna for my hand
held which will be used mainly for VOR's and secondary as a back up radio.
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Shunt-parallelled alternators? |
>
>I came across an interesting article the other day:
> http://www.kellyaerospace.com/articles/VoltageReg.pdf
>
>This article shows an aircraft electrical system that's quite
>different than Bob's diagrams, and I wonder if Bob or others
>would care to comment. Specifically:
>
>1. The article shows a single electrical bus fed by two alternators.
> (no essential bus)
>
>2. The article promotes a type of regulator which permits load
> balancing through a current-sensing circuit in each alternator
> output and a feedback mechanism that allows the regulators
> to balance their current outputs. They call this shunt-parallelling
> and contrast it to field-parallelling, in which no current-sensing
> is done.
>3. Why is this type of regulator and electrical system design
> desirable? It appears to be most relevant to twin engine aircraft...
Yup, it's a Band-Aid on a sorry design that has been
flying around in most light twins for 50+ years, first
with generators and more recently with alternators using
regulators specifically designed for paralleling.
I did a design for a regulator paralleling accessory
while employed at Electro-Mech more years ago than I
care to figure out right now. It too monitored the
shunt voltage of each alternator load-meter and
tweaked the input to one regulator (slave) to
make it track the other (master). This sytem was
proposed for the light twins and C-337 at Cessna.
We even fiddled with a brass-board of the same
system at B&C about ten years ago (remember that
one Dave?).
Turns out that if you're going to have two alternators,
there are far better architectures that allow each
to operate independently at what it does best and not
irritate a pilot because, "the right alternator is
carrying more load than the left one."
>4. This seems like an another way of providing automatic system
> redundancy, with multiple power sources feeding the same bus.
> If one alternator goes, it can be taken off line, but a
> reconfiguration of the
> system isn't necessary to keep operating. An essential bus
> could be provided, but the Z-14 style electrical system with
> manual crossfeeds and separated load/power groups would
> appear to be unnecessary.
But you still have one battery and one battery contactor. Loss
of the contactor puts the whole system at risk unless the
alternators have been specifically characterized for no-battery
operation.
>Just another rumination on trying to achieve a near-zero pilot intervention
>redundant electrical system, like Cirrus'...
I belive Cirrus uses the SD-20 and the standby version of
the regulator that goes with it. That system is described
in page 17-12 of the 'Connection and illustrated Figure 17-8.
I didn't include this option in the Z-drawings because
I consider this system to be a Band-Aid that could
be pasted into an existing system essentially
carved in stone. B&C has a fist full of STC'd kits to
put just such a patch on perhaps a dozen airplanes.
The Kelly ad promotes a reasonable thing to do to
an old airplane that doesn't cost a bizillion dollars.
We can do better with our OBAM ships.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: credit reporting info] HOAX ALERT!!! |
Go for it, Bill...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Steer" <bsteer(at)gwi.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: [Fwd: credit reporting info] HOAX ALERT!!!
>
> Thanks for your helpful note, Denny. It certainly emphasizes the need for
the
> Delete button. I'm sure we'll all carefully consider your advice the next
time
> you post a note to this list.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> >
> > Those who are so stupid gullible that they believe a breathless
announcement
> > that comes as an email that you MUST do this or that to avoid some
> > catastrophe, deserve exactly what they get...
> > Why are we wasting our time on OT crap trying to protect the stupid from
> > themselves?
> >
> > Denny
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David.vonLinsowe" <David.vonLinsowe(at)delphi.com> |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I went down to Sun-n-Fun to autopilot shop for my RV-6. I've been
doing
>research for some time and just needed a little more info before making
>the plunge.
>
>The problem with the Navaid
>is the way it will sometimes veer right or left when it's first engaged
>then realize it's off course and then correct. The manufacturer knows
>of the situation, but doesn't know why it behaves that way.
>
>I was wondering if you or anyone else out there has come up with a
>solution to the problem?
the Navaid hasn't been updated in a very long time. As I recall,
it's a pure analog servo system. He should be able to fix this
problem but for the price, perhaps the idiosyncrasies are
forgivable?
Bob . . .
Thanks Bob,
That's the direction I was leaning after SnF.
I just wanted to check before I dove into this and reinvented the
wheel...
Dave
RV-6
The need for (more) speed ---->
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm VS VOR antenna |
No.... The VOR antenna is resonated at a lower frequency than the COM...
However, it will work as an emergency antenna for the handheld with some
signal loss....
>
> Comm and VOR antennas are the same right?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Comm VS VOR antenna |
In a message dated 4/25/03 4:18:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
doconnor(at)chartermi.net writes:
> No.... The VOR antenna is resonated at a lower frequency than the COM...
> However, it will work as an emergency antenna for the handheld with some
> signal loss....
>
> >
> >Comm and VOR antennas are the same right?
>
Good Afternoon,
In addition, the comm signal is transmitted in a vertical mode. The
receiving antenna will work best when it is vertical as well. The VOR works
in a horizontal plane, Therefore the VOR signal will be best received by an
antenna oriented in the horizontal plane.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm VS VOR antenna |
No VOR is a NAV antenna, Comm is the transmit and receive antenna. Generally
a single vertical whip is the comm, two whips horizontal that create a V are
the VOR which receives only.
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
Actively supporting Aeroncas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Bilinski" <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Comm VS VOR antenna
<bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> Comm and VOR antennas are the same right?
>
> If the above is correct, would a internal wing tip VOR antenna work better
> than a VOR/COMM antenna on the belly?
>
> Will the VOR internal wing tip antenna work as a COM antenna also?
>
> The reason I am asking is that I want to add another antenna for my hand
> held which will be used mainly for VOR's and secondary as a back up radio.
>
>
> Scott Bilinski
> Eng dept 305
> Phone (858) 657-2536
> Pager (858) 502-5190
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: credit reporting info] HOAX ALERT!!! |
Because we are human an care maybe just a little about our RV brothers and
sisters who may not be as smart or as informed as some seem to be.
James
> Why are we wasting our time on OT crap trying to protect the stupid from
> themselves?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jbirgiolas(at)smiletoronto.com> |
I am about to start my instrument panel and am new to the list. All instruments
have been purchased for the 701. Prior to installing I would appreciate comments
or experiences with the flightcom 403 intercom and in general UMA instruments.
One other slight problem. My aeroflash strobes are installed and wing
closed. I have a single 16 ga. positive run to the wing tip with ground at the
wing tip. I have followed the shielding discussion and its to late to rewire.
Can I do anything at this stage or live with it as is. Do you forsee much
interference? One last question. Can I wire my entire panel with 16 ga. wire?
Thanks in advance..John Birgiolas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rino <lacombr(at)nbnet.nb.ca> |
Does anyone know what happens if I use regular copper wires to connect
my EGT probe to the gauge.
It is impossible to find the required length, proper EGT extension leads
for a pusher type engine.
I have a Sky Flight EGT Gauge that require a K type probe.
Rino
Glass Goose C-FZNW
13b turbo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | irampil(at)notes.cc.sunysb.edu |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 28 Msgs - 04/24/03 |
04/26/2003 08:47:41 AM
It appears to me that you are trading one point of failure (hole in
the
firewall), for a different point of failure (electrical connection).
The
question becomes, which point of failure is more likely to fail &
which
potential failure can be compensated for? I think that I would
choose to
fabricate the tried and tested fire protection methods and not worry
about a
newly introduced connection to all of my firewall forward wiring.
- Jim
Design decisions - thats what makes homebuilding interesting! :-)
It seems from my poking around at GA vs. mil airframes, that firewall
connectors are the superior engineering design for a long list of reasons,
however,
the economic reality is that only the military, Airbus, Boeing and
Gulfstream, etc., can afford real K-class connectors, so we OBAM folks will
continue to use chopped up
towel racks. :-(
Ira N224xs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ageless Wings" <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
Mornin', Rino...
Regular copper wire will alter the calibration and range of the sensor if it
is a thermocouple. Which I suspect it is because you mentioned that it is a
K type probe...there is a K thermocouple. The wires are two dissimilar
metals (in the case of the K, Chromal-Alumel). The accuracy of the
temperature sensing and range depends on these two specific metals and the
fact that they are different.
Not only should you use the same metal for the full length of the run, but
ALL connectors should also be the same metals. Anywhere that one of these
wires touches another type of metal, the calibration will change.
As far as finding the wire and connectors, they are available at just about
anyplace that sells temperature controls and sensors. A quick search on the
internet, using "k thermocouple wire and connectors" as the search term
produced over 3,000 hits. I saw rolls of wire offered up to 1000 feet
long...that should be long enough!
On the other hand, an excellent source, with a good price, for all the
connectors, wire, etc that you will need is Omega. I've used them for
years.
You can find them online here: http://www.omega.com
Harley
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rino
>> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 8:27 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: EGT Gauge
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone know what happens if I use regular copper wires to connect
>> my EGT probe to the gauge.
>> It is impossible to find the required length, proper EGT extension leads
>> for a pusher type engine.
>> I have a Sky Flight EGT Gauge that require a K type probe.
>>
>> Rino
>> Glass Goose C-FZNW
>> 13b turbo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Benford2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flightcom 403 |
In a message dated 4/26/2003 6:25:53 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
jbirgiolas(at)smiletoronto.com writes:
>
> I am about to start my instrument panel and am new to the list. All
> instruments have been purchased for the 701. Prior to installing I would
> appreciate comments or experiences with the flightcom 403 intercom and in
> general UMA instruments. One other slight problem. My aeroflash strobes
> are installed and wing closed. I have a single 16 ga. positive run to the
> wing tip with ground at the wing tip. I have followed the shielding
> discussion and its to late to rewire. Can I do anything at this stage or
> live with it as is. Do you forsee much interference? One last question.
> Can I wire my entire panel with 16 ga. wire? Thanks in advance..John
> Birgiolas
>
>
If your powerpacks for your strobes are at each tip then there will be little
if any interference. I did run separate grounds for all devices in my plane
but I don't think using a chassis ground will give ya any problems. I ran as
much 16 ga wires also, but you will find that when you build your harnesses
20 - 22 ga stuff will work better for the connectors because there is very
little space in the plugs. Also, if you are using the MAC grips you will find
that there is no room to play with. The right side of my yoke has a PTT only
and that was not bad. The left side uses the 4 function + PTT, that sucker
will cause you to call Dr Jack Kevorkian several times when ya try to close
the top, and I was using 22 Ga stuff there. If they would have just made it
1/8" taller. !!!!!!!!
Ben Haas N801BH. Jackson Hole Wy.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John H. Wiegenstein" <johnw(at)hellerwiegenstein.com> |
| Subject: | Feedback on Falcon Gauge Electric TC |
Listers, I recently ordered one of the non-TSO'd electric turn coordinators
from Spruce, mfrd. by Falcon Gauge/Wultrad. In a bench test today there is
no response to 12V power; no sound, no movement, and the red power failure
flag remains visible. Polarity and connections all check out. I've emailed
Wultrad and am awaiting their response, but meantime I'm curious what
experience others have had with this or other products from this vendor.
Seems to me they would have bench tested these before shipping, but perhaps
that is one of the steps avoided to save $$$?
John H. Wiegenstein
Hansville, WA
RV-6 S/N 23961 - N727JW (reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Feedback on Falcon Gauge Electric TC |
Have not got my TC gauge yet, but as soon as I do I will give a report. I am
also considering there electric AI/DG as a backup to my Dynon EFIS D10.
Ed
N823MS
Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ivorphillips" <ivor(at)ivorphillips.flyer.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Feedback on Falcon Gauge Electric TC |
hi john
In response to your message I removed my falcon electric TC from its box
and fired it up, It seems to work ok if a trifle noisy
terminal 1 is pos 12 v and terminal 2 neg to ground. the third terminal is
left unconnected,
I realise that you have probaly wired it up this way, but just checking,
regards
ivor phillips
europa xs
----- Original Message -----
From: "John H. Wiegenstein" <johnw(at)hellerwiegenstein.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Feedback on Falcon Gauge Electric TC
>
> Listers, I recently ordered one of the non-TSO'd electric turn
coordinators
> from Spruce, mfrd. by Falcon Gauge/Wultrad. In a bench test today there
is
> no response to 12V power; no sound, no movement, and the red power failure
> flag remains visible. Polarity and connections all check out. I've
emailed
> Wultrad and am awaiting their response, but meantime I'm curious what
> experience others have had with this or other products from this vendor.
> Seems to me they would have bench tested these before shipping, but
perhaps
> that is one of the steps avoided to save $$$?
>
> John H. Wiegenstein
> Hansville, WA
> RV-6 S/N 23961 - N727JW (reserved)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom FRIEDLAND" <beecho(at)neteze.com> |
| Subject: | Feedback on Falcon Gauge Electric TC |
Hi John
I also have a Falcon TC and it looks like the wiring instructions are
incorrect. Mine was also silent until I put pos voltage to the pin on
the right when looking at the aft of the cannon plug and gnd to the
inferior pin. It then runs and the flag goes down.
Tom Friedland Atascadero, CA EuropaXS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
H. Wiegenstein
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Feedback on Falcon Gauge Electric TC
Listers, I recently ordered one of the non-TSO'd electric turn
coordinators
from Spruce, mfrd. by Falcon Gauge/Wultrad. In a bench test today
there is
no response to 12V power; no sound, no movement, and the red power
failure
flag remains visible. Polarity and connections all check out. I've
emailed
Wultrad and am awaiting their response, but meantime I'm curious what
experience others have had with this or other products from this vendor.
Seems to me they would have bench tested these before shipping, but
perhaps
that is one of the steps avoided to save $$$?
John H. Wiegenstein
Hansville, WA
RV-6 S/N 23961 - N727JW (reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Mornin', Rino...
>
>Regular copper wire will alter the calibration and range of the sensor if it
>is a thermocouple. Which I suspect it is because you mentioned that it is a
>K type probe...there is a K thermocouple. The wires are two dissimilar
>metals (in the case of the K, Chromal-Alumel). The accuracy of the
>temperature sensing and range depends on these two specific metals and the
>fact that they are different.
>
>Not only should you use the same metal for the full length of the run, but
>ALL connectors should also be the same metals. Anywhere that one of these
>wires touches another type of metal, the calibration will change.
Actually, connectors can be dissimilar . . . consider that "new"
thermocouples are inserted in series opposing such that they
cancel each other out. For all but the most demanding precision,
you can run thermocouple wire through connectors like d-subs with
no ill effects. HOWEVER, I would do this only with machined pins
that get one-hell-of-a-grip on the unusually hard wire used for
thermocouples . . . open barrel, sheet metal pins are (in my
never humble opinion) suited to this task.
>As far as finding the wire and connectors, they are available at just about
>anyplace that sells temperature controls and sensors. A quick search on the
>internet, using "k thermocouple wire and connectors" as the search term
>produced over 3,000 hits. I saw rolls of wire offered up to 1000 feet
>long...that should be long enough!
>
>On the other hand, an excellent source, with a good price, for all the
>connectors, wire, etc that you will need is Omega. I've used them for
>years.
>
>You can find them online here: http://www.omega.com
>
>Harley
Good answer Harley, thanks for chipping in . . .
There is an excerpt from the 'Connection that speaks to this
technology at http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/excerpt.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Feedback on Falcon Gauge Electric TC |
| From: | James Freeman <flyeyes(at)bellsouth.net> |
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Feedback on Falcon Gauge Electric TC
>
>
> On Saturday, April 26, 2003, at 11:59 AM, John H. Wiegenstein wrote:
>
>> I'm curious what
>> experience others have had with this or other products from this
>> vendor.
>>
>
>
> I installed one in our AirCam a couple of years ago. I initially had
> the same problem, but is somehow fixed itself and the unit has worked
> flawlessly since. I installed it without a switch (on any time the
> master is on) and we have about 110 hours on it now, which includes
> probably 400 engine starts( two engines, average 20-30 minute > flights).
>
> It is mechanically noisy before the engines are running but otherwise
> functions perfectly.
>
> Although others have reported noise problems with this unit, I don't
> hear any noise at all in spite of its location immediately above the
> UPS GPS/Comm, and near the intercom. It doesn't even affect the
> magnetic compass which sits a couple of inches above it.
>
> Actually the only operational difficulty we've seen is that the ball
> won't always stay centered perfectly in turns. I'm sure if I had a
> better gauge, this wouldn't be an issue ;-)
>
>
> James Freeman
>
> You can see the panel/TC at:
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/flyeyes/PhotoAlbum6.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Benford2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Feedback on Falcon Gauge Electric TC |
In a message dated 4/26/2003 11:06:08 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
johnw(at)hellerwiegenstein.com writes:
>
>
> Listers, I recently ordered one of the non-TSO'd electric turn coordinators
> from Spruce, mfrd. by Falcon Gauge/Wultrad. In a bench test today there
> is
> no response to 12V power; no sound, no movement, and the red power failure
> flag remains visible. Polarity and connections all check out. I've emailed
> Wultrad and am awaiting their response, but meantime I'm curious what
> experience others have had with this or other products from this vendor.
> Seems to me they would have bench tested these before shipping, but perhaps
> that is one of the steps avoided to save $$$?
>
> John H. Wiegenstein
> Hansville, WA
> RV-6 S/N 23961 - N727JW (reserved)
>
I just got mine last month. I have powered it up and it does spool up nicely
altho it is kinda noisy. When I get my radios turned on I will give you guys
a report on it. Some people recently have complained that it introduces noise
into the radios and if mine does too it will come out and I offered it to Bob
to do an autopsy on it and he will post the grizzly details on this list.
Ben Haas N801 BH Jackson Hole Wy.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shaun Simpkins" <shauns(at)hevanet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shunt-parallelled alternators? |
Thanks for filling me in on the perils of shunt-parallelling. I suspected it
might be an
archaic idea, like so many in the non-OBAM world.
> I belive Cirrus uses the SD-20 and the standby version of
> the regulator that goes with it. That system is described
> in page 17-12 of the 'Connection and illustrated Figure 17-8.
>
> I didn't include this option in the Z-drawings because
> I consider this system to be a Band-Aid that could
> be pasted into an existing system essentially
> carved in stone. B&C has a fist full of STC'd kits to
> put just such a patch on perhaps a dozen airplanes.
>
Bob, you're referring to the shunt-parallelled system as a "Band Aid",
aren't
you?
The Cirrus system is a 28V dual alternator, dual battery, main+essentials
bus design that appears to follow Aeroelectric philosophies closely.
It does NOT use a essentials bus alternate feed switch, but has two 2 diode
protected feed paths to the essentials bus and to isolate the main bus and
alternator from the essential bus and alternator, which regulates 0.75V
higher
than the main bus to ensure isolation. This theoretically means that the
pilot
doesn't have to do anything to reconfigure the system after a failure, other
that
shut off a dead alternator whenever it's convenient. Full annunication
tells the pilot
what went wrong.
This is what I meant by Cirrus' near-zero-pilot-intervention electrical
system design.
In fact, I don't think the Cirrus system can have an alternate feed switch,
since it uses contactors on both batteries, the alternator field enable
lines,
and the avionics busses ( both main and essential ) to keep heavy and or
noisy
currents out of panel switches.
I suppose this is a subtle disadvantage of the FAA's suggested practice for
fire(?)
protection Bob recently posted to the list; the ultra-low current mode
provided
by an essentials bus alternate feed switch isn't an option because it would
route
battery current directly through the panel.
Shaun
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
In the low cost wig- wag system using automative flasher article, there is
mention of a B&C SSF-1 relay or equal. What would be a comparative
automotive flasher that I could use?
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Feedback on Falcon Gauge Electric TC |
QC on a product made on mainland China - you gotta be kidding.
I had a friend who recently made a tour of some aviation related
manufacturing facilities over there. He spotted a Chinese engineering
group dissembling and reverse engineering the infamous Mini 500 single
seat helicopter. Gonna kill a lot of Chinese helo pilots with that death
trap.
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Benford2(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Feedback on Falcon Gauge Electric TC
In a message dated 4/26/2003 11:06:08 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
johnw(at)hellerwiegenstein.com writes:
>
>
> Listers, I recently ordered one of the non-TSO'd electric turn
coordinators
> from Spruce, mfrd. by Falcon Gauge/Wultrad. In a bench test today
there
> is
> no response to 12V power; no sound, no movement, and the red power
failure
> flag remains visible. Polarity and connections all check out. I've
emailed
> Wultrad and am awaiting their response, but meantime I'm curious what
> experience others have had with this or other products from this
vendor.
> Seems to me they would have bench tested these before shipping, but
perhaps
> that is one of the steps avoided to save $$$?
>
> John H. Wiegenstein
> Hansville, WA
> RV-6 S/N 23961 - N727JW (reserved)
>
I just got mine last month. I have powered it up and it does spool up
nicely
altho it is kinda noisy. When I get my radios turned on I will give you
guys
a report on it. Some people recently have complained that it introduces
noise
into the radios and if mine does too it will come out and I offered it
to Bob
to do an autopsy on it and he will post the grizzly details on this
list.
Ben Haas N801 BH Jackson Hole Wy.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John H. Wiegenstein" <johnw(at)hellerwiegenstein.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Falcon Electric TC |
Tom, you were absolutely right. You stated:
I also have a Falcon TC and it looks like the wiring instructions are
incorrect. Mine was also silent until I put pos voltage to the pin on
the right when looking at the aft of the cannon plug and gnd to the
inferior pin. It then runs and the flag goes down.
I went out, tried this, and voila: power up, flag gone, and (as you said,
somewhat noisy) gyro coming to life. I was not ready to try the mix &
match connections game, but I'm glad you did. This poses the following
question, though: how can a manufacturer be so stupid that it cannot get a
simple + and - 12 V wiring diagram (two whole connections!) right in its
installation literature? I continue to just be amazed at some of the sorry
practice that passes for "aviation quality" work.... Now I can go un-solder
and rework the connection and get it right.
Thanks for your help - by cc of this email I am passing this on to the
"pros" are Falcon Gauge.
John H. Wiegenstein
Hansville, WA
RV-6 S/N 23961 - N727JW (reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Ford" <dford(at)michweb.net> |
I have the AK-350 encoder, an IK2000 engine monitor w/density altitude readout
(requiring gray code input, looping out to another device), Garmin GTX327, Garmin
GNC300XL. The transponder has a gray code input and 2 RS232 inputs to receive
Icarus or Shadin type altitude info. It also has altitude output in Icarus
format. The GPS has RS232 inputs to receive (I believe) Icarus or Shadin type
info (according to installation manual). It also has a 232 output channel
showing aviation type info (serial position, velocity, and navigation data) which
I'm not sure where that info is to be used.
I am currently thinking that from the encoder to the IK2000 with gray code
looping that out to the transponder with a RS232 output going to the GPS unit
with altitude info. Does that sound right?
Next for the Navaid A/P does it get steering info from the GPS RS232 output
NMEA format or from the GPS left/right steering info that would normally go to
a Nav Indicator? Do I need the Smart Coupler with this unit?
Dave Ford
RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Loram <johnl(at)loram.org> |
It's my understanding that you can buy the Navaid A/P (wing leveler) with
the Smart Coupler built in. In that case it will take the serial output from
a GPS. If you bought the Navaid A/P without the built-in Smart Couple, then
you'll need to buy one from www.porcine.com
Another possibility is to use the all solid-state DigiTrak from
http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com . It accepts GPS input.
-john-
john(at)loram.org
www.loram.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Ford [mailto:dford(at)michweb.net]
avionics-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: wiring question
...
Next for the Navaid A/P does it get steering info from the GPS RS232
output NMEA format or from the GPS left/right steering info that would
normally go to a Nav Indicator? Do I need the Smart Coupler with this unit?
Dave Ford
RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wig wag relay |
>
>In the low cost wig- wag system using automative flasher article, there is
>mention of a B&C SSF-1 relay or equal. What would be a comparative
>automotive flasher that I could use?
>
>Bob
I suspect there are many but I've not researched and verified
any specific part numbers. Perhaps someone on the list has
taken the time to dig out this information.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wig wag relay |
I built and tried the other wig wag alternatives using dual 20A continuous
relays with the DIY flasher with the lm555. The problem that I have with
that circuit is that with no lights turned on I have a rhythmic clicking of
the relays going on, so I know that the DIYis producing the proper timing.
But as soon as I apply power to the headlights, the relays start working
with a twitch and are not rhythmic at all. I have the PB310-nd relays from
digi-key. I have used these for my trim. Maybe I should have used z217-nd
automotive relays for the headlights instead. Since I have the wiring done,
this would be my preferred choice, Would either of these ( z217-nd or the
pb310-nd) from digi-key be a replacement for the s704-1 equal?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wig wag relay
>
> >
> >In the low cost wig- wag system using automative flasher article, there
is
> >mention of a B&C SSF-1 relay or equal. What would be a comparative
> >automotive flasher that I could use?
> >
> >Bob
>
> I suspect there are many but I've not researched and verified
> any specific part numbers. Perhaps someone on the list has
> taken the time to dig out this information.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm VS VOR antenna |
Minus 20dB for cross polarization is part of the signal loss I alluded to...
Denny
K8DO
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Comm VS VOR antenna
>
> In a message dated 4/25/03 4:18:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
> doconnor(at)chartermi.net writes:
>
> > No.... The VOR antenna is resonated at a lower frequency than the
COM...
> > However, it will work as an emergency antenna for the handheld with some
> > signal loss....
> >
> > >
> > >Comm and VOR antennas are the same right?
> >
>
> Good Afternoon,
>
> In addition, the comm signal is transmitted in a vertical mode. The
> receiving antenna will work best when it is vertical as well. The VOR
works
> in a horizontal plane, Therefore the VOR signal will be best received by
an
> antenna oriented in the horizontal plane.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wig wag relay |
My only comment on using mechanical/thermal relays is that you give up the
good feature of the solid state stuff that controls the inrush current on
the initial startup and keeps the filament warm between cycles - drastically
prolonging bulb life...
Denny...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wig wag relay
>
> >
> >In the low cost wig- wag system using automative flasher article, there
is
> >mention of a B&C SSF-1 relay or equal. What would be a comparative
> >automotive flasher that I could use?
> >
> >Bob
>
> I suspect there are many but I've not researched and verified
> any specific part numbers. Perhaps someone on the list has
> taken the time to dig out this information.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joel Harding <cajole76(at)ispwest.com> |
I have a question about differences between wiring diagrams Z 11 and Z
13. One has a fuselink and the 5 A field circuit breaker between the
main bus and the master switch. The other has the circuit breaker
downstream of the master switch. Does it make any difference?
Also, I'm planning a small 4 to 5 A. H. battery to back up my #2
electronic ignition. I will probably locate it somewhere near the
instrument panel. Would there be a problem grounding it on the
firewall ground, when the main battery is grounded locally in the rear
fuselage?
And the last awe inspiring question of the day is, since there appears
to be a large number of ground wires coming off the back of the
instrument panel, does it make sense to combine them all and just run
one wire to the firewall ground to reduce the size of the wire bundle?
Your mission should you decide to accept it, is to provide some much
needed clarification, and as always your expertise is much appreciated.
Joel Harding
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wig wag relay |
Bob, from your description you may need to do three things...
First is that you do not have an adequate series choke and bypass capacitor
on the power leads for the 555 allowing noise to get inside...
The second is that you are getting voltage sag at the 555 due to the inrush
across the filaments... Perhaps a surge capacitor there will help... Any
automobile sound shop will have them... Otherwise, you will need a separate
power lead from the battery to the 555...
And the last is that the transient spike off the relay coil is confusing the
555 and you need a diode across the coil leads and a capacitor to ground
there, also... Although I would have expected it to be a problem even with
the bulbs turned off, however with transients you cannot predict.....
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wig wag relay
>
> I built and tried the other wig wag alternatives using dual 20A continuous
> relays with the DIY flasher with the lm555. The problem that I have
with
> that circuit is that with no lights turned on I have a rhythmic clicking
of
> the relays going on, so I know that the DIYis producing the proper timing.
> But as soon as I apply power to the headlights, the relays start working
> with a twitch and are not rhythmic at all. I have the PB310-nd relays
from
> digi-key. I have used these for my trim. Maybe I should have used
z217-nd
> automotive relays for the headlights instead. Since I have the wiring
done,
> this would be my preferred choice, Would either of these ( z217-nd or
the
> pb310-nd) from digi-key be a replacement for the s704-1 equal?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wig wag relay
>
>
>
> >
>
> > >
> > >In the low cost wig- wag system using automative flasher article, there
> is
> > >mention of a B&C SSF-1 relay or equal. What would be a comparative
> > >automotive flasher that I could use?
> > >
> > >Bob
> >
> > I suspect there are many but I've not researched and verified
> > any specific part numbers. Perhaps someone on the list has
> > taken the time to dig out this information.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey" <dump(at)relaypoint.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm VS VOR antenna |
Ok, I saw Bob Archer's VOR antenna (asked where to see it in another post, I
really like it) now I have another question because of this post.
Is it possible that you could create a switch for the BNC connector that
hooks your handheld to the COM antenna so that you could switch between the
COM and the VOR antennas? Of course without lots of signal loss and
noise??? ;) For some reason this just sounds messy.
Jeff
(RV8 Wings)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Comm VS VOR antenna
>
> Minus 20dB for cross polarization is part of the signal loss I alluded
to...
>
> Denny
> K8DO
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Comm VS VOR antenna
>
>
> >
> > In a message dated 4/25/03 4:18:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
> > doconnor(at)chartermi.net writes:
> >
> > > No.... The VOR antenna is resonated at a lower frequency than the
> COM...
> > > However, it will work as an emergency antenna for the handheld with
some
> > > signal loss....
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Comm and VOR antennas are the same right?
> > >
> >
> > Good Afternoon,
> >
> > In addition, the comm signal is transmitted in a vertical mode. The
> > receiving antenna will work best when it is vertical as well. The VOR
> works
> > in a horizontal plane, Therefore the VOR signal will be best received by
> an
> > antenna oriented in the horizontal plane.
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wig wag relay |
>
>I built and tried the other wig wag alternatives using dual 20A continuous
>relays with the DIY flasher with the lm555. The problem that I have with
>that circuit is that with no lights turned on I have a rhythmic clicking of
>the relays going on, so I know that the DIYis producing the proper timing.
>But as soon as I apply power to the headlights, the relays start working
>with a twitch and are not rhythmic at all. I have the PB310-nd relays from
>digi-key. I have used these for my trim. Maybe I should have used z217-nd
>automotive relays for the headlights instead. Since I have the wiring done,
>this would be my preferred choice, Would either of these ( z217-nd or the
>pb310-nd) from digi-key be a replacement for the s704-1 equal?
Which schematic for the 555 flasher are you using? Does
it have a capacitor from pin 5 to ground? I neglected this
important component on several drawings circulating 'round
out there. Not having a 1 uf or so cap from 5 to ground
will produce strange behavior like you've described.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ian Scott" <jabiru22(at)yahoo.com.au> |
Hi bob, where may I find an updated one?
Thanks Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wig wag relay
-->
>-->
>
>I built and tried the other wig wag alternatives using dual 20A
continuous
>relays with the DIY flasher with the lm555. The problem that I have
with
>that circuit is that with no lights turned on I have a rhythmic
>clicking of the relays going on, so I know that the DIYis producing the
>proper timing. But as soon as I apply power to the headlights, the
>relays start working with a twitch and are not rhythmic at all. I have
>the PB310-nd relays from digi-key. I have used these for my trim.
>Maybe I should have used z217-nd automotive relays for the headlights
instead. Since I have the wiring done,
>this would be my preferred choice, Would either of these ( z217-nd or
the
>pb310-nd) from digi-key be a replacement for the s704-1 equal?
Which schematic for the 555 flasher are you using? Does
it have a capacitor from pin 5 to ground? I neglected this
important component on several drawings circulating 'round
out there. Not having a 1 uf or so cap from 5 to ground
will produce strange behavior like you've described.
Bob . . .
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Affordable time-delay |
In a message dated 4/27/2003 5:07:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jon(at)finleyweb.net writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Looking thru the archives it appears that this topic has been discussed
> before but I couldn't find a clear answer.
>
> I am looking for what I think is called an "on-delay timer". My specific
> use is to control my low-fuel level light. I have a float type sensor.
> The fuel sloshing around causes the light to cycle. I would really like
> to install an on-delay timer/relay which requires the input signal to be
> "on" for 15 seconds or so (flexible here) before turning on the light.
> If the input signal is goes "off" at any point during the countdown, the
> timer is reset.
>
> Doing a web search turns up a ton of products. However; not being much
> of an electronic geek, I'm not sure which ones would work. So, if
> anyone knows of a product that would do this job (and is terribly
> expensive) please forward me some info. I have a 12v system and my low
> level light is an LED so don't need much capactity on the circuit.
>
> Thanks much!!
>
> Jon Finley
> N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 440 Hrs. TT - 0 Hrs Engine
> Apple Valley, Minnesota
> http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
>
>
Hello Jon,
I sent Mark Phillips (at the possum works) a couple of general purpose time
delay relay modules that I use from time to time in my electronics control
business. They are dip switch settable to do many functions, are dual
voltage (12 & 24) and they cost less than twenty bucks each. I bread boarded
for Mark a configuration that will do just what you are asking. He is using
two tanks with a module controlling the low fuel light for each low fuel
sensor switch. A count down time delay can be set so that the LED is kept
off until the time out is complete. The low fuel sensor must remain in alarm
during the entire count down to turn the LED on. A return to normal signal
from the low fuel sensor cancels the time out. Both sensor alarm input and
completed time delay must be true to turn the light on.
He may see this post and chime in to let you know how they are working out
for him so far.
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wig wag relay |
Bob,
I am using the one called AEC_WW2.pdf found in your last .zip file. The
drawing has a .1uF cap from pin 5 to ground. I will open my case up to
make use that it is to ground. You mentiuone d a 1 uF. Should that be a 1
or a .1 uF cap to ground.
> Which schematic for the 555 flasher are you using? Does
> it have a capacitor from pin 5 to ground? I neglected this
> important component on several drawings circulating 'round
> out there. Not having a 1 uf or so cap from 5 to ground
> will produce strange behavior like you've described.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob:
I have been studying the Z-14 duel batt duel alt wiring diagram and have a
few questions.
1. Why is the hydraulic pump coming off the main battery contactor as opposed
to the main power bus?
2. Why is there a #2AWG between the main battery contactor and the crossfeed
contactor when there is only a #4 between crossfeed and aux battery
contactor?
3. I am wiring a canard so I have substituted a #2AWG wire for the #4AWG
shown between the main battery contactor and the starter contactor per Z-15.
Same on the return Ground. Is this correct?
4. Should I also connect the two battery negatives with a #2 or is #4 still
ok?
5. Z-15 two different diagrams show the panel ground connected to the #2 AWG
ground wire and the other diagram shows the panel ground connected to the
battery with a #4AWG. Any difference here or is it just preference?
6. The ground strap from engine to firewall ground calls for a braided
strap. Could a #2 welding cable be used here as a substitute?
Thanks Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Van Caulart <etivc(at)iaw.on.ca> |
| Subject: | alternative wigwag flashers |
>In the low cost wig- wag system using automative flasher article, there is
>mention of a B&C SSF-1 relay or equal. What would be a comparative
>automotive flasher that I could use?
>
>Bob
I suspect there are many but I've not researched and verified
any specific part numbers. Perhaps someone on the list has
taken the time to dig out this information.
Bob . . .
I think I've found one from Grote. It's a school bus electronic
alternating flasher #44730. It's marked 6 lamps/side, 12 volt, SAE
J945,J590, FMVSS 10B or"8". It has 3 .25 faston males which mate to a
generic socket which has 3 8" pigtails for connecting. I haven't tried
it yet but the cost was minimal and available from UAP/NAPA.
PeterVC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Bean <jim-bean(at)att.net> |
> For those who have done their cowls with Camlocks instead of hnges,
what thickness Al strip did you use for the camlocks to attach to
the
cowl. Their website shows it done using .063 but that seems like
overkill. I was thinking of using .040 or .032, easier to work
with and
I have it on hand. What do you think?
Jeff Point
RV-6 FWF
Milwaukee WI
<
I used hinges on the bottom of the the cown and camlocks on the top.
I used some of the "scrap" that is included with the kit. I think it is
0.032.
Jim Bean
RV-8 engine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wig wag relay |
>
>Bob,
>
>I am using the one called AEC_WW2.pdf found in your last .zip file. The
>drawing has a .1uF cap from pin 5 to ground. I will open my case up to
>make use that it is to ground. You mentiuone d a 1 uF. Should that be a 1
>or a .1 uF cap to ground.
about anything .1 or larger will work . . . if you have .1 uf, that's fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob(at)RobsGlass.com> |
I used a Tridon EL 12 flasher (aviation aisle at Kragen) and a generic relay which
should be freely available from the same source. This is a type used for
ignition de-activation in auto alarm systems. If you ask the guys at your local
dealership who prep used cars for sale you'll find they throw these away every
day since dealerships don't leave aftermarket alarm systems in used cars.
I have offerings from Potter and Brumfield and Siemans both of which have same
part number.(W4-45F11). No matter the maker, these will all have pins labelled
85,86,87,87a and 30 and a wiring diagram on the side. They are rated 40/30
amp and have a normally closed and a normally open contact.
The circuit works fine although the only issue I've not been able to address is
whether or not it will generate any interference with the intercom or radios.
A VERY cheap experiment to make however.
Good luck.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
RV9A N919RV Fuselage - now a canoe!!!
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wig wag relay
>
>In the low cost wig- wag system using automative flasher article, there is
>mention of a B&C SSF-1 relay or equal. What would be a comparative
>automotive flasher that I could use?
>
>Bob
I suspect there are many but I've not researched and verified
any specific part numbers. Perhaps someone on the list has
taken the time to dig out this information.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MARK H DELANO" <delano60(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Falcon Gauge Electric TC & Spruce return policy |
I purchased one of these gyros from Spruce a couple of months ago. The first
one was using three times the current it should and the RPM was fluctuating.
As the RPM went down the current went up, and the RF noise was
unacceptable.Spruce replaced it with an equally noisy gyro This one
completely wiped out the radio reception in my A/C. I returned this to
Spruce also. Spruce will not issue a credit until the manufacture says I did
not damage there junk gyro.
Mark Delano
6A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Feedback on Falcon Gauge Electric TC
>
> QC on a product made on mainland China - you gotta be kidding.
>
> I had a friend who recently made a tour of some aviation related
> manufacturing facilities over there. He spotted a Chinese engineering
> group dissembling and reverse engineering the infamous Mini 500 single
> seat helicopter. Gonna kill a lot of Chinese helo pilots with that death
> trap.
>
> Bruce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Benford2(at)aol.com
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Feedback on Falcon Gauge Electric TC
>
>
> In a message dated 4/26/2003 11:06:08 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> johnw(at)hellerwiegenstein.com writes:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Listers, I recently ordered one of the non-TSO'd electric turn
> coordinators
> > from Spruce, mfrd. by Falcon Gauge/Wultrad. In a bench test today
> there
> > is
> > no response to 12V power; no sound, no movement, and the red power
> failure
> > flag remains visible. Polarity and connections all check out. I've
> emailed
> > Wultrad and am awaiting their response, but meantime I'm curious what
> > experience others have had with this or other products from this
> vendor.
> > Seems to me they would have bench tested these before shipping, but
> perhaps
> > that is one of the steps avoided to save $$$?
> >
> > John H. Wiegenstein
> > Hansville, WA
> > RV-6 S/N 23961 - N727JW (reserved)
> >
>
> I just got mine last month. I have powered it up and it does spool up
> nicely
> altho it is kinda noisy. When I get my radios turned on I will give you
> guys
> a report on it. Some people recently have complained that it introduces
> noise
> into the radios and if mine does too it will come out and I offered it
> to Bob
> to do an autopsy on it and he will post the grizzly details on this
> list.
>
> Ben Haas N801 BH Jackson Hole Wy.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Piers Herbert" <piers.herbert(at)ntlworld.com> |
| Subject: | ANR headset supply |
I would like to have a panel mount supply of 9 V for anr headsets. There are several
commercially available from companies like David Clarke or Headsets inc.
The question is can I make my own? I could easily make a 9V supply circuit from
a 3 pin regulator chip, but would this be suficient? I note that the Headsets
inc units contain a dc-dc converter to provide "isolaion". Why is this nescessary?
Piers
RV-8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm VS VOR antenna |
Look up Jim Weir's site... He will show you the best method of having an
emergency port to the com antennas...
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey" <dump(at)relaypoint.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Comm VS VOR antenna
>
> Ok, I saw Bob Archer's VOR antenna (asked where to see it in another post,
I
> really like it) now I have another question because of this post.
>
> Is it possible that you could create a switch for the BNC connector that
> hooks your handheld to the COM antenna so that you could switch between
the
> COM and the VOR antennas? Of course without lots of signal loss and
> noise??? ;) For some reason this just sounds messy.
>
> Jeff
> (RV8 Wings)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Comm VS VOR antenna
>
>
>
> >
> > Minus 20dB for cross polarization is part of the signal loss I alluded
> to...
> >
> > Denny
> > K8DO
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Comm VS VOR antenna
> >
> >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 4/25/03 4:18:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
> > > doconnor(at)chartermi.net writes:
> > >
> > > > No.... The VOR antenna is resonated at a lower frequency than the
> > COM...
> > > > However, it will work as an emergency antenna for the handheld with
> some
> > > > signal loss....
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Comm and VOR antennas are the same right?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Good Afternoon,
> > >
> > > In addition, the comm signal is transmitted in a vertical mode. The
> > > receiving antenna will work best when it is vertical as well. The VOR
> > works
> > > in a horizontal plane, Therefore the VOR signal will be best received
by
> > an
> > > antenna oriented in the horizontal plane.
> > >
> > > Happy Skies,
> > >
> > > Old Bob
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joel Harding <cajole76(at)ispwest.com> |
Having encountered total silence, I would like to resubmit this for
your consideration.
I have a question about differences between wiring diagrams Z 11 and Z
13. One has a fuselink and the 5 A field circuit breaker between the
main bus and the master switch. The other has the circuit breaker
downstream of the master switch. Does it make any difference one way
or the other?
Also, I'm planning a small 4 to 5 A. H. battery to back up my #2
electronic ignition. I will probably locate it somewhere near the
instrument panel. Would there be a problem grounding it on the
firewall ground, when the main battery is grounded locally in the rear
fuselage?
And the last awe inspiring question of the day is, since there will
be a large number of ground wires coming off the back of the
instrument panel, does it make sense to combine them all with a
multiple tab ground and just run one wire to the firewall ground, to
reduce the size of the wire bundle?
Joel Harding
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wig wag relay |
I would look into a flasher unit for a semi tractor trailer.
>
>In the low cost wig- wag system using automative flasher article, there is
>mention of a B&C SSF-1 relay or equal. What would be a comparative
>automotive flasher that I could use?
>
>Bob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>I have a question about differences between wiring diagrams Z 11 and Z
>13. One has a fuselink and the 5 A field circuit breaker between the
>main bus and the master switch. The other has the circuit breaker
>downstream of the master switch. Does it make any difference one way
>or the other?
both figures suggest extending the bus via a vulnerable
wire up to the alternator control switch. BOTH systems
suggest a 5A breaker in this power lead to accommodate the
modus-operandi of crowbar ov protection. Exact location
of breaker along the route is not terribly important as
long as wires leading up to the breaker are not at risk.
Risk is mitigated with the fusible link at the bus. Fusible
links are preferred to fuses because they have a very long
time constant compared to fuses and breakers . . . so that
if the crowbar system operates, only the breaker will open.
>Also, I'm planning a small 4 to 5 A. H. battery to back up my #2
>electronic ignition. I will probably locate it somewhere near the
>instrument panel. Would there be a problem grounding it on the
>firewall ground, when the main battery is grounded locally in the rear
>fuselage?
Ground it to the single point ground on the firewall.
>And the last awe inspiring question of the day is, since there will
> be a large number of ground wires coming off the back of the
>instrument panel, does it make sense to combine them all with a
>multiple tab ground and just run one wire to the firewall ground, to
>reduce the size of the wire bundle?
No. Every system should have its own ground wire to the single
point ground bus . . . else the single point ground is no longer
a single point ground.
>Joel Harding
>
>
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Magnet on small access door ? |
Hi Bob and all,
A friend proposes to lock a small access door on the top front of the
fuselage with a magnet , within one foot or so from the instrument panel.
Anyone around have tried this setup ? Are there any chances the compass will
be enfluenced by the magnet ?
Any workaround ?
Thanks in advance,
Gilles Thesee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-14 Questions |
>
>Bob:
> I have been studying the Z-14 duel batt duel alt wiring diagram and have a
>few questions.
>1. Why is the hydraulic pump coming off the main battery contactor as opposed
>to the main power bus?
Hydraulic pumps take a lot of snort that's not practical
to supply from a fuse block, they also generate more noise
and it's better to have them drive from shortest practical
array of fat wires between pump and battery.
>2. Why is there a #2AWG between the main battery contactor and the crossfeed
>contactor when there is only a #4 between crossfeed and aux battery
>contactor?
Keep in mind that these drawings are to suggest ARCHITECTURES. Wire
sizes need to be considered for your particular situation. As
a general rule of thumb, if batteries are close to engine
then ALL fat wires can be 4AWG. If batteries are a long way from
engine, then fat wires may want to be 2AWG or even larger as in
case of some seaplanes.
>3. I am wiring a canard so I have substituted a #2AWG wire for the #4AWG
>shown between the main battery contactor and the starter contactor per Z-15.
>Same on the return Ground. Is this correct?
I presume your batteries are up front. All wiring up front between
batteries and all contactors can be 4AWG. The wire feeding the starter
and taking ground back to the engine should be 2AWG
>4. Should I also connect the two battery negatives with a #2 or is #4 still
>ok?
4AWG to single point ground is fine, then run on from ground to
engine with 2AWG.
>5. Z-15 two different diagrams show the panel ground connected to the #2 AWG
>ground wire and the other diagram shows the panel ground connected to the
>battery with a #4AWG. Any difference here or is it just preference?
Z-15B is not a good idea and will be revised at next revision
to bring battery and 2AWG engine grounds together at the
ground bus.
>6. The ground strap from engine to firewall ground calls for a braided
>strap. Could a #2 welding cable be used here as a substitute?
sure.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ANR headset supply |
>
>
>I would like to have a panel mount supply of 9 V for anr headsets. There
>are several commercially available from companies like David Clarke or
>Headsets inc.
>
>The question is can I make my own? I could easily make a 9V supply circuit
>from a 3 pin regulator chip, but would this be suficient?
Yes
>I note that the Headsets inc units contain a dc-dc converter to provide
>"isolaion". Why is this nescessary?
it isn't.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Circuit protection question |
Hi Bob and all,
I started the wiring for real last week. No hassles except keeping those
wire coils clear. Oh, and a 'crimper elbow' !
Here is my question :
We're using some parts supplied by the kit manufacturer for the flaps
control and motors.
They say they wire with 16 AWG, despite the fact they use a 25 amp breaker.
My intention is to use a fuse, and fatter wires.
Does it make sense to use 14 AWG wires, since the 25 amp protection is only
there for the very momentary inrush current draw ?
And do I add a 18 AWG fuselink in case of faulted wire or shorted motor ?
Thanks,
Gilles Thesee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wig wag relay |
> about anything .1 or larger will work . . . if you have .1 uf, that's
fine.
>
Ok so I have those caps in place. Now the question is does it matter what
kind of caps they should be? A ceramic .1uF is rather small. My 10 uF is a
dipped tantalum style, while my .1 uf is larger and I believe a coated one.
Maybe I have the wrong type of cap on mine? should I go with the 1000v 1"
.1uf cap?
I did try the separate lead into the relay and it still acted the same way.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob one point of clairification Is what you are describing below
essentially the Z-15 view C Ground system for seaplane?
5. Z-15 two different diagrams show the panel ground connected to the #2 AWG
>ground wire and the other diagram shows the panel ground connected to the
>battery with a #4AWG.=A0=A0 Any difference here or is it just=A0 preference?
=A0 Z-15B is not a good idea and will be revised at next revision
=A0 to bring battery and 2AWG engine grounds together at the
=A0 ground bus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magnet on small access door ? |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi Bob and all,
>
>A friend proposes to lock a small access door on the top front of the
>fuselage with a magnet , within one foot or so from the instrument panel.
>Anyone around have tried this setup ? Are there any chances the compass will
>be enfluenced by the magnet ?
>Any workaround ?
A properly designed latch could probably work that
close to the panel without upsetting the compass. Does
he know how to do this? The magnet needs to reside in
a magnetic enclosure that minimizes leakage of flux
while the door is closed. A steel cup with the same
depth as magnet thickness is in order. A piece of steel
on the inside of the door should exactly close the
cup all around the periphery and should not have a lot
of overlap . . . diameter of door shunt is only slightly
larger than diameter of cup.
In any case, give it a try. It can't do worse than
make you figure out something else if it doesn't
work. Let us all know how it works out and send
pictures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rondefly" <rondefly(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Magnet on small access door ? |
Why don't you tell your friend to try touch latch, don't need a magnetic.
Ron Triano Quicker one Q-200, 90% Done with 90% to go
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magnet on small access door ?
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi Bob and all,
>
>A friend proposes to lock a small access door on the top front of the
>fuselage with a magnet , within one foot or so from the instrument panel.
>Anyone around have tried this setup ? Are there any chances the compass
will
>be enfluenced by the magnet ?
>Any workaround ?
A properly designed latch could probably work that
close to the panel without upsetting the compass. Does
he know how to do this? The magnet needs to reside in
a magnetic enclosure that minimizes leakage of flux
while the door is closed. A steel cup with the same
depth as magnet thickness is in order. A piece of steel
on the inside of the door should exactly close the
cup all around the periphery and should not have a lot
of overlap . . . diameter of door shunt is only slightly
larger than diameter of cup.
In any case, give it a try. It can't do worse than
make you figure out something else if it doesn't
work. Let us all know how it works out and send
pictures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Ebay Item # 2526787231--- 12 Volt Turn & Slip Bank Indicator R.C. Allen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Quartz Hour Meters on Ebay |
see
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=26442&item=2413197823
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Magnet on small access door ? |
> Why don't you tell your friend to try touch latch, don't need a magnetic.
>
> Ron Triano Quicker one Q-200, 90% Done with 90% to go
>
>
> A properly designed latch could probably work that
> close to the panel without upsetting the compass.
Thanks to Bob and Ron.
In fact the small door isn't an access door but an aerator. So he wants to
open and close it in flight and the touch latch is impractical.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RVEIGHTA(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Blown master fuse |
Bob, I guess I just got carried away with the fuse approach vs breakers and
failed to see the symbol for the breaker. Before I order a breaker though,
what type breaker should I use? A 5a W58 or a combination breaker/switch to
use in place of my master switch? If I use the W58 please advise step by
step how to wire it and the master switch in, I really want to get it right
this time....... Also, I need to place an order with B&C for some other
stuff, do you carry the breaker I need? Thanks!
Walt Shipley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Blown master fuse |
>
>Bob, I guess I just got carried away with the fuse approach vs breakers and
>failed to see the symbol for the breaker. Before I order a breaker though,
>what type breaker should I use? A 5a W58 or a combination breaker/switch to
>use in place of my master switch?
Wire it per the drawing.
> If I use the W58 please advise step by
>step how to wire it and the master switch in, I really want to get it right
>this time....... Also, I need to place an order with B&C for some other
>stuff, do you carry the breaker I need? Thanks!
Any 5A breaker will work. B&C offers a suitable breaker from
their website catalog at http://www.bandc.biz
This doesn't explain why the crowbar ov system was
tripping. Did you find some wiring errors?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wig wag relay |
>
> > about anything .1 or larger will work . . . if you have .1 uf, that's
>fine.
> >
>Ok so I have those caps in place. Now the question is does it matter what
>kind of caps they should be? A ceramic .1uF is rather small. My 10 uF is a
>dipped tantalum style, while my .1 uf is larger and I believe a coated one.
>Maybe I have the wrong type of cap on mine? should I go with the 1000v 1"
>.1uf cap?
No, the style and voltage are not critical to
the operation as long as the voltage rating
of the capacitor is equal to or greater than
operating voltage.
>I did try the separate lead into the relay and it still acted the same way.
Hmmm . . . I've built dozens of these. I'm
curious as to what's going on here. Can you send
me your flasher assembly in the mail to look at?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wig wag relay |
thanks,
Sure. I will attach it all back and send you my relays and stuff up there.
It should be in the mail this week-end Could send me yer address?
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wig wag relay
>
> >
> > > about anything .1 or larger will work . . . if you have .1 uf,
that's
> >fine.
> > >
> >Ok so I have those caps in place. Now the question is does it matter
what
> >kind of caps they should be? A ceramic .1uF is rather small. My 10 uF
is a
> >dipped tantalum style, while my .1 uf is larger and I believe a coated
one.
> >Maybe I have the wrong type of cap on mine? should I go with the 1000v
1"
> >.1uf cap?
>
> No, the style and voltage are not critical to
> the operation as long as the voltage rating
> of the capacitor is equal to or greater than
> operating voltage.
>
>
> >I did try the separate lead into the relay and it still acted the same
way.
>
> Hmmm . . . I've built dozens of these. I'm
> curious as to what's going on here. Can you send
> me your flasher assembly in the mail to look at?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Surplus comm antenna |
| From: | "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com> |
I got what I thought was a good deal on a surplus comm antenna, but I'm
not sure now. I can't seem to find any information on the antenna. It's
a stainless steel bent whip with a ceramic insulator at the base. The
only numbers on the insulator are NS4W4103 and under that CAS. I can't
find any specific information on this antenna. The only thing I found
was a general statement that this type of antenna is no good above
127MHz. There is also some question of how much airspeed this type of
mount can handle (building an RV-8). Any ideas?
Thanks
ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wig wag relay |
>
>thanks,
>
>Sure. I will attach it all back and send you my relays and stuff up there.
>It should be in the mail this week-end Could send me yer address?
6936 Bainbridge Road
Wichita, KS 67226-1008
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . |
What you're looking for is more than a simple timer . . . and
a brief look at the replies on this topic didn't pick up on
what's needed.
A "flicker filter" is easy to implement in a little
micro-controller for the lowest parts count . . . but unless
you have access to the programming hardware and skills
this could a low-return-on-investment approach. A pure
discrete component approach is illustrated at:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/Flicker_Filter.pdf
All the parts are available from Digikey. Timing
for turn-on and turn-off response is set by the
470K/22uF resistor/capacitor pairs. The constants
shown give you about 11 seconds of delay for uninterrupted
switch closure to turn the light on and the same delay
of uninterrupted switch opening to turn the light back
out.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Could you explain why Z15B is not a good Idea. That particular
architecture would work well for the velocity where the #2AWG runs in a duct
from firewall through canard bulkhead right to the batteries. A seperate #
4AWG could come from the panel ground block on the panel and to the batteries
via a different route. If you dont recommend this then I would have to cut
through the duct inside the cabin behind the panel run the #2 wire up to the
panel ground presumable on the panel and then back down into the duct to go
to the battery. It would be a lot of heavy wire inside the cabin and onto the
panel. Is there a better way I'm not seeing? Thanks Tim
Z-15B is not a good idea and will be revised at next revision
=A0 to bring battery and 2AWG engine grounds together at the
=A0 ground bus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Surplus comm antenna |
>
>I got what I thought was a good deal on a surplus comm antenna, but I'm
>not sure now. I can't seem to find any information on the antenna. It's
>a stainless steel bent whip with a ceramic insulator at the base. The
>only numbers on the insulator are NS4W4103 and under that CAS. I can't
>find any specific information on this antenna. The only thing I found
>was a general statement that this type of antenna is no good above
>127MHz. There is also some question of how much airspeed this type of
>mount can handle (building an RV-8). Any ideas?
>
>Thanks
>
>ken
Antennas of this style were used by the thousands when
comm transceivers first found their way onto airplanes.
We made our own from scratch at Cessna; you can buy
the insulators from some specialty houses. One example
can be seen at:
http://www.surplussales.com/Ceramic.html
There's nothing "magic" about this antenna style. I disucss
it in the book. It's certainly adequate for your RV-8.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul A. Franz, P.E." <paul(at)eucleides.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio frequency interferences |
At 12:36 AM 4/29/2003kurt schrader sez:
>Theoretically right Paul,
>
>As you said, you need an essential buss and I was
>referring to those things that are really essential
>when using CB's. I have an electric horizon for
>example. I would reset it 1000 times if I had to in
>the clouds to keep it and me upright until I got down
>or VFR.
I have seen this type of argument posed before. Since I am *NOT AN EXPERT*
I cannot precisely identify the flaw. But I know just enough to think your
response could be flawed.
>And my all electric NSI engine ignition will have two
>CB's, one of which is hot off the battery buss and the
>other off a seperate battery. One even has two wires
>going to it for redundancy.
Sometimes redundancy introduces complexity that actually reduces
reliability. Have you checked out Bob's circuits for OV, dual batteries and
it is possible that there should be neither a fuse or CB in portions of the
wiring?
Remember, I am not qualified, and really don't have the knowledge to argue
this well. I am totally relying on Bob's knowledge from a career in the
business and he has weighed in the pros and cons of most of these
alternatives. There are lots of ways to do things that are acceptable but
some of the ways that are commonly done are not good ideas. Bob Nuckolls
has a very good way of presenting the information so that you can make
choices taking into consideration you preferences.
>Neither would be a good item for using a fuse.
>Sometimes you just have to have it "now" and you need
>to wire for that posibility. I don't put a fuse on
>any circuit that, when it dies, I might too.
The second battery idea is good. As I recall, there is never a
justification for circuit breakers. There is a better way to do the
circuit. We should have Bob in the loop here. How about we take this
discussion to the AeroElectric list?
I'd hear the stuff reviewed again and would learn and you might get some
cool ideas too.
>I have a 60 amp main buss CB. It has a lot of items
>on it and could and should blow from an overload.
It is my understanding that it is improperly designed and sized then.
Should not be an operational possibility for the overload.
>can turn stuff off, like the 10 amp landing light, and
>reset it to give me needed items, if I want to.
>
>On a rescue mission, I once saved 4 F-4's from going
>into the ocean by refueling them with a KC-130 that
>required over 100 CB resets to keep one engine
>running. We shut it down after we refueled the F-4's
>and went home on 3 engines. Without that 4th engine
>we couldn't get enough speed to refuel them.
Bet that had a mess of poor design too!
>Remember, engineers design for everything they can
>think of (theoretically), but you have to survive what
>they didn't think of too (in reality). Engineers are
>good, but human.
>
>We do carry some fuses on our Boeing aircraft, but
>they are outnumbered greatly by CB's. Ok, maybe those
>are big as a house... :-) You got me on that one.
>
>Kurt S.
Bob N works for Raytheon and can comment on years of commercial practice
which is not best practice especially for our experimentals which allow us
to use best and current methods and practices with the freedom. Just
because it was done on a KC-135 or C-130 doesn't mean it is good, it means
it was approved.
I'm going to cc: the aeroelectric list with this one and hopefully you'll
have a look there too.
>--- "Paul A. Franz, P.E." wrote:
> > I'm certainly no wiring expert, but I don't think
> > Bob Nuckolls would concur
> > with you. I believe fuses are the only choice and
> > circuit breakers belong
> > in your house, not your airplane. If something blows
> > a fuse, it should do
> > it quickly and protectively. Breakers don't act fast
> > enough to protect
> > devices, just to prevent fire.
> >
> > When it comes time to design wiring for your bird,
> > have a look at
> > <http://aeroelectric.com/>.
> >
> > You should post your questions directly to the mail
> > list for The Aero
> > Electric Connection. Subscribe
> > <http://www.matronics.com/subscription>.
> >
> > Fuses vs. Breakers have been debated for years and
> > years. Search the
> > archives
> > <http://www.matronics.com/aeroelectric-list> and I
> > think it will
> > become apparent that fuses are the only way to go.
> > Less cost, higher
> > reliability, less weight and panel space.
> >
> > At 12:43 AM 4/28/2003kurt schrader sez:
> > >Michel,
> > >
> > >You only need circuit breakers instead of fuses for
> > >those items that you "need" inflight. Anything
> > that
> > >you can't do without, you should replace the fuse
> > with
> > >a CB. That way if the CB pops, you can reset it in
> > >flight. If a fuse blows, you have to take the time
> > to
> > >find the right fuse and replace it while flying.
> >
> > Only to find that it immediately blows again. If a
> > fuse blows or CB pops
> > something needs to be fixed before resetting. Since
> > fuses are inherently
> > less complex, cheaper, faster acting they are the
> > appropriate choice for
> > all aircraft circuit protection.
> >
> > Keep in mind, a modern aircraft has a separate
> > functioning essential bus too.
> >
> >
> > >Fuses are best for those things that give you no
> > cause
> > >for worry and allow you to land and replace the
> > fuse.
> >
> > I subscribe to the idea that the essential bus is
> > what takes you to the
> > safe place to land.
> >
> > Keep in mind that I am *NOT* an expert in wiring and
> > *DO NOT* warrant
> > having an authoritative viewpoint. However, Bob
> > Nuckolls is probably the
> > world's foremost expert on Aero Electrics so you
> > should do what he says to
> > do as a matter of best practice.
> >
> >
> > >Kurt S.
> > >
> > >--- Michel Verheughe wrote:
> > >
> > > > One question though: What do you mean by
> > > > CB? I suspect it is not
> > > > "Citizen Bands" so it could be "Circuit
> > Breaker," is
> > > > it?
> > > > If so, no, I don't have a CB before the
> > regulator.
> > > > In fact, I don't have any
> > > > CBs but simple fuses as found in automobiles. I
> > know
> > > > that some microlight
> > > > planes have a set of CB on the panel. It looks
> > very
> > > > neat and it is what I wish
> > > > I had. One day I'll rebuild my panel and re-wire
> > the
> > > > entier plane, that I find
> > > > a bit messy now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Michel
>
>__________________________________
>http://search.yahoo.com
Paul Franz
PAF Consulting Engineers | 427 - 140th Ave NE
(425)641-8202 voice | Bellevue, WA 98005
(425)641-1773 fax |
<http://blackdog.bellevue.wa.us/>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
What is Z15B? My book only has Z15.
Larry in Indiana, RV7 Tip-up O-360 3XG reserved.
Working on Canopy of Finish Kit
----- Original Message -----
From: <TimRhod(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z15B
>
>
> Bob Could you explain why Z15B is not a good Idea. That particular
> architecture would work well for the velocity where the #2AWG runs in a
duct
> from firewall through canard bulkhead right to the batteries. A seperate #
> 4AWG could come from the panel ground block on the panel and to the
batteries
> via a different route. If you dont recommend this then I would have to
cut
> through the duct inside the cabin behind the panel run the #2 wire up to
the
> panel ground presumable on the panel and then back down into the duct to
go
> to the battery. It would be a lot of heavy wire inside the cabin and onto
the
> panel. Is there a better way I'm not seeing? Thanks Tim
>
>
> Z-15B is not a good idea and will be revised at next revision
> to bring battery and 2AWG engine grounds together at the
> ground bus.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Francis, David CMDR" <David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au> |
| Subject: | SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - SOME ELECTRICAL DATA POINTS |
Folks,
Its the Australian autumn. A time of year when flying people gather in large
flocks to admire and criticise each others planes. So I just had two
consecutive weekends looking at homebuilts and then antique planes. Its
amazing what you pick up. Three true stories for your entertainment and
enlightenment.
Some time ago at Adelaide a twin full of charter passengers did a wheels up
landing with much damage. The cause - the field power for BOTH alternators
ran through ONE relay. Guess which single point of failure had the audacity
to fail in flight? By the time they arrived over this major capital city
airport they did not have enough battery power to lower the gear or talk to
the tower to explain the problem, or get clearances. Imagine the confusion
and safety concern for dense airline traffic. Yes it was a Certified
aircraft.
A Lancair builder told me he just installed a colour GPS and found that
every time he hit the PTT all his electronic engine instruments went
haywire, and returned to normal on release of PTT. Removed the GPS, problem
solved, re-installed it, problem returned. Had an auto electrician spend 4
hrs labour on it, no fix found. He is still flying, and looking for the
problem.
I had a long ride in a 50 year old de Havilland Chipmunk. It had horrendous
noise on the intercom and I remarked that he seemed to have a noisy
alternator. He said no its the gyros radiating. These gyros are vacuum
powered, but he demonstated it to be true. The noise is independent of the
alternator. Amazing.
David Francis, RV7 VH-ZEE hammering the fuselage together.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RVEIGHTA(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Blown master fuse |
Bob, no I really haven't solved the problem of why the fuse blows (master to
alternator/ b lead ov protection contactor). But here is some history; I
used your 4 terminal battery contactor, which came with a diode across the
two small terminals and another from the large battery terminal to the small
terminal on the left.
Not realizing that the latter diode should be removed, I wired everything up
and when I first started the engine the diode between the two small terminals
went up in smoke. I sent you an email at that time and you said to remove the
left diode and replace the remaining diode with one from Radio Shack (don't
remember the p/n), which I did.
I have checked and double checked my wiring against the diagram, have done
continuity tests of the alternator to bus wiring (ok) and ran power to the
ov contactor bypassing the contactor diode and found the contactor clicks.
Would this tell me possibly I have the wrong diode installed ?
Please stick with me a little longer..........
Thanks, Walt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "s35pilot" <s35pilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Connecting Stereo to RST Intercom |
Hi,
I wired a small portable MP3 player to my RST intercom but the volume is
low. I thought it might be some kind of impedence problem so I hooked up a
small audio transformer from radio shack with the low impedence side to my
MP3 player and the high to the intercom. The sound was loud but the MP3
player shuts down (I think it is self protection against shorts). Am I
doing this thing right? Has this problem already been solved? I am
thinking of adding a resistor to the transformer in the MP3 low impedence
side but I don't know what to use. I really want to use the MP3 player
since my plane is a Cozy III and space is at a real premium. If you have any
suggestions how to fix this I would really apreciate it!
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Pack" <jpack(at)igs3.com> |
| Subject: | fuel pump on Battery Bus |
In Z-14, what is the rational for putting the fuel pump connected to the
"always hot" battery bus? Is there a reason it should not be on one of the
switched bus's?
- Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
Gang,
Can somebody please tell me about "Audio Hi" and "Audio Lo" connections
on radios and intercoms? Why Hi and Lo, what is the difference, what purpose
is served, etc?
Thanks
Dan Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | The Connection Z-13 questions |
| From: | "Treff, Arthur" <Arthur.Treff(at)Smartm.com> |
'Letric Bob and the list,
I'm configuring my RV-8 as an "all electric plane on a budget". The battery will
be aft mounted for weight and balance considerations. I have the following
questions.
1) What size current limiter and ammeter shunt is suggested for a 40 amp alternator,
Z-13 shows the values for a 60 amp alt.
2) When mounting the battery in the rear of a metal airplane, it was suggested
to me by a friend to ground the battery (-) to a local stout longeron, then to
reconnect to that same longeron for the firewall ground forest of fast on tabs.
I am leaning towards a common ground and running a seperate 2awg wire forward
to the firewall to avoid ground loops. Your thoughts?
3) In looking at Z-13, it seems to me that mounting the battery relay up on the
firewall, instead of back on the battery mount, it simplifies the connection
of the standby alternator to the battery side of the relay if it is firewall
mounted, and shouldn't really matter to the battery if it's rear or front mounted,
right? As long as the wire leading up to it is sized correctly.
4) I am planning on integrating the lo cost GPU connection from the Connection
and for safety mounting the Piper type recepticle in the rear. If my assumption
of #3 above is correct and I do mount the battery relay up front on the firewall,
would it be OK to connect the output of the GPU solenoid to the battery
(+) instead of running another large wire forward to the battery relay?
5) In Z-13, there is a fuse between the Battery bus and the E bus switch and
an additional fuseable link between the switch and the e bus. Why both?
Thanks for your time.
Art Treff
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Battery Contactor - Location? |
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
Doing my wiring diagram in Visio and after spending many hours creating
the stencil/shapes I'm almost done. BTW, if there is an easier way
(didn't want to learn AutoCAD) to do this, please don't tell me - I've
put in way to much work and sometimes ignorance is bliss.
Any way, while doing the diagram I started thinking that I'd like to put
the battery contactor on or near the firewall. However, my battery is
located just behind the seats so I was worried that since I've seen it
mentioned that the battery contactor should be within 12 inches or so of
the battery that I was violating some golden rule. However, the only
reason I could find for placing the contactor so close to the battery
was a possible safety issue of having a large current HOT wire running
through half the plane.
If this is so, how much of safety issue is it? Are there any other
reasons for placing the contactor next to the battery?
Thanks!
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward O'Connor" <edwardoconnor(at)compuserve.com> |
I am presently working on my system wiring and having a hard time figuring
out how to physically mount some fuse blocks and elect buses in my RV-8.
Would appreciate any one who may have some digital pictures of how you
installed Bob's back-up Alternator package E-mailing a picture or two. Type
A/C doesn't matter. I am specifically interested in the mpunting of the
Relay and OV Crowbar and the Capacator etc for the vacume Pad mounted Backup
Alt. I'm am basically using the All Ecectric on a budget diagram. Looking
for some compact way to do all of this. In addition, the installation of the
Bridge Rectifiers diodes Bob sells. What type of heat sinks and where did
you get heat sinks if you used them. Reply off line if you like. Thanks.
Ed O'Connor/RV-8/Sandy Creek Airpark
Panama City FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel pump on Battery Bus |
>
>In Z-14, what is the rational for putting the fuel pump connected to the
>"always hot" battery bus? Is there a reason it should not be on one of the
>switched bus's?
>
>- Jim
IF your engine is electrically dependent meaning that one
or more DC powered systems must be operating to keep the
engine running, then it is my suggestion that all such
support systems be powered from an always-hot battery bus.
When you walk up to a J-3 or Taylorcraft of old and flip
the mag switches up, the engine will run and depends on
no other powered systems for continued operation. I don't
see any reason why the most sophisticated FADEC fitted
machine should operate any differently. When you have
smoke in the cockpit, you may shut down ALL DC power control
switches and the engine continues to run. You have the option
reverting to systems-analyst mode and trying to figure out
what you CAN operate without having smoke return -or- whip
out the hand-helds from the flight bag and concentrate on
being a pilot.
Whatever choice you make, it is driven by conditions other
than stone silence from under the cowl.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>What is Z15B? My book only has Z15.
Z15 is a two page drawing that has three views, A B and C.
Z15 View B suggests that the battery (-) terminal be the
tie point of two wires which is in error. The battery (-)
lead and ground lead extending to engine compartment aft
should come together at a fat brass bolt on the ground block.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
Hey, please do NOT "reply off line"! I'm close to the same stage and need
the info as much as you.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward O'Connor" <edwardoconnor(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wiring Help
>
> I am presently working on my system wiring and having a hard time figuring
> out how to physically mount some fuse blocks and elect buses in my RV-8.
> Would appreciate any one who may have some digital pictures of how you
> installed Bob's back-up Alternator package E-mailing a picture or two.
Type
> A/C doesn't matter. I am specifically interested in the mpunting of the
> Relay and OV Crowbar and the Capacator etc for the vacume Pad mounted
Backup
> Alt. I'm am basically using the All Ecectric on a budget diagram.
Looking
> for some compact way to do all of this. In addition, the installation of
the
> Bridge Rectifiers diodes Bob sells. What type of heat sinks and where did
> you get heat sinks if you used them.
> Reply off line if you like. Thanks.
> Ed O'Connor/RV-8/Sandy Creek Airpark
> Panama City FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Contactor - Location? |
>Any way, while doing the diagram I started thinking that I'd like to put
>the battery contactor on or near the firewall. However, my battery is
>located just behind the seats so I was worried that since I've seen it
>mentioned that the battery contactor should be within 12 inches or so of
>the battery that I was violating some golden rule. However, the only
>reason I could find for placing the contactor so close to the battery
>was a possible safety issue of having a large current HOT wire running
>through half the plane.
>
>If this is so, how much of safety issue is it? Are there any other
>reasons for placing the contactor next to the battery?
I suppose there are folks who would endeavor to assign
qualifiers of magnitude on an answer, e.g. "Running
a 10' long always hot battery feeder to a remotely mounted
contactor is 15.9 times more likely to set your bunnies on
fire in a crash than a feeder that is 1 foot long".
Suppose I had a rational for such a statement, would
this have any useful meaning for you in making your
architecture decision? If I tossed a number out, how
would you select a decision-making value? 4.2 times more
likely? 7.3 times more likely?
It's an intuitive and inarguable fact that minimizing
both the number, lengths and potential for high fault
currents in always-hot feeders is a "good" thing to do. Bottom
line is that you need to evaluate your own perceptions of
goodness against perceptions of convenience. I wouldn't
do what you propose in my airplane. You wouldn't get
it certified in a Cessna either . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Ed -
If you are using the B&C backup alternator, I believe you'll need a
regulator. The B&C regulators have crowbar OV built in.
> Would appreciate any one who may have some digital pictures of how you
> installed Bob's back-up Alternator package E-mailing a picture or two.
> Type A/C doesn't matter. I am specifically interested in the mpunting of
> the
> Relay and OV Crowbar and the Capacator etc for the vacume Pad mounted
> Backup Alt.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
| Subject: | Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . |
Thanks for the circuit Bob!
I'm a bit lost here. When I search for those part numbers (DigiKey) I
get multiple results (CD4093 = 9, IN4148 = 16). I really don't have a
clue which ones to order. Does it matter? Do I just pick any one of
them and go?
Jon "Clueless and Cold in Minneapolis" Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 440 Hrs. TT - 0 Hrs Engine
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:12 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Simple timer for low fuel warning . . .
>
>
> -->
>
> What you're looking for is more than a simple timer . . . and
> a brief look at the replies on this topic didn't pick up on
> what's needed.
>
> A "flicker filter" is easy to implement in a little
> micro-controller for the lowest parts count . . . but unless
> you have access to the programming hardware and skills this
> could a low-return-on-investment approach. A pure discrete
> component approach is illustrated at:
>
> http://216.55.140.222/temp/Flicker_Filter.pdf
>
> All the parts are available from Digikey. Timing
> for turn-on and turn-off response is set by the
> 470K/22uF resistor/capacitor pairs. The constants
> shown give you about 11 seconds of delay for uninterrupted
> switch closure to turn the light on and the same delay of
> uninterrupted switch opening to turn the light back out.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The Connection Z-13 questions |
>
>
>'Letric Bob and the list,
>
>I'm configuring my RV-8 as an "all electric plane on a budget". The
>battery will be aft mounted for weight and balance considerations. I have
>the following questions.
>
>1) What size current limiter and ammeter shunt is suggested for a 40 amp
>alternator, Z-13 shows the values for a 60 amp alt.
40A for both devices.
>2) When mounting the battery in the rear of a metal airplane, it was
>suggested to me by a friend to ground the battery (-) to a local stout
>longeron, then to reconnect to that same longeron for the firewall ground
>forest of fast on tabs. I am leaning towards a common ground and running
>a seperate 2awg wire forward to the firewall to avoid ground loops. Your
>thoughts?
Bringing all fat feeders to the common ground point
is never a bad decision electrically. It depends on how
much one agonizes over the weight of 8' of 2AWG at
4 oz per foot for a total of 2#.
History of electrical systems in aviation have suggested
that structural parts of the airplane are best designed
for holding the airplane together and depending on them
for electrical pathways too is problematical. To be sure
a couple hundred thousand airplanes HAVE used structural
members for electrical tasks but if one is weighing perceptions
of relative goodness between two choices, my personal
approach would be to keep electrical and structural systems
independent of each other as much as practical.
I would use local grounds for lights in wings, strobe
power supplies and pitot heaters. These are not high
current systems and they are neither strong antagonists
nor potential victims for noise issues.
>3) In looking at Z-13, it seems to me that mounting the battery relay up
>on the firewall, instead of back on the battery mount, it simplifies the
>connection of the standby alternator to the battery side of the relay if
>it is firewall mounted, and shouldn't really matter to the battery if it's
>rear or front mounted, right? As long as the wire leading up to it is
>sized correctly.
See earlier post today on same question . . .
Are you going to have a battery bus? If so, you'll need
to run some wires back to the battery location to accommodate
battery bus powered systems, one more wire for the
aux alternator isn't that big of a deal.
>4) I am planning on integrating the lo cost GPU connection from the
>Connection and for safety mounting the Piper type recepticle in the
>rear. If my assumption of #3 above is correct and I do mount the battery
>relay up front on the firewall, would it be OK to connect the output of
>the GPU solenoid to the battery (+) instead of running another large wire
>forward to the battery relay?
I wouldn't do that. Battery contactor goes in tail with
battery and the ground power contactor can sit right beside
the battery contactor.
>5) In Z-13, there is a fuse between the Battery bus and the E bus switch
>and an additional fuseable link between the switch and the e bus. Why both?
The wire between battery bus and e-bus can be powered from EITHER
end. The purest would deduce that some form of protection needs
to be applied at each end of the feedpath. Since the e-bus alternate
feed switch is relatively close to the e-bus, fault risks to the
e-bus end are low . . . I'd probably not put a fuse or fuselink in
at the e-bus end. I've had some builders assign one of the e-bus
fuse slots as an power INPUT connection for the alternate feedpath.
If you've got a fuse slot open, this wouldn't be a bad thing to
do. You install the same size fuse at the e-bus end as you do for
the battery bus end.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neville Kilford" <nkilford(at)etravel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
Hello Bob,
I was following this discussion with interest. It seems to have gone quiet
now, and I'm wondering if you ever had a satisfactory response from the guys
at EI.
I'm keen to install the EI engine monitor, but worried about their claim that
units have been damaged in normal use. Assuming they are telling the truth,
and have had units returned after being damaged, can you suggest a suitable
arrangement for filtering the kind of electric surges they discuss, or is it
better simply to put the thing on a switched supply, as they suggest?
Thanks in anticipation.
Kind regards.
Neville Kilford
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering?
>
> >Robert L Nukolis III
> >Cc: Aeroelectric
> >
> >Gentlemen:
> >
> >Electronics International Inc. has been manufacturing aircraft instruments
> >for over 20 years and all of our instruments meet and/or exceed the TSO
C43a
> >standards set by the FAA. The UBG-16 instrument has an operating range of
> >7.5 to 30 volts and a 3/10 amp draw.
> >
> >As in a great number of modern instruments and radios, we are using a
fairly
> >sophisticated power supply to drive the gas plasma display and the circuit
> >boards. Since the aviation industry has not adopted the auto industry
> >technique of isolating instruments and accessories from the starting
circuit
> >during an engine start, there is a possibility of voltage spikes in excess
> >of 200 volts through the main bus during the engine start sequence.
During
> >the start sequence, approximately 100-300 amps is required by the starter.
> >This current produces a significantly large magnetic field. When the
field
> >collapses, a series of voltage pulses (or ringing) will occur on the bus.
A
> >low battery or an engine that is hard to start can aggravate the
situation,
> >which is markedly different for each aircraft.
>
> Is this a condition which is not addressed by the testing
> recommendations in DO-160?
>
> > Over 40 years ago, the
> >automotive industry adopted a starter switch that turns off all electrical
> >instruments as the key is turned to the start position. The aircraft
> >industry adopted the "Radio Bus" or "Avionics Bus" that allows all
> >electrical equipment not required during the start sequence to be turned
off
> >or otherwise isolated. This is the reason for the "pampered avionics bus"
> >that is required by Garmin, King, Apollo, STEC, ARNAV, UPS and virtually
all
> >manufactures of aviation instruments.
>
> Required or recommended?
>
> >The "perfectly normal" operating
> >condition in a single engine aircraft is well within the UBG-16 operating
> >range, but the starting sequence can cause problems for most sophisticated
> >electronic instruments.
>
> I was at Cessna when the avionics master switch was born. This was
> in the days of 30v germanium power transistors just finding their
> way into the radios of the time. They were indeed fragile
> devices. This was before DO-160 came along to guide
> us in designing electronics that would withstand
> any normal operation of the airplane's electrical system.
> Since that time, DO-160 has been through several revisions.
> It has been expanded to the extent that we're now advised as to how
> to stand off effects of lightning strokes to the airframe.
>
>
> >Electronics International Inc. manufactures over 40 different instruments.
> >The UBG-16 is the most complex of the product line and the only one that
we
> >recommend be isolated from the starting sequence.
>
>
> >Note: If you are operating any sophisticated electrical equipment in your
> >aircraft, you need to have a bus that is able to be isolated.
>
> Please define "sophisticated". Without a doubt I can design
> some relatively simple circuits that would be vulnerable to
> the stresses of ordinary operation . . . how many and what
> kind of parts must be combined before the circuit becomes
sophisticated?
>
> > You can
> >simply connect an appropriate switch between the main bus and the breakers
> >that drive the selected equipment to allow that equipment to be turned of
> >during engine start.
> >
> >We certainly feel that we are a capable supplier and that there are not
any
> >shortcomings in the design or fabrication of any of our instruments. If
you
> >feel that we could improve in one area or another, please feel free to
make
> >specific constructive suggestions.
>
>
> Can you identify the magnitude, duration and energy content
> of the stress that is antagonistic to your products?
> May I presume that you've confirmed that the starter
> is indeed a source of dangerous stresses and that
> the normal course of testing to DO-160 and/or TSO
> fails to account for this stress?
>
> If you can quantify the character of the stress for which
> you're unable to guarantee operation, I can be of assistance
> in designing an interface suited to protection of
> your product.
>
>
> >Thank you,
> >
> >David Campbell
> >Electronics International Inc.
> >63296 Powell Butte Highway
> >Bend, OR 97701
> >Phone: (541) 318-6060
> >Fax: (541) 318-7575
> >Web: www.Buy-Ei.com
>
>
> Your's truly,
>
> Bob Nuckolls
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Makita Battery Charger |
The OCR 3.15 probably stands for over current relay. Maybe the charger is A-OK,
maybe the battery has a problem.But if Chris Stones' suggestions don't find a
cell problem I have two suggestions: 1) Call a local Makita service center, and
maybe (?) they will sell you just the part. Sometime it just depends on who
you get to talk to. Ask for the gray-beard. 2) Ebay has 90 Makita battery chargers
for sale cheap. Just grab one. Probably cost you less than messing around.
Later,
Eric M. Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Phillips <ripsteel(at)edge.net> |
Bob-
I purchased your LVWM (12 volt) with the incandescent bulb option prior
to converting to all LEDs for my annunciator & panel lighting, and would
like to use it with the following LED bar module from DigiKey:
http://rocky.digikey.com/scripts/ProductInfo.dll?Site=US&V=404&M=MU04-4101
This is an array of 3 superbright LEDs molded into a plastic block.
I've have one of the red arrays powered up and intentionally overdriven
at 50 mA, measured with a Fluke VOM (180 ohm res, LEDs in series) to
determine longevity at an acceptable brightness level. Still fine after
a week continuous, but the resistor (1 watt) is running about 150
degrees according to thermographic scanning. My calculations indicate
this should actually be a 390 for 20 mA operation, but it is just too
dim at that current level. Duty cycle on this array should not be a
factor, as I hope to rarely see it lit!
Can I simply install this arrangement wired to the appropriate LVWM
terminals in place of the incandescent?
Also- sorry to nag ya about this, but curious as to progress on the
Audio Isolation Amplifier........
Thanks!
Mark Phillips - RV-6A - spaghetti on the front burner......
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . |
>
>
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>A pure discrete component approach is illustrated at:
>
> > http://216.55.140.222/temp/Flicker_Filter.pdf
> >
> > Timing for turn-on and turn-off response is set by the
> > 470K/22uF resistor/capacitor pairs. The constants
> > shown give you about 11 seconds of delay
>
> > Bob . . .
> >
>
>The drawing at the location above has 470K/10uF resistor/capacitor
>pairs shown. Does the eleven seconds derive from replacing the 470/10
>with 470/22 ? or from the 470/10 as shown in the drawing??
Opps. . . I was laying out a board for this diagram
and downsized from 22uF to 10uf to save some cost and
boardspace . . . this means that the resistors would have
to be INCREASED to about 1 meg to get timing in the 10
second range with 10uF caps. Thanks for the heads up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
"Jim Younkin"
>
>
>Hello Bob,
>
>I was following this discussion with interest. It seems to have gone quiet
>now, and I'm wondering if you ever had a satisfactory response from the guys
>at EI.
>
>I'm keen to install the EI engine monitor, but worried about their claim that
>units have been damaged in normal use. Assuming they are telling the truth,
>and have had units returned after being damaged, can you suggest a suitable
>arrangement for filtering the kind of electric surges they discuss, or is it
>better simply to put the thing on a switched supply, as they suggest?
>
>Thanks in anticipation.
Nope, haven't heard a peep since I my last message to
David Campbell on 4/3. I've not heard from Jim Younkin either.
It's typical. I've asked dozens of engineers with various
manufacturers of avionics to cite a justification for
cautionary recommendations about powering their products.
In most cases, conversations by e-mail and/or snail-mail
just peter out . . . they ignore me an hope I'll go away.
I'm working on a letter that I plan to send to every manufacturer
of avionics I can find and explain that I'm researching the
validity of DO-160 in its current state. If their engineering
staff can point out any data which demonstrates that DO-160
testing does NOT adequately account for transients from
starters or any other source, would they please share this
information.
I'm going to write an article to publish the results
of this survey that will include any new information I can
confirm by repeatable experiment or critical review of
a published article. I think it's time to get these folks
to either put up or shut up. If DO-160 is inadequate, then
there are a whole lot of folks who need to know about it.
If DO-160 is adequate, then they need to dump the antiquated
dogma crafted in years gone by. There is no excuse for
a modern supplier to operate with their head in the sand
on this issue. There are no secrets but lots of un-verifiable
stories.
When the letter goes out, I'll publish the list of folks
who got the letter. I'll also solicit suggestions from
you folks for suppliers I've missed. All correspondence
will be published on my website. After a suitable period
of time, I'll see if someone like Light Plane Maintenance
is interested in a formal article addressing this issue.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . |
>
>Thanks for the circuit Bob!
>
>I'm a bit lost here. When I search for those part numbers (DigiKey) I
>get multiple results (CD4093 = 9, IN4148 = 16). I really don't have a
>clue which ones to order. Does it matter? Do I just pick any one of
>them and go?
Variations on a part number speak to packages. Some may
be surface mount, or rated at different operating temperatures
etc. You need to check the part number you're considering
against the package you're prepared to work with.
I'm working a board layout to use surface mount parts . . .
it's going to be quite small.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PTACKABURY(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Small Sealed Batteries |
Listers: I am building an all electric Lancair IV and am planning on a
single alternator, two same sized sealed battery system ala fig 17-6 in THE
BOOK and doing an annual battery rotation. I would like to get the batteries
off the firewall (which is already very crowded) and put them in a friendler
environment, like under the floor boards. So I am looking for the SMALLEST
size (weight is less a concern) battery suitable for the task with greater
than 13ahs. I would also like a battery that will be available for a while
as I do not want to rebuild a customized battery box each time I need to
replace a battery. Right now the best I have found is the Panasonic
LC-RD1217 17ah which measures 6.6x7.2x3 inches. Anyone out there know of a
smaller alternative? thanks, paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Small Sealed Batteries |
>
>Listers: I am building an all electric Lancair IV and am planning on a
>single alternator, two same sized sealed battery system ala fig 17-6 in THE
>BOOK and doing an annual battery rotation. I would like to get the batteries
>off the firewall (which is already very crowded) and put them in a friendler
>environment, like under the floor boards.
with a 3" thickness, can you lay a 17 a.h. down on its
side and tuck it under the floor? This sounds pretty good
to me . . .
> So I am looking for the SMALLEST
>size (weight is less a concern) battery suitable for the task with greater
>than 13ahs. I would also like a battery that will be available for a while
>as I do not want to rebuild a customized battery box each time I need to
>replace a battery.
Why built any battery box . . . these things are happier outside
of an enclosure. Strap them down in a tray and let 'em breathe . . .
> Right now the best I have found is the Panasonic
>LC-RD1217 17ah which measures 6.6x7.2x3 inches. Anyone out there know of a
>smaller alternative? thanks, paul
The only cranking battery smaller is a 10 a.h. device by B&C that
is a unique, single-source product. The 17 a.h. battery you've
cited above is made by LOTS of folks.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
DHPHKH(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Gang,
> Can somebody please tell me about "Audio Hi" and "Audio Lo" connections
>on radios and intercoms? Why Hi and Lo, what is the difference, what purpose
>is served, etc?
>
>Thanks
>Dan Horton
>
Typically, 'hi' is the actual signal and 'lo' is the return or 'ground'
for that signal.
It's possible that manufacturers are avoiding using the term 'ground'
because installers with 'a little learning' might assume that since the
various 'lo's' are all 'grounds', they can be combined in any convenient
fashion. If this is done, the probability of noisy operation with hums,
buzzes, etc is greatly increased.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The Connection Z-13 questions |
> >5) In Z-13, there is a fuse between the Battery bus and the E bus
switch
> >and an additional fuseable link between the switch and the e bus. Why
both?
>
> The wire between battery bus and e-bus can be powered from EITHER
> end. The purest would deduce that some form of protection needs
> to be applied at each end of the feedpath.
How can e-buss be powered from either direction. The diode Between e-buss
and main buss should see to that.
Please explain because I'm not understanding.
Thanks,
Larry in Indiana, RV7 Tip-up O-360 3XG reserved.
Working on Canopy of Finish Kit
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: The Connection Z-13 questions
>
> >
> >
> >'Letric Bob and the list,
> >
> >I'm configuring my RV-8 as an "all electric plane on a budget". The
> >battery will be aft mounted for weight and balance considerations. I
have
> >the following questions.
> >
> >1) What size current limiter and ammeter shunt is suggested for a 40 amp
> >alternator, Z-13 shows the values for a 60 amp alt.
>
> 40A for both devices.
>
>
> >2) When mounting the battery in the rear of a metal airplane, it was
> >suggested to me by a friend to ground the battery (-) to a local stout
> >longeron, then to reconnect to that same longeron for the firewall ground
> >forest of fast on tabs. I am leaning towards a common ground and running
> >a seperate 2awg wire forward to the firewall to avoid ground loops. Your
> >thoughts?
>
> Bringing all fat feeders to the common ground point
> is never a bad decision electrically. It depends on how
> much one agonizes over the weight of 8' of 2AWG at
> 4 oz per foot for a total of 2#.
>
> History of electrical systems in aviation have suggested
> that structural parts of the airplane are best designed
> for holding the airplane together and depending on them
> for electrical pathways too is problematical. To be sure
> a couple hundred thousand airplanes HAVE used structural
> members for electrical tasks but if one is weighing perceptions
> of relative goodness between two choices, my personal
> approach would be to keep electrical and structural systems
> independent of each other as much as practical.
>
> I would use local grounds for lights in wings, strobe
> power supplies and pitot heaters. These are not high
> current systems and they are neither strong antagonists
> nor potential victims for noise issues.
>
>
> >3) In looking at Z-13, it seems to me that mounting the battery relay
up
> >on the firewall, instead of back on the battery mount, it simplifies the
> >connection of the standby alternator to the battery side of the relay if
> >it is firewall mounted, and shouldn't really matter to the battery if
it's
> >rear or front mounted, right? As long as the wire leading up to it is
> >sized correctly.
>
> See earlier post today on same question . . .
>
> Are you going to have a battery bus? If so, you'll need
> to run some wires back to the battery location to accommodate
> battery bus powered systems, one more wire for the
> aux alternator isn't that big of a deal.
>
> >4) I am planning on integrating the lo cost GPU connection from the
> >Connection and for safety mounting the Piper type recepticle in the
> >rear. If my assumption of #3 above is correct and I do mount the battery
> >relay up front on the firewall, would it be OK to connect the output of
> >the GPU solenoid to the battery (+) instead of running another large
wire
> >forward to the battery relay?
>
> I wouldn't do that. Battery contactor goes in tail with
> battery and the ground power contactor can sit right beside
> the battery contactor.
>
> >5) In Z-13, there is a fuse between the Battery bus and the E bus
switch
> >and an additional fuseable link between the switch and the e bus. Why
both?
>
> The wire between battery bus and e-bus can be powered from EITHER
> end. The purest would deduce that some form of protection needs
> to be applied at each end of the feedpath. Since the e-bus alternate
> feed switch is relatively close to the e-bus, fault risks to the
> e-bus end are low . . . I'd probably not put a fuse or fuselink in
> at the e-bus end. I've had some builders assign one of the e-bus
> fuse slots as an power INPUT connection for the alternate feedpath.
> If you've got a fuse slot open, this wouldn't be a bad thing to
> do. You install the same size fuse at the e-bus end as you do for
> the battery bus end.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Pack" <jpack(at)igs3.com> |
| Subject: | Hall Sensor Mounting |
Does anyone have any pictures (or good explanations) of how they mounted
thier Hall Sensor? It looks like a dangling dounught and I want to make
sure it is secured well.
- Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The Connection Z-13 questions |
>
>
> > >5) In Z-13, there is a fuse between the Battery bus and the E bus
>switch
> > >and an additional fuseable link between the switch and the e bus. Why
>both?
> >
> > The wire between battery bus and e-bus can be powered from EITHER
> > end. The purest would deduce that some form of protection needs
> > to be applied at each end of the feedpath.
>
>How can e-buss be powered from either direction. The diode Between e-buss
>and main buss should see to that.
>
>Please explain because I'm not understanding.
The wire that runs from the battery bus through the
alternate feed switch and to the e-bus can get power
from EITHER the e-bus OR the battery. I.e., sourced from
either end. If you're going to protect this wire from
ALL potential faults to ground, you put protection in
BOTH ends . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey" <dump(at)relaypoint.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Contactor - Location? |
Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a bad
idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on the
firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A lot of
RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put batteries behind
the seats for ballast.
I don't envy the idea of doing something that is not sound.
Jeff
(RV-8 Wings)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
>
>
> >Any way, while doing the diagram I started thinking that I'd like to put
> >the battery contactor on or near the firewall. However, my battery is
> >located just behind the seats so I was worried that since I've seen it
> >mentioned that the battery contactor should be within 12 inches or so of
> >the battery that I was violating some golden rule. However, the only
> >reason I could find for placing the contactor so close to the battery
> >was a possible safety issue of having a large current HOT wire running
> >through half the plane.
> >
> >If this is so, how much of safety issue is it? Are there any other
> >reasons for placing the contactor next to the battery?
>
> I suppose there are folks who would endeavor to assign
> qualifiers of magnitude on an answer, e.g. "Running
> a 10' long always hot battery feeder to a remotely mounted
> contactor is 15.9 times more likely to set your bunnies on
> fire in a crash than a feeder that is 1 foot long".
> Suppose I had a rational for such a statement, would
> this have any useful meaning for you in making your
> architecture decision? If I tossed a number out, how
> would you select a decision-making value? 4.2 times more
> likely? 7.3 times more likely?
>
> It's an intuitive and inarguable fact that minimizing
> both the number, lengths and potential for high fault
> currents in always-hot feeders is a "good" thing to do. Bottom
> line is that you need to evaluate your own perceptions of
> goodness against perceptions of convenience. I wouldn't
> do what you propose in my airplane. You wouldn't get
> it certified in a Cessna either . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Contactor - Location? |
The issue as I understand it (and take that for what it's worth) is that you
want to avoid long runs of wire from which you cannot remove power. If the
battery is behind the seat and the contactor is on the firewall then there
is a long wire that is always hot no matter what you do with the master
switch. If you put the contactor near the battery then when you turn the
master off you simply have a short fat wire that is hot but is easily
contained and has less chance of arcing on something and causing a fire
during / after a 'not-so-good' landing.
If it were me and I had to decide on a battery that was located behind me I
would make sure that it was very well secured because I want that thing to
stay put if I ever have one of those 'landings.' If it is on the firewall
it will be heading away from me if it comes loose, but behind the seat it
will be headed for me (or my passenger). Bolt it down solid, use an RG
battery that won't spill acid all over you and put the contactor as close as
possible to the battery and I can't think of any reason why having it in the
back would cause you any grief.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Fuselage
http://www.myrv7.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey" <dump(at)relaypoint.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
>
> Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a bad
> idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on the
> firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A lot of
> RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put batteries behind
> the seats for ballast.
>
> I don't envy the idea of doing something that is not sound.
>
> Jeff
> (RV-8 Wings)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >Any way, while doing the diagram I started thinking that I'd like to
put
> > >the battery contactor on or near the firewall. However, my battery is
> > >located just behind the seats so I was worried that since I've seen it
> > >mentioned that the battery contactor should be within 12 inches or so
of
> > >the battery that I was violating some golden rule. However, the only
> > >reason I could find for placing the contactor so close to the battery
> > >was a possible safety issue of having a large current HOT wire running
> > >through half the plane.
> > >
> > >If this is so, how much of safety issue is it? Are there any other
> > >reasons for placing the contactor next to the battery?
> >
> > I suppose there are folks who would endeavor to assign
> > qualifiers of magnitude on an answer, e.g. "Running
> > a 10' long always hot battery feeder to a remotely mounted
> > contactor is 15.9 times more likely to set your bunnies on
> > fire in a crash than a feeder that is 1 foot long".
> > Suppose I had a rational for such a statement, would
> > this have any useful meaning for you in making your
> > architecture decision? If I tossed a number out, how
> > would you select a decision-making value? 4.2 times more
> > likely? 7.3 times more likely?
> >
> > It's an intuitive and inarguable fact that minimizing
> > both the number, lengths and potential for high fault
> > currents in always-hot feeders is a "good" thing to do. Bottom
> > line is that you need to evaluate your own perceptions of
> > goodness against perceptions of convenience. I wouldn't
> > do what you propose in my airplane. You wouldn't get
> > it certified in a Cessna either . . .
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil> |
| Subject: | Battery Contactor - Location? |
As a rule of thumb one should design items in the fuselage to withstand at least
10 forward g's, (I'm not sure what the FAR's currently say) since this is a
very survivable load for a well belted pilot. So, for a 20lb battery withstanding
10 g's with a typical safety factor of 1.5, we have a load of 300 lbs. Not
hard to do, but very important if you want to walk away from a crash. Same goes
for anything in the fuselage, but most importantly for things behind you.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Birkelbach [mailto:phil(at)petrasoft.net]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
The issue as I understand it (and take that for what it's worth) is that you
want to avoid long runs of wire from which you cannot remove power. If the
battery is behind the seat and the contactor is on the firewall then there
is a long wire that is always hot no matter what you do with the master
switch. If you put the contactor near the battery then when you turn the
master off you simply have a short fat wire that is hot but is easily
contained and has less chance of arcing on something and causing a fire
during / after a 'not-so-good' landing.
If it were me and I had to decide on a battery that was located behind me I
would make sure that it was very well secured because I want that thing to
stay put if I ever have one of those 'landings.' If it is on the firewall
it will be heading away from me if it comes loose, but behind the seat it
will be headed for me (or my passenger). Bolt it down solid, use an RG
battery that won't spill acid all over you and put the contactor as close as
possible to the battery and I can't think of any reason why having it in the
back would cause you any grief.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Fuselage
http://www.myrv7.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey" <dump(at)relaypoint.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
>
> Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a bad
> idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on the
> firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A lot of
> RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put batteries behind
> the seats for ballast.
>
> I don't envy the idea of doing something that is not sound.
>
> Jeff
> (RV-8 Wings)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >Any way, while doing the diagram I started thinking that I'd like to
put
> > >the battery contactor on or near the firewall. However, my battery is
> > >located just behind the seats so I was worried that since I've seen it
> > >mentioned that the battery contactor should be within 12 inches or so
of
> > >the battery that I was violating some golden rule. However, the only
> > >reason I could find for placing the contactor so close to the battery
> > >was a possible safety issue of having a large current HOT wire running
> > >through half the plane.
> > >
> > >If this is so, how much of safety issue is it? Are there any other
> > >reasons for placing the contactor next to the battery?
> >
> > I suppose there are folks who would endeavor to assign
> > qualifiers of magnitude on an answer, e.g. "Running
> > a 10' long always hot battery feeder to a remotely mounted
> > contactor is 15.9 times more likely to set your bunnies on
> > fire in a crash than a feeder that is 1 foot long".
> > Suppose I had a rational for such a statement, would
> > this have any useful meaning for you in making your
> > architecture decision? If I tossed a number out, how
> > would you select a decision-making value? 4.2 times more
> > likely? 7.3 times more likely?
> >
> > It's an intuitive and inarguable fact that minimizing
> > both the number, lengths and potential for high fault
> > currents in always-hot feeders is a "good" thing to do. Bottom
> > line is that you need to evaluate your own perceptions of
> > goodness against perceptions of convenience. I wouldn't
> > do what you propose in my airplane. You wouldn't get
> > it certified in a Cessna either . . .
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Contactor - Location? |
>
>Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a bad
>idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on the
>firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A lot of
>RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put batteries behind
>the seats for ballast.
>
>I don't envy the idea of doing something that is not sound.
Not at all . . . your question had to do with location
of battery contactor. You can mount the battery in any
location you like as dictated by volume, weight, available
structure to attach and weight/balance issues. Indeed,
batteries are found all over light aircraft. A friend
of mine has a BD-4 with large engine and constant speed
prop . . . his battery is literally inches in front of
leading edge of stabilizer.
Wherever the battery goes, battery contactor and battery
bus are best located nearby for greatest crash safety.
Consider also that a 15 pound battery needs to have tie-
down good for at least 10x weight or 150 lbs. A couple
of 1" web straps with 6" of over-lapped Velcro is a
mechanic friendly technique for holding the battery in
its tray.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
<>
Which explains why some diagrams show shields connected to "Lo". Thanks Charlie.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Battery Contactor - Location? |
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
Bob,
Thanks for the good information and explanation. I definitely appreciate
your efforts to not only answer questions but explain the reasons behind
the answers.
Regards,
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Birkelbach [mailto:phil(at)petrasoft.net]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
-->
The issue as I understand it (and take that for what it's worth) is that
you want to avoid long runs of wire from which you cannot remove power.
If the battery is behind the seat and the contactor is on the firewall
then there is a long wire that is always hot no matter what you do with
the master switch. If you put the contactor near the battery then when
you turn the master off you simply have a short fat wire that is hot but
is easily contained and has less chance of arcing on something and
causing a fire during / after a 'not-so-good' landing.
If it were me and I had to decide on a battery that was located behind
me I would make sure that it was very well secured because I want that
thing to stay put if I ever have one of those 'landings.' If it is on
the firewall it will be heading away from me if it comes loose, but
behind the seat it will be headed for me (or my passenger). Bolt it
down solid, use an RG battery that won't spill acid all over you and put
the contactor as close as possible to the battery and I can't think of
any reason why having it in the back would cause you any grief.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Fuselage
http://www.myrv7.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey" <dump(at)relaypoint.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
> -->
>
> Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a
> bad idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on
> the firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A
> lot of RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put
> batteries behind the seats for ballast.
>
> I don't envy the idea of doing something that is not sound.
>
> Jeff
> (RV-8 Wings)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >Any way, while doing the diagram I started thinking that I'd like
> > >to
put
> > >the battery contactor on or near the firewall. However, my battery
> > >is located just behind the seats so I was worried that since I've
> > >seen it mentioned that the battery contactor should be within 12
> > >inches or so
of
> > >the battery that I was violating some golden rule. However, the
> > >only reason I could find for placing the contactor so close to the
> > >battery was a possible safety issue of having a large current HOT
> > >wire running through half the plane.
> > >
> > >If this is so, how much of safety issue is it? Are there any other
> > >reasons for placing the contactor next to the battery?
> >
> > I suppose there are folks who would endeavor to assign
> > qualifiers of magnitude on an answer, e.g. "Running
> > a 10' long always hot battery feeder to a remotely mounted
> > contactor is 15.9 times more likely to set your bunnies on
> > fire in a crash than a feeder that is 1 foot long".
> > Suppose I had a rational for such a statement, would
> > this have any useful meaning for you in making your
> > architecture decision? If I tossed a number out, how
> > would you select a decision-making value? 4.2 times more
> > likely? 7.3 times more likely?
> >
> > It's an intuitive and inarguable fact that minimizing
> > both the number, lengths and potential for high fault
> > currents in always-hot feeders is a "good" thing to do. Bottom
> > line is that you need to evaluate your own perceptions of
> > goodness against perceptions of convenience. I wouldn't
> > do what you propose in my airplane. You wouldn't get
> > it certified in a Cessna either . . .
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
>
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Contactor - Location? |
I must agree that the battery MUST be held in place to with stand I would
think at least 15 G's if not 20. The last thing you want is that battery
breaking loose during an unfortunate off field landing/crash and then
turning into a projectile.
>
>The issue as I understand it (and take that for what it's worth) is that you
>want to avoid long runs of wire from which you cannot remove power. If the
>battery is behind the seat and the contactor is on the firewall then there
>is a long wire that is always hot no matter what you do with the master
>switch. If you put the contactor near the battery then when you turn the
>master off you simply have a short fat wire that is hot but is easily
>contained and has less chance of arcing on something and causing a fire
>during / after a 'not-so-good' landing.
>
>If it were me and I had to decide on a battery that was located behind me I
>would make sure that it was very well secured because I want that thing to
>stay put if I ever have one of those 'landings.' If it is on the firewall
>it will be heading away from me if it comes loose, but behind the seat it
>will be headed for me (or my passenger). Bolt it down solid, use an RG
>battery that won't spill acid all over you and put the contactor as close as
>possible to the battery and I can't think of any reason why having it in the
>back would cause you any grief.
>
>Godspeed,
>
>Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
>RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Fuselage
>http://www.myrv7.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jeffrey" <dump(at)relaypoint.net>
>To:
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
>
>
>>
>> Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a bad
>> idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on the
>> firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A lot of
>> RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put batteries behind
>> the seats for ballast.
>>
>> I don't envy the idea of doing something that is not sound.
>>
>> Jeff
>> (RV-8 Wings)
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >Any way, while doing the diagram I started thinking that I'd like to
>put
>> > >the battery contactor on or near the firewall. However, my battery is
>> > >located just behind the seats so I was worried that since I've seen it
>> > >mentioned that the battery contactor should be within 12 inches or so
>of
>> > >the battery that I was violating some golden rule. However, the only
>> > >reason I could find for placing the contactor so close to the battery
>> > >was a possible safety issue of having a large current HOT wire running
>> > >through half the plane.
>> > >
>> > >If this is so, how much of safety issue is it? Are there any other
>> > >reasons for placing the contactor next to the battery?
>> >
>> > I suppose there are folks who would endeavor to assign
>> > qualifiers of magnitude on an answer, e.g. "Running
>> > a 10' long always hot battery feeder to a remotely mounted
>> > contactor is 15.9 times more likely to set your bunnies on
>> > fire in a crash than a feeder that is 1 foot long".
>> > Suppose I had a rational for such a statement, would
>> > this have any useful meaning for you in making your
>> > architecture decision? If I tossed a number out, how
>> > would you select a decision-making value? 4.2 times more
>> > likely? 7.3 times more likely?
>> >
>> > It's an intuitive and inarguable fact that minimizing
>> > both the number, lengths and potential for high fault
>> > currents in always-hot feeders is a "good" thing to do. Bottom
>> > line is that you need to evaluate your own perceptions of
>> > goodness against perceptions of convenience. I wouldn't
>> > do what you propose in my airplane. You wouldn't get
>> > it certified in a Cessna either . . .
>> >
>> > Bob . . .
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Could you explain why Z15B is not a good Idea.=A0=A0=A0 That particular
architecture would work well for the velocity where the #2AWG runs in a duct
from firewall through canard bulkhead right to the batteries. A seperate #
4AWG could come from the panel ground block on the panel and to the batteries
via a different route.=A0 If you dont recommend this then I would have to cut
through the duct inside the cabin behind the panel run the #2 wire up to the
panel ground presumable on the panel and then back down into the duct to go
to the battery. It would be a lot of heavy wire inside the cabin and onto the
panel.=A0 Is there a better way I'm not seeing?=A0=A0=A0=A0 Thanks Tim
Z-15B is not a good idea and will be revised at next revision
=A0 to bring battery and 2AWG engine grounds together at the
=A0 ground bus.
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob and all,
A fellow builder just sent me a CD Rom with a copy of an 'IEEE guide for
aircraft electric systems' in pdf format.
Most interesting. a few pages missing though.
FWIW,
Regards
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Contactor - Location? |
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Jeff -
Bob has stated a number of times: Put the battery(ies) in the back if
needed for ballast. Or up front (canard) for ballast. Just put the
contactor for each battery very near to the battery. Just use 2AWG from the
batteries up to the firewall. Might get by with 4AWG if the battery
capacity/wire length compute out OK.
John
Lancair ES wi/ batteries way back in the tail.
> Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a bad
> idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on the
> firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A lot of
> RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put batteries
> behind
> the seats for ballast.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? "Jim Younkin" |
Excellent plan, Bob. This effort will result in a mixture of good responses
and some silence from some corners, but overall, it is bound to generate
enough heat and pressure to do some good. I really like your intelligent
sense of initiative, responsibility, and integrity.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? "Jim
Younkin"
>
> >
> >
> >Hello Bob,
> >
> >I was following this discussion with interest. It seems to have gone
quiet
> >now, and I'm wondering if you ever had a satisfactory response from the
guys
> >at EI.
> >
> >I'm keen to install the EI engine monitor, but worried about their claim
that
> >units have been damaged in normal use. Assuming they are telling the
truth,
> >and have had units returned after being damaged, can you suggest a
suitable
> >arrangement for filtering the kind of electric surges they discuss, or is
it
> >better simply to put the thing on a switched supply, as they suggest?
> >
> >Thanks in anticipation.
>
> Nope, haven't heard a peep since I my last message to
> David Campbell on 4/3. I've not heard from Jim Younkin either.
>
> It's typical. I've asked dozens of engineers with various
> manufacturers of avionics to cite a justification for
> cautionary recommendations about powering their products.
> In most cases, conversations by e-mail and/or snail-mail
> just peter out . . . they ignore me an hope I'll go away.
>
> I'm working on a letter that I plan to send to every manufacturer
> of avionics I can find and explain that I'm researching the
> validity of DO-160 in its current state. If their engineering
> staff can point out any data which demonstrates that DO-160
> testing does NOT adequately account for transients from
> starters or any other source, would they please share this
> information.
>
> I'm going to write an article to publish the results
> of this survey that will include any new information I can
> confirm by repeatable experiment or critical review of
> a published article. I think it's time to get these folks
> to either put up or shut up. If DO-160 is inadequate, then
> there are a whole lot of folks who need to know about it.
>
> If DO-160 is adequate, then they need to dump the antiquated
> dogma crafted in years gone by. There is no excuse for
> a modern supplier to operate with their head in the sand
> on this issue. There are no secrets but lots of un-verifiable
> stories.
>
> When the letter goes out, I'll publish the list of folks
> who got the letter. I'll also solicit suggestions from
> you folks for suppliers I've missed. All correspondence
> will be published on my website. After a suitable period
> of time, I'll see if someone like Light Plane Maintenance
> is interested in a formal article addressing this issue.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey" <dump(at)relaypoint.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Contactor - Location? |
Thanks everyone, that sure is re-assuring.
Jeff
(RV-8 Wings)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
>
> Jeff -
>
> Bob has stated a number of times: Put the battery(ies) in the back if
> needed for ballast. Or up front (canard) for ballast. Just put the
> contactor for each battery very near to the battery. Just use 2AWG from
the
> batteries up to the firewall. Might get by with 4AWG if the battery
> capacity/wire length compute out OK.
>
> John
> Lancair ES wi/ batteries way back in the tail.
>
>
> > Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a bad
> > idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on the
> > firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A lot of
> > RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put batteries
> > behind
> > the seats for ballast.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Loram <johnl(at)loram.org> |
| Subject: | Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . |
Hi Jon; It's best to pick the cheapest one... It will be easier to explane
(pun?) to Pamela ;-)
Seriously, there may be some packaging/case differences which you'll want to
consider (usually designated by one or more letter following the main part
number). In some cases the temperature range over which the part may be used
is partly controlled by the packaging. You can go with the most limited
temperature range which is often designated 'P' or 'N' for plastic
packaging. For hand built stuff it's usually best to use "DIP" (Dual Inline
Plastic) packages rather than the tiny surface mount packages. So, using
your example; the CD4093B (the 'B' is part of the part number that is often
left off these days because the earlier 'A' model is no longer available) in
the DIP package/case from Texas Instruments is Digi-Key part number
296-2068-5-ND.
The 1N4148 (that's a leading number one (1) not I ('eye')) will be most
useful in the axial lead form so use the DO-35 packaging/case.
By the way, most all of these components are probably available at your
local Radio Shack store where you will be able to fondle them first, before
you buy. Then you be able to buy all the other stuff... perf-board or
copper-clad, terminal lugs, sockets, bits and pieces of the very small gauge
wire, rosin core solder, spaghetti (insulation), ... etc., etc., etc.
Regards, -john-
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [mailto:jon(at)finleyweb.net]
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Simple timer for low fuel warning . . .
Thanks for the circuit Bob!
I'm a bit lost here. When I search for those part numbers (DigiKey) I
get multiple results (CD4093 = 9, IN4148 = 16). I really don't have a
clue which ones to order. Does it matter? Do I just pick any one of
them and go?
Jon "Clueless and Cold in Minneapolis" Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 440 Hrs. TT - 0 Hrs Engine
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:12 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Simple timer for low fuel warning . . .
>
>
> -->
>
> What you're looking for is more than a simple timer . . . and
> a brief look at the replies on this topic didn't pick up on
> what's needed.
>
> A "flicker filter" is easy to implement in a little
> micro-controller for the lowest parts count . . . but unless
> you have access to the programming hardware and skills this
> could a low-return-on-investment approach. A pure discrete
> component approach is illustrated at:
>
> http://216.55.140.222/temp/Flicker_Filter.pdf
>
> All the parts are available from Digikey. Timing
> for turn-on and turn-off response is set by the
> 470K/22uF resistor/capacitor pairs. The constants
> shown give you about 11 seconds of delay for uninterrupted
> switch closure to turn the light on and the same delay of
> uninterrupted switch opening to turn the light back out.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Contactor - Location? |
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>I must agree that the battery MUST be held in place to with stand I would
>think at least 15 G's if not 20. The last thing you want is that battery
>breaking loose during an unfortunate off field landing/crash and then
>turning into a projectile.
. . . there used to be a retired highway patrol officer
who managed to passed himself off as an expert in accident
analysis. After all, in 25+ years of service as a peace
officer, he had "investigated" plenty of accidents. I ran
across a number of his presentations over the years that
I worked in accident analysis with Ken Razak here in Wichita.
The officer acquired a nickname in the trade . . . "20G
Stackley". No matter how vehicles came together in the various
accidents, 20G's would show up in his calculations somewhere
on nearly every case . . . it seemed like a good round number,
why not make the best of it?
When you figure that your airplane weighs about 1000 pounds
and has to put 10,000 pounds of retarding force into the
mass to produce a 10G slowing acceleration . . . exactly
what part of your airplane would you expect to resist with
this 10,000 pound force?
As it turns out, the crumpling up of metal during a crash
has to occur because no part of the airplane can maintain
its shape with a 10,000 pound push . . . 20,000 pounds of
push are equally un-achievable.
For crash safety, DO-160 calls out qualifying your
attachment hardware and brackets to 10G and that
represents a conservative value . . . the vast majority
of airframe structure and internal components are never
subjected to anything approaching 10G in a survivable
crash. Now, drive your airplane into a mountainside
at 200kts and you can count on things seeing a lot
more than 10G . . . but it doesn't matter much. In that
case, if your battery doesn't kill you, the mountain
most certainly will.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
>Here again is the copy that we have sent to you, which you claim was never
>sent.
>
>
>Mac S. Speed
>Electronics International Inc.
>63296 Powell Butte Highway
>Bend, OR 97701
>Phone: (541) 318-6060
>Fax: (541) 318-7575
>Web: www.Buy-Ei.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: EI Tech Support [mailto:Sales@Buy-Ei.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:32 PM
>To: 'Robert L. Nuckolls, III'
>Subject: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering?
>
>We would like to respond to your questions of Friday-
>
>1). DO-160 Section 17 (Voltage Spike Testing) requires a +78 volt to a -22
>volt intermittent transient test for a 28 volt system and a +39 volt to a
>-11 volt test for a 12 volt system each with 50 ohm output impedance. In
>our opinion this test is not stringent enough for an instrument to survive
>on the main bus during an engine start on most aircraft. All of our
>instruments can survive transients that are well over the DO-160
>requirement.
Mac,
I DID receive the note you've copied above. I replied
to David's letter the same day with amplifying questions.
I found a copy of my reply in my archival files but didn't
see that it was actually sent. My apologies, the ball was
indeed still in my court. Here's the message I neglected
to forward to you on 4/7 . . .
---------- David Campbell's letter and Nuckolls' reply of 4/7/3 ---------
>We would like to respond to your questions of Friday-
>
>1). DO-160 Section 17 (Voltage Spike Testing) requires a +78 volt to a -22
>volt intermittent transient test for a 28 volt system and a +39 volt to a
>-11 volt test for a 12 volt system each with 50 ohm output impedance. In
>our opinion this test is not stringent enough for an instrument to survive
>on the main bus during an engine start on most aircraft.
I am mystified by the numbers cited above. My copy of DO-160D
speaks to a +/-300 v capacitively stored spike delivered through
an air-core transformer and tailored for a 50-ohm source impedance.
28V system tests call for a +/-600 volt event. What change level
is your copy of DO-160? Perhaps I'm out of date.
Please cite a basis for your opinion. What is the amplitude,
waveform and duration of any transients you have observed and
> . . . . . All of our
>instruments can survive transients that are well over the DO-160
>requirement.
2). It is our understanding the industry standard for most electronic
>aircraft instrument installation is to install on an avionics or radio bus.
>We just installed an Apollo GX-60, SL-30, ACU, MX-20, SL-15, Garmin GTX 327,
>550/20 encoder, NSD-360 H.S.I. and many other pieces of equipment, and the
>install documentation made it clear that these instruments should be
>installed on the radio or avionics bus (isolating them from the starting
>sequence).
It is indeed a "practice" originally promulgated by the notion
that the root cause of lots of dead transistors at Cessna
and elsewhere was "spikes" from the starter. This was the
early days of low voltage, germanium transistors that
were showing up in audio and power supply circuits in the
current crop of aircraft radios. I cannot attest to studies done
elsewhere but at Cessna, there were NO actual spikes captured,
quantified and deemed antagonistic to our radios. When we
added the avionics master, the problems mostly went away
so the "practice" was called a success and we drove happily
onward.
Nearly 40 years later some folk assume that a "practice"
has become a "standard" and that the standard has some foundation
in real physics for its existence. I've been designing electronics
for aircraft for nearly 40 years and never have I identified
transients on the bus that reside outside the DO-160
test envelope.
My personal perception is that products tested to DO-160
recommendations do not require extraordinary system
architectures or pilot actions to "protect" the product.
I.e, the "avionics bus" is a mis-understood and ill-
conceived feature in the design of an aircraft electrical system.
>3). Our definition of a sophisticated circuit (when referring to power
>supplies), is one that would require fly back transformers to drive plasma
>displays or TFT backlights, one that uses floating step-up power to allow
>top side differential measurement, and high efficiency and charge pump
>units.
>
>4). We know that our instruments can handle input voltage spikes in excess
>of +/- 250 volts and over 400 microseconds AC input impedance. This is
>approximately 100 times the energy limitation of DO-160 and much better than
>other aviation equipment that we have tested.
>We feel that the industry needs published data on the voltage spikes
>produced during the start sequence for normal aircraft, worst case normal,
>abnormal and worst case abnormal. Most manufacturers have solved the
>uncertainty by going to a radio or avionics bus that is switched off during
>engine start.
I infer from this that E.I. believes there are undocumented stresses
generated during the normal action of getting the engine started.
Further, these stresses have been overlooked by 40 or
so years of industry-staffed committees who have participated
in the crafting of DO-160 and other documents at RTCA.
If such stresses exist in the course of operating an
airplane, I could not agree more. Based on EI installation
recommendations, I would have assumed that EI has
studied and quantified the problem and made an
engineering judgment as to whether or not their products
could/should be designed to withstand the worst case
cranking transients but this appears not to be the case.
>We have been producing TSO'd equipment for over 20 years that can survive
>the somewhat hostile aircraft electrical environment, but would prefer that
>the UBG-16 be operated from a source that is protected from the starting
>sequence.
>
>We are always open to suggestions and new ideas. Thank you for your input.
>David Campbell
>Electronics International Inc.
>63296 Powell Butte Highway
>Bend, OR 97701
>Phone: (541) 318-6060
>Fax: (541) 318-7575
>Web: www.Buy-Ei.com
Perhaps I can suggest this. Take a scope and go look
at the output from the cigar lighter on a car. Set up to
+ slope trigger at say, 20 volts and then crank the engine.
My Tektronix TDS220 could not capture a single transient at
ANY horizontal resolution. Tried triggering on - slope
at zero volts. Same result. I'd say my GMC van is roughly
equal to C-150 for cranking currents and DC system impedance.
This is typical of what I've captured on a number of
airplanes ranging from C-150 to Beechjets over the past
25 years measured with all manner of scopes, chart
recorders and high speed (8,000 samples/second)
data acquisition systems, etc.
A charter adopted by the AeroElectric Connection is to
principals upon which modern electrical systems can be
crafted. Our readers would be pleased to know of any data
you can add to the knowledge base upon which we will
advance the state of our science.
Bob . . .
(-----------------------------------------)
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( -C. F. Kettering )
(-----------------------------------------)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | stuff I have on ebay |
Quartz hour meter . . .
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2413197823
2-1/4" voltmeter . . .
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=26442&item=2413488496
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . |
>
>Hi Jon; It's best to pick the cheapest one... It will be easier to explane
>(pun?) to Pamela ;-)
>
>Seriously, there may be some packaging/case differences which you'll want to
>consider (usually designated by one or more letter following the main part
>. . .
John, thanks for the expanded explanation. I was
in a hurry and left an earlier reply somewhat
'short-changed' . . . appreciate the back up!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Bob and all,
>
>A fellow builder just sent me a CD Rom with a copy of an 'IEEE guide for
>aircraft electric systems' in pdf format.
>Most interesting. a few pages missing though.
>
>FWIW,
>Regards
>
>Gilles
I'd really like to see it.
How bit a file is it? Can you e-mail me a copy or post it
to a server somewhere we can download it?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 10503 Woodward |
>Thursday, May 1, 2003
>
>Bob,
>I had a voltage regulator which failed closed giving me a very high
>reading on the ammeter of my PA28-161. I ended up replacing the voltage
>regulator and the alternator as it had failed the resistance test from the
>field terminal to ground with only.005 ohms. Now, when I hit the PTT or
>mic button, the cabin speaker squeals at very high volume. I disconnected
>the speaker and now get some, but not bad, feedback throught the headset
>when I hit the PTT. ATC has no problems with my reception. Any thoughts
>would be greatly appreciated!!
Sounds like you experienced a runaway alternator event that
was not brought under control by an over-voltage relay. Do
you even HAVE an ov relay? In any case, the only thing I
can think of is that some part of your electronics may
have been damaged by the event.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob Could you explain why Z15B is not a good Idea.=A0=A0=A0 That particular
>architecture would work well for the velocity where the #2AWG runs in a duct
>from firewall through canard bulkhead right to the batteries. A seperate #
>4AWG could come from the panel ground block on the panel and to the batteries
>via a different route.=A0 If you dont recommend this then I would have to cut
>through the duct inside the cabin behind the panel run the #2 wire up to the
>panel ground presumable on the panel and then back down into the duct to go
>to the battery. It would be a lot of heavy wire inside the cabin and onto the
>panel.=A0 Is there a better way I'm not seeing?=A0=A0=A0=A0 Thanks Tim
Z15 View B suggests that the battery (-) terminal be the
tie point of two wires which is in error. The battery (-)
lead and ground lead extending to engine compartment aft
should come together at a fat brass bolt on the ground block.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Battery Cables-I need some learnin'. |
My Tomahawk has a several large cables under the cylinders to the alternator
,starter and crankcase ground.
All of these cables are pretty ugly, oil soaked etc, but seem to work ok.
The cables on newer airplanes that Ive looked at appear to have a Tefzel
jacket. The ones I have looked to be wrapped with what looks like a large
dia thread. Mine look as if the jacket has absorbed oil.
Is there a good rule of thumb as to replacement of these older cables? Is
welding cable or (welding cable in firesleeve) verboten on production a/c?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cables-I need some learnin'. |
>
>My Tomahawk has a several large cables under the cylinders to the alternator
>,starter and crankcase ground.
>All of these cables are pretty ugly, oil soaked etc, but seem to work ok.
>
>The cables on newer airplanes that Ive looked at appear to have a Tefzel
>jacket. The ones I have looked to be wrapped with what looks like a large
>dia thread. Mine look as if the jacket has absorbed oil.
>
>Is there a good rule of thumb as to replacement of these older cables? Is
>welding cable or (welding cable in firesleeve) verboten on production a/c?
Welding cable would work fine in or out of fire-sleeve but there is
a lot of potential for future hassles and really good wire isn't
all that expensive.
Your airplane may be old enough to have been wired with Mil-W-16878
or similar wire popular before 1980. It may even have cloth over-braid
that was famous for soaking up sticky-ugly stuff under the cowl.
Depending on how obsessive you and/or your mechanic are about
crossing t's and dotting i's, you can fill out lots of paper
and generally have no problem with renewing your wiring using
modern, Mil-W-22759 wire which is used on the vast majority
of GA aircraft for the past 20 years or so.
If it were my airplane, I'd just fix 'em and keep on flying.
Mil-W-22759/16 (Tefzel) wire, terminals and double-wall heat
shrink to dress the ends is readily available from lots of
places not the least of which is
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Gang,
Working on a friend's project. Two coms (430 and Microair), an intercom (PM1000),
and no audio panel. Space is getting tight, and no, I didn't do the layout.
Looks like it should be possible to tie them together with 5 switched double
poles, maybe 2 DPDT and an SPDT, or a 5PDT if available. Nav audio would need
another SPDT before the intercom input. Sort of a poor-man's audio panel.
Reasonable or dumb? Technical issues? Anybody know where to get a good 5-pole
double throw switch? Two switches (a com select and a nav interupt) wouldn't
be so bad.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cameron Kurth <cameronkurth(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Too many wires next to each other??? |
I'm new to the group, so if this question has been
hammered to death already, sorry.
Is it OK to run the same ground wire for the flasher
power supply, landing light, and nav light? I plan to
run those wires in the same conduit out to the wing
tip. Am I going to be able to also run an antenna
cable for my nav in the same conduit, or will there be
too much noise from the strobe power supply. The
power supply is at the wing tip so there won't be hi
voltage wires next to the antenna cable.
Thanks
Cam
__________________________________
http://search.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Too many wires next to each other??? |
>
>
>I'm new to the group, so if this question has been
>hammered to death already, sorry.
>
>Is it OK to run the same ground wire for the flasher
>power supply, landing light, and nav light? I plan to
>run those wires in the same conduit out to the wing
>tip. Am I going to be able to also run an antenna
>cable for my nav in the same conduit, or will there be
>too much noise from the strobe power supply. The
>power supply is at the wing tip so there won't be hi
>voltage wires next to the antenna cable.
run them all together . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard(at)riley.net |
| Subject: | Re: No Audio Panel |
I've flown a couple of homebuilts with setups like that. A dpdt to select
which radio would transmit with the PTT, and a spst for each radio that you
wanted to listen to - often com, com and nav. Sub mini toggles. Don't
have a sketch, but I'll bet someone here does.
>
>Gang,
> Working on a friend's project. Two coms (430 and Microair), an
> intercom (PM1000), and no audio panel. Space is getting tight, and no, I
> didn't do the layout.
>
> Looks like it should be possible to tie them together with 5 switched
> double poles, maybe 2 DPDT and an SPDT, or a 5PDT if available. Nav
> audio would need another SPDT before the intercom input. Sort of a
> poor-man's audio panel.
>
> Reasonable or dumb? Technical issues? Anybody know where to get a
> good 5-pole double throw switch? Two switches (a com select and a nav
> interupt) wouldn't be so bad.
>
>Dan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ian Scott" <jabiru22(at)yahoo.com.au> |
| Subject: | Audio & intercom make your own. |
HI Bob and all,
I saw a diagram somewhere on your site though I cant font it now, for a
roll your own intercom.
I intend to make my own form scratch.
Features are VOX
Music & Sat phone in
Compaq Ipaq sound in,
Transponder Alt alert in
And maybe pilot isolate,
Also what sort of signals (peak to peak) and impedance should I expect
form (and to) the following devices
Personal CD player.
Normal aircraft headsets
Headset micphone.
And what input (and output) voltage and impedance is the Microair 760
expecting, both for mic in and sound out.
Thanks in advance
Ian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike toft" <watervet(at)mweb.co.za> |
Bob - I hope this doesn't seem like a dumb question but I am new to the homebuilt
game - but I have received a "Cat's Whisker" VOR aerial with my Garmin GTX320
and as I am building a composite (Europa) want to mount the aerial behind the
rear baggage bulkhead - but 2 problems.
1. Can the aerial face backwards - i.e. the tip of the "V" face tie rudderpost
- the plane of the aerial remains horizontal with the aircraft.?
2. The Whelan power unit for the strobes is below (8-10 ins) the aerial between
the tips of the aerial - is this a problem?
Thanks
Mike Toft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frederic Livesey <fred.livesey(at)zetnet.co.uk> |
Hi, Here in the UK we use a different method for selecting wire gauge
than the USA, does anyone know where I can get a conversion chart.
Fred
Chester
UK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neil Clayton <harvey4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UK Wire Gauge |
Try Machineries Handbook. I have a copy if you want it looked up. Gimme the
specifics.
Neil
Ex Pat in the USA.
At 06:32 AM 5/1/03, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi, Here in the UK we use a different method for selecting wire gauge
>than the USA, does anyone know where I can get a conversion chart.
>Fred
>Chester
>UK
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Here's an on-line calculator to convert wire gage sizes:
http://www.efunda.com/designstandards/gages/wire_forward.cfm
However, if you prefer a chart of equivalents go to:
http://shopswarf.orcon.net.nz/wiregage.html
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Frederic
Livesey
Subject: AeroElectric-List: UK Wire Gauge
Hi, Here in the UK we use a different method for selecting wire gauge
than the USA, does anyone know where I can get a conversion chart.
Fred
Chester
UK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob - I hope this doesn't seem like a dumb question but I am new to the
>homebuilt game - but I have received a "Cat's Whisker" VOR aerial with my
>Garmin GTX320 and as I am building a composite (Europa) want to mount the
>aerial behind the rear baggage bulkhead - but 2 problems.
>1. Can the aerial face backwards - i.e. the tip of the "V" face tie
>rudderpost - the plane of the aerial remains horizontal with the aircraft.?
Yes, the cat-whisker antennas have been mounted both ways
on many different aircraft.
>2. The Whelan power unit for the strobes is below (8-10 ins) the aerial
>between the tips of the aerial - is this a problem?
Perhaps but only when you are listening to a VOR station
and the only time you'll do this for long periods of time
is when the VOR is being used as a remote transmitter for
some ground based communications facility or the VOR is
a weather broadcast facility . . . pretty rare. I wouldn't
worry about it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com> |
I read previously that a signal from the NAV antenna can be used for the FM
input to an AM/FM/CD. I am installing a wingtip antenna and would like to
use a splitter to feed the FM radio.
Now for the question. Is there anything special inside of a splitter, by
that I mean are all of the outputs the same? I am asking because I need to
split the signal going into the VAL INS422 also (need GS and NAV inputs).
The splitter that I see in the Spruce catalog is arranged as follows:
NAV NAV
GS ANT
The geometry of my panel indicates that the preferred layout would be:
NAV GS
NAV ANT (this lower NAV would connect to my FM radio)
Can I connect these anyway I like or must the output marked GS go to the GS?
I am trying to avoid sharp bends in the coax.
Does this make any sense to anyone or am I just babbling? :)
Vince Welch
RV-8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio & intercom make your own. |
>
>HI Bob and all,
>
>I saw a diagram somewhere on your site though I cant font it now, for a
>roll your own intercom.
>
>I intend to make my own form scratch.
>
>Features are VOX
>Music & Sat phone in
>Compaq Ipaq sound in,
>Transponder Alt alert in
>
>And maybe pilot isolate,
>
>Also what sort of signals (peak to peak) and impedance should I expect
>form (and to) the following devices
>
>Personal CD player.
Contemporary entertainment headsets are lower impedance
than aircraft headsets . . . they can range from 8 to 50
ohms but the voltage to drive them will be in the same
ballpark as aviation headsets . . . I'd figure on 1v pk-pk
to give you a "loud" signal.
>Normal aircraft headsets
150 ohms, 2v pk-pk is pretty loud
>
>Headset micphone.
Bias up the microphone from a well filtered, 6v
source through 470 ohm resistor. Voice signal
levels will be on the order of 1v pk-pk.
Bob . . .
>And what input (and output) voltage and impedance is the Microair 760
>expecting, both for mic in and sound out.
I'd load the headset output with 150 ohms. Dummy load
the mic input to the radio with 1K resistor and impress
levels no more than 1v pk-pk audio level to the transmitter.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>
>I read previously that a signal from the NAV antenna can be used for the FM
>input to an AM/FM/CD. I am installing a wingtip antenna and would like to
>use a splitter to feed the FM radio.
>
>Now for the question. Is there anything special inside of a splitter, by
>that I mean are all of the outputs the same? I am asking because I need to
>split the signal going into the VAL INS422 also (need GS and NAV inputs).
>The splitter that I see in the Spruce catalog is arranged as follows:
>
>NAV NAV
>GS ANT
>
>The geometry of my panel indicates that the preferred layout would be:
>
>NAV GS
>NAV ANT (this lower NAV would connect to my FM radio)
>
>Can I connect these anyway I like or must the output marked GS go to the GS?
> I am trying to avoid sharp bends in the coax.
>Does this make any sense to anyone or am I just babbling? :)
Antenna inputs to automotive entertainment receivers are unique
to the application. Their tuners have splitters of a sort
to take AM and FM signals to different circuits and account
for the fact that AM antennas on cars are terrible antennas
and no so bad for FM frequencies. I've heard folks report
"satisfactory" performance from their automotive receiver
when hooked to various and sundry aviation antennas. The
quantified level of performance is problematical but then,
when you are 1 mile in the air, a wet string will have some
degree of performance that you might well find "satisfactory".
Give it a try. It can't do anything worse than be "unsatisfactory"
in which case you'll have to do something else.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com> |
Thanks Bob. In relation to the splitter question; I don't know what is
inside of a splitter, does the GS output have to go to the GS or is that
convient labeling and I can connect the outputs anyway I like?
Vince
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Splitter
>Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 11:53:18 -0500
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >I read previously that a signal from the NAV antenna can be used for the
>FM
> >input to an AM/FM/CD. I am installing a wingtip antenna and would like
>to
> >use a splitter to feed the FM radio.
> >
> >Now for the question. Is there anything special inside of a splitter, by
> >that I mean are all of the outputs the same? I am asking because I need
>to
> >split the signal going into the VAL INS422 also (need GS and NAV inputs).
> >The splitter that I see in the Spruce catalog is arranged as follows:
> >
> >NAV NAV
> >GS ANT
> >
> >The geometry of my panel indicates that the preferred layout would be:
> >
> >NAV GS
> >NAV ANT (this lower NAV would connect to my FM radio)
> >
> >Can I connect these anyway I like or must the output marked GS go to the
>GS?
> > I am trying to avoid sharp bends in the coax.
>
>
> >Does this make any sense to anyone or am I just babbling? :)
>
> Antenna inputs to automotive entertainment receivers are unique
> to the application. Their tuners have splitters of a sort
> to take AM and FM signals to different circuits and account
> for the fact that AM antennas on cars are terrible antennas
> and no so bad for FM frequencies. I've heard folks report
> "satisfactory" performance from their automotive receiver
> when hooked to various and sundry aviation antennas. The
> quantified level of performance is problematical but then,
> when you are 1 mile in the air, a wet string will have some
> degree of performance that you might well find "satisfactory".
>
> Give it a try. It can't do anything worse than be "unsatisfactory"
> in which case you'll have to do something else.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 5/2/03 11:54:45 AM Central Daylight Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
> The
> quantified level of performance is problematical but then,
> when you are 1 mile in the air, a wet string will have some
> degree of performance that you might well find "satisfactory".
>
> Give it a try. It can't do anything worse than be "unsatisfactory"
> in which case you'll have to do something else.
Good Afternoon All,
For What It's Worth, the early Narco knob tuned receivers had the capability
of going on down below the 108 frequency range into the top of the FM band.
We often listened to those high end frequency FM stations via the VOR/ILS
receiver.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Thanks Bob. In relation to the splitter question; I don't know what is
>inside of a splitter, does the GS output have to go to the GS or is that
>convient labeling and I can connect the outputs anyway I like?
yes . . . the various outputs are generally frequency band
specific . . . they need to drive a receiver unique to the
activity of that receiver.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | don522(at)webtv.net (Don McCallister) |
| Subject: | RV List 59 msg. digest-5/1 |
Hi Matt - Is there a problem with getting all 59 msg's - I can 32 and
then it jumps to 96 msg, the day before ---- or is it my problem???
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Herminghaus <catignano(at)everyday.com> |
If you are looking for a conversion of AWG to metric sizes try
http://mdmetric.com/tech/metricwiregage.htm
John Herminghaus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Web Site builder documentation of RV projects - Chris |
Good's
Chris Good,
Thanks for calling attention to your excellent website. I've looked at
others (not all, by any means) and have seen others who have posted "some"
info on their RV - but your site is absolutely fabulous! Total
documentation of anything I could think of to look up.
- I highly recommend this web site to anyone building an RV!!
Just yesterday I got my courage up again and did the first update/practice
on my own primitive website since Nov 2000. I've changed computers since
then and had to find and learn how to use a different FTP uploader pgm, and
made a new checklist on how to add "daily" (periodic) update pages to the
site.
Now the wife & I need to learn how to download pictures from our digital
camera we bought last Fall and have never downloaded.
I am at the stage of creating schematics and wiring diagrams for my RV-6
electrical system, and plan to use IntelliCAD (open architecture clone of,
and compatible with, Autocad ), starting off with, and modifying, Bob
Nuckoll's drawings and symbols. I noticed your nice wiring info - color,
etc. What program did you use to create such elegantly simple and clear
graphic info?
About your website, did you copy source code from someone else - like I do -
and modify it? Or, did you have a professional web site person design it
for you? I have the 27 page "NCSA - A Beginner's Guide to HTML" document
that I printed off the internet - I use it for my main reference for HTML
stuff . I create & edit web documents with Notepad, the simplest text
editor. Any tips for us new guys to "web site documentation of our
projects"?
David Carter
http://www.datarecall.net/~dcarter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Good" <chrisjgood(at)lycos.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Skymap IIIC
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Chris Good"
>
> Bill,
>
> I have been flying with a Skymap IIIC in my panel for nearly 3 yrs.
>
The "Systems" section on my website includes a wiring drawing for the
Skymap & Navaid, but it's not complicated. Also, there's a photo at the end
of the "photo-log" "panel" page.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Good,
> West Bend, WI
> RV-6A N86CG 530 hrs flying
> http://rv.supermatrix.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave O'Donnell" <daveodonnell(at)direcway.com> |
What is the US wire std? In sheet or tubing BWG (Birmingham Wire Gauge)
is the std. So I suspect it is the same in wire. In tubing 16 gauge is
0.065" average wall, normally with a +/- 10% tolerance (ASTM A249 A269,
A1016). This means that if you order 16 gauge (0.065" avg) you get
0.058" min. If you order min wall you get min + 18%. How does it work
in wire?
Regards,
Dave O
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Neil
Clayton
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: UK Wire Gauge
Try Machineries Handbook. I have a copy if you want it looked up. Gimme
the
specifics.
Neil
Ex Pat in the USA.
At 06:32 AM 5/1/03, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi, Here in the UK we use a different method for selecting wire gauge
>than the USA, does anyone know where I can get a conversion chart.
>Fred
>Chester
>UK
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
In the US, anything with "Gauge" as a measurement is hopeless to figure
out. Tubing, wire, sheet metal, etc. There are pages of "standards",
but wire, among other examples, depends on the material. I.e., copper X
gauge is different from steel X gauge. Sheet metal same thing - depends
on the material and which set of "standards". As I said, utterly
hopeless.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 295 hours
www.rvforum.org
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
> What is the US wire std? In sheet or tubing BWG (Birmingham
> Wire Gauge) is the std. So I suspect it is the same in wire.
> In tubing 16 gauge is 0.065" average wall, normally with a
> +/- 10% tolerance (ASTM A249 A269, A1016). This means that
> if you order 16 gauge (0.065" avg) you get 0.058" min. If
> you order min wall you get min + 18%. How does it work in wire?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave O
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ian Scott" <jabiru22(at)yahoo.com.au> |
| Subject: | Audio & intercom make your own. |
Thanks
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Audio & intercom make your own.
-->
>-->
>
>HI Bob and all,
>
>I saw a diagram somewhere on your site though I cant font it now, for a
>roll your own intercom.
>
>I intend to make my own form scratch.
>
>Features are VOX
>Music & Sat phone in
>Compaq Ipaq sound in,
>Transponder Alt alert in
>
>And maybe pilot isolate,
>
>Also what sort of signals (peak to peak) and impedance should I expect
>form (and to) the following devices
>
>Personal CD player.
Contemporary entertainment headsets are lower impedance
than aircraft headsets . . . they can range from 8 to 50
ohms but the voltage to drive them will be in the same
ballpark as aviation headsets . . . I'd figure on 1v pk-pk
to give you a "loud" signal.
>Normal aircraft headsets
150 ohms, 2v pk-pk is pretty loud
>
>Headset micphone.
Bias up the microphone from a well filtered, 6v
source through 470 ohm resistor. Voice signal
levels will be on the order of 1v pk-pk.
Bob . . .
>And what input (and output) voltage and impedance is the Microair 760
>expecting, both for mic in and sound out.
I'd load the headset output with 150 ohms. Dummy load
the mic input to the radio with 1K resistor and impress
levels no more than 1v pk-pk audio level to the transmitter.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Interesting Radio Problem ... Need Help |
Glacier
I was asked to go flying with a friend who is working on his CFI. He had
access to a Cessna 150 with a releatively new looking (non-King, non-Cessna
[ARC??]) Narco maybe radio.
When you power it up, it comes up with 121.5 set so you have to change and
toggle to what you want.
He mentioned a radio problem so I got my handheld and we checked the radio
on the ground. All seemed fine.
THE PROBLEM:
Since he wanted me to fly I wanted to work the radios as well and when I
fired up the plane and did a "radio check", part of the first transmission
made it and nothing but carrier thereafter.
Several "tests" later showed that:
1. When the plane's engine was NOT running, the radio (transmit) worked
2. When the engine WAS running the radio (transmit) did NOT work
3. Bypassing the intercom and "plugging in direct" had not effect
4. Receive worked in all scenarios
THE QUESTION:
What could be going on here??
MY THEORIES:
1. The radio's "input" section is getting noise that is interferring with
the carrier modulation (but how???)
2. The alternator is REALLY generating some noise (but I don't hear a
"whine")
3. There is a really bad grounding problem somewhere (but it RECEIVES just
fine)
HELP:
What do you think could be the culprit??
THanks,
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Derrick <scott(at)tnstaafl.net> |
| Subject: | King 520 CDI GS Flag |
I just hooked up a King 520 CDI to my Garmin GNC300
Everything works as per the Garmin manual. However the 520 has a GS and
GS flag. I left the GS flag pins floating thinking it would retract
automatically but it doesn't.
I'm only using the Garmin to drive the 520 right now so I would like to
retract the GS flag when ever power is applied to the avionics stack.
I have two pins, GS+ and GS-, which pin do I pull to ground or common
and which do I pull up to 14 volts to get the flag to retract? Do I
need to put a resister in line to limit the current? If so does 10K
sound about right?
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald Cox" <racox(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 04/18/03 |
James:
Have you tried changing the alternator pulley, or even the one on the
engine???
Should boost the output and might be a cheap fix.
Ron
-----------------------------------------------
From: "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Power budget
Dick's posting has some very IMPORTANT data to make a note of.