AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-cd

June 24, 2003 - July 07, 2003



      > > http://www.myrv7.com
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
      > > To: 
      > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: LightSpeed wiring
      > >
      > >
      > > 
      > >>
      > >> Bob & folks,
      > >>
      > >> I'm installing a single LightSpeed Plasma II ignition in my RV-7
      > >> (single
      > > EI,
      > >> single mag), and I'm considering straying slightly from the wiring
      > >> installation notes provided with the LSE system.
      > >>
      > >> They recommend wiring directly to and from the battery and using a
      > > pullable
      > >> breaker.  Basically, positive battery terminal direct to a pullable 5A
      > >> breaker, then an optional on/off toggle switch, then the brain, then
      > >> wire
      > >> directly to the negative battery terminal.  They recommend bypassing
      > > busses
      > >> in this manner.
      > >>
      > >> Here's what I would *like* to do instead:
      > >>
      > >> - power wired from a 5A fuse on the always-hot battery bus, which is
      > > roughly
      > >> 6" away (plus an inch or three) from the battery (+) terminal
      > >> - no pullable circuit breaker, let the 5A fuse do its job
      > >> - standard 1-3 ON/OFF toggle switch
      > >> - ground wired directly to the 48/24 firewall ground block, which is
      > >> connected to the battery via 5" of 2 AWG
      > >>
      > >> Do you see any potential gotchas in straying from LSE's
      > >> recommendations in
      > >> this way?  I don't really see the purpose of using a pullable breaker
      > >> when
      > >> you use the optional on/off toggle switch and figure a fuse will do
      > >> fine.
      > > I
      > >> have control in normal cases, and the wires are protected.  I guess I
      > > could
      > >> always use a 5A breaker switch, but again I don't really see the point
      > > when
      > >> a fuse will do the same job cheaper, lighter, etc.
      > >>
      > >> As far as the ground goes, is there any possibility of noise
      > >> affecting the
      > >> LightSpeed when ground is shared with every device in the plane, even
      > >> when
      > >> it's grounded so deliberately close to the battery (but not *quite*
      > >> to the
      > >> negative terminal)?
      > >>
      > >> Thanks,
      > >> )_( Dan
      > >> RV-7 N714D
      > >> http://www.rvproject.com
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > >
      > > _-
      > > ======================================================================
      > > _-
      > > ======================================================================
      > > _-
      > > ======================================================================
      > > _-
      > > ======================================================================
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: LightSpeed wiring
Date: Jun 24, 2003
From: "I-Blackler, Wayne R" <wayne.blackler(at)boeing.com>
I have dual Lightspeed units (Plamsa I and III) in my Z-14 wired IO-360 powered Long EZ. Being a composite aeroplane (like Klaus Savier's aircraft) I consider the ground wiring to be the most important in my aircraft for EVERYTHING electrical EXCEPT Ignition. I want to decrease failure modes as much as I can, including during and after maintenance. I am running power direct from the batts (main and aux to left and right ignitions), to 5A switch type circuit breakers to the Lightspeed boxes. The ground runs back to the respective batteries as well. The wiring is separate from everything else, and runs in the most damage tolerant path in my aeroplane. If things turn to worms I have 17Ahr a side to run my ignition. No reliance on anything but a battery. No problems with failed electrical system components. The circuit breaker/switch allows me to (albeit expensively) switch the IGN on/off. Minimum breaks. Why put half a dozen failure points (some remote I know) between power to your ignition? - Wayne Blackler ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 24, 2003
Subject: Re: LightSpeed wiring
From: Joel Harding <cajole76(at)ispwest.com>
Thanks for the education guys. Since I've already installed the breakers, I think I'll go the fuse link route. One thing that led me to ask the question, was the fact that figures Z13 and Z11 have the 5 A field breaker in different locations. I understand now that with the fuse link, the location of the breaker isn't as important. One variation that I've noticed is that while Lightspeed is calling for a 3A breaker for a four cylinder engine in my instructions, most of the responders are indicating the use of a 5 A breaker. Could you explain the reason for the change? Thanks, Joel Harding On Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003, at 10:58 America/Denver, Phil Birkelbach wrote: > > > The location of the breaker in the line is VERY important. You want > the > circuit protection device (fuse or c/b) to be located as close to the > buss > as possible so that you don't have unprotected wiring going any > further than > is necessary. Imagine if you wired it up as Lightspeed suggests. Now > you > have this wire let's say it's 18AWG running from the battery to this > circuit > breaker that is located on the panel somewhere. This wire may be up > to 8 > feet in length or more. Now if you have a fault in that wire between > the > battery and the circuit breaker you have an unprotected wire that is > pulling > enough current to cause it's own failure and possibly the failure of > other > equipment and or wiring and possibly a fire. If the fuse is located > very > close to the battery now a fault in the wire will blow the fuse and the > worst thing that would happen is your device would stop working. > > That is the function of a 'buss'. The 'hot' side of a buss (in this > case a > fuse block) is physically large enough that it can handle the full > current > that the battery is capable of producing. Now you put on the fuse and > all > of your current carrying medium is either big enough to handle it or > protected by a device. Now about that battery buss. We use a 14AWG > wire > for that. It is not big enough to handle all the current that the > battery > can throw at it so we limit it's length to 6" or so. This way at > least we > are controlling how and where that wire will fail if it were to fault, > and > hopefully we don't locate it near other things that would be adversely > effected by the heat generated by a wire that is failing and then we > avoid > using PVC coated wire so that it doesn't poison us as it melts. > > If you want to wire it up like Klaus suggests at least put a fusible > link > between the battery and the wire running to the circuit breaker, so > you have > some control over the failure mode. Personally I think Dan's way is > better. > Who needs a circuit breaker. Circuit breakers are for circuits that > are > going to nuisance trip and I think we can do a better job of designing > these > airplanes than that. > > Godspeed, > > Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas > RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Canopy > http://www.myrv7.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joel Harding" <cajole76(at)ispwest.com> > To: > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LightSpeed wiring > > > >> >> Phil, >> I'm trying to decide on the best way to implement Klaus's schematic >> also. The question I have is, how important is the location of the >> protection in a wire run. Lightspeed doesn't show the breaker location >> in their drawing, but I assumed that since the breaker is the weak >> point, it wouldn't make too much difference where it is located in the >> line. Can someone clear this up for me? >> >> Joel Harding >> On Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003, at 08:07 America/Denver, Phil Birkelbach >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Dan, >>> >>> That's exactly how I plan to wire mine up. The problem that I see >>> from >>> their wiring description is that long unprotected wire from the >>> battery to >>> the breaker. I'd rather get mine fused right away on the battery >>> buss >>> and >>> then I can run the wire all over the place without having to worry >>> about it. >>> Their thought process may be circuit reliablitly by eliminating >>> connections, >>> but the system that you describe should prove to be very robust >>> besides you >>> have another ignition source. If I were putting in two EI's then I >>> might >>> try to figure out an alternate way to power the other one. Like one >>> from >>> the E-buss and one from the battery buss. >>> >>> Godspeed, >>> >>> Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas >>> RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Canopy >>> http://www.myrv7.com >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> >>> To: >>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: LightSpeed wiring >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Bob & folks, >>>> >>>> I'm installing a single LightSpeed Plasma II ignition in my RV-7 >>>> (single >>> EI, >>>> single mag), and I'm considering straying slightly from the wiring >>>> installation notes provided with the LSE system. >>>> >>>> They recommend wiring directly to and from the battery and using a >>> pullable >>>> breaker. Basically, positive battery terminal direct to a pullable >>>> 5A >>>> breaker, then an optional on/off toggle switch, then the brain, then >>>> wire >>>> directly to the negative battery terminal. They recommend bypassing >>> busses >>>> in this manner. >>>> >>>> Here's what I would *like* to do instead: >>>> >>>> - power wired from a 5A fuse on the always-hot battery bus, which is >>> roughly >>>> 6" away (plus an inch or three) from the battery (+) terminal >>>> - no pullable circuit breaker, let the 5A fuse do its job >>>> - standard 1-3 ON/OFF toggle switch >>>> - ground wired directly to the 48/24 firewall ground block, which is >>>> connected to the battery via 5" of 2 AWG >>>> >>>> Do you see any potential gotchas in straying from LSE's >>>> recommendations in >>>> this way? I don't really see the purpose of using a pullable >>>> breaker >>>> when >>>> you use the optional on/off toggle switch and figure a fuse will do >>>> fine. >>> I >>>> have control in normal cases, and the wires are protected. I guess >>>> I >>> could >>>> always use a 5A breaker switch, but again I don't really see the >>>> point >>> when >>>> a fuse will do the same job cheaper, lighter, etc. >>>> >>>> As far as the ground goes, is there any possibility of noise >>>> affecting the >>>> LightSpeed when ground is shared with every device in the plane, >>>> even >>>> when >>>> it's grounded so deliberately close to the battery (but not *quite* >>>> to the >>>> negative terminal)? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> )_( Dan >>>> RV-7 N714D >>>> http://www.rvproject.com >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _- >>> ===================================================================== >>> >>> _- >>> ===================================================================== >>> >>> _- >>> ===================================================================== >>> >>> _- >>> ===================================================================== >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > _- > ====================================================================== > _- > ====================================================================== > _- > ====================================================================== > _- > ====================================================================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: LEDs
Date: Jun 24, 2003
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jos Okhuijsen" <josok(at)ukolo.fi To: <europa-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 2:40 AM Subject: Re: Europa-List: LEDs Some simple math: 4 harmonics - 4 x 3 db = -12 db 12 V -12 dB = 750 mV over any wiring carrying the load. If the length of the wiring comes anything close to the wavelength, half or quarter of the comm freq's, adding a working antenna to this transmitter design, you might be a nuisance to anything in quite a reasonable range in addition to your own problems. Bypass capacitors? Will load (overload?) the square wave generator. Jos Okhuijsen irampil(at)notes.cc.sunysb.edu wrote: All that you say is true under those circumstances. Another approach might be: no more than 2 leds in series since if one goes, they all stay dark I put bypass caps on anything with sharp transitions, and we are talking 10 4 harmonics to the nav/com range Course, ADF would be more likely affected, but I would not consider putting such an Antique Direction Flubber in my plane ;-) -- Europa-List message posted by: Fred Fillinger Date: Jun 24, 2003
From: Robert Whitaker <rmwhitaker(at)lanl.gov>
Subject: Is the E-Bus that Essential?
Gang, Up to this point, I have been planning to wire up my RV-9 according to Fig. Z-11A. My understanding is the essential bus would be used to conserve power during an alternator out condition. However, almost all of the things that I plan to hang off of the main power distribution bus are switched. Therefore, I could turn off the "non-essential" equipment to conserve battery capacity. This being the case, do I need an E-bus? I'm probably missing another good reason for wiring up a separate E-bus as shown on Fig. Z-11A. Please shoot holes in my logic before I shoot a hole in my foot! Rob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 24, 2003
Subject: Re: Is the E-Bus that Essential?
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Rob, One benefit of the e-bus which has been identified in the past is related to operational concerns. If the alternator dies on you, turn on the e-bus alternate feed, turn off the master, and you are down to your minimum load condition in easy to remember steps. This is good, should you have forgotten to turn off your collision avoidance lights, or are in the bumps with lots of stuff going on around you. If you are slick laying out the panel, you can set it up so that normal condition is to have both bus control switch 'up.' (maybe placed next to each other) This turns the alternator and battery on and the e-bus alternate feed off. The endurance mode has both switches 'down.' This turns off the alternator field and battery relay (and other non- essentials), and closes the alternate feed connection for the e-bus. The only disadvantage to this arrangement that I can see is that to completely unpower the ship, the e-bus swith is in the 'up' position, and the master is in the 'down' position. I might live with that since its easier to be deliberate about switch settings when you are sitting on the ground. You could argue the panel logic either way, but I still think there is a benefit to only having two switches to worry about. Another benefit of the e-bus is that it allows you to save the power drain associated with the relay that connects the main bus to the battery. This is so because the e-bus can alternately be powered by a direct switch which is allowed for by the small loads designed for. That lets you either have better endurance, or carry a smaller battery with the same endurance margin. Regards, Matt- N34RD > > > Gang, > > Up to this point, I have been planning to wire up my RV-9 > according to Fig. Z-11A. My understanding is the essential > bus would be used to conserve power during an alternator out > condition. > > However, almost all of the things that I plan to hang off of the > main power distribution bus are switched. Therefore, I could > turn off the "non-essential" equipment to conserve battery > capacity. This being the case, do I need an E-bus? > > I'm probably missing another good reason for wiring up a > separate E-bus as shown on Fig. Z-11A. > > Please shoot holes in my logic before I shoot a hole in > my foot! > > Rob > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 24, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Is the E-Bus that Essential?
> >Gang, > >Up to this point, I have been planning to wire up my RV-9 >according to Fig. Z-11A. My understanding is the essential >bus would be used to conserve power during an alternator out >condition. > >However, almost all of the things that I plan to hang off of the >main power distribution bus are switched. Therefore, I could >turn off the "non-essential" equipment to conserve battery >capacity. This being the case, do I need an E-bus? > >I'm probably missing another good reason for wiring up a >separate E-bus as shown on Fig. Z-11A. > >Please shoot holes in my logic before I shoot a hole in >my foot! There has been a lot written about this . . . in fact, the bus is more properly called the "endurance" bus. Check out chapter 17 of the 'Connection which you can download at http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch17-9.pdf By the way, Mr. Martin Gomez (who was so kind as to share his experience with us) was told that I'd used his story as but one of multitudinous illustrations of how certified systems architecture and mind-set boxes us into stupid and unnecessary situations. I invited him to read the chapter cited above. He contacted me again later and offer the following: I just read the chapter. You were right on! I often thought before and after my little fiasco that our electrical systems were fine in the days when the Piper J-3 was a typical light airplane. Now that we expect to fly in miserable weather, relying on our avionics, it's nuts to still have the same electrical system. I, too, am an engineer (BS in aero, M.Eng. in EE, MS in Applied Physics), with 20 years of experience. Of that, 9 was at a UAV company. We once lost a UAV because of an alternator overvoltage...3 years after my emergency, and after I had implored the avionics designers to split the bus in two. One of my hobbies is that I collect flight manuals for airplanes that I'll never get to fly, including jet fighters, airliners, etc. They do NOT put all their eggs in one basket. It seems silly to have two radios (say) and put both on the same bus so that one failure can zap them both. I am indeed considering building an airplane. My current choice is an RV-7. And you can bet that it will have a non- standard electrical system! In fact, it was on the Van's Airforce Yahoo group that I learned about you, and was told that you used my AOPA article. I would love a copy of your book, but if I'm going to benefit from your experience, I ought to pay for it. Regards, Martin Martin Gomezmlg28(at)cornell.edu A day later his order came in for the book. The e-buss is more than load reduction . . . it's a DUAL path distribution structure to keep minimal en-route operational equipment going until airport is in sight and do it battery-only for duration of fuel aboard. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 24, 2003
From: Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Is the E-Bus that Essential?
> >Gang, > >Up to this point, I have been planning to wire up my RV-9 >according to Fig. Z-11A. My understanding is the essential >bus would be used to conserve power during an alternator out >condition. > >However, almost all of the things that I plan to hang off of the >main power distribution bus are switched. Therefore, I could >turn off the "non-essential" equipment to conserve battery >capacity. This being the case, do I need an E-bus? > >I'm probably missing another good reason for wiring up a >separate E-bus as shown on Fig. Z-11A. > >Please shoot holes in my logic before I shoot a hole in >my foot! > >Rob Over and above the stuff mentioned by Matt Prather, the E-bus also provides a more reliable power supply for the really important stuff, as it has a separate power feed. So there are some failures that might kill the power to the main bus, but you could select the E-bus alternate feed and get power to the E-bus. You'll have to decide how important it is to keep some things powered. If the aircraft design and the way you fly it mean that a total electrical failure would be a non-event, then the E-bus is probably overkill for you. If you want to maximize the probability of some items receiving power, even after single failures, then the E-bus might be a good idea for you. -- Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net>
Subject: Re: LightSpeed wiring
Date: Jun 24, 2003
As with all electrical distribution circuits the fuse or circuit breaker is there to protect the wire. It has nothing to do with the end device that is on that circuit. You size the wire big enough to supply power to the device and then size the breaker / fuse to protect the wire. I imagine that a 5A breaker is also easier to find than a 3A. Godspeed, Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Canopy http://www.myrv7.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel Harding" <cajole76(at)ispwest.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LightSpeed wiring > > Thanks for the education guys. Since I've already installed the > breakers, I think I'll go the fuse link route. > One thing that led me to ask the question, was the fact that figures > Z13 and Z11 have the 5 A field breaker in different locations. I > understand now that with the fuse link, the location of the breaker > isn't as important. > One variation that I've noticed is that while Lightspeed is calling for > a 3A breaker for a four cylinder engine in my instructions, most of the > responders are indicating the use of a 5 A breaker. Could you explain > the reason for the change? > > Thanks, > > Joel Harding > On Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003, at 10:58 America/Denver, Phil Birkelbach > wrote: > > > > > > > The location of the breaker in the line is VERY important. You want > > the > > circuit protection device (fuse or c/b) to be located as close to the > > buss > > as possible so that you don't have unprotected wiring going any > > further than > > is necessary. Imagine if you wired it up as Lightspeed suggests. Now > > you > > have this wire let's say it's 18AWG running from the battery to this > > circuit > > breaker that is located on the panel somewhere. This wire may be up > > to 8 > > feet in length or more. Now if you have a fault in that wire between > > the > > battery and the circuit breaker you have an unprotected wire that is > > pulling > > enough current to cause it's own failure and possibly the failure of > > other > > equipment and or wiring and possibly a fire. If the fuse is located > > very > > close to the battery now a fault in the wire will blow the fuse and the > > worst thing that would happen is your device would stop working. > > > > That is the function of a 'buss'. The 'hot' side of a buss (in this > > case a > > fuse block) is physically large enough that it can handle the full > > current > > that the battery is capable of producing. Now you put on the fuse and > > all > > of your current carrying medium is either big enough to handle it or > > protected by a device. Now about that battery buss. We use a 14AWG > > wire > > for that. It is not big enough to handle all the current that the > > battery > > can throw at it so we limit it's length to 6" or so. This way at > > least we > > are controlling how and where that wire will fail if it were to fault, > > and > > hopefully we don't locate it near other things that would be adversely > > effected by the heat generated by a wire that is failing and then we > > avoid > > using PVC coated wire so that it doesn't poison us as it melts. > > > > If you want to wire it up like Klaus suggests at least put a fusible > > link > > between the battery and the wire running to the circuit breaker, so > > you have > > some control over the failure mode. Personally I think Dan's way is > > better. > > Who needs a circuit breaker. Circuit breakers are for circuits that > > are > > going to nuisance trip and I think we can do a better job of designing > > these > > airplanes than that. > > > > Godspeed, > > > > Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas > > RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Canopy > > http://www.myrv7.com > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Joel Harding" <cajole76(at)ispwest.com> > > To: > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LightSpeed wiring > > > > > > > >> > >> Phil, > >> I'm trying to decide on the best way to implement Klaus's schematic > >> also. The question I have is, how important is the location of the > >> protection in a wire run. Lightspeed doesn't show the breaker location > >> in their drawing, but I assumed that since the breaker is the weak > >> point, it wouldn't make too much difference where it is located in the > >> line. Can someone clear this up for me? > >> > >> Joel Harding > >> On Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003, at 08:07 America/Denver, Phil Birkelbach > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dan, > >>> > >>> That's exactly how I plan to wire mine up. The problem that I see > >>> from > >>> their wiring description is that long unprotected wire from the > >>> battery to > >>> the breaker. I'd rather get mine fused right away on the battery > >>> buss > >>> and > >>> then I can run the wire all over the place without having to worry > >>> about it. > >>> Their thought process may be circuit reliablitly by eliminating > >>> connections, > >>> but the system that you describe should prove to be very robust > >>> besides you > >>> have another ignition source. If I were putting in two EI's then I > >>> might > >>> try to figure out an alternate way to power the other one. Like one > >>> from > >>> the E-buss and one from the battery buss. > >>> > >>> Godspeed, > >>> > >>> Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas > >>> RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Canopy > >>> http://www.myrv7.com > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> > >>> To: > >>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: LightSpeed wiring > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Bob & folks, > >>>> > >>>> I'm installing a single LightSpeed Plasma II ignition in my RV-7 > >>>> (single > >>> EI, > >>>> single mag), and I'm considering straying slightly from the wiring > >>>> installation notes provided with the LSE system. > >>>> > >>>> They recommend wiring directly to and from the battery and using a > >>> pullable > >>>> breaker. Basically, positive battery terminal direct to a pullable > >>>> 5A > >>>> breaker, then an optional on/off toggle switch, then the brain, then > >>>> wire > >>>> directly to the negative battery terminal. They recommend bypassing > >>> busses > >>>> in this manner. > >>>> > >>>> Here's what I would *like* to do instead: > >>>> > >>>> - power wired from a 5A fuse on the always-hot battery bus, which is > >>> roughly > >>>> 6" away (plus an inch or three) from the battery (+) terminal > >>>> - no pullable circuit breaker, let the 5A fuse do its job > >>>> - standard 1-3 ON/OFF toggle switch > >>>> - ground wired directly to the 48/24 firewall ground block, which is > >>>> connected to the battery via 5" of 2 AWG > >>>> > >>>> Do you see any potential gotchas in straying from LSE's > >>>> recommendations in > >>>> this way? I don't really see the purpose of using a pullable > >>>> breaker > >>>> when > >>>> you use the optional on/off toggle switch and figure a fuse will do > >>>> fine. > >>> I > >>>> have control in normal cases, and the wires are protected. I guess > >>>> I > >>> could > >>>> always use a 5A breaker switch, but again I don't really see the > >>>> point > >>> when > >>>> a fuse will do the same job cheaper, lighter, etc. > >>>> > >>>> As far as the ground goes, is there any possibility of noise > >>>> affecting the > >>>> LightSpeed when ground is shared with every device in the plane, > >>>> even > >>>> when > >>>> it's grounded so deliberately close to the battery (but not *quite* > >>>> to the > >>>> negative terminal)? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> )_( Dan > >>>> RV-7 N714D > >>>> http://www.rvproject.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _- > >>> ===================================================================== > >>> >>> _- > >>> ===================================================================== > >>> >>> _- > >>> ===================================================================== > >>> >>> _- > >>> ===================================================================== > >>> >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > _- > > ====================================================================== > > _- > > ====================================================================== > > _- > > ====================================================================== > > _- > > ====================================================================== > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net>
Subject: Re: Is the E-Bus that Essential?
Date: Jun 24, 2003
Don't forget that by running the E-buss on alternate feed and having the master switch off you don't sacrifice a whole amp of current to keep the battery contactor closed. Godspeed, Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Horton" <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Is the E-Bus that Essential? > > > > >Gang, > > > >Up to this point, I have been planning to wire up my RV-9 > >according to Fig. Z-11A. My understanding is the essential > >bus would be used to conserve power during an alternator out > >condition. > > > >However, almost all of the things that I plan to hang off of the > >main power distribution bus are switched. Therefore, I could > >turn off the "non-essential" equipment to conserve battery > >capacity. This being the case, do I need an E-bus? > > > >I'm probably missing another good reason for wiring up a > >separate E-bus as shown on Fig. Z-11A. > > > >Please shoot holes in my logic before I shoot a hole in > >my foot! > > > >Rob > > Over and above the stuff mentioned by Matt Prather, the E-bus also > provides a more reliable power supply for the really important stuff, > as it has a separate power feed. So there are some failures that > might kill the power to the main bus, but you could select the E-bus > alternate feed and get power to the E-bus. > > You'll have to decide how important it is to keep some things > powered. If the aircraft design and the way you fly it mean that a > total electrical failure would be a non-event, then the E-bus is > probably overkill for you. If you want to maximize the probability > of some items receiving power, even after single failures, then the > E-bus might be a good idea for you. > -- > Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) > Ottawa, Canada > http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 24, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: LightSpeed wiring
> >Bob & folks, > >I'm installing a single LightSpeed Plasma II ignition in my RV-7 (single EI, >single mag), and I'm considering straying slightly from the wiring >installation notes provided with the LSE system.\ Wiring diagrams from most manufacturer's assume that your electrical system is a spam-can-clone . . . >They recommend wiring directly to and from the battery and using a pullable >breaker. Basically, positive battery terminal direct to a pullable 5A >breaker, then an optional on/off toggle switch, then the brain, then wire >directly to the negative battery terminal. They recommend bypassing busses >in this manner. If you have an electrically dependent engine, then there's no reason NOT to run engine support system from an always-hot battery bus. If you have dual support systems (two pumps one of which MUST run to keep flying and/or dual ignition systems) then there's no reason not to have two batteries, each with its own battery bus to support half the engine hardware. Fuses/breakers AT the battery bus take care of all necessary protection. NOISE doesn't swap between systems because they share grounds, it propagates because they are badly wired to multiple grounds. See chapter on noise in the 'Connection. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 24, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: LightSpeed wiring
> >Light Speed's instructions say they want us to "route the positive power >lead to a 5A pull-able breaker and then to the battery plus terminal, >bypassing any electrical bus or master solenoid." And "If a toggle switch is >used as an on/off switch, it should be installed next to the breaker." And >also: "Route the negative lead directly to the battery ground terminal (not >airframe ground buss) to avoid ignition noise...." This is BS on all counts . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 24, 2003
Subject: Re: isolated ground wire for avionics in metal airplane
Would I see any benefit or detriment to using a dedicated ground wire for my avionics in my metal airplane, isolated from the metal airframe? Thanks, Skip ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Wiring VM1000 for dual alternator installation
Date: Jun 25, 2003
From: "Treff, Arthur" <Arthur.Treff(at)Smartm.com>
Listers, I'm wiring my RV-8 with Z-13. My ammeter will the embedded in the Vision MIcrosystems VM-1000 display. My questions are: 1) What would be the consequence if I connected the leads from both ammeter shunts to the VM-1000? Since both alternators would be operating at different times wouldn't the display just show the current from which ever alternator was switched on? No doubt I'm missing something, please poke holes in my logic. 2) For those who have used a primary and an E bus and a display like the VM-1000, where in the circuit did you wire the voltmeter? Any reason to have a voltmeter on the main bus as well as the E-bus? OOps, that's a dumb question, I think I just answered it myself. Current is very important to system health, but knowing if the voltage falls below alternator output (#1 or #2) is all that really matters, yes? Having said that, my logic is that putting a single voltmeter accross the pnl ground plane to the started contactor would do the job. Fire away, what am I missing? Arthur Treff Asheville, NC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ian Scott" <jabiru22(at)yahoo.com.au>
Subject: recording intercom with a digital voice recorder
Date: Jun 25, 2003
What about minidisk, cheap, robust, small light and they can record and provide music when you need it. Ian (who will be installing a Minidisk player in the jabiru as soon as I can). -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris W Subject: AeroElectric-List: recording intercom with a digital voice recorder I would like to tie in a digital voice recorder to the intercom for 2 purposes. First to record everything while I am doing my flight training. Second to be able to play back what ATC just said. I found an adapter wire in the Aircraft Spruce catalog that you stick between the intercom and your headset plug that has electronics that convert the headphone signal down to a mic signal. That's great for recording. Then they have a CD Player adapter where you also insert the plug in between the intercom and your headset plug and then plug the little 1/8" plug into the headphone jack of a CD player or in this case the voice recorder. But then there are the cell phone adapters. Can those be connected to a voice recorder some how and record all intercom traffic? And then play it back through the intercom? Then there is the issue of mixing stereo and mono plugs. I don't really care if I loose the option to hear stereo music as long as the signal is still coming through both ears. Can some one please clear this up and let me know what the best solution is? I'm also looking for suggestions on MP3 players/voice recorders. I have also seen some MP3 player/recorders that can record from a line in signal, would that be a better solution? Has anyone seen or used these? The only one I know of right now is called a Ripflash. They have several different models. Their web site is here http://www.pogoproducts.com/ -- Chris Woodhouse 3147 SW 127th St. Oklahoma City, OK 73170 405-691-5206 chrisw(at)programmer.net N35 20.492' W97 34.342' "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Electric Gyro Question
Date: Jun 25, 2003
I've installed my electric TC and in testing it, I noticed that it would turn into a 'generator' when it was winding down after power off: LEDs on the panel would light and then gradually fade as the gyro spun down. I 'corrected' this by adding a diode to the '+' side of the connection. My question is this: Is this sort of thing normal for all electric gyros? I haven't installed the electric DG or AH yet. Would it be worth my time to install diodes in the feed wires now or is this likely a wasted effort? Thanks in advance Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Benford2(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 25, 2003
Subject: Re: Electric Gyro Question
In a message dated 6/25/2003 7:07:43 AM Mountain Daylight Time, billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net writes: > > I've installed my electric TC and in testing it, I noticed that it would > turn into a 'generator' when it was winding down after power off: LEDs on the > panel would light and then gradually fade as the gyro spun down. > > I 'corrected' this by adding a diode to the '+' side of the connection. My > question is this: Is this sort of thing normal for all electric gyros? I > haven't installed the electric DG or AH yet. Would it be worth my time to install > diodes in the feed wires now or is this likely a wasted effort? > > Thanks in advance > > Wow,,, Now that is bizarre for sure. But it does sound plausible. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 25, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Electric Gyro Question
> > >I've installed my electric TC and in testing it, I noticed that it would >turn into a 'generator' when it was winding down after power off: LEDs on >the panel would light and then gradually fade as the gyro spun down. First, why is this a concern? Sounds like your bus is VERY lightly loaded during power-down else the tiny amount of energy stored in the gyro rotor wouldn't provide so noticeable an effect. LEDs will produce visible light at very low excitation levels . . . you wouldn't see this effect at all were your lamps of the incandescent type . . . aside from the noticed effect while powering down, why is it a bad thing and why increase parts count and reduce performance on gyro by adding a diode? >I 'corrected' this by adding a diode to the '+' side of the connection. My >question is this: Is this sort of thing normal for all electric gyros? I >haven't installed the electric DG or AH yet. Would it be worth my time to >install diodes in the feed wires now or is this likely a wasted effort? Depends on the instrument. If the motor is brush-type dc motor (some turn coordinators are) then the motor will "generate" too. If the motor is an ac induction device, then the instrument includes an inverter to power the ac motor from the dc bus. The best gyros are of this design and will not "generate" . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 25, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Wiring VM1000 for dual alternator
installation > > >Listers, > >I'm wiring my RV-8 with Z-13. My ammeter will the embedded in the Vision >MIcrosystems VM-1000 display. > >My questions are: >1) What would be the consequence if I connected the leads from both >ammeter shunts to the VM-1000? Since both alternators would be operating >at different times wouldn't the display just show the current from which >ever alternator was switched on? No doubt I'm missing something, please >poke holes in my logic. the VM1000 uses hall effect sensors, not shunts. You can connect the three wires so that both sensors are powered up all the time but you need a switch in the signal lead to swap the instrument between sensors. >2) For those who have used a primary and an E bus and a display like the >VM-1000, where in the circuit did you wire the voltmeter? Any reason to >have a voltmeter on the main bus as well as the E-bus? OOps, that's a >dumb question, I think I just answered it myself. Current is very >important to system health, but knowing if the voltage falls below >alternator output (#1 or #2) is all that really matters, yes? Having said >that, my logic is that putting a single voltmeter accross the pnl ground >plane to the started contactor would do the job. Fire away, what am I missing? since the VM-1000 doesn't help you get from point A to point B, I'd put it on the main bus and let it go dark during battery only ops. One might argue that you need a voltmeter on the endurance bus 'cause it's the battery's "gas gage" but if you've done your load analysis versus battery size -AND- you do reasonable periodic maintenance on the battery, then there is zero concern for getting airport in sight battery only, even if your alternator crapped 5 minutes after departure. Your engine isn't going to quit running because it isn't being monitored. If there are things the VM-1000 can do for you en route, they are very short duration activities that can be covered by momentarily turning the master switch on. Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( Knowing about a thing is different than ) ( understanding it. One can know a lot ) ( and still understand nothing. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 25, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: isolated ground wire for avionics
in metal airplane > >Would I see any benefit or detriment to using a dedicated ground wire for my >avionics in my metal airplane, isolated from the metal airframe? Thanks, Skip Ground is ground is ground . . . at some point in time the avionics gets connected to the airframe. Some installers have an "avionics" ground on the stack at the panel and then connect the remote ground bus to the firewall ground bus with a suite of 2 to 4 wires (for redundancy) . . . Unless you're building a LA4P with a bizillion electro-whizzies on the panel, individual ground wires to the firewall ground bus minimizes parts count and maximizes system reliability. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Neville Kilford" <nkilford(at)etravel.org>
Subject: Electric Gyro Corp turn co-ordinator
Date: Jun 25, 2003
Hi guys, Does anyone have any experience of the EGC turn co-ordinators? They look pretty good, but anyone know how they are electrical noise-wise? Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Nev -- Jodel D-150 in progress UK ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Neville Kilford" <nkilford(at)etravel.org>
Subject: Ring terminal sizes for contactors
Date: Jun 25, 2003
Hi guys, Does anyone know what size studs are required for the contactors? In metric they're M5 & M8, but I only see imperial sizes on Bob's order form. The M8 one converts to .31" or so, but what about the M5? It's smaller than .25", so perhaps it's #10, #8, or #6, but I've no idea what those mean! Any help would be appreciated. Cheeers. Nev ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gilles.Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Ring terminal sizes for contactors
Date: Jun 25, 2003
----- Message d'origine ----- De : "Neville Kilford" : Envoy : mercredi 25 juin 2003 17:44 Objet : AeroElectric-List: Ring terminal sizes for contactors > > Hi guys, > > Does anyone know what size studs are required for the contactors? In metric > they're M5 & M8, but I only see imperial sizes on Bob's order form. > > The M8 one converts to .31" or so, but what about the M5? It's smaller than > .25", so perhaps it's #10, #8, or #6, but I've no idea what those mean! > > Any help would be appreciated. > > Cheeers. > Nev Neville, M 8 studs perfectly fit 5/16 (or .31") terminals M5 will be OK with # 10 terminals Hope this helps, Gilles Thesee Metric since French revolution ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 25, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Ring terminal sizes for contactors
> > >Hi guys, > >Does anyone know what size studs are required for the contactors? In metric >they're M5 & M8, but I only see imperial sizes on Bob's order form. > >The M8 one converts to .31" or so, but what about the M5? It's smaller than >.25", so perhaps it's #10, #8, or #6, but I've no idea what those mean! An "M" size is in approx millimeters. A millimeter is about 0.040" An M8 would be therefore about 0.32", an M5 is about 0.20" See http://216.55.140.222/temp/Tap_and_Clearance_Drill.pdf for a list of tap and clearance drill sizes for the vairious screw sizes. Note that a free fit on a #6 screw is a #25 drill (0.145") if one were to convert this to millimeters, it would be an M3.7 If you go to http://catalog.tycoelectronics.com/TE/bin/TE.Connect?S=13836&M=FEAT&LG=1&I=13 you'll find a listing of terminal sizes offered in the PIDG series from AMP. Note the data fields labeled "Stud Diameter" and "Stud Size" You can order a terminal sized in mm/in format or by screw size (#4, #6, etc.) Does this help? Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( Knowing about a thing is different than ) ( understanding it. One can know a lot ) ( and still understand nothing. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 24, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Is the E-Bus that Essential?
> >Gang, > >Up to this point, I have been planning to wire up my RV-9 >according to Fig. Z-11A. My understanding is the essential >bus would be used to conserve power during an alternator out >condition. > >However, almost all of the things that I plan to hang off of the >main power distribution bus are switched. Therefore, I could >turn off the "non-essential" equipment to conserve battery >capacity. This being the case, do I need an E-bus? > >I'm probably missing another good reason for wiring up a >separate E-bus as shown on Fig. Z-11A. > >Please shoot holes in my logic before I shoot a hole in >my foot! There has been a lot written about this . . . in fact, the bus is more properly called the "endurance" bus. Check out chapter 17 of the 'Connection which you can download at http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch17-9.pdf By the way, Mr. Martin Gomez (who was so kind as to share his experience with us) was told that I'd used his story as but one of multitudinous illustrations of how certified systems architecture and mind-set boxes us into stupid and unnecessary situations. I invited him to read the chapter cited above. He contacted me again later and offer the following: I just read the chapter. You were right on! I often thought before and after my little fiasco that our electrical systems were fine in the days when the Piper J-3 was a typical light airplane. Now that we expect to fly in miserable weather, relying on our avionics, it's nuts to still have the same electrical system. I, too, am an engineer (BS in aero, M.Eng. in EE, MS in Applied Physics), with 20 years of experience. Of that, 9 was at a UAV company. We once lost a UAV because of an alternator overvoltage...3 years after my emergency, and after I had implored the avionics designers to split the bus in two. One of my hobbies is that I collect flight manuals for airplanes that I'll never get to fly, including jet fighters, airliners, etc. They do NOT put all their eggs in one basket. It seems silly to have two radios (say) and put both on the same bus so that one failure can zap them both. I am indeed considering building an airplane. My current choice is an RV-7. And you can bet that it will have a non- standard electrical system! In fact, it was on the Van's Airforce Yahoo group that I learned about you, and was told that you used my AOPA article. I would love a copy of your book, but if I'm going to benefit from your experience, I ought to pay for it. Regards, Martin Martin Gomezmlg28(at)cornell.edu A day later his order came in for the book. The e-buss is more than load reduction . . . it's a DUAL path distribution structure to keep minimal en-route operational equipment going until airport is in sight and do it battery-only for duration of fuel aboard. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Another Question, Different Subject
Date: Jun 26, 2003
Thanks to Bob for the answer on the TC. The main reason I installed the diode was that the LEDs that were lit up were assosiated with the angle of attack computer. I doubted that this would cause a problem long term, but didn't want to take the chance. Also, it just didn't seem right the that they should light up when the power was turned off. I plan to not install any diodes in the power lines for the future DG and AH. My next question is about the VOR antenna shown on page 13-16 (Figuare 13-12) in the Aeroelectric Connection. It appears from the sketch that the central conductor for the antenna coax is electrically insualted from the antenna itself. Is this actually the case? Are there any revisions or updates to the sketch? Is the thing worth building, or should I just buy an antenna> Thanks again. Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Wingtip VOR antenna
> > >Thanks to Bob for the answer on the TC. The main reason I installed the >diode was that the LEDs that were lit up were assosiated with the angle of >attack computer. I doubted that this would cause a problem long term, but >didn't want to take the chance. Also, it just didn't seem right the that >they should light up when the power was turned off. > >I plan to not install any diodes in the power lines for the future DG and AH. > >My next question is about the VOR antenna shown on page 13-16 (Figuare >13-12) in the Aeroelectric Connection. It appears from the sketch that the >central conductor for the antenna coax is electrically insualted from the >antenna itself. Is this actually the case? Are there any revisions or >updates to the sketch? Is the thing worth building, or should I just buy >an antenna> If you study the assembly carefully, you'll find that the center conductor ties to one side of a CAPACITOR formed by two strips of aluminum sandwiched around a piece of phenolic. This design was purloined from an issue of RVAtor some years ago. I found out several years later that someone else had purloined it from one of Bob Archer's designs. I met Bob for the first time in California at a seminar I was doing for Aircraft Spruce. He told me that this was his original design. If you build this antenna as depicted it will probably perform as well as necessary . . . unless you plan to use VOR for long range, en route navigation where NO wingtip antenna is going to perform as well as a set of cat-whiskers on the tail. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C. M. Shearer" <cshearer(at)kent.edu>
Subject: Another Question, Different Subject
Date: Jun 26, 2003
Bill, I am new to the forum, so I hope I am not breaking any protocol with my response. However, I have an answer for your VOR antenna question. The antenna listed as figure 13-11 is a half-wave dipole antenna. When connecting a coax to a dipole one should connect the inner wire to one rod (it doesn't matter which one) and the outer breaded shield to the other wire. A ground plane antenna has the inner wire connected to the vertical rod and the shield to the ground plane. BTW, if your are building your own VOR antenna, be aware that the length of the antenna is important. The closer your antenna is to 1/2 of a wave length of the VOR signal, the better your reception will be. The formula for finding the total length (both sides added together) is length = 491.8 divided by frequency in MHz Hope this helps. CMS C. M. Shearer Taylorcraft N43502 March 11, 1946 Serial No. 7161 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of > William Bernard > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:22 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Another Question, Different Subject > > My next question is about the VOR antenna shown on page 13-16 > (Figuare 13-12) in the Aeroelectric Connection. It appears > from the sketch that the central conductor for the antenna > coax is electrically insualted from the antenna itself. Is > this actually the case? Are there any revisions or updates to > the sketch? Is the thing worth building, or should I just buy > an antenna> > > Thanks again. > > Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
Subject: RingTerminalBoltSize
Date: Jun 26, 2003
A number 2 wire ring terminal with a hole to fit the .193" bolt that comes with Bob's favorite battery, a Panasonic LC-RD1217P , will not clear the case but must be ground down to bolt flush to the battery terminal. Is there any advantage to doing this versus just using a ring terminal for a larger bolt? Dave Reel - RV8A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Main Bus
Date: Jun 26, 2003
List, I am building a kitfox with the battery in the tail. Recent posts have brought a question to mind: In my aircraft the wire running from the battery contactor to the bus will be about 15-20 feet. Figure Z-11 indicates the wire should be 8AWG but it is not protected. If that wire somehow shorted I think I would be in a world of hurt. Should I protect it with a fusible link ordoes the battery haveinsufficient capacity to burn that size wire (or am I completely missing something?) Grant ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Main Bus
> >List, > >I am building a kitfox with the battery in the tail. Recent posts have >brought a question to mind: In my aircraft the wire running from the >battery contactor to the bus will be about 15-20 feet. Figure Z-11 >indicates the wire should be 8AWG but it is not protected. If that wire >somehow shorted I think I would be in a world of hurt. Should I protect it >with a fusible link ordoes the battery haveinsufficient capacity to burn >that size wire (or am I completely missing something?) If your battery is located behind the seat, then you tie the main bus feeder onto the starter contactor on the firewall which will significantly shorten this wire. There is no compelling reason to "protect" heavy feeders other than to put them downstream of the battery contactor. It is sufficient to install these wires with due diligence for avoiding mechanical damage to the wire . . . same as one would do for a fuel line or a control cable. Likelihood of these feeders causing in-flight problems is extremely remote. This fact has be recognized by the FAA in certification of light aircraft. I'll quote Part 23 in part: Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices. (a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be installed in all electrical circuits other than-- (1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and (2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission. . . . Bob. . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Neville Kilford" <nkilford(at)etravel.org>
Subject: Re: Ring terminal sizes for contactors
Date: Jun 26, 2003
Thanks Bob... > http://216.55.140.222/temp/Tap_and_Clearance_Drill.pdf That is the mother of all conversion tables. Made no sense whatsoever! I really wanted to know just what the size of #10, #8, and #6 would be (in inches or mm). Gilles has said that #10 is a 5mm, which should suit the contactors alright, and I have some M8 PIDG terminals. I just need to order the .31" uninsulated rings for the fat leads. So, I think I'm there or thereabouts. I'll shout if I need any more info. Cheers. Nev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ring terminal sizes for contactors > > > > > > >Hi guys, > > > >Does anyone know what size studs are required for the contactors? In metric > >they're M5 & M8, but I only see imperial sizes on Bob's order form. > > > >The M8 one converts to .31" or so, but what about the M5? It's smaller than > >.25", so perhaps it's #10, #8, or #6, but I've no idea what those mean! > > > An "M" size is in approx millimeters. A millimeter is about > 0.040" An M8 would be therefore about 0.32", an M5 is about > 0.20" > > See > > http://216.55.140.222/temp/Tap_and_Clearance_Drill.pdf > > for a list of tap and clearance drill sizes for the vairious > screw sizes. Note that a free fit on a #6 screw is a #25 > drill (0.145") if one were to convert this to millimeters, > it would be an M3.7 > > If you go to > http://catalog.tycoelectronics.com/TE/bin/TE.Connect?S=13836&M=FEAT&LG=1&I=13 > you'll find a listing of terminal sizes offered in the PIDG > series from AMP. Note the data fields labeled "Stud Diameter" and > "Stud Size" You can order a terminal sized in mm/in format > or by screw size (#4, #6, etc.) > > Does this help? > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Another Question, Different Subject
> >Bill, > >I am new to the forum, so I hope I am not breaking any protocol with my >response. However, I have an answer for your VOR antenna question. The "protocols" for this list-server is to offer, analyze, and deduce practical application of simple ideas that support the physics and art of building airplanes. Your considered participation in this endeavor is always welcome . . . >The antenna listed as figure 13-11 is a half-wave dipole antenna. When >connecting a coax to a dipole one should connect the inner wire to one rod >(it doesn't matter which one) and the outer breaded shield to the other >wire. He was referring to the 1/4-wave, gamma-matched antenna in Figure 13-12. >A ground plane antenna has the inner wire connected to the vertical rod and >the shield to the ground plane. > >BTW, if your are building your own VOR antenna, be aware that the length of >the antenna is important. The closer your antenna is to 1/2 of a wave >length of the VOR signal, the better your reception will be. The formula >for finding the total length (both sides added together) is > > length = 491.8 divided by frequency in MHz This yields a length in FEET. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Ring terminal sizes for contactors
Date: Jun 26, 2003
> I really wanted to know just what the size of #10, #8, and #6 would be (in > inches or mm). http://bobmay.astronomy.net/misc/drillchart.htm )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RingTerminalBoltSize
> >A number 2 wire ring terminal with a hole to fit the .193" bolt that comes >with Bob's favorite battery, a Panasonic LC-RD1217P , will not clear the >case but must be ground down to bolt flush to the battery terminal. Is >there any advantage to doing this versus just using a ring terminal for a >larger bolt? > >Dave Reel - RV8A Having trouble visualizing this . . . I presume that your talking about the edge margin around the bolt hole for terminal with a 0.193"+ hole is so large that the edge of the terminal hits the battery case and prevents alignment of the two holes for bolt insertion. I'm wondering how a terminal with a larger hole helps. Usually, as hole size goes up, overall diameter of the margin around the hole goes up too. The drawing I have for the Panasonic battery isn't very well dimensioned but it seems to suggest there is a 0.315 distance from hole center to top of battery case. This allows for a 0.600" diameter terminal with a 0.200" hole in it to still fit the battery terminal without modification. If the terminal you have is too large, it is best to trim the edge to gain needed clearance. The real meat of where a terminal does it's job is area under the nut and around the hole . . . the hole should fit the bolt as closely as practical. There are no "standards" for overall terminal diameter around the hole versus actual hole size. You can download a typical terminal catalog at http://www.hollingsworth.com/Misc/hollingsworth%20catalog.pdf check out page 46 for un-insulated terminals for 4AWG wire. Note that for each stud size there can be more than one diameter offered for overall size of the flag. If you have trouble finding a terminal with the right hole size and still small enough to fit the battery, you can sometimes use hole size down down for hole size and drill it out to fit . . . or trim a flat on the edge as you've suggested above. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Ring terminal sizes for contactors
> > >Thanks Bob... > > > http://216.55.140.222/temp/Tap_and_Clearance_Drill.pdf >That is the mother of all conversion tables. Made no sense whatsoever! ??? >I really wanted to know just what the size of #10, #8, and #6 would be (in >inches or mm). The chart says the range of sizes from close to loose fit on a 10-32 threaded stud is 0.196" to 0.201" diameter drill. Divide these by 0.039"/mm and you get 4.97 to 5.1 mm. I would assume a 5mm terminal is available. A #8 works over range of 0.169 to 0.177" for a mm range of 4.29 to 4.49 mm. Depending on who is supplying your terminals, a 4mm (tight) or 4.5mm terminal seems to be in order. A #6 stud needs 0.144" to 0.149" or 3.65 to 3.78 mm, I would guess a 4mm terminal would be best fit on the #6 stud. >Gilles has said that #10 is a 5mm, which should suit the contactors alright, >and I have some M8 PIDG terminals. I just need to order the .31" uninsulated >rings for the fat leads. So, I think I'm there or thereabouts. I'll shout >if I need any more info. A 8 mm terminal times .039"/mm yields 0.315" in diameter . . . just right for a 0.312" (5/16) treaded stud on the contactor. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Ring terminal sizes for contactors
> > > I really wanted to know just what the size of #10, #8, and #6 would be (in > > inches or mm). > >http://bobmay.astronomy.net/misc/drillchart.htm pretty cool chart . . . but it gives TAP drill sizes, not clearance drill sizes. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Another Question, Different Subject
Date: Jun 26, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Please excuse my lack of knowledge, but I'm confused on this diode issue with the TC. What is the difference between putting diode(s) on the contactors to prevent the energy wave back into the critical parts of the circuit and putting the diode on the TC to prevent it from doing the same or similiar? I'm sure I'm missing something, but on the surface it looks like the same type of problem/solution. Thanks! Don Honabach -----Original Message----- From: William Bernard [mailto:billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net] Subject: AeroElectric-List: Another Question, Different Subject --> Thanks to Bob for the answer on the TC. The main reason I installed the diode was that the LEDs that were lit up were assosiated with the angle of attack computer. I doubted that this would cause a problem long term, but didn't want to take the chance. Also, it just didn't seem right the that they should light up when the power was turned off. I plan to not install any diodes in the power lines for the future DG and AH. My next question is about the VOR antenna shown on page 13-16 (Figuare 13-12) in the Aeroelectric Connection. It appears from the sketch that the central conductor for the antenna coax is electrically insualted from the antenna itself. Is this actually the case? Are there any revisions or updates to the sketch? Is the thing worth building, or should I just buy an antenna> Thanks again. Bill direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 10622 Capen
>Bob, > >I am building an all-electric RV-6A and currently planning on a dual >alternator, single battery electrical system (a-la Z-12), with a D25 Diode >assy providing E-Buss primary feed...fuses - not breakers. > >For overvoltage protection, a crow-bar (OVM-14) driving a B-lead contactor >(S701-1)...or do I really need two sets - one for each alternator? I >don't really understand how it works - looks like it (OVM-14) would short >the circuit that normally provides power to the S-701 (easiest path) >causing the S-701 to open....yes/no? Although it looks like the LR-3/SB-1 >alternator controllers would be one-stop shopping providing OV protection >too?! First, not that Z-12 is shown set up with breakers. If you go the fuseblock route, you need to treat your alternator field supply circuit like that shown in Figure Z-11 where there is a fusible link coming off the bus to supply field power to the alternator control switch. This path continues on through a 5A breaker mandated for the crowbar ov protection . . . The second alternator would have its own fusible link and field supply circuit as the first alternator. OV protection is built into the regulators B&C makes. You would not need to add an OVM-14. >I would prefer the autoswitching as described on pg 17-12. Are these >mutually exclusive? OV protection is more critical to me than >autoswitching if I have to make a choice - I'm open to education though..... Autoswitching happens because the standby alternator is set to regulate at 0.5 to 1.0 volts BELOW normal bus voltage. Normal operation is for both alternator switches to be ON all the time. Should the main alternator fail, bus voltage sags and the #2 regulator brings the #2 alternator on line to support ship's loads. The Alternator Load/Overload light will flash until you reduce ship's load to or below 20A. >SB-1's and SD-20's are not listed anywhere on your website - are they >discontinued? I don't sell those, B&C does at http://www.bandc.biz >I hope that I've conveyed my intended direction...please validate or >provide education. I would like to make sure that the pathway is valid >given current availability of hardware. All the hardware you need is currently available. Figure Z-12 is most often applied to airplanes that already have breaker panels. You can certainly apply it to a new airplane with fuseblocks provided that you make the small changes described above to add fusible links and alternator field breakers. Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( Knowing about a thing is different than ) ( understanding it. One can know a lot ) ( and still understand nothing. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2003
Subject: Another Question, Different Subject
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Don, Diodes across relay coils allow for increased switch life by eliminating arcing across the contacts caused by the inductive load of the application. The illumination of LED's caused by the mechanical energy stored in the gyro doesn't pose a reliability/durability threat to any of the components in the circuit. I can't really see needing to turn off the bus that feeds the gyros while in flight, while in the dark - the condition which causes the LED's to light up. I'd guess that leaving any component on the bus turned on while the bus feed is off would probably extinguish the LED's. Regardless, it doesn't sound like the LED's can provide useful information while the bus is turned off, so they can be ignored for the minute or two that the gyros take to wind down, if the bus loads are that low. Regards, Matt Prather N34RD > > > Please excuse my lack of knowledge, but I'm confused on this diode issue > with the TC. > > What is the difference between putting diode(s) on the contactors to > prevent the energy wave back into the critical parts of the circuit and > putting the diode on the TC to prevent it from doing the same or > similiar? I'm sure I'm missing something, but on the surface it looks > like the same type of problem/solution. > > Thanks! > Don Honabach > snip ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
Subject: Re: Terra 760 D/manual source
Date: Jun 26, 2003
I have had good luck with the following for older manuals etc. http://www.esscoaircraft.com The quality was good last time I used them. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Spencer" <djs(at)54Transmission.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Terra 760 D > > Ed... > > Sorry, but I don't have any advice about the technical difficulties. > > However, I have dual TXN-960s and am wondering how you got a maintenance > manual? I'd love to have one for my 960s... have the install manual. > > David J. Spencer > Super3 > djs(at)54Transmission.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> > To: > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Terra 760 D > > > > > > > Hi Bob, > > > > Don't know if you or anyone on the list may be able to help me with my > > problem or not. I have a Terra 760D transceiver. I have always had a > > problem with distortion when transmitting. Sometimes so bad folks > receiving > > can not understand me. At first, I though it might be the high noise > level > > in the cockpit, so got a better noise supression mic and also uphosteried > > the interior to reduce ambient noise. Nothing seemed to solve the > problem. > > There is no static/distortion when receiving and my side tone does not > have > > any distortion. I have had the transceiver in three times to have it > > checked, but you know how an intermittent problem is - never show up in > the > > repair shop. Antenna and Coax has been changed as well. > > > > I finally obtained a maintenance manual and noticed that the sidetone is > > generated one transistor before the modulation transistor. This leads me > to > > assume that the audio portion of the circuit is good (at least up to the > > side tone generator) and I wonder if an intermittent condition with the > > modulation transistor could cause distortion. It does seem worst during > hot > > weather. If anyone has had a similar problem and discovered the cause, > would > > appreciate hearing from them. > > > > Best Regards > > > > Ed Anderson > > RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered > > Matthews, NC > > eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 26, 2003
Subject: Wiring VM1000 for dual alternator installation
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Treff, Arthur" <> 6/26/2003 Hello Arthur, I have installed a VM1000 system in my not yet flying airplane. I get the impression from your question that you don't have the hardware or VM manual in hand yet and are sort of feeling your way along. I would like to emphasize that I think the VM equipment is top quality gear (although perhaps no longer on the cutting edge of technology) and I have been absolutely pleased with the support that I have gotten from Lance Turk and his people, BUT there are some "gotchas". If you don't have the hardware and manual in hand and are very familiar with them you might be in for some surprises. Such as: 1) There is a cigar box sized DPU (Data Processing Unit) that you must mount somewhere with some subsequent access to. Many, many wires will run from your engine compartment to the DPU and connect through a D sub plug that you must wire. A flat ribbon cable will run from the DPU to the instruments in the instrument panel. 2) The wires going to the DPU D sub plug come from sensors either attached directly to the engine / magneto (CHT, EGT, OIL TEMPERATURE, RPM) or located in front of the firewall (OIL PRESSURE, FUEL PRESSURE, FUEL FLOW) or located optionally either in front of or behind the firewall (MANIFOLD PRESSURE, AMPERAGE). Voltage feeds directly to the D sub from the bus / source that you choose with no sensor. OAT and CAT connect directly to the DPU D sub if you are using those sensors. 3) As Bob Nuckolls said VM uses a Hall effect sensor for amperage input. The sensor provided by VM is a small printed circuit board with a hole in the middle and a coil around that hole. The hole is big enough for maybe one (fat) wire to go from the alternator to the positive side of the starter contactor (how I wired mine). VM would like you to put this sensor in a benign environment (aft of the firewall), but I did not want that "fat, noisy wire" in the cockpit. If you can't put the sensor in a benign environment then VM wants you to protect or encase the sensor in some fashion. I found that next to impossible to do because of its shape and size and the fat wire running perpendicularly through the board's middle, so mine is hanging exposed from a bracket fastened to the front of the firewall. 4) Coming from the amperage sensor are four wires within the shieldedcable provided by VM that lead to the D sub plug going into the DPU. It is difficult for me to envision how you would rig two different alternators to feed the DPU, but I'm sure that it could be done with some effort and extra hardware such as switches (12 contact rotary?) and maybe an extra Hall effect sensor. 5) VM provides you with high quality four wire shielded cable to go from the sensors to the DPU. But you don't need all four wires for all the sensors. You can reduce weight and bulkiness (big issue when wiring the D sub plug) by buying some two and three wire shielded cable and using that where appropriate rather than the four wire cable provided by VM. 6) If you go for the VM fuel quantity system you get another printed circuit board (naked, no enclosure) that VM calls the IO board. You must also mount that some place and protect it as desired / needed. The wires from the fuel sensor probes go to the IO board via another D sub connector and the flat wire from the DPU to the instruments on the panel goes through the IO board. Arthur, I know that this is very nutsy and boltsy and I'm sure that you know some of this already, but the above information would have been very helpful to me at one stage of my building. Please let me know if you have any questions (by direct email if appropriate) and I'll give it my best shot. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com>
Subject: Mom-on toggle
Date: Jun 26, 2003
A follow-up on my quest for the guarded momentary-on toggle switch: I'm not having much luck so far. For use with the switchguard, they have to be mounted a certain way. Basically, the momentary-on needs to be opposite the groove in the neck that is used for the anti-rotation tab. The switch listed in the previous email below has the opposite action: (on)-on as mounted in the switchguard. So, I ordered CARLING 6FA5H73: ALLIED STOCK # 683-5119 which is listed as having a (on)-off action. But it's the same -- the momentary on is opposite the groove. So using either of the switched purchased so far, the starter will engage as soon as the switchguard is flipped open, and stay engaged until the guard is closed. That's not what I'm after. Is the only solution to file off the anti-rotation tab on the switchguard, or am I over looking something? Thanks, - Larry Bowen Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com 2003 - The year of flight! > -----Original Message----- > >I'm looking for a off-(on) toggle switch for use as a starter engage > >switch. Same functionality as the push button that Bob sells, but I > >want the form-factor of the toggle switches. This will be used with > >the red flip-guard. Anyone know a source? I guess one of the > >three-position switches would work [xx-xx-(on)], but ... > > CARLING 6FB5H73XA: ALLIED STOCK # 683-5121 > http://www.alliedelec.com/catalog/pf.asp?FN=896.pdf Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Mom-on toggle
> >A follow-up on my quest for the guarded momentary-on toggle switch: > > >I'm not having much luck so far. For use with the switchguard, they >have to be mounted a certain way. Basically, the momentary-on needs to >be opposite the groove in the neck that is used for the anti-rotation >tab. The switch listed in the previous email below has the opposite >action: (on)-on as mounted in the switchguard. So, I ordered > >CARLING 6FA5H73: ALLIED STOCK # 683-5119 > >which is listed as having a (on)-off action. But it's the same -- the >momentary on is opposite the groove. So using either of the switched >purchased so far, the starter will engage as soon as the switchguard is >flipped open, and stay engaged until the guard is closed. That's not >what I'm after. > >Is the only solution to file off the anti-rotation tab on the >switchguard, or am I over looking something? Nope, that's how we all do it. Most guards are not built to any standard . . . only those done to a Mil-Spec are going to be consistent. I've purchased guards that had anti-rotation tabs both ways. Use anti-rotation tab washers on the BACK of the panel for the switches and file off the tab on the guard. They'll probably work just fine. If push comes to shove, put two tiny dots of adhesive on the back of the guard's mounting plate. Sho-Goo or one of its cousins works well. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: KX-125 pinout
> Bob >I'm looking for pin-out info for a KX125. Have any idea where I can >borrow or download a copy. >Thanks Try http://216.55.140.222/Installation_Data/KX125.pdf I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to share the information with as many folks as possible. A further benefit can be realized with membership on the list. There are lots of technically capable folks on the list who can offer suggestions too. You can join at . . . http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/ Thanks! Bob . . . |---------------------------------------------------| | A lie can travel half way around the world while | | the truth is till putting on its shoes . . . | | -Mark Twain- | |---------------------------------------------------| ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rick Fogerson" <rickf(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Grouping wires for firewall penetration
Date: Jun 26, 2003
Hi Bob, I plan on grouping wires in the following two groups for firewall penetration: 1) CHT, EGT, and tach, oil T&P, MAP, and fuel pressure transducer wires 2) E.I. controllers (2), Alternator field and B output, and starter contactor Is this okay? thanks, Rick Fogerson RV3, finish Boise, ID ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Mom-on toggle
Date: Jun 27, 2003
Larry, FYI, I went through this same ordeal (although I didn't try as hard), and in the end I caved and went for the pushbutton switch with protective bezel that B&C sells. It's not as "pretty" as a red flip-up guarded switch, but I rationalize the decision by noting that the pushbutton switch is more or less foolproof. Less flipping and flopping...just jam a finger in there and pull your hand away when you're done cranking. Oh, well. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Mom-on toggle > > > > >A follow-up on my quest for the guarded momentary-on toggle switch: > > > > > >I'm not having much luck so far. For use with the switchguard, they > >have to be mounted a certain way. Basically, the momentary-on needs to > >be opposite the groove in the neck that is used for the anti-rotation > >tab. The switch listed in the previous email below has the opposite > >action: (on)-on as mounted in the switchguard. So, I ordered > > > >CARLING 6FA5H73: ALLIED STOCK # 683-5119 > > > >which is listed as having a (on)-off action. But it's the same -- the > >momentary on is opposite the groove. So using either of the switched > >purchased so far, the starter will engage as soon as the switchguard is > >flipped open, and stay engaged until the guard is closed. That's not > >what I'm after. > > > >Is the only solution to file off the anti-rotation tab on the > >switchguard, or am I over looking something? > > Nope, that's how we all do it. Most guards are not built to any > standard . . . only those done to a Mil-Spec are going to be > consistent. I've purchased guards that had anti-rotation tabs > both ways. Use anti-rotation tab washers on the BACK of the panel > for the switches and file off the tab on the guard. They'll probably > work just fine. If push comes to shove, put two tiny dots of adhesive > on the back of the guard's mounting plate. Sho-Goo or one of its > cousins works well. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2003
From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Mom-on toggle
I've considered that. But I already have the guarded toggle in my console. It use to be a "starter enable" switch when I was going to have the starter button on my infinity grip. I've changed it recently to just "starter". Less complicated. Fewer potential failures. I think I'll take Bob's advice and make it work with what I have and adjust the anti-rotation thingies as needed. Thanks, LB --- Dan Checkoway wrote: > > Larry, > > FYI, I went through this same ordeal (although I didn't try as hard), and in > the end I caved and went for the pushbutton switch with protective bezel > that B&C sells. It's not as "pretty" as a red flip-up guarded switch, but I > rationalize the decision by noting that the pushbutton switch is more or > less foolproof. Less flipping and flopping...just jam a finger in there and > pull your hand away when you're done cranking. Oh, well. > > )_( Dan > RV-7 N714D > http://www.rvproject.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> > To: > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Mom-on toggle > > > > > > > > > > > >A follow-up on my quest for the guarded momentary-on toggle switch: > > > > > > > > >I'm not having much luck so far. For use with the switchguard, they > > >have to be mounted a certain way. Basically, the momentary-on needs to > > >be opposite the groove in the neck that is used for the anti-rotation > > >tab. The switch listed in the previous email below has the opposite > > >action: (on)-on as mounted in the switchguard. So, I ordered > > > > > >CARLING 6FA5H73: ALLIED STOCK # 683-5119 > > > > > >which is listed as having a (on)-off action. But it's the same -- the > > >momentary on is opposite the groove. So using either of the switched > > >purchased so far, the starter will engage as soon as the switchguard is > > >flipped open, and stay engaged until the guard is closed. That's not > > >what I'm after. > > > > > >Is the only solution to file off the anti-rotation tab on the > > >switchguard, or am I over looking something? > > > > Nope, that's how we all do it. Most guards are not built to any > > standard . . . only those done to a Mil-Spec are going to be > > consistent. I've purchased guards that had anti-rotation tabs > > both ways. Use anti-rotation tab washers on the BACK of the panel > > for the switches and file off the tab on the guard. They'll probably > > work just fine. If push comes to shove, put two tiny dots of adhesive > > on the back of the guard's mounting plate. Sho-Goo or one of its > > cousins works well. > > > > Bob . . . __________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Mom-on toggle
> >Larry, > >FYI, I went through this same ordeal (although I didn't try as hard), and in >the end I caved and went for the pushbutton switch with protective bezel >that B&C sells. It's not as "pretty" as a red flip-up guarded switch, but I >rationalize the decision by noting that the pushbutton switch is more or >less foolproof. Less flipping and flopping...just jam a finger in there and >pull your hand away when you're done cranking. Oh, well. Good point. I've noted a degree of reverence for treating certain controls in airplanes with extraordinary respect. Recovery parachute system controls in Premier and Horizon are in international orange boxes, switches and deploy handles are guarded by key-locked covers when the system is not needed. All kinds of lights come on in front of the pilot when the system is armed. The deploy handle is black with diagonal yellow stripes and the word "DEPLOY" engraved upon it both right side up and upside down (just in case the pilot is standing on his head while deciding whether or not he wants to deploy the parachute). Of course, operation of this life and airplane saving device at the wrong time can produce a most undesirable effect. There are other controls in our airplanes designed for single or rare event usage. Operation at the wrong time may have a potential for doing damage to some part of the airplane or causing the pilot some momentary surprise for an unexpected event. The most elegant solutions to preventing inadvertent operation are easy. Put the control in a place where it's not going to be mistaken for another control or inadvertently operated while concentrating on some other task. The starter on the Tri-Pacer I used for dual instruction in 1960 is a good example. It was located under the pilot's seat on the underside of a ledge. You had to feel for it to find it and short of hitting it with your heel during a collision with a mountainside, there was no way that button was going to be subject to accidental operation. The Cherokee 235 I rent at 1K1 operates its starter by a COMBINATION motion of TWIST -AND- PUSH IN to start . . . in my never humble but always honorable opinion . . . overkill. Nonetheless, the intent of the designers was addressed with very little extra effort and/or addition of complexity . . . cost of ownership is entirely another matter. That magneto switch probably cannot be legally replaced with and ACS-510 without a great deal of kowtowing to Washington and I'll bet that special switch is a LOT more expensive than the TSO'd Aircraft Spruce product. I often hear builders voice concern for "accidental" operation of switches and controls. Human factors engineering is a powerful tool for reducing chances of inadvertent operation while keeping the cost of ownership and system complexity low. The elegant solutions are almost always so simple as to go completely unnoticed by the casual observer. If one combines the starter switch with magneto switches -AND- cross connects to be disabled when the left mag is on -AND- groups the switches in an area never normally accessed in flight (See: http://216.55.140.222/temp/Switches.pdf ) then I'll suggest that chances of inadvertent starter operation are at least an order of magnitude more remote than the probability of you cruising into a mountainside. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Grouping wires for firewall penetration
> >Hi Bob, >I plan on grouping wires in the following two groups for firewall penetration: > >1) CHT, EGT, and tach, oil T&P, MAP, and fuel pressure transducer wires > >2) E.I. controllers (2), Alternator field and B output, and starter contactor > >Is this okay? Don't see any potential for "gotchas" here . . . but why is your b-lead coming through the firewall? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Another Question, Different Subject
> >Don, > >Diodes across relay coils allow for increased switch life by eliminating >arcing across the contacts caused by the inductive load of the application. > >The illumination of LED's caused by the mechanical energy stored in the >gyro doesn't pose a reliability/durability threat to any of the components in >the circuit. I can't really see needing to turn off the bus that feeds the >gyros while in flight, while in the dark - the condition which causes the >LED's to light up. I'd guess that leaving any component on the bus turned >on while the bus feed is off would probably extinguish the LED's. > >Regardless, it doesn't sound like the LED's can provide useful information >while the bus is turned off, so they can be ignored for the minute or two >that the gyros take to wind down, if the bus loads are that low. Excellent answer. I will add that energy residuals of turning things off are entirely different for contactor/relay coils than for motors spinning down. A motor can generate no more voltage than it is supplied with for operation . . . turn it off and its output drops immediately to some lower value and ramps down from there as the rotor comes to a stop. A contactor coil delivers energy via an entirely different mechanism and the voltage can be on the order of hundreds of volts. See http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: Wire and Screw Sizes Tutorial
Date: Jun 27, 2003
AWG-American Wire Gage, Also known as the Brown & Sharpe Wire gage not "gauge", and used in the United States since the 1880s when the prairies were no longer black with buffalo, for ductile metal wires. Each wire manufacturer faced the problem of maximizing a wire-drawing diameter reduction while minimizing the wire breakage. "Process" had a lot to do with this, so many made their own gage. By our enlightened AWG standards, number 0000 wire is 0.4600 inch in diameter. The diameter of each succeeding size, 000, 00, 0, 1, 2 etc. is 0.890525 times the diameter of the previous size. Wires get smaller as the gage number gets bigger since these numbers simply represent the number of the draw. Brown and Sharpe had the edge in this whole mess because THEY made the measuring instrument too. Cool...... So figuring out any size solid wire is simple. For example; solid 18 AWG is ummm....let's see....0.0808 inches. For stranded wire the exercise is left to the student. Gage sizes for guns are simply the number of lead balls equal to the weight of a 1-inch diameter ball that will fit in your bore. Thus a 12-gage gun has a bore that would take 12 balls that could be made from a 1-inch diameter lead ball. For screw studs we use the formula (0.013 times Studsize) + 0.060 = real diameter. Thus a #10 screw is nominally 0.190 inches. But you knew that! In New England flea markets I occasionally see antique tap and die sizes like 7-32, 9-24, 11-28 etc. Only the even sizes above #5 are used anymore. The metric system has been the official measurement system in the US since 1866. Thank heavens for that! Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge MA 01550-2705 Phone (508) 764-2072 Email: emjones(at)charter.net "I only regret my economies." Reynolds Price ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com>
Subject: sizing of current limiters on the B lead
Date: Jun 27, 2003
Bob I am doing the Z14 system. I have a 60 amp main alt and a b&c 20 amp on the second system. How do I size the current limiters on the B lead. ANL60 and ANL20? Thanks Ron Raby Lancair ES ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 10622 Capen > > > >Bob, > > > >I am building an all-electric RV-6A and currently planning on a dual > >alternator, single battery electrical system (a-la Z-12), with a D25 Diode > >assy providing E-Buss primary feed...fuses - not breakers. > > > >For overvoltage protection, a crow-bar (OVM-14) driving a B-lead contactor > >(S701-1)...or do I really need two sets - one for each alternator? I > >don't really understand how it works - looks like it (OVM-14) would short > >the circuit that normally provides power to the S-701 (easiest path) > >causing the S-701 to open....yes/no? Although it looks like the LR-3/SB-1 > >alternator controllers would be one-stop shopping providing OV protection > >too?! > > > First, not that Z-12 is shown set up with breakers. If you go the > fuseblock route, you need to treat your alternator field supply > circuit like that shown in Figure Z-11 where there is a fusible > link coming off the bus to supply field power to the alternator > control switch. This path continues on through a 5A breaker > mandated for the crowbar ov protection . . . > > The second alternator would have its own fusible link and field > supply circuit as the first alternator. > > OV protection is built into the regulators B&C makes. You would > not need to add an OVM-14. > > > >I would prefer the autoswitching as described on pg 17-12. Are these > >mutually exclusive? OV protection is more critical to me than > >autoswitching if I have to make a choice - I'm open to education though..... > Autoswitching happens because the standby alternator is > set to regulate at 0.5 to 1.0 volts BELOW normal bus > voltage. Normal operation is for both alternator switches > to be ON all the time. Should the main alternator fail, > bus voltage sags and the #2 regulator brings the #2 alternator > on line to support ship's loads. The Alternator Load/Overload > light will flash until you reduce ship's load to or below > 20A. > > > >SB-1's and SD-20's are not listed anywhere on your website - are they > >discontinued? > > I don't sell those, B&C does at http://www.bandc.biz > > >I hope that I've conveyed my intended direction...please validate or > >provide education. I would like to make sure that the pathway is valid > >given current availability of hardware. > > All the hardware you need is currently available. Figure Z-12 > is most often applied to airplanes that already have breaker > panels. You can certainly apply it to a new airplane with > fuseblocks provided that you make the small changes described > above to add fusible links and alternator field breakers. > > Bob . . . > > -------------------------------------------- > ( Knowing about a thing is different than ) > ( understanding it. One can know a lot ) > ( and still understand nothing. ) > ( C.F. Kettering ) > -------------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2003
From: richard(at)riley.net
Subject: Re: Wire and Screw Sizes Tutorial
>Gage sizes for guns are simply the number of lead balls equal to the weight >of a 1-inch diameter ball that will fit in your bore. Thus a 12-gage gun has >a bore that would take 12 balls that could be made from a 1-inch diameter >lead ball. Change that from 1 inch to 1 pound and you've got it. Gauge represents the number of lead balls of the diameter of the shotgun bore required to weigh one pound. For example, the diameter of the bore of a 12 gauge shotgun is 0.729 inches; 12 lead balls of this diameter weigh one pound. The sole exception to this is the .410 shotgun, which has a diameter of .41 inches (i.e., .41 caliber) and is actually 68 Gauge. It may be spelled gage for wire, but I've always seen it spelled with a u for shotguns. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)Globaleyes.net>
Subject: Thanks, and Happy Trails....
Date: Jun 27, 2003
Bob Nuckolls, My Quickie Q-200 is re-wired and back in the air! I'm getting ready to un-subscribe, but before I do I just wanted to thank you for the great service you provide here. I first encountered you at last year's Tandem Wing Coffey Break in Kansas where you gave a one hour talk. To tell you the truth, I wasn't expecting all that much. Maybe something on soldering technique, or what's the best alternator for homebuilts. But, as your discussion went on it was apparent that you were offering something unique and steeped in sound, rational thinking. I purchased your book and CD on the spot (the best $45 I ever spent), but since I had already put 1,200 hours on my aircraft I wasn't quite sure what I was willing to change. A couple of months later I gave a PowerPoint talk to my EAA chapter describing some basic principles from your book, and I titled the talk "Homebuilt wiring; or If I Had To Do It All Over Again, This Is How I Would Do It". Or something like that. As the winter approached I had already decided to overhaul my engine and was planning to replace my alternator with a B&C job. I started looking at the wiring mess behind the panel and was trying to figure how I could adapt some of your methods to my existing set-up. Finally, I just went after my plane with a pair of wire cutters, and 20 minutes later the hangar floor was littered with wire, switches, and circuit breakers. Re-wiring was actually fun, as was doing my schematics and wire book. I used the fuseblocks and main/endurance/battery bus approach and now I have a much more reliable, and easy to troubleshoot, system. I also purchased your low voltage warning light and it works great! I now have five hours on the new system and everything seems to be working well. Your daily on-line response to problems and your advice is invaluable and consistent. It is just terrific to have a first quality consultant so readily available (not to mention so cheap)! I no longer need the 15 or so daily e-mails so I will unsubscribe soon, but I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your service. I hope to run into you again sometime and show you my plane. Sincerely, Sam Hoskins Quickie Q-200 ~1,275 hrs http://home.globaleyes.net/shoskins/page1.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2003
From: Randy Pflanzer <F1Rocket(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Thanks, and Happy Trails....
Sam, That's a very nice message for Bob and adequately expresses the sentiments of many of us on the Aeroelectric List. Thank you for taking the time to say what many of us feel. Randy F1 Rocket http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Sam Hoskins <shoskins(at)Globaleyes.net> Date: Friday, June 27, 2003 1:16 pm Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thanks, and Happy Trails.... > > Bob Nuckolls, > > My Quickie Q-200 is re-wired and back in the air! I'm getting > ready to > un-subscribe, but before I do I just wanted to thank you for the great > service you provide here. > > I first encountered you at last year's Tandem Wing Coffey Break in > Kansaswhere you gave a one hour talk. To tell you the truth, I > wasn't expecting > all that much. Maybe something on soldering technique, or what's > the best > alternator for homebuilts. But, as your discussion went on it was > apparentthat you were offering something unique and steeped in > sound, rational > thinking. > > I purchased your book and CD on the spot (the best $45 I ever > spent), but > since I had already put 1,200 hours on my aircraft I wasn't quite > sure what > I was willing to change. > > A couple of months later I gave a PowerPoint talk to my EAA chapter > describing some basic principles from your book, and I titled the talk > "Homebuilt wiring; or If I Had To Do It All Over Again, This Is > How I Would > Do It". Or something like that. > > As the winter approached I had already decided to overhaul my > engine and was > planning to replace my alternator with a B&C job. I started > looking at the > wiring mess behind the panel and was trying to figure how I could > adapt some > of your methods to my existing set-up. Finally, I just went after > my plane > with a pair of wire cutters, and 20 minutes later the hangar floor was > littered with wire, switches, and circuit breakers. > > Re-wiring was actually fun, as was doing my schematics and wire > book. I > used the fuseblocks and main/endurance/battery bus approach and > now I have a > much more reliable, and easy to troubleshoot, system. I also > purchased your > low voltage warning light and it works great! > > I now have five hours on the new system and everything seems to be > workingwell. > > Your daily on-line response to problems and your advice is > invaluable and > consistent. It is just terrific to have a first quality consultant so > readily available (not to mention so cheap)! > > I no longer need the 15 or so daily e-mails so I will unsubscribe > soon, but > I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your service. > > I hope to run into you again sometime and show you my plane. > > Sincerely, > > Sam Hoskins > Quickie Q-200 ~1,275 hrs > http://home.globaleyes.net/shoskins/page1.htm > > > _- > ======================================================================_- = - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum - > _- > ======================================================================_- = !! NEWish !! > _- > ======================================================================_- = List Related Information > _- > ====================================================================== > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2003
Subject: SD-8 Installation
From: "Edward O'Connor" <edwardoconnor(at)compuserve.com>
I am about to wire up my RV for the SD-8 backup alternator and am running out of places to put things. I searched the acehives but couldn't figure out what to call my search. Tried the obvious but none answered my question. My question is: Is it OK to mount the relay, the capacator, and the regulator on the firewall side. Anyone have a picture they could E-Mail me as to how you mounted these items on your project. RV-Pictures would be really good. I have the main regulator mounted in the baggage compartment but don't want to mount any more items in there if I can help it. Any advice would be appreciated. Ed OConnor RV-8/Panama City FL. I only get the digest of msg so a direct e-mail in addition to post to list would be good for me. Thanks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C J Heitman" <cjh(at)execpc.com>
Subject: Mom-on toggle
Date: Jun 27, 2003
Larry, Pegasus Auto Racing Supplies stocks a special "reverse keyway" momentary toggle switch for this very reason. Pegasus has these switches custom-made by Carling. See Part Number 4422 on this page: http://pegasusautoracing.com/pdfs/047.pdf (Note however that the switch has solder lugs rather than faston terminals since racers seem to prefer solder lugs. Apparently they haven't read the AeroElectric Connection!) Chris Heitman (co-owner of Pegasus) Dousman WI RV-9A N94ME (reserved) http://my.execpc.com/~cjh/rv9a.html -----Original Message----- A follow-up on my quest for the guarded momentary-on toggle switch: I'm not having much luck so far. For use with the switchguard, they have to be mounted a certain way. Basically, the momentary-on needs to be opposite the groove in the neck that is used for the anti-rotation tab. The switch listed in the previous email below has the opposite action: (on)-on as mounted in the switchguard. So, I ordered CARLING 6FA5H73: ALLIED STOCK # 683-5119 which is listed as having a (on)-off action. But it's the same -- the momentary on is opposite the groove. So using either of the switched purchased so far, the starter will engage as soon as the switchguard is flipped open, and stay engaged until the guard is closed. That's not what I'm after. Is the only solution to file off the anti-rotation tab on the switchguard, or am I over looking something? Thanks, - Larry Bowen Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com 2003 - The year of flight! --- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com>
Subject: Mom-on toggle
Date: Jun 27, 2003
Thanks Chris. I just wrestled with this tonight. I filed off the keyway and assembled with some locktite type of stuff. Seems to be holding nicely. I'll file your info away in case I need it next time. - LB > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On > Behalf Of C J Heitman > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 10:03 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Mom-on toggle > > > > > Larry, > > Pegasus Auto Racing Supplies stocks a special "reverse > keyway" momentary toggle switch for this very reason. Pegasus > has these switches custom-made by Carling. See Part Number > 4422 on this page: http://pegasusautoracing.com/pdfs/047.pdf > (Note however that the switch has solder lugs rather than > faston terminals since racers seem to prefer solder lugs. > Apparently they haven't read the AeroElectric Connection!) > > Chris Heitman (co-owner of Pegasus) > Dousman WI > RV-9A N94ME (reserved) > http://my.execpc.com/~cjh/rv9a.html > > -----Original Message----- > > --> > > A follow-up on my quest for the guarded momentary-on toggle switch: > > I'm not having much luck so far. For use with the > switchguard, they have to be mounted a certain way. > Basically, the momentary-on needs to be opposite the groove > in the neck that is used for the anti-rotation tab. The > switch listed in the previous email below has the opposite > action: (on)-on as mounted in the switchguard. So, I ordered > > CARLING 6FA5H73: ALLIED STOCK # 683-5119 > > which is listed as having a (on)-off action. But it's the > same -- the momentary on is opposite the groove. So using > either of the switched purchased so far, the starter will > engage as soon as the switchguard is flipped open, and stay > engaged until the guard is closed. That's not what I'm after. > > Is the only solution to file off the anti-rotation tab on the > switchguard, or am I over looking something? > > Thanks, > > - > Larry Bowen > Larry(at)BowenAero.com > http://BowenAero.com > 2003 - The year of flight! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Schiff" <tomschiff(at)attbi.com>
Subject: A different way?
Date: Jun 28, 2003
I am about to close out the leading edge of the first wing of my Glastar. I need to string the wiring first as the area is inaccessible after leading edge closeout. I would like to try something different. I am thinking of running two heavy wires (Positive and ground out to the wing tip.) These wires would be protected by a fusible link or a large breaker (one breaker for each wing) and would be sized to carry the current for all of the items that are on that wing. Near the wing tip there would be a bus that distributes the power via solid state relays to the power consumers listed below. On each wing there would be 1. Landing light 2. Taxi Light 3. Navigation light 4. Strobe 5. Anything else. There would be a fusible link at the distribution point for each relay. Although if a link fused I would not have the option of resetting it I would have the backups of the items in the other wing. If there were Landing Light flashers they would be located at the wing tip bus. I would not attempt to synchronize the flashing of the left and right wings. To control the relays I was thinking of running some Computer grade 10BaseT cable. There is a version to that is approved to run through plenums in buildings and has a fire rating that I believe is similar to that of aviation wiring. Advantages. 1. I would not carry power through the airframe as a return wire would be included. 2. If I wanted to add something in the future the 10 base T wiring has 4 or 5 more wires to control relays. 3. Switches should last much longer as they would be carrying only micro amps. 4. Wiring is simplified. One pair for power and one cable for signal. 5. As the power feed will be a heavier gage than would be normally used for any individual circuit the voltage drop caused by items with a periodic high current drain (read strobes) should be minimized. With less drain comes less electrical noise. 6. In the course of building the Glastar there are at least 3 mountings and un-mountings of the wing that have to take place with only two sets of wires this would be simplified. I plan to remove the wings one more time after the time is flown off to paint them. 7. I could also use the remaining wires of the 10BaseT for some future instrumentation (angle of attack, stall warning, or something that we haven't though of yet) I am planning on running two RG-400 wires out to the wing tip but don't know their exact usage right now. I would like to run the wiring through some sort of conduit my concern is that the cable would be floating in the conduit and not tied down as it is in spam cans. Would the cable chafe from being free inside of the conduit or is this OK? So what do you folks think? It is unconventional but is it OK? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: SD-8 Installation
Date: Jun 28, 2003
For what it's worth, I mounted my regulator and capacitor on the front side of the firewall. The relay mounts on a bracket placed behind the instrument panel, over the fuel tank. I'm building a tailwind. The aircraft has not flown, but I have two friends, one of whom has a SD-8 alternator on a Q-200 with the regulator mounted on the firewall and another with a Glastar with the capacitor mounted near an SD40 alternator. Both installations seem to work, so I'm not too worried about mine. Hope this helps Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: [VAF Mailing List] Alternator Quit
>Are you using an ANL current limiter? Is that what blew? You have a fuse >for your alternator field? > >I would post this question to aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com (subscribe >first if you're not already) and see what Bob Nuckolls says. > >)_( Dan >RV-7 N714D >http://www.rvproject.com Dan, just ran across this note in my backlog of things to attend to, wasn't trying to ignore the problem. Did you hear more about the details of this event? Bob . . . >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Gregory Bitzer" <gbitzer(at)cisco.com> >To: >Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:23 AM >Subject: [VAF Mailing List] Alternator Quit > > > > Hey guys, > > > > I had my alternator quit on me Friday. More specifically it was my > > Alternator power lead breaker that quit. I wouldn't normally classify this > > as an emergency except for the fact that I was IMC at 8,000 feet in some > > pretty solid rain. Everything held together for me to shoot the approach > > and land safely. > > > > Has anyone run into problems when operating in rain? I was in some >moderate > > rain for about 25 minutes. Everything worked find when I replaced the >fuse. > > Unfortunately it was impossible for me to debug this in the air since I > > used fuses rather than reset breakers. > > > > Greg Bitzer > > RV-6 Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important >Questions. > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/1yWplB/TM > > > > Online help on this group at: > > http://help.yahoo.com/help/groups/ > > > > > > > > Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( Knowing about a thing is different than ) ( understanding it. One can know a lot ) ( and still understand nothing. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: sizing of current limiters on the B
lead > >Bob > >I am doing the Z14 system. I have a 60 amp main alt and a b&c 20 amp on the >second system. How do I size the current limiters on the B lead. ANL60 and >ANL20? > >Thanks The ANL devices have fusing characteristics that approach fusible links in terms of time-to-open at various, intermediate current levels. Since the purpose of a b-lead fuse is to protect the system against HARD fault (read 500-1000 amps) due to shorted diodes in alternator, the actual size of the protection is not terribly critical. The ANL limiters are made by a number of companies but not all companies make all sizes. Bussman (see: http://www.bussmann.com/library/bifs/2024.pdf . . . does make a pretty good spread in the low current range An ANL-35 or ANL-30 would be fine for the SD-20, an ANL-50 or ANL-60 for the 60A machine would do too. B&C stocks ANL-40 and ANL-60 which are the sizes used on their STC'd kits. If push came to shove, I'd have no heartburn with an ANL-40 on the SD-20 alternator. The SD-20 b-lead can also be protected adequately with the big-dog cousin to the ATC plastic fuses. Theres a critter called the MAXIFUSE (see: http://www.bussauto.com/pdf/maxifuse.pdf A MAX30 in a single fuse inline holder (available from many automotive parts stores along with the fuse) would be fine on the SD-20 as well. Probably less expensive and easier to install than an ANL limiter and base. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: [VAF Mailing List] Alternator Quit
Date: Jun 28, 2003
I was hoping I'd see the topic move over to the aeroelectric-list, but I don't think it did. On the VAF list there were two more messages in the thread, talking about cooling blast tubes and how water was probably the culprit. The discussion never touched the questions I asked. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: Re: [VAF Mailing List] Alternator Quit > >Are you using an ANL current limiter? Is that what blew? You have a fuse > >for your alternator field? > > > >I would post this question to aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com (subscribe > >first if you're not already) and see what Bob Nuckolls says. > > > >)_( Dan > >RV-7 N714D > >http://www.rvproject.com > > > Dan, just ran across this note in my backlog of things to attend to, > wasn't trying to ignore the problem. > > Did you hear more about the details of this event? > > Bob . . . > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Gregory Bitzer" <gbitzer(at)cisco.com> > >To: > >Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:23 AM > >Subject: [VAF Mailing List] Alternator Quit > > > > > > > Hey guys, > > > > > > I had my alternator quit on me Friday. More specifically it was my > > > Alternator power lead breaker that quit. I wouldn't normally classify this > > > as an emergency except for the fact that I was IMC at 8,000 feet in some > > > pretty solid rain. Everything held together for me to shoot the approach > > > and land safely. > > > > > > Has anyone run into problems when operating in rain? I was in some > >moderate > > > rain for about 25 minutes. Everything worked find when I replaced the > >fuse. > > > Unfortunately it was impossible for me to debug this in the air since I > > > used fuses rather than reset breakers. > > > > > > Greg Bitzer > > > RV-6 Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > Sponsor ---------------------~--> > > > Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important > >Questions. > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/1yWplB/TM > > > > > > > > Online help on this group at: > > > http://help.yahoo.com/help/groups/ > > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > > > Bob . . . > > -------------------------------------------- > ( Knowing about a thing is different than ) > ( understanding it. One can know a lot ) > ( and still understand nothing. ) > ( C.F. Kettering ) > -------------------------------------------- > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Tach Auto Switch...
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
I'm using a Subaru EA-81 engine which currently has a primary and backup ignition. I'd like to setup a switch with two separate power feeds that allows me to toggle between the two ignitions (only one should run at a time). However, by having two power feeds into the switch I lose the ability to switch the tach lead as well without installing another switch which then becomes more complicated for basic operations. So I started thinking about setting up an auto-tach lead switch for my tach gauge (negative side coil based). My thoughts are that if I used a basic relay that was powered by the same wire that would power my ignition I could design a simple circuit that would switch the tach lead based on which ignition was active. However, since I'm switching the tach lead that is connected to the negative side of the coil and my deep understanding of electronics is limited, I was hoping to find out if my base idea was okay or if I'm setting myself up for some unknown issues related to the coil/tach operation. Also, if the relay switch of the tach lead is okay, would it still be standard practice to put a diode on this small type of relay? I hope this question isn't too basic and any input is appreciated. Thanks! Don Honabach Tempe, AZ - 601HDS ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: [VAF Mailing List] Alternator Quit
> >I was hoping I'd see the topic move over to the aeroelectric-list, but I >don't think it did. > >On the VAF list there were two more messages in the thread, talking about >cooling blast tubes and how water was probably the culprit. The discussion >never touched the questions I asked. Hmmm . . . understand. Can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: A different way?
> >I am about to close out the leading edge of the first wing of my >Glastar. I need to string the wiring first as the area is inaccessible >after leading edge closeout. > >I would like to try something different. I am thinking of running two >heavy wires (Positive and ground out to the wing tip.) These wires would >be protected by a fusible link or a large breaker (one breaker for each >wing) and would be sized to carry the current for all of the items that >are on that wing. Near the wing tip there would be a bus that >distributes the power via solid state relays to the power consumers >listed below. > >On each wing there would be >1. Landing light >2. Taxi Light >3. Navigation light >4. Strobe >5. Anything else. > >There would be a fusible link at the distribution point for each relay. >Although if a link fused I would not have the option of resetting it I >would have the backups of the items in the other wing. Downstream circuit protection should have a fusing constant a fraction that of the upstream protection. For example, a faulted 22AWG fuselink downstream of a 20A breaker will open the breaker first. Suggest a ATC fuseblock for a remote distribution bus. >If there were >Landing Light flashers they would be located at the wing tip bus. I >would not attempt to synchronize the flashing of the left and right >wings. > >To control the relays I was thinking of running some Computer grade >10BaseT cable. There is a version to that is approved to run through >plenums in buildings and has a fire rating that I believe is similar to >that of aviation wiring. > >Advantages. >1. I would not carry power through the airframe as a return wire would >be included. >2. If I wanted to add something in the future the 10 base T wiring has 4 >or 5 more wires to control relays. Break one wire and everything quits . . . >3. Switches should last much longer as they would be carrying only micro >amps. How long will they last if you don't do this? I'm flying 40 year old rentals with original switches still in place . . . >4. Wiring is simplified. One pair for power and one cable for signal. The "wiring" may be simple but the total parts count in the system has multiplied by factors of 10 or more . . . all othing things being equal, reliability is inversely proportional to parts count. >5. As the power feed will be a heavier gage than would be normally used >for any individual circuit the voltage drop caused by items with a >periodic high current drain (read strobes) should be minimized. With >less drain comes less electrical noise. Explain the physics to support this assertion. >6. In the course of building the Glastar there are at least 3 mountings >and un-mountings of the wing that have to take place with only two sets >of wires this would be simplified. I plan to remove the wings one more >time after the time is flown off to paint them. Don't hook things up until the wings are on to stay. I'd venture a guess that from same fleet of airplanes I fly, wings have never been removed from most of them. >7. I could also use the remaining wires of the 10BaseT for some future >instrumentation (angle of attack, stall warning, or something that we >haven't though of yet) > >I am planning on running two RG-400 wires out to the wing tip but don't >know their exact usage right now. > >I would like to run the wiring through some sort of conduit my concern >is that the cable would be floating in the conduit and not tied down as >it is in spam cans. Would the cable chafe from being free inside of the >conduit or is this OK? > >So what do you folks think? It is unconventional but is it OK? Henry Ford and Charles Kettering didn't worry about anyone's endorsement before launching a new idea. It either flies or flops on it's own merit and risks are never zero. Not all of their ideas flew but when they did, the results were gratifying if not spectacular. If you have a good foundation based on experience and/or considered analysis of the fundamentals, then you can get a leg up on the market by being there first. Your selling points have to offer some combination of lowered installation time/cost, lower maintenance time/cost, and/or increased service life by some factor that makes it a compelling design. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: SD-8 Installation
> > >I am about to wire up my RV for the SD-8 backup alternator and am running >out of places to put things. I searched the acehives but couldn't figure out >what to call my search. Tried the obvious but none answered my question. >My question is: Is it OK to mount the relay, the capacator, and the >regulator on the firewall side. Anyone have a picture they could E-Mail me >as to how you mounted these items on your project. RV-Pictures would be >really good. I have the main regulator mounted in the baggage compartment >but don't want to mount any more items in there if I can help it. Any advice >would be appreciated. All of those things live well on the firewall. Their service life might be reduced by the extra temperature stresses but given the huge number of accessories that live for many hundreds of flight hours on the firewall, I suspect the differences would be difficult to quantify reliably. I wouldn't let any good firewall real estate go begging for utilization if other spaces are cramped. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Velocity Strobe and Ammeter questions
> >Bob/Others - > >Just finished reading the 'Connection (many thanks) in preparation for >designing/wiring my Velocity XL (www.velocityxl.com) and had a couple of >quick (OK, mayber they're not quick, but straightforward at least) questions. > >First - I bleieve you recommend attaching both ends of the Whelen strobe >shielding on composites. What's the best way to attach the AL foil, >solder wire to it? I've installed a Molex connector for service at the >strake-wing junction, what kind of connector would you recommend there, >another Molex? And finally, would it be sufficient to put a ring terminal >under the mounting screw for the ground connection at the light fixture, >or should I solder the sheild to the housing, or what? There is a bare, stranded wired IN ADDITION to the three insulated wires under the shield. This forth wire is called a "drain wire" and its purpose is to provide you with a convenient means for making electrical connection to the shield-foil which is, as you've noted, impossible to make connection with. You can extend the drain wire with a short piece of wire, install a ring terminal and attach to mounting screw for fixture. If you DON'T do this, in all probability, you won't know the difference. >Second - I'm planning on going all-electric, probably with the Blue >Mountain EFIS and a 20 vac-pad-mounted backup essential load alternator, >and was wondering about placement of the shunt. The Z figure for canards >shows it in the battery ground line to the canard bulkhead, which is were >I would like to put it and measure the current to or from the battery >regardless of configuration. How would you use this reading? Drawing energy from either battery in Z-14 assumes both alternators have crapped. If you purposely load a battery even when one alternator is still working, it should be done with the knowledge of an accurate load analysis combined with considered preventative maintenance of the battery. If you subscribe to this philosophy, then having instrumentation to measure either battery current or voltage while in flight becomes non-information. > The dual-alt figure shows one shunt for each alternator to measure > their individual currents, with which I'm not postive how I'd tell if the > battery were discarging, If your low voltage warning lights are dark, batteries are NOT being discharged. > . . . and I don't think is relevent if I only use the second alternator > in the event of primary failure. Which setup would you prefer (and why) > with my setup? If you use B&C alternators or equal quality product in both slots, likelihood of alternator failure due to hardware issues is probably 1/10th that of alternators flying around in spam-cans. Likelihood of dual alternator failure during any single 3-hour flight is on the same order as having a propeller or wing fall off. A figure Z-14 system with NO instrumentation other than low voltage warning lights is a VERY comfortable combination to fly. It requires a minimum of pilot decision, action and no extra-ordinary monitoring after failure for relaxed continued flight to airport of intended destination. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Tach Auto Switch...
I did exactly that, but did not fly with the plane yet. I used a relay whose coil is powered from the ignition 2 +12V circuit. The default source (no power to the relay coil) is the ign 1 negative side of coil. If the relay coil is energized, then, I read the ign 2 negative side of coil. I tested this in my garage when I tried my engine and it worked. I did not install an additional diode, but I used an automotive relay (those you can get as accessories for anti-theft or remote starting systems). See the relay mounted at the top of firewall near the ignition system. http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601/images/DCP02042.JPG Michel --- Don Honabach wrote: > Honabach" > > I'm using a Subaru EA-81 engine which currently has > a primary and backup > ignition. I'd like to setup a switch with two > separate power feeds that > allows me to toggle between the two ignitions (only > one should run at a > time). However, by having two power feeds into the > switch I lose the > ability to switch the tach lead as well without > installing another > switch which then becomes more complicated for basic > operations. So I > started thinking about setting up an auto-tach lead > switch for my tach > gauge (negative side coil based). > > My thoughts are that if I used a basic relay that > was powered by the > same wire that would power my ignition I could > design a simple circuit > that would switch the tach lead based on which > ignition was active. > However, since I'm switching the tach lead that is > connected to the > negative side of the coil and my deep understanding > of electronics is > limited, I was hoping to find out if my base idea > was okay or if I'm > setting myself up for some unknown issues related to > the coil/tach > operation. Also, if the relay switch of the tach > lead is okay, would it > still be standard practice to put a diode on this > small type of relay? > > I hope this question isn't too basic and any input > is appreciated. > > ===== ---------------------------- Michel Therrien CH601-HD http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601 http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby __________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Starter Off Switch with Single EI?
Date: Jun 28, 2003
I am installing single electronic ignition and will most likely upgrade to dual at some future point. As I'm leaving the magneto withoutan impulse coupler on the airplaneI'm going to wire my airplane such that the mag is grounded when the starter is on (similar to Figure Z-11) An upper, spring loaded position on the switch will activate the starter ground out the mag simultaneously. I can see myself accidently hitting the starter when checking mag drop. What is the best way to maintain the 'Starter is off once the Engine is Running' idea with only one mag? Right now I'm planning on running power for the strobe and starter through a 2-3 switch such that the starter isdisabled when the strobe light is on.Is there a better way to get the 'Starter On=Mag Off' 'Engine Running = Starter Disabled' idea? Grant ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Benford2(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 28, 2003
Subject: Re: Tach Auto Switch...
In a message dated 6/28/2003 10:22:15 AM Mountain Daylight Time, don(at)pcperfect.com writes: > posted by: "Don Honabach" > > I'm using a Subaru EA-81 engine which currently has a primary and backup > ignition. I'd like to setup a switch with two separate power feeds that > allows me to toggle between the two ignitions (only one should run at a > time). However, by having two power feeds into the switch I lose the > ability to switch the tach lead as well without installing another > switch which then becomes more complicated for basic operations. So I > started thinking about setting up an auto-tach lead switch for my tach > gauge (negative side coil based). > > My thoughts are that if I used a basic relay that was powered by the > same wire that would power my ignition I could design a simple circuit > that would switch the tach lead based on which ignition was active. > However, since I'm switching the tach lead that is connected to the > negative side of the coil and my deep understanding of electronics is > limited, I was hoping to find out if my base idea was okay or if I'm > setting myself up for some unknown issues related to the coil/tach > operation. Also, if the relay switch of the tach lead is okay, would it > still be standard practice to put a diode on this small type of relay? > > I hope this question isn't too basic and any input is appreciated. > > Thanks! > Don Honabach > Tempe, AZ - 601HDS > > I am running duel MSD ignitions on my Ford and what i did was to use a triple pole double throw switch. As you cycle between both Ignition systems the third pole switches the positive lead going to the tach. Bob gave me the info on sources for this switch a few months back. If ya want I will look back at my files to find it. My problem was the first switch I ordered was physically too big because I had already drilled out the holes for my Ign switch and the body of it hit my transponder. I bought another one from a different vendor and that one barely fit. If ya want I will dig out the one I didn.t use and and give you the part #. I do remember it was not cheap. Ben Haas N801BH. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool...
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Hey Everyone, I'm going nuts with these Insulated PIDG-Spade Connectors and trying to use some of my existing Racket Tools with PIDG dies. What I notice is that the die for the connector is actually a little bigger than the AMP PIDG connectors (i.e. the metal portion underneath the insulation isn't quite as long as the racket based die). Accordingly to an article that BK pointed me to on his site, it talks about crimping 1/3 back for the wire and 2/3 back for the wire's insulation. Since the racket die is bigger than the crimpeable metal portion of the connector, I end up with a crimp that starts at the beginning and another one that ends at the end (if that makes sense). I also found that Amp/Tyco has something called a Pro Crimper II and the associated dies available for AMP PIDG connectors. Do I just need to buy this or the one available at Aero-Electric? If that's the case, that's great, just don't want to find out that I'm misunderstanding how the crimp is supposed to work before adding to my crimper tool chest. For what it's worth, I tried searching on AMP, Molex, and Ideal's websites and wasn't able to find any documentation on using the associated tools. For documentation on using other crimpers, just not PIDG crimpers. Thanks! Don ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Follow Up Question - PIDG
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
As a quick follow up. On the Insulated AMP PIDG connectors there is what appears to be an open barrel that sort of funnels into the wire entry point on the connector. When doing the 2nd wire insultation crimp, do you crimp just before this barrel or do you crimp the barrel? Thanks!!! Don ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Neville Kilford" <nkilford(at)etravel.org>
Subject: Re: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool...
Date: Jun 29, 2003
Don, The tool you mention, the Pro Crimper, is the one I just bought, and I can tell you it makes a pretty good crimp. The dies are a perfect fit. It does both crimps in one go, and I simply can't pull the wire out after it's done. However, the AMP dies are large too, just as you say. I think Bob's article is talking about a very narrow-jawed crimp tool, that you have to use twice to fasten one terminal (once for the wire, and once for the insulation). However, with the Pro Crimper tool, rather than doing two separate thin crimps across the PIDG connectors, it does two large crimps in one go, that cover virtually all of the available grip, exactly as you describe. If your tool is doing as I think, it's the same as the AMP tool. I've read Bob's article "Anatomy of a Good Solderless Terminal Connection" and it seems to meet all his requirements. If the crimp is supporting the insulation, holding the wire properly, and is a strong mechanical joint, I can't think there's a problem. Hope this helps. Nev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool... > > Hey Everyone, > > I'm going nuts with these Insulated PIDG-Spade Connectors and trying to > use some of my existing Racket Tools with PIDG dies. > > What I notice is that the die for the connector is actually a little > bigger than the AMP PIDG connectors (i.e. the metal portion underneath > the insulation isn't quite as long as the racket based die). Accordingly > to an article that BK pointed me to on his site, it talks about crimping > 1/3 back for the wire and 2/3 back for the wire's insulation. Since the > racket die is bigger than the crimpeable metal portion of the connector, > I end up with a crimp that starts at the beginning and another one that > ends at the end (if that makes sense). > > I also found that Amp/Tyco has something called a Pro Crimper II and the > associated dies available for AMP PIDG connectors. Do I just need to buy > this or the one available at Aero-Electric? If that's the case, that's > great, just don't want to find out that I'm misunderstanding how the > crimp is supposed to work before adding to my crimper tool chest. > > For what it's worth, I tried searching on AMP, Molex, and Ideal's > websites and wasn't able to find any documentation on using the > associated tools. For documentation on using other crimpers, just not > PIDG crimpers. > > Thanks! > Don > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Starter Off Switch with Single EI?
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: "David" <David(at)ChalmersFamily.com>
I have heard that starter damage occurs when the engine kicks back. This can occur after a failed start as you release the start switch and the engine is still turning. The now-ungrounded mag fires just before the engine reaches TDC and you potentially damage the starter. One 0-200 owner said he gets 3 kick backs per starter before it has to be replaced (this was with an impulse-coupled mag) I took this to heart on my Q200 and installed a circuit to disable the mag for a few seconds after the starter switch is released. It's very simple and requires no power other than the starter power. Take the switched 12V starter power through a diode to a relay coil. Connect the relay contacts to the mag to ground it during start. To keep the relay energized for a few seconds after the starter is released, put a large capacitor across the relay coil. The relay will close when you press the start button and open a second or 2 after you release it. Probably a good idea to allow the circuit to be disconnected from the mag in an emergency. I grounded the mag on the tach side of a 1/4A panel mounted fuse powering the tachometer. I have been using this for 80 hours. EI on the left, mag on the right. Works great. You can tell it's working because the tach stays at zero for a couple of seconds after start. I know it doesn't solve your concern about activating the starter in flight but you may want to consider it to protect your starter with a non-impulse mag. David Chalmers -----Original Message----- From: Tinne maha [mailto:tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com] Subject: AeroElectric-List: Starter Off Switch with Single EI? I am installing single electronic ignition and will most likely upgrade to dual at some future point. As I'm leaving the magneto withoutan impulse coupler on the airplaneI'm going to wire my airplane such that the mag is grounded when the starter is on (similar to Figure Z-11) An upper, spring loaded position on the switch will activate the starter ground out the mag simultaneously. I can see myself accidently hitting the starter when checking mag drop. What is the best way to maintain the 'Starter is off once the Engine is Running' idea with only one mag? Right now I'm planning on running power for the strobe and starter through a 2-3 switch such that the starter isdisabled when the strobe light is on.Is there a better way to get the 'Starter On=Mag Off' 'Engine Running = Starter Disabled' idea? Grant ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: A different way?
Date: Jun 28, 2003
Way to go Tom! I have been looking at a simple way of doing this on a single conductor +ground. There are lots of possibilities. As Bob would point out, maybe with some increase of complexity. And although this may be true, weight savings is a driving force. But consider that not all the wiring goes to the end of the wing. Some goes to fuel pumps, sensors, flap motors, speed brakes, whatever... Lower voltage drop does not correlate with low noise. Remember resistive spark plug cables are quiet. Consider coaxial cable with the shield as ground. if the outer insulation wears through, no problem. Or consider good quality twisted or flat two wire lamp cordage, it is very good stuff, and it comes in 105 DegC. Good luck, Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge MA 01550-2705 Phone (508) 764-2072 Email: emjones(at)charter.net I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did. Yogi Berra ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Voltage Regulator
Date: Jun 28, 2003
At this price of $10, why wouldn't something like this solid state voltage regulator from J C Whitney work? http://www.jcwhitney.com/productnoitem.jhtml?CATID=42320&BQ=jcw2 I suggest one could buy two or three and have a spare or two. Larry in Indiana, RV7 Tip-up TMX-O-360 Working on Finish Kit Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But ..... is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect. ..Author unknown ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool...
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Nev, Thanks for your comments and help! Do you happen to have a picture of spade terminal or similar that has been crimped with the AMP Pro Crimper? Sometimes just seeing what the preferred tool is supposed to do would tell me if the one I have is essentially the same. I've searched the Internet and haven't been able to find one. I was especially surprised that I couldn't find a picture or tech document on Amp/Tyco's that would show a proper crimp using their tool. For what it's worth, I'd prefer to go the ratchet route. Just played around with the non-ratchet crimper and somehow ended up crimping so hard that I broke the wire inside (wire insulation was removed clean with no nicks and the wire wasn't moved much at all before testing on the fuse block). I'm sure I could get the hang of it, but I'd rather get known repeatability. Thanks! Don -----Original Message----- From: Neville Kilford [mailto:nkilford(at)etravel.org] Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool... --> Don, The tool you mention, the Pro Crimper, is the one I just bought, and I can tell you it makes a pretty good crimp. The dies are a perfect fit. It does both crimps in one go, and I simply can't pull the wire out after it's done. However, the AMP dies are large too, just as you say. I think Bob's article is talking about a very narrow-jawed crimp tool, that you have to use twice to fasten one terminal (once for the wire, and once for the insulation). However, with the Pro Crimper tool, rather than doing two separate thin crimps across the PIDG connectors, it does two large crimps in one go, that cover virtually all of the available grip, exactly as you describe. If your tool is doing as I think, it's the same as the AMP tool. I've read Bob's article "Anatomy of a Good Solderless Terminal Connection" and it seems to meet all his requirements. If the crimp is supporting the insulation, holding the wire properly, and is a strong mechanical joint, I can't think there's a problem. Hope this helps. Nev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool... > --> > > Hey Everyone, > > I'm going nuts with these Insulated PIDG-Spade Connectors and trying > to use some of my existing Racket Tools with PIDG dies. > > What I notice is that the die for the connector is actually a little > bigger than the AMP PIDG connectors (i.e. the metal portion underneath > the insulation isn't quite as long as the racket based die). > Accordingly to an article that BK pointed me to on his site, it talks > about crimping 1/3 back for the wire and 2/3 back for the wire's > insulation. Since the racket die is bigger than the crimpeable metal > portion of the connector, I end up with a crimp that starts at the > beginning and another one that ends at the end (if that makes sense). > > I also found that Amp/Tyco has something called a Pro Crimper II and > the associated dies available for AMP PIDG connectors. Do I just need > to buy this or the one available at Aero-Electric? If that's the case, > that's great, just don't want to find out that I'm misunderstanding > how the crimp is supposed to work before adding to my crimper tool > chest. > > For what it's worth, I tried searching on AMP, Molex, and Ideal's > websites and wasn't able to find any documentation on using the > associated tools. For documentation on using other crimpers, just not > PIDG crimpers. > > Thanks! > Don > > direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: Jim Bean <jim-bean(at)att.net>
Subject: Alternator Belt
Listers, Does anybody know of a source for the right size alternator belt for a Lycoming IO360. Hopefully automotive or industrial. I hate to have to pay Lycoming's price. Local car mechanic matched the cross section but that size is not made in very many lenghts, just too long and too short. Cars don't use individual belts anymore. Thanks Jim Bean RV-8 engine room ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: A different way?
Date: Jun 28, 2003
Hi Tom, I will leave the electrical advise for those more qualified. As for the wires inside channels or tubes: PVC water tubing is being used by quite a few that I have seen. The diameter is of course determined by the expected number and size of wires etc. that will pass through. I am building an RV-6A and I chose to use light weight black vinyl water tubing about 3/4" dia. though Vans supplies a good ribbed tubing that is very light weight. To stop the wires from suffering abrasion damage use a full double length plus some extra of nylon cord that will stay in the tube with the wires. Go to an upholstery shop or a sewing supply store and get some of the white upholstery padding used to make soft cushions. the material I am talking about looks like coarse cotton batten. This material is white in color and will not rot. You will not need much to make a suitable number of little pads that then can be tied into the cord at close enough intervals to Act like a series of gun cleaner pads that will hold the wires etc. in place. The cord will tied at the ends to form a loop that will hang out of the tube at both ends. The pads will be tied along the length of one side of the loop. With the padded cord in place the wires will stay lightly snug. With a helper at the other end, the loop can be used to pull or snake wires in or out what ever the future need may be. Happy building, Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Schiff" <tomschiff(at)attbi.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: A different way? > > I am about to close out the leading edge of the first wing of my > Glastar. I need to string the wiring first as the area is inaccessible > after leading edge closeout. >SNIP< > I would like to run the wiring through some sort of conduit my concern > is that the cable would be floating in the conduit and not tied down as > it is in spam cans. Would the cable chafe from being free inside of the > conduit or is this OK? > > So what do you folks think? It is unconventional but is it OK? ====================================================================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Alternator Belt
Date: Jun 28, 2003
Get the metric equivalent. There are about 2.5 cm to the inch so their lengths have more options...about 2 and 1/2 times as many. If you need matched sets, just buying the same metric length will give you a good set without added expense. W.W. Grainger has a very wide selection but I did not see metric sized belts on their web site. Pages 256-262. I believe that many auto parts distributors have the v-belts in metric sizes. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Bean" <jim-bean(at)att.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator Belt > > Listers, > Does anybody know of a source for the right size alternator belt for a > Lycoming IO360. Hopefully automotive or industrial. I hate to have to > pay Lycoming's price. > Local car mechanic matched the cross section but that size is not made > in very many lenghts, just too long and too short. Cars don't use > individual belts anymore. > Thanks Jim Bean > RV-8 engine room > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Alternator Belt
Date: Jun 28, 2003
Gates has metric sized belts so if you can find a Gates distributor... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Bean" <jim-bean(at)att.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator Belt > > Listers, > Does anybody know of a source for the right size alternator belt for a > Lycoming IO360. Hopefully automotive or industrial. I hate to have to > pay Lycoming's price. > Local car mechanic matched the cross section but that size is not made > in very many lenghts, just too long and too short. Cars don't use > individual belts anymore. > Thanks Jim Bean > RV-8 engine room > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator Belt
Date: Jun 28, 2003
As far as I know, the NAPA brand belts handled by NAPA are made by Gates. I had to try a few different sizes before I found one that fit OK on my IO-360 but they were real good about letting me return the ones that didn't fit. Bill > > > > Listers, > > Does anybody know of a source for the right size alternator belt for a > > Lycoming IO360. Hopefully automotive or industrial. I hate to have to > > pay Lycoming's price. > > Local car mechanic matched the cross section but that size is not made > > in very many lenghts, just too long and too short. Cars don't use > > individual belts anymore. > > Thanks Jim Bean > > RV-8 engine room ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator Belt
> >Listers, >Does anybody know of a source for the right size alternator belt for a >Lycoming IO360. Hopefully automotive or industrial. I hate to have to >pay Lycoming's price. >Local car mechanic matched the cross section but that size is not made >in very many lenghts, just too long and too short. Cars don't use >individual belts anymore. >Thanks Jim Bean >RV-8 engine room The belt can vary depending on your starter ring gear size and alternator attach hardware and its pulley size. Many stores will exchange a belt if you take the wrong size one home to try. A well stocked auto parts store will have what you need, just check with them before you buy about exchanging for another size if needed. Call B&C at 316.283.8000 and talk to Bill. He'll be able to ask you some questions that will let him get you very close to the right belt the first time. Bob .. . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Starter Off Switch with Single EI?
> > >I have heard that starter damage occurs when the engine kicks back. This >can occur after a failed start as you release the start switch and the >engine is still turning. The now-ungrounded mag fires just before the >engine reaches TDC and you potentially damage the starter. One 0-200 owner >said he gets 3 kick backs per starter before it has to be replaced (this >was with an impulse-coupled mag) If he would throw away the key switch and put in toggles + a push button, the problem goes away . . . >I took this to heart on my Q200 and installed a circuit to disable the mag >for a few seconds after the starter switch is released. It's very simple >and requires no power other than the starter power. Take the switched 12V >starter power through a diode to a relay coil. Connect the relay contacts >to the mag to ground it during start. To keep the relay energized for a >few seconds after the starter is released, put a large capacitor across >the relay coil. The relay will close when you press the start button and >open a second or 2 after you release it. Probably a good idea to allow the >circuit to be disconnected from the mag in an emergency. I grounded the >mag on the tach side of a 1/4A panel mounted fuse powering the tachometer. >I have been using this for 80 hours. EI on the left, mag on the right. >Works great. You can tell it's working because the tach stays at zero for >a couple of seconds after start. I know it doesn't solve your concern >about activating the starter in flight but you may want to consider it to >protect your starter with a non-impulse mag. See figure Z-11 of http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf This shows how to take two spring loaded toggle switches for magneto control and wire the starter engage circuity through the switches such that starter cannot be engaged with the non-impulse coupled mag ON. Works with either a mag or EI on the left side. >I am installing single electronic ignition and will most likely upgrade to >dual at some future point. As I'm leaving the magneto withoutan impulse >coupler on the airplaneI'm going to wire my airplane such that the mag is >grounded when the starter is on (similar to Figure Z-11) An upper, spring >loaded position on the switch will activate the starter ground out the >mag simultaneously. I can see myself accidently hitting the starter when >checking mag drop. What is the best way to maintain the 'Starter is off >once the Engine is Running' idea with only one mag? If you wire per Z-11 with EI on left mag, then the engine will start on electronic ignition . . . this takes care of pre-flight for the electronic ignition. After engine starts, turn right mag on. This disables starter. Turn EI off to pre-flight the right mag. Starter is still disengaged. Turn EI back on and finish your checklist. >Right now I'm planning on running power for the strobe and starter through >a 2-3 switch such that the starter isdisabled when the strobe light is >on.Is there a better way to get the 'Starter On=Mag Off' 'Engine Running >= Starter Disabled' idea? Don't understand why you think you need to do this . . . BTW . . .The mag drop test has significance for a pair of identically timed mags but is meaningless with a mixture of systems. The best test is to simply see that the engine runs smoothly on either ignition system irrespective of observed RPM variations between the two systems. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool...
> >Nev, > >Thanks for your comments and help! > >Do you happen to have a picture of spade terminal or similar that has >been crimped with the AMP Pro Crimper? Sometimes just seeing what the >preferred tool is supposed to do would tell me if the one I have is >essentially the same. I've searched the Internet and haven't been able >to find one. I was especially surprised that I couldn't find a picture >or tech document on Amp/Tyco's that would show a proper crimp using >their tool. > >For what it's worth, I'd prefer to go the ratchet route. Just played >around with the non-ratchet crimper and somehow ended up crimping so >hard that I broke the wire inside (wire insulation was removed clean >with no nicks and the wire wasn't moved much at all before testing on >the fuse block). I'm sure I could get the hang of it, but I'd rather get >known repeatability. Suggest you check out articles at http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf and http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html There's more to it than looks . . . with some practice you can use a non-rachet tool . . . but when a ratchet tool is so inexpensive http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#rct-1 http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html Why struggle with it? >However, the AMP dies are large too, just as you say. I think Bob's >article is talking about a very narrow-jawed crimp tool, that you have >to use twice to fasten one terminal (once for the wire, and once for the >insulation). However, with the Pro Crimper tool, rather than doing two >separate thin crimps across the PIDG connectors, it does two large >crimps in one go, that cover virtually all of the available grip, >exactly as you describe. You can use a two-shot hand tool but I prefer the single stroke tools similar to that cite above. >If your tool is doing as I think, it's the same as the AMP tool. I've >read Bob's article "Anatomy of a Good Solderless Terminal Connection" >and it seems to meet all his requirements. If the crimp is supporting >the insulation, holding the wire properly, and is a strong mechanical >joint, I can't think there's a problem. The article just talks about how to check your tool and technique irrespective of the type of tool you use. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Voltage Regulator
> > >At this price of $10, why wouldn't something like this solid state voltage >regulator from J C Whitney work? > >http://www.jcwhitney.com/productnoitem.jhtml?CATID=42320&BQ=jcw2 > >I suggest one could buy two or three and have a spare or two. The picture shown doesn't match the part. For that series of cars, you get a regulator like the Standard VR166 which I've referenced many times as a "generic Ford" regulator. You can get them even cheaper yet. See http://www.globemotorists.com/TVI%20Products/tvi_voltage_regulators.htm Even this link doesn't tell you what the VR166 looks like. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/Generic_Ford_Reg.jpg Show this picture to any parts store. Tell them you want one that looks like this. As far as I know, this package was unique to that one series of Ford Motor Co products and any regulator you get that looks like this will work. The link I cited above gives bunch of cross-reference numbers by various manufacturers. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RVEIGHTA(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 29, 2003
Subject: Success Story
A while back I posted a message to the list saying that my import turn coordinator was so noisy it made my radio transmissions unreadable. Bob referred me to his article on "Hammering the Radio Shack 270-030 filter into submission" Well to make a long story short, I bought the filter kit for $4 and put it together per Bob's instructions, installed it in my RV-8A and now my radio works great! Thanks, Bob...... Walt Shipley Greeneville, TN ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2003
From: Van Caulart <etivc(at)iaw.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Tach Auto Switch...
Don: Try the MSD Tach Splitter which has two diodes installed so that you can select either ign and see the tach indication on a single tach. PeterVC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2003
From: Alexander Balic <alex157(at)direcway.com>
Subject: Canard Pusher Ground System
Bob/everyone, I have the Z-15, and it seems to show ground going from the battery to a post on the foreword ground bus. Then a second #2 cable going from the foreword ground bus to the rear mounted ground bus. Then a 3rd cable (or strap) going to the engine to ground bus for the starter/alternator. I spoke with Tim at B&C, he said that he would not want to see 3 bolt connections between the battery and the engine case. If I have the engine gauges (obviously in the rear), and some ground to the engine block, and some don't - (fuel pressure comes to mind) so Tim suggested that I run the ground to the block directly, then use the strap to go to the firewall mounted ground buss, then run say a #6 up to the front from the rear ground to front ground buss, so then I can ground the instruments at the front, and even though the senders ground to the case, the instrument grounds run back there before going to the battery. Please let me know about this, I am at this point, and need to get some copper flying!! :) Thanks Alex ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net>
Subject: KX155 Pin Identification
Date: Jun 29, 2003
Hi all, Could someone please point me to a diagram that defines the pins on a King KX155 Nav/Com?? I have the wiring diagram but have not been able to determine which pin on the radio represents which pin on the diagram. I know - sounds pretty silly but I can't see any markings on the radio other than an "S" (even took the covers off). Thanks! Jon Finley N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 450 Hrs. TT - 1 Hr Engine Apple Valley, Minnesota http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Crimp tools for Molex Avikrimp or PIDG terminations
Date: Jun 29, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Gaylen, Thanks a million - this is exactly what I was looking for. The pictures answer all my questions. I've been surprised that you can purchase a pair of cheap crimpers and they don't even have instructions - seems a little odd since we aren't born with the knowledge of how to do a proper crimp or more importantly how to crimp the terminal as the engineer's invisioned to provide a robust connection. Thanks Again! Don Here is our "How To" page for mil spec termination crimping: http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/Page7.html -----Original Message----- From: Gaylen Lerohl [mailto:lerohl@rea-alp.com] Subject: Crimp tools for Molex Avikrimp or PIDG terminations Don: Check out our Eclipse 300-054 tool and the 300-058 die set or the Sargent SC4140 tool with dieset. Both are ratcheted tools and these die sets will do the double crimp in one operation. http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/SargentBrandCrimpers.html http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/EclipseCrimpTools.html Here is our "How To" page for mil spec termination crimping: http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/Page7.html Best Regards, Gaylen Lerohl www.terminaltown.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Crimper - Saga ...
Date: Jun 29, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Hey Everyone, I was talking with an engineering friend and he mentioned that they also make ratchet crimpers that put 3 crimps on the wire and one crimp on the insulation. This sounded like a neat idea, but he then added that it's only used for high high high end stuff like satellites, etc. In any case, I was curious if any one had any experience with these crimpers - where to buy, how much, overkill, etc.? Thanks! Don ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2003
From: Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com>
Subject: Re: KX155 Pin Identification
Jon, I have one of those Quik Shot books http://www.qsproducts.com/ It has the pinouts for the kx-155. If you want to borrow it or anything. Jon Finley wrote: > > Hi all, > > Could someone please point me to a diagram that defines the pins on a > King KX155 Nav/Com?? I have the wiring diagram but have not been able > to determine which pin on the radio represents which pin on the diagram. > I know - sounds pretty silly but I can't see any markings on the radio > other than an "S" (even took the covers off). > > Thanks! > > Jon Finley > N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 450 Hrs. TT - 1 Hr Engine > Apple Valley, Minnesota > http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96 > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Crimper - Saga ...
> >Hey Everyone, > >I was talking with an engineering friend and he mentioned that they also >make ratchet crimpers that put 3 crimps on the wire and one crimp on the >insulation. This sounded like a neat idea, but he then added that it's >only used for high high high end stuff like satellites, etc. In any >case, I was curious if any one had any experience with these crimpers - >where to buy, how much, overkill, etc.? I'd like to know of the brand and part number of such a product. I cannot imagine how this makes any sense. Consider that the "wire" crimp in a PIDG or about any other small terminal has a wire engagement length of perhaps .125" and often less. Consider further that the ultimate goal of making a terminal and wire become a single entity is satisfied by the "gas tight" interface achieved by pressing the two malleable metals into such tight proximity that gasses at the molecular level are excluded. If this can be achieved with what might be called a 'single crimp' used to attach hundreds of millions of terminals over the past 60 years, I'm having trouble visualizing how (a)one can even split that .125" of wire grip area into three separate regions and (b) what might be gained by such an effort assuming it was even possible or practical. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 29, 2003
Subject: Connecting Whelen Strobes
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >Bob/Others - First - I bleieve you recommend attaching both ends of the Whelen >strobe shielding on composites. What's the best way to attach the AL foil, >solder wire to it? I've installed a Molex connector for service at the >strake-wing junction, what kind of connector would you recommend there, >another Molex? And finally, would it be sufficient to put a ring terminal >under the mounting screw for the ground connection at the light fixture, >or should I solder the sheild to the housing, or what? There is a bare, stranded wired IN ADDITION to the three insulated wires under the shield. This forth wire is called a "drain wire" and its purpose is to provide you with a convenient means for making electrical connection to the shield-foil which is, as you've noted, impossible to make connection with. You can extend the drain wire with a short piece of wire, install a ring terminal and attach to mounting screw for fixture. If you DON'T do this, in all probability, you won't know the difference.>> 6/29/2003 Hello Bob Nuckolls and Bret Ferrell, I'd like to flog this horse a few more lashes. 1) Bob Nuckolls really says the drain wire should be attached at both ends on a composite aircraft? But not on a metal aircraft? Why? 2) When one receives the strobe light installation kit from Whelen the cable already has two AMP plastic 3 wire connectors attached, one on each end. These connectors are the ones that plug into the mating 3 wire connectors at the strobe light ends. After cutting the cable somewhere in the middle and snaking those two cut ends through the airframe to the vicinity of the strobe power supply one installs the other two (different) appropriate 3 wire connectors provided by Whelen and plugs the cables into the power supply. 3) The installation instructions say that the drain wire should be connected to the housing / mounting of the power supply. Easy enough to do by leaving the drain wire longer when you cut the cable, strip it, and install the 3 wire connectors that plug into the power supply. 4) But out at the strobe light end of the cable where the Whelen installed connectors are, Whelen has left no access to the drain wire. I suppose one could cut back the plastic covering, remove the aluminum shield, attach a short wire to the now exposed drain wire, and then attach that short wire to some metal part of the strobe light housing, but I find this action both puzzling and unnecessary. 5) Whelen has thousands of these units in service throughout the skies mounted on both metal surfaces and composite wing tips. I am unaware of any need to go through the additonal effort of connecting the drain wire to the metal light housing out at the strobe light end. Can anyone show me different? 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: KX155 Pin Identification
> >Hi all, > >Could someone please point me to a diagram that defines the pins on a >King KX155 Nav/Com?? I have the wiring diagram but have not been able >to determine which pin on the radio represents which pin on the diagram. >I know - sounds pretty silly but I can't see any markings on the radio >other than an "S" (even took the covers off). > >Thanks! See http://216.55.140.222/Installation_Data/KX155.pdf Physical pin numbering is usually marked right on the back of the connector. They tiny raise letters molded on and same color as connector body. I find them useful mostly for getting connector oriented correctly on installation. I use a white or yellow ink pen to put a dot on every 5th terminal location so that I can easily "count" the holes for proper wire location when inserting a pin. From the wiring aid I've published above, I infer that the A1 connector is mounted upside down compared to the A2 connector where pin designations increase in order from left to right. I'm sure there is some reasonable engineering explanation for this seemingly perverse decision but be careful that you account for this as the parts all come together. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Canard Pusher Ground System
> > >Bob/everyone, >I have the Z-15, and it seems to show ground going from the battery to a >post on the foreword ground bus. Then a second #2 cable going from the >foreword ground bus to the rear mounted ground bus. Then a 3rd cable (or >strap) going to the engine to ground bus for the starter/alternator. I >spoke with Tim at B&C, he said that he would not want to see 3 bolt >connections between the battery and the engine case. If I have the engine >gauges (obviously in the rear), and some ground to the engine block, and >some don't - (fuel pressure comes to mind) so Tim suggested that I run the >ground to the block directly, then use the strap to go to the firewall >mounted ground buss, then run say a #6 up to the front from the rear ground >to front ground buss, so then I can ground the instruments at the front, and >even though the senders ground to the case, the instrument grounds run back >there before going to the battery. Please let me know about this, I am at >this point, and need to get some copper flying!! :) You didn't say what kind of airplane you were building and wether or not you have an amidships battery. In any case, you may have instruments for engine parameters that are saddled with crankcase ground senders. This suite of instruments works best with their own ground wire (20AWG is sufficient) to bring crankcase ground forward to those instruments that get signals from crankcase grounded senders. If you don't have an amidships battery, then you don't need a robust ground point at the firewall. The firewall ground bus and the braid jumper can be eliminated if you wish by taking the main ground all the way to the crankcase. Having the "extra" set of bolted joints in the ground path is not a great sin as long as you use robust brass hardware (5/16 minimum, 3/8 better). I think it's cleaner to go from aircraft structure to the crankcase with braided strap or welding cable (much more robust with respect to vibration/flexure stresses). If you're using welding cable for the main ground wire, and no battery behind the seats, then by all means take it all the way to the crankcase. But count on a separate ground for the engine instruments plagued with local ground senders. If you have components on the firewall that depend on the firwall for ground, THEN you'll need to bond the firewall to the crankcase too. A braid strap or welding cable jumper would be fine . . . they can be small if they don't carry starter current. If it were my airplane, I'd wire it per http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z15ak.pdf and ground crankcase referenced engine instrumentation to the firewall ground bus. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Success Story
> >A while back I posted a message to the list saying that my import turn >coordinator was so noisy it made my radio transmissions unreadable. Bob >referred me >to his article on "Hammering the Radio Shack 270-030 filter into submission" > >Well to make a long story short, I bought the filter kit for $4 and put it >together per Bob's instructions, installed it in my RV-8A and now my radio >works great! > >Thanks, Bob...... The laws of physics are a wonderful thing . . . especially when understanding them can make life more pleasant. You are most welcome my friend . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Crimper - Saga ...
Date: Jun 29, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Bob, >> I'd like to know of the brand and part number of such a product. I cannot imagine how this makes any sense. My engineering friend works at a defense company and designs test equipment for the various projects, etc. Next time I'm in touch I'll try and get further information. For what's it worth, he just uses an inexpensive AMP non-ratchet style crimper that requires two manual crimps and has been quite happy with it. He told me about the 3/4 crimper as an FYI type of thing. >> Consider that the "wire" crimp in a PIDG or about any other small terminal has a wire engagement length of perhaps .125" and often less. Does that mean that the wire should be stripped to .125"? If I measure the a RED PIDG Spade connector, it appears that there is .250" of wire available to crimp and ~.125" for the insulation crimp. I've taken a picture to make sure we're on the same page and put black lines to show the two areas I'm referring to - http://zodiac.pcperfect.com/PIDG-1.jpg Also, I took another picture just to make sure I'm understanding where the wire's insulation should stop and the wire should start. I'm assuming and have been told that the insulation should not go into the wire crimp area. In other words, stop right at the funnel entry point. Here's another picture that might help - http://zodiac.pcperfect.com/PIDG-2.jpg For what it's worth, I'm sure that I'm going overkill on this matter, but I just want to make sure I understand the process or more importantly the 'right process' for the task. >> If this can be achieved with what might be called a 'single crimp' used to attach hundreds of millions of terminals over the past 60 years, I'm having trouble visualizing how (a)one can even split that .125" of wire grip area into three separate regions and (b) what might be gained by such an effort assuming it was even possible or practical. Wow! I'm really surprised to hear the argument from you Bob. Starting to justify something by the fact that it's been used for over 60 years. Isn't this the same argument that goes into the Avionics Bus Switch and so on... (sorry couldn't resist - smile). Seriously, I'm just trying to understand and if a 3 crimp connection is even possible, it's benefits might be none or just perceived. My hopes though is to find out or at least better understand the thinking behind the processes. Thanks! Don -----Original Message----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net] Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crimper - Saga ... --> >--> > >Hey Everyone, > >I was talking with an engineering friend and he mentioned that they >also make ratchet crimpers that put 3 crimps on the wire and one crimp >on the insulation. This sounded like a neat idea, but he then added >that it's only used for high high high end stuff like satellites, etc. >In any case, I was curious if any one had any experience with these >crimpers - where to buy, how much, overkill, etc.? I'd like to know of the brand and part number of such a product. I cannot imagine how this makes any sense. Consider that the "wire" crimp in a PIDG or about any other small terminal has a wire engagement length of perhaps .125" and often less. Consider further that the ultimate goal of making a terminal and wire become a single entity is satisfied by the "gas tight" interface achieved by pressing the two malleable metals into such tight proximity that gasses at the molecular level are excluded. If this can be achieved with what might be called a 'single crimp' used to attach hundreds of millions of terminals over the past 60 years, I'm having trouble visualizing how (a)one can even split that .125" of wire grip area into three separate regions and (b) what might be gained by such an effort assuming it was even possible or practical. Bob . . . direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Schiff" <tomschiff(at)attbi.com>
Subject: A different way?
Date: Jun 29, 2003
-----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: A different way? > >I am about to close out the leading edge of the first wing of my >Glastar. I need to string the wiring first as the area is inaccessible >after leading edge closeout. > >I would like to try something different. I am thinking of running two >heavy wires (Positive and ground out to the wing tip.) These wires would >be protected by a fusible link or a large breaker (one breaker for each >wing) and would be sized to carry the current for all of the items that >are on that wing. Near the wing tip there would be a bus that >distributes the power via solid state relays to the power consumers >listed below. > >On each wing there would be >1. Landing light >2. Taxi Light >3. Navigation light >4. Strobe >5. Anything else. > >There would be a fusible link at the distribution point for each relay. >Although if a link fused I would not have the option of resetting it I >would have the backups of the items in the other wing. Downstream circuit protection should have a fusing constant a fraction that of the upstream protection. For example, a faulted 22AWG fuselink downstream of a 20A breaker will open the breaker first. Suggest a ATC fuseblock for a remote distribution bus. Each Relay would have it's own fuseable link sized to the intended load. Could also be a Fuse. >If there were >Landing Light flashers they would be located at the wing tip bus. I >would not attempt to synchronize the flashing of the left and right >wings. > >To control the relays I was thinking of running some Computer grade >10BaseT cable. There is a version to that is approved to run through >plenums in buildings and has a fire rating that I believe is similar to >that of aviation wiring. > >Advantages. >1. I would not carry power through the airframe as a return wire would >be included. >2. If I wanted to add something in the future the 10 base T wiring has 4 >or 5 more wires to control relays. Break one wire and everything quits . . . That is true but. Loosing the lights on one wing isn't tragic, it could be monitored to give an indication of failure of either the left or right wing bus and finally properly installed the chance of loosing a bus wire is probably quite low. >3. Switches should last much longer as they would be carrying only micro >amps. How long will they last if you don't do this? I'm flying 40 year old rentals with original switches still in place . . . Just replaced all of the switches in my 31 year old Cessna 150 and they had been replaced at least once before. >4. Wiring is simplified. One pair for power and one cable for signal. The "wiring" may be simple but the total parts count in the system has multiplied by factors of 10 or more . . . all othing things being equal, reliability is inversely proportional to parts count. Remember I am removing the bundle of individual wires that are normally strung out to the wing for the individual components and replacing it with a cable. My guess is that a cable has a higher reliability than a bunch of hand strung individual wires. >5. As the power feed will be a heavier gage than would be normally used >for any individual circuit the voltage drop caused by items with a >periodic high current drain (read strobes) should be minimized. With >less drain comes less electrical noise. Explain the physics to support this assertion. The power feed will be of a gage to handle all of the items for the wing including the landing/taxi lights. Therefore it will be of a heavier gage than would normally be used to just wire a strobe. With a thicker wire comes lower resistance. >6. In the course of building the Glastar there are at least 3 mountings >and un-mountings of the wing that have to take place with only two sets >of wires this would be simplified. I plan to remove the wings one more >time after the time is flown off to paint them. Don't hook things up until the wings are on to stay. I'd venture a guess that from same fleet of airplanes I fly, wings have never been removed from most of them. Unfortunately I don't have that option. The Glastar is a strange beast the wings have to come of a minimum of two times during construction. In addition if I want to run the wires through the leading edge I need to do it before the wings are mounted. The area isn't accessible afterward. I may get around this by using conduit and pulling the wires later. >7. I could also use the remaining wires of the 10BaseT for some future >instrumentation (angle of attack, stall warning, or something that we >haven't though of yet) > >I am planning on running two RG-400 wires out to the wing tip but don't >know their exact usage right now. > >I would like to run the wiring through some sort of conduit my concern >is that the cable would be floating in the conduit and not tied down as >it is in spam cans. Would the cable chafe from being free inside of the >conduit or is this OK? > >So what do you folks think? It is unconventional but is it OK? Henry Ford and Charles Kettering didn't worry about anyone's endorsement before launching a new idea. It either flies or flops on it's own merit and risks are never zero. Not all of their ideas flew but when they did, the results were gratifying if not spectacular. If you have a good foundation based on experience and/or considered analysis of the fundamentals, then you can get a leg up on the market by being there first. Your selling points have to offer some combination of lowered installation time/cost, lower maintenance time/cost, and/or increased service life by some factor that makes it a compelling design. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 29, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Crimper - Saga ...
> >Bob, > > >> I'd like to know of the brand and part number of such a product. I >cannot imagine how this makes any sense. > >My engineering friend works at a defense company and designs test >equipment for the various projects, etc. Next time I'm in touch I'll try >and get further information. For what's it worth, he just uses an >inexpensive AMP non-ratchet style crimper that requires two manual >crimps and has been quite happy with it. He told me about the 3/4 >crimper as an FYI type of thing. > > >> Consider that the "wire" crimp in a PIDG or about any other small >terminal has a wire engagement length of perhaps .125" and often less. >Does that mean that the wire should be stripped to .125"? If I measure >the a RED PIDG Spade connector, it appears that there is .250" of wire >available to crimp and ~.125" for the insulation crimp. I've taken a >picture to make sure we're on the same page and put black lines to show >the two areas I'm referring to - http://zodiac.pcperfect.com/PIDG-1.jpg I mis-poke there. The wire grip for an open barrel pin is typically .125" A machined D-sub is about .180" I just pulled a red and blue PIDG terminal apart an measured wire grips of .170" A yellow is .250" If in doubt, pull the insulating sleeve off a terminal in question and see how long the wire grip is. >Also, I took another picture just to make sure I'm understanding where >the wire's insulation should stop and the wire should start. I'm >assuming and have been told that the insulation should not go into the >wire crimp area. In other words, stop right at the funnel entry point. >Here's another picture that might help - >http://zodiac.pcperfect.com/PIDG-2.jpg That's right . . insulation should not extend into the wire grip area. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf >For what it's worth, I'm sure that I'm going overkill on this matter, >but I just want to make sure I understand the process or more >importantly the 'right process' for the task. > > >> If this can be achieved with what might be called a 'single crimp' >used to attach hundreds of millions of terminals over the past 60 years, >I'm having trouble visualizing how (a)one can even split that .125" of >wire grip area into three separate regions and (b) what might be gained >by such an effort assuming it was even possible or practical. > >Wow! I'm really surprised to hear the argument from you Bob. Starting to >justify something by the fact that it's been used for over 60 years. >Isn't this the same argument that goes into the Avionics Bus Switch and >so on... (sorry couldn't resist - smile). No, the avionics bus was never justified based on physical fact verifiable by repeatable experiment. It was a POLICY based on the best guess anyone had at the time. Solderless connector technology has been spec'd and tested out the wazoo . . . I can cite dozens of documents which all suppliers must observe if they expect to sell to the US military or aerospace industry. >Seriously, I'm just trying to understand and if a 3 crimp connection is >even possible, it's benefits might be none or just perceived. My hopes >though is to find out or at least better understand the thinking behind >the processes. Understand. I just finished photographing some figures for an article that I hope to finish tonight. It will be an adjunct to the "anatomy" article. Bob . . . >Thanks! >Don > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net] >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crimper - Saga ... > > >--> > > >--> > > > >Hey Everyone, > > > >I was talking with an engineering friend and he mentioned that they > >also make ratchet crimpers that put 3 crimps on the wire and one crimp > >on the insulation. This sounded like a neat idea, but he then added > >that it's only used for high high high end stuff like satellites, etc. > >In any case, I was curious if any one had any experience with these > >crimpers - where to buy, how much, overkill, etc.? > > I'd like to know of the brand and part number of such a > product. I cannot imagine how this makes any sense. Consider > that the "wire" crimp in a PIDG or about any other small > terminal has a wire engagement length of perhaps .125" and > often less. Consider further that the ultimate goal of > making a terminal and wire become a single entity is > satisfied by the "gas tight" interface achieved by pressing > the two malleable metals into such tight proximity that > gasses at the molecular level are excluded. If this can > be achieved with what might be called a 'single crimp' > used to attach hundreds of millions of terminals over the > past 60 years, I'm having trouble visualizing how (a)one > can even split that .125" of wire grip area into three > separate regions and (b) what might be gained by such an > effort assuming it was even possible or practical. > > Bob . . . > > >direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. > > Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( Knowing about a thing is different than ) ( understanding it. One can know a lot ) ( and still understand nothing. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Crimper - Saga ...
Date: Jun 29, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Bob, Thanks your follow up comments and help. I hope the new 'anatomy' article is going well. Will it be a available as an update to the existing AeroElectric Book or a special article published on your website? On a happier note - since I got side tracked on the PIDG connectors this weekend and couldn't get any productive plane work done, I decided to wire up the serial connectors for my EFIS and GPS units. In the process of mounting the DB9 connectors I used a punch set I purchased a few years back. Spent way too much money on it back then, but it's definitely made this job incredibly easy and leaves a professional hole for the connector. Thanks again, Don Honabach -----Original Message----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net] Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Crimper - Saga ... --> >--> > >Bob, > > >> I'd like to know of the brand and part number of such a product. I >cannot imagine how this makes any sense. > >My engineering friend works at a defense company and designs test >equipment for the various projects, etc. Next time I'm in touch I'll >try and get further information. For what's it worth, he just uses an >inexpensive AMP non-ratchet style crimper that requires two manual >crimps and has been quite happy with it. He told me about the 3/4 >crimper as an FYI type of thing. > > >> Consider that the "wire" crimp in a PIDG or about any other small >terminal has a wire engagement length of perhaps .125" and often less. >Does that mean that the wire should be stripped to .125"? If I measure >the a RED PIDG Spade connector, it appears that there is .250" of wire >available to crimp and ~.125" for the insulation crimp. I've taken a >picture to make sure we're on the same page and put black lines to show >the two areas I'm referring to - http://zodiac.pcperfect.com/PIDG-1.jpg I mis-poke there. The wire grip for an open barrel pin is typically .125" A machined D-sub is about .180" I just pulled a red and blue PIDG terminal apart an measured wire grips of .170" A yellow is .250" If in doubt, pull the insulating sleeve off a terminal in question and see how long the wire grip is. >Also, I took another picture just to make sure I'm understanding where >the wire's insulation should stop and the wire should start. I'm >assuming and have been told that the insulation should not go into the >wire crimp area. In other words, stop right at the funnel entry point. >Here's another picture that might help - >http://zodiac.pcperfect.com/PIDG-2.jpg That's right . . insulation should not extend into the wire grip area. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf >For what it's worth, I'm sure that I'm going overkill on this matter, >but I just want to make sure I understand the process or more >importantly the 'right process' for the task. > > >> If this can be achieved with what might be called a 'single crimp' >used to attach hundreds of millions of terminals over the past 60 >years, I'm having trouble visualizing how (a)one can even split that >.125" of wire grip area into three separate regions and (b) what might >be gained by such an effort assuming it was even possible or practical. > >Wow! I'm really surprised to hear the argument from you Bob. Starting >to justify something by the fact that it's been used for over 60 years. >Isn't this the same argument that goes into the Avionics Bus Switch and >so on... (sorry couldn't resist - smile). No, the avionics bus was never justified based on physical fact verifiable by repeatable experiment. It was a POLICY based on the best guess anyone had at the time. Solderless connector technology has been spec'd and tested out the wazoo . . . I can cite dozens of documents which all suppliers must observe if they expect to sell to the US military or aerospace industry. >Seriously, I'm just trying to understand and if a 3 crimp connection is >even possible, it's benefits might be none or just perceived. My hopes >though is to find out or at least better understand the thinking behind >the processes. Understand. I just finished photographing some figures for an article that I hope to finish tonight. It will be an adjunct to the "anatomy" article. Bob . . . >Thanks! >Don > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net] >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Crimper - Saga ... > > >--> > > >--> > > > >Hey Everyone, > > > >I was talking with an engineering friend and he mentioned that they > >also make ratchet crimpers that put 3 crimps on the wire and one > >crimp on the insulation. This sounded like a neat idea, but he then > >added that it's only used for high high high end stuff like > >satellites, etc. In any case, I was curious if any one had any > >experience with these crimpers - where to buy, how much, overkill, > >etc.? > > I'd like to know of the brand and part number of such a > product. I cannot imagine how this makes any sense. Consider > that the "wire" crimp in a PIDG or about any other small > terminal has a wire engagement length of perhaps .125" and > often less. Consider further that the ultimate goal of > making a terminal and wire become a single entity is > satisfied by the "gas tight" interface achieved by pressing > the two malleable metals into such tight proximity that > gasses at the molecular level are excluded. If this can > be achieved with what might be called a 'single crimp' > used to attach hundreds of millions of terminals over the > past 60 years, I'm having trouble visualizing how (a)one > can even split that .125" of wire grip area into three > separate regions and (b) what might be gained by such an > effort assuming it was even possible or practical. > > Bob . . . > > >direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. > > 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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Tach Auto Switch...
Date: Jun 29, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Ben, Thanks for the reply and information. I wish I would of known about the switch beforehand. I don't have a lot room around the area where my ignition switch is going and a larger switch probably wont fit. Thanks for the offer though. Don -----Original Message----- From: Benford2(at)aol.com [mailto:Benford2(at)aol.com] Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Tach Auto Switch... In a message dated 6/28/2003 10:22:15 AM Mountain Daylight Time, don(at)pcperfect.com writes: > posted by: "Don Honabach" > > I'm using a Subaru EA-81 engine which currently has a primary and > backup ignition. I'd like to setup a switch with two separate power > feeds that allows me to toggle between the two ignitions (only one > should run at a time). However, by having two power feeds into the > switch I lose the ability to switch the tach lead as well without > installing another switch which then becomes more complicated for > basic operations. So I started thinking about setting up an auto-tach > lead switch for my tach gauge (negative side coil based). > > My thoughts are that if I used a basic relay that was powered by the > same wire that would power my ignition I could design a simple circuit > that would switch the tach lead based on which ignition was active. > However, since I'm switching the tach lead that is connected to the > negative side of the coil and my deep understanding of electronics is > limited, I was hoping to find out if my base idea was okay or if I'm > setting myself up for some unknown issues related to the coil/tach > operation. Also, if the relay switch of the tach lead is okay, would > it still be standard practice to put a diode on this small type of > relay? > > I hope this question isn't too basic and any input is appreciated. > > Thanks! > Don Honabach > Tempe, AZ - 601HDS > > I am running duel MSD ignitions on my Ford and what i did was to use a triple pole double throw switch. As you cycle between both Ignition systems the third pole switches the positive lead going to the tach. Bob gave me the info on sources for this switch a few months back. If ya want I will look back at my files to find it. My problem was the first switch I ordered was physically too big because I had already drilled out the holes for my Ign switch and the body of it hit my transponder. I bought another one from a different vendor and that one barely fit. If ya want I will dig out the one I didn.t use and and give you the part #. I do remember it was not cheap. Ben Haas N801BH. direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Tach Auto Switch...
Date: Jun 29, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Michel - As always - thanks!!!! Don -----Original Message----- From: Michel Therrien [mailto:mtherr(at)yahoo.com] Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Tach Auto Switch... --> I did exactly that, but did not fly with the plane yet. I used a relay whose coil is powered from the ignition 2 +12V circuit. The default source (no power to the relay coil) is the ign 1 negative side of coil. If the relay coil is energized, then, I read the ign 2 negative side of coil. I tested this in my garage when I tried my engine and it worked. I did not install an additional diode, but I used an automotive relay (those you can get as accessories for anti-theft or remote starting systems). See the relay mounted at the top of firewall near the ignition system. http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601/images/DCP02042.JPG Michel --- Don Honabach wrote: > Honabach" > > I'm using a Subaru EA-81 engine which currently has > a primary and backup > ignition. I'd like to setup a switch with two > separate power feeds that > allows me to toggle between the two ignitions (only > one should run at a > time). However, by having two power feeds into the > switch I lose the > ability to switch the tach lead as well without > installing another > switch which then becomes more complicated for basic operations. So I > started thinking about setting up an auto-tach lead > switch for my tach > gauge (negative side coil based). > > My thoughts are that if I used a basic relay that > was powered by the > same wire that would power my ignition I could > design a simple circuit > that would switch the tach lead based on which > ignition was active. > However, since I'm switching the tach lead that is > connected to the > negative side of the coil and my deep understanding > of electronics is > limited, I was hoping to find out if my base idea > was okay or if I'm > setting myself up for some unknown issues related to > the coil/tach > operation. Also, if the relay switch of the tach > lead is okay, would it > still be standard practice to put a diode on this > small type of relay? > > I hope this question isn't too basic and any input > is appreciated. > > ===== ---------------------------- Michel Therrien CH601-HD http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601 http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby __________________________________ direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ronald Cox" <racox(at)ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 30 Msgs - 06/28/03
Date: Jun 30, 2003
Jim: My Glasair (IO-360 Lyc.) with B&C L-60 needs the Gates 7315 (available at reasonable price from B&C, by the way, they just need to know which of the two alternator drive pulleys your ring gear has). It's dimensions are 9.5/10mm x 815mm. If you have "the other one" (I forget which I have) there's another size available. Call B&C after measuring the diameter of the pulley, and they can fix you up either way. Ron Cox > From: Jim Bean <jim-bean(at)att.net> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator Belt > > > Listers, > Does anybody know of a source for the right size alternator belt for a > Lycoming IO360. Hopefully automotive or industrial. I hate to have to > pay Lycoming's price. > Local car mechanic matched the cross section but that size is not made > in very many lenghts, just too long and too short. Cars don't use > individual belts anymore. > Thanks Jim Bean > RV-8 engine room ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ronald Cox" <racox(at)ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Fw: AeroElectric-List Digest: 30 Msgs - 06/28/03
Date: Jun 30, 2003
Jim: My Glasair (IO-360 Lyc.) with B&C L-60 needs the Gates 7315 (available at reasonable price from B&C, by the way, they just need to know which of the two alternator drive pulleys your ring gear has). It's dimensions are 9.5/10mm x 815mm. If you have "the other one" (I forget which I have) there's another size available. Call B&C after measuring the diameter of the pulley, and they can fix you up either way. Ron Cox > > From: Jim Bean <jim-bean(at)att.net> > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator Belt > > > > > > Listers, > > Does anybody know of a source for the right size alternator belt for a > > Lycoming IO360. Hopefully automotive or industrial. I hate to have to > > pay Lycoming's price. > > Local car mechanic matched the cross section but that size is not made > > in very many lenghts, just too long and too short. Cars don't use > > individual belts anymore. > > Thanks Jim Bean > > RV-8 engine room > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Fw: RV-List: Vans Amp Gauge
Date: Jun 30, 2003
I am forwarding Wheeler's problem to the Lectric List. I'd like to read the answer to this one myself. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> Subject: RV-List: Vans Amp Gauge > --> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North > > Guys, > > I'm getting a little fed up with Van's amp gauge, and in particular with > their lack of response to the fact that it is a bad design. > > I haven't talked to them about it in a while, but I will share with you the > saga so far. > > 1. It has never read correctly in that when I turn things on it doesn't seem > to change much (when reading alternator load) unless its a major user like a > light going on. > > 2. It goes massively haywire when the either radio is in xmit, and I have > met dozens of folks with this problem. > > 3. It is the only Amp gauge I have ever seen that needs a postive and > negative source along with the shunt lines. Consequently when the master is > activated it then provides a path for current to bypass the instrument > circuit breaker when wired as per Vans schematic. If the amp gauge power > source is disconnected Item 2 stops happening to the other Vans gauges which > go wacky with xmit. > > 4. I was doing some work troubleshooting a serial data problem this week so > I had my Fluke 99 DSO out there and decided to get a hard measure of the > alternator load with various devices turned on. It turns out that this amp > gauge is misreading by 14 amps, ie it reads zero until there is 14 amps > going through the shunt. (my charging system is set up so I can switch the > gauge between reading battery charge, or alternator load) > > Now you might think "well you must have a bad gauge" Well, I have two of > these brand new bad gauges, as well as two of the shunts, and no combination > of them makes this system read correctly. I even took them completely out of > the aircraft and hooked them up to my recently calibrated power supply and > found that the shunt V drop was normal, but the gauge would not read until > the current got fairly high (My little pwr supply does not put out 14 Amps). > > Now, how do I feel about this. Well, I attempted to solve this several years > ago with Vans and they were very resistant to the idea of there being a > problem. If it were happening in certified aircraft they would have had an > AD slapped upside their putzy gauge in seconds as this design is potentially > very dangerous. > > So those of you who are considering this line of gauges, be forewarned, > there are still some bugs in this design, and I'm not the only one who has > had these problems. I strongly recoommend if you are using this gauge, get a > valid means to assess actual current flow through the shunt. In this > installation I could have a 13 amp discharge and the unit would say all is > well. > > I guess I should try talking with Tom G about it again and see if they would > ever be willing to look into the problems this design is having. > > Any thoughts folks??? > > I like the gauge face, maybe I can swap it into a real amp gauge and just be > done with it. ;{) > > W ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Neville Kilford" <nkilford(at)etravel.org>
Subject: Re: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool...
Date: Jun 30, 2003
Don, It sounds as though you have the information you need, but I've gone ahead and put a couple of pictures on the web. Have a bins at http://uk.photos.yahoo.com/nk1414 to see a picture of the tool and a completed crimp. The pictures are lacking somewhat, but are okay. They're on page 2 of the plane pictures. Hope this helps. Nev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool... > > Nev, > > Thanks for your comments and help! > > Do you happen to have a picture of spade terminal or similar that has > been crimped with the AMP Pro Crimper? Sometimes just seeing what the > preferred tool is supposed to do would tell me if the one I have is > essentially the same. I've searched the Internet and haven't been able > to find one. I was especially surprised that I couldn't find a picture > or tech document on Amp/Tyco's that would show a proper crimp using > their tool. > > For what it's worth, I'd prefer to go the ratchet route. Just played > around with the non-ratchet crimper and somehow ended up crimping so > hard that I broke the wire inside (wire insulation was removed clean > with no nicks and the wire wasn't moved much at all before testing on > the fuse block). I'm sure I could get the hang of it, but I'd rather get > known repeatability. > > Thanks! > Don > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool...
Date: Jun 30, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Nev, Thanks for the picture. I also noticed that you went with what looks like the AMP ProCrimper II tool. In my attempts to understand how to do a proper crimp and quite honestly failing at it, I decided to go ahead and purchase the ProCrimper II from AMP in a PIDG Kit that includes the PIDG die and a few PIDG terminals. My hunch is that this probably wasn't necessary, but I still didn't feel comfortable that the crimps I was doing were top notch. I've had a few wires break in the Terminals even though the original wire strip was clean. Have to assume I crimped too hard or the wire length/insulation crimp was wrong. I knew from the academic level from BK's articles what was necessary to do a good crimp, but with a manual crimper I just wasn't sure I was in the proper range of crimp (not too tight, not too loose). With the import ratchet crimper I have, I just wasn't sure it was the right one for AMP PIDG connectors. My hope was that someone would have had a picture of the front side and back side of the terminal so I could so how the crimp itself looked and it's exact location on the terminal. Unfortunately, I got quite a few pictures, but none that I could directly compare and say - cool, I'm doing the exact same thing. Bottom line, I figured an AMP PIDG Connector and an AMP PIDG Crimper will help my fears that the crimp isn't up to snuff. Also, if for some reason the kit doesn't come with instructions I can also call AMP and since I'm using their crimper and terminals I should be able to get some help if still needed. Thanks again! Don -----Original Message----- From: Neville Kilford [mailto:nkilford(at)etravel.org] Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool... --> Don, It sounds as though you have the information you need, but I've gone ahead and put a couple of pictures on the web. Have a bins at http://uk.photos.yahoo.com/nk1414 to see a picture of the tool and a completed crimp. The pictures are lacking somewhat, but are okay. They're on page 2 of the plane pictures. Hope this helps. Nev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool... > --> > > Nev, > > Thanks for your comments and help! > > Do you happen to have a picture of spade terminal or similar that has > been crimped with the AMP Pro Crimper? Sometimes just seeing what the > preferred tool is supposed to do would tell me if the one I have is > essentially the same. I've searched the Internet and haven't been able > to find one. I was especially surprised that I couldn't find a picture > or tech document on Amp/Tyco's that would show a proper crimp using > their tool. > > For what it's worth, I'd prefer to go the ratchet route. Just played > around with the non-ratchet crimper and somehow ended up crimping so > hard that I broke the wire inside (wire insulation was removed clean > with no nicks and the wire wasn't moved much at all before testing on > the fuse block). I'm sure I could get the hang of it, but I'd rather > get known repeatability. > > Thanks! > Don > direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Neville Kilford" <nkilford(at)etravel.org>
Subject: Re: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool...
Date: Jun 30, 2003
My pleasure, and I entirely understand your sentiments. As Bob says, after a while one would get to know the right degree of pressure, but I've only about 100 crimps to do in the whole plane, so, like you, I figured, what the hell? If we're going to live up to the Aeroelectric mission, and produce better electrics than a production plane, we need the right tools! In any case, 80 extra for a crimp tool is a drop in the ocean compared with the rest of plane... Cheers. Nev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool... > > Nev, > > Thanks for the picture. I also noticed that you went with what looks > like the AMP ProCrimper II tool. > > In my attempts to understand how to do a proper crimp and quite honestly > failing at it, I decided to go ahead and purchase the ProCrimper II from > AMP in a PIDG Kit that includes the PIDG die and a few PIDG terminals. > > My hunch is that this probably wasn't necessary, but I still didn't feel > comfortable that the crimps I was doing were top notch. I've had a few > wires break in the Terminals even though the original wire strip was > clean. Have to assume I crimped too hard or the wire length/insulation > crimp was wrong. I knew from the academic level from BK's articles what > was necessary to do a good crimp, but with a manual crimper I just > wasn't sure I was in the proper range of crimp (not too tight, not too > loose). With the import ratchet crimper I have, I just wasn't sure it > was the right one for AMP PIDG connectors. > > My hope was that someone would have had a picture of the front side and > back side of the terminal so I could so how the crimp itself looked and > it's exact location on the terminal. Unfortunately, I got quite a few > pictures, but none that I could directly compare and say - cool, I'm > doing the exact same thing. > > Bottom line, I figured an AMP PIDG Connector and an AMP PIDG Crimper > will help my fears that the crimp isn't up to snuff. Also, if for some > reason the kit doesn't come with instructions I can also call AMP and > since I'm using their crimper and terminals I should be able to get some > help if still needed. > > Thanks again! > Don > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Neville Kilford [mailto:nkilford(at)etravel.org] > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool... > > > --> > > Don, > > It sounds as though you have the information you need, but I've gone > ahead and put a couple of pictures on the web. Have a bins at > http://uk.photos.yahoo.com/nk1414 to see a picture of the tool and a > completed crimp. The pictures are lacking somewhat, but are okay. > They're on page 2 of the plane pictures. > > Hope this helps. > > Nev > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> > To: > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: PIDG / Spade / Rachet Tool... > > > > --> > > > > Nev, > > > > Thanks for your comments and help! > > > > Do you happen to have a picture of spade terminal or similar that has > > been crimped with the AMP Pro Crimper? Sometimes just seeing what the > > preferred tool is supposed to do would tell me if the one I have is > > essentially the same. I've searched the Internet and haven't been able > > > to find one. I was especially surprised that I couldn't find a picture > > > or tech document on Amp/Tyco's that would show a proper crimp using > > their tool. > > > > For what it's worth, I'd prefer to go the ratchet route. Just played > > around with the non-ratchet crimper and somehow ended up crimping so > > hard that I broke the wire inside (wire insulation was removed clean > > with no nicks and the wire wasn't moved much at all before testing on > > the fuse block). I'm sure I could get the hang of it, but I'd rather > > get known repeatability. > > > > Thanks! > > Don > > > > > direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Tach Auto Switch...
> >I'm using a Subaru EA-81 engine which currently has a primary and backup >ignition. I'd like to setup a switch with two separate power feeds that >allows me to toggle between the two ignitions (only one should run at a >time). However, by having two power feeds into the switch I lose the >ability to switch the tach lead as well without installing another >switch which then becomes more complicated for basic operations. So I >started thinking about setting up an auto-tach lead switch for my tach >gauge (negative side coil based). > >My thoughts are that if I used a basic relay that was powered by the >same wire that would power my ignition I could design a simple circuit >that would switch the tach lead based on which ignition was active. >However, since I'm switching the tach lead that is connected to the >negative side of the coil and my deep understanding of electronics is >limited, I was hoping to find out if my base idea was okay or if I'm >setting myself up for some unknown issues related to the coil/tach >operation. Also, if the relay switch of the tach lead is okay, would it >still be standard practice to put a diode on this small type of relay? > >I hope this question isn't too basic and any input is appreciated. Easy. Make one of your ignition switches a 2-pole, double throw switch. Use one side of the switch to control one ignition system. Use other side to control tach connection. When the ignition controlled by this switch is ON, tach gets signal from this ignition. When ignition controlled by this switch is OFF, tach signal wire is transferred to the other ignition. If that system is ON, the tach works. If that system is OFF too, then it doesn't matter that the TACH sees no signal. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Crimper - Saga ...
> >Bob, > >Thanks your follow up comments and help. I hope the new 'anatomy' >article is going well. Will it be a available as an update to the >existing AeroElectric Book or a special article published on your >website? Here 'tis . . . http://216.55.140.222/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html >On a happier note - since I got side tracked on the PIDG connectors this >weekend and couldn't get any productive plane work done, I decided to >wire up the serial connectors for my EFIS and GPS units. In the process >of mounting the DB9 connectors I used a punch set I purchased a few >years back. Spent way too much money on it back then, but it's >definitely made this job incredibly easy and leaves a professional hole >for the connector. Please don't rub it in!!!!! I have this love-hate relationship with d-subs. Once mounted, and if you choose to use the solid-metal pins, I think they're the biggest value out there in connectors. But that gawdawful hole you have to cut to mount them neatly is a real bear . . . I've lusted after a set of Greenlee d-sub punches for 30 years. they used to sell for just over $200 . . . about $1000 for a complete set. Just after I sold the parts business to B&C, I had a wad of cash burning a hole in my pocket and I had this really great idea . . . I was going to get a set of d-sub punches. Dug out the catalogs and to my dismay, found that the price has risen to nearly $500 each. No way was I going to spend over $2300 for these punches. I've been talking to a local tool and die shop about making my own. They think they could do it for about $150 each. Unfortunately, that project is WAYYYYYYY back on the burners . . . I'm jealous . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net>
Subject: Re: A different way?
Date: Jun 30, 2003
> > To control the relays I was thinking of running some Computer grade > 10BaseT cable. There is a version to that is approved to run through > plenums in buildings and has a fire rating that I believe is similar to > that of aviation wiring. It is very difficult to find Category 3, 5 or 5e (this is what you are calling 10BaseT cable) that is plenum grade and not solid wire. The stranded type of Category 5 wire is used for making patch cables and since patch cables seldom need to be run through the ceiling they don't usually come in plenum grade. Solid wire is more prone to breakage. If it were me (other arguments notwithstanding) I'd run a handfull of 24AWG Tefzel wire through there. Godspeed, Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Canopy http://www.myrv7.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: A different way?
-----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: A different way? > >I am about to close out the leading edge of the first wing of my >Glastar. I need to string the wiring first as the area is inaccessible >after leading edge closeout. > >I would like to try something different. I am thinking of running two >heavy wires (Positive and ground out to the wing tip.) These wires would >be protected by a fusible link or a large breaker (one breaker for each >wing) and would be sized to carry the current for all of the items that >are on that wing. Near the wing tip there would be a bus that >distributes the power via solid state relays to the power consumers >listed below. > >On each wing there would be >1. Landing light >2. Taxi Light >3. Navigation light >4. Strobe >5. Anything else. > >There would be a fusible link at the distribution point for each relay. >Although if a link fused I would not have the option of resetting it I >would have the backups of the items in the other wing. Downstream circuit protection should have a fusing constant a fraction that of the upstream protection. For example, a faulted 22AWG fuselink downstream of a 20A breaker will open the breaker first. Suggest a ATC fuseblock for a remote distribution bus. Each Relay would have it's own fuseable link sized to the intended load. Could also be a Fuse. >If there were >Landing Light flashers they would be located at the wing tip bus. I >would not attempt to synchronize the flashing of the left and right >wings. > >To control the relays I was thinking of running some Computer grade >10BaseT cable. There is a version to that is approved to run through >plenums in buildings and has a fire rating that I believe is similar to >that of aviation wiring. > >Advantages. >1. I would not carry power through the airframe as a return wire would >be included. >2. If I wanted to add something in the future the 10 base T wiring has 4 >or 5 more wires to control relays. Break one wire and everything quits . . . That is true but. Loosing the lights on one wing isn't tragic, it could be monitored to give an indication of failure of either the left or right wing bus and finally properly installed the chance of loosing a bus wire is probably quite low. >3. Switches should last much longer as they would be carrying only micro >amps. How long will they last if you don't do this? I'm flying 40 year old rentals with original switches still in place . . . Just replaced all of the switches in my 31 year old Cessna 150 and they had been replaced at least once before. EVERY switch in the airplane was bad? I applaud the idea of total replacement of switches as a preventative maintenance measure in OBAM aircraft 'cause it's usually easy and inexpensive. Spam cans seldom enjoy this reliability enhancing measure because of the inflated cost of replacement parts combined with mandated hi-dollar mechanical help. Since we're talking about OBAM aircraft, your demonstration of added value task is to trade off the parts-count and expense of swapping out $5 switches that are easily replaced with a few minutes of personal attention. >4. Wiring is simplified. One pair for power and one cable for signal. The "wiring" may be simple but the total parts count in the system has multiplied by factors of 10 or more . . . all other things being equal, reliability is inversely proportional to parts count. Remember I am removing the bundle of individual wires that are normally strung out to the wing for the individual components and replacing it with a cable. My guess is that a cable has a higher reliability than a bunch of hand strung individual wires. Hmmmm . . . I don't have a basis upon which to agree with that. Aside from allowing wiring to degrade with age to the point where insulation begins to fail, wiring is just not very high on the list of field service failures in airplanes whether cabled or bundled. >5. As the power feed will be a heavier gage than would be normally used >for any individual circuit the voltage drop caused by items with a >periodic high current drain (read strobes) should be minimized. With >less drain comes less electrical noise. Explain the physics to support this assertion. The power feed will be of a gage to handle all of the items for the wing including the landing/taxi lights. Therefore it will be of a heavier gage than would normally be used to just wire a strobe. With a thicker wire comes lower resistance. Fine, but what does this have to do with "noise". If I add a resistor in series with the ground wire of any product, what principles of physics can we cite that suggest that the system so modified becomes either an antagonist or victim of noise? >6. In the course of building the Glastar there are at least 3 mountings >and un-mountings of the wing that have to take place with only two sets >of wires this would be simplified. I plan to remove the wings one more >time after the time is flown off to paint them. Don't hook things up until the wings are on to stay. I'd venture a guess that from same fleet of airplanes I fly, wings have never been removed from most of them. Unfortunately I don't have that option. The Glastar is a strange beast the wings have to come of a minimum of two times during construction. In addition if I want to run the wires through the leading edge I need to do it before the wings are mounted. The area isn't accessible afterward. I may get around this by using conduit and pulling the wires later. ???? . . . you can't prewire the wing-mounted equipment, run wires to the wing root with sufficient excess coiled up waiting to be run into the fuselage after last attach? How would the proposed digitized-control/common-power distribution system mitigate this situation? You still have n-number of wires to get wing-stuff connected to fuselage-stuff irrespective of how the wires function. Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( Knowing about a thing is different than ) ( understanding it. One can know a lot ) ( and still understand nothing. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2003
From: Neil Clayton <harvey4(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Fw: RV-List: Vans Amp Gauge
A buddy of mine is an RV builder (personally I do glass!). He says his Van's amp gauge does the same thing. He's sent to "complaint" on to Van's. I'll publish what they say about it,. I care 'cos I just bought the same gauge for my "fast glass" and it's sitting on my bench waiting for installation. Neil At 06:46 AM 6/30/03, you wrote: > > > >I am forwarding Wheeler's problem to the Lectric List. I'd like to read the >answer to this one myself. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> >To: "''RV-List Digest Server ' '" >Subject: RV-List: Vans Amp Gauge > > > > --> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North > > > > Guys, > > > > I'm getting a little fed up with Van's amp gauge, and in particular with > > their lack of response to the fact that it is a bad design. > > > > I haven't talked to them about it in a while, but I will share with you >the > > saga so far. > > > > 1. It has never read correctly in that when I turn things on it doesn't >seem > > to change much (when reading alternator load) unless its a major user like >a > > light going on. > > > > 2. It goes massively haywire when the either radio is in xmit, and I have > > met dozens of folks with this problem. > > > > 3. It is the only Amp gauge I have ever seen that needs a postive and > > negative source along with the shunt lines. Consequently when the master >is > > activated it then provides a path for current to bypass the instrument > > circuit breaker when wired as per Vans schematic. If the amp gauge power > > source is disconnected Item 2 stops happening to the other Vans gauges >which > > go wacky with xmit. > > > > 4. I was doing some work troubleshooting a serial data problem this week >so > > I had my Fluke 99 DSO out there and decided to get a hard measure of the > > alternator load with various devices turned on. It turns out that this amp > > gauge is misreading by 14 amps, ie it reads zero until there is 14 amps > > going through the shunt. (my charging system is set up so I can switch the > > gauge between reading battery charge, or alternator load) > > > > Now you might think "well you must have a bad gauge" Well, I have two of > > these brand new bad gauges, as well as two of the shunts, and no >combination > > of them makes this system read correctly. I even took them completely out >of > > the aircraft and hooked them up to my recently calibrated power supply and > > found that the shunt V drop was normal, but the gauge would not read until > > the current got fairly high (My little pwr supply does not put out 14 >Amps). > > > > Now, how do I feel about this. Well, I attempted to solve this several >years > > ago with Vans and they were very resistant to the idea of there being a > > problem. If it were happening in certified aircraft they would have had an > > AD slapped upside their putzy gauge in seconds as this design is >potentially > > very dangerous. > > > > So those of you who are considering this line of gauges, be forewarned, > > there are still some bugs in this design, and I'm not the only one who has > > had these problems. I strongly recoommend if you are using this gauge, get >a > > valid means to assess actual current flow through the shunt. In this > > installation I could have a 13 amp discharge and the unit would say all is > > well. > > > > I guess I should try talking with Tom G about it again and see if they >would > > ever be willing to look into the problems this design is having. > > > > Any thoughts folks??? > > > > I like the gauge face, maybe I can swap it into a real amp gauge and just >be > > done with it. ;{) > > > > W > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Fw: RV-List: Vans Amp Gauge
> > > >I am forwarding Wheeler's problem to the Lectric List. I'd like to read the >answer to this one myself. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> >To: "''RV-List Digest Server ' '" >Subject: RV-List: Vans Amp Gauge I've e-mailed Mr. North with some additional questions. I'll post results of my findings after I've had a chance to know more about the product and his difficulties with it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Tach Auto Switch...
Date: Jun 30, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Bob, >> Easy. Make one of your ignition switches a 2-pole, double throw switch. Use one side of the switch to control one ignition system. Use other side to control tach connection. Thanks again :) My hope was to use both poles of the switch so I could have 2 separate power feeds/circuits for the ignitions in the hopes of making a more robust setup. So unless I want to go with a big bulky 3 pole switch, I'm stuck with using some sort of auto-switch that is feed by the iginition power feeds. Thanks, Don -----Original Message----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net] Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Tach Auto Switch... --> >--> > >I'm using a Subaru EA-81 engine which currently has a primary and >backup ignition. I'd like to setup a switch with two separate power >feeds that allows me to toggle between the two ignitions (only one >should run at a time). However, by having two power feeds into the >switch I lose the ability to switch the tach lead as well without >installing another switch which then becomes more complicated for basic >operations. So I started thinking about setting up an auto-tach lead >switch for my tach gauge (negative side coil based). > >My thoughts are that if I used a basic relay that was powered by the >same wire that would power my ignition I could design a simple circuit >that would switch the tach lead based on which ignition was active. >However, since I'm switching the tach lead that is connected to the >negative side of the coil and my deep understanding of electronics is >limited, I was hoping to find out if my base idea was okay or if I'm >setting myself up for some unknown issues related to the coil/tach >operation. Also, if the relay switch of the tach lead is okay, would it >still be standard practice to put a diode on this small type of relay? > >I hope this question isn't too basic and any input is appreciated. Easy. Make one of your ignition switches a 2-pole, double throw switch. Use one side of the switch to control one ignition system. Use other side to control tach connection. When the ignition controlled by this switch is ON, tach gets signal from this ignition. When ignition controlled by this switch is OFF, tach signal wire is transferred to the other ignition. If that system is ON, the tach works. If that system is OFF too, then it doesn't matter that the TACH sees no signal. Bob . . . direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Crimper - Saga ...
Date: Jun 30, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Bob, >> Dug out the catalogs and to my dismay, found that the price has risen to nearly $500 each. If you're still interested, Jensen Tools has some relatively low cost ones availables (sub $200 for each size 9, 15, 25, and 37 pin) Here's a link the list them: http://www.jensentools.com/product/group.asp?parent_id=11760 If for some reason it doesn't come up, here are their part #s 190-286 - 9 pin 125-156 - 15 pin 125-158 - 25 pin 190-284 - 37 pin Regards, Don Honabach -----Original Message----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net] Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Crimper - Saga ... --> >--> > >Bob, > >Thanks your follow up comments and help. I hope the new 'anatomy' >article is going well. Will it be a available as an update to the >existing AeroElectric Book or a special article published on your >website? Here 'tis . . . http://216.55.140.222/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html >On a happier note - since I got side tracked on the PIDG connectors >this weekend and couldn't get any productive plane work done, I decided >to wire up the serial connectors for my EFIS and GPS units. In the >process of mounting the DB9 connectors I used a punch set I purchased a >few years back. Spent way too much money on it back then, but it's >definitely made this job incredibly easy and leaves a professional hole >for the connector. Please don't rub it in!!!!! I have this love-hate relationship with d-subs. Once mounted, and if you choose to use the solid-metal pins, I think they're the biggest value out there in connectors. But that gawdawful hole you have to cut to mount them neatly is a real bear . . . I've lusted after a set of Greenlee d-sub punches for 30 years. they used to sell for just over $200 . . . about $1000 for a complete set. Just after I sold the parts business to B&C, I had a wad of cash burning a hole in my pocket and I had this really great idea . . . I was going to get a set of d-sub punches. Dug out the catalogs and to my dismay, found that the price has risen to nearly $500 each. No way was I going to spend over $2300 for these punches. I've been talking to a local tool and die shop about making my own. They think they could do it for about $150 each. Unfortunately, that project is WAYYYYYYY back on the burners . . . I'm jealous . . . Bob . . . direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Fw: RV-List: Vans Amp Gauge
> >A buddy of mine is an RV builder (personally I do glass!). He says his >Van's amp gauge does the same thing. >He's sent to "complaint" on to Van's. I'll publish what they say about it,. > >I care 'cos I just bought the same gauge for my "fast glass" and it's >sitting on my bench waiting for installation. > >Neil Neil, can you scan and e-mail me the installation instructions for the instrument? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: A different way?
Date: Jun 30, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
>> It is very difficult to find Category 3, 5 or 5e (this is what you are calling 10BaseT cable) that is plenum grade and not solid wire. I haven't been following this thread very closely so if I'm off-base - sorry. I run Plenum CAT 5/5e cable a lot for my business and it's obvious that the Tefzel(sp?) coated wiring is much tougher and would seem to me a better choice. While not an expert, it was explained to me that the plenum covering is a fire issue and does not provide extra protection over the less expensive PVC coatings. Regards, Don Honabach -----Original Message----- From: Phil Birkelbach [mailto:phil(at)petrasoft.net] Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A different way? --> > > To control the relays I was thinking of running some Computer grade > 10BaseT cable. There is a version to that is approved to run through > plenums in buildings and has a fire rating that I believe is similar > to that of aviation wiring. It is very difficult to find Category 3, 5 or 5e (this is what you are calling 10BaseT cable) that is plenum grade and not solid wire. The stranded type of Category 5 wire is used for making patch cables and since patch cables seldom need to be run through the ceiling they don't usually come in plenum grade. Solid wire is more prone to breakage. If it were me (other arguments notwithstanding) I'd run a handfull of 24AWG Tefzel wire through there. Godspeed, Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Canopy http://www.myrv7.com direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Thanks, and Happy Trails....
> > >Bob Nuckolls, > >My Quickie Q-200 is re-wired and back in the air! I'm getting ready to >un-subscribe, but before I do I just wanted to thank you for the great >service you provide here. > >I no longer need the 15 or so daily e-mails so I will unsubscribe soon, but >I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your service. > >I hope to run into you again sometime and show you my plane. > >Sincerely, > >Sam Hoskins >Quickie Q-200 ~1,275 hrs >http://home.globaleyes.net/shoskins/page1.htm Sam, Your kind words are encouraging and gratifying. I'm very pleased that your experience here on the list has been so useful. I'd really appreciate it if you could stay here with us on the list . . . you've provided good input on numerous occasions and it never hurts to have more than one folk considering answers and options. In any case, I'll be at the tandem wing fly-in again this year. It's one of my favorites and only a couple hours drive from Wichita. Hope to see you there. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: D-Sub punches
> >Bob, > > >> Dug out the catalogs and to my dismay, found that the price has risen >to nearly $500 each. > >If you're still interested, Jensen Tools has some relatively low cost >ones availables (sub $200 for each size 9, 15, 25, and 37 pin) > >Here's a link the list them: > >http://www.jensentools.com/product/group.asp?parent_id=11760 > >If for some reason it doesn't come up, here are their part #s >190-286 - 9 pin >125-156 - 15 pin >125-158 - 25 pin >190-284 - 37 pin > >Regards, >Don Honabach Interesting! I looked around the 'net for alternatives after the Greenlee experience but I missed these guys. I've bookmarked the link and plan ot order a set in the not too distant future. Thanks for the heads-up! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Tach Auto Switch...
> >Bob, > > >> Easy. Make one of your ignition switches a 2-pole, double throw >switch. Use one side of the switch to control one ignition system. Use >other side to control tach connection. > >Thanks again :) > >My hope was to use both poles of the switch so I could have 2 separate >power feeds/circuits for the ignitions in the hopes of making a more >robust setup. If you have two batteries and two ignitions, what's lacking in robustness if one ign runs from one battery and the second ign runs from the other? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net>
Subject: Re: A different way?
Date: Jun 30, 2003
I'm sorry I wasn't very clear. The Plenum grade Category 5 cable is in fact easy to find, it is not easy to find in the stranded wire variety. Most Plenum grade Category 5 is solid wire which is more prone to breakage. If you can find some stranded plenum grade Cat. 5 then by all means use it. Godspeed, Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Canopy http://www.myrv7.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: A different way? > > >> It is very difficult to find Category 3, 5 or 5e (this is what you > are calling 10BaseT cable) that is plenum grade and not solid wire. > > I haven't been following this thread very closely so if I'm off-base - > sorry. > > I run Plenum CAT 5/5e cable a lot for my business and it's obvious that > the Tefzel(sp?) coated wiring is much tougher and would seem to me a > better choice. While not an expert, it was explained to me that the > plenum covering is a fire issue and does not provide extra protection > over the less expensive PVC coatings. > > Regards, > Don Honabach > > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Birkelbach [mailto:phil(at)petrasoft.net] > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A different way? > > > --> > > > > > To control the relays I was thinking of running some Computer grade > > 10BaseT cable. There is a version to that is approved to run through > > plenums in buildings and has a fire rating that I believe is similar > > to that of aviation wiring. > > It is very difficult to find Category 3, 5 or 5e (this is what you are > calling 10BaseT cable) that is plenum grade and not solid wire. The > stranded type of Category 5 wire is used for making patch cables and > since patch cables seldom need to be run through the ceiling they don't > usually come in plenum grade. Solid wire is more prone to breakage. If > it were me (other arguments notwithstanding) I'd run a handfull of 24AWG > Tefzel wire through there. > > Godspeed, > > Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas > RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Canopy > http://www.myrv7.com > > > direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RSwanson" <rswan19(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Safe-Ty
Date: Jun 30, 2003
For those who are in a place to start using wire ties, I found a new tie that is really much better than regular ties. I had seen them in a magazine by another name but the email I sent to the website was never answered. I happened on these at Home Depot today. Give them a look at: http://www.tnb-canada.com/catalogues/pdf/en/ty_rap/1tyrap_ENG_1d.pdf Sorry for the pdf, but that's the only picture I could find. Hope some of you like them as well as I did. R ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 30, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Safe-Ty
> >For those who are in a place to start using wire ties, I found a new tie >that is really much better than regular ties. I had seen them in a >magazine by another name but the email I sent to the website was never >answered. I happened on these at Home Depot today. Give them a look at: >http://www.tnb-canada.com/catalogues/pdf/en/ty_rap/1tyrap_ENG_1d.pdf >Sorry for the pdf, but that's the only picture I could find. Hope some of >you like them as well as I did . . . Here's the full line catalog on Thomas and Betts nylon cable ties. Notice that the Tyrap name covers a wide range of products. The product you're looking for is the Ty-Fast low profile version on page J46 http://tnbelectricalworld.tnb.com/contractor/docs/tyrap.pdf Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2003
From: John Herminghaus <catignano(at)everyday.com>
Subject: Re: D-Sub punches
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > >> >>Bob, >> >> >> >>>>Dug out the catalogs and to my dismay, found that the price has risen >>>> >>>> >>to nearly $500 each. >> >>If you're still interested, Jensen Tools has some relatively low cost >>ones availables (sub $200 for each size 9, 15, 25, and 37 pin) >> >>Here's a link the list them: >> >>http://www.jensentools.com/product/group.asp?parent_id=11760 >> >>If for some reason it doesn't come up, here are their part #s >>190-286 - 9 pin >>125-156 - 15 pin >>125-158 - 25 pin >>190-284 - 37 pin >> >>Regards, >>Don Honabach >> >> >Bob, > Take a look at www.buerklin.com. Search for part number 06 L 1380, and you will get a list of all their punches. It is a german company, but they have a sales office in Aspen. They also have dedicated wire strippers at around $8 for wire sizes awg20 and awg22 which I have and which work very well. John Herminghaus 06 L 1380 <http://www.buerklin.com/main_sammel.asp?BestNr=06%20L%201380> 1380 <http://www.buerklin.com/main_sammel.asp?BestNr=06%20L%201380> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Problem with web page?
I had a note from a lister citing problems with reading our web page at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html Seems that some of the pictures at the top of the page don't display. He sent me a capture of the HTML code his browser sees and indeed, some quotation marks are missing from two of the HTML tags that call the images in question. It would be helpful if folks would check this page and see if any image boxes come up empty. No need to respond to this message if the page displays okay. I would like to receive a DIRECT e-mail if anyone can duplicate our friend's observation. Thanks! Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( Knowing about a thing is different than ) ( understanding it. One can know a lot ) ( and still understand nothing. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2003
From: Freddie Freeloader <lists(at)stevet.net>
Subject: Re: Problem with web page?
Hello Robert, Tuesday, July 1, 2003, 6:47:17 AM, you wrote: RLNI> I had a note from a lister citing problems with reading our RLNI> web page at: RLNI> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html Yes, the 2 images under the heading "25 Watt, 115 VAC Soldering Iron" appear as broken links. I'm using Win2K and Mozilla 3.1 browser. -- Best regards, Freddie mailto:lists(at)stevet.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: Problem with web page?
Date: Jul 01, 2003
All images work for me. (Win2kPro and IE6.0) Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Freddie Freeloader Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Problem with web page? Hello Robert, Tuesday, July 1, 2003, 6:47:17 AM, you wrote: RLNI> I had a note from a lister citing problems with reading our RLNI> web page at: RLNI> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html Yes, the 2 images under the heading "25 Watt, 115 VAC Soldering Iron" appear as broken links. I'm using Win2K and Mozilla 3.1 browser. -- Best regards, Freddie mailto:lists(at)stevet.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: Problem with web page?
Date: Jul 01, 2003
Additional information. All was fine with my copy of Mozilla 1.4 browser. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Freddie Freeloader Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Problem with web page? Hello Robert, Tuesday, July 1, 2003, 6:47:17 AM, you wrote: RLNI> I had a note from a lister citing problems with reading our RLNI> web page at: RLNI> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html Yes, the 2 images under the heading "25 Watt, 115 VAC Soldering Iron" appear as broken links. I'm using Win2K and Mozilla 3.1 browser. -- Best regards, Freddie mailto:lists(at)stevet.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2003
Subject: KX-125 problem
From: Bruce Green <mailindex(at)juno.com>
I have a KX-125 and it had worked fine and then suddenly, it was inoperative. Sent it out for repairs and they replaced a diode in the power supply and two transistors in the transmitter for $350. Put it back in and all was well for about an hour but now it seems to have suffered the same fate again. I sent it back to the avionics shop and have not heard what they think yet. Of course I am wondering if there is something about the plane that created this problem with the radio, such as a voltage spike. The transponder and intercom run off of the same circuit and have not failed. I was going to connect a voltmeter and fly around for a while and see what it does. Could a bad regulator cause this problem?? Bruce Green Eagle N110GM The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Lee" <bob(at)flyboybob.com>
Subject: Grounding questions
Date: Jul 01, 2003
Bob K, Unfortunately, I already completed wiring my instrument panel before I found your wonderful book "The AeroElectric Connection". I just read the chapter on grounding and am concerned that I might have a problem with ground loops. I've got a couple of questions that require some background to make sense. I used a sheet of .060" 7075 aluminum to build the instrument panel. I have full IFR instruments on the left, radio stack in the center, and engine instruments on the right in the standard locations. I used the panel as a ground for everything mounted there (G3) and then ran a number 2 wire to the battery minus terminal. The firewall is .015 stainless (G2) that is connected to the battery minus terminal with a number 2 wire. Number 2 was selected for these two grounds because the two battery bus connections to the main bus are through 35 amp breakers each. Number 2 will flow 100 amps so it gives me a margin over the 70 amps maximum available The crankcase has a 1 foot long 00 wire run to the battery minus terminal. The two batteries are in a common battery box and their negative terminals are bolted together with a 1/4" bolt. The alternators are PM units with the regulators mounted on the firewall. The firewall and instrument panel are electrically isolated structurally due to composite airframe. From reading The AeroElectric Connection, it's obvious that I need to update my wiring diagram with appropriate ground locations for each component. Before I make the changes I want to make sure I have a good understanding of the grounding requirements. With that said, here are my 3 questions: 1. Will the firewall and instrument panel serve as acceptable G2 and G3 ground busses? (I don't want to rewire all the grounds if it is not necessary) 2. To prevent ground loops should the number 2 wire connections to the battery minus terminal from the instrument panel and firewall be replaced with larger wire (if yes what size do you recommend)? 3. I have fuel transfer pumps nav lights and strobes in the wings, should they be grounded to the firewall to provide the return path to the voltage regulators? If you're a visual type, you can see my wiring diagram at: http://flyboybob.com/kr2/wd0001.htm. It's a seven sheet drawing that comes up on sheet 1 power distribution. Use the pull down at the bottom of the page to select sheet 7, Grounding. Regards, Bob Lee ______________________________ N52BL KR2 Suwanee, GA 30024 91% done only 51% to go! Phone/Fax: 770/844-7501 mailto:bob(at)flyboybob.com http://flyboybob.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: KX-125 problem
> >I have a KX-125 and it had worked fine and then suddenly, it was >inoperative. Sent it out for repairs and they replaced a diode in the >power supply and two transistors in the transmitter for $350. Put it >back in and all was well for about an hour but now it seems to have >suffered the same fate again. I sent it back to the avionics shop and >have not heard what they think yet. Of course I am wondering if there >is something about the plane that created this problem with the radio, >such as a voltage spike. The transponder and intercom run off of the >same circuit and have not failed. I was going to connect a voltmeter and >fly around for a while and see what it does. > >Could a bad regulator cause this problem?? Sure. Do you have ov protection? Do you have a voltmeter in the airplane? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2003
Subject: Re: KX-125 problem
From: Bruce Green <mailindex(at)juno.com>
writes: > > > > > > >I have a KX-125 and it had worked fine and then suddenly, it was > >inoperative. Sent it out for repairs and they replaced a diode in > the > >power supply and two transistors in the transmitter for $350. Put > it > >back in and all was well for about an hour but now it seems to have > >suffered the same fate again. I sent it back to the avionics shop > and > >have not heard what they think yet. Of course I am wondering if > there > >is something about the plane that created this problem with the > radio, > >such as a voltage spike. The transponder and intercom run off of > the > >same circuit and have not failed. I was going to connect a > voltmeter and > >fly around for a while and see what it does. > > > >Could a bad regulator cause this problem?? > > Sure. Do you have ov protection? Do you have a voltmeter in the > airplane? > > Bob . . . > > Bob, I do have over voltage protection, but I have never verified that it is working properly. I do not have a voltmeter, all that I have is an ammeter like in a car, with a 60-0-60 scale. It is what came with the plane and at some point, I plan to replace it with a voltmeter. In my last plane, I bought a davtron unit from B&C that mounted right at the end of the buss bar and I was very happy with that. The only electric devices in the airplane are the KX-125, a KT-76 transponder and a PS Engineering intercom and so far the transponder and intercom have not been affected. I plan to go flying with my handheld and connect my multimeter to the bussbar and see what the output is and if there are any aberations. When I put the battery in, I adjusted the voltmeter to I believe, 13.8 as the battery manufacture recomended. Should I be looking for high voltage excursions or just a generally high voltage?? Thanks for your help, Bruce Green Eagle N110GM The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: KX-125 problem
> > >Bob, I do have over voltage protection, but I have never verified that it >is working properly. It's a good thing to do. I describe both bench and in-place test procedures in http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/crowbar.pdf > I do not have a voltmeter, all that I have is an >ammeter like in a car, with a 60-0-60 scale. It is what came with the >plane and at some point, I plan to replace it with a voltmeter. In my >last plane, I bought a davtron unit from B&C that mounted right at the >end of the buss bar and I was very happy with that. The voltmeter is a good thing to have . . . better I think than the battery ammeter . . . but either instrument is just a troubleshooting assist. > The only electric >devices in the airplane are the KX-125, a KT-76 transponder and a PS >Engineering intercom and so far the transponder and intercom have not >been affected. I plan to go flying with my handheld and connect my >multimeter to the bussbar and see what the output is and if there are any >aberations. When I put the battery in, I adjusted the voltmeter to I >believe, 13.8 as the battery manufacture recomended. Should I be looking >for high voltage excursions or just a generally high voltage?? Most automotive and aircraft regulators are set at 14.2 volts for better recharge rates . . and while slightly elevated with respect to optimum room temperature floating recharge, it's not particularly injurious to the battery. >Thanks for your help, Put your voltmeter on the bus and fire up the airplane leaving the radios off. See how stable the voltage is with variable loading. Run up to 1800+ rpm and switch everything but radios on. Bus voltage shouldn't wiggle by more than 0.5 volt or so. Your story seems to favor an ov event. I'd sure check out the ov protection to be sure. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2003
Subject: Re: KX-125 problem
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Probably a long shot, but I wonder whether the KX-125 is susceptible to damage from a shorted antenna. King seems like a good brand, and so probably wouldn't sell a radio with this kind of problem, but its something else to check. Another point is that some devices may be more likely to be damaged by a bus voltage problem. The KX-125 may have the least overvoltage protect/robust design. When you say that you adjusted the voltmeter to read 13.8, I assume you mean that you were adjusting the voltage regulator so that the voltmeter read 13.8? Good luck, and let everyone know what you find. Regards, Matt- N34RD > > > > writes: >> >> >> >> > >> >I have a KX-125 and it had worked fine and then suddenly, it was >> inoperative. Sent it out for repairs and they replaced a diode in >> the >> >power supply and two transistors in the transmitter for $350. Put >> it >> >back in and all was well for about an hour but now it seems to have >> suffered the same fate again. I sent it back to the avionics shop >> and >> >have not heard what they think yet. Of course I am wondering if >> there >> >is something about the plane that created this problem with the >> radio, >> >such as a voltage spike. The transponder and intercom run off of >> the >> >same circuit and have not failed. I was going to connect a >> voltmeter and >> >fly around for a while and see what it does. >> > >> >Could a bad regulator cause this problem?? >> >> Sure. Do you have ov protection? Do you have a voltmeter in the >> airplane? >> >> Bob . . . >> >> > > Bob, I do have over voltage protection, but I have never verified that > it is working properly. I do not have a voltmeter, all that I have is > an ammeter like in a car, with a 60-0-60 scale. It is what came with > the plane and at some point, I plan to replace it with a voltmeter. In > my last plane, I bought a davtron unit from B&C that mounted right at > the end of the buss bar and I was very happy with that. The only > electric devices in the airplane are the KX-125, a KT-76 transponder and > a PS Engineering intercom and so far the transponder and intercom have > not been affected. I plan to go flying with my handheld and connect my > multimeter to the bussbar and see what the output is and if there are > any aberations. When I put the battery in, I adjusted the voltmeter to > I believe, 13.8 as the battery manufacture recomended. Should I be > looking for high voltage excursions or just a generally high voltage?? > > Thanks for your help, > > Bruce Green > Eagle N110GM > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 01, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Grouping wires for firewall penetration
> >Hi Bob, >1) Dual batteries, buses, and contactors in the rear. >2) A 2AWG wire connects the two bat cons to the starter con. >3) A 2AWG wire connects the two battery negative terminals to the inst. >panel ground bus. >4) An 8AWG wire connects 40amp alternator B lead to 40amp ANL and then to >starter con. >Rick Fogerson Okay. So it's about a wash as to where you put the starter contactor. If inside, then you have starter and b-leads coming through the firewall. If outside on firewall, you have battery feeder to the starter contactor and main-bus feeds coming through the firewall. Either way it's two fat wires. So if you have it mounted inside already, I wouldn't move it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Aucountry(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 02, 2003
Subject: Team Grumman
Matt, how and when can I start enlisting members into TeamGrumman? The rules you post make a lot more sense than the GG rules. Gary ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Neville Kilford" <nkilford(at)etravel.org>
Subject: Recent order
Date: Jul 02, 2003
Bob and B&C, The fulfilment of my recent order is the singularly most impressive piece of customer service I've ever experienced. I ordered on Saturday evening, and the package arrvied (in good order and with nothing missing) this morning (Wednesday) at 9.00. Elapsed time: two working days. This is especially impressive considering I'm in the UK. Great fun, opening a complete "electrical system in a box". Thanks for the great service. Kind regards. Neville Kilford -- Jodel D-150 in progress UK ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 02, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Grounding questions
> >Bob K, > >Unfortunately, I already completed wiring my instrument panel before I found >your wonderful book "The AeroElectric Connection". I just read the chapter >on grounding and am concerned that I might have a problem with ground loops. >I've got a couple of questions that require some background to make sense. > >I used a sheet of .060" 7075 aluminum to build the instrument panel. I have >full IFR instruments on the left, radio stack in the center, and engine >instruments on the right in the standard locations. I used the panel as a >ground for everything mounted there (G3) and then ran a number 2 wire to the >battery minus terminal. Geesh! That's a hawg. All this wire carries is ground flow for the panel mounted stuff. You can get by with much smaller, perhaps a 10AWG. > The firewall is .015 stainless (G2) that is >connected to the battery minus terminal with a number 2 wire. Number 2 was >selected for these two grounds because the two battery bus connections to >the main bus are through 35 amp breakers each. Number 2 will flow 100 amps >so it gives me a margin over the 70 amps maximum available > >The crankcase has a 1 foot long 00 wire run to the battery minus terminal. >The two batteries are in a common battery box and their negative terminals >are bolted together with a 1/4" bolt. The alternators are PM units with the >regulators mounted on the firewall. The firewall and instrument panel are >electrically isolated structurally due to composite airframe. > > From reading The AeroElectric Connection, it's obvious that I need to update >my wiring diagram with appropriate ground locations for each component. >Before I make the changes I want to make sure I have a good understanding of >the grounding requirements. > >With that said, here are my 3 questions: > >1. Will the firewall and instrument panel serve as acceptable G2 and G3 >ground busses? (I don't want to rewire all the grounds if it is not >necessary) G2 should be a single bolt on the firewall. Avoid running cranking current TROUGH the firewall sheet. Your locally grounded equipment items (see below) will flow current in the firewall sheet but this is relatively small and does not share a path with any potential victims. >2. To prevent ground loops should the number 2 wire connections to the >battery minus terminal from the instrument panel and firewall be replaced >with larger wire (if yes what size do you recommend)? "Loop" refers only to architecture and has nothing to do with wire size. The goal is to have potential victims (usually panel mounted stuff) have a common ground point at G2 . . . your intermediate bus (panel sheet) tied to G2 satisfies this requirement. Your ground wires are certainly robust. The 00AWG jumper might be better located at the single bolt at G2. >3. I have fuel transfer pumps nav lights and strobes in the wings, should >they be grounded to the firewall to provide the return path to the voltage >regulators? These items are neither potential victims nor potential antagonists and can be grounded locally. >If you're a visual type, you can see my wiring diagram at: >http://flyboybob.com/kr2/wd0001.htm. It's a seven sheet drawing that comes >up on sheet 1 power distribution. Use the pull down at the bottom of the >page to select sheet 7, Grounding. Tried to look at it but it seems your present site provider is involved in a turf war and we can't access your uploaded pages. Will try later. Looks like your e-mail return address is to the same server . . . you probably won't get this AeroElectric-List item until the battle is won or a truce is signed. Good luck! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 02, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Recent order
> > >Bob and B&C, > >The fulfilment of my recent order is the singularly most impressive piece of >customer service I've ever experienced. I ordered on Saturday evening, and >the package arrvied (in good order and with nothing missing) this morning >(Wednesday) at 9.00. Elapsed time: two working days. > >This is especially impressive considering I'm in the UK. Great fun, opening >a complete "electrical system in a box". > >Thanks for the great service. > >Kind regards. >Neville Kilford > >-- >Jodel D-150 in progress >UK I'll forward a copy of this to the folks at B&C. I'm pleased that they were able to provide timely response to your needs. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DHPHKH(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 02, 2003
Subject: Re: Grounding questions
<are bolted together with a 1/4" bolt.>> Just a thought: May not be wise to bolt two heavy batteries together at the terminals. A flexible connection seems more appropriate. Dan ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 02, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Wiring VM1000 for dual alternator
installation > > >Listers, > >I'm wiring my RV-8 with Z-13. My ammeter will the embedded in the Vision >MIcrosystems VM-1000 display. > >My questions are: >1) What would be the consequence if I connected the leads from both >ammeter shunts to the VM-1000? Since both alternators would be operating >at different times wouldn't the display just show the current from which >ever alternator was switched on? No doubt I'm missing something, please >poke holes in my logic. I got a note from Vision Microsystems that answered questions I had on how their transducers were wired. I've published a suggested wiring diagram for dual ammeter transducers on the VM1000 at http://216.55.140.222/temp/VM1000_Dual_Bus.pdf Consider that you might do quite nicely without putting an ammeter sensor on the aux alternator. If the bus voltage is staying above 13.0 volts then you're certainly not overloading the aux alternator. Besides, your en-route load analysis needs to be accomplished before first flight. You KNOW what the maximum auxiliary alternator loads are going to be long before you ever need to load that alternator. >2) For those who have used a primary and an E bus and a display like the >VM-1000, where in the circuit did you wire the voltmeter? Any reason to >have a voltmeter on the main bus as well as the E-bus? OOps, that's a >dumb question, I think I just answered it myself. Current is very >important to system health, but knowing if the voltage falls below >alternator output (#1 or #2) is all that really matters, yes? Having said >that, my logic is that putting a single voltmeter accross the pnl ground >plane to the started contactor would do the job. Fire away, what am I missing? If power to operate the VM1000 fits into your power budget for sustained en route operations with the aux alternator (and I would think 8+ amps is plenty) then run the VM1000 from the e-bus and be aware that voltage readings for normal operations are 0.7 volts lower than actual. Momentary closure of the alternate feed switch will give you the real bus voltage and show that the alternate feed path is intact. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Thanks - PIDG Article...
Date: Jul 02, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Bob, I wanted to thank you for doing the new crimping article. It was very educational and helped me better understand crimping, etc. In the article I noticed you cut the connectors apart. I'm getting my new AMP crimper this week and will cut open the crimps and compare. Should be interesting if nothing else from a techie prespective. Thanks again for all your help. Regards, Don Honabach ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 02, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Thanks - PIDG Article...
> >Bob, > >I wanted to thank you for doing the new crimping article. It was very >educational and helped me better understand crimping, etc. > >In the article I noticed you cut the connectors apart. I'm getting my >new AMP crimper this week and will cut open the crimps and compare. >Should be interesting if nothing else from a techie prespective. A cornerstone of good science is the repeatable experiment. There's no better activity than a DIY confirmation of results to validate an idea and commit it solidly in memory. Now YOU will be armed with another simple-idea that can be shared with others as the occasions arise. Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( Knowing about a thing is different than ) ( understanding it. One can know a lot ) ( and still understand nothing. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
"Avionics-list" ,
Subject: Off list for a while...
Date: Jul 02, 2003
I'll be off list until the 14th ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 03, 2003
From: "Richard V. Reynolds" <rvreynolds(at)macs.net>
Subject: Fluctuating Ammeter
With the engine running and the alternator on, the ammeter fluctuates between +60/-60 amps with all loads on. As the loads are reduced, i.e. the landing lights, strobes, and nav lights are turned off, the fluctuations reduce to +5/-5 amps. The battery voltage is 13.6 volts before start and 15.2 volts with the alternator on as measured with a digital voltmeter. The voltage does not appear to be fluctuating. I presume the RV has the standard Vans regulator and alternator. Any thoughts on the cause. Richard Reynolds for a friend ________________________________________________________________________________
From: KITFOXZ(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 03, 2003
Subject: Re: Grounding questions
In a message dated 7/2/2003 9:55:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, DHPHKH(at)aol.com writes: > < terminals > >are bolted together with a 1/4" bolt.>> > > Just a thought: May not be wise to bolt two heavy batteries together at > the terminals. A flexible connection seems more appropriate. > > Dan > > Dan, You are right on point here. This is a VERY important detail. Bolting two large (heavy) masses together at a single point is begging for trouble. Even if the battery pair were very snug and cannot move a micrometer in the battery box, I would not subject the battery posts to this stress. A very flexible braided jumper wire with terminal connections at battery posts is a must. John P. Marzluf Columbus, Ohio Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 03, 2003
From: MARTIN EMRATH <emrath(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Wiring VM1000 for dual alternators
Bob: Is the 0.7 volt drop due to the losses in the master contactor? Marty in Brentwood TN From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wiring VM1000 for dual alternator installation > > >Listers, > >I'm wiring my RV-8 with Z-13. My ammeter will the embedded in the Vision >MIcrosystems VM-1000 display. > >My questions are: >1) What would be the consequence if I connected the leads from both >ammeter shunts to the VM-1000? Since both alternators would be operating >at different times wouldn't the display just show the current from which >ever alternator was switched on? No doubt I'm missing something, please >poke holes in my logic. I got a note from Vision Microsystems that answered questions I had on how their transducers were wired. I've published a suggested wiring diagram for dual ammeter transducers on the VM1000 at <http://216.55.140.222/temp/VM1000_Dual_Bus.pdf> Consider that you might do quite nicely without putting an ammeter sensor on the aux alternator. If the bus voltage is staying above 13.0 volts then you're certainly not overloading the aux alternator. Besides, your en-route load analysis needs to be accomplished before first flight. You KNOW what the maximum auxiliary alternator loads are going to be long before you ever need to load that alternator. >2) For those who have used a primary and an E bus and a display like the >VM-1000, where in the circuit did you wire the voltmeter? Any reason to >have a voltmeter on the main bus as well as the E-bus? OOps, that's a >dumb question, I think I just answered it myself. Current is very >important to system health, but knowing if the voltage falls below >alternator output (#1 or #2) is all that really matters, yes? Having said >that, my logic is that putting a single voltmeter accross the pnl ground >plane to the started contactor would do the job. Fire away, what am I missing? If power to operate the VM1000 fits into your power budget for sustained en route operations with the aux alternator (and I would think 8+ amps is plenty) then run the VM1000 from the e-bus and be aware that voltage readings for normal operations are 0.7 volts lower than actual. Momentary closure of the alternate feed switch will give you the real bus voltage and show that the alternate feed path is intact. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 03, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Wiring VM1000 for dual alternators
> >Bob: Is the 0.7 volt drop due to the losses in the master contactor? >Marty in Brentwood TN No, from e-bus normal feedpath diode. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 03, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Fluctuating Ammeter
> > >With the engine running and the alternator on, the ammeter fluctuates >between +60/-60 amps >with all loads on. As the loads are reduced, i.e. the landing lights, >strobes, and nav >lights are turned off, the fluctuations reduce to +5/-5 amps. > >The battery voltage is 13.6 volts before start and 15.2 volts with the >alternator on as >measured with a digital voltmeter. The voltage does not appear to be >fluctuating. > >I presume the RV has the standard Vans regulator and alternator. > >Any thoughts on the cause. > >Richard Reynolds for a friend more than half the time, this is a manifestation of voltage regulator instability due to excessive wiring resistance between the bus and the regulator. 15.2 is a tad high also and could be yet another manifestation of resistance . . . Try an experiment. Temporarily disconnect existing feedpath between input of regulator and bus. Make temporary connection between the input of your regulator and battery (+) terminal with a piece of hefty wire like 14 to 18AWG. Fire engine up, measure voltage at battery terminal and observe behavior of ammeter. If it settles down and votlage at battery moves down toward a more normal reading, then the problem lies in the normal feedpath between bus and regulator. Wire size, terminals, threaded fasteners, and internal resistance of breakers and switches can all add up to a value sufficient to upset the regulator. Be sure to break the temporary connection from battery (+) when the experiment is over . . . left on too long might overheat your alternator rotor and/or run the battery down. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 03, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 10631 Lee
>Below is the result of your inquiry. It was submitted by >John Lee (borgny(at)rconnect.com) on Wednesday, July 2, 2003 at 18:58:27 > >Wednesday, July 2, 2003 > >John Lee > >, >Email: borgny(at)rconnect.com >Comments/Questions: Dear Bob, >I have a LR3-14 voltage regulator hooked to a B&C alternator. It was set >at the factory at 14.4 volts and for the last year it has been working >good, except just recently it is only putting out 13.9 volts. Is this a >heat factor or is my alternator wearing out? Should I adjust the voltage >regulator back to 14.4 volts? Try adjusting it upward. There might be something else going on but adjusting is the first thing to try. Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( Knowing about a thing is different than ) ( understanding it. One can know a lot ) ( and still understand nothing. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 03, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Grounding questions
> >< >are bolted together with a 1/4" bolt.>> > > Just a thought: May not be wise to bolt two heavy batteries > together at >the terminals. A flexible connection seems more appropriate. > >Dan Good eye Dan! That one slipped by me. Battery terminals are indeed poorly designed for structural loading. My personal preference for battery connections is the very pliable, welding cable like those offered at http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/wiring/wiring.html#sbl and easily made at home. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Dual bus VM-1000
Date: Jul 04, 2003
From: "Treff, Arthur" <Arthur.Treff(at)Smartm.com>
Bob, Thanks for your research on my behalf. It was definately above and beyond the call of duty. You should be inducted into the EAA hall of fame. Not only did you go the extra mile and contact Vision Mirco, but you generated a schematic. None of the drawings for my plane look as good as yours. Anyway, thanks again for your tireless efforts. Art Treff RV-8 Fastback in progress ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Noise in the headset troubleshooting (long)
Date: Jul 04, 2003
From: "Treff, Arthur" <Arthur.Treff(at)Smartm.com>
Listers, I wanted to share with you some recent events surrounding troubleshooting 'noisy radio' problems in my 1966 Mooney, just in case this ever happens to you. The electrical system is standard "store bought" with battery on the firewall, 60A PMA'd alternator with external Zeftronics VR with on board over voltage protection. The output of the alt goest thru the firewall to the bus bar. (NFG). Gage is battery ammeter and I monitor bus voltage via a feature on the Stormscope. Regulator has 800 hours on it, and the alternator is a rebuilt with approx 50 hours. The scenario: Over time, I have noticed two abberations in my plane, I have treated them as unrelated. Here's the setup. Every once in awhile in flight, particularly at high altitudes. I notice a slight noise in the headset that sounds like frying bacon. It is intermittent. I further notice that if I turn on a high load device like a landing light (250W) the noise goes away. So, historically, I have suspected that this has something to do with the VR, but I do nothing about it, as it's intermittent. Additionally, Every once in awhile ATC tells me my KX-155 is totally unreadable. I switch to the UPS GX60 and they say it's better, but not perfect. The King is as old as they get, and it usually has to go into the shop at least every other year, so I really do nothing about it. I'm thinking that perhaps it's getting too hot, so I usually turn it off, and xmit on the GPS comm. Why that's not as clear, I usually rationalize that it's an inferior radio, or antenna, or less power than the King's 10 watts. The scenario worsens. Last month, the 'frying bacon' noise worsened. It was louder in the headset, and loading up the alternator with Pitot heat and landing light lessened the volume but did not erradicate it. I fly legs of 3-5 hours so I have alot of time to listen and wonder. Shutting off the audio panel made the sound go away. Hmmm.....perhaps the PS Engineering unit is starting to go... or perhaps I got some Corrosion X into critical places in antenna wiring during my annual last month...I also had more calls from ATC asking me to switch to another radio than the King. So, I was thinking that the KX-155 needed to go into the shop as did the audio panel, this can't be the voltage regulator. (not so fast, silly boy). Total chaos. Last week, during climb out on a routine 190 mile trip, the noise in the headset was really bad, and my ability to hear radio xmissions was diminished. ATC did not like my radios at all. I was on an IFR plan, but it was VMC so I pressed on. I tried loading up the bus, to get rid of the noise, but this no longer helped. I shut off the audio panel and all this did was make the noise softer. Finally, my eyes alighted on the voltage monitor. It read 11.2 volts! The ammeter showed a slight discharge. No alternator. I pulled the 5A alt field CB and all quieted in the headset. Ah ha! Gotcha you little bugger. A bad somethingorother in the alt circuit. I pressed the field breaker back in and the alt came back on line, voltge came back up to 13.8, the battery was drawing a charge on the ammeter and the noise quieted down, but was not gone. Now is when I really started troubleshooting. Every time I pulled the field breaker, the noise totally died away. I happen to have a spare VR with me (I'm not so organized usually) and the connector is accessible from under the panel. I shut off everything except one radio, pulled the field breaker. I reached under, found the connector and plugged in the new regulator. I reset the field breaker, in eager anticipation of a nice fat charge, quite in the earphones and a charging battery. I was convinced that the problem was the VR. What happened surpriese me: the new regulator lighted the OV light, and popped off line! OK, so a bad alternator I thought, could it be intermittently shorts in the field, diodes, what? The solution. On the ramp, I pulled the side cowling and wiggled the alt terminal connections. The field ring terminal was tight on the post, but the whole post was loose! I wiggled the other post (goes to ground) and it too was loose as well. So much for "Gen-U-Wine FAA repair stations, yellow tags saying Return to Service and PMA's parts." This was a newly overhauled alternator, with approx 50 hours on it over 3 months. I took off the ring terms, tightened down the jam nuts on the terminal posts and reinstalled the field and ground ring terminals respectively. My sceptical self did not really thing that this could be the cause of the entire episode, but my return flight was the quietest I've had in a long time, no complaints from ATC re: the King radio's quality and best of all no frying bacon at all, not a trace. The lesson, FWIW. What started out as a radio annoyance turned out to be a mechanical problem on the alternator. The radio and audio noise, as it turns out, were the best troubleshooting tools at my disposal. Better that than total alternator failure in the goo at night. In the future, I will not take changes in headset noise lightly. It could be trying to tell me something. Art Treff RV-8 Fastback interior work. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Dodson" <dodsond(at)qnet.com>
Subject: Noise in the headset troubleshooting (long)
Date: Jul 04, 2003
Same airplane (1966 M20C), with an InterAv alternator conversion. Worked perfectly for a year then started to get the occasional noise problem just as Arthur did. Similar trouble shooting sequence (but without the spare VR). Got slowly worse over time then my JPI started showing the low voltage conditon, intermittantly and infrequently at first then more frequently. I check all the connections several times. Fix came when one day I decided to just unwrap all the wiring from the harnesses and start checking splices and I discovered that the crimp had gone bad on the ring terminal where the field wire attaches to the alternator. That was the first thing I had checked in previous attempts and I checked it on several occasions. I didn't discover it sooner because all I really checked was that the nut held the terminal on the post well (post was solid). I had done such a good job with the heat shrink that the mechanical connection was pretty good but of course, not THAT good. First good tug it came right out of the crimp. 10 minutes later with a new ring terminial from my bench stock and my ratchet crimpers... problem fixed. Execellent electrics for 3 years and 600 hours now. Douglas L. Dodson, Jr. Glasair II-S FT Flight Test Engineer, CFI-A,I,G -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Treff, Arthur Subject: AeroElectric-List: Noise in the headset troubleshooting (long) Listers, I wanted to share with you some recent events surrounding troubleshooting 'noisy radio' problems in my 1966 Mooney, just in case this ever happens to you. The electrical system is standard "store bought" with battery on the firewall, 60A PMA'd alternator with external Zeftronics VR with on board over voltage protection. The output of the alt goest thru the firewall to the bus bar. (NFG). Gage is battery ammeter and I monitor bus voltage via a feature on the Stormscope. Regulator has 800 hours on it, and the alternator is a rebuilt with approx 50 hours. The scenario: Over time, I have noticed two abberations in my plane, I have treated them as unrelated. Here's the setup. Every once in awhile in flight, particularly at high altitudes. I notice a slight noise in the headset that sounds like frying bacon. It is intermittent. I further notice that if I turn on a high load device like a landing light (250W) the noise goes away. So, historically, I have suspected that this has something to do with the VR, but I do nothing about it, as it's intermittent. Additionally, Every once in awhile ATC tells me my KX-155 is totally unreadable. I switch to the UPS GX60 and they say it's better, but not perfect. The King is as old as they get, and it usually has to go into the shop at least every other year, so I really do nothing about it. I'm thinking that perhaps it's getting too hot, so I usually turn it off, and xmit on the GPS comm. Why that's not as clear, I usually rationalize that it's an inferior radio, or antenna, or less power than the King's 10 watts. The scenario worsens. Last month, the 'frying bacon' noise worsened. It was louder in the headset, and loading up the alternator with Pitot heat and landing light lessened the volume but did not erradicate it. I fly legs of 3-5 hours so I have alot of time to listen and wonder. Shutting off the audio panel made the sound go away. Hmmm.....perhaps the PS Engineering unit is starting to go... or perhaps I got some Corrosion X into critical places in antenna wiring during my annual last month...I also had more calls from ATC asking me to switch to another radio than the King. So, I was thinking that the KX-155 needed to go into the shop as did the audio panel, this can't be the voltage regulator. (not so fast, silly boy). Total chaos. Last week, during climb out on a routine 190 mile trip, the noise in the headset was really bad, and my ability to hear radio xmissions was diminished. ATC did not like my radios at all. I was on an IFR plan, but it was VMC so I pressed on. I tried loading up the bus, to get rid of the noise, but this no longer helped. I shut off the audio panel and all this did was make the noise softer. Finally, my eyes alighted on the voltage monitor. It read 11.2 volts! The ammeter showed a slight discharge. No alternator. I pulled the 5A alt field CB and all quieted in the headset. Ah ha! Gotcha you little bugger. A bad somethingorother in the alt circuit. I pressed the field breaker back in and the alt came back on line, voltge came back up to 13.8, the battery was drawing a charge on the ammeter and the noise quieted down, but was not gone. Now is when I really started troubleshooting. Every time I pulled the field breaker, the noise totally died away. I happen to have! a spare VR with me (I'm not so organized usually) and the connector is accessible from under the panel. I shut off everything except one radio, pulled the field breaker. I reached under, found the connector and plugged in the new regulator. I reset the field breaker, in eager anticipation of a nice fat charge, quite in the earphones and a charging battery. I was convinced that the problem was the VR. What happened surpriese me: the new regulator lighted the OV light, and popped off line! OK, so a bad alternator I thought, could it be intermittently shorts in the field, diodes, what? The solution. On the ramp, I pulled the side cowling and wiggled the alt terminal connections. The field ring terminal was tight on the post, but the whole post was loose! I wiggled the other post (goes to ground) and it too was loose as well. So much for "Gen-U-Wine FAA repair stations, yellow tags saying Return to Service and PMA's parts." This was a newly overhauled alternator, with approx 50 hours on it over 3 months. I took off the ring terms, tightened down the jam nuts on the terminal posts and reinstalled the field and ground ring terminals respectively. My sceptical self did not really thing that this could be the cause of the entire episode, but my return flight was the quietest I've had in a long time, no complaints from ATC re: the King radio's quality and best of all no frying bacon at all, not a trace. The lesson, FWIW. What started out as a radio annoyance turned out to be a mechanical problem on the alternator. The radio and audio noise, as it turns out, were the best troubleshooting tools at my disposal. Better that than total alternator failure in the goo at night. In the future, I will not take changes in headset noise lightly. It could be trying to tell me something. Art Treff RV-8 Fastback interior work. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: music input jacks
Date: Jul 04, 2003
Can somebody recommend a decent 1/8" stereo music input jack that can be panel mounted and isolated from ground somehow? I'm just assuming that keeping the audio return isolated from ground is ideal for reducing noise induced in the system. Are there insulating washers available, similar to those used on headset/mic jacks, that can be used on smaller jacks? Thanks in advance, )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 04, 2003
From: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com>
Subject: Re: music input jacks
Dan Checkoway wrote: > >Can somebody recommend a decent 1/8" stereo music input jack that can be >panel mounted and isolated from ground somehow? I'm just assuming that >keeping the audio return isolated from ground is ideal for reducing noise >induced in the system. > >Are there insulating washers available, similar to those used on headset/mic >jacks, that can be used on smaller jacks? > >Thanks in advance, >)_( Dan >RV-7 N714D >http://www.rvproject.com > A Google search for 'miniature phone jack with isolated ground' yielded: Stereo phone jack has isolated ground. Designed for pc-board mounting, the CTP-310 and CTP-312 3.5-mm stereo phone jacks offer optional grounded or isolated bushing and a life expectancy of 5000 mating cycles. The mini-phone jacks can be used for industrial, consumer, and computer multimedia sound cards, as well as other applications requiring audio input and output. Unit price in volume quantities is $0.20. Connect-Tech Products Inc, Carson City, NV. (702) 883-0986. not exactly what you want but a trip to their web site: http://www.connect-tech-products.com/connectors/three_five/three_five_downloads/35mm.pdf might get you what you want. CTP-354W-S1 looks like it would work, with a couple of extra unneeded pins. Switchcraft.com is another good bet, but their web site is being stubborn tonight. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 04, 2003
Subject: ACK ELT control wire?
7/4/2003 Hello Russ Werner and Jerry Kaidor, Below is a copy of your postings a while back on this subject. I am confronted with the same issue with an ACK ELT O1 regarding replacing the telephone style control wire extension. But one issue remains unresolved. Russ says you must do some wire swapping when putting on new connectors and Jerry says the cable works fine as purchased. Can either one of you or both revisit this issue and tell me if I can use a standard 4 wire telephone cable as purchased with connectors already installed or if I'll have to buy connectors, do some wire swapping and crimp on the new connectors? Many thanks. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? <<Message: #7465 From: jerry(at)tr2.com Subject: Re: ELT control wire? Date: Oct 24, 2002 Russ Werner wrote: "It's just telephone cable. Not critical by any means. Buy the 25 footer and clip off the male end. Reinstall a new male end where you need it and be sure to swap wires accordingly, as the ELT wires cross enroute while the telephone wires don't." *** Thanks Russ. That's what I did. Actually, the 25-footer worked fine as it was wired. I had to snip the connector and crimp on a new one anyway to fish the wire through the floor. - Jerry>> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HCRV6(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 05, 2003
Subject: Re: alternator
In a message dated 7/4/03 9:09:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, treading(at)comcast.net writes: << Looking at the drawings it shows on the b+c the field wire goes from a single terminal on the regulator but two terminals at the alt. I ran a small link between the two then one wire back to the reg. Is this the right way. >> Correct. I just finished wiring my B&C alternator and that is exactly what the B&C instructions say to do. Harry Crosby Pleasanton, California RV-6, firewall forward ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 05, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: alternator
> > Looking at the drawings it shows on the b+c the field wire goes from a >single terminal on the regulator but two terminals at the alt. Actually, when B&C reworks an "automotive" alternator to make an "aircraft" alternator out of it, the connect ALL of the terminals together so that you can't hook up to the wrong one . . . any one of them is the right one . . . > I ran a small >link between the two then one wire back to the reg. Is this the right way. > Also I was wondering with the two alt. system will there be times when I >could or should run both of them at the same time? What you describe will function but it was not necessary to hook up to more than one of whatever terminals were there . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 05, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Tom Reading and other Digest subcribers, trim those
replies . . . Tom, if you look at what you "replied" to when you posted the query about alternator connections, your message repeated the entire digest download of the day. No big deal but it's very helpful to trim away remnants of the message you are using for a reply base unless they contribute to the thread of the conversation. In this instance, none of what followed your query was relevant to the conversation but was quite long. Thanks! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: LSE EI Installation
Date: Jul 05, 2003
I received my electronic ignition from Light Speed Engineering a couple of days ago. I'm preparing to install it on my Lycoming O-235 but can't figure out how to drill tap the holes for the sensor bracket without splitting the case.The way I see itnowthe holes in the prop flange don't line up with the sensor bracket mounting holes so it seems the case has to be split and the crank removed? But then I wont have the crank to center the bracket on. How do I get the drill behind the prop flange? Advice from someone who has installed one would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Grant Krueger ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: AeroElectric-List Digest:
4 Msgs - 07/05/03
Date: Jul 06, 2003
From: <max.johansson(at)nokia.com>
On vacation - back in office on Tuesday 15.07.2003 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Billie Lamb" <N254BL(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: LSE EI Installation
Date: Jul 06, 2003
Apparently yours is different than mine. On my IO-320-B1A there are holes to be drilled in the starter ring mount (flywheel) and the magnets pressed into them and staked. I sent the mount to Klaus to be drilled. I figured he was set up to do it properly. Bill Lamb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: LSE EI Installation > > I received my electronic ignition from Light Speed Engineering a couple of days ago. I'm preparing to install it on my Lycoming O-235 but can't figure out how to drill tap the holes for the sensor bracket without splitting the case.The way I see itnowthe holes in the prop flange don't line up with the sensor bracket mounting holes so it seems the case has to be split and the crank removed? But then I wont have the crank to center the bracket on. How do I get the drill behind the prop flange? > Advice from someone who has installed one would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks, > Grant Krueger > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 06, 2003
Subject: Re: LSE EI Installation
From: Joel Harding <cajole76(at)ispwest.com>
Grant, The holes in my case were oriented properly to accept the sensor bracket, but I've got a different model engine. Just make sure that you are mounting the sensor bracket correctly, and then if there is a small misalignment you can elongate the holes in the bracket or if that doesn't work, drill new holes in the bracket. I wouldn't consider splitting the case until all other possibilities are exhausted. You might also give Klaus a call, he is very helpful with installation problems. Joel Harding On Saturday, Jul 5, 2003, at 21:06 America/Denver, Tinne maha wrote: > > > I received my electronic ignition from Light Speed Engineering a > couple of days ago. I'm preparing to install it on my Lycoming O-235 > but can't figure out how to drill tap the holes for the sensor > bracket without splitting the case.The way I see itnowthe holes in the > prop flange don't line up with the sensor bracket mounting holes so it > seems the case has to be split and the crank removed? But then I wont > have the crank to center the bracket on. How do I get the drill behind > the prop flange? > Advice from someone who has installed one would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks, > Grant Krueger > > > _- > ====================================================================== > _- > ====================================================================== > _- > ====================================================================== > _- > ====================================================================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 06, 2003
Subject: Re: LSE EI Installation
From: Joel Harding <cajole76(at)ispwest.com>
Grant, Sorry, I misinterpreted your your question. I guess an 90 degree angle drill would be about he only way to drill the holes without splitting the case, but tapping would still be a problem. I'm sure Klaus can give more useful information. Joel Harding On Saturday, Jul 5, 2003, at 21:06 America/Denver, Tinne maha wrote: > > > I received my electronic ignition from Light Speed Engineering a > couple of days ago. I'm preparing to install it on my Lycoming O-235 > but can't figure out how to drill tap the holes for the sensor > bracket without splitting the case.The way I see itnowthe holes in the > prop flange don't line up with the sensor bracket mounting holes so it > seems the case has to be split and the crank removed? But then I wont > have the crank to center the bracket on. How do I get the drill behind > the prop flange? > Advice from someone who has installed one would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks, > Grant Krueger > > > _- > ====================================================================== > _- > ====================================================================== > _- > ====================================================================== > _- > ====================================================================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 06, 2003
Subject: Re: KX-125 problem
From: Bruce Green <mailindex(at)juno.com>
Bob, I put my volt meter on the bus and flew around for half an hour and the voltage varied between 14.24 to 14.27 and never strayed outside of that. I couldn't really change the load because I don't have anything to turn on and off, the only electric things in the plane are the radio which isn't in the plane and a transponder and an intercom. I turned the intercom on and off and that didn't change anything. The radio shop has the radio and I am hoping to hear from them tomorrow as to what is wrong with it. Could a loose wire, say the power wire on the back of the alternator cause a voltage spike? Shouldn't a radio be able to handle something like that? If it were a case of the regulator allowing the alternator to charge to its hearts content, I have a feeling that I would smell the battery outgassing, it is only about a foot away from me. Thanks again for your help. Bruce Green Eagle N110GM writes: > > > > > > > > >Bob, I do have over voltage protection, but I have never verified > that it > >is working properly. > > It's a good thing to do. I describe both bench and in-place > test procedures in > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/crowbar.pdf > > > > I do not have a voltmeter, all that I have is an > >ammeter like in a car, with a 60-0-60 scale. It is what came with > the > >plane and at some point, I plan to replace it with a voltmeter. In > my > >last plane, I bought a davtron unit from B&C that mounted right at > the > >end of the buss bar and I was very happy with that. > > The voltmeter is a good thing to have . . . better I think > than the battery ammeter . . . but either instrument is just > a troubleshooting assist. > > > The only electric > >devices in the airplane are the KX-125, a KT-76 transponder and a > PS > >Engineering intercom and so far the transponder and intercom have > not > >been affected. I plan to go flying with my handheld and connect my > >multimeter to the bussbar and see what the output is and if there > are any > >aberations. When I put the battery in, I adjusted the voltmeter to > I > >believe, 13.8 as the battery manufacture recomended. Should I be > looking > >for high voltage excursions or just a generally high voltage?? > > Most automotive and aircraft regulators are set at 14.2 volts > for better recharge rates . . and while slightly elevated > with respect to optimum room temperature floating recharge, it's > not particularly injurious to the battery. > > >Thanks for your help, > > > Put your voltmeter on the bus and fire up the airplane leaving > the radios off. See how stable the voltage is with > variable loading. Run up to 1800+ rpm and switch everything > but radios on. Bus voltage shouldn't wiggle by more than > 0.5 volt or so. > > Your story seems to favor an ov event. I'd sure check out > the ov protection to be sure. > > Bob . . . > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm > Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list > > > > > > The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net>
Subject: dead battery
Date: Jul 06, 2003
I recently went to turn on the Master switch on my RV7A (almost done) and discovered the battery was dead (I have 2 batteries). I measured the voltage (with terminals attached) and it read 0.06 V. I tried to charge the battery but it was long gone. However after removing the terminals (and noticing a small spark) and removed the battery from the airplane, the voltage read 4.5 V and I fully charged it to 13 V over night. I reinstalled the battery, connected the terminals and have not had a problem since. I did discover a small screw in the tray of my EXP Bus and removed it. Could have caused a short between the casing and circuit board? All the CB were pulled at the time except for the main battery (can't be pulled, just reset). Any body have an idea of why my battery read different voltages with the terminals connected and disconnected and what may have caused this voltage drain? Everything in my airplane is powered from the power leads on the Exp Bus and the loads are well below the maximum allowed currents. Steve Hurlbut RV7A Eggenfellner Subaru powered ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: KX-125 and KN-75 wiring, manual discrepancy
Date: Jul 07, 2003
Dear all, I've wired today my Nav/Com (KX-125) and the Glideslope Receiver (KN75) all went fine, until I've detected, that in the drawing and the associated wireliste some discrepancies concerning pin layout are.I've the Installation Manual for the KX-125 (#006-00655-0001) dated Rev 1 January 1994. On the diagram page 2-5 it says: GS 108 MHZ Pin E GS 109 MHZ Pin B GS 110 MHZ Pin C GS 111 MHZ Pin D On the connector pinout diagram page 2-11 it says A -> GLIDESPLOPE 109 kHz B -> GLIDESPLOPE 110 kHz C -> GLIDESPLOPE 108 kHz D -> GLIDESPLOPE 111 kHz I recon the diagram is right and the connector pinout wrong (as the kHz are?) Any help appreciated. Kind regards Werner (nearly ready for first power up!) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "kc" <samdacat(at)elp.rr.com>
Subject: Re: dead battery
Date: Jul 06, 2003
I think that the change in voltage connected vs disconnected confirms a short that was actively draining the battery. Could have been the screw you noticed in the EXP bus tray or something else that moved when you removed the battery. Since the master was off when this happened, the problem was in one of the areas between the battery and the master. I would make a very through review of this area of your system. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: dead battery > > I recently went to turn on the Master switch on my RV7A (almost done) > and discovered the battery was dead (I have 2 batteries). I measured the > voltage (with terminals > attached) and it read 0.06 V. I tried to charge the battery but it was long > gone. > > However after removing the terminals (and noticing a small spark) and > removed the battery > from the airplane, the voltage read 4.5 V and I fully charged it to 13 V > over night. > > I reinstalled the battery, connected the terminals and have not had a > problem since. I did discover > a small screw in the tray of my EXP Bus and removed it. Could have caused a > short between the casing > and circuit board? All the CB were pulled at the time except for the main > battery (can't be pulled, just > reset). > > Any body have an idea of why my battery read different voltages with the > terminals connected and > disconnected and what may have caused this voltage drain? Everything in my > airplane is powered from the > power leads on the Exp Bus and the loads are well below the maximum allowed > currents. > > Steve Hurlbut > RV7A > Eggenfellner Subaru powered > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 06, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Dual bus VM-1000
> > >Bob, >Thanks for your research on my behalf. It was definately above and beyond >the call of duty. You should be inducted into the EAA hall of fame. Not >only did you go the extra mile and contact Vision Mirco, but you generated >a schematic. My pleasure. Usually, the most reliable and informative source of data on a product is available from the manufacturer so I'll nearly always exercise that option unless it's a stone- simple question with an obvious answer. It's easy for me to draw neatly . . . shucks, anyone with AutoCAD can do it. Use any CAD program long enough and you tend to forget how to neatly drive a pencil. > None of the drawings for my plane look as good as yours. Neat is always good but good data recorded in a lucid manner is better. I work with a battalion of 3D CAD drivers most whom can produce very pretty drawings. Whether they are correct and/or optimized designs is another matter. I've visited builders who apologized for "messy" drawings. The messy part came from obvious use of the ultimate correction tool . . . the Pink Pearl eraser. What was lying on top of slightly smudged pages were easily read details of a system accurately described on paper. Don't sell your efforts short. If your drawings describe a clear and concise system story to you and/or future owners of the airplane, they're to be highly prized over some of the "good looking" stuff that spits out of laser printers! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 06, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: KX-125 and KN-75 wiring, manual
discrepancy > > >Dear all, > >I've wired today my Nav/Com (KX-125) and the Glideslope Receiver (KN75) all >went fine, until I've detected, that in the drawing and the associated >wireliste some discrepancies concerning pin layout are.I've the Installation >Manual for the KX-125 (#006-00655-0001) dated Rev 1 January 1994. > >On the diagram page 2-5 it says: > > GS 108 MHZ Pin E > GS 109 MHZ Pin B > GS 110 MHZ Pin C > GS 111 MHZ Pin D The pinout diagram published at http://216.55.140.222/Installation_Data/KX125.pdf agrees with the above. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 06, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: dead battery
> > >I recently went to turn on the Master switch on my RV7A (almost done) >and discovered the battery was dead (I have 2 batteries). I measured the >voltage (with terminals >attached) and it read 0.06 V. I tried to charge the battery but it was long >gone. > >However after removing the terminals (and noticing a small spark) and >removed the battery >from the airplane, the voltage read 4.5 V and I fully charged it to 13 V >over night. Whatever ran the battery down was probably still attached and loading the battery during your first measurement. Unless the battery is in a constant discharge state for a very long time (weeks) and depending on the rate of discharge, the termial voltage will rise somewhat. As long as your battery hasn't suffered a total discharge condition for more than a day or two, it will probably be servicable. >I reinstalled the battery, connected the terminals and have not had a >problem since. . . . the "problem" may be one of reduced capacity. What kind of battery are we talking about here and what is its function in your system? >I did discover >a small screw in the tray of my EXP Bus and removed it. Could have caused a >short between the casing >and circuit board? All the CB were pulled at the time except for the main >battery (can't be pulled, just >reset). > >Any body have an idea of why my battery read different voltages with the >terminals connected and >disconnected and what may have caused this voltage drain? Everything in my >airplane is powered from the >power leads on the Exp Bus and the loads are well below the maximum allowed >currents. Have you put an ammeter in series with the batteries in your airplane to investigate the parked-and-locked drain current on batteries? Aside from acknowledge loads like keepalive for radio memories, clocks, and similar always-on loads, drain on batteries for a parked airplane should be ZERO. The fact that you had an unexplained total discharge of a battery suggests a need for further assurances that something unforetold is not going on. If your EXP Bus has polyfuses -AND- the screw caused a fault downstream of the fuse, it could have been driven into a high temperature, low fault current state that would take some time to run the battery down. The question arises, "how does anything on the EXP Bus get powered up with the master switch off? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 06, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: KX-125 problem
> >Bob, >I put my volt meter on the bus and flew around for half an hour and the >voltage varied between 14.24 to 14.27 and never strayed outside of that. >I couldn't really change the load because I don't have anything to turn >on and off, the only electric things in the plane are the radio which >isn't in the plane and a transponder and an intercom. I turned the >intercom on and off and that didn't change anything. That small a load change wouldn't help diagnose much in the way of alternator problems. You don't have any lighting equipment you can turn on? If your airplane is so lightly outfitted, I'd recommend you borrow a battery shop load tester, hook it to the battery with the engine running up 2,000 rpm or so and crank the load up to 25-40 amps as see that the panel voltmeter confirms an ability and willingness of the alternator to properly accept such loads. >The radio shop has the radio and I am hoping to hear from them tomorrow >as to what is wrong with it. Could a loose wire, say the power wire on >the back of the alternator cause a voltage spike? Shouldn't a radio be >able to handle something like that? If it were a case of the regulator >allowing the alternator to charge to its hearts content, I have a feeling >that I would smell the battery outgassing, it is only about a foot away >from me. > >Thanks again for your help. If you have a bus voltage high enough to outgas an RG battery, the OV protection system should have tripped the alternator of line a long time ago. If the ov protection system is functional, it should protect the airplane from miscreant regulators and alternators. See what the radio shop says. Be skeptical of any diagnosis based upon your airplane having "spiked" the radio. This is a common methodology for pushing root cause off onto the airplane . . . especially when the technician doesn't really understand how the radio failed. I'm not saying it never happens but after 4 decades of chasing gremlins in airplanes, I can tell you that technicians attribute spikes with far greater penchant for evil than the reality of good science can confirm. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net>
Subject: Re: dead battery
Date: Jul 06, 2003
The batteries are Odyssey PC625s. I did connect an ammeter in series and the current was zero. However after seeing the initial spark when disconnecting the +ve terminal, I reconnected it and there was no spark. Whatever was draining the battery is no longer causing any problems. I have kept track of the voltage for the past 3 days. After recharging, the battery read 12.71 V and now after 3 days it reads 12.61 V. I seems to be constant now. All the breakers are now pushed in and there is no current drain. I have an Eggenfellner Subaru engine that uses a dual battery system that can be connected through a master relay. The only keep-alive connection I have is to power the engine computer but that runs off the secondary battery and the current drain is VERY small. It is possible to power the engine computer, electrically controlled prop (Quinti), and the back up Gyro for emergency purposes with the MASTER off. This is through a Bus OVERRIDE switch that surpasses the EXP Bus in the unlikely event that it malfunctions. Nothing that is solely powered by the ExpBus can be used with the Master off. I have carefully checked the battery connection to the Exp Bus for shorts. The terminal has multiple layers of heat shrink and clears the ExpBus casing by at least 1/4". The only other thing I can think of is the engine computer itself. Since the batteries have been disconnected, the memory has been erased so there is no current draw for the computer. If the battery stabilizes at around 12.6 V I will be content for now until I run the engine again and create the computer memory draw. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: dead battery > > > > > > >I recently went to turn on the Master switch on my RV7A (almost done) > >and discovered the battery was dead (I have 2 batteries). I measured the > >voltage (with terminals > >attached) and it read 0.06 V. I tried to charge the battery but it was long > >gone. > > > >However after removing the terminals (and noticing a small spark) and > >removed the battery > >from the airplane, the voltage read 4.5 V and I fully charged it to 13 V > >over night. > > Whatever ran the battery down was probably still attached > and loading the battery during your first measurement. Unless > the battery is in a constant discharge state for a very long > time (weeks) and depending on the rate of discharge, the termial > voltage will rise somewhat. > > As long as your battery hasn't suffered a total discharge > condition for more than a day or two, it will probably > be servicable. > > > >I reinstalled the battery, connected the terminals and have not had a > >problem since. > > . . . the "problem" may be one of reduced capacity. What kind > of battery are we talking about here and what is its function > in your system? > > >I did discover > >a small screw in the tray of my EXP Bus and removed it. Could have caused a > >short between the casing > >and circuit board? All the CB were pulled at the time except for the main > >battery (can't be pulled, just > >reset). > > > >Any body have an idea of why my battery read different voltages with the > >terminals connected and > >disconnected and what may have caused this voltage drain? Everything in my > >airplane is powered from the > >power leads on the Exp Bus and the loads are well below the maximum allowed > >currents. > > Have you put an ammeter in series with the batteries in your > airplane to investigate the parked-and-locked drain current on > batteries? Aside from acknowledge loads like keepalive for radio > memories, clocks, and similar always-on loads, drain on batteries > for a parked airplane should be ZERO. The fact that you had an > unexplained total discharge of a battery suggests a need > for further assurances that something unforetold is not going > on. > > If your EXP Bus has polyfuses -AND- the screw caused > a fault downstream of the fuse, it could have been driven > into a high temperature, low fault current state that > would take some time to run the battery down. The question > arises, "how does anything on the EXP Bus get powered up > with the master switch off? > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 07, 2003
From: Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Option for alternator B-lead fuse
Bob, I would like to get your opinion on the use of a fuse holder similar to the following for alternator b-lead protection forward of the firewall: http://www.crutchfield.com/cgi-bin/S-08KCpdYV9zh/ProdView.asp?s=0&cc=01&g=716&id=morephotos&pi=1&i=575CPPFH4&display=L#morephotos These are commonly used in car stereo installations and are designed to go under the hood, near the battery. My plan is to have it mounted to the engine mount using adel clamps near the starter contactor. 40 Amp fuses are available (for my 40 amp B&C alternator.) The one drawback I can see is that the attachment of the wires is done with a set screw rather than a clamped connection. My alternative is to use a Bussmann JJS/JJN type fuse as shown in your book. Your opinion? Jeff Point RV-6 firewall forward Milwaukee WI ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 07, 2003
From: Kent Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net>
Subject: Re: LSE EI Installation
Grant, You shouldn't have to split the cases. You can press out one of the prop flange bushings, leaving a larger hole in the prop flange to drill and tap through. You can do this with a large C-Clamp and some pieces of pipe just a bit larger than the bushing. Some tapping with a plastic hammer helps. Carefully mark and centerpunch the location for the holes. The holes need to be right so the timing isn't altered. Drill to the appropriate depth with a small drill. Put some tape on the drill to indicate depth. Drill with the size drill recommended for the tap in a machinest's book. (Drilling straight-in is the hard part) Buy a three-tap set for the thread size you need. This is a set that gradually taps the hole to the correct size. use lots of tapping fluid, stop when needed to back out the tap and clean away chips Piece of cake --Kent Ashton. Tinne maha wrote: > >I received my electronic ignition from Light Speed Engineering a couple of days ago. I'm preparing to install it on my Lycoming O-235 but can't figure out how to drill tap the holes for the sensor bracket without splitting the case.The way I see itnowthe holes in the prop flange don't line up with the sensor bracket mounting holes so it seems the case has to be split and the crank removed? But then I wont have the crank to center the bracket on. How do I get the drill behind the prop flange? >Advice from someone who has installed one would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks, > Grant Krueger > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Muzzy Norman E" <MuzzyNormanE(at)JohnDeere.com>
Subject: RE: LSE EI Installation
Date: Jul 07, 2003
<> On my IO-360 I had to press out one of the prop bushings. This gave enough clearance that you could go straight in with the drill and tap. I used a hole saw with the teeth ground off plus a bolt, nut, and washer to press the bushing out. After installing the sensor bracket, make sure you verify that the clearance between the sensor and magnets is correct. If you need to shin something, or remove the sensor, it is much easier with the bushing out. Once everything is good, use the hole saw and bolt to press the bushing back into the prop flange. Much easier than splitting the case! Regards- Norm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ted Lemen" <tedlem(at)ecentral.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 14 Msgs - 07/06/03
Date: Jul 07, 2003
> > > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ > > > From: "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: dead battery > > > I recently went to turn on the Master switch on my RV7A (almost done) > and discovered the battery was dead (I have 2 batteries). I measured the > voltage (with terminals > attached) and it read 0.06 V. I tried to charge the battery but it was long > gone. > > However after removing the terminals (and noticing a small spark) and > removed the battery > from the airplane, the voltage read 4.5 V and I fully charged it to 13 V > over night. > > I reinstalled the battery, connected the terminals and have not had a > problem since. I did discover > a small screw in the tray of my EXP Bus and removed it. Could have caused a > short between the casing > and circuit board? All the CB were pulled at the time except for the main > battery (can't be pulled, just > reset). > > Any body have an idea of why my battery read different voltages with the > terminals connected and > disconnected and what may have caused this voltage drain? Everything in my > airplane is powered from the > power leads on the Exp Bus and the loads are well below the maximum allowed > currents. > > Steve Hurlbut > RV7A > Eggenfellner Subaru powered > > > I had a similar problem recently and What I discovered was the RG battery was shot. I could charge it up and it would read 12.5 volts. the next day it was still 12.5 volts but all I had to do was put a very low load on it and the voltage would start dropping. I appeared as an open circuit to the regulator and it went over voltage., fried a contactor and would have gotten the radio except I cougt it before it did any damage. I have over voltage protection now. the battery was only two years old. I am going to replace it more often from now on. > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 07, 2003
From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Dell Axim X5 PDA - Sunlight readable?
Anybody have the Dell Axim X5 PDA (and the iPaq 3630 Pocket PC) ? Is it as readable in direct sunlight as the iPaq 3630 Pocket PC? Finn ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 07, 2003
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: LSE EI Installation
> >Grant, > You shouldn't have to split the cases. > You can press out one of the prop flange bushings, leaving a larger >hole in the prop flange to drill and tap through. You can do this with >a large C-Clamp and some pieces of pipe just a bit larger than the >bushing. Some tapping with a plastic hammer helps. >Carefully mark and centerpunch the location for the holes. The holes >need to be right so the timing isn't altered. >Drill to the appropriate depth with a small drill. Put some tape on the >drill to indicate depth. >Drill with the size drill recommended for the tap in a machinest's book. > (Drilling straight-in is the hard part) >Buy a three-tap set for the thread size you need. This is a set that >gradually taps the hole to the correct size. use lots of tapping fluid, >stop when needed to back out the tap and clean away chips >Piece of cake >--Kent Ashton. it would be pretty cool if someone could do a series of photos from which a comic-book work-instruction can be crafted. I'd be willing to post such a document should the photos and data me made available to the task. Klaus SHOULD be doing this but better that we do it for ourselves than set around complaining that he hasn't done it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: KX-125 and KN-75 wiring, manual discrepancy
Date: Jul 07, 2003
Many thanks Bob for the confirmation, seems nobody did claim this error in the manual since 94 =(;o(( Kind regards Werner ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KX-125 and KN-75 wiring, manual discrepancy > > > > > > >Dear all, > > > >I've wired today my Nav/Com (KX-125) and the Glideslope Receiver (KN75) all > >went fine, until I've detected, that in the drawing and the associated > >wireliste some discrepancies concerning pin layout are.I've the Installation > >Manual for the KX-125 (#006-00655-0001) dated Rev 1 January 1994. > > > >On the diagram page 2-5 it says: > > > > GS 108 MHZ Pin E > > GS 109 MHZ Pin B > > GS 110 MHZ Pin C > > GS 111 MHZ Pin D > > The pinout diagram published at > http://216.55.140.222/Installation_Data/KX125.pdf > agrees with the above. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Dell Axim X5 PDA - Sunlight readable?
Date: Jul 07, 2003
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Finn, I believe you want to look for a unit that has a transflective screen. These are what I see mentioned whenever viewing issues are mentioned and what folks should look for if they don't want viewing issues. Don -----Original Message----- From: Finn Lassen [mailto:finnlassen(at)netzero.net] Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dell Axim X5 PDA - Sunlight readable? --> Anybody have the Dell Axim X5 PDA (and the iPaq 3630 Pocket PC) ? Is it as readable in direct sunlight as the iPaq 3630 Pocket PC? Finn direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 07, 2003
From: "Brad Benson" <brad@cds-inc.com>
Subject: Re: Dell Axim X5 PDA - Sunlight readable?
Finn, I've been using an Axim for about six months (Janurary); it replaced an IPaq 3650. The Axim's screen is better in pretty much every respect - it's brighter, easier to read in direct/indirect sunlight, and is more evenly lit when the backlight is activated. The Axim also has much better battery life. Thanks! Brad "Sharpie" Benson RV6AQB underway... "Please buy my software, it's funding my RV6A project!" - http://www.notamd.com *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 7/7/2003 at 11:32 AM Finn Lassen wrote: >


June 24, 2003 - July 07, 2003

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-cd