AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ch
August 03, 2003 - August 11, 2003
>
> Bob, any ideas about a cheap/easy solution to the problem of leaving the
> master on and running down the battery? I just did it today, and it's a
pain in
> th posterior. Like many homebuilts, my RV-8A has toggle switches for the
> master and L mag/elect. ignition, so it's easy to forgot to flip the master
off
> (for me at least).
>
> Avtek has a nice unit called the "1st Alert" but it's kinda pricy at $160.
> It's main job is to alert you to a bad alternator, broken alternator belt,
etc.,
> but any negative flow from the battery makes the panel light flash.
>
> Another question is do you have any suggestions or recommendations for an
> externally mounted power plug to be used to jump start an a/c with low
battery?
>
>
> Walt Shipley RV-8A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch Warning Light/buzzer |
Geery
can tou give more details?
Brand part # etc.
Peter
>
> Walt Hi!
>
> > Another question is do you have any suggestions or recommendations for
an
> > externally mounted power plug to be used to jump start an a/c with low
> > battery?
>
> I've fitted a Aux. Power on port side of Aircraft viewable from P1 seat.
>
> It's from a Race Car shop. Based around lightweight Plastic Socket with
> matching input Plug with pullout handle. 2 versions. 50A and 175 Amp
>
> Will carry 'jump' leads in A/C so whenever onboard power feels lazy I can
> get a jump start from just about any 12V device. I went for 50Amp.
>
> Cost about $25 for 50A and $40 for 175A
>
>
> Gerry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. |
Sure, if you have the cell phone only 10 inches away from the equipment!
So it really only applies to using a cell phone in the cockpit.
Also note that the test was "simulated" not actual cellphones.
Finn
Miles Simon wrote:
>
>
>The U.K. C.A.A. have published the results of their experiments of the
>effects of cell phone usage on avionics in aircraft. The report is at :
>
>http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.PDF
>
>In summary, the report says that cell phones do affect avionics.
>
>
>Simon Miles,
>Europa XS.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch Warning Light/buzzer |
| From: | Gerry Holland <gnholland(at)onetel.com> |
> <plaurence@the-beach.net>
> Can you give more details?
Yes.
> Brand part # etc.
The Product comes from : Anderson Power Products
URL - http://www.andersonpower.com/products/mp/sb.html
For direct communications to establish Suppliers:
customerservice(at)andersonpower.com
The Company is based in USA in Sterling MA.
I used the 50 Amp version (SB50) and it's accessed via a small hinged Panel
in the rear of Top Engine Cowling. It can be ordered with a RED 'T' Handle
for ease of location and detachment. I was looking for something light as
the Piper and other Starter Trolley type connectors are quite heavy and more
difficult to locate due to size and depth.
The Company manufactures Units or 'pairs' up to 700A so my guess is
something in the range will fit.
Regards
Gerry
Gerry Holland
Europa 384
G-FIZY
+44 7808 402404
gnholland(at)onetel.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
| Subject: | Master Switch Warning Light/buzzer |
I have my Grand Rapids engine monitor on the master buss. The general
warning light will illuminate before and after running the engine to
warn of low oil pressure as well as master switch on.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
2003 - The year of flight!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RVEIGHTA(at)aol.com [mailto:RVEIGHTA(at)aol.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 3:35 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Master Switch Warning Light/buzzer
>
>
>
> Bob, any ideas about a cheap/easy solution to the problem of
> leaving the
> master on and running down the battery? I just did it today,
> and it's a pain in
> th posterior. Like many homebuilts, my RV-8A has toggle
> switches for the
> master and L mag/elect. ignition, so it's easy to forgot to
> flip the master off
> (for me at least).
>
> Avtek has a nice unit called the "1st Alert" but it's kinda
> pricy at $160.
> It's main job is to alert you to a bad alternator, broken
> alternator belt, etc.,
> but any negative flow from the battery makes the panel light flash.
>
> Another question is do you have any suggestions or
> recommendations for an
> externally mounted power plug to be used to jump start an a/c
> with low battery?
>
>
> Walt Shipley RV-8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Shielding the tach lead (lasar noise) |
Suggestions:
Can you borrow another Lasar and swap?
Can you record the sound and post it on the web?
Radiated noise? Can you use the handheld to find the source more precisely?
(The antenna points to the source, and you can make remote antennas as search
probes).
What happens to the noise if you spray water on the prop, the wheels, other places?.
Have you considered just bad spark plug wires?
Is the Lasar ground good?
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax regulator question |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks again for all your answers about the Rotax rectifier-regulator.
>I understand it is a standard design.
>Here is a question that has been nagging me :
>There have been insistant rumors in our area about destroying the
>regulator by disconnecting it from the battery while the engine is
>running.
>Our project is wired according to fig Z16 (out of memory), with dual
>batteries and ABMM, and includes a 22000 F capacitor.
>COULD switching off the the master switch do any harm to the
>regulator ? Same thing for the operation of the over voltage crowbar
>protection ?
>Or can the presence of the capacitor provide some means of protection ?
You got me. Without knowing specifics of components used in
their product (voltage ratings in particular) it is difficult
to tell. Given that the product has a DEMONSTRATED lack
of head-room for cooling, it is reasonable to be skeptical
of other aspects of their design. I suspect this product has
roots in the snowmobile market; never operated in
less than 10C weather. Further, single key-switch
operations for the whole system were acceptable to
the customer and operating conditions for the machine.
The unloaded voltage of the PM alternator may be well
above 50 volts at max RPM. This suggests some vulnerability
to a design that was never intended to withstand that
kind of stress.
If the gizmo is properly designed, it SHOULD simply
shut down when bus voltage is removed from the "C"
terminal and be quite comfortable with anything that
the PM alternator might throw at it. We have no
way of knowing if the original designer had this
in mind . . . Rotax's lame protestation about
not wiring their product like most airplane drivers
like to wire them suggest that they KNOW this wasn't
part of the original design -OR- they've had some
failures and truly don't know why. It's the later
condition that stimulates most stupid service
bulletins . . .
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Switch Warning Light/buzzer |
>
>Bob, any ideas about a cheap/easy solution to the problem of leaving the
>master on and running down the battery? I just did it today, and it's a
>pain in
>th posterior. Like many homebuilts, my RV-8A has toggle switches for the
>master and L mag/elect. ignition, so it's easy to forgot to flip the
>master off
>(for me at least).
>
>Avtek has a nice unit called the "1st Alert" but it's kinda pricy at $160.
>It's main job is to alert you to a bad alternator, broken alternator belt,
>etc.,
>but any negative flow from the battery makes the panel light flash.
I like the single pole, double throw oil pressure switch wired
to operate a low-oil pressure light and small buzzer when the
engine is shut down and EITHER the E-BUS ALT FEED or
DC MASTER switch is ON. This doesn't need to be a loud
buzzer . . . just enough to let you know that the system is
powered up. The other switch pole controls hour meter driven
by battery bus. See:
http://216.55.140.222/pps/Engine/Oil_P_Warn.pdf
>Another question is do you have any suggestions or recommendations for an
>externally mounted power plug to be used to jump start an a/c with low
>battery?
see http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duncan McBride" <duncanmcbride(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Shielding the tach lead |
The IVO is the ground adjustable version. I'll save this suggestion in case
that's the problem. Thanks, Duncan
----- Original Message -----
From: "mailbox bob at mail.flyboybob.com" <bob(at)flyboybob.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Shielding the tach lead
mail.flyboybob.com"
>
> Duncan,
>
> Is your prop the in flight adjustable version IVO prop? If so you could
use
> a S700-2-70 DPDT (on)-on-(on) switch and wire both leads to ground in the
> center position. This would give you a positive ground for the prop at
all
> times. You might try opening the prop circuit breaker and grounding both
> prop brushes directly to the engine. If this eliminates the noise then
you
> could proceed to getting the S700-2-70 switch installed. If your prop is
> only ground adjustable and your testing tells you this is a static problem
> you could order one slip ring/brush set form IVO and set up a prop ground
by
> using half of the in flight adjustable prop's electrical slip ring set and
> connect it to ground.
>
> Happy hunting, hope you kill this one soon!
>
> 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
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of David
> Carter
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Shielding the tach lead
>
>
>
>
> Duncan,
>
> Don't miss Bob's point about P static (P is for "precipitation static"
which
> in my experience is "cloud/crystal ice particles static"). Don't get hung
> up on "precipitation" - just think "static electricity buildup" from prop
> blades rubbing through the air and building up a charge on the blades, and
> it not having a path to ground or into the plane and out the static
> dischargers
> - Ask the IVO prop folks or check your wiring info to see if you are
> supposed to have anything akin to a "grounding strap" that will carry
static
> from the whirling prop to the stationary airframe (fiberglas plane or
> aluminum? - I forget what you said earlier).
> - In the absence of an "engineered discharge path" as above, then the
> static will build up until it has enough voltage built up to jump the
first
> small gap it can "find" - at which point it jumps the small gap, making a
> spark - and noise - and does this faster as your prop rpm increases - so
is
> related to rpm, but not to ignition noises, as you have correctly observed
> already.
>
> In the A-7, we had to put bonding straps in strategic places to assure an
> unbroken path for static from nose to tail to stop the electricity from
> jumping from one big aluminum panel to the next on its journey from nose
to
> tail. After that fix, we could talk to each other in a formation and to
> folks on the ground when we were flying throught cirrus or stratus at
20,000
> feet or so.
>
> If you are getting this on the ground, stationary, then static discharge
> wicks on the tail feathers are not going to get rid of it. If, in fact,
you
> are getting static discharge noise from your plastic prop, then, for test
> purposes, you might have to try running a ground wire from the engine just
> aft of the prop. If we are at all close to the cause, you might have to
put
> at least a temporary "slip ring" or "wiper" (something springy on the
front
> of the engine case that will rub on some metal part of the prop and give
the
> static a "quiet path" off the prop onto the engine case and thence to
> ground.
> - If that eliminates the noise, then you and the prop manufacturer
will
> have a prototype to the prop maker's solution to HIS noise problem.
> - Or, thinking a bit more out of the box, put static discharger
wicks
> on each tip of the prop blades! I wonder how long they will last? And I
> wonder how you can attach them without destroying or degrading the
integrity
> of your prop?
>
> David Carter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Duncan McBride" <duncanmcbride(at)comcast.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Shielding the tach lead
>
>
>
> >
> > OK great, some stuff to try. I'll walk around with the engine at idle
and
> > see if the handheld picks up more noise anyplace. I'll get the guys at
> the
> > field to keep me from walking into the prop... and I have a fuel
shutoff
> > so I'll disconnect the p-leads and see about that.
> >
> > The prop is a three-blade IVO lightweight, carbon over foam with the
> > stainless tape leading edge protectors. It was purchased new and has
just
> > less than 70 hours, no problems with it. This is the one that has the
> metal
> > rods going down each blade that you torque to adjust the pitch. They
are
> > torqued by cams in the hub - there could be metal working against metal
> but
> > I don't know how that wouldn't reveal itself in more evident fashion.
> I'll
> > watch it at night
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Duncan
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Shielding the tach lead
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >I just got back from the field. When I disconnected the tach leads
the
> > > >noise was the same. So I guess shielding the tach wire to the EIS
> won't
> > > >help.
> > >
> > > reasonable deduction . . .
> > >
> > > >I say white noise because it is a steady-state sort of noise, but it
> > > >is distinctively crackly. The volume goes up with engine rpm, the
pitch
> > > >doesn't go up with rpm so much as the sound just becomes a more
> smoother
> > > >rasp, but louder.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Pulling the circuit breaker for the alternator has no
> > > >effect.
> > >
> > > Good data point . . .
> > >
> > > > And just today I tried a handheld (totally separate, battery
> > > >powered, rubber duck) and I get a slightly different version of the
> same
> > > >noise - not quite as loud, but related to engine rpm in intensity and
> > > >somewhat in pitch.
> > >
> > > Okay, it's radiated noise. NOT conducted.
> > >
> > >
> > > >Because the 760 exhibits the noise when separated from the bus, and I
> get
> > > >the same noise with a handheld, can I try to zero in on the source by
> > > >playing with the handheld?
> > >
> > > That might be helpful . . .
> > >
> > > > Should I test the 22,000 mfd smoothing
> > > >capacitor?
> > >
> > > If the noise is still there with the alternator off,
> > > then it has nothing to do with the smoothing capacitor.
> > >
> > > > How would I go about finding the source of the noise?
> > >
> > > Do you have a fuel shut off . . . can you kill the
> > > engine without access to ignition wires? If so, disconnect
> > > "p-lead" wires at the engine. If noise is still there,
> > > then something else is generating it and it's related
> > > to engine operation. Volume goes up with RPM but not
> > > so much in perceived pitch . . . what kind of prop do
> > > you have. Composite? Plastic? I'm stretching here but
> > > we might have a p-static thing. Observe prop in total
> > > darkness and after dark adapting your eyes for ten minutes
> > > or so . . . can you "see" the prop?
> > >
> > > Bob . . .
> > >
> > >
> > > > Until now
> > > >I just wanted to find a work around. Now, I want to find it, and
kill
> > it.
> > > >It's beginning to cut into my good times.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >Duncan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> > > >To:
> > > >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Shielding the tach lead
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I'll try to address your points in order
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Sine wave low frequency tach signal? I'm looking at the Rotax
912
> > > > > >installation manual and the specs for the rev-counter are one
pulse
> > per
> > > > > >revolution. The graphs on the documentation show a pretty sharp
> > spike of
> > > >at
> > > > > >least 5 volts at a load of 100 ohms and 75 volts at 100 kohms
when
> at
> > > >5000
> > > > > >rpm. The German translation is a little vague - there are two
> graphs
> > for
> > > > > >the 6000rpm oscillograms - one shows peak voltage at about 7V and
> the
> > > >other
> > > > > >about 75V. Who knows? I thought I would at least disconnect the
> > leads
> > > >at
> > > > > >the engine, fire it up and see if the noise goes away. If it
does
> > I'll
> > > >hook
> > > > > >up some shielded wire (or bolt up some conduit, what the hell)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmmm . . . different tach than the one I'm familiar with.
> > > > > Last one I looked at was on an ultra-light hangared at
> > > > > our airport. It ran the tach from ac off the "lighting coil".
.
> .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >As to who is hearing the noise, I am in my headphones for sure.
It
> is
> > > > > >present when the radio and headphone connections are completely
> > isolated
> > > > > >from the aircraft and the radio is powered with a battery as you
> > > >suggested.
> > > > > >The 760 is grounded through the panel mounting screws, so I used
> > nylon
> > > > > >mounting screws and confirmed that it was not grounded. None of
> the
> > > > > >headphone jacks or PTT leads were grounded, and the PTT switch
lead
> > went
> > > > > >back to the test battery, not the aircraft ground. When I had
the
> > 760
> > > > > >intercom feature hooked up, I did hear the noise when the
intercom
> > PTT
> > > >was
> > > > > >pushed, so the problem is not exclusive to transmitting. Now I
> have
> > a
> > > > > >Sigtronics Portable (powered by the internal 9-volt battery)
hooked
> > up to
> > > > > >the 760. When the transmit PTT is pushed I hear the very same
> noise
> > > >through
> > > > > >the intercom, whether it is turned on or not. However, when not
> > > > > >transmitting and just the VOX squelch is broken on the intercom,
I
> do
> > not
> > > > > >hear the noise. I had the intercom converted to the high noise
> > version
> > > >and
> > > > > >I'm using Oregon Aero mic muffs on the headsets - this is working
> > pretty
> > > > > >well, though the Twinstar cockpit is pretty noisy.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >I once thought that only I was hearing the noise and that other
> > planes or
> > > > > >the ground were not hearing it. That seems to have been
> inaccurate,
> > > > > >prompted by the report of a pilot who heard me in the pattern
when
> > the
> > > > > >engine was idling. Subsequent tests confirm the transmission at
> > > >significant
> > > > > >power settings includes the raspy white-like noise.
> > > > >
> > > > > "white-like"? The electronic community would define a "white
> > noise"
> > > > > as a rushing sound, not unlike a huge waterfall heard from
afar.
> > If
> > > > > your noise source is related to ignition, it's a very low
> > frequency
> > > > > popping noise, perhaps one or two pulses per revolution and
its
> > > > > frequency goes up and down exactly tracking engine RPM.
> > > > >
> > > > > If there is a "white-like" noise associated with this problem,
> > > > > it's unlikely to be associated with the ignition system. If
you
> > > > > turn the alternator off, does the noise go away? Can you hear
> > > > > the noise on a hand held receiver in close proximity to the
> > airplane?
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob . . .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Bob . . .
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------
> > > ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> > > ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> > > ( and still understand nothing. )
> > > ( C.F. Kettering )
> > > --------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duncan McBride" <duncanmcbride(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Shielding the tach lead (lasar noise) |
Hey, I appreciate the help trying to zero in on the noise and I do want to
learn what's going on - I may have to ask some dumb questions, so bear with
me. I don't know if Lasar is an acronym or the name of something - what is
that? I can probably record the noise from the audio out of the intercom,
I'll try to do that but it may take a week or two. Next trip I will walk
around the plan with the handheld to see if the noise varies, and where it
is stronger. I will also try the water trick to see if that changes
anything. I also considered the spark leads. It's a brand new engine with
70 hours. I asked the guys at Lockwood if I should try shielding the spark
leads and they said no. Then again, they said to shield the tach lead. I
need to call them and tell them disconnecting the tach lead had no effect on
the noise. Maybe they have something else to try.
Tell me where my Lasar is and I'll ground it ;<)
Thanks, Duncan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shielding the tach lead (lasar noise)
>
> Suggestions:
>
> Can you borrow another Lasar and swap?
> Can you record the sound and post it on the web?
> Radiated noise? Can you use the handheld to find the source more
precisely?
> (The antenna points to the source, and you can make remote antennas as
search probes).
> What happens to the noise if you spray water on the prop, the wheels,
other places?.
> Have you considered just bad spark plug wires?
> Is the Lasar ground good?
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. |
>
>Sure, if you have the cell phone only 10 inches away from the equipment!
>So it really only applies to using a cell phone in the cockpit.
>Also note that the test was "simulated" not actual cellphones.
Most RFI/EMI testing is "simulated" in that potentially
antagonistic stimulus is produced by calibrated test equipment.
This is the "repeatable experiment" foundation upon which
the best practices and standards are built.
With just a quick look through the test, I note that fields
up to 50 v/meter are cited. This is a HUGE signal compared
to what I believe a cell phone is capable of. The whole idea
behind "cells" covered by many stations on short towers was
to promote useful performance from a hand-held device that
runs from a 3 volt battery powered transmitter that runs
perhaps 100 milliwatts! The signal from your comm
transmitter is on the order of 10 - 50x that of the cell phone.
Pulsed energy from the transponder is 100-300x that
of a cell phone. You routinely fly within perhaps
a mile of an FM or TV transmitter station with beam
carrier strengths on the order of hundreds of kilowatts.
We know that Chicken Little got hit on the head with
an acorn and deduced that the sky was falling. Keep in
mind that the charter for a vast majority of bureaucratic
institutions is to be harbingers of doom. In other words,
you NEVER see a publication that says "go out to do this
and that, have fun and don't worry about thus and such" . . .
EVERY bureaucratic publication must (by the very nature
of the organization that produces it) paint a worrisome
picture even if it defies common sense. So just 'cause
we get hit on the head with a doom-n-gloom document
published by an official sounding institution doesn't
mean the probability for crash-n-burn goes up 100x
when the cell phone rings.
Do your own real-life experiment. In a relaxed and
thoughtful situation, see if your cell phone produces
any observable effects upon gizmos in your cockpit.
Do the SAME THING with hand held transceivers and
other panel mounted radiant energy sources. We deal
routinely with system integration testing of all
gizmos we plan to use. If you consider your
cell phone to be a part of cockpit equipment,
then the task for deducing suitability to task
is no different than for any other piece of
equipment.
Suppose your cell phone DOES produce some
wiggle in an instrument . . . what's the likelihood
that you're going to be tracking the ILS in
an approach to minimums and whip out the cell
phone to order pizza?
Okay, suppose you're on short final to the sod
at Podunk International and you want to buzz uncle
Joe to come pick you up. Does it matter if
other cockpit mounted stuff finds something
objectionable about the cell phone?
Bottom line is that as OBAM aircraft builders
and users we're both free and obligated to deduce
for ourselves the suitability AND operating rules
for ANYTHING we choose to carry on board the
aircraft. In spite of the published results of
anyone claiming risk to life, limb and aircraft,
it's not difficult to do. Publish the findings of
your tests here on the AeroElectric-List
as guidance for folks doing the REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT
in their airplanes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
You must have missed Oshkosh...like me. 8-) Here are some starting
points:
For EFIS:
http://www.dynonavionics.com
http://www.grtavionics.com
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com
For EIS:
http://www.advanced-control-systems.com/
Hope this helps,
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Herbert Schmaderer" <herbert.schmaderer(at)aon.at>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFIS panel
>
> Good morning friends!
> I am new to this forum and seek the expertise of this group. I own a
Pulsar kitplane with conventional instrumentaion. In a planed redesign I
would like to fit modern electronic EFIS and EIS to the panel. Any
suggestins regarding product and sources at reasonable prices?
> regards
> Herbert
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
| Subject: | Shielding the tach lead (lasar noise) |
Duncan, I believe that Eric mixed your problem with mine. Lasar is a
type of electronic ignition made by Unison.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 331 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
>
> Tell me where my Lasar is and I'll ground it ;<)
>
> Thanks, Duncan
>
> > Suggestions:
> >
> > Can you borrow another Lasar and swap?
> > Can you record the sound and post it on the web?
> > Radiated noise? Can you use the handheld to find the source more
> precisely?
> > (The antenna points to the source, and you can make remote
> antennas
> > as
> search probes).
> > What happens to the noise if you spray water on the prop,
> the wheels,
> other places?.
> > Have you considered just bad spark plug wires?
> > Is the Lasar ground good?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Eric M. Jones
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski(at)rocketjet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aeroelectric-List: Knock Sensors |
Hello,
I am building a turbo version of the 3 cyl, 1 liter Geo Metro engine. It uses
an afternmarket computer for ignition & fuel control. I am looking for a
panel mountable knock sensor that visually shows the level of detonation with
a series of LED's.
Anyone know of a resource for one? If not, how about a set of plans for one?
If you're interested about the engine, you can check it out at http://www.geocities.com/ib2polish/
Go to "My Kolb" then "Engine"
Thanks,
Richard Swiderski
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Aeroelectric-List: Knock Sensors |
Hi Richard,
One source is the unit made by MSD. It is Summit part number MSD-8964
on their site <http://www.summitracing.com/>.
Jon Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 454 Hrs. TT - 2 Hrs Engine
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Richard Swiderski
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 6:20 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Aeroelectric-List: Knock Sensors
>
>
> -->
>
> Hello,
>
> I am building a turbo version of the 3 cyl, 1 liter Geo
> Metro engine. It uses an afternmarket computer for ignition
> & fuel control. I am looking for a panel mountable knock
> sensor that visually shows the level of detonation with a
> series of LED's.
> Anyone know of a resource for one? If not, how about a
> set of plans for one?
> If you're interested about the engine, you can check it
> out at http://www.geocities.com/ib2polish/
> Go to "My Kolb" then "Engine"
>
> Thanks,
> Richard Swiderski
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Shielding the tach lead |
This is from my friend & fellow EAA Chapter 223 member Greg Nelson - he has
the same serious comm problem with an electric, cockpit adjustable LNC2
Ivoprop.
I'm adding his email to the list for others to see and to archive it.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Nelson" <gnelson(at)gt.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Shielding the tach lead
> Dave: Indeed, I have had the same problem on my LNC2 using the same
> equipment, i.e., IVOPROP with electric cockpit adjustable mechanisms. I
> gave up on solving this problem and am content to yell all communications
to
> ground control and have them repeat their instructions back to me several
> times. I'm not as determined to "kill it" as are other builders.
Further,
> as I am not an engineer, I feel ill-equipped to solve such black art
> problems and therefore await a solution by another more competent or
> determined person. I hope Duncan is that person and that he will share the
> solution with me, Ivo and others.
>
> Thank you Dave, Duncan and Bob for your collective investigations and
> analysis.
>
> Greg Nelson, N95EG, Lancair360, (251 hrs tt on Ivoprop, airframe and
Lyc
> 360 engine)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hebeard2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Master Switch Warning Light/Buzzer |
Hello Walt,
Vans sells a SPDT oil pressure switch which could be used to do as Bob
suggested in his diagram. It is part no. IE SPDT Press-15SW priced at $24.84. Listed
in his catalog with the hour meter.
I prefer a big bright red light on the instrument panel to a buzzer as not
being so irritating on the ground prior to engine start. If you think a steady
red light would not get your attention, you could use a 555 timer circuit to
make it a flashing red light.
Harley E. Beard
RV-6A Finish Kit
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Solecki" <jsolecki(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Aeroelectric-List: Knock Sensors |
This type of sensor is NOT suitable for a small bore engine. Knock sensors
are accoustic sensors; the knock frequencies of an engine are related to its
bore diameter and combustion chamber volume. You must use a sensor and
filtering/amplifying electronics that are tuned to your engine and can
distinguish between normal mechanical noise and the knock/pinging from
detonation.
John, Toronto
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Aeroelectric-List: Knock Sensors
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> One source is the unit made by MSD. It is Summit part number MSD-8964
> on their site <http://www.summitracing.com/>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Knock Sensors |
>
>
>Hello,
>
> I am building a turbo version of the 3 cyl, 1 liter Geo Metro
> engine. It uses an afternmarket computer for ignition & fuel control. I
> am looking for a panel mountable knock sensor that visually shows the
> level of detonation with a series of LED's.
> Anyone know of a resource for one? If not, how about a set of plans
> for one?
> If you're interested about the engine, you can check it out at
> http://www.geocities.com/ib2polish/
>Go to "My Kolb" then "Engine"
Why do you expect to have knock that needs to be
sensed and displayed? If there is an increased risk
of poor fuel/ignition management by the electronics
associated with this engine versus risk demonstrated
by hundreds of other engines flying satisfactorily
without knock sensors, are you sure that your choice
of power plant is suited for use in an airplane?
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrically noisy prop ?????? |
>
>
>This is from my friend & fellow EAA Chapter 223 member Greg Nelson - he has
>the same serious comm problem with an electric, cockpit adjustable LNC2
>Ivoprop.
>
>I'm adding his email to the list for others to see and to archive it.
>
>David Carter
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Greg Nelson" <gnelson(at)gt.rr.com>
>To: "David Carter"
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Shielding the tach lead
>
>
> > Dave: Indeed, I have had the same problem on my LNC2 using the same
> > equipment, i.e., IVOPROP with electric cockpit adjustable mechanisms. I
> > gave up on solving this problem and am content to yell all communications
>to
> > ground control and have them repeat their instructions back to me several
> > times. I'm not as determined to "kill it" as are other builders.
>Further,
> > as I am not an engineer, I feel ill-equipped to solve such black art
> > problems and therefore await a solution by another more competent or
> > determined person. I hope Duncan is that person and that he will share the
> > solution with me, Ivo and others.
> >
> > Thank you Dave, Duncan and Bob for your collective investigations and
> > analysis.
> >
> > Greg Nelson, N95EG, Lancair360, (251 hrs tt on Ivoprop, airframe and
>Lyc
> > 360 engine)
Interesting. With this common thread can we deduce whether
the noise is electrical (some current flowing in the slip
rings to the prop motor) or electro-static (aerodynamically
induced static charge on blades).
Opening fuse/breaker that supplies power to prop controls
might be a useful thing to do.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
boeing.com>
>Bob,
>
>In a composite aircraft where there is no metallic structure to fasten
>(and sink) the recommended e-bus diode, do I require a heat sink?. I'm
>using the B&C supplied diode you recommend, and up to 20A on the e-bus.
>What is your recommendation?
First, if you have up to 20A on the e-bus, you need
to reconsider what's tied to it. How much stuff do
you plan to put on the e-bus and why?
The D25 diode bridge will handle the well considered
e-bus on a minimal heatsink. Suggest you put a sheet
of aluminum under the main and e-bus fuse blocks and
mount diode assembly to it.
Let's talk about your load analysis for the e-bus . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PeterHunt1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire |
My avionics have a lot of 24 AWG and 26 AWG wires onto which I must connect
quarter inch "faston" terminals and butt splices. I don't have a crimp tool
for wire that small and I can't get "faston" terminals that small. Is it OK to
use 18-22 AWG terminals and butt splices? Should I then strip the insulation
further back and bend the exposed wire to double it over so as to better fit
the larger terminal?
Pete
Clearwater, FL
RV-6, Instrument panel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. |
In a message dated 08/03/2003 1:06:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
>
> Bottom line is that as OBAM aircraft builders
> and users we're both free and obligated to deduce
> for ourselves the suitability AND operating rules
> for ANYTHING we choose to carry on board the
> aircraft. In spite of the published results of
> anyone claiming risk to life, limb and aircraft,
> it's not difficult to do. Publish the findings of
> your tests here on the AeroElectric-List
> as guidance for folks doing the REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT
> in their airplanes.
>
>
Couldn't agree more with ALL your points, Bob, even down to the inherent
cynicism of gvernment reports on any potentially hazardous activity. I want the
freedom to use a cellular phone in my cockpit of my OBAM aircraft as I see fit,
but I don't think I can do so without running afoul of laws that prohibit
such use. Evidently these regs are promulgated not by the FAA, which is "cool
with" any electronics used in flight if okayed by the captain, which is me in
this case, but by the FCC, which would penalize me for use of a ground mobile
device while airborne. Thus there is suitably vague language on the website of
the in-flight weather vendors concerning just how we might access their
product on our Smart Phones while in flight. Their suggestion is to check the
radar
iimage while sitting at the end of the runway just before liftoff!
Meanwhile, they whimper that the Smart phone operating in datalink mode is hardly
more
than a glorified pager and should not be subject to such strict regulation.
I'm ready to order a headset adapter to let me talk and be heard in flight on
my cellphone, and look forward to accessing realtime wx through cellular
phone channels and say "screw the regs," but I would like to hear your comments
on
this approach first :-)
-Bill B
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard(at)riley.net |
| Subject: | Cell phone interference with avionics. |
>Couldn't agree more with ALL your points, Bob, even
>down to the inherent
>cynicism of gvernment reports on any potentially
>hazardous activity. I want the
>freedom to use a cellular phone in my cockpit of my
>OBAM aircraft as I see fit,
>but I don't think I can do so without running afoul
>of laws that prohibit
>such use. Evidently these regs are promulgated not
>by the FAA, which is "cool
>with" any electronics used in flight if okayed by the
>captain, which is me in
>this case, but by the FCC, which would penalize me
>for use of a ground mobile
>device while airborne.
I did some research on using cell phones on commercial
airliners
The use of cellular telephones in airplanes is
regulated by both the FCC and the FAA. The applicable
code sections are:
FCC: Sec. 22.925 Subpart H Cellular Radiotelephone
Service
Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular
telephones.
Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard
airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must
not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not
touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the
ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft
must be turned off. The following notice must be
posted on or near each cellular telephone installed in
any aircraft: ``The use of cellular telephones while
this aircraft is airborne is prohibited by FCC rules,
and the violation of this rule could result in
suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of
cellular telephones while this aircraft is on the
ground is subject to FAA regulations.
There is an exception made specifically for "Air Cell"
service, and I have a bunch of supporting material on
that. Basically, It uses AMPS frequencies and
(modified) AMPS equipment (including FCC-definition
"cellular telephones"). Power output is reduced and
horizontally-polarized antennas are used. The license
is limited both in extent (it can only support a couple
of hundred users nationwide at any one time) and
duration (it's being renewed a couple of years at a
time.)
The FAA supports this rule with FARs 91.21, 121.306,
and 135.144 (Portable electronic devices.) The three
sections are identical, 91 applies to general aviation,
121 to airlines and 135 to commuters. The 121 section
reads:
Sec. 121.306 Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this
section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or
pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of,
any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered
civil aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the
part 119 certificate holder has determined will not
cause interference with the navigation or communication
system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
In addition to the regulation we also have an Advisory
Circular that explains all this for general aviation.
It's AC 91.21-1A (Use of Portable Electronic Devices
Aboard Aircraft). Ive included it at the end of this
message. An AC does not carry the authority of a
regulation - its recommendations on how to comply with
an underlying regulation. And in this case, the three
FAR sections includes an exception for all portable
electronic devices that (b)5 the part 119 certificate
holder has determined will not cause interference with
the navigation or communication system of the aircraft
on which it is to be used.
Heres where it gets interesting.
According to the FCC, "cellular telephone" only refers
to equipment operating under Part 22. This includes
not only analog (AMPS) equipment but also digital
service that AMPS providers provide. AMPS providers
have been authorized to provide digital service on the
same frequencies (824-849/869-894 MHz) under a blanket
authorization that only requires that they continue to
provide AMPS service for some unknown period.
Per my conversation with Mike Ferrante of the FCC's
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Enforcement Division
a couple of years ago, PCS is a whole different
ballgame. There is no airborne use restriction (from
the FCC) on PCS. The FCC has allocated 25MHz to PCS and
the industry is free to allow all or part of that to be
used by airborne customers. Narrowband PCS operates
901-902 MHz, 930-931 MHz, and 940-941 MHz. PCS is
covered under Part 24 of the FCC regulations, which
dont mention airplanes or airborne use at all. FAA
regulations and advisory circulars do not address PCS.
They only refer to cellular telephones (like AC
91.21-1A 7ii)
Therefore, under FAR 121.306 paragraph B5, if a part
119 certificate holder wants to permit the use of PCS
phones in their aircraft, they are authorized to
determine that the PCS phones dont interfere with
communications or navigation, and proceed.
USE OF PORTABLE ELECTRONIC
Date: 10/02/00
AC No: 91.21-1A
DEVICES ABOARD AIRCRAFT
Initiated by: AFS-330
Change:
1. PURPOSE.
This advisory circular (AC) provides aircraft operators
with information and guidance for assistance in
compliance to Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 91, section 91.21. Section
91.21 was established because of the potential for
portable electronic devices (PED) to interfere with
aircraft communications and navigation equipment. It
prohibits the operation of PED's aboard U.S.-registered
civil aircraft, operated by the holder of an air
carrier operating certificate, an operating certificate, or any
other aircraft while operating under instrument flight
rules (IFR). This rule permits use of specified PED's
and other devices that the operator of the aircraft has
determined will not interfere with the safe operation
of the aircraft in which it is operated. The
recommendations contained herein are one means,
but not the only means, of complying with section 91.21
requirements, pertaining to the operation of PED's.
2.
CANCELLATION.
AC 91.21-1, Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard
Aircraft, dated
August 20, 1993, is canceled.
3.
RELATED 14 CFR SECTIONS.
Section 91.21, 121.306, 125.204, and 135.144.
4.
BACKGROUND.
Section 91.21 (formerly 91.19) was initially
established in May 1961 to prohibit the operation of
portable frequency-modulated radio receivers aboard
U.S. air carrier and U.S.-registered aircraft when the
very high frequency omnidirectional range was being
used for navigation purposes. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) subsequently determined that other
PED's could be potentially hazardous to aircraft
communication and navigation equipment, if operated
aboard aircraft. Amendment 91-35 amended the scope of
former section 91.19 to prohibit the use of additional
PED's aboard certain U.S. civil aircraft. Earlier
studies conducted by RTCA, Inc. (RTCA), Special
Committee 156, Document No. RTCA/DO-199, Volumes 1 and
2, entitled "Potential Interference to Aircraft
Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard," have
contributed greatly to an understanding of the
operational effects of PED's aboard aircraft.
(See paragraph 7b for obtaining copies.)
5.
DISCUSSION.
Section 91.21 allows for the operation of PED's which
the operator of the aircraft has determined will not
interfere with the navigation or communication system
of that aircraft. The determination of the effect of a
particular device on the navigation and communication
system of the aircraft on which it is to be used or
operated must, in case of an aircraft operated by the
holder of an air carrier certificate or other operating
certificate, be made by that operator (i.e.,
certificate holder). In all other cases, a
determination must be made and it may be made by the
operator and/or the pilot-in-command (PIC). In some
cases, the determination may be based on operational
tests conducted by the operator without sophisticated
testing equipment. When safely at cruise altitude, the
pilot could allow the devices to be operated. If
interference is experienced, the types of devices
causing interference could be isolated, along with the
applicable conditions recorded. The device responsible
for the interference should then be turned off. If all
operators collect this type of data with specific
information, a large enough database could be generated
to identify specific devices
Page 2
10/02/00
AC 91.21-1A
Page 2
Par 5
causing interference. The operator may elect to obtain
the services of a person or facility having the
capability of making the determination for the
particular electronic device and aircraft concerned.
The rule as adopted was drafted to require the air
carrier or commercial operator to determine whether a
particular PED will cause interference when operated
aboard its aircraft. Personnel specifically designated
by the air carrier or commercial operator for this
purpose may make this determination. For other
aircraft, the language of the rule expressly permits
the determination to be made by the PIC or operators of
the aircraft. Thus, in the case of rental aircraft, the
renter-pilot, lessee, or owner-operator could make the
determination.
6.
RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR THE OPERATION OF PED's
ABOARD AIRCRAFT.
a.
If an operator allows the use of PED's aboard its
aircraft, procedures should be established and spelled
out clearly to control their use during
passenger-carrying operations. The procedures, when
used in conjunction with an operator's program, should
provide the following:
(1) Methods to inform passengers of permissible times,
conditions, and limitations when various PED's may be
used. This may be accomplished through the departure
briefing, passenger information cards, captain's
announcement, and other methods deemed appropriate by
the operator. The limitations, as a minimum, should
state that use of all such devices (except certain
inaccessible medical electronic devices, such as
pacemakers) are prohibited during any phase of
operation when their use could interfere with the
communication or navigation equipment on board the
aircraft or the ability of the flightcrew to give
necessary instructions in the event of an emergency.
(2) Procedures to terminate the operation of PED's
suspected of causing interference with aircraft systems.
(3) Procedures for reporting instances of suspected and
confirmed interferences by a PED to the local FAA
Flight Standards District Office.
(4) Cockpit to cabin coordination and cockpit
flightcrew monitoring procedures.
(5) Procedures for determining acceptability of those
portable electronic components to be operated aboard
its aircraft. The operator of the aircraft must make
the determination of the effects of a particular PED on
the navigation and communication systems of the
aircraft on which it is to be operated. The operation
of a PED is prohibited, unless the device is
specifically listed in section 91.21(b) (1) through
(4). But, even if the device is specifically accepted
from the general prohibition on the use of PED's, an
operator may prohibit use of that PED. The use of all
other PED's is prohibited by regulation, unless
pursuant to section 91.21(b)(5). The operator
determines that the operation of that device will not
interfere with the communication or navigation system
of the aircraft on which it is to be operated.
(6) Prohibiting the operation of any PED's during the
takeoff and landing phases of flight. It must be
recognized that the potential for personal injury to
passengers is a paramount consideration as well as the
possibility of missing important safety announcements
during these important phases of flight. This is in
addition to lessening the possible interference that
may arise during sterile cockpit operations (below
10,000 feet).
Page 3
AC 91.21-1A
10/02/00
Par 6
Page 3
(7) Prohibiting the operation of any PED's aboard
aircraft, unless otherwise authorized, which are
classified as intentional radiators or transmitters.
These devices include, but are not limited to:
(i) Citizens band radios.
(ii) Cellular telephones.
(iii) Remote control devices.
b.
PED's designed to transmit have consideration in
addition to paragraph 6a. There are certain devices,
which by their nature and design, transmit
intentionally. These include cellular telephones,
citizens band radios, remote control devices, etc. The
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) typically
licenses these devices as land mobile devices. The FCC
currently prohibits the use and operation of cellular
telephones while airborne. Its primary concern is that
a cellular telephone, while used airborne, would have a
much greater transmitting range than a land mobile
unit. This could result in serious interference to
transmissions at other cell locations since the system
uses the same frequency several times within a market.
Since a cellular mobile telephone unit is capable of
operating on all assignable cellular frequencies,
serious interference may also occur to cellular systems
in adjacent markets. The FAA supports this airborne
restriction for reasons of potential interference to
critical aircraft systems. Currently, the FAA does not
prohibit use of cellular telephones in aircraft while
on the ground if the operator has determined that they
will not interfere with the navigation or communication
system of the aircraft on which they are to be used. An
example might be their use at the gate or during an
extended wait on the ground, while awaiting a gate,
when specifically authorized by the captain. A cellular
telephone will not be authorized for use while the
aircraft is being taxied for departure after leaving
the gate. The unit will be turned off and properly
stowed, otherwise it is possible that a signal from a
ground cell could activate it. Whatever procedures an
operator elects to adopt should be clearly spelled out
in oral departure briefings and by written material
provided to each passenger to avoid passenger confusion.
c.
Telephones, which have been permanently installed in
the aircraft, are licensed as air-ground radiotelephone
service frequencies. In addition, they are installed
and tested in accordance with the appropriate
certification and airworthiness standards. These
devices are not considered PED's provided they have
been installed and tested by an FAA-approved repair
station or an air carrier's-approved maintenance
organization and are licensed by the FCC as air-ground
units.
7.
MANUFACTURERS' TEST CRITERIA FOR PED's.
a.
Operators should use manufacturers' information, when
provided, with each device that informs the consumer of
the conditions and limitations associated with its use
aboard aircraft.
b.
All portable electronic devices should be designed and
tested in accordance with appropriate emission control
standards. Document Nos. RTCA/DO-160D, Environmental
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment,
and RTCA/DO-199, may constitute one acceptable method
for meeting these requirements. These documents may be
purchased from: RTCA Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut
Avenue, NW, Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036.
c.
Medical-Portable Electronic Devices (M-PED), such as
automated external defibrillators (AED), airborne
patient medical telemonitoring (APMT) equipment, etc.,
should be designed and tested in accordance with
Section 21, Category M, of RTCA document No.
RTCA/DO-160D. M-PED's that test within the emission
levels contained in this document, in all modes of
operation (i.e., standby, monitor, and/or transient
operating conditions, as appropriate), may be used
onboard the aircraft without any further testing by the
operator. Equipment tested and found to exceed the
Section 21, Category M, emission levels are required to
Page 4
10/02/00
AC 91.21-1A
Page 4
Par 7
be evaluated in the operator's M-PED selected model
aircraft for electromagnetic interference (EMI) and
radio frequency interference (RFI). All navigation,
communication, engine, and flight control systems will
be operating in the selected aircraft. The ground
EMI/RFI evaluation should be conducted with the M-PED
equipment operating, and at the various locations in
the cabin where M-PED usage is expected (galley,
passenger aisles, etc.). If M-PED equipment can be
operated at any location in the cabin, then the
worst-case locations (proximity to cable bundles,
flight controls, electronic and electrical bays,
antennas, etc.) should be considered. Air carriers
planning to equip their aircraft with M-PED's will
provide evidence to the principal FAA inspector that
the M-PED equipment meets the RTCA/DO-160D Section 21,
Category M, emission levels, or conducts the ground
EMI/RFI evaluation described above. Operators will
incorporate procedures into their maintenance program
to determine the M-PED's serviceability based on the
equipment manufacturers' recommendations, to include
procedures for marking the date of the equipment's last
inspection. Operators will establish operational
procedures that require crewmembers to inform the PIC
when the M-PED is removed from its storage for use.
NOTE: For those M-PED's using Lithium Sulfur Dioxide
batteries (LiSO
2) as a power source, the batteries must be Technical
Standard Order C-97 (TSO-C97) approved and labeled
accordingly.
/s/
L. Nicholas Lacey
Director, Flight Standards Service
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Master switch alarm |
This has worked great for me for over 20 yrs. I never turn my strobe off. If
I forget the master, as I have been known to do, I'll surely notice the
strobe when I get in the hangar. If I'm tying down outside, it's pretty hard to
miss. And even if you do miss it 90% of the time someone will see it and holler
"Hey dummie, you forgot something".
Bob Devaney
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. |
>
>In a message dated 08/03/2003 1:06:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Bottom line is that as OBAM aircraft builders
> > and users we're both free and obligated to deduce
> > for ourselves the suitability AND operating rules
> > for ANYTHING we choose to carry on board the
> > aircraft. In spite of the published results of
> > anyone claiming risk to life, limb and aircraft,
> > it's not difficult to do. Publish the findings of
> > your tests here on the AeroElectric-List
> > as guidance for folks doing the REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT
> > in their airplanes.
> >
> >
>
>Couldn't agree more with ALL your points, Bob, even down to the inherent
>cynicism of gvernment reports on any potentially hazardous activity. I
>want the
>freedom to use a cellular phone in my cockpit of my OBAM aircraft as I see
>fit,
>but I don't think I can do so without running afoul of laws that prohibit
>such use. Evidently these regs are promulgated not by the FAA, which is
>"cool
>with" any electronics used in flight if okayed by the captain, which is me in
>this case, but by the FCC, which would penalize me for use of a ground mobile
>device while airborne.
The FCC's interest has more to do with the nature of cell
phone systems than for aircraft systems. A cell phone site
expects to see a relatively modest signal, sites around the
one closest to you may have some degree of reception too ranging
from useable to highly broken . . . but it's all fairly predictable
and the cell system's software is designed to zero in on
and track your best signal as you move from cell to cell.
From an airplane, LOTS of cells get VERY GOOD signals. In
early days of analog cell phones, this could cause
of digital consternation for the cell system's computers.
The computers and software are more agile today . . .
in fact it may well be that if you attempt to access from
an airborne vehicle, the computers detect that you are
unreasonably "strong" in too many sites. All sites can
be instructed to ignore your phone. But at the very least,
if the request for connection is honored, loading of the
control system is significantly higher than normal and
the effect may deny connection to other users who would
otherwise be serviced.
>Thus there is suitably vague language on the website of
>the in-flight weather vendors concerning just how we might access their
>product on our Smart Phones while in flight. Their suggestion is to check
>the radar
>iimage while sitting at the end of the runway just before liftoff!
Good idea. You have no extraordinary advantage over other users
while sitting on the ground.
>
>Meanwhile, they whimper that the Smart phone operating in datalink mode is
>hardly more
>than a glorified pager and should not be subject to such strict regulation.
>
>I'm ready to order a headset adapter to let me talk and be heard in flight on
>my cellphone, and look forward to accessing realtime wx through cellular
>phone channels and say "screw the regs," but I would like to hear your
>comments on
>this approach first :-)
It may or may not work well airborne depending on how tolerant
the programming is for your particular cell service. I've tried
my PCS digital phone from 25,000 feet over I-35 (LOTS of cell
sites visible) and got a strong connect icon for about 10-15 seconds
before it shut down and displayed the "searching for service
screen".
Scanning Part 91 we find:
=========================================================================
Sec. 91.21 Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the
operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-
registered civil aircraft:
(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate
or an operating certificate; or
(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft
has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier
operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination
required
by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the
aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other
aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other
operator of the aircraft.
========================================================================
Paragraph (a)(2) takes special note of any and all aircraft
operating IFR . . .
I note further that (b)(5) says you can use any device you've
tested and found no objectionable effects. I used to
put a lot of "extra" communications equipment in airplanes
for law enforcement, pipeline operators, news services,
etc. Installations were always followed up with a good
test of the new radio for potential problems. Don't
ever recall having to take a radio out of an airplane
because the test pilot didn't like what it was doing
to other systems.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Heinen" <mjheinen(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. |
I have the Kyocera 7135 smart phone and have TuroWX
see
http://www.turbopilot.com/turbowx/
It gives me real time weather,METAR,color satellite,nexRad images and lots
more....pretty cool. I to would love to use it at altitude legally as pilot
in command. Safety would be enhanced. My understanding is the network that
is used for this is not cellular based thus the cell phone ban may not
apply. The FCC bans cell phone usage once off the ground....but they are
reviewing this.
----- Original Message -----
From: <SportAV8R(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cell phone interference with avionics.
>
> In a message dated 08/03/2003 1:06:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Bottom line is that as OBAM aircraft builders
> > and users we're both free and obligated to deduce
> > for ourselves the suitability AND operating rules
> > for ANYTHING we choose to carry on board the
> > aircraft. In spite of the published results of
> > anyone claiming risk to life, limb and aircraft,
> > it's not difficult to do. Publish the findings of
> > your tests here on the AeroElectric-List
> > as guidance for folks doing the REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT
> > in their airplanes.
> >
> >
>
> Couldn't agree more with ALL your points, Bob, even down to the inherent
> cynicism of gvernment reports on any potentially hazardous activity. I
want the
> freedom to use a cellular phone in my cockpit of my OBAM aircraft as I see
fit,
> but I don't think I can do so without running afoul of laws that prohibit
> such use. Evidently these regs are promulgated not by the FAA, which is
"cool
> with" any electronics used in flight if okayed by the captain, which is me
in
> this case, but by the FCC, which would penalize me for use of a ground
mobile
> device while airborne. Thus there is suitably vague language on the
website of
> the in-flight weather vendors concerning just how we might access their
> product on our Smart Phones while in flight. Their suggestion is to check
the radar
> iimage while sitting at the end of the runway just before liftoff!
> Meanwhile, they whimper that the Smart phone operating in datalink mode is
hardly more
> than a glorified pager and should not be subject to such strict
regulation.
>
> I'm ready to order a headset adapter to let me talk and be heard in flight
on
> my cellphone, and look forward to accessing realtime wx through cellular
> phone channels and say "screw the regs," but I would like to hear your
comments on
> this approach first :-)
>
> -Bill B
> RV-6A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Knock Sensors |
Bob,
This is one of those areas of discussion where "hundreds of others don't
have this problem" is not a logical or proper method of addressing the basic
question/issue. Not that the "macro" statistical overview isn't without
merit, in some cases. But the "micro" (1 of a kind or 1 out of a thousand)
event, when catastrophic, is not to be dismissed so lightly.
I look at this scenario (engine might experience knock/detonation) the same
as "car/airplane engines catching fire". (We've disagreed on this, too, in
the recent past). E.g. I've seen countless black spots by and on roads
from burning vehicles and witnessed an RX-7 burn up in a local car parts
parking lot, and have personally attempted to extinquish 2 such firs on the
road (1 successful, 1 not).
I have 2 Ford Escorts - 93 and 95, both 1.9 litre engines, the '95
knocks/pings worse than the other (used to, until the '95 engine
self-destructed internally at 108,000 miles). We had to run "injector
cleaner" through that 95 regularly, and avoid a certain name brand local gas
station to keep the "pinging" at bay. (The used engine I replaced into the
'95 doesn't exhibit the same tendancy to ping).
Electronically controlled fuel injected engines make the injectors spray for
a calculated amount of time to get the desired F/A ratio, which SHOULD (is
supposed to) preclude pinging/detonation.
- BUT, all you have to do is gum up 1 or more injectors and get less
fuel than the engineer/programmer "assumed" would flow in a given bit of
time, and you wind up with a leaner than "assumed/engineered" mixture, which
tends toward the threshhold of detonation. There are other things that can
be different from "engineered/assumed" that do the same.
- That is why I will have a knock sensor on my (aircraft)
auto-conversion engine.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Knock Sensors
>
> >
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> > I am building a turbo version of the 3 cyl, 1 liter Geo Metro
> > engine. It uses an afternmarket computer for ignition & fuel control.
I
> > am looking for a panel mountable knock sensor that visually shows the
> > level of detonation with a series of LED's.
> > Anyone know of a resource for one? If not, how about a set of plans
> > for one?
> > If you're interested about the engine, you can check it out at
> > http://www.geocities.com/ib2polish/
> >Go to "My Kolb" then "Engine"
>
> Why do you expect to have knock that needs to be
> sensed and displayed? If there is an increased risk
> of poor fuel/ignition management by the electronics
> associated with this engine versus risk demonstrated
> by hundreds of other engines flying satisfactorily
> without knock sensors, are you sure that your choice
> of power plant is suited for use in an airplane?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> --------------------------------------------
> ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> ( and still understand nothing. )
> ( C.F. Kettering )
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cell phone interference with avionics. |
In a message dated 08/04/2003 6:59:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
>
> The FCC's interest has more to do with the nature of cell
> phone systems than for aircraft systems. A cell phone site
> expects to see a relatively modest signal, sites around the
> one closest to you may have some degree of reception too ranging
> from useable to highly broken . . . but it's all fairly predictable
> and the cell system's software is designed to zero in on
> and track your best signal as you move from cell to cell.
>
Bob- any thoughts on the practicality of using a shielded antenna while using
the cell phone in flight, to reduce the incidence of multiple-tower "hits"
and system overload? I have envisioned mounting a cellular antenna inside an
inverted "soup can" open at the bottom and mounted flush with the belly of the
plane, allowing the radiating element a good view straight down and outward in
a limited cone pattern, or a corner reflector shield that allowed rf out in a
90 degree horizontal cone to cover only a quarter of the potential towers on
the horizon. I also wonder (but have not really experimented aloft) how
typical cellular operation in my low-wing RV would work, since the cockpit floor
and
side walls/wings might shield the antenna from all but the most distant
towers on the horizon.
Their suggestion is to check
>the radar
>iimage while sitting at the end of the runway just before liftoff!
Good idea. You have no extraordinary advantage over other users
while sitting on the ground.<<
Not acceptable; the whole purpose of in flight wx is to have the data
available in real time whenever it is requested. Might as well spend the bux on
a
strike-finder and be happy with that, or mount a small marine radar in a radome
wing pod...
Appreciate your comments. I relaly want to see this in'flight wx become a
reality for us GA / OBAM types
-Bill B
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cell phones in the air |
| From: | "Treff, Arthur" <Arthur.Treff(at)Smartm.com> |
I frequently interface with cell phone base station engineers at Ericsson as part
of my job. They claim that all the hoopla over cell phone use in the air is
from the cell providers, that in the air, (cell phones being line of sight radios)
you get a bodacious signal and lock onto more than one "cell" at a time.
This screws up billing and call switching. The carriers say that they'll fine
the user if they catch him/her calling in the air, but according to my friends
who make the gear that does the switching, it's a big job and not on the
radar screen of the accountants.
That being said, I bought a Cell Set on a recommendation from reading Aviation
Consumer (excellent investment, BTW). The Cell Set worked fine, but my cell phone,
(a Motorola Star Tak), did not get a good signal at all in the air, and
when it did, most times it could not complete the call. I was looking forward
to calling ahead to clients or my home of delayed by winds or Wx, but most times
I could get no signal at all. I tried sticking the antenna out the side window,
thinking the Mooney's 4130 tubular roll cage was in the way. Still no
go. This lack of performance surprised me, as the Mot' phone always has great
signal strength and will hold a call even if the signal strength is at the bottom
of the scale. So, I sold the Cell Set apparatus. Your performance may be
better. Before purchasing and dredging up all the info on websites re: the
legality, I'd take your phone up in your plane and see if you get any signal.
Then try to call your voice mail. If you repeatedly can get thru, you're all
set. Even when my phone showed a good signal, it would not connect calls in
the air....I hope it works for you, it is a potentially great convenience.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cell phones in the air |
>
>
>I frequently interface with cell phone base station engineers at Ericsson
>as part of my job. They claim that all the hoopla over cell phone use in
>the air is from the cell providers, that in the air, (cell phones being
>line of sight radios) you get a bodacious signal and lock onto more than
>one "cell" at a time. This screws up billing and call switching. The
>carriers say that they'll fine the user if they catch him/her calling in
>the air, but according to my friends who make the gear that does the
>switching, it's a big job and not on the radar screen of the accountants.
That tracks with what I've heard . . . actually, you're almost always
being tracked by multiple cells . . . they have to constantly compare
notes on your signal quality and decide who gets the hand-off for
the strongest signal . . . now if ATC were as automated.
Problem is that when you're high above average terrain, you might
hit dozens of cells as opposed to the rationally expected 1 to 5.
In these cases, it's easier for the system to temporarily block
response to your phones digital signature as opposed to tracking
you down to deliver retribution . . .
This begs the question about setting on a scenic hilltop
overlooking Denver or L.A. . . it's certain that
your phone is going to hit a bunch more cell sites
than you will wandering streets amongst the buildings and
power lines.
>That being said, I bought a Cell Set on a recommendation from reading
>Aviation Consumer (excellent investment, BTW). The Cell Set worked fine,
>but my cell phone, (a Motorola Star Tak), did not get a good signal at all
>in the air, and when it did, most times it could not complete the call. I
>was looking forward to calling ahead to clients or my home of delayed by
>winds or Wx, but most times I could get no signal at all. I tried
>sticking the antenna out the side window, thinking the Mooney's 4130
>tubular roll cage was in the way. Still no go. This lack of performance
>surprised me, as the Mot' phone always has great signal strength and will
>hold a call even if the signal strength is at the bottom of the
>scale. So, I sold the Cell Set apparatus. Your performance may be
>better. Before purchasing and dredging up all the info on websites re:
>the legality, I'd take your phone up in your plane and see if you get any
>signal. Then try to call your voice mail. If you repeatedly can get
>thru, you're all set. Even when my phone showed a good signal, it would
>not connect calls in the air....I hope it works for you, it is a
>potentially great convenience.
Your experience echoes my own experiments on several trips
in corporate transportation aircraft and from rental
airplanes. In situations where signal strength and access
to a site should NOT be an issue, ability to connect is
problematical at best.
I've attended meetings where prospective suppliers of
airborne data services acknowledged the relative uselessness
of common commercial cell phone networks for communicating
with aircraft. All proposals call for development of a
private network designed to accommodate the physics
unique to communicating with aircraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Knock Sensors |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>This is one of those areas of discussion where "hundreds of others don't
>have this problem" is not a logical or proper method of addressing the basic
>question/issue. Not that the "macro" statistical overview isn't without
>merit, in some cases. But the "micro" (1 of a kind or 1 out of a thousand)
>event, when catastrophic, is not to be dismissed so lightly.
>
>
>Electronically controlled fuel injected engines make the injectors spray for
>a calculated amount of time to get the desired F/A ratio, which SHOULD (is
>supposed to) preclude pinging/detonation.
> - BUT, all you have to do is gum up 1 or more injectors and get less
>fuel than the engineer/programmer "assumed" would flow in a given bit of
>time, and you wind up with a leaner than "assumed/engineered" mixture, which
>tends toward the threshhold of detonation. There are other things that can
>be different from "engineered/assumed" that do the same.
> - That is why I will have a knock sensor on my (aircraft)
>auto-conversion engine.
Understand . . . and your machine is indeed an "experimental"
airplane . . . it might even be considered a "research"
tool. Allow me to offer some background to which my
antennas are tuned . . .
In a time when the latest buzzword is "FADEC" we're moving
forward with clumsy but effective evolution of aircraft power
management that reduces pilot workload and potential for
pilot error.
You've identified a real hazard associated with the operation
of your chosen powerplant. I recall a couple of decades ago,
we identified another system generated hazard to aircraft: It
seems that Ni-Cad batteries in turbine engine aircraft had
a bad habit of catching fire. Rather than mandate redesign
of ship's voltage regulators to automatically mitigate the
risk, we (the FAA . . . and industry dutifully followed
in lockstep) decided to put a battery temperature readout
on the panel with companion warning lights and a page
of new information in the POH telling pilots how to
deal PERSONALLY with this new risk.
My question for you is, "are you moving in a positive
direction?" What combination of features offered by
this powerplant transcend a perceived need to personally
intervene to forestall disaster?
If you are DEPENDING on a panel readout as warning of
impending failure, what mechanisms are or will be in
place to make sure the warning system is accurate and
reliable? If it fails, how will you know it failed and
what options are available to you for comfortable
completion of flight with engine and skin intact?
Suppose I were standing in front of my compatriots at RAC
trying to sell your system onto a production (not
experimental, not research) aircraft. They're going
to beat me soundly about the head and shoulders until
I convince them and the FAA that the proposed system
BENEFITS far outweigh the costs, risks, and increases
in pilot responsibility and workload.
Are there other options with favorable track records
that are more pilot-friendly than the configuration
currently under consideration? Are there ways to
reliably control and/or monitor the effects and
automatically reduce the risk? Keep sight of a need
for a monitor/control system that is MUCH more
reliable than the system prone to hazard?
Of course, the way you plan to use the airplane should
influence your decisions. If research is your interest
and joy, by all means drive ahead. But how much
"researching" do you want to do while you and
the wife are on your way to Santa Fe?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire |
>
>My avionics have a lot of 24 AWG and 26 AWG wires onto which I must connect
>quarter inch "faston" terminals and butt splices. I don't have a crimp tool
>for wire that small and I can't get "faston" terminals that small. Is it
>OK to
>use 18-22 AWG terminals and butt splices? Should I then strip the insulation
>further back and bend the exposed wire to double it over so as to better fit
>the larger terminal?
???? Why 24 and 26 AWG wire ???? What kind of radios
are you installing that prohibit the use of 22AWG or larger
wire?
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
| Subject: | Cell phones in the air |
> That tracks with what I've heard . . . actually, you're
> almost always
> being tracked by multiple cells . . . they have to
> constantly compare
> notes on your signal quality and decide who gets the hand-off for
> the strongest signal . . . now if ATC were as automated.
>
> Problem is that when you're high above average terrain, you might
> hit dozens of cells as opposed to the rationally expected 1 to 5.
> In these cases, it's easier for the system to temporarily block
> response to your phones digital signature as opposed to tracking
> you down to deliver retribution . . .
All that said, can you imagine how many cellphones are in airliners,
still turned on, at any given time? Certainly, many folks forget to
turn them off.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 331 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Cell phones in the air |
>
>
> > That tracks with what I've heard . . . actually, you're
> > almost always
> > being tracked by multiple cells . . . they have to
> > constantly compare
> > notes on your signal quality and decide who gets the hand-off for
> > the strongest signal . . . now if ATC were as automated.
> >
> > Problem is that when you're high above average terrain, you might
> > hit dozens of cells as opposed to the rationally expected 1 to 5.
> > In these cases, it's easier for the system to temporarily block
> > response to your phones digital signature as opposed to tracking
> > you down to deliver retribution . . .
>
>
>All that said, can you imagine how many cellphones are in airliners,
>still turned on, at any given time? Certainly, many folks forget to
>turn them off.
I've done that from time to time. When I remembered it and
checked, the phone is invariably "searching for service" . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RSwanson" <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
I sure many of you saw the H-1 at Oshkosh and those who weren't there know
of it. It crashed on the way home and was fatal.
http://www.trib.com/AP/wire_detail.php?wire_num=113724
R
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Knock Sensors |
Bob, I like your idea of looking at a different system than one that says,
"Hey, you, pilot. Look at this lite and listen to the warning tone your are
getting. Your engine is detonating and about to self-destruct."
The first obvious alternative that comes to mind, which would seem to be
more useful, would be a Fuel/Air Ratio gage. Ed Anderson has built one with
some LEDs in a "bar graph" kind of display (sorry Ed if I'm not exactly
remembering). Point being, that my previous reply indicates that my main
worry about detonation is "detonation caused by incorrect F/A ratio".
- So, Bob, you properly challenge us to look for something more useful
than "hey, you are detonating".
Maybe the F/A output could be shaped so that these modern engine instrument
systems, with all the preset limits, could give us a warning of a F/A ratio
that is not close enough to where it ought to be, e.g., , "Hey, your F/A
ratio is shifting from (or you have manually changed it from) (or your
descent from high thin air to lower denser air has caused F/A ratio to shift
from) "X" to "Y" and maybe you should tend to your mixture control vs F/A
ratio BEFORE you get detonation."
The next step up would be: Make the warning be dependent on two sensors:
Manifold pressure (limit of 75% of sea level) which, if over 75%, would
"activate" the system to look at and warn of "Fuel/Air Ratio limit(s)".
- Conventional certified aircraft piston engine design "wisdom" is that
detonation is not a worry at 75% power and below - can lean to anything you
want and you will NOT get detonation.
- So, as already said above, for really good warning, you could have a
manifold pressure sensor "limit" that would bring in the F/A ratio sensor's
output with a preset limit of "leanness" that would trigger a warning BEFORE
you could get detonation.
Is that closer to a more rational and useful and informative design
philosopy to deal with "detonation"?
F/A ratio gages and LED displays are easy enough for us home builders. We
might have to work on the nature of the output (pure optical LED readouts
would not be suitable for input to an engine monitor system) to get a
digital or analog output that could be set in the engine inst sys black box.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Knock Sensors
>
> >
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >This is one of those areas of discussion where "hundreds of others don't
> >have this problem" is not a logical or proper method of addressing the
basic
> >question/issue. Not that the "macro" statistical overview isn't without
> >merit, in some cases. But the "micro" (1 of a kind or 1 out of a
thousand)
> >event, when catastrophic, is not to be dismissed so lightly.
> >
> >
>
>
> >Electronically controlled fuel injected engines make the injectors spray
for
> >a calculated amount of time to get the desired F/A ratio, which SHOULD
(is
> >supposed to) preclude pinging/detonation.
> > - BUT, all you have to do is gum up 1 or more injectors and get
less
> >fuel than the engineer/programmer "assumed" would flow in a given bit of
> >time, and you wind up with a leaner than "assumed/engineered" mixture,
which
> >tends toward the threshhold of detonation. There are other things that
can
> >be different from "engineered/assumed" that do the same.
> > - That is why I will have a knock sensor on my (aircraft)
> >auto-conversion engine.
>
> Understand . . . and your machine is indeed an "experimental"
> airplane . . . it might even be considered a "research"
> tool. Allow me to offer some background to which my
> antennas are tuned . . .
>
> In a time when the latest buzzword is "FADEC" we're moving
> forward with clumsy but effective evolution of aircraft power
> management that reduces pilot workload and potential for
> pilot error.
>
> You've identified a real hazard associated with the operation
> of your chosen powerplant. I recall a couple of decades ago,
> we identified another system generated hazard to aircraft: It
> seems that Ni-Cad batteries in turbine engine aircraft had
> a bad habit of catching fire. Rather than mandate redesign
> of ship's voltage regulators to automatically mitigate the
> risk, we (the FAA . . . and industry dutifully followed
> in lockstep) decided to put a battery temperature readout
> on the panel with companion warning lights and a page
> of new information in the POH telling pilots how to
> deal PERSONALLY with this new risk.
>
> My question for you is, "are you moving in a positive
> direction?" What combination of features offered by
> this powerplant transcend a perceived need to personally
> intervene to forestall disaster?
>
> If you are DEPENDING on a panel readout as warning of
> impending failure, what mechanisms are or will be in
> place to make sure the warning system is accurate and
> reliable? If it fails, how will you know it failed and
> what options are available to you for comfortable
> completion of flight with engine and skin intact?
>
> Suppose I were standing in front of my compatriots at RAC
> trying to sell your system onto a production (not
> experimental, not research) aircraft. They're going
> to beat me soundly about the head and shoulders until
> I convince them and the FAA that the proposed system
> BENEFITS far outweigh the costs, risks, and increases
> in pilot responsibility and workload.
>
> Are there other options with favorable track records
> that are more pilot-friendly than the configuration
> currently under consideration? Are there ways to
> reliably control and/or monitor the effects and
> automatically reduce the risk? Keep sight of a need
> for a monitor/control system that is MUCH more
> reliable than the system prone to hazard?
>
> Of course, the way you plan to use the airplane should
> influence your decisions. If research is your interest
> and joy, by all means drive ahead. But how much
> "researching" do you want to do while you and
> the wife are on your way to Santa Fe?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | drew.schumann(at)us.army.mil |
| Subject: | Re: Knock Sensors |
I think something that would detect the out of tolerance condition, warn the pilot
and automatically fail-safe to full-rich (or some agreed upon fixed option)
through an alternative fuel/air source would be more in line with the failure-tolerant
building philosophy. Or a bypass like on the full-flow oil filter
system. Of course, something more elegant, developed by someone smarter than
me, might be in order....
Drew
----- Original Message -----
From: David Carter <dcarter(at)datarecall.net>
Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2003 6:46 am
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Knock Sensors
>
> Bob, I like your idea of looking at a different system than one
> that says,
> "Hey, you, pilot. Look at this lite and listen to the warning
> tone your are
> getting. Your engine is detonating and about to self-destruct."
>
> The first obvious alternative that comes to mind, which would seem
> to be
> more useful, would be a Fuel/Air Ratio gage. Ed Anderson has
> built one with
> some LEDs in a "bar graph" kind of display (sorry Ed if I'm not
> exactlyremembering). Point being, that my previous reply
> indicates that my main
> worry about detonation is "detonation caused by incorrect F/A ratio".
> - So, Bob, you properly challenge us to look for something
> more useful
> than "hey, you are detonating".
>
> Maybe the F/A output could be shaped so that these modern engine
> instrumentsystems, with all the preset limits, could give us a
> warning of a F/A ratio
> that is not close enough to where it ought to be, e.g., , "Hey,
> your F/A
> ratio is shifting from (or you have manually changed it from) (or your
> descent from high thin air to lower denser air has caused F/A
> ratio to shift
> from) "X" to "Y" and maybe you should tend to your mixture control
> vs F/A
> ratio BEFORE you get detonation."
>
> The next step up would be: Make the warning be dependent on two
> sensors:Manifold pressure (limit of 75% of sea level) which, if
> over 75%, would
> "activate" the system to look at and warn of "Fuel/Air Ratio
> limit(s)". - Conventional certified aircraft piston engine
> design "wisdom" is that
> detonation is not a worry at 75% power and below - can lean to
> anything you
> want and you will NOT get detonation.
> - So, as already said above, for really good warning, you
> could have a
> manifold pressure sensor "limit" that would bring in the F/A ratio
> sensor'soutput with a preset limit of "leanness" that would
> trigger a warning BEFORE
> you could get detonation.
>
> Is that closer to a more rational and useful and informative design
> philosopy to deal with "detonation"?
>
> F/A ratio gages and LED displays are easy enough for us home
> builders. We
> might have to work on the nature of the output (pure optical LED
> readoutswould not be suitable for input to an engine monitor
> system) to get a
> digital or analog output that could be set in the engine inst sys
> black box.
>
> David
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Knock Sensors
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Bob,
> > >
> > >This is one of those areas of discussion where "hundreds of
> others don't
> > >have this problem" is not a logical or proper method of
> addressing the
> basic
> > >question/issue. Not that the "macro" statistical overview
> isn't without
> > >merit, in some cases. But the "micro" (1 of a kind or 1 out of a
> thousand)
> > >event, when catastrophic, is not to be dismissed so lightly.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >Electronically controlled fuel injected engines make the
> injectors spray
> for
> > >a calculated amount of time to get the desired F/A ratio, which
> SHOULD(is
> > >supposed to) preclude pinging/detonation.
> > > - BUT, all you have to do is gum up 1 or more injectors
> and get
> less
> > >fuel than the engineer/programmer "assumed" would flow in a
> given bit of
> > >time, and you wind up with a leaner than "assumed/engineered"
> mixture,which
> > >tends toward the threshhold of detonation. There are other
> things that
> can
> > >be different from "engineered/assumed" that do the same.
> > > - That is why I will have a knock sensor on my (aircraft)
> > >auto-conversion engine.
> >
> > Understand . . . and your machine is indeed an "experimental"
> > airplane . . . it might even be considered a "research"
> > tool. Allow me to offer some background to which my
> > antennas are tuned . . .
> >
> > In a time when the latest buzzword is "FADEC" we're moving
> > forward with clumsy but effective evolution of aircraft power
> > management that reduces pilot workload and potential for
> > pilot error.
> >
> > You've identified a real hazard associated with the operation
> > of your chosen powerplant. I recall a couple of decades ago,
> > we identified another system generated hazard to aircraft: It
> > seems that Ni-Cad batteries in turbine engine aircraft had
> > a bad habit of catching fire. Rather than mandate redesign
> > of ship's voltage regulators to automatically mitigate the
> > risk, we (the FAA . . . and industry dutifully followed
> > in lockstep) decided to put a battery temperature readout
> > on the panel with companion warning lights and a page
> > of new information in the POH telling pilots how to
> > deal PERSONALLY with this new risk.
> >
> > My question for you is, "are you moving in a positive
> > direction?" What combination of features offered by
> > this powerplant transcend a perceived need to personally
> > intervene to forestall disaster?
> >
> > If you are DEPENDING on a panel readout as warning of
> > impending failure, what mechanisms are or will be in
> > place to make sure the warning system is accurate and
> > reliable? If it fails, how will you know it failed and
> > what options are available to you for comfortable
> > completion of flight with engine and skin intact?
> >
> > Suppose I were standing in front of my compatriots at RAC
> > trying to sell your system onto a production (not
> > experimental, not research) aircraft. They're going
> > to beat me soundly about the head and shoulders until
> > I convince them and the FAA that the proposed system
> > BENEFITS far outweigh the costs, risks, and increases
> > in pilot responsibility and workload.
> >
> > Are there other options with favorable track records
> > that are more pilot-friendly than the configuration
> > currently under consideration? Are there ways to
> > reliably control and/or monitor the effects and
> > automatically reduce the risk? Keep sight of a need
> > for a monitor/control system that is MUCH more
> > reliable than the system prone to hazard?
> >
> > Of course, the way you plan to use the airplane should
> > influence your decisions. If research is your interest
> > and joy, by all means drive ahead. But how much
> > "researching" do you want to do while you and
> > the wife are on your way to Santa Fe?
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
>
> _-
> _-
> _-
> _-
> ======================================================================
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MikeEasley(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Grounding all the wires from my panel |
I have a bunch of individual ground wires coming from panel, 20+. Do I
really need to run each one to a faston tab connected to my B&C ground bus on the
inside of the firewall? Or can I somehow combine them on the panel and have a
fat wire tie them to the airframe ground?
Thanks,
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MikeEasley(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Ammeter Shunts, Two Busses, Switches |
I have an EDM900 on my panel with a single readout for amps. I want to be
able to check the amps for both busses. I have a 70 amp alternator and the B&C
20 amp. The EDM900 came with a 100 amp shunt. Do I need any special or
"matching" shunt to use on the 20 amp alternator or will the B&C 30 amp, for
example, work fine?
There are two wires feeding the EDM900 for amps. My plan was to get a DPDT
switch and feed the EDM from either shunt. Do I need to switch both wires from
the shunts or just one?
JPI shows two possible installations of the shunt, charge/discharge or load.
It seems the charge/discharge is the best way because you get more info,
but....
I don't know where to put the shunt. I have a fat #2 wire running from my
master contactor (in the rear) to my starter contactor (forward of the
firewall). From the lug on the starter contactor I have a #4 wire running back
through
the firewall to my main buss. I also have the main alternator tied to the
starter contactor lug. The JPI installation manual says to put the shunt
between the master contactor and the bus. Do I need to run my alternator feed
directly to the bus? Or is there another place I can put the shunt? I'm sure
I
don't want to cut my #2 wire feeding the starter. Any ideas?
Mike Easley
Lancair ES
Colorado Springs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Grounding Antennas?? |
| From: | Vince Ackerman <vack(at)mac.com> |
I'm mounting my VHF and GPS antennas on the tailboom of a Rotorway 162f
helo and I need some advice. The tailboom is about 16 inches in
diameter (aluminum skin) and since the base of the antennas is flat
I've made a transition base out of TAP epoxy putty that matches the
curve. This results in the antenna sitting about 3/8 inch above the
skin. The 4 bolts on each antenna go through this base and the skin and
a backing plate. Do I need to ground the antennas somehow? If so, what
would be the best way to do this?
Thanks, this list has helped a lot in the past.
Vince Ackerman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter Shunts, Two Busses, Switches |
>
>I have an EDM900 on my panel with a single readout for amps. I want to be
>able to check the amps for both busses. I have a 70 amp alternator and
>the B&C
>20 amp. The EDM900 came with a 100 amp shunt. Do I need any special or
>"matching" shunt to use on the 20 amp alternator or will the B&C 30 amp, for
>example, work fine?
A "shunt" is a precision, zero-temperature coefficient resistor
designed for tolerable heat rise with LARGE currents flowing through
it. Years ago, a sort of standard was adopted for sizing shunts such
that when a current equal to their rating was impressed upon them, the
voltage drop would be 50 mV. This was a compromise between keeping
the ENERGY lost in the shunt to some reasonable value and industry
ability to fabricate instruments that would read full scale at 50 mV.
If you want your instrument to read out in absolute amps, then you
will need to use the same shunt for both measurements . . . in this
case, 100A shunts for both systems . . .
Now, given that your instrument reads a full scale "100" with
50 mV applied offers an opportunity to scale the instrument
differently. If you use a 70A shunt on the big alternator, then
the instrument will read 100 when the alternator is delivering
100% of its capacity. It follows then that you install a 20A
shunt in series with the other alternator and again, the instrument
will read "100" when that alternator is running at max capacity.
Intuitively, this makes more sense to me when you want one
display to read multiple energy sources . . . it's more useful
to know how much of the source capacity you've used (got left)
than to know how many amps are being drawn from the device. Further,
it allows a single instrument to read energy sources of different
size using the same scale factor. 100% of capacity is just as
meaningful on an SD-8 alternator as it is on a 120A fire breather.
>There are two wires feeding the EDM900 for amps. My plan was to get a DPDT
>switch and feed the EDM from either shunt. Do I need to switch both wires
>from
>the shunts or just one?
BOTH!!!! Switching just one will get you blown fuses . . . you ARE
planning to fuse your ammeter leads . . . aren't you?
>JPI shows two possible installations of the shunt, charge/discharge or load.
>It seems the charge/discharge is the best way because you get more info,
>but....
How is the charge/discharge reading richer in information than
a loadmeter?
>I don't know where to put the shunt. I have a fat #2 wire running from my
>master contactor (in the rear) to my starter contactor (forward of the
>firewall). From the lug on the starter contactor I have a #4 wire running
>back through
>the firewall to my main buss. I also have the main alternator tied to the
>starter contactor lug. The JPI installation manual says to put the shunt
>between the master contactor and the bus. Do I need to run my alternator
>feed
>directly to the bus? Or is there another place I can put the shunt? I'm
>sure I
>don't want to cut my #2 wire feeding the starter. Any ideas?
Sure, check out the wiring diagrams in Appendix Z. I'll suggest that
a charge/discharge battery ammeter is no more "useful" than an
alternator load meter. ANY and ALL electrical system instrumentation
is useful only as a diagnostic tool . . . and I think we're agreed
that diagnostics are best left for the maintenance hangar.
If you have ov protection, a low voltage warning light and battery(ies)
sized and maintained for guaranteed endurance sans alternator, then
the airplane is perfectly operable with no additional instrumentation.
If things are not going right, presence of the instruments on the
panel are of no value to you as a pilot unless your battery is
four years old. Voltmeters are then quite useful to gage the
enthusiasm with which you exercise mental butt-kicking on your
hurried decent to the nearest airport.
If it were my airplane and I had both panel space, budget and
enthusiasm for installing electrical system diagnostics on
the panel . . . the 100A JPI would be switched between
alternators - each fitted with shunts sized to the machine.
A voltmeter would read the e-bus (or aux/main buses if you
are doing Z-14) and be fitted with a switch so that I could
also read field voltage of either alternator. That way, while
on taxi to the hangar, I could flip a few switches and
know exactly what needs to be fixed/replaced before I shut
the engine down.
A convenience at best . . . you can make the same measurements
with your shop equipment when you're ready to pull the cowl.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding all the wires from my panel |
>
>I have a bunch of individual ground wires coming from panel, 20+. Do I
>really need to run each one to a faston tab connected to my B&C ground bus
>on the
>inside of the firewall? Or can I somehow combine them on the panel and
>have a
>fat wire tie them to the airframe ground?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mike Easley
>Colorado Springs
"Need" is hard to define with certainty. It is good
"practice" to run each wire to the single point ground
out of consideration for potential noise problems -and-
overall system reliability.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Antennas?? |
>
>I'm mounting my VHF and GPS antennas on the tailboom of a Rotorway 162f
>helo and I need some advice. The tailboom is about 16 inches in
>diameter (aluminum skin) and since the base of the antennas is flat
>I've made a transition base out of TAP epoxy putty that matches the
>curve. This results in the antenna sitting about 3/8 inch above the
>skin. The 4 bolts on each antenna go through this base and the skin and
>a backing plate. Do I need to ground the antennas somehow? If so, what
>would be the best way to do this?
>
>Thanks, this list has helped a lot in the past.
The bolts are sufficient to effect ground the antenna base.
Clean the surfaces under the bolt heads and under the nuts.
Tighten as much as the epoxy spacer will allow. Use internal
tooth lockwashers under both bolt head and nut.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 11 Msgs - 08/05/03 |
I too have seen the "searching for service" or "no service" as Bob has seen
when in my plane. Yet I know that when I have been in a car on the ground in
the same location I have had a perfect signal. When I tried to do 360 degree
circles at a slow speed I was able to lock on and get a signal.
I believe the problem is that I am taveling at a such a great speed from
tower to tower that the system can not lock on long enough to verify the signal.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>Bob,
>
>I am building an RV7 (in England) with a Lycoming IOF-360 (FADEC, The FADEC
>comes with its own battery to power the FADEC in case of main electrical
>systems failure. I am planning to use your excellent architecture in
>Appendix Z to your manual with B&C Alternators etc. As this is my first
>stab at aircraft electrics I have some silly questions that you have
>probably answered a thousand times!
>
>1. Why are the Alternator B leads connected to the Starter contactor? If
>they were connected to the Battery contactor (output side) there would be
>one less bolted connection (and hence less resistance)?
Main bus power is taken from the handiest place nearest
the bus. If the battery is in the tail, then the starter
contactor is best place. If battery is up front, then
either starter contactor or battery contactor can be
considered.
>2. Is there any issue with someone turning on the Aux Alternator bus feed
>switch with the Main Alternator running ok, and if not, why not just have
>both running all the time and therefore remove the requirement to switch on
>the Aux alt in case of main alt failure?
That is exactly what happens in certified ships. Figure Z-12
is not recommended for new design. It's an easy fix to add a
second alternator to an existing airplane. This this case, both
alternators are ON but the aux alternator regulator is set
for about 1 volt below normal bus voltage. Soooo . . . with
the main alternator working, the aux alternator relaxes.
If the main alternator quits, the bus voltage sags, the
aux alternator comes alive automatically. The SB-1 reglator
is fitted with a circuit to illuminate an "AUX ALT LOADED"
warning light and flash it if the aux alternator output
is higher than 20A . . . reduce load until light stops
flashing.
>3. I understand your logic regarding the use of a Diode (rather than a
>switch) between the main and essential bus. Really stupid question: Why
>have the diode at all and have the essential bus permanently fed through the
>battery bus (keeping the e-bus alternative feed switch of course to isolate
>on close down)?
You want two, relatively independent feed paths for
the e-bus. Minimize the probability of single failure
taking this bus down.
>4. Have thought long and hard regarding your ideas on cct breakers vs
>fuses,
>not quite made my mind up yet - like the idea of being able to pull cct
>breakers if equipment plays up (but could of course put in a switch on the
>panel!)You show a mixture of Switches and cct breakers on Appendix Z, any
>particular reason (fuses on battery bus and breakers on main power bus)?
Nope, the Z-figures are illustrative of options . . . they
are not intended to depict details of any particular system.
Once you're satisfied with a particular architecture, then
exactly what runs from each bus, whether you use breakers
or fuses, and selection of switches are all personal
decisions.
What devices in your proposed system have even a remote
possibility of failure in a way that encourages you to
interrupt power by pulling a breaker?
>5. I completely agree with your logic regarding old fashioned dual
>avionics/master switch. Is there any real issue regarding spikes on start
>up and so should I have switches for all equipment that does not have its
>own internal switches (there would be lots!) or is this an old wives tale
>and should I not worry and connect all my non essential, not switched,
>equipment directly to the main power bus.
Can't speak for you but it doesn't worry me . . . I
know that it's easy to build a system totally
free of hazards to any product designed to live
in airplanes (or any other vehicle).
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
boeing.com>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for the speedy reply.
>
>Aircraft is an IO-360 powered Long EZ, and is all electric (Z12) converted
>from Z13 to save weight.
How did Z-12 get "lighter" than Z-13?
> The aircraft has an B&C LR14 regulated SD-20 backup alternator and B&C
> LR14 regulated 40A Denso Alternator (B&C clone) installed. I have dual
> Lightspeed ignition supported on a hot battery bus fed through two 5A
> switch breakers on the panel.
Why switch breakers? Circuit needs to be protected at the battery
bus . . . once you have protection at the source of power, no further
protection is needed.
>The plan was/is to fly it home to Australia in 2005, and hence it may be
>pretty loaded for the trip. Currently the 20A is not required however I
>would like to 'build in' what I can now (without added too many pounds).
>
>Currently...
>
>E-bus: Electric Nose Gear (no real numbers on draw at this stage, but
>fused at 10A), Comm (fused at 2A), Dynon EFIS (2A), AV10 Engine monitor
>(all in one engine instrumentation) (2A).
Suppose we changed the name of the "essential" bus to "endurance"
bus, how would this change current and/or future planning for
things you tie onto the bus?
>Main pwr bus: Contactor 0.8A, 2 Alternator Fields (fused at 5A),
Alternators fields get breakers too.
> 2 regulators (LV fused at 2A), Landing brake (speed brake) 7 1/2A,
> external lighting (fused at 10A x 2), rocky mountain encoder, GPS, XPDR,
> Fuel pump, Intercom, Starter Contactor, pitot heat, pitch trim (2A), CD player.
>
>Batt(hot) bus: Dual LSE Ignition both fused at 5A, Map light, cigarette
>lighter socket (handheld GPS or NAV/Comm).
>
>In the future: Heater system, 2nd Comm, 2nd GPS, 1 VOR/ILS/LOC, backup
>horizon (electric), Autopilot etc.
What size battery do you propose?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Grounding all the wires from my panel - where does |
the block go
Fellow listers....
I have the ground block that goes on the inside of the firewall - and the part
that goes on the outside of the firewall.
The question that I have is where on the firewall should it go?
I already have a spot reserved for the brake fluid reservoir, and my heater inlets,
but still have to consider things like voltage regulators (maybe they should
go inside - but where?), throttle/mixture (AFP FI), prop (MT gov).
Where have you guys put it and did you later enjoy/regret your choices and why?
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "I-Blackler, Wayne R" <wayne.blackler(at)boeing.com> |
Thanks Bob, your critique is most welcomed, further answers below:
>Aircraft is an IO-360 powered Long EZ, and is all electric (Z12) converted
>from Z13 to save weight.
How did Z-12 get "lighter" than Z-13?
WB: Oops, the change was actually from Z14 to Z12. The Z14 was gross overkill for
my Long EZ, and given I retained the 2 alternators, I felt that a failed battery
condition was remote at best. The change was prompted by preliminary weights
on my EZ and an email on single bat/dual alt by Norm Howell some time ago.
The modification to Z12 was the simplest to do in terms of modifying Z14 and
tying in the SD-20.
> The aircraft has a B&C LR14 regulated SD-20 backup alternator and B&C
> LR14 regulated 40A Denso Alternator (B&C clone) installed. I have dual
> Lightspeed ignition supported on a hot battery bus fed through two 5A
> switch breakers on the panel.
Why switch breakers? Circuit needs to be protected at the battery
bus . . . once you have protection at the source of power, no further
protection is needed.
WB: I have a fuse block for the hot battery bus down near my toes in the aeroplane's
nose. For what it's worth, I guess I just want access to ignition protection.
Currently I have individual 16# wires running from the hot side of the bat
contactor to the 5A switch/breakers, and then 20# back to the Lightspeed boxes
mounted above the spar. I'm trying to minimise a failure condition in the
run from batt to breaker. Is this an acceptable practice?
>The plan was/is to fly it home to Australia in 2005, and hence it may be
>pretty loaded for the trip. Currently the 20A is not required however I
>would like to 'build in' what I can now (without added too many pounds).
>
>Currently...
>
>E-bus: Electric Nose Gear (no real numbers on draw at this stage, but
>fused at 10A), Comm (fused at 2A), Dynon EFIS (2A), AV10 Engine monitor
>(all in one engine instrumentation) (2A).
Suppose we changed the name of the "essential" bus to "endurance"
bus, how would this change current and/or future planning for
things you tie onto the bus?
WB: I could add manual retraction to the nose gear and use a battery operated handheld
comm, but both gear and ship comm are used sparingly (once) in 'endurance
mode'. The AV10 gives me all engine/electrical parameters including fire detection
under the cowl and the Dynon all pitot/static all for what I would consider
a minimum current draw.
>Main pwr bus: Contactor 0.8A, 2 Alternator Fields (fused at 5A),
Alternators fields get breakers too.
WB: I have two breakers on this bus, one for each alt, 5A each, exactly per Z12.
> 2 regulators (LV fused at 2A), Landing brake (speed brake) 7 1/2A,
> external lighting (fused at 10A x 2), rocky mountain encoder, GPS, XPDR,
> Fuel pump, Intercom, Starter Contactor, pitot heat, pitch trim (2A), CD player.
>
>Batt(hot) bus: Dual LSE Ignition both fused at 5A, Map light, cigarette
>lighter socket (handheld GPS or NAV/Comm).
>
>In the future: Heater system, 2nd Comm, 2nd GPS, 1 VOR/ILS/LOC, backup
>horizon (electric), Autopilot etc.
What size battery do you propose?
WB: Currently I have a 12V 16AH RG Unit. Engine runs are next...
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: E-bus diode |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Sounds like a nifty project... Just one comment below.
>
>
> Thanks Bob, your critique is most welcomed, further answers below:
>
snip
>>
>>E-bus: Electric Nose Gear (no real numbers on draw at this stage, but
>> fused at 10A), Comm (fused at 2A), Dynon EFIS (2A), AV10 Engine monitor
>> (all in one engine instrumentation) (2A).
>
> Suppose we changed the name of the "essential" bus to "endurance"
> bus, how would this change current and/or future planning for
> things you tie onto the bus?
>
> WB: I could add manual retraction to the nose gear and use a battery
> operated handheld comm, but both gear and ship comm are used sparingly
> (once) in 'endurance mode'. The AV10 gives me all engine/electrical
> parameters including fire detection under the cowl and the Dynon all
> pitot/static all for what I would consider a minimum current draw.
>
snip
You could get away with running the retract breaker from the main
bus. Turning off the main bus in order to operate in the endurance
mode doesn't preclude you from re-energizing it just prior to landing
This would allow you to operate the more power-hungry components for
the pre-landing period. And it would allow you to lighten up the e-bus
power budget.
Regards,
Matt Prather
VE N34RD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | bus feed questions |
I've built my RV-7 electrical system pretty much exactly to Figure Z-11.
Everything seems to work great with the exception of something that's been
nagging me.
When I feed the e-bus via the alternate (battery) feed, the turn coordinator
spins audibly faster than when I'm running everything off the main bus
(feeding the e-bus through the D-25 diode). It's not just slightly...it's
*noticeably* faster (higher pitch) when powering the e-bus directly off the
battery.
NOTE: this is in my garage running off the battery alone (engine/alternator
are not running).
I have tested this when powering nothing off the main bus, just feeding to
the e-bus, so it's not like there's any real additional load on the battery.
So my assumptions are:
1) The battery contactor, which draws 720-750mA according to a current draw
test I did before wiring all this up, is making the difference in load?
2) I have wired the D-25 diode incorrectly. I was more than a little
confused about the orientation of the terminals, since mine didn't match up
exactly with Bob's Z-11 diagram. Is it possible to wire it so that it
places a load on the system?
Any advice is much appreciated.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Antennas?? |
| From: | Vince Ackerman <vack(at)mac.com> |
Thanks Bob,
Both antennas are painted white inside the bolt holes. Will I need to
remove this? They both came with rubber gaskets for the bottom surface
so I was wondering, along with the paint, how they are normally
grounded.
Vince Ackerman
On Wednesday, Aug 6, 2003, at 07:50 US/Pacific, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I'm mounting my VHF and GPS antennas on the tailboom of a Rotorway
>> 162f
>> helo and I need some advice. The tailboom is about 16 inches in
>> diameter (aluminum skin) and since the base of the antennas is flat
>> I've made a transition base out of TAP epoxy putty that matches the
>> curve. This results in the antenna sitting about 3/8 inch above the
>> skin. The 4 bolts on each antenna go through this base and the skin
>> and
>> a backing plate. Do I need to ground the antennas somehow? If so, what
>> would be the best way to do this?
>>
>> Thanks, this list has helped a lot in the past.
>
> The bolts are sufficient to effect ground the antenna base.
> Clean the surfaces under the bolt heads and under the nuts.
> Tighten as much as the epoxy spacer will allow. Use internal
> tooth lockwashers under both bolt head and nut.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim and Lucy <jpollard(at)mnsi.net> |
| Subject: | dc motor question |
Hi all
I am installing a heater core for cab heat on my subaru
powered zodiac. It has a motor and fan built in and is
controlled by a 3 position speed switch. I thought
I would run the motor in reverse for defrost and forward
for regular heating.
However when I reverse the leads to the motor it turns
the same way when the polarity is reversed. Is there
some dc motors that will not reverse when the leads
are switched. Never ran into this before.
thanks
Jim Pollard
ch601hds
ea81
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: bus feed questions |
And here's a photo of how the D-25 diode is wired:
http://www.rvproject.com/images/diode_wiring.jpg
Maybe you guys can let me know if I used the wrong terminals or something.
Thanks,
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: bus feed questions
> I've built my RV-7 electrical system pretty much exactly to Figure Z-11.
> Everything seems to work great with the exception of something that's been
> nagging me.
>
> When I feed the e-bus via the alternate (battery) feed, the turn
coordinator
> spins audibly faster than when I'm running everything off the main bus
> (feeding the e-bus through the D-25 diode). It's not just slightly...it's
> *noticeably* faster (higher pitch) when powering the e-bus directly off
the
> battery.
>
> NOTE: this is in my garage running off the battery alone
(engine/alternator
> are not running).
>
> I have tested this when powering nothing off the main bus, just feeding to
> the e-bus, so it's not like there's any real additional load on the
battery.
> So my assumptions are:
>
> 1) The battery contactor, which draws 720-750mA according to a current
draw
> test I did before wiring all this up, is making the difference in load?
>
> 2) I have wired the D-25 diode incorrectly. I was more than a little
> confused about the orientation of the terminals, since mine didn't match
up
> exactly with Bob's Z-11 diagram. Is it possible to wire it so that it
> places a load on the system?
>
> Any advice is much appreciated.
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dc motor question |
>
>Hi all
>
>I am installing a heater core for cab heat on my subaru
>powered zodiac. It has a motor and fan built in and is
>controlled by a 3 position speed switch. I thought
>I would run the motor in reverse for defrost and forward
>for regular heating.
>However when I reverse the leads to the motor it turns
>the same way when the polarity is reversed. Is there
>some dc motors that will not reverse when the leads
>are switched. Never ran into this before.
This means that your motor has a wound field
as opposed to permanent magnet field. You will
have to bring field winding wires out of the motor
and reverse them to effect reversal of the motor . . .
or replace the blower with a permanent magnet motor
version.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bus feed questions |
>
>I've built my RV-7 electrical system pretty much exactly to Figure Z-11.
>Everything seems to work great with the exception of something that's been
>nagging me.
>
>When I feed the e-bus via the alternate (battery) feed, the turn coordinator
>spins audibly faster than when I'm running everything off the main bus
>(feeding the e-bus through the D-25 diode). It's not just slightly...it's
>*noticeably* faster (higher pitch) when powering the e-bus directly off the
>battery.
Have you measured the voltage difference between e-bus and main bus?
It IS possible that you've wired the diode assembly such that you have
TWO diodes in series thus doubling the voltage drop discussed below.
Take a peek at:
http://216.55.140.222/Pictures/s401-25.jpg
>NOTE: this is in my garage running off the battery alone (engine/alternator
>are not running).
>
>I have tested this when powering nothing off the main bus, just feeding to
>the e-bus, so it's not like there's any real additional load on the battery.
>So my assumptions are:
>
>1) The battery contactor, which draws 720-750mA according to a current draw
>test I did before wiring all this up, is making the difference in load?
>
>2) I have wired the D-25 diode incorrectly. I was more than a little
>confused about the orientation of the terminals, since mine didn't match up
>exactly with Bob's Z-11 diagram. Is it possible to wire it so that it
>places a load on the system?
How did your diode differ from Z-11?
>Any advice is much appreciated.
The e-bus will see a drop across the normal feed diode of .6 to
.8 volts which WILL let motors run slower, lights burn dimmer
and transmitters put out less power. Closing the e-bus alternate
feed will bypass the diode and erase the drop . . . but consider
this:
During alternator out operations, e-bus devices are expected to
provide useful performance over the discharge voltage range of
the battery . . . which starts out at about 12.5 and drops to
10.5 when less than 5% of capacity remains.
Now, with the alternator running, main bus voltage will be 13.8
to 14.6 volts. Taking off 0.8 volts for e-bus normal feedpath
diode drop runs the e-bus at 13.0 to 13.8 volts . . . 0.5 to
1.3 volts higher than the e-bus will see running battery only.
Your tests are battery only, this means that the e-bus starts
out with 12.5 - 0.8 or about 11.7 volts when powered through
the normal feed path . . .
Bottom line is that what you have observed is predictable,
understandable and not relevant to how the system operates
in the air.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dc motor question |
Jim and Lucy wrote:
>
>Hi all
>
>I am installing a heater core for cab heat on my subaru
>powered zodiac. It has a motor and fan built in and is
>controlled by a 3 position speed switch. I thought
>I would run the motor in reverse for defrost and forward
>for regular heating.
>However when I reverse the leads to the motor it turns
>the same way when the polarity is reversed. Is there
>some dc motors that will not reverse when the leads
>are switched. Never ran into this before.
>
>
>thanks
>
>Jim Pollard
>ch601hds
>ea81
>
>
Some dc motors have permanent magnets, some others have electromagnets.
For a permanent magnet changing the leads you change of direction of
current through the rotor with the same external magnetic field, so the
motor will change direction of rotation. For the electromagnet case
changing the leads reverses magnetic field both in the rotor and in the
electromagnet, and the motor will keep running as before. You would
have to find connections to the electromagnet inside the motor and
reverse them if you wanted to reverse direction, but I do not think that
you would like this project.
Jerzy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire |
I'm interested in the answers to this question also.
The wires in my MAC servos and trim indicators are 22 AWG at best, and
look much smaller. The instructions says that "... up to 28 AWG is
satisfactory." I have trouble crimping 22 AWG wires into 18-22 AWG
fastons and splices and am at a complete loss as to what to do with
smaller wires. Solder....???
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
---------------------------
>
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire
>
>
> >
> >My avionics have a lot of 24 AWG and 26 AWG wires onto which I must connect
> >quarter inch "faston" terminals and butt splices. I don't have a crimp tool
> >for wire that small and I can't get "faston" terminals that small. Is it
> >OK to
> >use 18-22 AWG terminals and butt splices? Should I then strip the insulation
> >further back and bend the exposed wire to double it over so as to better fit
> >the larger terminal?
>
> ???? Why 24 and 26 AWG wire ???? What kind of radios
> are you installing that prohibit the use of 22AWG or larger
> wire?
>
> Bob . . .
>
> --------------------------------------------
> ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> ( and still understand nothing. )
> ( C.F. Kettering )
> --------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: bus feed questions |
> Have you measured the voltage difference between e-bus and main bus?
The drop is .79 volts.
> It IS possible that you've wired the diode assembly such that you have
> TWO diodes in series thus doubling the voltage drop discussed below.
>
> Take a peek at:
> http://216.55.140.222/Pictures/s401-25.jpg
Ah, interesting. I did connect the main bus to a different terminal (the
lower left terminal in that photo), as you can see here:
http://www.rvproject.com/images/diode_wiring.jpg
> How did your diode differ from Z-11?
I was confused by Z-11 because in the iso view of the diode, it's very clear
which terminals are (+), (-) and (wave) (whatever the wave is supposed to
mean, I have no idea).
The issue I had is that in the actual wiring diagram, it's totally unclear
to me *which* of the two (wave) terminals the main bus should connect to.
You might want to clarify that to help people in the future, just a
suggestion...because unless I missed something it's ambiguous and there are
two choices. I chose the "other" one.
Now looking at the jpeg you posted above, I see exactly how you did it. But
tell me this...does it matter which (wave) terminal the main bus is
connected to, or are they both internally connected? Judging by the diode
symbol on the diagram it looks like either one would work fine?
> Bottom line is that what you have observed is predictable,
> understandable and not relevant to how the system operates
> in the air.
Phew...thanks!
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: bus feed questions |
Dan, I just looked at the picture of your e-bus diode and it looks like you
might have it wired incorrectly. It looks to me like you need to move the
feed from the Main DC bus from the lower left terminal to the upper right
terminal in your picture. You may know this already, but just in case.
Pat Hatch
RV-4
RV-6
RV-7 QB (Building)
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: bus feed questions
>
> And here's a photo of how the D-25 diode is wired:
>
> http://www.rvproject.com/images/diode_wiring.jpg
>
> Maybe you guys can let me know if I used the wrong terminals or something.
>
> Thanks,
> )_( Dan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
> To:
> Subject: bus feed questions
>
>
> > I've built my RV-7 electrical system pretty much exactly to Figure Z-11.
> > Everything seems to work great with the exception of something that's
been
> > nagging me.
> >
> > When I feed the e-bus via the alternate (battery) feed, the turn
> coordinator
> > spins audibly faster than when I'm running everything off the main bus
> > (feeding the e-bus through the D-25 diode). It's not just
slightly...it's
> > *noticeably* faster (higher pitch) when powering the e-bus directly off
> the
> > battery.
> >
> > NOTE: this is in my garage running off the battery alone
> (engine/alternator
> > are not running).
> >
> > I have tested this when powering nothing off the main bus, just feeding
to
> > the e-bus, so it's not like there's any real additional load on the
> battery.
> > So my assumptions are:
> >
> > 1) The battery contactor, which draws 720-750mA according to a current
> draw
> > test I did before wiring all this up, is making the difference in load?
> >
> > 2) I have wired the D-25 diode incorrectly. I was more than a little
> > confused about the orientation of the terminals, since mine didn't match
> up
> > exactly with Bob's Z-11 diagram. Is it possible to wire it so that it
> > places a load on the system?
> >
> > Any advice is much appreciated.
> >
> > )_( Dan
> > RV-7 N714D
> > http://www.rvproject.com
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire |
One way to make the smaller wires crimp into larger capacity ends is to
strip the end twice the normal length then fold the stripped end over
itself, insert the folded end and crimp.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Brame" <charleyb(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire
>
> I'm interested in the answers to this question also.
>
> The wires in my MAC servos and trim indicators are 22 AWG at best, and
> look much smaller. The instructions says that "... up to 28 AWG is
> satisfactory." I have trouble crimping 22 AWG wires into 18-22 AWG
> fastons and splices and am at a complete loss as to what to do with
> smaller wires. Solder....???
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
> ---------------------------
>
> >
> > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire
> >
> >
> > >
> > >My avionics have a lot of 24 AWG and 26 AWG wires onto which I must
connect
> > >quarter inch "faston" terminals and butt splices. I don't have a crimp
tool
> > >for wire that small and I can't get "faston" terminals that small. Is
it
> > >OK to
> > >use 18-22 AWG terminals and butt splices? Should I then strip the
insulation
> > >further back and bend the exposed wire to double it over so as to
better fit
> > >the larger terminal?
> >
> > ???? Why 24 and 26 AWG wire ???? What kind of radios
> > are you installing that prohibit the use of 22AWG or larger
> > wire?
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> > ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> > ( and still understand nothing. )
> > ( C.F. Kettering )
> > --------------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | D25 Rectifier/Diode |
I am studying the wiring diagram for the B&C WigWag SSF-1 Flasher (printed
it out some where/time in the past but don't have the URL to reference it
again) and am trying to understand the purpose of the D25. Is there a
charge build up in the flasher itself that discharges itself when the
circuit is opened?
What would possible bad happen if the D25 was not there and why is it useful
to have in this diagram?
Thanks.
Indiana Larry, RV7 ACS2002 Dynon CNS430 Digitrak TwoBatteriesOneAltWiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bus feed questions |
Dan wrote, "Now looking at the jpeg you posted above, I see exactly how you
did it. But
tell me this...does it matter which (wave) terminal the main bus is
connected to, or are they both internally connected? Judging by the diode
symbol on the diagram it looks like either one would work fine?"
It does matter where we connect the main buss based on a couple of the
diagrams I have seen that show the internal wiring of the D25 by B&C. There
is only one terminal the main bus cannot be connected to on the D25 and you
got it. If the D25 is laid down with feet up and the one terminal with foot
in different angle is put in lower right corner and connected to the e-buss
and either terminal in the top row can be used to connect to the main buss
to do it right.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip-up TMX-O-360 ACS2002 Dynon CNS430 Digitrak
Received FWF today.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire |
Simply strip a double length of the smaller 26 gauge wire. Double the bared wire
back. This will effectively double the thickness of the wire so that it will
hold securely in a 22 -18 gauge terminal.
Charlie Kuss
>
>I'm interested in the answers to this question also.
>
>The wires in my MAC servos and trim indicators are 22 AWG at best, and
>look much smaller. The instructions says that "... up to 28 AWG is
>satisfactory." I have trouble crimping 22 AWG wires into 18-22 AWG
>fastons and splices and am at a complete loss as to what to do with
>smaller wires. Solder....???
>
>Charlie Brame
>RV-6A N11CB
>San Antonio
>
>---------------------------
>
>>
>> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire
>>
>>
>> >
>> >My avionics have a lot of 24 AWG and 26 AWG wires onto which I must connect
>> >quarter inch "faston" terminals and butt splices. I don't have a crimp tool
>> >for wire that small and I can't get "faston" terminals that small. Is it
>> >OK to
>> >use 18-22 AWG terminals and butt splices? Should I then strip the insulation
>> >further back and bend the exposed wire to double it over so as to better fit
>> >the larger terminal?
>>
>> ???? Why 24 and 26 AWG wire ???? What kind of radios
>> are you installing that prohibit the use of 22AWG or larger
>> wire?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>> ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
>> ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
>> ( and still understand nothing. )
>> ( C.F. Kettering )
>> --------------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | F1Rocket(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire |
I've handled these wires in two ways. One, if a disconnect is needed, I
following the suggestion that Bob has on his web site for using a 9 pin
computer connector and soldering the wires to the pins. Here's the link:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
Second, if I'm joining two wires together, I just solder them together and
cover them with heat shrink and forget about it. IMHO, this is much easier and
less risky than trying to get 26 gauge wire into a crimp connector made for a
22 gauge wire. Just my thoughts, you mileage may vary.
Randy
F1 Rocket #95
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/
>
> I'm interested in the answers to this question also.
>
> The wires in my MAC servos and trim indicators are 22 AWG at best, and
> look much smaller. The instructions says that "... up to 28 AWG is
> satisfactory." I have trouble crimping 22 AWG wires into 18-22 AWG
> fastons and splices and am at a complete loss as to what to do with
> smaller wires. Solder....???
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
> ---------------------------
>
> >
> > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire
> >
>
> >
> > >
> > >My avionics have a lot of 24 AWG and 26 AWG wires onto which I must connect
> > >quarter inch "faston" terminals and butt splices. I don't have a crimp tool
> > >for wire that small and I can't get "faston" terminals that small. Is it
> > >OK to
> > >use 18-22 AWG terminals and butt splices? Should I then strip the insulation
> > >further back and bend the exposed wire to double it over so as to better fit
> > >the larger terminal?
> >
> > ???? Why 24 and 26 AWG wire ???? What kind of radios
> > are you installing that prohibit the use of 22AWG or larger
> > wire?
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> > ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> > ( and still understand nothing. )
> > ( C.F. Kettering )
> > --------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bus feed questions |
>
>Dan, I just looked at the picture of your e-bus diode and it looks like you
>might have it wired incorrectly. It looks to me like you need to move the
>feed from the Main DC bus from the lower left terminal to the upper right
>terminal in your picture. You may know this already, but just in case.
>
>Pat Hatch
>RV-4
>RV-6
>RV-7 QB (Building)
>Vero Beach, FL
The diode bridge rectifier has 4 diodes in a 'square'.
We wish to use one of the four devices, hence there are
4 different ways to make the connection, all of which
would function properly. Dan's depiction is functional
as is the one I cited from my website.
Note these assemblies have some means for showing the
(+) output or common cathodes terminal. The square will
either have a chamfered corner, one of the fast-ons
rotated 90 degrees to the others, or both.
The diode array will always serve it's intended purpose
if the (+) output terminal is wired to the e-bus, and
either adjacent terminal is wired to the main-bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bus feed questions |
>
> > Have you measured the voltage difference between e-bus and main bus?
>
>The drop is .79 volts.
Okay, you've only got one diode in the loop . . . good
> > It IS possible that you've wired the diode assembly such that you have
> > TWO diodes in series thus doubling the voltage drop discussed below.
> >
> > Take a peek at:
> > http://216.55.140.222/Pictures/s401-25.jpg
>
>Ah, interesting. I did connect the main bus to a different terminal (the
>lower left terminal in that photo), as you can see here:
>
>http://www.rvproject.com/images/diode_wiring.jpg
>
> > How did your diode differ from Z-11?
>
>I was confused by Z-11 because in the iso view of the diode, it's very clear
>which terminals are (+), (-) and (wave) (whatever the wave is supposed to
>mean, I have no idea).
>The issue I had is that in the actual wiring diagram, it's totally unclear
>to me *which* of the two (wave) terminals the main bus should connect to.
>You might want to clarify that to help people in the future, just a
>suggestion...because unless I missed something it's ambiguous and there are
>two choices. I chose the "other" one.
>
>Now looking at the jpeg you posted above, I see exactly how you did it. But
>tell me this...does it matter which (wave) terminal the main bus is
>connected to, or are they both internally connected? Judging by the diode
>symbol on the diagram it looks like either one would work fine?
>
> > Bottom line is that what you have observed is predictable,
> > understandable and not relevant to how the system operates
> > in the air.
>
>Phew...thanks!
The diode array is a bridge rectifier. The wavy symbol is
use to show one of two AC power input terminals. Either
can be used. You're wired up just fine and everything will
be hunky-dory when you get the engine fired up and the
alternator comes on line.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mailbox bob at mail.flyboybob.com" <bob(at)flyboybob.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator diode bridge measurement |
Bob,
I am in the process of modifying my internally regulated alternator to use
an external linear regulator. It was removed from service because it only
was putting out 13.0 volts. The claim of the shop was that it had a bad
regulator. I have disconnected the diode/regulator board from the stator.
The stator windings read 1 ohm from A-B, A-C, or B-C and infinite resistance
to the core. The rotor measures 3 ohms between the two brush slip rings and
infinite resistance to the core. Do these values seem reasonable for a 40A
Hitachi alternator?
The diode bridge and regulator are all in one assembly in this unit. I will
need to perform a lobotomy on the regulator and then connect the rotor
positive brush to what was the idiot light output connection on the
alternator. Before performing this surgery on the regulator, I would like
to know that the diode bridge is intact. The following table shows the
resistance values that I got from the diode bridge. The results seem
inconclusive to me. My assumption is that my DVM does not supply sufficient
voltage to bias the diodes??? Is there a way to measure diode bridge
without removing each individual diode?
Terminals in top row, ohm meter positive lead
Terminals in left column, ohm meter negative lead
(All readings are Kohms)
B+ GND A B C
B+ XXXX 2940 1960 1860 1910
GND inf XXXX 1960 1890 1850
A inf 1810 XXXX 3770 3730
B inf 1820 3780 XXXX 2880
C inf 1840 3790 2760 XXXX
Regards,
Bob Lee
______________________________
3380 Ashton Drive
Suwanee, GA 30024
Cell: (404) 538-1427
Phone: (770) 844-7511
Fax: (770) 844-7501
mailto:bob(at)flyboybob.com
http://flyboybob.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Trampas" <tstern(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator diode bridge measurement |
Most good DVM have a diode function which will provide larger bias
current and show the diode forward voltage drop.
Trampas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
mailbox bob at mail.flyboybob.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator diode bridge measurement
mail.flyboybob.com"
Bob,
I am in the process of modifying my internally regulated alternator to
use
an external linear regulator. It was removed from service because it
only
was putting out 13.0 volts. The claim of the shop was that it had a bad
regulator. I have disconnected the diode/regulator board from the
stator.
The stator windings read 1 ohm from A-B, A-C, or B-C and infinite
resistance
to the core. The rotor measures 3 ohms between the two brush slip rings
and
infinite resistance to the core. Do these values seem reasonable for a
40A
Hitachi alternator?
The diode bridge and regulator are all in one assembly in this unit. I
will
need to perform a lobotomy on the regulator and then connect the rotor
positive brush to what was the idiot light output connection on the
alternator. Before performing this surgery on the regulator, I would
like
to know that the diode bridge is intact. The following table shows the
resistance values that I got from the diode bridge. The results seem
inconclusive to me. My assumption is that my DVM does not supply
sufficient
voltage to bias the diodes??? Is there a way to measure diode bridge
without removing each individual diode?
Terminals in top row, ohm meter positive lead
Terminals in left column, ohm meter negative lead
(All readings are Kohms)
B+ GND A B C
B+ XXXX 2940 1960 1860 1910
GND inf XXXX 1960 1890 1850
A inf 1810 XXXX 3770 3730
B inf 1820 3780 XXXX 2880
C inf 1840 3790 2760 XXXX
Regards,
Bob Lee
______________________________
3380 Ashton Drive
Suwanee, GA 30024
Cell: (404) 538-1427
Phone: (770) 844-7511
Fax: (770) 844-7501
mailto:bob(at)flyboybob.com
http://flyboybob.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire on Ray Allen |
servos
Ray Allen Company
2528-8 Pioneer Avenue
Vista, CA 92083
Via Fax: 760-599-4383
Good morning,
By way of introduction, I am an electronics engineer with over 40 years
experience in light aircraft. For the past 17 years, I have been
supporting the owner built and maintained (OBAM) aircraft community
though publishing and real-time support efforts. I publish a
builder assistance book called the AeroElectric Connection which is
in it's 10th revision after 15 years of publication and over
10,000 copies sold. I'll invite you to visit my website
at www.aeroelectric.com for a more detailed description of
our activities in support of the OBAM aircraft industry.
Since my first visit to OSH in 1986, I have been fielding questions
about practical ways to interface your popular and capable products
into OBAM aircraft. Difficulties arise most often when
neophyte builders are learning to deal with wires that are smaller
than the more robust, mil-w-22759/16, 22AWG wires; the
smallest size recommended for airframe wiring.
There is another issue with respect to the use of two white
wires to bring motor leads out of the trim actuators. The system
designer who specifies your products cannot produce a wiring
diagram that is 100% accurate for system functionality. The
builder has a 50-50 chance of wiring the motor right the
first time.
The note below is an example of conversations I've had with
builders about your products for lots of years. I've copied
you on this exchange to apprise you of perceptions
and customer discomfort with the use of Ray Allen products.
If there is any interest on your part to effect some
relief, I for one would be most supportive. My readers
would appreciate it too.
Kindest regards,
Bob Nuckolls
AeroElectric Connection
Wichita, KS
Cell:(316) 209-7528
Fax:(316) 685-8617
Email: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net
>
>
>I'm interested in the answers to this question also.
>
>The wires in my MAC servos and trim indicators are 22 AWG at best, and
>look much smaller. The instructions says that "... up to 28 AWG is
>satisfactory." I have trouble crimping 22 AWG wires into 18-22 AWG
>fastons and splices and am at a complete loss as to what to do with
>smaller wires. Solder....???
Heard this question a lot when I worked out of B&C's booth
at OSH every year. It was mystifying to me that given
the compact size of M22769, 22AWG wire, that they were
so hard-over on using such small wire on their products.
Further, any recommendation that wires as small as
28AWG (?????) could be used in airframe wiring was
mind boggling . . . ESPECIALLY for neophyte technicians.
The current rating of wires as small as 28AWG
might be satisfactory for rated performance of their
product. However, there was no consideration given for relative
robustness of small wires and the difficulties of
acquiring convenient connection hardware designed
for those small wires.
Every time I stopped by MAC's booth at for about 10 years
running, I asked if they would consider up-sizing the wires
to 22AWG -AND- using a second color for one of the motor
wires (with two white wires, you have 50-50 chance of wiring it right
the first time). Never have I encountered an organization
so disconnected from the tenants of elegant design, practical
acumen and empathy with the customers they claim to
serve.
Their standard response was, "Gee, we've heard no
complaints . . . we must be doing a good thing".
A deep root of resistance for them has to be the
number of STC's in which their products are called
out. Making the most rudimentary of changes
to a holy-watered product has become a labor
intensive, financial boondoggle of jumping through
regulatory hoops.
That's an advantage the OBAM aircraft community
has over the certified ships. Products and
processes can evolve as the elegant solutions
dictate. You folks have the opportunity to be
a the leading edge of aviation evolution while
our spam-can driving brethren are flying designs
carved into regulatory stone.
If I had no other options than to use Ray Allen products,
I would interface their pendant wires with REAL
airframe wiring using a technique like:
http://216.55.140.222/articles/macservo/macservo.html
Understand they are under new management. Perhaps
another suggestion for making their products more
user friendly would be useful. I'll fax a copy of
this note to the factory.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: bus feed questions |
> can be used. You're wired up just fine and everything will
> be hunky-dory when you get the engine fired up and the
> alternator comes on line.
Thanks again for putting my mind at ease. The voltage drop explains the
symptom...wish I had thought to break out the voltmeter. Next time I will.
Couldn't get through this (first OBAM) without all your help.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rwilliams" <rwilliams(at)C1ama.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
Tony:
Valid questions. However, ... .
Some of us are working on very tight budgets. What is the difference in
cost between the Dynon D10 or the Blue Mountain EFIS/Lite and a
"conventional" panel?
Dynon should be commended for bringing out a much lower priced box than
their competitors, but it is still not cheap.
In sentiment, I agree with Bob Nuckolls' desire for an all-electric panel.
I'd love to have a glass cockpit. However-at least with conventional "steam
gauges"-an electric artificial horizon costs as much as a vacuum a.h. and
the rest of the vacuum system put together. Vacuum system components are
readily available reconditioned. Thus far, most electronics seem to be
priced to probe just how high the market will tolerate.
The folks at MyGlassCockpit(at)yahoogroups.com are experimenting with various
"roll your own" solutions. The progress on that site is
disappointing--probably because they lack a sparkplug like Nuckolls-but I
suspect that affordable systems are more likely to come from amateurs than
greedy corporations. I suspect that if I ever get a glass cockpit, it will
be built with "off the shelf" components [like a tablet p.c., automotive
sensors, etc.] and homebuilder cooperation.
Is there anyone else in the group that is thinking along these lines, or am
I alone "out in left field" (or right, or whatever)? Are homebuilt
instruments a valid topic for an Aerolectric discussion?
Perhaps one could start by computerizing engine readouts, then add GPS (the
components are all already available) and moving maps, then finally
integrate EFIS. Or has all this already been done and I'm simply ignorant?
Thanks!
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
The Dynon is essentially only the ADI screen of the BMA EFIS/Lite.
The BMA also includes an HSI, Moving Map, AutoPilot, and a CDI for VOR/GPS
guidance. The EFIS/Lite essentially replaces the standard "six pack" gauges
(Airspeed, altimeter, attitude, turn coordinator, vertical speed, heading),
and adds a moving map GPS, autopilot (if purchased), and Nav head.
The EFIS/One full system adds, for one, the engine, fuel, OAT, and other
monitoring items....
Brett
----- Original Message -----
From: "rwilliams" <rwilliams(at)C1ama.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel layout - request for comments
>
> Tony:
>
> Valid questions. However, ... .
>
> Some of us are working on very tight budgets. What is the difference in
> cost between the Dynon D10 or the Blue Mountain EFIS/Lite and a
> "conventional" panel?
>
> Dynon should be commended for bringing out a much lower priced box than
> their competitors, but it is still not cheap.
>
> In sentiment, I agree with Bob Nuckolls' desire for an all-electric panel.
> I'd love to have a glass cockpit. However-at least with conventional
"steam
> gauges"-an electric artificial horizon costs as much as a vacuum a.h. and
> the rest of the vacuum system put together. Vacuum system components are
> readily available reconditioned. Thus far, most electronics seem to be
> priced to probe just how high the market will tolerate.
>
> The folks at MyGlassCockpit(at)yahoogroups.com are experimenting with
various
> "roll your own" solutions. The progress on that site is
> disappointing--probably because they lack a sparkplug like Nuckolls-but I
> suspect that affordable systems are more likely to come from amateurs than
> greedy corporations. I suspect that if I ever get a glass cockpit, it
will
> be built with "off the shelf" components [like a tablet p.c., automotive
> sensors, etc.] and homebuilder cooperation.
>
> Is there anyone else in the group that is thinking along these lines, or
am
> I alone "out in left field" (or right, or whatever)? Are homebuilt
> instruments a valid topic for an Aerolectric discussion?
>
> Perhaps one could start by computerizing engine readouts, then add GPS
(the
> components are all already available) and moving maps, then finally
> integrate EFIS. Or has all this already been done and I'm simply
ignorant?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Freddie Freeloader <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
Hello rwilliams,
Thursday, August 7, 2003, 12:15:13 PM, you wrote:
r> I suspect that affordable systems are more likely to come from
r> amateurs than greedy corporations.
Just curious, when did designing and marketing and making a profit
turn into "greedy?"
--
Best regards,
Freddie mailto:lists(at)stevet.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
I would second this comment. I own (with two partners) a company
(www.astsensors.com) that makes pressure sensors. We sell thousands to
large numbers of industrial and commercial customers. I would like to
make our products available to homebuilders (and to mainline GA and
aeronautical companies as well). However, the costs for insurance that
will cover sales to anything related to aircraft is ridiculous!
The additional cost to sell one sensor into an aviation application
would be more than double what we pay to sell over $2M to industrial
customers!
So it is not specifically "greedy corporations" - it is more the lawyers
and our litigious society that raises the costs.
My $0.02...
Dick Tasker, RV9A 90573
Starting fuselage...
Freddie Freeloader wrote:
>
>Hello rwilliams,
>
>Thursday, August 7, 2003, 12:15:13 PM, you wrote:
>
>r> I suspect that affordable systems are more likely to come from
>r> amateurs than greedy corporations.
>
> Just curious, when did designing and marketing and making a profit
> turn into "greedy?"
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
Pardon me for butting into the conversation, but I just wanted to
throw in my $0.02 on how I "justified" the Dynon unit.
I'm building an RV6A, and one of my requirements is that it is
capable fof basic IFR flight. I don't need WAAS approach
capability, two-axis autopilot, auto-throttles, or anything like
that - just the equipment required to go through a layer of clouds
to VFR on top or to shoot the occasional ILS. After pricing out
the basics, I found the Dynon actually cost very little more than
the traditional vacuum system. My bill for the Dynon came to $2200,
and from my budget I was able to remove the following items :
Mode-C altitude encoder - $150
Attitude Indicator - $450
Gyro Compass - $450
Vacuum Pump - $350
Suction Gauge - $75
Regulator & filter - $600
Note that these prices are basically estimates based on what is
available from Wicks/Spruce/Van's etc. Before choosing the Dynon
unit, I decided that I did not want to peg my well-being on a used
device with an unknown background from eBay.
The total of the above units is $2075; that doesn't include the
hoses or fittings for plumbing the vacuum system. For $125 more,
the Dynon offers an effective _solid-state_ replacement, with the
addition of a G-meter, Angle-of-attack indicator, voltmeter, and
more. It might be a bit cheaper; I ordered the optional backup
battery to run the unit in case of failure of the electrical system.
Cheers,
Brad "Sharpie" Benson
RV6A QB Underway - Panel!!!
A/FD for Palm and PocketPC - visit http://www.notamd.com
rwilliams said:
>
>
> Tony:
>
> Valid questions. However, ... .
>
> Some of us are working on very tight budgets. What is the
> difference in cost between the Dynon D10 or the Blue Mountain
> EFIS/Lite and a
> "conventional" panel?
>
> Dynon should be commended for bringing out a much lower priced box
> than their competitors, but it is still not cheap.
>
> In sentiment, I agree with Bob Nuckolls' desire for an
> all-electric panel. I'd love to have a glass cockpit. However-at
> least with conventional "steam gauges"-an electric artificial
> horizon costs as much as a vacuum a.h. and the rest of the vacuum
> system put together. Vacuum system components are readily
> available reconditioned. Thus far, most electronics seem to be
> priced to probe just how high the market will tolerate.
>
> The folks at MyGlassCockpit(at)yahoogroups.com are experimenting
> with various "roll your own" solutions. The progress on that site
> is
> disappointing--probably because they lack a sparkplug like
> Nuckolls-but I suspect that affordable systems are more likely to
> come from amateurs than greedy corporations. I suspect that if I
> ever get a glass cockpit, it will be built with "off the shelf"
> components [like a tablet p.c., automotive sensors, etc.] and
> homebuilder cooperation.
>
> Is there anyone else in the group that is thinking along these
> lines, or am I alone "out in left field" (or right, or whatever)?
> Are homebuilt instruments a valid topic for an Aerolectric
> discussion?
>
> Perhaps one could start by computerizing engine readouts, then add
> GPS (the components are all already available) and moving maps,
> then finally integrate EFIS. Or has all this already been done
> and I'm simply ignorant?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bob
>
>
> Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search
> Digests: http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list _-> Archives: http://www.matronics.com/archives
Brad Benson, Software Architect
Computer Data Strategies, Inc.
Ph. 651-730-4156 / Fax 651-730-4161
"What's another word for thesaurus?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <mjheinen(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
My understanding and I believe companies that make these "glass panels" is that
you would need at leat two of them to maybe qualify for IRF or have a vacume
system backup. If you unit failed all your instruments would be gone...no partial
panel...thus I dont believe you could use it fro IFR legally. With steam
guages at least one instrument or system failure still gives you some options.
That said....I too would prefer a (plus backup) glass panel with all the bells
and whistles at an affordable cost. My guess is the way PDAs are headed you could
almost do it with them...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
In a message dated 8/7/03 7:48:47 PM Central Daylight Time,
mjheinen(at)adelphia.net writes:
> My understanding and I believe companies that make these "glass panels" is
> that you would need at least two of them to maybe qualify for IFR or have a
> vacuum system backup. If you unit failed all your instruments would be
> gone...no partial panel...thus I dont believe you could use it fro IFR legally.
With
> steam guages at least one instrument or system failure still gives you some
> options.
> That said....I too would prefer a (plus backup) glass panel with all the
> bells and whistles at an affordable cost. My guess is the way PDAs are headed
> you could almost do it with them...
>
>
Good Evening mjheinen,
I am not at all familiar with the requirements for IFR flight with current
construction experimental airplanes, but any part 91 airplane that has been
certificated for a few years does not require any back up instrumentation at all.
Most folks like to have something to fall back on, but nothing is required by
regulation.
You can have everything driven off one vacuum pump or the entire panel driven
by electricity and have no back up electrical power at all.
May or may not be advisable, but it is legal.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
> > My understanding and I believe companies that make these "glass panels"
is
> > that you would need at least two of them to maybe qualify for IFR or
have a
>
> I am not at all familiar with the requirements for IFR flight with current
> construction experimental airplanes, but any part 91 airplane that has
been
Folks, sorry to be blunt, but it's time to break out the FARs and refresh
your memory on 91.205.
http://checkoway.com/url/?s=44f0f6ce
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
For part 91 aircraft, there is no requirement for a backup gyro
device. I know it is required for jet aircraft and also for part
121/135 but I confess that I am too lazy to dig out my FAR/AIM at
the moment. Anyway, my panel is being built around my Dynon D10 and
I will have a turn coordinator installed even though the Dynon
includes that function.
Cheers,
Brad "Sharpie" Benson
RV6A QB Underway - Panel!!!
A/FD for Palm and PocketPC - visit http://www.notamd.com
>
>
> My understanding and I believe companies that make these "glass
> panels" is that you would need at leat two of them to maybe
> qualify for IRF or have a vacume system backup. If you unit
> failed all your instruments would be gone...no partial
> panel...thus I dont believe you could use it fro IFR legally.
> With steam guages at least one instrument or system failure still
> gives you some options.
> That said....I too would prefer a (plus backup) glass panel with
> all the bells and whistles at an affordable cost. My guess is the
> way PDAs are headed you could almost do it with them...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
>
>In a message dated 8/7/03 7:48:47 PM Central Daylight Time,
>mjheinen(at)adelphia.net writes:
>
> > My understanding and I believe companies that make these "glass panels" is
> > that you would need at least two of them to maybe qualify for IFR or
> have a
> > vacuum system backup. If you unit failed all your instruments would be
> > gone...no partial panel...thus I dont believe you could use it fro IFR
> legally. With
> > steam guages at least one instrument or system failure still gives you
> some
> > options.
> > That said....I too would prefer a (plus backup) glass panel with all the
> > bells and whistles at an affordable cost. My guess is the way PDAs are
> headed
> > you could almost do it with them...
> >
> >
>Good Evening mjheinen,
>
>I am not at all familiar with the requirements for IFR flight with current
>construction experimental airplanes, but any part 91 airplane that has been
>certificated for a few years does not require any back up instrumentation
>at all.
>Most folks like to have something to fall back on, but nothing is required by
>regulation.
>
>You can have everything driven off one vacuum pump or the entire panel driven
>by electricity and have no back up electrical power at all.
>
>May or may not be advisable, but it is legal.
A fully electric airplane is considered to have TWO
power sources, one alternator and one battery. An
airplane with one-source vacuum gyros still has an
electric T/C with two power sources. The idea is that
with some degree of practice, one can reasonably
expect to navigate sans one power source.
Of course, given that most airplane batteries are
treated the same as car batteries, one might
effectively discount reliability of the second
source . . . combine this with the a demonstrated
miserable performance of alternators on most SE
aircraft, and it's easy to see why our spam-can
flying brothers are so fond of their vacuum systems.
They must seek solace with an airplane full of
redundant junk as opposed to refitting and configuring
their flight system to be failure tolerant of equipment
EXPECTED to last a long time.
If one installed a low cost efis that replaced the
standard 6-pak, one could still argue adequate redundancy
with needle, ball, and airspeed installed on the right
side. Once might also add a digital readout of the
encoder data as backup altimeter. A radio-aided wing
leveler might also be considered superior backup in
lieu of T/C leaving only an altimeter and a/s readout
needed for comfortable redundancy. This doesn't take
a lot of extra dollars or panel space.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
>
>The total of the above units is $2075; that doesn't include the
>hoses or fittings for plumbing the vacuum system. For $125 more,
>the Dynon offers an effective _solid-state_ replacement, with the
>addition of a G-meter, Angle-of-attack indicator, voltmeter, and
>more. It might be a bit cheaper; I ordered the optional backup
>battery to run the unit in case of failure of the electrical system.
How do you plan to have an "electrical system failure?"
It's usually less expensive, lighter and safer to plan
an electrical system that isn't going to fail than to plan
for a flight system that is tolerant of an electrical
system failure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Panel layout - request for comments |
"Cheap" is relative.
Also, "Cheap" may *NOT* be what you want. :-)
Seriously, in my opinion, nobody comes close to offering what they offer at
the price they do. Maybe Blue Mountain *could* (with a very stripped down
"Lite') but they do not. Maybe PCflightSystems (or ControlVision) with their
PDA offerings but they don't at this time. Seems though I recall seeing that
PCFlightSystems had something at OSH that was less costly.
Personally I am surprised that they are able to offer what they do for the
price they do.
I would guess they are doing "forward pricing" in an attempt to "own" this
space so they can eventually get enough volume to catch up (on expenses)
with subsequent products.
Just a different perspective on the matter.
James
>
> Dynon should be commended for bringing out a much lower priced box than
> their competitors, but it is still not cheap.
>
> Bob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Panel layout - request for comments |
See this link for PCFlightSystems "stuff".
http://www.pcflightsystems.com/images/PCFSPRODUCTS2003.pdf
They seem to have offerings between about $1000 and about $2000.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> rwilliams
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 3:15 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel layout - request for comments
>
>
> Tony:
>
> Valid questions. However, ... .
>
> Some of us are working on very tight budgets. What is the difference in
> cost between the Dynon D10 or the Blue Mountain EFIS/Lite and a
> "conventional" panel?
>
> Dynon should be commended for bringing out a much lower priced box than
> their competitors, but it is still not cheap.
>
> In sentiment, I agree with Bob Nuckolls' desire for an all-electric panel.
> I'd love to have a glass cockpit. However-at least with
> conventional "steam
> gauges"-an electric artificial horizon costs as much as a vacuum a.h. and
> the rest of the vacuum system put together. Vacuum system components are
> readily available reconditioned. Thus far, most electronics seem to be
> priced to probe just how high the market will tolerate.
>
> The folks at MyGlassCockpit(at)yahoogroups.com are experimenting
> with various
> "roll your own" solutions. The progress on that site is
> disappointing--probably because they lack a sparkplug like Nuckolls-but I
> suspect that affordable systems are more likely to come from amateurs than
> greedy corporations. I suspect that if I ever get a glass
> cockpit, it will
> be built with "off the shelf" components [like a tablet p.c., automotive
> sensors, etc.] and homebuilder cooperation.
>
> Is there anyone else in the group that is thinking along these
> lines, or am
> I alone "out in left field" (or right, or whatever)? Are homebuilt
> instruments a valid topic for an Aerolectric discussion?
>
> Perhaps one could start by computerizing engine readouts, then
> add GPS (the
> components are all already available) and moving maps, then finally
> integrate EFIS. Or has all this already been done and I'm
> simply ignorant?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
In a message dated 8/7/03 10:21:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
dan(at)rvproject.com writes:
> Folks, sorry to be blunt, but it's time to break out the FARs and refresh
> your memory on 91.205.
>
Well Dan, I did review my copy of 91.205 and find nothing that changes my
opinion that no standby source is required.
The FAA has been insisting that new certified aircraft have an alternate
source of power as a condition of certification. I don't believe you will find
that the requirement is retroactive.
Whether or not such a requirement is imposed on OBAM aircraft, I have no
idea.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
In a message dated 8/7/03 10:53:23 PM Central Daylight Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
> An
> airplane with one-source vacuum gyros still has an
> electric T/C with two power sources. The idea is that
> with some degree of practice, one can reasonably
> expect to navigate sans one power source.
>
Good Morning Bob,
For What It Is Worth, my first 1947 Bonanza came from Beech with a vacuum
powered T&B and a vacuum powered DG. When the FAA added the requirement for an
Artificial Horizon and Directional gyro, all I had to do was add the Attitude
gyro.
I had previously installed an electric T&B as a back up to be used if my
vacuum pump should fail, but having the electric T&B was not a requirement for
IFR
flight. My reading of the FARs say that is still the case. All gyro
instruments could be pneumatically powered and the airplane would be legal for
IFR
flight.
Vacuum T&Bs are getting a bit hard to find, but I did buy one with a fresh
overhaul just last year at Oshkosh.
A single source of power is all that is required.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MikeEasley(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter Shunts, Fuses, Volts |
Bob,
Ammeter Shunts...
So if I were to use a 70 and a 20 amp shunt, I would convert my display from
an "amp" reading to a "percentage of output" reading. I'm assuming that my
instrument is calibrated so that 50mv reads "100" on the readout. However, if
I
want actual amps I need to get another matching 100 amp shunt for my 20 amp
alternator so they both will read actual amps. I like your idea of using the
percentage setup. The unit has alarms that you can set to the low and high
points. That would be much more usable if my two alternators were reading
percentages.
Fuses...
I should fuse the + feed coming from the shunt?????
Volts...
The EDM900 also displays volts. The problem is that it uses the main power
feed to measure it. If I were to switch the incoming power between the two
busses I'd temporarily shut off the unit every time I flipped the switch. I
guess I could use some type of rotary shorting switch to switch both the amps and
volts between busses. Any ideas?
I would really like to overthink the situation and find some auto switching
device that would alternate every 10 seconds or something in "auto" mode or be
able to switch it to either bus manually.
I am installing the two warning lights that came with my alternator
controllers. Low voltage on either bus will be right in my face if anything happens.
Then my load readouts would come in handy to monitor my remaining good
alternator.
Mike Easley
Lancair ES
Colorado Springs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MikeEasley(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Wiring those tiny wires on Ray Allen Servos |
I found a good solution, it works for me anyway. I'm using Molex connectors
throughout my airplane. The local electronics shop has everything from 2 to
15 pin versions in stock. I standardized on the .093 pins. The problem was
they came with 18-22 awg pins. But I found additional pin sizes from Allied
Electronics in 14-20 and 24-30 awg sizes. For about $6 per 100, I got the smaller
and larger sizes. I got plenty of the medium ones with the connectors. They
work great on the little Ray Allen wires. I just put a 6 pin connector on
the servo and run "normal" size wire from there.
Mike Easley
Lancair ES
Colorado Springs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
I'm not planning on having one (an electrical system failure, that
is) and in fact am planning on using one of the systems outline in
the AeroElectric connection. However, for the low cost/weight
addition, a battery backup for the PFD certainly seems reasonable.
I've had to abort a flight twice (one emergency) due to electrical
system failure, and I heard a King Air declare an emergency due to
"total electrical failure" once, so I'm happy with the cost/weight
tradeoff.
In any event it will be as reliable, if not more so, than the vacuum
system that would have gone in its place.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Brad "Sharpie" Benson
RV6A QB Underway - Panel!!!
A/FD for Palm and PocketPC - visit http://www.notamd.com
Robert L. Nuckolls, III said:
>
> How do you plan to have an "electrical system failure?"
>
> It's usually less expensive, lighter and safer to plan
> an electrical system that isn't going to fail than to plan
> for a flight system that is tolerant of an electrical
> system failure.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search
> Digests: http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list _-> Archives: http://www.matronics.com/archives
Brad Benson, Software Architect
Computer Data Strategies, Inc.
Ph. 651-730-4156 / Fax 651-730-4161
"What's another word for thesaurus?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MikeM <mladejov(at)ced.utah.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator diode bridge measurement |
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
> From: "mailbox bob at mail.flyboybob.com" <bob(at)flyboybob.com>
> . . .
> I have disconnected the diode/regulator board from the stator.
> The stator windings read 1 ohm from A-B, A-C, or B-C and infinite resistance
> to the core. The rotor measures 3 ohms between the two brush slip rings and
> infinite resistance to the core. Do these values seem reasonable for a 40A
> Hitachi alternator?
These are typical values for most alternators, including
Prestolite, Motorola, and Rhone. The resistance of the stator
windings is much less than 1 Ohm so your Ohmmeter is just
providing a "rough" indication.
The DC resistance of the rotor (field winding) is typically 3 to
5 Ohms. If you connect 14V direct across the slip rings, the
field current is usually about 3 A, meaning that the resistance
has to be about 14/3 or 4.7 Ohms.
> . . .
> My assumption is that my DVM does not supply sufficient
> voltage to bias the diodes??? Is there a way to measure diode bridge
> without removing each individual diode?
Some DVMs, like my Fluke 77 and Fluke 87, provide a "Diode Test"
mode, which effectively forward biases the Diode Under Test with
a constant current source of 100uA. The meter then measures the
forward drop, and displays it in mV. e.g., when testing an old
Germanium diode, it shows about 0.2V, a Silicon rectifier shows
about 0.65V, and a Shottky diode shows about 0.15V. Either of my
Flukes can determine the integrity of the individual diodes in a
Full-wave bridge rectifier stack as long as the stack is
disconnected from the stators...
Mike Mladejovsky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
"Rv-List(at)Matronics.Com"
| Subject: | Ritchie M2 electronic compasses ... any interest???? |
GlacierSeveral of us have used the Ritchie M2 electronic compass in our
custom/homebuilt/experimental planes and they seem to work just fine.
The sensor is remote from the display and as soon as you turn it on, it
locks on to the correct heading.
The reason for this message is that a few people asked about how to get one
and I have found that Ritchie has put the program on the "back burner" (I
guess due to lack of interest from boaters) and are therefore not making
them at this time. There are many places that have them for $200+.
BUT ... I have found about 10 or so of these units and if there is interest,
I can purchase the entire lot. The price would be somewhere in the $100-$150
range, **definitely** less than $200.
Any interest??
If so, email me "off-list" with contact info. (james(at)nextupventures.com) .
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Enduring the greedy corporations . . . |
>
>So it is not specifically "greedy corporations" - it is more the lawyers
>and our litigious society that raises the costs.
>
>My $0.02...
That has to be a significant portion of the reason but
I suspect it's not the major reason. Beyond a certain
stage of growth, "economies of scale" reverse and the
bigger a company gets, the MORE it costs to produce
the same product. This is ESPECIALLY true of
low-volume, skill-demanding, labor-intensive products
like aircraft.
The really successful big companies know
how to operate like an association of little
companies . . . but it runs against the grain of
a high-dollar CEOs of mega-corps to delegate
real power to subordinates many steps below them.
I'm doing a task for RAC right now that would
normally take the time and attention of 3 or 4
other folks to "manage" certain aspects of the
job while adding no value. I got into a real
wrestling match with a bean-counter yesterday
because I told him I wanted a $1000 budget
for materials. He demanded a bill of materials
to know what I wanted to buy. I told him I was
going to design the system on-the-fly and didn't
know what parts would ultimately go into the
test fixture . . . I allowed as how some of
the parts I would buy will end up on the floor.
That really bent him out of shape. Actually,
I'll do the project for $500 or less and
the only questionable parts are already
bought for total $75 . . .
I'll confess to some delight in thinking this
bureaucrat will lay awake at night thinking
I'm going to bust the lid out of the budget
and he'll have to share blame for not
exercising some level of positive if not
ignorant control.
I won't do drawings and bill of materials
on the fixture until it is complete and
operable. My real budget for the task
will be a small fraction of what he would
have willingly approved if I'd agreed to
enlist all the "help" that is primed and
ready to ride on my work order. What he
failed to grasp while arm wrestling over
a few hundred dollars worth of parts
was the fact that I'm trimming about
$5000 of overhead labor not enlisting
all the "help" that was offered.
This is a tip of the iceberg example of what
can happen to elevate the simplest of tasks
into expensive, time consuming efforts.
It doesn't happen in Mom-n-Pop's Airplane
Parts Emporium, they couldn't invest
$5,000 in a one week task if they wanted
to . . . and they can't imagine why
a big company would want to do that either.
When you pay $50 for a new die cast
"Beechcraft" logo molding for the side
of your Bonanza, be advised that the company
probably isn't making a killing on that $5
part.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
>
>In a message dated 8/7/03 10:21:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
>dan(at)rvproject.com writes:
>
> > Folks, sorry to be blunt, but it's time to break out the FARs and refresh
> > your memory on 91.205.
> >
>
>Well Dan, I did review my copy of 91.205 and find nothing that changes my
>opinion that no standby source is required.
>
>The FAA has been insisting that new certified aircraft have an alternate
>source of power as a condition of certification. I don't believe you will
>find
>that the requirement is retroactive.
>
>Whether or not such a requirement is imposed on OBAM aircraft, I have no
>idea.
Who gives a rat's patootie about whether or not the
FAA "requires" backups? It's your airplane, your
responsibility to operate it well. Taking an
airplane into an environment where single points
of failure have profound influences on outcome
of flight is at least negligent if not foolhardy.
OBAM aircraft owners have no excuses. We cannot
HONORABLY hide behind the notion that lack of
holy-watered blessings or application of
senseless restrictions were an impediment
to doing the best we know how.
After spending 30-50 kilobux on a project, the
added dollars to make it truly failure tolerant
is chicken-feed. It will take some thought. Solutions
will be outside the thinking behind contemporary
certified aircraft. All the regulations and anecdotes
should be carefully combed for useful, simple-ideas
that help us evolve. 99% of what we KNOW about
the certified experience is of no value in this
regard except to acknowledge that they're not doing
it right. Let us concentrate on deducing what
makes us look like really good pilots because
our airplanes are free of disappointments.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Shielded Wires in EI Install |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
In a message dated 8/8/03 11:08:17 AM Central Daylight Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
> 99% of what we KNOW about
> the certified experience is of no value in this
> regard except to acknowledge that they're not doing
> it right. Let us concentrate on deducing what
> makes us look like really good pilots because
> our airplanes are free of disappointments.
>
Good Afternoon Bob,
Now, that is the point I was trying to make.
mjheinen made the following statement and asked for comment.
> My understanding and I believe companies that make these "glass panels" is
> that you would need at least two of them to maybe qualify for IFR or have a
> vacuum system backup. If you unit failed all your instruments would be
> gone...no partial panel...thus I dont believe you could use it fro IFR legally.
With
> steam guages at least one instrument or system failure still gives you some
> options.
>
It seems to me that he is under the impression that there is some government
requirement that specifies a need for standby equipment to fly IFR legally.
That is just not true.
As you so strongly state, it is up to we users to determine what we feel is
required for the level of safety we desire.
I have many airline pilot friends who will vociferously state that they will
never fly a single engine airplane unless they are sitting on a parachute
mounted in a zero altitude, zero airspeed, ejection seat.
I respect their right to make that decision. I sure don't want them to be
able to make rules that would force all of us to do likewise
Thank goodness, I have the right to determine how safe I want to be and what
level of redundancy I need for the operation I am conducting.
Let's all try to keep it that way.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter Shunts, Fuses, Volts |
>
>Bob,
>
>Ammeter Shunts...
>
>So if I were to use a 70 and a 20 amp shunt, I would convert my display from
>an "amp" reading to a "percentage of output" reading. I'm assuming that my
>instrument is calibrated so that 50mv reads "100" on the
>readout. However, if I
>want actual amps I need to get another matching 100 amp shunt for my 20 amp
>alternator so they both will read actual amps. I like your idea of using the
>percentage setup. The unit has alarms that you can set to the low and high
>points. That would be much more usable if my two alternators were reading
>percentages.
You got it!
>Fuses...
>
>I should fuse the + feed coming from the shunt?????
(+) feed? Both wires from the shunt are tied to a high
fault current feeder. I show fuses (or fusible links)
in both sense leads right at the shunt.
>Volts...
>
>The EDM900 also displays volts. The problem is that it uses the main power
>feed to measure it. If I were to switch the incoming power between the two
>busses I'd temporarily shut off the unit every time I flipped the switch. I
>guess I could use some type of rotary shorting switch to switch both the
>amps and
>volts between busses. Any ideas?
If I had designed this thing, the voltage sense line would be
separate from input power for the instrument . . . benefits
are obvious. You can switch the sense point at will and not
upset the microcontroller within.
Given that this is not the case, let us consider the
physics upon which a work-around might be based.
Take a peek at:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/switch_transition.jpg
The upper graph is the interruption transition for
a C&K Components miniature toggle switch. We see
a power interruption of 1.4 milliseconds. The
lower graph is for the standard toggle, S700-1-3
part sold by B&C. The larger switch would give
you 1.8 mS interruption.
BTW, resist the urge to fit shorting switches or
diode arrays in the switching system. All choices
increase potential for fault hazards.
(1) if the designers did their homework with
respect to DO-160, then this kind of interruption
shouldn't affect operation of their product. This
is easy for you to test. Just hook the thing up
in series with a two-position switch wired to
power the instrument from a single source irrespective
of position. Flip the switch back and forth and see
how the instrument behaves.
(2) Assuming results of the above test are
disappointing, make a measurement of the current
required to operate the instrument. Let us assume
that you need 1 amp of supply voltage to run the
instrument. Know that 1 amp of current impressed
on a 1 farad capacitor will CHANGE its voltage
by 1 volt/second.
If we put a 1 farad capacitor across the input
supply to the instrument, a 2 mS interruption
would sag below bus voltage by 2 millivolts.
Drop the capacitor to .1 farad and the voltage
would sag 20 millivolts. Drop cap to .001
farad, the voltage will sag 2 volts during
transition. Hmmm . . . any piece of !$#@#!
should run on 12 volts . . . so this sizes
your cap at 1,000 micro farads and rated
at 16 volts or so. Now, if you want to do
switching with the alternator not running,
you have to make sure the critter behaves
well with momentary operation at 10 volts.
Anyhow, you see how this works. Want headroom
for doggier switch? Make capacitor
proportionately larger. If instrument
draws less current, it gets smaller. If
it's well behaved down to 9 volts, the capacitor
get smaller, etc.
>I would really like to overthink the situation and find some auto switching
>device that would alternate every 10 seconds or something in "auto" mode
>or be
>able to switch it to either bus manually.
Why auto switch? You can do this with a relay,
solid state timer, etc (and if needed, the
capacitor) . . . are you wanting to do this
for low voltage warning? We're adding
parts which increase cost of ownership
and reduce reliability.
>I am installing the two warning lights that came with my alternator
>controllers. Low voltage on either bus will be right in my face if
>anything happens.
>Then my load readouts would come in handy to monitor my remaining good
>alternator.
Hmmmm . . . okay, if you have smart lights on both
busses, and you're going to switch the loadmeter
readout, then if it were my airplane, I'd forget
the voltage switching thing entirely. Adding these
components in the power lead to the instrument
only reduces system reliability and adds to
panel clutter. Knowing the voltage on a
non-monitored bus while the companion low volts
light is OFF and the loadmeter readings are
within expected range adds nothing to probability
for comfortable continuation of flight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brucem(at)olypen.com |
| Subject: | Panel layout - request for comments |
See FAR 23.1311, available through www.faa.gov, for backups required for EFIS
in certificated aircraft . Adds about $2500 for an all-electric airplane.
Yes, an experimental aircraft does not have to comply with FAR 23, but then you
have to convince the DAR to remove the VFR only operating limitation with
something less.
Regards, Bruce
McGregor
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
http://www.olypen.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Panel planner software |
| From: | "David.vonLinsowe" <David.vonLinsowe(at)delphi.com> |
While at Osh I ran into a booth that offered CAD style panel layout
software. It looked like it would do what I needed, but it didn't look
like they had the GRT Horizon 1 EFIS in their data base yet. I didn't
get a chance to get back to the booth to talk to the owner or pick up
any literature before we had to beat the incoming weather.
Could someone please point me in the right direction with either a web
address or phone number? Please send the info to davevon(at)tir.com, I
won't get the list info until Monday night.
BTW. A friend building a RV-7 figures he'll save 25 lbs by going to the
Dynon vs. a vacuum system!
Thanks,
Dave
The "Silver Turtle"
RV-6 Flying, but upgrading
Say good by to the vacuum pump :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
Here's the link to 23.1311 for the URL-challenged:
http://checkoway.com/url/?s=86bb96ba
Quoting it:
"(5) Have an independent magnetic direction indicator and either an
independent secondary mechanical altimeter, airspeed indicator, and attitude
instrument or individual electronic display indicators for the altitude,
airspeed, and attitude that are independent from the airplane's primary
electrical power system. These secondary instruments may be installed in
panel positions that are displaced from the primary positions specified by
Sec. 23.1321(d), but must be located where they meet the pilot's visibility
requirements of Sec. 23.1321(a)."
The "or" in that constraint seems to be the magic bullet. I interpret that
to mean that a Dynon EFIS-D10 with its own internal backup battery satisfies
that requirement. You can rip the whole electrical system out of the plane,
and the Dynon's battery will run that puppy, complete with those required
display indicators (altitude, airspeed, attitude) independently of the
electrical system.
I hope my interpretation is a correct one.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <brucem(at)olypen.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panel layout - request for comments
>
> See FAR 23.1311, available through www.faa.gov, for backups required for
EFIS
> in certificated aircraft . Adds about $2500 for an all-electric airplane.
> Yes, an experimental aircraft does not have to comply with FAR 23, but
then you
> have to convince the DAR to remove the VFR only operating limitation with
> something less.
>
> Regards, Bruce
> McGregor
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
> http://www.olypen.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
Bruce, I am not sure the DAR actually removes anything...I believe the
standard limitations will read something to the effect "After completion of
Phase 1 flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and /or
instrument flight in accordance with part 91.205, this aircraft is to be
operated under day only VFR It is up to you to make sure the aircraft is
properly equipped for night IFR and you are good to go. I don't believe you
should have to convince the DAR of anything in this regard.
Pat Hatch
RV-4
RV-6
RV-7 QB (Building)
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: <brucem(at)olypen.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panel layout - request for comments
>
> See FAR 23.1311, available through www.faa.gov, for backups required for
EFIS
> in certificated aircraft . Adds about $2500 for an all-electric airplane.
> Yes, an experimental aircraft does not have to comply with FAR 23, but
then you
> have to convince the DAR to remove the VFR only operating limitation with
> something less.
>
> Regards, Bruce
> McGregor
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
> http://www.olypen.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Shielded Wires on EI Install |
Hello Bob List,
I am installing a singleLight Speed Engineering Electronic ignition on my Lyc O-235
powered Kitfox. As you may or may not remember, in order to avoid putting
a big hole in the firewall, I've decided to cut the main wire running from the
direct crank sensor to the 15 pin connector that inputs to the controller re-connect
the 15 pinwith D-Subs. I've already purchased the tools materials from
BC but need to get clear on a couple of things before I proceed. Am hoping
Bob /oranyone who has installed an LSE ignitionwill giveadvice on the following:
#1 - Can I re-use the 15 pin connector that came with the ignition? If so I can't
figure out how to remove the existing pins. They are not D-sub and the insertion/extraction
tool from BC doesn't seem to work (unless I'm missing something)
#2 - There are 2 shielded wires that go into the connector: One for power one
for ground. The two shields are connected to each other close to the 15 pin but
LSE says to leave thoseends un-connected. I don't understand what purpose they
could serve. As my battery is in the tail of my aircraft I need to lengthen
the existing wires to get back to my battery bus. Should I install shielded wires
install per LSE or is it permissible to install un-shielded wire.
#3 - I'm having trouble'gathering'the shields of the RG58 (Co-ax) cables that run
to the ignitions coils. Cutting the shields to gather them on one side of the
cable seems to shred most of the shielding, leaving a small amount for the
fast-on connector. I'd like to use the process outlined in Bob's notes, but LSE
says not to used shrink tubing on the RG-58 cables. Any advice here would help.
Thanks,
Grant Krueger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install |
> #1 - Can I re-use the 15 pin connector that came with the ignition? If so
I can't figure out how to remove the existing pins. They are not D-sub and
the insertion/extraction tool from BC doesn't seem to work (unless I'm
missing something)
They're soldered. I just bought a new connector shell from Mouser for 88
cents (part #ME156-1415). The new one takes crimp pins.
> #3 - I'm having trouble'gathering'the shields of the RG58 (Co-ax) cables
that run to the ignitions coils. Cutting the shields to gather them on one
side of the cable seems to shred most of the shielding, leaving a small
amount for the fast-on connector. I'd like to use the process outlined in
Bob's notes, but LSE says not to used shrink tubing on the RG-58 cables. Any
advice here would help.
See Bob's article on shield pigtails:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
Instead of having to comb out the shield, you can just solder a new wire the
gets wrapped around the shield.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Trampas" <tstern(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Panel planner software |
Try:
http://www.panelplanner.com/
Trampas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
David.vonLinsowe
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panel planner software
While at Osh I ran into a booth that offered CAD style panel layout
software. It looked like it would do what I needed, but it didn't look
like they had the GRT Horizon 1 EFIS in their data base yet. I didn't
get a chance to get back to the booth to talk to the owner or pick up
any literature before we had to beat the incoming weather.
Could someone please point me in the right direction with either a web
address or phone number? Please send the info to davevon(at)tir.com, I
won't get the list info until Monday night.
BTW. A friend building a RV-7 figures he'll save 25 lbs by going to the
Dynon vs. a vacuum system!
Thanks,
Dave
The "Silver Turtle"
RV-6 Flying, but upgrading
Say good by to the vacuum pump :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install |
#1 - Can I re-use the 15 pin connector that came with the ignition? If so
I can't figure out how to remove the existing pins. They are not D-sub and
the insertion/extraction tool from BC doesn't seem to work (unless I'm
missing something)
They're soldered. I just bought a new connector shell from Mouser for 88
cents (part #ME156-1415). The new one takes crimp pins.
Thanks Dan! I'll get a new one (or two) from BC like I probably should have in
the first place.
#3 - I'm having trouble'gathering'the shields of the RG58 (Co-ax) cables
that run to the ignitions coils. Cutting the shields to gather them on one
side of the cable seems to shred most of the shielding, leaving a small
amount for the fast-on connector. I'd like to use the process outlined in
Bob's notes, but LSE says not to used shrink tubing on the RG-58 cables. Any
advice here would help.
See Bob's article on shield pigtails:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
Instead of having to comb out the shield, you can just solder a new wire the
gets wrapped around the shield.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
That's the 'Bob's Notes' part I was referring to.I really likeBob's method a lot-
my only hesitation is LSE's instructions not to use heat shrink tubing on the
Co-Ax Cable. (I don't understand how it could hurt. Did you use heat shrink
tubing? How did you solder the pigtail on without melting the insulation around
the center conductor?
======================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install |
> That's the 'Bob's Notes' part I was referring to.I really likeBob's method
a lot- my only hesitation is LSE's instructions not to use heat shrink
tubing on the Co-Ax Cable. (I don't understand how it could hurt. Did you
use heat shrink tubing? How did you solder the pigtail on without melting
the insulation around the center conductor?
I haven't completed that portion of the LSE wiring yet, but I have every
intention of putting tiny bit of heat shrink over that exposed/soldered
shield section. I'd love to hear the rationale for not using heat shrink...
Would silicone wrap be any better?
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard(at)riley.net |
| Subject: | Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install |
Don't use the RG58 that comes with the LSE. Use RG400 from B&C. I've had
engine heat melt the insulator and short out RG58.
>
>
> #1 - Can I re-use the 15 pin connector that came with the ignition? If so
>I can't figure out how to remove the existing pins. They are not D-sub and
>the insertion/extraction tool from BC doesn't seem to work (unless I'm
>missing something)
>
>They're soldered. I just bought a new connector shell from Mouser for 88
>cents (part #ME156-1415). The new one takes crimp pins.
>
>
>Thanks Dan! I'll get a new one (or two) from BC like I probably should
>have in the first place.
>
>
> #3 - I'm having trouble'gathering'the shields of the RG58 (Co-ax) cables
>
>
>that run to the ignitions coils. Cutting the shields to gather them on one
>side of the cable seems to shred most of the shielding, leaving a small
>amount for the fast-on connector. I'd like to use the process outlined in
>Bob's notes, but LSE says not to used shrink tubing on the RG-58 cables. Any
>advice here would help.
>
>See Bob's article on shield pigtails:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
>
>Instead of having to comb out the shield, you can just solder a new wire the
>gets wrapped around the shield.
>
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
>That's the 'Bob's Notes' part I was referring to.I really likeBob's method
>a lot- my only hesitation is LSE's instructions not to use heat shrink
>tubing on the Co-Ax Cable. (I don't understand how it could hurt. Did you
>use heat shrink tubing? How did you solder the pigtail on without melting
>the insulation around the center conductor?
>
>
>======================================================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
>
>In a message dated 8/8/03 11:08:17 AM Central Daylight Time,
>bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
> > . . . 99% of what we KNOW about
> > the certified experience is of no value in this
> > regard except to acknowledge that they're not doing
> > it right. Let us concentrate on deducing what
> > makes us look like really good pilots because
> > our airplanes are free of disappointments.
> >
>
>Good Afternoon Bob,
>
>Now, that is the point I was trying to make.
>
>mjheinen made the following statement and asked for comment.
>
> > My understanding and I believe companies that make these "glass panels" is
> > that you would need at least two of them to maybe qualify for IFR or
> have a
> > vacuum system backup. If you unit failed all your instruments would be
> > gone...no partial panel...thus I dont believe you could use it fro IFR
> legally. With
> > steam guages at least one instrument or system failure still gives you
> some
> > options.
> >
>
>It seems to me that he is under the impression that there is some government
>requirement that specifies a need for standby equipment to fly IFR legally.
>
>That is just not true.
. . . I agree that the words are not in the regs associated
uniquely with IFR operations for power sources but probably
because the requirements for multiple sources of power are imposed
elsewhere without even mentioning IFR operations. The multiple
or "standby" instrument package is in there too. Let's consider
power first.
For example, were I to design an aircraft with no battery,
a self-excited alternator and some handy but non-electric
starter (remember Capt'n Jimmy in Flight of the Phoenix?)
I'd have a real tough time certifying the airplane even
for day/vfr if, for example, if I had an electronic ignition.
23.1165 says I gotta have both generator and battery power sources.
23.1351(c) says that if I have electrical equipment necessary
for safe operation there MUST be a generator/alternator . . .
of course, this could be a wind driven generator for day
vfr. We might beg off redundancy based on the notion
that the airplane can continue to be flown safely with
the electrical system completely down (magnetos only
of course).
The place were dual power sources get the mandate
is in 23.1353, Storage Battery Installations.
Hmmm . . . we're designing an airplane that doesn't
require a battery. Does this section apply?
Looking at 23.1353(h) we see words about 30 minutes
of reserve power for equipment essential to continued
safe flight should the primary power source fail.
Shucks, we're seeking day/vfr only certification
and magneto fired . . . then again there are no
electrical devices essential to comfortable
termination of flight.
IFR isn't mentioned in this section but the requirement
is pretty clear. As soon as we put a suite of electrically
powered flight instruments intended for navigating
IFR conditions, the 30-minute rule under 23.1353 would
force addition of a battery (or second generator/alternator)
to our battery-free design.
Not only do we need the backup for certification, it's
capacity must be sufficient for, what in my opinion,
is an unnecessarily small value of endurance.
As I see it, the only way I could stand a chance
of certifying a battery-less aircraft is if it
had a vacuum system too . . . but even then,
the airplane would be limited to flight in
uncontrolled airspace 'cause I could loose radios
even tho I had flight instruments powered from
independent sources.
While it may be quite legal to pop up into the clouds
in certain airspace sans radios, the prospect of
doing so far exceeds my thirst for challenge . . .
Technologies available to us today in the form of
SD-8/SD-20 products, yearly swapped or carefully
monitored RG batteries combined with multiple
feedpath e-bus architectures offer an opportunity
to far exceed the 30 minute "requirement" with
great ease and comfort.
With respect to standby instruments, we find 91.205(d)(3)
calls for rate of turn unless you have a spill proof
third gyro as called out in (i) plus directional
and attitude gyros. Are these combinations
of instrumentation not selected for their abilities
to substitute for or back up each other?
While not specifically called "standby"
instrumentation, I'll suggest that the intent
of the rules are clear . . . make sure that
no single failure can ruin your day.
If one intends to outfit an OBAM aircraft with any
of the current offerings of glass-screen all-in-one
instruments, how would we offer up the aircraft as
suited for IFR operations under Part 91 if we did not have
-EITHER- a second glass-screen system running from
an independent power source -OR- a cluster of
steam gages or other hardware that serves in
the capacity of needle-ball-and-and-airspeed
should a crack in that LCD screen lets all the juice
out.
If I stood toe-to-toe with an FAA-type after causing
but surviving an overly tense emergency on the ground
and tried to argue, "there are no requirements for
redundant power sources for IFR flight 'cause
Part 23 doesn't apply to my airplane. Further,
Part 91 doesn't say doodly-squat about 'standby'
instruments." he'd probably be pleased figure
out some way to make my life miserable. This
isn't likely to happen 'cause my emergency is more
likely to end in a smoking hole than in a discussion
about regulatory semantics with some chap from FSDO.
>As you so strongly state, it is up to we users to determine what we feel is
>required for the level of safety we desire.
Yup. We gotta keep in mind that requirements offered supposedly
as a "design floor" more often become the "design ceiling." Take
housing codes for example. Almost nobody builds houses with the notion
that excelling beyond the code requirements is a better value.
To build foundations suited to the soil upon which my house
was built 35 years ago would have increased the price of the
house about 5%. Nonetheless, the construction was (and still
is) compliant with code. By the time I get through paying to have it
fixed, the costs will be closer to 25% of the value
of the house and still not done as well as it could have been
when the house was built.
So it is with the FARs . . . While multiple sources of
power are not mentioned in Part 91 which applies to how
we USE any airplane, I think it's reasonable to
say that there ARE pieces of Part 23 (while not applicable
OBAM aircraft) that make multiple sources a requirement
for IFR in the spam-can and a hell-of-a-good idea on an
OBAM ship as well . . . in fact, how about THREE or
FOUR sources of power? TWO alternators and TWO batteries
can be lighter than one classic alternator, one battery and
a vacuum system.
The wording and intent of required gyro instruments
(or their functional equals) in Part 91 is pretty
clear too. It's how we choose to select, install and
power all this stuff up that determines whether
or not they become functional or regulatory
equivalents of "standby" instruments.
>I have many airline pilot friends who will vociferously state that they will
>never fly a single engine airplane unless they are sitting on a parachute
>mounted in a zero altitude, zero airspeed, ejection seat.
>
>I respect their right to make that decision. I sure don't want them to be
>able to make rules that would force all of us to do likewise.
Hear, HEAR my friend! . . . I know a number of rule makers/enforcers who
used to have jobs that added value . . .
>Thank goodness, I have the right to determine how safe I want to be and what
>level of redundancy I need for the operation I am conducting.
>
>Let's all try to keep it that way.
. . . to be sure, as numbers of certified SE-GA aircraft continue
to dwindle, there will be individuals in places of power who view
the last bastion of aviation liberty as fertile ground for
advancement of their careers. We can not relax our
vigil for an instant . . . and while we're guarding our
rear, we can show the rest of the aviation community just
what a CEILING for functionality and performance the FARS
have become.
Here's a piece I wrote on the subject nearly 6 years
ago . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/futurnow.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | drew.schumann(at)us.army.mil |
| Subject: | Aeroelectric Connection |
I just received my copy of "The Aeroelectric Connection" along with the CD. I've
just started and have to say that I greatly admire and enjoy Bob's writing
style. AND the promptness in which this order was filled.
I look forward to reading through it in the next couple days.
Drew
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
In a message dated 8/9/03 12:33:14 AM Central Daylight Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
> With respect to standby instruments, we find 91.205(d)(3)
> calls for rate of turn unless you have a spill proof
> third gyro as called out in (i) plus directional
> and attitude gyros. Are these combinations
> of instrumentation not selected for their abilities
> to substitute for or back up each other?
>
Good Morning Bob,
While I disagree with very little of what you have stated, (fact is, what got
me into the area of discussion in the first place is my desire to totally
eliminate the pneumatic system in my current certified steed) I do feel compelled
to comment on the above statement.
Having been an active IFR pilot in the days when we flew without Directional
Gyros or Artificial Horizons, I do remember the reasons presented when the
authorities added those instruments to the list of required instrumentation.
My recollection is that the arguments were more along the line that it took a
lot more time to teach people to fly IFR using the, then traditional, rate
based method than it did to teach the attitude based style of IFR flight. I
think redundancy had little to do with the decision.
It was felt that more folks would opt for instrument training if it were made
easier to do.
The example of WWII training for our military forces was used. The pilots
had universally been taught to fly IFR in a very limited amount of time. While
they were taught, and did have to demonstrate a basic capability on partial
panel, the military aircraft came equipped with a "full panel."
The basic reasoning was similar to that used when they eliminated the spin
requirement.
Many folks were so bothered by spins, that it was eliminated from the
curriculum in an effort to encourage more people to learn to fly.
If instrument flight could be made easier, it was hoped that more folks would
fly IFR.
As was pointed out earlier, Beech only installed one source of power for the
standard flight instrumentation in their early Bonanzas. One of the selling
points of the aircraft at that time was that every Bonanza left the plant fully
meeting all of the CAA requirements for IFR flight. They all had a vacuum
pump, a vacuum powered T&B, an LF transmitter and a radio capable of receiving
the low frequency range signals. I am not sure, but I believe they all a had
the manual loop as well, but I suppose a few may have been delivered without
that excellent, though not required, device.
I also feel that the incidences of the old wet vacuum pump failures were no
more pervasive than the incidents of engine failure. It just wasn't a
significant cause of accidents. The accidents came along with the dry pumps and
the
lack of partial panel skills.
I think I also pointed out earlier, that one of the first things I installed
in my first Bonanza was an electric T&B. My second son and I own a 1955 Piper
PA-22/20. It came from the factory with all vacuum powered flight
instrumentation. (I guess Piper and Beech felt that the wet pumps were reliable
enough
for them.) One of the early changes we made to the Pacer was to replace the
vacuum T&B with an electric model. I just come from a long line of chickens!
It is my contention that the current drive for redundancy has come about
because it is now fairly easy to develop methods of redundancy at low financial
cost and with low weight penalties.
That is not all bad. We should develop new methods and new technologies.
My problem is with those who wish to confine us to the operations that are
currently in vogue or who wish to protect us from what might happen even though
history has not shown any need for that protection.
We have come as far as we have in spite of regulation, not because of it.
I still think I should be allowed to make my own decision as to how much
redundancy I want.
One pilot, one engine, one power source for flight instruments, one radio.
All sounds OK to me if that is what I want.
Since I am old and can afford a standby handheld comm unit, along with a
handheld GPS, that is what I generally take along when IFR flight is contemplated.
I have practiced IFR flight using the GPS HSI as a reference and find it
doable. Not beautiful, but doable. For me, that meets my minimum requirements.
Others want much more. If anyone wants to fly with less, I will fight to the
death to maintain their right to do so.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Reading" <treading(at)comcast.net> |
I've been trying to understand what would happen if both BC 40amp and BC20
amp where on at the same time. Would this give you 60 amp capicity or would
one sleep because the alt 's set point are not ever precisely the same.
Thanks Tom Reading RV7 wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Brooks" <kenbrooks(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
-listers,
Amen to this!
". . .All the regulations and anecdotes should be carefully combed for
useful, simple-ideas that help us evolve. 99% of what we KNOW about the
certified experience is of no value in this regard except to acknowledge
that they're not doing it right. Let us concentrate on deducing what
makes us look like really good pilots because our airplanes are free of
disappointments. Bob (Nuckolls). . ."
Now. . .I want to be able to fly my RV-8 legal IFR (no, I don't intend
to fly in bad weather, just be able to file, etc.) I've already been
through the "paper charts" thing, and yes, I'll have them in the cockpit
and they'll be up to date. We've designed the Dual Alt/Dual Batt system
around Bob's same in Aeroelectric Connection. We're using The EFIS-One
with EFIS-Lite backup on different busses. We have the Apollo SL-30
Nav/Com with CDI indicator. We have the Microair 760 VHF radio for
backup on a separate bus. We also have a back seat repeater display for
the EFIS-One (wife insisted). We can put the display power on a
different bus than the front display also. The part where we differ in
interpretation of the FARs is that some say you must have a wet compass.
As I read the reg, it just says "magnetic heading indicator" and the
solid state magnetometers with the EFIS-One/EFIS-Lite are just that, so
if someone can show me why/how I must have a wet compass, I'll change my
interpretation, but until then, the two (separate magnetometers) fit the
bill nicely. Of course I will also have the Microair transponder with
encoder with a lovely cable set made by Bob. By the way, with the
EFIS-One/EFIS-Lite, we'll have two electronic skid/slip indicators and
two independent turn coordinators with automatic standard rate turn
indicators. Have I forgotten anything else I need for legal IFR?
Thanks in advance.
Ken Brooks
RV-8QB in progress
N1903P reserved
How fortunate for governments that the people do not think -- Adolf
Hitler
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba(at)icosa.net> |
| Subject: | Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
Here is a read from the EAA I got a while back to confirm my thoughts:
"The magnetic direction indicator called out in 14 CFR 91.205 is not further
defined. As such, any instrument that has the capability of finding
magnetic north and transmitting directional info to the pilot based on that
finding would be acceptable. There is no strict requirement for a "whiskey
compass".
Hope this helps. Let me know if you have further questions.
Joe Norris
EAA Aviation Information Services
EAA Aviation Center, Oshkosh, WI
888-322-4636, extension 6806
jnorris(at)eaa.org "
I hope that helps either clear things up or possibly make it murkier...
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Brooks
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements?
-->
The part where we differ in interpretation of the FARs is that some say
you must have a wet compass. As I read the reg, it just says "magnetic
heading indicator" and the solid state magnetometers with the
EFIS-One/EFIS-Lite are just that, so if someone can show me why/how I must
have a wet compass, I'll change my interpretation, but until then, the two
(separate magnetometers) fit the bill nicely.
Ken Brooks
RV-8QB in progress
N1903P reserved
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu> |
| Subject: | Panel planner software |
Beware! I have previously used the Panel Planner software, and it did
not size the panel accurately. See Randy Lervold's comments on the
"Panel 1" page of his excellent website www.rv-8.com. I currently use
the free Panel Builder software accessible at epanelbuilder.com (no
www!) for conceptual layouts, then draw it in my CAD software to
determine the actual fit.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Trampas
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Panel planner software
Try:
http://www.panelplanner.com/
Trampas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
David.vonLinsowe
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panel planner software
While at Osh I ran into a booth that offered CAD style panel layout
software. It looked like it would do what I needed, but it didn't look
like they had the GRT Horizon 1 EFIS in their data base yet. I didn't
get a chance to get back to the booth to talk to the owner or pick up
any literature before we had to beat the incoming weather.
Could someone please point me in the right direction with either a web
address or phone number? Please send the info to davevon(at)tir.com, I
won't get the list info until Monday night.
BTW. A friend building a RV-7 figures he'll save 25 lbs by going to the
Dynon vs. a vacuum system!
Thanks,
Dave
The "Silver Turtle"
RV-6 Flying, but upgrading
Say good by to the vacuum pump :-)
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brucem(at)olypen.com |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
Pat,
Welcome to "Catch 22" in the FARs. 91.205 requires three gyroscopic
intstruments for IFR flight, so an exception for an EFIS panel (with or without
backups) would need some sort of DAR or FSDO approval IMHO. An advance check
with one of them would make sense before committing to an EFIS panel.
Regards, Bruce
Bruce, I am not sure the DAR actually removes anything...I believe the
standard limitations will read something to the effect "After completion of
Phase 1 flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and /or
instrument flight in accordance with part 91.205, this aircraft is to be
operated under day only VFR It is up to you to make sure the aircraft is
properly equipped for night IFR and you are good to go. I don't believe you
should have to convince the DAR of anything in this regard.
Pat Hatch
RV-4
RV-6
RV-7 QB (Building)
Vero Beach, FL
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
http://www.olypen.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
> Welcome to "Catch 22" in the FARs. 91.205 requires three gyroscopic
> intstruments for IFR flight, so an exception for an EFIS panel (with or
without
> backups) would need some sort of DAR or FSDO approval IMHO. An advance
check
> with one of them would make sense before committing to an EFIS panel.
Despite there being no moving parts, a solid state gyro can still be
considered a gyroscopic instrument.
http://www.rvproject.com/IFR_Equipment.pdf
According to the FAA Small Plane Directorate (whatever that is):
"Any instrument that performs the function of the required gyroscopic
instrument and presents info to the pilot in the same manner as the
gyroscopic instrument will meet the requirement of 91.205, regardless of
what mechanical or electronic means are used to generate the information and
display."
I'm banking on this interpretation, as are MANY other builders (using
Dynons, Blue Mountains, etc.), and I will do my utmost to persuade any DAR
or FAA representative who preaches otherwise. We'll see how it goes.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Grosvenor" <dwg(at)iafrica.com> |
| Subject: | OV Module question for Bob |
I have put together an OV module and set it up and tested it as per
instructions. On the bench it works fine. When installed in the aircraft,
it was tripping the OV breaker when I switched on the master switch. I
remember someone else with this problem and the fix was to put a 10uF Tant
cap across the power leads going into the module. This I did and it stopped
the breaker tripping when the master went on. However, as soon as I hit the
start button, it trips again. It can then immediately be reset. Do I put
in a bigger cap to sort this out or is there possibly another solution.
Thanks
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald Cox" <racox(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 25 Msgs - 08/08/03 |
Brad:
I think Bob's point is that this, and a lot of other "dark and stormy night"
stories, is based on a situation that we have designed our systems not to
permit.
I don't think a backup power source for the PFD is unreasonable, but it may
be unnecessarily redundant if you use a system architecture like Bob
promotes.
(Someone else might point out that if you heard him, unless he was on a
handheld radio, the King Air didn't have a "total electrical failure". Or
else, how did you hear him?
Ron
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel layout - request for comments
> From: "Brad Benson" <brad@cds-inc.com>
>
>
> I'm not planning on having one (an electrical system failure, that
> is) and in fact am planning on using one of the systems outline in
> the AeroElectric connection. However, for the low cost/weight
> addition, a battery backup for the PFD certainly seems reasonable.
> I've had to abort a flight twice (one emergency) due to electrical
> system failure, and I heard a King Air declare an emergency due to
> "total electrical failure" once, so I'm happy with the cost/weight
> tradeoff.
>
> In any event it will be as reliable, if not more so, than the vacuum
> system that would have gone in its place.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Brad "Sharpie" Benson
> RV6A QB Underway - Panel!!!
> A/FD for Palm and PocketPC - visit http://www.notamd.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
In a message dated 8/9/03 2:42:38 PM Central Daylight Time, dan(at)rvproject.com
writes:
> http://www.rvproject.com/IFR_Equipment.pdf
>
> According to the FAA Small Plane Directorate (whatever that is):
>
> "Any instrument that performs the function of the required gyroscopic
> instrument and presents info to the pilot in the same manner as the
> gyroscopic instrument will meet the requirement of 91.205, regardless of
> what mechanical or electronic means are used to generate the information and
> display."
>
> I'm banking on this interpretation, as are MANY other builders (using
> Dynons, Blue Mountains, etc.), and I will do my utmost to persuade any DAR
> or FAA representative who preaches otherwise. We'll see how it goes.
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
Good Afternoon Dan,
Sounds good to me!
Incidentally. I have found that the higher I go up the food chain in the
hierarchy of the FAA, the better answers I get.
It isn't only the crud that floats to the top, cream does likewise.
While there are always a few folks in any organization that get promoted to
their level of incompetency, my experiences with the FAA at the Regional
offices and in Washington has been good.
Dealing with a FSDO can be difficult. They are at the bottom and are still
in the learning stage. Many are fine and hardworking gentlemen (and ladies).
Unfortunately, just like any other group from airline pilots to nuclear
engineers, they get a few bad apples. Combine that with the few that are just
hanging on until they retire and we can find some difficult folks to work with.
Have faith. Try to present the FSDO personnel with data they can use to give
you the answer you want to see.
Works for me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duncan McBride" <duncanmcbride(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Radiated ignition noise? Maybe not. |
Maybe it's just noise.
First thing this morning I walked all around the plane with the handheld listening
to the noise, sticking the antenna everywhere. All I noticed was that the
closer to the engine I was, the louder it was. Then I realized as I was walking
away from the plane it was quieter than when I was walking towards it, like
my body shielded the noise. So I pinch the microphone between my thumb and
forefinger and the noise is almost gone. I know I reported earlier that this
had no effect but now it did.
One more time I enlist a buddy, this time one with a lot of GA experience, to listen
on the handheld while I fly. The report is that while there is a good deal
of engine and wind noise, my transmissions are clear enough to understand.
To him it didn't sound that unusual. To cap it off, I adjusted the intercom
so the volume was as loud as the radio and (smack my forehead) sure enough there
is roughly the same noise in the intercom. When the intercom squelch is broken,
and I'm listening to the engine and the wind, I can push the PTT and the
noise gets a little bit louder at the higher frequency, that's all.
It may be that all this time I've just been picking up a really loud exhaust and
prop noise coming over my shoulder, and the intercom just didn't amplify it
as well as the radio. That would be consistent with the fact that I would get
the same noise on the Microair intercom when it was hooked up.
Now I'm wondering if a different microphone for high noise environments is the
answer. The buddy at the field is a BFI and he swears by the Comtronics unit.
He says they use a dynamic mic and it does a much better job in this kind of
installation. I'm going to try out a pair when I can. They use different plugs
so I need to scrounge up an adapter. Does this sound reasonable?
Also, if this is it, would it be feasible to change out the mic on my headsets
(DC H10-80, Lighspeed QFRXC) or should I just bite the bullet and get new headsets?
Sorry I didn't get to spray water on the prop or watch it at night, but if this
angle doesn't pan out, I'm on it.
I've found some good reports on the Comtronics headsets in the archives, but does
anyone have anything specific to how the microphones cancel noise next to GA
headsets like mine? I'd appreciate your comments.
Thanks, Duncan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Reading" <treading(at)comcast.net> |
Thought you guys would find this interesting and please answer my
alternator question-thanks
New Technology Goes Into Amish Buggies
LEDs Make Batteries Last Longer
GORDONVILLE, Pa. -- Many of the Amish are turning to a high tech item to
light the way for their buggies.
Susan Shapiro's Report
A solar energy company in Lancaster County is making buggy headlights with
light emitting diodes, or LEDs, the energy-efficient light you often see in
digital clocks. They will shine for about 100 hours before the battery needs
a charge, compared to about six hours for incandescent lights.
Sunline Solar is behind this new product.
Amish workers assemble the headlights in a renovated barn in Gordonville.
The LEDs, manufactured by a California company, are placed in a four over
four configuration and is run with AA batteries.
General manager Steve Mellinger said the lights are very energy efficient,
which makes them a perfect fit for Amish carriages.
"This gives them the ability to have light without draining the battery
down. (They) can take longer trips," Mellinger said.
The lights aren't brighter, but they look a little different.
Elam Beiler, the president of Sunline Solar, said the Amish have been very
receptive to the high tech headlights and taillights.
"It's been widely accepted. We haven't had any negative feedback as far as
conforming to church standards and that type of thing," Beiler said. "I
don't have to worry if a battery is a quarter full. I can go for hours and
don't have to worry about battery dying."
The technology is used in other items like flashlights. The batteries last
about 20 times longer than in a normal flashlight, and you can drop it and
not worry about the bulb breaking.
The LEDs are being tested for automobile headlights, but they probably won't
be standard for a few years down the road.
LEDs have been around for about two decades, but it was only a few years ago
that a Japanese researcher came up with a way for them to emit white light.
Copyright 2003 by TheWGALChannel.com. All rights reserved. This material may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tom
Reading
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator
I've been trying to understand what would happen if both BC 40amp and BC20
amp where on at the same time. Would this give you 60 amp capicity or would
one sleep because the alt 's set point are not ever precisely the same.
Thanks Tom Reading RV7 wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
Tom,
This is an answer Bob gave just a few days ago:
That is exactly what happens in certified ships. Figure Z-12
is not recommended for new design. It's an easy fix to add a
second alternator to an existing airplane. This this case, both
alternators are ON but the aux alternator regulator is set
for about 1 volt below normal bus voltage. Soooo . . . with
the main alternator working, the aux alternator relaxes.
If the main alternator quits, the bus voltage sags, the
aux alternator comes alive automatically. The SB-1 reglator
is fitted with a circuit to illuminate an "AUX ALT LOADED"
warning light and flash it if the aux alternator output
is higher than 20A . . . reduce load until light stops
flashing.
Terry
I've been trying to understand what would happen if both BC 40amp and BC20
amp where on at the same time. Would this give you 60 amp capicity or would
one sleep because the alt 's set point are not ever precisely the same.
Thanks Tom Reading RV7 wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: all-vacuum driven attitude instrumentation |
>
>In a message dated 8/7/03 10:53:23 PM Central Daylight Time,
>bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
> > An
> > airplane with one-source vacuum gyros still has an
> > electric T/C with two power sources. The idea is that
> > with some degree of practice, one can reasonably
> > expect to navigate sans one power source.
> >
>
>Good Morning Bob,
>
>For What It Is Worth, my first 1947 Bonanza came from Beech with a vacuum
>powered T&B and a vacuum powered DG. When the FAA added the requirement
>for an
>Artificial Horizon and Directional gyro, all I had to do was add the Attitude
>gyro.
>
>I had previously installed an electric T&B as a back up to be used if my
>vacuum pump should fail, but having the electric T&B was not a requirement
>for IFR
>flight. My reading of the FARs say that is still the case. All gyro
>instruments could be pneumatically powered and the airplane would be legal
>for IFR
>flight.
>
>Vacuum T&Bs are getting a bit hard to find, but I did buy one with a fresh
>overhaul just last year at Oshkosh.
>
>A single source of power is all that is required.
If one considers both flow of electrons and molecules
of air as POWER sources for useful purposes
on the panel, how do all-vacuum gyros square with
the 30 minute rule?
Of course, the Bonanza is a CAR3 airplane and much
to the frustration of those who are paid to protect
us from ourselves, enjoyed a lot of grand-fathered
freedoms from current rules as they evolved. That
was pulled up short not by FAR but I believe by
administrative orders that decreed that major
changes to airframes under any old certification rules
would be conducted to the latest rules.
So one has to be clear in making distinctions between
was was required way back when, what is required now,
what's a good idea anyhow, and what some local FSDO
guy belives. If you were a DER and had the 30 minute rule
laid out in front of you, what would be your advice
to anyone proposing all vacuum attitude instruments
driven by single pump?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Do your own regs and certification |
>
>Bruce, I am not sure the DAR actually removes anything...I believe the
>standard limitations will read something to the effect "After completion of
>Phase 1 flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and /or
>instrument flight in accordance with part 91.205, this aircraft is to be
>operated under day only VFR It is up to you to make sure the aircraft is
>properly equipped for night IFR and you are good to go. I don't believe you
>should have to convince the DAR of anything in this regard.
. . . here's the neat thing about OBAM aircraft
configuration and construction. Take the simple idea
of a self-imposed requirement. "My airplane is fitted
and operated in a manner wherein no single failure
of equipment has a profound influence on the outcome
of any proposed flight."
Now, if one has all-the-eggs-in-one-basket type
of display, it's a relatively simple task to deduce
what alternative equipment and mode of operation will
get you back on the ground without breaking a sweat.
Write a failure mode effects analysis that discusses
exactly what you plan to do in case of failure of
ANY and all pieces of equipment. A few paragraphs that discuss
(1) how you will become aware of the failure, (2) is
the failure pre-flight detectable, (3) is that device
necessary for sweat-free continuation of flight,
(the discussion may stop here where you say, "not
necessary for comfortable continuation of flight)
and (4) what alternatives are supplied for replacing the
lost function if loss of equipment CAN make you
break a sweat.
This is a very simple exercise you should do for
yourself no matter who else may be invited to pass
judgment on your airplane. Believe me, those-who-
are-paid-to-protect-us-from-ourselves will be
surprised if not astounded to be presented with
such a document. It will be a black and white
demonstration that you know more about your airplane
than they do.
This has the effect of -BOTH- cooperating with
the spirit and intent of regulation -AND- ensuring
your personal familiarization and confidence
in the machine you operate. It's easy. You
can do it in the word processor. It can and
should speak to EVERY piece of equipment in
the cockpit and maybe some pieces under the
cowl as well. Treat it sorta like typing
and expanding on your notes after a lecture.
This exercise will go a long way for your
personal confidence and understanding. It'll
blow the socks off any bureaucrat that thinks
he's walking up to just another neophyte that
wants to get in that thing and put daylight
under the wheels.
This will go a long way toward earning their
respect and reducing any resistance they may
have toward turning you and your machine
loose on the rest of us unsuspecting citizens.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
>
>Here's the link to 23.1311 for the URL-challenged:
>
>http://checkoway.com/url/?s=86bb96ba
>
>Quoting it:
>
>"(5) Have an independent magnetic direction indicator and either an
>independent secondary mechanical altimeter, airspeed indicator, and attitude
>instrument or individual electronic display indicators for the altitude,
>airspeed, and attitude that are independent from the airplane's primary
>electrical power system. These secondary instruments may be installed in
>panel positions that are displaced from the primary positions specified by
>Sec. 23.1321(d), but must be located where they meet the pilot's visibility
>requirements of Sec. 23.1321(a)."
>
>The "or" in that constraint seems to be the magic bullet. I interpret that
>to mean that a Dynon EFIS-D10 with its own internal backup battery satisfies
>that requirement. You can rip the whole electrical system out of the plane,
>and the Dynon's battery will run that puppy, complete with those required
>display indicators (altitude, airspeed, attitude) independently of the
>electrical system.
>
>I hope my interpretation is a correct one.
. . . still leaves a concern with failures internal
and vital to the operation of the system. What are
your alternatives when a solder joint comes loose and
the screen goes black?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install |
>
>
>Hello Bob List,
>
>I am installing a singleLight Speed Engineering Electronic ignition on my
>Lyc O-235 powered Kitfox. As you may or may not remember, in order to
>avoid putting a big hole in the firewall, I've decided to cut the main
>wire running from the direct crank sensor to the 15 pin connector that
>inputs to the controller re-connect the 15 pinwith D-Subs. I've already
>purchased the tools materials from BC but need to get clear on a couple
>of things before I proceed. Am hoping Bob /oranyone who has installed an
>LSE ignitionwill giveadvice on the following:
>
>#1 - Can I re-use the 15 pin connector that came with the ignition? If so
>I can't figure out how to remove the existing pins. They are not D-sub and
>the insertion/extraction tool from BC doesn't seem to work (unless I'm
>missing something)
Sounds like you have a soldered on connector. You just
cut it off and replace with a crimped pin connector.
Tools and pins are available from B&C. Unfortunately,
Radio Shack for some strange reason thinks that 9 and
25 pin connector are the only d-subs . . . they
don't stock a 15-pin, 20AWG d-sub connectors.
>#2 - There are 2 shielded wires that go into the connector: One for
>power one for ground. The two shields are connected to each other close
>to the 15 pin but LSE says to leave thoseends un-connected. I don't
>understand what purpose they could serve. As my battery is in the tail of
>my aircraft I need to lengthen the existing wires to get back to my
>battery bus. Should I install shielded wires install per LSE or is it
>permissible to install un-shielded wire.
Unshielded wire is fine . . .
>#3 - I'm having trouble'gathering'the shields of the RG58 (Co-ax) cables
>that run to the ignitions coils. Cutting the shields to gather them on one
>side of the cable seems to shred most of the shielding, leaving a small
>amount for the fast-on connector. I'd like to use the process outlined in
>Bob's notes, but LSE says not to used shrink tubing on the RG-58 cables.
>Any advice here would help.
I'd pitch the RG-58 and go with a twisted pair of wires. Other
builders have done this with success and the physics surrounding
the nature of twisted pairs says it will work. You could even use
shielded twisted pair . . .
This is a constantly recurring problem for builders. I've heard
a number of cases where the 1940's insulation on RG-58 has
melted under the cowl. I'm going to publish an alternative
to wiring the coils in a shop notes. Will try to get it up
tomorrow.
Tell you what. If there's interest, I'll put up a kit consisting
of 4 lengths of twisted pair shielded with BNC connectors installed
on one end, and a 15-pin d-sub connector, pins and backshell. I think
I've got about 7000 feet of twisted pair and bins full of
connectors. Is the replaced connector male or female?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install |
>
>
> #1 - Can I re-use the 15 pin connector that came with the ignition? If so
>I can't figure out how to remove the existing pins. They are not D-sub and
>the insertion/extraction tool from BC doesn't seem to work (unless I'm
>missing something)
>
>They're soldered. I just bought a new connector shell from Mouser for 88
>cents (part #ME156-1415). The new one takes crimp pins.
>
>
>Thanks Dan! I'll get a new one (or two) from BC like I probably should
>have in the first place.
>
>
> #3 - I'm having trouble'gathering'the shields of the RG58 (Co-ax) cables
>
>
>that run to the ignitions coils. Cutting the shields to gather them on one
>side of the cable seems to shred most of the shielding, leaving a small
>amount for the fast-on connector. I'd like to use the process outlined in
>Bob's notes, but LSE says not to used shrink tubing on the RG-58 cables. Any
>advice here would help.
>
>See Bob's article on shield pigtails:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
>
>Instead of having to comb out the shield, you can just solder a new wire the
>gets wrapped around the shield.
This would be fine on modern insulated wire. That polyethylene
inner conductor insulation runs like water at solder temps.
That's why he tells you not to use heatshrink. You can't install
heatshrink without damaging the wire!!!!
Hold off on the RG58 until you see my shop notes addition
tomorrow.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install |
>
>Don't use the RG58 that comes with the LSE. Use RG400 from B&C. I've had
>engine heat melt the insulator and short out RG58.
If you want to stay with coax, this is a MUCH more appropriate
wire.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob: Awhile back you stated fig Z15b (ground system for canard pusher)
wasnt a good idea and would be revised in the next edition but you didnt explain
why? Would you please?
Assuming you would rather have the panel ground going to the #2 wire coming
from the engine end to the battery like diagram Z15C. Would it be best to
run the #2 wire up from the floor channel its running in to behind the panel and
attached to a ground plate that all the panel grounds are attached to or
could I run a smaller wire from the panel ground plate down to the #2 wire running
in the floor track. Thanks Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob: Awhile back you stated fig Z15b (ground system for canard pusher)
>wasnt a good idea and would be revised in the next edition but you didnt
>explain
>why? Would you please?
the original design used the battery (-) terminal
as a common junction point. The updated figure
has been posted at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z15ak.pdf
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
>
>Here is a read from the EAA I got a while back to confirm my thoughts:
>
>"The magnetic direction indicator called out in 14 CFR 91.205 is not further
>defined. As such, any instrument that has the capability of finding
>magnetic north and transmitting directional info to the pilot based on that
>finding would be acceptable. There is no strict requirement for a "whiskey
>compass".
How about a hand-held gps like the GPS310 from Magellan
set up to give present course in magnetic degrees.
BTW, when I started using these low cost receivers, I bought
in to the widely distributed notion that one always wanted
to power them up while in pre-flight so they could get
locked to signals and figure out where one was before
you became airborne.
In years since, I've conducted a number of experiments
with asking the receiver to do a cold start a some distance
away from shutdown and perhaps at cruising speed. Worst
case was at 29,000 ft, 500+ MPH and over 1,500 miles
from where the receiver had been turned off. It took
the GPS310 less than 1 minute to sort it all out and
produce a display.
Sooo . . . even hidden away in the flight bag, this
technology is available on very short notice to
back up anything else in the cockpit that displays
the same data.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks I found the updated drawing but the question is why? Im trying to
learn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Thanks I found the updated drawing but the question is why? Im trying to
>learn
A battery terminal is routinely de-mated and re-mated for
maintenance. It's better practice to make up your system
grounds one-time for gas-tight longevity . . . the panel
ground bus has to exist for other system considerations
and is closer to the panel than the battery is. Using
it as a common tie point for a ground as it travels
forward to the battery provides the lowest loop impedance
(ALL major grounds are 2AWG) and minimizes need to disturb
perfectly good connections after they're made up for
final assembly.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
For those who use 9-volt batteries in their intercoms, see the difference in batteries
at:
http://www.zbattery.com/zbattery/batteryinfo.html#
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true."
- James Clerk Maxwell, discoverer of electromagnetism
"Too much of a good thing can be wonderful."
- Mae West, discoverer of personal magnetism
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: System reliability (was: RV-List: Dynon Shipped) |
> >
> >>Uhhh, has anyone else had this thought: sounds like an awful lot of
> >>people are building IFR RV's out there with all these Dynons being
> >>ordered. This is a good thing, if true.
> >>
> > Frankly that is the last place I would put one, in an IFR RV.
> > That is a bad thing IMO if true.
> >
> >
>
>I don't know much about Dynon's system. However, I do know a lot about
>component design and system design. There are a lot of dead guys behind
>the evolution of many designs in aviation, airframes and systems. One
>does need to be quite humble to where the certified industry has evolved
>to over the years. It is very easy to chuck rocks at their "antiquated"
>methodology, and jump to new stuff. No problem with VFR, but altogether
>different for IFR.
>
>That being said, I am certainly not saying we should not use new
>technology. I only caution those who do make leaps of technology to be
>very, very aware of how small changes to a design, system, etc., usually
>have unforeseen consequences. These unforeseen consequences can be
>nasty, and I've never seen a design change that didn't have surprises.
>It is quite easy to point to accidents caused by mechanical gyro
>failures and conclude we just need to replace them with something else.
>Keep in mind, in doing this "analysis", that the area under the
>cumulative time in use of vacuum gyros combined with electric TC/TB (for
>example) is huge, while the total time the newcomers (Dynon) have is
>quite limited, probably one millionth as much time.
>
>Something to think about - the temptation to believe that a design
>change will be an overall improvement is overwhelming, but experience
>tells otherwise. Systems like Dynon's are clearly where the future is,
>but expect turbulence and dead guys along the way.
>
>Alex Peterson
>Maple Grove, MN
>RV6-A N66AP 337 hours
>www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
This is yet another, perhaps more compelling reason for one
to conduct and satisfy the FMEA (failure mode effects analysis)
I described earlier on the AeroElectric-List. This same train
of thought supports the discussion we had last week on knock
sensors and choosing a system upon which you and folks you
value will place a degree of trust.
See why arguments for breakers versus fuses are shallow
to the extreme? In some systems, (especially those with
microcircuits and software) there can be thousands of
potential failure points that have nothing to do with
whether or not a breaker/fuse opens or does not open.
By conducting the FMEA and having others review it with
you, you can sort ALL potential failures into two piles
(1) "@#$!@#!!, is that thing broke again! I'm getting
tired of replacing it. I think I'll upgrade to the
high dollar part." and (2) "My momma told me there
might be days like this. Hope I live to tell my
grandchildren about it?"
When a failure falls into pile (2), you have two choices
there as well: (1) never depend on that device as
a source hangar tales fodder . . . like stay out of
clouds even though you do have a full-up panel of gyros
and one vacuum pump or (2) have a truly reliable back-
up for the thing (e.g. adding a third, spill proof
gyro adds no reliability if it's power source is
common to the rest of the gyros).
When you bolt that all-in-one gee-whiz display to your
airplane, consider that it contains thousands of
transistors, an LCD screen that requires an oscillator
to stay alive and keep the crystals shook up, etc. etc.
Ten years and 1000 systems from now, these products may
indeed amass a service record that rivals a B&C L40
alternator . . . or they may not. Are you offering your
airplane and cargo as a "research" tool for the
folks selling the product?
I've had builders worry a lot about landing gear
extension-retraction systems. Weight, dollars and
parts-count driven reliability are sacrificed to improve
the builder's confidence in a perceived level of
reliability through redundancy.
I thought the gear system on the Beech Sierra was pretty
elegant. Hydraulic pressure holds gear up. No doors. Very
few moving parts. Emergency extension involves opening
a door on floor under pilot knees. Open valve. Gear falls down
and locked. With any gross failure of system integrity,
gear falls down and locked.
I'll suggest the handy switch, lights, motor and pump are
the SECONDARY gear operating system optimized for pilot convenience.
The valve on the floor was the PRIMARY gear operating system
guaranteed to work every time.
I think you will find there are similar approaches to
the same order of system reliability for panel instrumentation.
Full-up dual on the order of twin EFIS and a Z-14 electrical
system are obvious solutions but just about assure a doubling
of cost.
An alternative altitude readout, airspeed indicator,
rate-gyro-stabilized and radio-aided wing leveler, hand-helds
in the flight bag, etc. don't add much to your budget or
panel space requirements and may well be the "valve on the floor"
approach to backing up that full-color gee-whiz that works really
nice . . . most of the time. Let's do everything we can to
safely and sanely assist these new kids on the block . . . one
or more of them will architect a piece of aviation's future. At
the same time, here's to having nothing but Harry Potter
adventures to read to the grand-kids for excitement.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Here is a read from the EAA I got a while back to confirm my thoughts:
>>
>>"The magnetic direction indicator called out in 14 CFR 91.205 is not further
>>defined. As such, any instrument that has the capability of finding
>>magnetic north and transmitting directional info to the pilot based on that
>>finding would be acceptable. There is no strict requirement for a "whiskey
>>compass".
>>
>>
>
> How about a hand-held gps like the GPS310 from Magellan
> set up to give present course in magnetic degrees.
>
> BTW, when I started using these low cost receivers, I bought
> in to the widely distributed notion that one always wanted
> to power them up while in pre-flight so they could get
> locked to signals and figure out where one was before
> you became airborne.
>
> In years since, I've conducted a number of experiments
> with asking the receiver to do a cold start a some distance
> away from shutdown and perhaps at cruising speed. Worst
> case was at 29,000 ft, 500+ MPH and over 1,500 miles
> from where the receiver had been turned off. It took
> the GPS310 less than 1 minute to sort it all out and
> produce a display.
>
> Sooo . . . even hidden away in the flight bag, this
> technology is available on very short notice to
> back up anything else in the cockpit that displays
> the same data.
>
> Bob . . .
>
I normally don't even read discussions of the FAR's too carefully
(interpretation is at the whim of the official you are dealing with at
the moment), but two comments here. A recently deceased airline pilot
aquaintance once told me that crews are not allowed to even carry a nav
device in their flight bags. We are flying safer than the airlines. ;-)
On a slightly (only slightly) more serious note, a gps isn't a
'*magnetic* direction indicator'. Doesn't that mean it can only
indicate north in a no-wind environment? Would it meet the regulatory
requirements even by the EAA's interpretation? Not intended to be a
comment on the usefulness, just the regs.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Info |
>
>For those who use 9-volt batteries in their intercoms, see the difference
>in batteries at:
>http://www.zbattery.com/zbattery/batteryinfo.html#
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge MA 01550-2705
>Phone (508) 764-2072
>Email: emjones(at)charter.net
Thanks for the heads-up Eric. Let's hear it for the
repeatable experiment. Referring to a piece I did
for Sport Aviation a few months ago
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf
We find that my measured energy values for AA Alkaline
cells run consistently lower than those cited in
the ZBattery post.
This can be accounted for in that the other test uses
a slightly lower cutoff point than I did but most
important, he used 2x the resistance (1/2 the load)
I did. Every power source has an internal impedance
that contributes to power loss while loading the
source. By cutting the discharge current in 1/2, he
dropped the internal resistance losses by approximately
half. This is why electric clocks that draw microamps
get to use up ALL the snort contained in an AA
alkaline cell, digital cameras that drive disks and
screens may get to use half of what an alkaline
cell contains.
I have a digital camera that demands Ni-Cad or Ni-Mh
batteries not because these batteries have more total
snort, they just offer much smaller internal resistance
to the total load allowing one to get better performance
from what is arguably a "smaller" battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Tom,
>
>This is an answer Bob gave just a few days ago:
>
>That is exactly what happens in certified ships. Figure Z-12
> is not recommended for new design. It's an easy fix to add a
> second alternator to an existing airplane. This this case, both
> alternators are ON but the aux alternator regulator is set
> for about 1 volt below normal bus voltage. Soooo . . . with
> the main alternator working, the aux alternator relaxes.
>
> If the main alternator quits, the bus voltage sags, the
> aux alternator comes alive automatically. The SB-1 reglator
> is fitted with a circuit to illuminate an "AUX ALT LOADED"
> warning light and flash it if the aux alternator output
> is higher than 20A . . . reduce load until light stops
> flashing.
>
>
>Terry
>
>
>
> I've been trying to understand what would happen if both BC 40amp and BC20
>amp where on at the same time. Would this give you 60 amp capicity or would
>one sleep because the alt 's set point are not ever precisely the same.
> Thanks Tom Reading RV7 wiring
When you parallel alternators with an intent to load them
simultaneously, getting them to share total load is
possible but not trivial and, in my not so humble opinion,
not cost effective.
I would resist the notion that by having both a 40A
and 20A alternator tied together that one has a 60A
total capacity. This is strictly true only in a case of
regulators designed to distribute load properly between
two alternators.
One might argue that should one alternator become
overloaded, it's output sags so that the remaining
alternator will pick up the difference thus making
the 40+20=60 anyhow. True . . . as long as the current
limit on both alternators is imposed by magnetic limits
of the respective machines. For example, the SD-20 as
installed in the Bonanza is rated at 20A . . . but being
a 40A machine at heart, it WILL put out more if you
load it up. However, COOLING is limited in this
installation and operation above the 20A rating will
put it at risk of letting all its smoke out.
I've encountered VERY few cases where it made sense
to add capacity of two alternators to justify
loading a system to a value greater than either
alternator will support. If you think you really need
to do this, let's discuss the finer details and
make sure you're not going to be disappointed.
Further, be aware that to do it right suggests
a regulator designed to truly parallel two
machines. The Cessna 303 is the only airplane I
am familiar with that had that capability. Lost
the contract on that regulator system by less than
$10 a regulator . . . the one they ended up with
didn't work very well.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Teter truetechsyscom <ezaviator(at)truetechsys.com> |
| Subject: | Starter question |
Group,
I have an IO360 in my Velocity. On a cold start (the first start of the day)
when I push the start button, the starter (a Sky-Tec I think) just clicks.
I'll press the start btn a few times, then the starter will finally start
rotating the ring gear. Is something inherint with this brand of starter, or
could something in the starter system be amiss?
I wasn't the builder, hence my "ignorance" with regard to the brand of
starter. Its a Sky-Tec or a B&C. I'm almost certain its a Sky-Tec though.
Thanks,
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
A GPS is not a true north magnetic indicator, but it IS a true north TRACK
indicator - which could be a whole lot of help when the brown stuff hits the
fan...
Denny
PS: your heading may vary
----- Original Message ----- > On a slightly (only slightly) more serious
note, a gps isn't a
> '*magnetic* direction indicator'. Doesn't that mean it can only
> indicate north in a no-wind environment? Not intended to be a
> comment on the usefulness, just the regs.
>
> Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter question |
Dave, just wait a while and it won't rotate no matter how many times you
click it... Which is good because then you get to solve the mystery and
repair it..
Of course, if it happens at a little airport, far , far , away from home, it
could be expensive... I suggest that you and your favorite mechanically
inclined person pull the cowl and do a bit of trouble shooting now... From
your description the possibilities are many, ranging from a loose wire,
tired relay, to a sticking bendix... This includes a major misalignment
between the starter and ring gear... A knowledgeable builder can do
a hands on and quickly whittle the possibility pile down to a more
manageable size...
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Teter truetechsyscom" > I'll press the start btn a few times,
then the starter will finally start
> rotating the ring gear.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RVEIGHTA(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Starter question |
I have a Sky-Tec lightweight starter in my RV-8A which crapped out at the
ripe old age of 17 hrs. It too, just clicked when I hit the start button, but
remained "dead."
I sent the unit back to Sky-Tec in Amarillo, TX and they fixed it and sent it
back with the notation that "my engine must be timed incorrectly to cause it
to break (don't remember what broke, probably the bendix gear shaft). I do
have a Rose Ignition electronic ignition system in my bird, maybe it has
something to do with the problem.
Walt Shipley N314TS 21 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN" <glastar(at)3rivers.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
I believe it is a magnetic north track indicator.
Buck Buchanan
A GPS is not a true north magnetic indicator, but it IS a true north TRACK
indicator - which could be a whole lot of help when the brown stuff hits the
fan...
Denny
PS: your heading may vary
----- Original Message ----- > On a slightly (only slightly) more serious
note, a gps isn't a
> '*magnetic* direction indicator'. Doesn't that mean it can only
> indicate north in a no-wind environment? Not intended to be a
> comment on the usefulness, just the regs.
>
> Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Reading" <treading(at)comcast.net> |
Thanks Bob for getting back to me. I spent time at Sun and Fun talking to
Bill Bainbridge and thought in my mind that z-12 was just one notch under
the dual system of Z-14.I wired the RV7 as per Z-12 with a 40 and 20 B&C. I
installed two LR-3's for control of the alt's. After wiring it up I thought
why have two under voltage lights off the same buss. I installed a
Electronics International Volt/amp gauge which gave me three under voltage
lights. Not too practical or attractive. I removed the two yellow lights
from BC and installed 5 amp breakers in those holes for both alt fields.
Seems most everyone uses breakers for those functions. Radio Shack had small
red 12 volt leds that I could use if the lights need to stay in the system.
They are not so bright and will still get your attention. I could mount
these right under the circuit breakers. I'm questioning my actions on the
regulators and wondering should I exchange it for a SB-1 reg. and remove the
switch for alternate alternator and have it on all the time. Thanks
Tom
-----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: Alternator
>
>Tom,
>
>This is an answer Bob gave just a few days ago:
>
>That is exactly what happens in certified ships. Figure Z-12
> is not recommended for new design. It's an easy fix to add a
> second alternator to an existing airplane. This this case, both
> alternators are ON but the aux alternator regulator is set
> for about 1 volt below normal bus voltage. Soooo . . . with
> the main alternator working, the aux alternator relaxes.
>
> If the main alternator quits, the bus voltage sags, the
> aux alternator comes alive automatically. The SB-1 reglator
> is fitted with a circuit to illuminate an "AUX ALT LOADED"
> warning light and flash it if the aux alternator output
> is higher than 20A . . . reduce load until light stops
> flashing.
>
>
>Terry
>
>
>
> I've been trying to understand what would happen if both BC 40amp and
BC20
>amp where on at the same time. Would this give you 60 amp capicity or would
>one sleep because the alt 's set point are not ever precisely the same.
> Thanks Tom Reading RV7 wiring
When you parallel alternators with an intent to load them
simultaneously, getting them to share total load is
possible but not trivial and, in my not so humble opinion,
not cost effective.
I would resist the notion that by having both a 40A
and 20A alternator tied together that one has a 60A
total capacity. This is strictly true only in a case of
regulators designed to distribute load properly between
two alternators.
One might argue that should one alternator become
overloaded, it's output sags so that the remaining
alternator will pick up the difference thus making
the 40+20=60 anyhow. True . . . as long as the current
limit on both alternators is imposed by magnetic limits
of the respective machines. For example, the SD-20 as
installed in the Bonanza is rated at 20A . . . but being
a 40A machine at heart, it WILL put out more if you
load it up. However, COOLING is limited in this
installation and operation above the 20A rating will
put it at risk of letting all its smoke out.
I've encountered VERY few cases where it made sense
to add capacity of two alternators to justify
loading a system to a value greater than either
alternator will support. If you think you really need
to do this, let's discuss the finer details and
make sure you're not going to be disappointed.
Further, be aware that to do it right suggests
a regulator designed to truly parallel two
machines. The Cessna 303 is the only airplane I
am familiar with that had that capability. Lost
the contract on that regulator system by less than
$10 a regulator . . . the one they ended up with
didn't work very well.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
| Subject: | OT: Source for Dynamic Prop Balancer? |
Hi all,
I am preparing to purchase a dynamic prop balancer from a friend who is
a dealer. This is a $2,000 unit and I am looking for alternatives
(cheaper). I have been completely unsuccessful at finding sources for
these things, anybody know of any??
FYI: This is one of those units that measure acceleration forces of the
engine and tells you how much weight to add and where.
Thanks!
Jon Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 455 Hrs. TT - 3 Hrs Engine
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brucem(at)olypen.com |
| Subject: | Panel layout - request for comments |
Pat,
Appreciate your good responses on this subject. The technology is ahead of the
FSDOs and DARs as I get vague or no answers from reps at air shows, etc. Like
you, I am searching for the path to "legal" IFR in my GlaStar while
incorporating some of this good stuff. Beyond the question of safety, about
which I will make up my own mind, I worry about some officious FAA inspector
looking at my panel after seeing me land from an actual approach and citing me
for a 91.205 violation. Maybe I'm just paranoid.
Regards, Bruce
do not
archive
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
http://www.olypen.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
>
>Pat,
>
>Appreciate your good responses on this subject. The technology is ahead
>of the
>FSDOs and DARs as I get vague or no answers from reps at air shows,
>etc. Like
>you, I am searching for the path to "legal" IFR in my GlaStar while
>incorporating some of this good stuff. Beyond the question of safety, about
>which I will make up my own mind, I worry about some officious FAA inspector
>looking at my panel after seeing me land from an actual approach and
>citing me
>for a 91.205 violation. Maybe I'm just paranoid.
Do the FMEA, hand him the book. It's easy to point,
gesture, and look disapprovingly at your airplane.
A black and white document has to be studied, understood
and is much easier for you to defend. He lives by
his books. Read them and then write your book that
speaks to everything applicable in his. This is
exactly the kind of approach we take on the
certified side . . .
Without the document, it's easy for him to make
up his mind based on first impressions. Do your
homework and the odds go up decidedly in your
favor.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter question |
>
>
>Group,
>I have an IO360 in my Velocity. On a cold start (the first start of the day)
>when I push the start button, the starter (a Sky-Tec I think) just clicks.
>I'll press the start btn a few times, then the starter will finally start
>rotating the ring gear. Is something inherint with this brand of starter, or
>could something in the starter system be amiss?
>I wasn't the builder, hence my "ignorance" with regard to the brand of
>starter. Its a Sky-Tec or a B&C. I'm almost certain its a Sky-Tec though.
Are you using the built-in contactor or do you have an
external contactor?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
>
>I normally don't even read discussions of the FAR's too carefully
>(interpretation is at the whim of the official you are dealing with at
>the moment), but two comments here. A recently deceased airline pilot
>aquaintance once told me that crews are not allowed to even carry a nav
>device in their flight bags. We are flying safer than the airlines. ;-)
> On a slightly (only slightly) more serious note, a gps isn't a
>'*magnetic* direction indicator'. Doesn't that mean it can only
>indicate north in a no-wind environment? Would it meet the regulatory
>requirements even by the EAA's interpretation? Not intended to be a
>comment on the usefulness, just the regs.
"direction indicator" seems to mean, some device that always points
in a northerly direction based on earth field. GPS knows nothing
about magnetic fields and depends on magnetic variation data
stored in memory for converting true to magnetic.
These discussions always bring the ol' saws out about not being able to
steer a heading when ATC is routing you around. If you steer courses,
then ATC's mental corrections for prevailing winds will be off. In
theory, yes but
in practice no. Every ATC guy I've talked to says he never considers
winds. His radar screen computers obviously display course. Most of the
time and for the vast majority of airplanes he's steering, winds
are so small relative to aircraft speeds that it presents no problem
to him to ignore them. If after a few minutes he doesn't like where
you are going, he's just going to give you an new heading that
improves his picture.
Given the difficulty of producing really smooth, reliable and
accurate magnetic data in an airplane even in smooth air, GPS is
an arguably superior method for steering any course be it
magnetic or true.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RG58 Coax article I promised |
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/RG58/RG58.html
I have several thousand feet of this wire at $0.50 a foot.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter question |
>
>I have a Sky-Tec lightweight starter in my RV-8A which crapped out at the
>ripe old age of 17 hrs. It too, just clicked when I hit the start button, but
>remained "dead."
If all you got was a "click" and could not hear the motor
run, then I'm skeptical of their fault diagnosis. Kickbacks
do severe damage to castings and gears and almost never
cause the starter motor not to run when the contactor
closes. If you only heard the contactor close, then it
is more likely that there was something electrically wrong
with the motor.
>I sent the unit back to Sky-Tec in Amarillo, TX and they fixed it and sent it
>back with the notation that "my engine must be timed incorrectly to cause it
>to break (don't remember what broke, probably the bendix gear shaft). I do
>have a Rose Ignition electronic ignition system in my bird, maybe it has
>something to do with the problem.
One electronic ignition or two? Does Jeff tell you to turn
his ignition off to crank the engine? If not, then its
timing must be designed to retard for starting else you
would unlikely to ever start the engine with the
electronic system turned on . . . it would just be a series
of ring gear shredding kick-backs. If you still have one mag
installed, it MIGHT be the source of a kickback if the
impulse coupler is wearing out. But as I outlined above,
I'm suspicious of their cause and effect diagnosis.
My advise to anyone that sends of a high-dollar part to
be repaired by anybody. As for the damaged parts to be
returned to you with the repaired assembly. Makes it a
lot easier to deal with smoke and mirrors.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter question |
>
>
>Dave, just wait a while and it won't rotate no matter how many times you
>click it... Which is good because then you get to solve the mystery and
>repair it..
Dave, you said a "click" only, I presume no spinning motor sounds . . .
>Of course, if it happens at a little airport, far , far , away from home, it
>could be expensive... I suggest that you and your favorite mechanically
>inclined person pull the cowl and do a bit of trouble shooting now... From
>your description the possibilities are many, ranging from a loose wire,
yes
>tired relay, to a sticking bendix...
no, you'll hear the motor spin up without engaging the
ring gear . . .
> This includes a major misalignment
>between the starter and ring gear...
Again, if only a click, this one is out too . . .
Do you have a starter-engaged warning light? If it's
coming on the contactor is good and the motor is bad.
If you don't have the light, then something is breaking
the normal power path to the motor windings. This includes
wiring joints, contactor and bad commutator bar on armature.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
> Thanks Bob for getting back to me. I spent time at Sun and Fun talking to
>Bill Bainbridge and thought in my mind that z-12 was just one notch under
>the dual system of Z-14.I wired the RV7 as per Z-12 with a 40 and 20 B&C.
That's fine. It will work as advertised. Nothing wrong with it. It's
a simple way to add substantial dual alternator capability to an
existing aircraft. This is how it's done in ALL of B&C's kits to
put the STC'd version into certified ships.
>I installed two LR-3's for control of the alt's. After wiring it up I thought
>why have two under voltage lights off the same buss.
It's better to use an LR3 on the main alternator and an SB1B regulator
on the aux alternator and wired as shown in:
http://www.bandc.biz/14-SB1B.pdf
> I installed a
>Electronics International Volt/amp gauge which gave me three under voltage
>lights. Not too practical or attractive. I removed the two yellow lights
>from BC and installed 5 amp breakers in those holes for both alt fields.
>Seems most everyone uses breakers for those functions.
I hope so. These regulators feature crowbar ov protection that
EXPECTS to open a breaker to shut down a runaway alternator.
Breakers are shown in the field supply of ALL B&C products and
on my wiring diagrams that feature crowbar ov protection.
>Radio Shack had small
>red 12 volt leds that I could use if the lights need to stay in the system.
>They are not so bright and will still get your attention. I could mount
>these right under the circuit breakers. I'm questioning my actions on the
>regulators and wondering should I exchange it for a SB-1 reg. and remove the
>switch for alternate alternator and have it on all the time.
You don't remove the switch, you will note that the wiring diagram
cited above shows a switch in the field supply.
If you've already got the two LR3 regulators installed. Leave them
alone. Fly with only the main alternator on but preflight the
aux alternator. If you get a low voltage, it's no big deal to
turn the main alternator off and the aux alternator on.
I would NOT recommend leaving the aux alternator ON with
the main alternator unless you do change to the SB1
regulator . . . with a pair of LR3's you could have a
main alternator failure and never know it until next preflight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Van Caulart <etivc(at)iaw.on.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground Loops |
Bob & List:
During a recent addition of an RST audio panel, an ARC ADF, and a 2nd
comm (UPSAT SL30) to our stock '68 C177 I have had my share of
electronic gremlins haunting the job. One is alternator noise and the
other is the beacon noise.
The alternator was changed 4 years ago and the noise was not as
pronounced in the comm 1 radio (KX170B) before the installation as it is
now. I added a 25yr old Radio Shack 5mfd, 60amp, 50Vdc line filter in
series with the alternator A+ but no change. I'm wondering if I
installed the device correctly. It is a 3" steel tube about the diameter
of a quarter. On each end there is an insulated threaded terminal. The
printing on the filter includes a RS stock number an arrow and the
electrical values. The mounting lug is the local ground for the device.
I first connected the device with the arrow pointing away from the
alternator and the alt noise was unchanged. So I reversed the connection
(arrow pointing to the alt) and the noise is the same. I'm wondering
which direction is correct and if the filter is in fact functioning.
I have done the obvious things such as fat wire separation and shields
connected only at the source of the noise but now I'm lost.
Regarding the beacon noise, is there a filter which I can use (make) to
tame this annoyance. Because it pulses, it really is an antagonistic
little devil after several hours flying.
PeterVC
'68 150hp C177 C-GCPG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OV Module question for Bob |
>
>I have put together an OV module and set it up and tested it as per
>instructions. On the bench it works fine. When installed in the aircraft,
>it was tripping the OV breaker when I switched on the master switch. I
>remember someone else with this problem and the fix was to put a 10uF Tant
>cap across the power leads going into the module. This I did and it stopped
>the breaker tripping when the master went on. However, as soon as I hit the
>start button, it trips again. It can then immediately be reset. Do I put
>in a bigger cap to sort this out or is there possibly another solution.
Do you have diodes on your battery master and starter contactor
coils?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
In a message dated 8/10/03 2:14:00 PM Central Daylight Time,
glastar(at)3rivers.net writes:
> I believe it is a magnetic north track indicator.
>
> Buck Buchanan
>
Good Afternoon Buck,
Most GPS units have the capability of showing either True or Magnetic north
in relation to the track being flown. The actual GPS engine will reference to
True north, but most flight management computers have a database that will
allow the set to correct to magnetic north for the area in which the set is being
operated.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
The list of 158 candidates running in the recall election, from this
morning's edition of the LA Times, includes someone (other than a body
builder) that many of us recognize:
Jim Weir
Age: 59
Party: Democrat
Occupation: Electronics technology instructor and small-business owner
Residence: Grass Valley
Family: Married, no children
Education: B.S., physics, math and aerospace, San Diego State, 1967.
Career Highlights: Designed landing radar for the Apollo lunar spacecraft at
Teledyne Ryan. Founder and president of small aircraft electronics company.
Served on Nevada County Board of Supervisors, 1986-94.
Quote: "My motivation is obviously to win, but also to get the maximum
number of people to the polls so that this election is not determined by a
small minority of voters at either end of the spectrum. Transportation and
education are the heart and soul of California; they need to be dealt with
at all costs."
The complete list is at
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bios10aug10,1,7917121.story
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN" <glastar(at)3rivers.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
Hello, Old Bob,
Thanks, I guess I didn't realize that one could select true north as a
reference on the GPS. I assumed...........and I'm sure you know the
derivative of that word...........that since all Victor and Jet airways and
runways and for that matter almost everything in aviation is oriented to
magnetic that GPS's would be also. Does anyone orient them to true?????
Best regards, Buck
In a message dated 8/10/03 2:14:00 PM Central Daylight Time,
glastar(at)3rivers.net writes:
> I believe it is a magnetic north track indicator.
>
> Buck Buchanan
>
Good Afternoon Buck,
Most GPS units have the capability of showing either True or Magnetic north
in relation to the track being flown. The actual GPS engine will reference
to
True north, but most flight management computers have a database that will
allow the set to correct to magnetic north for the area in which the set is
being
operated.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
In a message dated 8/10/03 7:05:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
glastar(at)3rivers.net writes:
> ...........that since all Victor and Jet airways and
> runways and for that matter almost everything in aviation is oriented to
> magnetic that GPS's would be also. Does anyone orient them to true?????
Good Evening Buck,
Not sure, but it seems to me that I recall that everything north of some very
high latitude is based on true. Since I have never flown a transpolar route,
it is a bit fuzzy in my memory. Some of our respondents whose day job
entails flying over the North pole should have the answer.
Maybe it was just the US Air Force who did something like that. In any case,
it is distant memory!
Happy Skies,
Old (and forgetful) Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | OT: Source for Dynamic Prop Balancer? |
I was blessed to be a friend of Jim Helmuth, who died from smoking cigarettes--pure
and simple. His company (still going strong) is Chadwick-Helmuth, whose Vibrex
prop balancers are the standard of the industry.
I have seen them for sale surplus on eBay and a few months ago eleven brand new (!) in one lot went for short money at http://www.govliquidation.com/
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"People don't appreciate how very difficult it is to be a princess."
Princess Diana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
Airways, VORs, runways etc. are oriented on true in part of northern
Canada - once you get too close to the magnetic north pole magnetic
compasses can't hack it.
Kevin Horton
>
>
>Hello, Old Bob,
>
>Thanks, I guess I didn't realize that one could select true north as a
>reference on the GPS. I assumed...........and I'm sure you know the
>derivative of that word...........that since all Victor and Jet airways and
>runways and for that matter almost everything in aviation is oriented to
>magnetic that GPS's would be also. Does anyone orient them to true?????
>
>Best regards, Buck
>
>
>In a message dated 8/10/03 2:14:00 PM Central Daylight Time,
>glastar(at)3rivers.net writes:
>
>> I believe it is a magnetic north track indicator.
>>
>> Buck Buchanan
>>
>Good Afternoon Buck,
>
>Most GPS units have the capability of showing either True or Magnetic north
>in relation to the track being flown. The actual GPS engine will reference
>to
>True north, but most flight management computers have a database that will
>allow the set to correct to magnetic north for the area in which the set is
>being
>operated.
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: True North, was: -- IFR requirements? |
In a message dated 8/10/03 7:05:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
glastar(at)3rivers.net writes:
> Does anyone orient them to true?????
>
> Best regards, Buck
>
Good Evening Once Again Buck,
Number two son just stopped by and I asked him about the true versus magnetic
situation.
I was informed that they use True when they are north of the sixty-seventh
and one half degree latitude line.
He also said that there are a few airports and radio beacons that are close
to that line, but still south of it, that also use true for their runway
headings and associated navigational aids.
He is supposed to be getting me some charts for that area so that I can check
it out for myself. I am not sure how far north my IFR GPS database covers,
but I am going to try it out and see if I can find a route that should be
listed in true. My son has informed me that on their earlier airplanes, they had
a
switch that had to be thrown to change between the two. However, on the
747-400, his current steed, it is done automatically any time they are up there.
It could be different on other types of equipment, but I would bet that
everybody flying up there uses the same basis.
We always learn something, don't we!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
Can be set up to be either (at least on the hand held Magellans I own.)
Finn
BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN wrote:
>
>I believe it is a magnetic north track indicator.
>
>Buck Buchanan
>
>
>
>
>>AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor"
>>
>>
>
>
>A GPS is not a true north magnetic indicator, but it IS a true north TRACK
>indicator - which could be a whole lot of help when the brown stuff hits the
>fan...
>
>
>Denny
>PS: your heading may vary
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Six years experience with Sky Tec Starter. |
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
With today having two sky tec starter questions I must interject my personal
experience with same. It is a long post. If you don't have a sky tec, God
Bless you and delete now. I have tried to extract my emotions from it, but
have not succeeded very well.
I have been flying with a sky tec in my O-360A1A, and RV-6A. It was
installed with the new engine in 1997, and has been in pretty much constant
use for six plus years, and 1,200 hours. I have a constant speed prop, and
Jeff Rose ignition on one side. The ignition system has been trouble free.
The engine will start on either my impulse coupled magneto, or the Rose
ignition, or both. I frequently try various combinations to verify they
work. I cannot detect any difference in start up using any combination.
Most often I start using both.
I have experienced starter solenoid failure on this unit four times. This
being 2000, 2001, 2002, and last week.
Let me clarify. The sky tec unit has a solenoid mounted on the starter
itself, and that solenoid pulls the starter gear forward into the ring gear,
while it closes the contacts to supply drive power to the starter motor. It
does not have a bendix. Both these contactors go by the name "starter
solenoid" . You may or may not have a firewall mounted "solenoid"
(contactor). If you do use a remote firewall) contactor, you may need a
jumper mounted on the starter mounted solenoid.
Over the years, I have used this unit both with and without the remote
contactor, and with and without the jumper. It seems eager to fail either
way. In its current configuration, I have no firewall contactor and no
jumper.
In all four failure cases it was restored to service by replacing the
starter solenoid.
My first failure occurred after three years and six hundred hours in
service. The second occurred a year later and so on. The average was about
a year, (or 175 hours) after the first failure.
The symptoms were precisely as described in the two incidents on today's
list. You hear the click but no whirly grindy noise and no prop rotation.
At first you can keep clicking for two to twenty times and hope it will go.
It usually will, but eventually fails completely. When it does start
cranking it sounds perfectly normal. This behavior pretty much rules out a
weak battery or starter motor problems.
After the most recent failure, and after assisting several others with the
same exact problem, I returned the unit to sky tec in Texas. The person on
the phone, Katherine, said some of these units had a bad frame or bracket,
causing misalignment of the solenoid. At her suggestion I mailed it to
them. They called and said my "frame" was ok, but diagnosed a scorched
armature, and a solenoid with a loose bolt... I had no idea what these two
things could have to do with my solenoid failures, and expressed my
dissatisfaction.
This got me handed off to another voice, who after my questions identified
himself as "Gene", an engineer who seemed proud of the fact that he had
designed this starter and had 30,000 in the field. He said it was vibration
which killed these wonderful little machines, and asked (three times) if I
had my engine and prop dynamically balanced to each other. It is probably
best if I do not relate the rest of this conversation. In the end I ordered
the starter repaired and returned. It arrived two days later with a new
solenoid and a new armature, and a bill for $115. It is working fine.
There are a lot of anecdotes about sky tec starters in the archives, and sky
tec's denials of problems with it. I have read most of these and heard
several first hand accounts of persons who have got various answers from
representatives of the company. I will not repeat those here, and try to
restrict myself to my own experience and observation.
I do not know what caused the internal failure of these solenoids. I have
several examples on hand if anyone has a method to saw them apart and check
it out, I would be glad to donate. I do not have the last example since my
friend Gene kept it. I was not rational enough to ask for its return.
Sorry Bob. In fact I was borderline incoherent near the end of that talk.
For the last three years I have flown with a spare solenoid in my baggage
compartment. It takes about 10 minutes to change and you don't need to
remove the starter to do it. We have a local source who sells them for $15.
I got my latest one from sky tec for $37.50, plus labor and shipping. I
will let you know if theirs lasts any longer. Based on my experience, I
would recommend to listers who are proud owners of this fine starter which
is OEM equipment on new Lycoming engines, that you acquire a spare and carry
one with you.
When this one fails, I am buying a B&C. Personally I feel like I have done
all the field testing of the sky tec that I am going to do. It is my
experience that you can expect the starter solenoid to fail in service with
a Lycoming O-360, before a few hundred hours service. I don't have a clue
as to whether or not B&C solenoids will fail at a similar rate, but I do
have a feeling it would be properly analyzed and fixed if it did.
Of course, in fairness to sky tec, I may (if I calm down quite a bit) allow
them to fix it one more time, if they will fix it for free, and return the
failed part, with a rational analysis of why it failed.
Sorry for the lengthy post. This is one man's experience. Hope it helps
you all.
Denis Walsh
RV-6A, 1,206 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Track labels up north? |
In a message dated 8/10/03 2:14:00 PM Central Daylight Time,
glastar(at)3rivers.net writes:
> Buck Buchanan
Good Evening Buck,
I just checked the route between Cambridge Bay and Resolute Bay, Canada.
Cambridge Bay is at 69 07.1 N and Resolute is at 74 43.02 N. The chart tells
us to use true while navigating that route. The first portion lists a course
of 24 degrees True and the last half lists a course of 28 degrees True. My
GPS shows the course as being 005 degrees Magnetic so I guess I would have to
manually select True if I were to fly that route segment.
The most northerly airport I have found in my database is CYLT, Alert,
Canada. It is N 82 31.068 and W 62 16.833. The chart notes that the Tacan there
is
oriented to Grid North. It is neither Magnetic nor True!
That's only 2488 Nautical Miles from our home here at Brookeridge (LL22). I
guess I oughta head up there one of these days.
Amazing what these little GPSs can do.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter question |
Could be you tried saving weight and used too small a cable from the battery
to the starter or ground cable. Did you provide jumpers across the rubber
motor mounts?
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Starter question
>
> Dave, just wait a while and it won't rotate no matter how many times you
> click it... Which is good because then you get to solve the mystery and
> repair it..
>
> Of course, if it happens at a little airport, far , far , away from home,
it
> could be expensive... I suggest that you and your favorite mechanically
> inclined person pull the cowl and do a bit of trouble shooting now...
From
> your description the possibilities are many, ranging from a loose wire,
> tired relay, to a sticking bendix... This includes a major misalignment
> between the starter and ring gear... A knowledgeable builder can
do
> a hands on and quickly whittle the possibility pile down to a more
> manageable size...
>
> Denny
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Teter truetechsyscom" > I'll press the start btn a few times,
> then the starter will finally start
> > rotating the ring gear.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
Dennis O'Connor wrote:
>
>A GPS is not a true north magnetic indicator, but it IS a true north TRACK
>indicator - which could be a whole lot of help when the brown stuff hits the
>fan...
>
>
>Denny
>PS: your heading may vary
>
I think that's what I said. It's not the usefulness of the device vs the
wet compass; it's what the FAA bureacracy will let you get away with
when you ask them to sign off the plane. See below.
Charlie
>----- Original Message ----- > On a slightly (only slightly) more serious
>note, a gps isn't a
>
>
>>'*magnetic* direction indicator'. Doesn't that mean it can only
>>indicate north in a no-wind environment? Not intended to be a
>>comment on the usefulness, just the regs.
>>
>>Charlie
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
Bob,
I can imagine the day when the flux gate will be used only as input to the
FMS or DG during the time that the airplane is not in motion, i.e., parked
on the ramp before takeoff. Once there is appreciable ground speed the FMS
would switch to GPS track information and be oriented to true north. ICAO
and the FAA will have already changed their standard from magnetic headings
to true north tracks for air traffic control. So you might hear, for
instance, "maintain runway track after takeoff until passing 1,500 feet."
Or, " turn left to track 090, reduce to approach speed, intercept the final
GPS course inbound, cleared for the approach." The magnetic compass will
become obsolete (in my imaginary scenario) and the flux gate will only be
necessary to convert magnetic information to true and input it into the FMS
(as a backup to GPS track info) and would be displayed on your Primary
Flight Display (PFD) as true heading when GPS track info was not available.
All runways would have to renamed to true headings, but they would
henceforth never change. Magnetic variation would just be an algorithm in
the software. Jeppesen would be in business for another 100 years
converting all the approach charts, etc, etc.
Probably not in our lifetime, though.
Pat Hatch
RV-4
RV-6
RV-7 QB (Building)
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements?
>
>
> >
> >I normally don't even read discussions of the FAR's too carefully
> >(interpretation is at the whim of the official you are dealing with at
> >the moment), but two comments here. A recently deceased airline pilot
> >aquaintance once told me that crews are not allowed to even carry a nav
> >device in their flight bags. We are flying safer than the airlines. ;-)
> > On a slightly (only slightly) more serious note, a gps isn't a
> >'*magnetic* direction indicator'. Doesn't that mean it can only
> >indicate north in a no-wind environment? Would it meet the regulatory
> >requirements even by the EAA's interpretation? Not intended to be a
> >comment on the usefulness, just the regs.
>
> "direction indicator" seems to mean, some device that always points
> in a northerly direction based on earth field. GPS knows nothing
> about magnetic fields and depends on magnetic variation data
> stored in memory for converting true to magnetic.
>
> These discussions always bring the ol' saws out about not being able
to
> steer a heading when ATC is routing you around. If you steer courses,
> then ATC's mental corrections for prevailing winds will be off. In
> theory, yes but
> in practice no. Every ATC guy I've talked to says he never considers
> winds. His radar screen computers obviously display course. Most of
the
> time and for the vast majority of airplanes he's steering, winds
> are so small relative to aircraft speeds that it presents no problem
> to him to ignore them. If after a few minutes he doesn't like where
> you are going, he's just going to give you an new heading that
> improves his picture.
>
> Given the difficulty of producing really smooth, reliable and
> accurate magnetic data in an airplane even in smooth air, GPS is
> an arguably superior method for steering any course be it
> magnetic or true.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Six years experience with Sky Tec |
Starter.
>
>
>With today having two sky tec starter questions I must interject my personal
>experience with same. It is a long post. If you don't have a sky tec, God
>Bless you and delete now. I have tried to extract my emotions from it, but
>have not succeeded very well.
>
>I do not know what caused the internal failure of these solenoids. I have
>several examples on hand if anyone has a method to saw them apart and check
>it out, I would be glad to donate. I do not have the last example since my
>friend Gene kept it. I was not rational enough to ask for its return.
>Sorry Bob. In fact I was borderline incoherent near the end of that talk.
Understand. I'd be pleased to have the carcasses for
teardown inspection . . . will photograph and if possible,
interpret findings in a document on my website.
>For the last three years I have flown with a spare solenoid in my baggage
>compartment. It takes about 10 minutes to change and you don't need to
>remove the starter to do it. We have a local source who sells them for $15.
>I got my latest one from sky tec for $37.50, plus labor and shipping. I
>will let you know if theirs lasts any longer. Based on my experience, I
>would recommend to listers who are proud owners of this fine starter which
>is OEM equipment on new Lycoming engines, that you acquire a spare and carry
>one with you.
>
>When this one fails, I am buying a B&C. Personally I feel like I have done
>all the field testing of the sky tec that I am going to do. It is my
>experience that you can expect the starter solenoid to fail in service with
>a Lycoming O-360, before a few hundred hours service. I don't have a clue
>as to whether or not B&C solenoids will fail at a similar rate, but I do
>have a feeling it would be properly analyzed and fixed if it did.
I've seen big crates of B&C starters returned from Robinson
helicopter for overhaul. Robinson insists on a factory overhaul
every 2,000 hours. Starters are pulled and sent back to
B&C for zero-time overhaul. Many of these starters are a sight
to behold externally. They get dripped on, hit, covered in
grease, mud, paint, etc. From the outside, you would expect
these to be casualties of a hard ride.
To the best of my knowledge, nearly all starters returned from
Robinson will bench check okay. Upon teardown, the few
I've looked had plenty of brush length, commutator
was barely grooved, bearings were good. I suspect any
one of them would easily have run another 2,000 hours.
Being the very highly stressed part that starters are,
return rates are much higher than for alternators. But
like the alternators, most returns are owner induced
damage and/or broken castings from a kick-back. A small
fraction of returns are for failures.
>Of course, in fairness to sky tec, I may (if I calm down quite a bit) allow
>them to fix it one more time, if they will fix it for free, and return the
>failed part, with a rational analysis of why it failed.
>
>Sorry for the lengthy post. This is one man's experience. Hope it helps
>you all.
Appreciate your time to share the experience.
Let's open those puppies up and see what made 'em
sick.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter question |
>
>Could be you tried saving weight and used too small a cable from the battery
>to the starter or ground cable.
. . . it has worked for numerous starts and works okay after
a few hit on the button . . . classic impending failure of
either contactor or a commutator bar . . .
> Did you provide jumpers across the rubber motor mounts?
. . . I hope not. Motor mounts should be used to hold engines
to airplanes and wires should be use to power starters but
never the twain should meet. The crankcase should be wired
to the fat ground bolt on the firewall with jumper strap.
If there are jumpers across the engine mount biscuits,
I would recommend they be removed.
We don't what alternator ground return currents flowing
in the firewall sheet via engine mounts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Six years experience with Sky Tec Starter. |
Denis,
I'm curious, is your starter a 12V or 24V. I've heard that Sky-Tec uses a
12V solenoid on their 24V starter and I've wondered how well they held up in
that application.
Dave in Wichita
>
> I have experienced starter solenoid failure on this unit four times. This
> being 2000, 2001, 2002, and last week.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Six years experience with Sky Tec Starter. |
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
12V.
> From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
> Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 22:19:27 -0500
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Six years experience with Sky Tec Starter.
>
>
>
> Denis,
>
> I'm curious, is your starter a 12V or 24V. I've heard that Sky-Tec uses a
> 12V solenoid on their 24V starter and I've wondered how well they held up in
> that application.
>
> Dave in Wichita
>
>>
>> I have experienced starter solenoid failure on this unit four times. This
>> being 2000, 2001, 2002, and last week.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Six years experience with Sky Tec Starter. |
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
Dear Bob,
I will ship them within the week, if you will give me the desired address.
I think I have a couple from the last couple years, and can get the other
two on my field which were replaced in the past three weeks.
Thank you for the offer. It is no small thing. One of the problems has
been that like most intermittent failures, these usually bench check ok!
Also since there are two coils inside those dogs, it has been too tough for
me to get a good check on them without teardown. Anyhow, I think that they
(the failed ones) have good electrical continuity in the coils and the main
contacts, but have some mechanical misalignment or blockage which keeps it
from making the final contact consistently. Good luck.
Awaiting address for shipping.
Denis Walsh
4011 S. Magnolia Way
Denver, Co 80237
303 756 6543
>
> Understand. I'd be pleased to have the carcasses for
> teardown inspection . . . will photograph and if possible,
> interpret findings in a document on my website.
>
>
>> For the last three years I have flown with a spare solenoid in my baggage
>> compartment. It takes about 10 minutes to change and you don't need to
>> remove the starter to do it. We have a local source who sells them for $15.
>> I got my latest one from sky tec for $37.50, plus labor and shipping. I
>> will let you know if theirs lasts any longer. Based on my experience, I
>> would recommend to listers who are proud owners of this fine starter which
>> is OEM equipment on new Lycoming engines, that you acquire a spare and carry
>> one with you.
>>
>> When this one fails, I am buying a B&C. Personally I feel like I have done
>> all the field testing of the sky tec that I am going to do. It is my
>> experience that you can expect the starter solenoid to fail in service with
>> a Lycoming O-360, before a few hundred hours service. I don't have a clue
>> as to whether or not B&C solenoids will fail at a similar rate, but I do
>> have a feeling it would be properly analyzed and fixed if it did.
>
> I've seen big crates of B&C starters returned from Robinson
> helicopter for overhaul. Robinson insists on a factory overhaul
> every 2,000 hours. Starters are pulled and sent back to
> B&C for zero-time overhaul. Many of these starters are a sight
> to behold externally. They get dripped on, hit, covered in
> grease, mud, paint, etc. From the outside, you would expect
> these to be casualties of a hard ride.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, nearly all starters returned from
> Robinson will bench check okay. Upon teardown, the few
> I've looked had plenty of brush length, commutator
> was barely grooved, bearings were good. I suspect any
> one of them would easily have run another 2,000 hours.
>
> Being the very highly stressed part that starters are,
> return rates are much higher than for alternators. But
> like the alternators, most returns are owner induced
> damage and/or broken castings from a kick-back. A small
> fraction of returns are for failures.
>
>
>> Of course, in fairness to sky tec, I may (if I calm down quite a bit) allow
>> them to fix it one more time, if they will fix it for free, and return the
>> failed part, with a rational analysis of why it failed.
>>
>> Sorry for the lengthy post. This is one man's experience. Hope it helps
>> you all.
>
> Appreciate your time to share the experience.
> Let's open those puppies up and see what made 'em
> sick.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Grosvenor" <dwg(at)iafrica.com> |
| Subject: | Re: OV Module question for Bob |
Yes Bob, I do. The battery master contacter I purchased from you with the
diode fitted. The starter contacter came with my Rotax 912 engine an
initially I thought it had an internal diode. On first test of the
electrical system I soon found it didn't as it was causing my fuel flow
meter to reset. I then fitted a diode. The odd thing it the OV breaker is
tripping when I push the starter, not when I release it. Before fitting the
10uF cap, it was tripping as I switched the master on.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OV Module question for Bob
>
>I have put together an OV module and set it up and tested it as per
>instructions. On the bench it works fine. When installed in the aircraft,
>it was tripping the OV breaker when I switched on the master switch. I
>remember someone else with this problem and the fix was to put a 10uF Tant
>cap across the power leads going into the module. This I did and it
stopped
>the breaker tripping when the master went on. However, as soon as I hit
the
>start button, it trips again. It can then immediately be reset. Do I put
>in a bigger cap to sort this out or is there possibly another solution.
Do you have diodes on your battery master and starter contactor
coils?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Trampas" <tstern(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | OV Module question for Bob |
Sounds like the inductive kick back, or noise, from the starter is
creating a voltage spike that is causing some problems.
One fix would be to place an inductor before the contactor. That is get
a torrid from radio shack and then wrap about 10 turns of primary wire
around the torrid this combined with the capacitor after the inductor
should filter out these voltage spikes.
Trampas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Grosvenor
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OV Module question for Bob
Yes Bob, I do. The battery master contacter I purchased from you with
the
diode fitted. The starter contacter came with my Rotax 912 engine an
initially I thought it had an internal diode. On first test of the
electrical system I soon found it didn't as it was causing my fuel flow
meter to reset. I then fitted a diode. The odd thing it the OV breaker
is
tripping when I push the starter, not when I release it. Before fitting
the
10uF cap, it was tripping as I switched the master on.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OV Module question for Bob
>
>I have put together an OV module and set it up and tested it as per
>instructions. On the bench it works fine. When installed in the
aircraft,
>it was tripping the OV breaker when I switched on the master switch. I
>remember someone else with this problem and the fix was to put a 10uF
Tant
>cap across the power leads going into the module. This I did and it
stopped
>the breaker tripping when the master went on. However, as soon as I
hit
the
>start button, it trips again. It can then immediately be reset. Do I
put
>in a bigger cap to sort this out or is there possibly another solution.
Do you have diodes on your battery master and starter contactor
coils?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Six years experience with Sky Tec Starter. |
Denis, since it is obviously your fault for not having your engine balanced
until a quarter will balance on the cowling at cruise RPM, I have to say
that I am totally puzzled as to why you haven't admitted that your
alternator has fallen apart, and your mags, and the carburetor, and the
engine mount, and surely the instrument panel has vibrated loose and fallen
into your lap... There is a lot you are not telling SkyTec here, obviously!
Denny
| From: | "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
Actually, the regs require very little... Much of the blather on the topic
is emotion mixed with 'assume'... Simply hang a magnetic compass in the
cockpit even if you never look at it again - the FAA guy will be happy... He
has a minimum equipment list that has to be satisified, period... After that
he couldn't care less what else is there, if he tried..
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie & Tupper England" <cengland(at)netdoor.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements?
>
> Dennis O'Connor wrote:
>
> >
> >A GPS is not a true north magnetic indicator, but it IS a true north
TRACK
> >indicator - which could be a whole lot of help when the brown stuff hits
the
> >fan...
> >
> >
> >Denny
> >PS: your heading may vary
> >
> I think that's what I said. It's not the usefulness of the device vs the
> wet compass; it's what the FAA bureacracy will let you get away with
> when you ask them to sign off the plane. See below.
>
> Charlie
>
> >----- Original Message ----- > On a slightly (only slightly) more
serious
> >note, a gps isn't a
> >
> >
> >>'*magnetic* direction indicator'. Doesn't that mean it can only
> >>indicate north in a no-wind environment? Not intended to be a
> >>comment on the usefulness, just the regs.
> >>
> >>Charlie
> >>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garrison Sem" <chasm711(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
VORs and ADFs in very high lattitudes are oriented to true north in the
Canadian northern control areas. I dont know about the rest of the world.
Paul
>From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements?
>Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:10:08 EDT
>
>
>In a message dated 8/10/03 7:05:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
>glastar(at)3rivers.net writes:
>
> > ...........that since all Victor and Jet airways and
> > runways and for that matter almost everything in aviation is oriented to
> > magnetic that GPS's would be also. Does anyone orient them to true?????
>
>Good Evening Buck,
>
>Not sure, but it seems to me that I recall that everything north of some
>very
>high latitude is based on true. Since I have never flown a transpolar
>route,
>it is a bit fuzzy in my memory. Some of our respondents whose day job
>entails flying over the North pole should have the answer.
>
>Maybe it was just the US Air Force who did something like that. In any
>case,
>it is distant memory!
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old (and forgetful) Bob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
Cheers,
I am interested in the regulations in USA as expect to visit
and tour with my OBAM as a Canadian. I have also tried to build to US and UK
requirements for safety. My understanding was that OBAM aircraft do not have
the standard 'certified' quality, thus permitting experimentation and
variation.
It would appear that Dan Checkoway (at dan(at)rvproject.com) refers
to the following:
"Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness
certificates...."
Is that us?
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RG58 Coax article I promised |
Bob,
Once again I feel eternally grateful for this educaitonal service you provide!
Not only have you cleared up my suspicions answered my questions but given me
better options too. Knowing it is core to homebuilding (and I feel it should
becore to living)I take full responsibility for any all of my actions whether
they be from knowledge gained here or elsewhere.
I doubt that I alone am enough interest for you but I would love to purchase an
'LSE re-hab' kit consisting of the twisted pair shielded wires with BNC connectors
installed on one end and a separate15 pin D-sub connector (it is female)
for the controller input. I completely understand if you would rather just sell
me the wires connectors. Please let me know the amount where to send a check.
One thing I'm still a little confused on: You mentioned twisted pairs (non-shielded
shielded implied) in your original response to my questions but I didn't
see that part in your shop notes. I believe twisting shielded pairs, while not
essential,would add to the shielding effect, but it wouldeffectively be the
shieldingin non shielded pairs. I would deduce from your shop notes that the benefit
oftwisting shielded pairs probably isn't worth the effort of twisting them.
(Am I even in the ball park?)
Thanks again,
Grant
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <BOB.NUCKOLLS(at)COX.NET>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG58 Coax article I promised
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:45:06 -0500
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/RG58/RG58.html
I have several thousand feet of this wire at $0.50 a foot.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Six years experience with Sky Tec |
Starter.
>
>Dear Bob,
>
>I will ship them within the week, if you will give me the desired address.
>I think I have a couple from the last couple years, and can get the other
>two on my field which were replaced in the past three weeks.
>
>Thank you for the offer. It is no small thing. One of the problems has
>been that like most intermittent failures, these usually bench check ok!
>Also since there are two coils inside those dogs, it has been too tough for
>me to get a good check on them without teardown. Anyhow, I think that they
>(the failed ones) have good electrical continuity in the coils and the main
>contacts, but have some mechanical misalignment or blockage which keeps it
>from making the final contact consistently. Good luck.
>
>Awaiting address for shipping.
Bob Nuckolls
6936 Bainbridge Road
Wichita, KS 67226
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
Question below ....
>
>
> Cheers,
> I am interested in the regulations in USA as
> expect to visit
> and tour with my OBAM as a Canadian. I have also tried to build
> to US and UK
> requirements for safety. My understanding was that OBAM aircraft
> do not have
> the standard 'certified' quality, thus permitting experimentation and
Not trying to start anything here but do you mean to imply that the planes
we build implicitly have "less" quality?
I am sure some do and I am sure some don't. Just wondering about the
statement. Yes we do have more latitude for experimentation, but that
*could* lead to higher or lower quality.
Just asking ...
James
> variation.
> It would appear that Dan Checkoway (at
> dan(at)rvproject.com) refers
> to the following:
>
> "Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness
> certificates...."
>
> Is that us?
> Ferg
> Europa A064
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN" <glastar(at)3rivers.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Track labels up north? |
HI Bob and other interested in true, mag and grid north,
Thanks for your research, it is interesting to me. I just returned from a
trip with my second son taking his 172 to Galena AK. Galena is 65N and 157
W. That is about as far north as I have flown although I was in and out of
Goose Bay Labrador in KC-135's close to 40 years ago. While I was in SAC we
used to practice flying grid. We would unslave the compass from magnetic
and orient it to grid north which was up on the map but it could be oriented
in any direction so long as the navigator kept the gyro where he wanted it
with celestial shots. We used no navigation aids during this exercise and
re-slaved the gyro before any pattern work.
Best regards, Buck
Good Evening Buck,
I just checked the route between Cambridge Bay and Resolute Bay, Canada.
Cambridge Bay is at 69 07.1 N and Resolute is at 74 43.02 N. The chart tells
us to use true while navigating that route. The first portion lists a
course
of 24 degrees True and the last half lists a course of 28 degrees True. My
GPS shows the course as being 005 degrees Magnetic so I guess I would have
to
manually select True if I were to fly that route segment.
The most northerly airport I have found in my database is CYLT, Alert,
Canada. It is N 82 31.068 and W 62 16.833. The chart notes that the Tacan
there is
oriented to Grid North. It is neither Magnetic nor True!
That's only 2488 Nautical Miles from our home here at Brookeridge (LL22). I
guess I oughta head up there one of these days.
Amazing what these little GPSs can do.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RG58 Coax article I promised |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>
>Once again I feel eternally grateful for this educaitonal service you
>provide! Not only have you cleared up my suspicions answered my questions
>but given me better options too. Knowing it is core to homebuilding (and I
>feel it should becore to living)I take full responsibility for any all of
>my actions whether they be from knowledge gained here or elsewhere.
>
>
>I doubt that I alone am enough interest for you but I would love to
>purchase an 'LSE re-hab' kit consisting of the twisted pair shielded wires
>with BNC connectors installed on one end and a separate15 pin D-sub
>connector (it is female) for the controller input. I completely understand
>if you would rather just sell me the wires connectors. Please let me know
>the amount where to send a check.
I can do the kit for $50. How long do you want the coil cables
to be? My mailing address is 6936 Bainbridge, Wichita, KS 67226
>One thing I'm still a little confused on: You mentioned twisted pairs
>(non-shielded shielded implied) in your original response to my questions
>but I didn't see that part in your shop notes. I believe twisting shielded
>pairs, while not essential,would add to the shielding effect, but it
>wouldeffectively be the shieldingin non shielded pairs. I would deduce
>from your shop notes that the benefit oftwisting shielded pairs probably
>isn't worth the effort of twisting them. (Am I even in the ball park?
6 of one, half dozen of the other. . . there's no
particular advantage of one over the other. If we had a very
long run (20' plus) in bundles shared by other systems, the
shielded-twisted pair would have some advantage. The single
shielded wire using shield as ground return for coil has the same
effect as the original coax cable design. Given the short, relatively
isolated runs, I'm not concerned about it.
Several readers have already shared their experiences with non-shielded,
twisted pair and have reported good results.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MikeM <mladejov(at)ced.utah.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground Loops |
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Van Caulart wrote:
> During a recent addition of an RST audio panel, an ARC ADF, and a 2nd
> comm (UPSAT SL30) to our stock '68 C177 I have had my share of
> electronic gremlins haunting the job. One is alternator noise and the
> other is the beacon noise.
I own a '68 Skylane with an RST audio panel/intercom which had
"alternator whine" and "beacon thump" in the headphone radio and
intercom audio, squelched or not. Over the years I have
completely eliminated both. Here are the steps that I went
through:
1. Methodically "isolated" all the headphone/mic jacks in the
airplane from local airframe ground, and instead utilized the
shield on the jack wiring to carry the ground connection from
each respective jack to the ground connection right at the rear
of the RST audio panel. You have to do all mic jacks as well as
the headphone jacks. This cured about 50% of the problem.
2. The RST audio panel has a design flaw in it. Jim Weir and I
have had this out on rec.aviation.owning, so if interested you
can find the discussion on "Google Groups". Use the following as
keywords:"RST audio panel capacitor alternator whine".
Here is one link: http://makeashorterlink.com/?E19953E85
You can either modify the RST panel by clipping the big bypass
cap, or by installing an external filter in the audio panel
power line. I clipped the capacitor, and got rid of another 40%
of the noise.
3. I have a Cessna ARC marker beacon receiver mounted on the
equipment shelf aft of the baggage compartment right next to the
rear mounted battery. The MB rx has an audio output transformer
whose secondary was grounded to its case, meaning that if a
shielded or twisted pair is used to carry the audio from the
rear of the aircraft to the audio panel, the audio panel ground
is comprised by common-mode ground currents flowing along the
airframe between the front mounted alternator and the
rear-mounted battery. I modified the MB by disconnecting the
internal ground so as to isolate the audio output winding. I
used an unused pin on the MB connector to send out a true
"floating" AUDIO-HI/AUDIO-LO twisted-pair connection from the MB
to the audio panel, without the spurious alternator currents
flowing through the MB audio ground wire. This got rid of the
last of it.
> The alternator was changed 4 years ago and the noise was not as
> pronounced in the comm 1 radio (KX170B) before the installation as it is
> now. I added a 25yr old Radio Shack 5mfd, 60amp, 50Vdc line filter in
> series with the alternator A+ but no change. I'm wondering if I
> installed the device correctly. It is a 3" steel tube about the diameter
> of a quarter. On each end there is an insulated threaded terminal. The
> printing on the filter includes a RS stock number an arrow and the
> electrical values. The mounting lug is the local ground for the device.
> I first connected the device with the arrow pointing away from the
> alternator and the alt noise was unchanged. So I reversed the connection
> (arrow pointing to the alt) and the noise is the same. I'm wondering
> which direction is correct and if the filter is in fact functioning.
Along the way, I tried an A+ filter in the alternator output; It
made not a whit of difference. I got rid of it because of its
failure mode potential.
> I have done the obvious things such as fat wire separation and shields
> connected only at the source of the noise but now I'm lost.
>
> Regarding the beacon noise, is there a filter which I can use (make) to
> tame this annoyance. Because it pulses, it really is an antagonistic
> little devil after several hours flying.
If you do all of the above, you wont need to worry about the
beacon.
Mike Mladejovsky
Skylane '1MM (HiFi entertainment stereo quality music with no
alternator/strobe/beacon noises...)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Part 91 and "quality" |
May I suggest that the word "quality" has no useful meaning?
The definition is so broadly based in the minds of folks who
would use the word that unless used in a narrow context, it's
more likely to reduce rather than enhance understanding.
Had a friend years ago who was very enamored of the "quality"
in European cars. His cars spent more time in shop with
higher repair bills than my cars. He was focusing on
ride, handling preferences, wood finished panels and
upholstery. I was focusing on cost of ownership and
likelihood of getting from point A to point B every time
I set foot in the car.
If one assumes that the charter of regulators is to
truly improve the safety of airplanes, then anything
which increases probability of failures that cause pilots
to tense up could be dubbed an reduction in "quality".
To regulators, this generally translates to EVERYTHING
bolted to an airplane needs to be the best we know
how to do? Geesh, even a NASA budget won't get you
failure proof components and systems.
The biggest difference between the OBAM and certified
aviation communities is the fact that no two airplanes
are built the same in the OBAM community. Our airplanes
are allowed to evolve on an airplane-to-airplane basis.
If some new useful component or technique is identified,
it can be implemented tomorrow on every new airplane and
retrofitted to existing airplanes the day after. Most
August 03, 2003 - August 11, 2003
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ch