AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-cq
November 17, 2003 - November 25, 2003
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
rectifier/regulator ?
rectifier/regulator ?
>
>Gilles
>
>What is the problem with the original rectifier/regulator from Rotax?
The standard rectifier regulator supplied with Rotax 912/914
engines is, I believe, made by Ducati. Ducati makes a whole
raft of ignition and power generation products for small engines
where the largest markets are for all manner of recreational
vehicles . . . a tiny portion of which is aircraft.
If you do a websearch on ducati "voltage regulator" and rotax
you get a bunch of hits. Far too many of those posted articles
talk about making the Ducati part last with most
of the "fixes" going to keeping the part cool.
My experience with Ducati parts suggests poor attention to
design with respect to keeping internal parts of the regulator
within their best operating temperature range. B&C's "heavy
duty" regulator was nothing more that the standard circuit
with robust, well heat-sinked parts.
Do some research on the web and I think you'll get a sense
of how much trouble folks are having with what should be
a no-brainer.
It would be a step forward to simply improve the thermal
design of the current design. If I understand what Gilles'
friend is attempting, we should be able to replace high-voltage-
drop rectifiers with low-voltage-drop power field effect
transistors. It's a much more complicated design but promises
to offer much higher efficiency -AND- ultimately higher current
carrying capacity. 18-20A is pushing the practical limits for
the current design.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom(at)verizon.net> |
See the latest Kitplanes article on GPS antennas by Jim Weir on coverings of
GPS antennas and ground planes.
Dan Branstrom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS Antenna
>
> >
> >
> >Listers
> >
> >I'm planning on mounting my GPS antenna on a firewall forward bracket
just
> >under the top surface of the cowl, rather than on the scuttle under the
> >windscreen or externally. This seems to be a favoured place adopted by
> >many builders. My question is will this location work satisfactorily with
> >the standard antenna supplied with a Garmin 196 or is this only
> >appropriate with a powered active unit. Thanks for your input.
>
> Other folks on the list have personal experience with
under-the-fiberglas-
> cowl location for GPS antennas and have uniformly reported good
results.
> If you have a GPS receiver that's compatible with a powered antenna,
> I recommend it's use. They're cheap and small. In any case, experience
> has suggested that no antenna is at any particular disadvantage when
> installed on firewall and under the cowl.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Crowbar OV protection |
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> > Okay . . . yes, if you have a breaker-switch in the alternator field
> > circuit and it appears to open all by itself when you are switching
> > other things in the system, it may well be a nuisance trip of the
> > OV module. I'm working with another builder on the same issue.
>
>Actually in my case its only a problem when the battery has a VERY low
>charge (barely enought to start). Thats when I cannot turn on the ALT once
>engine is running. Turn on the ALT first and then start everythings fine.
>Turning anything on after the ALT is working, no problem. The only problem
>is turning the ALT on after the engine is running and the battery charge is
>very low.
Okay, this suggests that either (1) your engine is VERY difficult
to start and/or (2) your battery is in VERY sad shape. We've all
seen airplanes cranking out on the ramp that take multiple attempts
of 10 second cranking intervals to finally get the engine going . . .
if at all.
The starter and battery in all cranking systems are in a huge
OVERLOAD mode with respect to how the rest of the vehicle's systems
perform. Mr. Kettering was soundly ridiculed when he suggested
it's okay to pull 5 hp from a 1 hp motor . . . for a few seconds.
He introduced the idea of purposely flogging some poor motor to
within an inch of its life. He demonstrated that it could be done
repeatedly and with dependability as long as the flogging stayed
within certain bounds.
It sounds as if there's insufficient battery voltage left after
cranking to get your alternator to come on line. This is probably
not a fault of the alternator or regulator. The normal cranking
scenario should require no more than a few percent of a battery's
capacity leaving plenty of snort for things to come on line and
a MINIMAL energy replacement task when the alternator clocks in
on the job.
Load and capacity testing of your battery is in order. Fine
tuning of engine characteristics that make it hard to start
is another useful activity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax rectifier/regulator |
?
>
> The standard rectifier regulator supplied with Rotax 912/914
> engines is, I believe, made by Ducati. Ducati makes a whole
> raft of ignition and power generation products for small engines
> where the largest markets are for all manner of recreational
> vehicles . . . a tiny portion of which is aircraft.
Hi all,
For those interested I found the website of the folks from "Ducati Energia".
Italian speakers only.
Last summer I was able to download the full alternator & rectifier pdf
catalog, featuring the Rotax assembly.
www.sgr-it.com
FWIW
Regards,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Crowbar OV protection |
"Load and capacity testing of your battery is in order. Fine
tuning of engine characteristics that make it hard to start
is another useful activity."
Battery is just fine, its the person trying to start the plane that needs
help with the new systems.......Something about turning the fuel on or another.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Future replacement for Rotax rectifier/regulator |
?
Sorry, my first message got bounced.
Gilles
----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Gilles.Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
:
Envoy : lundi 17 novembre 2003 09:56
Objet : Re: AeroElectric-List: Future replacement for Rotax
rectifier/regulator ?
>
> . If he'd like to collaborate, I'll offer a sounding
> > board for ideas and hawk the product for him here on the AEC site if
> > the result is suitably impressive.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I forwarded your collaboration offer to that smart fellow. At the moment
> he's developping a light EFIS system for ultralights with some of his
> students. The demonstrator system is already fairly impressive, though I
> know there's a lot of development work before issuing an airworthy
version.
>
> Thanks,
> Gilles
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cool schematic CAD program |
Bob,
Provides copies of several free CAD programs on his CD, which you can also
download from his site if you have a broadband connection - or a dialup and
lots of time !!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cool schematic CAD program
>
> > If anybody wants an easy-to-learn schematic diagramming tool that is
> really
> > cheap and really good (but not compatible with Bob's CAD files), check
out
> > DesignWorks Lite.
> > Dave Morris
>
> Not being able to read Bob's CAD files makes it a dead horse
(regardless
> of how nice DWlite really is. Redrawing a schematic to make up for this is
> unreasonable. After a few programs and a few years everybody swears by
their
> own spreadsheet, word processor, CAD program. In truth they are almost all
> very good, even miracles. I used to work for a company that had a really
> terrible clumsy and buggy and limited but HORRIBLY EXPENSIVE system
(Cadra).
> The drafters (who knew nothing else) would have cut off their toes to keep
> it. They also insisted on paper SO BIG that I used a pair of binoculars to
> study drawings that easily would have fit on "A" size paper.
>
> Go to Tucows.com and see their giant list of CAD stuff. (The freeware
> FreeCAD 8.2 looks good if you want to study mechanical linkages.)
>
> Also check .... http://www.freecad.com/ lots of free stuff for CAD.
>
> My favorite is still DesignCad....if only for the reason when you call
their
> free tech support you get fast tech help instantly. The line is never busy
> because the program is so easy to use. It's very much like AutoCAD but
$3000
> cheaper. It does 2D or 3D at the push of a button. Cool...............
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> Phone (508) 764-2072
> Email: emjones(at)charter.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>I have a problem that showed up after 165 hours.
>I have a Cessna type master switch. I usually flick both switches on
>before starting the engine. Lately I have been blowing the alt. field
>fuse when starting.
I presume you ave a crowbar ov protection module. Are you blowing
a fuse or circuit breaker? It sounds as if something has changed
in your airplane to create a condition that happens in a small
number of situations were a crowbar system is installed. How old
is your battery?
>If I leave the alt. switch off, start the engine then turn the alt.
>switch on, everything is ok.
>Any ideas why this is happening?
Not at the moment . . . but then, it's perfectly fine to leave
the alternator off until after the engine is started. Do you
have a diode around the coil of your starter contactor?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Fogerson" <rickf(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Bob, need info on microair com/xpdr |
SMTPD_IN_RCVD
Hi Bob,
I bought wiring harnesses from you some time back but just getting around to installing.
I'm building an RV3 so no need for intercom or co-pilot stuff. No
wiring diagram sent so I need to know what they connect to.
Questions and confirmation Re MicroAir Xpdr:
1) black wire connected to pin 23 and therefor should go to ground.
2) yellow wire, connected to pin 24, and therefor should go to 12 volt power.
3) however, not sure what the following "free end" wires connect to:
purple (pin 16, "external ident")?
blue (pin 15, "external standby in)?
blue coated coax wire?
Questions Re MicroAir Radio:
1) I am only going to be using the following pins with the noted wires:
pin 1, Microphone (small yellow)
pin 2, Mic Ground (22 AWG white w black stripe)
pin 7, PTT (small blue)
pin 9, 12V (22 AWG yellow)
pin 11, Ground (22 AWG black)
pin 14, Head Phone (22 AWG white)
What I don't understand is:
2) There is no white w black stripe wire coming out of the red tape (at the connector)
so I don't know what wire goes to Mic Ground.
3) There is a blue coated coax wire coming out of the red tape and I don't know
what that connects to?
4) Also, confirm that the PTT wire from pin 7 just connects to the pilot PTT button
and the intercom selector switch is eliminated.
Thanks for your help,
Rick Fogerson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bob, need info on microair com/xpdr |
>
>Hi Bob,
>I bought wiring harnesses from you some time back but just getting around
>to installing. I'm building an RV3 so no need for intercom or co-pilot
>stuff. No wiring diagram sent so I need to know what they connect to.
>
>Questions and confirmation Re MicroAir Xpdr:
>1) black wire connected to pin 23 and therefor should go to ground.
>2) yellow wire, connected to pin 24, and therefor should go to 12 volt power.
>3) however, not sure what the following "free end" wires connect to:
> purple (pin 16, "external ident")?
> blue (pin 15, "external standby in)?
> blue coated coax wire?
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/T2000-ACK350_Wiring.pdf
Purple goes to optional remote ident button, leave unconnected if
not used.
Blue wire goes to optional remote standby/on switch, leave unconnected
if not used.
Blue jacket shielded wire is reply beep out that can optionally be
routed to your audio distribution amplifier. I'm not sure as to the
exact function of this feature, manual should be more helpful.
>Questions Re MicroAir Radio:
>1) I am only going to be using the following pins with the noted wires:
> pin 1, Microphone (small yellow)
> pin 2, Mic Ground (22 AWG white w black stripe)
> pin 7, PTT (small blue)
> pin 9, 12V (22 AWG yellow)
> pin 11, Ground (22 AWG black)
> pin 14, Head Phone (22 AWG white)
>What I don't understand is:
You should have received a copy of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/760VHF.pdf
with the harness. If not, download it for more info.
>2) There is no white w black stripe wire coming out of the red tape (at
>the connector) so I don't know what wire goes to Mic Ground.
Page 11 of the installation instructions show that pin 2
is attached to shields of the microphone and headset wires.
Jacks are grounded back to the radio via the shields on both
microphone and headset jacks as shown in diagram.
>3) There is a blue coated coax wire coming out of the red tape and I don't
>know what that connects to?
That's the single conductor shielded wire for headset
output
>4) Also, confirm that the PTT wire from pin 7 just connects to the pilot
>PTT button and the intercom selector switch is eliminated.
No, if you want to use the intercom function you need either (1)
a push-for-intercom button on each control stick as shown on page 11
or (2) a single toggle switch on panel to open the intercom function
as shown on page 12.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joa Harrison <flyasuperseven(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | tach wiring Rotax 912S |
When wiring the tach on the 912S is shielded wire needed going from the engine
sender to the unit?
Joa
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wire size for charging battery |
> Which is why you put some form of circuit protection in ANY wire
> attached to ANY battery for ANY reason.
Bob,
I pretty much followed Z-11 on my RV-7, and I've got a 14AWG wire between
the battery (+) terminal and my battery bus. The battery is just fwd of the
firewall, and the battery bus is just aft of the firewall. The wire is
completely unprotected.
I believe this has come up before, and if I recall the answer was that as
long as the wire is as short as possible (i.e. around 6" or less), circuit
protection for that short wire is not "required" in this case.
Is that true in this case, or would you install a fuse link on that wire,
positioned as close as practical to the (+) terminal? I'm probably just
taking your comment above too literally, but I figure it can't hurt to
clarify. ;-)
Thanks in advance,
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duncan McBride" <duncanmcbride(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: tach wiring Rotax 912S |
I have a 912 on a Kolb Twinstar. When I was trying to determine the source
of noise in my com radio, I heard from several sources that the tach lead
was a source of noise. I disconnected the leads from the system and tried
the radio. There wasn't any difference in the noise, which I've determined
was due to wind and audio noise coming through the microphones. I wouldn't
change it if it's already wired, unless a test revealed it was the source of
interference. It's easy enough to test.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joa Harrison" <flyasuperseven(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: tach wiring Rotax 912S
>
> When wiring the tach on the 912S is shielded wire needed going from the
engine sender to the unit?
>
> Joa
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michel RIAZUELO" <mt.riazuelo(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | ROTAX 912 regulator (mainly) ... |
Hi Bob,
My reading of THE book advances well. I would recommend to the future readers who
are already a little informed in electricity and electronics topics, to start
with the chapter "Electrical System Reliability". It lights the general philosphy
and gives desire for reading all the remainder!!!
Some questions:
(1) Why the starter contactor is conected in series with the master switch? Which
would be the disadvantage if the starter contactor were directly connected
to B+?
(2) The alternator of the ROTAX 912 is a permanent magnet model. If I well understood,
the power which it delivers depends only its RPM. I thus think that work
of regulator DUCATI consists in transforming into heat the electric output
not consumed by the aircraft equipments. It has the reputation to be often transformed
into toaster. Is this true or false? The recent answer of Bob is a beginning
of explanation.
>My experiment with Ducati shares suggests poor to attention
>design with respect to keeping internal shares of the regulator
>within to their best operating temperature arranges. B&C' S "heavy
>duty "regulator was nothing more that the standard circuit
>with robust, well heat-sinked shares.
Which is the B&C regulator reference? Does its installation allow to strongly reduce
the probability of having troubles?
(3) I fixed two 15 cm angles aluminium (40 mm x 40 mm) to increase the thermal
heat-transferring surface. I am not certain effectiveness but I think that cannot
worsen the situation. Am I right or wrong ?
(4) What hapens when the alternator is not connected (I wire following Z-16), because
the master switch in on median position or because the OVM did its work.
Does the regulator transform all the power into heat, or isolate the alternator
?
(5) I wire with Z-16, but I would evolve in the spirit of Z-12 if the autonomy
of the E-bus is not sufficient for my travels. Which model of secondary alternator
is well adapted to the ROTAX 912 and able to provide approximately 10 A (other
that that of ROTAX)?
Thanks for your answer.
Regards.
Michel RIAZUELO
MCR SPORTSTER in progress
Cholet FRANCE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | klehman(at)albedo.net |
| Subject: | amphib gear warning |
Hi
It makes such a mess when you land an amphib floatplane gear down in
water that I was giving a little thought to an intelligent gear warning.
There are some cheap DIY candidates for a trigger such as hardware store
electronic rulers or other more conventional methods. However does
anyone have any thoughts on a device that would discern the difference
between land and water from at least 10 and preferably about 50 feet? My
first thought was the microwave oven frequency of 2.45 ghz but something
cheaper and safer to play with would be nice. Something like 90%
accuracy would be sufficient for a cheap DIY project. It just has to be
accurate enough to prompt an overshoot and sort it out later "just in
case"...
thanks
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | klehman(at)albedo.net |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
Is the John Deere rectifier/regulator any better (or different) than the
Rotax/Ducati? They us it on a large PM alternator that is good for at
least 20 amps.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rhett Westerman" <Rhettwesterman(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | amphib gear warning |
Ken,
I have the Lake warning system on my amphib and it works well, but not
cheap. I saw an add last month for a non stc version at about half the cost
in the EAA sport aviation mag.
The lake works on airspeed. When the airspeed goes below a certain limit,
it notifies you of the expected landing terrain based on wheel position
indicators.
For me, the system you describe that identifies land or water would not
work for me as I fly in and out of small canals and often come in for a
water landing low over terrain before reaching water.
best,
Rhett
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
klehman(at)albedo.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: amphib gear warning
Hi
It makes such a mess when you land an amphib floatplane gear down in
water that I was giving a little thought to an intelligent gear warning.
There are some cheap DIY candidates for a trigger such as hardware store
electronic rulers or other more conventional methods. However does
anyone have any thoughts on a device that would discern the difference
between land and water from at least 10 and preferably about 50 feet? My
first thought was the microwave oven frequency of 2.45 ghz but something
cheaper and safer to play with would be nice. Something like 90%
accuracy would be sufficient for a cheap DIY project. It just has to be
accurate enough to prompt an overshoot and sort it out later "just in
case"...
thanks
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: noise from strobes |
>Bob,
>
>Thanks much. I`m going to order the fat capacitor from B&C and start as
>you advised.
Do the battery experiment first to make sure the noise
is getting out on the power leads. If it got another
pathway, adding the capacitor won't help.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuses vs. CBs |
The company that I work for puts blown fuse indicator type terminal blocks
in the panels that we build as a matter of practice. Personally I hate the
things. They only give you useful information about half the time, and they
make troubleshooting the circuilt a nightmare. They make testing the
circuit with a voltmeter all but impossible because there is ALWAYS voltage
downstream of the fuse, even when the fuse is blown. Another problem is
that the circuit must have load on it for the indicator to work in the first
place. You can't just look at the indicators during pre-flight and get any
useful information because any circuit that is not turned on (lights,
autopilot etc.) will not indicate a blown fuse anyway.
I personally agree with Bob. If the device is necessary for flight check
it's operation during the preflight (not the status of it's circuit
protection device) and then fly comfortably.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Canopy
http://www.myrv7.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: fuses vs. CBs
>
> > LEDs to show which fuse failed. That's what I want. I can do it
> myself with a small board next to the fuse block, I just don't want to.
I'd
> rather have something molded and professionally made.
> >
> Just a warning about putting anything (like an LED) across where the fuse
> goes: I have a friend who put grain of wheat bulbs parallel to the fuse
> connections. The theory was that if a fuse blew, he would know which one
it
> was, because the light would come on. The problem? I had pulled the fuse
> to work on something (which would usually disconnect the item). There was
> enough residual current flowing through the bulb to the circuit to zap me
a
> bit.
> Dan Branstrom
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chad Robinson" <crobinson(at)rfgonline.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: fuses vs. CBs
>
>
>
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Why would you want to add so much $time$ to a product that
> > > > > has about one chance in 1000 of ever doing something useful?
> > > > >
> > > > > Once you're past the development phase of your design and all
> > > > > construction faults and nuisance trips are fixed, it's quite
> > > > > likely that your airplane will run a lifetime and never open
> > > > > a fuse.
> > > >
> > > >Uhhhh, I don't. I asked for one pre-made. I'm asking for a fuse block
> > > >that has these suckers built in. If you read my original message I
> > > >said I didn't want to be the one doing this. I agree it's a waste of
> > > >time, and fuses with LEDs built in are overpriced and a waste of
> > > >money. =)
> > >
> > > I guess I don't understand . . . a fuse block with breakers built
> > > in?
> >
> > Ummm, maybe we're not on the same page here. I don't want breakers. I
hate
> breakers. I hate breakers almost as much as you do - I say almost because
> I'm not sure anybody really dislikes them THAT much. =)
> >
> > LEDs to show which fuse failed. That's what I want. I can do it myself
> with a small board next to the fuse block, I just don't want to. I'd
rather
> have something molded and professionally made.
> >
> > > >I love playing Devil's Advocate, so I'll bite. How about this for an
> > > >argument? It's nice information to have when your engine starts
> > > >cutting out on your third test flight that you can glance down and
> > > >see your fuel pump (EFI here) has blown a fuse, perhaps because you
> > > >DIDN'T fasten things down as well as you thought and a wire abraded
> > > >and shorted out. You sure as heck aren't going to reach down and try
> > > >to put in a new fuse- it blew for a reason. But you can also avoid
> > > >wasting time on trying an engine restart, which reduces your workload
> > > >somewhat. As long as you aren't overloading the pilot with
> > > >information (and you have to really LOOK to get this bit) having more
> > > >information available is often nice.
> > >
> > > Is this the one and only device that will provide adequate
> > > fuel flow to your engine? What do you do when THAT device quits?
> > > Or a wire comes unhooked? And, suppose you DID see that a fuse
> > > is blown, what is the likelihood that the next fuse you put in
> > > won't blow too?
> >
> > Nope, there are two fuel pumps. Actually, both are electric, so you just
> gave me another reason to justify this. Since I only actually require one,
> fuel pressure alone may not (will not) be sufficient to tell me a fuse has
> blown and thus one of the pumps is offline.
> >
> > > >In point of fact I don't actually want them but when curiosity gets
> > > >ahold of me I like to track things down. I don't know what the
> > > >weather's like by you, but it's 15 degrees outside here tonight, so
> > > >no plane building for me (unheated shop). In the winter, research is
> > > >all I can do.
> > >
> > > Its a good time to tidy up the shop sketches of your wiring
> > > into real nice pages for your finished wirebook too . . .
> >
> > Yeah. If I had any idea what instruments I was planning to use I'd do
> that. =) Seriously, Bob, I'm really on the very early side of things here,
> but I like to be as COMPLETELY informed as possible before I make a
> decision. For me, that means months of discussion and thinking before I
made
> a decision. I yam what I yam.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Curious Chad
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuses vs. CBs |
Thanks Phil,
In an early onset of Old-timers, I forgot about what a pain in the butt it
was to troubleshoot. Also, the grain of wheat bulbs burn out, rendering
them useless as blown fuse indicators.
Dan Branstrom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: fuses vs. CBs
>
> The company that I work for puts blown fuse indicator type terminal blocks
> in the panels that we build as a matter of practice. Personally I hate
the
> things. They only give you useful information about half the time, and
they
> make troubleshooting the circuilt a nightmare. They make testing the
> circuit with a voltmeter all but impossible because there is ALWAYS
voltage
> downstream of the fuse, even when the fuse is blown. Another problem is
> that the circuit must have load on it for the indicator to work in the
first
> place. You can't just look at the indicators during pre-flight and get
any
> useful information because any circuit that is not turned on (lights,
> autopilot etc.) will not indicate a blown fuse anyway.
>
> I personally agree with Bob. If the device is necessary for flight check
> it's operation during the preflight (not the status of it's circuit
> protection device) and then fly comfortably.
>
> Godspeed,
>
> Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
> RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Canopy
> http://www.myrv7.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom(at)verizon.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: fuses vs. CBs
>
>
>
> >
> > > LEDs to show which fuse failed. That's what I want. I can do it
> > myself with a small board next to the fuse block, I just don't want to.
> I'd
> > rather have something molded and professionally made.
> > >
> > Just a warning about putting anything (like an LED) across where the
fuse
> > goes: I have a friend who put grain of wheat bulbs parallel to the fuse
> > connections. The theory was that if a fuse blew, he would know which
one
> it
> > was, because the light would come on. The problem? I had pulled the
fuse
> > to work on something (which would usually disconnect the item). There
was
> > enough residual current flowing through the bulb to the circuit to zap
me
> a
> > bit.
> > Dan Branstrom
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chad Robinson" <crobinson(at)rfgonline.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: fuses vs. CBs
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why would you want to add so much $time$ to a product that
> > > > > > has about one chance in 1000 of ever doing something useful?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once you're past the development phase of your design and all
> > > > > > construction faults and nuisance trips are fixed, it's quite
> > > > > > likely that your airplane will run a lifetime and never open
> > > > > > a fuse.
> > > > >
> > > > >Uhhhh, I don't. I asked for one pre-made. I'm asking for a fuse
block
> > > > >that has these suckers built in. If you read my original message I
> > > > >said I didn't want to be the one doing this. I agree it's a waste
of
> > > > >time, and fuses with LEDs built in are overpriced and a waste of
> > > > >money. =)
> > > >
> > > > I guess I don't understand . . . a fuse block with breakers built
> > > > in?
> > >
> > > Ummm, maybe we're not on the same page here. I don't want breakers. I
> hate
> > breakers. I hate breakers almost as much as you do - I say almost
because
> > I'm not sure anybody really dislikes them THAT much. =)
> > >
> > > LEDs to show which fuse failed. That's what I want. I can do it myself
> > with a small board next to the fuse block, I just don't want to. I'd
> rather
> > have something molded and professionally made.
> > >
> > > > >I love playing Devil's Advocate, so I'll bite. How about this for
an
> > > > >argument? It's nice information to have when your engine starts
> > > > >cutting out on your third test flight that you can glance down and
> > > > >see your fuel pump (EFI here) has blown a fuse, perhaps because you
> > > > >DIDN'T fasten things down as well as you thought and a wire abraded
> > > > >and shorted out. You sure as heck aren't going to reach down and
try
> > > > >to put in a new fuse- it blew for a reason. But you can also avoid
> > > > >wasting time on trying an engine restart, which reduces your
workload
> > > > >somewhat. As long as you aren't overloading the pilot with
> > > > >information (and you have to really LOOK to get this bit) having
more
> > > > >information available is often nice.
> > > >
> > > > Is this the one and only device that will provide adequate
> > > > fuel flow to your engine? What do you do when THAT device quits?
> > > > Or a wire comes unhooked? And, suppose you DID see that a fuse
> > > > is blown, what is the likelihood that the next fuse you put in
> > > > won't blow too?
> > >
> > > Nope, there are two fuel pumps. Actually, both are electric, so you
just
> > gave me another reason to justify this. Since I only actually require
one,
> > fuel pressure alone may not (will not) be sufficient to tell me a fuse
has
> > blown and thus one of the pumps is offline.
> > >
> > > > >In point of fact I don't actually want them but when curiosity gets
> > > > >ahold of me I like to track things down. I don't know what the
> > > > >weather's like by you, but it's 15 degrees outside here tonight, so
> > > > >no plane building for me (unheated shop). In the winter, research
is
> > > > >all I can do.
> > > >
> > > > Its a good time to tidy up the shop sketches of your wiring
> > > > into real nice pages for your finished wirebook too . . .
> > >
> > > Yeah. If I had any idea what instruments I was planning to use I'd do
> > that. =) Seriously, Bob, I'm really on the very early side of things
here,
> > but I like to be as COMPLETELY informed as possible before I make a
> > decision. For me, that means months of discussion and thinking before I
> made
> > a decision. I yam what I yam.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Curious Chad
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibson" <bgibson(at)scientech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cool schematic CAD program |
FWIW, I also appreciated all the work that Bob Nuckolls put into the
drawings for our benefit, but I'm one of these guys who feels morally
obligated to "own legal software." I purchased Intellicad 2000 for about
$250. and have found it fine. Reads/writes to most drawing formats, and
most of our work is "editing" existing electrical drawings anyway.
Bob Gibson
AA5 - N5826L
Clearwater Airpark (CLW)
Mobile 727.644.8361
Web www.geocities.com/n5826l
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
>
>Is the John Deere rectifier/regulator any better (or different) than the
>Rotax/Ducati? They us it on a large PM alternator that is good for at
>least 20 amps.
>Ken
It could very well be. Do you have a part number and source for
this device. I'd consider buying one and testing it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chad Robinson <crobinson(at)rfgonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuses vs. CBs |
wrote:
>
>
> The company that I work for puts blown fuse indicator type terminal
> blocks in the panels that we build as a matter of practice.
> Personally I hate the things. They only give you useful information
> about half the time, and they make troubleshooting the circuilt a
> nightmare. They make testing the circuit with a voltmeter all but
> impossible because there is ALWAYS voltage downstream of the fuse,
> even when the fuse is blown. Another problem is that the circuit must
> have load on it for the indicator to work in the first place. You
> can't just look at the indicators during pre-flight and get any useful
> information because any circuit that is not turned on (lights,
> autopilot etc.) will not indicate a blown fuse anyway.
True enough. I'm not asking for an always-on setup here. Ideally you would run
the LEDs only off the downstream side of the fuse, not parallel across them, and
tie their current limiting resistors to a common side of a momentary pushbutton
tied to ground. That way you could "push to test" just like any other device.
It's far better than having the LED active all the time, sourcing voltage
to the circuit. I'm not worried about the grain-o'-wheat issue because the current
is inherently limited, but it's still a concern.
Nonetheless, I maintain that this is useful information, and bemoan the fact that
nobody has created a rugged, commercial product. It adds almost no weight,
costs almost nothing, and really doesn't have much if any downside if it's done
properly. Saying you shouldn't do something just because you don't "really"
need to is stupid. Look, I track all the cars around me when I drive, so I know
where they are. I still turn my head when I change lanes. It's EXTREMELY unlikely
that there will be somebody there when I wasn't planning on it, but it's
saved me from exactly 1 accident in the last 10 years and that's good enough
for me to do it every darned time.
Regards,
Chad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuses vs. CBs |
>
>
>Thanks Phil,
>In an early onset of Old-timers, I forgot about what a pain in the butt it
>was to troubleshoot. Also, the grain of wheat bulbs burn out, rendering
>them useless as blown fuse indicators.
A light bulb for blown fuse indicator will be illuminated
only if a fuse blows which means that as indicators, they're not
highly stressed and will probably do the job as well as
an LED. The major concern is return on investment for the
$time$ it takes to install them. The need to troubleshoot
is a rare event. Concerns about power availability are
even more rare and easy to confirm with or without a blown
fuse indicator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
> >
> >Is the John Deere rectifier/regulator any better (or different) than the
> >Rotax/Ducati? They us it on a large PM alternator that is good for at
> >least 20 amps.
> >Ken
>
> It could very well be. Do you have a part number and source for
> this device. I'd consider buying one and testing it.
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
Out of curiosity, which tests should one perform to evaluate a particular
rectifier/regulator ?
By the way I understand my friend Jerome machined the necessary parts in
order to drive the test Rotax alternator mentioned earlier.
Regards,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
Bob, about testing a John Deere PM alternator and regulator. Here's the
info I've looked up and shared with others. A look at one of these by you
would be a great thing. I've attached the spreadsheet as a pdf file to
this e-mail - but think attachments get stripped off. So, will copy and
paste here:
Output Alternator Regulator.......Weight....Remarks:
Amps....... P/N.................P/N...............LBS
20..........AM877557.... AM101406..........4
35......... AM877957.....AM101406......... 4? ....... Same alternator
with internal changes, uses same regulator
55......... AL81436........ AL65077..........................Regulator
is a flat pack on back of alternator body;
............................................................................
........Typically used on 6400L and 6500L Tractor for running with lights at
night
85.........
AL81437.........AL65077..........................Regulator-Has Overvoltage
protection (same P/N as 55amp)
85.........
AL78690.............?....................................Listed for 6400
series tractor, NO overvoltage protection
John Deere PM alternator info - researched at Deere dealer by David Carter
I'd like to use the 35 amp if can keep loads down enough for IFR & night
Otherwise, I'll probably use the 85 amp - I want a PM alternator. (RV-6
with Mazda rotary engine)
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilles.Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Future replacement for Rotax
<Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> > >Is the John Deere rectifier/regulator any better (or different) than
the
> > >Rotax/Ducati? They us it on a large PM alternator that is good for at
> > >least 20 amps.
> > >Ken
> >
> > It could very well be. Do you have a part number and source for
> > this device. I'd consider buying one and testing it.
<<<<<< >
> > Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Morris <dave(at)davemorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
Is this the one you're talking about?
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/dynamo.html
Dave Morris
>
>
> >
> >Is the John Deere rectifier/regulator any better (or different) than the
> >Rotax/Ducati? They us it on a large PM alternator that is good for at
> >least 20 amps.
> >Ken
>
> It could very well be. Do you have a part number and source for
> this device. I'd consider buying one and testing it.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
>
>
>Bob, about testing a John Deere PM alternator and regulator. Here's the
>info I've looked up and shared with others. A look at one of these by you
>would be a great thing. I've attached the spreadsheet as a pdf file to
>this e-mail - but think attachments get stripped off. So, will copy and
>paste here:
The paste-up got scrambled quite a bit. Would you end the attachment
to be directly at bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net
Thanks!
> I'd like to use the 35 amp if can keep loads down enough for IFR & night
> Otherwise, I'll probably use the 85 amp - I want a PM alternator. (RV-6
>with Mazda rotary engine)
The largest IFR load I've run on an SE aircraft to date is
27A so it's conceivable that you could get by with a 35A
alternator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>
> > >
> > >Is the John Deere rectifier/regulator any better (or different) than the
> > >Rotax/Ducati? They us it on a large PM alternator that is good for at
> > >least 20 amps.
> > >Ken
> >
> > It could very well be. Do you have a part number and source for
> > this device. I'd consider buying one and testing it.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>Bob,
>
>Out of curiosity, which tests should one perform to evaluate a particular
>rectifier/regulator ?
I usually try to deduce some sense of thermal impedance
between internal semi-conductors and the case. This isn't
always possible but it can sometimes be done with fair
accuracy. Then I see what the case temperature does under
various loads and relate that back to junction temperatures
of power semiconductors within. This helps us judge how well
the designers did their homework and whether or not there's
any head-room in the design. There is NO headroom for cooling
in the Ducati regulator used on the Rotax. Mounting this regulator
with a blast-tube of cooling air is a good thing to do.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
Bob, a question raised by your "various loads" phrase in the quoted e-mail
below:
I've heard that the PM alternator puts out max current for whatever rpm it
is turning, regardless of load, and that the regulator simply heat sinks all
the current not being used usefully.
So, if I was running at cruise rpm with a particular pulley and the PM
alternator was turning x rpm and putting out y amps, and if:
1) I was running minimum day, VFR electrical load, then the difference
(excess) would generate heat in the regulator and have to be "soaked" out to
someplace; and if:
2) I was running night IMC loads, then there would be LESS current for
the regulator to turn to heat.
I wonder if there is any significance to this phenomenon, i.e., if the use
of a PM alternator could be said to be "less fuel efficient" because it was
robbing the engine of all the hp it could possibly use up generating "max
current" - all the time.
- Maybe we'd have a lower load on the engine (via alternator belt)
using a std alternator where current output was controlled by field magic.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Future replacement for Rotax
>
> ><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >Is the John Deere rectifier/regulator any better (or different) than
the
> > > >Rotax/Ducati? They us it on a large PM alternator that is good for at
> > > >least 20 amps.
> > > >Ken
> > >
> > > It could very well be. Do you have a part number and source for
> > > this device. I'd consider buying one and testing it.
> > >
> > > Bob . . .
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >Out of curiosity, which tests should one perform to evaluate a particular
> >rectifier/regulator ?
>
> I usually try to deduce some sense of thermal impedance
> between internal semi-conductors and the case. This isn't
> always possible but it can sometimes be done with fair
> accuracy. Then I see what the case temperature does under
> various loads and relate that back to junction temperatures
> of power semiconductors within. This helps us judge how well
> the designers did their homework and whether or not there's
> any head-room in the design. There is NO headroom for cooling
> in the Ducati regulator used on the Rotax. Mounting this regulator
> with a blast-tube of cooling air is a good thing to do.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cool schematic CAD program |
For a list and reviews of various free CAD programs, see
http://www.freecad.com/dcd/CAD_Programs___General_Purpose/index-3.htm
Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting empennage (setting up shop in Franklin,
Tennessee)
(snip)
>Just this past week, I downloaded TurboCAD LE, which is free.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Rgulator and heat |
>
> I usually try to deduce some sense of thermal impedance
> between internal semi-conductors and the case.
> any head-room in the design. There is NO headroom for cooling
> in the Ducati regulator used on the Rotax. Mounting this regulator
> with a blast-tube of cooling air is a good thing to do.
Hello Bob,
this brings me to a point, I have mounted my LR-3 on the left hand side of
the foot room, about 1.5 ft from the floor, but my heating is blowing partly
on to the regulator (and believe me we need this heating here in
Switzerland), reading your posting would you think it would be a wise idea
to add a heat deflector to protect the regulator? Standard load VFR day is
around 12-17 A.
Thanks for the advice
Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | klehman(at)albedo.net |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
Yes it's the AM877557 20 amp John Deere alternator and the AM101406
regulator that I was referring to. The regulator itself weighs 190 gm
(about 0.4 lb). It even has fast-on connectors ;)
As mentioned here, I too concluded that it is inefficient and it will
heat up the regulator more by not using the generators output. Therefore
the plan is to use it to power things that I want to run all the time
like exterior lighting. I may run my primary fuel and ignition off it as
well instead of from my small conventional alternator.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
>
>
>Bob, a question raised by your "various loads" phrase in the quoted e-mail
>below:
>
>I've heard that the PM alternator puts out max current for whatever rpm it
>is turning, regardless of load, and that the regulator simply heat sinks all
>the current not being used usefully.
Not necessarily so. Early versions of PM rectifier-regulators were
of the shunt variety. Energy not needed to maintain bus voltage
was dumped into the regulator's heat sink. Hence, an alternator
with NO system loads caused the regulator to run very hot.
The Ducati and B&C rectifier-regulators use a rectifier bridge
of which two devices are silicon controlled rectifiers TRIGGERED
to PASS energy as opposed to SINK energy. These heat up in
response to system loads and run very cool when the system
is lightly loaded.
Bob . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How to Mount Ground Power Connector |
| From: | "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
I followed Bob's excellent tutorial on modifying a Piper style ground
power connector. My question now is, how are these usually mounted? It
is certainly a big, clunky connector and my assumption is that it is
somehow hidden behind a hinged cover. How have others mounted this?
Does anybody have a picture/drawing of how it's done on Piper aircraft?
I know, I could drive out to the airport and look but my assumption is
that those that have gone before me have most likely improved on the
Piper's approach.
Thanks
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
Then perhaps I can call or e-mail John Deere today and get someone to call
back and inform me which type they use - shunt or SCR triggered.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Future replacement for Rotax
>
> >
> >
> >Bob, a question raised by your "various loads" phrase in the quoted
e-mail
> >below:
> >
> >I've heard that the PM alternator puts out max current for whatever rpm
it
> >is turning, regardless of load, and that the regulator simply heat sinks
all
> >the current not being used usefully.
>
> Not necessarily so. Early versions of PM rectifier-regulators were
> of the shunt variety. Energy not needed to maintain bus voltage
> was dumped into the regulator's heat sink. Hence, an alternator
> with NO system loads caused the regulator to run very hot.
>
> The Ducati and B&C rectifier-regulators use a rectifier bridge
> of which two devices are silicon controlled rectifiers TRIGGERED
> to PASS energy as opposed to SINK energy. These heat up in
> response to system loads and run very cool when the system
> is lightly loaded.
>
> Bob . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy" <rnvcrothers(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
Hi all,
I have not been on this list for quite a while but now I am close to
actually wiring so I am monitoring again.
Just a note about my experience with PM alternators. I work on
equipment that runs 24/7. Until I switched to running PM alternators, by
far the most common failure was alternator brushes. I could not predict how
long they would last. Sometimes they would only make it three months,
others maybe six or seven months. Once I switched to the PM alternators I
have not had one fail, and they have racked up a significant amount of hours
on them. In one case at least a full year running at 24/7 with no
problems. The bearings seem to be quite good also. The only problem is
they are large and at least twice as heavy as the normal alternators they
replaced. I am wondering if a suitable, smaller PM alternator with
sufficient output might be available for aircraft use.
After seeing so many alternator failures I am not overly confident in
relying on one in my RV7A with Subaru power, which certainly needs some
electricity to keep running. My engine came with an ND mini alternator with
55 amps output. I will of course have a backup battery but a more robust
alternator would be nice if one were available.
Due to my experiences above, I have left my old generator in my 1959
C182, even though I have all the stuff needed to convert it to use of an
alternator. I may be wrong, but it seems like a generator with good brushes
etc. is a pretty reliable unit.
OK here is the question I have been trying to get to. When I had my
little ND mini alternator load tested at a local alternator starter rebuild
shop, the owner recommended designing a system that uses no more than 50% of
it's rated output for continuous load. Now that I am adding up what might
be my maximum continuous load, I am finding that 50% of 55 amps is pretty
restrictive. Have any of you heard of this recommendation before? Does
loading an alternator beyond the 50% mark for continuous load begin to have
an effect on reliability? I understand the heat issue and it will certainly
make more heat at higher loads so cooling air directed to it is a good
thing.
Sorry this got so long...
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Future replacement for Rotax
>
> Yes it's the AM877557 20 amp John Deere alternator and the AM101406
> regulator that I was referring to. The regulator itself weighs 190 gm
> (about 0.4 lb). It even has fast-on connectors ;)
>
> As mentioned here, I too concluded that it is inefficient and it will
> heat up the regulator more by not using the generators output. Therefore
> the plan is to use it to power things that I want to run all the time
> like exterior lighting. I may run my primary fuel and ignition off it as
> well instead of from my small conventional alternator.
>
> Ken
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard(at)riley.net |
| Subject: | Dual voltage electrical system |
This one is going to be a mess, but I'll throw it open for comments.
I'm going to have to run a 28 v 60 amp alternator in my airplane. The
reasons are complex, but I have to.
My airplane is currently built with a 12v electrical system. Many of the
most expensive bits don't care if they're getting 12 or 24 volts - the
radio stack, the Blue Mountain EFIS, the strobes, the electronic ignition -
are happy either way.
Some of the other bits do care, but are cheap - position lights, for example.
But there are some that are both very expensive, and rated for 14 v, that I
really don't want to - or can't - change.
Hydraulic (main gear) pump
Nose gear motor (I can't change that, it doesn't exist in 24v)
Pitch and roll trim motors
Landing brake motor
Fuel pump (35 PSI, fuel injected engine)
Observations:
1) They're all motors
2) Except for the fuel pump, they're by their nature used briefly and
sporadically.
3) The gear motors take a lot of current. The hydraulic pump is listed at
35 amps, the nose gear at 15.
So far, I've thought of
Running a 14v SD-8 and a 5 AH battery just to power those things.
Running a 28v SD20 or SD-8 and a DC/DC converter, charging a 5 AH battery
for a 14 v bus.
Putting a resistor in line with each of the 12v devices
Ignoring them except the fuel pump, figuring that in the few seconds
they're running the over voltage won't be able to overheat them. Put a
resistor on the fuel pump.
Any other thoughts, flames, musings, amusing anecdotes?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joel Harding <cajole76(at)ispwest.com> |
I have seen pictures of the GPS antenna mount on the front of the
firewall, but can't recall which web site they were on. Can someone
with a better memory help me out here? Since I've seen no reports of
difficulties with that location, I think I'll try it.
Joel Harding (waiting on the GRR EFIS to finish up the panel)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to Mount Ground Power Connector |
Bob,
I've attached a photo (which will be filtered out for the list) of the
outside of the receptacle. Unfortunately, I
did not photograph the inside. I pretty much followed Bob's directions
including the toilet seat bolt for the center conductor. I made a
doubler of .063 that I riveted to the skin to reinforce the area. I used
Bob's design with the switch breaker, light and reverse polarity
protection. The circuit works well and is very convenient when testing
the electrical system and avionics while keeping the battery charged. I
connect a battery charger to the external plug and run the charger when
I am testing or running the system.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
-6A myriad of finishing details
Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote:
>
>
> I followed Bob's excellent tutorial on modifying a Piper style ground
> power connector. My question now is, how are these usually mounted? It
> is certainly a big, clunky connector and my assumption is that it is
> somehow hidden behind a hinged cover. How have others mounted this?
> Does anybody have a picture/drawing of how it's done on Piper aircraft?
> I know, I could drive out to the airport and look but my assumption is
> that those that have gone before me have most likely improved on the
> Piper's approach.
>
> Thanks
> Bob
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Altoq <altoq(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual voltage electrical system |
Food for Thought: If you just use two 12v batteries, in series for 24v, the
connector between them is 12v. You got it, take it from there.
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Richard(at)riley.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual voltage electrical system
>
> This one is going to be a mess, but I'll throw it open for comments.
>
> I'm going to have to run a 28 v 60 amp alternator in my airplane. The
> reasons are complex, but I have to.
>
> My airplane is currently built with a 12v electrical system. Many of the
> most expensive bits don't care if they're getting 12 or 24 volts - the
> radio stack, the Blue Mountain EFIS, the strobes, the electronic
ignition -
> are happy either way.
>
> Some of the other bits do care, but are cheap - position lights, for
example.
>
> But there are some that are both very expensive, and rated for 14 v, that
I
> really don't want to - or can't - change.
>
> Hydraulic (main gear) pump
> Nose gear motor (I can't change that, it doesn't exist in 24v)
> Pitch and roll trim motors
> Landing brake motor
> Fuel pump (35 PSI, fuel injected engine)
>
> Observations:
> 1) They're all motors
> 2) Except for the fuel pump, they're by their nature used briefly and
> sporadically.
> 3) The gear motors take a lot of current. The hydraulic pump is listed at
> 35 amps, the nose gear at 15.
>
> So far, I've thought of
>
> Running a 14v SD-8 and a 5 AH battery just to power those things.
>
> Running a 28v SD20 or SD-8 and a DC/DC converter, charging a 5 AH battery
> for a 14 v bus.
>
> Putting a resistor in line with each of the 12v devices
>
> Ignoring them except the fuel pump, figuring that in the few seconds
> they're running the over voltage won't be able to overheat them. Put a
> resistor on the fuel pump.
>
> Any other thoughts, flames, musings, amusing anecdotes?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual voltage electrical system |
>
>This one is going to be a mess, but I'll throw it open for comments.
>
>I'm going to have to run a 28 v 60 amp alternator in my airplane. The
>reasons are complex, but I have to.
>
>My airplane is currently built with a 12v electrical system. Many of the
>most expensive bits don't care if they're getting 12 or 24 volts - the
>radio stack, the Blue Mountain EFIS, the strobes, the electronic ignition -
>are happy either way.
>
>Some of the other bits do care, but are cheap - position lights, for example.
>
>But there are some that are both very expensive, and rated for 14 v, that I
>really don't want to - or can't - change.
>
>Hydraulic (main gear) pump
>Nose gear motor (I can't change that, it doesn't exist in 24v)
>Pitch and roll trim motors
>Landing brake motor
>Fuel pump (35 PSI, fuel injected engine)
Do you have dual fuel pumps. E.g.: is this the
only fuel pump or is there a mechanical one too?
How much current does the fuel pump draw?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to Mount Ground Power Connector |
>
>
>I followed Bob's excellent tutorial on modifying a Piper style ground
>power connector. My question now is, how are these usually mounted? It
>is certainly a big, clunky connector and my assumption is that it is
>somehow hidden behind a hinged cover. How have others mounted this?
>Does anybody have a picture/drawing of how it's done on Piper aircraft?
>I know, I could drive out to the airport and look but my assumption is
>that those that have gone before me have most likely improved on the
>Piper's approach.
On the airplanes I've seen, they're mounted low on the
fuselage, behind the wing and as close as practical to
the battery contactor which is under the rear seat.
Many builders have installed them on brackets in the
cockpit but out of the way so that then don't put
a hole in the fuselage. I think behind the wing
is a good spot . . . convenient to line support
persons while away from the prop.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rgulator and heat |
>
>
> >
> > I usually try to deduce some sense of thermal impedance
> > between internal semi-conductors and the case.
>
> > any head-room in the design. There is NO headroom for cooling
> > in the Ducati regulator used on the Rotax. Mounting this regulator
> > with a blast-tube of cooling air is a good thing to do.
>
>Hello Bob,
>
>this brings me to a point, I have mounted my LR-3 on the left hand side of
>the foot room, about 1.5 ft from the floor, but my heating is blowing partly
>on to the regulator (and believe me we need this heating here in
>Switzerland), reading your posting would you think it would be a wise idea
>to add a heat deflector to protect the regulator? Standard load VFR day is
>around 12-17 A.
The LR-3 is a totally different breed of cat. It controls a wound-field
alternator and never sees more that 3A of current and dissipates a maximum
of 10 watts. Unless you have a REALLY good heater (lots of HOT air) it's
likely that your LR-3 will run cooler being swept by warm air in motion
than it will by setting in a cooler, still air environment. Adding
motion to cooling air has such a profound effect on heat energy transferred
that moving warm air is often better cooling that motionless cold air.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
>
>Hi all,
> I have not been on this list for quite a while but now I am close to
>actually wiring so I am monitoring again.
> Just a note about my experience with PM alternators. I work on
>equipment that runs 24/7. Until I switched to running PM alternators, by
>far the most common failure was alternator brushes. I could not predict how
>long they would last. Sometimes they would only make it three months,
>others maybe six or seven months. Once I switched to the PM alternators I
>have not had one fail, and they have racked up a significant amount of hours
>on them. In one case at least a full year running at 24/7 with no
>problems. The bearings seem to be quite good also. The only problem is
>they are large and at least twice as heavy as the normal alternators they
>replaced. I am wondering if a suitable, smaller PM alternator with
>sufficient output might be available for aircraft use.
> After seeing so many alternator failures I am not overly confident in
>relying on one in my RV7A with Subaru power, which certainly needs some
>electricity to keep running. My engine came with an ND mini alternator with
>55 amps output. I will of course have a backup battery but a more robust
>alternator would be nice if one were available.
This is apples and oranges. A 24/7 environment puts as many hours
on an alternator in two days than the average airplane gets
in a year. Two weeks of operation will put more hours on the
24/7 machine than you are likely to put on your airplane the
total time you own it.
> Due to my experiences above, I have left my old generator in my 1959
>C182, even though I have all the stuff needed to convert it to use of an
>alternator. I may be wrong, but it seems like a generator with good brushes
>etc. is a pretty reliable unit.
> OK here is the question I have been trying to get to. When I had my
>little ND mini alternator load tested at a local alternator starter rebuild
>shop, the owner recommended designing a system that uses no more than 50% of
>it's rated output for continuous load. Now that I am adding up what might
>be my maximum continuous load, I am finding that 50% of 55 amps is pretty
>restrictive. Have any of you heard of this recommendation before? Does
>loading an alternator beyond the 50% mark for continuous load begin to have
>an effect on reliability? I understand the heat issue and it will certainly
>make more heat at higher loads so cooling air directed to it is a good
>thing.
This is BS. Start with a load analysis on what you know you're
really going to need and under what conditions. I've done many a
load analysis and to date, the largest, continuous load I've
seen for a 14v airplane was 27A. So even a 40A machine is taxed
to 67% of capacity and rarely. Alternator life is not related
to loading as long as the alternator gets adequate cooling. You
can burn up a 40A alternator with a 20A load if you choke the cooling
off.
You got the cart in front of the horse. The ND alternator has
a long and successful service record in thousands of airplanes.
Line your ducks up for more important details of your design.
That alternator is going to be just fine.
Have you read chapter 17 of the 'Connection? If not, you can
download at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch17-9.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Randy,
Alternator brush life is related to the quality of the surface
that they ride on. Was part of your brush replacement practice
to inspect and polish the surface where the brush makes electrical
contact?
Regards,
Matt Prather
N34RD
>
>
> Hi all,
> I have not been on this list for quite a while but now I am close to
> actually wiring so I am monitoring again.
> Just a note about my experience with PM alternators. I work on
> equipment that runs 24/7. Until I switched to running PM alternators,
> by far the most common failure was alternator brushes. I could not
> predict how long they would last. Sometimes they would only make it
> three months, others maybe six or seven months. Once I switched to the
> PM alternators I have not had one fail, and they have racked up a
snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy" <rnvcrothers(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
Matt,
I did not replace the brushes, I always took them to the overhauler and
exchanged them. I hear what you are saying about the surface though.
Thanx. Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Future replacement for Rotax
>
> Randy,
>
> Alternator brush life is related to the quality of the surface
> that they ride on. Was part of your brush replacement practice
> to inspect and polish the surface where the brush makes electrical
> contact?
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt Prather
> N34RD
>
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> > I have not been on this list for quite a while but now I am close to
> > actually wiring so I am monitoring again.
> > Just a note about my experience with PM alternators. I work on
> > equipment that runs 24/7. Until I switched to running PM alternators,
> > by far the most common failure was alternator brushes. I could not
> > predict how long they would last. Sometimes they would only make it
> > three months, others maybe six or seven months. Once I switched to the
> > PM alternators I have not had one fail, and they have racked up a
>
> snip
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard(at)riley.net |
| Subject: | Re: Dual voltage electrical system |
Nuckolls, III"
>>Hydraulic (main gear) pump
>>Nose gear motor (I can't change that, it doesn't
exist in 24v)
>>Pitch and roll trim motors
>>Landing brake motor
>>Fuel pump (35 PSI, fuel injected engine)
>
>Do you have dual fuel pumps. E.g.: is this the
>only fuel pump or is there a mechanical one too?
>How much current does the fuel pump draw?
Yes, there is a mechanical fuel pump (Lycoming
standard). The electric pump is only used for
starting, takeoff, landing and emergencies. It's
listed as 5 amps in the catalog.
Unfortunately the catalog doesn't list the high
pressure Weldon pump in 24v. It lists the 12 v high
pressure and low pressure (4.5 PSI) but only the 4.5
PSI in the high pressure. I'm sure it can be had by
$pecial order.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual voltage electrical system |
>
>Nuckolls, III" nuckolls(at)cox.net>
>
> >>Hydraulic (main gear) pump
> >>Nose gear motor (I can't change that, it doesn't
>exist in 24v)
> >>Pitch and roll trim motors
> >>Landing brake motor
> >>Fuel pump (35 PSI, fuel injected engine)
> >
> >Do you have dual fuel pumps. E.g.: is this the
> >only fuel pump or is there a mechanical one too?
> >How much current does the fuel pump draw?
>
>Yes, there is a mechanical fuel pump (Lycoming
>standard). The electric pump is only used for
>starting, takeoff, landing and emergencies. It's
>listed as 5 amps in the catalog.
>
>Unfortunately the catalog doesn't list the high
>pressure Weldon pump in 24v. It lists the 12 v high
>pressure and low pressure (4.5 PSI) but only the 4.5
>PSI in the high pressure. I'm sure it can be had by
>$pecial order.
Okay, then ALL of your 14v requirements are intermittent
except the rare case where electric fuel pump backs up
the mechanical one in which case you have a 5A continuous
requirement for remainder of flight.
I think I'd go with a DC-DC converter to step down
28v to 14v -AND- maintain a 14V battery. You need
a battery that's robust enough to handle dynamic loads
of hydraulic pump. l7 a.h. would be easy and cheap,
there are some smaller ones that would take the beating
in the 10 a.h. class but only saves you 5# or so.
You'll need a pair of 17 a.h. batteries on the 28V
side so yearly changeout produces a candidate for
14v service for the second year.
The DC to DC converter would only need to be good
for 10A or so and is relatively small. About 2#
I should think. Your 14V "system" should have a
low-volts warning system but that should be all
that's necessary in the way of instrumentation.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
11/19/2003
Hello Electrical Types, I am seeking help in getting better engine starting
and I'd like you to prescribe the gadget that will do it. Let me explain:
I have a TCM (Teledyne Continental Motors) IO-240 B9B engine. It has a Unison
Slick 4309 direct drive magneto on the right side with a normal running spark
advance of 26 degrees before piston TDC (Top Dead Center). On the left side
is a Slick 4310 magneto with normal running spark advance of 26 degrees before
TDC and also retard breaker points. The retard breaker points retard the spark
to near TDC for proper starting spark during cranking.
The engine is started with only the left magneto ON and the high voltage,
multiple pulse starting spark is provided through the retard breaker points by
a
solid state Unison SlickStart starting vibrator. The 26 degrees before TDC
spark from the normal running points in both magnetos is grounded out by the
SlickStart vibrator while cranking.
Presently the electrical source for the starting vibrator comes from the same
starter contactor terminal that provides electrical power to the starter
motor. When the starter button is released electrical power to both the starter
motor and the starting vibrator ends instantly. It is important in this engine
to release the starter button as soon as the engine initially fires rather than
try to "help it along" until it is running "better". Starter gears get chewed
up if one keeps the starter engaged for any period of time after the engine
initially fires.
But there is a brief period of time after the engine initially fires and
before it starts running better when the engine could benefit from continued high
voltage multiple pulse retarded spark.
So I want a gadget that I can wire into my starter button / starting
contactor / starting vibrator / main bus circuitry such that it will activate the
starting vibrator at the instant that the starter button is pushed and keep
supplying electricity to the vibrator , but not to the starter motor, for 2 or
3
seconds after the starter button is released.
I have heard terms such as "retard delay" thrown around in connection with
the Bendx "Shower of Sparks" starting vibrator (an older mechanical competitor
of the Unison SlickStart vibrator) so I think that the concept is valid and
that such things exist, but they are deeply buried within the Bendix realm and
not available to me.
My request is that you point me at such a delay device so that I can purchase
it.
Many thanks.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - 11/17/03
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | andrew manzo <andrewmanzo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Fuse Blown Indicators |
Why not turn the logic on it's head?
Instead of indicating a blown fuse, indicate a good
fuse?
Have a row of LED's - one for each fuse.
When the fuse is good, you get a nice green light from
the LED.
When it is bad, you don't get a light.
If you put a white light on either end, you could see
at a glance that there were no gaps in the green
lights, therefore all is good.
If there is a gap in the green lights, you know which
fuse has popped.
Am I missing something with my solution?
Thanks!
--Andrew
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chad Robinson <crobinson(at)rfgonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse Blown Indicators |
wrote:
> Why not turn the logic on it's head?
>
> Instead of indicating a blown fuse, indicate a good
> fuse?
>
> Have a row of LED's - one for each fuse.
>
> When the fuse is good, you get a nice green light from
> the LED.
>
> When it is bad, you don't get a light.
>
> If you put a white light on either end, you could see
> at a glance that there were no gaps in the green
> lights, therefore all is good.
>
> If there is a gap in the green lights, you know which
> fuse has popped.
>
> Am I missing something with my solution?
Nope, that would work fine. It's pretty easy to wire, too - the LEDs just hook
up to the downstream side of the fuse box. It's a nice way to go if you're the
sort that's doing, say, a lot of engine experimentation, because it could help
remind you that you left, say, one of the electric water pump fuses out on your
last maintenance cycle - no wonder those engine temps are high.
Of course, it does tend to flood the pilot with information if that fuse panel
is visible - you see a lot of lights all the time. It's sort of a personal preference
consideration there.
You could also do this with a microcontroller. Basically, you'd have it look at
the bottom side of any fuse, and it could show a fuse slot number on a 2-digit
LED display if there was a problem. The nice thing about this is that it could
also be your gear-up/gear-dn (UP/DN) display, and cycle back and forth if a
fuse is blown or missing.
My personal favorite is still the push-to-test solution. It doesn't give the pilot
information unless s/he requests it, but when you want it, it's there. And
it wouldn't introduce the stray current into the circuit mentioned by a previous
poster.
Lots of ways to go. None of this is really important to me, I was just wishing
for a commercial solution. I've got enough work to do making my glass cockpit
that I didn't want to have to mince around with fuse blocks and indicators.
Regards,
Chad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Dual voltage electrical system |
A DC-DC converter that would work well would be the Astron N2412-12. It
is a 10A device, 12A surge, that gives a nice, clean 13.8V out. This is
the same unit that Cessna is using in the new singles to provide a 12V
accessory jack. I did a Google search and found a price of $51.
Dave Swartzendruber
Wichita
>
> I think I'd go with a DC-DC converter to step down
> 28v to 14v -AND- maintain a 14V battery. You need
> a battery that's robust enough to handle dynamic loads
> of hydraulic pump. l7 a.h. would be easy and cheap,
> there are some smaller ones that would take the beating
> in the 10 a.h. class but only saves you 5# or so.
>
>
> The DC to DC converter would only need to be good
> for 10A or so and is relatively small. About 2#
> I should think. Your 14V "system" should have a
> low-volts warning system but that should be all
> that's necessary in the way of instrumentation.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSamuelson(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 20 Msgs - 11/19/03 |
I recall seeing pictures on Dan Chekoway's RV7 website - www.rvproject.com.
Scroll through his daily index to find the the right page.
Roy Samuelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | How to mount Ground Power Connector |
">I followed Bob's excellent tutorial on modifying a Piper style ground
>power connector. My question now is, how are these usually mounted? It
>is certainly a big, clunky connector and my assumption is that it is
>somehow hidden behind a hinged cover. How have others mounted this?
>Does anybody have a picture/drawing of how it's done on Piper aircraft?
>I know, I could drive out to the airport and look but my assumption is
>that those that have gone before me have most likely improved on the
>Piper's approach."
I too have followed Bob's excellent instructions to produce a Ground Power
receptacle. I made several restrictions using what available experience
still sits on the brain storage area:
[1] Port side only as ground crew will always be in sight;
[2] Behind the wing if battery in back, ahead if forward (short lines);
[3] If forward, must be within reach of pilot since groundcrew would be too
near active prop; and if pilot-retrieved must somehow be returned to
storage without hitting live prop.
Cheers, Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Caruthers <tomcaruthers(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Switch Availability |
Hi All,
Does anyone know of a 3 pole, 2 position switch? I
would like to use a pair for mag switches. The third
circuit would be used to switch the p-leads for an
electronic tach.
Thanks in advance,
Tom
__________________________________
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to mount Ground Power Connector |
I've installed the standard plug and cover (from ACS) under my nose where I
can see it from the cockpit, floxed flush with the outer skin. It's nice on
my Velocity since it's away from the prop, near the battery and the nose
tie-down, and I can see what they're doing. Follow the link below for a
picture - at the end of Section 13.3.1
http://www.velocityxl.com/Electrical.htm#Section 13.3 Electrical System
Completion
Brett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: How to mount Ground Power Connector
>
> ">I followed Bob's excellent tutorial on modifying a Piper style ground
> >power connector. My question now is, how are these usually mounted? It
> >is certainly a big, clunky connector and my assumption is that it is
> >somehow hidden behind a hinged cover. How have others mounted this?
> >Does anybody have a picture/drawing of how it's done on Piper aircraft?
> >I know, I could drive out to the airport and look but my assumption is
> >that those that have gone before me have most likely improved on the
> >Piper's approach."
>
> I too have followed Bob's excellent instructions to produce a Ground Power
> receptacle. I made several restrictions using what available experience
> still sits on the brain storage area:
> [1] Port side only as ground crew will always be in sight;
> [2] Behind the wing if battery in back, ahead if forward (short lines);
> [3] If forward, must be within reach of pilot since groundcrew would be
too
> near active prop; and if pilot-retrieved must somehow be returned
to
> storage without hitting live prop.
> Cheers, Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Dual voltage electrical system |
>
>
>A DC-DC converter that would work well would be the Astron N2412-12. It
>is a 10A device, 12A surge, that gives a nice, clean 13.8V out. This is
>the same unit that Cessna is using in the new singles to provide a 12V
>accessory jack. I did a Google search and found a price of $51.
Dave, do you know how this critter will behave with a battery
across the output? Is there a need to disconnect the battery
from the converter if it's not powered up? I've been scratching
on a Z-figure example of how this could be done and my sense is
that a battery disconnect relay would be needed to float the
battery completely free when the airplane is parked.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Dual voltage electrical system |
Bob,
I don't recall whether it was ever tested with a battery on it's output
or not. I suspect that it would do fine when powered up but may put a
small drain on the battery when turned off. Astron should have the
answers. Their website lists their phone number as 949-458-7277 and
email at eastron(at)astroncorp.com. They also have a 20A version that is
only one inch longer and 2 lbs instead of 1.5 lbs. I'll ask the person
I know that evaluated this unit and see what he can tell me.
Dave
"
> >
> >
> >A DC-DC converter that would work well would be the Astron N2412-12.
It
> >is a 10A device, 12A surge, that gives a nice, clean 13.8V out. This
is
> >the same unit that Cessna is using in the new singles to provide a
12V
> >accessory jack. I did a Google search and found a price of $51.
>
> Dave, do you know how this critter will behave with a battery
> across the output? Is there a need to disconnect the battery
> from the converter if it's not powered up? I've been scratching
> on a Z-figure example of how this could be done and my sense is
> that a battery disconnect relay would be needed to float the
> battery completely free when the airplane is parked.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Nashville TN seminar date set |
Just got off the phone with the very gracious lady who set up
our meeting room last year. May 1/2, 2004 is the date.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html
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: Switch Availability |
>
>
>Hi All,
>
>Does anyone know of a 3 pole, 2 position switch? I
>would like to use a pair for mag switches. The third
>circuit would be used to switch the p-leads for an
>electronic tach.
See Carling HM series switches at
https://www.alliedelec.com/catalog/pf.asp?FN=648.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Help |
The technology you are trying to control is from the 1920's. That's how Henry
ran
his Model-T. Your mags come at us untouched from the early 1930's. The price
of a
[rebuilt] mag will buy you a nice electronic unit (from Electroair in TN or Light
Speed on the left coast) that drops right in the hole your mag occupies now. You
start with 0 deg advance and go on to about 35 deg. You get much higher quality
combustion, [credibly documented] up to 10% better fuel efficiency, [somewhat]
better
cruise speed, better static RPM. How long would it take with even a piddlin' 5%
increase in fuel economy to save $800 or so?
Not a bad trade IMO ... Jim S.
BAKEROCB(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> 11/19/2003
>
> Hello Electrical Types, I am seeking help in getting better engine starting
> and I'd like you to prescribe the gadget that will do it. Let me explain:
>
> I have a TCM (Teledyne Continental Motors) IO-240 B9B engine. It has a Unison
> Slick 4309 direct drive magneto on the right side with a normal running spark
> advance of 26 degrees before piston TDC (Top Dead Center). On the left side
> is a Slick 4310 magneto with normal running spark advance of 26 degrees before
> TDC and also retard breaker points. The retard breaker points retard the spark
> to near TDC for proper starting spark during cranking.
>
> The engine is started with only the left magneto ON and the high voltage,
> multiple pulse starting spark is provided through the retard breaker points by
a
> solid state Unison SlickStart starting vibrator. The 26 degrees before TDC
> spark from the normal running points in both magnetos is grounded out by the
> SlickStart vibrator while cranking.
>
> Presently the electrical source for the starting vibrator comes from the same
> starter contactor terminal that provides electrical power to the starter
> motor. When the starter button is released electrical power to both the starter
> motor and the starting vibrator ends instantly. It is important in this engine
> to release the starter button as soon as the engine initially fires rather than
> try to "help it along" until it is running "better". Starter gears get chewed
> up if one keeps the starter engaged for any period of time after the engine
> initially fires.
>
> But there is a brief period of time after the engine initially fires and
> before it starts running better when the engine could benefit from continued
high
> voltage multiple pulse retarded spark.
>
> So I want a gadget that I can wire into my starter button / starting
> contactor / starting vibrator / main bus circuitry such that it will activate
the
> starting vibrator at the instant that the starter button is pushed and keep
> supplying electricity to the vibrator , but not to the starter motor, for 2 or
3
> seconds after the starter button is released.
>
> I have heard terms such as "retard delay" thrown around in connection with
> the Bendx "Shower of Sparks" starting vibrator (an older mechanical competitor
> of the Unison SlickStart vibrator) so I think that the concept is valid and
> that such things exist, but they are deeply buried within the Bendix realm and
> not available to me.
>
> My request is that you point me at such a delay device so that I can purchase
> it.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - 11/17/03
>
--
Jim Sower
Crossville, TN; Chapter 5
Long-EZ N83RT, Velocity N4095T
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Hollendorfer" <phredyh1(at)flica.net> |
Hey OC....
From your description about the starting situation with the TCM I wonder
if you might not be able to do
something like they did on some radial engines (i.e. R2800s) years ago.
You had four switches that had to be operated with the left hand.
1) Thumb to operate the safety switch.
2) The middle finger to operate the starter.
3) (and this is the one that may come into play for you) the boost coil
for the magnetos operated
with the finger next to the pinky.
4) and finally the primer operated with the index finger.
With out going into great detail on how to start this monster, the boost
coil switch was used to give the mags a
little extra fire in the start process while the blades were turning
(after the mags were turned on). Once the engine caught all switches
were released except the primer until the mixture was was moved to auto
rich and ultimately to auto lean. My point here being that you might be
able to use an extra (spring loaded, normally off)) switch to keep the
starting vibrater alive a little longer in the start process. I would
also offer a caveat that this is probably not what TCM had in mind here
when they designed the system. I offer this info only because you may
have a unique situation that I'm not familiar with. Good luck...
Phoenix Phred
Fred Hollendorfer
Phoenix (on the road)
http://members.tripod.com/phredyh0/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | geoffkim(at)pdq.net |
Bob,
I am planning my system according to Z-11. However, I am planning to
install electric Attitude indicator and DG on the e-bus (In addition to
what z-11 shows). A couple of simple-minded questions.
1- How do I find the current requirements (what they really draw) for the
items? (AH, DG, TC, Nav, Comm, Lights) I know they draw less power than
the fuse numbers indicate.
2- I am thinking I may need to increase the size of the wire and the fuse
which comes off the main battery bus through the alternate feed switch and
to the e-bus. How do I make this determination?
3- Why not run the wire from the main bus to the alternator field (through
the switch) through a fuse or breaker instead of a fuselink as shown in
the drawing?
Geoff Kimbrough
Katy, Texas
RV-8
PS - If any of you get the opportunity to attend one of Bob's seminars -
it is well worth the time. GK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>Below is the result of your inquiry. It was submitted by
>paul quick (paulq(at)global.co.za) on Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 11:14:11
>
>Thursday, November 20, 2003
>
>paul quick
>
>,
>Email: paulq(at)global.co.za
>Comments/Questions: my master solenoid gets extreemly hot after just a
>short flight i bench checkd it with no load same thing put in new solenoid
>did the same.
These parts NORMALLY dissipate about 10 watts of heat. They normally run
too hot to touch but quite within temperature limits for materials
used in their construction.
> also maybe related after longish flight starter switch fails to swing
> prop until engine cools.starter solenoid is heard but no action. any
> ideas? thanx paul quick
Is there ANY motion of the prop? Does the starter draw current
but simply insufficient torque to push past compression? If
the prop doesn't move at all and the starter draws no current,
then there's a temperature related open circuit that clears
when it cools. If it's drawing current and simply delivering
insufficient torque, then the starter is probably too small
for the task.
Has it always behaved this way or is it a new condition?
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mitch Faatz" <mitchf(at)skybound.com> |
| Subject: | Best place to order Honeywell MicroSwitch's? |
Bob (and all),
Where is the best place to order Honeywell MicroSwitch's online? What vendors
are like McMaster-Carr in that they don't mind very small orders, ship fast, have
a good stock, etc. ???
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Best place to order Honeywell MicroSwitch's? |
I bought mine through www.peerlesselectronics.com. Now the bad news,
nobody stocks these items. Mine had a 12 week lead time, so order extras
for spare parts. You don't want a bad master switch to ground you for 3
months.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mitch
Faatz
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Best place to order Honeywell MicroSwitch's?
Bob (and all),
Where is the best place to order Honeywell MicroSwitch's online? What
vendors are like McMaster-Carr in that they don't mind very small
orders, ship fast, have a good stock, etc. ???
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Hi Fred -
Have you used these Carling dimmers with a series of LEDs? We'd like to be
able to use LED's for all of our interior lighting and a dimmer that can
handle LED's would be important.
Thanks,
John
> I've tested and installed into my new RV-6A a digital dimmer from
> Carling Technologies. It will easily switch 10A loads, has negligible
> heat output,
> is small, and only has three wires (Power, Ground, & Output).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Benford2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Switch Availability |
In a message dated 11/20/2003 9:03:39 AM Mountain Standard Time,
tomcaruthers(at)yahoo.com writes:
> Hi All,
>
> Does anyone know of a 3 pole, 2 position switch? I
> would like to use a pair for mag switches. The third
> circuit would be used to switch the p-leads for an
> electronic tach.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Tom
Yup. Got one on my V- 8 all aluminum Ford 347. Cu in. I will go back in the
archives and look it up. Bob suggested one for doing the exact same thing and
it is in my toy..Ben Haas. N801BH.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joa Harrison <flyasuperseven(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | wiring Rotax 912S tach |
Bob,
Here's what Rans says regarding the wiring. What I need to know is if I use the
triple shielded wire what do I do with the shielding portion to prevent ground
loops and reduce noise? Do I only connect it to ground on one end (and which
end is preferred- engine or instrument) or do I leave it completely ungrounded?
Thanks.
Joa
For Rotax 912/912S engines
Connect (+) terminal to switched 12V
Connect (-) terminal to ground and a sender lead from engine
Connect (2) or (S) to other sender lead from engine
---------------------------------
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net> |
I'm getting ready to install a KX125 and connect it to a Sigtronics SPA-400 intercom.
I have a question relating what to connect the audio out lo wire on the
KX125 tray to.
The Sigtronics intercom wiring diagram shows only a single wire to the phone jacks.
The jack presumably picks up ground from the airframe.
As presently wired, the barrell of the phone jacks is wired to the aircraft ground
buss and the jacks themselves are attached into the panel without any insulating
grommets.
I suspect that this arrangement will give a ground loop and should be changed.
The question is: Changed to what?
Install insulating grommets around the phone jacks and connect the audio lo wire
to aircraft ground?
Connect the barrel of each phone jack to the audio lo wire and leave the phone
jacks uninsulated?
Connect the barrel of each phone jack to the audio lo wire and insulate the phone
jacks?
Or is this not worth worrying about. Just connect the audio lo wire to aircraft
ground and go on to other tasks in the project?
Thanks in advance for the help.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Caruthers <tomcaruthers(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch Availability |
Thanks Bob,
I have a couple of question about the HM switches.
From Carling Technologies website, they say
"H-Series: heavy duty three pole toggle switch;
slow-make, slow-break; 3 to 17 amp, 125 to 600VAC;
metal and plastic decorator toggle options; bushing
mount; UL, CSA"
I thought we were supposed to use snap-acting
switches, not "slow-make, slow-break"
The HM series of switches are 3 position. An HL251-73
would be the switch for a 2 position? ON-NONE-ON
Would this entire line of switches be acceptable for
use with landing lights, strobe lights, etc?
Thanks, Tom
--- "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
> Nuckolls, III"
>
> Caruthers
> >
> >
> >Hi All,
> >
> >Does anyone know of a 3 pole, 2 position switch? I
> >would like to use a pair for mag switches. The
> third
> >circuit would be used to switch the p-leads for an
> >electronic tach.
>
> See Carling HM series switches at
>
> https://www.alliedelec.com/catalog/pf.asp?FN=648.pdf
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
> Click on the
> this
> generous
> _->
> -
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/chat
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Attach bolts for SD20 |
Folks,
Anyone out there remember what bolts they used to attach their SD-20 to their Lycoming?
It may already even be on the vacuum pad cover of my Lalonde built O360
- but it's at the airport and I'm at home.....
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio Lo wire |
>
>
>I'm getting ready to install a KX125 and connect it to a Sigtronics
>SPA-400 intercom. I have a question relating what to connect the audio out
>lo wire on the KX125 tray to.
>
>The Sigtronics intercom wiring diagram shows only a single wire to the
>phone jacks. The jack presumably picks up ground from the airframe.
Bad practice. All avionics grounds should come as close together
as possible at the "stack" and then fined airframe ground at the
single point ground on the firewall.
>As presently wired, the barrell of the phone jacks is wired to the
>aircraft ground buss and the jacks themselves are attached into the panel
>without any insulating grommets.
Use twisted pair or shielded wire to wire the phone and mic
jacks. An illustration of the technique is shown in document
at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700D.pdf
in particular page 1.11
>I suspect that this arrangement will give a ground loop and should be
>changed. The question is: Changed to what?
>
>Install insulating grommets around the phone jacks and connect the audio
>lo wire to aircraft ground?
>
>Connect the barrel of each phone jack to the audio lo wire and leave the
>phone jacks uninsulated?
>
>Connect the barrel of each phone jack to the audio lo wire and insulate
>the phone jacks?
>
>Or is this not worth worrying about. Just connect the audio lo wire to
>aircraft ground and go on to other tasks in the project?
This is discussed at length in the 'Connection chapter
on noise. Fiber washers to insulate the jacks are offered by B&C at:
http://bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?24X358218#s892
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric Connection Seminar |
>
>If anyone needs a place to stay, send me an email off-line. I am located
>at 589 Ploughman's Bend Drive, Franklin, TN. This is about 20 miles
>south of Nashville, with easy access to I-65. I will be attending, so
>can also provide transportation from my house. I have room for 3 people
>or couples in separate bedrooms and 1 or 2 more on the sofa bed and couch
>in the great room (more if you're good friends). First come, first
>served.
>
>Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting empennage (setting up shop in Franklin,
>Tennessee)
Jim, thank you for the generous offer. You may well
make the difference for some individuals deciding
whether or not they'll take on this useful activity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Dual voltage electrical system |
Bob,
I spoke with the guy that evaluated this N2412-12 and found out that he
never tested it with a battery on the output. If the output is
overloaded, it will go into current limit mode and max out at a little
over 14 amps, with the output voltage dropping as required. Input
current maxed out at 8.5 amps and then of course dropped off as the unit
went into current limit.
The good news is that he still has the unit he tested and is willing to
let me borrow it. I'm going to pick it up this afternoon. I'll put a
battery on the output and see if there is any leakage current, or if
you'd like to have a first hand look at it, I could drop it off at your
place.
Dave Swartzendruber
> >
> >A DC-DC converter that would work well would be the Astron N2412-12.
It
> >is a 10A device, 12A surge, that gives a nice, clean 13.8V out. This
is
> >the same unit that Cessna is using in the new singles to provide a
12V
> >accessory jack. I did a Google search and found a price of $51.
>
> Dave, do you know how this critter will behave with a battery
> across the output? Is there a need to disconnect the battery
> from the converter if it's not powered up? I've been scratching
> on a Z-figure example of how this could be done and my sense is
> that a battery disconnect relay would be needed to float the
> battery completely free when the airplane is parked.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-11 details |
>
>Bob,
>
>I am planning my system according to Z-11. However, I am planning to
>install electric Attitude indicator and DG on the e-bus (In addition to
>what z-11 shows). A couple of simple-minded questions.
>
>1- How do I find the current requirements (what they really draw) for the
>items? (AH, DG, TC, Nav, Comm, Lights) I know they draw less power than
>the fuse numbers indicate.
You can only get this data from the manufacturer's published
data, by contacting the manufacturer, getting a measurement
yourself on the bench or from another individual who has measured
the continuous draw on an identical accessory. I usually go to
the bench and measure it.
>2- I am thinking I may need to increase the size of the wire and the fuse
>which comes off the main battery bus through the alternate feed switch and
>to the e-bus. How do I make this determination?
If you have a battery bus fuse block, the only question is
the size of the fuse . . . you can make the wire ANY size
certain to meet the needs of e-bus loads. Make it 14AWG if you
like. However, keep in mind that the e-bus is an endurance
bus. What do you NEED to keep running while en route? Is it
your intention to do cross-country trips embedded in IMC?
If so, consider a GPS guided wing leveler and put only
the attitude gyro on the e-bus. You get good directional
data from GPS.
Think through your anticipated use of the airplane and
trim e-bus loads to absolute minimum necessary for sustained
en route activity until you get airport in sight. After you're
cleared to land, turn on the master and run anything you wish,
a battery going dead after that is immaterial to the outcome
of your flight.
>3- Why not run the wire from the main bus to the alternator field (through
>the switch) through a fuse or breaker instead of a fuselink as shown in
>the drawing?
The drawing where a fusible link is shown upstream of the alternator
field switch features a fuseblock main bus. All wires that
come off the bus should be protected AT THE BUS by some suitable
means. If you were using breakers on the main bus, the point is
mute because the alternator field breaker is adjacent to an existing
bus. In the drawings with fuseblocks, the main bus may be several feet
away from the alternator field breaker on the panel and a faulted 5A
breaker may open a 20A fuse . . . there's that much difference in their
response times (I LOVE fuses for that reason). Sooooo . . . whatever
protection you use needs to have a response time greater than the
5A field breaker . . . hence the fusible link.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Best place to order Honeywell MicroSwitch's? |
Try http://www.alliedelec.com (Allied Electronics, Inc.) and use their
search function for "switch" and manufacturer = Honeywell. Just about any
kind of switch is in stock.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bruce Gray
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Best place to order Honeywell MicroSwitch's?
I bought mine through www.peerlesselectronics.com. Now the bad news,
nobody stocks these items. Mine had a 12 week lead time, so order extras
for spare parts. You don't want a bad master switch to ground you for 3
months.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mitch
Faatz
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Best place to order Honeywell MicroSwitch's?
Bob (and all),
Where is the best place to order Honeywell MicroSwitch's online? What
vendors are like McMaster-Carr in that they don't mind very small
orders, ship fast, have a good stock, etc. ???
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Help |
>
>11/19/2003
>
>Hello Electrical Types, I am seeking help in getting better engine starting
>and I'd like you to prescribe the gadget that will do it. Let me explain:
>
>I have a TCM (Teledyne Continental Motors) IO-240 B9B engine. It has a Unison
>Slick 4309 direct drive magneto on the right side with a normal running spark
>advance of 26 degrees before piston TDC (Top Dead Center). On the left side
>is a Slick 4310 magneto with normal running spark advance of 26 degrees
>before
>TDC and also retard breaker points. The retard breaker points retard the
>spark
>to near TDC for proper starting spark during cranking.
>
>The engine is started with only the left magneto ON and the high voltage,
>multiple pulse starting spark is provided through the retard breaker
>points by a
>solid state Unison SlickStart starting vibrator. The 26 degrees before TDC
>spark from the normal running points in both magnetos is grounded out by the
>SlickStart vibrator while cranking.
>
>Presently the electrical source for the starting vibrator comes from the same
>starter contactor terminal that provides electrical power to the starter
>motor. When the starter button is released electrical power to both the
>starter
>motor and the starting vibrator ends instantly. It is important in this
>engine
>to release the starter button as soon as the engine initially fires rather
>than
>try to "help it along" until it is running "better". Starter gears get chewed
>up if one keeps the starter engaged for any period of time after the engine
>initially fires.
>
>But there is a brief period of time after the engine initially fires and
>before it starts running better when the engine could benefit from
>continued high
>voltage multiple pulse retarded spark.
>
>So I want a gadget that I can wire into my starter button / starting
>contactor / starting vibrator / main bus circuitry such that it will
>activate the
>starting vibrator at the instant that the starter button is pushed and keep
>supplying electricity to the vibrator , but not to the starter motor, for
>2 or 3
>seconds after the starter button is released.
About 8 years ago, I started an article on Shower-of-Sparks magneto
ignition systems that, for a variety of reasons, didn't get finished
or published. I don't have time to polish it up now but I've assembled
the text and drawings finished to date and posted it on the 'Connection
website. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/ShowerOfSparks.pdf
I also added a figure to illustrate a stone-simple solution to your
query. By making the starter switch a progressive transfer -50
version, you can have the SOS system come alive at the mid position
of the switch and leave starter disengaged until the switch is
fully raised. After the engine starts, you can delay moving switch
to the full-down, OFF position until it's running smoothly.
The figure I added shows the Vibrator-with-Relay version. If your
vibrator is not so equipped, you can do-it-yerself with a 3 pole
relay wired to duplicate the actions of the relay built into
the vibrator.
You could make this operation "automatic" with a delay relay
but you know how I am about parts count. Replacing the starter
push-button gives the desired action with no increase in
parts count or circuit complexity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual voltage electrical system |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I spoke with the guy that evaluated this N2412-12 and found out that he
>never tested it with a battery on the output. If the output is
>overloaded, it will go into current limit mode and max out at a little
>over 14 amps, with the output voltage dropping as required. Input
>current maxed out at 8.5 amps and then of course dropped off as the unit
>went into current limit.
>
>The good news is that he still has the unit he tested and is willing to
>let me borrow it. I'm going to pick it up this afternoon. I'll put a
>battery on the output and see if there is any leakage current, or if
>you'd like to have a first hand look at it, I could drop it off at your
>place.
>
>Dave Swartzendruber
I've seen products similar to this. Don't think it would
be useful to see this one. We DO still need to get together
for lunch!
I'd be interested in knowing how much leakage it would
place on a battery if floated across the output on a powered
down converter. I suspect we'll need to add a disconnect
relay to the converter output.
Appreciate your help tracking this down!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | flmike <flmike2001(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | King KT-78 connector |
Bob or other RKI,
Do you know the part number for the tray connector and
contact pins on the King KT78 transponder? They sort
of look like Molex KK parts, but I figured you guys
know.
A wire pulled out of one of the contacts and I need to
replace it.
Thanks,
Mike
__________________________________
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joa Harrison <flyasuperseven(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | wire bundling best practices |
Could someone point me to a source (preferably online) that diagrams best practices
for wire bundles. Looking for suggestions for routing and grouping things
behind the panel as well as on runs in the fuselage.
Thanks!
Joa
---------------------------------
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Attach bolts for SD20 |
There should be 1/4" studs for the vacuum pad on the 360. All you will
need are (4) 1/4" course thread nuts, internal tooth lock washers, and flat
washers. I'm told (by an A&P) that per standard practice, you can add up to
3 washers under the nut/lock washer combo if your studs happen to be
sticking out too far. At least that is the way mine is setup - and I it
didn't require any more than the one flat washer per stud.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
www.berkut13.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Attach bolts for SD20
>
> Folks,
>
> Anyone out there remember what bolts they used to attach their SD-20 to
their Lycoming? It may already even be on the vacuum pad cover of my
Lalonde built O360 - but it's at the airport and I'm at home.....
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph Capen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Attach bolts for SD20 |
>
>
>Folks,
>
>Anyone out there remember what bolts they used to attach their SD-20 to
>their Lycoming? It may already even be on the vacuum pad cover of my
>Lalonde built O360 - but it's at the airport and I'm at home.....
I believe they're captive studs on the vacuum pump pad
with loose nuts and washers used to mount the alternator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Best place to order Honeywell MicroSwitch's? |
In a message dated 11/20/03 5:13:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mitchf(at)skybound.com writes:
<< Where is the best place to order Honeywell MicroSwitch's online? What
vendors are like McMaster-Carr in that they don't mind very small orders, ship
fast, have a good stock, etc. ???
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA >>
Mitch: I've had good luck with Mouser Electronics, www.mouser.com. Hope
this helps.
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, firewall forward
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch Availability |
>
>
>Thanks Bob,
>
>I have a couple of question about the HM switches.
>
> From Carling Technologies website, they say
>"H-Series: heavy duty three pole toggle switch;
>slow-make, slow-break; 3 to 17 amp, 125 to 600VAC;
>metal and plastic decorator toggle options; bushing
>mount; UL, CSA"
>
>I thought we were supposed to use snap-acting
>switches, not "slow-make, slow-break"
The G-series switches (the ones we've sold
for years) are also listed as slow-make, slow-
break. The have over-center mechanisms but they
can be "teased" if you slowly operate the toggle.
Switches described as "fast" have a heavier
over-center mechanism that absolutely prevents
teasing.
These will be fine for your application.
>The HM series of switches are 3 position. An HL251-73
>would be the switch for a 2 position? ON-NONE-ON
>
>Would this entire line of switches be acceptable for
>use with landing lights, strobe lights, etc?
Yes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
>
>
>Then perhaps I can call or e-mail John Deere today and get someone to call
>back and inform me which type they use - shunt or SCR triggered.
>
>David
Let me know what you find out.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PeterHunt1(at)aol.com |
Tom,
I got what I believe to be the switch you are looking for from B&C Specialty
Products (316) 283-8000 in Kansas. It was a special order (around $35.00).
Speak with Todd.
Pete Hunt
RV-6 finishing panel, temporary fit of wings Sunday
Clearwater, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Attach bolts for SD20 |
In a message dated 11/21/03 12:02:27 PM Central Standard Time,
james(at)berkut13.com writes:
There should be 1/4" studs for the vacuum pad on the 360. All you will
need are (4) 1/4" course thread nuts, internal tooth lock washers, and flat
washers. I'm told (by an A&P) that per standard practice, you can add up to
3 washers under the nut/lock washer combo if your studs happen to be
sticking out too far. At least that is the way mine is setup - and I it
didn't require any more than the one flat washer per stud.
Good Afternoon Jim,
Be careful to torque them properly. Overtorqueing is one of the
possibilities that may have caused a failure of the mounting lugs on one alternator.
Also, I have heard it suggested that using the wrong gasket could also be the
culprit. Research has not yet been announced that will tell us for sure what the
problem was.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RemovingDsubPins |
Having inserted one of the machined Dsub pins into it's female connector, having
never removed one of these pins, having searched the list, I'm wondering how
to do it. Does the pin just push out without ruining the grip of the connector
for a reinserted pin? The seat & release tool is mysterious to me as neither
the red nor the white end fits into the connection side of the female connector
to push with.
Secondarily, I got in this position crimping onto 24 gauge wires with the eclipse
300-015 crimp tool, but one of the wires pulled loose. The garmin transponder
installation kit contained the pin & the garmin installation manual says don't
use smaller than 24 awg wire. So, I thought I'd be OK. It seems unlikely
I could have just not crimped the pin so is there a problem to look out for
here? This was pin 15 of my vast crimping experience of 16.
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RemovingDsubPins |
Is this a 37 pin connector? If so, the red tool isn't the correct tool.
For 37 pin connectors IIRC it's a pale green.......
The white side of the red tool is the correct side for removing the
pins...try it on an uninstalled pin - oh and you do it from the back
side....the same side you insert them into. Not trying to be a smart@$$,
just making sure.
Been there-done that. It's OK for the new pin too unless you twist the tool
while you're working it - the tool can catch on the grips and twist
them...did that a long time ago working on a computer project.....
Ralph
----- Original Message -----
From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RemovingDsubPins
>
> Having inserted one of the machined Dsub pins into it's female connector,
having never removed one of these pins, having searched the list, I'm
wondering how to do it. Does the pin just push out without ruining the grip
of the connector for a reinserted pin? The seat & release tool is
mysterious to me as neither the red nor the white end fits into the
connection side of the female connector to push with.
>
> Secondarily, I got in this position crimping onto 24 gauge wires with the
eclipse 300-015 crimp tool, but one of the wires pulled loose. The garmin
transponder installation kit contained the pin & the garmin installation
manual says don't use smaller than 24 awg wire. So, I thought I'd be OK.
It seems unlikely I could have just not crimped the pin so is there a
problem to look out for here? This was pin 15 of my vast crimping
experience of 16.
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Attach bolts for SD20 |
Hello Ralph,
On my Bart Lalonde built 360-A1A the vacuum pump would be held in place with
four long studs the came installed along with the vacuum pump drive and a
cover. The pump or your SD-20 would then be held in place with four
NC/thread nuts ( 5/16" if memory serves) and suitable washers as per
Lycoming manual.
I hope this is this the info you need,
Jim in kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Attach bolts for SD20
>
> Folks,
>
> Anyone out there remember what bolts they used to attach their SD-20 to
their Lycoming? It may already even be on the vacuum pad cover of my
Lalonde built O360 - but it's at the airport and I'm at home.....
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph Capen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Smaller ELT antenna question |
| From: | "Treff, Arthur" <Arthur.Treff(at)Smartm.com> |
All,
The antenna that came with my AmeriKing ELT is 18" long. ON a store bought airplane,
I had a "Rubber Ducky" antenna approx 10" high on the tail. Does anyone
know of a source to get one of those?
I spoke to a technical person at ACS, who said to use an XPNDR spike antenna.
But Transponders are a totally different freq, so I'm thinking that will not work.
Why the gyrations? I want to hide the antenna under the empennage fiberglass fairing
in my RV-8 in a horizontal position. The long straight antenna provided
will not fit. Some RV guys have placed theirs in a bow around the aft cockpit
bulkhead. This is not an option for me, as I've constructed a fastback turtledeck,
and my metal canopy skirts will shield the antenna in that position,
besides, I'm not fond of that look on the interior.
No comm antennae will be on the topside of the tailcone, so using a std comm thru
a splitter is no go as well. Perhaps I should 'roll my own' into the fiberglass
empennage fairing? Any ideas from the crowd would be greatly appreciated.
Thanx.
Art Treff
RV-8 Fastback
Asheville, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
| Subject: | Limit Switch Schematic |
Hi all,
I am installing limit switches on a device driven by a MAC servo. Does
anyone have a simple wiring schematic that I could take a peek at to be
sure that what I think I'm doing is really what I'm doing?? :-)
Thanks,
Jon Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 461 Hrs. TT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/Q2Subaru
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual voltage electrical system |
Bob,
How about lunch two weeks from today? Next week is Thanksgiving and the
following week I may be gone to Lancair Certified for the first part of the
week. I'll probably be taking Friday afternoon off to work on my basement,
so I'd already be nearby for lunch.
Dave
> We DO still need to get together
> for lunch!
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RemovingDsubPins |
Dave,
The red/white tool is inserted from the wire side of the pin. The idea is
that it compresses the little barbs that hold the pin in the connector. I
found that you really have to find the sweet spot for the release with the
tool, in addition you need to insert a small drill bit into the socket to
help push the pin back out. So, combination of red/white tool in the back
end, and the drill bit pushing, play with it for a while and it will
eventually pop right out for you.
Pat Hatch
RV-4
RV-6
RV-7 QB (Building)
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RemovingDsubPins
>
> Having inserted one of the machined Dsub pins into it's female connector,
having never removed one of these pins, having searched the list, I'm
wondering how to do it. Does the pin just push out without ruining the grip
of the connector for a reinserted pin? The seat & release tool is
mysterious to me as neither the red nor the white end fits into the
connection side of the female connector to push with.
>
> Secondarily, I got in this position crimping onto 24 gauge wires with the
eclipse 300-015 crimp tool, but one of the wires pulled loose. The garmin
transponder installation kit contained the pin & the garmin installation
manual says don't use smaller than 24 awg wire. So, I thought I'd be OK.
It seems unlikely I could have just not crimped the pin so is there a
problem to look out for here? This was pin 15 of my vast crimping
experience of 16.
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dabusmith(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: removing sub d connectors |
>but one of the wires pulled loose
I have stripped the wire back double the normal amount. The exposed wire is
doubled back and inserted in the connector. It is double sized and crimps
better. I don't know if it is the best way but it seems to work fine. No failures.
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Diffenbaugh" <diff(at)foothill.net> |
| Subject: | Personal adaptation of Z-13 |
After a couple months of reading Bob's book, researching the archives, and
posting lots of questions, I would like to believe I finally have a pretty
good understanding of how Z-13 works. (I am a slow learner & may be proven
wrong shortly, but I am willing to take a chance). In addition, I am
convinced Z-13 is a tried and proven system that would indeed meet my needs.
Before I finalize things and start ordering parts, I would like to bounce a
personal adaptation of Z-13 off of Bob and fellow system designers. I am
not suggesting Z-13 be changed! Please look at my idea with an open mind
then let me know why it is a bad idea. Thank you!
My setup: RV7A, with firewall mounted 16AH battery, battery contactor,
&
starter contactor; Dual LASAR w/dual mag backup; All electric 6-pack;
Full IFR stack ACS 2002 engine monitor; Trutrak autopilot;
Total load with everything on would be around 50A. Endurance items would be
limited to 8A. (Handheld GPS & transceiver.)
MY ADAPTATION
1) Eliminate the main bus & E bus, & tie everything into the battery bus.
2) Relocate the main alt B lead to the battery side of the contactor.
3) Switch those items that do not come with built in switches or are not
normally switched. In my case this would include: ILS indicator; encoder;
LASAR; artificial horizon; DG; & turn coordinator.
4) Layout the switches in color coded groups all in one row in a subpanel
below the main panel. Highest priority (endurance) switches would start at
the left end & would be red. The next group could be green for normally on
but non-essential, followed by white for normally off, such as lights. Etc,
etc.
ADVANTAGES
Fewer busses (fuse panels) to deal with
Avoids loss of partial panel due to battery contactor failure --battery
contactor would serve only during starting & would be shut off after start
in case of a stuck starter contactor, and to reduce system draw by about 1A.
Provides greater flexibility in backup alternator mode by being able to
swap an endurance item for a main bus item or use a main bus item
intermittently without losing 1A to the contactor. For example, upon main
alt failure, I could off everything but the endurance items, switch on the
SD-8 & monitor the ACS 2002 amp & volt meters to confirm all is well. I
could then trade off devices if desired, like turn off the transponder and
turn on the autopilot, etc., while monitoring voltage.
DISADVANTAGES
More time to off non-essentials than with one master switch.
Battery could be drained if a single device is left on by mistake after
shutdown. This would force me to always turn off each device at shutdown as
recommended, instead of relying on the master switch. (Would have the side
benefit of making sure avionics switch contacts get wiped clean by use)
Ok, that's it in a nutshell. Let er rip! Thank you.
Scott Diffenbaugh
diff(at)foothill.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Caruthers <tomcaruthers(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Bob,
Do you know where a person can get 2 and 3 position
rocker switches? I was looking for the kind with an
LED built in to use as a fuse blown indicator.
Thanks, Tom
__________________________________
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Need (wierd) Illuminated Push on-off switch... |
I need a source for an industrial application, switch....
Push On=Push-Off....
BUT.... It illuminates when in the OFF position and non illuminated when in
the ON position...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Limit Switch Schematic |
>From: Jon Finley (jon(at)finleyweb.net)
>I am installing limit switches on a device driven by a MAC servo. Does
>anyone have a simple wiring schematic that I could take a peek at to be
>sure that what I think I'm doing is really what I'm doing?? :-)
Jon,
See my schematic inside www.periheliondesign.com/mac8trim.zip. There are
limit switches inside the MAC servo. Maybe you could just use those if
you're clever.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Limit Switch Schematic |
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
MAC Servos have their own built-in limit switches. They shut off when they
reach the full extend and full retract position of the jackscrew. Look at
the diagrams in their instruction sheets.
Hope this helps.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Morris <dave(at)davemorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Limit Switch Schematic |
Jon, it depends on what you want to do and how you are driving the servo.
As others have mentioned, the MAC/RAC servos have built-in limit switches
that prevent over-travel at each end. But if you need to limit the travel
further, you can do it 2 different ways.
1. In my aileron reflexer design, I needed to add an additional limit only
on one end of the travel (see
http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Dragonfly/ReflexorLimitSwitchOverview.jpg).
I did it by adding the switch into the joystick portion of the
circuit. (See http://www.davemorris.com/Dave/ReflexerSchematic.pdf) You
can do this if the relays are close to the servo.
2. The other way of doing it is to mimic what the servo has within its
case, which is a limit switch with a bypass diode to allow the switch to be
overridden when you are wanting to reverse the motor.
Contact me off-list if you need further help.
Dave Morris
Dragonfly N55UP under construction
>
>Hi all,
>
>I am installing limit switches on a device driven by a MAC servo. Does
>anyone have a simple wiring schematic that I could take a peek at to be
>sure that what I think I'm doing is really what I'm doing?? :-)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jon Finley
>N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 461 Hrs. TT
>Apple Valley, Minnesota
>http://www.FinleyWeb.net/Q2Subaru
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
11/21/2003
Hello Jim Sower, I am sorry that I cannot cut and paste your posting to the
list regarding alternative replacements for magnetos. It would make for a more
effective response, but somebody turned a significant portion of the Digest
blue making it impossible to cut and paste.
I agree that magneto ignition comes from farm tractors back in the 1930's and
earlier and that better stuff should be available. And it almost is. But not
to the point that it makes sense yet to order your engine without magnetos in
order to put in two of the none certified versions that you mentioned.
Probably makes more sense to do what Bob Nuckolls suggests, which is to order your
engine with magnetos, replace one of the magnetos with some form of electronic
ignition, and when the magneto in use wears out, use the one set aside until it
wears out. Then go full dual electronic ignition.
But electronic ignition is a long ways from being just "pull out the magneto,
stick in the electronic unit (for a mere $800) and fly on your merry way". To
prove the accuracy of that statement just do an aeroelectric list search on
the subjects of "electronic ignition", "dual electrical systems" (needed by
full dual electronic ignitions), "lightspeed", and maybe a few other terms that
don't come right to mind right now. You will discover that "the devil is in the
details" and that a lot of people are doing a lot of struggling with the
subject of electronic ignitions.
And aside from that there are local builders here that have first hand
exposure to such systems and they can sit you down and give you first hand details
on their experiences (problems) and also what they have learned from others.
I guess if I had to characterize electronic ignition right now I'd have to
say "We ain't quite there yet."
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - 11/17/03
PS: I am not an antedeluvian fuddy duddy -- if TCM had been just a bit more
optimistic on the availability timing estimate I would have had FADEC on my
engine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
Was gone most of day. Had msg on ans mach when returned 8:30pm tonight.
Here's the info my local John Deere dealer's Service Manager passed on to me
as what the factory expert told him in response to his request that they
tell how the regulators work for the 20, 35, 55, & 85 PM Alternators -(he
took a copy of the pdg doc/table I sent to you and used that in his query to
Deere):
"The alternators are 3 phase and use diodes mounted on a plate.
"The regulator(s) [are/use?] "pass transisor[s?]. For every 10 degree C
rise in temp, [they?] lose 10% efficiency until reach 120 deg C - which
destroys alternator. (?)"
"The regulators are neither "shunt" type nor "bridge rectifier" type."
That's all somewhat cryptic/abbreviated to me - it was, after all, an
answering machine msg.
- I'll go see him Monday and get copies of full text of what they sent
him. If what I've passed on here gives you some clue as to other questions
I should ask, let me know and I'll "carry the mail" to him Monday.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Future replacement for Rotax
>
> >
> >
> >Then perhaps I can call or e-mail John Deere today and get someone to
call
> >back and inform me which type they use - shunt or SCR triggered.
> >
> >David
>
> Let me know what you find out.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
<... order your engine with magnetos, replace one of the magnetos with some form
of
electronic
ignition, and when the magneto in use wears out, use the one set aside ...>
That's exactly what I did. My engine came at me with mags, I replaced one, the
other
as a spare.
<... a long ways from being just "pull out the magneto, stick in the electronic
unit
(for a mere $800) and fly on your merry way" ...>
How long a way? I did exactly that. Most of the folks I know with EI did exactly
that. Worked just fine for me on my EZ. Fixin' to do it again on the Velocity.
<... a lot of people are doing a lot of struggling with the subject of electronic
ignitions ...>
A lot of people are doing a lot of struggling with mags too. Difference is, the
guys
struggling with EI are moving ahead and improving things. The guys struggling
with
mags can't even break even. They've made the decision to stay static, pissing
in the
wind, in the name of preferring the devil they know. I wish them well. I have
to go
my own way.
Works fine for me .... Jim S.
<... PS: I am not an antedeluvian fuddy duddy ...>
Whatever floats your boat .... :o)
BAKEROCB(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Probably makes more sense to do what Bob Nuckolls suggests, which is to order
your
> engine with magnetos, replace one of the magnetos with some form of electronic
> ignition, and when the magneto in use wears out, use the one set aside until
it
> wears out. Then go full dual electronic ignition.
>
> But electronic ignition is a long ways from being just "pull out the magneto,
> stick in the electronic unit (for a mere $800) and fly on your merry way". To
> prove the accuracy of that statement just do an aeroelectric list search on
> the subjects of "electronic ignition", "dual electrical systems" (needed by
> full dual electronic ignitions), "lightspeed", and maybe a few other terms that
> don't come right to mind right now. You will discover that "the devil is in the
> details" and that a lot of people are doing a lot of struggling with the
> subject of electronic ignitions.
>
> PS: I am not an antedeluvian fuddy duddy -- if TCM had been just a bit more
> optimistic on the availability timing estimate I would have had FADEC on my
> engine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard(at)riley.net |
Due to the sale of UPSAT to Garmin, I'm loosing my OEM account in a couple
of weeks. If anyone wants any of their products, my normal deal stands
till then, my cost plus 5%, about 25% off list price.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
> I have seen pictures of the GPS antenna mount on the front of the
> firewall, but can't recall which web site they were on. Can someone
> with a better memory help me out here? Since I've seen no reports of
> difficulties with that location, I think I'll try it.
http://www.rvproject.com/20030824.html
http://www.rvproject.com/20030831.html
Those are a few notes on how I did mine. If I were doing it again I'd shift
the antenna forward about 3/4" or so...to make sure it doesn't get shadowed
by the cowl hinge (which I stupidly didn't take into account originally). I
haven't flown yet, and it seems to work...but we'll see. Anyway, caveat
websurfer.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Morris <dave(at)davemorris.com> |
Bob,
I'm reading and reading and studying and trying to absorb everything.
I keep coming back to the very basic concepts you described in chapter
17. It seems like Mr. Gomez' problems were
a) the fact that he did not diagnose the failure of the alternator and pull
it off the bus, and
b) by switching off the Master, he was forced to kill essential things such
as lighting
What if we did away with the concept of a "Master" switch and just allowed
each device to have its own switch, as it probably already does
anyway? Starting with Figure 17-2, we could eliminate the battery
contactor altogether, hook the starter contactor to the battery, have a
single bus with everything on it, and be able to disconnect the alternator
in the event of an overvoltage condition.
Then, with an ammeter to monitor total current consumption, in the event of
an alternator failure, we pull it offline, then start shutting down
anything not needed at the time, take a look at the total current being
consumed, divide it into the amp-hour rating of the battery, and know how
long we can keep flying.
One reason I don't like the idea of an essential bus (or endurance bus) is
that I keep finding myself determining that virtually everything in my
small airplane is "essential", or may be so at some point. If I have a
pitch trim using a servo, and I keep trying to adjust trim and nothing
happens because I forgot that it's not on the e-bus and I've gotta flip the
E-feed switch before I can operate the trim, then that's just another thing
to have to remember.
In a car, you have a key switch that turns everything on. But you also
have a separate light switch, radio switch, window switches, lock switches,
heater switch, etc. etc., so what does that key switch really do except act
as another single point of failure and also control the ignition? Isn't
the small experimental aircraft in much the same situation? Couldn't we
make the whole thing even simpler and thus even more fault-tolerant?
Dave Morris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Limit Switch Schematic |
In a message dated 11/21/2003 2:00:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jon(at)finleyweb.net writes:
> I am installing limit switches on a device driven by a MAC servo. Does
> anyone have a simple wiring schematic that I could take a peek at to be
> sure that what I think I'm doing is really what I'm doing??
Just curious -- there is something missing from the above picture. The MAC
servo has built-in travel limits, so why would one want to mess with electronic
limits? These usually are used to actuate a lever, the travel of which is
determined by the length of the lever.
Doug
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu> |
Bob, sometime ago you wrote:
I use .8" spacing for the switches we sell. I've published
some exemplar layouts for switch panels at
http://216.55.140.222/temp//Switches.pdf
If the switches go in a single row, I try to organize
switches used pre/post-flight separate from those used
in flight. Two row switch panels might put the engine
and DC power switches above those used for lighting
and other functions likely to be used en route.
Bob . . .
I cant get to the referenced page. Is it still around?
Thanks, Steve.
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon and Marge" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Richard(at)riley.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Apollo avionics
Due to the sale of UPSAT to Garmin, I'm loosing my OEM account in a
couple
of weeks. If anyone wants any of their products, my normal deal stands
till then, my cost plus 5%, about 25% off list price.
Do you have or can you get the GPS plug in replacement for the Apollo
loran? I believe it is the GX55. If so, how much?
Please reply off line.
Gordon Comfort
________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Bob, sometime ago you wrote:
>
> I use .8" spacing for the switches we sell. I've published
> some exemplar layouts for switch panels at
>
> http://216.55.140.222/temp//Switches.pdf
>
>
> I cant get to the referenced page. Is it still around?
>
> Thanks, Steve.
>
Steve,
Any time you find an IP address like 216.55.140.222, try replacing the
number by the server name : www.aeroelectric.com, like this
www.aeroelectric.com/temp//Switches.pdf
It should work.
Regards,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio Lo wire |
Thanks for the response, Bob.
I guess the best thing for me to do under the circumstances is to insulate
the phone jacks ( mic jacks are already insulated) and to take the audio low
wire to aircraft ground. This may prove to have some noise in the system but
since there is no audio low wire in the intercom, I see no alternative.
Thanks again for the help.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Audio Lo wire
>
> >
> >
> >I'm getting ready to install a KX125 and connect it to a Sigtronics
> >SPA-400 intercom. I have a question relating what to connect the audio
out
> >lo wire on the KX125 tray to.
> >
> >The Sigtronics intercom wiring diagram shows only a single wire to the
> >phone jacks. The jack presumably picks up ground from the airframe.
>
> Bad practice. All avionics grounds should come as close together
> as possible at the "stack" and then fined airframe ground at the
> single point ground on the firewall.
>
>
> >As presently wired, the barrell of the phone jacks is wired to the
> >aircraft ground buss and the jacks themselves are attached into the panel
> >without any insulating grommets.
>
> Use twisted pair or shielded wire to wire the phone and mic
> jacks. An illustration of the technique is shown in document
> at:
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700D.pdf
>
> in particular page 1.11
>
>
> >I suspect that this arrangement will give a ground loop and should be
> >changed. The question is: Changed to what?
> >
> >Install insulating grommets around the phone jacks and connect the audio
> >lo wire to aircraft ground?
> >
> >Connect the barrel of each phone jack to the audio lo wire and leave the
> >phone jacks uninsulated?
> >
> >Connect the barrel of each phone jack to the audio lo wire and insulate
> >the phone jacks?
> >
> >Or is this not worth worrying about. Just connect the audio lo wire to
> >aircraft ground and go on to other tasks in the project?
>
> This is discussed at length in the 'Connection chapter
> on noise. Fiber washers to insulate the jacks are offered by B&C at:
>
> http://bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?24X358218#s892
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Morris <dave(at)davemorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Limit Switch Schematic |
The reasons is that you might want to limit the travel to a smaller region
than the built-in limit switches.
Jon and Doug, another way of doing this is to use the built-in
potentiometer and use an external comparator, such as an LM339, to detect
when you have reached the limit you want. In that circuit, you will have a
trim pot to adjust the exact set point, and there will be no need to figure
out how to mount an external limit switch.
For my aileron reflexer, I am considering several different set points, for
pilot-only takeoff, pilot+passenger takeoff, pilot-only cruise,
pilot+passenger cruise, pilot-only landing, pilot+passenger landing,
etc. That would not be feasible with limit switches, but would be easily
done by using the internal potentiometer and an external window comparator
and a rotary switch that inserts the correct value of resistance to compare
against. I'm designing the circuit right now, if you think you might be
interested.
Dave Morris
>
>In a message dated 11/21/2003 2:00:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>jon(at)finleyweb.net writes:
>
> > I am installing limit switches on a device driven by a MAC servo. Does
> > anyone have a simple wiring schematic that I could take a peek at to be
> > sure that what I think I'm doing is really what I'm doing??
>
>Just curious -- there is something missing from the above picture. The MAC
>servo has built-in travel limits, so why would one want to mess with
>electronic
>limits? These usually are used to actuate a lever, the travel of which is
>determined by the length of the lever.
>
>Doug
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio Lo wire |
>
>
>Thanks for the response, Bob.
>
>I guess the best thing for me to do under the circumstances is to insulate
>the phone jacks ( mic jacks are already insulated) and to take the audio low
>wire to aircraft ground. This may prove to have some noise in the system but
>since there is no audio low wire in the intercom, I see no alternative.\
Audio lo on virtually every piece of avionics is the same as power ground
for that piece of avionics. The pins may be labled gnd, common, signal
ground,
audio ground, audio lo, etc, etc. but if you take an ohmmeter and ring then
out you'll find that they all come together. In the absence of anything
labeled specifically for audio grounding purposes, use power ground AT
the CONNECTOR for that accesssory.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>
> >
> > Bob, sometime ago you wrote:
> >
> > I use .8" spacing for the switches we sell. I've published
> > some exemplar layouts for switch panels at
> >
> > http://216.55.140.222/temp//Switches.pdf
> >
> >
> > I cant get to the referenced page. Is it still around?
> >
> > Thanks, Steve.
> >
>
>Steve,
>Any time you find an IP address like 216.55.140.222, try replacing the
>number by the server name : www.aeroelectric.com, like this
>www.aeroelectric.com/temp//Switches.pdf
The 216 address was our old I.P. address before we moved the
server to friendlier quarters. Gilles is correct in that
replacing any quad IP address in published links with the
domain name will probably work as well. Our byte-
thrashing-wienie fixed something in the server's setup
so that my browser will report a domain name instead
of i.p. address when I capture a document location so
only old instances like the one cited will present
any problems.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
>From: Dave Morris
>What if we did away with the concept of a "Master" switch and just allowed
>each device to have its own switch, as it probably already does
>anyway?
Bob publishes a "Paradigm" that describes an excellent fault-tolerant,
inexpensive system but it probably will not describe the best aeroelectrics
that will be common in some future brilliant airplane.
Of course, we all calculate some balance between wanting the "coolest thing"
and the "most practical" thing. I want to make the "coolest thing" so much
that I have delayed my airplane for several years. Some people just want to
get up into the air.
A precursor of what will come is the published 42 volt automobile electrical
systems. Lots on the web about this. In a few years, homebuilders will go to
42 volts without even pausing at 28 volts. because of the great
advantages----integrated starter-generators, one-wire with a CANbus powers
the whole vehicle. Remote controller modules, Li-Ion batteries. 3-phase
motors. Wow....
Also check the F22 Raptor site (Google Search "Raptor F22 AND F-22 -games").
Huge advances in how to build airplanes.
In the shorter term, LEDs are popping up everywhere, microprocessors, new
materials, relay-less airplanes.....it's a wonderful life!
I encourage you to seriously re-examine Bob's schematic and revise anything
or everything!
Go Dave Go! Let us in on it too--publish a Z-100 schematic for us!
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes less and less
obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no
solids in
the universe. There's not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no
absolute
continuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Geoff Evans <hellothaimassage(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Eyeball cockpit lights |
I recently bought a couple of those eyeball cockpit lights from Vans. They're
advertised as LED lights. They are manufactured by David Hoffman Products,
http://www.cockpitlights.com.
The minimal instructions that came with the lights say, "12-14 volt systems
use direct or with 200 ohm, 4 watt potentiometer (for dimming)."
I'm confused by the "use direct" part, as not using a current-limiting
resistor is sure to smoke the LED. On the other hand, perhaps these lights
aren't LEDs at all. The manufacturer's website doesn't specifically state
that the lights are LEDs, but Vans catalog does.
I sent an email to the manufacturer, but I never received a response.
Has anyone else used these lights? If so, how did you wire them up?
Thanks.
-Geoff
RV-8
__________________________________
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com |
Bob,
Did you get my loadmeter?
Ross Mickey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
| Subject: | Limit Switch Schematic |
Yes, exactly right Dave.
My "use" of the MAC servo (http://www.finleyweb.net/default.asp?id=162)
requires no more than about .5" of travel. There is no lever in my
configuration so the only thing to adjust is how far the servo
pushes/pulls.
I would love to see your circuit. The ability to tailor based on load
sounds super cool!
For those that don't know. A reflexor (raise/lower ailerons together) is
used on tandem wing airplanes for a variety of purposes. Basically, it
is a trim device that raises/lowers the tail in regards to flight
attitude. Some use this for pitch trim, some use it to "position" the
airplane in a "proper" three-point attitude for landing, etc...
Jon Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 461 Hrs. TT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/Q2Subaru
> -->
>
> The reasons is that you might want to limit the travel to a
> smaller region
> than the built-in limit switches.
>
> Jon and Doug, another way of doing this is to use the built-in
> potentiometer and use an external comparator, such as an
> LM339, to detect
> when you have reached the limit you want. In that circuit,
> you will have a
> trim pot to adjust the exact set point, and there will be no
> need to figure
> out how to mount an external limit switch.
>
> For my aileron reflexer, I am considering several different
> set points, for
> pilot-only takeoff, pilot+passenger takeoff, pilot-only cruise,
> pilot+passenger cruise, pilot-only landing, pilot+passenger landing,
> etc. That would not be feasible with limit switches, but
> would be easily
> done by using the internal potentiometer and an external
> window comparator
> and a rotary switch that inserts the correct value of
> resistance to compare
> against. I'm designing the circuit right now, if you think
> you might be
> interested.
>
> Dave Morris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WHigg1170(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Eyeball cockpit lights |
Hello Geoff I just installed the eyeball lights from vans and just hooked
them up to a 1.5 Amp 14 volt dimmer assembly from B&C ($42). My six gauges From
Vans (Volts, Amps, Tach, Oil, Etc.) Are also hooked up to this dimmer and they
all dim together pretty nicely. Unlike the directions I mounted the eyeball
assembly behind the metal so all you see is the eyeball and not the plastic
housing around it. I also had no problems with grinding and drilling new holes
to
fit my application hope this helps good luck.
Bill Higgins
RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Eyeball cockpit lights |
Geoff,
These are incandescent lights. They have a lifespan of 1500 hours, and get
more red if they are dimmed.
Jim Foerster
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Eyeball cockpit lights |
Well first, if they truly are the same as what you linked to, they are
very likely advertised incorrectly, as LED lights should only consume
0.3-0.5 watts (including resistor) instead of the 1.12watts described,
and should last 10s of thousands of hours, not 1500...
Having said that, there are LEDs with integrated resistor that, if the
size is right, could be swapped in for the "grain-of-wheat" (or whatever
incandescent was in there originally) so that they could actually be
used "direct"... do you think it's possible that Van's has a slightly
different model from what you linked to?
-John R.
Geoff Evans wrote:
>
>I recently bought a couple of those eyeball cockpit lights from Vans. They're
>advertised as LED lights. They are manufactured by David Hoffman Products,
>http://www.cockpitlights.com.
>
>The minimal instructions that came with the lights say, "12-14 volt systems
>use direct or with 200 ohm, 4 watt potentiometer (for dimming)."
>
>I'm confused by the "use direct" part, as not using a current-limiting
>resistor is sure to smoke the LED. On the other hand, perhaps these lights
>aren't LEDs at all. The manufacturer's website doesn't specifically state
>that the lights are LEDs, but Vans catalog does.
>
>I sent an email to the manufacturer, but I never received a response.
>
>Has anyone else used these lights? If so, how did you wire them up?
>
>Thanks.
>-Geoff
>RV-8
>
>__________________________________
>Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
>http://companion.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Eyeball cockpit lights |
They are NOT LED's.
However you can punch out the small glass bulb and replace it with an LED. I
did and am very pleased with the result. An external series resistor is
needed for 12V ops as well. Some experimenting can result in a resistor size
that closely matches dimming of the other lights on a common dimmer.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Evans" <hellothaimassage(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Eyeball cockpit lights
>
> I recently bought a couple of those eyeball cockpit lights from Vans.
They're
> advertised as LED lights. They are manufactured by David Hoffman Products,
> http://www.cockpitlights.com.
>
> The minimal instructions that came with the lights say, "12-14 volt
systems
> use direct or with 200 ohm, 4 watt potentiometer (for dimming)."
>
> I'm confused by the "use direct" part, as not using a current-limiting
> resistor is sure to smoke the LED. On the other hand, perhaps these lights
> aren't LEDs at all. The manufacturer's website doesn't specifically state
> that the lights are LEDs, but Vans catalog does.
>
> I sent an email to the manufacturer, but I never received a response.
>
> Has anyone else used these lights? If so, how did you wire them up?
>
> Thanks.
> -Geoff
> RV-8
>
> __________________________________
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Westach engine gauges |
| From: | geoffkim(at)pdq.net |
Bob,
In your seminar at Watsonville you recommend against certain instruments
(brands). I don't remember if Westach was one of them. I'm considering
using Westach gauges with switches for CHT and EGT reading from all
clyinders through one gauge (separately) to save panel space. What do you
think?
Regards,
Geoff Kimbrough
RV-8
Katy, Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RemovingDsubPins |
Thanks Dave, Pat, & Ralph. I expanded the white end of the tool with a tapered
rod and a #44 drill bit and needle nose pliers til it fit around the pin body
and inserted from the wire side. Then pushing from the other side with a #60
drill, out it came. Magic! Little did I know I had to remanufacture the insert/extract
tool!
Examining the pin, I had crimped it but apparently not deeply enough. I put the
wire back in the pin by hand, recrimped, being careful to bottom the crimper
out, & the wire seems firmly embedded now. There seems to be a small range between
the last click of my crimper, which will allow the tool to release, and
the fully bottomed out position, which provides a crimp which is deep enough
to capture #24 wire. Doubling the wire sounds like a good precaution to me.
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Westach engine gauges |
>
>Bob,
>
>In your seminar at Watsonville you recommend against certain instruments
>(brands). I don't remember if Westach was one of them. I'm considering
>using Westach gauges with switches for CHT and EGT reading from all
>clyinders through one gauge (separately) to save panel space. What do you
>think?
>
>Regards,
My warranty return rate for 30 instruments was about 12%. Admittedly,
this was a small sample and perhaps I was victim of a batch
based phenomenon but this was too high a rate for me to consider
extending my relationship with Westach.
Others on the list may have more encouraging experiences to
offer.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Limit Switch Schematic |
>
>The reasons is that you might want to limit the travel to a smaller region
>than the built-in limit switches.
>
>Jon and Doug, another way of doing this is to use the built-in
>potentiometer and use an external comparator, such as an LM339, to detect
>when you have reached the limit you want. In that circuit, you will have a
>trim pot to adjust the exact set point, and there will be no need to figure
>out how to mount an external limit switch.
>
>For my aileron reflexer, I am considering several different set points, for
>pilot-only takeoff, pilot+passenger takeoff, pilot-only cruise,
>pilot+passenger cruise, pilot-only landing, pilot+passenger landing,
>etc. That would not be feasible with limit switches, but would be easily
>done by using the internal potentiometer and an external window comparator
>and a rotary switch that inserts the correct value of resistance to compare
>against. I'm designing the circuit right now, if you think you might be
>interested.
Be cautious with aerodynamic surfaces that can be moved
electrically. I'm working an issue right now on a certified
ship wherein a trim tab will run to a limit any time one of
five different wires in system gets faulted to ground or
three of the five open up. This was a design hurried into
production weeks before certification and not well thought
out with respect to failure mode effects. The wires in question
pass through lots of connectors which increase probability of
malfunction. Fortunately, it doesn't generate a hazardous
condition . . . but I've never met a pilot who enjoyed flying
airplanes with a mind of their own.
Automation of any surface raises issues of comfort and
safety. In the same airplane cited above, an automatic
lift dump system to raise spoilers on landing was
abandoned in favor of a simple handle on the pedestal
that says "PULL FOR LIFT DUMP".
Not trying discourage innovative thinking in
new design . . . that's the stock and trade of every
competent designer. Just make sure that those slick
swim fins don't morph to lead boots just as you're
hitting the water.
Either by analysis or demonstration on the ground, figure
out what will happen when ANY system component becomes open,
shorted or otherwise inoperative. Then deduce how this
event will influence probable outcome of the flight.
Redesign is in order when any deduced behavior promises
more excitement than you would enjoy.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob,
>
>I'm reading and reading and studying and trying to absorb everything.
>
>I keep coming back to the very basic concepts you described in chapter
>17. It seems like Mr. Gomez' problems were
>a) the fact that he did not diagnose the failure of the alternator and pull
>it off the bus, and
>b) by switching off the Master, he was forced to kill essential things such
>as lighting
>
>What if we did away with the concept of a "Master" switch and just allowed
>each device to have its own switch, as it probably already does
>anyway?
The concept of master power switches are driven more by crash safety
issues than for operational reasons. FAR23 speaks to this issue thusly:
------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 23.1361 Master switch arrangement.
(a) There must be a master switch arrangement to allow ready disconnection
of each electric power source from power distribution systems, except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this section. The point of disconnection
must be
adjacent to the sources controlled by the switch arrangement. If separate
switches are incorporated into the master switch arrangement, a means
must be
provided for the switch arrangement to be operated by one hand with a single
movement.
(b) Load circuits may be connected so that they remain energized when the
master switch is open, if the circuits are isolated, or physically shielded,
to prevent their igniting flammable fluids or vapors that might be liberated
by the leakage or rupture of any flammable fluid system; and
(1) The circuits are required for continued operation of the engine; or
(2) The circuits are protected by circuit protective devices with a rating
of five amperes or less adjacent to the electric power source.
(3) In addition, two or more circuits installed in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section must not be used
to supply a
load of more than five amperes.
(c) The master switch or its controls must be so installed that the switch
is easily discernible and accessible to a crewmember.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Starting with Figure 17-2, we could eliminate the battery
>contactor altogether, hook the starter contactor to the battery, have a
>single bus with everything on it, and be able to disconnect the alternator
>in the event of an overvoltage condition.
Opening the DC master should take as much of the system
down as possible/practical and especially "fat" wires that
can fault hundreds of amps during a supreme crunch.
Operationally, the master switch provides a back up for
shutting down the system in the event that a starter
contactor welds. I know of two welding events in Glasairs
wherein the builder wired the starter upstream of
the master contactor. Damage to the batteries was spectacular.
In both cases, the B&C starter survived the event . . .
but it's an situation that should not have happend.
>Then, with an ammeter to monitor total current consumption, in the event of
>an alternator failure, we pull it offline, then start shutting down
>anything not needed at the time, take a look at the total current being
>consumed, divide it into the amp-hour rating of the battery, and know how
>long we can keep flying.
>
>One reason I don't like the idea of an essential bus (or endurance bus) is
>that I keep finding myself determining that virtually everything in my
>small airplane is "essential", or may be so at some point.
"Some point" is where you're stuck. The issue is not
criticality but endurance by maximizing utilization of
your scarce resource - energy stored in the battery.
The amount of hardware needed to continue comfortable
flight at altitude cruise can be VERY low in power
consumption. If you have a system used in a manner
that makes battery only back up of an alternator
problematical, then a second alternator is in order.
The goal is to deign a system that contains NO critical
components . . . i.e. every thing you need can be
done with two systems therefore no single system is
critical.
> If I have a
>pitch trim using a servo, and I keep trying to adjust trim and nothing
>happens because I forgot that it's not on the e-bus and I've gotta flip the
>E-feed switch before I can operate the trim, then that's just another thing
>to have to remember.
If you've lost engine driven power generation then the goal
is to get to a point of having a clearance to land. Then
you can re-close the battery master and run any accessory
that makes your arrival more comfortable knowing that if
the battery gives up before the wheels touch, it doesn't
matter.
>In a car, you have a key switch that turns everything on. But you also
>have a separate light switch, radio switch, window switches, lock switches,
>heater switch, etc. etc., so what does that key switch really do except act
>as another single point of failure and also control the ignition? Isn't
>the small experimental aircraft in much the same situation? Couldn't we
>make the whole thing even simpler and thus even more fault-tolerant?
Think ENDURANCE with only those things operating that
let you use fuel aboard as a limit for time aloft.
If I have an alternator failure on a rental airplane,
I'd shut down everything. My hand-helds are already primary
navigation and can easily provide back up communications.
Soooo . . . when I'm on short final, I've got 100% of
whatever the battery had left when the failure happened.
I can reasonably expect flaps, gear and landing lights
to be no big deal. I have to treat a rental this way
because (1) there is no provision for maximizing
electrical endurance and (2) I have no first hand
knowledge of the airplane's battery capacity. You guys
flying OBAM machines got it Soooooooo much better.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> switch... |
| Subject: | Re: Need (wierd) Illuminated Push on-off |
switch...
switch...
>
>I need a source for an industrial application, switch....
>
>Push On=Push-Off....
>
>BUT.... It illuminates when in the OFF position and non illuminated when in
>the ON position...
My first suggestion would be Microswitch AML series pushbuttons
that are illuminated. Since the lamps and switches are independently
wired, you can make the light do whatever you want in response to
operation of the switch.
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/Microswitch_AML.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rocker Switches |
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Do you know where a person can get 2 and 3 position
>rocker switches? I was looking for the kind with an
>LED built in to use as a fuse blown indicator.
>
>Thanks, Tom
Few manufacturers supply the full range of switching
functions in rockers. Microswitch is one. Here's
an exemplar switch with functions like our 2-10 toggle
switch:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/2tp12-10.pdf
You can get clear and translucent operators that
can be engraved and illuminated from the rear. These
are popular with Lancair and Glasair builders.
Expect to pay quite a bit for these and to have to
special order some functions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Personal adaptation of Z-13 |
>
>
>After a couple months of reading Bob's book, researching the archives, and
>posting lots of questions, I would like to believe I finally have a pretty
>good understanding of how Z-13 works. (I am a slow learner & may be proven
>wrong shortly, but I am willing to take a chance). In addition, I am
>convinced Z-13 is a tried and proven system that would indeed meet my needs.
>Before I finalize things and start ordering parts, I would like to bounce a
>personal adaptation of Z-13 off of Bob and fellow system designers. I am
>not suggesting Z-13 be changed! Please look at my idea with an open mind
>then let me know why it is a bad idea. Thank you!
>
> My setup: RV7A, with firewall mounted 16AH battery, battery
> contactor, &
>starter contactor; Dual LASAR w/dual mag backup; All electric 6-pack;
>Full IFR stack ACS 2002 engine monitor; Trutrak autopilot;
>Total load with everything on would be around 50A. Endurance items would be
>limited to 8A. (Handheld GPS & transceiver.)
>
>MY ADAPTATION
>1) Eliminate the main bus & E bus, & tie everything into the battery bus.
>
>2) Relocate the main alt B lead to the battery side of the contactor.
>
>3) Switch those items that do not come with built in switches or are not
>normally switched. In my case this would include: ILS indicator; encoder;
>LASAR; artificial horizon; DG; & turn coordinator.
>
>4) Layout the switches in color coded groups all in one row in a subpanel
>below the main panel. Highest priority (endurance) switches would start at
>the left end & would be red. The next group could be green for normally on
>but non-essential, followed by white for normally off, such as lights. Etc,
>etc.
>
>ADVANTAGES
> Fewer busses (fuse panels) to deal with
> Avoids loss of partial panel due to battery contactor failure
> --battery
>contactor would serve only during starting & would be shut off after start
>in case of a stuck starter contactor, and to reduce system draw by about 1A.
> Provides greater flexibility in backup alternator mode by being
> able to
>swap an endurance item for a main bus item or use a main bus item
>intermittently without losing 1A to the contactor. For example, upon main
>alt failure, I could off everything but the endurance items, switch on the
>SD-8 & monitor the ACS 2002 amp & volt meters to confirm all is well. I
>could then trade off devices if desired, like turn off the transponder and
>turn on the autopilot, etc., while monitoring voltage.
>
>
>DISADVANTAGES
> More time to off non-essentials than with one master switch.
> Battery could be drained if a single device is left on by mistake
> after
>shutdown. This would force me to always turn off each device at shutdown as
>recommended, instead of relying on the master switch. (Would have the side
>benefit of making sure avionics switch contacts get wiped clean by use)
>
>Ok, that's it in a nutshell. Let er rip! Thank you.
The DC power master switch isn't a convenience issue but one
of crash safety. I quoted a piece of FAR23 dealing with DC
power master switches in another reply earlier this evening.
If you don't find this feature to be a driving issue with
your project, then you're certainly free to wire it as you
see fit.
It's useful to consider both questions about inclusion
of a component (1) what purpose does it serve when included
and (2) what are the consequences/hazards induced if we eliminate
it with some new system architecture?
Most OBAM aircraft builders tend to concentrate on convenience
and what-if scenarios that arise from multiple failures. This
is a very common "trap" that catches experienced designers too.
Had a very expensive situation arise on a program earlier this
year where a presumed capability big-name US company was hired
to clone a hydraulic part of foreign manufacturer.
The original part worked well but given that the end use was
US military, we were obligated to make sure that all critical
components could be supplied by US manufacturers. The engineers
deleted certain features of the part because they did not
take time to fully deduce the reason they were included in
the original design.
The result was a string of expensive and embarrassing
failures to a part that should have been a no-brainer. Again,
please don't take this as any discouragement of innovation.
But please keep in mind that the most successful systems
evolved from incremental changes to a system with
much field history and understanding.
I get a lot of requests (several every week) to evaluate
a proposed system where the egg-beater has been liberally
applied to some existing system. Doing a well considered
FMEA and operational evaluation is sorta like a game
of chess. It takes some time to deduce all the new
combinations of situations. A few weeks ago, someone
published a power distribution diagram for the Cirrus.
I've not responded to it yet but I plan to. I have to
sift through it, think about it for awhile and then
come back later and see if I agree with the previous
thinking. The Z-figures have evolved in fits and starts
over 16 years of publishing the 'Connection.
So please don't feel snubbed if I don't jump up and
cheer to the first playing of new music . . . the
thought processes needed to sort out all the pieces
are not something that can quickly produce good data and
considered advice. Any lack of response is not
an sign of disapproval so much as a reluctance
to comment before I believe I understand the basis
upon which my encouragement/discouragement must stand.
Given the time I have to spend on these activities
the vast majority of egg-beater whipped systems
are simply not commented upon.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
>
>11/21/2003
>
>Hello Jim Sower, I am sorry that I cannot cut and paste your posting to the
>list regarding alternative replacements for magnetos. It would make for a
>more
>effective response, but somebody turned a significant portion of the Digest
>blue making it impossible to cut and paste.
>
>I agree that magneto ignition comes from farm tractors back in the 1930's and
>earlier and that better stuff should be available. And it almost is. But not
>to the point that it makes sense yet to order your engine without magnetos in
>order to put in two of the none certified versions that you mentioned.
>Probably makes more sense to do what Bob Nuckolls suggests, which is to
>order your
>engine with magnetos, replace one of the magnetos with some form of
>electronic
>ignition, and when the magneto in use wears out, use the one set aside
>until it
>wears out. Then go full dual electronic ignition.
>
>But electronic ignition is a long ways from being just "pull out the magneto,
>stick in the electronic unit (for a mere $800) and fly on your merry way".
>I guess if I had to characterize electronic ignition right now I'd have to
>say "We ain't quite there yet."
I'm not sure I share the pessimism I sense here. Both Lightspeed
and ElectroAir have long and successful field histories in OBAM
aircraft. Both systems have evolved as the designers have seen
fit in response to perceptions of need for increasing the value
of a product. Contrast this with a certified LASAR system that
will be updated only when the need justifies re-certification
to the tune of $100,000-and-up stacks of paper thrashing.
I perceive no risks (greater than staying with mags) for going
total electronic ignition from either of the popular suppliers
cited. The only reason I suggest using up one's magnetos
is because you generally cannot get $1500 credit for leaving
the mags off a new engine. Further, 90% of engine performance
improvement comes with installation of the first electronic
ignition. Using up the resources you've already paid for seems
to make economic sense.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | klehman(at)albedo.net |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
I don't think the 20 amp PM alternator is 3 phase as there are only two
wires coming out of it and there are no diodes in the alternator.
Ken
>Was gone most of day. Had msg on ans mach when returned 8:30pm tonight.
?Here's the info my local John Deere dealer's Service Manager passed on
to me
>as what the factory expert told him in response to his request that they
>tell how the regulators work for the 20, 35, 55, & 85 PM Alternators -(he
>took a copy of the pdg doc/table I sent to you and used that in his
query to
>Deere):
> "The alternators are 3 phase and use diodes mounted on a plate.
> "The regulator(s) [are/use?] "pass transisor[s?]. For every 10
degree C
>rise in temp, [they?] lose 10% efficiency until reach 120 deg C - which
destroys alternator. (?)"
> "The regulators are neither "shunt" type nor "bridge rectifier" type."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> I perceive no risks (greater than staying with mags) for going
> total electronic ignition from either of the popular suppliers
> cited. The only reason I suggest using up one's magnetos
Hi Bob,
I've heard that some props are not okay to use
with electronic ignition due to the harmonic vibrations
being different than with mags. Know anything about this?
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill Thayer School of Engineering
ThUG Sr. Unix Systems Administrator 8000 Cummings Hall
deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu - N1JOV Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
"On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section,
it said 'Requires Windows 95 or better'. So I installed Linux." -Anonymous
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
<... Which of the electronic ignition systems did you choose, and what was your
total cost
for implementation ...>
I got Electroair in summer of '99. Jeff Rose is great to work with. I put it
on my O-235
Long Ez. Paid something over $600 (memory vague on that) and put it on myself.
Took a
couple of hours to mount the coils, etc. Unit popped right in the hole the mag
occupied.
that was it. Worked GREAT right from the git-go. Broke the airplane later (nothing
to do
with engine/ignition) and haven't fixed it yet, so I only got about 100 hrs on
it, but I
loved it. I used to have to idle engine at around 800-900 rpm to have any assurance
it
would not quit. EI made it idle smooth as silk at 500 rpm. Ignition was so good
that on
mag check, there was no drop at all if I turned off mag, but big drop (maybe 100
rpm) when
EI turned off. Over 100 rpm increase in static rpm (for takeoff). Several others
have
reported improved fuel consumption on the order of 10%. I couldn't validate since
I had no
fuel flow instrumentation, but ALL those who did reported improvements of at least
5% and
one very knowledgeable Cozy builder reported 10% lower fuel burn. Plugs cost two
bucks.
Combustion very significantly improved (for other reasons besides proper timing).
<... I've read that some props aren't a good match for an EI due to the different
harmonic
vibrations with the EI versus the mag ignition ...>
News to me. I've never heard anything like that at all. Can't imagine how improved
combustion would cause vibration. Of course Lycs by their nature shake and rattle
so hell
wouldn't have it - but to lay that problem at the door of the only technological
improvement those engines have seen since 1933 is a bit of a stretch IMO. No offense,
but
I'll need some documentation on that one.
One could argue that I'm a true believer :o) ... Jim S.
Dj Merrill wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Jim Sower wrote:
>
> >
> > <... order your engine with magnetos, replace one of the magnetos with some
form of
> > electronic
> > ignition, and when the magneto in use wears out, use the one set aside ...>
> > That's exactly what I did. My engine came at me with mags, I replaced one,
the other
> > as a spare.
>
> Hi Jim,
> I probably missed it in an earlier post.
> Which of the electronic ignition systems did you choose, and
> what was your total cost for implementation?
> How many hours do you have on the EI?
> I have a Lycoming O320 in a Glasair 1FT, and am thinking of doing the
> same thing (one mag, one EI).
>
> I've read that some props aren't a good match
> for an EI due to the different harmonic vibrations
> with the EI versus the mag ignition. Do you have
> any insight on this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Morris <dave(at)davemorris.com> |
Bob,
I know it's gotta be painful to have to keep re-hashing concepts over and
over with us newbies. Thanks so much for the time you spend teaching us!
Dave
>
>
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >I'm reading and reading and studying and trying to absorb everything.
> >
> >I keep coming back to the very basic concepts you described in chapter
> >17. It seems like Mr. Gomez' problems were
> >a) the fact that he did not diagnose the failure of the alternator and pull
> >it off the bus, and
> >b) by switching off the Master, he was forced to kill essential things such
> >as lighting
> >
> >What if we did away with the concept of a "Master" switch and just allowed
> >each device to have its own switch, as it probably already does
> >anyway?
>
> The concept of master power switches are driven more by crash safety
> issues than for operational reasons. FAR23 speaks to this issue thusly:
>------------------------------------------------------
> Sec. 23.1361 Master switch arrangement.
>
>(a) There must be a master switch arrangement to allow ready disconnection
> of each electric power source from power distribution systems, except as
> provided in paragraph (b) of this section. The point of disconnection
>must be
> adjacent to the sources controlled by the switch arrangement. If separate
> switches are incorporated into the master switch arrangement, a means
>must be
> provided for the switch arrangement to be operated by one hand with a
> single
> movement.
>(b) Load circuits may be connected so that they remain energized when the
> master switch is open, if the circuits are isolated, or physically
> shielded,
> to prevent their igniting flammable fluids or vapors that might be
> liberated
> by the leakage or rupture of any flammable fluid system; and
> (1) The circuits are required for continued operation of the engine; or
> (2) The circuits are protected by circuit protective devices with a
> rating
> of five amperes or less adjacent to the electric power source.
> (3) In addition, two or more circuits installed in accordance with the
> requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section must not be used
>to supply a
> load of more than five amperes.
>(c) The master switch or its controls must be so installed that the switch
> is easily discernible and accessible to a crewmember.
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > Starting with Figure 17-2, we could eliminate the battery
> >contactor altogether, hook the starter contactor to the battery, have a
> >single bus with everything on it, and be able to disconnect the alternator
> >in the event of an overvoltage condition.
>
> Opening the DC master should take as much of the system
> down as possible/practical and especially "fat" wires that
> can fault hundreds of amps during a supreme crunch.
>
> Operationally, the master switch provides a back up for
> shutting down the system in the event that a starter
> contactor welds. I know of two welding events in Glasairs
> wherein the builder wired the starter upstream of
> the master contactor. Damage to the batteries was spectacular.
> In both cases, the B&C starter survived the event . . .
> but it's an situation that should not have happend.
>
>
> >Then, with an ammeter to monitor total current consumption, in the event of
> >an alternator failure, we pull it offline, then start shutting down
> >anything not needed at the time, take a look at the total current being
> >consumed, divide it into the amp-hour rating of the battery, and know how
> >long we can keep flying.
> >
> >One reason I don't like the idea of an essential bus (or endurance bus) is
> >that I keep finding myself determining that virtually everything in my
> >small airplane is "essential", or may be so at some point.
>
> "Some point" is where you're stuck. The issue is not
> criticality but endurance by maximizing utilization of
> your scarce resource - energy stored in the battery.
> The amount of hardware needed to continue comfortable
> flight at altitude cruise can be VERY low in power
> consumption. If you have a system used in a manner
> that makes battery only back up of an alternator
> problematical, then a second alternator is in order.
> The goal is to deign a system that contains NO critical
> components . . . i.e. every thing you need can be
> done with two systems therefore no single system is
> critical.
>
> > If I have a
> >pitch trim using a servo, and I keep trying to adjust trim and nothing
> >happens because I forgot that it's not on the e-bus and I've gotta flip the
> >E-feed switch before I can operate the trim, then that's just another thing
> >to have to remember.
>
> If you've lost engine driven power generation then the goal
> is to get to a point of having a clearance to land. Then
> you can re-close the battery master and run any accessory
> that makes your arrival more comfortable knowing that if
> the battery gives up before the wheels touch, it doesn't
> matter.
>
>
> >In a car, you have a key switch that turns everything on. But you also
> >have a separate light switch, radio switch, window switches, lock switches,
> >heater switch, etc. etc., so what does that key switch really do except act
> >as another single point of failure and also control the ignition? Isn't
> >the small experimental aircraft in much the same situation? Couldn't we
> >make the whole thing even simpler and thus even more fault-tolerant?
>
> Think ENDURANCE with only those things operating that
> let you use fuel aboard as a limit for time aloft.
> If I have an alternator failure on a rental airplane,
> I'd shut down everything. My hand-helds are already primary
> navigation and can easily provide back up communications.
> Soooo . . . when I'm on short final, I've got 100% of
> whatever the battery had left when the failure happened.
> I can reasonably expect flaps, gear and landing lights
> to be no big deal. I have to treat a rental this way
> because (1) there is no provision for maximizing
> electrical endurance and (2) I have no first hand
> knowledge of the airplane's battery capacity. You guys
> flying OBAM machines got it Soooooooo much better.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Morris <dave(at)davemorris.com> |
| Subject: | RG Battery source |
> levels. You can buy 17 a.h. RG batteries for as low as $45 over
> the counter. In spite of weight penalty (15# battery versus 4#
Where?
Thanks,
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BTomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Need (wierd) Illuminated Push on-off switch... |
NKK LB series are SPDT and DPDT snap acting, momentary or alternating
action and are illuminated with LED's for long life. I see them at
www.digikey.com
Bevan
RV7A slowbuild
On Friday, November 21, 2003 3:46 PM, N27160(at)aol.com [SMTP:N27160(at)aol.com]
wrote:
>
> I need a source for an industrial application, switch....
>
> Push On=Push-Off....
>
> BUT.... It illuminates when in the OFF position and non illuminated when
in
> the ON position...
>
>
> _->
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Future replacement for Rotax |
Tomorrow I'll personally review what Deere sent the dealer and see if I can
clarify the situation.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Future replacement for Rotax
>
> I don't think the 20 amp PM alternator is 3 phase as there are only two
> wires coming out of it and there are no diodes in the alternator.
> Ken
> >Was gone most of day. Had msg on ans mach when returned 8:30pm tonight.
> ?Here's the info my local John Deere dealer's Service Manager passed on
> to me
> >as what the factory expert told him in response to his request that they
> >tell how the regulators work for the 20, 35, 55, & 85 PM
Alternators -(he
> >took a copy of the pdg doc/table I sent to you and used that in his
> query to Deere):
> > "The alternators are 3 phase and use diodes mounted on a plate.
> > "The regulator(s) [are/use?] "pass transisor[s?]. For every 10
> > degree C rise in temp, [they?] lose 10% efficiency until reach 120 deg
C - which
> > destroys alternator. (?)"
> > "The regulators are neither "shunt" type nor "bridge rectifier"
type."
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RG Battery source |
I get my batteries from www.batteryweb.com Good customer service, good
prices, good selection and prompt shipment.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
www.berkut13.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Morris" <dave(at)davemorris.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG Battery source
>
>
> > levels. You can buy 17 a.h. RG batteries for as low as $45 over
> > the counter. In spite of weight penalty (15# battery versus 4#
>
> Where?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
Dj,
It is not that they are "not okay to use" but that there are LIMITATIONS on
their use.
Particularly, the Hartzell Constant Speed props have RPM "do not exceed"
RPMs and "do not dwell long in this zone" RPMs. Basically one must reduce
RPM to under 2700 (say about 2600) after take-off and therre are some
RPM/manifold pressure combinations down lower in the power cover where one
is to avoid continuous operation. In reality these "limitations" are not a
big deal in that they are in areas where you would not likely have the power
set for very long anyway.
There is a HARD STOP required for the top RPM (I don't remember the exact
number at the moment but say 2750).
The logic (simply put) is that the pulses you get using EI cause a DIFFERENT
burn and thus a different "ping" on the engine (probably a sharper bigger
bang (??) and thus the improvement in performance). This all in turn causes
the prop to resonate at a DIFFERENT harmonic. Hit the right harmonic ON
ANYTHING and it shakes apart!! The harmonic in this case is something like
8th order as I recall(I could be wrong) but still, if they think there is
the LEAST BIT OF A CHANCE that you could break that thing swing out front,
they are going to warn against and rightfully so.
There are propos that are made of different material (wood, composites, etc)
that don't resonate like metal and this the circumstances are different.
Also, I mentioned the Hartzell but the Sensenich has a similar issue on the
metal prop that goes with the O-320 I think.
Summary from my view ... don't sweat it.
James
O-320/ElectroAir EI with wood Ed Sterba being flown
O-360/Plasma II+ EI with Hatzell C/S being built
O-360/Plasma II EI with Hartzell C/S ... passenger to OSH in 2002
<<>>
> Hi Bob,
> I've heard that some props are not okay to use
> with electronic ignition due to the harmonic vibrations
> being different than with mags. Know anything about this?
>
> -Dj
>
> --
> Dj Merrill Thayer School of Engineering
> ThUG Sr. Unix Systems Administrator 8000 Cummings Hall
> deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu - N1JOV Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
>
> "On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section,
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RG Battery source |
Try www.digikey.com. Cost was less than $50 which included shipping and
handling. Panasonic was brand name I got. Not flying yet but it works
great on the bench and fits into Vans PC680 firewall mount battery box.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip-up TMX-O-360 ACS2002 Dynon CNS430 Digitrak
On Finish Kit
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Morris" <dave(at)davemorris.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG Battery source
>
>
> > levels. You can buy 17 a.h. RG batteries for as low as $45 over
> > the counter. In spite of weight penalty (15# battery versus 4#
>
> Where?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob,
>
>I know it's gotta be painful to have to keep re-hashing concepts over and
>over with us newbies. Thanks so much for the time you spend teaching us!
>
>Dave
Not at all. If I were employed by a university or other formal
education institution, I'd get a new class every semester. I do
multiple weekend seminars every year that all begin at the same
place. If one aspires to the title there are duties that come with
it. It's not a problem.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
<... have RPM "do not exceed" RPMs and "do not dwell long in this zone" RPMs ...
HARD
STOP required for the top RPM ...>
What do these have to do with EI?
<... The logic (simply put) is that the pulses you get using EI cause a DIFFERENT
burn
and thus a different "ping" on the engine (probably a sharper bigger bang (??)
and thus
the improvement in performance) ...>
This statement is based on ... what?? Engineering research or brain fart? Or
what?
<... (probably a sharper bigger bang (??) ...>
I know that EI provides MUCH more optimum spark timing for rpm than mags (around
35-40
deg as compared with mags which are bolted on at 25 deg or so) and that CD is a
much
higher quality and more reliable spark (and therefore better flame front) than
mags
produce. Advanced timing starts combustion early enough that you get full benefit
of
the power stroke and don't dump still-trying-to-work combustion gasses over the
side
(think improved fuel efficiency and exhaust valve life).
<... Hit the right harmonic ON ANYTHING and it shakes apart!! ...>
Agreed. Harmonics can be devastating. That said, what is the credible (key word
here)
evidence that replacing 1930s technology mags with a device that provides much
higher
quality ignition at optimum timing is going to cause these harmonics? No offense,
but
I'm going to need specific documentation on this one.
I'm reluctant to get real shrill absent credible engineering to back up the rumors
...
Jim S.
"James E. Clark" wrote:
>
> Dj,
>
> It is not that they are "not okay to use" but that there are LIMITATIONS on
> their use.
>
> Particularly, the Hartzell Constant Speed props have RPM "do not exceed"
> RPMs and "do not dwell long in this zone" RPMs. Basically one must reduce
> RPM to under 2700 (say about 2600) after take-off and therre are some
> RPM/manifold pressure combinations down lower in the power cover where one
> is to avoid continuous operation. In reality these "limitations" are not a
> big deal in that they are in areas where you would not likely have the power
> set for very long anyway.
>
> There is a HARD STOP required for the top RPM (I don't remember the exact
> number at the moment but say 2750).
>
> The logic (simply put) is that the pulses you get using EI cause a DIFFERENT
> burn and thus a different "ping" on the engine (probably a sharper bigger
> bang (??) and thus the improvement in performance). This all in turn causes
> the prop to resonate at a DIFFERENT harmonic. Hit the right harmonic ON
> ANYTHING and it shakes apart!! The harmonic in this case is something like
> 8th order as I recall(I could be wrong) but still, if they think there is
> the LEAST BIT OF A CHANCE that you could break that thing swing out front,
> they are going to warn against and rightfully so.
>
> There are propos that are made of different material (wood, composites, etc)
> that don't resonate like metal and this the circumstances are different.
>
> Also, I mentioned the Hartzell but the Sensenich has a similar issue on the
> metal prop that goes with the O-320 I think.
>
> Summary from my view ... don't sweat it.
>
> James
> O-320/ElectroAir EI with wood Ed Sterba being flown
> O-360/Plasma II+ EI with Hatzell C/S being built
> O-360/Plasma II EI with Hartzell C/S ... passenger to OSH in 2002
>
> <<>>
> > Hi Bob,
> > I've heard that some props are not okay to use
> > with electronic ignition due to the harmonic vibrations
> > being different than with mags. Know anything about this?
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Caruthers <tomcaruthers(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
Dear Jim,
Hartzell Propeller wrote the following to Van's
Aircraft about this subject. This is part of the
letter.
"Propeller vibration characteristics and stress
amplitudes on a reciprocating engine installation are
primarily mechanically generated by the engine. Any
modification to the standard engine
configuration to include high compression pistons,
electronic ignition, FADEC, tuned induction
and exhaust, and turbocharging or turbonormalizing
have the potential to adversely effect the
propeller vibration characteristics and stress
amplitudes. Hartzell Propeller, therefore, does not
endorse any such engine modification unless the
specific engine and propeller configurations
have been tested and found to be vibrationally
acceptable according to FAR 23.907."
As a builder of an experimental aircraft, you are free
to make your own decision. I will not take the chance
by ignoring the propeller manufacturer's advise. Does
this mean I will not install electronic ignition? NO!
What this means is that I will follow their
recommendations about the operation of an engine so
equipped.
Just my opinion.
Tom
--- Jim Sower wrote:
>
>
> <... have RPM "do not exceed" RPMs and "do not dwell
> long in this zone" RPMs ... HARD
> STOP required for the top RPM ...>
> What do these have to do with EI?
>
> <... The logic (simply put) is that the pulses you
> get using EI cause a DIFFERENT burn
> and thus a different "ping" on the engine (probably
> a sharper bigger bang (??) and thus
> the improvement in performance) ...>
> This statement is based on ... what?? Engineering
> research or brain fart? Or what?
>
> <... (probably a sharper bigger bang (??) ...>
> I know that EI provides MUCH more optimum spark
> timing for rpm than mags (around 35-40
> deg as compared with mags which are bolted on at 25
> deg or so) and that CD is a much
> higher quality and more reliable spark (and
> therefore better flame front) than mags
> produce. Advanced timing starts combustion early
> enough that you get full benefit of
> the power stroke and don't dump still-trying-to-work
> combustion gasses over the side
> (think improved fuel efficiency and exhaust valve
> life).
>
> <... Hit the right harmonic ON ANYTHING and it
> shakes apart!! ...>
> Agreed. Harmonics can be devastating. That said,
> what is the credible (key word here)
> evidence that replacing 1930s technology mags with a
> device that provides much higher
> quality ignition at optimum timing is going to cause
> these harmonics? No offense, but
> I'm going to need specific documentation on this
> one.
>
> I'm reluctant to get real shrill absent credible
> engineering to back up the rumors ...
> Jim S.
>
> "James E. Clark" wrote:
>
> Clark"
> >
> > Dj,
> >
> > It is not that they are "not okay to use" but that
> there are LIMITATIONS on
> > their use.
> >
> > Particularly, the Hartzell Constant Speed props
> have RPM "do not exceed"
> > RPMs and "do not dwell long in this zone" RPMs.
> Basically one must reduce
> > RPM to under 2700 (say about 2600) after take-off
> and therre are some
> > RPM/manifold pressure combinations down lower in
> the power cover where one
> > is to avoid continuous operation. In reality these
> "limitations" are not a
> > big deal in that they are in areas where you would
> not likely have the power
> > set for very long anyway.
> >
> > There is a HARD STOP required for the top RPM (I
> don't remember the exact
> > number at the moment but say 2750).
> >
> > The logic (simply put) is that the pulses you get
> using EI cause a DIFFERENT
> > burn and thus a different "ping" on the engine
> (probably a sharper bigger
> > bang (??) and thus the improvement in
> performance). This all in turn causes
> > the prop to resonate at a DIFFERENT harmonic. Hit
> the right harmonic ON
> > ANYTHING and it shakes apart!! The harmonic in
> this case is something like
> > 8th order as I recall(I could be wrong) but still,
> if they think there is
> > the LEAST BIT OF A CHANCE that you could break
> that thing swing out front,
> > they are going to warn against and rightfully so.
> >
> > There are propos that are made of different
> material (wood, composites, etc)
> > that don't resonate like metal and this the
> circumstances are different.
> >
> > Also, I mentioned the Hartzell but the Sensenich
> has a similar issue on the
> > metal prop that goes with the O-320 I think.
> >
> > Summary from my view ... don't sweat it.
> >
> > James
> > O-320/ElectroAir EI with wood Ed Sterba being
> flown
> > O-360/Plasma II+ EI with Hatzell C/S being built
> > O-360/Plasma II EI with Hartzell C/S ... passenger
> to OSH in 2002
> >
> > <<>>
> > > Hi Bob,
> > > I've heard that some props are not okay
> to use
> > > with electronic ignition due to the harmonic
> vibrations
> > > being different than with mags. Know anything
> about this?
> > >
>
>
>
> Click on the
> this
> generous
> _->
> -
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/chat
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
<... Any modification to the standard engine configuration to include high
compression pistons, electronic ignition, FADEC, tuned induction and exhaust, and
turbocharging or turbonormalizing have the potential to adversely effect the
propeller vibration characteristics and stress amplitudes ...>
That pretty well covers the ground. Any departure from seventy-year-old technology
has the potential to adversely effect Hartzel props.
<... I will follow their
recommendations about the operation of an engine so equipped ...>
Which might be?....
No specifics so far. Just a sweeping, unsupported generalities. For my own part,
I regard that statement much less as a caution against the developments listed
than
a compelling reason to stay away from Hartzell props and not expose myself (or
my
airplane or my family) to what appears to be their singularly hidebound approach
to
engineering..
But that's just me ... Jim S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | EI and Prop Vib was: Magneto Replacement |
| From: | "Treff, Arthur" <Arthur.Treff(at)Smartm.com> |
<... I've read that some props aren't a good match for an EI due to the different
harmonic
vibrations with the EI versus the mag ignition ...>
Then Jim Wrote:
News to me. I've never heard anything like that at all. Can't imagine how improved
combustion would cause vibration. Of course Lycs by their nature shake and rattle
so hell
wouldn't have it - but to lay that problem at the door of the only technological
improvement those engines have seen since 1933 is a bit of a stretch IMO. No offense,
but
I'll need some documentation on that one.
One could argue that I'm a true believer :o) ... Jim S.
All,
Seems that with the advent of FADEC and Electronic Ignition, the old Lyc's are
putting out more power. This has resulted in different propellor resonances which
seem to have arisen due to more effective engine combustion, i.e., each cylinder's
'bang' is a tad more powerful. Hartzell and a few of the composite prop
guys are re-thinking their continuous operating RPM ranges and resonant 'cautionary
zones' to limit constant operation on engines equipped with EI and/or
FADEC, and this is starting to gain momentum in terms of documentation. For
example, go to this link on the Van's Aircraft website on engine and prop combinations,
note the blue ** next to the Hartzell CS prop and all the disclaimers
re: FADEC and EI in the footnotes. The prop people seem to be scrambling to
limit their liability exposure until they can test these combinations on Lyc's.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1069617493-298-15&browse=props&product=csprop-hartzell
When my mags go south, I too will be adding EI, however my prop decision today
will weigh heavily on how well the manufacturer stands behind the configuration
of my engine in the future. Based on what I know today, it'll probably not
be a Hartzell.
Not a reason to sweat, and certainly not a reason to stay away from Electronic
Ignition, just something to be informed about. Remember, the props of today were
designed and tested to be driven by the engines of yesterday, and EI is a
(relatively) new iteration for our aircraft engines which were designed over 50
years ago. It's just the normal growing pains aviation is going thru. I'd
be willing to bet that all this hoopla around eng/prop/FADEC/EI combinations will
die down within a few years, once Hartzell catches up to the groundswell.
Heck, they make racing props for really tricked out ships at Reno, and I believe
that they've spun more than a few custom blades for guys like Bruce Bohannon,
so they'll get there eventually.
Art Treff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jimk36(at)comcast.net> |
Hi Bob--
At the risk of demonstrating that I'm the only dummy on the list that doesn't know
the score [anyone want to go Snipe hunting?], please explain what OBAM stands
for. I've thought of a couple of possibilities, none of which make sense or
are appropriate for a family setting. Please get me out of the quandry.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ageless Wings" <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
Hi, Jim..
>>please explain what OBAM stands for<<
No problem..I'm 60 years old, it was a new one to me, too, and only find out
myself this year!
Owner Built And Maintained!
Harley
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>> jimk36(at)comcast.net
>> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 3:51 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Acronyms
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Bob--
>>
>> At the risk of demonstrating that I'm the only dummy on the list
>> that doesn't know the score [anyone want to go Snipe hunting?],
>> please explain what OBAM stands for. I've thought of a couple of
>> possibilities, none of which make sense or are appropriate for a
>> family setting. Please get me out of the quandry.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> =========
>> =========
>> =========
>> =========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neville Kilford" <nkilford(at)etravel.org> |
Jim,
Don't feel that way, everyone who has anything to do with aviation wanders
around wondering what the latest bunch of acronyms might mean.
OBAM -- owner-built and maintained.
FWIW, it wasn't a term I'd heard until I joined this list.
Cheers.
Nev
--
Jodel D150 in progress
UK
----- Original Message -----
From: <jimk36(at)comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Acronyms
>
> Hi Bob--
>
> At the risk of demonstrating that I'm the only dummy on the list that
doesn't know the score [anyone want to go Snipe hunting?], please explain
what OBAM stands for. I've thought of a couple of possibilities, none of
which make sense or are appropriate for a family setting. Please get me out
of the quandry.
>
> Jim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
> I've heard that some props are not okay to use
> with electronic ignition due to the harmonic vibrations
> being different than with mags. Know anything about this?
>
>It is not that they are "not okay to use" but that there are LIMITATIONS on
>their use.
>
>Particularly, the Hartzell Constant Speed props have RPM "do not exceed"
>RPMs and "do not dwell long in this zone" RPMs. Basically one must reduce
>RPM to under 2700 (say about 2600) after take-off and therre are some
>RPM/manifold pressure combinations down lower in the power cover where one
>is to avoid continuous operation. In reality these "limitations" are not a
>big deal in that they are in areas where you would not likely have the power
>set for very long anyway.
>
>There is a HARD STOP required for the top RPM (I don't remember the exact
>number at the moment but say 2750).
There's a lot of bits and pieces of fact floating around
getting assembled into almost useful information. Let's
back off and look at the details. A power delivery system
that will convert .25# of fuel into 1 h.p. at the prop tips
for one hour is a VERY complex assembly of ideas. No single
which they are applied are boundless in number.
It's a simple-idea that materials have limitations on
ultimate strength as well as service life based on
number and amplitude of stress cycles. It's also a simple-
(springy) connection can exhibit characteristics of
resonance . . . a tuned response to the input of cyclical
forces.
I got some very lucid and lasting learning experiences
the first time I put one of my designs on a shake table
and subjected it to 10g of cyclical acceleration over
the range of 30 to 2000 Hz. As the shake table's force
frequency swept over the test range, there were short
intervals of audible and measurable response from within
my gizmo. I was told to make note of those frequencies
and dwell upon each one for a period of time. This was
-IN ADDITION- to the fact that my gizmo was driven with
10g sweeps over the entire range for 15 minutes on each
of three orthogonal axes.
The first few times I did this test, it wasn't uncommon
to find that my gizmo rattled after the test. Opening
the can would allow one or more pieces to fall
out on the workbench. It took several years before
I leaned what NOT to do in order to make my products last
through the test. Explorations with accelerometers attached
to the test article would often highlight spikes
of acceleration levels at resonance for as much as
10 times the exciting force of 10g. Parts that existed
happily on the board while subject to ordinary handling
readily launched into space when forces equal to 10x the
weight of the part were applied many times per second.
Piston power plants have many moving parts with all kinds
of cyclical forces in terms of dancing pistons, gyrating
rocker arms and periods of coasting intermixed with
controlled explosions.
Most of the airplanes I've flown have no particular
concerns over the full range of engine speeds from idle
to redline. I think it was the injected 200 hp Lycoming
on the Beech Sierra that called for a different color of
arc painted over the range of 2000 to 2200 rpm or
thereabouts.
I was told that there were flyweights on the crank that caused
undesirable overstress on a crankshaft over that
speed range. One was advised not to dwell in that range
while on the way up or down in setting power.
When you think about a propeller attached to a crank
that runs pistons, it's easy to see possibilities for
resonances to exist. The folks who design and sell airplane
parts are obligated to explore ALL the possibilities and
either eliminate risky combinations or prove that they
do not present stresses beyond design limits for the
various parts.
If you put a certified engine in your airplane
with the same propeller that it drove on a production
airplane, folks-who-claim-to-know-more-about-airplanes-than-
we-do will bless your project after 25 hours of successful
flight. Make any changes to that combination and you're
expected to sign up for 40 hours of flight. Without
instrumentation and carefully crafted tests, even 40
hours of flight may not reveal potential pitfalls created
by altering the configuration of a proven design.
Putting an electronic ignition on such an
engine raises a level of doubt for those who
have come to rely on policy and procedure as opposed
to experience and common sense. The SAFE thing to
do is discourage replacement of mags with electronic
ignition systems. This should not be misconstrued as
a prohibition but rather a conservative response to
not knowing if the change has undesirable effects.
Rumors seldom resemble the original intent and concerns
after having been run through other individuals for
a few years . . .
But then, the OBAM aircraft community is where real
advances happen every day and experience base
grows more swiftly. Electronic ignition never did raise
concerns among those who understood engines. I recall
discussing it at length with Klaus and several other
folks at OSH nearly 20 years ago. One individual who's
name I can no longer recall had spent a long and rich
career in testing engines of all varieties for everyone
from GM and Ford to Briggs and Onan including many
designs for aircraft.
More than 15 years (and what must by now be millions
of flight hours) experience have also laid concerns to
rest. If anything, demonstrated smoothness of electronic
ignition engines as opposed to their mag-fired
brethren suggest that service life of such engines
will be enhanced, not compromised.
It's a sad commentary on the state of any
systems design where operators are cautioned about
ranges of operation to be avoided boxed in by
ranges that are perfectly acceptable on either
side. Red lines should delineate perfectly reasonable
boundaries at the edges of a operating envelope.
However, warning areas INSIDE the envelope put
a very bright spotlight on the inadequacies
the design/certification processes.
If anyone has a hard data source to share for
prohibiting use of electronic ignition on any
power plant combination, I'd appreciate knowing
about it to the end of disseminating accurate
information wherever possible.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Hi Bob--
>
>At the risk of demonstrating that I'm the only dummy on the list that
>doesn't know the score [anyone want to go Snipe hunting?], please explain
>what OBAM stands for. I've thought of a couple of possibilities, none of
>which make sense or are appropriate for a family setting. Please get me
>out of the quandry.
I confess, I did it. For years, I've watched the faces
of folks reacting to my admission of working
with thousands of people building "experimental" airplanes.
While this was the official government description
for most of what we do, the public perception of the
term is unsettling . . . especially when they see how
certified aviation is treated in the entertainment
industry . . . "experimental" aviation can only be
an order of magnitude worse. Check out a copy of
"Never Cry Wolf" from the video store. It has an
airborne scene that will bust-yer-gut for laughing
because you know how absurd the situation is. Problem
is that your mother-in-law takes the whole thing
very seriously as does the majority of our
fellow citizens.
In an effort to more accurately describe what has
become an industry thriving on tried and proven
manufacturing and design concepts, I coined the
phrase Owner Built And Maintained as a more accurate
way to label our hobby. It's sorta like using
words like "contact", "roll" and "collision" to describe
a series of events in an accident as opposed to
"impact", "spin" and "crash" . . . Juries react very
differently to these words.
If you have a better term to offer, by all means
use it. Similarly, I'll suggest that both internal and
external images are much enhanced by eliminating words
like "emergency", "essential" and "experimental" from
the lexicon of OBAM aircraft speech.
Did a Google search and found numerous other phrases
defined by OBAM. Also ran across a posting I did many moons ago:
> OBAM is the seed of an idea that I thought I'd plant and see what
> happens. For years, we've been pretty proud of "amateur built" or
> "home built" as terms to describe our craft. Problem is, if you use
> these terms in conversation with the average person on the street
> you get a response that is less than positive.
>
> "You mean these airplanes are built in somebody's house?" or
> "My gawd, I'd never set foot in an airplane built by an AMATEUR."
>
> Using the word "experimental" isn't any better. So how about
> Owner Built and Maintained aircraft? When amateur built aviation
> was in its infancy, each builder was pretty much on his own. Yeah,
> there was Sport Aviation and yeah, an occasional mechanic
> working in the certified world might drop by to help out . . .
> but by-in-large, each completed airplane was a solitary effort.
>
> Today, with kit offerings joining with a huge and growing
> infrastructure of builder communications on the 'Net, I'll suggest
> that our efforts are head and shoulders taller than "amateur".
> A builder may be working on his first and perhaps only construction
> project but the support structure makes his endeavor anything
> but amateurish.
>
> So how about it folks? This is a sort of pull yourself up by the
> bootstraps effort. I am reminded of good advice handed down
> by many who would mentor somebody up in the knowledge and
> skills of their particular specialty. "Son, if you want to be a
> _________," then then the FIRST thing you have to do is look,
> talk, and act like you ARE a __________." In our case, we
> fill in the blanks with the phrase, "builder of the world's
> finest single engine airplanes."
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jimk36(at)comcast.net> |
Bob--
Thanks to you and the others that responded. And I certainly agree with your comments.
The overall results, the product of the OBAM community speaks for itself.
This is where the state of the art, at least in piston aircraft, is being
advanced. The next generation should be exciting.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
We do crankshaft certifications - - (we are doing one now) on our test
stand.
Bob, as always, you are invited down to take a look for yourself.
From personal face - to- face conversations with people in the OEM prop
business, there is a well identified vibration problem with Lycoming 4
cylinder engines and electronic ignition systems. The same problem does not
exist with magnetos.
From the OEM prop people's first hand comments and from the data we see with
strain gages mounted up on crank shafts during certification tests, for the
purpose of determining the power combinations at which peak torsional
stresses happen, I believe that the concern about the electronic ignition
(as it is typically implemented) is legitimate.
This judgment on my part is reached based on both observation of the data
and the underlying theory.
Regards, George
PS. I confirm your electronic parts - rattle around in the can -
scenario!!! We have our own shake table - - and it is amazing to see what
comes loose and why and at what frequency!
-----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: Magneto Relpacements
> I've heard that some props are not okay to use
> with electronic ignition due to the harmonic vibrations
> being different than with mags. Know anything about this?
>
>It is not that they are "not okay to use" but that there are LIMITATIONS on
>their use.
>
>Particularly, the Hartzell Constant Speed props have RPM "do not exceed"
>RPMs and "do not dwell long in this zone" RPMs. Basically one must reduce
>RPM to under 2700 (say about 2600) after take-off and therre are some
>RPM/manifold pressure combinations down lower in the power cover where one
>is to avoid continuous operation. In reality these "limitations" are not a
>big deal in that they are in areas where you would not likely have the
power
>set for very long anyway.
>
>There is a HARD STOP required for the top RPM (I don't remember the exact
>number at the moment but say 2750).
There's a lot of bits and pieces of fact floating around
getting assembled into almost useful information. Let's
back off and look at the details. A power delivery system
that will convert .25# of fuel into 1 h.p. at the prop tips
for one hour is a VERY complex assembly of ideas. No single
which they are applied are boundless in number.
It's a simple-idea that materials have limitations on
ultimate strength as well as service life based on
number and amplitude of stress cycles. It's also a simple-
(springy) connection can exhibit characteristics of
resonance . . . a tuned response to the input of cyclical
forces.
I got some very lucid and lasting learning experiences
the first time I put one of my designs on a shake table
and subjected it to 10g of cyclical acceleration over
the range of 30 to 2000 Hz. As the shake table's force
frequency swept over the test range, there were short
intervals of audible and measurable response from within
my gizmo. I was told to make note of those frequencies
and dwell upon each one for a period of time. This was
-IN ADDITION- to the fact that my gizmo was driven with
10g sweeps over the entire range for 15 minutes on each
of three orthogonal axes.
The first few times I did this test, it wasn't uncommon
to find that my gizmo rattled after the test. Opening
the can would allow one or more pieces to fall
out on the workbench. It took several years before
I leaned what NOT to do in order to make my products last
through the test. Explorations with accelerometers attached
to the test article would often highlight spikes
of acceleration levels at resonance for as much as
10 times the exciting force of 10g. Parts that existed
happily on the board while subject to ordinary handling
readily launched into space when forces equal to 10x the
weight of the part were applied many times per second.
Piston power plants have many moving parts with all kinds
of cyclical forces in terms of dancing pistons, gyrating
rocker arms and periods of coasting intermixed with
controlled explosions.
Most of the airplanes I've flown have no particular
concerns over the full range of engine speeds from idle
to redline. I think it was the injected 200 hp Lycoming
on the Beech Sierra that called for a different color of
arc painted over the range of 2000 to 2200 rpm or
thereabouts.
I was told that there were flyweights on the crank that caused
undesirable overstress on a crankshaft over that
speed range. One was advised not to dwell in that range
while on the way up or down in setting power.
When you think about a propeller attached to a crank
that runs pistons, it's easy to see possibilities for
resonances to exist. The folks who design and sell airplane
parts are obligated to explore ALL the possibilities and
either eliminate risky combinations or prove that they
do not present stresses beyond design limits for the
various parts.
If you put a certified engine in your airplane
with the same propeller that it drove on a production
airplane, folks-who-claim-to-know-more-about-airplanes-than-
we-do will bless your project after 25 hours of successful
flight. Make any changes to that combination and you're
expected to sign up for 40 hours of flight. Without
instrumentation and carefully crafted tests, even 40
hours of flight may not reveal potential pitfalls created
by altering the configuration of a proven design.
Putting an electronic ignition on such an
engine raises a level of doubt for those who
have come to rely on policy and procedure as opposed
to experience and common sense. The SAFE thing to
do is discourage replacement of mags with electronic
ignition systems. This should not be misconstrued as
a prohibition but rather a conservative response to
not knowing if the change has undesirable effects.
Rumors seldom resemble the original intent and concerns
after having been run through other individuals for
a few years . . .
But then, the OBAM aircraft community is where real
advances happen every day and experience base
grows more swiftly. Electronic ignition never did raise
concerns among those who understood engines. I recall
discussing it at length with Klaus and several other
folks at OSH nearly 20 years ago. One individual who's
name I can no longer recall had spent a long and rich
career in testing engines of all varieties for everyone
from GM and Ford to Briggs and Onan including many
designs for aircraft.
More than 15 years (and what must by now be millions
of flight hours) experience have also laid concerns to
rest. If anything, demonstrated smoothness of electronic
ignition engines as opposed to their mag-fired
brethren suggest that service life of such engines
will be enhanced, not compromised.
It's a sad commentary on the state of any
systems design where operators are cautioned about
ranges of operation to be avoided boxed in by
ranges that are perfectly acceptable on either
side. Red lines should delineate perfectly reasonable
boundaries at the edges of a operating envelope.
However, warning areas INSIDE the envelope put
a very bright spotlight on the inadequacies
the design/certification processes.
If anyone has a hard data source to share for
prohibiting use of electronic ignition on any
power plant combination, I'd appreciate knowing
about it to the end of disseminating accurate
information wherever possible.
Bob . . .
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EI and Prop Vib was: Magneto Replacement |
<... prop people seem to be scrambling to limit their liability exposure ...>
That pretty much says it all. That many disclaimers didn't sound like an engineering
decision. I'll still have to stay away from Hartzell, but that's no great
loss anyway.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jimk36(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | re Electronic Ignition |
George--
In your own testing or in talking to OEMs, have you seen or heard of the same problem
with 6 cyl engines as you report for 4 cyl. I'm interested in Lyc in particular.
In any case, it seems to me that Hartzel, and perhaps others, have taken a PYA
stance rather than test, confirm, identify and quantify a potential problem. They
want to sell props to the independents like us, but have apparently not done
their homework and informed us of verifiable data. They have simply passed
on their questions to us. Not acceptable.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | re Electronic Ignition |
Jim,
On the contrary - - they HAVE done the tests. They have the data. They
didn't dream this up. They were as surprised by the results as everybody
else. Don't blame the messenger on this one. In fact, give them credit for
having the presence of mind to take note of the issue when it arose.
I do not know if the same issue exists with the 6 cylinder engines. But,
the theory behind the "why" of this issue is the same with either 6, 4, or 8
cylinder engines. OTOH, as has been pointed out, these are such complex
vibration systems that making predictions is not a reliable way to approach
the issue.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
jimk36(at)comcast.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: re Electronic Ignition
George--
In your own testing or in talking to OEMs, have you seen or heard of the
same problem with 6 cyl engines as you report for 4 cyl. I'm interested in
Lyc in particular.
In any case, it seems to me that Hartzel, and perhaps others, have taken a
PYA stance rather than test, confirm, identify and quantify a potential
problem. They want to sell props to the independents like us, but have
apparently not done their homework and informed us of verifiable data. They
have simply passed on their questions to us. Not acceptable.
Jim
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
<... from the data we see with strain gages mounted up on crank shafts during
certification tests ... the concern about the electronic ignition ... is
legitimate ...>
I am amazed and chagrined. It is incredible to me that something that makes the
engine run so much smoother could cause/aggravate damaging vibration/harmonics.
I asked for credible evidence and I got it.
I stand corrected ... Jim S.
George Braly wrote:
>
> We do crankshaft certifications - - (we are doing one now) on our test
> stand.
>
> Bob, as always, you are invited down to take a look for yourself.
>
> >From personal face - to- face conversations with people in the OEM prop
> business, there is a well identified vibration problem with Lycoming 4
> cylinder engines and electronic ignition systems. The same problem does not
> exist with magnetos.
>
> >From the OEM prop people's first hand comments and from the data we see with
> strain gages mounted up on crank shafts during certification tests, for the
> purpose of determining the power combinations at which peak torsional
> stresses happen, I believe that the concern about the electronic ignition
> (as it is typically implemented) is legitimate.
>
> This judgment on my part is reached based on both observation of the data
> and the underlying theory.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
Jim,
There is a simple answer to your question.
Call Hartzell or Sensenich.
I suspect they have PLENTY of engineering data on this. This is not some
bogus game being played.
But ... if you are willing to fly YOUR Hartzell/O-360/EI at 2900 RPM due to
a lack of adequate data, go right ahead. It is your plane/prop/life. :-)
By the way, I do plan to have an O-360 with Lightspeed EI and a Hartzell C/S
prop on my RV. And I plan to honor the "limitations" that they have (in my
mind) clearly expressed.
Comments below.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
> Sower
> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 11:15 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements
>
>
>
>
> <... have RPM "do not exceed" RPMs and "do not dwell long in this
> zone" RPMs ... HARD
> STOP required for the top RPM ...>
> What do these have to do with EI?
You are closer to multiples of the disaster frequencies that result from the
pulse of the engine WITH the EI.
>
> <... The logic (simply put) is that the pulses you get using EI
> cause a DIFFERENT burn
> and thus a different "ping" on the engine (probably a sharper
> bigger bang (??) and thus
> the improvement in performance) ...>
> This statement is based on ... what?? Engineering research or
> brain fart? Or what?
>
***SIGNIFICANT*** engineering research. NOT by me but by the PROP
MANUFACTURERS!!
Don't take ANYBODY's word for it from this list (especially not mine
:-) )... call the prop makers ... Hartzell and Sensenich.
{Better yet, CALL THEIR COMPETITION)
> <... (probably a sharper bigger bang (??) ...>
> I know that EI provides MUCH more optimum spark timing for rpm
> than mags (around 35-40
> deg as compared with mags which are bolted on at 25 deg or so)
> and that CD is a much
> higher quality and more reliable spark (and therefore better
> flame front) than mags
> produce. Advanced timing starts combustion early enough that you
> get full benefit of
> the power stroke and don't dump still-trying-to-work combustion
> gasses over the side
> (think improved fuel efficiency and exhaust valve life).
>
> <... Hit the right harmonic ON ANYTHING and it shakes apart!! ...>
> Agreed. Harmonics can be devastating. That said, what is the
> credible (key word here)
> evidence that replacing 1930s technology mags with a device that
> provides much higher
> quality ignition at optimum timing is going to cause these
> harmonics? No offense, but
> I'm going to need specific documentation on this one.
Call HARTZELL or SENSENICH. They will probably give you loads of
information. Although if I were them, I would not give you (or anyone)
proprietary data that could be abused buy the "competition".
>
> I'm reluctant to get real shrill absent credible engineering to
> back up the rumors ...
> Jim S.
Do you think no credible engineering is behind these prop manufactures'
STRONG LIMITAIONS? Clearly they are not putting these notices out to sell
MORE props. They are doing it so we don't go run our engines in regions
where the KNOW there *COULD* be a potential problem.
When Van's Aircraft says if you pull more than 9-10 G's you wings will break
off so stay below +6 and -3, I don't really care to see all of their
engineering data and I plan to stay way below the +6/-3Gs. When H & S say
that bad things will happen to THEIR props if you run them at certain RPMs
on Lycoming engines with electronic ignition, I (maybe naively so) believe
that they have done some engineering to make the claim. Actually, I think
they will actually tell you what the "magic" frequency is. I seem to have
heard it somewhere but will not guess it here in this forum. I will leave
that to them to say as they choose.
James
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
>
> If anyone has a hard data source to share for
> prohibiting use of electronic ignition on any
> power plant combination, I'd appreciate knowing
> about it to the end of disseminating accurate
> information wherever possible.
>
> Bob . . .
>
Bob,
This may be nitpicking but I don't think they are "prohibiting" the use of
EI. I have never heard that either Sensenich or Hartzell prohibits the use
of their props with EI etc.
Instead it seems they are saying (for WHATEVER reason) "we have problems on
*these* engines, with *these* mods, in *these* RPM ranges, using *these*
props of ours". There was a LOT of stuff posted some time ago about the
strain gauges and accelerometers that Sensenich (I believe) put on one of
their props that was on an RV6 (A?). They eventually came up with a design
that did not have the limitations for the O-360 but the one for the O-320
did (does still?) have the limitations.
I for one, called Hartzell and chatted with them. I even spoke to their CEO
and their engineers. They looked into this stuff and generated real data.
They even did work to redesign the prop. The new model has slightly less
limitations. They simply have NOT come up with a design yet that has the
"comfort zone" they wish at all relevant RPMs on the engine setups of
interest and thus the "warnings".
Seems to me the are doing exactly what we would want them to do.
Again, in real world flying, I don't think anyone is feeling really cramped
by the "limitations".
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
Having done a crankshaft torsional vibration test on a 4 cylinder lycoming -
- including sweeps up to 3000 RPM - -
Let me strongly suggest that you do NOT operate these engines past 2700 RPM
for other than momentary overspeed reasons.
Regardless of the prop. This is a crankshaft and accessory case issue.
I can (and did - - over and over again for 150 hours) fail the typical
slick magneto in about an average of 15 to 20 hours - - when operating this
engine at ~2900 RPM.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James
E. Clark
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements
Jim,
There is a simple answer to your question.
Call Hartzell or Sensenich.
I suspect they have PLENTY of engineering data on this. This is not some
bogus game being played.
But ... if you are willing to fly YOUR Hartzell/O-360/EI at 2900 RPM due to
a lack of adequate data, go right ahead. It is your plane/prop/life. :-)
By the way, I do plan to have an O-360 with Lightspeed EI and a Hartzell C/S
prop on my RV. And I plan to honor the "limitations" that they have (in my
mind) clearly expressed.
Comments below.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
> Sower
> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 11:15 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements
>
>
>
>
> <... have RPM "do not exceed" RPMs and "do not dwell long in this
> zone" RPMs ... HARD
> STOP required for the top RPM ...>
> What do these have to do with EI?
You are closer to multiples of the disaster frequencies that result from the
pulse of the engine WITH the EI.
>
> <... The logic (simply put) is that the pulses you get using EI
> cause a DIFFERENT burn
> and thus a different "ping" on the engine (probably a sharper
> bigger bang (??) and thus
> the improvement in performance) ...>
> This statement is based on ... what?? Engineering research or
> brain fart? Or what?
>
***SIGNIFICANT*** engineering research. NOT by me but by the PROP
MANUFACTURERS!!
Don't take ANYBODY's word for it from this list (especially not mine
:-) )... call the prop makers ... Hartzell and Sensenich.
{Better yet, CALL THEIR COMPETITION)
> <... (probably a sharper bigger bang (??) ...>
> I know that EI provides MUCH more optimum spark timing for rpm
> than mags (around 35-40
> deg as compared with mags which are bolted on at 25 deg or so)
> and that CD is a much
> higher quality and more reliable spark (and therefore better
> flame front) than mags
> produce. Advanced timing starts combustion early enough that you
> get full benefit of
> the power stroke and don't dump still-trying-to-work combustion
> gasses over the side
> (think improved fuel efficiency and exhaust valve life).
>
> <... Hit the right harmonic ON ANYTHING and it shakes apart!! ...>
> Agreed. Harmonics can be devastating. That said, what is the
> credible (key word here)
> evidence that replacing 1930s technology mags with a device that
> provides much higher
> quality ignition at optimum timing is going to cause these
> harmonics? No offense, but
> I'm going to need specific documentation on this one.
Call HARTZELL or SENSENICH. They will probably give you loads of
information. Although if I were them, I would not give you (or anyone)
proprietary data that could be abused buy the "competition".
>
> I'm reluctant to get real shrill absent credible engineering to
> back up the rumors ...
> Jim S.
Do you think no credible engineering is behind these prop manufactures'
STRONG LIMITAIONS? Clearly they are not putting these notices out to sell
MORE props. They are doing it so we don't go run our engines in regions
where the KNOW there *COULD* be a potential problem.
When Van's Aircraft says if you pull more than 9-10 G's you wings will break
off so stay below +6 and -3, I don't really care to see all of their
engineering data and I plan to stay way below the +6/-3Gs. When H & S say
that bad things will happen to THEIR props if you run them at certain RPMs
on Lycoming engines with electronic ignition, I (maybe naively so) believe
that they have done some engineering to make the claim. Actually, I think
they will actually tell you what the "magic" frequency is. I seem to have
heard it somewhere but will not guess it here in this forum. I will leave
that to them to say as they choose.
James
>
>
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | EI and Prop Vib was: Magneto Replacement |
Jim,
This is NOT the case!
There is ENGINEERING behind these comments.
Again, call Hartzell or Sensenich and they will fill you in.
If you plan to use some other fine prop, then that is cool. Hartzell may
very well NOT be the right prop for your airplane's mission profile.
I was happily flying behind an Ed Sterba wood prop today and I HAVE been
over 2700 RPM with it (using EI). I and others will also happily fly behind
a Hartzell or Sensenich.
Let's not go and blast a company on such a public forum before we have asked
them directly on such an important matter.
James
... a person that DID call Hartzell and DID get an answer.
>
> <... prop people seem to be scrambling to limit their liability
> exposure ...>
> That pretty much says it all. That many disclaimers didn't sound
> like an engineering decision. I'll still have to stay away from
> Hartzell, but that's no great loss anyway.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | re Electronic Ignition |
Jim,
I know your comment was to George, but **NO** this is **NOT** what they are
doing.
This is an important matter and seems to me they have acted VERY
responsibly!! They HAVE done engineering, they DID discover this as a result
and they DID inform us. Next they HAVE tried (with varied success) to come
up with NEW designs to "fix the problem". I would bet they are STILL working
on the matter.
Again, they are NOT asking us to solve THEIR problem. Now **I** would have
been upset if they knew about this and did NOT tell us nor try to improve
the design for fear that we would not buy their products.
At OSH this year, I also spent quite a bit of time with SEVERAL prop
manufacturers ... including the "competition" for Hartzell. I have even
spent a bit of time talking to the people at Van's on this. I plan to go
Hartzell. My point here is that there is LOTS of info available for the
asking and plenty on the Van's website for instance on this matter.
Let's not so quickly "dog" the "good guys".
James
p.s. I have been commenting on this matter so much because a) I think it IS
important **and** b) I do not wish to see a potential bashing of what I
think is a fine company trying to "so the right thing" with a tough problem.
Especially in the case where it seems the opinions are being formed yet they
have not been contacted DIRECTLY on such an important matter. I have **NO**
business or otherwise connections to **ANY** prop manufacturer beyond my
intentions to use a HArtzell and being a current customer of Ed Sterba.
>
> George--
>
>
> In any case, it seems to me that Hartzel, and perhaps others,
> have taken a PYA stance rather than test, confirm, identify and
> quantify a potential problem. They want to sell props to the
> independents like us, but have apparently not done their homework
> and informed us of verifiable data. They have simply passed on
> their questions to us. Not acceptable.
>
> Jim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Milner" <tldrgred(at)execpc.com> |
I`m using a dry cell Odyssey 680 battery as was recommended by an EAA T.C. who`s
been using one. It`s small and kicks the engine over well. sunbattery.com is
the supplier.They won`t freeze and last long time.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey battery |
>
>I`m using a dry cell Odyssey 680 battery as was recommended by an EAA T.C.
>who`s been using one. It`s small and kicks the engine over well.
>sunbattery.com is the supplier.They won`t freeze and last long time.
This is not a "dry" battery . . . but it is an excellent example
of a recombinant gas and/or sealed lead acid battery. However,
if discharged completely, it will freeze just like any other
lead-acid battery. Given the very low water content in the almost-
saturated glass mats, it may not be damaging. I'll have to check
with the manufacturers on this. It shouldn't be a big issue since
this battery, like all others of the type, have a very low self-discharge
rate and should store nicely over the winter without special
maintenance and without becoming susceptible to freezing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
<... from the data we see with strain gages mounted up on crank shafts
during
certification tests ... the concern about the electronic ignition ... is
legitimate ...>
I am amazed and chagrined. It is incredible to me that something that makes
the
engine run so much smoother could cause/aggravate damaging
vibration/harmonics.
I asked for credible evidence and I got it.
I stand corrected ... Jim S.
Think of the troops doing double time across the wooden bridge.
If they all trot along in pure cadence - - ah... it sounds so smooth.
Of course, if the cadence happens to be near the resonant frequency of the
bridge - -
Regards, George
PS. Sometimes the enemy of good is a misguided attempt at better!
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jimk36(at)comcast.net> |
Gentlemen--
Thank you. I stand corrected. However, I was not aware that this problem even existed
until this recent thread on the AEC. I have not seen this serious safety
question reported in any of the major publications and therefor assumed the
manufacturers had not disseminated test data and limitations to the press. Perhaps
I missed it.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey battery |
>
>I`m using a dry cell Odyssey 680 battery as was recommended by an EAA T.C.
>who`s been using one. It`s small and kicks the engine over well.
>sunbattery.com is the supplier.They won`t freeze and last long time.
Greg, what engine and length prop is this battery turning - just curious as
I will be using one, too.
Gary Liming
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
You are welcome Jim.
A value of forums like this is the ability to have such a dialogue. And even
though there is the potential for misinformation to be spread via forums,
they really shine when a matter can be cleared up within a few hours and
many more people informed of a particular matter.
If I were the companies, I would not have wanted a mass communication per se
(because it involves complexity that the mass media might skip over).
Instead, a focussed effort with the engine Manufacturers and OEMs, along
with the electronic ignition and FADEC providers would be the most
impactful. Not that I would want to try to hide anything ... just get it out
to the relevant people.
And oh, if someone called wanting to buy one of my props, I would **SURELY**
tell them about the limitations and then let them decide if they wanted to
"stay" with me.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> jimk36(at)comcast.net
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 8:55 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Props and EI
>
>
> Gentlemen--
>
> Thank you. I stand corrected. However, I was not aware that this
> problem even existed until this recent thread on the AEC. I have
> not seen this serious safety question reported in any of the
> major publications and therefor assumed the manufacturers had not
> disseminated test data and limitations to the press. Perhaps I missed it.
>
> Jim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Props and EI |
>
>Gentlemen--
>
>Thank you. I stand corrected. However, I was not aware that this problem
>even existed until this recent thread on the AEC. I have not seen this
>serious safety question reported in any of the major publications and
>therefor assumed the manufacturers had not disseminated test data and
>limitations to the press. Perhaps I missed it.
>
>Jim
I've missed it too. EI has been flying on a lot of airplanes
for a long time. I'm not arguing with anyone who has observed
and measured deleterious effects of switching to electronic
ignition . . . but like all such information, it's useless
until shared. Further, it would be stronger still if the
repeatable experiment that measured the effect were described
in some published work. I'm just a little mystified by what
what appears to be a disconnect between the hysterical-theoretical
and practical-demonstrable sides of the issue. Someplace in
the middle lies the truth. I recommend respectful and curious
skepticism until someone publishes the simple-ideas and
measured data that will make it clear to all who care to
read it. Of course, it would also be useful to offer
mitigating alternatives.
Reading the paper published on Vans site at:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/Hartzell_c2yk.pdf
we see recommended operational limits that probably
describe current normal operations for most OBAM
aircraft. I don't cruise at redline and I don't
use power settings below 2250 either. So maybe
our practical-demonstrable experience simply
stumbled into an acceptable operating regime for
the few airplanes that use this particular engine/
propeller combination.
If there are concerns for this combination, there
are probably similar concerns for other combinations
as well. I like to believe the LASAR and FADEC folks
are investigating this . . . what a kick in the head
to find that your 21st century upgrade won't safely
upgrade some combinations of 20th century propeller and
engine!
Folks objected to my use the work "prohibition" . . . not
mine but contained in numerous rumors that are running
in the wild. George, here's an opportunity for an article
in Sport Aviation that could stand head-and-shoulders above
those that show us how to press our own grommet shields
out of scrap stainless . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Props and EI |
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 jimk36(at)comcast.net wrote:
> Gentlemen--
> Thank you. I stand corrected. However, I was not aware that this problem even
existed until this recent thread on the AEC. I have not seen this serious safety
question reported in any of the major publications and therefor assumed the
manufacturers had not disseminated test data and limitations to the press. Perhaps
I missed it.
> Jim
The first I heard about it was on a Glasair mailing list.
One of the builders was considering EI and a Hartzell prop, and was
told about the possible vibration issues when they called Hartzell.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill Thayer School of Engineering
ThUG Sr. Unix Systems Administrator 8000 Cummings Hall
deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu - N1JOV Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
"On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section,
it said 'Requires Windows 95 or better'. So I installed Linux." -Anonymous
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Best place to order Honeywell MicroSwitch's |
| From: | Bob Bittner <rbittner(at)us.ibm.com> |
11/24/2003 11:10:30 AM,
Serialize complete at 11/24/2003 11:10:30 AM
I just placed an order from them directly via their website.. was able to
get just what I wanted and the prices were less than Newark but a little
more than Allied.
http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/environment/
When you get to a catalog page for a given switch, click "Where to buy"
Bob Bittner, RHCE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu> |
| Subject: | Trim servo wiring |
Bob - I want to drive a Mac servo from either a Ray Allen stick grip or the
Ray Allen (DPDT?) rocker switch in the panel where either pilot can get to
it.
The rocker normally holds both outgoing wires to the servo to earth unless
the rocker is activated. I propose to put a S704-1 in both lines so that by
pressing the stick button the line will switch, so that instead of passing
any signal straight through, the line to the servo will go to +12. The stick
button will activate by grounding the actuation signal.
Two questions:
1) If the rocker and a stick button were pressed together, or two stick
buttons both lines to the servo could go '+'. I see no problem however.
2) The S704 will be 'live' and the activation cct 'made' by grounding at the
stick. Runaway if a fault develops?
Any bad practice in here? Sorry for trivia. Thanks, Steve.
PS Is it worth putting diodes in the circuit or are the motors just too
small?
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
George Braly wrote:
>
>
><... from the data we see with strain gages mounted up on crank shafts
>during
>certification tests ... the concern about the electronic ignition ... is
>legitimate ...>
>I am amazed and chagrined. It is incredible to me that something that makes
>the
>engine run so much smoother could cause/aggravate damaging
>vibration/harmonics.
>I asked for credible evidence and I got it.
>I stand corrected ... Jim S.
>
>
>Think of the troops doing double time across the wooden bridge.
>
>If they all trot along in pure cadence - - ah... it sounds so smooth.
>
>Of course, if the cadence happens to be near the resonant frequency of the
>bridge - -
>
>
>Regards, George
>
>PS. Sometimes the enemy of good is a misguided attempt at better!
>
But here you aren't changing the pace, just stomping about 5% harder.
Interesting how close to the edge a/c engines really are....
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
In a message dated 11/24/03 2:37:40 PM Central Standard Time,
cengland(at)netdoor.com writes:
>Think of the troops doing double time across the wooden bridge.
>
>If they all trot along in pure cadence - - ah... it sounds so smooth.
>
>Of course, if the cadence happens to be near the resonant frequency of the
>bridge - -
>
>
>Regards, George
>
>PS. Sometimes the enemy of good is a misguided attempt at better!
>
But here you aren't changing the pace, just stomping about 5% harder.
Interesting how close to the edge a/c engines really are....
Good Afternoon Charlie,
Just a wandering thought.
Do you suppose the thing that is causing the problem is the fact that all of
the combustion events are coming right together instead of being distributed a
little before, right on and a little after they would with magneto ignition?
Maybe the act of making them so perfect is what is causing the bridge to
vibrate harmonically with the soldiers foot steps. Same deal for us.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
<... But here you aren't changing the pace, just stomping about 5% harder.
Interesting how close to the edge a/c engines really are ...>
In 1935 when all the technology in these engines "matured", EVERYTHING was close
to the edge. An auto engine was good for maybe 50k mi. Cars have advanced. Lyc
pretty much hasn't.
<... the thing that is causing the problem is the fact that all of the combustion
events are coming right together instead of being distributed a little before,
right on and a little after they would with magneto ignition ...>
Now there's a thought :o) Now the manufacturers have to make a decision. Are
we
to continue to pamper these antique engines by replicating antique ignition
systems, or should we move the engine itself out of the 30s and 40s into the
current century to where it will withstand uniform, consistent ignition? Let's
see here -- Which way should we go ... :o) I know!! Let's emulate Ford and GM.
Let's stonewall and say it can't be done until the Japanese do it and steal half
our market and THEN start thinking about upgrades and product improvement.
What a concept ... Jim S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
| From: | "David.vonLinsowe" <David.vonLinsowe(at)delphi.com> |
More thoughts on the engine/prop combination topic.
Just because you haven't heard of the vibratory problems with other C/S props,
other than Hartzell, doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have issues too,
it may mean that they haven't tested as thoroughly as Hartzell...
If you want less vibratory issues with the 4 cylinder Lycoming, use the counter
weighted crank.
One of the main drives behind Hartzell's new "Blended Airfoil" prop was to reduce
vibratory concerns.
Dave Anders holds the title of having the world's fastest RV. 260+ mph with a
IO-360 powered RV-4 with dual E.I. and high compression pistons. The prop is
Hartzell that has been clipped smaller than Hartzell's limits, 70.5" vs. 72 min.
dia. The blades have been retwisted to improve the pitch distribution at high
speed. He runs at 3000 rpm. This in no way recommends or endorses what Dave
has done.
Dave
RV-6
Prop performance testing
Standard Hartzell
MT 3 Blade
MT new 2 Blade
Hartzell "Blended Airfoil"
From: George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Relpacements
<... from the data we see with strain gages mounted up on crank shafts
during
certification tests ... the concern about the electronic ignition ... is
legitimate ...>
I am amazed and chagrined. It is incredible to me that something that makes
the
engine run so much smoother could cause/aggravate damaging
vibration/harmonics.
I asked for credible evidence and I got it.
I stand corrected ... Jim S.
Think of the troops doing double time across the wooden bridge.
If they all trot along in pure cadence - - ah... it sounds so smooth.
Of course, if the cadence happens to be near the resonant frequency of the
bridge - -
Regards, George
PS. Sometimes the enemy of good is a misguided attempt at better!
****************************************************************************************
Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential
and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.
****************************************************************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Finley" <Jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
Hey, your almost there Jim! Now, complete your journey to the dark side - put
a MODERN Subaru in that plane of yours! :-)
Jon Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 461 Hrs. TT
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/Q2Subaru
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Jim Sower <canarder(at)frontiernet.net>
>Now there's a thought :o) Now the manufacturers have to make a decision. Are
we
>to continue to pamper these antique engines by replicating antique ignition
>systems, or should we move the engine itself out of the 30s and 40s into the
>current century to where it will withstand uniform, consistent ignition? Let's
>see here -- Which way should we go ... :o) I know!! Let's emulate Ford and GM.
>Let's stonewall and say it can't be done until the Japanese do it and steal half
>our market and THEN start thinking about upgrades and product improvement.
>
>What a concept ... Jim S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim servo wiring |
>
>
>Bob - I want to drive a Mac servo from either a Ray Allen stick grip or the
>Ray Allen (DPDT?) rocker switch in the panel where either pilot can get to
>it.
>
>The rocker normally holds both outgoing wires to the servo to earth unless
>the rocker is activated. I propose to put a S704-1 in both lines so that by
>pressing the stick button the line will switch, so that instead of passing
>any signal straight through, the line to the servo will go to +12. The stick
>button will activate by grounding the actuation signal.
>
>Two questions:
>1) If the rocker and a stick button were pressed together, or two stick
>buttons both lines to the servo could go '+'. I see no problem however.
>2) The S704 will be 'live' and the activation cct 'made' by grounding at the
>stick. Runaway if a fault develops?
Yup, about every OBAM aircraft flying has the potential for
trim runaway due to either stuck switches or faulted wires.
If you've studied the mechanical limits to trim authority
for your project and determined that trim-stuck-in-a-limit
presents no special hazard, then what you propose is no
worse than most airplanes flying.
>Any bad practice in here? Sorry for trivia. Thanks, Steve.
If studies of runaway trim situations present more excitement
than you'd like to experience, then a two-switch trim
system is in order. Most high performance aircraft have
either a push-to-enable IN ADDITION to trim-up/down switches
-OR- a wheel master disconnect button that disengages ALL
electrically driven flight control surfaces wether driven
by trim actuators or autopilot servos.
I designed a two-pole, double-throw, (on)-off-(on) switch
for the Piaggio GP-180 that was two, parallel paddles
that mounted on the center console. Pressing both paddles
together would produce the desired trim action . . . failure
of one switch would not carry across to the other switch.
A similar dual-actuator trim switch can be found on King Airs.
I believe both of these airplanes also have a wheel master
disconnect system.
It all hinges on your evaluation of how bad a trim runaway
can be and what lengths to which you'll go to prevent it.
Bob . . .
>PS Is it worth putting diodes in the circuit or are the motors just too
>small?
PM motors do not behave like relay and contactor coils. No diodes
are necessary. They're useful on any relays, contactors and solenoids
that are employed in your system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto Replacements |
<... the thing that is causing the problem is the fact that all of the
combustion
events are coming right together instead of being distributed a little
before,
right on and a little after they would with magneto ignition ...>
Now there's a thought :o) Now the manufacturers have to make a decision.
Are we
to continue to pamper these antique engines by replicating antique ignition
systems, or should we move the engine itself out of the 30s and 40s into the
current century to where it will withstand uniform, consistent ignition?
Let's
see here -- Which way should we go ... :o) I know!! Let's emulate Ford and
GM.
Let's stonewall and say it can't be done until the Japanese do it and steal
half
our market and THEN start thinking about upgrades and product improvement.
What a concept ... Jim S.<<
***********************************************
Jim,
A little dose of reality, please?
Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate continuously at 90%
of max rated horsepower for 1800 hours ?
Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate at 90% of rated max
horsepower for 1800 hours and do so at a BSFC of < 0.385 lbs/hour/hp ???
How about the Japanese? Have you seen the "wonderful" "modern" little
Honda-TCM engine? It weighs more NOW (by admission) than the engine it is
supposed to replace. It is claimed to have 220 Hp instead of only 200 for
the engine it is supposed to replace, but on a Hp/installed pound comparison
- - it isn't any better - - even assuming it meets all of its currently
claimed future goals.
After 40 years (since the 200 Hp Lycoming IO-360 first arrived) you would
think they could do a little better with all of the "modern" improvements.
Regards, George
PS. Oh! BTW, the word floating around among one or more former TCM
employees with knowledge of the situation is that the Honda engine has
already broken three crankshafts.
PPS in about 1918 or so, one Navy Admiral made the observation that water
cooling an aircraft engine made about as much sense as air cooling a
submarine.
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Morris <dave(at)davemorris.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto Replacements |
>
>
>PPS in about 1918 or so, one Navy Admiral made the observation that water
>cooling an aircraft engine made about as much sense as air cooling a
>submarine.
2 years later, the New York Times sarcastically dismissed Dr. Robert
Goddard's notion that a rocket could function in a vacuum, too.
Dave Morris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
George Braly wrote:
>
>
>....................................................................Are we
>to continue to pamper these antique engines by replicating antique ignition
>systems, or should we move the engine itself out of the 30s and 40s into the
>current century to where it will withstand uniform, consistent ignition?
>....................
>
> ***********************************************
>
>Jim,
>
>A little dose of reality, please?
>
>Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate continuously at 90%
>of max rated horsepower for 1800 hours ?
>
>Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate at 90% of rated max
>horsepower for 1800 hours and do so at a BSFC of < 0.385 lbs/hour/hp ???
>
>How about the Japanese? Have you seen the "wonderful" "modern" little
>Honda-TCM engine? It weighs more NOW (by admission) than the engine it is
>supposed to replace. It is claimed to have 220 Hp instead of only 200 for
>the engine it is supposed to replace, but on a Hp/installed pound comparison
>- - it isn't any better - - even assuming it meets all of its currently
>claimed future goals.
>
>After 40 years (since the 200 Hp Lycoming IO-360 first arrived) you would
>think they could do a little better with all of the "modern" improvements.
>
>Regards, George
>
>PS. Oh! BTW, the word floating around among one or more former TCM
>employees with knowledge of the situation is that the Honda engine has
>already broken three crankshafts.
>
>PPS in about 1918 or so, one Navy Admiral made the observation that water
>cooling an aircraft engine made about as much sense as air cooling a
>submarine.
>
>---
>
Paul Lamar might be right claiming that the rotary engine is the answer.
Try to brake the crankshaft of a rotary. Doesn't the rotary engine look
like a modern improvement?
Jerzy
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sdcmills(at)att.net |
| Subject: | Battery/Alt switch differences |
My question pertains to the Z-11 drawing and a difference between it and the
drawings supplied with the article about the OVM. In the Z-11 drawing the
battery/alt switch is a standard 2-10.
In the drawing attached with the Crowbar article a standard two pole single
throw switch is used. On this drawing there is a note, however, that states:
Important Battery and Alternator should come on and off together.
What is the reasoning for this note? Why the difference between the two
drawings? I realize that Z-13 is using the B & C regulator and the other
drawing is dealing with a generic regulator. However, I can see some
usefulness in being able to shut the alternator field off and keeping the
battery contactor energized. I would surely appreciate an explanation.
Thanks,
Scott Mills
N339A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto Replacements |
Rotary engine ... the BSFC's are worse than the worst that Japan
incorporated can now builds - - and even their best is worse than we
already have in 40 year old aircraft engines.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jerzy
Krasinski
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
George Braly wrote:
>
>
>....................................................................Are we
>to continue to pamper these antique engines by replicating antique ignition
>systems, or should we move the engine itself out of the 30s and 40s into
the
>current century to where it will withstand uniform, consistent ignition?
>....................
>
> ***********************************************
>
>Jim,
>
>A little dose of reality, please?
>
>Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate continuously at 90%
>of max rated horsepower for 1800 hours ?
>
>Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate at 90% of rated max
>horsepower for 1800 hours and do so at a BSFC of < 0.385 lbs/hour/hp ???
>
>How about the Japanese? Have you seen the "wonderful" "modern" little
>Honda-TCM engine? It weighs more NOW (by admission) than the engine it is
>supposed to replace. It is claimed to have 220 Hp instead of only 200 for
>the engine it is supposed to replace, but on a Hp/installed pound
comparison
>- - it isn't any better - - even assuming it meets all of its currently
>claimed future goals.
>
>After 40 years (since the 200 Hp Lycoming IO-360 first arrived) you would
>think they could do a little better with all of the "modern" improvements.
>
>Regards, George
>
>PS. Oh! BTW, the word floating around among one or more former TCM
>employees with knowledge of the situation is that the Honda engine has
>already broken three crankshafts.
>
>PPS in about 1918 or so, one Navy Admiral made the observation that water
>cooling an aircraft engine made about as much sense as air cooling a
>submarine.
>
>---
>
Paul Lamar might be right claiming that the rotary engine is the answer.
Try to brake the crankshaft of a rotary. Doesn't the rotary engine look
like a modern improvement?
Jerzy
>
>
>
>
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
BSFC is not the only engine selection criterion.
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
>
>
> Rotary engine ... the BSFC's are worse than the worst that Japan
> incorporated can now builds - - and even their best is worse than we
> already have in 40 year old aircraft engines.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jerzy
> Krasinski
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com.Gecko/20030624.Netscape/7.1
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
>
>
>
>
>
> George Braly wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >....................................................................Are
we
> >to continue to pamper these antique engines by replicating antique
ignition
> >systems, or should we move the engine itself out of the 30s and 40s into
> the
> >current century to where it will withstand uniform, consistent ignition?
> >....................
> >
> > ***********************************************
> >
> >Jim,
> >
> >A little dose of reality, please?
> >
> >Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate continuously at
90%
> >of max rated horsepower for 1800 hours ?
> >
> >Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate at 90% of rated
max
> >horsepower for 1800 hours and do so at a BSFC of < 0.385 lbs/hour/hp ???
> >
> >How about the Japanese? Have you seen the "wonderful" "modern" little
> >Honda-TCM engine? It weighs more NOW (by admission) than the engine it
is
> >supposed to replace. It is claimed to have 220 Hp instead of only 200
for
> >the engine it is supposed to replace, but on a Hp/installed pound
> comparison
> >- - it isn't any better - - even assuming it meets all of its currently
> >claimed future goals.
> >
> >After 40 years (since the 200 Hp Lycoming IO-360 first arrived) you
would
> >think they could do a little better with all of the "modern"
improvements.
> >
> >Regards, George
> >
> >PS. Oh! BTW, the word floating around among one or more former TCM
> >employees with knowledge of the situation is that the Honda engine has
> >already broken three crankshafts.
> >
> >PPS in about 1918 or so, one Navy Admiral made the observation that
water
> >cooling an aircraft engine made about as much sense as air cooling a
> >submarine.
> >
> >---
> >
>
>
> Paul Lamar might be right claiming that the rotary engine is the answer.
> Try to brake the crankshaft of a rotary. Doesn't the rotary engine look
> like a modern improvement?
> Jerzy
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>
>
> ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
Jim,
If this was all so easy to do and there was such a market for it, and all
the other economics were right, someone would have done it by now. (Make
such superior engines).
By the way Continental and one of the Japanese firms (HONDA) were
demonstrating a beautiful looking engine at OSH. They are ***STILL***
working on it! They do NOT have a "ready by" or "ship by" date. There is
LOTS of work STILL to be done.
I spoke with the guys from Japan. They will not release this thing (IF THEY
EVER DO) until it is right. It has not been a slam dunk exercise and they
have a very senior (top notch) engineering program manager on it.
So if you know someone that can do better, please get them going as oppossed
to slamming Lycoming et al.
Also, there is a "modern" offering so to speak from Eggenfellner. The Subaru
FWF package. The current 4 cylinder (without supercharging) is about
equivalent to an O-320 (160 HP).
What is amazing to me is the fact that Lycoming built this "old stuff" so
well back in the 30's, 40's, 50's (pick your favorite decade) and here 50
years later NOBODY has come up with anything that totally displaces them.
The closest thing I have seen that is reality is the "Eggy Subie" :-).
I know we should have a little bit of cynicism but ...
James
>
> Now there's a thought :o) Now the manufacturers have to make a
> decision. Are we
> to continue to pamper these antique engines by replicating
> antique ignition
> systems, or should we move the engine itself out of the 30s and
> 40s into the
> current century to where it will withstand uniform, consistent
> ignition? Let's
> see here -- Which way should we go ... :o) I know!! Let's
> emulate Ford and GM.
> Let's stonewall and say it can't be done until the Japanese do it
> and steal half
> our market and THEN start thinking about upgrades and product improvement.
>
> What a concept ... Jim S.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
Great to see that this testing is happening Dave.
Also, for those of you who are "RVator" subscribers, there is an article on
performance of various props in the latest issue. It is done by Van and has
some results. Haven't had time to read the article but those of you who have
read Van's performance testing stuff know that he tries to keep everything
on the "straight and narrow".
James
>
> Dave
> RV-6
> Prop performance testing
> Standard Hartzell
> MT 3 Blade
> MT new 2 Blade
> Hartzell "Blended Airfoil"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
In a message dated 11/25/03 9:41:14 AM Central Standard Time,
wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com writes:
Maybach =(;o)
Thank you!
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
> PPS in about 1918 or so, one Navy Admiral made the observation that water
> cooling an aircraft engine made about as much sense as air cooling a
> submarine.
No one should be deluded into thinking that an aviation engine is air
cooled. It is a liquid cooled engine, with fins.
Air cooled Gasoline engines require anywhere from 1-3 GHP more fuel than an
equivalent liquid cooled engine.That's 6-18 pounds per hour of waste. That
puts the weight premium for liquid cooled engines in an appropriate context.
Diesels, of course, don't have this waste fuel problem.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery/Alt switch differences |
>
>My question pertains to the Z-11 drawing and a difference between it and the
>drawings supplied with the article about the OVM. In the Z-11 drawing the
>battery/alt switch is a standard 2-10.
>In the drawing attached with the Crowbar article a standard two pole single
>throw switch is used. On this drawing there is a note, however, that states:
>Important Battery and Alternator should come on and off together.
>What is the reasoning for this note? Why the difference between the two
>drawings? I realize that Z-13 is using the B & C regulator and the other
>drawing is dealing with a generic regulator. However, I can see some
>usefulness in being able to shut the alternator field off and keeping the
>battery contactor energized. I would surely appreciate an explanation.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Scott Mills
>N339A
>
>
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: Battery/Alt switch differences |
>
>My question pertains to the Z-11 drawing and a difference between it and the
>drawings supplied with the article about the OVM. In the Z-11 drawing the
>battery/alt switch is a standard 2-10.
>In the drawing attached with the Crowbar article a standard two pole single
>throw switch is used. On this drawing there is a note, however, that states:
>Important Battery and Alternator should come on and off together.
>What is the reasoning for this note? Why the difference between the two
>drawings? I realize that Z-13 is using the B & C regulator and the other
>drawing is dealing with a generic regulator. However, I can see some
>usefulness in being able to shut the alternator field off and keeping the
>battery contactor energized. I would surely appreciate an explanation.
This question came over the list a few weeks ago. Here's the
response:
--------------------------
>On Z-11 the master switch is a two position switch (Off-Bat-Alt) and on
>Z-12 and others it is a single position switch throwing both alt and
>bat. This makes sense to me if you have redandant alternators.
It's not critical for any architecture. The 2-3 switch is less
expensive and if you have crowbar ov protection, the associated
circuit breaker can be pulled for rare instances of needing to
run the battery during ground maintenance with the alternator
disabled and even rarer instances of needing to disable the
alternator in flight.
If you want to get fancy and don't mind the extra cost of the
ON-ON-ON switch, then you can do the OFF, BATT-ONLY, BAT-ALT
functionality shown on Z-11 and most of the other drawings.
> However,
>on Z-11 the breaker for the alt field is on the right of the switch (with a
>fuseable link on the left) and on Z-12 the breaker is on the left. I have
>not been able to find an explanation of the difference in the book.
There is no difference functionally, if you use fuseblocks, a
leadwire from bus terminal to the panel where the master switch
is located along with the alt field crowbar breaker would like
some protection . . . fusible link works well here as it is
MUCH slower protection than the circuit breaker and will not
nuisance trip if the OV system crowbars the breaker. Current
in a series circuit is the same everywhere, it matters not
which comes first, master switch or field breaker.
> Is this just a way of showing there are different ways of wiring the same
>thing, or is there some other thinking behind the difference?
Just seeing if you're paying attention and willing to
formulate the question. You passed the test!
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| There is a great difference between knowing and |
| understanding: you can know a lot about something and |
| not really understand it. -C.F. Kettering- |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
>Thanks,
>
>Scott Mills
>N339A
>
>
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto Replacements |
>> and the power pulses are much less violent than those of a four stroke.
<<
Could you please enlighten me on exactly where the data to support
that claim comes from?
Typical diesel peak internal cylinder pressures are up around 1700
PSI.
Typical high power S.I. engines have peak internal cylinder
pressures up around 900 PSI, 1050, max.
Very hard to get "less violent" out of 1700 verses 900 - - when both
events happen in the same time frame.
I don't think this has anything to do with four stroke vs two
stroke. If it does, I would sure like an explanation of the physics of
that?
There is a monumental - - truly monumental - - amount of marketing
claims and B.S. information associated with internal combustion engines.
Regards, George
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sower <canarder(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
<... Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate continuously at 90%
of max rated horsepower for 1800 hours ...>
Not sure. There are several ways to respond to your question.
A) About the same number, with about the same frequency (reliability) as
aircraft engines - virtually none. I've never seen (or had what I fancy to be
a
reliable source who has seen) a Lyc-Cont run to TBO at 90% power. Some of them
make it to TBO at 70% power (90% throttle at 8000' msl). Many do not.
B) If the auto manufacturer de-rated his engine sufficiently (as is the case
with Lyc-Cont) it would be easy enough. Put another way, I'm certain neither of
us would have any problem at all finding any number of auto engines that would
operate reliably for 1500 hrs at 90% throttle and 3000 rpm.
C) There are a number of auto engines that will operate reliably for 1500-2000
hrs at 70% rated power (which is where most aircraft engines operate - 95%
throttle, 8000' msl): Subaru, Mazda, Chev 4.2 V6 and several others.
<... BSFC of < 0.385 lbs/hour/hp ...>
That sounds a little low. Is there a Lyc or Cont that will do that? Best I'd
heard was around .45-.47, and that at more like 65% - 70% power, but I'm
certainly not right on top of that. Is there reliable, repeatable data to
support that? My best information is that Subaru and V6s have better BSFC than
Lyc, and Mazda rotarys about the same.
<... How about the Japanese ...>
Yeah. They gave us the Subaru which is gaining a very significant following,
and Mazda rotary which could be the wave of the future (difficult to argue with
three moving parts and a rotating mass).
<... one Navy Admiral made the observation that water cooling an aircraft engine
made about as much sense as air cooling a submarine ...>
Sounds like one of the PARADE of admirals who observed that "... nobody would
dare attack Pearl Harbor ...>. I invite your attention to the P-51, Spitfire,
Hurricane and ME-109 - arguably the most successful fighters in WWII.
George Braly wrote:
> Jim,
>
> A little dose of reality, please?
>
> Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate continuously at 90%
> of max rated horsepower for 1800 hours ?
>
> Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate at 90% of rated max
> horsepower for 1800 hours and do so at a BSFC of < 0.385 lbs/hour/hp ???
>
> How about the Japanese? Have you seen the "wonderful" "modern" little
> Honda-TCM engine? It weighs more NOW (by admission) than the engine it is
> supposed to replace. It is claimed to have 220 Hp instead of only 200 for
> the engine it is supposed to replace, but on a Hp/installed pound comparison
> - - it isn't any better - - even assuming it meets all of its currently
> claimed future goals.
>
> After 40 years (since the 200 Hp Lycoming IO-360 first arrived) you would
> think they could do a little better with all of the "modern" improvements.
>
> Regards, George
>
> PS. Oh! BTW, the word floating around among one or more former TCM
> employees with knowledge of the situation is that the Honda engine has
> already broken three crankshafts.
>
> PPS in about 1918 or so, one Navy Admiral made the observation that water
> cooling an aircraft engine made about as much sense as air cooling a
> submarine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
> >> and the power pulses are much less violent than those of a four
stroke.
> <<
>
> Could you please enlighten me on exactly where the data to support
> that claim comes from?
You're right. I goofed on that one. Would a better way of putting it that
since the power is delivered from twice as many pulses, the net power output
from each stroke is less and overlaps?
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
>
>
> >> and the power pulses are much less violent than those of a four
stroke.
> <<
>
> Could you please enlighten me on exactly where the data to support
> that claim comes from?
>
> Typical diesel peak internal cylinder pressures are up around 1700
> PSI.
>
> Typical high power S.I. engines have peak internal cylinder
> pressures up around 900 PSI, 1050, max.
>
> Very hard to get "less violent" out of 1700 verses 900 - - when
both
> events happen in the same time frame.
>
> I don't think this has anything to do with four stroke vs two
> stroke. If it does, I would sure like an explanation of the physics of
> that?
>
> There is a monumental - - truly monumental - - amount of marketing
> claims and B.S. information associated with internal combustion engines.
>
> Regards, George
>
>
> ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Magneto Replacements |
Your over looking the ramp up to get those pressures. Gas very fast ramp up
= strong power pulse. Diesel slow pressure ramp up = a milder power pulse.
>
>
> >> and the power pulses are much less violent than those of a four stroke.
><<
>
> Could you please enlighten me on exactly where the data to support
>that claim comes from?
>
> Typical diesel peak internal cylinder pressures are up around 1700
>PSI.
>
> Typical high power S.I. engines have peak internal cylinder
>pressures up around 900 PSI, 1050, max.
>
> Very hard to get "less violent" out of 1700 verses 900 - - when both
>events happen in the same time frame.
>
> I don't think this has anything to do with four stroke vs two
>stroke. If it does, I would sure like an explanation of the physics of
>that?
>
> There is a monumental - - truly monumental - - amount of marketing
>claims and B.S. information associated with internal combustion engines.
>
>Regards, George
>
>
>---
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Speaking of "lots work still to be done" |
>
>
>By the way Continental and one of the Japanese firms (HONDA) were
>demonstrating a beautiful looking engine at OSH. They are ***STILL***
>working on it! They do NOT have a "ready by" or "ship by" date. There is
>LOTS of work STILL to be done.
>
>I spoke with the guys from Japan. They will not release this thing (IF THEY
>EVER DO) until it is right. It has not been a slam dunk exercise and they
>have a very senior (top notch) engineering program manager on it.
On a different topic, my "spies" in the industry tell me that
Honda has been ordering system specific hardware items (some
requiring custom designs) for use on experimental aircraft.
When asked about certification issues, hopeful suppliers are
essentially told, "Don't mess with that stuff now. Give us hardware
that works. We'll decided paperwork issues AFTER the system
is made to work."
This is in sharp contrast to statements of work common in
the industry today. Certification issues are folded into
the design consideration from square-one. By the time the
design makes it to 95% done, it's "ready to certify".
After certification, making the most rudimentary changes
to clean up the last 5% is often so expensive that it never
happens.
Bill, Clyde and Walter would be devastated to see what we've
done to their airplane companies. It's refreshing to see
old ideas of make-it-work-first have not died out completely.
The sad part is that some of the best examples may not be
happening in the US . . . but then, there are some upstart
young companies out there that may well demonstrate to
Bombardier, TCM and RAC how their companies came to be
so attractive in the first place . . . and what has happened
to dim that rosy glow of days gone by.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
>>> and the power pulses are much less violent than those of a four stroke.
> Could you please enlighten me on exactly where the data to support
> that claim comes from?
> Typical diesel peak internal cylinder pressures are up around 1700
> PSI.
> Typical high power S.I. engines have peak internal cylinder
> pressures up around 900 PSI, 1050, max.
> Very hard to get "less violent" out of 1700 verses 900 - - when
both
> events happen in the same time frame.
> I don't think this has anything to do with four stroke vs two
> stroke. If it does, I would sure like an explanation of the physics of
> that?
> Regards, George
A 8 cylinder will be smoother and "less violent" than a 4 cylinder, even
though the same pressure peaks are reached in both. Pressure peaks have
little to do with "Violence"
Remember that "violent" is a function of the rate of change, not the max
pressure. Old school diesels "clacked" due the the great rapidity of diesel
burn(Low Octane, or High Cetane), compared to the slow burn of Gasoline
(High Octane).
The current revolution in diesels deals with exactly this point. Current
direct injection diesels with multi stage injectors have a smoother pressure
build up to a higher pressure point. No "clack"
> There is a monumental - - truly monumental - - amount of marketing
> claims and B.S. information associated with internal combustion engines.
Most all of it I would say. But we seem to be just a guilty as any
marketing campaign.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Replacements |
>
> I got Electroair in summer of '99. Jeff Rose is great to work with. I put it
on my O-235
Anyone have a web site address for Electroair?
Thanks,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill Thayer School of Engineering
ThUG Sr. Unix Systems Administrator 8000 Cummings Hall
deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu - N1JOV Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
"On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section,
it said 'Requires Windows 95 or better'. So I installed Linux." -Anonymous
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cozy wiring questions |
>Below is the result of your inquiry. It was submitted by
>Neil Clayton (harvey4(at)earthlink.net) on Sunday, November 23, 2003 at 17:41:23
>
>Sunday, November 23, 2003
>
>Neil Clayton
>
>,
>Email: harvey4(at)earthlink.net
>Comments/Questions: Hello Bob....I'm about to start my Cozy MkIV
>electrical system. I've read the "Connection" cover to cover, but I've
>still got a few basic questions (forgive the primitive nature of the
>questions - I'm a Mech Eng!)
>
>1)I need a firewall ground on both sides of firewall plus a panel ground,
>right?
You may not need anything on the firewall. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z15ak.pdf
Depending on how many things need grounds at the
firewall, your rear grounds may be handled by a single
brass bolt through the firewall that will ground the firewall
sheet and provide a terminal to transition from 2AWG ground
wire to a copper-braid bond-strap from firewall to crankcase.
>Shall I connect the two with a nice beefy length of (braided?) cable
>running down the side of the fuselage, or is a thin cable running up to
>the panel sufficient (on the grounds that it won't have to take starting
>currents)?
Is your battery in the back? If so, it grounds to the
brass bolt at the firewall and you take a reasonable feeder
ground up front for instrumentation. 6AWG or so is suggested.
>2) I'm using an automotive alternator that's internally regulated (darned
>if I know what pin on the alternator does what). Anyway, from my reading
>it sounds like externally reg'd alternators lend themselves to using
>alternator controlers (like the B&C LR-3). Then I get all sorts of goodies
>like OV, LV and batt temp sensing built in. Is it possible to strip my
>alternator of it's internal regulation thus converting it to an external
>regulator, or should I leave well alone.
Unless you've done these conversions and have some experience
it's probably better to run the alternator as is. Consider wiring
per figure Z-24 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
>3) What does the diode on the starter solenoid do? The solenoid I bought
>(from Wicks, I think) came without one. What's the spec for the diode?
>What pins to install it between?
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
ANY rectifier diode 1A or larger, 50V or larger is fine.
Check out 276-1141 rectifiers from Radio Shack. Two
to a package for about $1.25.
If the starter contactor looks like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s702-1l.jpg
then see this for wiring info:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s702wire.jpg
Diode would go from "S" to base on the contactor.
Banded end of diode to "S"
>4) The Cozy design calls for the comm antenna coax and the Whelen wingtip
>strobe cables to run in the same 1" diameter tunnel down the wing.
>Inevitably, somewhere in the tunnel the cable jackets are going to touch.
>Am I ensuring strobe noise on my comm or is the cable shielding enough to
>prevent crosstalk?
They can happily coexist in same conduit.
>Should I go to additional lengths to separate the two cables? BTW - is the
>strobe wire pulsed or constant voltage? In other words, which end of the
>strobe feed wire is the strobe capacitor - power supply end or flashing end?
It's in the power supply. But the wire from power-supply
to strobe is shielded, twisted triple and with very
low noise coupling characteristics.
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/
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines) |
BSFC (Bart Simpson Fan Club) also stands for Brake Specific Fuel
Consumption. It's a measure of the weight of fuel (not of the engine)
consumed per hour per work-unit done by the engine. That's why they use
Diesels in German Zeppelins (not all Zeppelins were diesel powered, and the
Daimler diesel, not the Maybach, was the engine of choice). For a Zeppelin,
the thing that counts is the many tons of fuel hauled around the sky. This
is of some interest, but of more interest to the airplane builder is pounds
per horsepower if the BSFC is reasonable.The weight of the diesel engine (in
1932), was typically 2 pounds per HP, and was not so big a deal. Even now
gasoline engines tend towards 1.6 pound per HP for RELIABLE engines.
>>Can you name me one automotive engine that can operate continuously at 90%
>>of max rated horsepower for 1800 hours and do so at a BSFC of < 0.385
lbs/hour/hp? [George]
No, But I can name you a couple 350 cubic inch V8 auto engines that can
generate 5000 HP for 4 seconds. The point is that "90% of max HP for 1800
hours" is not the auto-makers test. Maybe a "250 HP" engine that fails at
90% HP in ten hours, fails only because it is really a 210 HP engine as far
as that test is concerned.
Engine makers are not liars particularly, but engines are rated in different
ways. I was seriously set to buy an Eggenfellner Subaru. But since I am
several years from finishing. I'll wait and see what happens. The best
engine for my airplane will be available when I need it.
But they say the sound of a Packard 9-cylinder radial diesel could make a
grown man weep.
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto Replacements |
<... BSFC of < 0.385 lbs/hour/hp ...>
That sounds a little low. Is there a Lyc or Cont that will do that? Best
I'd
heard was around .45-.47, and that at more like 65% - 70% power, but I'm
certainly not right on top of that. Is there reliable, repeatable data to
support that? My best information is that Subaru and V6s have better BSFC
than
Lyc, and Mazda rotarys about the same.<
I can FORCE any TCM or Lycoming to have really BAD BSFCs by inappropriate
use of the mixture control.
But operated properly, they are very good.
The existing book spec high power BSFC(min) for the 1982 TCM-IO-550 is
0.385.
I have verified it myself.
The existing book spec for the Lycoming (low compression) TIO-540 J2BD is
about 0.435. I routinely run that engine on the test stand with the PRISM
system at 0.385 to 0.39.
I have 1300 hours on my turbo normalized IO-550 - - with virtually all of
that time at > 260 Hp (out of 300) which is around 86+%. And all of that
time has been accumulated at a BSFC of about 0.385. The last oil sample
from Blackstone said "This is one of best wearing Bonanza engines we have
ever seen."
>> I invite your attention to the P-51, Spitfire,
Hurricane and ME-109 - arguably the most successful fighters in WWII.
By contrast, you might take a look at the F8F Bearcat which can eat all of
their lunches every day in combat performance.
Right now, the typical Merlin engine operates about 300-400 hours
MTBFAILURE. And that is when they are babying the engines.
And take a look at the very highly successful (not) LTSIO550 engines built
by TCM. (L is for liquid).
Regards, George
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Did you get my loadmeter?
>
>Ross Mickey
Yes. It's on the way back. There was a broken part
on the board. The ammeter side of the loadmeter was
open. You got the last of my warranty spares.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BTomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Speaking of "lots work still to be done" |
It would seem to me that "not worrying about the paperwork" during the
design phase means they never intend to certify and possible never
manufacture either. Why? To prove/perfect new technologies in order to
patent and shelve them. Why? This could be a cheaper less risky method of
protecting ones market share, although temporarily. Then again sometimes
engineers just want to have fun like the rest of us.
my rambling thoughts on sale. $.01
Bevan
RV7A fuse
On Tuesday, November 25, 2003 9:39 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
[SMTP:bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net] wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >By the way Continental and one of the Japanese firms (HONDA) were
> >demonstrating a beautiful looking engine at OSH. They are ***STILL***
> >working on it! They do NOT have a "ready by" or "ship by" date. There is
> >LOTS of work STILL to be done.
> >
> >I spoke with the guys from Japan. They will not release this thing (IF
THEY
> >EVER DO) until it is right. It has not been a slam dunk exercise and
they
> >have a very senior (top notch) engineering program manager on it.
>
>
> On a different topic, my "spies" in the industry tell me that
> Honda has been ordering system specific hardware items (some
> requiring custom designs) for use on experimental aircraft.
> When asked about certification issues, hopeful suppliers are
> essentially told, "Don't mess with that stuff now. Give us hardware
> that works. We'll decided paperwork issues AFTER the system
> is made to work."
>
> This is in sharp contrast to statements of work common in
> the industry today. Certification issues are folded into
> the design consideration from square-one. By the time the
> design makes it to 95% done, it's "ready to certify".
> After certification, making the most rudimentary changes
> to clean up the last 5% is often so expensive that it never
> happens.
>
> Bill, Clyde and Walter would be devastated to see what we've
> done to their airplane companies. It's refreshing to see
> old ideas of make-it-work-first have not died out completely.
> The sad part is that some of the best examples may not be
> happening in the US . . . but then, there are some upstart
> young companies out there that may well demonstrate to
> Bombardier, TCM and RAC how their companies came to be
> so attractive in the first place . . . and what has happened
> to dim that rosy glow of days gone by.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> _->
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines) |
In a message dated 11/25/03 2:29:37 PM Central Standard Time,
emjones(at)charter.net writes:
But they say the sound of a Packard 9-cylinder radial diesel could make a
grown man weep.
Wasn't that Packard Diesel an eight cylinder engine?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Magneto Relpacements |
| From: | "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott(at)rslcom.com.au> |
for a modern engine have a look at www.jabiru.net.au
Ian
----------------------------------------------------
RSL COM has an extensive and competitive range of
local and long distance call packages. We also
offer converged multimedia and data services through
our own state-of-the-art integrated voice & data network.
Visit http://www.rslcom.com.au to find out more.
This message is for the named person's use only.
Privileged/confidential information may be contained in
this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in
this message (or responsible for delivery of the message
to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy
this message, and notify us immediately.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the message states
otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to
be the views of any such entity.
----------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mitch Faatz" <mitchf(at)skybound.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DIY sexy flap switch . . . |
What family of Microswitch toggles would you recommend for this? NT? TS?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: DIY sexy flap switch . . .
>
>
> >
> >Comments/Questions: Bob,
> >This is an oddball request, but maybe you can help. I'm building an RV-6A
> >with electric flaps, and I'd like to put on my panel a flap switch that
> >uses a bat handle shaped like a flap. I can't find any info about this
> >from Matronics or Google searches. I have also e-mailed RAC via the
> >website but have not yet received an answer.
> >
> >Do you know who makes either the whole switch or just the bat handle
> >adapter for this?
> >
> >Thanks for your time and help.
>
> You don't even WANT to know what this switch costs for a Bonanza.
>
> How about building one?
>
> You start with a toggle switch that operates on a pinned shaft
> as opposed to ball-n-socket pivot. Microswitch products are one
> example of this kind of switch. Next, carve a flap shape out of
> a piece of aluminum. If I were going to make a lot, I'd have the
> things NC machined. If I needed one, less than 30 minutes or
> so with a band-saw, belt sander and little chunk of 5/8" alum
> sheet would get the job done too. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/FlapSwitch/FlapSw1.jpg
>
> Sand a flat on the last 1/2" or so of the bat-handle on a
> toggle. Drill handle for snug fit on toggle of switch. .240"
> is typical. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/FlapSwitch/FlapSw2.jpg
>
> Drill and tap handle for 6-32 set screws, one each side
> and attach to switch after it's mounted in panel. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/FlapSwitch/FlapSw3.jpg
>
> From the time I read your note to the time I began to take
> these pictures was about 20 minutes. Yeah, I cheated and
> used Delrin . . . didn't have a suitable piece of aluminum
> stock. So it might take 30 minutes with aluminum. Keep bowl
> of water and ice cubes handy to dip workpiece for cooling
> during sculpting phase on the belt sander.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> --------------------------------------------
> ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> ( and still understand nothing. )
> ( C.F. Kettering )
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines) |
From the New York Herald Tribune Wednesday, may 15, 1929 but of course they didn't
a;ways get it right even back then.
Secrecy which Packard officials have thrown about their motor is said to have
been motivated purely by economic reasons. "There is no patent obtainable on
a Diesel motor which will serve in airplanes. In order to capitalize their solution
of the problem, the Packard officials had to make plans for standard production
many months ago. A modern factory, with approximately 300,000 square
feet of floor area, is now completion in Detroit. Their plant, it is said, will
be used exclusively for the Packard aircraft Diesel engine. The date for the
start of production work has not been set.
Rivals Are Barred
Captain Woolson was without authority to show the motor when he arrived here last
night. It was pursuant of strict orders received from his home office that
the literally locked up the engine with chain and padlocks when he landed. Because
of the secret which, it has been known, he has been carrying for the last
year, the presence of Captain Woolson caused much interest. Correspondents besieged
him for some report of his work. Late in the afternoon he received telegraphic
permission to show the motor to the correspondents. None of the rivals
of Packard in the aircraft field was to be permitted at the showing.
With no small amount of ceremony, padlocks were loosened and the tarpaulin
taken off. The motor resembles the ordinary air-cooled gasoline motor in general
appearance. The frontal area of resistance is somewhat less than the gasoline
type. It is a nine-cylinder single-valve type.
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines)
>
> In a message dated 11/25/03 2:29:37 PM Central Standard Time,
> emjones(at)charter.net writes:
> But they say the sound of a Packard 9-cylinder radial diesel could make a
> grown man weep.
> Wasn't that Packard Diesel an eight cylinder engine?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative Engines) |
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Magneto Relpacements (Alternative
Engines)
>
> In a message dated 11/25/03 2:29:37 PM Central Standard Time,
> emjones(at)charter.net writes:
> But they say the sound of a Packard 9-cylinder radial diesel could make a
> grown man weep.
> Wasn't that Packard Diesel an eight cylinder engine?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DIY sexy flap switch . . . |
>
>What family of Microswitch toggles would you recommend for this? NT? TS?
Hmmm . . . it's not so much any particular type of Microswitch product
as it is the fact that the switch toggle pivots on a SHAFT.
It's easy to see if your switch candidate meets the requirement,
you can see the shaft ends on each side of the mounting bushing.
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Toggle_Shaft.jpg
I don't know that ALL microswitch products use the shaft. I suspect
they do but I've not researched it. Other brands will use shaft
pivots. I have some TL and NT switches in-hand that DO have shafts. Also, I
have some products by Cutler-Hammer that are spec'ed to
MS24523 that have shafts . . . this may be a requirement under
that spec.
The switches B&C sells are ball/socket pivots and not suited
to this task.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joa Harrison <flyasuperseven(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | LED reading/map/cabin light sources |
Could any of you recommend one or more sources for ready-to-use LED lights for
reading (swivel), map (swivel but smaller with more spot lighting), and an LED
cabin light? The only supplier I'm familiar with is Whelan and I'm looking for
others.
Thanks folks!!!!
Joa
---------------------------------
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
>(snip) for a modern engine have a look at www.jabiru.net.au
>
> Ian
I'm going to install a Jabiru 3300 in my Sonex. It is a modern engine, but
as with all of them, there are some compromises. The engine has had some
teething problems, which seem to be solved. The fixed ignition keeps the
parts count down and reliability up, but at altitude, there is power lost
because of it.
The engine has bearings between each piston, which reduces stresses on the
crank. It also is made without a PSRU, which simplifies everything. The
nicest thing about it is that the power to weight ratio is much better than
LyConsouruses. The disadvantage is that while Jabiru is cranking out
engines right and left, (that is in comparison to aircraft engines produced
in recent times), there is not a lot of history on them. That is changing,
of course.
Because it is not a certified engine (except as a part of a certified
aircraft), and it uses off the shelf items like pistons that are
remanufacured to Jabiru standards, the cost of overhaul is low. Also, the
engine uses CNC technology in manufacture, and this has reduced the need for
developing castings. (The only part cast is the oil pan.) Castings require
large production runs to amortize the cost. Jabiru doesn't have that.
I'm not a big fan of the Bing carbs on aircraft. While they are altitude
compensated, they are not temperature compensated. Out here in the desert,
that can make a real difference. I'll probably put an Ellison throttle body
or an AeroCarb on the engine. I like the control they would afford me.
Taking the fuel consumption figures that Tony Spicer supplied on his 3300
powered Sonex with an Ellison throttle body, his figures on the cross
country to and from Oshkosh were close to the ones that the Bing carburated
2200's give.
There is one Jabiru powered Pulsar owner locally who likes to fly high. He
is planning on replacing one of the ignitions with one of Klaus' Lightspeed
ignitions. I'll let him do it first, and it will be interesting to see what
his results are.
I'll also use a wood-core fixed pitch prop, which, with the self-damping
qualities and the light weight fit my needs. True, it is not as efficient
as an adjustable pitch, but the cost is right, and it is KISS.
Dan Branstrom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott(at)rslcom.com.au>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
>
>
> for a modern engine have a look at www.jabiru.net.au
>
> Ian
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> RSL COM has an extensive and competitive range of
> local and long distance call packages. We also
> offer converged multimedia and data services through
> our own state-of-the-art integrated voice & data network.
> Visit http://www.rslcom.com.au to find out more.
>
> This message is for the named person's use only.
>
> Privileged/confidential information may be contained in
> this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in
> this message (or responsible for delivery of the message
> to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
> message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy
> this message, and notify us immediately.
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the
> individual sender, except where the message states
> otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to
> be the views of any such entity.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
>(snip) for a modern engine have a look at www.jabiru.net.au
>
> Ian
I'm going to install a Jabiru 3300 in my Sonex. It is a modern engine, but
as with all of them, there are some compromises. The engine has had some
teething problems, which seem to be solved. The fixed ignition keeps the
parts count down and reliability up, but at altitude, there is power lost
because of it.
The engine has bearings between each piston, which reduces stresses on the
crank. It also is made without a PSRU, which simplifies everything. The
nicest thing about it is that the power to weight ratio is much better than
LyConsouruses. The disadvantage is that while Jabiru is cranking out
engines right and left, (that is in comparison to aircraft engines produced
in recent times), there is not a lot of history on them. That is changing,
of course.
Because it is not a certified engine (except as a part of a certified
aircraft), and it uses off the shelf items like pistons that are
remanufacured to Jabiru standards, the cost of overhaul is low. Also, the
engine uses CNC technology in manufacture, and this has reduced the need for
developing castings. (The only part cast is the oil pan.) Castings require
large production runs to amortize the cost. Jabiru doesn't have that.
I'm not a big fan of the Bing carbs on aircraft. While they are altitude
compensated, they are not temperature compensated. Out here in the desert,
that can make a real difference. I'll probably put an Ellison throttle body
or an AeroCarb on the engine. I like the control they would afford me.
Taking the fuel consumption figures that Tony Spicer supplied on his 3300
powered Sonex with an Ellison throttle body, his figures on the cross
country to and from Oshkosh were close to the ones that the Bing carburated
2200's give.
There is one Jabiru powered Pulsar owner locally who likes to fly high. He
is planning on replacing one of the ignitions with one of Klaus' Lightspeed
ignitions. I'll let him do it first, and it will be interesting to see what
his results are.
I'll also use a wood-core fixed pitch prop, which, with the self-damping
qualities and the light weight fit my needs. True, it is not as efficient
as an adjustable pitch, but the cost is right, and it is KISS.
Dan Branstrom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott(at)rslcom.com.au>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Replacements
>
>
> for a modern engine have a look at www.jabiru.net.au
>
> Ian
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> RSL COM has an extensive and competitive range of
> local and long distance call packages. We also
> offer converged multimedia and data services through
> our own state-of-the-art integrated voice & data network.
> Visit http://www.rslcom.com.au to find out more.
>
> This message is for the named person's use only.
>
> Privileged/confidential information may be contained in
> this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in
> this message (or responsible for delivery of the message
> to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
> message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy
> this message, and notify us immediately.
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the
> individual sender, except where the message states
> otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to
> be the views of any such entity.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Relpacements |
>(snip) for a modern engine have a look at www.jabiru.net.au
>
> Ian
I'm going to install a Jabiru 3300 in my Sonex. It is a modern engine, but
as with all of them, there are some compromises. The engine has had some
teething problems, which seem to be solved. The fixed ignition keeps the
parts count down and reliability up, but at altitude, there is power lost
because of it.
The engine has bearings between each piston, which reduces stresses on the
crank. It also is made without a PSRU, which simplifies everything. The
nicest thing about it is that the power to weight ratio is much better than
LyConsouruses. The disadvantage is that while Jabiru is cranking out
engines right and left, (that is in comparison to aircraft engines produced
in recent times), there is not a lot of history on them. That is changing,
of course.
Because it is not a certified engine (except as a part of a certified
aircraft), and it uses off the shelf items like pistons that are
remanufacured to Jabiru standards, the cost of overhaul is low. Also, the
engine uses CNC technology in manufacture, and this has reduced the need for
developing castings. (The only part cast is the oil pan.) Castings require
November 17, 2003 - November 25, 2003
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-cq