AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-dc
April 08, 2004 - April 22, 2004
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Sampson
-->
Bob - I dont know if it is just me but my copy of Adobe insists the file is
damaged and cant open it....................... Steve.
-----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
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/avionics/760imB.pdf
for an exemplar wiring diagram for comm transceiver. Also,
if you DO decide to install the 760VHF, I still have a few
wire harnesses for that radio.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main Buss?? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
BandC is http://www.bandcspecialty.com/ though I don't know if Bob
actually owned them... I think BandC are the initials of Bill and Celesta
Bainbridge, the founders.
Regards,
Matt-
N34RD
>
>
> I'm having troubles located B&C Electrical - the company Bob used to own
> - what's their website thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main Buss?? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
BandC is http://www.bandcspecialty.com/ though I don't know if Bob
actually owned them... I think BandC are the initials of Bill and Celesta
Bainbridge, the founders.
>
>
> I'm having troubles located B&C Electrical - the company Bob used to own
> - what's their website thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main Buss?? |
Comments (OPINIONS) below ...
James
[snip]
>
> would the ELECTRIC attitude indicator go on the e-buss or main?
I think the basic idea is if you NEED it to get home safely in the
conditions under which you might fly then put it there.
> if on the e-buss and I don't have a switch for it - then if in
> VFR with failed alternator - I would not need it yet it would be
> running and so draining the battery?
There should be adequate battery to run the things you **REALLY NEED** to
get home for the period that you feel you would have to stay in the air
under the conditions for which you fly. In other words determine what is
gonna be your limits.
- Wanna run til the tanks are dry? then you will need say 4 hours in an RV
of "battery time". The more stuff you hang out there, the bigger the
battery.
- Want to use a particular battery? Then that says how much "juice" you have
to work with ... limit things to fit how long you will need to be in the
air.
- Will "never" be more than 30 minutes from an airport? Then with a
particular battery and a particular mix of "things" you can fit.
I think you will find that Bob (and others) would suggest that you make the
list of stuff you will have in the plane and then determine which of that is
REQUIRED to get home. Next do a "load" analysis, i.e. mark down what the
current consumption is for each item.
Determine how long you will want to be upor determine the battery and you
will be told how long you can stay up. If this works, you're done. If not,
change the "required" list or the battery or the time you want to be up and
reiterate.
So you see there is no fixed answer. "It depends" on your preferences, but
there is a "process" that you can use.
>
> How about the electric booster pump - main buss or e-buss??
Your call but I would not. It is NOT required to fly me home (unless of
course the engine mechanical pump fails [in a low wing]). You probably would
not have had it on when the alternator failed anyway unless you were
climbing out.
>
> should the comm/gps/transponder all go on the e-buss- they all
> have indipendend on/off switches on them - so if not needed, I
> could shut them off.
Which ones do **you** need to get home safely? The less you have on the
"E-Buss", the longer the endurance and/or the smaller the battery required.
Opinon ... the transponder does not help as much with 1) aviate, 2)
navigate, 3) communicate. Doesn't generate lift, doesn't show me the way
home, and doesn't do that much for the communication of the problem I have
as it doesn't have voice, even though once I tell ATC I have a problem, if
all else is well, I don't plan to talk much more.
>
> Would it also be a good idea not to put the attitude indicator
> and turn coordinator on the same fuse?? - I would think one
I would NOT. Your call. The last thing I want is to have a FAULTY turn
coordinator fry the fuse and then take out my PERFECTLY healthy AI that I
was hoping to be able to depend upon to help get me home (assuming there
might have been some visibility issues).
> would want both on the e-buss??
If I had power limitations, I would do at least one ... t he one I would
want to depend upon in a crunch.
> I'd like NOT to have another switch - how can I avoid one for the
> attitude indicator.
>
Why a switch???
> I'm of the understanding that I ask myself "is it essential for
> the completion of the flight" if so I put it on the e-buss.
> Well then I would think instrument lights, radios, gps,electric
> booster pump, attitude indicator, would all go on the e-buss - am
> I right here??
See commentay above. It's your call. No "right" or "wrong" answer. Different
"opinions" from many and some solid facts and experience from a few. I am in
the "opinion" category. ;-)
>
> I'm having troubles located B&C Electrical - the company Bob used
> to own - what's their website
> thanks
Try: http://www.bandc.biz/ or http://www.bandc.info/
James
RV6 flying
RV6A-QB under long term construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Troy Scott" <tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | connectors on AML34 |
Gentlemen,
The red fast-on connectors from B&C seem to fit very well on the
Honeywell/Micro Switch AML34 rocker switches, but they are really difficult
to pull off once installed. Is this hardware meant to work together, or
does it just happen to work?
Regards,
Troy Scott
tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | connectors on AML34 |
.187 fastons are what is needed. www.steinair.com has them. They are all
difficult to come off. I would hope.
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 Troy
Scott
Subject: AeroElectric-List: connectors on AML34
Gentlemen,
The red fast-on connectors from B&C seem to fit very well on the
Honeywell/Micro Switch AML34 rocker switches, but they are really
difficult
to pull off once installed. Is this hardware meant to work together, or
does it just happen to work?
Regards,
Troy Scott
tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg.Puckett(at)united.com |
| Subject: | Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main Buss?? |
>you wrote:
>Would it also be a good idea not to put the attitude indicator and turn
coordinator
>on the same fuse=3F=3F - I would think one would want both on the
e-buss=3F=3F
>I'd like NOT to have another switch - how can I avoid one for the
attitude indicator.
>I'm of the understanding that I ask myself "is it essential for the
completion
>of the flight" if so I put it on the e-buss. Well then I would think
instrument
>lights, radios, gps, electric booster pump, attitude indicator, would
all go
>on the e-buss - am I right here=3F=3F
There are, of course, many opinions on how "essential" equipment should
be powered. Personally, I'm not a big fan of putting everything I deem
"essential" on the same buss, fuse, switch ... I would never want
equipment I've already deemed essential to share any common failure
point.
IMHO, do NOT even consider putting the two of the best pieces of
equipment you have for keeping the greasy side down on the same fuse. I
would not even put them on the same buss. The idea is to keep any single
failure from causing you to loose items that have no backup for and that
the loss of will cause you to "break a sweat" getting back on the ground
safely. I realize the odds are very remote but, the E-buss is a common
failure point. Maybe our working definition of "essential" needs to be
clarified. If I've deemed a piece of equipment essential for safe flight
in the planned scenario, it must have a backup. That backup should not
share any recourses with the equipment it is backing up. So, both pieces
are not essential. One OR the other is essential.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov> |
| Subject: | Voltmeter Scaling Module |
This is a follow-up to an earlier question to and response from Bob Nuckolls
regarding the Voltmeter/Loadmeter with a Voltmeter Scaling Module ("VSM"),
which was at one time offered by the AeroElectric Connection (Catalog item
VLM-14). The installation instructions at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9021/9021704F.pdf
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9021/9021704F.pdf>
are color coded, and the instructions make it clear that the magenta portion
of the instructions are not applicable to permanent magnet alternators
(although I do not understand why).
In our earlier exchange on this subject, Mr. Nuckolls said, "If it [the
alternator] has an internal regulator, then the magenta wiring and magenta
instructions are not applicable to your alternator. I took this comment to
mean that any alternator with an internal regulator could not take advantage
of the auto switching feature or the alternator press-to-test diagnostics
feature of the VSM, without regard for whether the alternator was permanent
magnet or otherwise.
If so, why is an internally regulated alternator not capable of using the
auto switching features and the diagnostic features of the VSM?
Voltmeter Scaling Module
This is a follow-up to an earlier question to and response from Bob Nuckolls regarding
the Voltmeter/Loadmeter with a Voltmeter Scaling Module (VSM), which was
at one time offered by the AeroElectric Connection (Catalog item VLM-14). The
installation instructions at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9021/9021704F.pdf
are color coded, and the instructions make it clear that the magenta portion of
the instructions are not applicable to permanent magnet alternators (although
I do not understand why).
In our earlier exchange on this subject, Mr. Nuckolls said, If it [the alternator]
has an internal regulator, then the magenta wiring and magenta
instructions are not applicable to your alternator. I took this comment to mean
that any alternator with an internal regulator could not take advantage of the
auto switching feature or the alternator press-to-test diagnostics feature of
the VSM, without regard for whether the alternator was permanent magnet or otherwise.
If so, why is an internally regulated alternator not capable of using the auto
switching features and the diagnostic features of the VSM?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "T.B." <tb1115(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main Buss?? |
You may consider adding circuit breakers instead of fuses for instruments you want
to turn off. Due to your long list of "essential" items, you may be better
served by incorporating a "non-essential" bus that you can turn off in the event
of an alternator failure and put everything you consider essential on the
main bus.
Good luck with your project!
Trevor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carden <flywrite(at)erols.com> |
I've got a Garmin GPS Model 35-HVS, which is just the GPS module which
sits atop the cabin or wing. It has 12 feet or so of an 8-conductor plus
ground cable which feeds . . . what? Anybody know of a display that will
accept/display data from this antenna? A Garmin tech support guy said he
thought a number of units were compatible, but didn't know of any
specific unit.
Dick Carden
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What display? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Here's a link to that GPS:
http://www.gpscity.com/gps/brados/10131.7.12725572757114954794/oem35hvs.html
Beware the long URL (paste the whole thing).
The description says that it uses an RS232 (serial) interface, and NMEA
com protocol. To me this says that any of the Palm Pilots with the early
style serial port (not USB) should work when connected with a correctly
wired plug. Then you could use one of the Palm GPS programs to control
the box.
Other computers that have serial ports could easily be made to work as
well (including IPAQ's, etc).
Link to Palm GPS Software:
http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/Palm/pilotgps.htm#soft
Regards,
Matt-
N34RD
>
>
> I've got a Garmin GPS Model 35-HVS, which is just the GPS module which
> sits atop the cabin or wing. It has 12 feet or so of an 8-conductor plus
> ground cable which feeds . . . what? Anybody know of a display that will
> accept/display data from this antenna? A Garmin tech support guy said he
> thought a number of units were compatible, but didn't know of any
> specific unit.
> Dick Carden
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
The GPS 35 is the unit Control Vision is/was selling to feed their Anywhere
Map software running on a PDA (Ipaq & others). The "HVS" is one of several
variants. I don't know which flavor CV uses but it plugs into an adapter box
that provides a cig. lighter plug and power/serial cable to the PDA. I
looked at buying one from a generic source but couldn't easily decipher the
variants and the small price difference wasn't worth the effort. I already
had the adapter box but then decided to spend a few extra bucks and got
their new version that has the power plug and PDA cable built in. It
eliminates some cables and makes a much neater installation. IMHO it was
worth the extra cost. BTW, it's an excellent receiver. Good luck.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
> -->
>
> I've got a Garmin GPS Model 35-HVS, which is just the GPS
> module which sits atop the cabin or wing. It has 12 feet or
> so of an 8-conductor plus ground cable which feeds . . .
> what? Anybody know of a display that will accept/display data
> from this antenna? A Garmin tech support guy said he thought
> a number of units were compatible, but didn't know of any
> specific unit. Dick Carden
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flyv35b" <flyv35b(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main Buss?? |
I realize the odds are very remote but, the E-buss is a common
> failure point.
Just curious, would you care to elaborate about this. Why would the E-buss
be any more prone to failure than the main buss for instance. And what
would be the failure mode? Blown fuse, failed switch or circuit breaker,
etc.?
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: <Greg.Puckett(at)united.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main Buss??
>
> >you wrote:
>
> >Would it also be a good idea not to put the attitude indicator and turn
> coordinator
> >on the same fuse=3F=3F - I would think one would want both on the
> e-buss=3F=3F
>
> >I'd like NOT to have another switch - how can I avoid one for the
> attitude indicator.
>
> >I'm of the understanding that I ask myself "is it essential for the
> completion
> >of the flight" if so I put it on the e-buss. Well then I would think
> instrument
> >lights, radios, gps, electric booster pump, attitude indicator, would
> all go
> >on the e-buss - am I right here=3F=3F
>
> There are, of course, many opinions on how "essential" equipment should
> be powered. Personally, I'm not a big fan of putting everything I deem
> "essential" on the same buss, fuse, switch ... I would never want
> equipment I've already deemed essential to share any common failure
> point.
>
> IMHO, do NOT even consider putting the two of the best pieces of
> equipment you have for keeping the greasy side down on the same fuse. I
> would not even put them on the same buss. The idea is to keep any single
> failure from causing you to loose items that have no backup for and that
> the loss of will cause you to "break a sweat" getting back on the ground
> safely. I realize the odds are very remote but, the E-buss is a common
> failure point. Maybe our working definition of "essential" needs to be
> clarified. If I've deemed a piece of equipment essential for safe flight
> in the planned scenario, it must have a backup. That backup should not
> share any recourses with the equipment it is backing up. So, both pieces
> are not essential. One OR the other is essential.
>
>
> Greg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hal / Carol Kempthorne <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What display? |
At 05:15 PM 4/9/2004, you wrote:
>
>The description says that it uses an RS232 (serial) interface, and NMEA
>com protocol. To me this says that any of the Palm Pilots with the early
>style serial port (not USB) should work when connected with a correctly
>wired plug.
Be careful here. RS232 is an electrical standard - each pin has a very
specific function and parameters. 'Serial port' or 'serial interface' may
mean RS232 but unless it guarantees adherence to that standard, it may not
match at all. Think of a serial interface as bits in single file as
opposed to parallel interface in which the bits are side by side.
Mind, I'm not saying these things won't work together only that you need to
tread with knowledge that they haven't always. Mfrs are much better than
they were back when Hewlett Packard used a DB25 so-called serial interface
to burn out my friend's Compaq computer. Okay, it was about 20 years ago.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK - Three trips to OSH now.
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or |
Main Buss??
I read this as "if the e-bus fails, several things go
down with it" not that it fails often.
Mickey
At 05:24 10-04-04, flyv35b wrote:
-----Start of Original Message-----
>
>I realize the odds are very remote but, the E-buss is a common
>> failure point.
>
>Just curious, would you care to elaborate about this. Why would the E-buss
>be any more prone to failure than the main buss for instance. And what
>would be the failure mode? Blown fuse, failed switch or circuit breaker,
>etc.?
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main |
Buss??
Well, if the E-bus is implemented as per Bob Nuckolls'
recommendations, it should be very reliable. It will have two
independent power feeds to it, and each of those feeds can be tested
before each flight. The bus itself will be a fuseblock, with the
live portions enclosed in plastic. So it would take some major high
energy event to short the bus to ground (i.e. a crash, etc). So I
wouldn't be too concerned about the E-bus providing a common-mode
failure for various items.
However, there might be one good reason to power an attitude
indicator or TC from a battery-hot bus. Think about what your
emergency procedure will be if you ever have a smoke in the cockpit
event. If the source of smoke is electrical, it might be nice to be
able to kill power to everything but the attitude indicator or TC.
My TC is powered by a battery-hot bus. My Dynon EFIS (i.e. attitude
indicator) has an internal battery. If I get smoke in the cockpit
I'll kill power to the main and essential busses, pull out my
handheld GPS and head for an airfield.
Kevin Horton
>
>
>I read this as "if the e-bus fails, several things go
>down with it" not that it fails often.
>
>Mickey
>
>At 05:24 10-04-04, flyv35b wrote:
>-----Start of Original Message-----
>>
>>
>>I realize the odds are very remote but, the E-buss is a common
>>> failure point.
>>
>>Just curious, would you care to elaborate about this. Why would the E-buss
>>be any more prone to failure than the main buss for instance. And what
>>would be the failure mode? Blown fuse, failed switch or circuit breaker,
>>etc.?
>
>--
>Mickey Coggins
>http://www.rv8.ch/
>#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric Schlanser <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Ground wire for taillight bulb |
Basic question. I am trying to attach a 20 ga ground wire to a single contact 12 volt light bulb socket. The power wire comes out of the end of a Neoprene cover that comes with the socket. See http://www.motormitedormancatalog.com/buyerbrowse.epc%3Freset%3DALL%26backgrdimg%3Dbackgrdimg_lighting.jpg%26category1%3DLIGHTING%26categories%3DLIGHTING
The socket will be epoxed into a 7/8 diam steel tube brazed onto the trailing edge
of the tailfin for a taillight. How do I attach a ground wire to the bulb
socket? Someone said to solder it to the end of the socket somehow but he was
kinda vague on the procedure and I lack the necessary experience to make this
work...
TIA, Eric Schlanser
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chad Robinson <crobinson(at)rfgonline.com> |
| Subject: | Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
Is there any reason to choose a TC over an attitude gyro as a backup device
to, say, a glass panel display? OTHER than cost, which is obvious? I know the
TC is considered sufficient for IFR, and I know it's cheaper, but I was
wondering if there might actually be a preference for it, rather than just an
option.
Regards,
Chad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main Buss?? |
I disagree that the e-buss in a common failure point. It has a backup
source of power! That is twice as good as the old way of wiring. I think
the E-buss can be expected to be about as dependable as the battery buss and
the switch that activates the e-buss which is about as good as the battery
and the wiring. Everything has potential for failure so we cannot eliminate
failure. We live with risk but manage it. I like having a secondary way of
powering the things on the e-buss. If you still do not feel comfortable,
look for more backup in something like a second battery and/or second
alternator.
Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp
TMX-O-360 ACS2002 Dynon CNS430 Digitrak
JeffRose Flightline Interiors
Firewall Forward, Wiring w/Nuckoll's Knowledge
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main
Buss??
>
> I read this as "if the e-bus fails, several things go
> down with it" not that it fails often.
>
> Mickey
>
> At 05:24 10-04-04, flyv35b wrote:
> -----Start of Original Message-----
> >
> >I realize the odds are very remote but, the E-buss is a common
> >> failure point.
> >
> >Just curious, would you care to elaborate about this. Why would the
E-buss
> >be any more prone to failure than the main buss for instance. And what
> >would be the failure mode? Blown fuse, failed switch or circuit breaker,
> >etc.?
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hal / Carol Kempthorne <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
At 10:27 AM 4/10/2004, you wrote:
>
>Is there any reason to choose a TC over an attitude gyro as a backup device
>to, say, a glass panel display?
My panel has a Dynon EFIS with a TC as backup. It would have an electric
attitude indicator (as seen in certified setups) but money is the
issue. Furthermore, the TC or AI might fail before the EFIS! Needle ball
airspeed proficiency is always required of course.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK - Three trips to OSH now.
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu> |
Jeff/Mickey - thanks I have it now. Clearing the cache was the trick.
Thanks, Steve.
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or |
Main Buss??
I agree, and I don't believe anyone was saying
that the e-bus is not reliable.
Smoke in the cockpit is the only scenario I
can see where one would need to turn it off.
Somewhat related question - batteries in
the back, which means battery contactors
in the back. If you want to have a battery bus,
doesn't this mean you have to run a long wire
up to the panel that can't be shut off? Doesn't
this cause problems with shorting in the event
of an off field landing?
Mickey
At 20:03 10-04-04, LarryRobertHelming wrote:
-----Start of Original Message-----
>
>I disagree that the e-buss in a common failure point. It has a backup
>source of power! That is twice as good as the old way of wiring. I think
>the E-buss can be expected to be about as dependable as the battery buss and
>the switch that activates the e-buss which is about as good as the battery
>and the wiring. Everything has potential for failure so we cannot eliminate
>failure. We live with risk but manage it. I like having a secondary way of
>powering the things on the e-buss. If you still do not feel comfortable,
>look for more backup in something like a second battery and/or second
>alternator.
>
>Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp
>TMX-O-360 ACS2002 Dynon CNS430 Digitrak
>JeffRose Flightline Interiors
>Firewall Forward, Wiring w/Nuckoll's Knowledge
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
>To:
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main
>Buss??
>
>
>
>>
>> I read this as "if the e-bus fails, several things go
>> down with it" not that it fails often.
>>
>> Mickey
>>
>> At 05:24 10-04-04, flyv35b wrote:
>> -----Start of Original Message-----
>
>> >
>> >I realize the odds are very remote but, the E-buss is a common
>> >> failure point.
>> >
>> >Just curious, would you care to elaborate about this. Why would the
>E-buss
>> >be any more prone to failure than the main buss for instance. And what
>> >would be the failure mode? Blown fuse, failed switch or circuit breaker,
>> >etc.?
-----End of Original Message-----
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or |
Main Buss??
>
>
>Somewhat related question - batteries in
>the back, which means battery contactors
>in the back. If you want to have a battery bus,
>doesn't this mean you have to run a long wire
>up to the panel that can't be shut off? Doesn't
>this cause problems with shorting in the event
>of an off field landing?
I've put a six slot fuse block beside the battery for my battery bus.
So if a wire to the front shorts out, it will blow the fuse. Yes,
there may be a tiny spark where the short occurs, for a moment. But
this would likely happen during the crash itself, and probably any
leaking fuel would not have had time to get there first.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
>
> Is there any reason to choose a TC over an attitude gyro as a
> backup device
> to, say, a glass panel display? OTHER than cost, which is
> obvious? I know the
> TC is considered sufficient for IFR, and I know it's cheaper,
> but I was
> wondering if there might actually be a preference for it,
> rather than just an
> option.
>
> Regards,
> Chad
TC's or T&B's can't tumble.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 454 hours
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Puckett" <rv8er(at)myawai.com> |
| Subject: | Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main Buss?? |
Cliff,
I did not mean to imply that the E buss is more likely to fail. It was
that when it does you would loose a particular instrument AND that
instruments backup. The E-buss should be less likely to fail due to it
having more than one feed.
Other than something coming in contact with the Buss itself, there are
not very many "buss faults" that would take the buss out. In general, I
would not be concerned too much about them if they are well protected
from mechanical interference like they would be if you are using the
fuseblocks with boots on the posts. If the buss itself is a copper bar
screwed to a row of breakers, say running along the bottom of the panel,
it's not to hard to imagine scenarios where something could come into
contact with them.
Greg Puckett
Elizabeth, CO
RV-8 80081 (slooooow build)
>
>
>I realize the odds are very remote but, the E-buss is a common
>> failure point.
>Just curious, would you care to elaborate about this. Why would the
E-buss
>be any more prone to failure than the main buss for instance. And what
>would be the failure mode? Blown fuse, failed switch or circuit
breaker,
>etc.?
>Cliff
----- Original Message -----
>From: <Greg.Puckett(at)united.com
replyto=200404100226.i3A2QsU23546@ma
tronics.com> >
>To: >
>Subject: Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main Buss??
replyto=200404100226.i3A2QsU23546@ma
tronics.com>
>
> >you wrote:
>
> >Would it also be a good idea not to put the attitude indicator and
turn
> coordinator
> >on the same fuse=3F=3F - I would think one would want both on the
> e-buss=3F=3F
>
> >I'd like NOT to have another switch - how can I avoid one for the
> attitude indicator.
>
> >I'm of the understanding that I ask myself "is it essential for the
> completion
> >of the flight" if so I put it on the e-buss. Well then I would
think
> instrument
> >lights, radios, gps, electric booster pump, attitude indicator, would
> all go
> >on the e-buss - am I right here=3F=3F
>
> There are, of course, many opinions on how "essential" equipment
should
> be powered. Personally, I'm not a big fan of putting everything I deem
> "essential" on the same buss, fuse, switch ... I would never want
> equipment I've already deemed essential to share any common failure
> point.
>
> IMHO, do NOT even consider putting the two of the best pieces of
> equipment you have for keeping the greasy side down on the same fuse.
I
> would not even put them on the same buss. The idea is to keep any
single
> failure from causing you to loose items that have no backup for and
that
> the loss of will cause you to "break a sweat" getting back on the
ground
> safely. I realize the odds are very remote but, the E-buss is a common
> failure point. Maybe our working definition of "essential" needs to be
> clarified. If I've deemed a piece of equipment essential for safe
flight
> in the planned scenario, it must have a backup. That backup should not
> share any recourses with the equipment it is backing up. So, both
pieces
> are not essential. One OR the other is essential.
>
>
> Greg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
In a message dated 4/10/04 12:29:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
crobinson(at)rfgonline.com writes:
TC is considered sufficient for IFR, and I know it's cheaper, but I was
wondering if there might actually be a preference for it, rather than just an
option.
Regards,
Chad
Good Afternoon Chad,
For What It Is Worth.
For many varied reasons, I much prefer a Classic Turn And Bank
rather than the more modern Turn Coordinator.
In any case, I would consider a TC to be my second choice of a
last ditch instrument. Both the T&B and the TC are cheaper, lighter
and more reliable than an attitude indicator.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
Hello Chad,
have a look at the new TC from trutrak, might be a good option?
http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/index.html
and is affordable.
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chad Robinson" <crobinson(at)rfgonline.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro
>
> Is there any reason to choose a TC over an attitude gyro as a backup
device
> to, say, a glass panel display? OTHER than cost, which is obvious? I know
the
> TC is considered sufficient for IFR, and I know it's cheaper, but I was
> wondering if there might actually be a preference for it, rather than just
an
> option.
>
> Regards,
> Chad
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main Buss?? |
Hello Greg,
for this reason I have:
a AI on the main bus
a Dynon EFIS on the e-bus
a internal battery in the Dynon (good for 2 h)
So even with power switched of on both busses I would be fine for attitude,
altitude, speed and magnetic referenze.
However, you have to live up to your worst case scenario and design your
system accordingly.
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Puckett" <rv8er(at)myawai.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main Buss??
>
>
> Cliff,
>
> I did not mean to imply that the E buss is more likely to fail. It was
> that when it does you would loose a particular instrument AND that
> instruments backup. The E-buss should be less likely to fail due to it
> having more than one feed.
>
> Other than something coming in contact with the Buss itself, there are
> not very many "buss faults" that would take the buss out. In general, I
> would not be concerned too much about them if they are well protected
> from mechanical interference like they would be if you are using the
> fuseblocks with boots on the posts. If the buss itself is a copper bar
> screwed to a row of breakers, say running along the bottom of the panel,
> it's not to hard to imagine scenarios where something could come into
> contact with them.
>
> Greg Puckett
> Elizabeth, CO
> RV-8 80081 (slooooow build)
>
>
> cator%20on%20E-Buss%20or%20Main%20Buss??&replyto=200404100226.i3A2QsU235
> 46(at)matronics.com> >
> >
> >I realize the odds are very remote but, the E-buss is a common
> >> failure point.
>
> >Just curious, would you care to elaborate about this. Why would the
> E-buss
> >be any more prone to failure than the main buss for instance. And what
> >would be the failure mode? Blown fuse, failed switch or circuit
> breaker,
> >etc.?
>
> >Cliff
> ----- Original Message -----
> >From: <Greg.Puckett(at)united.com
> %20on%20E-Buss%20or%20Main%20Buss??&replyto=200404100226.i3A2QsU23546@ma
> tronics.com> >
> >To: ndicator%20on%20E-Buss%20or%20Main%20Buss??&replyto=200404100226.i3A2QsU
> 23546(at)matronics.com> >
> >Subject: Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main Buss??
>
>
> %20on%20E-Buss%20or%20Main%20Buss??&replyto=200404100226.i3A2QsU23546@ma
> tronics.com>
> >
> > >you wrote:
> >
> > >Would it also be a good idea not to put the attitude indicator and
> turn
> > coordinator
> > >on the same fuse=3F=3F - I would think one would want both on the
> > e-buss=3F=3F
> >
> > >I'd like NOT to have another switch - how can I avoid one for the
> > attitude indicator.
> >
> > >I'm of the understanding that I ask myself "is it essential for the
> > completion
> > >of the flight" if so I put it on the e-buss. Well then I would
> think
> > instrument
> > >lights, radios, gps, electric booster pump, attitude indicator, would
> > all go
> > >on the e-buss - am I right here=3F=3F
> >
> > There are, of course, many opinions on how "essential" equipment
> should
> > be powered. Personally, I'm not a big fan of putting everything I deem
> > "essential" on the same buss, fuse, switch ... I would never want
> > equipment I've already deemed essential to share any common failure
> > point.
> >
> > IMHO, do NOT even consider putting the two of the best pieces of
> > equipment you have for keeping the greasy side down on the same fuse.
> I
> > would not even put them on the same buss. The idea is to keep any
> single
> > failure from causing you to loose items that have no backup for and
> that
> > the loss of will cause you to "break a sweat" getting back on the
> ground
> > safely. I realize the odds are very remote but, the E-buss is a common
> > failure point. Maybe our working definition of "essential" needs to be
> > clarified. If I've deemed a piece of equipment essential for safe
> flight
> > in the planned scenario, it must have a backup. That backup should not
> > share any recourses with the equipment it is backing up. So, both
> pieces
> > are not essential. One OR the other is essential.
> >
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or |
Main Buss??
Mickey,
I've got a rear battery and I placed my battery fuse block (aka bus) in the rear,
near the battery. I mounted it to a 3/16" thick Delrin sheet mounted between
the right side F-888 and F-889 longerons. I've got photos for anyone interested.
Charlie Kuss
RV-8A wiring
Boca Raton, Fl.
>
>I agree, and I don't believe anyone was saying
>that the e-bus is not reliable.
>
>Smoke in the cockpit is the only scenario I
>can see where one would need to turn it off.
>
>Somewhat related question - batteries in
>the back, which means battery contactors
>in the back. If you want to have a battery bus,
>doesn't this mean you have to run a long wire
>up to the panel that can't be shut off? Doesn't
>this cause problems with shorting in the event
>of an off field landing?
>
>Mickey
>
>At 20:03 10-04-04, LarryRobertHelming wrote:
>-----Start of Original Message-----
>>
>>I disagree that the e-buss in a common failure point. It has a backup
>>source of power! That is twice as good as the old way of wiring. I think
>>the E-buss can be expected to be about as dependable as the battery buss and
>>the switch that activates the e-buss which is about as good as the battery
>>and the wiring. Everything has potential for failure so we cannot eliminate
>>failure. We live with risk but manage it. I like having a secondary way of
>>powering the things on the e-buss. If you still do not feel comfortable,
>>look for more backup in something like a second battery and/or second
>>alternator.
>>
>>Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp
>>TMX-O-360 ACS2002 Dynon CNS430 Digitrak
>>JeffRose Flightline Interiors
>>Firewall Forward, Wiring w/Nuckoll's Knowledge
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
>>To:
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main
>>Buss??
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I read this as "if the e-bus fails, several things go
>>> down with it" not that it fails often.
>>>
>>> Mickey
>>>
>>> At 05:24 10-04-04, flyv35b wrote:
>>> -----Start of Original Message-----
>>
>>> >
>>> >I realize the odds are very remote but, the E-buss is a common
>>> >> failure point.
>>> >
>>> >Just curious, would you care to elaborate about this. Why would the
>>E-buss
>>> >be any more prone to failure than the main buss for instance. And what
>>> >would be the failure mode? Blown fuse, failed switch or circuit breaker,
>>> >etc.?
>-----End of Original Message-----
>
>--
>Mickey Coggins
>http://www.rv8.ch/
>#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jimk36(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
Hi Bob, and Chad--
Another FWIW.
I know that all of us who are instrument rated have had to learn and
demonstrate that we can keep the airplane right side up using only the T&B,
airspeed and altimeter. And Lindberg flew all the way to Paris in a lot of
IMC with no more than that. But-- a lot of pretty good pilots have lost the
airplane in the confusion and transition when the AI quit. In my humble
opinion, nothing beats a standby AI on the e-bus or battery bus.
Really ole Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro
>
> In a message dated 4/10/04 12:29:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
> crobinson(at)rfgonline.com writes:
> TC is considered sufficient for IFR, and I know it's cheaper, but I was
> wondering if there might actually be a preference for it, rather than just
an
> option.
>
> Regards,
> Chad
>
>
> Good Afternoon Chad,
>
> For What It Is Worth.
>
> For many varied reasons, I much prefer a Classic Turn And Bank
> rather than the more modern Turn Coordinator.
>
> In any case, I would consider a TC to be my second choice of a
> last ditch instrument. Both the T&B and the TC are cheaper, lighter
> and more reliable than an attitude indicator.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
In a message dated 4/11/04 2:57:24 PM Central Daylight Time,
jimk36(at)comcast.net writes:
I know that all of us who are instrument rated have had to learn and
demonstrate that we can keep the airplane right side up using only the T&B,
airspeed and altimeter. And Lindberg flew all the way to Paris in a lot of
IMC with no more than that. But-- a lot of pretty good pilots have lost the
airplane in the confusion and transition when the AI quit. In my humble
opinion, nothing beats a standby AI on the e-bus or battery bus.
Really ole Jim
Good Afternoon Really ole Jim,
My concern with using an attitude gyro as a back up has to do with the
confusion that can arise as to which instrument is really working and what it is
saying. It is my totally unproven theory that many of the accidents that have
occurred have happened because there was too much for the pilot to look at and
that confusion then prevailed.
If you have two horizons and one gets lazy, how do you decide which one is
working?
The only way I know how do that is to look at a performance or rate
instrument to see if the deviation is supported by those instruments.
The air carriers all use a third attitude gyro theses days and no longer have
any rate of turn instrumentation at all. However, they have two pilots and
there is a a capability of at least comparing three attitude gyros. With three
instruments to observe and two pilots to make an evaluation, it isn't real
difficult to decide which instrument is telling the truth. If all you have is
two attitude gyros, a vote has to be taken. Since most of we GA pilots will
only have two attitude instruments, not three, we have to use supporting
instrumentation to determine which one has failed. Since we are going to use that
supporting information as our check on the attitude gyro, why not just use it to
start with.
My preference for using a T&B in lieu of a TC has to do with emphasis in our
(read my) feeble brain. When things are going to a bad place in a handbasket,
the less I have to think about the better. The main thing is to make sure
the airplane is not turning. If it does not turn, you will survive.
A turn needle doesn't look anything at all like anything else on the
instrument panel. It doesn't tell you about a roll or pitch change. All it tells
you
is whether or not the aircraft is turning.
Once again, stop the turn and you will survive. The rest is a piece of cake.
Failure modes of the TC and T&B are pretty easy to recognize. They don't get
lazy and fall to the side. They just quit working!
I have two T&Bs on my panel. One is airdriven, the other is electric. I try
to include at least one of them in every scan of the panel. I tell myself
that I really need to know what the rate of turn is even though I realize that
we have not done timed turns for the last half century. It forces me to look
at my rate instrument all of the time. Hopefully, that will help me catch it,
if it ever fails.
Voting between the two of them is simple. The one that is wiggling is
working!
A standby attitude instrument on another panel is, in my not so humble
opinion, worthless unless it is accompanied by a full set of instruments so that
one
can fly the aircraft entirely by utilizing that other panel. Cross the
cockpit flying is not all that hard as long as you don't try to switch back and
forth. I rather think that was what led to the demise of the Carnahans. He flew
that airplane for quite sometime following his first report of difficulty.
It appears that he did have quite a few options left when he finally lost it.
Isn't it possible that if he had just gone to his needle ball and airspeed he
may well have made it comfortably to Jefferson City?
The idea is to get it to a point where even the dumbest of us can handle the
situation with what we have left. In that vein, I like the idea of keeping it
as simple as possible. You can recover from a spin with a T&B if you just
have confidence in what it is telling you. Jump around and keep changing your
mind and you won't have a chance
I think Jim Younkin's TC has a lot of things going for it. I would like it
even better if it didn't look so much like an attitude gyro!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "larry OKeefe" <okeefel(at)adelphia.net> |
I'm thinking of putting the Whelen stobe power supply
under the baggage compartment floor in my RV7A and am concerned if there would
be enough cooling air there for it.
There would be about 1/2" spacing below it
between the exterior skin and about 1/2 " above it between the baggage floor.
There are not a lot of air holes around the floor ribs in this area, so air
fow is somewhat limited.
It is the Whelen model HDACF.
Thanks Larry RV7A, fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jimk36(at)comcast.net> |
Bob--
Point well taken. In my C33A I have the vacuum driven AI, an electric driven backup
AI, and a vacuum T & B, all in close proximity on the primary panel. In the
all-electric plane I'm building [read that as trying to build], I'll re-think
the value of a backup electric AI.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | "Pictorial Turn Indicator" |
http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/index.html
"Pictorial Turn Coordinator
This display is like a horizon in roll and actually moves in unison with the
horizon. This makes the transition from viewing the horizon much easier than
the reverse display of a standard turn coordinator. For much greater life
and reliability it uses a solid state gyro instead of a spinning disc. "
A quick reading of the above, plus a picture of what seems to be a horizon
AND a ball at the bottom tells me it is not what we used to call an
Artificial Horizon. Pilots will be tempted to interpret it as just that and
not realise it's not showing pitch. So, - as a cloud guidance device - it
fails to provide 'unusual position' information when the aircraft is out of
control. That is, it masks the lack - and I wouldn't trust it. A Turn and
Bank gauge is far more useful in a pinch. Otherwise it's fine for those who
believe it's there to co-ordinate rate one turns a la airline.
IMHO of course. Old Bob?
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
Hi All-
I was trying to avoid this, but I can't resist any longer. If your not
interested in my ramblings on this subject, plz delete now.
While I agree with Bob that a T&B is really a superior instrument to a TC
(due to it's relative stability in turbulence), neither hold a candle to an
AH. While Lindberg's feat was truly remarkable, it was done with the
latest technology at the time and without ATC, radios, concerns over
traffic or obstacles, or trouble shooting electrical systems. As much as I
love radials and fabric, technology has advanced some since then.
Here's the big rub: When learning partial panel (PP), the instructor
typically covers up the AH and the student has to control the aircraft with
the supporting instruments. Not really a big deal, and kinda fun once they
get comfortable. As Bob mentioned, spin recoveries are doable and even
practiced in some curricula, at least before certain reg changes.
So far, so good. Now our intrepid aviator is out in some nice smooth
stratus, or over water in VMC but under an overcast. Not particularly
challenging at all. Now the AH croaks. Does it do something dramatic,
like flip over (TU) and lay there? Nope, it's much more subtle. It starts
to wind down. As it winds down, it becomes less stable and starts to
precess. I.E., it starts a slow wobble, kind of a slow, low amplitude lazy
eight looking manuever that gets more pronounced over the course of
minutes.
What happens? Since our intrepid aviator's scan centers on the AH, he
looks at it most frequently. He sees an entirely reasonable, slight
attitude error, say a slight climb in a right bank, which he corrects.
Hmm, the supporting instruments show a descending left turn now. If he
gets confused, he gets stressed. Tunnel vision. It gets worse. If he
focusses on the AH, or switches back and forth between the AH and
supporting instruments, Spatial Disorientation (SD) sets in and the radar
track shows a fairly short series of divergent left / right turns and
climbs / descents before the impact.
If our intrepid aviator has the discipline to ignore the AH, all is well.
The problem is that your scan is reflexive, as is the initial response to
what you see on the panel. In training you saw the cover the instructor
put ove the AH. In real life, you see an AH telling you to correct your
attitude, NOW. It can cause a very powerfull effect (you may wonder how I
know this...)
The cheapest aid and insurance to the PP pilot is some sort of suction cup
stickie thing, like your instructor used to cover the AH during your
training. Slapping it over the failed instrument is the simplest, surest
protection against succumbing to false cues.
Now you are PP in the clouds for real. Not the end of the world but a
significant increase in workload under IMC, unless of course you practice
regularly (yeah, right...). This higher workload, higher stress situation
will also increase the odds of SD, especially if it's bumpy. This is
somewhat less than ideal. A second attitude indicator in what would
normally be the T&B / TC hole would simplify this situation tremendously.
IIRC, a good electric AH goes for about $2,500 bucks. There are surely
less expensive gyros available, but if one were willing to part with $3,500
one could plug a BMA EFIS / Lite (or it's equivalent) into a somewhat
larger hole and have a whole suite of instruments in one box that would
require a very easy and compact scan.
While I appreciate that this is not the most inexpensive way to go, flying
IFR has never been cheap. Thanks to the recent advances in technology,
flying IFR has never been safer... If one avails themselves of that
technology AND practices.
BTW, recent statistics have shown that SD accidents have shifted away from
non-instrument rated private pilots and towards non-current instrument
commercial pilots. Food for thought for those with tickets but no
practice!
Just one guy's opinions
FWIW
YMMV
Nomex on
Duck, tuck and roll
gm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: "Pictorial Turn Indicator" |
In a message dated 4/12/04 8:48:23 AM Central Daylight Time, VE3LVO(at)rac.ca
writes:
A quick reading of the above, plus a picture of what seems to be a horizon
AND a ball at the bottom tells me it is not what we used to call an
Artificial Horizon. Pilots will be tempted to interpret it as just that and
not realise it's not showing pitch. So, - as a cloud guidance device - it
fails to provide 'unusual position' information when the aircraft is out of
control. That is, it masks the lack - and I wouldn't trust it. A Turn and
Bank gauge is far more useful in a pinch. Otherwise it's fine for those who
believe it's there to co-ordinate rate one turns a la airline.
IMHO of course. Old Bob?
Ferg
Good Morning Ferg,
My sentiments precisely.
I would like to know just what it does respond to. If it responds to both
roll and yaw, I guess making it look like a Turn Coordinator is the correct
thing to do. If it shows only yaw, (As does the Garmin 196 and 296, more later)
I
would love to see the presentation be an electronic needle!
I really don't like the idea of it looking like an attitude gyro at all. Too
much chance of a misinterpretation.
As an aside, the Garmin 196 and 296 have a nice standby panel available that
does work quite well. It can only discern a turn and, therefore, yaw, but they
have gone and used a picture of a Turn Coordinator to represent that yaw!
I believe that is a major mistake in the design. The unit would be much more
usable if the presentation was a needle rather than a little airplane signal.
It is giving us the information we need, but in the wrong format.
The best thing about a Turn Coordinator is that it does give an early
indication that a yaw may develop soon. It does that by showing the roll that,
in
most cases, precedes the yaw. That works very well for a sensor for a low cost
autopilot. Unfortunately, that mixed information is difficult for many of our
feeble brains to sort out.
The Garmin units show only yaw, but indicate the same as a TC.
Very Bad Idea.
Anybody know just what Jim's unit is really showing?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
Good response Glen,
Also the use of an auto pilot (like the new Trio) with it's own gyro might
be the best compromise yet....
my 2 cents,
-Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro
>
> Hi All-
>
> I was trying to avoid this, but I can't resist any longer. If your not
> interested in my ramblings on this subject, plz delete now.
>
> While I agree with Bob that a T&B is really a superior instrument to a TC
> (due to it's relative stability in turbulence), neither hold a candle to
an
> AH. While Lindberg's feat was truly remarkable, it was done with the
> latest technology at the time and without ATC, radios, concerns over
> traffic or obstacles, or trouble shooting electrical systems. As much as
I
> love radials and fabric, technology has advanced some since then.
>
> Here's the big rub: When learning partial panel (PP), the instructor
> typically covers up the AH and the student has to control the aircraft
with
> the supporting instruments. Not really a big deal, and kinda fun once
they
> get comfortable. As Bob mentioned, spin recoveries are doable and even
> practiced in some curricula, at least before certain reg changes.
>
> So far, so good. Now our intrepid aviator is out in some nice smooth
> stratus, or over water in VMC but under an overcast. Not particularly
> challenging at all. Now the AH croaks. Does it do something dramatic,
> like flip over (TU) and lay there? Nope, it's much more subtle. It
starts
> to wind down. As it winds down, it becomes less stable and starts to
> precess. I.E., it starts a slow wobble, kind of a slow, low amplitude
lazy
> eight looking manuever that gets more pronounced over the course of
> minutes.
>
> What happens? Since our intrepid aviator's scan centers on the AH, he
> looks at it most frequently. He sees an entirely reasonable, slight
> attitude error, say a slight climb in a right bank, which he corrects.
> Hmm, the supporting instruments show a descending left turn now. If he
> gets confused, he gets stressed. Tunnel vision. It gets worse. If he
> focusses on the AH, or switches back and forth between the AH and
> supporting instruments, Spatial Disorientation (SD) sets in and the radar
> track shows a fairly short series of divergent left / right turns and
> climbs / descents before the impact.
>
> If our intrepid aviator has the discipline to ignore the AH, all is well.
> The problem is that your scan is reflexive, as is the initial response to
> what you see on the panel. In training you saw the cover the instructor
> put ove the AH. In real life, you see an AH telling you to correct your
> attitude, NOW. It can cause a very powerfull effect (you may wonder how I
> know this...)
>
> The cheapest aid and insurance to the PP pilot is some sort of suction
cup
> stickie thing, like your instructor used to cover the AH during your
> training. Slapping it over the failed instrument is the simplest, surest
> protection against succumbing to false cues.
>
> Now you are PP in the clouds for real. Not the end of the world but a
> significant increase in workload under IMC, unless of course you practice
> regularly (yeah, right...). This higher workload, higher stress situation
> will also increase the odds of SD, especially if it's bumpy. This is
> somewhat less than ideal. A second attitude indicator in what would
> normally be the T&B / TC hole would simplify this situation tremendously.
>
> IIRC, a good electric AH goes for about $2,500 bucks. There are surely
> less expensive gyros available, but if one were willing to part with
$3,500
> one could plug a BMA EFIS / Lite (or it's equivalent) into a somewhat
> larger hole and have a whole suite of instruments in one box that would
> require a very easy and compact scan.
>
> While I appreciate that this is not the most inexpensive way to go, flying
> IFR has never been cheap. Thanks to the recent advances in technology,
> flying IFR has never been safer... If one avails themselves of that
> technology AND practices.
>
> BTW, recent statistics have shown that SD accidents have shifted away from
> non-instrument rated private pilots and towards non-current instrument
> commercial pilots. Food for thought for those with tickets but no
> practice!
>
> Just one guy's opinions
> FWIW
> YMMV
> Nomex on
> Duck, tuck and roll
>
> gm
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flyv35b" <flyv35b(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
I have the same instruments as you describe except that I have an all
electric S-Tec AP with it's TC in my V35B. But I recently just installed
the B&C 20 amp standby alternator system. So that provides all the system
redundancy that most light twins have, and more. In addition I am
contemplating a split emergency buss with an always hot feed wire off the
battery buss through a 15 amp fuse and an internal CB feeding the buss and
acting as the switch to energize it with the main buss turned off. The
E-Buss would be fed normal from the main through a 25 amp diode.
BTW, the B&C system is a beautiful one with a very complete kit and well
engineered. I was impressed with it and the installation details.
Cliff A&P/IA
----- Original Message -----
From: <jimk36(at)comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: T & B vs AI
>
> Bob--
>
> Point well taken. In my C33A I have the vacuum driven AI, an electric
driven backup AI, and a vacuum T & B, all in close proximity on the primary
panel. In the all-electric plane I'm building [read that as trying to
build], I'll re-think the value of a backup electric AI.
>
> Jim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
In a message dated 4/12/04 9:06:21 AM Central Daylight Time,
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net writes:
Now you are PP in the clouds for real. Not the end of the world but a
significant increase in workload under IMC, unless of course you practice
regularly (yeah, right...). This higher workload, higher stress situation
will also increase the odds of SD, especially if it's bumpy. This is
somewhat less than ideal. A second attitude indicator in what would
normally be the T&B / TC hole would simplify this situation tremendously.
Good Morning gm,
I agree with everything you say right up to the conclusion you arrive at in
this paragraph!
I strongly agree that you absolutely have to cover up that failed attitude
gyro. However, I disagree on what the back up should be. You have just spotted
the failed attitude gyro by reference to the performance and rate
instruments. Wouldn't it be easiest to continue using those instruments to maintain
safe
flight?
If the T&B is included as a normal, everyday, part of the instrument scan,
the loss of the attitude indicator becomes nothing more than an inconvenience.
I have done it many times and I am no whiz bang aviator. Just had a lot of
experiences. Without covering the failed gyro, it can be almost an impossible
task, but once that gyro is covered, it is a piece of cake.
However, remember that I qualified this by saying that you really need to
include the rate instrument (whether it is a TC or T&B) in your everyday scan so
that you are comfortable in that mode when the attitude gyro does abandon you.
Changing to a different instrument scan is always difficult. Not impossible,
but difficult.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chad Robinson <crobinson(at)rfgonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
This has been an interesting discussion, and thanks to everybody who
responded. I also got several off-list responses. It seems there are 20
responses and 21 opinions, to quote an old joke.
I think in my particular case a 2-axis attitude gyro is still the best option,
despite the fact that it can tumble. The reason I want this device is not as a
backup to an existing steam or electric gyro. Instead, I want it as a backup
to a glass panel, which has a solid state gyro (I suppose I should have said
this originally - I meant to). That device is so accurate it's much more
likely to be correct or simply gone entirely - it would take a very extreme
situation to get it to "precess" the way a spinning mass could if it started
to fail. (It's not mechanical.)
So, the reason I want the backup instrument is to cover a case of the device
simply dying - say the display connector internally goes on the fritz, and the
screen goes dark? That sort of thing. This is the same answer the airlines
have used. The backup instrument to the glass cockpit display in an Airbus is
a traditional attitude indicator.
That said, I would agree that if a traditional electric or steam attitude
indicator was your primary source of information, a T&B would probably be a
better backup than a 2-axis gyro since it can't tumble.
Regards,
Chad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: "Pictorial Turn Indicator" |
----- Original Message -----
From: Fergus Kyle <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Date: Monday, April 12, 2004 9:44 am
Subject: AeroElectric-List: "Pictorial Turn Indicator"
Kyle"
>
> http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/index.html
>
> "Pictorial Turn Coordinator
> This display is like a horizon in roll and
actually moves in unison
> with the
> horizon. This makes the transition from viewing
the horizon much
> easier than
> the reverse display of a standard turn
coordinator. For much
> greater life
> and reliability it uses a solid state gyro instead
of a spinning
> disc. "
>
Wow, these people really like their instruments,
don't they? Are the devices that much more useful
than the devices that you can get for a few hundred
dollars, or is this another one of those instances
where an extra zero is added to the price because
someone said 'airplane'?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wallace Enga <wenga(at)svtv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Pictorial Turn Indicator" |
Maybe a pilot who observes the "Pictorial Turn Indicator" perform in a
aircraft, and fails to realize it is not displaying Pitch information,
shouldn't
be flying IFR anyway :)
Wally Enga
RV7
>
> Pilots will be tempted to interpret it as just that and
>not realise it's not showing pitch. So, - as a cloud guidance device - it
>fails to provide 'unusual position' information when the aircraft is out of
>control. That is, it masks the lack - and I wouldn't trust it. A Turn and
>Bank gauge is far more useful in a pinch. Otherwise it's fine for those who
>believe it's there to co-ordinate rate one turns a la airline.
>
>IMHO of course. Old Bob?
>Ferg
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | "Pictorial Turn Indicator" |
Not at all. I had a 2-1/4" turn and bank by Kelly Instruments on order for
nearly nine months at a price of $850. Virtually the day it arrived at the
dealer I ordered it from, the TruTrak Pictorial Turn Coordinator was
announced for $395. I decided to go with the TruTrak as a back-up to my
Blue Mountain EFIS/one instead of the turn and bank. It's lighter and should
be more reliable. Whether it is better or not is still the big question.
Terry
RV-8A wiring
Seattle
>
> "Pictorial Turn Coordinator
> This display is like a horizon in roll and
actually moves in unison
> with the
> horizon. This makes the transition from viewing
the horizon much
> easier than
> the reverse display of a standard turn
coordinator. For much
> greater life
> and reliability it uses a solid state gyro instead
of a spinning
> disc. "
>
Wow, these people really like their instruments,
don't they? Are the devices that much more useful
than the devices that you can get for a few hundred
dollars, or is this another one of those instances
where an extra zero is added to the price because
someone said 'airplane'?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chad Robinson <crobinson(at)rfgonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
richardriley(at)adelphia.net wrote:
> I'm going through the same decision tree. I have the BlueMountain EFIS 1,
> a 2 1/4" electric AI, and a miniature turn and slip (electric).
>
> I'm figuring on putting the Blue Mountain on the E-bus, and leaving the
> mechanical ones off. I think the odds of having a major electrical failure
> AND having the Blue Mountain go down at the same time are minimal.
>
> Does that match your thinking?
Basically. I'm going to be starting out just doing day VFR so I'll just have
the glass panel and separate AI. I would add the T&B or TC if I wanted to do
IFR operations.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Copper Clad Aluminum etc. |
The Super-2-CCA is finally for sale (3-4 weeks delivery), the new Website is
up, God is in Her heaven, the sheep are in the meadow and all is right with
the world.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
Project Management "...of that date and that hour knoweth no man...."
--Mark 13:32
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Morris <dave(at)davemorris.com> |
| Subject: | "Pictorial Turn Indicator" - Welcome to |
OZ
My guess is that about a half hour after flying with it, you will no longer
be expecting to see the horizon move up and down, and you'll integrate it
into your instrument scan just fine.
Now that we have cheap computers in the cockpit, there may be some HUGE
changes in instrumentation coming, which is about time. Most of the
instruments we use in aircraft are based on concepts from the 20's and
30's, and it's about time someone gave us a quantum leap forward. Say
goodbye to scanning 9 instruments to figure out what your airplane is
doing, and take a look at this:
Here is a new U.S. patent 6,486,799 that may revolutionize the whole cockpit:
<http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,486,799.WKU.&OS=PN/6,486,799&RS=PN/6,486,799>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/\
netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,486,799.WKU.&OS=PN/6,486,799&RS=PN/6,486,\
799
Short synopsis here: http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/projects/oz/
And to find some screen shots, try this Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=oz+human+centered+cockpit
Dave Morris
>
>Not at all. I had a 2-1/4" turn and bank by Kelly Instruments on order for
>nearly nine months at a price of $850. Virtually the day it arrived at the
>dealer I ordered it from, the TruTrak Pictorial Turn Coordinator was
>announced for $395. I decided to go with the TruTrak as a back-up to my
>Blue Mountain EFIS/one instead of the turn and bank. It's lighter and should
>be more reliable. Whether it is better or not is still the big question.
>
>Terry
>RV-8A wiring
>Seattle
> >
> > "Pictorial Turn Coordinator
> > This display is like a horizon in roll and
>actually moves in unison
> > with the
> > horizon. This makes the transition from viewing
>the horizon much
> > easier than
> > the reverse display of a standard turn
>coordinator. For much
> > greater life
> > and reliability it uses a solid state gyro instead
>of a spinning
> > disc. "
> >
>
>Wow, these people really like their instruments,
>don't they? Are the devices that much more useful
>than the devices that you can get for a few hundred
>dollars, or is this another one of those instances
>where an extra zero is added to the price because
>someone said 'airplane'?
>
>
Dave Morris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Francis, David CMDR" <David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au> |
| Subject: | SEC: UNCLASSIFIED RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 7 Msgs |
- 04/11/04
Chad,
The main difference between a TC and attitude gyro is not technical or cost,
its the skill required to stay safe.
A TC and turn and bank have no vertical guidance so the skill required to
stay upright is much higher than using a artificial horizon. Considering
that the average private pilot flies something like 50 hrs a year, mostly by
day, then low skills in limited panel flying is to be expected of most of
us.
So my IFR RV7 will have two attitude gyros. The price difference is small
for the reduced risk that I get in return.
Regards, David Francis, VH-ZEE, Canberra, Australia
>
> Is there any reason to choose a TC over an attitude gyro as a backup
device
> to, say, a glass panel display? OTHER than cost, which is obvious? I know
the
> TC is considered sufficient for IFR, and I know it's cheaper, but I was
> wondering if there might actually be a preference for it, rather than just
an
> option.
>
> Regards,
> Chad
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
Now the AH
> croaks.
> What happens? Since our intrepid aviator's scan centers on
> the AH, he looks at it most frequently. He sees an entirely
> reasonable, slight attitude error, say a slight climb in a
> right bank, which he corrects.
> Hmm, the supporting instruments show a descending left turn
> now. If he gets confused, he gets stressed. Tunnel vision.
> It gets worse. If he focusses on the AH, or switches back
> and forth between the AH and supporting instruments, Spatial
> Disorientation (SD) sets in and the radar track shows a
> fairly short series of divergent left / right turns and
> climbs / descents before the impact.
>
> If our intrepid aviator has the discipline to ignore the AH,
> all is well.
> The problem is that your scan is reflexive, as is the initial
> response to what you see on the panel. In training you saw
> the cover the instructor put ove the AH. In real life, you
> see an AH telling you to correct your attitude, NOW. It can
> cause a very powerfull effect (you may wonder how I know this...)
I believe it is necessary to install some sort of indicator to tell you
exactly when a gyro croaks. Mine are vacuum driven, and I have a red
warning light which illuminates whenever the suction is below about 4.5.
Gyro covers are always at hand, and I'm convinced they must be covered
in the event of a failure. My aircraft is uniquely equipped to be able
to shut off the vacuum to the AH or HSI independantly, and I can tell
you that the AH's death is slow, and would be very hard to detect, and
more importantly, to accept that it has failed. I'm no psychologist and
only an IFR student, but if one knows that an instrument failed before
it gives erroneous readings (the vacuum alarm in this example, I know
there are other failure modes), it can be covered and cause a minimum of
distraction. After all, every IFR pilot has demonstrated partial panel
flight and maneuvering. The trouble is the identification of the need
and transition to partial panel which gets people.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 455 hours
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: |
7 Msgs - 04/11/04
So how do you tell which attitude gyro is working?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Francis, David CMDR" <David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED RE: AeroElectric-List Digest:
7 Msgs - 04/11/04
>
> Chad,
> The main difference between a TC and attitude gyro is not technical or
cost,
> its the skill required to stay safe.
>
> A TC and turn and bank have no vertical guidance so the skill required to
> stay upright is much higher than using a artificial horizon. Considering
> that the average private pilot flies something like 50 hrs a year, mostly
by
> day, then low skills in limited panel flying is to be expected of most of
> us.
>
> So my IFR RV7 will have two attitude gyros. The price difference is small
> for the reduced risk that I get in return.
>
> Regards, David Francis, VH-ZEE, Canberra, Australia
>
> >
> > Is there any reason to choose a TC over an attitude gyro as a backup
> device
> > to, say, a glass panel display? OTHER than cost, which is obvious? I
know
> the
> > TC is considered sufficient for IFR, and I know it's cheaper, but I was
> > wondering if there might actually be a preference for it, rather than
just
> an
> > option.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chad
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Roll your own crowbar OV module |
| From: | Jane Ketter <arizonahikers(at)juno.com> |
I build my own OV crowbar module and it functions correctly except that
it operated in the 10-11 volt range. I triple checked the components and
wiring. I tested the 1N4742A diode and it regulates at 12V. I changed
the 1.62K ohm resistor specified for a 14 volt system to 6.04K and the
circuit operates in the correct voltage range of 15.5-17 volts. Has
anyone else found this?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Boardman <dboardm3(at)twcny.rr.com> |
Hi All,
Had a visit today from the DAR that is going to do my inspection. In a
discussion about hooking up the P-leads he suggested installing magneto
filters. Chief aircraft has a couple at $34 and $45. They look to be
capacitors.
Good idea?
Thanks,
Don B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
>
>
>Is there any reason to choose a TC over an attitude gyro as a backup device
>to, say, a glass panel display? OTHER than cost, which is obvious? I know the
>TC is considered sufficient for IFR, and I know it's cheaper, but I was
>wondering if there might actually be a preference for it, rather than just an
>option.
If the price of an attitude gyro isn't driving the decision, why
not have a second wing leveler with its own gyros (like TruTrak and
others) as the "backup" gyro? For my money, I'd install dual GPS
aided wing levelers with redundant power supplies and ditch all
the gyros. Cheaper and much more reliable than any scenario
that puts the pilot in the loop.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: connectors on AML34 |
>
>
>Gentlemen,
>
>The red fast-on connectors from B&C seem to fit very well on the
>Honeywell/Micro Switch AML34 rocker switches, but they are really difficult
>to pull off once installed. Is this hardware meant to work together, or
>does it just happen to work?
Why would you want them to come off easy?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Filters |
>
>Hi All,
>
>Had a visit today from the DAR that is going to do my inspection. In a
>discussion about hooking up the P-leads he suggested installing magneto
>filters. Chief aircraft has a couple at $34 and $45. They look to be
>capacitors.
>
>Good idea?
Not if you don't need them.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltmeter Scaling Module |
>
>This is a follow-up to an earlier question to and response from Bob Nuckolls
>regarding the Voltmeter/Loadmeter with a Voltmeter Scaling Module ("VSM"),
>which was at one time offered by the AeroElectric Connection (Catalog item
>VLM-14). The installation instructions at:
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9021/9021704F.pdf
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9021/9021704F.pdf>
>are color coded, and the instructions make it clear that the magenta portion
>of the instructions are not applicable to permanent magnet alternators
>(although I do not understand why).
The magenta text and figures refer to the field-voltage measurement
options which are part of the VLM-14 system. This feature works
ONLY with an externally regulated alternator that has a field
terminal brought out to the back of the alternator. This
connection is not present on internally regulated alternators
and PM alternators don't even have a field winding so the
feature is useless on these machines also.
>In our earlier exchange on this subject, Mr. Nuckolls said, "If it [the
>alternator] has an internal regulator, then the magenta wiring and magenta
>instructions are not applicable to your alternator. I took this comment to
>mean that any alternator with an internal regulator could not take advantage
>of the auto switching feature.
The auto switching feature has nothing to do with alternator style.
It takes care of switching the voltmeter function from main bus to
e-bus when the main bus is shut down. It works with any combination
of alternators.
> . . . . or the alternator press-to-test diagnostics
>feature of the VSM, without regard for whether the alternator was permanent
>magnet or otherwise.
Correct. The press to test diagnostic feature is applicable ONLY
to alternators with external regulators.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Bob - I dont know if it is just me but my copy of Adobe insists the file is
>damaged and cant open it....................... Steve.
Some browser/Acrobat interfaces are flaky if you simply left-click
a large .pdf link and wait for it to open in Acrobat. It almost
always works to right-click the link and tell your browser to
store the file onto your hard drive. After download is complete,
THEN use Acrobat to open the file.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: "Pictorial Turn Indicator" - Welcome to OZ |
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Morris <dave(at)davemorris.com>
> Say
> goodbye to scanning 9 instruments to figure out
what your airplane
> is
> doing, and take a look at this:
>
> Here is a new U.S. patent 6,486,799 that may
revolutionize the
> whole cockpit:
>
> <http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
>
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,486,799.WKU.&OS=PN/6,486,799&RS=PN/6,486,799>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/\
>
netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,486,799.WKU.&OS=PN/6,486,799&RS=PN/6,486,\
> 799
>
> Short synopsis here:
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/projects/oz/
>
> And to find some screen shots, try this Google search:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
> 8&q=oz+human+centered+cockpit
> Dave Morris
>
Heh, Dave. I'm not trying to rain on your parade,
but I wouldn't look to see anything out of this
effort for several years. You see, it's being
worked on by 'researchers'. They don't get paid to
develope products that help people in the real
world. They get paid to hype possibilities and play
with new technologies in laboratories. If they do
the boring work of developing an actual product to
sell that will save peoples lives, then they are
'sellouts' to 'commercialism'.
No, even though this technology could be on the
market in 6 months with the help of a few machine
vision engineers, it'll stay in the lab for years as
the 'researchers' milk it for all the grant money
they can get. I'm not knocking researchers.
They're just doing what they do. It's just that
they don't develope products, they investigate.
For an example of why I feel this way, consider the
rotary and diesel engines that have been in
'development' for over a decade.
I believe it was Tracey Crook who said that perfect
is the enemy of good enough.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: Copper Clad Aluminum etc. |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
> The Super-2-CCA is finally for sale (3-4 weeks
delivery), the new
> Website is
> up, God is in Her heaven, the sheep are in the
meadow and all is
> right with
> the world.
>
I started asking about this, and then never finished
up on it. But I still had a few questions.
My reservation with the copper clad is in the
connector. The problem with aluminum in connectors
meant for copper is the different expansion
coefficients. Correct? So we clad the aluminum in
copper and then clamp down on it.
-Will the connector cut through the copper and into
the aluminum?
-Since the Al still expands and contracts at a
different rate, won't the wire eventually deform
become loose in the connector?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | A panel full of displays . . . |
>
>
>Chad,
>The main difference between a TC and attitude gyro is not technical or cost,
>its the skill required to stay safe.
>
>A TC and turn and bank have no vertical guidance so the skill required to
>stay upright is much higher than using a artificial horizon. Considering
>that the average private pilot flies something like 50 hrs a year, mostly by
>day, then low skills in limited panel flying is to be expected of most of
>us.
>
>So my IFR RV7 will have two attitude gyros. The price difference is small
>for the reduced risk that I get in return.
At least one of the keep-the-dirty-side-down systems could
be a GPS aided wing leveler. Often available for less than the
cost of a good gyro, the wing leveler will do a better job
than a pilot . . . while interfacing with other nav aids for
BOTH stabilization -AND- navigation.
I've oft suggested that DUAL wing levelers could replace
ALL panel gyros. The major question for dual systems is
a means for determining if and which one has failed . . .
but that task is no more difficult and/or hazardous than
figuring out which gyro display has failed. By the way,
gyros can crap WITHOUT dropping the warning flag.
However, given the the mechanical and electronic simplicity
of modern designs, they are quite reliable compared to a
gyro and they offer powerfully attractive opportunities to
take the weakest (human) factor out of the equation.
Whenever someone cites a list of "redundant", "standby"
"emergency", etc. equipment that's being added to the
panel, I cannot help but recall the demise of my
good friend Terry Chapman. He had one of the most
"redundant" airplanes one could ask for. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/All_Electric/N79NL.pdf
For all the $thousands$ tied up in hardware on the
panel of that airplane, what he REALLY needed was
one killobuck wing leveler that would keep the
airplane right-side-up while his adrenalin levels
returned to normal. Of course, his was a CERTIFIED
airplane and adding an el-cheapy wing leveler to
that machine would have cost tons of no-value-added
dollars.
The most useful redundancy has to be features that
DO NOT depend on pilot skill or physical condition
for successful implementation. Gyro panel displays
DO NOT fall into this category while often having
a higher cost of ownership and lower reliability
than equipment most likely to save the day when
things are going sour.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Copper Clad Aluminum etc. |
>
>I started asking about this, and then never finished
>up on it. But I still had a few questions.
>
>My reservation with the copper clad is in the
>connector. The problem with aluminum in connectors
>meant for copper is the different expansion
>coefficients. Correct? So we clad the aluminum in
> copper and then clamp down on it.
>
>
>-Will the connector cut through the copper and into
>the aluminum?
>
>-Since the Al still expands and contracts at a
>different rate, won't the wire eventually deform
>become loose in the connector?
The gas-tight crimping technology is not affected
by various expansion coefficients. Further, the
copper clad aluminum can also be soldered.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Roll your own crowbar OV module |
>
>I build my own OV crowbar module and it functions correctly except that
>it operated in the 10-11 volt range. I triple checked the components and
>wiring. I tested the 1N4742A diode and it regulates at 12V. I changed
>the 1.62K ohm resistor specified for a 14 volt system to 6.04K and the
>circuit operates in the correct voltage range of 15.5-17 volts. Has
>anyone else found this?
With the 1.62K resistor in place, adjust the potentiometer to
approximately mid range. Adjust the power supply to a point just
below the trip point and then measure voltage at (1) + end of
capacitor and (2) junction of zener diode and the 392 ohm
resistor and tell us what you get.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Triano" <rondefly(at)rtriano.com> |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
I am trying to decide what to do about electronic ignition. There are
several on the market I have found. Are there any schematic's available to
build your own. I prefer to use single coil at each cylinder using auto
parts and at a later date to be able to expand to a throttle body with
injector at each cylinder. My installation is for a 0200 continental on a
Q200.
Thanks
Ron Triano
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: attitude indicator on E-Buss or Main |
Buss??
>
>would the ELECTRIC attitude indicator go on the e-buss or main?
>if on the e-buss and I don't have a switch for it - then if in VFR with
>failed alternator - I would not need it yet it would be running and so
>draining the battery?
Do you have a vacuum system? If not, do you plan to have
a second alternator on the vacuum pump pad? Have you
done a load analysis on your proposed installed hardware?
>How about the electric booster pump - main buss or e-buss??
>
>should the comm/gps/transponder all go on the e-buss- they all have
>indipendend on/off switches on them - so if not needed, I could shut them off.
>
>Would it also be a good idea not to put the attitude indicator and turn
>coordinator on the same fuse?? - I would think one would want both on
>the e-buss??
>I'd like NOT to have another switch - how can I avoid one for the attitude
>indicator.
>
>I'm of the understanding that I ask myself "is it essential for the
>completion of the flight" if so I put it on the e-buss. Well then I
>would think instrument lights, radios, gps,electric booster pump, attitude
>indicator, would all go on the e-buss - am I right here??
Instead of "essential" lets use the word "endurance".
Which of the z-figures are you considering?
>I'm having troubles located B&C Electrical - the company Bob used to own -
>what's their website
>thanks
I've never owned B&C . . . B&C now has the parts catalog items
I used to feature on my website. You can find them at
http://www.bandc.biz or 316-283-8000
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | TC vs,Attitude Gyro |
" If the price of an attitude gyro isn't driving the decision, why
not have a second wing leveler with its own gyros (like TruTrak and
others) as the "backup" gyro? For my money, I'd install dual GPS
aided wing levelers with redundant power supplies and ditch all
the gyros. Cheaper and much more reliable than any scenario
that puts the pilot in the loop. Bob . . ."
Couldn't agree more. On several occasions, the answer has been "let George
do it" (for the tyros "george" was the autopilot and 'let george do it' was
a wellknown phrase - I forget where).
Many DC-9s were equipped with a marvellous A/H which included an OFF flag,
sensing the loss of power - so we all sat Fat, Dumb and Happy. Of course
that ain't the lone cause of failure. So when the bearings began to go
(usually on takeoff after a prolonged layover) it slowly rolled over and the
FDaH pilot took the 'plane with it.
The rapid answer (while two guys argued) was to apply the A/P and let P3
decide what to do. It gave 30 seconds.
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
You might look at the following site:
http://www.megasquirt.info/
Regards,
Matt-
N34RD
>
>
> I am trying to decide what to do about electronic ignition. There are
> several on the market I have found. Are there any schematic's available
> to build your own. I prefer to use single coil at each cylinder using
> auto parts and at a later date to be able to expand to a throttle body
> with injector at each cylinder. My installation is for a 0200
> continental on a Q200.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ron Triano
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Morris <dave(at)davemorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Pictorial Turn Indicator" - |
Welcome to OZ
Ah, that's the great thing about experimental aviation and
computers. Anybody can do whatever the heck he wants to do. I designed
and sold artificial intelligence software products for 10 years that the
"researchers" said couldn't be done. Microsoft even gave up on it. That's
the thing about the "little guy" who is doing something for himself and
doesn't have to be constrained by marketability and liability. But I do
understand your point. Just one look at the design of current certified
aircraft shows just how difficult it is to introduce innovation.
Regards,
Dave Morris
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Dave Morris <dave(at)davemorris.com>
>
> > Say
> > goodbye to scanning 9 instruments to figure out
>what your airplane
> > is
> > doing, and take a look at this:
> >
> > Here is a new U.S. patent 6,486,799 that may
>revolutionize the
> > whole cockpit:
> >
> > <http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph->
>Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,486,799.WKU.&OS=PN/6,486,799&RS=PN/6,486,799>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/\
> >
>netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,486,799.WKU.&OS=PN/6,486,799&RS=PN/6,486,\
> > 799
> >
> > Short synopsis here:
>http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/projects/oz/
> >
> > And to find some screen shots, try this Google search:
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
> > 8&q=oz+human+centered+cockpit
> > Dave Morris
> >
>
>Heh, Dave. I'm not trying to rain on your parade,
>but I wouldn't look to see anything out of this
>effort for several years. You see, it's being
>worked on by 'researchers'. They don't get paid to
>develope products that help people in the real
>world. They get paid to hype possibilities and play
>with new technologies in laboratories. If they do
>the boring work of developing an actual product to
>sell that will save peoples lives, then they are
>'sellouts' to 'commercialism'.
>
>No, even though this technology could be on the
>market in 6 months with the help of a few machine
>vision engineers, it'll stay in the lab for years as
>the 'researchers' milk it for all the grant money
>they can get. I'm not knocking researchers.
>They're just doing what they do. It's just that
>they don't develope products, they investigate.
>
>For an example of why I feel this way, consider the
>rotary and diesel engines that have been in
>'development' for over a decade.
>
>I believe it was Tracey Crook who said that perfect
>is the enemy of good enough.
>
>
Dave Morris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: Copper Clad Aluminum etc. |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >
> >-Since the Al still expands and contracts at a
> >different rate, won't the wire eventually deform
> >become loose in the connector?
>
> The gas-tight crimping technology is not affected
> by various expansion coefficients. Further, the
> copper clad aluminum can also be soldered.
>
> Bob . . .
>
That, I don't understand. How could it not be
affected? I mean, it's just that if two objects
with a mechanical connection are changing shape at
different rates, something has to give...either the
connection or the objects. Once either gives while
hot, and then shrinks when cold, the connection
starts to loosen, oxygen is introduce and the
connection eventually fails. From what I have read,
this was the failure mode of aluminum wire being
used with connectors designed for copper. The fact
that aluminum oxides are resitive is just a
byproduct that makes the root failure painfully obvious.
With the greatest respect, how can a connection
between two dissimilar metals not eventually fail?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: "Pictorial Turn Indicator" - Welcome to OZ |
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Morris <dave(at)davemorris.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:25 am
Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: "Pictorial Turn
Indicator" - Welcome to OZ
>
> Ah, that's the great thing about experimental
aviation and
> computers. Anybody can do whatever the heck he
wants to do. I
> designed
> and sold artificial intelligence software products
for 10 years
> that the
> "researchers" said couldn't be done. Microsoft
even gave up on it.
> That's
> the thing about the "little guy" who is doing
something for himself
> and
> doesn't have to be constrained by marketability
and liability. But
> I do
> understand your point. Just one look at the
design of current
> certified
> aircraft shows just how difficult it is to
introduce innovation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Morris
>
Aah, a man after my own heart. One of the things I
look forward to most is stringing sensors all over
my airplane and running it to a copy of LabView on
a laptop, or even just the motherboard of a PC
hidden under the back seat. Even a 386 will be way
more than enough MIPs to fully instrument an OBAM
aircraft and provide feedback.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
On 04/13 8:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At least one of the keep-the-dirty-side-down systems could
> be a GPS aided wing leveler. Often available for less than the
> cost of a good gyro, the wing leveler will do a better job
> than a pilot . . . while interfacing with other nav aids for
> BOTH stabilization -AND- navigation.
I don't intend on having any round steam guages in my panel. I'll
have a two display GRT EFIS, single AHRS and magnetometer,
Garmin GNS 430 (IFR), and Trutrak D-IIVSG. Each has it's own
independant heading and altitude reference. The EFIS can accept
multiple power inputs. The AP can be engaged in some unusual
attitudes, and all can communicate with each other.
Since this is an all-electric airplane I plan on two alternators
and a single battery with Battery, Essential and Primary buses.
I don't feel that an AI, TC or TB is necessary as 'backups'.
No round airspeed, vsi or altitude instruments either.
Maybe I've not thought about all 'events' which could happen
in flight, but I believe this is enough to fly light IFR.
I hate to ask this, but because this is a forum of intelligent
people, here goes;
Can you make a case where this would not work? And if so
what would you change.
(Go easy on me, please)
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.tondu.com/rv7
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | "Pictorial Turn Indicator" - Welcome to OZ |
Hmmmm ....
Seems to me I saw/chatted with a guy who had a "product" based on this (or
similar) technology at either the last Sun-N-Fun or Oshkosh.
I recall thinking that it would take some time for me to get my "head
around" the new approach, even though the person doing the demo was
espousing how easy it was to interpret. It was obvious that he was into it
(the concept) and had spent quite a bit of time making it work.
Actually you need the "researchers" just as you need the "product
developers". Sometines it is embodied in the same person. Most times at
larger companies and with the larger (major) breakthroughs, they are
separate.
James
... experience with both
p.s. More food for thought (ramblings on my part) below ...
[snip]
> Heh, Dave. I'm not trying to rain on your parade,
> but I wouldn't look to see anything out of this
> effort for several years. You see, it's being
> worked on by 'researchers'. They don't get paid to
> develope products that help people in the real
Typically they are not paid to *develop* any products per se. More so
further understanding and "discover" new concepts that *might* lead to
products being developed.
> world. They get paid to hype possibilities and play
> with new technologies in laboratories. If they do
"Hyping possibilities" is not such a bad notion when it gets others to think
about what is possible. One thing I like about this particular list is that
Bob encourages people to think out loud on "possibilities". He does not push
for the "product" to be developed without the exploratory (and challenging)
dialog.
> the boring work of developing an actual product to
"Boring" is in the eye of the beholder. To some, research is boring.
> sell that will save peoples lives, then they are
> 'sellouts' to 'commercialism'.
Don't know of many people that would be called "sellouts" if they help
develop something that "... will save peoples lives...". This is a bit over
the top don't you think?
>
> No, even though this technology could be on the
> market in 6 months with the help of a few machine
> vision engineers, it'll stay in the lab for years as
> the 'researchers' milk it for all the grant money
If the market for "grant money" is say $1M and the market for "product
money" is $100M, don't you think some of these "researchers" would be
rushing to make a product happen? This assumes they are motivated by money,
grant or otherwise.
Good ideas come to market when there is an intersection of "fit for
purpose", demand and possibility of delivery. I suspect that at least one of
the above is missing for some reason if it is not on the market yet.
> they can get. I'm not knocking researchers.
> They're just doing what they do. It's just that
> they don't develope products, they investigate.
True.
>
> For an example of why I feel this way, consider the
> rotary and diesel engines that have been in
> 'development' for over a decade.
Maybe ... just maybe, there are competitive alternatives that keep the
market demand lower than what is needed for them to be a financial success.
Maybe ... just maybe, there are still a few things to be worked out to
insure "fit for purpose".
Maybe .... just maybe, they cannot be built and delivered yet at a
cost-effective price.
Building one (demonstration) prototype is sometimes MUCH easier than getting
geared up to deliver a product that must withstand the rigors of the
marketplace ... including liability issues.
>
> I believe it was Tracey Crook who said that perfect
> is the enemy of good enough.
Yup. And I think maybe some of the items you reference are not yet "good
enough" in the minds of those working on them.
James
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
>
>On 04/13 8:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > At least one of the keep-the-dirty-side-down systems could
> > be a GPS aided wing leveler. Often available for less than the
> > cost of a good gyro, the wing leveler will do a better job
> > than a pilot . . . while interfacing with other nav aids for
> > BOTH stabilization -AND- navigation.
>
>I don't intend on having any round steam guages in my panel. I'll
>have a two display GRT EFIS, single AHRS and magnetometer,
>Garmin GNS 430 (IFR), and Trutrak D-IIVSG. Each has it's own
>independant heading and altitude reference. The EFIS can accept
>multiple power inputs. The AP can be engaged in some unusual
>attitudes, and all can communicate with each other.
>
>Since this is an all-electric airplane I plan on two alternators
>and a single battery with Battery, Essential and Primary buses.
Okay, with two alternators, your endurance is essentially
unlimited, even with the main bus powered up.
>I don't feel that an AI, TC or TB is necessary as 'backups'.
>No round airspeed, vsi or altitude instruments either.
>
>Maybe I've not thought about all 'events' which could happen
>in flight, but I believe this is enough to fly light IFR.
>
>I hate to ask this, but because this is a forum of intelligent
>people, here goes;
>
>Can you make a case where this would not work? And if so
>what would you change.
I'd configure the endurance bus with minimum equipment
for continued flight to intended destination sans BOTH
alternators just as described in chapter 17. Put everything
else on the main bus.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | F1Rocket(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
Walter,
My set up for my F1 Rocket is the same as yours except I added an airspeed indicator
and an electric artificial horizon. I added the AH because I got a good
deal on a used one. The airspeed was cheap.
The worst case scenario is a total electrical failure at the bus. This is not
a very likely event but it's the only thing that knocks out all the gyroscopic
instruments at once. In that event, the battery backup to the EFIS should get
you on the ground, unless the EFIS is cooked. Are you using an endurance bus
with an alternate feed path from the battery? If not, I think a single point
of failure is the master solenoid. That's the problem I currently have and
I'm changing my wiring plan accordingly.
In looking at all the certified setups using an EFIS, they all have a altimeter,
AH, and airspeed as backup. Since I'm not IFR rated, I'd be interested in the
comments of others more qualified than me.
Randy
http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
>
> On 04/13 8:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > At least one of the keep-the-dirty-side-down systems could
> > be a GPS aided wing leveler. Often available for less than the
> > cost of a good gyro, the wing leveler will do a better job
> > than a pilot . . . while interfacing with other nav aids for
> > BOTH stabilization -AND- navigation.
>
> I don't intend on having any round steam guages in my panel. I'll
> have a two display GRT EFIS, single AHRS and magnetometer,
> Garmin GNS 430 (IFR), and Trutrak D-IIVSG. Each has it's own
> independant heading and altitude reference. The EFIS can accept
> multiple power inputs. The AP can be engaged in some unusual
> attitudes, and all can communicate with each other.
>
> Since this is an all-electric airplane I plan on two alternators
> and a single battery with Battery, Essential and Primary buses.
>
> I don't feel that an AI, TC or TB is necessary as 'backups'.
> No round airspeed, vsi or altitude instruments either.
>
> Maybe I've not thought about all 'events' which could happen
> in flight, but I believe this is enough to fly light IFR.
>
> I hate to ask this, but because this is a forum of intelligent
> people, here goes;
>
> Can you make a case where this would not work? And if so
> what would you change.
>
> (Go easy on me, please)
> --
> Walter Tondu
> http://www.tondu.com/rv7
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Copper Clad Aluminum etc. |
It's really quite simple. Thermal expansion and contraction of a wire
within a crimped connection is not sufficient to exceed the elastic limit of
the surrounding metal (meaning that there is no permanent deformation).
Because there is no permanent change in size of the metal surrounding the
wire the connection between the two remains air tight at all times. The
same applies to the copper cladding over aluminum.
The original problem with aluminum wire being used in household wiring was
that the installers were not instructed to apply sufficient force, or the
connections used were *by design* inadequate to do so, thus permitting
exactly what you have assumed to happen.
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
echristley(at)nc.rr.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Copper Clad Aluminum etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >
> >-Since the Al still expands and contracts at a
> >different rate, won't the wire eventually deform
> >become loose in the connector?
>
> The gas-tight crimping technology is not affected
> by various expansion coefficients. Further, the
> copper clad aluminum can also be soldered.
>
> Bob . . .
>
That, I don't understand. How could it not be
affected? I mean, it's just that if two objects
with a mechanical connection are changing shape at
different rates, something has to give...either the
connection or the objects. Once either gives while
hot, and then shrinks when cold, the connection
starts to loosen, oxygen is introduce and the
connection eventually fails. From what I have read,
this was the failure mode of aluminum wire being
used with connectors designed for copper. The fact
that aluminum oxides are resitive is just a
byproduct that makes the root failure painfully obvious.
With the greatest respect, how can a connection
between two dissimilar metals not eventually fail?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Backup devices - TC vs. attitude gyro |
Alex,
I agree with your comments but a little note on an incident I experienced.
I too have the BIG RED LIGHT for low vacuum.
Flying along in marginal weather with THREE pilots (at least two of us IRF
rated and current) in the plane, it took way longer than I wish to admit to
discover (and accept??) that I had a vacuum failure.
The slow rate of error introduction was such that I was gently
turning/banking to accomodate. Finally got this feeling that something was
not right and that the AH was really NOT agreeing with my TC. Took a while
then BAM(!!) I noticed the big red light.
I was not in IMC ... just marginal so I *could* look outside and (barely)
see the ground.
My point in this is that it is **very easy** for certain failures to creep
up on you.
We made it safely to our destination once the failure was acknowledged and
returned home with it covered up.
James
[snip]
>
> I believe it is necessary to install some sort of indicator to tell you
> exactly when a gyro croaks. Mine are vacuum driven, and I have a red
> warning light which illuminates whenever the suction is below about 4.5.
> Gyro covers are always at hand, and I'm convinced they must be covered
> in the event of a failure. My aircraft is uniquely equipped to be able
> to shut off the vacuum to the AH or HSI independantly, and I can tell
> you that the AH's death is slow, and would be very hard to detect, and
> more importantly, to accept that it has failed. I'm no psychologist and
> only an IFR student, but if one knows that an instrument failed before
> it gives erroneous readings (the vacuum alarm in this example, I know
> there are other failure modes), it can be covered and cause a minimum of
> distraction. After all, every IFR pilot has demonstrated partial panel
> flight and maneuvering. The trouble is the identification of the need
> and transition to partial panel which gets people.
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 455 hours
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neil McLeod" <bedrock(at)theriver.com> |
| Subject: | A panel full of displays . . . |
Lighting strike? I was flying into London last summer when the airliner
we were on got struck by lightning descending through clouds that were
less than 4000' thick and definitely did not look like thunderstorms.
The flight crew came on the intercom and said they were very surprised
to get struck in those conditions.
Neil Mcleod
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Walter Tondu
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A panel full of displays . . .
On 04/13 8:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At least one of the keep-the-dirty-side-down systems could
> be a GPS aided wing leveler. Often available for less than the
> cost of a good gyro, the wing leveler will do a better job
> than a pilot . . . while interfacing with other nav aids for
> BOTH stabilization -AND- navigation.
I don't intend on having any round steam guages in my panel. I'll
have a two display GRT EFIS, single AHRS and magnetometer,
Garmin GNS 430 (IFR), and Trutrak D-IIVSG. Each has it's own
independant heading and altitude reference. The EFIS can accept
multiple power inputs. The AP can be engaged in some unusual
attitudes, and all can communicate with each other.
Since this is an all-electric airplane I plan on two alternators
and a single battery with Battery, Essential and Primary buses.
I don't feel that an AI, TC or TB is necessary as 'backups'.
No round airspeed, vsi or altitude instruments either.
Maybe I've not thought about all 'events' which could happen
in flight, but I believe this is enough to fly light IFR.
I hate to ask this, but because this is a forum of intelligent
people, here goes;
Can you make a case where this would not work? And if so
what would you change.
(Go easy on me, please)
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.tondu.com/rv7
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
On 04/13 5:32, F1Rocket(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
> Walter,
>
> My set up for my F1 Rocket is the same as yours except I added an airspeed
> indicator and an electric artificial horizon. I added the AH because I got
> a good deal on a used one. The airspeed was cheap.
>
> The worst case scenario is a total electrical failure at the bus. This is
> not a very likely event but it's the only thing that knocks out all
> the gyroscopic instruments at once. In that event, the battery backup to
> the EFIS should get you on the ground, unless the EFIS is cooked. Are you
> using an endurance bus with an alternate feed path from the battery?
That is the plan. Have enough direct battery juice to get down. Actually
the EFIS can handle three power inputs (if I remember correctly) and it
will draw power from the one with the highest voltage. So it will
get wired a bit differently.
> If not, I think a single point of failure is the master solenoid. That's
> the problem I currently have and I'm changing my wiring plan accordingly.
>
> In looking at all the certified setups using an EFIS, they all have a
> altimeter, AH, and airspeed as backup. Since I'm not IFR rated, I'd be
> interested in the comments of others more qualified than me.
What's curious is I wonder if those are there because of the way the
electrical layout is on those 'certicated' planes, or, are they there
because of a long standing thought process that says the 'need' to be
there, when they might not. Anyway, those are cheap instruments
and being non powered, except for lighting, they might get you home
safely.
Plus, there is the issue of transitioning from round guages, which
almost every pilot flying learned with, to glass cockpit. Might be
safer in the beginning. You can always take them out later and sell
them on ebay. :0
> Randy
> http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
> >
> > On 04/13 8:50, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
> > > At least one of the keep-the-dirty-side-down systems could
> > > be a GPS aided wing leveler. Often available for less than the
> > > cost of a good gyro, the wing leveler will do a better job
> > > than a pilot . . . while interfacing with other nav aids for
> > > BOTH stabilization -AND- navigation.
> >
> > I don't intend on having any round steam guages in my panel. I'll
> > have a two display GRT EFIS, single AHRS and magnetometer,
> > Garmin GNS 430 (IFR), and Trutrak D-IIVSG. Each has it's own
> > independant heading and altitude reference. The EFIS can accept
> > multiple power inputs. The AP can be engaged in some unusual
> > attitudes, and all can communicate with each other.
> >
> > Since this is an all-electric airplane I plan on two alternators
> > and a single battery with Battery, Essential and Primary buses.
> >
> > I don't feel that an AI, TC or TB is necessary as 'backups'.
> > No round airspeed, vsi or altitude instruments either.
> >
> > Maybe I've not thought about all 'events' which could happen
> > in flight, but I believe this is enough to fly light IFR.
> >
> > I hate to ask this, but because this is a forum of intelligent
> > people, here goes;
> >
> > Can you make a case where this would not work? And if so
> > what would you change.
> >
> > (Go easy on me, please)
> > --
> > Walter Tondu
> > http://www.tondu.com/rv7
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.tondu.com/rv7
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
On 04/13 12:26, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >I don't intend on having any round steam guages in my panel. I'll
> >have a two display GRT EFIS, single AHRS and magnetometer,
> >Garmin GNS 430 (IFR), and Trutrak D-IIVSG. Each has it's own
> >independant heading and altitude reference. The EFIS can accept
> >multiple power inputs. The AP can be engaged in some unusual
> >attitudes, and all can communicate with each other.
> >
> >Since this is an all-electric airplane I plan on two alternators
> >and a single battery with Battery, Essential and Primary buses.
>
> Okay, with two alternators, your endurance is essentially
> unlimited, even with the main bus powered up.
>
>
> >I don't feel that an AI, TC or TB is necessary as 'backups'.
> >No round airspeed, vsi or altitude instruments either.
> >
> >Maybe I've not thought about all 'events' which could happen
> >in flight, but I believe this is enough to fly light IFR.
> >
> >I hate to ask this, but because this is a forum of intelligent
> >people, here goes;
> >
> >Can you make a case where this would not work? And if so
> >what would you change.
>
> I'd configure the endurance bus with minimum equipment
> for continued flight to intended destination sans BOTH
> alternators just as described in chapter 17. Put everything
> else on the main bus.
I would consider the EFIS and AP as belonging on the Endurance bus.
Everything else, including the GPS/NAV/COM goes on the main bus.
If you do lose the EFIS, and now assuming I've lost everything else
and I'm on the E-bus, I need something to give me time to get sorted
out (AP). I'm assuming IFR in the soup for all the worst case
scenarios.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.tondu.com/rv7
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
> >
> > Can you make a case where this would not work?
And if so
> > what would you change.
> >
> > (Go easy on me, please)
> > --
Lightening strikes? Literally.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | MAC trim troubles |
Bob and List...
We have an RV6a with dual mac grips, pitch and aileron trim servos. Pitch
servo says "MAC 8a" on it. It works fine when wired direct at the servo to 12V
both up and down. When operated off stick switches, either side, "down" works
fine, "up" is intermittent at best, inop at worst. This one has the "relay
deck" from MAC also. It appears to have good power to the realay deck with stick
switches activated. Tried to call Ray Allen Co., but they are all busy at S&F
this week. I believe we have isolated the problem to either the relay deck
itself or a bad connection somewhere between the deck and the el trim servo. Has
anyone had a bad relay deck? We'd sure a lot rather just replace that for $35
than have to dig around under the flooring or back in the tail cone. Any and
all comments, suggestions, hints, much appreciated.
Jerry Cochran
Cliff Gerber
Wilsonville, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Triano" <rondefly(at)rtriano.com> |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
Thanks Matt, Interesting site, looks like they will have one in the future
with separate coils on each plug, I will keep them in mind.
Thanks
Ron Triano
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
-->
You might look at the following site:
http://www.megasquirt.info/
Regards,
Matt-
N34RD
>
>
> I am trying to decide what to do about electronic ignition. There are
> several on the market I have found. Are there any schematic's
> available to build your own. I prefer to use single coil at each
> cylinder using auto parts and at a later date to be able to expand to
> a throttle body with injector at each cylinder. My installation is for
> a 0200 continental on a Q200.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ron Triano
>
>
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Copper Clad Aluminum |
COYLE INSPECTION ENGINEERS, Inc. "Copper clad aluminum wiring has no known
history of the types of problems of aluminum wire."
Indeed there does not seem to have been a problem with copper-clad aluminum
EVER. A Google search shows that this seems to be true.
The reason aluminum is so difficult to use as wiring is that the bare
aluminum oxidizes and this oxide layer does not conduct electricity (copper
oxides DO conduct well). Furthermore, the oxide tends to break up and absorb
water and swell. There are technical solutions to this but why bother?
This "Super-2-CCA" copper-clad aluminum wire is a good replacement for the
2/0 battery cable and saves about 40-50% weight per foot. This is hard to
visualize, but this is about the same as getting AWG 2 battery cable that
weighs about what AWG 6 weighs.
Some people grimace at the price ($6.75 per foot), but you'd smile if you
held a length in your hands. It looks like copper, works like copper, and
weighs pretty much what aluminum weighs. Cool.......!
And by the way...there's lots of this stuff in commercial airplanes.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Copper Clad Aluminum |
Eric M. Jones wrote:
> Some people grimace at the price ($6.75 per foot), but you'd smile if you
> held a length in your hands. It looks like copper, works like copper, and
> weighs pretty much what aluminum weighs. Cool.......!
>
15ft would cost, what?, about $90 more than the welding cable? I was
thinking that switching to the aluminum would shave off 3lbs, but from
your website the savings would be closer to 1.5lbs. That puts the
weight savings at $60/lb. That's near the top of what I consider
reasonable, but still within range. I'd want to run the battery lead
all the way out to the starter, but then I'd have to have another lead
for the avionics.
The other option, as someone else pointed out, is to use the cheap
aluminum wire with the connectors design for Al-to-Cu service. With
this option, I'd run the battery lead up to the panel and have a jumper
of welding cable run to the starter solenoid and have another jumper to
a bus bar for all the avionics.
I think the second option sound more elegant, but I have to investigate
what sort of connectors are available.
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl fixed timing. |
| From: | "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott(at)commander.com> |
Hi all, after experiencing 3 coil failures in the last 5 hours, I am considddering
changing to a fixed timing electronic ignition module for my 6 Cyl Jabiru,
has anyone done this before, and if so with what ignition module and what type
of pickup?
thanks
Ian
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl fixed |
timing.
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
Ian,
Why are the coils failing?
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Scott, Ian
Subject: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl
fixed timing.
Hi all, after experiencing 3 coil failures in the last 5 hours, I am
considddering changing to a fixed timing electronic ignition module for
my 6 Cyl Jabiru, has anyone done this before, and if so with what
ignition module and what type of pickup?
thanks
Ian
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl fixed |
timing.
| From: | "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott(at)commander.com> |
I am not sure whether they are failit because they are overdriven for the rating,
(i.e. they are off a 2 Cyl engine that only does 5000rpm and they are being
used on a 6 cyl with lost spark (12 sparks per rev) at 3300 RPM) i.e. they are
doing 4 times the duty cycle that they usually do,
or it is temperature related, I have not instrumented them up however they are
supposed to be good to 100C and they are supposed to sit about 50-60 degrees
c in cruise, though the under cowl temp is possible up around the 70 or so.
Funny thing is that I had no failures during the 25hour test phase, and 3 failures
n 5 hours on the first long cross country. Man the wife was impressed.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of George
Braly
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6
cyl fixed timing.
Ian,
Why are the coils failing?
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Scott, Ian
Subject: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl
fixed timing.
Hi all, after experiencing 3 coil failures in the last 5 hours, I am
considddering changing to a fixed timing electronic ignition module for
my 6 Cyl Jabiru, has anyone done this before, and if so with what
ignition module and what type of pickup?
thanks
Ian
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Trampas" <tstern(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl fixed |
timing.
Scott,
Check your cap rotor, wires and plugs. If a plug wire is bad then the coil
has to generate higher voltages to arc the plug. This higher voltage can
cause premature failures of coils.
Regards,
Trampas
www.sterntech.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott,
Ian
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl
fixed timing.
I am not sure whether they are failit because they are overdriven for the
rating, (i.e. they are off a 2 Cyl engine that only does 5000rpm and they
are being used on a 6 cyl with lost spark (12 sparks per rev) at 3300 RPM)
i.e. they are doing 4 times the duty cycle that they usually do,
or it is temperature related, I have not instrumented them up however they
are supposed to be good to 100C and they are supposed to sit about 50-60
degrees c in cruise, though the under cowl temp is possible up around the 70
or so.
Funny thing is that I had no failures during the 25hour test phase, and 3
failures n 5 hours on the first long cross country. Man the wife was
impressed.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of George
Braly
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6
cyl fixed timing.
Ian,
Why are the coils failing?
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Scott, Ian
Subject: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl
fixed timing.
Hi all, after experiencing 3 coil failures in the last 5 hours, I am
considddering changing to a fixed timing electronic ignition module for
my 6 Cyl Jabiru, has anyone done this before, and if so with what
ignition module and what type of pickup?
thanks
Ian
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 |
cyl fixed timing.
Art,
Hmmmm? Something for you to investigate perhaps?
Charlie Kuss
>
>Hi all, after experiencing 3 coil failures in the last 5 hours, I am considddering
changing to a fixed timing electronic ignition module for my 6 Cyl Jabiru,
has anyone done this before, and if so with what ignition module and what type
of pickup?
>
>thanks
>
>Ian
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | klehman(at)albedo.net |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
Ron
It has been done with a waste spark system off a GM Cavalier or similar.
The Coil assembly on those works fine without being connected to the
main engine computer. In standalone mode it advances something like 20
degrees linearly per 3000 rpm. I can look up exact numbers if you need
them. You need a steel disc with 7 slots mounted on the crankshaft
(typically behing the prop) to trigger the magnetic sensor. I believe
such a system to be cheaper and more reliable than most scratch built
systems.
Ken
> From: "Ron Triano" <rondefly(at)rtriano.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>
>
> I am trying to decide what to do about electronic ignition. There are
> several on the market I have found. Are there any schematic's available to
> build your own. I prefer to use single coil at each cylinder using auto
> parts and at a later date to be able to expand to a throttle body with
> injector at each cylinder. My installation is for a 0200 continental on a
> Q200.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ron Triano
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Steitle <msteitle(at)mail.utexas.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
Ron,
Have you considered the Real World Solutions EC-2 system? It is a dual
processor unit and is user programmable in flight, no p/c required. Handles
ignition and EFI. Their website is www.rotaryaviation.com Tracy Crook is
a great guy to do business with.
Mark S.
>
>I am trying to decide what to do about electronic ignition. There are
>several on the market I have found. Are there any schematic's available to
>build your own. I prefer to use single coil at each cylinder using auto
>parts and at a later date to be able to expand to a throttle body with
>injector at each cylinder. My installation is for a 0200 continental on a
>Q200.
>
>Thanks
>
>Ron Triano
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl fixed |
timing.
How will changing to fixed timing help the coils?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott(at)commander.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl
fixed timing.
>
> I am not sure whether they are failit because they are overdriven for the
rating, (i.e. they are off a 2 Cyl engine that only does 5000rpm and they
are being used on a 6 cyl with lost spark (12 sparks per rev) at 3300 RPM)
i.e. they are doing 4 times the duty cycle that they usually do,
>
> or it is temperature related, I have not instrumented them up however they
are supposed to be good to 100C and they are supposed to sit about 50-60
degrees c in cruise, though the under cowl temp is possible up around the 70
or so.
>
> Funny thing is that I had no failures during the 25hour test phase, and 3
failures n 5 hours on the first long cross country. Man the wife was
impressed.
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of George
> Braly
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6
> cyl fixed timing.
>
>
> Ian,
>
> Why are the coils failing?
>
> Regards, George
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Scott, Ian
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl
> fixed timing.
>
>
>
> Hi all, after experiencing 3 coil failures in the last 5 hours, I am
> considddering changing to a fixed timing electronic ignition module for
> my 6 Cyl Jabiru, has anyone done this before, and if so with what
> ignition module and what type of pickup?
>
> thanks
>
> Ian
>
>
> ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl fixed |
timing.
Check plug gaps for the same reason.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trampas" <tstern(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl
fixed timing.
>
> Scott,
>
> Check your cap rotor, wires and plugs. If a plug wire is bad then the coil
> has to generate higher voltages to arc the plug. This higher voltage can
> cause premature failures of coils.
>
> Regards,
> Trampas
> www.sterntech.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott,
> Ian
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl
> fixed timing.
>
>
>
> I am not sure whether they are failit because they are overdriven for the
> rating, (i.e. they are off a 2 Cyl engine that only does 5000rpm and they
> are being used on a 6 cyl with lost spark (12 sparks per rev) at 3300 RPM)
> i.e. they are doing 4 times the duty cycle that they usually do,
>
> or it is temperature related, I have not instrumented them up however they
> are supposed to be good to 100C and they are supposed to sit about 50-60
> degrees c in cruise, though the under cowl temp is possible up around the
70
> or so.
>
> Funny thing is that I had no failures during the 25hour test phase, and 3
> failures n 5 hours on the first long cross country. Man the wife was
> impressed.
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of George
> Braly
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6
> cyl fixed timing.
>
>
> Ian,
>
> Why are the coils failing?
>
> Regards, George
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Scott, Ian
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl
> fixed timing.
>
>
>
> Hi all, after experiencing 3 coil failures in the last 5 hours, I am
> considddering changing to a fixed timing electronic ignition module for
> my 6 Cyl Jabiru, has anyone done this before, and if so with what
> ignition module and what type of pickup?
>
> thanks
>
> Ian
>
>
> ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Triano" <rondefly(at)rtriano.com> |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
Thanks Mark, Yes I am, real world and mega squirt & spark are the two I am
looking at.
Ron Triano
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Steitle
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
-->
Ron,
Have you considered the Real World Solutions EC-2 system? It is a dual
processor unit and is user programmable in flight, no p/c required. Handles
ignition and EFI. Their website is www.rotaryaviation.com Tracy Crook is
a great guy to do business with.
Mark S.
>-->
>
>I am trying to decide what to do about electronic ignition. There are
>several on the market I have found. Are there any schematic's available
>to build your own. I prefer to use single coil at each cylinder using
>auto parts and at a later date to be able to expand to a throttle body
>with injector at each cylinder. My installation is for a 0200
>continental on a Q200.
>
>Thanks
>
>Ron Triano
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Pflanzer" <f1rocket(at)comcast.net> |
Using Bob's current wiring diagrams, is it okay to have both the master switch
and endurance bus switch on at the same time? I assume the diode between the
two buses keeps things from shorting out. Is there any long-term consequence
to running with both switches on all the time? It doesn't appear so to me, but
I'm not always very good at keeping all the smoke inside the wires.
Thanks,
Randy
F1 Rocket
http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Walter,
The main thing I'd consider is that your single battery is a single point failure
for the whole system. I had planned to go the same route as you and ended
up settling on dual battery, single alternator. This gives up the advantage of
having unlimited juice in case of alternator failure, but is more robust from
the perspective of keeping the essentials going. It's also cheaper than the
SD-8, doesn't extract any engine power, and in my case is even a bit lighter
since my aux battery is small. If you wanted to keep the benefits that the SD-8
offers, but want to eliminate the chances (however small) of losing everything
due to battery (or battery lead) failure, I'd add at least a small aux battery
that can be isolated from the main battery, such that you have the SD-8 tied
to the aux, and the main alternator tied to the main battery. Then you have
true full redundancy and can fly hard IFR with no limitations imposed by any
single failure.
Just my humble .02
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D fwf stuff these days...
--------------------------------------------
From: Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A panel full of displays . . .
Since this is an all-electric airplane I plan on two alternators
and a single battery with Battery, Essential and Primary buses.
I hate to ask this, but because this is a forum of intelligent
people, here goes;
Can you make a case where this would not work? And if so
what would you change.
(Go easy on me, please)
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.tondu.com/rv7
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl fixed |
timing.
| From: | "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott(at)commander.com> |
on the Jabiru the coils and electrics are contained in one package that sits on
the edge of the flywheel and gets the power form magnets that pass by, as your
Honda Lawn mower or stationary motor would.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Cy
Galley
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6
cyl fixed timing.
How will changing to fixed timing help the coils?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott, Ian" <ian_scott(at)commander.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl
fixed timing.
>
> I am not sure whether they are failit because they are overdriven for the
rating, (i.e. they are off a 2 Cyl engine that only does 5000rpm and they
are being used on a 6 cyl with lost spark (12 sparks per rev) at 3300 RPM)
i.e. they are doing 4 times the duty cycle that they usually do,
>
> or it is temperature related, I have not instrumented them up however they
are supposed to be good to 100C and they are supposed to sit about 50-60
degrees c in cruise, though the under cowl temp is possible up around the 70
or so.
>
> Funny thing is that I had no failures during the 25hour test phase, and 3
failures n 5 hours on the first long cross country. Man the wife was
impressed.
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of George
> Braly
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6
> cyl fixed timing.
>
>
> Ian,
>
> Why are the coils failing?
>
> Regards, George
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Scott, Ian
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition options wanted, 6 cyl
> fixed timing.
>
>
>
> Hi all, after experiencing 3 coil failures in the last 5 hours, I am
> considddering changing to a fixed timing electronic ignition module for
> my 6 Cyl Jabiru, has anyone done this before, and if so with what
> ignition module and what type of pickup?
>
> thanks
>
> Ian
>
>
> ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Endurance Bus |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hi Randy,
I assume you are talking about the 'endurance bus alternate feed'. The
only effect that you will notice by having the alternate feed turned on (at
the same time as the master) is that the endurance bus voltage will rise
by the diode drop (maybe 0.2 to 0.6V depending on the load and what
kind of diode you are using).
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Using Bob's current wiring diagrams, is it okay to have both the master
> switch and endurance bus switch on at the same time? I assume the diode
> between the two buses keeps things from shorting out. Is there any
> long-term consequence to running with both switches on all the time? It
> doesn't appear so to me, but I'm not always very good at keeping all the
> smoke inside the wires.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Randy
> F1 Rocket
> http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Endurance Bus |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hi Randy,
I assume you are talking about the 'endurance bus alternate feed'. The
only effect that you will notice by having the alternate feed turned on (at
the same time as the master) is that the endurance bus voltage will rise
by the diode drop (maybe 0.2 to 0.6V depending on the load and what
kind of diode you are using).
The diode does sort of keep things from shorting out, but only when you
have the master turned off. Without the diode, the main bus would be
powered through the fuse connecting the alternate feed to the battery
bus.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Using Bob's current wiring diagrams, is it okay to have both the master
> switch and endurance bus switch on at the same time? I assume the diode
> between the two buses keeps things from shorting out. Is there any
> long-term consequence to running with both switches on all the time? It
> doesn't appear so to me, but I'm not always very good at keeping all the
> smoke inside the wires.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Randy
> F1 Rocket
> http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
With all due respect...... how many of us have a had a battery failure? I
cannot believe that some of you intend medium to hard IFR with some of our
homebuilts. First consider empennage, wing and prop anti icing equipment
first.... Then I'll believe you need all the rest of the equipment.
One battery will due if it is the proper quality.....
Just my opinion,
Dale Martin
Lewiston, ID
LEZ-235
----- Original Message -----
From: <czechsix(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A panel full of displays . . .
>
>
> Walter,
>
> The main thing I'd consider is that your single battery is a single point
failure for the whole system. I had planned to go the same route as you and
ended up settling on dual battery, single alternator. This gives up the
advantage of having unlimited juice in case of alternator failure, but is
more robust from the perspective of keeping the essentials going. It's also
cheaper than the SD-8, doesn't extract any engine power, and in my case is
even a bit lighter since my aux battery is small. If you wanted to keep the
benefits that the SD-8 offers, but want to eliminate the chances (however
small) of losing everything due to battery (or battery lead) failure, I'd
add at least a small aux battery that can be isolated from the main battery,
such that you have the SD-8 tied to the aux, and the main alternator tied to
the main battery. Then you have true full redundancy and can fly hard IFR
with no limitations imposed by any single failure.
>
> Just my humble .02
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D fwf stuff these days...
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> From: Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A panel full of displays . . .
>
>
>
> Since this is an all-electric airplane I plan on two alternators
> and a single battery with Battery, Essential and Primary buses.
>
>
>
> I hate to ask this, but because this is a forum of intelligent
> people, here goes;
>
> Can you make a case where this would not work? And if so
> what would you change.
>
> (Go easy on me, please)
> --
> Walter Tondu
> http://www.tondu.com/rv7
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance Bus |
Randy,
When I asked Bob this question the answer was that this should be the normal
mode of operation, ESSENTIAL BUS selected, so no matter what, you will have
the essential bus powered.
Pat Hatch
RV-4
RV-6
RV-7 Finishing Kit
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Pflanzer" <f1rocket(at)comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Endurance Bus
>
> Using Bob's current wiring diagrams, is it okay to have both the master
switch and endurance bus switch on at the same time? I assume the diode
between the two buses keeps things from shorting out. Is there any
long-term consequence to running with both switches on all the time? It
doesn't appear so to me, but I'm not always very good at keeping all the
smoke inside the wires.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Randy
> F1 Rocket
> http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance Bus |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Pflanzer" <f1rocket(at)comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Endurance Bus
>
> Using Bob's current wiring diagrams, is it okay to have both the master
switch and endurance bus switch on at the same time? I assume the diode
between the two buses keeps things from shorting out. Is there any
long-term consequence to running with both switches on all the time? It
doesn't appear so to me, but I'm not always very good at keeping all the
smoke inside the wires.
((((((((()))))))))))
The diode keeps current from flowing into the master buss from the
endurance buss when the e-buss alternate feed switch is closed. The diode
allows current to flow only one way from the master buss to the endurance
buss when the master switch is on. When we have a problem and need to save
current, we turn on the endurance buss alternate feed switch and turn off
the master switch to save current by what ever is powered via the master and
that is where the diode stops the flow into the master since the endurance
is powered through the switch.
I have not thought about it and am not sure about leaving the switch on all
the time. On the spur of the moment, I don't know why there would be long
term problems with having the alternate feed e-buss switch on at all
times -- However, the e-buss would act then like a switchable battery buss
and we don't actually have an alternate power source since we have already
used it. FYI, Because my radios are wired into the e-buss, I plan to use
the e-buss to get weather info and file flight plan prior to turning the
master switch on and engine start up. I will not otherwise turn on the
alternate e-buss feed while engine is running unless I have an electrical
problem. If I have an electrical problem when running -- such as an
alternator failure, I will turn on the e-buss alternate feed right before
turning off the master switch . So, for that second or two, I would have
both the e-buss alt. feed and master switch on. Hope Bob chimes in here if
that is not the correct plan to follow. Larry
(((((((())))))))))
>
> Thanks,
>
> Randy
> F1 Rocket
> http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Architecure Choices |
>
>
>Walter,
>
>The main thing I'd consider is that your single battery is a single point
>failure for the whole system. I had planned to go the same route as you
>and ended up settling on dual battery, single alternator. This gives up
>the advantage of having unlimited juice . . .
. . . unlimited? That must be a really BIG battery.
> in case of alternator failure, but is more robust from the perspective
> of keeping the essentials going.
the SD-8 is about as robust a power supply as you're going to find.
It's lightly stressed, has no wearing parts, a VERY long service life
and requires no periodic maintenance.
> It's also cheaper than the SD-8,
how may of those really big batteries will you use over the
foreseeable future? How long will it take for battery replacements
to add up to price of SD-8?
> doesn't extract any engine power,
120 watts at 40% efficiency comes to about 0.4 hp max. That
will add about 5 fpm to rate of climb on the average lightplane.
> and in my case is even a bit lighter since my aux battery is small.
. . . how do you get 'unlimited' energy from a battery that weighs less
than
an SD-8? Have you conducted a load analysis for the various operating
scenarios?
> If you wanted to keep the benefits that the SD-8 offers, but want to
> eliminate the chances (however small) of losing everything due to battery
> (or battery lead) failure, I'd add at least a small aux battery that can
> be isolated from the main battery, such that you have the SD-8 tied to
> the aux, and the main alternator tied to the main battery. Then you have
> true full redundancy and can fly hard IFR with no limitations imposed by
> any single failure.
Some builders have assembled an SD-8/L-40 combination into
a Figure Z-14 style architecture where the aux battery is
small, not used for engine cranking, and switches or
small relays used in lieu of contactors for crossfeed and
battery control.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | New SD-8 Regulator |
Tim Hedding called from B&C today to tell me about a new, beefier
regulator being offered for the SD-8 alternator. See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/PMR1C.pdf
for copy of installation and operating data. My feeling is
that the original regulator is probably fine when mounted to
a metal surface but the regulator/rectifier cited above
was tested with especially conservative ratings in mind.
Tim didn't have anything to share on pricing. He's leaving
that up to Bill and Todd. If anyone is interested in this
product, give them a call in about 10 days . . . I think
it will be that long before they're back from Sun-n-Fun.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance Bus |
>
>
>Using Bob's current wiring diagrams, is it okay to have both the master
>switch and endurance bus switch on at the same time? I assume the diode
>between the two buses keeps things from shorting out. Is there any
>long-term consequence to running with both switches on all the time? It
>doesn't appear so to me, but I'm not always very good at keeping all the
>smoke inside the wires.
Nope, you can run with the e-bus alternate feed switch on all the time
and it doesn't hurt anything. Be sure to turn it off with all other
switches at shutdown.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance Bus |
>
>Randy,
>
>When I asked Bob this question the answer was that this should be the normal
>mode of operation, ESSENTIAL BUS selected, so no matter what, you will have
>the essential bus powered.
I don't recall that conversation. I think I'd run with it off but
it's not a show stopper either way. Just make sure your preflight
checklist proves the alternate power path before startup.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MAC trim troubles |
>
>Bob and List...
>
>We have an RV6a with dual mac grips, pitch and aileron trim servos. Pitch
>servo says "MAC 8a" on it. It works fine when wired direct at the servo
>to 12V
>both up and down. When operated off stick switches, either side, "down" works
>fine, "up" is intermittent at best, inop at worst. This one has the "relay
>deck" from MAC also.
Sounds like a problem with the relay deck. Could be bad solder
joint, bad relay, etc.
> It appears to have good power to the realay deck with stick
>switches activated. Tried to call Ray Allen Co., but they are all busy at S&F
>this week. I believe we have isolated the problem to either the relay deck
>itself or a bad connection somewhere between the deck and the el trim
>servo. Has
>anyone had a bad relay deck? We'd sure a lot rather just replace that for $35
>than have to dig around under the flooring or back in the tail cone. Any and
>all comments, suggestions, hints, much appreciated.
You can build your own relay "deck" from locally acquired relays.
The circuit is not complex. Here's a compilation of options:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/PitchTrim.pdf
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Architecure Choices |
Uuuh, Bob. You read his post wrong. What he said was:
>>This gives up the advantage of having unlimited juice . . .
>>
>>
Meaning, he is choosing to use batteries and one alternator - resulting
in limited juice.
>
> . . . unlimited? That must be a really BIG battery.
>
Likewise.
Other than that, your comments are right on.
Dick Tasker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | klehman(at)albedo.net |
| Subject: | z-14 common failure point |
The cross-feed relay/contactor in a dual battery and dual alternator
Z-14 architecture is a common point of failure.
With a small non-cranking second battery, the crossfeed could be fused
or protected with fusable links. With two batteries of the same size
that both provide cranking current, that becomes more difficult.
So today's question is - do crossfeed contactors ever fail in such a
manner that one or both feeds short to ground? This question came to
mind after observing a Docap 24059 contactor. The studs penetrate the
metal case through hard plastic grommets that can't have a terribly high
melting point. Now I'm wondering what is inside that could fail and
short to the metal case. The Cole Hersee site also lists a "plasticized"
24117 version although I've not seen it stocked locally and it is
several times the price. Perhaps I'll just insulate the metal contactor
from the metal airframe.
thanks
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
Hi Bob,
Finished reading through the "Antenna" chapter last night. Back in my pre-teen
days, I used to spend some time with a ham operator that operated in the HF
band. Although I don't remember the equation, I distinctly remember that he'd
measure all his coaxes before cutting and fitting them with connectors. I seem
to recall that his reasoning for this was so that the coax was a multiple of
the wavelength of the carrier freq. Is this of any relevance to our apps?
Thanks,
/\/elson
Austin, TX
RV-7A - Waiting on the wings....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: z-14 common failure point |
>
>The cross-feed relay/contactor in a dual battery and dual alternator
>Z-14 architecture is a common point of failure.
>
>With a small non-cranking second battery, the crossfeed could be fused
>or protected with fusable links. With two batteries of the same size
>that both provide cranking current, that becomes more difficult.
>
>So today's question is - do crossfeed contactors ever fail in such a
>manner that one or both feeds short to ground? This question came to
>mind after observing a Docap 24059 contactor. The studs penetrate the
>metal case through hard plastic grommets that can't have a terribly high
>melting point. Now I'm wondering what is inside that could fail and
>short to the metal case. The Cole Hersee site also lists a "plasticized"
>24117 version although I've not seen it stocked locally and it is
>several times the price. Perhaps I'll just insulate the metal contactor
>from the metal airframe.
There's no component I'm aware of that has a failure rate of
zero. There are many components with failure rates that are
exceedingly small . . . in the same neighborhood as that of
prop bolts and wing struts.
I'm involved in an investigation of fault-to-ground failure
in a solid state contactor that caused a fire . . . fortunately
on the ground. One might sit right up in their chair with the
wide-eyed stare and declare that this event warrants some
rapid response and real "solutions" . . .
However, looking at the history of this part (25+ years of
service, 4 devices per airplane, fleet size in the upper
hundreds, and what must be millions of flight hours with
no similar failures) I do not at present perceive a
need for such action. The investigation is incomplete but
preliminary studies suggest that inattention to assembly
procedures is the triggering event . . . not gross failure
of any components.
Now, do electro-mechanical contactors fail, you betcha.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/6041_Contactor.jpg
and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/6041_Contactor_Failure.jpg
This is a $high$ contactor used to control loads of well
over 100A with LONG duty cycles. Contact aging increases
resistance which in turn increases heat which increases
resistance and the end is inevitable.
Is the Z-14 crossfeed contactor at risk? It carries a
PORTION of cranking current for a few seconds at the
beginning of each flight. Its normal operating condition
for 99.9% of flight operations is OFF. With B&C hardware
for alternators, it's unlikely that the crossfeed contactor
will ever be called upon to carry out a primary assigned
duty as mitigator of alternator failure over the lifetime
of the airplane. Even if it DOES get a call-to-service,
it will carry loads at a small fraction of it's rated
service and only for perhaps an hour or two until
landing.
Given the VERY low stress and duty cycle on this contactor,
I'll suggest that there are many, many things in your
system much more likely to fail than this contactor.
Further, given that the continuous duty operating loads
are so small, it's extremely unlikely that it will fail
in an overheat mode that produces faults to ground due
to insulator failure. Now, is the risk of what you've
suggested zero? Nope . . . but I wouldn't loose any sleep
over this one.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | PS: z-14 common failure point |
It just occurred to me that this style contactor has been
used on SE certified aircraft for about 60 years as a battery
contactor. This offers a tens-of-millions flight-hours experience-
base. I've seen a lot of these contactors fail . . . haven't
seen any catch fire or fault to ground. This same style contactor
is used as battery contactor in OBAM aircraft as well. We're
continuing to pile up millions of flight hours history on
this part in a CONTINUOUS duty application at substantial
current values. If there are valid concerns for the failure mode
hypothesized then it's going to happen at the battery long before
it happens at the crossfeed contactor.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Copper Clad Aluminum etc. |
>
>With the greatest respect, how can a connection
>between two dissimilar metals not eventually fail?
>
>It's really quite simple. Thermal expansion and contraction of a wire
>within a crimped connection is not sufficient to exceed the elastic limit of
>the surrounding metal (meaning that there is no permanent deformation).
>Because there is no permanent change in size of the metal surrounding the
>wire the connection between the two remains air tight at all times. The
>same applies to the copper cladding over aluminum.
Rob, thank you for the illumination of "simple ideas" that support
the premise of permanency of gas-tight crimps on aluminum. I hadn't
considered the dynamics necessary to open a gap the terminal's grip.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flyv35b" <flyv35b(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
> With all due respect...... how many of us have a had a battery failure?
I
> cannot believe that some of you intend medium to hard IFR with some of our
> homebuilts. First consider empennage, wing and prop anti icing equipment
> first.... Then I'll believe you need all the rest of the equipment.
>
> One battery will due if it is the proper quality.....
I agree. I've been flying for 40 years and owned probably 20 planes during
that time and have never had a battery failure or even heard of one (I am
A&P/IA). And most of the time the battery gives plenty of warning that it
is about to fail or already has per Bob's definition. I see a battery
failure risk as being almost totally negligible in comparison to other IFR
flying risks.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A panel full of displays . . .
>
> With all due respect...... how many of us have a had a battery failure?
I
> cannot believe that some of you intend medium to hard IFR with some of our
> homebuilts. First consider empennage, wing and prop anti icing equipment
> first.... Then I'll believe you need all the rest of the equipment.
>
> One battery will due if it is the proper quality.....
>
> Just my opinion,
>
> Dale Martin
> Lewiston, ID
> LEZ-235
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <czechsix(at)juno.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A panel full of displays . . .
>
>
> >
> >
> > Walter,
> >
> > The main thing I'd consider is that your single battery is a single
point
> failure for the whole system. I had planned to go the same route as you
and
> ended up settling on dual battery, single alternator. This gives up the
> advantage of having unlimited juice in case of alternator failure, but is
> more robust from the perspective of keeping the essentials going. It's
also
> cheaper than the SD-8, doesn't extract any engine power, and in my case is
> even a bit lighter since my aux battery is small. If you wanted to keep
the
> benefits that the SD-8 offers, but want to eliminate the chances (however
> small) of losing everything due to battery (or battery lead) failure, I'd
> add at least a small aux battery that can be isolated from the main
battery,
> such that you have the SD-8 tied to the aux, and the main alternator tied
to
> the main battery. Then you have true full redundancy and can fly hard IFR
> with no limitations imposed by any single failure.
> >
> > Just my humble .02
> >
> > --Mark Navratil
> > Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> > RV-8A N2D fwf stuff these days...
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > From: Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A panel full of displays . . .
> >
> >
> >
> > Since this is an all-electric airplane I plan on two alternators
> > and a single battery with Battery, Essential and Primary buses.
> >
> >
> >
> > I hate to ask this, but because this is a forum of intelligent
> > people, here goes;
> >
> > Can you make a case where this would not work? And if so
> > what would you change.
> >
> > (Go easy on me, please)
> > --
> > Walter Tondu
> > http://www.tondu.com/rv7
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | F1Rocket(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Endurance Bus |
Thanks to everyone who answered my questions. I realized after I'd built my switch
panels that even though I had three independent gyro systems in my panel,
I had designed in a single point of failure for all of them. I had concentrated
too much on the endurance bus from the persective of reducing load during
alternator failure and missed the valuable benefit of it providing an alternate
feed path from the battery to my filght instruments. I reasoned away the need
for the endurance bus because I have dual alternators
As designed today, a battery contactor or master switch failure would have rendered
my EFIS, A/P, and electric AH all useless because I left off the endurance
bus. Now, I plan to move all my radios/gyros to the endurance bus and I will
add a switch to my panel to power it. That switch will also serve to power
the radios only before start-up for clearance/ATIS/weather etc. My endurance
bus is "really" an avionics bus, but I promise not to call it that.
Randy
F1 Rocket (RV-6 and Long-EZ using Bob's methods)
http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
>
>
> >
> >
> >Using Bob's current wiring diagrams, is it okay to have both the master
> >switch and endurance bus switch on at the same time? I assume the diode
> >between the two buses keeps things from shorting out. Is there any
> >long-term consequence to running with both switches on all the time? It
> >doesn't appear so to me, but I'm not always very good at keeping all the
> >smoke inside the wires.
>
> Nope, you can run with the e-bus alternate feed switch on all the time
> and it doesn't hurt anything. Be sure to turn it off with all other
> switches at shutdown.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Morris <dave(at)davemorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Coaxial Lengths |
Your friend was either a novice or was building special antennas. The only
reason to measure coax is if you're using the coax as an impedance matching
section. Other than that, one of the key benefits of coax versus open
feedline is that you can cut it to any length to wrap around
obstacles. The higher you go in frequency, the higher the losses for
longer pieces, so don't coil up 100 feet of coax if 10 feet will do,
because it will degrade the signal. Other than that, length is of no
importance.
Dave Morris
N5UP
>
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Finished reading through the "Antenna" chapter last night. Back in my
>pre-teen
>days, I used to spend some time with a ham operator that operated in the HF
>band. Although I don't remember the equation, I distinctly remember that he'd
>measure all his coaxes before cutting and fitting them with connectors. I
>seem
>to recall that his reasoning for this was so that the coax was a multiple of
>the wavelength of the carrier freq. Is this of any relevance to our apps?
>
>Thanks,
> /\/elson
> Austin, TX
> RV-7A - Waiting on the wings....
>
>
Dave Morris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ignitions/Starting |
04/15/2004 11:09:28 AM
To all of you with 1 electronic ignition and one mag - I am assuming the
remaining mag does not have an impulse coupling. So your starting procedure
would be to turn on both the mag and electronic ignition and then start? or
just use the electronic ignition for start? Which leads to my next
question... how do you handle the key switch? Does it just lock out the
starter or do you also disable the electronic ignition to prevent hand
propping (if possible) or is there some type of special switch being used
to switch off both the mag and electronic ignition? I am planning to have
normal switches for the ignitions but a simple key switch for security. So
my best idea yet is to have a key switch to lock out the electronic
ignition and starter and then separate switches for mag/electronic/start.
Essentially the mag could be made hot with only the switch, but then the
plane would be hard to start without the impulse coupling.
Am I on the right track here? What have you done - Why?
Thanks,
Bryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "GMC" <gmcnutt(at)uniserve.com> |
| Subject: | PS: z-14 common failure point |
Hi Bob
You state that you have "seen a lot of these contactors fail" -
I am assuming that the normal battery contactor failure modes would be (1)
fail to close when turned on, (2) fail to open when turned off, (3) poor
conductivity due pitting of contacts (hard starting) - none of which would
cause a problem in flight.
Are there other battery contactor failure modes (such as drop out) that you
have seen that actually did cause a problem in flight, and if so what are
they??
Thanks,
George in Langley
It just occurred to me that this style contactor has been
used on SE certified aircraft for about 60 years as a battery
contactor. This offers a tens-of-millions flight-hours experience-
base. I've seen a lot of these contactors fail . . . haven't
seen any catch fire or fault to ground. This same style contactor
is used as battery contactor in OBAM aircraft as well. We're
continuing to pile up millions of flight hours history on
this part in a CONTINUOUS duty application at substantial
current values. If there are valid concerns for the failure mode
hypothesized then it's going to happen at the battery long before
it happens at the crossfeed contactor.
Bob . . .
_
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ignitions/Starting |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hi Bryan,
Embedded comments...
>
>
> To all of you with 1 electronic ignition and one mag - I am assuming the
> remaining mag does not have an impulse coupling.
Magnetos without impulse coupling (or some other method to retard the
spark timing) are not suitable for starting.
> So your starting
> procedure would be to turn on both the mag and electronic ignition and
> then start? or just use the electronic ignition for start?
Both of the mags on my O-200 had impulse couplings... So, I used to turn
both of them on when starting. Not unusual. Now, with one electronic
ignition,
I still turn both systems on, as they both properly retard the spark
timing for
starting.
> Which leads
> to my next question... how do you handle the key switch?
No key switch. Removed. Using 2 toggle switches.
> Does it just
> lock out the starter or do you also disable the electronic ignition to
> prevent hand propping (if possible)
My airplane doesn't have a starter. Hand propping is the only way to make
it go. Being able to hand prop might be useful, even on airplanes with
starters.
> or is there some type of special
> switch being used to switch off both the mag and electronic ignition?
The p-lead on magnetos needs to be disconnected to run, and shorted to not
run. Most electronic ignition systems require the oposite conditions, ie
they
need to have 12V connected in order to run. I believe Klaus offers an option
on some of his systems to be able to work with a normal magneto key switch,
though he recommends using toggle switches instead.
> I
> am planning to have normal switches for the ignitions but a simple key
> switch for security.
Secure from what? Accidental starter engagement or from theft? I don't
think a normal key switch provides any protection from either problem. I
suppose that a key switch might discourage a joy rider, but I think that's
about it.
> So my best idea yet is to have a key switch to lock
> out the electronic ignition and starter and then separate switches for
> mag/electronic/start. Essentially the mag could be made hot with only
> the switch, but then the plane would be hard to start without the
> impulse coupling.
The only way I can think to wire up what you are talking about involves
essentially two electrical disconnects for engine ignition. I don't think I
would choose to sacrifice in flight reliability to gain on the ground
security.
For security, as someone (Bob?) suggests, get one of those heavy
padded chains with a high quality padlock, and figure-eight it around the
propellor.
>
> Am I on the right track here? What have you done - Why?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bryan
>
Regards,
Matt-
N34RD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca> |
"'aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com'"
| Subject: | Dynon heated AOA pitot now available |
this week for the heated AOA pitot and plans to begin shipping next week.
I've ordered mine. I also currently have the PSS AOA system
installed so I can do some direct comparisons.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B
RX-9endurance
C-FSTB
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
-Albert Einstein
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignitions/Starting |
On my RV-7 I have one Slick impulse coupled mag and one LightSpeed Plasma
II. From what I understand, the LSE retards to zero (TDC) for starting. So
I use both ignition sources at startup and the thing fires on the first
blade when cold, first few blades when hot & purged.
Whenever starting, I do this (after any required priming is complete):
- master switch on battery only (all 3 buses powered on)
- mag switch on (impulse coupler enables starting)
- Lightspeed switch on (timing retarded to zero for starting)
- engage starter
After it's running I flip the master up to the "both" (battery + alt)
position and check volts/amps. I don't think there would be any harm in
going right to the "both" position before starting, but this method helps
force me to check volts/amps after turning on the alternator (B&C L40).
By the way (off topic), I just want to express more thanks to Bob for all
the help during the construction process and for the excellent book. I
followed your guidelines and have what sure seems to be reliable, noise-free
system. About 35 hours and counting.
Now if you happen to have a trick to make my Airflow Performance
high-pressure fuel pump consume less power, I'm all ears!! 8-)
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <BFlood@Sauer-Danfoss.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ignitions/Starting
>
>
> To all of you with 1 electronic ignition and one mag - I am assuming the
> remaining mag does not have an impulse coupling. So your starting
procedure
> would be to turn on both the mag and electronic ignition and then start?
or
> just use the electronic ignition for start? Which leads to my next
> question... how do you handle the key switch? Does it just lock out the
> starter or do you also disable the electronic ignition to prevent hand
> propping (if possible) or is there some type of special switch being used
> to switch off both the mag and electronic ignition? I am planning to have
> normal switches for the ignitions but a simple key switch for security. So
> my best idea yet is to have a key switch to lock out the electronic
> ignition and starter and then separate switches for mag/electronic/start.
> Essentially the mag could be made hot with only the switch, but then the
> plane would be hard to start without the impulse coupling.
>
> Am I on the right track here? What have you done - Why?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bryan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Architecure Choices |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Bob, I was about to reply but saw that someone else already caught it...you just
misread my post.
I agree that the SD-8 is a good system and wasn't trying to make a big deal out
of cost/weight/engine power savings, which are marginal differences. My main
point to the original question was if I saw any potential problems with an IFR
machine that uses dual alternators tied to a single battery. Your own advice
to me when asking the same questions about a year ago was that dual batteries,
single alternator was more RELIABLE especially for dual electronic ignition,
but of course you lose the ability to have unlimited duration that you have
with the dual alternator, single battery system.
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D finishing
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Architecure Choices
Uuuh, Bob. You read his post wrong. What he said was:
>>This gives up the advantage of having unlimited juice . . .
>>
>>
Meaning, he is choosing to use batteries and one alternator - resulting
in limited juice.
>
> . . . unlimited? That must be a really BIG battery.
>
Likewise.
Other than that, your comments are right on.
Dick Tasker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Ignitions/Starting |
Matt,
You say you hand-prop your O-200. So do I, and I just installed a LSE
Plasma III. It seems to start hard when the engine is cold. I have high
compression pistons and it doesn't seem to go over the next compression
stroke very easily, unless I open the throttle wider than I like to. It
starts a lot easier if it's hot.
Have you had any experience like this? I thought starting was going to be
easier, but so far that's not the case.
Sam
Quickie Q-200 ~ 1,350 hrs.
http://home.mchsi.com/~shoskins/index.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ignitions/Starting
Hi Bryan,
Embedded comments...
>
>
> To all of you with 1 electronic ignition and one mag - I am assuming the
> remaining mag does not have an impulse coupling.
Magnetos without impulse coupling (or some other method to retard the
spark timing) are not suitable for starting.
> So your starting
> procedure would be to turn on both the mag and electronic ignition and
> then start? or just use the electronic ignition for start?
Both of the mags on my O-200 had impulse couplings... So, I used to turn
both of them on when starting. Not unusual. Now, with one electronic
ignition,
I still turn both systems on, as they both properly retard the spark
timing for
starting.
> Which leads
> to my next question... how do you handle the key switch?
No key switch. Removed. Using 2 toggle switches.
> Does it just
> lock out the starter or do you also disable the electronic ignition to
> prevent hand propping (if possible)
My airplane doesn't have a starter. Hand propping is the only way to make
it go. Being able to hand prop might be useful, even on airplanes with
starters.
> or is there some type of special
> switch being used to switch off both the mag and electronic ignition?
The p-lead on magnetos needs to be disconnected to run, and shorted to not
run. Most electronic ignition systems require the oposite conditions, ie
they
need to have 12V connected in order to run. I believe Klaus offers an
option
on some of his systems to be able to work with a normal magneto key switch,
though he recommends using toggle switches instead.
> I
> am planning to have normal switches for the ignitions but a simple key
> switch for security.
Secure from what? Accidental starter engagement or from theft? I don't
think a normal key switch provides any protection from either problem. I
suppose that a key switch might discourage a joy rider, but I think that's
about it.
> So my best idea yet is to have a key switch to lock
> out the electronic ignition and starter and then separate switches for
> mag/electronic/start. Essentially the mag could be made hot with only
> the switch, but then the plane would be hard to start without the
> impulse coupling.
The only way I can think to wire up what you are talking about involves
essentially two electrical disconnects for engine ignition. I don't think I
would choose to sacrifice in flight reliability to gain on the ground
security.
For security, as someone (Bob?) suggests, get one of those heavy
padded chains with a high quality padlock, and figure-eight it around the
propellor.
>
> Am I on the right track here? What have you done - Why?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bryan
>
Regards,
Matt-
N34RD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Ignitions/Starting |
Bryan
It is imperative that any magneto has either a spark retard device (impulse
coupling, shower o sparks, etc) or is inoperative while starting. You
always want your start timing to be close to 0 deg, TDC. You DON'T want to
have an advanced spark when the engine is turning slowly, during the start
phase.
An advanced spark at slow speeds can cause kickback, which is damaging to
starters.
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BFlood@Sauer-Danfoss.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ignitions/Starting
To all of you with 1 electronic ignition and one mag - I am assuming the
remaining mag does not have an impulse coupling. So your starting procedure
would be to turn on both the mag and electronic ignition and then start? or
just use the electronic ignition for start? Which leads to my next
question... how do you handle the key switch? Does it just lock out the
starter or do you also disable the electronic ignition to prevent hand
propping (if possible) or is there some type of special switch being used
to switch off both the mag and electronic ignition? I am planning to have
normal switches for the ignitions but a simple key switch for security. So
my best idea yet is to have a key switch to lock out the electronic
ignition and starter and then separate switches for mag/electronic/start.
Essentially the mag could be made hot with only the switch, but then the
plane would be hard to start without the impulse coupling.
Am I on the right track here? What have you done - Why?
Thanks,
Bryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Hi Dale,
To answer your question, very few of us have had battery failure. It's pretty
rare, and many people may be comfortable with a single battery in an all-electric
airplane (i.e. dual elec. ignition and IFR panel with no vacuum). Personally,
I'm NOT comfortable with having all that at stake in a single battery. There
have been a few battery failures reported here on this List over the past
few years I've followed it, and several people I've talked to have had it happen
in cars. I'm talking catastrauphic failure, where the lead or post breaks
off, or something happens to the battery itself rendering the whole electrical
system dead. I know, I know...they were probably poorly designed installations
and/or poorly maintained, and if you have a well-designed installation without
stressing the battery leads/terminals, with an RG battery rotated out every
other year, the odds of failure are probably reduced to very slim. But in
my case I decided to go with a small aux battery to k
eep my second ignition alive in the ulikely event that it's needed. Each person
can decide for their airplane and mission what they're comfortable with.
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D finishing...
From: "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A panel full of displays . . .
With all due respect...... how many of us have a had a battery failure? I
cannot believe that some of you intend medium to hard IFR with some of our
homebuilts. First consider empennage, wing and prop anti icing equipment
first.... Then I'll believe you need all the rest of the equipment.
One battery will due if it is the proper quality.....
Just my opinion,
Dale Martin
Lewiston, ID
LEZ-235
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ignitions/Starting |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hi Sam,
I have stock pistons in my O-200. It was pretty easy to start with 2
mags, and
somewhat easier to start with the swapout to an LSE and a mag. Mine is
easier
to start when its cold, but only because it is pretty easy to flood when hot.
Does your carb have an accelerator pump or primer?
The way I start mine when cold is to pump the throttle (not primer
equipped) 2-3
times. Then, with all of the switches off, pull 4 blades through. All
switches on,
and it ALMOST always starts on the first pull.
When hot, the easiest starting is had by shutting down via the ignition
switch, not
the mixture control. When ready to go, switches on, and it usually starts
again
on the first pull. If I shut down via mixture and have to restart, I
usually give it
about a half pump on the throttle, switches hot, and then most of the time
it runs
on the 2nd pull.
I am not sure what I would do different if I had hi compression pistons.
I'll have
to think about that. Does the engine fire once but not make it through to
the next
stroke? Or does it not spark at all? Do you have the prop 'clocked' to a
position
where you can get a good hard flip on it?
Regards,
Matt-
N34RD
>
>
> Matt,
> You say you hand-prop your O-200. So do I, and I just installed a LSE
> Plasma III. It seems to start hard when the engine is cold. I have
> high compression pistons and it doesn't seem to go over the next
> compression stroke very easily, unless I open the throttle wider than I
> like to. It starts a lot easier if it's hot.
> Have you had any experience like this? I thought starting was going to
> be easier, but so far that's not the case.
> Sam
> Quickie Q-200 ~ 1,350 hrs.
> http://home.mchsi.com/~shoskins/index.htm
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignitions/Starting |
Dan, one other reason to stay in the battery-only position prior to start is
that in BOTH you are supplying about 2-3 amps to the alternator field
circuit, which is robbing power from your starter. I think it prolongs the
life of your battery too to not load it down more than neccessary during a
start. On my RV-4 the ammeter happens to be on the battery so you can
actually see the 2-3 amps kick in when going to BOTH on the master switch.
You probably knew this, but it might help someone else who might not.
Pat Hatch
RV-4
RV-6
RV-7 Finishing Kit
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ignitions/Starting
>
> On my RV-7 I have one Slick impulse coupled mag and one LightSpeed Plasma
> II. From what I understand, the LSE retards to zero (TDC) for starting.
So
> I use both ignition sources at startup and the thing fires on the first
> blade when cold, first few blades when hot & purged.
>
> Whenever starting, I do this (after any required priming is complete):
>
> - master switch on battery only (all 3 buses powered on)
> - mag switch on (impulse coupler enables starting)
> - Lightspeed switch on (timing retarded to zero for starting)
> - engage starter
>
> After it's running I flip the master up to the "both" (battery + alt)
> position and check volts/amps. I don't think there would be any harm in
> going right to the "both" position before starting, but this method helps
> force me to check volts/amps after turning on the alternator (B&C L40).
>
> By the way (off topic), I just want to express more thanks to Bob for all
> the help during the construction process and for the excellent book. I
> followed your guidelines and have what sure seems to be reliable,
noise-free
> system. About 35 hours and counting.
>
> Now if you happen to have a trick to make my Airflow Performance
> high-pressure fuel pump consume less power, I'm all ears!! 8-)
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <BFlood@Sauer-Danfoss.com>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ignitions/Starting
>
>
> >
> >
> > To all of you with 1 electronic ignition and one mag - I am assuming the
> > remaining mag does not have an impulse coupling. So your starting
> procedure
> > would be to turn on both the mag and electronic ignition and then start?
> or
> > just use the electronic ignition for start? Which leads to my next
> > question... how do you handle the key switch? Does it just lock out the
> > starter or do you also disable the electronic ignition to prevent hand
> > propping (if possible) or is there some type of special switch being
used
> > to switch off both the mag and electronic ignition? I am planning to
have
> > normal switches for the ignitions but a simple key switch for security.
So
> > my best idea yet is to have a key switch to lock out the electronic
> > ignition and starter and then separate switches for
mag/electronic/start.
> > Essentially the mag could be made hot with only the switch, but then the
> > plane would be hard to start without the impulse coupling.
> >
> > Am I on the right track here? What have you done - Why?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bryan
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignitions/Starting |
>
>Dan, one other reason to stay in the battery-only position prior to start is
>that in BOTH you are supplying about 2-3 amps to the alternator field
>circuit, which is robbing power from your starter. I think it prolongs the
>life of your battery too to not load it down more than neccessary during a
>start. On my RV-4 the ammeter happens to be on the battery so you can
>actually see the 2-3 amps kick in when going to BOTH on the master switch.
>You probably knew this, but it might help someone else who might not.
This use to be the standard advice on certified ships that
it was good practice to leave the alternator and other things
OFF during cranking to "save the battery". In the grand scheme
of things, adding a few percent more load to a 200+ amp cranking
event doesn't have much influence on battery life. Keeping the
engine tuned and developing techniques that get the fires lit
in a few blades is more beneficial than shaving a few amps
of total loads.
> >
> > Now if you happen to have a trick to make my Airflow Performance
> > high-pressure fuel pump consume less power, I'm all ears!! 8-)
What are the physics of your pump operation? I designed a pump controller
about 20 years ago for a pump that was originally designed to deliver
constant pressure to an engine by means of a relief valve. During
periods of low fuel flow, the relief valve cracked and ported
excess flow back to tank. Simple system but use max power under
all fuel flow conditions. By adding an accumulator/transducer
combination downstream of the pump, power to the pump motor
was throttled to maintain constant pressure at any flow. Result
was very low power consumption at low fuel flows and max power
needed only during full-rich, max throttle climbs.
Cut power consumption by about half for most operations and
increased pump brush life by three or four times.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Ignitions/Starting |
Matt, I have been hand-propping this aircraft for 15 years, and probably
have as many starts as hours. Probably 1,330+
I have an MA3 carb, plus a primer to the intake spider manifold. Both seem
to do the same. I start mine much like you do, however with the
substitution of the Plasma III starting seems to have gotten harder. It
doesn't like to make it over the compression stroke after I release the
blade. I attribute that to the high compression pistons, but it has gotten
worse with the LSE.
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ignitions/Starting
Hi Sam,
I have stock pistons in my O-200. It was pretty easy to start with 2
mags, and
somewhat easier to start with the swapout to an LSE and a mag. Mine is
easier
to start when its cold, but only because it is pretty easy to flood when
hot.
Does your carb have an accelerator pump or primer?
The way I start mine when cold is to pump the throttle (not primer
equipped) 2-3
times. Then, with all of the switches off, pull 4 blades through. All
switches on,
and it ALMOST always starts on the first pull.
When hot, the easiest starting is had by shutting down via the ignition
switch, not
the mixture control. When ready to go, switches on, and it usually starts
again
on the first pull. If I shut down via mixture and have to restart, I
usually give it
about a half pump on the throttle, switches hot, and then most of the time
it runs
on the 2nd pull.
I am not sure what I would do different if I had hi compression pistons.
I'll have
to think about that. Does the engine fire once but not make it through to
the next
stroke? Or does it not spark at all? Do you have the prop 'clocked' to a
position
where you can get a good hard flip on it?
Regards,
Matt-
N34RD
>
>
> Matt,
> You say you hand-prop your O-200. So do I, and I just installed a LSE
> Plasma III. It seems to start hard when the engine is cold. I have
> high compression pistons and it doesn't seem to go over the next
> compression stroke very easily, unless I open the throttle wider than I
> like to. It starts a lot easier if it's hot.
> Have you had any experience like this? I thought starting was going to
> be easier, but so far that's not the case.
> Sam
> Quickie Q-200 ~ 1,350 hrs.
> http://home.mchsi.com/~shoskins/index.htm
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignitions/Starting |
> > > Now if you happen to have a trick to make my Airflow Performance
> > > high-pressure fuel pump consume less power, I'm all ears!! 8-)
>
> What are the physics of your pump operation? I designed a pump
controller
> about 20 years ago for a pump that was originally designed to deliver
> constant pressure to an engine by means of a relief valve. During
> periods of low fuel flow, the relief valve cracked and ported
> excess flow back to tank. Simple system but use max power under
> all fuel flow conditions. By adding an accumulator/transducer
> combination downstream of the pump, power to the pump motor
> was throttled to maintain constant pressure at any flow. Result
> was very low power consumption at low fuel flows and max power
> needed only during full-rich, max throttle climbs.
>
> Cut power consumption by about half for most operations and
> increased pump brush life by three or four times.
That sure sounds good to me. I'm not too familiar with the inner workings
of the AFP pump & bypass valve setup, but I have to assume it's roughly the
first setup you described above (constant pump operation at full blast +
relief valve).
I do have a fuel flow transducer downstream of the pump, of course in use &
wired to my ACS2002 monitor. Not sure if that could do double duty, or how
complex the "throttle" circuit would be. I don't have the knowledge or
skills to design something like this on my own, but if you're aware of a
simple, affordable method I'd love to learn about it.
Even if the final answer ends up being that I just live with what I've got,
I'm still interested in finding out about alternatives for fun.
Thanks,
)_( Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Ignitions/Starting |
I am quite sure I remember a few months ago we were talking on this list
about the idea that the Airflow Performance fuel pump is actually usually
just a back-up to the engine driven mechanical pump; that unless something
goes wrong with the engine driven pump, the Airflow Performance pump is
turned on during takeoff and landing only as a safety precaution in case the
mechanical pump fails during those critical times. I think Eric had or
offered to design a fuel pump switch that would only turn the boost pump on
if the fuel pressure dropped, or if the switch was put in the on regardless
position. In other words, it would always be ready to turn on if needed but
would not normally be running during takeoff and landing unless the pilot
chose the override position.
So, it would seem the best way to make the pump consume less power would be
to use a switch like Eric suggested, leaving the pump off unless it was
actually needed to create the needed fuel pressure. Do I remember this
right?
Terry
> > > Now if you happen to have a trick to make my Airflow Performance
> > > high-pressure fuel pump consume less power, I'm all ears!! 8-)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ignitions/Starting |
I talked to Klaus a while back and if you dont spin the prop fast enough,
you are correct it will be more difficult to start.
>
>Matt, I have been hand-propping this aircraft for 15 years, and probably
>have as many starts as hours. Probably 1,330+
>I have an MA3 carb, plus a primer to the intake spider manifold. Both seem
>to do the same. I start mine much like you do, however with the
>substitution of the Plasma III starting seems to have gotten harder. It
>doesn't like to make it over the compression stroke after I release the
>blade. I attribute that to the high compression pistons, but it has gotten
>worse with the LSE.
>
>Sam
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
>Prather
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ignitions/Starting
>
>
>Hi Sam,
>
>I have stock pistons in my O-200. It was pretty easy to start with 2
>mags, and
>somewhat easier to start with the swapout to an LSE and a mag. Mine is
>easier
>to start when its cold, but only because it is pretty easy to flood when
>hot.
>
>Does your carb have an accelerator pump or primer?
>
>The way I start mine when cold is to pump the throttle (not primer
>equipped) 2-3
>times. Then, with all of the switches off, pull 4 blades through. All
>switches on,
>and it ALMOST always starts on the first pull.
>
>When hot, the easiest starting is had by shutting down via the ignition
>switch, not
>the mixture control. When ready to go, switches on, and it usually starts
>again
>on the first pull. If I shut down via mixture and have to restart, I
>usually give it
>about a half pump on the throttle, switches hot, and then most of the time
>it runs
>on the 2nd pull.
>
>I am not sure what I would do different if I had hi compression pistons.
>I'll have
>to think about that. Does the engine fire once but not make it through to
>the next
>stroke? Or does it not spark at all? Do you have the prop 'clocked' to a
>position
>where you can get a good hard flip on it?
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
>N34RD
>
>>
>>
>> Matt,
>> You say you hand-prop your O-200. So do I, and I just installed a LSE
>> Plasma III. It seems to start hard when the engine is cold. I have
>> high compression pistons and it doesn't seem to go over the next
>> compression stroke very easily, unless I open the throttle wider than I
>> like to. It starts a lot easier if it's hot.
>> Have you had any experience like this? I thought starting was going to
>> be easier, but so far that's not the case.
>> Sam
>> Quickie Q-200 ~ 1,350 hrs.
>> http://home.mchsi.com/~shoskins/index.htm
>>
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Ignitions/Starting |
Better yet, take Bob's fuel pump controller and set the fuel pressure
setpoint a little lower than what the engine driven pump normally
produces. You could leave the electric pump turned on all the time and
it would only run when needed. If the engine driven pump could not
produce enough pressure due to low engine rpm or failure, the electric
pump would automatically pick up the slack. An appropriate indicator
light could tell you when the electric pump was running.
Dave
>
>
>
> I am quite sure I remember a few months ago we were talking on this
list
> about the idea that the Airflow Performance fuel pump is actually
usually
> just a back-up to the engine driven mechanical pump; that unless
something
> goes wrong with the engine driven pump, the Airflow Performance pump
is
> turned on during takeoff and landing only as a safety precaution in
case
> the
> mechanical pump fails during those critical times. I think Eric had
or
> offered to design a fuel pump switch that would only turn the boost
pump
> on
> if the fuel pressure dropped, or if the switch was put in the on
> regardless
> position. In other words, it would always be ready to turn on if
needed
> but
> would not normally be running during takeoff and landing unless the
pilot
> chose the override position.
>
> So, it would seem the best way to make the pump consume less power
would
> be
> to use a switch like Eric suggested, leaving the pump off unless it
was
> actually needed to create the needed fuel pressure. Do I remember this
> right?
>
> Terry
>
>
>
>
> > > > Now if you happen to have a trick to make my Airflow Performance
> > > > high-pressure fuel pump consume less power, I'm all ears!! 8-)
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pascal Gosselin <pascal(at)aeroteknic.com> |
| Subject: | Max load of a KLN-88 ? |
Long story, but I'm looking for the max load (amps) for
a KLN-88 Loran.
Reply to list or privately to pascal(at)aeroteknic.com .
Thanks.
-Pascal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rod Smith" <rsmith(at)frontier.net> |
| Subject: | Airflow Performance HP Pump |
I will be using this same pump in my installation Dan. What is the power
comsumption? You only use it for takeoff and landing dont you?
Thanks,
Rod Smith
> Now if you happen to have a trick to make my Airflow Performance
> high-pressure fuel pump consume less power, I'm all ears!! 8-)
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel Pump Optimization (was Ignitions/Starting) |
I also think there'd be value in encorporating a "manual override" mode,
where the operator can force the pump into continuous full duty. Maybe a
progressive xfer switch...up halfway is "AUTO" and up all the way is "ON".
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ignitions/Starting
>
> Better yet, take Bob's fuel pump controller and set the fuel pressure
> setpoint a little lower than what the engine driven pump normally
> produces. You could leave the electric pump turned on all the time and
> it would only run when needed. If the engine driven pump could not
> produce enough pressure due to low engine rpm or failure, the electric
> pump would automatically pick up the slack. An appropriate indicator
> light could tell you when the electric pump was running.
>
> Dave
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I am quite sure I remember a few months ago we were talking on this
> list
> > about the idea that the Airflow Performance fuel pump is actually
> usually
> > just a back-up to the engine driven mechanical pump; that unless
> something
> > goes wrong with the engine driven pump, the Airflow Performance pump
> is
> > turned on during takeoff and landing only as a safety precaution in
> case
> > the
> > mechanical pump fails during those critical times. I think Eric had
> or
> > offered to design a fuel pump switch that would only turn the boost
> pump
> > on
> > if the fuel pressure dropped, or if the switch was put in the on
> > regardless
> > position. In other words, it would always be ready to turn on if
> needed
> > but
> > would not normally be running during takeoff and landing unless the
> pilot
> > chose the override position.
> >
> > So, it would seem the best way to make the pump consume less power
> would
> > be
> > to use a switch like Eric suggested, leaving the pump off unless it
> was
> > actually needed to create the needed fuel pressure. Do I remember this
> > right?
> >
> > Terry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Now if you happen to have a trick to make my Airflow Performance
> > > > > high-pressure fuel pump consume less power, I'm all ears!! 8-)
> > >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Optimization (was Ignitions/Starting) |
Oh yeah, forgot...and a warning light circuit, so you could have a lamp on
the panel illuminate whenever the system is in AUTO mode and the pump is
operating. It would essentially be a "your mechanical fuel pump is failing"
dummy light. Otherwise you might not tune into the situation, since your
indicated fuel pressure probably wouldn't really dip if the electric pump
"saved it."
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Fuel Pump Optimization (was Ignitions/Starting)
> I also think there'd be value in encorporating a "manual override" mode,
> where the operator can force the pump into continuous full duty. Maybe a
> progressive xfer switch...up halfway is "AUTO" and up all the way is "ON".
>
> )_( Dan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 6:33 AM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ignitions/Starting
>
>
>
> >
> > Better yet, take Bob's fuel pump controller and set the fuel pressure
> > setpoint a little lower than what the engine driven pump normally
> > produces. You could leave the electric pump turned on all the time and
> > it would only run when needed. If the engine driven pump could not
> > produce enough pressure due to low engine rpm or failure, the electric
> > pump would automatically pick up the slack. An appropriate indicator
> > light could tell you when the electric pump was running.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am quite sure I remember a few months ago we were talking on this
> > list
> > > about the idea that the Airflow Performance fuel pump is actually
> > usually
> > > just a back-up to the engine driven mechanical pump; that unless
> > something
> > > goes wrong with the engine driven pump, the Airflow Performance pump
> > is
> > > turned on during takeoff and landing only as a safety precaution in
> > case
> > > the
> > > mechanical pump fails during those critical times. I think Eric had
> > or
> > > offered to design a fuel pump switch that would only turn the boost
> > pump
> > > on
> > > if the fuel pressure dropped, or if the switch was put in the on
> > > regardless
> > > position. In other words, it would always be ready to turn on if
> > needed
> > > but
> > > would not normally be running during takeoff and landing unless the
> > pilot
> > > chose the override position.
> > >
> > > So, it would seem the best way to make the pump consume less power
> > would
> > > be
> > > to use a switch like Eric suggested, leaving the pump off unless it
> > was
> > > actually needed to create the needed fuel pressure. Do I remember this
> > > right?
> > >
> > > Terry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > Now if you happen to have a trick to make my Airflow Performance
> > > > > > high-pressure fuel pump consume less power, I'm all ears!! 8-)
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Optimization (was Ignitions/Starting) |
> I will be using this same pump in my installation Dan. What is the power
> comsumption? You only use it for takeoff and landing dont you?
Yeah, just t/o, ldg, and switching tanks (low wing). It's supposed to draw
5A at 12V (I read that somewhere), but it seems to draw at least that much.
I can try to nail down a more exact figure later today.
I'm basing this on the observed rise in the amps reading on my ACS2002,
which derives the amps/load from the hall effect sensor around the wire
running from my alternator to the battery (technically to the starter
contactor, but you know what I mean).
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A panel full of displays . . . |
For the record - the single battery, single alternator, single E.I. system
with all electric is not a gamble. On that sad day when the alternator
freaks out I have the battery and one ignition that's "keeps on going," so I
still make it to a facility for a repair. In case of a battery failure same
scenario but the alternator supplies power and I make it to tera firma in
great shape. BTW, two E.I.'s is not the most economic or lightest and it
darn sure is not the best performance.
In the case of a total electrical system failure the mag is still keeping
the airplane moving to an airport and we are fine. After 17 years of flying
this IFR capable "air-chine" and the last nine years with one E.I. I really
don't get the fear.
If your talking hard IFR and pretty sure your not, the systems I see in many
of these new airplanes is a waste.
This is the opinion of many of "People who are flying experimentals" and not
building. Bob has designed some pretty great systems and taking advantage
of his skillful designs would make anyone very safe. The big difference in
my focus and Bob K's is that he wants to make the intended destination.
Myself I want to just back on the ground and not need to change my drawers
;-))
Dale Martin
Lewiston, ID
LEZ-235
----- Original Message -----
From: <czechsix(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A panel full of displays . . .
>
>
> Hi Dale,
>
> To answer your question, very few of us have had battery failure. It's
pretty rare, and many people may be comfortable with a single battery in an
all-electric airplane (i.e. dual elec. ignition and IFR panel with no
vacuum). Personally, I'm NOT comfortable with having all that at stake in a
single battery. There have been a few battery failures reported here on
this List over the past few years I've followed it, and several people I've
talked to have had it happen in cars. I'm talking catastrauphic failure,
where the lead or post breaks off, or something happens to the battery
itself rendering the whole electrical system dead. I know, I know...they
were probably poorly designed installations and/or poorly maintained, and if
you have a well-designed installation without stressing the battery
leads/terminals, with an RG battery rotated out every other year, the odds
of failure are probably reduced to very slim. But in my case I decided to
go with a small aux battery to k
> eep my second ignition alive in the ulikely event that it's needed. Each
person can decide for their airplane and mission what they're comfortable
with.
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D finishing...
>
> From: "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A panel full of displays . . .
>
>
> With all due respect...... how many of us have a had a battery failure?
I
> cannot believe that some of you intend medium to hard IFR with some of our
> homebuilts. First consider empennage, wing and prop anti icing equipment
> first.... Then I'll believe you need all the rest of the equipment.
>
> One battery will due if it is the proper quality.....
>
> Just my opinion,
>
> Dale Martin
> Lewiston, ID
> LEZ-235
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Optimization (was |
Ignitions/Starting)
Dan if your at Boreggo this Sat we can compare amp draw. I plan to get
there at noon. Other wise I will make it a point to write down how much I
am pulling. Have you called AFP?
>
>> I will be using this same pump in my installation Dan. What is the power
>> comsumption? You only use it for takeoff and landing dont you?
>
>Yeah, just t/o, ldg, and switching tanks (low wing). It's supposed to draw
>5A at 12V (I read that somewhere), but it seems to draw at least that much.
>I can try to nail down a more exact figure later today.
>
>I'm basing this on the observed rise in the amps reading on my ACS2002,
>which derives the amps/load from the hall effect sensor around the wire
>running from my alternator to the battery (technically to the starter
>contactor, but you know what I mean).
>
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Malcolm Thomson" <mdthomson(at)attglobal.net> |
What are the MOV's referred to in the LA1VP WireBook example. I am
starting to use this wirebook as a starting point for my Thunder
Mustang. I noticed some contactors have MOV's on them but most have
nothing across the coil of the contactor. What happened to using the
small diodes across the coil as shown in most of the "Z" drawings?
Also, where is there information on the "transient suppressor" shown in
the LA1VP wirebook.
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brett Hanley <bretttdc(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | dielectric grease |
Bob,
Where is dielectric grease needed and where should it
be avoided?
I have read your book and CD, both are excellent.
Most likely the best specialty text I have ever seen.
I would advise anyone building a small aircraft for
the first time to read it no matter how advanced their
electrical skills are.
Brett
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chad Robinson <crobinson(at)rfgonline.com> |
Malcolm Thomson wrote:
>
> What are the MOV's referred to in the LA1VP WireBook example. I am
> starting to use this wirebook as a starting point for my Thunder
> Mustang. I noticed some contactors have MOV's on them but most have
> nothing across the coil of the contactor. What happened to using the
> small diodes across the coil as shown in most of the "Z" drawings?
>
> Also, where is there information on the "transient suppressor" shown in
> the LA1VP wirebook.
It's probably out of date. MOV stands for "Metal Oxide Varistor," and it's
basically a transient suppressor. There's a nice little graph of what a MOV
does here:
http://www.fujisemiconductor.com/test_web/mov/
Between certain limit voltages, it does nothing. If the voltage exceeds a
preset point (you buy the MOV rated for this voltage) it starts conducting,
basically shorting out the transient. They're often used in those cheap
6-outlet strips. They have their charms, but also some problems. Remember,
this sucker is shorting itself out - if your bus can supply the amps, it could
pass several hundred through the MOV. Toasty. That's why those 6-outlet
el-cheapo strips are a bad idea. Once a surge has been blocked, you commonly
lose your protection against future surges.
For a contactor the best option is the diode.
For real overvoltage protection, a crowbar device is faster and since they're
usually SCR-based they shouldn't destroy themselves protecting you (provided
they're being used as recommended, to blow a fuse or trip a breaker and shut
down the alternator, the primary source of overvoltage events). This page has
a nice summary of some of the benefits and drawbacks of various TVS devices:
http://www.okaya.com/FAQ3.html
Regards,
Chad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Hi Malcolm -
Greg mentioned at Sun N Fun that you are starting to wire your airplane.
We are almost there and have used the L IV wirebook as a starter. As you
may recall, we are using Bob's Z14 system (dual alternators and dual
batteries). I added a ground power module to that and a couple of other
small changes.
I asked Bob some time ago about the MOV's and he said that they are no
longer used in any of his recommended systems. Diodes are used now. You
can download most of the system diagrams from his website.
Good luck with your system and keep us posted.
Cheers,
John
PS: Our EFIS/ONE is being shipped next week!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gerry Clabots" <gclabots(at)execpc.com> |
Recently I have noticed posts referring to an endurance bus, Is this the same as
the essential bus?
I have Bobs book and I see no mention of an endurance bus.
Wondering if these terms referring to the same thing.
Thanks
Gerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
I think Bob decided "endurance bus" better reflected his philosophy of what
the essential bus was all about.
Terry
Recently I have noticed posts referring to an endurance bus, Is this the
same as the essential bus?
I have Bobs book and I see no mention of an endurance bus.
Wondering if these terms referring to the same thing.
Thanks
Gerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dielectric grease |
>
>Bob,
>
>Where is dielectric grease needed and where should it
>be avoided?
>
>I have read your book and CD, both are excellent.
>Most likely the best specialty text I have ever seen.
>I would advise anyone building a small aircraft for
>the first time to read it no matter how advanced their
>electrical skills are.
Thank you for the kind words. I'm pleased that you found
the work so useful.
I presume you're referring to the various forms of
ukum-yucky that propose to increase the transfer of
heat from solid state devices to their mounting surface,
usually some kind of heat sink.
I haven't used any in a new design for over 20 years.
There are heat-transfer, gasket-like materials that
can be cut to shape, punched for holes and go on dry.
See http://www.bergquistcompany.com
for an exemplar product offered by Bergquist
It occurs to me that you may be asking about the
silcone greases popular for waterproofing. Dow Corning
DC-4 has been around for 40+ years. When I was in
the 2-way radio business, we would fill the interface
of coax connectors on a tower with DC-4 before
assembly. It would keep the moisture out of the
connector. Did a net-search on the stuff and found
several instances where DC-4 was recommended for
moisture proofing connectors or aiding in their
assembly. Here's a few . . .
http://www.ramaircraft.com/Catalog/SB&AD/ramsl200001.htm
http://www.lambda-emi.com/product_html/500aresource.htm
http://skymate.hosting4less.com/downloadables/SkyMate%20100%20Owners%20Guide-VMS.pdf
http://www.amphenolrf.com/products/AssemblyInstructions/hn.pdf
http://www.dielectric.com/broadcast/instruction_booklets/IB162-A.pdf
I guess I'm not a really big user of DC-4. I think
the tube I have was purchased when I was in the radio
business . . . about 1963. Itty-bitty amounts go a
very long way. My 3 oz tube is still about half full.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aileron trim cable routing |
Hi Bob and all,
Our project incorporates a small aileron mounted RAC Trim servo. My problem
is, how do I best connect this trim through the aileron leading edge to the
adjacent fixed portion of the wing ? The goal is to minimize wire flexing in
spite of the aileron movements ? I have the feeling I should provide some
ample wire loop to insure very light local flexing, but how could I achieve
that ? Space between the aileron and the wing is rather restricted.
Thanks for any opinion,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Hi Malcolm -
>
>Greg mentioned at Sun N Fun that you are starting to wire your airplane.
>We are almost there and have used the L IV wirebook as a starter. As you
>may recall, we are using Bob's Z14 system (dual alternators and dual
>batteries). I added a ground power module to that and a couple of other
>small changes.
>
>I asked Bob some time ago about the MOV's and he said that they are no
>longer used in any of his recommended systems. Diodes are used now. You
>can download most of the system diagrams from his website.
MOV's were attractive to me when I began writing the book
15 years ago. They were bi-directional devices meaning that
you couldn't hook one up backwards. But they were also difficult
to find in very low voltage ratings and didn't do as good a
job as the diode which is available virtually everywhere.
The only caveat is that you gotta pay attention to the banded
end and hook them up right. See later versions of those
wiring diagrams in Appendix Z of the current publication
which you can download at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
if you don't have the book.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
Bob, I feel you have given this OBAM-friendly product short shrift.
Strange to say (but true) DC-4 is specified for use as a gasket
dresser when changing your champion oil filter on the Lycoming ! It
will insure the filter will come off easily at change time. Don't be
too generous with it as I am told the silicon will distort your oil
sample spectographic analysis.
So go ahead and buy a big tube of that marvelous stuff. I use it for
the spark plug wires which go into holes and need moisture protection
too. One other use is the #@**# nose tire on the RV 'A' models. These
chin sein tires get bonded to the wheel and won't come off, so I put
some DC-4 on the rims during assembly. I am afraid to put it on the
mains. It would be my luck to hit the brakes real hard one day and
have the tires spin around, and pinch off the tube filler neck,
rendering me in the weeds.
It is also great for persuading rubber or silicone things to go
together.
I am sure others can come up with lots of uses where a heat resistant
lubricant/moisture barrier is needed which does not harm rubber or
conduct electricity.
Denis
On Apr 17, 2004, at 8:25 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> It occurs to me that you may be asking about the
> silcone greases popular for waterproofing. Dow Corning
> DC-4 has been around for 40+ years. When I was in
> the 2-way radio business, we would fill the interface
> of coax connectors on a tower with DC-4 before
> assembly. It would keep the moisture out of the
> connector. Did a net-search on the stuff and found
> several instances where DC-4 was recommended for
> moisture proofing connectors or aiding in their
> assembly. Here's a few . . .
>
> http://www.ramaircraft.com/Catalog/SB&AD/ramsl200001.htm
> http://www.lambda-emi.com/product_html/500aresource.htm
> http://skymate.hosting4less.com/downloadables/
> SkyMate%20100%20Owners%20Guide-VMS.pdf
> http://www.amphenolrf.com/products/AssemblyInstructions/hn.pdf
> http://www.dielectric.com/broadcast/instruction_booklets/IB162-A.pdf
>
> I guess I'm not a really big user of DC-4. I think
> the tube I have was purchased when I was in the radio
> business . . . about 1963. Itty-bitty amounts go a
> very long way. My 3 oz tube is still about half full.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron trim cable routing |
In a message dated 4/18/04 8:06:10 AM Central Daylight Time,
Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr writes:
I have the feeling I should provide some
ample wire loop to insure very light local flexing, but how could I achieve
that ?
Good Morning Gilles,
Is there room to run the wire parallel to the hinge line for a little way?
I have used that method to give a wire adequate flexibility when a
loop would not be practical. The length of wire can even be lightly
supported along it's length if that need be. All you have to do is run
it through a support that does not bind it down solidly. As long as
the wire is free to twist, all of the motion will be absorbed by the
torsion of the wire instead of as a bending moment. A six inch length
of number twenty or twenty two can stand a lot of twisting without
any damage at all. The longer, the better.
Works for me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/16/04 |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Dale, a few more comments below:
> From: "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A panel full of displays . . .
>
>
>
> For the record - the single battery, single alternator, single E.I.
> system with all electric is not a gamble. On that sad day when the
> alternator freaks out I have the battery and one ignition that's "keeps
on
> going," so I still make it to a facility for a repair.
Agree 100% for VFR flying. Original question that started all this was
for IFR in electrically dependent airplane with one battery though. For
VFR flying and single E.I., electrical system is really optional
anyway...
>In case of a battery
> failure same scenario but the alternator supplies power and I make it
to tera
> firma in great shape.
The "battery failure" I was talking about was one which would take the
whole electrical system down....otherwise, you'd be unlikely to have or
notice any other type of failure of the battery in flight....you would
notice it when you try to start the airplane for the next flight, unless
there's a failure mode I'm forgetting?
>BTW, two E.I.'s is not the most economic or lightest
> and it darn sure is not the best performance.
How do you support this claim? The dual Lightspeed Plasma II system
price is comparable to two mags, and is lighter than those two mags
(especially with the crank-triggered flywheel timing pickups). If the
ignition system alone requires dual alternators and dual batteries, the
overall weight and expense would be greater for the E.I. route, but for
most of us the new electric panels are also justifying the electrical
system redundancy so this upper isn't attributed only to the E.I.'s in a
comparison with mags.
As far as performance, I have not personally done mags vs. E.I. testing,
but if two E.I.'s are "darn sure not the best performance" then the E.I.
manufacturer's are lying to us, because they claim the E.I. performance
to be better. Granted, the first E.I. gives you the majority of the
improvements (90% +), but the second adds a measurable amount according
to Klaus Savier and affirmed by Bart Lalonde who's tested them on the
dyno. FWIW, my reason for going dual E.I. was primarily just
standardization of the ignition system....I got tired of messing with
mags when I was turning wrenches and will welcome the lower maintenance
and better reliability of the E.I. system. The slight weight savings and
performance improvement of the second E.I. is an added bonus. No more
$$$ aviation spark plugs for me....
> In the case of a total electrical system failure the mag is still
> keeping the airplane moving to an airport and we are fine. After 17
years
> of flying this IFR capable "air-chine" and the last nine years with one
E.I. I
> really don't get the fear.
If you're IFR, and you have total electrical system failure, the engine
keeps running but what about your panel? I'm not saying adding an aux
battery and/or alternator is the only option....for example, you could
get the Dynon with the internal battery and have a handheld GPS with
batteries, and that would get you down in IFR even if you had total
electrical system failure.
> If your talking hard IFR and pretty sure your not, the systems I see
> in many of these new airplanes is a waste.
>
> This is the opinion of many of "People who are flying experimentals"
> and not building. Bob has designed some pretty great systems and
taking
> advantage of his skillful designs would make anyone very safe. The big
> difference in my focus and Bob K's is that he wants to make the
intended
> destination. Myself I want to just back on the ground and not need to
change my
> drawers ;-))
Agreed....my aux battery will be 3 ah capacity and cost about $10-15. In
the unlikely event that the main electrical system fails completely, I
will have about an hour of ignition operation to get on the ground. I
don't see the need to add a ton more capacity and carry the extra
weight/expense required to ensure my aux battery will outlast my fuel,
since this is a backup for an unlikely scenario and I'll live with some
inconvenience if I ever find myself in these circumstances...
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D firewall forward stuff....
> Dale Martin
> Lewiston, ID
> LEZ-235
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <czechsix(at)juno.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A panel full of displays . . .
>
>
> >
> >
> > Hi Dale,
> >
> > To answer your question, very few of us have had battery failure.
> It's
> pretty rare, and many people may be comfortable with a single
> battery in an
> all-electric airplane (i.e. dual elec. ignition and IFR panel with
> no
> vacuum). Personally, I'm NOT comfortable with having all that at
> stake in a
> single battery. There have been a few battery failures reported
> here on
> this List over the past few years I've followed it, and several
> people I've
> talked to have had it happen in cars. I'm talking catastrauphic
> failure,
> where the lead or post breaks off, or something happens to the
> battery
> itself rendering the whole electrical system dead. I know, I
> know...they
> were probably poorly designed installations and/or poorly
> maintained, and if
> you have a well-designed installation without stressing the battery
> leads/terminals, with an RG battery rotated out every other year,
> the odds
> of failure are probably reduced to very slim. But in my case I
> decided to
> go with a small aux battery to k
> > eep my second ignition alive in the ulikely event that it's
> needed. Each
> person can decide for their airplane and mission what they're
> comfortable
> with.
> >
> > --Mark Navratil
> > Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> > RV-8A N2D finishing...
> >
> > From: "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A panel full of displays . . .
> >
>
> >
> > With all due respect...... how many of us have a had a battery
> failure?
> I
> > cannot believe that some of you intend medium to hard IFR with
> some of our
> > homebuilts. First consider empennage, wing and prop anti icing
> equipment
> > first.... Then I'll believe you need all the rest of the
> equipment.
> >
> > One battery will due if it is the proper quality.....
> >
> > Just my opinion,
> >
> > Dale Martin
> > Lewiston, ID
> > LEZ-235
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Malcolm Thomson" <mdthomson(at)attglobal.net> |
Does anyone know the formula to calculate the %HP?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
>
> -->
>
> Does anyone know the formula to calculate the %HP?
>
If you have an accurate fuel flow meter, you can get pretty close. Fuel
burn will range from something like 0.5 pounds/hour/hp if you run 100F
rich of peak to about 0.42 pounds/hr/hp if you are lean of peak. These
numbers are not hard and fast, obviously, and depend on ignition type,
prop type (rpm vs MAP), etc., but are probably as accurate as the engine
charts.
Others may know the algorithm that the commercially available engine
monitors with the percent hp use, I don't.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 458 hours
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Horse Power? |
Seems a little high to me
On Apr 19, 2004, at 6:01 AM, Alex Peterson wrote:
>
>
>>
>> -->
>>
>> Does anyone know the formula to calculate the %HP?
>>
>
> If you have an accurate fuel flow meter, you can get pretty close.
> Fuel
> burn will range from something like 0.5 pounds/hour/hp if you run 100F
> rich of peak to about 0.42 pounds/hr/hp if you are lean of peak. These
> numbers are not hard and fast, obviously, and depend on ignition type,
> prop type (rpm vs MAP), etc., but are probably as accurate as the
> engine
> charts.
>
> Others may know the algorithm that the commercially available engine
> monitors with the percent hp use, I don't.
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 458 hours
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Horse Power? |
Agree, I had on my O-320 with 23/2300 in density 4000ft with 10 deg OAT 10.2
full rich and 7.4 peak.
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Denis Walsh" <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Horse Power?
>
> Seems a little high to me
> On Apr 19, 2004, at 6:01 AM, Alex Peterson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> -->
> >>
> >> Does anyone know the formula to calculate the %HP?
> >>
> >
> > If you have an accurate fuel flow meter, you can get pretty close.
> > Fuel
> > burn will range from something like 0.5 pounds/hour/hp if you run 100F
> > rich of peak to about 0.42 pounds/hr/hp if you are lean of peak. These
> > numbers are not hard and fast, obviously, and depend on ignition type,
> > prop type (rpm vs MAP), etc., but are probably as accurate as the
> > engine
> > charts.
> >
> > Others may know the algorithm that the commercially available engine
> > monitors with the percent hp use, I don't.
> >
> > Alex Peterson
> > Maple Grove, MN
> > RV6-A N66AP 458 hours
> >
> > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
> >
> >
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Horse Power? |
In a message dated 4/19/04 7:36:50 AM Central Daylight Time,
denis.walsh(at)comcast.net writes:
Seems a little high to me
On Apr 19, 2004, at 6:01 AM, Alex Peterson wrote:
Good Morning Alex,
I think those numbers are very good though it results in horsepower,
not percentage of horsepower as was originally asked.
There are a few of our General Aviation engines that can get
a .38 burn when leaned about twenty or thirty degrees below
Peak EGT, but the .42 to .5 is a very good average number.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Horse Power? |
In a message dated 4/19/04 8:16:54 AM Central Daylight Time,
wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com writes:
Agree, I had on my O-320 with 23/2300 in density 4000ft with 10 deg OAT 10.2
full rich and 7.4 peak.
Werner
Good Morning Werner,
And what does a full rich number have to do with horsepower
developed?
The only thing we know when you are at full rich is that you
probably have enough fuel going into the engine to combine
with all of the air that is available to burn. If you are much
richer than the minimum amount of fuel required for that amount
of oxygen, you will lose a little bit of potential power. However,
most of our GA engines require a very rich mixture at takeoff
power to aid in positioniong the combustion event so as to
maintain reasonable temperatures.
If your 7.4 GPH figure was at peak EGT, you were probably
developing around 110 horsepower.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flyv35b" <flyv35b(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Horse Power? |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Denis Walsh" <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Horse Power?
>
> Seems a little high to me
> On Apr 19, 2004, at 6:01 AM, Alex Peterson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> -->
> >>
> >> Does anyone know the formula to calculate the %HP?
> >>
> >
> > If you have an accurate fuel flow meter, you can get pretty close.
> > Fuel
> > burn will range from something like 0.5 pounds/hour/hp if you run 100F
> > rich of peak to about 0.42 pounds/hr/hp if you are lean of peak. These
> > numbers are not hard and fast, obviously, and depend on ignition type,
> > prop type (rpm vs MAP), etc., but are probably as accurate as the
> > engine
> > charts.
> >
> > Others may know the algorithm that the commercially available engine
> > monitors with the percent hp use, I don't.
> >
> > Alex Peterson
> > Maple Grove, MN
> > RV6-A N66AP 458 hours
> >
> > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
> >
> >
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flyv35b" <flyv35b(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Horse Power? |
Lycoming's Operator's Manual shows the O-360 A & E series engines (8.5:1 CR)
to have a BSFC of about .55lb/hp-hr at 2700 rpm, decreasing to .52 lb/hp-hr
at 2200 rpm. This is for full throttle and full rich mixture setting. The
propeller load curve (partial throttle) shows it to be about .46 lb/hp-hr
(min.) at 2300-2400 rpm. Info for a fuel injected IO-360A engine (8.7:1 CR)
shows a BSFC of about .42 lb/hp-hr at 2400 rpm and 65% power, best economy
(leaned out). This is the best you will get.
Cliff A&P/IA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Denis Walsh" <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Horse Power?
>
> Seems a little high to me
> On Apr 19, 2004, at 6:01 AM, Alex Peterson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> -->
> >>
> >> Does anyone know the formula to calculate the %HP?
> >>
> >
> > If you have an accurate fuel flow meter, you can get pretty close.
> > Fuel
> > burn will range from something like 0.5 pounds/hour/hp if you run 100F
> > rich of peak to about 0.42 pounds/hr/hp if you are lean of peak. These
> > numbers are not hard and fast, obviously, and depend on ignition type,
> > prop type (rpm vs MAP), etc., but are probably as accurate as the
> > engine
> > charts.
> >
> > Others may know the algorithm that the commercially available engine
> > monitors with the percent hp use, I don't.
> >
> > Alex Peterson
> > Maple Grove, MN
> > RV6-A N66AP 458 hours
> >
> > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
> >
> >
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Horse Power? |
I would like to retract my previous post regarding seeming a little
high. I was timesing when I should have been gozintoing to get to gph.
Now I think it is exactly correct, and useful for estimating power,
assuming leaning is tended to.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Horse Power? |
Good evening Bob (living a bit east of you (CH)),
> And what does a full rich number have to do with horsepower
> developed?
nothing, you can get the exact numbers only, if you lean peak and use the
fuel flow, and mine was more then the 0.5 on full rich). What would mean,
another kind of formula would help more.
> If your 7.4 GPH figure was at peak EGT, you were probably
> developing around 110 horsepower.
yeap, the table would tell that this would be around 65 % which means close
to 110HP. would help
A formula which would take MP and RPM into account would be easier to
calculate, but it might mean to have a lookup table and where to get this?
I've got once:
P = 2 * PI * M * n
P=Power
M = torque in Nm
n= rpm /min
or P = Vh * pe * n
Vh = cubic capacity in dm3
pe = medium piston pressure in bar
n= rpm/min
Power would be kW but how do I measure torque or piston pressure?
Thanks
Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flyv35b" <flyv35b(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Horse Power? |
> There are a few of our General Aviation engines that can get
> a .38 burn when leaned about twenty or thirty degrees below
> Peak EGT
The Continental IO-520 and IO-550 will do this good I believe.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Horse Power?
>
> In a message dated 4/19/04 7:36:50 AM Central Daylight Time,
> denis.walsh(at)comcast.net writes:
> Seems a little high to me
> On Apr 19, 2004, at 6:01 AM, Alex Peterson wrote:
>
>
> Good Morning Alex,
>
> I think those numbers are very good though it results in horsepower,
> not percentage of horsepower as was originally asked.
>
> There are a few of our General Aviation engines that can get
> a .38 burn when leaned about twenty or thirty degrees below
> Peak EGT, but the .42 to .5 is a very good average number.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/16/04 |
>BTW, two E.I.'s is not the most economic or lightest
> and it darn sure is not the best performance.
How do you support this claim?
*********************
Just as you said, you need two Batteries or two alternators to be safe with
dual E.I's..
Second - Check the Cafe Web page for the results. Two Mags beats two
E.I.'s.
I guess doing this for long enough you learn to raise your eyebrows at some
claims. There is more then LSE in the electronic ignition field and suspect
you'll find out the better unit in years to come. I have and now have a
Electro-Air unit. I have also need to used REM 37BY plugs all along due to
there further reach but was told it wasn't necessary by LSE..... Not
exactly accurate information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
You Say-
The slight weight savings and
performance improvement of the second E.I. is an added bonus. No more
$$$ aviation spark plugs for me....
************
That is a big crock of ........ ?? waste!
Unless you have the long duration spark the performance is less and the E.I.
sparkplugs are more money then some that are available. The 386 sparkplug
has been working for many people. And when you get 700 to 900 hours from
aviation sparkplugs with the correct E.I. system it doesn't seem bad to
me....
Each to their own but have been there and done that and never to return.
******************
You Say-
>Agreed....my aux battery will be 3 ah capacity and cost about $10-15. In
>the unlikely event that the main electrical system fails completely, I
>will have about an hour of ignition operation to get on the ground.
Seems like more complication and weight to me then a mag that keeps running
without doing anything.... Just my opinion though.
Dale Martin
Lewiston, ID
LEZ-235
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Trampas" <tstern(at)nc.rr.com> |
First off I wanted to mention that some people are quoting burn rates in
lbs/hour/hp and some are using GPH, thus this could be some debate on the
number of 0.5 lbs/hour/hp.
As far as the original question, the percent horse power calculation is
based on estimating the air flow into the engine. So we can go back to the
text books and find the air flow equations which are a function of air
temperature, manifold pressure, RPM and displacement. Then we estimate the
power of engine based on the engine efficiency.
Then since you are doing a percentage you will find that the air
temperature, efficiency and displacement cancel out in the percentage
calculation leaving you with estimated percent horsepower.
Regards,
Trampas Stern
www.sterntech.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Horse Power? |
Hello Trampas,
so if I understand it correct we could get %HP out of a formula with MP and
RPM?
Would you be so kind to post this formula? I had to do some flighttesting
and therefore had to go through the tables of lycoming to find a pair of MP
and RPM for 75%/65%/55% HP in different density altitudes.
Thanks a lot
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trampas" <tstern(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Horse Power?
>
> First off I wanted to mention that some people are quoting burn rates in
> lbs/hour/hp and some are using GPH, thus this could be some debate on the
> number of 0.5 lbs/hour/hp.
>
> As far as the original question, the percent horse power calculation is
> based on estimating the air flow into the engine. So we can go back to the
> text books and find the air flow equations which are a function of air
> temperature, manifold pressure, RPM and displacement. Then we estimate the
> power of engine based on the engine efficiency.
>
> Then since you are doing a percentage you will find that the air
> temperature, efficiency and displacement cancel out in the percentage
> calculation leaving you with estimated percent horsepower.
>
> Regards,
> Trampas Stern
> www.sterntech.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
> so if I understand it correct we could get %HP out of a
> formula with MP and RPM?
This would also require temperature of the induction air. In cold air,
a given MP and RPM will deliver more power than in warm air (more air,
by mass, into the engine).
Air at 90F will be only about 84% as dense as at 0F, barometric pressure
the same. So, with identical MAP and RPM, the power at 90F will be
about 84% of what it would be for the same settings at 0F. It is all
about how much air mass goes into the cylinders. There are other
variables, but not as important.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 458 hours
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron trim cable routing |
>
> Good Morning Gilles,
>
> Is there room to run the wire parallel to the hinge line for a little way?
>
> I have used that method to give a wire adequate flexibility when a
> loop would not be practical. The length of wire can even be lightly
> supported along it's length if that need be. All you have to do is run
> it through a support that does not bind it down solidly. As long as
> the wire is free to twist, all of the motion will be absorbed by the
> torsion of the wire instead of as a bending moment. A six inch length
> of number twenty or twenty two can stand a lot of twisting without
> any damage at all. The longer, the better.
>
> Works for me!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
Hi Old Bob,
Thank you for responding. The aileron trim is located at the outboard end of
the aileron. The hinges are offset but I'll try to have the wires come out
of the wing into the winglet and back into the aileron end, in a spanwise
direction. So the motion will be mainly twisting.
Regards,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Kuehn" <jkuehn(at)uiuc.edu> |
| Subject: | Intercom/handheld wiring |
Has anyone used a Softcomm ATC panel mounted intercom with a handheld
transceiver like the Icom A23? Does anyone know how to wire them together?
Thanks,
Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Horse Power? |
Malcolm,
What do you want the information for? If you want to determine that your engine
is putting out normal power on takeoff, with a variable pitch prop, you would
need to measure torque in the prop shaft, then calculate HP using rpmXtorque/5252,
then dividing by the standard HP to get a percentage. If you just want
the % HP in a modestly accurate way for setting up in the engine in cruise at
altitude, then using the charts as given by the engine maker gives a rough idea.
Using MP and temperature, you can calculate relative mass airflow into the
engine. The problem is that the efficiency of the engine, based on fuel flow,
varies depending upon leaning of the mixture. You may find that a calculation
based on mass airflow is more accurate than one based on fuel flow, but some
data from a well-instrumented aircraft engine sure would be nice to check this
notion.
Most likely, this has been done in the 1940's and early 1950's, but the knowledge is not well known. John Deakin writes about this, the last time I saw this was at www.avweb.com/news/columns/182146-1.html I don't recall that he addressed this topic based on mass air flow.
It may have been Saab in the 1970's that used a "luftmengenmesser" to measure
air mass to adjust fuel injection. This was a Bosch item if memory serves.
Now that easily programmed microprocessors are available, such as the Basic
units from Parallex and others, calculation of mass flow is practical in real
time based upon MP and temperature. If you want to do this, a look-up table is
the easy way to go, of course.
I asked this question some time ago, and looked into strain gauges on the wing
struts! The strain gauge on the prop shaft scares me, as it could mess up
the engine, and sounds hard to design. I dropped the whole idea in favor of
just completing the airplane.
Jim Foerster Jabiru J400, 80% done.
----------------------------------------------------
This mailbox protected from junk email by Matador
from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Horse Power? |
In a message dated 4/19/04 5:33:02 PM Central Daylight Time,
jmfpublic(at)comcast.net writes:
I asked this question some time ago, and looked into strain gauges on the
wing struts! The strain gauge on the prop shaft scares me, as it could mess up
the engine, and sounds hard to design. I dropped the whole idea in favor of
just completing the airplane.
Good Evening Jim,
If you really want to check the torque output, put strain gauges on the
engine mounts. Al Hundere made up a device to do just that on a Twin Beech many
years ago. I understand that it worked OK, but needed a lot of TLC to retain
accuracy.
I suppose you are familiar with the torque meters used on many radial engines
of the forties and fifties. They worked by measuring the force on the
planetary gear reduction system.
More than one way to skin a cat.
The nice thing about using a fuel flow to figure out what power is being
developed is the simplicity of the idea. The bad thing is that it won't tell you
if the engine is developing an unusual internal drag. The engine could be
tearing itself up and the fuel flow indication would not reflect the power loss.
A torquemeter will show that power output has been lost even though the
engine is using the amount of fuel that it should be using to develop the indicated
HP.
In smooth air, a change in airspeed gives an excellent indication of power
output and, if the airplane has a fixed pitch prop, you can easily note power
changes by the change in RPM. That is how Lindbergh did it. Still works just
fine.
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | New thread about E.I. performance or lack thereof |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
>Subject: Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/16/04
>From: Dale Martin (niceez(at)cableone.net)
>Date: Mon Apr 19 - 7:26 AM
>
>
>BTW, two E.I.'s is not the most economic or lightest
> and it darn sure is not the best performance.
>
>How do you support this claim?
>*********************
>
>Just as you said, you need two Batteries or two alternators to be safe with
>dual E.I's..
>
>Second - Check the Cafe Web page for the results. Two Mags beats two
>E.I.'s.
I'm familiar with the Cafe reports on E.I. because I studied them before ordering
my LSE units. I don't think you can look at the reports Cafe did and make
a blanket statement that "two mags beats two E.I's". The report clearly demonstrates
that with either one or two E.I.'s, there's a significant improvement
in performance at higher altitudes and lean operation (as well as better idle
and other marginal improvements). This jives with the expected results based
on the physics of hotter spark and timing advance. The "Ignition Dynamics II"
article does note a few conditions in which the the test results contradict what
you'd expect.....that is, the performance of the mags was a bit better. The
article notes that the difference was "slight" or "small" in such conditions,
and speculates that the timing curve used in the subject Electroair system
was to blame for the difference, over-advancing the spark causing some power
loss compared to the mags (see second paragraph in t
he right column of page 8 of this article at www.cafefoundation.org/aprs/ignition2.pdf). This theory makes perfect sense. In all fairness to Jeff Rose, the timing is hard to nail down without extensive testing, and impossible to optimize based only on RPM and manifold pressure. Having other sensors like cars (or the Aerosance FADEC) is required to perfect it under all operating conditions. But I recall hearing that Jeff improved the timing curve after the Cafe results came out....might have been hearsay. I know when I talked to Klaus Savier at Oshkosh a couple years ago he was aware of the article and said that the LSE system did not advance the spark as much as the tested Electroair system in the conditions where the mags were showing better performance than the E.I. The paragraph mentioned above notes that Cafe talked to Klaus at the time of writing and he was already aware that less spark advance was needed for more power under the conditions described there. And
Bart Lalonde at Aerosport Power told me that there was a measurable increase
in HP on the dyno with both single and dual LSE systems installed, which should
translate into better low altitude performance than mags in addition to the
well-established high altitude lean mixture operations.
>I guess doing this for long enough you learn to raise your eyebrows at some
>claims.
I'm not new to aviation either and frequently raise my eyebrows at all kinds of
claims out there. The great thing about this forum is we can debunk the claims
that are bogus, and share information for the benefit of our fellow builders/pilots.
I don't believe everything Klaus claims for his LSE system, but nor
do I believe the evidence supports a statement that "two mags beats two E.I.'s",
simple as that.
>There is more then LSE in the electronic ignition field and suspect
>you'll find out the better unit in years to come. I have and now have a
>Electro-Air unit.
I've heard good things about Jeff Rose and Electroair. Just curious though, why
are you using an E.I. at all if, in your opinion, two mags are better? Or are
you saying that one mag and one E.I. outperforms either dual mags or dual E.I.'s?
I'm not poking fun at you, just trying to understand your position which
appears contradictory to me.
> I have also need to used REM 37BY plugs all along due to
t>here further reach but was told it wasn't necessary by LSE..... Not
>exactly accurate information.
What is inaccurate about this? Lots of RV'ers are using automotive plugs as supplied
by Klaus with the LSE system. Haven't ever heard a complaint on the RV
List about them, but that doesn't mean someone out there hasn't experienced trouble
with them. Can you elaborate a bit for my benefit? Should I throw out
the auto plugs and put aviation plugs in my engine instead? Does this have anything
to do with engine type (i.e. you are running an O-235 and I've got an
O-360)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>You Say-
>The slight weight savings and
>performance improvement of the second E.I. is an added bonus. No more
>$$$ aviation spark plugs for me....
>************
>
>That is a big crock of ........ ?? waste!
>
>Unless you have the long duration spark the performance is less and the E.I.
>sparkplugs are more money then some that are available. The 386 sparkplug
>has been working for many people. And when you get 700 to 900 hours from
>aviation sparkplugs with the correct E.I. system it doesn't seem bad to
>me....
>
>Each to their own but have been there and done that and never to return.
Ok....you've been there, done that and had a bad experience and won't do it again.
Can you tell us what happened to you so that others don't repeat your bad
experience? If my research on the LSE system has missed something important,
I'd like to understand it. I know there's been some starting kickback issues
(different subject entirely, all in the archives) but I'm not aware of spark
plug problems or other operational/performance issues that would cause the kind
of regrets you have experienced. Please share your experiences and data with
us.
>******************
>
>You Say-
>Agreed....my aux battery will be 3 ah capacity and cost about $10-15. In
>the unlikely event that the main electrical system fails completely, I
>will have about an hour of ignition operation to get on the ground.
>
>Seems like more complication and weight to me then a mag that keeps running
>without doing anything.... Just my opinion though.
Actually the aux battery arrangment is not complicated, it's quite simple and light
if you size it to the task. But anyway, there's nothing wrong with your
approach (single mag, single E.I.) There's pros and cons to dual mags vs dual
E.I. vs the combo approach you're using, just depends on one's priorities.
>Dale Martin
>Lewiston, ID
>LEZ-235
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D finishing....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Horse Power? |
Hey, Old Bob, about measuring torque in a planetary gear reduction system.
I have a 2.85 to 1 planetary gear reduction to hang on front of my RX-8
Renesis engine on an RV-6. Have any idea how one could find out how to put
a strain gage on such a gadget to get torque?
The Lone Star Flight Museum at Galveston, Texas, has an excellent research
library with lots of tech data on WW II aircraft. Maybe I could spend some
time in there and find out how they did that torque thing - if they had
started doing it by WWII. I don't remember fighters having torque meters -
seems like that was something for the 4 engine transport and bomber guys
with a flight engineer monitoring lots of stuff.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Horse Power?
>
> In a message dated 4/19/04 5:33:02 PM Central Daylight Time,
> jmfpublic(at)comcast.net writes:
> I asked this question some time ago, and looked into strain gauges on the
> wing struts! The strain gauge on the prop shaft scares me, as it could
mess up
> the engine, and sounds hard to design. I dropped the whole idea in favor
of
> just completing the airplane.
>
>
> Good Evening Jim,
>
> If you really want to check the torque output, put strain gauges on the
> engine mounts. Al Hundere made up a device to do just that on a Twin
Beech many
> years ago. I understand that it worked OK, but needed a lot of TLC to
retain
> accuracy.
>
> I suppose you are familiar with the torque meters used on many radial
engines
> of the forties and fifties. They worked by measuring the force on the
> planetary gear reduction system.
>
> More than one way to skin a cat.
>
> The nice thing about using a fuel flow to figure out what power is being
> developed is the simplicity of the idea. The bad thing is that it won't
tell you
> if the engine is developing an unusual internal drag. The engine could be
> tearing itself up and the fuel flow indication would not reflect the power
loss.
> A torquemeter will show that power output has been lost even though the
> engine is using the amount of fuel that it should be using to develop the
indicated
> HP.
>
> In smooth air, a change in airspeed gives an excellent indication of power
> output and, if the airplane has a fixed pitch prop, you can easily note
power
> changes by the change in RPM. That is how Lindbergh did it. Still works
just
> fine.
>
> Any help?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Pflanzer" <f1rocket(at)comcast.net> |
You'd think I'd know this stuff by now. However.....
My starter solenoid from Van's has two small terminals on it. One is marked "S"
and the other is marked "I". I assume that the "S" goes to the starter switch
to energize the coil. I also assume that I just ignore the other terminal.
Is that correct? Should I ground the "I" terminal?
Just asking. My brain isn't working that great tonight.
Randy
F1 Rocket
http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Horse Power? |
In a message dated 4/19/04 6:34:28 PM Central Daylight Time,
dcarter(at)datarecall.net writes:
I have a 2.85 to 1 planetary gear reduction to hang on front of my RX-8
Renesis engine on an RV-6. Have any idea how one could find out how to put
a strain gage on such a gadget to get torque?
Good Evening David,
The old torque meters did it by measuring the movement of the
ring gear. It was mounted so that it moved back and forth very
slightly in a set of angled grooves when torque was applied. The
movement was resisted by a few small oil filled cylinders. The
pressure of the oil in those little cylinders was calibrated to read
in torque which was generally presented as an equivalent BMEP
number. I think the easiest thing would be to measure the torque
somewhere in the engines mounting.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb Question |
Don't ground it. That might tend to let the smoke out. The "I" terminal
becomes live while the solenoid is engaged. It's original purpose was to
bypass the ballast resistor in automotive applications. In your aircraft
it can be used to signify "starter engaged" if you wish. Or just ignore it.
Bob McC
Randy Pflanzer wrote:
>
>You'd think I'd know this stuff by now. However.....
>
>My starter solenoid from Van's has two small terminals on it. One is marked "S"
and the other is marked "I". I assume that the "S" goes to the starter switch
to energize the coil. I also assume that I just ignore the other terminal.
Is that correct? Should I ground the "I" terminal?
>
>Just asking. My brain isn't working that great tonight.
>
>Randy
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Pflanzer" <f1rocket(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb Question |
Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dumb Question
>
> Don't ground it. That might tend to let the smoke out. The "I" terminal
> becomes live while the solenoid is engaged. It's original purpose was to
> bypass the ballast resistor in automotive applications. In your aircraft
> it can be used to signify "starter engaged" if you wish. Or just ignore
it.
>
> Bob McC
>
> Randy Pflanzer wrote:
>
> >
> >You'd think I'd know this stuff by now. However.....
> >
> >My starter solenoid from Van's has two small terminals on it. One is
marked "S" and the other is marked "I". I assume that the "S" goes to the
starter switch to energize the coil. I also assume that I just ignore the
other terminal. Is that correct? Should I ground the "I" terminal?
> >
> >Just asking. My brain isn't working that great tonight.
> >
> >Randy
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb Question |
Randy, your assumptions are correct. The "I" terminal could also be used
for a starter-engaged light. If not, just ignore it.
Pat Hatch
RV-4
RV-6
RV-7 Finishing Kit
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Pflanzer" <f1rocket(at)comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dumb Question
>
> You'd think I'd know this stuff by now. However.....
>
> My starter solenoid from Van's has two small terminals on it. One is
marked "S" and the other is marked "I". I assume that the "S" goes to the
starter switch to energize the coil. I also assume that I just ignore the
other terminal. Is that correct? Should I ground the "I" terminal?
>
> Just asking. My brain isn't working that great tonight.
>
> Randy
> F1 Rocket
> http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb Question |
>
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s702wire.jpg
>Don't ground it. That might tend to let the smoke out. The "I" terminal
>becomes live while the solenoid is engaged. It's original purpose was to
>bypass the ballast resistor in automotive applications. In your aircraft
>it can be used to signify "starter engaged" if you wish. Or just ignore it.
>
>Bob McC
>
>Randy Pflanzer wrote:
>
>
> >
> >You'd think I'd know this stuff by now. However.....
> >
> >My starter solenoid from Van's has two small terminals on it. One is
> marked "S" and the other is marked "I". I assume that the "S" goes to
> the starter switch to energize the coil. I also assume that I just
> ignore the other terminal. Is that correct? Should I ground the "I" terminal?
> >
> >Just asking. My brain isn't working that great tonight.
> >
> >Randy
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Trampas" <tstern(at)nc.rr.com> |
I found all the formulas for calculating the mass air entering the cylinders
from a website for an open source EFI,
http://www.megasquirt.info/manual/mfuel.htm
You can use the formulas for calculating the mass air flow and realizing
that the mass of the air is proportional to the fuel entering the engine, of
course assuming a constant fuel mixture. Then the horse power will be
proportional to the fuel, which is proportional to the air entering the
engine.
Again if you assume the air temperature is constant and the fuel mixture is
constant then all you are left with is MAP and RPMs. Now if you are using a
fixed pitch propeller then you can actually remove the MAP from the equation
is that the horsepower required to turn prop is dependent on the RPMs and
the air density, again since we want percent horsepower we assume constant
air density and thus only have RPMs in the equation.
Regards,
Trampas Stern
www.sterntech.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Werner
Schneider
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Horse Power?
Hello Trampas,
so if I understand it correct we could get %HP out of a formula with MP and
RPM?
Would you be so kind to post this formula? I had to do some flighttesting
and therefore had to go through the tables of lycoming to find a pair of MP
and RPM for 75%/65%/55% HP in different density altitudes.
Thanks a lot
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trampas" <tstern(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Horse Power?
>
> First off I wanted to mention that some people are quoting burn rates in
> lbs/hour/hp and some are using GPH, thus this could be some debate on the
> number of 0.5 lbs/hour/hp.
>
> As far as the original question, the percent horse power calculation is
> based on estimating the air flow into the engine. So we can go back to the
> text books and find the air flow equations which are a function of air
> temperature, manifold pressure, RPM and displacement. Then we estimate the
> power of engine based on the engine efficiency.
>
> Then since you are doing a percentage you will find that the air
> temperature, efficiency and displacement cancel out in the percentage
> calculation leaving you with estimated percent horsepower.
>
> Regards,
> Trampas Stern
> www.sterntech.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Troy Scott" <tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | PAR36 possibility |
Gentlemen,
Are any of you familiar with this bulb?:
50Watt PAR36 5 degree spot 12V 19878 GE Halogen Lamp 50PAR36/NSP
I bought one just to compare it to the "standard" 4509. It is just about as
bright in the center spot, which is about the same size spot the 4509 makes.
The area just outside the spot may be slightly brighter compared to the
4509. Of course the current required is just half that required for the 100
watt incandescent 4509. I have no idea how well this bulb would hold up on
an airplane. It seems robust to me. The price is $9.95 each, which seems
reasonable considering it's rated at 4000 hours. The incandescent 4509 is a
25 hour bulb and sells for $7.94.
These prices are current at www.atlantalightbulbs.com
Thoughts?
Regards,
Troy
tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)comcast.net> |
On 4-19-04 Bob Siegfried wrote: If you really want to check the torque output,
put strain gauges on the engine mounts. Al Hundere made up a device to do just
that on a Twin Beech many years ago. I understand that it worked OK, but needed
a lot of TLC to retain
accuracy.
Good evening Bob,
I considered putting strain gauges on the mount, but in consultation with my physicist
cousin, it was clear that my mount would require both tension/compression
as well as torque gauges on each of 6 tubes, with significant computation
to make sense of all the moments involved. If I were to rebuild the mount, with
a design that had a bearing with the axis pointing forward which would allow
measurement of a "pure" torque, the job would be easy. I also considered putting
strains gauges on the longerons attached to the firewall, but I'm not sure
about the stability of that location in a composite aircraft. Eventually,
I put the project on the future list. I do appreciate your description of the
torque measurement in the planetary gear system on those big radials.
Jim Foerster
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 4/20/04 1:54:11 AM Central Daylight Time,
jmfpublic(at)comcast.net writes:
I considered putting strain gauges on the mount, but in consultation with my
physicist cousin, it was clear that my mount would require both
tension/compression as well as torque gauges on each of 6 tubes, with significant
computation to make sense of all the moments involved.
Good Morning Jim.
First, let's recall that Al Hundere did not find the project to be
worthwhile considering the technology available fifty years ago.
Nevertheless, I do believe he was measuring movement with a
strain gauge at only one engine mount. He would then run the
engine at known power settings and extrapolate the data from
there. He was not as much interested in finding precisely
how much power was being developed as he was in finding
peak power.
It is somewhat analogous to his use of EGT to determine the
same point. He was the guru who gave us Alcor.
The idea of running at a particular EGT was not what Al had
intended. What he did was run an engine on a test bed and
determine what the EGT read at various mixtures. He found
that, on the average Lycoming or Continental, peak power
occurred at somewhere around fifty degrees Fahrenheit richer
than peak EGT. That was the information he wanted. He didn't
particularly care what the actual temperature was, he was trying
to locate peak power so that mixture adjustments could be
made with consistent results.
I guess he decided that it was a lot cheaper and easier to use
the relativity of the EGT to find peak power than it was to find
peak power directly from the torque applied to the engine mount.
One more off topic comment. He also found that best BSFC
generally occurred somewhere between peak EGT and thirty or
forty degrees F leaner than peak EGT. Since that is a very flat
curve, BSFC will be relatively constant throughout that range.
Any time that you are operating in that range, you can easily
tell how much horsepower is being developed by noting the
actual fuel burn.
Since we are, by definition, lean of peak EGT and well lean of
peak power, we know that there is more oxygen available than
is required to burn all of the fuel we are providing. If the engine
is a conforming engine and is not developing any unusual
internal stress, the fuel flow multiplied by a constant based on
the combustion pressures involved will be a very accurate
determination of power developed.
For an average lightplane engine using an 8.5 to 1 compression
ratio, you can multiply the gallons per hour times 14.9 and come
very close to the power that would be shown on a dynamometer.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 4/20/04 7:11:48 AM Central Daylight Time, BobsV35B(at)aol.com
writes:
For an average lightplane engine using an 8.5 to 1 compression
ratio, you can multiply the gallons per hour times 14.9 and come
very close to the power that would be shown on a dynamometer.
One additional comment if you don't mind. I should have noted that the above
formula only works when the engine has excellent fuel distribution to it's
cylinders and is operated between peak EGT and thirty to forty degrees F lean of
peak EGT.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Troy Scott" <tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | cell phone antenna |
Richard said:
<>
Richard,
That's a great idea for the "emergency, HELP!!" version. But I'm hoping for
a version that will let me receive calls. On camping trips I'm sometimes
accompanied by an MD who needs to remain in contact. What about an
amplifier to make up for the signal loss?
-Troy
tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: torque measurement |
I inquired at Alcor about Al Hundere's Twin Beech torque system - here's
their reply below.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alcor Support" <alcorsupport(at)alcorinc.com>
Subject: Re: torque measurement
> Hello David,
>
> Most of that old data has been thrown away. As soon as,
> his son returns from vacation I will ask him if he has seen
> that data.
>
> Thanks for your inquiry,
>
> Rick Sonnen
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 6:50 PM
> Subject: torque measurement
>
>
> > Al [ Hundere ] successfully installed a torque measuring system on a
Twin Beech in the
> > '60s. Is there any technical info in the files on how he did that?
There
> > is continued interest in measuring torque on single engine homebuilts so
> > HP can be calculated and read out on the new engine instrument systems.
> >
> > David Carter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Malcolm Thomson" <mdthomson(at)attglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Thanks to all those HP contributors and |
I am now trying to find the "Pilot Priority Relay Assembly" which is
referred to in Bob Nuckolls wiring book. Is this something that can be
purchased or do we fabricate them?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Fogerson" <rickf(at)cableone.net> (by way of Matt Dralle <nospam(at)matronics.com>) |
| Subject: | Alternator blast tube cooling opinion |
way of Matt Dralle )
Blast tube cooling for alternators has been a common discussion. Thought
everyone might be interested in B&C's opinion on their alternator.
Rick Fogerson
> Rick,
> There doesn't need to be a blast tube to the alternator. The L-40 has two
> cooling fans built into the rotor, now if you want to put a blast tube to
> the L-40 that is just fine, we do recommend that you put it at least 2
> inches away, so that if it gets clogged for some reason it won't hurt the
> purpose of the internal cooling fans.
>
> Thanks,
> Todd Koerner
> B&C Specialty Products, Inc
> 316-283-8000
> www.bandc.biz
>
> comments = I am building an RV-3 with B&C 40amp alternator.
> Does it need to have a cooling blast tube blowing cool air at it?
> Thanks, Rick.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Automotive Spark Plugs |
In a message dated 4/19/2004 2:56:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
> No more $$$ aviation spark plugs for me
Mark said he's using two EIs and thus using all auto spark plugs. I talked
to an engine builder at SnF who said the auto plugs are not holding up as well
as the aviation plugs. Does anyone have several hundred hours of flying on
auto plugs to substantiate or refute the claim?
Stan Sutterfield
RV-8A
Tampa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hausding, sid" <sidh(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Just wondering........ |
If I buy a 28 volt comm radio how can it be utilized in a 12 volt system?
What needs to be done to the 12 volt system to power the radio, or can the
radio be "fixed" to detune it to the existing system?
Thinking outloud, but wondering if its a deal, or steal??????? :-)
Sid
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mcculleyja(at)aol.com |
Alex,
On the assumption you are probably looking for a reasonably accurate way to
determine the percentage of engine maximum continuous rated horsepower during
flight using the RPM, and MAP (manifold pressure) that you see on the gauges,
here is a method that works to within about half to one percent accuracy for
naturally aspirated engines similar to Lycoming, Continental, etc , when leaned
in the conventional manner.
100% minus [(Max rated RPM in hundreds minus actual RPM in hundreds) times
2.5 plus (29 inches MAP minus actual inches MAP) times 3.5)]
This can be done in your head with a little practice or carry along a simple
calculator.
An example: Assume you are at 2450 RPM and 24" MAP at a pressure altitude of
4,000 feet, with an engine having a rated maximum horsepower of 180 at 2700
RPM at sea level. The solution becomes (27-24.5) X 2.5 or 6.25 plus (29-24) X
3.5 or 17.5. Adding the 6.25 to the 17.5 gives 23.75 which is then
subtracted from 100 to show 76.25 % of Rated Power.
The most accurate method is of course to look up the horsepower on the engine
manufacturer's data plots. In the above example, a Lycoming would show 138
HP, which is 76.7 % of the 180 Rated HP. This is correct for an ambient intake
temperature on a standard day (44.7F) at the example altitude. If the actual
intake temperature is different, a calculation can be made to correct this,
with higher temps reducing the HP--and lower temps increasing HP. The
approximate correction is 1% HP for each 10 degrees Fahrenheit difference from
the
standard.
Jim McCulley
Tailwind
AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
> Does anyone know the formula to calculate the %HP?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mprather <mprather(at)spro.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Automotive Spark Plugs |
I wonder if the engine builder meant that the auto plugs are having
failures, or
that they are burning out faster.... If they wear out faster, I don't
see that as a big
deal. I put 4 new NGK's in my O-200. Total cost: ~$6.00. I bet if
you run the
right heat range, they will survive just fine.
Regards,
Matt-
Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 4/19/2004 2:56:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
>
>
>
>>No more $$$ aviation spark plugs for me
>>
>>
>
>Mark said he's using two EIs and thus using all auto spark plugs. I talked
>to an engine builder at SnF who said the auto plugs are not holding up as well
>as the aviation plugs. Does anyone have several hundred hours of flying on
>auto plugs to substantiate or refute the claim?
>
>Stan Sutterfield
>RV-8A
>Tampa
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Automotive Spark Plugs |
I have been running Jeff Rose (Electroair) system on left drive for
about a thousand hours. No significant problems. I used auto plugs as
recommended by him for most of that time, but have used REM 37BYs for
the past few hundred hours, at his (changed) recommendation.
Never had any problem with the 386 or C86 Auto plugs lasting a hundred
hours or several hundred with cleaning and regapping. I did quit
regapping them and started discarding them when I discovered I was
probably damaging them when gapping them. At a buck apiece it was
smarter.
The airplane REM 37 BYs that I am now using are certainly sturdier, but
in my normal aspirated O-360 A1A, the auto ones were just fine, too.
Hope this helps your research.
Denis
> I talked
> to an engine builder at SnF who said the auto plugs are not holding up
> as well
> as the aviation plugs. Does anyone have several hundred hours of
> flying on
> auto plugs to substantiate or refute the claim?
>
> Stan Sutterfield
> RV-8A
> Tampa
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu> |
| Subject: | Automotive Spark Plugs |
When comparing anecdotal reports of auto plug life, remember that all
auto plugs are not created equal. The Bosch Platinum tip plugs have a
much longer service life than conventional plugs. Similarly, the
AC-Delco platinum tip plugs in my '96 Impala SS go 100,000 miles between
changes. Obviously, these plugs cost more than generic units, but are
still much cheaper than the aviation sparkplugs.
William Slaughter
RV-8
Houston
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Automotive Spark Plugs
In a message dated 4/19/2004 2:56:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
> No more $$$ aviation spark plugs for me
Mark said he's using two EIs and thus using all auto spark plugs. I
talked
to an engine builder at SnF who said the auto plugs are not holding up
as well
as the aviation plugs. Does anyone have several hundred hours of flying
on
auto plugs to substantiate or refute the claim?
Stan Sutterfield
RV-8A
Tampa
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
>
> Alex,
>
> On the assumption you are probably looking for a reasonably
> accurate way to
> determine the percentage of engine maximum continuous rated
> horsepower during
> flight using the RPM, and MAP (manifold pressure) that you
> Jim McCulley
> Tailwind
Jim, thanks. However, I was not the person looking for the information,
some erroneous cutting and pasting makes it look that way!
I don't know how well the formula fits the curves, leaning would be a
major factor. Simply leaning within a few percent takes very careful
work. I believe that the correction for temperature should be about 2%
for each 10F degrees, though. (divide 470 degrees R by 460 degrees R,
and you get about 1.02, for example)
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 458 hours
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Automotive Spark Plugs |
What exactly does that mean "not holding up as well as the aviation plugs".
They dont last 800, 500, or even 300 hours? I have duall EI with 103 hrs,
everything fine to date, and just plan to change the plugs when ever I dont
like what I see. That will cost me about 20~25 bucks for all 8. Actually to
get technical they are motorcycle spark plugs.
>
>In a message dated 4/19/2004 2:56:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
>
>> No more $$$ aviation spark plugs for me
>
>Mark said he's using two EIs and thus using all auto spark plugs. I talked
>to an engine builder at SnF who said the auto plugs are not holding up as
well
>as the aviation plugs. Does anyone have several hundred hours of flying on
>auto plugs to substantiate or refute the claim?
>
>Stan Sutterfield
>RV-8A
>Tampa
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Just wondering....(28-12V radio conversions) |
>If I buy a 28 volt comm radio how can it be utilized in a 12 volt system?
>What needs to be done to the 12 volt system to power the radio, or can the
>radio be "fixed" to detune it to the existing system?
Of course it can be modified, depending on the details.
It can also be powered by a 12-28V DC-DC converter depemding on the current.
But posting it on eBay and buying a 12V unit on eBay might well be the best
possible choice. I have usually found this to be true.
Search "aircraft
radio -collection -handheld -hitec -futaba -control -controlled -hobby." The
search string is needed to filter out those pesky R/C guys' stuff. You may
refine this further. Try the same search on Google too.
BOB: What is this http://wireless.fcc.gov/aviation/badlst.html List of
Unacceptable Aircraft Radios???
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
Teamwork: "A lot of people doing exactly what I say."
(Marketing exec., Citrix Corp.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Just wondering....(28-12V radio conversions) |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hi Eric,
>
>
snip
>
> BOB: What is this http://wireless.fcc.gov/aviation/badlst.html List of
> Unacceptable Aircraft Radios???
I think these are all 360 channel comms, and don't satisfy the 720
channel requirement.
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> Phone (508) 764-2072
> Email: emjones(at)charter.net
>
> Teamwork: "A lot of people doing exactly what I say."
> (Marketing exec., Citrix Corp.)
>
>
Matt-
N34RD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Erie Patsellis <erie(at)shelbyvilledesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Automotive Spark Plugs |
as a point of reference..
Bosch platinums (small electrode) last about .5 hours before they're
undrivable in my Audi 200 Turbo Quattro.
The large platinum electrode plugs last quite a bit longer, but they
make aircraft plugs look cheap.
The Bosch WR(x)-DTC plugs are a triple ground electrode plug and they
last 50,000 + miles.
erie
William Slaughter wrote:
>
>When comparing anecdotal reports of auto plug life, remember that all
>auto plugs are not created equal. The Bosch Platinum tip plugs have a
>much longer service life than conventional plugs. Similarly, the
>AC-Delco platinum tip plugs in my '96 Impala SS go 100,000 miles between
>changes. Obviously, these plugs cost more than generic units, but are
>still much cheaper than the aviation sparkplugs.
>
>William Slaughter
>RV-8
>Houston
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Speedy11(at)aol.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Automotive Spark Plugs
>
>
>In a message dated 4/19/2004 2:56:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
>
>
>
>>No more $$$ aviation spark plugs for me
>>
>>
>
>Mark said he's using two EIs and thus using all auto spark plugs. I
>talked
>to an engine builder at SnF who said the auto plugs are not holding up
>as well
>as the aviation plugs. Does anyone have several hundred hours of flying
>on
>auto plugs to substantiate or refute the claim?
>
>Stan Sutterfield
>RV-8A
>Tampa
>
>
>==
>direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>==
>==
>==
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tammy and Mike Salzman <arrow54t(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Just wondering....(28-12V radio conversions) |
You can buy a converter on ebay for this purpose.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=26436&item=2474906506&rd=1
Mike Salzman
Fairfield, CA
LNCE
--- "Eric M. Jones" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >If I buy a 28 volt comm radio how can it be utilized in a 12 volt
> system?
> >What needs to be done to the 12 volt system to power the radio, or
> can the
> >radio be "fixed" to detune it to the existing system?
>
> Of course it can be modified, depending on the details.
> It can also be powered by a 12-28V DC-DC converter depemding on the
> current.
...........
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Unacceptable Aircraft Radios |
>
>
>BOB: What is this http://wireless.fcc.gov/aviation/badlst.html List of
>Unacceptable Aircraft Radios???
Yup, frequency tolerances had to be tightened up when the FAA
in it's infinite wisdom decided that the way to get more spectrum
space for airplane folks to talk to each other was to slice
the spectrum into smaller pieces (watch for 8.333 Khz channel
spacing to become the 'in' thing). Radios on the list
are too loose for frequency tolerance and perhaps for
transmitted sidebands width as well.
So while we can acquire huge communications technology and
capability in the form pocket sized FREE radios from
cell phone companies the folks-who-know-more-about-
airplanes-than-we-do keep putting Band-Aids on the
1950's, high-dollar technology we're forced to install
in our airplanes. In the mean time, thousands of
otherwise working radios are useless by decree so
that government can minimize their costs of channel
compaction while loading the users with costs for
radios that will perform no better than the radios
that got trashed.
Aviation is the last bastion of AM communications
left on the surface of the planet.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chad Robinson <crobinson(at)rfgonline.com> |
| Subject: | Battery failure modes? |
What types of failures can occur to a battery in flight, assuming various
alternator conditions? Does anybody have a list of failure modes?
Regards,
Chad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Just wondering....(28-12V radio conversions) |
>
> >If I buy a 28 volt comm radio how can it be utilized in a 12 volt
> >system? What needs to be done to the 12 volt system to power
> the radio,
> >or can the radio be "fixed" to detune it to the existing system?
What kind of radio is it? Some simply need to be wired appropriately
for the voltage.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 458 hours
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hausding, sid" <sidh(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | 28-12V radio conversions) |
Thank you for the comments and the links to the "how to" answers. I had
hoped the 28 volt radios would not be desirable for the general public, and
I could get one cheaper than normal for the 12 volt listings...........alas,
not true. Seems everybody is out looking for a cheap comm for their
homebuilt this spring. The attractive pricing has all escalated to beyond
what I would call a good deal.
shucks........
Sid
-----------------------------
You can buy a converter on ebay for this purpose.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI
dll?ViewItem&category=26436&item=2474906506&rd=1
-------------------------------------------------
> >If I buy a 28 volt comm radio how can it be utilized in a 12 volt
> system?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hausding, sid" <sidh(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | 28-12V radio conversions) |
There are a couple of high end King comm radios on ebay, but the price has
gone sky high since I found them and had the question. I shall continue to
try to win the lotto and get a new Micro Air, or an older Terra, S-Tec, or
Becker, in 12 volts.........want to keep it light, and really don't have a
lot of panel space for full size comm, or nav/comm, and then the transponder
too.........my project is an Avid Speedwing and the Avids have small panels
for basic VFR only........
Sid
--------------------
If I buy a 28 volt comm radio how can it be utilized in a 12 volt
system? What needs to be done to the 12 volt system to power
the radio,
or can the radio be "fixed" to detune it to the existing system?
What kind of radio is it? Some simply need to be wired appropriately
for the voltage.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 458 hours
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Unacceptable Aircraft Radios |
In a message dated 4/21/2004 11:42:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net
writes:
> Aviation is the last bastion of AM communications
> left on the surface of the planet.
>
> Bob . . .
Well, ignoring Children's Band, that is true ;-) And what a great place aviation
would be for Amplitude-Compandored Single Side-Band or narrow band FM. Looking
at the cost of full-featured VHF amateur rigs, there's no excuse for aircraft
radios to sell (new) at above 40% of their current street prices /soapbox
off/
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Martin" <niceez(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Automotive Spark Plugs |
Stan,
With 319 hours experience with an LSE CDI system and also fouled motorcycle
plugs (yes that's right - fouled plugs) every 50 to 75 hours. The magneto
would run smoother then the E.I. system during this. After more research we
find that the truth was not told by the LSE about the proper choice of
plugs. I should have been using REM 37BY's (the spark plug that was
developed specifically for my engine) just like I do for the magneto.
Those who I've spoke with say they get 800 to 900 hours out of there
aircraft spark plugs. Having used the triple ground arm plugs from
NippenDenso plugs (LSE want $15 per plug) I can say they work a little
better but they still would foul during a run-up after 40 25 hours and this
was due to carbon deposits the 235L2C is known for -(my best guess anyway).
Most interesting is they were all on top and the aircraft REM 37BY plugs and
magneto fired all the bottom plugs and ran smooth. Best wishes to LSE
however I have switched to Electro-Air's E.I. which recommends Aircraft
plugs or the 386 plugs that fit into the standard aircraft cylinder head.
You owe it to yourself to speak with Jeff Rose of Electro-Air if your
airplane use's a starter. He recommends against hand propping for those
with dual E.I.'s. His system already has the "longer duration spark" that
LSE wants more $$$ for and use's a 60 tooth wheel to make timing adjustments
every 12 verses the once every 360 (or 720) of the LSE system. They both
use manifold pressure & electronics to retard or advance the timing.
Delivered price for me was $820. You can also get the optional tach and
Optional display that shows the amount of Advance. The plans on Electro air
also allow the installer to put in a switch to force the unit to fire After
TDC for starting. (Jeff told me the unit will not fire until it registers
25 RPM and so that is why hand-propping is still a no go). The lack of
engine manifold pressure should however bring it to around 5 before TDC for
starting.
As I stated, these are my experience's - Hope this helps,
Dale Martin
Lewiston, ID
LEZ-235
----- Original Message -----
From: <Speedy11(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Automotive Spark Plugs
>
> In a message dated 4/19/2004 2:56:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
>
> > No more $$$ aviation spark plugs for me
>
> Mark said he's using two EIs and thus using all auto spark plugs. I
talked
> to an engine builder at SnF who said the auto plugs are not holding up as
well
> as the aviation plugs. Does anyone have several hundred hours of flying
on
> auto plugs to substantiate or refute the claim?
>
> Stan Sutterfield
> RV-8A
> Tampa
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Automotive Spark Plugs |
| From: | Kent Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
I've run ordinary NGK and Nippodenso plugs top and bottom on a dual LSE
O-360 and never had any problems. I change them out every other year and
always lean aggresively during ground ops and below 75%.
--Kent
Cozy Mk IV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Troy Scott" <tscott1217(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Electric Trim Switches |
Gentlemen,
I plan to have electric trim controls on the stick(s). These will need
relays, since the switches are small and the currents large. I also plan to
install either a pullable breaker or switch as Electric Trim Interrupt. I'm
thinking it might also be good to have a direct (no relays) means of
controlling the trim motors. I'm thinking of installing a pair of
(ON)-none-(ON) rocker switches on the console. Is this commonly done? Or do
most of you choose either stick-mounted controls or console-mounted
controls, but not both? What about stick-mounted controls on the pilot's
side only and console mounted controls for when the passenger/pilot takes
the controls? What about a "take control" switch to determine which set of
trim controls works....., is this necessary?
Regards,
Troy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Unacceptable Aircraft Radios |
| In a message dated 4/21/2004 11:42:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net
| writes:|
| > Aviation is the last bastion of AM communications
| > left on the surface of the planet.| >
| > Bob . . .
|
| Well, ignoring Children's Band, that is true ;-) And what a great place
aviation
| would be for Amplitude-Compandored Single Side-Band or narrow band FM.
Looking at the cost of full-featured VHF amateur rigs, there's no excuse for
aircraft
| radios to sell (new) at above 40% of their current street prices /soapbox
| off/
|
| -Bill B
Amen to that!
Buy a handheld and wait for the final decision........... That's what decree
demands...
Ferg
Europa Classic 914
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Trim Switches |
Troy,
You can eliminate the need for relays for electric pitch and roll servos by purchasing
the new Ray Allen G307 (or G305) grips. The Honeywell Microswitch brand
hat switch on these units is rated for 15 amps. See
http://www.rayallencompany.com/products/stickgripsG3.html
I'm building a tandem (RV-8A) aircraft, so panel switches are out of the question
for me. I plan to install two toggle switches to control who has control of
the electric trim (4 pole double throw ON-OFF-ON) and flaps, which are also
stick grip controlled (3 pole double throw ON-OFF-ON) This will allow these functions
to be shunted to either the pilot (ON) no one (OFF) or co-pilot (ON).
I want the OFF position to deal with any potential "runaway" condition.
Yesterday, I placed several orders for electrical parts. I asked Waytek Electronics
(a Carling Technologies distributor) for pricing on these 2 switches. Carling
part numbers are:
HM251-78 $17.71 each 3 pole double throw with 1/4" female
fast on connectors and chrome bat handle
IM251-78 $$2398 each 4 pole double throw with 1/4" female
fast on connectors and chrome bat handle
The problem is that there is a minimum of 11 for each item to place a special
order for these items. Does anyone on the list know of a Carling distributor
who stocks these? Failing that, anyone want to go in on a group purchase to get
these? I can supply a copy of Waytek's quote "off list" to anyone interested.
Charlie Kuss
RV-8A wiring
Boca Raton, Fl.
>
>Gentlemen,
>
>
>I plan to have electric trim controls on the stick(s). These will need
>relays, since the switches are small and the currents large. I also plan to
>install either a pullable breaker or switch as Electric Trim Interrupt. I'm
>thinking it might also be good to have a direct (no relays) means of
>controlling the trim motors. I'm thinking of installing a pair of
>(ON)-none-(ON) rocker switches on the console. Is this commonly done? Or do
>most of you choose either stick-mounted controls or console-mounted
>controls, but not both? What about stick-mounted controls on the pilot's
>side only and console mounted controls for when the passenger/pilot takes
April 08, 2004 - April 22, 2004
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-dc