AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-dn
September 20, 2004 - October 02, 2004
>
>
>---------
>Bob wrote:
>
>Rules have all appearances of good intention but in fact, they tend to
>relieve rule-writers from having to be teachers and rule-followers from
>having to understand real risks. I prefer to understand.
>---------
>
>Bob,
>
>This is one of the most profound things I've read on the list in quite a
>while. You are a veritable "font of knowledge."
>
>One word of caution: sometimes it's good not only to understand the
>physics, but also *why* the rule was written.
You betcha! This is part of understanding . . .
> Commercial airlines
>operate with an accident rate several times lower than we General
>Aviation enthusiasts. Rules that take the pilot out of the
>decision-making process (if the weather is this bad you can't go,
>minimum equiment lists, etc.) are one of the most effective tools the
>commercial carriers use to keep the accident rate down. We would do
>well to emulate them...
I'm not suggesting that to err on the side of safety is
a bad idea . . . I am suggesting that much of what is
offered by rule makers is so conservative and/or error driven
as to be counter-productive. Sorta like the old saw we
all grew up with about not going swimming until two hours
after eating. Dutiful parents would not dare let their children
hit the pond too early mostly out of deference to judgement
by their peers . . . but in the mean time, they're suffering the
benefits of children under foot with nothing better to do
than irritate the adults until they're finally herded out
toward the swimming hole.
Rules written by pilots to assist other pilots is probably
the best example of practical rule making. Rules written by
legislative and regulatory committees are suspect. Rules-of-thumb
handed around over beer-and-pretzels are the most suspect yet.
The only rational defense against counter-productive observance
of rules is knowledge and understanding . . . commodities not
highly prized in our public schools. So for the most part, we're
on our own to ferret out and then share the best we know how
to do. In all of my travels I've not seen any better examples
of knowledge sharing than in the OBAM aircraft community.
I'm headed for a meeting in a few minutes to try and convince
powerful decision makers and holders of purse strings that
it is in the best interests of our company to heed the examples
offered by the un-certified side of aviation. Policies and
procedures (rules) are not doing well as substitutes for
experience and common sense (knowledge and understanding).
You folks stand head-and-shoulders above our "professional"
counterparts in this endeavor.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People |
On Sep 20, 2004, at 8:53 AM, Mark Sletten wrote:
>
> Rules that take the pilot out of the
> decision-making process (if the weather is this bad you can't go,
> minimum equiment lists, etc.) are one of the most effective tools the
> commercial carriers use to keep the accident rate down. We would do
> well to emulate them...
It is always a good idea to premake your decisions so when the
situation hits, you don't have to spend time making a decision. In
flying gliders we learned the decision points for what to do if the tow
rope broke, i.e. land out, turn back to a downwind landing, fly an
abbreviated pattern, or fly the full pattern. I didn't have to make
that decision as I had already made that decision. I apply that to the
process I teach my students, i.e. that you can make the critical
decisions ahead of time so that, should a problem occur you aren't
having to fly the plane AND make the decisions at the same time.
Applying it to weather is probably the biggest challenge.
But Bob's point is excellent. If you know WHY you can better make
those decisions ahead of time. Sometimes "why" is the most difficult
thing to teach.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? |
Brian,
you disappointed me by not addressing the really salient issues with the nose gear
antenna:
1. how do you tune the thing in the shop with the "hot" end of the radiating element
just 6-18 inches (depending on whether the tail is tied to a concrete block)
above the reinforced concrete floor, and
2. what about that propeller blade tha passes so close to the radiating element
on its way around - is it best to tune the antenna with the prop blades horizontal,
vertical, or at some compromise position? If the blades do in fact de-tune
the antenna, will this cause "chop-modulation" as the transmitter final
VSWR protection folds back the power at 2x the rpm frequency?
So many lurking problems that could surprise the amateur experimenter ;-)
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Fw: Biblical proportions |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: Biblical proportions
| Bob,
| The following copy of your message is perhaps a bit redundant, but
| wanted you to know I have copied it for future generations as well. If
those
| finely chosen phrases had been published ten years ago, much sweat would
| have been prevented........ I'm sure Brian Lloyd and many others will
agree
| that it's a very fine summation of the common VHF (& other) comm freqs and
| should be read by every interested builder.
| Once again your good common sense prevails. Congratualtions.
| Ferg
| Europa A064
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People |
In a message dated 9/20/04 7:54:36 AM Central Daylight Time,
marknlisa(at)hometel.com writes:
One word of caution: sometimes it's good not only to understand the
physics, but also *why* the rule was written. Commercial airlines
operate with an accident rate several times lower than we General
Aviation enthusiasts. Rules that take the pilot out of the
decision-making process (if the weather is this bad you can't go,
minimum equiment lists, etc.) are one of the most effective tools the
commercial carriers use to keep the accident rate down. We would do
well to emulate them...
Good Morning Mark,
Having flown under the philosophy you espouse for some thirty-eight of my
fifty-eight years of flying, I feel the necessity to comment.
The safety enjoyed by the air carrier community is not the result a slavish
adherence to the specifications you mention.
It is due to a collective interpretation of what is good and what is bad
about the current set of operating restrictions.
Those restrictions and procedures are in a constant state of evaluation and
consideration. The changes are developed primarily by the pilots who are
adhering to the rules and see areas wherein the rules do not operate optimally
for the current condition.
On the very first page of the operating specifications of the airline for
which I flew was a statement to the effect that nothing in that manual was to
be taken as restricting the captain in command of the flight taking any action
which he felt was appropriate even though that action was not in literal
compliance with the published procedures.
The only proviso was that it was expected that the captain would report the
deviation and be able to explain the action if so requested.
Accountability was the word.
Many of the procedures which were considered optimal, possibly even
mandatory, when I started as a raw first officer, would have been considered reason
for corrective counseling had they been used during my last few years at work.
Any of us can point to occasions when action was taken contrary to the
"book" where a successful outcome resulted from that action. Full compliance with
written procedures may well have resulted in the loss of the aircraft.
A perfect example of that is the 747 which lost a major portion of it's
fuselage near Maui. The Captain in command made several decisions which were
contrary to the written word. His action resulted in the only loss of life being
those lost in the initial decompression. Had he followed written
procedures, there is no doubt that the aircraft would have had to ditch in open
ocean.
It was constantly impressed upon us that the written guidance was there for
our use and guidance.
If we didn't like what it said, we were encouraged to get the rules changed.
That is what was done and the procedures changed often as conditions taught
us where change was needed.
You state: "Rules that take the pilot out of the decision-making process."
Do you really think that is what is desired?
I don't think it was every intended that the pilot be taken out of the
decision process.
It was always my understanding that I was being given guidance to follow so
that I would have a better chance of making the correct decision when a
decision was to be made.
The idea was that we be given all of the knowledge as to why things were
they way they were and what the results would be if the guidance was not
followed.
If the course of action seemed to have a potential of being counter to the
written word, I always considered how I would explain myself at the hearing.
If I was comfortable with my intended explanation, I pressed on.
Do you ever remember being told as a young man that you should never do
anything you wouldn't want your mother to know about?
That was how I felt about doing my job.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Thirty-eight years as an Air Carrier pilot
Thirty years as a captain.
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? |
On Sep 20, 2004, at 10:28 AM, SportAV8R(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> you disappointed me
My apologies for causing you disappointment.
> by not addressing the really salient issues with the nose gear antenna:
>
> 1. how do you tune the thing in the shop with the "hot" end of the
> radiating element just 6-18 inches (depending on whether the tail is
> tied to a concrete block) above the reinforced concrete floor, and
Tie the tail to the floor and tune the antenna to achieve a match. Go
fly with your antenna analyzer, network analyzer, or SWR bridge in the
circuit and see how well it works. Come back, make changes, and go fly
again. This iterative process will eventually result in a successful
match. Also you need to consider that this antenna is going to be
operating over greater than a 10% range. It will never be quite tuned
at the band edges. As long as the VSWR is less than 3:1, it should
work just dandy.
> 2. what about that propeller blade tha passes so close to the
> radiating element on its way around - is it best to tune the antenna
> with the prop blades horizontal, vertical, or at some compromise
> position? If the blades do in fact de-tune the antenna, will this
> cause "chop-modulation" as the transmitter final VSWR protection folds
> back the power at 2x the rpm frequency?
I don't think you will get enough of a change in tuning to make a
difference. Try it. It might work. Then again, it might not. After
all, it is an experimental aircraft. You might try loading up one of
the main gear legs instead. Be creative.
> So many lurking problems that could surprise the amateur experimenter
> ;-)
One of the things I learned early on while designing protocols is that,
rarely do you need to deal with all the problems you can think up.
Make it as simple as possible then try it out. Fix the things you find
that really need fixing and let the rest go. Often the problems we
think up exist only in our minds.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People |
on juliet
Those rules that take the pilot out of the decision making loop are good
for making one stop and think but they also force more dangerous courses
of action and are used to avoid doing the best thing. Some things, but
not everthing, can be best decided in advance. Who is the rule written
to protect, is also a consideration.
Gee I'd like to shoot this marginal minimums approach on this great
runway. Everything else is perfect but the rule says the visibility is a
tad low so I must go to the alternate with a more challenging runway
(and landing) and yes I'll also be tight on gas when I get there and I
don't like the crosswind there either. The vis rule can't factor in the
other considerations in real time. It will be used to hang the pilot for
making the best decision if something goes awry though and that protects
the boss, the employer, the regulators, not the passenger or pilot.
Gee I'm uncomfortable with this defect for this particular flight and
why not fix it at this maintanance base - but the boss says the Minimum
equipment list allows it and hints at disciniplary action, or there is
a pay loss involved because the rules said it was OK despite how stupid
it might be.
Sure that's what separates the experienced guys from the kids but the
young'uns tend to consider those rules carved in stone cause they don't
know any better or they believe that following the rules increases their
job security even if they don't like them. And the pay influence is
definately increasing. I wonder how safe those rules would prove to be
if they were followed religously.
Bob has it nailed as far as I'm concerned on this one.
Ken
(He was right, dead right as he sped along
but he's just as dead as if he were wrong...)
snip
>One word of caution: sometimes it's good not only to understand the
>physics, but also *why* the rule was written. Commercial airlines
>operate with an accident rate several times lower than we General
>Aviation enthusiasts. Rules that take the pilot out of the
>decision-making process (if the weather is this bad you can't go,
>minimum equiment lists, etc.) are one of the most effective tools the
>commercial carriers use to keep the accident rate down. We would do
>well to emulate them...
>
>
snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? |
Brian:
thanks for the reply.
The iterative process you suggest would involve a potentially huge number of cowl
removals for adjustment between test flights. Wrestling the RV lower cowl
is a task I dislike a great deal. I hope someone will do the work and post duplicatable
results for the rest of us who might want to follow their lead.
>>One of the things I learned early on while designing protocols is that,
rarely do you need to deal with all the problems you can think up.
Make it as simple as possible then try it out. Fix the things you find
that really need fixing and let the rest go. Often the problems we
think up exist only in our minds.
Brian Lloyd <<
Correct. I am reminded of the old ham radio maxim, oft repeated by Bob Nuckolls,
that a wet string will often perform up to expectations as an antenna for line
of sight close range work. Anything that shows the transmitter a decent SWR
is likely to work at least okay; the moreso if the radiation pattern and resistance
are reasonable.
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed |
Bob.
I am dismayed at your reply. Neither You or I are qualified to evaluate the
exposure risks that vary for example with power, frequency, and distance.
The standards that Hams are required to meet have been developed from a lot
of studies and are considered safe. ANY close proximity to RF at any
frequency/power/etc. is potentially harmfull. Flesh heating is not the issue
as damage can and has occurred at much lower levels that are needed for
local heating.
Frankly I do not know what the rules say with out looking and neither of us
has done that.
You are famous in your need to decide from science not "non scientific"
info.
I suggest that glass aircraft pilots need to get the facts before deciding
its safe enough.
Respectfully
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III Reviewed" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed
Reviewed
>
>
> >
> >Bob there are rules and regs regarding the human proximity to RF sources
IE
> >antennas. Every Ham radio operator is required to evaluate his antenna
> >installation to see if it meets these rules. In Europe I understand the
> >rules (permissible levels) are much stricter.
> >
> >I do not have the specific FAA document # nor a copy handy but I suspect
> >that a couple hundred (1000mhz) watts, even as pulses, a couple feet from
> >you is a no no. This without a proper ground plane that would prevent
back
> >side radiation.
> >
> >Worth looking into in any event for those inclined to worry. I suspect
less
> >exposure if the antenna is directly under you presuming the above ground
> >plane VS a small ground plane (only) and some distance from you.
> >
> >Interesting set of comments worth reading by everyone. You found some
> >"errors" that I had missed.
> >
> >Good Job.
> >
> >Paul
> >K6QMI
>
> Thank you. Yeah, there's been "rules" about proximity to RF emitters
> for decades. I worked the flight line at Boeing in my first real job
> out of high school. The B52's nose mounted mapping radar was a 50KW
> peak output device that would blow the receiver mixers out of
> airplanes facing them across the ramp. The average power output was
> something on the order of 50W total . . . if held your hand
> out in the beam you could just detect a warming of your hand.
>
> At his same time, another piece of equipment was pretty common to
> doctor's offices called a diathermy machine. Push-pull, 100THs running
> anywhere between 100 and 600 watts output at 27 mHz. The doc could
> couple this to your bod with a variety of capacitive and inductive
> coupling pads and select a power transfer anywhere between very rare
> to medium-well. These were in use for deep heat therapy for decades.
> I got a series of treatments on the doc's "cooker" while wrestling
> with a series of kidney infections as a kid.
>
> Did a batch of mini-sausages in the microwave this morning . . Dee
> likes 'em crispy. Takes about 7 minutes with 600 watts continuous
> being pumped into the oven cavity.
>
> We know that anything moist will warm up in the presence of RF
> energy exposure. There are variable effects depending on mass of
> the area exposed (the tiny cat whisker's in receiver mixer crystals
> couldn't withstand 1 microsecond pulses at 1000 pulses per second,
> but the bare hand could just feel the heat. Of course, frequency has
> an influence too.
>
> I'm not trying to minimize risks around RF . . . I've had coaxes
> open up and turn my shack into a real attention getting environment.
> I have a 50 year old scar on my right index finger from an RF burn off
the
> metal edge around the linoleum topped desk that supported my
> equipment . . . and that was only a 180 watt transmitter!
>
> But let's consider the average transponder. 100-200 watt
> peaks in a stream of perhaps 50-100, 1 microsecond pulses every
> time the reply light comes on. So, 200W x 100 pulse/reply
> x 0.000001 sec/pulse yields 20 milliwatt-seconds per reply. The most
> vulnerable organs in the body are the eyes and they're a long
> way from the antenna and shadowed by your bod. Anecdotal stories
> of RF burns, blowing receivers out from across the ramp and
> crisping up my sausages can certainly give rise to ugly images
> of risk. But after you study the numbers, I'm quite comfortable
> making the assertion that a transponder antenna on a ground
> plane right under the pilot's seat of a LongEz represents
> no hazard to the family jewels.
>
> Now, if my supervisor had seen me stick my hand out there
> in front of the antenna, the rules would probably have required
> him to terminate me on the spot. Rules have all appearances
> of good intention but in fact, they tend to relieve rule-writers
> from having to be teachers and rule-followers from having to
> understand real risks. I prefer to understand.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? |
On Sep 20, 2004, at 12:58 PM, SportAV8R(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Brian:
>
> thanks for the reply.
>
> The iterative process you suggest would involve a potentially huge
> number of cowl removals for adjustment between test flights.
Perhaps not. Set the gamma tap on the ground and then make adjustments
of the coupling capacitor. I bet you are in the ballpark without
having to remove the cowl if you do it right. Remember, a 3:1 VSWR is
all you really need.
We can always come up with reasons why we shouldn't or why it would be
too difficult. Often, once we get into the project it is not.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Brame <Charleyb(at)earthlink.net> |
I have a Radio Shack 13.8 volt, 10 amp power supply that I have used to
power my panel and keep my PC680 battery charged. (Still haven't run the
engine or the alternator.) I generally connect the positive wire to the
alternator lead at the firewall, and the negative lead to the firewall
ground point. My panel pretty closely follows Bob's All Electric on a
Budget schematic.
Yesterday, I managed to hook the power supply up with reversed leads and
powered it up. Then I turned on my battery contactor. Within a few
seconds I could smell hot electrics and turned everything off. Despite
Bob's warnings to the contrary, I do have an avionics master switch, and
it was never turned on, so the expensive stuff was protected. As best I
can determine, nothing on my panel was damaged but I worry that I may
have toasted something that is not obvious. Are there any other panel
devices that I may have damaged other than the avionics and instruments
- like the voltage regulator or the diodes between the main and ess
busses or the wig wag system?
My power supply is mort. It did not blow its fuse, but I get no power
from it. Any suggestions as to how to fix the power supply?
Charlie
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed |
> I'm not trying to minimize risks around RF . .
>
Just one more anecdote to help Bob out.
The Europeans and Japanese have been riding Mag-Lev
and electric trains for YEARS. Now we're talking
real power. As finicky as they are about
environmental regulations, if there was any validity
to the enviro-Nazi's claims those trains would
either not move or weigh twice as much with all the
shielding.
OK. One more piece.
The part about the microwave. The 600W in the
microwave have been carefully directed to all hit
the food. Your antenna is mostly omnidirectional,
meaning that the energy scatters everywhere (mostly
away from you), and thereby it's output drops off at
the cube of the distance.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | RF exposure levels |
On Sep 20, 2004, at 2:36 PM, SportAV8R(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Paul wrote:
>
>>> The standards that Hams are required to meet <<
>
> Say what? I've got RF exposure standards to meet?
Unfortunately, yes.
> Who enforces them and what penalties am I liable to face?
As far as I have been able to determine, there is no enforcement other
than self enforcement within the ham community. Most stations do not
generate RF at a high enough power level to trigger the need for a
station evaluation.
We all have our opinions. I was going to write a big reply to Paul but
it boils down to FUD.
There was a big scare over RF and EM exposure some years ago. People
were worried about things like 50-60 Hz EM radiation from power lines
too. There was all kinds of pseudo-science and questionable studies
being tossed around so the FCC came up with exposure limit standards
based on smoke and mirrors from what I have been able to deduce.
But if you are really interested the details are on the ARRL web site
at http://www.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/eval/. This strikes me as a real
non-issue.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed |
Bob
the link doesn't seem to work
Peter
> members are welcome to check out this work in progress at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Aircraft_Wiring_For_Smart_People_
> Reviewed.pdf
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
> advertising on the Matronics Forums.
> http://www.matronics.com/chat
> ====
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed |
In a message dated 9/20/04 3:31:40 PM Central Daylight Time,
plaurence@the-beach.net writes:
Bob
the link doesn't seem to work
Peter
Good Afternoon Peter,
It worked for me. Is this what you used?
_http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Aircraft_Wiring_For_Smart_People_Reviewe
d.pdf_
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Aircraft_Wiring_For_Smart_People_Reviewed.pdf)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Birkelbach <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
I doubt if you hurt the e-buss diode. It takes quite a bit of reverse
voltage to bust through a diode. That is, after all what they are
designed to protect against. I suspect your smoke leakage came from the
battery contactor control wiring. If you have the diode on the
contactor then you would have a direct short if the polarity were
reversed. Check the diode and the wiring to the master switch. I don't
know how that system would react to having a power supply installed
parallel with a battery in the opposite polarity. You may have simply
dumped all the current into the battery and nothing else got hurt, but I
don't know enough about it.
I have a Battery Tender hooked up all the time. When I want to test
something I just hit the master switch like I would if the plane were
flying. The battery tender takes care of keeping the battery charged
and I don't have to connect it and disconnect it. It is probably
cheaper than the power supply you have (or used to have :-) ) too.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Panel
http://www.myrv7.com
Charlie Brame wrote:
>
>I have a Radio Shack 13.8 volt, 10 amp power supply that I have used to
>power my panel and keep my PC680 battery charged. (Still haven't run the
>engine or the alternator.) I generally connect the positive wire to the
>alternator lead at the firewall, and the negative lead to the firewall
>ground point. My panel pretty closely follows Bob's All Electric on a
>Budget schematic.
>
>Yesterday, I managed to hook the power supply up with reversed leads and
>powered it up. Then I turned on my battery contactor. Within a few
>seconds I could smell hot electrics and turned everything off. Despite
>Bob's warnings to the contrary, I do have an avionics master switch, and
>it was never turned on, so the expensive stuff was protected. As best I
>can determine, nothing on my panel was damaged but I worry that I may
>have toasted something that is not obvious. Are there any other panel
>devices that I may have damaged other than the avionics and instruments
>- like the voltage regulator or the diodes between the main and ess
>busses or the wig wag system?
>
>My power supply is mort. It did not blow its fuse, but I get no power
>from it. Any suggestions as to how to fix the power supply?
>
>Charlie
>RV-6A N11CB
>San Antonio
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ozarkseller2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed |
In a message dated 9/20/2004 3:31:40 PM Central Daylight Time,
plaurence@the-beach.net writes:
> the link doesn't seem to work
>
> Peter
>
> >members are welcome to check out this work in progress at:
> >
> >http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Aircraft_Wiring_For_Smart_People_
> >Reviewed.pdf
It's working fine now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | battery seminar power-point presentation |
Listers,
I'd forgotten about one of PowerPoint's printing features.
You can do the slides 4-up on a single sheet. I've
printed the battery presentation onto an Acrobat .pdf
file and compressed it down to about 5% of the original
file size. The NEW target URL for this document is:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/pdf/Battery_Presentation_D.pdf
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a theme. |
Bob,
The link didn't work for me either.
Thanks,
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a theme.
>
>
> >
> >I just read all the web pages of informative stuff about the "Battery
> >Tender" devices... very educational... IF you have a lead-acid battery!
>
> The Oddysey is a lead-acid battery.
>
>
> >What about the new Oddysey dry-cell batteries everyone is using/
> >retrofitting into their Van's aircraft? Forgive me if you've gone
> >over that topic a
> >zillion times on this forum.. I get the email version, and dont know the
> >method
> >to research past topics.
> >
> >In particular, I'm curious if the Oddysey dry-cells can be successfully
> >'floated' or charge maintained by the family of BatteryTender products?
> >Or.. is
> >there really a need to do so, consdering one of their claims to fame is
> >being
> >able to hold a charge for about 2 years, just sitting on the shelf.
>
>
> See:
> http://www.enersysreservepower.com/ody_b.asp?brandID=5
>
> Oddysey is the latest offerings of Gates/Hawker/Enersys in
> the long and relatively successful history of development
> and marketing of sealed, valve regulated, lead-acid
> (SVRLA) batteries. Except for small differences in manufacturing,
> and electrolyte loading these are the same as recombinant gas
> (RG), absorbed glass mat (AGM) and starved electrolyte variations
> on a theme. While the term "dry" may appear in their marketing
> literature, the battery is still loaded with liquid sulfuric acid
> and water mixture . . . it's totally contained within the glass
> mat separators held in place by capillary action. If you drive
> a nail into one of these batteries it will dry out and fail but
> no liquid will exit the compromised cell. Hence the appearance
> of being "dry" when in fact, it's loaded with the same stuff
> that sloshes around in your car's battery.
>
> Note the other products listed on the Enersys webpage cited
> above. Cyclon, Powersafe, DataSafe and Genesis are but a series
> of variations on a theme of SVRLA batteries, each series
> optimized for some task.
>
> With respect to Battery Tenders . . . there are a number of
> offerings with 2, 3 and 4-step charging algorithms with
> each technique "optimized" for variations on the VRSLA
> themes. If you have a high speed internet connection and
> want to get this power point presentation, feel free to download
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/ppt/Battery_Presentation_D.ppt
> It's only going to be available there for a few more weeks
> so if you're reading this in the archives and don't find the
> presentation, write me directly and I'll get a copy to you.
>
> This is a presentation I gave for folks at Raytheon during
> a study (ongoing) of battery performance issues on our
> products. Toward the end of the presentation I discuss
> two of Battery Tender's charging algorithms but without
> offering any judgement. It is axiomatic that any product
> will be offered with a certain amount of marketing hype . . .
> probably true but the BIG question is, are the differences
> relevant and do they deliver good return on investment?
>
> As soon as I have enough information to make a considered
> judgement on the differences, sufice it to say that ANY of
> the Battery Tender products will very nicely watch over
> and maintain any variations on the VRSLA battery themes.
>
> The power point presentation will be a bit weak when read
> as a stand-alone document. I really hate to attend a program
> where the presenter simply reads the slides. So, what I've
> offered you are the illustrations and notes for my presentation
> which are not very self explanatory. I'm looking into adding
> a voice-over narration to the presentation so that it can
> stand alone as a teaching document.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
It's not totally a non-issue particularly if you carry passengers, including
children.
At 50 watts, the "public" (read passengers), should be at least 7.4 to 10.5
feet from your transmitting antenna . . . most of us are running much less
than 50 watts, so the distance required also goes down . . . however its not
a linier change.
My suggestion, use common sense, and keep your transmitting antenna a far
away from the people flying with you as your plane's configuration allows.
Another consideration is "how much time you spend with the transmitter
keyed" for most pilots it's a little as possible in VFR conditions . . .
even flying IFR we really don't typically spend that much time transmitting!
Regards,
Bob Christensen
AB0KP (Ham call)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RF exposure levels
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2004, at 2:36 PM, SportAV8R(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> >>> The standards that Hams are required to meet <<
> >
> > Say what? I've got RF exposure standards to meet?
>
> Unfortunately, yes.
>
> > Who enforces them and what penalties am I liable to face?
>
> As far as I have been able to determine, there is no enforcement other
> than self enforcement within the ham community. Most stations do not
> generate RF at a high enough power level to trigger the need for a
> station evaluation.
>
> We all have our opinions. I was going to write a big reply to Paul but
> it boils down to FUD.
>
> There was a big scare over RF and EM exposure some years ago. People
> were worried about things like 50-60 Hz EM radiation from power lines
> too. There was all kinds of pseudo-science and questionable studies
> being tossed around so the FCC came up with exposure limit standards
> based on smoke and mirrors from what I have been able to deduce.
>
> But if you are really interested the details are on the ARRL web site
> at http://www.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/eval/. This strikes me as a real
> non-issue.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
On Sep 20, 2004, at 7:24 PM, Maureen & Bob Christensen wrote:
>
>
> It's not totally a non-issue particularly if you carry passengers,
> including
> children.
My opinion is different. And what do children have to do with it?
> At 50 watts, the "public" (read passengers), should be at least 7.4 to
> 10.5
> feet from your transmitting antenna . . . most of us are running much
> less
> than 50 watts, so the distance required also goes down . . . however
> its not
> a linier change.
Exposure levels vary linearly with transmit power level but are the
inverse square of distance. Double the distance and field strength
decreases by a factor of four.
Regardless, the exposure levels set by the FCC were in response to the
FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) back in the days when the word
"radiation" struck fear into people everywhere and they were afraid of
EM from their power lines and their computer screens. The official
"safe" exposure levels do not have a lot to do with reality. But they
are "official" and that makes people more comfortable since we all know
that our governmental agencies would never promulgate anything that
were not well reasoned with solid scientific fact behind them and
weren't in our best interests.
> My suggestion, use common sense, and keep your transmitting antenna a
> far
> away from the people flying with you as your plane's configuration
> allows.
Have you ever considered what the field strength is for a handheld
radio with the antenna next to your head? Most handhelds are a couple
of watts. Even a few feet will make the field strength from your panel
mounted radio lower than a handheld. I don't see people living in fear
of their handhelds or covering their heads with aluminum foil. The FCC
doesn't even set standards for exposure from handheld radios.
> Another consideration is "how much time you spend with the transmitter
> keyed" for most pilots it's a little as possible in VFR conditions . .
> .
> even flying IFR we really don't typically spend that much time
> transmitting!
No, we don't. This whole thing is a non-issue. As I said, this whole
thread is brought on by FUD, not by knowledge and understanding.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Christensen
> AB0KP (Ham call)
>
Brian Lloyd (WB6RQN-Extra) 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
Charlie, check your manual for location of the fuse that protects your power
supply - test it with ohmmeter
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Brame" <Charleyb(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: OOPS!
>
> I have a Radio Shack 13.8 volt, 10 amp power supply that I have used to
> power my panel and keep my PC680 battery charged. (Still haven't run the
> engine or the alternator.) I generally connect the positive wire to the
> alternator lead at the firewall, and the negative lead to the firewall
> ground point. My panel pretty closely follows Bob's All Electric on a
> Budget schematic.
>
> Yesterday, I managed to hook the power supply up with reversed leads and
> powered it up. Then I turned on my battery contactor. Within a few
> seconds I could smell hot electrics and turned everything off. Despite
> Bob's warnings to the contrary, I do have an avionics master switch, and
> it was never turned on, so the expensive stuff was protected. As best I
> can determine, nothing on my panel was damaged but I worry that I may
> have toasted something that is not obvious. Are there any other panel
> devices that I may have damaged other than the avionics and instruments
> - like the voltage regulator or the diodes between the main and ess
> busses or the wig wag system?
>
> My power supply is mort. It did not blow its fuse, but I get no power
> from it. Any suggestions as to how to fix the power supply?
>
> Charlie
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>Bob,
>I am using a European style terminal block in an aera where I have a lot
>on connections, I have been tinning the wires before inserting then in the
>block and then tighting down the screw yo hold them in place.
>Is this and accepable method or do you have a suggestion for a better
>route to take.
>
I try to eliminate any type of terminal strip. Haven't
used one in a new design in 30 years. If you absolutely
have to have one, terminal strips used in stationary
situations are generally not suited for use on airplanes.
Suggest you consider terminal strips like these:
http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_cat.php/subid=1565/index.html
You terminate the wire with a standard ring terminal
and then join it to other wires on captive treaded studs
using metal locknuts. Here's an example of this style
of terminal strip installed on a bizjet.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminal_Strip_Captive_Stud.jpg
In this case, a bus bar has been added across the studs
to tie them all together. I suspect your application will
use individual studs and no buss bar will be needed.
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
A further benefit can be realized with membership on
the list. There are lots of technically capable folks
on the list who can offer suggestions too. You can
join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Thanks!
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
A friend of mine developed an acoustic neuroma on his left side thus quit
using the cellphone on his left side. Then he developed a glioblastoma on
his right side---cellphone on right side. Is this reversed for people who
drive on the other side of the road? Still who knows?
I'm with Brian on this. Frankly my airplane might have magnetron defrosting
for windows and a magnetron for heating the passengers. It really is a
better idea than it seems. You can rip the door off the microwave oven to
warm up the kitchen on chilly mornings--very efficient--heats up the people
not the furniture.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation |
Hi Charlie,
Can you tell me a little about the typical kind of folk / aircraft who
attend this fly in ?. I am at Waukesha so its an easy day trip for me.
Regards, Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation
>
> If you can make it to central Mississippi on Oct. 16, I'd like to invite
> you to Slobovia Outernational's fall flyin just north of Jackson MS.
>
> The fun starts at 10:00 AM & lunch will be served at noon. You are
> welcome to overnight either Friday or Saturday. Just email or call so we
> can plan for supper/breakfast, throw a bedroll in the plane/car & 'come
> on down'.
>
> No formal programs are scheduled, just lots of airplane rides, food &
> 'homebuilt conversation'.
>
> Info on our airport can be found at
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/MS71
>
> FAA Identifier: MS71
> Lat/Long: 32-29-42.508N / 090-17-34.325W
> 32-29.70847N / 090-17.57208W
> 32.4951411 / -90.2928681
> UNICOM: 122.75
>
> Disclaimer: Slobovia is a private airport. Pilots operate at their own
> risk. Please be alert for both very slow & very high speed aircraft
> around the airport; we are an 'equal opportunity airport'.
>
> If you need driving directions or more info, feel free to email me at
> ceengland(at)bellsouth.net
> or call at 601-879-9596.
>
> Ya'll come!
>
> Charlie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
Bob,
One of the gizmos I am installing in my RV is a low fuel warning system
which uses those terminals where the end of a set screw cranks down on the
wire. I didn't like the idea of using them with small stranded wires, so I
tried crimping D-sub pins on the wires before I inserted them. Seems to
work ok. Do you see a problem with that? I have anchored the wires within
a couple of inches of the terminal strip.
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob,
>
>One of the gizmos I am installing in my RV is a low fuel warning system
>which uses those terminals where the end of a set screw cranks down on the
>wire. I didn't like the idea of using them with small stranded wires, so I
>tried crimping D-sub pins on the wires before I inserted them. Seems to
>work ok. Do you see a problem with that? I have anchored the wires within
>a couple of inches of the terminal strip.
I'd put heatshrink over the wire-grip and a half-inch or so
of the wire as well. The d-sub pin by itself is no more robust
than the wire mashed under a clamp screw. Geesh! I wish those
mash-strips would go away. D-subs have a higher contact density
for the same board area, they're only slightly more expensive
and they let you pull a piece of equipment out by unplugging
and replugging instead of diddling with a bunch of wires that
might not get put pack in the right holes.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
on juliet
Of course your eye lens will be cooked and opague as it has no coolant
flow (blood). Don't know if the exposure to cause this in humans was
ever well quantified but too many of us get cataracts too young...
OTOH you'll be able to break out the cheap booze cause nobody will be
able to see it ;)
Ken
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>snip
>I'm with Brian on this. Frankly my airplane might have magnetron defrosting
>for windows and a magnetron for heating the passengers. It really is a
>better idea than it seems. You can rip the door off the microwave oven to
>warm up the kitchen on chilly mornings--very efficient--heats up the people
>not the furniture.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)provalue.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels on juliet |
Colleague of mine died as a result of magnetron heating. That was many
years ago in the communist Poland. We had no offices and our desks were
in a huge lab shared by several people. The only telephone was in the
secretarys office. One guy had a problem with his magnetron system and
he removed the waveguide load, having the power run into the empty at
that time room. The door to the lab opened and the secretary called the
guy to the telephone. He left the room leaving the magnetron on. In the
mean time another fellow got into the lab and he went straight to his
desk . Unfortunately for him the open waveguide was shooting the
microwaves straight at his back. He said he felt as if the whole room
was very hot, he did not feel any surface heating, and he remained in
his chair. By the time the first guy returned, the kidneys of the second
guy were fried, and he died.
On another topic, while water has a very high absorption to microwaves,
ice is fairly transparent to them. A thin layer of ice on the windows
will let most of the magnetron power to go out. Not the most efficient
deicing system!
Jerzy
Ken wrote:
>
>Of course your eye lens will be cooked and opague as it has no coolant
>flow (blood). Don't know if the exposure to cause this in humans was
>ever well quantified but too many of us get cataracts too young...
>
>OTOH you'll be able to break out the cheap booze cause nobody will be
>able to see it ;)
>
>Ken
>
>Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>>snip
>>I'm with Brian on this. Frankly my airplane might have magnetron defrosting
>>for windows and a magnetron for heating the passengers. It really is a
>>better idea than it seems. You can rip the door off the microwave oven to
>>warm up the kitchen on chilly mornings--very efficient--heats up the people
>>not the furniture.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your in-depth reply to my post. You've made many great points
that I'd like to reply to (embedded below).
--snip
Good Morning Mark,
Having flown under the philosophy you espouse for some thirty-eight of my
fifty-eight years of flying, I feel the necessity to comment.
The safety enjoyed by the air carrier community is not the result a
slavish adherence to the specifications you mention.
It is due to a collective interpretation of what is good and what is bad
about the current set of operating restrictions.
Those restrictions and procedures are in a constant state of evaluation
and consideration. The changes are developed primarily by the pilots who
are adhering to the rules and see areas wherein the rules do not operate
optimally for the current condition.
--snip
Exactly my point, although not made in as much detail as you. I believe
it's very important to understand *why* a rule is imposed to better
understand the danger the rule writers envision. I hope I didn't give the
impression that we should "set and forget" rules; we should always
evaluate our performance and do everything we can (including changing the
rules) to improve.
--snip
On the very first page of the operating specifications of the airline for
which I flew was a statement to the effect that nothing in that manual
was to be taken as restricting the captain in command of the flight
taking any action which he felt was appropriate even though that action
was not in literal compliance with the published procedures.
The only proviso was that it was expected that the captain would report
the deviation and be able to explain the action if so requested.
Accountability was the word.
--snip
I believe the spirit of that proviso haunted the first page of the
Technical Order (TO), referred to as the "dash one" or -1 for short, that
contained the operating procedures for the KC-135.
The -1 is liberally sprinkled with "cautions" and "warnings" that are all
the result of an individual/crew act (or failure to act) that directly
resulted in bent metal, smoked wires, injury or death. Yet we all knew
that the pilot/crew would do whatever was necessary to complete the
mission safely, including busting a caution/warning.
--snip
It was constantly impressed upon us that the written guidance was there
for our use and guidance. If we didn't like what it said, we were
encouraged to get the rules changed. That is what was done and the
procedures changed often as conditions taught us where change was needed.
You state: "Rules that take the pilot out of the decision-making
process." Do you really think that is what is desired? I don't think it
was every intended that the pilot be taken out of the decision process.
It was always my understanding that I was being given guidance to follow
so that I would have a better chance of making the correct decision when a
decision was to be made.
--snip
Excellent points all. A funny story about written guidance: A few years
before I retired, the USAF decided to quit calling regulations (we
called em regs) regulations. Many pilots believed the regs impinged
on their authority and autonomy (omnipresence?) as pilot-in-command.
Soooo, the regs became Instructions. Unfortunately, others in the USAF
community misunderstood leaderships intent and decided
that instructions can be interpreted, if you know what I mean, nudge
nudge, wink wink. Following a spate of disciplinary proceedings involving
the friendly legal folks (yes, they even have them in the Military), all
AFIs (Air Force Instructions) now carry the following disclaimer in bold
print, on the front page, at the very top: COMPLIANCE WITH THIS
PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY! True story
I dont believe we should blindly follow rules; although I do believe
that some rules can benefit us greatly. I do recommend understanding
*why* a rule exists to better understand the danger. I believe rules can
serve us well if used properly and judiciously. I think (I hope) we all
agree that rules should never be ignored (or interpreted) without a full
understanding of the *why*--this is really at the heart of my caution to
Bob Nuckolls.
I may have used the term taking pilots out of the decision-making
process a little too broadly. I was speaking more in the vein of go/no-
go decisions. Heres an example: I think it would be good if each of us
were to impose (and strictly follow) our own set of rules to help us make
individual go/no-go decisions in those situations where other
considerations can become a part of the accident chain. If the weather
is below my personal minima then the decision is made; the cost of a
rental car or hotel room, the loss of a day of vacation, disappointing
family or friends, wussing out, or any other consideration cannot
override the rule.
--snip
The idea was that we be given all of the knowledge as to why things were
they way they were and what the results would be if the guidance was not
followed.
--snip
Exactly, this is my primary and most important point! If we wish to
become as old (not meant derogatorily) and sage an aviator as you Bob, we
must exercise sound judgment in everything aviation thing we do.
An old adage comes to mind: Judgment comes from experience; experience
comes from bad judgment. I dont know everything about flying (or
building) airplanes (please don't take that wrong; I dont mean to imply
you believe you do). Knowing that, I strive to learn. In those cases
where my knowledge is lacking I do the research and find the answers I
need. In those cases where research isnt an option, in-flight for
instance, I fall back on written guidance which will at least
(hopefully) lead me in the safest direction. If I can learn judgment by
understanding *why* a rule was imposed (as opposed to learning the hard
way) I can reduce my hair loss (an area where I need all the help I can
get) and ensure my wife's continued enjoyment of flying.
Let me restate my original thought in another way: We need to understand
the *why* behind rules because although some rules are written to cover
ones ass (as in the case of bureaucrats), others are written in our
fellow aviators blood; we need to know the difference and act
appropriately.
--snip
If the course of action seemed to have a potential of being counter to the
written word, I always considered how I would explain myself at the
hearing. If I was comfortable with my intended explanation, I pressed
on. Do you ever remember being told as a young man that you should never
do anything you wouldn't want your mother to know about? That was how I
felt about doing my job.
--snip
I know what you mean; I still always wear clean underwear in case Im in
an accident. Of course, it probably wont be clean then
--snip
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
--snip
And to you Bob,
Mark
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Home Telephone
Company's Web-Based Email interface.
http://webmail.hometel.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 9/21/04 9:40:00 AM Central Daylight Time,
marknlisa(at)hometel.com writes:
--snip
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
--snip
And to you Bob,
Mark
Good Morning Mark,
Looks like we are both pulling in the same harness.
Thanks for the comments
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>Dear Bob,
>
>I own a 1946 Ercoupe 415C (or does it own me?). It turns a 20-amp Delco
>generator.
>
>My ammeter is doing strange things lately, flickering full-scale between
>+/- 30, calming down for a second or two, then goes back to
>flickering. Do you have any idea what the cause of this could be?
>
>Regards,
>
>Christopher Frank
This can be a variety of problems. Do you have a spare
regulator? If you can substitute the regulator and get
any significant change in behavior, then the regulator
is the biggest suspect. You could have worn and poor
function in brushes. This can be checked by observation.
You can pull the generator and have it inspected and
tested as a separate component.
If it were my airplane, I'd trash the generator and
regulator in favor of a PM alternator from B&C pictured
here:
http://bandc.biz/200gdesc.html
This alternator has been installed on a ton of C-120/140
and aircraft with the -12 case on a C-85 or O-200
engine. B&C can probably help you with a 337.
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
A further benefit can be realized with membership on
the list. There are lots of technically capable folks
on the list who can offer suggestions too. You can
join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Thanks!
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Another type of crimp connector? |
Gang:
I found another type of crimp connector at Radio Shack about which I'd
like to get some comments. RS calls them "Insulated Telephone Butt
Connectors, for 22-26 gauge wire", PN 64-3073. Them come in packs of 24
for about $1.50.
These connectors are *much* smaller and lighter than PIDG for the same
wire size, appear well matched to 22-gauge tefzel aircraft wire, but do
not crimp the insulation. Instead, because of the good size match, the
insulation receives some support from the insulator of the connector.
RS sells a manual (non-ratcheting) crimp tool for this connector for
<$10.
I have placed a picture of this connector, a crimp and the tool at
http://members.cox.net/n481hy/connector/connector.jpg
I like these because of their small size and weight, which makes for
neat wiring, especially for wiring repairs. The crimps easily pass my
"pull" test. But I would really like comments on aircraft applications
please. If anyone knows of a ratcheting crimper for this connector (or
die for my HX4), that would be great, too.
Thanks,
Andy Elliott
N481HY/AA-1(TD,160)/KFFZ
http://members.cox.net/n481hy/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | erie <erie(at)shelbyvilledesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
Brian, did you forget a few smileys????
erie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation |
Hi Paul,
We usually see a pretty good mix from ultralite types antique/classic to an SX-300.
Several of the residents are former airshow circuit pilots, so you never
know who will show up.
We have an 1929 TravelAir, RV-4 & RV-8, & several regular GA factory planes based
on the field, with an RV-7 & RV-8 under construction. I'm interested in using
a Mazda rotary in my -7, so we usually have a good showing by rotary engine
builders & flyers.
We are pretty laid back, without much in the way of formal activities except eating;
we are pretty serious about that. :-)
I hope you can make it over; be sure to track me down & say hello when you arrive.
Charlie
>
> From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
> Date: 2004/09/20 Mon PM 11:21:16 EDT
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation
>
>
> Hi Charlie,
>
> Can you tell me a little about the typical kind of folk / aircraft who
> attend this fly in ?. I am at Waukesha so its an easy day trip for me.
>
> Regards, Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charlie England" <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation
>
>
>
> >
> > If you can make it to central Mississippi on Oct. 16, I'd like to invite
> > you to Slobovia Outernational's fall flyin just north of Jackson MS.
> >
> > The fun starts at 10:00 AM & lunch will be served at noon. You are
> > welcome to overnight either Friday or Saturday. Just email or call so we
> > can plan for supper/breakfast, throw a bedroll in the plane/car & 'come
> > on down'.
> >
> > No formal programs are scheduled, just lots of airplane rides, food &
> > 'homebuilt conversation'.
> >
> > Info on our airport can be found at
> >
> > http://www.airnav.com/airport/MS71
> >
> > FAA Identifier: MS71
> > Lat/Long: 32-29-42.508N / 090-17-34.325W
> > 32-29.70847N / 090-17.57208W
> > 32.4951411 / -90.2928681
> > UNICOM: 122.75
> >
> > Disclaimer: Slobovia is a private airport. Pilots operate at their own
> > risk. Please be alert for both very slow & very high speed aircraft
> > around the airport; we are an 'equal opportunity airport'.
> >
> > If you need driving directions or more info, feel free to email me at
> > ceengland(at)bellsouth.net
> > or call at 601-879-9596.
> >
> > Ya'll come!
> >
> > Charlie
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Christopher Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
I ran across these seat heaters.
http://www.rameinc.com/SeatHeaters.html
I am considering them for my -8. There has been some past discussion of
heated seats especially for the rear seat in the -8. Don't know yet
what the power requirement is for these.
Chris Stone
Design Engineer
A-DEC
Newberg, Oregon
www.a-dec.com
-8 wings.... forever
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation |
In a message dated 9/21/04 1:21:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
ceengland(at)bellsouth.net writes:
We usually see a pretty good mix from ultralite types antique/classic to an
SX-300. Several of the residents are former airshow circuit pilots, so you
never know who will show up.
Good Afternoon Charlie,
I would love to drop in one of these years, but I absolutely can't make it
this year.
I did look at the Air Nav page and note the following under airport
facilities:
"Lights: RDO REQ"
Does that mean that you have to have radio to get the lights lit, or do you
require that all aircraft have a radio to use the field?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
On Sep 21, 2004, at 1:36 PM, erie wrote:
>
>
> Brian, did you forget a few smileys????
Uh, is that addressed to me? If so, I don't think so. I think the
whole issue of RF exposure is bent completely out of shape. I look at
the problem from a physical chemistry point of view and say that, if
there is no mechanism by which the RF energy can break or make chemical
bonds, there will be no changes to the tissue and therefor no damage.
At the frequencies where we are operating, i.e. HF and VHF, the mode of
energy transfer is thermal through dielectric heating. You would have
to heat things up substantially to make any changes in the tissue.
Even if you could get all of the 7 watts of power output into a small
area of your body, it just isn't going to raise the temperature enough
to do anything.
Think about your antenna as a light bulb and then think about how much
of the "light" coming from your antenna your body is going to intercept
even if the antenna is only 1' away. That ratio is the ratio of the RF
power you are going to intercept. It isn't very much.
Now at microwave frequencies such as the 2.4 GHz water line, you have a
molecular mechanism to take up the energy very efficiently. That is
how microwave ovens work. OTOH, we don't have anything in the airplane
that generates power at 2.4 GHz.
So, the FCC and its limits not withstanding, I think this is a bogus
issue.
But I do like the idea of the modified microwave body warmer and
windscreen defogger. ;
)
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | erie <erie(at)shelbyvilledesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
Sorry, was quickly responding between jobs...comments inline with
original post bits......
But they
are "official" and that makes people more comfortable since we all know
that our governmental agencies would never promulgate anything that
were not well reasoned with solid scientific fact behind them and
weren't in our best interests. <=========== smiley needed here as I think every
one of us knows how much "scientific fact" goes into most policies, procedures
and rules..
This entire subject is totally blown out of proportion, and legitimized by the
government, who feel it's in their (political) best interests to placate an under
(or un-) educated public.
erie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
On Sep 21, 2004, at 4:32 PM, erie wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, was quickly responding between jobs...comments inline with
> original post bits......
>
>
> But they
> are "official" and that makes people more comfortable since we all know
> that our governmental agencies would never promulgate anything that
> were not well reasoned with solid scientific fact behind them and
> weren't in our best interests. <=========== smiley needed here as I
> think every one of us knows how much "scientific fact" goes into most
> policies, procedures and rules..
Oh, yeah, that. I probably should have put a smiley in there on that
one. :-)
> This entire subject is totally blown out of proportion, and
> legitimized by the government, who feel it's in their (political) best
> interests to placate an under (or un-) educated public.
Right on Bro!
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> If it were my airplane, I'd trash the generator and
> regulator in favor of a PM alternator from B&C pictured
> here:
>
> http://bandc.biz/200gdesc.html
>
Bob, what is it that makes these alternators so expensive?
Several of the rotary guys are using Geo/Metro alternators that only
weigh around 5lbs and cost a little over $100. B&C's site doesn't go
into the advantages of their offering, but at 4 times the expense I
would expect there to be some benefit. B&C just seems like a
straight-up sort of company not to have some good reasoning.
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | What about the new Oddysey dry-cell batteries everyone |
is using/
I have changed from a 8 month old normal flooded wet cell lead acid battery
to an Odyssey Absorbed Glass Matt battery.
YES !!!! all the claims are correct at this point anyway. The difference is
amazing. Do it and you'll never regret it. It's worth the extra. The old
girl has never started so easy even when the flooded cell batt was new.
Rex.
rexjan(at)bigpond.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Butcher" <europa(at)triton.net> |
| Subject: | Re: heated seats |
Christopher,
We have purchased these for install in our Europa. Someone else on this
board had suggested them about a year ago. Haven't used them yet, but they
look very durable. The literature says each element is requires 4.7A at 12
VDC. They do have a thermostat built in, so the power will be less when
they are warm.
We purchased ours on line at www.sportsimportsltd.com.
Hope this helps.
Jim Butcher
Europa N241BW A185
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
There are some studies in microbiology that show even the ultra low
frequency stuff proposed for communicating with subs affect cells. I am
too lazy too find the articles, but am relatively sure my information came
from a summary in Science news in the middle 90s. Safe levels are usually
set to offend the fewest of the big money folk. That's why we have such
things as safe levels of arsenic. I am willing to take some informed risks
as an adult but am unwilling to knowingly expose children to many of those
same risks.
You are right to say the risk is slight given the power levels and
durations. I would think the transponder is more likely to be an offender
than a com radio.
Matthew M. Jurotich
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Swales contractor to the
JWST ISIM Systems Engineer
m/c : 443
e-mail mail to:
phone : 301-286-5919
fax : 301-286-7021
JWST URL: <http://ngst1.gsfc.nasa.gov
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
Bob,
In your thorough review of "Aircraft wiring for Smart People" (Thank you for
taking the time to review the doc.) you mention that you have considered polyswitches
twice and discarded the idea. Would you discuss your issues/concerns
about using these devices.
Mark Banus
Glasair II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
On Sep 22, 2004, at 9:34 AM, Matt Jurotich wrote:
>
>
> There are some studies in microbiology that show even the ultra low
> frequency stuff proposed for communicating with subs affect cells. I
> am
> too lazy too find the articles, but am relatively sure my information
> came
> from a summary in Science news in the middle 90s.
Yes, there was a lot of "fear of all things EM" back then. It was
relatively easy to get a grant to study EM radiation.
> Safe levels are usually
> set to offend the fewest of the big money folk.
That is usually what happens when there is very little science to back
up the decision to set exposure levels. You have to set some level to
appease the People Who Are Afraid Of Everything They Don't Understand
and yet still let commerce continue. Nowhere is this more apparent
than with nuclear power.
But I digress.
> That's why we have such things as safe levels of arsenic.
Arsenic occurs naturally and therefore there is some level of exposure
just by being alive. The human body has evolved to deal with various
levels of toxins that occur naturally in the environment.
But I agree that arsenic is not something one would want to ingest on a
regular basis.
> I am willing to take some informed risks
> as an adult but am unwilling to knowingly expose children to many of
> those
> same risks.
We always have been overprotective of our children. (I have five
children and may be tarred with the same brush.)
> You are right to say the risk is slight given the power levels and
> durations. I would think the transponder is more likely to be an
> offender
> than a com radio.
And even then the exposure level is very low. The peak power output
from a transponder may be 200W but the average power is probably less
than 1W given the average interrogation rate.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Nellis <mike(at)bmnellis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Polyswitches |
You might want to check out a couple of these articles
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/expbusad.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/fuseorcb.html
I don't want to speak for Bob, but I think his position on Poly Fuses is
similar to his position on Circuit Breakers.
It makes for interesting reading.
Mark Banus wrote:
>
>Bob,
> In your thorough review of "Aircraft wiring for Smart People" (Thank you for
taking the time to review the doc.) you mention that you have considered polyswitches
twice and discarded the idea. Would you discuss your issues/concerns
about using these devices.
>
>Mark Banus
>Glasair II
>
>
>
>
--
Mike Nellis
Austin, TX
CMRA #32 Honda RC51
'97 YZF1000
'47 Stinson 108-2; RV6 (Fuselage)
http://bmnellis.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | The new Oddysey dry-cell (well, maybe damp) batteries |
At 12:18 PM 9/22/2004 +0930, you wrote:
>
>I have changed from a 8 month old normal flooded wet cell lead acid battery
>to an Odyssey Absorbed Glass Matt battery.
>YES !!!! all the claims are correct at this point anyway. The difference is
>amazing. Do it and you'll never regret it. It's worth the extra. The old
>girl has never started so easy even when the flooded cell batt was new.
>
>Rex.
>rexjan(at)bigpond.com
This is typical of the difference people not when replacing ANY flooded
battery with about ANY AGM/VRSLA/RG/SE lead-acid battery. The Odyssey
is a fine example of this technology but don't lust after an Odyssey
if your budget is limited. There are other practical choices.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
'old Bob' and Mark,
Glad to see the accomodation each made to a controversial topic.
I remember two adages:
1 Accident reports come down to two choices;[a] there but for the Grace
of God, go I. [b] I wouldn't have done that; the guy was an ass. Of course,
keep reading them...........
2 When the L1011 came out, the airline company negotiated which parts of
the Aircraft Operating Manual it could write, and which were sacrosanct to
Lockheed.
For a year or so, because of the siting of one comma and of one "only", an
emergency overweight landing was permitted providing the aircraft was flown
at a maximum bank of 45 degrees. Everyone knew what it really meant, but
that's what it said.
Aviators noticed it but clerks changed it.
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternators |
>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > If it were my airplane, I'd trash the generator and
> > regulator in favor of a PM alternator from B&C pictured
> > here:
> >
> > http://bandc.biz/200gdesc.html
> >
>
>Bob, what is it that makes these alternators so expensive?
>
>Several of the rotary guys are using Geo/Metro alternators that only
>weigh around 5lbs and cost a little over $100. B&C's site doesn't go
>into the advantages of their offering, but at 4 times the expense I
>would expect there to be some benefit. B&C just seems like a
>straight-up sort of company not to have some good reasoning.
If you can take a product off a garden tractor, build brackets
to mount it to your engine and drive it with a belt, you can
practically trade sweat-equity for purchase dollars. However, if
the product needs to plug-n-play on the gearbox of an engine with
reliability and performance goals of not having failures dump
metal into your engine, it's a bit more complex. Now, add
a quest for blessings of those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-
than-we-do and the price goes up still more.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternators |
> If you can take a product off a garden tractor,
build brackets
> to mount it to your engine and drive it with a
belt, you can
> practically trade sweat-equity for purchase
dollars. However, if
> the product needs to plug-n-play on the gearbox
of an engine with
> reliability and performance goals of not having
failures dump
> metal into your engine, it's a bit more complex.
Now, add
> a quest for blessings of
those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-
> than-we-do and the price goes up still more.
>
> Bob . . .
>
I've hunted around their site, but may very well
have missed it. Do they carry the 'unblessed' version?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Orear" <jorear(at)new.rr.com> |
| Subject: | wire size conversion |
List:
I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of his own
design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and calls out for wire
sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard. Apparently it uses the area of
a cross-section of the wire to base the size designation on. Anyone heard of
such a system?
What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge sizes.
Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available that he can use?
Thanks, on his behalf.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P (reserved)
firewall forward
Peshtigo, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wire size conversion |
>What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
sizes.
>Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available that he can
use?
Google "metric AWG wire size conversion table".
"Too bad they gave it such a silly name. Five years from now it will be a
religion."
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"The Okies moving to California raised the average IQ of both states."
---Will Rogers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: wire size conversion |
Cross section of the wire? That's strange!
Next thing you know those metric dudes will
start sizing their drill bits using the diameter
of the thing, instead of useful numbers like
30, 40, E and stuff. :-)
Anyway, I found this using Google, which might help you:
http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm
Mickey
>I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of his own
design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and calls out for wire
sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard. Apparently it uses the area
of a cross-section of the wire to base the size designation on. Anyone heard
of such a system?
>
>What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge sizes.
Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available that he can use?
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: wire size conversion |
Hi, Jeff
>
> I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of
his own design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and calls
out for wire sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard. Apparently it
uses the area of a cross-section of the wire to base the size designation
on. Anyone heard of such a system?
>
Yes, as have a few billions other people in the rest of the world ;-)
Pardon me, I just couldn't resist...AWG are just that, AMERICAN Wire Gauge.
> What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
sizes. Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available that
he can use?
>
AWG 22 => 0.38 mm
AWG 20 => 0.61 mm
AWG 18 => 0.96 mm
AWG 16 => 1.23 mm
AWG 14 => 1.94 mm
AWG 12 => 2.98 mm
AWG 10 => 4.74 mm
AWG 8 => 8.60 mm
AWG 6 => 13.6 mm
AWG 4 => 21.6 mm
Hope this helps,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wire size conversion |
Hello Jeff,
http://trueforce.com/encyclopaedia/wire_gauge_table.htm
and most probably they have based it on mm
2 which is r
2 * PI, as example
AWG20 == 0.61 mm
2
a very common wire in electrical (house) installation is 1.5mm
2 which is
around AWG17
Hope it helps
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Orear" <jorear(at)new.rr.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: wire size conversion
>
> List:
>
> I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of
his own design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and calls
out for wire sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard. Apparently it
uses the area of a cross-section of the wire to base the size designation
on. Anyone heard of such a system?
>
> What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
sizes. Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available that
he can use?
>
> Thanks, on his behalf.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Jeff Orear
> RV6A N782P (reserved)
> firewall forward
> Peshtigo, WI
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: wire size conversion |
There is a system called circular mils for wire carrying capacity.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Orear" <jorear(at)new.rr.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: wire size conversion
>
> List:
>
> I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of
his own design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and calls
out for wire sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard. Apparently it
uses the area of a cross-section of the wire to base the size designation
on. Anyone heard of such a system?
>
> What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
sizes. Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available that
he can use?
>
> Thanks, on his behalf.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Jeff Orear
> RV6A N782P (reserved)
> firewall forward
> Peshtigo, WI
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | wire size conversion |
I think that one can find a conversion table for gauge into circular-mils
> There is a system called circular mils for wire carrying capacity.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Orear" <jorear(at)new.rr.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 1:45 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: wire size conversion
>
>
> >
> > List:
> >
> > I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of
> his own design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and calls
> out for wire sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard. Apparently it
> uses the area of a cross-section of the wire to base the size designation
> on. Anyone heard of such a system?
> >
> > What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
> sizes. Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available
that
> he can use?
> >
> > Thanks, on his behalf.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Jeff Orear
> > RV6A N782P (reserved)
> > firewall forward
> > Peshtigo, WI
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tore S. Bristol" <tf51(at)c2i.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wire size conversion |
Jeff,
In Europe we use metric measurements, and I know cars and houses here uses
wires in square mm. (25.4 mm to an inch)
I am using AWG as I am building an US kit, and is just as baffeled as your
friend.
Tore S Bristol
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Orear" <jorear(at)new.rr.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: wire size conversion
>
> List:
>
> I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of
his own design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and calls
out for wire sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard. Apparently it
uses the area of a cross-section of the wire to base the size designation
on. Anyone heard of such a system?
>
> What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
sizes. Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available that
he can use?
>
> Thanks, on his behalf.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Jeff Orear
> RV6A N782P (reserved)
> firewall forward
> Peshtigo, WI
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Europa (Alfred Buess)" <ykibuess(at)bluewin.ch> |
| Subject: | wire size conversion |
Jeff,
We sure heard of this - and even use it because the metric system is
much more convenient than than these old fashioned units! Conversion is
as follows:
24AWG is 0.22 mm2
22AWG is 0.34 mm2
20AWG is 0.56 mm2
18AWG is 0.96 mm2
16AWG is 1.23 mm2
14AWG is 1.95 mm2
12AWG is 3.10 mm2
Does this help?
Regards,
Alfred
Alfred Buess
Laenggasse 81, CH-3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland
Tel.: +41 (0)31 911 63 32, Fax: +41 (0)31 911 56 32
E-Mail: albuess(at)bluewin.ch
Europa XS #097, Monowheel, Foam shortwing, Rotax 912S, Airmaster 332 CS
-----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Im Auftrag von
Jeff Orear
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. September 2004 19:46
An: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Betreff: AeroElectric-List: wire size conversion
-->
List:
I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of
his own design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and
calls out for wire sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard.
Apparently it uses the area of a cross-section of the wire to base the
size designation on. Anyone heard of such a system?
What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
sizes. Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available
that he can use?
Thanks, on his behalf.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P (reserved)
firewall forward
Peshtigo, WI
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
The studies I have seen show its the peak power and frequency, not just the
average power that is of concern. Depends on what effect you are
considering. Local heating requires average power at specific frequencies.
Peak power can damage individual cells and start a long term mutations with
interesting results.
Lots of studies have been done and are available, If one is willing to go
looking and discard those studies funded by those with lots to loose if any
correlation was recognized by governments. The truly independent studies
have concluded that RF can be damaging at levels much lower than commonly
accepted. Just my opinion from what I found years ago in researching the
subject.
In the case of this subject you can find studies to prove either side
depending on the bias of the studier.
So far I have not seen ANY post based on science, just opinion. This on a
list that usually requires science not opinion to decide things.
Personally I try to avoid any electrical field that has been shown to have
some (even temporary) effect at the cellular level and that is not very much
at some frequencies.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RF exposure levels
>
>
>
> And even then the exposure level is very low. The peak power output
> from a transponder may be 200W but the average power is probably less
> than 1W given the average interrogation rate.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | RE: wire size conversion |
And the "rule" goes: 3A/mm2 (3 Amp of load on a 1 mm2 wire).
(I usually add 50% or more mm2)
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Europa (Alfred Buess); Date: 10:22 PM
Jeff,
We sure heard of this - and even use it because the metric system is
much more convenient than than these old fashioned units! Conversion is
as follows:
24AWG is 0.22 mm2
22AWG is 0.34 mm2
20AWG is 0.56 mm2
18AWG is 0.96 mm2
16AWG is 1.23 mm2
14AWG is 1.95 mm2
12AWG is 3.10 mm2
Does this help?
Regards,
Alfred
Alfred Buess
Laenggasse 81, CH-3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland
Tel.: +41 (0)31 911 63 32, Fax: +41 (0)31 911 56 32
E-Mail: albuess(at)bluewin.ch
Europa XS #097, Monowheel, Foam shortwing, Rotax 912S, Airmaster 332 CS
-----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Im Auftrag von
Jeff Orear
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. September 2004 19:46
An: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Betreff: AeroElectric-List: wire size conversion
-->
List:
I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of
his own design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and
calls out for wire sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard.
Apparently it uses the area of a cross-section of the wire to base the
size designation on. Anyone heard of such a system?
What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
sizes. Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available
that he can use?
Thanks, on his behalf.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P (reserved)
firewall forward
Peshtigo, WI
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mickey Billings" <mbilli(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Vans VOR antenna |
Vans offers a VOR antenna for the wing tip. It consist of a strip of copper
foil, a bulkhead fitting and enough RG58 to wire the antenna. My question
is this, does anyone know if this antenna works as well as say the Bob
Archer antenna? And should I use RG400 in place of the RG58?
Mickey and Jerry
N445BH
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: wire size conversion |
> Cross section of the wire? That's strange!
> Next thing you know those metric dudes will
> start sizing their drill bits using the diameter
> of the thing, instead of useful numbers like
> 30, 40, E and stuff. :-)
Can you believe it ?
They even tampered with screw and rivet sizes ! Those poor fellows have to
remember a 6X50 screw is 6 mm diameter and 50 mm long and the corresponding
thread size is M6. And a 2.4 rivet needs a 2.4 mm hole...
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Strobe Power Supply Qstn |
If a strobe power supply is powered up without the strobe tube connected,
will the power supply fail prematurely?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Power Supply Qstn |
>
>If a strobe power supply is powered up without the strobe tube connected,
>will the power supply fail prematurely?
Wouldn't expect it to. If the tubes go bad and stop
firing, or if the trigger circuit quits, the power
supply charges up its energy storage capacitors and
simply waits. There's no undue "stress" on a power
supply that is driving failed or missing tubes.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternators |
>
>
> > If you can take a product off a garden tractor,
>build brackets
> > to mount it to your engine and drive it with a
>belt, you can
> > practically trade sweat-equity for purchase
>dollars. However, if
> > the product needs to plug-n-play on the gearbox
>of an engine with
> > reliability and performance goals of not having
>failures dump
> > metal into your engine, it's a bit more complex.
>Now, add
> > a quest for blessings of
>those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-
> > than-we-do and the price goes up still more.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
>
>I've hunted around their site, but may very well
>have missed it. Do they carry the 'unblessed' version?
Some are blessed, others are not. None of the PM alternators
are "blessed" that I'm aware of. You can get the straight skinny
by calling 316-283-8000 and ask for Todd. He'll answer all your
questions. B&C used to have a belt driven PM alternator that
drove from a split pulley off the prop shaft. That's gone.
All of B&C's PM alternators are spline or gear driven meaning
that you do a lot of modification to the commercial product
before it can bolt to an engine.
The alternator I was recommending to the fellow with
the Erocoup is the 200G which bolts right onto the
generator drive pad of the C-85/O-200 engines. It's
only a 12A machine instead of the 20A generator
but plenty for day-vfr or even night-vfr if you flew
an hour before the sun went down and had the battery
fully charged before you light up the airplane.
The 200G is not PMA'd.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
An event to ponder:
The airline's first "metric" 767 ( a rule by government) ran out of
fuel halfway to destination and a hundred miles from the nearest airport,
because the fuellers didn't understand the system and the pilots were to
take their word (another rule) - and the fuel totalizer was bust in spite of
a Minimum Equipment List which forbade flight.
The captain was a glider instructor, the first officer knew where an
old airfield was. The made it but when it came time to look up a powerless
gear drop, it was not in the emergency chapter, but hidden in a hydraulic
explanation. the captain did what he could and the mains clicked somewhat
like the shuttle for timing on final. His estimates of best lift/drag ratio
speeds were proven to be within five knots all the way down from 33,000.
Nobody died. The captain put out the ensuing fire. The company tried
to censure him. NASA invited him to talk to the first shuttle pilots. He was
decorated by airline aviators while fighting to prove the company had lied
to him, both before the event and afterward. He succeeded.
So, being followers and toadies, they rewrote the manual,
rescheduled the emergencies and changed the rules. then they tried to have
everyone demonstrate a no-engine forced landing. Aviators refused so they
gave up.
So it's OK now - we can all relax.
Ferg
PS: The Gimli Glider
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | FCC treatise on RF exposure |
Cheers,
Can someone please repeat to me what the URL was? I copied same for
a radio group and promptly lost it .
Thanks, Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)earthlink.net> |
I am trying to figure out what to use physically to distribute the +12
power for the main bus and the essential bus. I spotted some Molex
barrier strips (well, Beau, actually) that have optional shorting clips
you can insert to connect adjacent screw terminals together. I'm
thinking of attaching +12v supply in a few places to such a strip with
the shorting clips all across. Seems like one barrier strip for each
bus ought to do it.
Is this acceptable? Is there a better way to do this?
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, Landing gear
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FCC treatise on RF exposure |
On Sep 22, 2004, at 8:38 PM, Fergus Kyle wrote:
>
> Cheers,
> Can someone please repeat to me what the URL was? I copied
> same for
> a radio group and promptly lost it .
I mentioned the discussion on the ARRL web site about acceptable levels
for hams at http://www.arrl.org. You will have to poke around to find
the exact page.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
I read somewhere that cycling the strobe box is no longer needed. It is
still in the installation directions that it is not good for the box to
sit over a year without being cycled. I know I read somewhere that this
is no longer needed. I need documantation not just hear say. Thanks!
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rico Voss <vozzen(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: barrier strip? |
--- "thomas a. sargent" wrote:
> I am trying to figure out what to use physically to
> distribute the +12
> power for the main bus and the essential bus. I
> spotted some Molex
> barrier strips with
> the shorting clips all across. Seems like one
> barrier strip for each
> bus ought to do it.
>
> Is this acceptable? Is there a better way to do
> this?
>
Tom--
If I understand what you want to do, seems the best
solution (Bob's recommendation) would be the
fuseholders, such as B&C's:
"http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?7X358218%20#fh20"
[may have to re-connect the above link]
From a single feed wire, they provide 6,10, or 20
outputs, through ATC fuses, to male fast-on tabs.
Simple, effective and lightweight. Should be plenty
of info in the archives for other sources.
--Rico
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: wire size conversion |
> Cross section of the wire? That's strange!
> Next thing you know those metric dudes will
> start sizing their drill bits using the diameter
> of the thing, instead of useful numbers like
> 30, 40, E and stuff. :-)
Can you believe it ?
They even tampered with screw and rivet sizes ! Those poor fellows have to
remember a 6X50 screw is 6 mm diameter and 50 mm long and the corresponding
thread size is M6. And a 2.4 rivet needs a 2.4 mm hole...
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternators |
> by calling 316-283-8000 and ask for Todd. He'll
answer all your
> questions. B&C used to have a belt driven PM
alternator that
> drove from a split pulley off the prop shaft.
That's gone.
> All of B&C's PM alternators are spline or gear
driven meaning
> that you do a lot of modification to the
commercial product
> before it can bolt to an engine.
>
*$#fricker..frackin%
&
I'm using a rotary engine (Mazda 13B). Gear driven
really isn't a choice.
> only a 12A machine instead of the 20A generator
> but plenty for day-vfr or even night-vfr if you
Hmm...
I was thinking that power requirements would be much
greater (still a ways from running the actual numbers).
What I'd really like to see is a stationary winding
system with PM magnets bolted on in place of the
drive shaft pulley. The shaft spins at 5000 to
6000rpm on the rotary.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FCC treatise on RF exposure |
>
>Cheers,
> Can someone please repeat to me what the URL was? I copied same for
>a radio group and promptly lost it .
>Thanks, Ferg
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/8505046.pdf
Also check out the directory at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/RF_Hazards
and get the documents you find there.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Whelen Strobes |
>
>
>I read somewhere that cycling the strobe box is no longer needed. It is
>still in the installation directions that it is not good for the box to
>sit over a year without being cycled. I know I read somewhere that this
>is no longer needed. I need documantation not just hear say. Thanks!
In days gone by, critical characteristics of electrolytic
capacitors used for flash-tube energy storage would degrade
with age and disuse. A power supply that was stored inert for
long periods of time (years) was best brought back to serviceable
condition using an adjustable power supply and ramping up the
voltage from some lower than nominal value over a period of several
hours.
This process was called "reforming". See:
http://www.vcomp.co.uk/tech_tips/reform_caps/reform_caps.htm
http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/~reese/electrolytics/
http://www.dscc.dla.mil/Downloads/MilSpec/Docs/MIL-HDBK-1131/hb1131.pdf
Modern electrolytic caps are not so afflicted and the
recommendation has been dropped.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CFrank(at)edony.com |
Bob,
Thank you very much for your response.
Can I substitute a 35 amp regulator for a 20 amp regulator? I do have a
spare 14V regulator on hand, but it is rated for 35 amps, not matching my 20
amp generator output. I suppose that this regulator will do the job, and
will just regulate for maximum generator output, but I have been reluctant
to try this out of fear of damaging something.
Either way, whether going with an alternator system or replacing the voltage
regulator, I will still need field approval. We'll see if Santa Claus has
some spare change left over after Xmas for the B&C alternator you recommend.
I have joined the list, and already am finding it worthwhile.
Thank you again,
Christopher Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 11615 Frank
>Dear Bob,
>
>I own a 1946 Ercoupe 415C (or does it own me?). It turns a 20-amp Delco
>generator.
>
>My ammeter is doing strange things lately, flickering full-scale between
>+/- 30, calming down for a second or two, then goes back to
>flickering. Do you have any idea what the cause of this could be?
>
>Regards,
>
>Christopher Frank
This can be a variety of problems. Do you have a spare
regulator? If you can substitute the regulator and get
any significant change in behavior, then the regulator
is the biggest suspect. You could have worn and poor
function in brushes. This can be checked by observation.
You can pull the generator and have it inspected and
tested as a separate component.
If it were my airplane, I'd trash the generator and
regulator in favor of a PM alternator from B&C pictured
here:
http://bandc.biz/200gdesc.html
This alternator has been installed on a ton of C-120/140
and aircraft with the -12 case on a C-85 or O-200
engine. B&C can probably help you with a 337.
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
A further benefit can be realized with membership on
the list. There are lots of technically capable folks
on the list who can offer suggestions too. You can
join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Thanks!
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternators |
Alternator on a Lycoming may spin 9,000 or more as many use a very small
pulley on the alternator due to clearance problems.
----- Original Message -----
From: <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: B&C alternators
>
>
> > by calling 316-283-8000 and ask for Todd. He'll
> answer all your
> > questions. B&C used to have a belt driven PM
> alternator that
> > drove from a split pulley off the prop shaft.
> That's gone.
> > All of B&C's PM alternators are spline or gear
> driven meaning
> > that you do a lot of modification to the
> commercial product
> > before it can bolt to an engine.
> >
>
> *$#fricker..frackin%
> &
>
> I'm using a rotary engine (Mazda 13B). Gear driven
> really isn't a choice.
>
> > only a 12A machine instead of the 20A generator
> > but plenty for day-vfr or even night-vfr if you
>
> Hmm...
> I was thinking that power requirements would be much
> greater (still a ways from running the actual numbers).
>
> What I'd really like to see is a stationary winding
> system with PM magnets bolted on in place of the
> drive shaft pulley. The shaft spins at 5000 to
> 6000rpm on the rotary.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Unstable 20A generator system |
>
>Bob,
>
>Thank you very much for your response.
>
>Can I substitute a 35 amp regulator for a 20 amp regulator? I do have a
>spare 14V regulator on hand, but it is rated for 35 amps, not matching my 20
>amp generator output. I suppose that this regulator will do the job, and
>will just regulate for maximum generator output, but I have been reluctant
>to try this out of fear of damaging something.
>
>Either way, whether going with an alternator system or replacing the voltage
>regulator, I will still need field approval. We'll see if Santa Claus has
>some spare change left over after Xmas for the B&C alternator you recommend.
>
>I have joined the list, and already am finding it worthwhile.
Substitute the 35A regulator for a quick test to see if
the system settles down. The 35A current limit is too large
to run . . . if your 20A generator is good, the too-large
current limit setting in the regulator will not protect
the generator. However, the test would be useful to see
if a different regulator makes the system behave better.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternators |
>
>
> > by calling 316-283-8000 and ask for Todd. He'll
>answer all your
> > questions. B&C used to have a belt driven PM
>alternator that
> > drove from a split pulley off the prop shaft.
>That's gone.
> > All of B&C's PM alternators are spline or gear
>driven meaning
> > that you do a lot of modification to the
>commercial product
> > before it can bolt to an engine.
> >
>
>*$#fricker..frackin%
>&
>
>I'm using a rotary engine (Mazda 13B). Gear driven
>really isn't a choice.
Okay, there's dozens of PM alternators up to an including
30 or 35 amps that you can consider. Check out heavy duty
lawn and garden tractor equipment. All of these will be
belt driven. However, you may find it just as practical
and lighter to go the automotive alternator route. A real
wound-field alternator with 40 or so amps output is small,
light, cheap, plentiful and probably easier to implement
in your airplane than a fugitive from a garden tractor.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FCC treatise on RF exposure |
Thanks Bob.
For all you wanted to know (and more) on RF safety use the following link to
many sources including the related FCC regulations
http://www.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FCC treatise on RF exposure
> >
> http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/8505046.pdf
>
> Also check out the directory at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/RF_Hazards
>
> and get the documents you find there.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans VOR antenna |
>
>Vans offers a VOR antenna for the wing tip. It consist of a strip of copper
>foil, a bulkhead fitting and enough RG58 to wire the antenna. My question
>is this, does anyone know if this antenna works as well as say the Bob
>Archer antenna? And should I use RG400 in place of the RG58?
400/142 is always a better choice than 58 . . . there's 60 years
difference in materials.
It's doubtful that anyone can provide a useful comparison between
the two antennas. It takes a concerted effort to make measurements
required to make an engineering choice of one over the other. Buy
the one most attractive to you and try it. The worst that can
happen is that it doesn't meet your expectations and you'll have
to go to "plan B" . . .
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mickey Billings" <mbilli(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans VOR antenna |
Great answer! And thank you for taking the time to answer.
Mickey Billings
N445BH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Vans VOR antenna
>
>
> >
> >Vans offers a VOR antenna for the wing tip. It consist of a strip of
copper
> >foil, a bulkhead fitting and enough RG58 to wire the antenna. My
question
> >is this, does anyone know if this antenna works as well as say the Bob
> >Archer antenna? And should I use RG400 in place of the RG58?
>
> 400/142 is always a better choice than 58 . . . there's 60 years
> difference in materials.
>
> It's doubtful that anyone can provide a useful comparison between
> the two antennas. It takes a concerted effort to make measurements
> required to make an engineering choice of one over the other. Buy
> the one most attractive to you and try it. The worst that can
> happen is that it doesn't meet your expectations and you'll have
> to go to "plan B" . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mickey Billings" <mbilli(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans VOR antenna |
Bob, I guess I do have another question. If I use the Archer antenna fiber
glassed into the wing tip, where do I connect for a good ground plane?
Mickey Billings
N445BH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Vans VOR antenna
>
>
> >
> >Vans offers a VOR antenna for the wing tip. It consist of a strip of
copper
> >foil, a bulkhead fitting and enough RG58 to wire the antenna. My
question
> >is this, does anyone know if this antenna works as well as say the Bob
> >Archer antenna? And should I use RG400 in place of the RG58?
>
> 400/142 is always a better choice than 58 . . . there's 60 years
> difference in materials.
>
> It's doubtful that anyone can provide a useful comparison between
> the two antennas. It takes a concerted effort to make measurements
> required to make an engineering choice of one over the other. Buy
> the one most attractive to you and try it. The worst that can
> happen is that it doesn't meet your expectations and you'll have
> to go to "plan B" . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans VOR antenna |
>
>Bob, I guess I do have another question. If I use the Archer antenna fiber
>glassed into the wing tip, where do I connect for a good ground plane?
>
>Mickey Billings
>N445BH
>
The Archer antenna is designed for aircraft with metal wings. The
antenna is mounted where the wing tip is attached to the wing, so the
wing skin acts as the ground plane.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/sportcraft.htm
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ronald jagels" <rejnovca(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Interface between Becker AR4201 and PS Audio Panel |
Started the wiring planning for my RV-8A. Has anyone wired the Becker AR4201
com to the PS Engineering PMA7000CD? Think I have most of it figured out to
configure the AR unit as Com 2 but would appreciate input on the pinout
interface from someone who has already done this.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
For Bob Nuckolls:
Thanks for your comments on the Greg Richter document. When I read it
(Greg's) the first time, I was just imagining what your comments would be,
and when I read your "Whew...deep breath..." I almost burst out laughing.
On the BlueMountain website, in one of the postings rebutting your comments
also mentions Z-24:
--->>> One of these days, even Bob is going to get around to
modifying Z-24 with a note that says, "wiring your system like this and
turning off the ALT field with the engine running will likely fry your
alternator..." <<<---
Since my current plans are to use an internally regulated alternator, and
use that method for OV protection, this got my attention. I can only guess
that the implication is that opening the alternator contactor immediately
unloads the alternator and that can do damage to the regulator? If this has
been discussed in the past, let me know and I'll search for it.
Thanks,
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mickey Billings" <mbilli(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans VOR antenna |
Got it! So it appears the screws through the antenna into the sheet metal
act as the contact to the ground plane, is that right? Also, it looks like
the coax and the high voltage strobe wires run back through the wing
together, does that cause noise in the headphones.
Thanks for the reply!
Mickey Billings
N445BH RV7
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Vans VOR antenna
>
> >
> >Bob, I guess I do have another question. If I use the Archer antenna
fiber
> >glassed into the wing tip, where do I connect for a good ground plane?
> >
> >Mickey Billings
> >N445BH
> >
>
> The Archer antenna is designed for aircraft with metal wings. The
> antenna is mounted where the wing tip is attached to the wing, so the
> wing skin acts as the ground plane.
>
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/sportcraft.htm
>
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Whitaker <rmwhitaker(at)lanl.gov> |
| Subject: | Strobe Head Failure |
I have a regulated NOVA power supply (REG4-80) driving three Whelen strobe
heads on my RV-9A. The right wing strobe failed after approximately 3 hours
use. The other two are working fine so far.
I plugged another strobe head into the right wing and it worked ok, so its
not a wiring or power supply failure. The power supply puts out 20 Watts
(16.5 Joules) per channel, so I don't think I'm over driving the strobes.
(can you under drive these things?)
I spoke with Whelen tech. support. They were not interested in talking to
me after they discovered that I was not using one of their power supplies.
This is quite understandable.
Therefore, I'm counting on the list to offer up it's wisdom and experience.
So...what causes a strobe head to suffer infant mortality?
Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)provalue.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Head Failure |
Robert Whitaker wrote:
>
>
>I have a regulated NOVA power supply (REG4-80) driving three Whelen strobe
>heads on my RV-9A. The right wing strobe failed after approximately 3 hours
>use. The other two are working fine so far.
>
>I plugged another strobe head into the right wing and it worked ok, so its
>not a wiring or power supply failure. The power supply puts out 20 Watts
>(16.5 Joules) per channel, so I don't think I'm over driving the strobes.
>(can you under drive these things?)
>
>I spoke with Whelen tech. support. They were not interested in talking to
>me after they discovered that I was not using one of their power supplies.
>This is quite understandable.
>
>Therefore, I'm counting on the list to offer up it's wisdom and experience.
>
>So...what causes a strobe head to suffer infant mortality?
>
>Rob
>
>
>
>
Could be a production fault
.
Another possible reason might be too small inductance in the loop[
Was that the strobe with the shortest cable?
Jerzy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Head Failure |
I have the same setup and my tail strobe failed after only a couple of hours
use as well. The replacement strobe works OK, but I'm not back in the air
yet.
Scott in Vancouver
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Whitaker" <rmwhitaker(at)lanl.gov>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Strobe Head Failure
>
>
>
> I have a regulated NOVA power supply (REG4-80) driving three Whelen strobe
> heads on my RV-9A. The right wing strobe failed after approximately 3
> hours
> use. The other two are working fine so far.
>
> I plugged another strobe head into the right wing and it worked ok, so its
> not a wiring or power supply failure. The power supply puts out 20 Watts
> (16.5 Joules) per channel, so I don't think I'm over driving the strobes.
> (can you under drive these things?)
>
> I spoke with Whelen tech. support. They were not interested in talking to
> me after they discovered that I was not using one of their power supplies.
> This is quite understandable.
>
> Therefore, I'm counting on the list to offer up it's wisdom and
> experience.
>
> So...what causes a strobe head to suffer infant mortality?
>
> Rob
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CFrank(at)edony.com |
| Subject: | RE: Unstable 20A generator system |
Thank you, Bob. I appreciate your help.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:b.nuckolls(at)cox.net]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Unstable 20A generator system
>
>Bob,
>
>Thank you very much for your response.
>
>Can I substitute a 35 amp regulator for a 20 amp regulator? I do have a
>spare 14V regulator on hand, but it is rated for 35 amps, not matching my
20
>amp generator output. I suppose that this regulator will do the job, and
>will just regulate for maximum generator output, but I have been reluctant
>to try this out of fear of damaging something.
>
>Either way, whether going with an alternator system or replacing the
voltage
>regulator, I will still need field approval. We'll see if Santa Claus has
>some spare change left over after Xmas for the B&C alternator you
recommend.
>
>I have joined the list, and already am finding it worthwhile.
Substitute the 35A regulator for a quick test to see if
the system settles down. The 35A current limit is too large
to run . . . if your 20A generator is good, the too-large
current limit setting in the regulator will not protect
the generator. However, the test would be useful to see
if a different regulator makes the system behave better.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Z-24 question |
Cancel my question below. I did some searching and found the discussion on
Load Dump. I'll read all that.
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Glaeser, Dennis A
Subject: Z-24 question
For Bob Nuckolls:
Thanks for your comments on the Greg Richter document. When I read it
(Greg's) the first time, I was just imagining what your comments would be,
and when I read your "Whew...deep breath..." I almost burst out laughing.
On the BlueMountain website, in one of the postings rebutting your comments
also mentions Z-24:
--->>> One of these days, even Bob is going to get around to
modifying Z-24 with a note that says, "wiring your system like this and
turning off the ALT field with the engine running will likely fry your
alternator..." <<<--- Since my current plans are to use an internally
regulated alternator, and use that method for OV protection, this got my
attention. I can only guess that the implication is that opening the
alternator contactor immediately unloads the alternator and that can do
damage to the regulator? If this has been discussed in the past, let me
know and I'll search for it.
Thanks,
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans VOR antenna |
You are right about the screws electrically tieing the antenna to the wing.
My aircraft isn't flying yet, so I can't give you a good answer about
noise. I will be running the strobe and antenna coax about 8 inches
apart as they go down the length of the wing to hopefully minimize
the noise.
Kevin Horton
>
>Got it! So it appears the screws through the antenna into the sheet metal
>act as the contact to the ground plane, is that right? Also, it looks like
>the coax and the high voltage strobe wires run back through the wing
>together, does that cause noise in the headphones.
>
>Thanks for the reply!
>
>Mickey Billings
>N445BH RV7
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | stainless towel bar firewall penetrations |
Some time ago I read a great suggestion to use a stainless steel towel
bar or bathtub "grab bar" and cut off the ends a few inches away from
the flanges. These 90 deg. stainless tubes could then be screwed to the
fire wall on the engine side and be used to pass numerous wires thru the
firewall. Packed with fire resistant sealant, they sound like a safe way
to go.
But I can't find any reference in the archives to any one actually using
this method. Nor can I find Electric Bob weighing in on the
advisability of this technique.
How about it Bob? Do you think this is a good idea?
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, Landing gear fairings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations |
Thomas, it's there on Bob's web page
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations
>
> Some time ago I read a great suggestion to use a stainless steel towel
> bar or bathtub "grab bar" and cut off the ends a few inches away from
> the flanges. These 90 deg. stainless tubes could then be screwed to the
> fire wall on the engine side and be used to pass numerous wires thru the
> firewall. Packed with fire resistant sealant, they sound like a safe way
> to go.
>
> But I can't find any reference in the archives to any one actually using
> this method. Nor can I find Electric Bob weighing in on the
> advisability of this technique.
>
> How about it Bob? Do you think this is a good idea?
>
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A, Landing gear fairings.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: architecture drawings vs. wiring diagrams |
>Now I'm mystified. When I called you, you told me to use Figure Z-16 for my
>Jabiru, which I did. I also understood you to say that I could use a 2-5
>toggle for a starter switch. I had no idea that the rectangle in Z-16
>repesented a keyswitch for starter, thus the confusion. Apparently I need 2
>2-5 toggles to replace the key switch.
Please keep in mind that the z-figures are illustrations of architecture
with features unique to certain engines and/or builder's missions for the
airplane. The first goal of a Z-figure is to illustrate how power is
managed and not necessarily detailed parts used to do it. They're sorta
like elevation views for constructing a building but without forcing
you into a fixed configuration of plumbing or light fixtures.
There are elements of the Z-figures that can be mixed and matched
between them. Ignition/starter switches are but one example. One may
choose to use the classic keyswitch with ANY of the z-figures. Or,
one might want to add a second battery to what's illustrated as a single-
battery system. One can use PM starters, wound field starters or
no starter.
Figure z-16's major feature centers on low power, permanent magnet
alternator driving a single battery for an engine that comes fitted
with that style of alternator.
You can use (1) single pole ignition switches and a push button,
(2) double pole, spring loaded switches and no push button -OR-
(3) the classic keyswitch . . . all of which are illustrated on
the various z-figures. I guess the thing I missed in recommending
Z-16 for your project was to include the idea that the other
z-figures illustrate features that you may find attractive and
can be incorporated as you see fit.
The chapter on switches goes to some lengths to describe the various
switch functions and how they're depicted schematically followed up
by examples scattered throughout the z-figures. This is why I was
surprised by your assertion that 2-5 switches were illustrated in
figure z-16 because as I've explained, there are no 2-5 switches
shown . . . However, figure Z-11 illustrates a technique for utilizing
a pair 2-5 switches as combination ignition/starter switches.
At one time, Chevrolet offered custom combinations of instruments
for the panel of popular cars. The variations on a theme generated
over 1500 configurations. The Chevy production lines were Fed-Xing
panel parts all over the country in an attempt to service all
the variables. If I tried to illustrate all the combinations of
features in the Z-figures, it would generate a document several
inches thick! This is why the 'Connection has 260 pages of
data preceding 15 pages power distribution diagrams. I have to
leave it up to the builder craft his/her own combination of
features . . . hopefully based upon the knowledge and understanding
of how they work.
Sorry if I contributed to your confusion.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans VOR antenna |
>
>Got it! So it appears the screws through the antenna into the sheet metal
>act as the contact to the ground plane, is that right? Also, it looks like
>the coax and the high voltage strobe wires run back through the wing
>together, does that cause noise in the headphones.
>
>Thanks for the reply!
>
>Mickey Billings
>N445BH RV7
Vor antennas on the wing tips are going to pick up noise
from the flash tubes . . . it's as sure a bet as standing
in the rain and expecting to get wet. This has nothing
to do with wire routing and proximity of coax to the strobe
bundle. The bright side is that you don't listen to VOR
except when talking to Center or Flight Watch utilizing
a VOR as a Remote Communications Outlet -OR- picking up
area weather broadcasts often offered over VOR stations.
If the "pops" are too annoying, one can always shut the
strobes off for the short duration of the task.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger Evenson" <revenson(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Transponder antenna separation |
Garmin transponder install manual suggests 3' minimum between transponder antenna
and any other antenna, and also 3' minimum between transponder antenna and
transponder unit itself.
I don't have these ideals. I can locate the transponder antenna closer (than 3')
to the com antenna in order to be 3' from the transponder itself; or, I can
locate the transponder antenna closer to the transponder and maintain 3' between
the transponder antenna and the com antenna.
Having to compromise, is one criteria more important than the other?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics-List: Transponder antenna separation |
>--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Roger Evenson"
>
>Garmin transponder install manual suggests 3' minimum between transponder antenna
and any other antenna, and also 3' minimum between transponder antenna and
transponder unit itself.
>
>I don't have these ideals. . . . .
Three feet of co-ax minimum between the panel unit and the antenna is probably
what they mean. A metal aircraft skin between antenna and panel unit is equivalent
to a whole lot of feet. Fiberglass, you say. Well you do need to provide
a metal ground plane for the antenna.
But two inch minimum radius of curvature for bent co-ax, please. No tight little
knots.
--
--> The best programming tool is a soldering iron <--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations |
Wener:
Well... yes. The article on Bob's web page looks like a towel bar, but
he doesn't say exactly what it is. The word "towel" does not appear in
the article. I know that he has said on the list that the commerical
plane manufacturers use something to pass thru the firewall that is
stainless and has that same shape. I was looking for Bob's comment on
specifically the Home Depot, plumbing supply products.
I should say you are probably right and there is virtually no
difference and the towel bar probably works just fine. I have one
actually, and if anything it looks like it's over built for this
application. Still I'd like to get some reports that it has actually
worked for some one and that Bob thinks the Home Depot product is safe.
Werner Schneider wrote:
>
> Thomas, it's there on Bob's web page
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, Landing gear
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "KeithHallsten" <KeithHallsten(at)quiknet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Head Failure |
The NOVA REG4-80 is a regulated power supply, advertised to put out a
constant 20 watts per flash tube, regardless of how many flash tubes are
connected or functioning, and regardless of any differences in inductance
between flash tube circuits. Therefore, I can only assume that there was
some pre-existing fault with that particular flash tube. I have heard that
surface contamination (fingerprints) on a flash tube can dramatically
shorten its life, but I don't know how significant that factor would be.
Maybe it just got bumped at some point.
I'm also planning to use a NOVA power supply to drive Whelen tip strobes, so
I'll be interested if you discover what the cause was. I haven't started
with the wiring of my Velocity project yet, but I have purchased the strobe
system.
Keith Hallsten
Roseville, CA
Subject: Re: Strobe Head Failure
From: Jerzy Krasinski (krasinski(at)provalue.net)
Date: Fri Sep 24 - 10:26 AM
Robert Whitaker wrote:
>
>
>I have a regulated NOVA power supply (REG4-80) driving three Whelen strobe
>heads on my RV-9A. The right wing strobe failed after approximately 3 hours
>use. The other two are working fine so far.
>
>I plugged another strobe head into the right wing and it worked ok, so its
>not a wiring or power supply failure. The power supply puts out 20 Watts
>(16.5 Joules) per channel, so I don't think I'm over driving the strobes.
>(can you under drive these things?)
>
>I spoke with Whelen tech. support. They were not interested in talking to
>me after they discovered that I was not using one of their power supplies.
>This is quite understandable.
>
>Therefore, I'm counting on the list to offer up it's wisdom and experience.
>
>So...what causes a strobe head to suffer infant mortality?
>
>Rob
>
>
Could be a production fault
.
Another possible reason might be too small inductance in the loop. Was
that the strobe with the shortest cable?
Jerzy
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | stainless towel bar firewall penetrations |
Go to http://www.mcmaster.com/ and enter the search string "grab bar" then
select the item "ADA-compliant Type 404 Stainless Steel Grab Bar" which will
take you to catalog page 1842, and at the bottom of the page are several of
these, one of which should be suitable. I used the 1-1/2 inch diameter by
12 inch version (cut shorter of course) but that was because the Rotax 914
has a pair of connectors that would not fit through (and removal of the
connectors was not an attractive option) - I still had to split the bar on a
diameter and splice the pieces together to permit the connectors to pass
through the firewall (please request details off-list to anyone who wants
more information). For fitting into a tight spot I used the right angle end
but otherwise my installation is identical to Bob's recommended practice.
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 thomas a.
sargent
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations
Wener:
Well... yes. The article on Bob's web page looks like a towel bar,
but
he doesn't say exactly what it is. The word "towel" does not appear in
the article. I know that he has said on the list that the commerical
plane manufacturers use something to pass thru the firewall that is
stainless and has that same shape. I was looking for Bob's comment on
specifically the Home Depot, plumbing supply products.
I should say you are probably right and there is virtually no
difference and the towel bar probably works just fine. I have one
actually, and if anything it looks like it's over built for this
application. Still I'd like to get some reports that it has actually
worked for some one and that Bob thinks the Home Depot product is safe.
Werner Schneider wrote:
>
> Thomas, it's there on Bob's web page
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, Landing gear
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | How do you seal firesleeve? firewall penetrations |
Reading how to article it says to use recommended sealant to Dope the edges to
prevent fraying
and moisture from getting in.
What is the recommended sealer, where can you get some?
thx.
ron parigoris
Europa XS monowheel
A-265
>
>
> Thomas, it's there on Bob's web page
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Bob invented this technique/method!!! Check the archives.
> But I can't find any reference in the archives to any one actually using
> this method. Nor can I find Electric Bob weighing in on the
> advisability of this technique.
>
> How about it Bob? Do you think this is a good idea?
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How do you seal firesleeve? firewall penetrations |
on juliet
Keeping it simple, I used red rtv silicone.
Ken
Ronald J. Parigoris wrote:
>
>Reading how to article it says to use recommended sealant to Dope the edges to
prevent fraying
>and moisture from getting in.
>
>What is the recommended sealer, where can you get some?
>
>thx.
>ron parigoris
>Europa XS monowheel
>A-265
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
| Subject: | How do you seal firesleeve? |
I used red RTV thinned with MEK. Turned out really nice. Check this link:
http://bowenaero.com/copper/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=29
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How do you seal firesleeve?
> >
> >Reading how to article it says to use recommended sealant to
> Dope the
> >edges to prevent fraying and moisture from getting in.
> >
> >What is the recommended sealer, where can you get some?
> >
> >thx.
> >ron parigoris
> >Europa XS monowheel
> >A-265
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations |
| From: | Kent Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
Tom,
Stainless is heavy! Probably three-four times heavier than required.
Those ounces add up. It works fine to drill a about a 1 1/4 inch hole, pass
through all the wires and use a piece of automotive hose or grommet to stop
the wires from rubbing against the firewall metal. when all your wiring
seems good, caulk the hole with fire resistant caulk. Light, cheap,
effective.
Tony Bingelis' books have how-tos discussing how to make light firewall
pass-throughs a bit more elegant.
--Kent
> From: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)earthlink.net>
> Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:32:01 -0700
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations
>
>
>
> Some time ago I read a great suggestion to use a stainless steel towel
> bar or bathtub "grab bar" and cut off the ends a few inches away from
> the flanges. These 90 deg. stainless tubes could then be screwed to the
> fire wall on the engine side and be used to pass numerous wires thru the
> firewall. Packed with fire resistant sealant, they sound like a safe way
> to go.
>
> But I can't find any reference in the archives to any one actually using
> this method. Nor can I find Electric Bob weighing in on the
> advisability of this technique.
>
> How about it Bob? Do you think this is a good idea?
>
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A, Landing gear fairings.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations |
I seriously disagree with Ken't post and will be happy to discuss it off the
list - personal, direct e-mails. I hope no one does what he suggests, which
is not safe and which has been superceded by better methods than Bingelis
had knowledge of. The small chunk of stainless tubing is not a
significantly heavy item.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Ashton" <kjashton(at)vnet.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations
>
> Tom,
> Stainless is heavy! Probably three-four times heavier than required.
> Those ounces add up. It works fine to drill a about a 1 1/4 inch hole,
pass
> through all the wires and use a piece of automotive hose or grommet to
stop
> the wires from rubbing against the firewall metal. when all your wiring
> seems good, caulk the hole with fire resistant caulk. Light, cheap,
> effective.
> Tony Bingelis' books have how-tos discussing how to make light
firewall
> pass-throughs a bit more elegant.
> --Kent
>
> > From: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)earthlink.net>
> > Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:32:01 -0700
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations
> >
> >
> >
> > Some time ago I read a great suggestion to use a stainless steel towel
> > bar or bathtub "grab bar" and cut off the ends a few inches away from
> > the flanges. These 90 deg. stainless tubes could then be screwed to the
> > fire wall on the engine side and be used to pass numerous wires thru the
> > firewall. Packed with fire resistant sealant, they sound like a safe way
> > to go.
> >
> > But I can't find any reference in the archives to any one actually using
> > this method. Nor can I find Electric Bob weighing in on the
> > advisability of this technique.
> >
> > How about it Bob? Do you think this is a good idea?
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sargent, RV-6A, Landing gear fairings.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations |
on juliet
Actually I wouldn't mind hearing a few on list comments. I often see
firewalls that rely on red rtv to be a firestop and I wonder how
effective it is. After all the temperature resistance of the stuff is
only about 550 F which is a long way from the 2000 F firebarrier
requirement. I even wonder if the tube of silicone rtv based fire
barrier that I just purchased from Home Depot is much better. I don't
think the rtv based stuff is the itumescent (sort of expands and
sacrificially boils off I think) kind of fire stop.
FWIW I found 1.5 inch stainless grab bars at Home Depot and 1.25 inch
ones in the local Home Hardware store but I suspect that the painted
steel ones would have been quite acceptable. After all plain steel
should last a lot longer than the firesleeve or the wires.
Ken
David Carter wrote:
>
>I seriously disagree with Ken't post and will be happy to discuss it off the
>list - personal, direct e-mails. I hope no one does what he suggests, which
>is not safe and which has been superceded by better methods than Bingelis
>had knowledge of. The small chunk of stainless tubing is not a
>significantly heavy item.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "923te" <923te(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations |
on juliet
I found the itumescent caulk at Home Depot. It was neart the paint
department and next to the chimney caulks. Good for very high temps.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations on
juliet
>
> Actually I wouldn't mind hearing a few on list comments. I often see
> firewalls that rely on red rtv to be a firestop and I wonder how
> effective it is. After all the temperature resistance of the stuff is
> only about 550 F which is a long way from the 2000 F firebarrier
> requirement. I even wonder if the tube of silicone rtv based fire
> barrier that I just purchased from Home Depot is much better. I don't
> think the rtv based stuff is the itumescent (sort of expands and
> sacrificially boils off I think) kind of fire stop.
>
> FWIW I found 1.5 inch stainless grab bars at Home Depot and 1.25 inch
> ones in the local Home Hardware store but I suspect that the painted
> steel ones would have been quite acceptable. After all plain steel
> should last a lot longer than the firesleeve or the wires.
>
> Ken
>
> David Carter wrote:
>
> >
> >I seriously disagree with Ken't post and will be happy to discuss it off
the
> >list - personal, direct e-mails. I hope no one does what he suggests,
which
> >is not safe and which has been superceded by better methods than Bingelis
> >had knowledge of. The small chunk of stainless tubing is not a
> >significantly heavy item.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Firewall materiel |
From: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations
Some time ago I read a great suggestion to use a stainless steel towel bar
or bathtub "grab bar" and cut off the ends a few inches away from the
flanges. These 90 deg. stainless tubes could then be screwed to the fire
wall on the engine side and be used to pass numerous wires thru the
firewall. Packed with fire resistant sealant, they sound like a safe way to
go.
But I can't find any reference in the archives to any one actually using his
method. Nor can I find Electric Bob weighing in on the advisability of this
technique.
How about it Bob? Do you think this is a good idea?--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, Landing gear fairings.
Tom,
I copied the idea and will use it shortly. The item is from
McMaster-Carr pages and I think I have the item 2823K32 SS handrail at
12inches length which for US$20 gave me two 90deg hollow 1-1/4inch elbows
with drilled flanges for attachment to f/w plus about 9inches of straight
tubing - but you can wallow in several pages if you go to :
http://www.mcmaster.com/ where you will find several routes. I selected
"FIND?" top left and wrote handrails, or you can demand page 206.
Amazing source. Only Bob Nuckolls...........
Cheers,
Ferg
A064
PS: I note a request for info on f/w filling for routing through the f/w. I
found (McMaster-Carr again), browse around page 1683 or FIND Fire Stop Caulk
and scan. Also I have a pint of "White Glue QF-180 Carborundum - Fibrefax
Coating Cement from AS&S which claims to withstand temps of 1263Cdeg which
should delay firewall penetration for 15 minutes anyway. Good luck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> penetrations |
| Subject: | Re: stainless towel bar firewall |
penetrations
penetrations
>
>Tom,
> Stainless is heavy! Probably three-four times heavier than required.
>Those ounces add up. It works fine to drill a about a 1 1/4 inch hole, pass
>through all the wires and use a piece of automotive hose or grommet to stop
>the wires from rubbing against the firewall metal. when all your wiring
>seems good, caulk the hole with fire resistant caulk. Light, cheap,
>effective.
> Tony Bingelis' books have how-tos discussing how to make light firewall
>pass-throughs a bit more elegant.
>--Kent
It's true that older airplanes (or should I say antique?) often
relied on ordinary grommets topped with grommet shields and finally
caulked with a filet of firestop putty around the control or wire
bundle. I helped re-wire some restoration projects in our hangar
at 1K1 about 15 years ago and this is the technique used on those
airplanes. But then, these airplanes had few wires and only
throttle and perhaps mixture controls. Fuel lines came through on
their own metallic fittings.
Many modern aircraft have more wires and hoses. Further, the
recommendations/regulations promulgated by the FAA in years
since have become more stringent. The wire bundles, penetration
techniques and hoses in an airplane like a Bonanza are illustrated
at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
There may be lighter techniques . . . Tony's examples are certainly
lighter and examples of how it was done 60 years ago.
However, I'll offer the notion that techniques illustrated have
been TESTED and pronounced adequate to contemporary thinking by
those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do. I can offer
these techniques in spite of perceived in-elegance as having
a high order probability of doing the job you expect of it.
Any variations on this theme should be tested too. You can build
your own "Puff the Magic Dragon" with a propane burner, mount
some thermocouples on a sheet of firewall material and have
at it. Please post your findings here on the List. If anyone
in interested in details of the test protocols, I'd be pleased
to go look them up.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | How do you seal firesleeve? |
>
>I used red RTV thinned with MEK. Turned out really nice. Check this link:
>
>http://bowenaero.com/copper/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=29
Looks like a good approach. Keep in mind folks that the
sealant doesn't need to have the same fire resistant qualities
as the fire sleeve . . . we're just wanting to keep moisture
and grease out of the cut edges of firesleeve. I think Larry's
approach has merit. I'll ask the folks down on the line what
they use. I suspect it's a product offered by the same
folks that make firesleeve.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> penetrations on juliet |
| Subject: | Re: stainless towel bar firewall |
penetrations on juliet
penetrations on juliet
>
>Actually I wouldn't mind hearing a few on list comments. I often see
>firewalls that rely on red rtv to be a firestop and I wonder how
>effective it is. After all the temperature resistance of the stuff is
>only about 550 F which is a long way from the 2000 F firebarrier
>requirement. I even wonder if the tube of silicone rtv based fire
>barrier that I just purchased from Home Depot is much better. I don't
>think the rtv based stuff is the itumescent (sort of expands and
>sacrificially boils off I think) kind of fire stop.
Agreed. RTV is NOT adequate as a surface to face the fire.
This stuff turns into sand and falls apart at temperatures far
removed from 2000. However, it would probably be adequate as
the FLANGE sealant because it's captured between two large
surface areas and only the thin edge is exposed to flame. I
wouldn't want to use it around the wire bundles because it's
a mess to cut it off. The fire putties I've seen are non-hardening.
If you use them around your wire bundles and under the firesleeve,
it squishes into the bundle and gets you a nice seal. It's
relatively un-messy to clean out for adding or removing wires
in the bundle at a later date. In fact, our instrumentation
guys do this all the time. We're forever running in and removing
all kinds of instrumentation wires on airplanes and they're
all routed through the penetration schemes like those I've
illustrated.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> penetrations |
| Subject: | Re: stainless towel bar firewall |
penetrations
penetrations
Not my invention but gleaned from the production lines at Raytheon.
One important requirement of teachers is to know the history of their
subjects, not just the simple-ideas and contemporary applications.
It's a powerful tool for avoiding repetitious errors and
avoiding the $time$ for re-invention. It's one of the
first questions I ask when invited to a meeting that seeks to do
a root cause failure analysis, "What's the history of this technology
and practice? No, not the past 6 months, how about the last 20 years?"
It's gratifying when one saves lots of $time$ over the next few weeks
by studying the last few decades.
Bob . . .
>
>
>Bob invented this technique/method!!! Check the archives.
>
> > But I can't find any reference in the archives to any one actually using
> > this method. Nor can I find Electric Bob weighing in on the
> > advisability of this technique.
> >
> > How about it Bob? Do you think this is a good idea?
> >
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Head Failure |
>
>
>The NOVA REG4-80 is a regulated power supply, advertised to put out a
>constant 20 watts per flash tube, regardless of how many flash tubes are
>connected or functioning, and regardless of any differences in inductance
>between flash tube circuits. Therefore, I can only assume that there was
>some pre-existing fault with that particular flash tube. I have heard that
>surface contamination (fingerprints) on a flash tube can dramatically
>shorten its life, but I don't know how significant that factor would be.
>Maybe it just got bumped at some point.
This might be true for halogen lamps but I don't think so for
xenon flash tubes. The life of these critters is a function
of energy per flash (drives internal stresses to electrodes)
and flashes per second (drives operating temperature). Here
are but a few of hundreds of good articles out on the web
about xenon flash systems.
http://www.birket.com/strobes/Information/About%20Strobe%20Life.pdf
http://sound.westhost.com/project65.htm
http://members.misty.com/don/xeguide.html#me
>I'm also planning to use a NOVA power supply to drive Whelen tip strobes, so
>I'll be interested if you discover what the cause was. I haven't started
>with the wiring of my Velocity project yet, but I have purchased the strobe
>system.
I had a builder fabricate his own flash tube assemblies from
10 joule lamps he found surplus. Yeah, they ran really hot
in his 20 joule/flash system and were good for perhaps 25-50
hours before they got really dark. But the tubes were cheap
and he made them easy to replace so his perceived cost of
ownership was attractive. There's lots of ways to skin the
cat. . .
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> penetrations |
| Subject: | Re: stainless towel bar firewall |
penetrations
penetrations
>
>
>Wener:
> Well... yes. The article on Bob's web page looks like a towel
> bar, but
>he doesn't say exactly what it is. The word "towel" does not appear in
>the article. I know that he has said on the list that the commerical
>plane manufacturers use something to pass thru the firewall that is
>stainless and has that same shape. I was looking for Bob's comment on
>specifically the Home Depot, plumbing supply products.
The part you see is a fabricated part for a Bonanza. You could purchase
this part from a Beechcraft service parts dealer. Take a peek at these
folks too:
http://www.epm-avcorp.com/tubeseal.html
> I should say you are probably right and there is virtually no
>difference and the towel bar probably works just fine. I have one
>actually, and if anything it looks like it's over built for this
>application. Still I'd like to get some reports that it has actually
>worked for some one and that Bob thinks the Home Depot product is safe.
Yeah, the towel bars are indeed hell-for-stout. One can probably
do better if you have the $time$ and inclination. I'm always on
the lookout for other quick-n-dirty but practical substitutes for
"aircraft quality" parts. However, elegance may not be high on
the list of features for the solution.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> penetrations |
| Subject: | Re: stainless towel bar firewall |
penetrations
penetrations
> ... I'm always on
> the lookout for other quick-n-dirty but practical substitutes for
> "aircraft quality" parts.
This is good - do you generally post these somewhere on the
net? I was looking for the "grab bar" solution for quite
some time, and had Rob not pointed it out, I would have
probably never found it!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: How do you seal firesleeve? |
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Bowen <Larry(at)BowenAero.com>
Date: Saturday, September 25, 2004 8:50 pm
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: How do you seal
firesleeve?
Bowen"
>
> I used red RTV thinned with MEK. Turned out
really nice. Check
> this link:
>
>
http://bowenaero.com/copper/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=29
>
> -
> Larry Bowen
> Larry(at)BowenAero.com
> http://BowenAero.com
>
Larry,
Those are some really nice hoses. How did you treat
the ends of the safety wire?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | 'Connection is source for "atrocious work" |
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/richter.html
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Greg Richter's email address? |
Does anyone have a direct e-mail address for Greg Richter?
I thought I had it. I have conducted several e-mail conversations
with him but I guess that must have been a long time ago. My
archive files go back two years and he didn't pop up in a search.
I didn't find it in a Google search and a search of the Blue
Mountain website.
Assistance would be appreciated.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
DIRECT_EMAIL BODY": Talks.about.direct.email(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Re: Greg Richter's email address? 1.00 |
Bob...
His PDF "book" has "greg(at)bluemountainavionics.com" listed (At least the
copy that links through the article in that last email you sent
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/richter.html
...is that it?
Harley
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>Does anyone have a direct e-mail address for Greg Richter?
>I thought I had it. I have conducted several e-mail conversations
>with him but I guess that must have been a long time ago. My
>archive files go back two years and he didn't pop up in a search.
>I didn't find it in a Google search and a search of the Blue
>Mountain website.
>
>Assistance would be appreciated.
>
>Bob . . .
>
>
>---
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Greg Richter's email address |
Its Greg(at)Bluemountainavionics.com
...Chrissi
http://www.cozygirrrl.com/ updated 9-04-04
# 957 Cozy Mk-IV RG turbo RX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
| Subject: | How do you seal firesleeve? |
Just .32 safety wire, looped around twice. Twisted with the safety wire
pliers. Clipped about 3/8" from the hose. Curl the sharp end back towards
the hose with a needle nose pliers. I think the end result looks good!
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: echristley(at)nc.rr.com [mailto:echristley(at)nc.rr.com]
> >
> > I used red RTV thinned with MEK. Turned out
> really nice. Check this link:
> >
> >
> http://bowenaero.com/copper/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=29
> >
>
> Larry,
> Those are some really nice hoses. How did you treat the ends
> of the safety wire?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Greg Richter's email address |
>
>Its Greg(at)Bluemountainavionics.com
I was going to guess that but thanks!
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Greg Richter's email address? |
>
>
>In 2003 I had a mail conversation with Greg under:
>
> greg(at)bluemtn.com
>
> However the general address was info(at)bluemountain.com
>
> BTW has meanwhile someone a Bluemountain EFIS 1/Lite running which is
> reliable during step turns, as I can remember last year we heard about
>major
> problems until finally some messages from Lancair indicated a change?
>
> Would be interested to get more recent (positive and negative) comments
> (please to my personal email glastar(at)gmx.net)
I've not heard any feedback from a hands-on user since
Kirk Hammersmith left Lancair. I'll chase him down and
see what the latest read is.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Richter's email address? |
>
>Bob...
>
>His PDF "book" has "greg(at)bluemountainavionics.com" listed (At least the
>copy that links through the article in that last email you sent
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/richter.html
>
>...is that it?
Gee, the one place I didn't look! Thanks!
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Greg Richter's email address? |
> BTW has meanwhile someone a Bluemountain EFIS 1/Lite running which is
> reliable during step turns, as I can remember last year we heard about
> major
> problems until finally some messages from Lancair indicated a change?
I have a EFIS/Lite in my Berkut. It works wonderfully - no problems to
report. It's dead-on accurate with heading, attitude, altitude and speed.
It is now all GPS coupled and corrected for saturation and drift. Note: I
have the ADI only...not used for NAV functions.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations |
on juliet
on juliet
923te...
Thank you but can you give more details please? Part number or
manufacturer and name perhaps? Did it actually say "itumescent" on the
cartridge. There are surprisingly few specifics in the archives
although Ferg's MSC reference does show the stuff..
I've looked (and asked) in several Home Depots (and elsewhere) and all
I'm finding locally is the silicone caulk based "fire stop", tubes of
mortar cement, and staff that doesn't have a clue what is on their
shelves. My firewall corners have round flange cutouts from
manufacturing that I'd like to plug with something better than rtv. The
inspector actually suggested red rtv but I'd like to find something
better. I guess it's time to put the torch to the silicone "fire stop"
and see if it is at least better than red rtv...
I think folks see red rtv do a wonderful job sealing exhaust plumbing to
cylinder heads and forget that in that application the rtv really
doesn't get any hotter than the cylinder head.
Home Depot did have duct seal putty which might be similar to "fire
putty". Maybe I'll test some of that as well if someone hasn't already
done it.
thanks
Ken
923te wrote:
>
>I found the itumescent caulk at Home Depot. It was neart the paint
>department and next to the chimney caulks. Good for very high temps.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: enetrations-summary as of Sep 2004 (was Re: AeroElectric-List: |
stainless towel bar firewall penetrations
Ken, some more details are in the 6 e-mails cut & pasted at the bottom of
this. It is all the info I've "archived".
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: stainless towel bar firewall penetrations on
juliet on juliet
>
> 923te...
>
> Thank you but can you give more details please? Part number or
> manufacturer and name perhaps? Did it actually say "itumescent" on the
> cartridge. There are surprisingly few specifics in the archives
> although Ferg's MSC reference does show the stuff..
>
> I've looked (and asked) in several Home Depots (and elsewhere) and all
> I'm finding locally is the silicone caulk based "fire stop", tubes of
> mortar cement, and staff that doesn't have a clue what is on their
> shelves. My firewall corners have round flange cutouts from
> manufacturing that I'd like to plug with something better than rtv. The
> inspector actually suggested red rtv but I'd like to find something
> better. I guess it's time to put the torch to the silicone "fire stop"
> and see if it is at least better than red rtv...
> I think folks see red rtv do a wonderful job sealing exhaust plumbing to
> cylinder heads and forget that in that application the rtv really
> doesn't get any hotter than the cylinder head.
>
> Home Depot did have duct seal putty which might be similar to "fire
> putty". Maybe I'll test some of that as well if someone hasn't already
> done it.
>
> thanks
> Ken
Here's a link to 3Ms website for their fire penetration sealants.
When heated, it swells and forms a barrier for smoke and fire.
go here:
http://www.3M.com/us/arch_construct/fire/index.jhtml
We use the WB+25 to seal pipe penetrations thru walls.
James J Varney
The 3M fire barrier caulk (the red stuff) is available at most Home Depot
stores in the electrical dept for about $10.00 a tube. This may or may not
be what you are looking for but it is the same stuff that's sold by aircraft
supply houses for about $25 a tube. You have to look really close to find
the stuff as the stores I've visited had it hidden pretty well.
Bill (Skybolt)
3) -->RV-List message posted by: RSamuelson(at)aol.com
>>Does anyone have experience with "Fire Break 814"? I was thinking of using
it
>>in place of Hi Temp RTV in sealing joints on an RV7A.
Fire Break 814 is a commercial fire and draft sealant, rated at 3000 deg F
for 8 hours.
It's non-toxic, non-corrosive, water clean-up. I got it at my local
hardware
store.
Thanks for the help
Roy Samuelson
> >When you say "fire putty"-what specific product do you refer to
recommend?
> 'Lectric Bob replied:
> There are a number of products out there. It's a mix
> of components with a high specific heat and a
> characteristic that forms a poorly conductive
> "crust" when exposed to very high temperatures.
> Takes quite awhile to breach the face of an
> opening covered with the stuff. I think you
> can get commercial versions in hardware stores.
> A reader told us here on the list that he saw
> some in Home Depot about a year ago.
I think that would be me, Bob.
It was indeed Home Depot, and it's 3M Fire Barrier Caulk, I think called
CP-15, about $15 a tube, and would easily do any two of our airplanes. It's
sorta like high-temp silicone, red color, but has a sandy substance mixed
in, and it cures up pretty stiff. Clean it up when you put it on, cause
it's there to stay later.
Don't know what's in it, but that's what the Glasair folks specify for
anything penetrating the firewall on ours.
Ron Cox
Glasair Super II F/T
under construction at C77, near RFD
5) -->AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Lamb"
I purchased a tube of Fire Stop (Made by DAP) at Home Depot about a year
ago. I was told it would be 10 or 12 dollars. When I looked at the price on
the shelf it said $5.00. When I went to check out the clerk said $10.00. I
asked her to look it up because it was marked $5.00 and she said "you're
right it is $5.00. Who knows what it might be today.
In that store it was in the electrical dept. NOT with all the other puttys
and such in the paint dept.
The container does not tell what temp. it will withstand, only that you can
find the "F" and "T" ratings in the detailed drawings in the Underwriters
Labs fire resistance directory. Wherever that is.
When I reach that point I'll probably call DAP and ask them.
6) Last of all, here's an excellent tutorial by 'Lectric Bob on overall
considerations for firewall integrity against flames:
>
>Here's my Airplane Builder's Epiphany (or it could be something I ate):
>
>-----The extreme amount of care in putting wires through the firewall is a
>bogus deal. Maybe this is left over from the days when the airplane was
>all wood except the engine compartment.
>
>Can anyone point to a single case where this care was rewarded? The auto
>makers decided long ago that a little rubber and UL 94 V-O plastic
>bulkhead connector was good enough. As for me, I can't imagine a fire
>situation where concern about the feedthroughs would make any sense. If my
>engine is on fire...some fire putty wouldn't be worth a tinker's dam
>(which is also made of putty...)
>
>Opinions? Anybody been there and done that?
>
>Eric
'Lectric Bob replied:
I know of two in-flight fires in amateur built aircraft in the
past 5 years. Both ended poorly. In one case, the pilot exited
the aircraft at altitude (things in the cockpit too hot or
too smokey?).
It's one of those things that while rare, is not difficult
to take advantage of things learned in a century of airplane
building to mitigate the risk.
Fuel-fed fires are fortunately rare but when they do happen,
the potential for total loss of the day is very high. The
concern is not for "wood aft of the wirewall" but people
and hardware aft of the firewall. It doesn't take a very large hole
to admit noxious stuff into the cockpit. Make the hole larger
yet and you get flames and/or enough hot gasses to start
doing the nasty on things behind the panel . . . tefzel,
like it's cousin teflon, has hazardous products of combustion.
Here's an excerpt from Part 23 that we have to build to
for certification:
Sec. 23.1191 Firewalls.
(a) Each engine, auxiliary power unit, fuel burning heater, and other
combustion equipment, must be isolated from the rest of the airplane by
firewalls, shrouds, or equivalent means.
(b) Each firewall or shroud must be constructed so that no hazardous
quantity of liquid, gas, or flame can pass from the compartment created by
the firewall or shroud to other parts of the airplane.
(c) Each opening in the firewall or shroud must be sealed with close
fitting, fireproof grommets, bushings, or firewall fittings.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Each firewall and shroud must be fireproof and protected against
corrosion.
(f) Compliance with the criteria for fireproof materials or components must
be shown as follows:
(1) The flame to which the materials or components are subjected must be
2000 +/- 150 deg.F.
(2) Sheet materials approximately 10 inches square must be subjected to the
flame from a suitable burner.
(3) The flame must be large enough to maintain the required test
temperature over an area approximately five inches square.
(g) Firewall materials and fittings must resist flame penetration for at
least 15 minutes.
Bob added: The 15 minute thing was selected with two possible outcomes
in
mind (1) you can get on the ground in that period of time and/or
if you have fuel shutoff valves at the firewall and the engine
shuts down, fuel flow available to feed the fire would likely
run out within 15 minutes.
(h) The following materials may be used in firewalls or shrouds without
being tested as required by this section:
(1) Stainless steel sheet, 0.015 inch thick.
(2) Mild steel sheet (coated with aluminum or otherwise protected against
corrosion) 0.018 inch thick.
(3) Terne plate, 0.018 inch thick.
(4) Monel metal, 0.018 inch thick.
(5) Steel or copper base alloy firewall fittings.
(6) Titanium sheet, 0.016 inch thick.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Hildebrand" <jhildebrand(at)crownequip.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS/lite reliability |
We have an EFIS/lite in our Lancair ES and it works great in all aspects of
flight.
We have done many steep turns and it has always been solid as a rock.
Jeff Hildebrand
Lancair ES - C-GSPH
www.lancaires.com <http://www.lancaires.com/>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Mic and Headphone Wiring |
| From: | "Clinchy, Dave" <clinchd(at)losrios.edu> |
Hi All,
Should the mic and headphone wiring from the intercom to the jacks be in
shielded cable? If so, can both the mic and headphone wires be in the
same cable or should they each have their own shielded cable?
The manual for my SL-30 nav/com shows separate shielded cable for the
mic and headphone from the com to the intercom, but the instructions for
my Flightcom 403 intercom do not show any shielded cable for the mic or
headphone from intercom to jacks.
Dave Clinchy
RV 7
Sacramento, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Here's the piece I promised a couple of weeks ago on coax strippers.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Coax_Stripper/coaxstrip.html
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mic and Headphone Wiring |
>
>Hi All,
>
>
>Should the mic and headphone wiring from the intercom to the jacks be in
>shielded cable?
Maybe
> If so, can both the mic and headphone wires be in the
>same cable
yes
> or should they each have their own shielded cable?
your choice.
>The manual for my SL-30 nav/com shows separate shielded cable for the
>mic and headphone from the com to the intercom, but the instructions for
>my Flightcom 403 intercom do not show any shielded cable for the mic or
>headphone from intercom to jacks.
Your observation illustrates perfectly the point I was trying
to get Mr. Richter to discuss about shielding in our recent
non-discussion.
Shielding has a very narrow range of benefits . . . and 99%
of the time, is NOT necessary for microphone and headset wiring.
It doesn't HURT to use shielded wire . . . particularly if one
can take advantage of the shield's presence in the cable as
a ground return for signals as illustrated in the wiring example
you can view in the last several pages of:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/avionics/760imB.pdf
Here I illustrate shielded wire with (gasp!) shields connected
at both ends. Now, the fact that all the conductors within
are twisted . . . the most likely noise coupling mode (magnetic)
is already mitigated . . . the shield is not necessary, only
convenient. I happen to have 15,000 feet of shielded, twisted
trio that substitutes nicely for a twisted quad and no shield.
It's useful to stock one style of wire as opposed to two because
one readily substitutes for the other when a shield is not needed
but quad will not substitute for the shielded trio when a shield
is needed. A two-for-the-price-of-one benefit.
In a pinch, one can fabricate your own twisted pairs, trios,
quads, etc exactly as Greg suggested in his publication. I've
done this many times and it's an excellent alternative to
buying a spool of manufactured wire when all you need is 4 or
5 feet.
So, ALL of the wiring diagrams you've cited are correct.
The presence of lack of shielding in this particular case
is a non-issue. If you don't have shielded wire, take 4-5
strands of 22AWG about 8' long and chuck one end up in a
drill motor. Put other ends in vice and keep them tight while
you run the motor to put about 1 to 1-1/2 turns per inch of
twist in them.
Be very careful when you release the bundle . . . keep the bundle
from curling up like a snake while the tension unwinds.
If it gets away from you, you'll have a pile of tangled wire.
After the tension is relaxed, you'll have a nice twisted bundle
of wires that may be easily rung-out for connection to appropriate
pins and jacks. If you have 5 colors, that's fine too but I wouldn't
put of the job for a minute to wait for an order of colored
wire to come in. Electrons are color blind.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
I've finally carved a control stick handle that I'm
satisfied with, and now I want to mount a trim
control and PTT button on it. I'd like a 4-way hat
switch for the trim control. For the PTT I'd like a
rubber type cover so that the momentary switch just
looks like a black wart in the appropriate place.
AS has the latter here:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/pusbutswitch.php
But I can't find the former.
What would be a good source for these type switches?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave" <dave(at)bestnetpc.com> |
Van's has the "coolie hat" switch.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident1094552477-164-132&browseairframe&productgrip-switches
----- Original Message -----
From: echristley(at)nc.rr.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 10:57 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Hat switch
I've finally carved a control stick handle that I'm
satisfied with, and now I want to mount a trim
control and PTT button on it. I'd like a 4-way hat
switch for the trim control. For the PTT I'd like a
rubber type cover so that the momentary switch just
looks like a black wart in the appropriate place.
AS has the latter here:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/pusbutswitch.php
But I can't find the former.
What would be a good source for these type switches?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fwd: Alternator problems |
From: WRBYARS(at)aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:32:36 EDT
Subject: Alternator problems
-------------------------------1096385556
HELP HELP HELP
I've got a problem with my battery not staying charged while in flight, and
I know that with all the brain power on the list you guys will be able to
solve it for me.
Situation:
Hiachi ( not Hitachi ) LT-150-62 alternator, on a Lycoming 0290-D engine,
with note in log book stating alternator has internal regulator.
Concord battery about a year old, that is kept on a voltage limiting trickle
charger when not being flown for a while, with no prior problems.
1--I've charged the battery and it has 12.87 volts.
2--All the wiring, c/b's and switches have been checked B/T the battery and
alternator and are OK.
2a--There is a 35A Alternator breaker/switch and a 3A Field breaker/switch
on the panel with on/off positions.
3--With the master switch on, and the ALT. and FIELD switches at the on
position, there is 12.87 volts to the alternator terminals.
4--Volt meter connected at battery indicating 12.87, engine not running;
when engine is running, at various RPM's, with the ALT and FIELD switches set
to ON, it still reads 12.87, with no indication of charge.
Questions;
1--What should the voltmeter be reading with the engine running, if the
alternator is performing properly?
2--What do the Alternator and Field breaker/switches provide and should they
be left on at all times?
3--Will it harm the alternator if these breaker/switches are cycled when the
engine is running w/ the system charging?
4--Is it necessary/advisable to have these breaker/switches, or would it be
better to have only breakers?
5--Does anyone have information on the Hiachi alternator, where it is sold
or a web site, or something, as I can't find ANY information about it.
My starter is also the same manufacturer so I need to contact someone and
get info on the product.
All answers and comments will be greatly appreciated, as I'm sitting on the
ground until things are fixed.
Thanks
Bill
-------------------------------1096385556
HELP HELP HELP
I've got a problem with my battery not staying
charged while in flight,and I know that with all the brain power on the
list you guys will be able to solve it for me.
Situation:
Hiachi ( not Hitachi ) LT-150-62 alternator, on a
Lycoming 0290-D engine,with note in log book stating alternator has
internal regulator.
Concord battery about a year old, that is kept on
a voltage limiting trickle charger when not being flown for a while, with no
prior problems.
1--I've charged the battery and it has 12.87
volts.
2--All the wiring, c/b's and switches have been checked=20B/T
the battery and alternator and are OK.
2a--There is a 35A Alternator
breaker/switch and a 3A Field breaker/switch on
the panel with on/off positions.
3--With the master switch on, and the ALT. and FIELD switches
at the on position,there is 12.87 volts to the alternator
terminals.
4--Volt meter connected at battery indicating 12.87, engine
not running; when engine is running, at various RPM's, with the ALT and
FIELD switches set to ON, it still reads 12.87, with no indication of
charge.
Questions;
1--What should the voltmeter be reading with the engine
running,if the alternator is performing properly?
2--What do the Alternator and Field breaker/switches provide
and should they be left on at all times?
3--Will it harm the alternator if
thesebreaker/switches are cycled when the engine is running w/ the system
charging?
4--Is itnecessary/advisableto have these
breaker/switches, or would it be better to have only breakers?
5--Does anyone have information on the Hiachi
alternator, where it is sold or a web site, or something, as I
can't find ANY information about it.
My starter is also the same manufacturer so I need to contact
someone and get info on the product.
All answers and comments will be greatly
appreciated, asI'm sitting on the ground until things
are fixed.
Thanks
Bill
-------------------------------1096385556--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Coax Strippers |
Bob,
You the man. I just bought one of the 3-blade rotary strippers (one of the
few strippers my wife approves of in my life) for $10.50 on ebay. My plane
is complete already but I know there will be more RG400 stripping in my
future on the next planes.
FYI for others...don't worry, I didn't steal the last one. Gilchrist
Electric is selling a whole bunch of 'em for $10.50 (Buy It Now price).
For example:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5722557140
Thanks again Bob,
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Coax Strippers
>
> Here's the piece I promised a couple of weeks ago on coax strippers.
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Coax_Stripper/coaxstrip.html
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "AI Nut" <ainut(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Alternator problems |
Alternators should be putting out about 13.7 vdc while in charging mode. I
suggest you take if off and go to a NAPA auto parts dealer and ask them to
check it for you. Won't cost anything. Also, check the belt slack (yeah, I
know, simple stuff. But rule out the simple before going to the more
difficult.)
If it is the alternator, most of them can be rebuilt for little or nothing.
Once rebuilt, take it to an a&p for prayer and blessing.
Some alternators can be safely run without a load; others can't. Don't know
about yours.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WRBYARS(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fwd: Alternator problems
>
>
> From: WRBYARS(at)aol.com
> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:32:36 EDT
> Subject: Alternator problems
> To: luscombe-silvaire(at)yahoogroups.com
>
>
> -------------------------------1096385556
>
> HELP HELP HELP
>
> I've got a problem with my battery not staying charged while in flight,
and
> I know that with all the brain power on the list you guys will be able to
> solve it for me.
>
> Situation:
> Hiachi ( not Hitachi ) LT-150-62 alternator, on a Lycoming 0290-D engine,
> with note in log book stating alternator has internal regulator.
> Concord battery about a year old, that is kept on a voltage limiting
trickle
> charger when not being flown for a while, with no prior problems.
>
> 1--I've charged the battery and it has 12.87 volts.
>
> 2--All the wiring, c/b's and switches have been checked B/T the battery
and
> alternator and are OK.
> 2a--There is a 35A Alternator breaker/switch and a 3A Field
breaker/switch
> on the panel with on/off positions.
>
> 3--With the master switch on, and the ALT. and FIELD switches at the on
> position, there is 12.87 volts to the alternator terminals.
>
> 4--Volt meter connected at battery indicating 12.87, engine not running;
> when engine is running, at various RPM's, with the ALT and FIELD switches
set
> to ON, it still reads 12.87, with no indication of charge.
>
> Questions;
> 1--What should the voltmeter be reading with the engine running, if the
> alternator is performing properly?
>
> 2--What do the Alternator and Field breaker/switches provide and should
they
> be left on at all times?
>
> 3--Will it harm the alternator if these breaker/switches are cycled when
the
> engine is running w/ the system charging?
>
> 4--Is it necessary/advisable to have these breaker/switches, or would it
be
> better to have only breakers?
>
> 5--Does anyone have information on the Hiachi alternator, where it is
sold
> or a web site, or something, as I can't find ANY information about it.
> My starter is also the same manufacturer so I need to contact someone and
> get info on the product.
>
> All answers and comments will be greatly appreciated, as I'm sitting on
the
> ground until things are fixed.
>
> Thanks
> Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gerry Holland <gnholland(at)onetel.com> |
>
> AS has the latter here:
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/pusbutswitch.php
That Sx Unit is probably far too large and has an extreme pressure required
to press to make. It's about W 1.25" X L 2.0" and about 3/4" thick. The
Rubber cover that screws over the Push button is 3/4" diameter.
I'm sure you'll find a suitable mini Press Button that is easy to mount and
capable of sustained operation.
The Infinity sticks have suitable buttons or a trigger switch. That might be
a starting point for ideas and supply.
Regards
Gerry
Europa 384 G-FIZY
Trigear with Rotax 912 and Arplast CS Prop.
Panel near completion.
Dynon EFIS, KMD 150, Icom A-200 and SL70 Transponder.
PSS AoA Fitted.
http://www.g-fizy.com
Mobile: +44 7808 402404
WebFax: +44 870 7059985
gnholland(at)onetel.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schertz" <Wschertz(at)ispwest.com> |
| Subject: | Removing D-sub pins |
Bob,
I purchased the d-sub pins and crimper from B&C, and also a small red&white pin
remover. I have not gotten to that stage of installing pins yet, but soon.
My immediate question relates to how to use the pin remover, since I need to remove
a connector to get some wires through a conduit. I *thought* that there was
a description on your web site, but I'll be darned if I can find it. I don't
want to damage something if I can get proper instructions.
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser # 4045
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dsvs(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Coax Strippers |
Bob,
Thanks for the review. When I asked for info I never thought you would go buy
another tool. I hope you actually have some use for it. I have followed suite
and bought one. Thanks again for the review and added effort. Don
-------------- Original message --------------
>
>
> Here's the piece I promised a couple of weeks ago on coax strippers.
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Coax_Stripper/coaxstrip.html
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bob,
Thanks for the review. When I asked for info I never thought you would go buy another
tool. I hope you actually have some use for it. I have followed suite and
bought one. Thanks again for the review and added effort. Don
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
Here's the piece I promised a couple of weeks ago on coax strippers.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Coax_Stripper/coaxstrip.html
Bob . . .
---
p://www.matronics.com/chat
s.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | PTT location thoughts |
In seeing the discussion of PTT location on the stick, I must admit I
have become rather fond of the military approach of having the PTT on
the throttle. I have lived with an aircraft so configured for many
years and I find I like that approach a lot. I plan to use this on
subsequent aircraft.
Not to mention that it leaves the stick open to retain the switch and
use it for ordinance release. ;-)
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing D-sub pins |
On 09/28 9:03, Bill Schertz wrote:
>
> Bob,
> I purchased the d-sub pins and crimper from B&C, and also a small red&white
pin remover. I have not gotten to that stage of installing pins yet, but soon.
>
> My immediate question relates to how to use the pin remover, since I need to
remove a connector to get some wires through a conduit. I *thought* that there
was a description on your web site, but I'll be darned if I can find it. I don't
want to damage something if I can get proper instructions.
Along the same lines, I need to remove some bent pins from
a High Density D-sub connector. The standard size removal tool
will not work, it's just to big in diameter. Where can I
find the proper tool and pins to replace the bent pins? Also
will the B&C crimper work on the smaller HD pins? Doesn't
look like it but I just want to confirm if I will need another
crimper as well.
Thanks.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
----- Original Message -----
From: Gerry Holland <gnholland(at)onetel.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 12:00 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hat switch
Holland
>
>
> >
> > AS has the latter here:
> >
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/pusbutswitch.php
>
> That Sx Unit is probably far too large and has an
extreme pressure
> requiredto press to make. It's about W 1.25" X L
2.0" and about
> 3/4" thick. The
> Rubber cover that screws over the Push button is
3/4" diameter.
>
Aaah. Quite right you are sir. I'd like to amend
my previous post to say that I don't have a good
candidate for either switch. But the rubber cover
is what I'm looking for.
> The Infinity sticks have suitable buttons or a
trigger switch. That
> might be
> a starting point for ideas and supply.
I've been able to find the sticks, but haven't been
able to find a way to order parts.
Back to searching.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing D-sub pins |
>
>Bob,
>I purchased the d-sub pins and crimper from B&C, and also a small
>red&white pin remover. I have not gotten to that stage of installing pins
>yet, but soon.
>
>My immediate question relates to how to use the pin remover, since I need
>to remove a connector to get some wires through a conduit. I *thought*
>that there was a description on your web site, but I'll be darned if I can
>find it. I don't want to damage something if I can get proper instructions.
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/dse-1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/dse-1a.jpg
Get some extra connectors and pins and play with this a bit. Even
with detailed written instructions, there's some experience involved
with using this tool proficiently. Practice on some "training"
connectors before you go to work on the airplane. Note that there's
a little "treaded" groove on the handle of the tool. After the tool
is seated in the connector, press the wire down into the groove with
your thumb so that tugging on wire and tool brings them out together.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Alternator problems |
>
>Alternators should be putting out about 13.7 vdc while in charging mode. I
>suggest you take if off and go to a NAPA auto parts dealer and ask them to
>check it for you. Won't cost anything. Also, check the belt slack (yeah, I
>know, simple stuff. But rule out the simple before going to the more
>difficult.)
>
>If it is the alternator, most of them can be rebuilt for little or nothing.
>Once rebuilt, take it to an a&p for prayer and blessing.
>
>Some alternators can be safely run without a load; others can't. Don't know
>about yours.
Good reply.
I'll add further that with the wiring described it is possible to
disconnect the alternator's B-lead while the alternator is running
and perhaps under significant load. This can produce the alternator
load-dump phenomenon that has given Figure Z-24 the name
"alternator killer". We'll be revising Z-24 to add the appropriate
transient voltage suppressor with Rev 11. We'll post the info
before Rev 11 goes to press.
It's a strong possibility that Bill's alternator is at risk
from the same phenomenon in spite of the fact that he has not
wired per Figure Z-24. In fact, given that the alternator probably
DOES NOT shut off when the 3A "field" breaker is opened, its
a sure bet that the alternator will experience some form of load-dump
event when the 35A breaker is opened.
I'll bet his alternator will test bad. Further, unless he
revises his wiring -AND- operating procedures to accomodate the
special needs of internally regulated alternators, he's going
to kill the replacement alternator too.
Bill, until the final configuration is defined and published,
I recommend you NEVER open the 35A breaker. Turn the "field"
breaker on after the airplane is running. You'll probably find
that opening the 3A breaker does not shut the alternator off
once it's running. Leave both alternator switches on until
after the engine is shut down.
Do you have any form of ov protection on this alternator?
Bob . . .
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <WRBYARS(at)aol.com>
>To:
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fwd: Alternator problems
>
>
> >
> >
> > From: WRBYARS(at)aol.com
> > Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:32:36 EDT
> > Subject: Alternator problems
> > To: luscombe-silvaire(at)yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------1096385556
> >
> > HELP HELP HELP
> >
> > I've got a problem with my battery not staying charged while in flight,
>and
> > I know that with all the brain power on the list you guys will be able to
> > solve it for me.
> >
> > Situation:
> > Hiachi ( not Hitachi ) LT-150-62 alternator, on a Lycoming 0290-D engine,
> > with note in log book stating alternator has internal regulator.
> > Concord battery about a year old, that is kept on a voltage limiting
>trickle
> > charger when not being flown for a while, with no prior problems.
> >
> > 1--I've charged the battery and it has 12.87 volts.
> >
> > 2--All the wiring, c/b's and switches have been checked B/T the battery
>and
> > alternator and are OK.
> > 2a--There is a 35A Alternator breaker/switch and a 3A Field
>breaker/switch
> > on the panel with on/off positions.
> >
> > 3--With the master switch on, and the ALT. and FIELD switches at the on
> > position, there is 12.87 volts to the alternator terminals.
> >
> > 4--Volt meter connected at battery indicating 12.87, engine not running;
> > when engine is running, at various RPM's, with the ALT and FIELD switches
>set
> > to ON, it still reads 12.87, with no indication of charge.
> >
> > Questions;
> > 1--What should the voltmeter be reading with the engine running, if the
> > alternator is performing properly?
> >
> > 2--What do the Alternator and Field breaker/switches provide and should
>they
> > be left on at all times?
> >
> > 3--Will it harm the alternator if these breaker/switches are cycled when
>the
> > engine is running w/ the system charging?
> >
> > 4--Is it necessary/advisable to have these breaker/switches, or would it
>be
> > better to have only breakers?
> >
> > 5--Does anyone have information on the Hiachi alternator, where it is
>sold
> > or a web site, or something, as I can't find ANY information about it.
> > My starter is also the same manufacturer so I need to contact someone and
> > get info on the product.
> >
> > All answers and comments will be greatly appreciated, as I'm sitting on
>the
> > ground until things are fixed.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bill
> >
> >
>
>
>---
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing D-sub pins |
>
>On 09/28 9:03, Bill Schertz wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Bob,
> > I purchased the d-sub pins and crimper from B&C, and also a small
> red&white pin remover. I have not gotten to that stage of installing pins
> yet, but soon.
> >
> > My immediate question relates to how to use the pin remover, since I
> need to remove a connector to get some wires through a conduit. I
> *thought* that there was a description on your web site, but I'll be
> darned if I can find it. I don't want to damage something if I can get
> proper instructions.
>
>Along the same lines, I need to remove some bent pins from
>a High Density D-sub connector. The standard size removal tool
>will not work, it's just to big in diameter. Where can I
>find the proper tool and pins to replace the bent pins?
Do a google search on "extraction" and "91067-1" you should
get a ton of hits.
> Also
>will the B&C crimper work on the smaller HD pins? Doesn't
>look like it but I just want to confirm if I will need another
>crimper as well.
I've tried it an it seems to work fine.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Coax Strippers |
>
>Bob,
>Thanks for the review. When I asked for info I never thought you would go
>buy another tool. I hope you actually have some use for it. I have
>followed suite and bought one. Thanks again for the review and added
>effort. Don
I buy lots of things I don't personally need. Quite often just
to use it, take it apart, etc. Education isn't cheap. I may
order a bunch of these and add them to the goodies I give
away at my weekend seminar doorprize drawings.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing D-sub pins |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Tondu" <walter(at)tondu.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Removing D-sub pins
>
> Along the same lines, I need to remove some bent pins from
> a High Density D-sub connector. The standard size removal tool
> will not work, it's just to big in diameter. Where can I
> find the proper tool and pins to replace the bent pins? Also
Tool: with interchangeable tips AMP P/N 91285-1
pins: your friendly avionics shop when you need only one or two
> will the B&C crimper work on the smaller HD pins?
It does, I did my Garmin Audiopanel without any problems
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Walter Tondu
> http://www.rv7-a.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Coax Strippers |
Where can these be purchased?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Coax Strippers |
>
>Where can these be purchased?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4693&item=5722575929
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
Holland
>
>
>
>
> The Infinity sticks have suitable buttons or a
trigger switch. That
> might be
> a starting point for ideas and supply.
>
> Regards
>
> Gerry
>
Infinity has the coolie (I've now seen it spelled 3
different ways) listed as a "Custom 4-way" switch,
and I've not found anything similiar listed by the
usual suspects (AS, Newark, McMasterCarr, etc). The
price is only $15 (quite reasonable for a custom
switch), but it's listed as an additional switch. I
don't know if he will sell the switch seperately,
but I've sent an inquiry via email.
If that doesn't work...and I remain intent on a
toggle toggle type trim control...I'll have to save
my pennies (nickles and dimes), and fork over $46 to
Van's. A price that I find rather extravagant, even
for a custom switch (that's 1/3 the price of the
entire Infinity grip!!)
Thank you for the sources.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Krieg <rv6a(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Coax Strippers |
Thanks Dan, Just ordered one.
Chris
On Sep 28, 2004, at 8:59 AM, Dan Checkoway wrote:
>
>
> Bob,
>
> You the man. I just bought one of the 3-blade rotary strippers (one
> of the
> few strippers my wife approves of in my life) for $10.50 on ebay. My
> plane
> is complete already but I know there will be more RG400 stripping in my
> future on the next planes.
>
> FYI for others...don't worry, I didn't steal the last one. Gilchrist
> Electric is selling a whole bunch of 'em for $10.50 (Buy It Now price).
>
> For example:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5722557140
>
> Thanks again Bob,
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Coax Strippers
>
>
>
>>
>> Here's the piece I promised a couple of weeks ago on coax strippers.
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Coax_Stripper/coaxstrip.html
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>>
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ll Penetrations-summary as of Sep 2004 (was Re: AeroElectric-List: |
stainless towel bar firewall penetrations
clamav-milter version 0.80c
on juliet.albedo.net
Thank you to all those who responded. I put the propane torch to a
silicone based firestop
http://www.dap.com/retail/retail_detail.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=3&prodhdrid=298
and also some red rtv. As I suspected they both responded about the
same. There was a slight tendency to support a flame for a second or two
when the torch was removed early in the test. Both substances quickly
formed a white ash surface layer that was indeed resistant to burn
through but any vibration caused it to flake off which seemed less than
ideal for sealing a firewall. I don't have access to the standards but
the silicone fire stops all seem to quote the same ASTM and UL standard
so I'm guessing they are all similar.
I also tested some old black DuxSeal electrical putty that I had. Liquid
oozed out of it and it did continue to burn for about 5 sec after the
torch was removed so I guess the stuff I tested is not "fire putty".
Once it was dried out after almost a minute it was very resistant to
burn through but by then it had lost it's ability to stick to metal.
Guess I'll try to get some of that itumescent stuff. At least one of
those seems to be latex based but I don't think any are silicone based.
Ken
David Carter wrote:
>
>Ken, some more details are in the 6 e-mails cut & pasted at the bottom of
>this. It is all the info I've "archived".
>
>David
>
>
snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
>In a message dated 9/21/04 1:21:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
>ceengland(at)bellsouth.net writes:
>
>We usually see a pretty good mix from ultralite types antique/classic to an
>SX-300. Several of the residents are former airshow circuit pilots, so you
>never know who will show up.
>
>
>Good Afternoon Charlie,
>
>I would love to drop in one of these years, but I absolutely can't make it
>this year.
>
>I did look at the Air Nav page and note the following under airport
>facilities:
>
> "Lights: RDO REQ"
>
>Does that mean that you have to have radio to get the lights lit, or do you
>require that all aircraft have a radio to use the field?
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>AKA
>Bob Siegfried
>Ancient Aviator
>Stearman N3977A
>Brookeridge Airpark LL22
>Downers Grove, IL 60516
>630 985-8502
>
Hi Bob,
Sorry for the delay in replying; I was doing the vacation thing last
week & missed your post.
The RDO REQ means we have radio controlled lights. Shucks, several of
the planes based here don't even have radios & half the guys that live
here can't find their transmit buttons. ;-)
We try to do a couple of flyins each year, so maybe you can make it down
next spring.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ll Penetrations-summary as of Sep 2004 (was Re: AeroElectric-List: |
stainless towel bar firewall penetrations
For what it's worth, I found "3M Fire Barrier CP25WB+ Caulk" on the 3M
web page, which seems to be the toughest stuff they have. About 20
minutes later I found a caulking tube of it on the shelf at Home Depot.
It was about $9.50.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, Landing gear
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
The one from Infinity is literally from a computer joystick. I'll look for
my contact for them, they're about 50 cents and if you only want one
they'll probably send it to you for free. Or buy a Thrustmaster stick off
Ebay for $5 and take it apart - it's exactly the same one,
If you want the real thing, check here
http://www.ottoeng.com/control/togglemt_t4.htm
they tend to run $50-100. The distributor I like is these people
http://www.flamecorp.com/catalog.html
At 02:39 PM 9/28/04, you wrote:
>
>
>Holland
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The Infinity sticks have suitable buttons or a
>trigger switch. That
> > might be
> > a starting point for ideas and supply.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Gerry
> >
>
>Infinity has the coolie (I've now seen it spelled 3
>different ways) listed as a "Custom 4-way" switch,
>and I've not found anything similiar listed by the
>usual suspects (AS, Newark, McMasterCarr, etc). The
>price is only $15 (quite reasonable for a custom
>switch), but it's listed as an additional switch. I
>don't know if he will sell the switch seperately,
>but I've sent an inquiry via email.
>
>If that doesn't work...and I remain intent on a
>toggle toggle type trim control...I'll have to save
>my pennies (nickles and dimes), and fork over $46 to
>Van's. A price that I find rather extravagant, even
>for a custom switch (that's 1/3 the price of the
>entire Infinity grip!!)
>
>Thank you for the sources.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | PTC Overload Protectors |
In reviewing the EXP Bus as well as the write up on
aircraft wiring by Greg at BlueMountain, Bob has
stated the following:
"The use of PTC overload protectors has been
considered
for use on certified ships at least twice over the
last
20 years by your humble scribe and others at Raytheon
and
Learjet. There were simply too many down-sides that
could
not be offset by what is purported to be a
convenience."
I've not been able to find any reference to what the
down-sides were. I'd hate to think new technology is
being given a bad name because Raytheon and Lear saw
its use as too dangerous - financially. Can anyone
expand on this with some technical reasons why these
devices are unsuitable for aircraft use?
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Good morning all,
I'm still on this quest to discover the source for my alternator and
starter. It was installed when I bought the plane but had no literature on it.
Hiachi LT-150-62 alternator and a "lite weight starter."
Please help me find who is selling this equipment.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ll Penetrations-summary as of Sep 2004 (was Re: AeroElectric-List: |
stainless towel bar firewall penetrations
clamav-milter version 0.80c
on juliet.albedo.net
Thank you Tom and also Bill Hibbing
Part of the mystery has been solved in that none of the Home Depots
around here seen to have that. One store said they don't sell it anymore
because they are afraid of lawsuits. However the silicone firestop was
still on the shelf at every store that I've been in, even though it
seems to be an inferior product...
I'll track the CP25 or the Firestop 814 down now that I know exactly
what to look for..
Ken
thomas a. sargent wrote:
>
>For what it's worth, I found "3M Fire Barrier CP25WB+ Caulk" on the 3M
>web page, which seems to be the toughest stuff they have. About 20
>minutes later I found a caulking tube of it on the shelf at Home Depot.
>It was about $9.50.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
Riley
>
> The one from Infinity is literally from a computer
joystick. I'll
> look for
> my contact for them, they're about 50 cents and if
you only want
> one
> they'll probably send it to you for free. Or buy
a Thrustmaster
> stick off
> Ebay for $5 and take it apart - it's exactly the
same one,
>
> If you want the real thing, check here
> http://www.ottoeng.com/control/togglemt_t4.htm
>
> they tend to run $50-100. The distributor I like
is these people
> http://www.flamecorp.com/catalog.html
>
Hehehe!
This is really fun. I can choose between a fairly
reliable, $2 'toy' button or an ultra-reliable,
outlast-the-aircraft, $50 military grade. Replace a
cheap part periodically, or spec a part that'll last
forever. Did I mention that the plan is to have
mechanical backup to the electric trim, making any
outage a minor inconvenience? So minor that I would
not even flinch at starting a flight with it out.
Hmmm...decisions, decisions....
Just in passing, I must say that I was a little put
off by the Infinity Grip's website. To much of hype
along the lines of 'buy my super-great,
designed-for-airplane product, or you'll DIE!!
Someone told me at a big flyin that someone else did
something stupid instead of buying my product and
they DIED!!' It sort of obfuscates the simple ideas
and basic physics concept. It's interesting to note
that after reading through all the hype that they
employ the cheap solution.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ll Penetrations-summary as of Sep 2004 (was Re: AeroElectric-List: |
stainless towel bar firewall penetrations clamav-milter version
0.80c on juliet.albedo.net
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Just got back from the Home Depot here. Bought a tube of 3M Fire Barrier
CP25WB+ for 9.95. It was in the paint department in amongst the calking.
They also had 3M "Yellow" fire barrier for $6.50 a tube.
Cheers,
John Schroeder
Lancair Super ES 80%
>
> I'll track the CP25 or the Firestop 814 down now that I know exactly
> what to look for..
>
> Ken
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | The Load Dump (et al) report |
I apologize for the long delay in our report (I and my primary partner) on
what started out to be a simple investigation of taking the alternator off
line when it was supplying current to the aircraft systems.
We quickly found significant design and or component problems in several
places in the basic electrical systems common to experimental aircraft
beyond alternator load dump. This was the result of building up a core
system to test the alternator load dump.
We have never considered changing the name from "Load Dump" as that is the
industry name for what is happening in an inductor carrying current. We
investigated several different system configurations that cause a load dump
so changing the name to reflect only one condition was considered
inappropriate. All need to be looked at and designed for.
We decided that to only point out design problems and not provide at least
one available solution was not appropriate.
To find a problem and then design and test a solution takes time considering
neither of us could devote a lot of time to this effort.
Further I felt that as we had found some design issues that would come under
heavy disagreement from critics who would try to defend current designs or
components. Thus I enlisted six additional silent peer reviewers selected
from my past business contacts who had demonstrated experience to further
review what we had concluded.
Our report has two official authors and I have an additional six experts who
have also concurred that we are correct in our findings. Our recommendations
for a solution are a different matter as there are those who are willing to
take the risk (with the current design) or have a different solution. That
is up to the reader.
The report is nearing conclusion, delayed as above as well as personal
family distractions.
While we found nothing that we felt was immediate cause for concern the
report does cover concerns and solutions resulting from evaluation a core
basic electrical system.
When the systems design has evolved from flooded cell batteries, generators,
and vacuum tubes to AGM, internally regulated alternators, and solid state
electronics, the basic electrical systems design has failed to fully keep
up. This includes the current "book".
Everything we have done is repeatable but in many cases a different physical
system can and likely will produce somewhat different results. We found
repeatable failures in a widely used components that clearly work most of
the time. We feel that 99% is not good enough. At least when it can be
demonstrated to consistently fail under a specific condition that can exist
in the real world.
ALL of the above have resulted in the long delay in publishing our results.
Again I am sorry for the long delay and when released We hope you will find
it worth reading and consider what we have found.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ll Penetrations-summary as of Sep 2004 (was Re: AeroElectric-List: |
stainless towel bar firewall penetrations clamav-milter version 0.80c
on juliet.albedo.net
First...Congrats to Burt and Mike...SpaceshipOne has passed the first
leg of the journey to the X-Prize...but not without a little
problem...watch your local news!
Next, regarding the 3M firestop caulk...
I made a note to myself to pick up some of this 3M stuff after a long
thread about a year or so ago on this forum...keep forgetting, but after
this discussion, and risking the possible loss of Home Depot as a
supplier, I just rushed right down and got a couple of tubes.
Right where John said it was, top shelf in the caulk section of the
paint department. Cost a little more here in Rochester... $9.97 a tube.
Plenty of it...a couple of cases open and a couple more stacked behind
it ready to move to the front.
I asked the department manager if he had heard anything about not
carrying it in the future, and his answer was that he hadn't, and that
he has it still placed on a regular reorder.
Harley Dixon
Long EZ N28EZ
Canandaigua, NY
John Schroeder wrote:
>
>Just got back from the Home Depot here. Bought a tube of 3M Fire Barrier
>CP25WB+ for 9.95. It was in the paint department in amongst the calking.
>They also had 3M "Yellow" fire barrier for $6.50 a tube.
>
>Cheers,
>
>John Schroeder
>Lancair Super ES 80%
>
>
>
>
>>I'll track the CP25 or the Firestop 814 down now that I know exactly
>>what to look for..
>>
>>Ken
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
Bill;
I realize you said this was an "Hiachi" and not an "Hitachi"
alternator,- - But- - - LT150-62 is a valid Hitachi alternator number
used by Nissan on the 240Z between 1970 and 1972, on their 610 models in
1973, and also used by Subaru on their "1400", "1600", and "1800" models
from 1975 until 1981. Seems odd. Maybe a typo somewhere??? This unit, if
Hitachi, is a 50 amp, internally regulated, clockwise rotating
alternator equipped with a single "V" pulley.
Bob McC
WRBYARS(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Good morning all,
>
>I'm still on this quest to discover the source for my alternator and
>starter. It was installed when I bought the plane but had no literature on it.
>
>Hiachi LT-150-62 alternator and a "lite weight starter."
>
>Please help me find who is selling this equipment.
>
>Bill
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ll Penetrations-summary as of Sep 2004 (was Re: AeroElectric-List: |
stainless towel bar firewall penetrations clamav-milter version 0.80c on
juliet.albedo.net
I was just browsing the Van's Aircraft website and found the following: (in
their catalog under Miscellaneous Items)
-------------------------
CS 1900 is a compound for sealing firewall structures. It is elastomeric at
operating temperatures from minus 65 degrees to plus 400 degrees F and able
to withstand flash temperatures of 2000 degrees F. This product can be used
as a perimeter firewall seal on existing aircraft or during construction of
new aircraft. In new aircraft, as the skins are being installed, the flange
of the firewall should be coated with a thin layer and the skin riveted on
while the material is still uncured ("wet").
Ordering Information
Firewall Sealant 6 oz.
Part Number = MC-CS-1900
Price = $17.50
--------------------------
They also have Stainless Steel Firewall shields for $7.50 (in their catalog
under Airframe and Cockpit accessories)
--------------------------
Stainless steel shields protect firewall wiring grommets from excessive
heat. Available in three sizes of dimples for different grommets (3/4", 1"
and 1 1/4") and 4 sizes of center holes (2-piece only). Two piece easily
installed around wires already in place. Use single piece when wires can be
threaded through. Single piece center holes may be drilled to desired size.
Both styles have 5/32 inch mounting holes
-------------------------
I don't remember seeing anyone mention these items, so I thought I'd toss
them out for consideration.
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
>Just in passing, I must say that I was a little put
>off by the Infinity Grip's website. To much of hype
>along the lines of 'buy my super-great,
>designed-for-airplane product, or you'll DIE!!
>Someone told me at a big flyin that someone else did
>something stupid instead of buying my product and
>they DIED!!' It sort of obfuscates the simple ideas
>and basic physics concept. It's interesting to note
>that after reading through all the hype that they
>employ the cheap solution.
My first year at Oshkosh I was with the newly debuting Berkut. 1991. We
weren't offering them for sale, we didn't have a booth, we were just
handing out spec sheets and seeing if people were interested. JD stood
about 20 feet away, handing out spec sheets for his Infinity and saying
we'd stolen his design.
13 years later, his plane still hasn't flown. The website is a pretty good
indication of who he is.
On the other hand, his stick isn't bad. Way too expensive, but better than
most of the the other sticks in Aircraft Spruce.
I think your best bet is going to be buying a stick off Ebay, and salvaging
it for the hat switch. Shipping will be way more than the stick
itself. Like this one
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=74944&item=5126667828&rd=1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net> |
Might I suggest trying the replica B-8 stickgrip from Wicks?
It has multiple switches, plus the four-way, coolie-hat trim switch, and
feels much more substantial than the video-game Infinity, all for $50.
Scott in VAncouver
RV-6, 150 hours
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Riley" <richard(at)RILEY.NET>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hat switch
>
>
>>Just in passing, I must say that I was a little put
>>off by the Infinity Grip's website. To much of hype
>>along the lines of 'buy my super-great,
>>designed-for-airplane product, or you'll DIE!!
>>Someone told me at a big flyin that someone else did
>>something stupid instead of buying my product and
>>they DIED!!' It sort of obfuscates the simple ideas
>>and basic physics concept. It's interesting to note
>>that after reading through all the hype that they
>>employ the cheap solution.
>
> My first year at Oshkosh I was with the newly debuting Berkut. 1991. We
> weren't offering them for sale, we didn't have a booth, we were just
> handing out spec sheets and seeing if people were interested. JD stood
> about 20 feet away, handing out spec sheets for his Infinity and saying
> we'd stolen his design.
>
> 13 years later, his plane still hasn't flown. The website is a pretty
> good
> indication of who he is.
>
> On the other hand, his stick isn't bad. Way too expensive, but better
> than
> most of the the other sticks in Aircraft Spruce.
>
> I think your best bet is going to be buying a stick off Ebay, and
> salvaging
> it for the hat switch. Shipping will be way more than the stick
> itself. Like this one
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=74944&item=5126667828&rd=1
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
Uh, you mean $150, right?
http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_detail.php/pid=4249~subid=2818/
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Jackson [mailto:jayeandscott(at)telus.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 11:37 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hat switch
>
> -->
>
> Might I suggest trying the replica B-8 stickgrip from Wicks?
> It has multiple switches, plus the four-way, coolie-hat trim
> switch, and feels much more substantial than the video-game
> Infinity, all for $50.
> Scott in VAncouver
> RV-6, 150 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PTC Overload Protectors |
>
>In reviewing the EXP Bus as well as the write up on
>aircraft wiring by Greg at BlueMountain, Bob has
>stated the following:
>
>"The use of PTC overload protectors has been
>considered
>for use on certified ships at least twice over the
>last
>20 years by your humble scribe and others at Raytheon
>and
>Learjet. There were simply too many down-sides that
>could
>not be offset by what is purported to be a
>convenience."
>
>I've not been able to find any reference to what the
>down-sides were. I'd hate to think new technology is
>being given a bad name because Raytheon and Lear saw
>its use as too dangerous - financially.
Who said anything about "dangerous"? . . . it's
amazing how the explanations for things can so
suddenly take on whole new meanings.
> Can anyone
>expand on this with some technical reasons why these
>devices are unsuitable for aircraft use?
Fuses, PTC devices and breakers will all perform as advertised.
The use of any of these devices does not represent a safety
issue.
This leaves us three remaining issues. Cost of incorporation,
cost of ownership, reliability. To mount a breaker involves a
lot of labor to fabricate bus bars, build a breaker panel with reasonable
craftsmanship so that they line up nicely. Some folks feel
a need to place them in view of crew and decorate them
individually with respect to functionality. Breakers also use
threaded fasteners for electrical connections and
mounting of breakers.
Mounting PTC devices calls for some technology that interfaces
ships wiring with devices originally intended to be mounted on
an etched circuit board by soldering its solid copper leads to
the board. Like breaker panels, you need to do some fabrication
(although faster and easier than making a breaker panel) but
they do have this great upside. Since one never needs to put
the fingers directly on a "tripped" PTC to reset it, the need
for labels goes away. Once you've created this assembly, you
need to be sure the components are going to stay on it for
a very long time. Electronic components supported on tiny solid
copper leads are famous for departing the board after some time
in service. If you support the PTC for resistance to vibration,
you need to do it in a way that does NOT heat sink it. It has to
be allowed to warm up to function. The first time we used a similar
device (NTC inrush limiter) on the GP180, the technician mounted
it under a metal clip to the inside of a taxi light fixture. When
he turned it on, the critter exploded 'cause it was well heatsinked
such that it could not quickly move to the low dissipation mode
of operation. The steady state watts of power it was forced to
dissipate destroyed it. PTC devices for circuit protection must
also be mounted in a manner that allows thermal freedom.
Blocks of fuses are mounted in about 10 minutes by drilling 4
holes and installing the necessary screws. There's space on
the fuse block for numbers or tiny labels if the builder so
chooses . . . Threaded fasteners are limited to the four
devices that hold it to the airplane and one stud on the end
for attaching the bus feed wire. No bus bars to build.
When one considers the cost-per-protected circuit (hardware and
labor) for these technologies, the fuse block delivers inarguable
equivalence in safety for protection of wires and is hands-down
winner for initial cost of installation.
Now for cost of ownership.
Breakers and fuses both have very long, trouble-free service
histories. The plastic fuse-blocks have been more prone to
damage and subsequent failure of one or two fuse clips
but I think I had two instances in 4-5 years of selling the
devices . . . hundreds of parts. Breakers are going to set there
in a stable condition for a very long time too . . . but one is
not likely to have installed many spares for future expansion.
It's easy to do with fuseblocks. Problematical for etched circuit
board assemblies to be designed with spares. How hard is it to
replace a failed PTC as compared with replacing a whole fuseblock?
They're close but I think the fuseblock still wins for lowest
cost of ownership.
How about parts count? Breaker arrays have lots of parts, some
that move. They have lots of connections held together with threaded
fasteners. PTC assemblies have fewer parts overall but still need
some attractive technology to bring wires in from the airframe
and attach them to the down-stream end of the protective device.
D-subs would work good . . . but the mash-screw terminal strips
illustrated in several suggested products do not offer gas-tight
electrical connections -OR- vibration support. The lowly fuse-block
is still the hands-down winner for parts-count minimization.
All of the foregoing is similar to any trade study we would
conduct to determine if the technology is attractive for a
production environment. Given that it costs us about 7-10 thousand
dollars to make the most rudimentary changes to one drawing and
considering the number of drawings it would take to create a PTC
assembly for use in a production aircraft . . . there was no
way this technology was going to win out over panels full of
high dollar breakers that our customers have come to know an love.
Given that we're all working with OBAM aircraft, you can chose
any or all of the technologies for what ever reasons you find
compelling. There are no safety issues for any of the technologies
when properly applied. It's just a matter of time and dollars
you're willing to dedicate to the task of keeping the smoke inside
your wires over the lifetime of the airplane. Be wary of "false
economies" of purchased assemblies like the EXP-Bus. When
you look at total dollars and hours invested just for the purpose
of protecting a wire . . . the lowly fuse is pretty hard to beat.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
Take a look at these
http://www.mouser.com/index.cfm?&handler=data.listcategory&D=611-TPA511G&terms=611-TPA511G&Ntt=*611TPA511G*&Dk=1&N=0&crc=true
At 08:34 AM 9/29/04, you wrote:
>
>
>Riley
> >
> > The one from Infinity is literally from a computer
>joystick. I'll
> > look for
> > my contact for them, they're about 50 cents and if
>you only want
> > one
> > they'll probably send it to you for free. Or buy
>a Thrustmaster
> > stick off
> > Ebay for $5 and take it apart - it's exactly the
>same one,
> >
> > If you want the real thing, check here
> > http://www.ottoeng.com/control/togglemt_t4.htm
> >
> > they tend to run $50-100. The distributor I like
>is these people
> > http://www.flamecorp.com/catalog.html
> >
>
>Hehehe!
>
>This is really fun. I can choose between a fairly
>reliable, $2 'toy' button or an ultra-reliable,
>outlast-the-aircraft, $50 military grade. Replace a
>cheap part periodically, or spec a part that'll last
>forever. Did I mention that the plan is to have
>mechanical backup to the electric trim, making any
>outage a minor inconvenience? So minor that I would
>not even flinch at starting a flight with it out.
>
>Hmmm...decisions, decisions....
>
>Just in passing, I must say that I was a little put
>off by the Infinity Grip's website. To much of hype
>along the lines of 'buy my super-great,
>designed-for-airplane product, or you'll DIE!!
>Someone told me at a big flyin that someone else did
>something stupid instead of buying my product and
>they DIED!!' It sort of obfuscates the simple ideas
>and basic physics concept. It's interesting to note
>that after reading through all the hype that they
>employ the cheap solution.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
Hi Bob,
Thank you for this much appreciated information. You may well have said it
right, this was probably a typo that was carried thru on the 337, and I didn't
verify it by looking at the component itself, since I have to remove the
entire cowling to get to them.
The starter is the same manufacture with a part # S-114-254A, can you find
anything on it?
I've spent a lot of time on the web trying to find info on this equipment,
can you tell me who to contact to get some product literature?
Thanks again
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
Bill;
The part number S114-254A appears to be an Hitachi solenoid and not a
starter motor. I presume your starter probably has an attached solenoid
for engaging the drive gear and this number was recorded from the
solenoid and does not represent the entire starter.
I've found the information that I have presented for you here by doing a
simple Google search on the internet.
This search only took only a few seconds by entering "hiachi s-114-254a"
into google and pressing search. The return came back "do you mean
Hitachi S114-254A" ? I answered "yes" and got a page of solenoid
listings, one of which was the above number, with cross reference to
Chinese replacements, but at least that identified the part for us as a
solenoid. (also got several pages in Japanese which I couldn't read
which contained the # also)
That was the way I found the alternator reference also.
No, sorry, without doing more internet searches I don't have any
literature info at this time, but I'm sure that google will turn up
something for you. It found all of the info I've given you pretty much
instantly. Now that we know these parts seem to be used on Nissan cars,
perhaps your local dealer would have shop manuals with what you require.
(Or Subaru ?) It's quite possible both your alternator and starter were
used on the same vehicle.
for a search engine try www.google.com or www.google.ca
Bob McC
WRBYARS(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Thank you for this much appreciated information. You may well have said it
>right, this was probably a typo that was carried thru on the 337, and I didn't
>verify it by looking at the component itself, since I have to remove the
>entire cowling to get to them.
>
>The starter is the same manufacture with a part # S-114-254A, can you find
>anything on it?
>
>I've spent a lot of time on the web trying to find info on this equipment,
>can you tell me who to contact to get some product literature?
>
>Thanks again
>Bill
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
Thanks Bob,
The gremlins were with me last night and I couldn't get anything to work
right. Makes me fell like throwing this thing in the pond.
Kinda gets back to the old term "GIGO." I guess I need to go to bed earlier
and maybe I'd quit making so many DUMB mistakes.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Fuse block connections |
Bob,
You again point out the gas tight type of connection which I agree is the
best way.
However ALL the fuse blocks I can find (most are BUSS brand) have only a
light contact on the fuse terminal and at least one of the two terminals is
loosely captive in the molded housing and thus free to move slightly during
in flight vibration. I do not believe that tying the wires down close to the
assy is sufficient.
Thus they neither provide the gas tight "fast on" connection and are not
completely rigid. The concept of fuses is good but in all the holders I can
find the implementation is unacceptable to me.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTC Overload Protectors
> but the mash-screw terminal strips
> illustrated in several suggested products do not offer gas-tight
> electrical connections -OR- vibration support. The lowly fuse-block
> is still the hands-down winner for parts-count minimization.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse block connections |
>
>Bob,
>
>You again point out the gas tight type of connection which I agree is the
>best way.
>
>However ALL the fuse blocks I can find (most are BUSS brand) have only a
>light contact on the fuse terminal and at least one of the two terminals is
>loosely captive in the molded housing and thus free to move slightly during
>in flight vibration. I do not believe that tying the wires down close to the
>assy is sufficient.
Exactly . . . that's just what you don't want to do.
>Thus they neither provide the gas tight "fast on" connection and are not
>completely rigid. The concept of fuses is good but in all the holders I can
>find the implementation is unacceptable to me.
As it was explained to me, the output terminals of the fuse-blocks
are designed to "float" and the designer assumes they'll be installed
with some amount of service loops in the wiring such that forces
induced on the fuse connections by the short piece of wire don't
cause the tab joints to be "worked" by external forces. The wire bundles
just outside the service loop get tied down but the interval between
a secure bundle all the way into the bus-side fuse contact are designed
with that float in mind. The trifurcated contacts that grip a fuse tab
exert PRESSURES on the tab-material on a par with fast-on tabs. Hence
the "bright metal" tracks visible on the fuse when extracted from the
holder. Folks having the most difficulty with these fuseholders
have either (1) mounted them where they get hit and the fuse-grips are
bent and (2) have used some after-market fuses of unknown origin (bright,
hard tabs) that prevent surface metal upset with the clips inside.
Dave Swartzendruber was talking about another fuseholder product that
offered open barrel terminals that could be crimped on the end of a wire
and inserted into the back surface of the fuseholder, normal to the surface.
These terminals offered large area, low pressure contact with fuse tabs
and for that reason, I would not recommend them . . . ALTHOUGH, these
too are a Bussmann product and perhaps I'm not cognizant of all the
considerations by folks who know a hell of a lot more about the
design of their product than I do.
To be sure, the overall service life of the fuseholder is probably
shorter than a panel full of breakers . . . but given the service history
so far, I've not observed any compelling reasons to stop recommending
them. When they DO fail, they don't set the airplane on fire and they're
easy and inexpensive to replace. Failures have been very rare and most
were induced by external damage. One has to have a little faith in
a name like Bussmann who has been making circuit protection products
for all manner of vehicle and building for nearly 100 years. Bussmann
rates them for a LOT higher current levels than we'll every need
in aircraft. My design recommendations are to not load any feeder
to more than 10A continuous. With this de-rating and reasonable attention
to mounting them so they don't get kicked every time the passenger crawls
into the airplane, they have performed well. Yes, the fuseholder is not
as robust as a breaker panel but its overall cost of ownership is still
attractive.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse block connections |
Thanks for your quick reply.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuse block connections
>
> The trifurcated contacts that grip a fuse tab
> exert PRESSURES on the tab-material on a par with fast-on tabs.
Not my experience. The contact force is quite light and its easy to install
or remove with finger tips. Hardly a mark on the fuse tabs also. the often
available fuse extractor tool is simply not needed as the extraction of a
single fuse in a row is not a problem if your finger nails are reasonable
length.The Fast-on PIDG terminals are 10X-100X higher force. In fact they
require mechanical assisted grip to separate.
In fact the extraction force required is so light one could worry about them
falling out on their own under vibration (of course not but its really light
and only a few ounces of force to insert or remove).
Perhaps just fine but not to my liking at all.
> Hence
> the "bright metal" tracks visible on the fuse when extracted from the
> holder.
I have only very light marks and under magnification superfical only nothing
like the deep tracks from fast-on's. This with brand name fuses
I have tried several different holders (most Bussmann brand) and all with
the same result.
I am not questioning your position on fuses vs CB as that is a personal
decision. I have been unable to find a fuse holder that retains the fuses
with reasonable (to me) contact pressure. I also am not concerned with the
insertion life cycle number as a fuse should rarely need changing in a
proper design.
Paul
> To be sure, the overall service life of the fuseholder is probably
> shorter than a panel full of breakers . . . but given the service
history
> so far, I've not observed any compelling reasons to stop recommending
> them. When they DO fail, they don't set the airplane on fire and
they're
> easy and inexpensive to replace. Failures have been very rare and most
> were induced by external damage. One has to have a little faith in
> a name like Bussmann who has been making circuit protection products
> for all manner of vehicle and building for nearly 100 years. Bussmann
> rates them for a LOT higher current levels than we'll every need
> in aircraft. My design recommendations are to not load any feeder
> to more than 10A continuous. With this de-rating and reasonable
attention
> to mounting them so they don't get kicked every time the passenger
crawls
> into the airplane, they have performed well. Yes, the fuseholder is not
> as robust as a breaker panel but its overall cost of ownership is still
> attractive.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hat switch and Stick grips |
I found a Saitek Cyborg 2000 joystick at a fleamarket for $5. I only need
one more but I can get them on eBay all day long.
Before buying a joystick PLEASE take a look at this thing (BEST BUY has
them). The worst I can say about it is that it has more buttons than I have
uses for. But I'll leave them so I can tell passengers--"My Gawd...Whatever
you do, DON'T push that button!"
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ll Penetrations-summary as of Sep 2004 (was Re: AeroElectric-List: |
stainless towel bar firewall penetrations clamav-milter version 0.80c on
juliet.albedo.net
Dennis:
I have a this stuff and will use it to seal the firewall and probably
some of the firewall penetrations, but it has a drawback. It is a 2
part epoxy-like material (with a 12-month shelf life). You mix the whole
batch at once (the dispenser is designed to do exactly that) and you use
it and toss the rest away. My understanding, which may well be wrong,
is that it is more permanent and more glue-like than the 3m caulk. I
think the 3M caulk is what you want to use on the wires in the towel bar
pass thru because it is a less demanding application and the caulk will
remain soft enough to easily remove it from the wires. I intend to use
the caulk in only the towel bar pass-thru.
glaesers wrote:
>
> I was just browsing the Van's Aircraft website and found the following: (in
> their catalog under Miscellaneous Items)
> -------------------------
> CS 1900 is a compound for sealing firewall structures. It is elastomeric at
> operating temperatures from minus 65 degrees to plus 400 degrees F and able
> to withstand flash temperatures of 2000 degrees F. This product can be used
> as a perimeter firewall seal on existing aircraft or during construction of
> new aircraft.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, Landing gear
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John D. Heath" <alto_q(at)direcway.com> |
Another alternative you might want to look at is here
http://www.chproducts.com/retail/CS.htm
If it even comes close to the quality of their joysticks used for gaming,
You will be more than
satisfied.
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hat switch
>
>
> Might I suggest trying the replica B-8 stickgrip from Wicks?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Riley" <richard(at)RILEY.NET>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hat switch
>
>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Idle speculation on Firewalls |
In April 1993, Jane's International Defense Review touted the discovery by a
British hairdresser and amateur inventor, Maurice Ward, of a thin "plastic"
coating able to withstand temperatures of 2,700 degrees Celsius. This was
widely celebrated in the popular press and lots of money changed hands.
Maurice now runs race horses and who know where Starlite is?
But at the time I was not too surprised, since a propane torch was one of my
favorite childhood playthings. Barriers that withstand high temperatures are
easy to make out of common materials. The popular press's fascination seemed
to be the result of not checking the material property archives. Or not
having a little boy in the basement with a propane torch.
The FAA see these things in terms from 1930's designs, but today 3M will
sell you blow torch proof "Dot paper" and there are lots of ceramic cloths
and clever materials that will do better for less weight. I have a source
for suitable titanium sheet---and for a while had planned to sell material,
but ultimately there are far better ways to go. Besides, the builder really
wants not only a barrier, but a low thermal-conductivity surface, since
frying whatever is on the cabin side of the barrier can be a real problem.
The ideal firewall is a composite sandwich.
I experimented with a kind of hollow cork to be used as a feedthrough. This
was made of silicone and ceramic microballlons, and works like a champ---but
I never figured out how to charge an acceptable price so that the buy and
seller would both be happy.
Some Lancairs have their cabin air vents in the tail. This is a great idea
since the cabin can be kept at a slightly higher pressure than the engine
compartment without sucking in smoke and fire.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"The man who carries a cat by the tail
learns something that can be learned
in no other way."
--Mark Twain
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse block connections |
>
>Thanks for your quick reply.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
>To:
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuse block connections
>
>
>
> >
> > The trifurcated contacts that grip a fuse tab
> > exert PRESSURES on the tab-material on a par with fast-on tabs.
>
> Not my experience. The contact force is quite light and its easy to install
>or remove with finger tips. Hardly a mark on the fuse tabs also. the often
>available fuse extractor tool is simply not needed as the extraction of a
>single fuse in a row is not a problem if your finger nails are reasonable
>length.The Fast-on PIDG terminals are 10X-100X higher force. In fact they
>require mechanical assisted grip to separate.
Force is not the same as pressure. It's pressure that sets electrical
integrity of the connection. There are millions of vehicles using
similar if not identical connections.
>In fact the extraction force required is so light one could worry about them
>falling out on their own under vibration (of course not but its really light
>and only a few ounces of force to insert or remove).
>
>Perhaps just fine but not to my liking at all.
Take the insertion/retraction forces and divide by weight of the
fuse (about 1.2 grams each) and you get g's of acceleration required
to dislodge them. It's a surprisingly large number on the order of
30-50 g's
I understand your skepticism . . .
The first one of those holders I saw was handed to me at OSH. It laid
on my desk for a year getting worried about before I really began to
consider features of the design.
A supplier drug a cadre of reps into Raytheon some years ago. One
of them was a rep for Cooper Bussmann. I asked him about those same
issues and he got on the phone to somebody at Bussmann who was
happy to explain them to me.
They sorta grow on you.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Idle speculation on Firewalls |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hi Eric,
I impressed by your command of tech trivia. Good stuff!
>
>
> In April 1993, Jane's International Defense Review touted the discovery
snip
The tail is probably okay, but I might prefer an inlet out on the wing,
further
from the centerline, should an engine decide to belch out a large volume
of stinky stuff. I guess if you studied the airflow at various angles of
attack,
there's probably some location on the fin that wouldn't pick up smoke. I
suppose you could just mount the engine where it belongs (in back)... :)
>
> Some Lancairs have their cabin air vents in the tail. This is a great
> idea since the cabin can be kept at a slightly higher pressure than the
> engine compartment without sucking in smoke and fire.
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> Phone (508) 764-2072
> Email: emjones(at)charter.net
>
> "The man who carries a cat by the tail
> learns something that can be learned
> in no other way."
> --Mark Twain
>
>
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD
________________________________________________________________________________
Who did you order the CH sticks from and what was the price?
In a message dated 9/30/2004 4:07:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
In a message dated 9/30/04 1:34:57 PM Central Daylight Time,
alto_q(at)direcway.com writes:
> Another alternative you might want to look at is here
> http://www.chproducts.com/retail/CS.htm
>
> If it even comes close to the quality of their joysticks used for gaming,
> You will be more than
> satisfied.
>>>>>>
I've got these on my plane & love them- much cleaner design that the
military
style, plenty of buttons with none in the way, ambidextrous and very
comfortable....
From The Possumworks - Mark, & no interest in CH, just a satisfied customer
do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Main Buss Voltage |
When I power up the essential buss alone, I measure 1/2 volt on the main buss.
Checking the wiring of the Radio Shack 276-1185 rectifier per Z11, it looks OK.
I was under the impression 0 volts would be obtained. Is this right or is
the rectifier faulty? If right, won't there be some power drain if lights or
other main buss things are left on during essential buss operation?
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PTC Overload Protectors |
Bob,
Haven't you also suggested that it isn't always a good idea to turn
something back on - if a fuse/breaker blows during flight?
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John D. Heath" <alto_q(at)direcway.com> |
keven(at)chproducts.com
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: <RV8ter(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hat switch
>
>
> Who did you order the CH sticks from and what was the price?
>
> In a message dated 9/30/2004 4:07:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> Fiveonepw(at)aol.com writes:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
>
> In a message dated 9/30/04 1:34:57 PM Central Daylight Time,
> alto_q(at)direcway.com writes:
>
>> Another alternative you might want to look at is here
>> http://www.chproducts.com/retail/CS.htm
>>
>> If it even comes close to the quality of their joysticks used for
>> gaming,
>> You will be more than
>> satisfied.
>
>>>>>>>
>
> I've got these on my plane & love them- much cleaner design that the
> military
> style, plenty of buttons with none in the way, ambidextrous and very
> comfortable....
>
> From The Possumworks - Mark, & no interest in CH, just a satisfied
> customer
> do not archive
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Main Buss Voltage |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Something sounds a bit strange. I wouldn't guess that a rectifier would
fail like that. What other components are electrically connected to the
main bus. Did you have the main bus turned on, then off, then measure.
The two things I can think of that might be happening are maybe you have
a gyro spooled up, and as it spools down it behaves like a generator until
it stops. The other thing I can think of maybe there is a cap charged up
on on of the system components, and its taking a long time for it to
discharge.
Or maybe there is a battery backup in something on the main bus.
What happens to the main bus voltage when something powered by the
main bus is turned on? It may be that you are getting just a little reverse
bias leakage current through the diodes. Connecting your voltmeter is
such a low current load that it may not drag the main bus voltage down
very much. Try turning on the landing light (or something like that) and
check the bus voltage. I'll bet it will go to zero. If it does, and you
want
to feel even better about it, connect an ammeter in line with whatever
load you turned on to make sure that the current is VERY low (100mA
would be a lot)
Regards,
Matt-
>
> When I power up the essential buss alone, I measure 1/2 volt on the main
> buss. Checking the wiring of the Radio Shack 276-1185 rectifier per
> Z11, it looks OK. I was under the impression 0 volts would be obtained.
> Is this right or is the rectifier faulty? If right, won't there be
> some power drain if lights or other main buss things are left on during
> essential buss operation?
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mickey Billings" <mbilli(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | NAV bulkhead fittings |
Bob our NAV antenna is located in the wing tip of our RV7. I would like to
know if I can use a BNC bulkhead fitting at the tip rib and another one at
the wing attach point without signal loss. The reasoning behind this is
ease of accessibility when removing the wing or wing tip. As always, thanks
in advance for the help.
Mickey Billings
N445BH RV7
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
You will have better luck with: Kevin(at)chproducts.com :-)
Dick Tasker
John D. Heath wrote:
>
>keven(at)chproducts.com
>
> John D.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <RV8ter(at)aol.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hat switch
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Who did you order the CH sticks from and what was the price?
>>
>>In a message dated 9/30/2004 4:07:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>>Fiveonepw(at)aol.com writes:
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
>>
>>In a message dated 9/30/04 1:34:57 PM Central Daylight Time,
>>alto_q(at)direcway.com writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Another alternative you might want to look at is here
>>>http://www.chproducts.com/retail/CS.htm
>>>
>>>If it even comes close to the quality of their joysticks used for
>>>gaming,
>>>You will be more than
>>> satisfied.
>>>
>>>
>>I've got these on my plane & love them- much cleaner design that the
>>military
>>style, plenty of buttons with none in the way, ambidextrous and very
>>comfortable....
>>
>>From The Possumworks - Mark, & no interest in CH, just a satisfied
>>customer
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
what i saw in the CH stick I didn't like was no momentary toggle switch for
flaps. :-(
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Horsten" <airplanes(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Starter vs Master contactor |
I'm just getting ready to put back the master and starter solenoids into my
Zenith and find that I cannot tell which one is the continuous duty and
which is the other. I have a new four terminal one I am going to use for the
starter, and two 3 terminal ones. I can't figure out which is the continuous
duty. Is there any way to tell?
Thanks
Chris H
Zenair CH-300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hat switch and Stick grips |
>Before buying a joystick PLEASE take a look at this thing (BEST BUY has
>them). The worst I can say about it is that it has more buttons than I have
>uses for. But I'll leave them so I can tell passengers--"My Gawd...Whatever
>you do, DON'T push that button!"
Would that be the one that activates the microwave heater, or the
ordinance?? ;-)
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter vs Master contactor |
>
>
>I'm just getting ready to put back the master and starter solenoids into my
>Zenith and find that I cannot tell which one is the continuous duty and
>which is the other. I have a new four terminal one I am going to use for the
>starter, and two 3 terminal ones. I can't figure out which is the continuous
>duty. Is there any way to tell?
>
>Thanks
>Chris H
>Zenair CH-300
Continuous duty contactors have a coil resistance on the order of
10-18 ohms, intermittant duty contactors have coil resistance
on the order of 3-5 ohms.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NAV bulkhead fittings |
>
>Bob our NAV antenna is located in the wing tip of our RV7. I would like to
>know if I can use a BNC bulkhead fitting at the tip rib and another one at
>the wing attach point without signal loss. The reasoning behind this is
>ease of accessibility when removing the wing or wing tip. As always, thanks
>in advance for the help.
>
>Mickey Billings
>N445BH RV7
there is no such thing as a zero loss connector or coax. however,
adding connectors as you've described will not affect performance
in any way you'll be able to perceive as a pilot.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark C. Milgrom" <milgrom(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | EAA press release |
Yesterday EAA issued an interesting press release:
"September 30, 2004 - On behalf of EAA's Government Programs office and
EAA's Vintage Aircraft Association, VAA Executive Director H.G.
Frautschy joined nearly two-dozen other members of ASTM Committee F39
for their first official meeting. The committee, composed of
representatives of manufacturers, end users, aviation technicians, and
other interested aviation organizations including the EAA, VAA, AOPA and
Aircraft Electronics Association, has been convened to help create,
under the auspices of ASTM International, a set of new standards for
general aviation electrical wiring system design, fabrication,
modification, inspection, and maintenance procedures and processes.
Continued airworthiness standards will also be addressed, as standard
F39 will become "acceptable data" to the FAA. It will be a manual
accepted by the FAA for use by aviation technicians to maintain general
aviation aircraft."
See: http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/040930_wiring.html
and: http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/F39
Mark Milgrom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Maxwell" <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mic and Headphone Wiring |
Always shield audio cables in any radio transmitter application Dave and
ideally, use separately shielded phone and mic cables.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clinchy, Dave" <clinchd(at)losrios.edu>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mic and Headphone Wiring
>
> Hi All,
>
>
> Should the mic and headphone wiring from the intercom to the jacks be in
> shielded cable? If so, can both the mic and headphone wires be in the
> same cable or should they each have their own shielded cable?
>
>
> The manual for my SL-30 nav/com shows separate shielded cable for the
> mic and headphone from the com to the intercom, but the instructions for
> my Flightcom 403 intercom do not show any shielded cable for the mic or
> headphone from intercom to jacks.
>
>
> Dave Clinchy
>
> RV 7
>
> Sacramento, CA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Horsten" <airplanes(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Starter vs Master contactor |
Thanks Bob,
I'm bringing my meter out to the airport this morning to see if I can get a
reading. I take it that the measurement is to be made across the two big
terminals while the solenoid is engaged (but obviously with no power running
through it other than to energize)?
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Starter vs Master contactor
-->
>
>
>I'm just getting ready to put back the master and starter solenoids
>into my Zenith and find that I cannot tell which one is the continuous
>duty and which is the other. I have a new four terminal one I am going
>to use for the starter, and two 3 terminal ones. I can't figure out
>which is the continuous duty. Is there any way to tell?
>
>Thanks
>Chris H
>Zenair CH-300
Continuous duty contactors have a coil resistance on the order of
10-18 ohms, intermittant duty contactors have coil resistance
on the order of 3-5 ohms.
Bob . . .
---
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Starter vs Master contactor |
>
>
>Thanks Bob,
>
>I'm bringing my meter out to the airport this morning to see if I can get a
>reading. I take it that the measurement is to be made across the two big
>terminals while the solenoid is engaged (but obviously with no power running
>through it other than to energize)?
>
>Chris
No, you measure the COIL resistance, not CONTACT resistance.
Hook the ohmmeter to the same terminals that would energize the
contactor. Alternatively, if you have a metered power supply,
use it to energize the contactor and read the current. CD
contactors draw about an amp, ID contactors will be 3 to 5 amps.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EAA press release |
>
>
>Yesterday EAA issued an interesting press release:
>
>"September 30, 2004 - On behalf of EAA's Government Programs office and
>EAA's Vintage Aircraft Association, VAA Executive Director H.G.
>Frautschy joined nearly two-dozen other members of ASTM Committee F39
>for their first official meeting. The committee, composed of
>representatives of manufacturers, end users, aviation technicians, and
>other interested aviation organizations including the EAA, VAA, AOPA and
>Aircraft Electronics Association, has been convened to help create,
>under the auspices of ASTM International, a set of new standards for
>general aviation electrical wiring system design, fabrication,
>modification, inspection, and maintenance procedures and processes.
>Continued airworthiness standards will also be addressed, as standard
>F39 will become "acceptable data" to the FAA. It will be a manual
>accepted by the FAA for use by aviation technicians to maintain general
>aviation aircraft."
>
>See: http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/040930_wiring.html
>
>and: http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/F39
Interesting. You'd think that an upgrade of AC43-13 would do the
job . . . the last upgrade was pretty lame. But then, since
out-sourcing is the buzz-phrase of the decade, pushing this
'critical' task off onto a non-government agency may a good thing.
It will be interesting to see if our non-government rule makers
can do any better than the government types.
I looked into joining the effort and the first thing that
hits you is a fee for becoming a member. That's the first
indication that someone is more focused on policies and
procedures than on experience and common sense. I'll have
to see if Raytheon is participating in this activity. Maybe
they'll see value in buying me a membership.
Thanks for the head's up on this Mark. I'll keep the list
apprised of what I find out.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Dear Pat,
By way of introduction, I'm a Sr. Engineer/Subject Matter Expert for
Raytheon Aircraft. I've been professionally involved in aircraft systems
maintenance, design and fabrication for over 40 years. I publish
a book for the owner built and maintained aircraft community called
the "AeroElectric Connection". This book has been in print for about
15 years and has sold in excess of 10,000 copies. I also moderate
a discussion group on electrical avionics issues called the
AeroElectric-List on matronics.com I maintain a website at
http://www.aeroelectric.com
I present 6-10 weekend seminars every year for the OBAM aircraft
community . . . in fact, I have a seminar to deliver in St. Louis
tomorrow and I took time out from packing to drop you this note.
I would be interested in participating in discussions on F39 but
I note that a fee for membership is required. People usually
pay me for picking my brain. I'm not accustomed to paying for
the privilege of giving away access to my experience.
May I suggest that there are many resources that ASTM could
tap in the quest for doing a good job on F39 . . . but allow
me to caution, folks that PURCHASE access to participation
may have business interests to consider. The people you're really
looking for are teachers with hands-on experience in either
the maintenance or engineering professions. The best bets
will have experience in both.
These may or may not be found among the ranks of those
who are willing to pay for memberships on committees crafting
regulatory documents.
I wish you well in this endeavor. May I suggest that you'll
need a real paradigm shift in how your efforts move forward if
you are to avoid a risk of becoming no better than the
FAA. The electrical section of FAA AC43-13 has been held
up as the standard of performance in electrical system repair
for decades. It's a sorry teaching document.
Let me know if I can help.
Bob Nuckolls
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
Heath"
>
> Another alternative you might want to look at is here
> http://www.chproducts.com/retail/CS.htm
>
> If it even comes close to the quality of their
joysticks used for
> gaming,
> You will be more than
> satisfied.
>
The problem is, all I really need is the hat switch.
I already have the grip. See:
http://ernest.isa-geek.org/Delta/Pictures/StickGrip1.jpg
http://ernest.isa-geek.org/Delta/Pictures/StickGrip2.jpg
I have varnished it yet, but it's basically done
except for the electric trim control button.
I think that I now have a plan though.
I stopped by Best Buy to try the switches on a
variety of joysticks. They were all basically the
same and somewhat iffy, in that they didn't have
much travel and the actuation forces were low. The
cheapest one with a hat switch was around $25. Kinda
pricey for something that is you've already decided
is borderline unsuitable.
I'm going to first try the switch from Mouser that
Richard provided a link for. It's only $2, so there
is no way I can loose much. The problem will be
knocking together some way to support the leads on
the suface mount device. This will take some
creativity, so if anyone has a good idea of how to
do this please make yourself heard.
Mouser offers the switch with gold or silver
contacts, with the silver offering both a wider
voltage and current operational range. What is the
drawback to silver contacts?
If that proves to be a bust, the next step will be
to fork out the $50 for the 'real thing'. I've
already determined that it will fit (Ray Allen's
website has an engineering drawing), but not having
any experience with the switches I don't know if
I'll like their tactile feedback any better than the
cheap ones.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse block connections |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuse block connections
> >The Fast-on PIDG terminals are 10X-100X higher force. In fact they
> >require mechanical assisted grip to separate.
>
> Force is not the same as pressure. It's pressure that sets electrical
> integrity of the connection. There are millions of vehicles using
> similar if not identical connections.
I agree, but in this case extraction force directly relates to pressure as
the contact area and type are very similar.
And yes I did try pulling the fuse out of my wife's import auto. The force
and contact marks on the fuse was much higher. Also the contacts were solid
and not loose as in the Buss products (I have several models all with the
same very low forces and loose contacts.) Thus based on a tiny sample the
aftermarket BUSS fuse holders are NOT nearly as good as the production auto
fuse holders.
I needed the fuse extractor on the auto vs. simple fingers on the BUSS
product. The marks on the auto fuse indicate much higher contact force
similar to the highly recommended fast-on lugs.
If we were talking about fast-on terminals, I suspect you would judge the
(fuse holder) contact force unacceptable.
I will not consider nor recommend fuse holders of the types I have from
BUSS.
A system is only as good as its weakest link and I feel the BUSS fuse
holders commonly available, not ready for aircraft use. The fuse holder on
the import was fine in my judgment, just not as handy in size.
Making a fuse holder from female fast-on's and pcb material would provide
the required gas tight contact.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
If you look at the CH products site, you will see that they sell the 4 way
switch of $2.00 and it is not surface mount. They do not list the hat for
sale. Maybe the mouse hat will fit it.
http://www.chproducts.com/shop/parts.html
Better thatn trying to get the surface mount to work.
> > http://www.chproducts.com/retail/CS.htm
> >
> > If it even comes close to the quality of their
> joysticks used for
> > gaming,
> > You will be more than
> > satisfied.
> >
>
> The problem is, all I really need is the hat switch.
> I already have the grip. See:
>
>
> I think that I now have a plan though.
>
> I stopped by Best Buy to try the switches on a
> variety of joysticks. They were all basically the
> same and somewhat iffy, in that they didn't have
> much travel and the actuation forces were low. The
> cheapest one with a hat switch was around $25. Kinda
> pricey for something that is you've already decided
> is borderline unsuitable.
>
> I'm going to first try the switch from Mouser that
> Richard provided a link for. It's only $2, so there
> is no way I can loose much. The problem will be
> knocking together some way to support the leads on
> the suface mount device. This will take some
> creativity, so if anyone has a good idea of how to
> do this please make yourself heard.
>
> Mouser offers the switch with gold or silver
> contacts, with the silver offering both a wider
> voltage and current operational range. What is the
> drawback to silver contacts?
>
> If that proves to be a bust, the next step will be
> to fork out the $50 for the 'real thing'. I've
> already determined that it will fit (Ray Allen's
> website has an engineering drawing), but not having
> any experience with the switches I don't know if
> I'll like their tactile feedback any better than the
> cheap ones.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hi Bob,
Please keep us posted on what happens with this.
Thanks and regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Dear Pat,
>
> By way of introduction, I'm a Sr. Engineer/Subject Matter Expert for
> Raytheon Aircraft. I've been professionally involved in aircraft systems
> maintenance, design and fabrication for over 40 years. I publish
> a book for the owner built and maintained aircraft community called the
snip
>
> Let me know if I can help.
>
> Bob Nuckolls
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Main Buss Voltage |
When I power up the essential buss alone, I measure 1/2 volt on the main buss.
Checking the wiring of the Radio Shack 276-1185 rectifier per Z11, it looks
OK.
I was under the impression 0 volts would be obtained. Is this right or is
the rectifier faulty? If right, won't there be some power drain if lights
or
other main buss things are left on during essential buss operation?
I'm in the power distribution wiring stage so no loads were connected to the main
or the essential buss when these measurements were made. Following Matt Prather's
suggestion, I connected a 10 ohm resistor between the main buss and ground.
Now I measure 0 volts and 0 mA on the main buss. So the rectifier seems
to be working & I can only conclude that the 1/2 volt that appeared on the main
buss was somehow just due to letting the buss float, without any load.
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Main Buss Voltage |
>
>When I power up the essential buss alone, I measure 1/2 volt on the main
>buss. Checking the wiring of the Radio Shack 276-1185 rectifier per Z11,
>it looks OK. I was under the impression 0 volts would be obtained. Is
>this right or is the rectifier faulty? If right, won't there be some
>power drain if lights or other main buss things are left on during
>essential buss operation?
What items on the main bus are turned ON while you're making this
measurement? Most digital voltmeters have an input impedance of 10,000,000
ohms. So to get the instrument to read 0.5 volts, you'll need a current
source of 50 nanoamperes . . . which is about 1,000th the EXPECTED
leakage in power rectifier diodes.
Turn on the landing light on the main bus and the reading you'll get
will probably go to zero . . . but if you had the right voltmeter,
you could probably read the other case, 50 nanoamperes of current
flowing into say, 1 ohms of accessory load would produce a new
main bus voltage of 50 nanovolts. The .5 volt reading is also
suggestive of the minimum voltage for ANY solid state device
to begin conduction. We see this reading a LOT when chasing
sneak paths. For example, the leakage through the e-bus isolation
diode might me much more than 50 nanoamperes but some solid state
circuit like the inverter to run a modern T/C gyro motor may be
providing the solid-state-conduction threshold I mentioned above
and is behaving like a 0.5 volt zener biased up with normal leakage
through the e-bus isolation diode.
I suspect the readings you're seeing are entirely normal and
understandable when all the details are known. Put your multimeter
in the current mode and use it to see how much current flows
when you short the main bus to ground during e-bus only ops. This
will be a direct measurement at the leakage current which MAY
be coming in through the diode. It might be coming from some other
source.
I suspect it's nothing to be concerned about . . . but it would
be interesting and informative to search out and know all the
details.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
In re: pay to play
You, Bob, should participate in setting standards by joining F39 and other
appropriate ASTM sub-committee(s). You are exactly the kind of member that
is required to make the system work as intended, and you may even be
eligible to participate without paying to play. To quote the ASTM Technical
Committee Officer Handbook (http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/RedBook4.rtf):
If a committee needs the expertise of an individual who cannot join the
Society, he or she may be given an affiliate membership by the executive
subcommittee. Affiliate members appear on the roster and may vote on
committee and Society matters but do not pay Society fees nor receive a free
volume of the Annual Book of ASTM Standards. The membership secretary
should submit the names of those approved for affiliate memberships to the
Member and Committee Services Department at ASTM. The Regulations require
that affiliate memberships be reviewed annually. An annual report on
affiliate members must be sent to the ASTM Member and Committee Services
Department with a copy to the staff manager. An affiliate membership is not
transferable. Each one must be handled individually by the committee
recommending affiliate status.
The ASTM regulations (which I will simplistically paraphrase) assure that no
committee may be dominated by manufacturers by limiting the producer side of
the committee's voting to not more than 50%, with the balance being
customers of those manufacturers, or other users of the products involved,
and general interest representation from government and academia. ASTM
specifications, recommended practices, etc., are truly "voluntary consensus
standards" with real emphasis on "voluntary" and "consensus."
Having been a member for several years of an unrelated (to aviation)
technical standards writing sub-committee I can assure you that the
producers' representatives (I was one) can not dictate to the non-producers,
and in fact the committee must consider all viewpoints in order to arrive at
a consensus. Without the votes of the non-producers there is no consensus,
and therefore no standard. My admittedly limited experience was with a
sub-committee lacking any real academic or government representation
(because of the nature of our business) so everyone had a business interest
(but often not the same interest, and even the producers did not always
agree amongst themselves) in the process and its results.
The real cost of participation is not ASTM's $75 annual membership fee but
the cost of travel to the committee meetings where the "give and take"
occurs in arriving at a consensus. But, individual members can (and do)
participate by submitting written comments for consideration by those in
attendance at committee meetings, and most importantly, written objections
must be considered when a draft is circulated to the membership for
balloting. All "objections" must be overcome in order to approve any
standard, which means that individual members in effect have veto power.
Details of how balloting works are at the same URL as shown above, starting
at page 51.
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 Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: F39
Dear Pat,
By way of introduction, I'm a Sr. Engineer/Subject Matter Expert for
Raytheon Aircraft. I've been professionally involved in aircraft systems
maintenance, design and fabrication for over 40 years. I publish
a book for the owner built and maintained aircraft community called
the "AeroElectric Connection". This book has been in print for about
15 years and has sold in excess of 10,000 copies. I also moderate
a discussion group on electrical avionics issues called the
AeroElectric-List on matronics.com I maintain a website at
http://www.aeroelectric.com
I present 6-10 weekend seminars every year for the OBAM aircraft
community . . . in fact, I have a seminar to deliver in St. Louis
tomorrow and I took time out from packing to drop you this note.
I would be interested in participating in discussions on F39 but
I note that a fee for membership is required. People usually
pay me for picking my brain. I'm not accustomed to paying for
the privilege of giving away access to my experience.
May I suggest that there are many resources that ASTM could
tap in the quest for doing a good job on F39 . . . but allow
me to caution, folks that PURCHASE access to participation
may have business interests to consider. The people you're really
looking for are teachers with hands-on experience in either
the maintenance or engineering professions. The best bets
will have experience in both.
These may or may not be found among the ranks of those
who are willing to pay for memberships on committees crafting
regulatory documents.
I wish you well in this endeavor. May I suggest that you'll
need a real paradigm shift in how your efforts move forward if
you are to avoid a risk of becoming no better than the
FAA. The electrical section of FAA AC43-13 has been held
up as the standard of performance in electrical system repair
for decades. It's a sorry teaching document.
Let me know if I can help.
Bob Nuckolls
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Main Buss Voltage |
>
> When I power up the essential buss alone, I measure 1/2 volt on the main
> buss.
> Checking the wiring of the Radio Shack 276-1185 rectifier per Z11,
> it looks OK.
> I was under the impression 0 volts would be obtained. Is this
> right or is
> the rectifier faulty? If right, won't there be some power drain if
> lights or
> other main buss things are left on during essential buss operation?
>
>I'm in the power distribution wiring stage so no loads were connected to
>the main or the essential buss when these measurements were
>made. Following Matt Prather's suggestion, I connected a 10 ohm resistor
>between the main buss and ground. Now I measure 0 volts and 0 mA on the
>main buss. So the rectifier seems to be working & I can only conclude
>that the 1/2 volt that appeared on the main buss was somehow just due to
>letting the buss float, without any load.
Voltage doesn't appear out of nowhere . . . every
potential difference is the byproduct of some energy
source. In this case, it was MOST likely normal leakage through
a perfectly good rectifier used to isolate two busses.
"Float" in this business implies a conductor with a very
high impedance connections to other conductors. Yeah,
meters will read some potential difference with respect
to other conductors. I can grab the probe tips of my multimeters
with the fingers and the readings will move upscale on
the AC setting. There's a 5KW am broadcast station about
1 mile from my house. It's a challenge to make sure that
some measurements on my workbench are not affected by
this particular source of energy.
Good question Dave. It's an often overlooked and seldom
well understood phenomenon.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | very basic magneto info |
I must be missing the obvious here, but I have been searching for a
Slick magneto manual or schematic or *labeled* exploded diagram or
something that would identify the components I see when I look at my
4300 series slick mag. The Unison website doesn't seem very helpful nor
do random articles I've found posted on the web. A phone call placed to
Slick has gone unreturned.
I have a few REAL basic questions:
1- The mag has a stud which is obviously an electrical connection. I
take this to be the fabled "P-lead". Is this correct?
2- There is an fitting about the size of a quarter which has 6 or 8
small holes in it. I this some sort of vent?
3- There is a screw holding on what looks like a metal "cap" about the
size of a quarter. What is this? Is it an electrical connection?
4- When one grounds the P-lead, is it enough to connect the P-lead to
any system ground, or are there 2 electrical connections on the magneto
that are connected together to best achieve grounding?
... Feeling like I missed the memo ...
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
You could use the two grey momentary switches for that, up/down? Very
easy to fly while pressing a button with the thumb, I use this setup for
the flight sims, and will be using it on my rv-10 as soon as I am done
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
RV8ter(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hat switch
what i saw in the CH stick I didn't like was no momentary toggle switch
for flaps. :-(
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: very basic magneto info |
Answers are after your questions. I attached a drawing from the Slick Master
repair manual.
----- Original Message -----
From: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: very basic magneto info
>
> I must be missing the obvious here, but I have been searching for a
> Slick magneto manual or schematic or *labeled* exploded diagram or
> something that would identify the components I see when I look at my
> 4300 series slick mag. The Unison website doesn't seem very helpful nor
> do random articles I've found posted on the web. A phone call placed to
> Slick has gone unreturned.
>
> I have a few REAL basic questions:
>
> 1- The mag has a stud which is obviously an electrical connection. I
> take this to be the fabled "P-lead". Is this correct? YES
>
> 2- There is an fitting about the size of a quarter which has 6 or 8
> small holes in it. I this some sort of vent? YES and it is the bottome
vent
>
> 3- There is a screw holding on what looks like a metal "cap" about the
> size of a quarter. What is this? Is it an electrical connection? Top
shielded vent
>
> 4- When one grounds the P-lead, is it enough to connect the P-lead to
> any system ground, or are there 2 electrical connections on the magneto
> that are connected together to best achieve grounding? Mag is already
connected to ground via the clamping to the engine. You only have to connect
the P lead to the frame of the airplane or engine.
>
> ... Feeling like I missed the memo ...
> --
> Tom Sargent
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Horsten" <airplanes(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Starter vs Master contactor |
Bob, Ken,
Thanks for the clarification. Got to my hangar, schematic in hand and
noticed that that's what I had to do. I was able to get a reading across the
small connector and the mount (ground) but not across the connector and
either of the large connectors on the three terminal variety. Even stranger,
I couldn't get any reading across my four terminal one which is brand new.
On the last one, I was able to get about 14 ohms, so at least that one is
ID'd. Gonna play with it some more tomorrow. I can't believe that two out of
three are toast!
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Starter vs Master contactor
-->
>
>
>Thanks Bob,
>
>I'm bringing my meter out to the airport this morning to see if I can
>get a reading. I take it that the measurement is to be made across the
>two big terminals while the solenoid is engaged (but obviously with no
>power running through it other than to energize)?
>
>Chris
No, you measure the COIL resistance, not CONTACT resistance.
Hook the ohmmeter to the same terminals that would energize the
contactor. Alternatively, if you have a metered power supply,
use it to energize the contactor and read the current. CD
contactors draw about an amp, ID contactors will be 3 to 5 amps.
Bob . . .
---
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Horsten" <airplanes(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Lamar Overvoltage Relay |
Help!
I've got a Lamar B-00289-2 overvoltage relay I'd like to try and use in my
aircraft. It has two connections on it: Bat and Load. Looking at Bob's
schematics, the crowbar hooks up to one side of the 5 amp field breaker and
to ground. In other words, this Lamar doodad may be a different approach
altogether. Anybody know how and where it gets connected? The Lamar web site
is all but useless for information.
Thanks
Chris H
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: very basic magneto info |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hello Cy,
A couple of comments.... Matronics filters out attachments to messages. If
you sent this to Mr. Sargent direct, he will see the attachments, but we
can't.
Matronics does have a file sharing section, however. I would be
interested in
seeing the images you posted.
For the least likelihood of magneto noise making it into the avionics
system, it
is best to ONLY ground the P-lead to the magneto case itself. In fact, if
the
mag has an external filter cap, the p-lead should be grounded wherever
the case of the cap is grounded (preferably mounted ot the case of the mag).
Other wiring installations may work okay, but doing as I have described is
usually very easy to accomplish, and provides the best chance of success.
Other ground locations will always involve a more resistive path than the
direct
connection.
Thanks and regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
> Answers are after your questions. I attached a drawing from the Slick
> Master repair manual.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: very basic magneto info
>
>
>
>>
>> I must be missing the obvious here, but I have been searching for a
>> Slick magneto manual or schematic or *labeled* exploded diagram or
>> something that would identify the components I see when I look at my
>> 4300 series slick mag. The Unison website doesn't seem very helpful
>> nor do random articles I've found posted on the web. A phone call
>> placed to Slick has gone unreturned.
>>
>> I have a few REAL basic questions:
>>
>> 1- The mag has a stud which is obviously an electrical connection. I
>> take this to be the fabled "P-lead". Is this correct? YES
>>
>> 2- There is an fitting about the size of a quarter which has 6 or 8
>> small holes in it. I this some sort of vent? YES and it is the
>> bottome
> vent
>>
>> 3- There is a screw holding on what looks like a metal "cap" about the
>> size of a quarter. What is this? Is it an electrical connection? Top
> shielded vent
>>
>> 4- When one grounds the P-lead, is it enough to connect the P-lead to
>> any system ground, or are there 2 electrical connections on the
>> magneto that are connected together to best achieve grounding? Mag is
>> already
> connected to ground via the clamping to the engine. You only have to
> connect the P lead to the frame of the airplane or engine.
>>
>> ... Feeling like I missed the memo ...
>> --
>> Tom Sargent
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Kuc <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Friday, October 1, 2004 11:02 am
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hat switch
>
> If you look at the CH products site, you will see
that they sell
> the 4 way
> switch of $2.00 and it is not surface mount. They
do not list the
> hat for
> sale. Maybe the mouse hat will fit it.
>
Which one are you referring to, Bob.
There is the "Switch - Hat". From the very short
button, it looks like just a miniature switch.
There would be 4 of these in the joystick's head,
and a mechanical assembly would be responsible for
depressing one of them. To implement it, I'd have
to build the requisite mechanical assembly.
There is the "Switch - Gamestick". This looks like
it could possibly be a 4-way toggle. But it's
questionable.
There is the "Mini joystick" for $15, but it looks
like it uses miniature pots, not switches. I would
be possible to implement this with some sort of
servo system, but such a design is way beyond my
current abilities. I'm not sure that I want to
extend my abilities in that direction.
Has anyone here disassembled a CH grip? Can you
confirm if the hat switch is a self-contained part
or a set of discrete components?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
> Which one are you referring to, Bob.
>
There was one for $2.00 that was a 4 way switch on that web page. I was
trying to help out on the SMT the mouser one had. Out on digi-key they do
have daughter boards where you can mount an SMT device and would have pins
attached the daughter board.
I do not know what kind of 4-ways Vans sells. I do not believe I saw a
picture of one of them. Maybe some else can help there. I bought my 4-way
switch and hat from Infinity. I do not have their grip, This was a few
years ago and do not know if they will sell them separate again. Their web
site did have a part number and such that was a replacement for what is on
their grips. When I did call to order one, he wanted to know how the old
one broke. I explained my situation to him.
My 4 way drives my trims via replays that I purchased at Digi-key.
I hope this helps.
Bob Kuc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Brogley <mikebrogley(at)ieee.org> |
Just saw this referred on the RV-10 list:
http://emagair.com/
Any thoughts?
--
Mike Brogley
mikebrogley(at)ieee.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Olivier Le Carbonnier" <olcdlm(at)laposte.net> |
| Subject: | Grounding in the Fuel Level System |
i have the left fuel sender in the second bay (because of the flop tube).
for wiring this fuel sender i plane to go throuht the main spar (there is a
little hole where i put a bushing).
question is: could i put a connector wing-fuselage for this wire ?
or the fuel level sender must go from sender to gauge without connector ?
thank's
Olivier LC
France
ICQ#: 82067330
sanglier(at)laposte.net
http://sangliervolant.chez.tiscali.fr Van's RV-8 n81939 wings
-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]De la part de
Werner Schneider
Envoy : vendredi 17 septembre 2004 17:04
: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Objet : Re: AeroElectric-List: Grounding in the Fuel Level System
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Grounding in the Fuel Level System
>
> Hi,
>
> I have the SW fuel senders as well, shown here in this photo:
>
> http://www.rv8.ch/images/articles/20040726220023545_5_original.JPG
>
> Can you tell me the best way to ground it?
>
> I'm guessing one way is to drill a small hole, thread it, and
> screw on a faston or just screw on a ring terminal. Does
> this sound right? Of course, I don't want to go through
> the plate, since it's already prosealed on, and I'd like to
> avoid removing it again. I feel kind of silly that I didn't
> think of this before I sealed up my tanks.
>
> Thanks for any hints.
>
> Mickey
>
>
> >> How does the sensor find a ground path through all the sealant and
> >> gaskets used to prevent fuel leakage?
> >
> > The difficult thing is to maintain insulation in most
> > cases. There are many a failure mode for electronic
> > devices where some tiny conductor has compromised the
> > insulation between two parts that are not supposed to
> > be connected. If you have threaded fasteners or rivets
> > holding two parts together, it's a rare instance that
> > clamp up forces won't extrude any insulating materials
> > out of the joint.
> >
> > In a nutshell, the best thought out fuel gaging systems
> > will be completely isolated from and have no dependence on
> > chassis or airframe ground for operation.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
Morning, Mike...
>> http://emagair.com/
Any thoughts?<<
Oh yes! I've ordered both types for my Lycoming O-235...next batch is
due to be completed in October.
Have heard nothing negative about them yet, and seem like the idea of
the century! About the only problem I can foresee is that some of
the pusher planes may not have enough room to mount the self powered "P"
version (it's "longer" than the basic e-mag) between the engine
accessory case and the firewall...but, in that case, Emagair will supply
the parts to remote the top half of the P-Mag. The smaller, E-Mag unit
will fit...I have a Long EZ, and preliminary measurements show that both
types (I ordered one of each) will fit my installation without modification.
One of the guys on the Canard Aviators list (Ken Miller) is waiting for
a set of them...he is going to have Mattituck install them and Dyno test
them in his plane ... and our own Bob Nuckolls has commented on the idea
after seeing the web site.
To quote a paragraph is Bob's email;
"Emag is one of the most exciting new ideas to come along in OBAM
aircraft ignition systems in 10 years. If I owned an OBAM
aircraft, I'd put ONE of these critters on order right now.
I've e-mailed a few folks directly asking them to consider
this product for their currently-flying aircraft. Inquiring
September 20, 2004 - October 02, 2004
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-dn