AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-du
December 15, 2004 - December 30, 2004
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground and braded wire. |
>
>I remember seeing that when wiring the rear seat jacks that separate wires
>should be used or all the wires going to all the jacks should be the same
>length. I believe that the reasoning for this was that the audio from the
>jacks that are closely connected would be louder than the farthest one.
> From the schematic, this does not seem to be the case. In fact, I found it
>hard to believe that with the distances that we are using it would be the
>case.
Correct. It might be a factor with front to rear of cabin on a 747
but not on an RV8. Further, most headsets have volume controls on
the earphone cup so that panel controls can be adjusted for "too much"
audio volume and individual users can adjust their own headset levels
as needed.
> The only reason I could think of would be a single point of failure
>then more than one jack could be affected. Now this was before I started on
>this list way back a long time ago. So then my question would be, other than
>single point of failure, there should not be any reason to extent the
>wirings from one jack to another to another to another?
Yeah, this might be an issue but it's pretty small. There are
many other single points of failure for both sets of jacks
in the audio system. This is why P1.10 of the schematics
in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700E.pdf
suggest "failsafe" jacks be installed in some out-of-the-way-
but-accessible place in the cockpit. If the audio system craps,
the pilot still has direct access to the comm transceiver's
headset and microphone circuits.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Power supply |
----- Original Message -----
From: <f1rocket(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobe Power supply
>
> John,
>
> I have a connector installed at the wing root, as you describe. I wired
the shield wire to pins on both sides of the Molex fitting in order to have
shield wire continuity all the way from the strobe fixture in the wing to
the power supply in my baggage compartment.
>
> You'll likely see comments about the need to break your wires at the root
because the wings never come off, etc. I chose to do it for convenience
sake during the build process. I like to wire things up as complete as I
can while the project is still at home in the garage. Then, when I get to
the cold airport hangar, all I need to do is insert the wings, snap together
the Molex fittings, and I'm done. If done properly with the proper tools, I
don't see this fitting as adding any significant complexity or risk to my
electrical system.
>
> Randy
> F1 Rocket
> www.pflanzer-aviation.com
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> >
> > I have the Whelen Remote Strobe Light Power Supply mounted under the
baggage
> > floor
> >
> > on my RV-9A. Is it better to run the shielded cable from the power
supply to
> > the lights in
> >
> > the wings without using any connectors or can I cut this cable for the
> > connectors between the
> >
> > wings and the fuselage and splice the braided shield together at this
point?
> > I am worried
> >
> > about noise on the system. The connectors would make installation a bit
> > easier since I
> >
> > could run the wires in the conduits in both the wings and the fuselage
and
> > close up everything.
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> > RV-9A
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> John,
>
> I have a connector installed at the wing root, as you describe. I wired
the shield wire topins on both sides of the Molex fittingin order to have
shield wire continuity all the way from the strobe fixture in the wing to
the power supply in my baggage compartment.
>
> You'll likely see comments about the need to break your wires at the root
because the wings never come off, etc. I chose to do it for convenience sake
during the build process. I like to wire things up as complete as I can
while the project is still at home in the garage. Then, when I get to the
cold airport hangar, all I need to do is insert the wings, snap together the
Molex fittings, and I'm done. If done properly with the proper tools, I
don't see this fitting as adding any significant complexity or risk to my
electrical system.
>
> Randy
> F1 Rocket
> www.pflanzer-aviation.com
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John B. Szantho"
>
> I have the Whelen Remote Strobe Light Power Supply mounted under the
baggage
> floor
>
> on my RV-9A. Is it better to run the shielded cable from the power supply
to
> the lights in
>
> the wings without using any connectors or can I cut this cable for the
> connectors between the
>
> wings and the fuselage and splice the braided shield together at this
point?
> I am worried
>
> about noise on the system. The connectors would make installation a bit
> easier since I
>
> could run the wires in the conduits in both the wings and the fuselage
and
> close up everything.
>
>
> John
>
> RV-9A
>
>
> .com/archives
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ARINC 429 port and general serial ?'s |
12/15/2004 03:59:37 PM,
Serialize by Router on MailServ59-US/AUS/H/NIC(Release 6.5.1|January 21,
2004) at
12/15/2004 03:59:39 PM,
Serialize complete at 12/15/2004 03:59:39 PM
Hi Michael,
I found this:
http://www.condoreng.com/support/downloads/tutorials/ARINCTutorial.PDF
It may be a little technical for some but thought I'd submit for the archives,
at least.
Regards,
/\/elson
Austin, TX
Right Wing/Tank
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>
> Need help in identifying data transfer between units.
>
> I think I have too many computers in my panel. I need an explanation of
> the ARINC 429 data stream. Who puts it together, and who wants it, and
> for what?
>
>
> I have a GRT EFIS display as primary EFIS, MX20, 430 for com, 330 for
> traffic, BMA G3 lite for backup.
>
>
> Care to explain the difference between the serial data streams and the
> ARINC? Are all serial streams created equal?
>
> The 330 for example, in the installation instructions, has 4 arinc in
> ports and serves as a "concentrator" to then send out to the 430. What
> is in the ARINC data stream that the 430 would want? It says the EFIS
> selected course would come into the 330 from the EFIS, then go out on
> the ARINC data stream to the 430. Why would the 430 want the course
> heading from the EFIS? My understanding is that the 430 is king when it
> come to driving position information. I have no clue what the 430 would
> do with a heading number from the EFIS.
>
>
> I am having difficulty resolving who is doing what and why with all this
> data passing around. Serial this, ARINC that. ARGH!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net> |
| Subject: | whalen strobe wire size |
How do you calculate wire size for flash tubes? I'm useing a HDACF
Whalen power suply with A610 wingtip tubes and a A500 series taillight
assy. Max. joules will be 42. Thanks Bill S. Pulsar III
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Contactors |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Bob -
Could you also post the .DWG Auto CAD file.
Many thanks,
John
wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Dear Bob:
>>
>> I want to use EV200 contactors made by Kilovac/Tyco for my project
>> ( Cirrus
>> VK-30). They are sealed and very similar to CAP200 contactors made for
>> certified aircraft. My problem is that the contactors come with a built
>> in
>> coil
>> economizer circuit. The coil leads are polarized red/black (pos/neg). I
>> don't know
>> how to take this into account when using as a substitute for contactors
>> in
>> your
>> Z-14 system. Specifically, 1) do I need to use separate diodes and, if
>> so,
>> what polarity. Second, can you help me to decide which lead on the EV200
>> (red or
>> black) corresponds to which leads in Z-14.
>
> Attachements don't propagate through the list server but I was able to
> find the data sheet for Tyco-Kilovac EV200 contactors which I've
> posted
> at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Tyco_Kilovac/ev200.pdf
>
> I've modified a copy of Figure Z-14 to show how these contactors
> would be used. You can eliminate the spike catcher diodes from all
> three locations (this is built in on the EV200) but you still
> need the two steering diodes on the crossfeed contactor.
>
> Download both of these pages:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/DCPwr/z14h_EV200_1.pdf
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/DCPwr/z14h_EV200_2.pdf
>
> . . . and cut the lap-edge of
> one page with a scissors so that you can overlap the two
> pages and have cut ends of features on one page match up
> with same features on other page. Use transparent tape to join
> the pages into a one-page drawing.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: whalen strobe wire size |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Why not just buy the cabling from Whelen and not worry about the wire
size. :-))
There was a thread on this awhile back. It should be in the archives.
John
wrote:
>
>
> How do you calculate wire size for flash tubes? I'm useing a HDACF
> Whalen power suply with A610 wingtip tubes and a A500 series taillight
> assy. Max. joules will be 42. Thanks Bill S. Pulsar III
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Malcolm Thomson" <mdthomson(at)attglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Ground plane questions... |
I'm building a Thunder Mustang which is almost 100% carbon fiber. My
questions are:
1. Do antennas which receive only (ILS/VOR/Marker) need ground planes
and if so what size.
2. Can a "spray-on" metal coating be used?
3. For Com antenna's how big must the ground plane be (minimum and
preferred sizes)?
4. If the ground plane is on the inside of the aircraft (opposite side
of the carbon skin than the antenna) does it still work?
5. Does the ground plane have to be made of sheet metal and be shaped
round, square or do strips of copper tape work?
Thanks
Malcolm.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | LVWM and Kilovac contactors |
Bob,
Some time ago I asked questions about problems with my low voltage warning.
My diagram is as per figure Z16 with two batteries and ABMM.
The main battery is monitored by the ABMM, and the auxiliary battery voltage
is monitored by a Low Voltage Warning Module with switching functionality to
light a panel light when the Aux battery is not online.
To prevent the LVWM from draining the Aux battery, it is powered through a
small relay energized by the E-bus.
I hope my description is clear enough.
Now here is my problem :
When the ship is powered by a bench supply via the 'cold' contact of the
main battery contactor, everyhing works as expected.
But when the Kilovac EV 200 main contactor is energized, the LVWM fails to
annunciate.
To make a long story short, I came to the conclusion the relay was the
culprit. When the Kilovac contactor comes on line, the small relay opens,
isolating the LVWM.
I conducted some tests with another relay with the same result. I borrowed a
standard Cutler-Hammer contactor and used it with jumpers in the airplane :
no problem with the LVWM.
The Kilovac has a special economizer circuit, but how can it disturb this
particular relay, and only this one ? After all a contactor is a contactor,
and everything else is working.
Have you heard about such a problem with the Kilovac EV 200 contactors, or
do you have an idea as to how to work around the problem ?
Thanks for your help,
Regards,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I have a question regarding the spooky runaway trim--
My suspicion is that stuck buttons on the joystick are the culprit.
Does anyone have the real gospel on the problem?
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual
who perceives a solution and is willing to take command.
Very often, that individual is crazy.
--Dave Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Schattauer" <chasm711(at)msn.com> |
Eric
Could be the button, could be the relay, could be the servo/wiring. If you
use a china hat for the stick control get a good quality one. This has been
chewed over before and there is some good stuff in the archives. Basically
it's just a trim tab not the whole stabilizer and you can over power it
fairly easily. But if you want the belt and suspenders approach try this.
Get a three position switch with one side spring loaded to center. Wire the
up position normal on, center off and down (spring loaded off) reverse. If
you get a stuck relay or switch you can turn it off (center) and "bump" it
back to where you want it with the spring loaded down (reverse).
Paul Schattauer
RV8 808PS
>From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Trim Runaway
>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:49:41 -0500
>
>
>
>I have a question regarding the spooky runaway trim--
>
>My suspicion is that stuck buttons on the joystick are the culprit.
>
>Does anyone have the real gospel on the problem?
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge MA 01550-2705
>Phone (508) 764-2072
>Email: emjones(at)charter.net
>
>
>When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual
>who perceives a solution and is willing to take command.
>Very often, that individual is crazy.
> --Dave Barry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trim Runaway |
| From: | earl_schroeder(at)juno.com |
Or another possible solution is to have another set of switches available
to 'override' the coolie hat. Since my ailerons are only spring biased
in trim and easily overridden I don't need one for that but I do have one
for the elevator trim. Other than the coolie hat switch which works
'nearly' all the time, I really like my infinity stick grips. Earl
writes:
>
>
> Eric
>
> Could be the button, could be the relay, could be the servo/wiring.
> If you
> use a china hat for the stick control get a good quality one. This
> has been
> chewed over before and there is some good stuff in the archives.
> Basically
> it's just a trim tab not the whole stabilizer and you can over power
> it
> fairly easily. But if you want the belt and suspenders approach try
> this.
> Get a three position switch with one side spring loaded to center.
> Wire the
> up position normal on, center off and down (spring loaded off)
> reverse. If
> you get a stuck relay or switch you can turn it off (center) and
> "bump" it
> back to where you want it with the spring loaded down (reverse).
>
> Paul Schattauer
> RV8 808PS
>
>
> >From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
> >Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >To:
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Trim Runaway
> >Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:49:41 -0500
> >
> >
> >
> >I have a question regarding the spooky runaway trim--
> >
> >My suspicion is that stuck buttons on the joystick are the
> culprit.
> >
> >Does anyone have the real gospel on the problem?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Eric M. Jones
> >www.PerihelionDesign.com
> >113 Brentwood Drive
> >Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> >Phone (508) 764-2072
> >Email: emjones(at)charter.net
> >
> >
> >When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one
> individual
> >who perceives a solution and is willing to take command.
> >Very often, that individual is crazy.
> > --Dave Barry
> >
> >
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RMI MicroEncoder |
Those not using Dynon may be interested in my eBay listing for a RMI MicroEncoder kit. See http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=26439&item=4512793073&rd=1
FWIW, Bruce McGregor
Those not using Dynon may be interested in my eBay listing for a RMI MicroEncoder kit. See http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=26439item=4512793073rd=1
FWIW, Bruce McGregor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim Runaway |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
Aircraft where a stuck trim will kill you usually use a dual trim switch
(and dual relays if appropriate). Your thumb pushes them both
simultaneously but removing your thumb stops the trimming unless two
things stick. Similar techniques are used to counter a single actuator
failure so that a single actuator can't overpower an off and locked
actuator.
Ken
>>
>>
>>I have a question regarding the spooky runaway trim--
>>
>>My suspicion is that stuck buttons on the joystick are the culprit.
>>
>>Does anyone have the real gospel on the problem?
>>
>>Regards,
>>Eric M. Jones
>>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>>113 Brentwood Drive
>>Southbridge MA 01550-2705
>>Phone (508) 764-2072
>>Email: emjones(at)charter.net
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | EFI system wiring . . . |
>
>Comments/Questions: Bob, I have ordered your guide, but I have a pressing
>question. What is the most effective way to supply poer to 4 injectors
>from a single feed source? My initial thoughts are to use Raychem Solder
>Splices
How long are the wires from the common joint out to each injector?
Do you have any sense of how often an injector fails shorted?
The reason for these questions is to deduce the value of using
a fused supply lead to each injector as the wires branch out
from the common point. I've seen a number of diagrams wherein
the designer has incorporated a 4-fuse array to protect the
wires extended to each injector. The notion is that one wire
could become faulted and take out one injector but leaving the
other 3 intact. The engine would run poorly but it would still
run.
If you subscribe to the fuse-per-injector philosophy, consider
using a fuse block like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/fuseblks.jpg
I've seen some rather complicated switching arrangements
for protecting and controlling the fuel-injected engine but
I'm mystified as to why the designer needs to do more than
simply drive one of these fuse-blocks with an ON/OFF switch
and branch out from the fuse block to various loads in the
system. Do you have a recommended wiring diagram for
your engine? Can you copy it and mail it to me?
A blue PIDG splice will handle 3, 20AWG wires in each end.
This device offers a handy and secure means for spreading
one feeder out as many as five directions. Soldering the
joint and covering with heatshrink is equally effective.
I think your decision-making opportunities may be more
involved than deciding how to branch 4 wires out from a
single feeder.
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: Power Contactors |
>
>
>Bob -
>
>Could you also post the .DWG Auto CAD file.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/DCPwr/z14h_EV200.DWG
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | matronics.20.swinn(at)xoxy.net |
| Subject: | Canard Pusher Grounding Scheme |
Hello! This is my first posting to the AeroElectric list. I've been
following the web site and studying the 'Connection for some time now. I
have noticed that the 'Conduit' style grounding scheme for canards has been
removed from the 'Connection in the latest revision. I have an older
version that includes a copper pipe grounding scheme that is no longer
mentioned in the latest rev of the grounding chapter.
I am wondering if this scheme is no longer recommended? I tried to find
discussion in the archives as to why this scheme was removed, but was not
able to find any. More than likely my search was defective.
I am at the beginning of the electrical chapter on the Long-Ez project and
can go either way at this point, conduit or #2 wire as described in the
Revision 10 of the connection. I'm still drawing schematics.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Canard Pusher Grounding Scheme |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Here's a quote from the archives:
" The first ground system I described in the 'Connection
15 years ago focused on canard pushers and indeed, a
copper conduit was suggested as doubling for a wire
pathway and system ground. A number of builders used
this material with generally good success electrically.
It is a labor intensive technique. We deduced later that
running all wires together in the same bundle down one
side of the airplane produced a similarly "quiet" system.
What you propose would work. I'd recommend you run all
wiring down the same side of the aircraft so as to avoid
generating strong magnetic fields in the cockpit due to
any un-shared electron paths between right and left sides.
If it were my airplane, I'd ditch the vacuum pump, run
an all-electric system and use plain ol' wires to
carry the electrons.
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 . . ."
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
> Hello! This is my first posting to the AeroElectric list. I've been
> following the web site and studying the 'Connection for some time now.
> I have noticed that the 'Conduit' style grounding scheme for canards has
> been removed from the 'Connection in the latest revision. I have an
> older version that includes a copper pipe grounding scheme that is no
> longer mentioned in the latest rev of the grounding chapter.
>
> I am wondering if this scheme is no longer recommended? I tried to find
> discussion in the archives as to why this scheme was removed, but was
> not able to find any. More than likely my search was defective.
>
> I am at the beginning of the electrical chapter on the Long-Ez project
> and can go either way at this point, conduit or #2 wire as described in
> the Revision 10 of the connection. I'm still drawing schematics.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Drdavevk30(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Power Contactors |
Dear Bob:
Thank you so much for the modified Z-14 drawings with the EV200 contactors.
Just to be complete can I also use the EV200's for the starter contactor and
the ground external power contactor? With/without the extra diodes?
Dr. Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Canard Pusher Grounding Scheme |
I have a vested interest in this---but if it were my airplane I would look
at the Super-2-CCA FatWire.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
>
> Hello! This is my first posting to the AeroElectric list. I've been
> following the web site and studying the 'Connection for some time now.
> I have noticed that the 'Conduit' style grounding scheme for canards has
> been removed from the 'Connection in the latest revision. I have an
> older version that includes a copper pipe grounding scheme that is no
> longer mentioned in the latest rev of the grounding chapter.
>
> I am wondering if this scheme is no longer recommended? I tried to find
> discussion in the archives as to why this scheme was removed, but was
> not able to find any. More than likely my search was defective.
>
> I am at the beginning of the electrical chapter on the Long-Ez project
> and can go either way at this point, conduit or #2 wire as described in
> the Revision 10 of the connection. I'm still drawing schematics.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Trim Runaway |
Mike--I can't seem to open the story. Please confirm that the URL is okay.
Runaway trim--I asked this question to spur my thinking about how to handle
the varieties of trim malfunctions. This is aimed at the MAC-RAC trim. Very
common, and pretty good for the money.
A few years ago I converted this two-button trim to a true servo type that
reads a potentiometer. I have designed a tiny little adapter box that allows
any voltage divider potentiometer to set the position of the MAC-RAC trim
servo.
Then I started to add features.
1) I added an "In Transit" line to show an LED on the instrument panel when
the trim motor is ON.
2) Then I added a line to feed the MAC-RAC LED bar graph (since I am using
the internal pot for feedback).
3) Then I figured--I would put in a circuit to send the trim back to some
set position if the power lead or ground or control lead to the trim opened.
That is to say, if you disconnected the trim servo, the servo will return to
neutral (or wherever).
I would appreciate comments on this. I've got a few square millimeters left
on the PCB on two more pins available in the socket.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Contactors |
>
>Dear Bob:
>
>Thank you so much for the modified Z-14 drawings with the EV200 contactors.
>Just to be complete can I also use the EV200's for the starter contactor and
>the ground external power contactor? With/without the extra diodes?
>
>Dr. Dave
Yes. I forgot about the contactor at the other end of the drawing.
I've updated all the EV200 drawings at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/DCPwr to cover the starter
as well. Yes, you can use this for a ground power contactor
to but why? I'm not sure you want to use one as a starter contactor
either. The low current consumption feature doesn't do you any
good for their ground power or start modes . . . and these
contactors are a lot more expensive than the stuff offered
by B&C and others.
I think if it were my airplane, I'd stay with the el-cheapos
in those two slots. You're not going to get any return on
investment for putting the gold-standards in those functions.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ARINC 429 port and general serial ?'s |
On Dec 15, 2004, at 1:43 PM, Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
> Atlanta)"
>
> Need help in identifying data transfer between units.
>
> I think I have too many computers in my panel. I need an explanation of
> the ARINC 429 data stream. Who puts it together, and who wants it, and
> for what?
Perhaps the first answer is why you might want it. The nice thing
about ARINC 429 is that it multiplexes a lot of different data on to
one set of data lines. In the olden days you had separate wiring for
almost every knob in the aircraft. For instance, the heading bug and
OBS each required four wires. Each needle and flag in an indicator
required two wires. Slaving information for your remote compass
required four wires. The horizontal gyro needs five wires for its
synchro output. Now imagine a remotely slaved HSI with CDI, VDI, a
flag for each, heading bug, OBS, and remote horizontal gyro. Now you
know why it has a wire bundle coming out the back that is as thick as
your thumb.
All that can be carried on a single pair of wires when using ARINC 429.
Instead of each set of wires carrying its own special signal, now you
can digitally transmit the same information and share the same pair of
wires for all the data. The wires carry the electronic message
equivalent of "heading 045 degrees," "OBS set to 317 degrees," "CDI is
1.5 dots left," "GS needle is one dot low," "ground track is 043
degrees," "altitude is 4,575 feet," "altitude hold set to 4,500 feet,"
etc.
Once you get an idea of the messages that *can* be sent over an ARINC
429 data stream you can begin to get an idea of who generates it and
who might want it.
> I have a GRT EFIS display as primary EFIS, MX20, 430 for com, 330 for
> traffic, BMA G3 lite for backup.
>
>
> Care to explain the difference between the serial data streams and the
> ARINC? Are all serial streams created equal?
No, they are not. There are many different ways to transmit data
serially. RS-232 is one physical specification and then you can layer
things like async, HDLC/SDLC, and other higher-layer protocols on top
of that. ARINC 429 has its own electrical and data format that is not
like anything else (surprise!). Ethernet is yet another serial
protocol. There are boatloads of ways to send data serially and many
of them are incompatible.
> The 330 for example, in the installation instructions, has 4 arinc in
> ports and serves as a "concentrator" to then send out to the 430. What
> is in the ARINC data stream that the 430 would want?
Well, I can imagine the 430 and MX20 wanting heading data from the
slaved gyro compass to orient the moving map display. You want the
moving map to orient to your heading so the map on the screen looks
like the ground even if there is a wind correction angle. The 430,
also being a VOR receiver, wants to know what your OBS is set to. If
there is traffic that information needs to find its way to the
display(s).
> It says the EFIS
> selected course would come into the 330 from the EFIS, then go out on
> the ARINC data stream to the 430. Why would the 430 want the course
> heading from the EFIS? My understanding is that the 430 is king when it
> come to driving position information. I have no clue what the 430 would
> do with a heading number from the EFIS.
As I indicated earlier, you want it for map orientation.
> I am having difficulty resolving who is doing what and why with all
> this
> data passing around. Serial this, ARINC that. ARGH!
Well, neither ARINC 429 nor RS-232 (NMEA-0183 for that matter) are
designed to allow two data sources to coexist. Consider that your EFIS
is providing heading and OBS data while your GPS is providing position
and track data to your MX20. You have two data sources and one data
sink. Either the MX20 must have a separate input for each device that
sources data (impractical) or you can have various devices accepting
multiple inputs and then combine them on a single output. A device
that does this is a 'concentrator'.
ARINC 429 is actually being phased out. The 'only one talker' rule is
a real pain-in-the-butt, especially given that having multiple talkers
and listeners on the same buss is common now. Ethernet is a good
example. Airbus has standardized on switched 100Mbps Ethernet as the
standard flight instrumentation buss now. And ARINC 429's data rate of
100Kbps makes it 1000 times slower than Ethernet.
This is pretty simplistic but hopefully it provides a glimmer of why
one might want to use ARINC 429.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Drdavevk30(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Power Contactors |
In a message dated 12/16/2004 7:10:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
b.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
> >Dear Bob:
> >
> >Thank you so much for the modified Z-14 drawings with the EV200 contactors.
> >Just to be complete can I also use the EV200's for the starter contactor
> and
> >the ground external power contactor? With/without the extra diodes?
> >
> >Dr. Dave
>
>
> Yes. I forgot about the contactor at the other end of the drawing.
> I've updated all the EV200 drawings at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/DCPwr to cover the starter
> as well. Yes, you can use this for a ground power contactor
> to but why? I'm not sure you want to use one as a starter contactor
> either. The low current consumption feature doesn't do you any
> good for their ground power or start modes . . . and these
> contactors are a lot more expensive than the stuff offered
> by B&C and others.
>
> I think if it were my airplane, I'd stay with the el-cheapos
> in those two slots. You're not going to get any return on
> investment for putting the gold-standards in those functions.
>
> Bob . .
Dear Bob:
For some unknown reason I can't open the latest modified Z-14 diagram in .dwg
with my version of Autocad. Could you post it in .pdf format please. Thanks
so much.
Dr. Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Contactors |
>
>In a message dated 12/16/2004 7:10:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>b.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
> > >Dear Bob:
> > >
> > >Thank you so much for the modified Z-14 drawings with the EV200
> contactors.
> > >Just to be complete can I also use the EV200's for the starter contactor
> > and
> > >the ground external power contactor? With/without the extra diodes?
> > >
> > >Dr. Dave
> >
> >
> > Yes. I forgot about the contactor at the other end of the drawing.
> > I've updated all the EV200 drawings at:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/DCPwr to cover the starter
> > as well. Yes, you can use this for a ground power contactor
> > to but why? I'm not sure you want to use one as a starter contactor
> > either. The low current consumption feature doesn't do you any
> > good for their ground power or start modes . . . and these
> > contactors are a lot more expensive than the stuff offered
> > by B&C and others.
> >
> > I think if it were my airplane, I'd stay with the el-cheapos
> > in those two slots. You're not going to get any return on
> > investment for putting the gold-standards in those functions.
> >
> > Bob . .
>
>Dear Bob:
>
>For some unknown reason I can't open the latest modified Z-14 diagram in .dwg
>with my version of Autocad. Could you post it in .pdf format please. Thanks
>so much.
I rewrote it in R14 format. Try the .dwg file again. The
two EV200 .pdf files are 8.5x11 pages to be taped together to
make a big and more readable drawing.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | matronics.20.swinn(at)xoxy.net |
| Subject: | Schematic Review |
Group:
I have prepared a schematic for the Long-EZ project I am working on.
The aircraft will be utilizing lightweight starter, alternator and the
SD-8 as a backup power source. The engine is a Lycoming with dual
electronic ignition, so reliability and redundancy are my biggest goals.
Also very important is to make the electrical system as easy to use as
possible. I have combined some ideas from the various architectures
described in the 'Connection and have come up with the following Dual
Alternator, Dual battery system. The system is essentially Z-13, but
adds a second battery. The only feature that I think is new is the
Essential Bus feed select switch is a 2-1, allowing the essential bus to
be powered from either the main or alternate battery. Further, this
switch also couples the SD-8 alternator to the battery that is selected
so that the pilot won't accidentally connect it to the wrong battery.
I have two additional thoughts on this circuit:
1. I thought about powering the Aux Battery contactor from the DC Power
Master switch instead of a separate switch. This simplifies the system
and I only see one disadvantage, in the event of a battery failure, the
Main Bus can't be isolated and connected to the remaining battery.
2. I could eliminate the Aux Alternator Power switch and switch it
ON/OFF from the E-Buss switch. I'm not sure what kind of switch would
work for this along with it's existing duties, but then the E-Bus alt
feed switch would automatically setup the E-Bus with one operation by
the pilot. A possible disadvantage here is that the e-bus switch is
becoming a concentrated point of failure for three functions.
I'm offering up this schematic for critical review; it can be found at
the following URL:
http://66.159.252.83/PowerDistribution.jpg
I do have one question as well: The batteries and contactors will be in
the nose. That means the 2AWG wire running to the starter will be 12
feet long or so. Do I need to put some king of protection on this wire
as it leaves the Contactor? It doesn't seem like a good idea to have a
2AWG wire running the length of the aircraft with no over-current
protection.
Thanks!
-Scott
San Diego, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Minearts" <smineart(at)kdsi.net> |
| Subject: | D-sub pins for MAC servo connection |
I was thinking of using Bob's method for using the D-sub connectors for the servo
wires. Am I missing something, or would it make a more reliable connection
to substitute machined, crimped pins for the solder connections in Bob's illustration?
Steve Mineart, CH601XL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: D-sub pins for MAC servo connection |
>
>I was thinking of using Bob's method for using the D-sub connectors for
>the servo wires. Am I missing something, or would it make a more reliable
>connection to substitute machined, crimped pins for the solder connections
>in Bob's illustration?
You can go either way. The solder-cup connectors are not
especially "weaker" than the machined pin connectors. The
machined pins are easier to install and if you get one
in the wrong hole, you can pull it out and move it. The
fine wires on a MAC actuator would probably like to be
doubled back to insure enough copper in the crimp of a
machined pin but which ever connector is most attractive
to you will work fine.
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
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Battery Charger (desulfator) |
Greetings to all,
I wanted to share this item with every body. I've had one of these for a
couple of years and can say that it works on most "old " batteries. I keep it
on
my Luscombe T8F as a trickle charge when I'm not flying much, it has an auto
shut off so you don't over charge.
Cheers
Bill Byars
1949 T8F
http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=6
970&productId=197012&R=197012&cmemid=EFP090501p01c01
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematic Review |
Before we get into specifics of your proposal, can you
explain where you find figure Z-13 deficient to your
design and the missions you plan to use it in? In other
words, what manner of in-flight failures are you trying
to mitigate?
Please understand, this is NOT an instance of "not invented
here" syndrome. I perceive this as an excellent example case
for conducting an FMEA . . . failure modes effects analysis
where:
1. How many ways can a part fail?
2. How will each failure affect system operation?
3. How will I know it failed in flight?
4. Is the failure preflight detectable?
5. Is failure of this part, in any failure mode, likely to create
a hazard to flight?
6. Will failure of this part be likely to overtax my piloting
skills for comfortably terminating the flight?
For review, I did a Google on FMEA and Preflight and this item
was at the top of the first page:
http://www.gatm.com/flying/electrical/introduction.html
I was gratified to see that someone understood and embraced the
concepts of failure tolerance and expanded on those to fit his/her
particular situation in the modification of a Grumman Tiger. 95%
of the words in this piece are my own.
The goal of this exercise is two-fold. (1) to assist you in
achieving your acknowledged goal of simple system reliability
and (2) identify ways in which anything I've published can
be improved upon. The first edition of Appendix Z was significantly
different in many ways . . . all the changes were improvements
deduced in studies similar to that which I am proposing for
task before you.
A good place to begin is to figure out which Z-drawing is
most attractive to your goals, figure out where it's deficient
and modify it to correct the deficiencies. There are many
new readers to the List since the last time we conducted this
exercise . . . obviously, you can wire your airplane any way
you wish but I'd be pleased if you would indulge me in some
good critical review of ALL the ideas before us with the goal
of passing these skills on to others.
Bob . . .
>
>
>Group:
>
>I have prepared a schematic for the Long-EZ project I am working on.
>The aircraft will be utilizing lightweight starter, alternator and the
>SD-8 as a backup power source. The engine is a Lycoming with dual
>electronic ignition, so reliability and redundancy are my biggest goals.
>Also very important is to make the electrical system as easy to use as
>possible. I have combined some ideas from the various architectures
>described in the 'Connection and have come up with the following Dual
>Alternator, Dual battery system. The system is essentially Z-13, but
>adds a second battery. The only feature that I think is new is the
>Essential Bus feed select switch is a 2-1, allowing the essential bus to
>be powered from either the main or alternate battery. Further, this
>switch also couples the SD-8 alternator to the battery that is selected
>so that the pilot won't accidentally connect it to the wrong battery.
>
>I have two additional thoughts on this circuit:
>1. I thought about powering the Aux Battery contactor from the DC Power
>Master switch instead of a separate switch. This simplifies the system
>and I only see one disadvantage, in the event of a battery failure, the
>Main Bus can't be isolated and connected to the remaining battery.
>
>2. I could eliminate the Aux Alternator Power switch and switch it
>ON/OFF from the E-Buss switch. I'm not sure what kind of switch would
>work for this along with it's existing duties, but then the E-Bus alt
>feed switch would automatically setup the E-Bus with one operation by
>the pilot. A possible disadvantage here is that the e-bus switch is
>becoming a concentrated point of failure for three functions.
>
>I'm offering up this schematic for critical review; it can be found at
>the following URL:
>
>http://66.159.252.83/PowerDistribution.jpg
>
>I do have one question as well: The batteries and contactors will be in
>the nose. That means the 2AWG wire running to the starter will be 12
>feet long or so. Do I need to put some king of protection on this wire
>as it leaves the Contactor? It doesn't seem like a good idea to have a
>2AWG wire running the length of the aircraft with no over-current
>protection.
>
>Thanks!
>
>-Scott
>San Diego, CA
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: whalen strobe wire size |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net>
Subject: whalen strobe wire size
> How do you calculate wire size for flash tubes? I'm useing a HDACF
> Whalen power suply with A610 wingtip tubes and a A500 series taillight
> assy. Max. joules will be 42. Thanks Bill S. Pulsar III
>
________________________________________________________________________________
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=VvfsK3CTj0cJ767AUMkBh2DxUd8LFq5pfWWSJS6TRvvN1MNlVw5i39zpSmUMwqMHV+8m15qo48NatSL12h7N5iN0aWsCUa7SDWL2PETsR6aO9GDOrOTZsDDF10xWmusTqlRoHXJPbqXJ3nbFFBZpsWrSqhay2eztRVNkGMjvThY;
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
Does anyone know of an inexpensive relay deck that will allow control via two sticks
while avoiding any issues with both sticks controlling the trim in opposite
directions? Or perhaps a roll-your-own solution? It'd be nice to have trim
speed control as well. And while I'm asking for the moon, how about a trim
override feature in case of runaway trim. I've read some of the old discussion
on this in the archives, but haven't found any diagrams showing some ideas
of how to do it. Thanks folks, for all the input and responses on this and the
other questions, this list is GREAT!
Dan Fritz
Velocity
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trim Relay Deck |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Dan -
Bob Nuckolls shows one of these critters in some of his schematics of trim
systems. He may be able to post it. If not, email me and I'll send a copy
from one of his on-line drawings.
Cheers,
John
> Does anyone know of an inexpensive relay deck that will allow control
> via two sticks while avoiding any issues with both sticks controlling
> the trim in opposite directions? Or perhaps a roll-your-own solution?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim Relay Deck |
I believe our host, Matronics still sells the combo speed controller
and multi trim switch box for a reasonable price. I have been using
one for 7.5 years (1400 hrs) with no malfunction. It is light weight
and can be mounted almost anywhere. I highly recommend it. I added
a pullable circuit breaker to disenable it should an electrical problem
ever arise.
You can add as many trim switches as you like. The first user gets
control, so you have to be able to manually disable the co pilot if
this is required.
Denis RV-6A
On Dec 17, 2004, at 5:30 PM, D Fritz wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of an inexpensive relay deck that will allow control
> via two sticks while avoiding any issues with both sticks controlling
> the trim in opposite directions? Or perhaps a roll-your-own solution?
> It'd be nice to have trim speed control as well. And while I'm
> asking for the moon, how about a trim override feature in case of
> runaway trim. I've read some of the old discussion on this in the
> archives, but haven't found any diagrams showing some ideas of how to
> do it. Thanks folks, for all the input and responses on this and the
> other questions, this list is GREAT!
>
> Dan Fritz
> Velocity
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cory Emberson" <bootless(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Santa Maria (CA) Fly-in Weekend (April 22-24 2005) |
- SMXgig
Hello everyone!
With Matt Dralle's blessing (thank you, Matt!), I'm pleased to post this
announcement for a terrific aviation fly-in weekend. SMXgig (in Santa Maria,
CA) has become the year's largest face-to-face get-together of
electronically networked aviators. We hope you'll plan to attend because we
expect this year's gig to be the best ever.
People come from all over the country (and sometimes overseas) to attend,
and most of the sessions qualify for FAA Wings cards. The dates are April
22-24, 2005 (Friday-Sunday). It's a lot of fun, and a great chance for
pilots from all over to mingle and share aviation stories, ideas, etc.
I have had quite a few inquiries about SMXgig, especially from several
groups, so I anticipate that it's going to fill up this year.
The sessions are still being developed, but I will post an update when we
have the roster of speakers and their sessions.
The announcement below contains most of the crucial information, and you can
get the rest from the website (www.smxgig.org). If you have any questions at
all, just let me know, and thanks!
~Cory Emberson
KHWD
cory(at)smxgig.org
>>>NOTICE TO AIRMEN<<<
The Seventeenth Annual SMXgig
April 22-24, 2005
PRE-REGISTRATION
SMXgig 2005 will be held from April 22-24, 2005, at the Santa Maria, CA,
Radisson, right on the airport ramp. Because of the anticipated demand,
we'll start registration soon, and are now taking pre-registration
reservations with a small ($50 per person) deposit. The deposit may be paid
by check, PayPal, and all major credit cards. Of course, if the unexpected
occurs and you're not able to make SMXgig after all (sniff!), your deposit
will be fully refundable within the refund window (usually about two weeks
before the gig).
Your pre-registration and deposit will guarantee your SMXgig reservation. As
soon as I have the rest of the program finalized, we'll start the regular
registration process. If you believe you can make it, please reserve your
spot with this pre-registration form. First come, first served! The hotel is
otherwise sold out during that weekend, so it will be nice to know you've
got a place in line. You do *not* need to register with the hotel - just
give me your preferences, and
I will take care of the reservations.
SUPERSONIC SURVIVOR
Hanging in the straps of his parachute and feeling the cold night air on his
face, Brian Udell felt as if a freight train had collided with his body. As
he struggled to inflate his life preserver before plunging into the icy
waters of the Atlantic Ocean, he realized it had shredded with the force of
the supersonic windblast.
With his teeth and one functioning arm, Brian feverishly retrieved a one-man
life raft that hung from a fifteen-foot lanyard off his right hip only
seconds before entering the water. After popping back to the surface like a
bobber on a fishing line, the salt water made him painfully aware of the
open wounds, cuts, and scrapes that were strewn over his broken body. The
thought of blood pouring into the water inviting sharks for a late night
meal motivated him to attempt to get into the partially inflated raft.
As he kicked his legs, Brian's lower limbs felt as though only a thread
attached them. Exhausted and unable to enter the raft, thoughts of death
quickly consumed his mind. Knowing he would be unable to survive the night
under the extreme conditions, Brian began to pray. The next several hours of
survival and the many months of excruciating rehabilitation deliver an
almost unbelievable story.
Brian holds the record for surviving the highest speed ejection from a U.S.
Fighter Aircraft at nearly 800 MPH. He survived four grueling hours 65 miles
off the Atlantic Coast in 60-degree water, 5-foot seas, and 15 MPH winds at
night. Brian's determination, perseverance, faith, and sheer will to survive
is unparalleled. His story of survival, recovery, and return to the Strike
Eagle is an inspiration to everyone.
Brian is a very accomplished aviator. He began flying at age nine and took
his first cross-country flight at age ten. Since that time he has
accumulated over 4000 hours in a variety of both civil and military
aircraft.
He was one of only sixty candidates across the United States selected to
attend the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training program. Brian graduated
number one in his class and was awarded the Air Training Command -
Commanders Cup Trophy. Brian was one of the first Lieutenants selected to
fly the F-15E Strike Eagle. He graduated from Strike Eagle training and
received the top academic award. Brian went on to his operational unit where
he became an Instructor, Mission Commander, and Air to Ground Top Gun
winner. He has flown over 100 combat missions in Southwest Asia and logged
nearly 2000 hours in the Strike Eagle.
Brian received four Air Medals and three Aerial Achievement Medal for combat
missions over the skies of Iraq. Brian's military career spanned ten years.
He left the Air Force in 1999 and he is currently a pilot with Southwest
Airlines.
"Brian Udell kept us spellbound for 45 minutes. You could hear a pin drop,
except when he made everyone laugh. The story of his four-hour ordeal was
gripping and moving. He certainly won the audience."
T. Karr, President
Carolina Aero Club
Just as in previous years, there will be one flat all-encompassing "gig" fee
that covers all events that involve significant out-of-pocket costs for the
organizers. The fee will be determined with the events is finalized (it
should be about $170), and will cover:
- Friday afternoon welcome party
- Friday evening dinner banquet, featuring Capt. Brian Udell, Supersonic
Survivor
- Saturday and Sunday tech sessions
- Saturday SMX-style BBQ lunch
- Saturday evening events (to be announced)
- Saturday evening movie extravaganza
- Meeting rooms and coffee service at the Santa Maria Radisson
- BFUB transportation to (and from) the Saturday evening event
Lodging at the SMX Radisson will cost $89.00/night for either a single or
double room, which is far below the regular hotel room rate. Be sure you
check in as a SMXgig attendee and get the special rate. We have our
definitive preference listed with the hotel for rampside rooms - early
registration can only help, but of course, the rampside rooms are subject to
availability depending on how many existing guests are in those rooms.
>>>SMXgig 2005<<<
April 22-24, 2005
ELECTRONIC PRE-REGISTRATION FORM
When you send your pre-registration, receipt of your deposit will be noted,
and your registration updated when the full registration process begins. The
credit card information for your hotel reservation will be requested at that
time.
Please fill in as completely as possible and send to Cory Emberson via:
1. Email at registration(at)smxgig.org .
2. Fax at: 510.782.0415
3. Regular mail to:
Cory Emberson - SMXgig
20511 Skywest Drive
Hayward, CA 94541
If youre making your deposit by credit card, and dont feel comfortable
emailing that information, please feel free to call me at 510.783.4410. If
you get my voicemail, I will return your call. Otherwise, both regular mail
or fax are safe.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Your name: _____________________________
Your email address: ____________________
Your daytime phone: (___) ___-____
Your evening phone: (___) ___-____
This form is: _ an original pre-registration
_ an amended pre-registration
_ a cancellation
How confident are you of attending?:
__ almost certain
__ probably
__ maybe
Anticipated arrival date and time: ________ at about ____
Departure date and time: ________ at about ____
How are you getting to SMX?:
__ Own plane, type __ N#_____
__ Hitching with_____________
__ Airline flight into_____
Number of attendees in your group: __
Names of others in your group:______________________________
HOTEL RESERVATION INFO
Number of rooms: __
Number of persons: __
Special requests:
__ King bed
__ Queen/Queen bed
__ Double/Double bed
__ Smoking
__ Non-smoking
__ Other:____________________
Sharing room with:_____________________________
CREDIT CARD INFO:
Card #__________________________ exp.______
PayPal address: bootless(at)earthlink.net
ANTICIPATED EVENT ATTENDANCE
Number of people in my party who I expect to attend the following events:
Friday afternoon welcome party ___
Friday evening dinner banquet: __
Saturday morning technical sessions: __
Saturday lunch barbecue: __
Saturday evening event (TBD): __
Sunday morning technical sessions: __
We look forward to seeing you there!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim Relay Deck |
>
>
>Dan -
>
>Bob Nuckolls shows one of these critters in some of his schematics of trim
>systems. He may be able to post it. If not, email me and I'll send a copy
> from one of his on-line drawings.
All of my page-per-system drawings available fro publication are
posted at http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS
This link takes you to the top of the directory. Go to any directory
below by major subject and you'll find combinations of .pdf and
.dwg files with drawings that fit the category. For example,
drop into "Flight" for sub directories on "Trim" and "Flaps"
drop into those directories for what ever is currently available
in those categories. As time permits, I'll be publishing a suite
of page-per-system drawings from which builder can choose to
configure their own wirebooks.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=tHZp4ElphkFe8f1QhL7rtSt61ucYCQPp5/7iR4GsQHmED6bciF6he2KSsW2fNkulXV7rsIolr4siZcb91wFUhxFShoJfPaJIQPCnli6Dspb4zr+DAmAu1vflyeEargrrNtXKSbZX2ZHzYBN+1d2MEXynMLFzVin8fDvQALrKvds;
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim Relay Deck |
Thanks for the replies. The T5 drawing seems to fit the bill for a simple, low
parts-count system. As I interpret the drawing, if the two sticks command opposite
trim, the motor simply stops, with no ill effects on the system. Is this
correct? Also, I have looked at the Matronics relay deck, but according to
Matt, it can only handle 1 Amp. As I understand it the pitch trim motor for
the Velocity can draw up to 3A (does anyone know otherwise?)
Dan Fritz
Velocity
---------------------------------
Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim Relay Deck |
>
>Thanks for the replies. The T5 drawing seems to fit the bill for a
>simple, low parts-count system. As I interpret the drawing, if the two
>sticks command opposite trim, the motor simply stops, with no ill effects
>on the system. Is this correct?
yes
> Also, I have looked at the Matronics relay deck, but according to Matt,
> it can only handle 1 Amp. As I understand it the pitch trim motor for
> the Velocity can draw up to 3A (does anyone know otherwise?)
Be cautious of relay ratings and application . . . especially when
working with motors and/or motors with noise filter capacitors
across them. I've been studying relay and switch failures at
RAC involving contacts that experience average loads that
are a tiny fraction of the relay's current ratings and they
still stick or go open. Contact science has some ramifications
at both ends of the bell curve for performance that offer
some big surprises.
The question for the Velocity trim motor is what is the
inrush current? I suspect that running current in normal
operation is quite nominal but inrush currents can be in
the 10-20A range.
For this kind of system, I'd lean toward an all solid state
controller as opposed to relays. The topic of trim systems
comes up and boils real well for about a week every year.
I was prompted by the latest event to craft an article to
accompany a fist full of drawings to discuss various considerations
for pitch trim (or roll trim or rudder trim) systems.
I've got the text nearly completed and most of the drawings
are done too. I'll be publishing this document over the
holiday shutdown.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Request to Bob Nuckolls |
Bob
I finally found a 120 volt AC clock. I would like to build the battery
life tester but get intimidated when I go to Digikey or Mouser web
sites. Would you please give a list of what to buy from say Digikey to
make the beast? Would you use a circuit board or just wire wrap on a piece
of plywood? I assume that plugs and sockets from the hardware store are OK
for the 120 V AC stuff.
Thanks in Advance
Matthew M. Jurotich
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
JWST ISIM Systems Engineer
m/c : 443
e-mail mailto: mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov
phone : 301-286-5919
fax : 301-286-7021
JWST URL: <http://ngst1.gsfc.nasa.gov>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
Hi,
I'm trying to figure out if in our 14v systems there would ever be a
reason to use an 1N4004 diode vs. a 1N4001 diode. According to the data
sheets I've read, the only difference seems to be Vmax is 50V for the
1N4001 and 400V for the 1N4004. Are there any other differences or
advantages/disadvantages of one over the other? The application is to
keep current from flowing the wrong way on a panel LED indicator.
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 wiring and stuff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>I'm trying to figure out if in our 14v systems there would ever be a
>reason to use an 1N4004 diode vs. a 1N4001 diode. According to the data
>sheets I've read, the only difference seems to be Vmax is 50V for the
>1N4001 and 400V for the 1N4004. Are there any other differences or
>advantages/disadvantages of one over the other? The application is to
>keep current from flowing the wrong way on a panel LED indicator.
>
>Thanks,
>Mickey
>--
>Mickey Coggins
>http://www.rv8.ch/
>#82007 wiring and stuff
>
Is there a difference in price? In my previous life as an electronics
tech, the difference in price was at most pennies per hundred pcs and
there was no discernable size or weight difference. Given those
conditions, I'd pick the 4004 because it's likely to be more
electrically 'rugged' in back-emf conditions than the 4001. I bought the
1k Vmax versions & used them everywhere that the current rating was
adequate to keep inventory & callbacks down. (Then I found some Japanese
p/n with twice the current rating at 1kV for the same price & used those.)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
> Is there a difference in price? In my previous life as an electronics
> tech, the difference in price was at most pennies per hundred pcs and
> there was no discernable size or weight difference. Given those
> conditions, I'd pick the 4004 because it's likely to be more
> electrically 'rugged' in back-emf conditions than the 4001. I bought the
> 1k Vmax versions & used them everywhere that the current rating was
> adequate to keep inventory & callbacks down. (Then I found some Japanese
> p/n with twice the current rating at 1kV for the same price & used those.)
Hi Charlie,
No difference in price where I buy them, and they are only about
15 cents. I've already got both. Thanks for the info.
Best regards,
Mickey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Request to Bob Nuckolls |
I'm not Bob - but I've been thinking about making a tester also, and came up
with the following parts:
- Relay - Radio Shack 275-218 ($8.39 -- radioshack.com - the cheapest I
found on Digikey was about $12)
- Zener Diode - Digikey 1N5374B ($1.20 -- 5W 10V zener diode - don't
really need 5W but it's cheap)
- Transistor - Digikey 2N3904FS-ND ($0.16)
- 470 Ohm Resistors - Digikey 470-5-ND ($0.41 each, 2 required -- also
5W - overkill, but available in small quantities from Digikey)
---- I calculated the resistors would dissapate .343 watts @12.7 V
---- so a couple of 0.5 watt Radio shack resistors would probably also work
($1 for a pack of 5)
I'm just going to crimp fastons and screw terminals on things and mount it
on a piece of wood.
Now we'll see if Bob approves... (a test to see what I have, or haven't,
learned :-)
Dennis Glaeser
------------------------
I finally found a 120 volt AC clock. I would like to build the battery
life tester but get intimidated when I go to Digikey or Mouser web
sites. Would you please give a list of what to buy from say Digikey to
make the beast? Would you use a circuit board or just wire wrap on a piece
of plywood? I assume that plugs and sockets from the hardware store are OK
for the 120 V AC stuff.
Thanks in Advance
Matthew M. Jurotich
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
JWST ISIM Systems Engineer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | B Tomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
I'm going strictly from memory here as I don't have access to my books, but
I suspect the main difference is the current carrying capacity. IN4004 is
likely a 4 amp. IN4001, 1 amp etc.
Bevan
RV7A fuse is now right side up.
Seat pans are in and making airplane noises now.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mickey Coggins [SMTP:mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 1N4004 vs 1N4001
Hi,
I'm trying to figure out if in our 14v systems there would ever be a
reason to use an 1N4004 diode vs. a 1N4001 diode. According to the data
sheets I've read, the only difference seems to be Vmax is 50V for the
1N4001 and 400V for the 1N4004. Are there any other differences or
advantages/disadvantages of one over the other? The application is to
keep current from flowing the wrong way on a panel LED indicator.
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 wiring and stuff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
Your suspicion is definitely not correct.
These two diodes are part of a family of 1A rectifier diodes. They all
have a 1A average forward current rating. The 1N4001 has a 50V reverse
breakdown rating. The 4002 has 100V. The 4003 has 200V. The 4004 has
400 V. The 4005 has 600V. The 4006 has 800V. The 4007 has 1000V.
Any of these will work in your plane. However, if you have a choice,
use of the higher breakdown rating diodes gives you more margin with no
downside. (although going to a 1000V rated diode is rather unnecessary).
Dick Tasker
B Tomm wrote:
>
>I'm going strictly from memory here as I don't have access to my books, but
>I suspect the main difference is the current carrying capacity. IN4004 is
>likely a 4 amp. IN4001, 1 amp etc.
>
>Bevan
>RV7A fuse is now right side up.
>Seat pans are in and making airplane noises now.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Graham Singleton <graham(at)gflight.f9.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 12/16/04 |
>Canard Pusher Grounding Scheme
>
>
>I have a vested interest in this---but if it were my airplane I would look
>at the Super-2-CCA FatWire.
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
So would I, but I'd also look at using a soft aluminum tube for the ground.
Might be a bit tricky though and certainly more work.
Does anyone make copper coated aluminum tube?
Graham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 12/16/04 |
Why a tube? A wiring bundle inside a tube is difficult to add to,
subtract from, or modify (especially if there are breakouts along the
run) whereas a normal laced bundle is easy to modify. Also aluminium is
VERY difficult to connect electrically to be reliable over the long
term. This is the reason aluminium house wiring was so short lived and
dangerous and why Eric has gone to all the trouble to offer copper
coated aluminium wire to reduce these difficulties. Simple copper wire
is by far the easiest and perhaps the best solution. The difference in
weight for the lengths involved is minimal. I know every pound counts
but is the reduction in reliability, and the increase in complexity and
time of installation worth the saving?
Bob McC
Graham Singleton wrote:
>
>
>
>>Canard Pusher Grounding Scheme
>>
>>
>>I have a vested interest in this---but if it were my airplane I would look
>>at the Super-2-CCA FatWire.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Eric M. Jones
>>
>>
>
>
>So would I, but I'd also look at using a soft aluminium tube for the ground.
>Might be a bit tricky though and certainly more work.
>Does anyone make copper coated aluminium tube?
>Graham
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Thanks for All the Help |
Hi,
Thanks, Bob, for all the invaluable (and still free!) advice and teaching you provide.
I'm maybe a year away from flying my OBAM, and learning the electrical
details has been one of the most fun parts of the project. Mastering new skills
and knowledge areas is one of the reasons I'm building my own airplane and
this newsgroup, your seminar, and your book make this really fun. You are an
outstanding teacher and I really can't thank you enough.
Thanks also to all the other posters that make this newsgroup so good. I learn
as much from the answers to "dumb" questions as I do from the "smart" ones, so
please keep it up everyone!
Thanks to all,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy #257
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Batterydesulfator/charger |
For those of you that are having a problem getting into the web site from my
previous post try this one.
_www.vdcelectronics.com_ (http://www.vdcelectronics.com)
Sorry about the problems.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
The 1N4004 is rated at 1 AMP at 400 Volts. the 4 = 400 Volts and 1 = 100
volts DC. The body size is the same which means it can dissipate the same
amount of heat from forward current.
When I was doing field service, I always replace the 1N4001's with -4's and
never had a call back for a bad diode.
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 1N4004 vs 1N4001
>
> I'm going strictly from memory here as I don't have access to my books,
but
> I suspect the main difference is the current carrying capacity. IN4004 is
> likely a 4 amp. IN4001, 1 amp etc.
>
> Bevan
> RV7A fuse is now right side up.
> Seat pans are in and making airplane noises now.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mickey Coggins [SMTP:mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch]
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 11:15 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: 1N4004 vs 1N4001
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to figure out if in our 14v systems there would ever be a
> reason to use an 1N4004 diode vs. a 1N4001 diode. According to the data
> sheets I've read, the only difference seems to be Vmax is 50V for the
> 1N4001 and 400V for the 1N4004. Are there any other differences or
> advantages/disadvantages of one over the other? The application is to
> keep current from flowing the wrong way on a panel LED indicator.
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 wiring and stuff
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SEASON'S GREETINGS |
The Night Before Christmas - Aviation Style
'Twas the night before Christmas, and out on the ramp,
Not an airplane was stirring, not even a Champ.
The aircraft were fastened to tie downs with care,
In hopes that come morning, they all would be there.
The fuel trucks were nestled, all snug in their spots,
With gusts from two-forty at 39 knots.
I slumped at the fuel desk, now finally caught up,
And settled down comfortably, resting my butt.
When the radio lit up with much noise and chatter,
I turned up the scanner to see what was the matter.
A voice clearly heard over static and snow,
Called for clearance to land at the airport below.
He barked his transmission so lively and quick,
I'd have sworn that the call sign he used was "St. Nick."
I ran to the panel to turn up the lights,
The better to welcome this magical flight.
He called his position, no room for denial,
"St. Nicholas One, turnin left onto final."
And what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a Rutan-built sleigh, with eight Rotax Reindeer!
With vectors to final, down the glideslope he came,
As he passed all the fixes, he called them by name:
"Now Ringo! Now Tolga! Now Trini! and Bacun!
On Comet! On Cupid!", what pills was he takin?
While controllers were sittin, and scratchin their head,
They phoned to my office, and I heard it with dread,
The message they left was both urgent and dour:
"When Santa pulls in, have him please call the tower."
He landed like silk, with the sled runners sparking,
Then I heard "Left at Charlie," and "Taxi to parking."
He slowed to a taxi, turned off of three-oh
And stopped on the ramp with a "Ho, ho-ho-ho..."
He stepped out of the sleigh, but before he could talk,
I ran out to meet him with my best set of chocks.
His red helmet and goggles were covered with frost,
And his beard was all blackened from Reindeer exhaust.
His breath smelled like peppermint, gone slightly stale,
And he puffed on a pipe, but he didn't inhale.
His cheeks were all rosy and jiggled like jelly,
His boots were as black as a crop-duster's belly.
He was chubby and plump, in his suit of bright red,
And he asked me to "fill it up, with hundred low-lead."
He came dashing in from the snow-covered pump,
I knew he was anxious for drainin the sump.
I spoke not a word, but went straight to my work,
I filled up the sleigh, but I spilled, like a jerk.
He came out of the restroom, and sighed in relief,
Then he picked up a phone for a Flight Service brief.
And I thought as he silently scribed in his log,
These reindeer could land in an eighth-mile fog.
He completed his preflight, from the front to the rear,
Then he put on his headset, and I heard him yell, "Clear!"
And laying a finger on his push-to-talk,
He called up the tower for clearance and squawk.
"Take taxi way Charlie, the southbound direction,
Turn right three-two-zero at pilot's discretion"
He sped down the runway, the best of the best,
"Your traffic's a Grumman, inbound from the West."
Then I heard him proclaim, as he climbed thru the night,
"Merry Christmas to all! I have traffic in sight."
Hoo,Dee,Hooo, Hoooo, Hooooo
Bill Byars
Luscombe T8F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
Close but not quite. The 4004 is in fact 400V, but the 4001 is 50V.
See my previous post explaining this in detail.
Your comment about replacing them is right on though!
Dic Tasker
Leo J. Corbalis wrote:
>
>The 1N4004 is rated at 1 AMP at 400 Volts. the 4 = 400 Volts and 1 = 100
>volts DC. The body size is the same which means it can dissipate the same
>amount of heat from forward current.
>When I was doing field service, I always replace the 1N4001's with -4's and
>never had a call back for a bad diode.
>Leo Corbalis
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
Richard E. Tasker wrote:
> The 4004 is in fact 400V, but the 4001 is 50V.
>
I once tested a bunch of 4001s, to see what they found objectionable,
but no luck on my bench supply, which goes only to 400V. Maybe that
was peculiar to a run of them, as I bought them all at once, but I
wonder if that might be common. The data sheet shows no difference
other than voltage, and I wonder if it's now cheaper just to make one
diode type and package them according to demand?
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
>
>Richard E. Tasker wrote:
> > The 4004 is in fact 400V, but the 4001 is 50V.
> >
>
>I once tested a bunch of 4001s, to see what they found objectionable,
>but no luck on my bench supply, which goes only to 400V. Maybe that
>was peculiar to a run of them, as I bought them all at once, but I
>wonder if that might be common. The data sheet shows no difference
>other than voltage, and I wonder if it's now cheaper just to make one
>diode type and package them according to demand?
That used to be essentially what was done. A factory I visited
in 1964 had one line of diodes that were graded on automatic
testing machines. A batch was tested for yield of the highest
voltage devices and then stepped down from there. It wasn't uncommon
for a part marked 1N4001 (50v) to have characteristics equal to
a 1N4005 (600v). Nowadays, the quality of the yields is so
good that there may be nothing less than 1N4006 (800v) parts
in the batch . . . but if you really want a 1N4001, they'll
be pleased to mark a diode with that part number and sell it to
you.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Crate" <john.crate(at)encode.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 55 Amp Suzuki Alternator |
Hi
I am in the process of installing an alternator on my RV6A project. I have
three questions that I need help with. The alternator I am using is a 55
amp, internally regulated unit off a 1989 Suzuki Samurai.
Question 1
There are three terminal terminals on the back of the unit. If the
alternator is held so that two of the terminals are oriented vertically, the
other terminal is then oriented horizontally and located just below the
other two ( l _ l ). These terminals are not marked on the alternator as to
their function. If anyone can add insight on what these particular
terminals are used/not used for, it would be greatly appreciated.
Question 2
My plan is to use the OVM-14 with the requisite contactor for over-voltage
protection as per the Aeroelectric book/drawings. Reading a warning on
Van's web page about over-voltage protection on their 60 amp internally
regulated alternator now has me worried. In bright red letters it states:
Warning!
The internally regulated 60 ampere alternator should not be used with
overvoltage protection systems. If you open the charging circuit while it is
in operation, it will destroy the regulator.
I am now confused more than normal. Is this something I should be worried
about with respect to my particular alternator and planned application?
Question 3
Does anyone have experience with mounting a 55 amp suzuki alternator on a
O-320? If so, do any of the Van's installation kits work with this
particular alternator/engine combo?
I apologize in advance if these questions have been asked/answered before.
I did search the archives, but with negative results.
Regards, and Happy Holidays!
John Crate
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
> As the peak inverse voltage rating goes up with each different P/N, the
> forward voltage (conducting) voltage drop also goes up.
> Bob White
That was my concern, but I could not find any indication of this on
the data sheet. Did you see something else that led you to this
conclusion?
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | LVWM and Kilovac contactors |
Hi Bob and all,
Hope you won't mind my reposting my last question.
As stated below I made some progress in understanding where the snag might
come from. But I'm still wondering what the problem could be and how I could
possibly work around it.
Any idea as to where to investigate ?
I can send again the diagrams.
Season's greetings,
Gilles Thesee
===========================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: LVWM and Kilovac contactors
<Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Bob,
>
> Some time ago I asked questions about problems with my low voltage
warning.
>
> My diagram is as per figure Z16 with two batteries and ABMM.
> The main battery is monitored by the ABMM, and the auxiliary battery
voltage
> is monitored by a Low Voltage Warning Module with switching functionality
to
> light a panel light when the Aux battery is not online.
> To prevent the LVWM from draining the Aux battery, it is powered through a
> small relay energized by the E-bus.
> I hope my description is clear enough.
>
> Now here is my problem :
> When the ship is powered by a bench supply via the 'cold' contact of the
> main battery contactor, everyhing works as expected.
> But when the Kilovac EV 200 main contactor is energized, the LVWM fails to
> annunciate.
>
> To make a long story short, I came to the conclusion the relay was the
> culprit. When the Kilovac contactor comes on line, the small relay opens,
> isolating the LVWM.
> I conducted some tests with another relay with the same result. I borrowed
a
> standard Cutler-Hammer contactor and used it with jumpers in the airplane
:
> no problem with the LVWM.
> The Kilovac has a special economizer circuit, but how can it disturb this
> particular relay, and only this one ? After all a contactor is a
contactor,
> and everything else is working.
>
> Have you heard about such a problem with the Kilovac EV 200 contactors, or
> do you have an idea as to how to work around the problem ?
>
> Thanks for your help,
> Regards,
>
> Gilles
========================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
On Dec 18, 2004, at 3:14 PM, Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to figure out if in our 14v systems there would ever be a
> reason to use an 1N4004 diode vs. a 1N4001 diode. According to the
> data
> sheets I've read, the only difference seems to be Vmax is 50V for the
> 1N4001 and 400V for the 1N4004. Are there any other differences or
> advantages/disadvantages of one over the other?
No.
> The application is to
> keep current from flowing the wrong way on a panel LED indicator.
Well, you might not need the diode then. The LED is also a diode and
will not conduct or light up with reverse voltage applied. I suspect
that you will find that the peak inverse voltage for an LED is on the
order of 50V. In that case the LED is its own 'protection' diode. You
don't need another diode in series.
And even if it does break down in the reverse current direction
(unlikely), the series current-limiting resistor will limit the reverse
current to a safe value thus preventing damage to the device.
OTOH, if the diode is a two-color device where reverse current flow
lights the LED of the alternate color you might need steering diodes to
prevent reverse current from lighting the other diode.
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: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
>>sheets I've read, the only difference seems to be Vmax is 50V for the
>>1N4001 and 400V for the 1N4004. Are there any other differences or
>>advantages/disadvantages of one over the other?
>
>
> No.
Thanks.
>>The application is to
>>keep current from flowing the wrong way on a panel LED indicator.
>
>
> Well, you might not need the diode then. The LED is also a diode and
> will not conduct or light up with reverse voltage applied. I suspect
> that you will find that the peak inverse voltage for an LED is on the
> order of 50V. In that case the LED is its own 'protection' diode. You
> don't need another diode in series.
I didn't know this - thanks for the info. The original design, which
was done by someone else, was for an incandescent bulb. This is
probably why they recommended a diode. I decided that a LED would
be "cooler".
I'm planning on being at SNF, and I really hope I can buy all
you guys beers that have helped me out so much over these last
few months.
Thanks again, and best regards.
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
>
>
>>> sheets I've read, the only difference seems to be Vmax is 50V for the
>>> 1N4001 and 400V for the 1N4004. Are there any other differences or
>>> advantages/disadvantages of one over the other?
>>
>>
>> No.
>
> Thanks.
You are welcome.
>>> The application is to
>>> keep current from flowing the wrong way on a panel LED indicator.
>>
>> Well, you might not need the diode then. The LED is also a diode and
>> will not conduct or light up with reverse voltage applied. I suspect
>> that you will find that the peak inverse voltage for an LED is on the
>> order of 50V. In that case the LED is its own 'protection' diode.
>> You
>> don't need another diode in series.
>
> I didn't know this - thanks for the info. The original design, which
> was done by someone else, was for an incandescent bulb. This is
> probably why they recommended a diode. I decided that a LED would
> be "cooler".
I suspected as much. No, you don't need a blocking diode with an LED.
OTOH, you might need a resistor across the LED to keep leakage current
from causing the LED to glow dimly even if it is supposed to be turned
off.
> I'm planning on being at SNF, and I really hope I can buy all
> you guys beers that have helped me out so much over these last
> few months.
It would be nice to go to SnF but I am not going to hold my breath I
will make it. Anyway, consider me thanked. I wish you the best of
luck on the happy completion of your project.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim Systems |
>Below is the result of your inquiry. It was submitted by
>Roee Kalinsky (roee(at)kalinskyconsulting.com) on Thursday, December 16, 2004
>at 23:04:05
>
>Thursday, December 16, 2004
>
>Roee Kalinsky
>
>,
>Email: roee(at)kalinskyconsulting.com
>Comments/Questions: Bob, thanks for publishing the aeroelectric
>connection. It's a great resource.
>
>I'm contemplating building my own control circuits for MAC servos in an
>RV-7A. I looked at your schematics for a "roll your own" relay deck, and
>had a couple of questions:
>
>1. Seems to me you'd want to use diodes or another form of protection for
>the relay contacts against the inductive kick from the servo motor. Is
>there a reason I'm not aware of why this is not necessary?
The actuator motor doesn't have any "kick" . . . the relay coils
do. If they're small relays, there's little risk and not much
value in adding spike suppression . . . but it doesn't hurt if
you'd like to do it.
>2. Have you tried using FETs instead of relays for this application? If
>so I'd like to hear about your experience. If not, why not?
Sure . . . all new designs are solid state. 98% of the folks I
write for have rudimentary assembly skills. The S704-1 relay with
it's built in mounting base, fast-on tabs, and totally enclosed
design is attractive for it's ease of implementation.
>3. Do you know if a PWM would be a good approach for speed control on
>these servo motors?
Ether PWM or a rigid regulator would suffice. I prefer the
rigid voltage regulator. PWM without a speed feedback sensing
system (closed loop servo) is more like using a series resistor
to control speed. The goal is to be as stable as possible for
all variations including load on motor and bus voltage variations.
The LM317 series voltage regulators do a good job of filtering
out bus voltage changes.
>For reference, I'm an EE but I deal mostly with microelectronics. I admit
>I have near zero experience with motor control. Thanks for your help
Understand. Have you seen the collection of drawings
at http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim
One of those drawings at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/trim6.pdf
illustrates the linear regulator speed control for
the PM motor actuator.
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 )
--------------------------------------------
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LVWM and Kilovac contactors |
> Your problem lies with your statement !! and I have seen this problem
> before
> your statement a contactor is a contactor is not correct a electronic
> contactor
> can cause problems with circuits and when these problems arise you are
> better off
> throwing them and using the standard design, that way when you breakdown
> and need
> a part you can get it.
Paul,
Thanks for your message.
Of course I would like to get some additionnal info before throwing brand
new contactors away ! The rest of the ship's system work as expected. The
power section of the EV 200 is just like any other contactor, so my question
is, what can pose a problem with the bus when it is powered through them ?
Can you be a bit more specific as to what problem you have encountered ?
Regards,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LVWM and Kilovac contactors |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi Bob and all,
>
>Hope you won't mind my reposting my last question.
>As stated below I made some progress in understanding where the snag might
>come from. But I'm still wondering what the problem could be and how I could
>possibly work around it.
>Any idea as to where to investigate ?
>I can send again the diagrams.
>
>Season's greetings,
>
>Gilles Thesee
Sorry my friend, I thought I'd read where you ran this dog
to ground. I'm mystified by your experience. I'm wondering
what the Kilovac contactor uses in the way of electronics
for holding current reduction and if that feature has
some noise that interacts with the LVM/ABMM modules.
Just for grins, can you put your hands on one of those
el-cheepo contactors. Substituting a plain-vanilla contactor
for the Kilovac product would, by process of elimination,
point us in the right direction.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LVWM and Kilovac contactors |
>
>
>Your problem lies with your statement !! and I have seen this problem
>before
>your statement a contactor is a contactor is not correct a electronic
>contactor
>can cause problems with circuits and when these problems arise you are
>better off
>throwing them and using the standard design, that way when you breakdown
>and need
>a part you can get it.
>Regards
>Paul
This may be true but allow me to suggest that it's far
better to know all of the simple-ideas underlying ALL
of our choices for components. In the certified side of
general aviation, we have far too many antiques going out
the door in brand new airplanes because the cost-of-education
has been judged "too high".
If there is any single feature lacking in the engineering
of modern aircraft it's the loss of our "skunk works" facilities.
Today's management would like to believe that we can
take piles of catalogs (on the Internet of course) and
sit at a CAD 'scope and design a pristine product.
The concept of a flight test hangar where engineers
and good technicians have the freedom to fail inexpensively
has been replaced with some utopian notions of
design by "Integrated Product Development Systems" . . .
Creativity is not a process but an art that depends on
the science of understanding. It works best
when everyone involved is getting their hands dirty
and everyone contributes from their personal bag of
simple-ideas (education acquired to date).
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Conduit Ground System |
>
>
> >Canard Pusher Grounding Scheme
> >
>
> >
> >I have a vested interest in this---but if it were my airplane I would look
> >at the Super-2-CCA FatWire.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Eric M. Jones
>
>
>So would I, but I'd also look at using a soft aluminum tube for the ground.
>Might be a bit tricky though and certainly more work.
>Does anyone make copper coated aluminum tube?
>Graham
If you analyze this option for total parts count, difficulty of
fabricating and maintaining low resistance joints and labor to
install, you may find that it's not very good value. I suggested
the copper conduit design in the first issues of the 'Connection
because it was a close clone of a system I did in a Long Ez about
1983 which was being converted to a UAV. We needed a super quiet
electrical system . . . especially in the area of the back seat
where the avionics sits. The airplane's front seat was still
usable for manned-flight operations.
The conduit was also attractive to the skunk works environment
where we were adding and removing wires running the length of
the airplane.
After several years of discussions with builders who installed
the copper tube conduit, we deduced that this was overkill for
an OBAM aircraft and a pair of fat wires tied together for
parallel-conductor field-cancellation was quite adequate to
the mission.
I presume you're interested in getting your project airborne
with the minimum of time and effort while crafting on-board
systems with high levels of performance. I can confidently
suggest now that conduit ground systems have a poor return
on investment of time for the benefits to be realized.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim Relay Deck |
>
>Thank you, Bob, for everything you do to help the OBAM community
>along. I'm indebted to you, because as I refine and re-do my RV's
>electrics, I am increasingly the beneficiary of your mental sweat.
It's "sweat" only when it's hard . . . you folks are responsible
for much of my success as a designer and troubleshooter at
Raytheon. I've learned more about fabricating elegant systems
on the List than I have in my professional activities at
RAC. We are better able to sift the sand here for simple-ideas
in the skunk-works that is the collection of your workshops
classroom that is the collection of your past experiences.
This is a symbiotic relationship from which we all benefit
so my thanks go out to you to sir.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LVWM and Kilovac contactors |
Bob,
Thank you for responding.
I'm mystified by your experience. I'm wondering
> what the Kilovac contactor uses in the way of electronics
> for holding current reduction and if that feature has
> some noise that interacts with the LVM/ABMM modules.
>
In fact I believe I traced the problem down to the small relay that powers
the LVWM. I removed the LVWM fuse and the problem still seemed to be with
the relay. I made the same test with a different relay : same problem.
> Just for grins, can you put your hands on one of those
> el-cheepo contactors. Substituting a plain-vanilla contactor
> for the Kilovac product would, by process of elimination,
> point us in the right direction.
This is what I did : I removed a standard contactor from an aerobatic
airplane and tested it with jumpers : no more problems, the small relay and
the LVWM operate as intended.
What mystifies me is that the contactor powers the e-bus, and the relay
should not care who's bringing power to the bus. I thought about the noise
issue, but how come this noise disturbs only the relay in question ?
I'm intending to conduct any investigation needed to sort out the problem.
Would it help to wire a diode between the plus contact and the relay coil
lead ?
Thanks ,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
>
>
> > As the peak inverse voltage rating goes up with each different P/N, the
> > forward voltage (conducting) voltage drop also goes up.
> > Bob White
>
>That was my concern, but I could not find any indication of this on
>the data sheet. Did you see something else that led you to this
>conclusion?
Hmmm . . . this may be true in practice but I suspect the
effect is very small. So small in fact that the data
sheets don't talk about it.
http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/1N/1N4007.pdf
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LVWM and Kilovac contactors |
I have decided that the best contactor around for many reasons is the
Kilovac. The coil circuit is nothing strange just remember you are really
powering up electronics not a inductive coil.
I do not remember your exact circuit but I have extensively used these
contactors and can find no down side other than price.
The contact part of the kilovac is isolated from the "coil" circuit and acts
just like any other contactor with a couple of differences. It has little or
no contact bounce and the release time is much shorter. So its quicker and
much less likely to have contact bounce. My seemingly never ending test
report shows extensive fallout from the auto style contactors with both the
hold time from the diode and also the occasional huge contact bounce that
had secondary effects under sone specific ciruit setup conditions.
Can you remind us of your original circuit and problems.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Fw: AeroElectric-List: LVWM and Kilovac contactors
<Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>
> > Your problem lies with your statement !! and I have seen this problem
> > before
> > your statement a contactor is a contactor is not correct a electronic
> > contactor
> > can cause problems with circuits and when these problems arise you are
> > better off
> > throwing them and using the standard design, that way when you breakdown
> > and need
> > a part you can get it.
>
>
> Paul,
>
> Thanks for your message.
> Of course I would like to get some additionnal info before throwing brand
> new contactors away ! The rest of the ship's system work as expected. The
> power section of the EV 200 is just like any other contactor, so my
question
> is, what can pose a problem with the bus when it is powered through them ?
> Can you be a bit more specific as to what problem you have encountered ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Gilles
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net> |
| Subject: | Starter Contactor |
This may be a stupid question . . .
Is there a up or down to a (Van's) starter contactor . . . mine comes closer
than I like to the engine mount (RV-8) when it's mounted with the terminals
down . . . I talked a another builder who had mounted his that way
(terminals down) and he had heard G forces (causing the starter to run)
during aerobatics may be a factor when it's mounted terminal up.
Is the a problem with mounting the contactor terminals up?
Thanks,
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LVWM and Kilovac contactors |
> I have decided that the best contactor around for many reasons is the
> Kilovac. The coil circuit is nothing strange just remember you are really
> powering up electronics not a inductive coil.
>
> I do not remember your exact circuit but I have extensively used these
> contactors and can find no down side other than price.
>
> The contact part of the kilovac is isolated from the "coil" circuit and
acts
> just like any other contactor with a couple of differences. It has little
or
> no contact bounce and the release time is much shorter. So its quicker and
> much less likely to have contact bounce. My seemingly never ending test
> report shows extensive fallout from the auto style contactors with both
the
> hold time from the diode and also the occasional huge contact bounce that
> had secondary effects under sone specific ciruit setup conditions.
>
> Can you remind us of your original circuit and problems.
>
> Paul
Paul,
Thank you for you reassuring message. You'll find the circuits in question
at the following URL.
http://gilles.thesee.free.fr/TOTO.pdf
The general architecture diagram is not up to date (aux battery management
switch, LVWM relay wiring). But the individual circuit diagrams are.
When I have time to spare (when the airplane is ready and free of bugs ;-),
I'll upgrade my website.
Your help is much appreciated !
Regards,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Schematic Review |
Bob,
Thank you for your response. I am familiar with the FEMA concept but
exercising these principles will be a new path to me. If you are willing
to help me through it, I'll be happy to participate, I understand your
concept and the goal of the exercise.
To answer your first question: The mission for the aicraft is long range
IFR flight will dual electronic ignition, EFIS glass cockpit, with
electrical backups and static backups, no vacuum system is planned.
As previously stated, the goals are simple operation and sufficient
redundancy to provide comfortable flight into known IFR conditions.
Secondary goals are light weight aft of the firewall and low cost.
I chose Z-13 as a foundation because it provides dual power sources, and
utilizes the SD-8 alternator which is a light weight (and low cost) unit
which helps to address weight goal aft of the firewall. I also like the
SD-8 design which as a PM alternator is very simple with few moving
parts.
I have found Z-13 to be sufficient for the intended mission and goals of
this aircraft in all areas. My main motivation for wanting two batteries
is the maintenance aspect of it. I can simply replace one of the
batteries on a yearly basis, rotating them around as you describe. On
the long-ez I have a requirement of a certain amount of nose weight that
is intended to be battery. Knowing that I'll need about 25-30 pounds of
batteries to satisfy my W&B, I found the Z-30 diagram and endeavored to
add it to Z-13.
After adding Z-30, I realized that I now had a circuit which offers a
new failure mode protection. A rare occurance of battery failure could
now be considered a 'no sweat' situation. If one of the batteries fails,
it can be isolated and the main bus can be powered by the remaining good
battery. Another failure mode which is now easily accomodated is 'master
switch' failure or even a battery contactor failure. If either of these
itesm fail, the main bus can be powered by the aux battery.
At this point in my integration of Z-30 I had to make a couple of
choices. First, how does the essential bus alternate feed integrate with
the dual battery configuration? My decision was to change the alternate
feed SPST switch to a SPDT switch. This allows essential bus to be fed
from either battery.
This presents a new problem with Z-30 integration into the Z-13
schematic. The SD-8 output is wired to the battery bus in Z-13. After
adding Z-30 there are two battery busses. I chose to again change the
Ebus feed switch. It now becomes a 2-1 switch, switching both the SD-8
and the alt feed. The resulting schematic is Z-13 with a full
integration of Z-30.
I searched the archives on battery failure, and it is obvious that it is
a very rare event and the odds are that it won't ever happen. I accept
that this may be a failure mode that is not worth considering, however
as you have pointed out in the past having dual batteries offers
advantages in maintenance of the system.
The following link discusses failure modes of RG batteries:
http://www.dynastybattery.com/cd_dyn/contact/tech_support/7264.htm
Here is my attempt at an analysis of an in-flight battery failure (Cell
short) in a Z-13 configuration:
If a single cell shorts, the charging current from the primary
alternator will increase. The internal resistance of the battery will
decrease, and the voltage on the remaining good cells will increase. The
bus voltage should remain the same, the remaining good cells will begin
to be over-charged and the battery temperature will begin to rise.
Method of detection: Unusually high charging current
Detection of failure during pre-flight: If we pre-suppose that a cell
short is possible in flight, it could not be detected in a pre-flight
configuration. An existing cell short could be detected during
pre-flight by the noticeably lower terminal voltage and poor cranking
performance and more likely inability to start the engine.
Is the failure a hazard to flight? This failure would over-charge the
battery, possibly causing the 'venting' of the battery due to this
overcharge condition, battery overheating and could potentially cause
the alternator fuse to blow. Another possible harmful effect is of the
short causing an internal arc that could cause battery explosion. (see
the dynasty article).
Will this failure overtax piloting skills and be deterimental to the
comfortable termination of the flight? The observance of this failure
mode would indicate to the pilot the need to turn off the Z-13 master
switch. This would disconnect the alternator from the failed battery.
The bus voltage would be low and of an unknown remaining capacity.
Engagement of the Aux alternator would not be recommended, as this would
begin to over-charge the battery in the same manner as the main
alternator, further aggravating the situation. The only alternative is
to remain on battery only power with no certainty of sufficient power
reserves to successfully terminate the flight.
The second failure mode is simpler, an 'open' cell. This failure would
cause the alternator voltage to rise as the battery circuit would no
longer be complete. The overvoltage protection would disconnect the
alternator from the circuit and the main bus would go dark. The SD-8
alternator cannot be utilized without a battery (I searched the
archives, msg #11464). In the event of a battery 'open' failure the
panel would remain dark even with two alternators aboard. The dual
electronic ignition systems would be dead as well. This failure mode
would be immediately apparent, and would pose substantial risk to the
succesful completion of the flight.
Is this the type of dialog you were hoping for?
I realize that battery failures of this type are a very rare occurance
with properly maintained batteries. However, I have experienced a
shorted cell in my previous automobile with a sealed lead acid battery
that resulted in a battery explosion. Thankfully the battery was under
the hood, not in the cabin with me. I do not know if this was an AGM
battery, it was a 'maintenance free' battery as sold by a major auto
parts chain.
All of my experiences with 'maintenance free' batteries in automobiles
have been poor. My current vehicle came with a Yuasa 'maintenance free'
battery. It was small and cranked the engine well. It was replaced twice
by the dealer under factory warranty due to failure (internally shorted
cell) within a period of two years. When the third 'maintenance free'
battery failed six months later in the same manner I replaced it with an
Interstate brand flooded battery. The cranking performance is not as
good, and of course I have to periodically maintain the water level but
it has not shorted or otherwise failed. I assume that these batteries
are of an Recombinant Gas design if they are sealed. I do not know if
they were AGM batteries or not. I do not know the cause of the poor
performance of 'maintenance free' batteries.
If you look at a comparison of a dual alternator single battery system
with a dual battery, single alternator system, it appears to me that the
dual battery system appears to be a more robust system.
With the dual battery, single alternator system, if the alternator
fails, the two good batteries continue to provide power. If one the
batteries fail, the remaining good battery and the alternator continue
to provide power. This design can tolerate several modes of
wiring/contactor/switch failure.
The single battery dual alternator system cannot tolerate a battery
failure because of the reliance on the battery for alternator output.
This design cannot tolerate a battery wiring failure.
--Scott
San Diego, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: whalen strobe wire size |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net>
Subject: whalen strobe wire size
> How do you calculate wire size for flash tubes? I'm useing a HDACF
> Whalen power suply with A610 wingtip tubes and a A500 series taillight
> assy. Max. joules will be 42. Thanks Bill S. Pulsar III
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Contactor |
>
>
>This may be a stupid question . . .
>
>Is there a up or down to a (Van's) starter contactor . . . mine comes closer
>than I like to the engine mount (RV-8) when it's mounted with the terminals
>down . . . I talked a another builder who had mounted his that way
>(terminals down) and he had heard G forces (causing the starter to run)
>during aerobatics may be a factor when it's mounted terminal up.
Complete EH (elephant hocky). G-loading on starter contactors
just doesn't happen. Especially if your contactor looks like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s702wire.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s702-1l.jpg
(and I hope it does). This contactor is usually mounted
on firewall with contacts facing forward where the
dreaded in-flight closure due to g-loading would occur
only if you hit a mountainside at cruise.
>Is the a problem with mounting the contactor terminals up?
I think I was at OSH when this hangar legend was born.
An air-show performer landed with a torn up starter
ring-gear and pinion. Everyone seemed to think that
he'd welded the contacts on the starter motor while
performing acts of daring do.
It's more likely that the contactor stuck when he started
the engine.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Harrill <KHarrill(at)osa.state.sc.us> |
| Subject: | RE: Schematic Review |
Scott,
In my RV-6 I modified the "All Electric On a Budget" system such that the
SD-8 circuit includes a small .8(that's 8/10ths)AH battery and is completely
independent of the main electrical system(and main battery). The system has
worked flawlessly for almost 400 hours now. The battery is about the size
of a deck of cards and is widely available.
Ken Harrill
Rv-6,
Columbia, SC
-----Original Message-----
From: swmat(at)cox.net [mailto:swmat(at)cox.net]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Schematic Review
-snip-
The single battery dual alternator system cannot tolerate a battery
failure because of the reliance on the battery for alternator output.
This design cannot tolerate a battery wiring failure.
--Scott
San Diego, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joel Jacobs" <jj(at)sdf.lonestar.org> |
| Subject: | Re: whalen strobe wire size |
Since you bumped this thread a couple times and none have answered I'll give
it a shot. I don't think the wire size is too important here. The duty
cycle is low and the power to the strobe cannot be more than the power to
the power supply so the same gauge you used to wire to the supply would
surely work between the supply and the strobe. Actually the average current
to the strobe tube is likely much less because the voltage is high. I made
a cable for mine that is about 3 feet long with 24ga and it's fine.
That being said, I think considerations more important than gage are
insulation ratings and shielding. What I used was just plain old 600v and
it's working but I'm keeping my eye out for some higher voltage stuff - I'd
be more comfortable with 1kv or more..
Joel Jacobs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: whalen strobe wire size
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net>
> To:
> Subject: whalen strobe wire size
>
>
> > How do you calculate wire size for flash tubes? I'm useing a HDACF
> > Whalen power suply with A610 wingtip tubes and a A500 series taillight
> > assy. Max. joules will be 42. Thanks Bill S. Pulsar III
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Contactor |
Thanks Bob,
I guess I'm a "stray" . . . it look pretty much like this one.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1103566372-394-261&browse=electrical&product=start-sw
but I'm betting it will work in either position!
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Starter Contactor
>
>
> >
> >
> >This may be a stupid question . . .
> >
> >Is there a up or down to a (Van's) starter contactor . . . mine comes
closer
> >than I like to the engine mount (RV-8) when it's mounted with the
terminals
> >down . . . I talked a another builder who had mounted his that way
> >(terminals down) and he had heard G forces (causing the starter to run)
> >during aerobatics may be a factor when it's mounted terminal up.
>
> Complete EH (elephant hocky). G-loading on starter contactors
> just doesn't happen. Especially if your contactor looks like . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s702wire.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s702-1l.jpg
>
> (and I hope it does). This contactor is usually mounted
> on firewall with contacts facing forward where the
> dreaded in-flight closure due to g-loading would occur
> only if you hit a mountainside at cruise.
>
> >Is the a problem with mounting the contactor terminals up?
>
> I think I was at OSH when this hangar legend was born.
> An air-show performer landed with a torn up starter
> ring-gear and pinion. Everyone seemed to think that
> he'd welded the contacts on the starter motor while
> performing acts of daring do.
>
> It's more likely that the contactor stuck when he started
> the engine.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Contactor |
>
>
>Thanks Bob,
>
>I guess I'm a "stray" . . . it look pretty much like this one.
>http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1103566372-394-261&browse=electrical&product=start-sw
>but I'm betting it will work in either position!
>
>Bob
I believe you are correct.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Contactor |
> It's more likely that the contactor stuck when he started
> the engine.
>
Just curious what the cockpit indications would be that this had happened.
Does the starter become an unwilling generator? Would anything show on the
voltmeter or ammeter? I have wired in a "STRTR PWRD" annunciator that senses
power downstream of the starter relay, and hoped that it would stay lit if
the starter hung up.
I don't know if it would if the contactor operated normally but the starter
bendix stayed engaged to the ring gear.
Scott in VAncouver--
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | OV and Vans 60amp Alternator was 55 Amp Suzuki Alternator |
John Crate wrote:
>
>
>Question 2
>My plan is to use the OVM-14 with the requisite contactor for over-voltage
>protection as per the Aeroelectric book/drawings. Reading a warning on
>Van's web page about over-voltage protection on their 60 amp internally
>regulated alternator now has me worried. In bright red letters it states:
>Warning!
>The internally regulated 60 ampere alternator should not be used with
>overvoltage protection systems. If you open the charging circuit while it is
>in operation, it will destroy the regulator.
>I am now confused more than normal. Is this something I should be worried
>about with respect to my particular alternator and planned application?
>
>
John did you get any responses to this question? I'd like to here them!
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Contactor |
>
>
>
> > It's more likely that the contactor stuck when he started
> > the engine.
> >
>Just curious what the cockpit indications would be that this had happened.
>Does the starter become an unwilling generator?
No . . .
> Would anything show on the
>voltmeter or ammeter? I have wired in a "STRTR PWRD" annunciator that senses
>power downstream of the starter relay, and hoped that it would stay lit if
>the starter hung up.
A loadmeter would show an extra-ordinary load on the alternator.
Some spam cans have STARTER ENERGIZED lights that monitor downstream
side of contactor.
>I don't know if it would if the contactor operated normally but the starter
>bendix stayed engaged to the ring gear.
Modern starters don't use internally engaged pinion gears
(Bendix) rather a directly engaged pinion driven from a
combination contactor/solenoid. See
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
Modern starters have overrun clutches that prevent the engine
from driving the starter motor after the engine starts. This
prevents the engine from damaging the motor by overspeeding
it. However, this clutch is not designed for long periods
of operation in the overrunning disconnect mode. I'm not
sure if the Bendix pinion assembly has a real clutch. I suspect
the Bendix pinion's engagement spiral would tend to withdraw
the pinion gear during an overruning situation. In
any case, a stuck contactor that goes undetected will
keep an intermittent duty motor operating continuously
and may keep the pinion gear engaged.
It's important that one use a REAL starter contactor
(intermittent duty) and it's a good idea to put a warning
light on the contactor's "I" terminal as suggested
in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s702wire.jpg
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Contactor |
thanks again for the timely and informative answer, Sir.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Starter Contactor
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > It's more likely that the contactor stuck when he started
>> > the engine.
>> >
>>Just curious what the cockpit indications would be that this had happened.
>>Does the starter become an unwilling generator?
>
> No . . .
>
>
>> Would anything show on the
>>voltmeter or ammeter? I have wired in a "STRTR PWRD" annunciator that
>>senses
>>power downstream of the starter relay, and hoped that it would stay lit if
>>the starter hung up.
>
> A loadmeter would show an extra-ordinary load on the alternator.
> Some spam cans have STARTER ENERGIZED lights that monitor downstream
> side of contactor.
>
>
>>I don't know if it would if the contactor operated normally but the
>>starter
>>bendix stayed engaged to the ring gear.
>
> Modern starters don't use internally engaged pinion gears
> (Bendix) rather a directly engaged pinion driven from a
> combination contactor/solenoid. See
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
>
> Modern starters have overrun clutches that prevent the engine
> from driving the starter motor after the engine starts. This
> prevents the engine from damaging the motor by overspeeding
> it. However, this clutch is not designed for long periods
> of operation in the overrunning disconnect mode. I'm not
> sure if the Bendix pinion assembly has a real clutch. I suspect
> the Bendix pinion's engagement spiral would tend to withdraw
> the pinion gear during an overruning situation. In
> any case, a stuck contactor that goes undetected will
> keep an intermittent duty motor operating continuously
> and may keep the pinion gear engaged.
>
> It's important that one use a REAL starter contactor
> (intermittent duty) and it's a good idea to put a warning
> light on the contactor's "I" terminal as suggested
> in:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s702wire.jpg
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Crate" <john.crate(at)encode.com> |
| Subject: | Re: OV and Vans 60amp Alternator was 55 Amp Suzuki |
Alternator
I emailed Bob Nuckolls directly on this particular question and this is the
reply I received back from him.
John
Figure Z-24 will be modified to ADD a Transorb (fat zener)
across the B-lead to ground so as to catch the "load dump"
transient that will take out the regulator on some alternators.
As far as I know, the alternator Van's sells is the only
one vulnerable to the event. It's easy to avoid, there's
no reason to turn an alternator OFF while under load. We
don't do this in the normal course of operating an airplane.
Alternator comes on right after engine start up and goes
off just before shutdown . . . under every day operations
there is no risk.
I'll suggest that you can move ahead with incorporation
of Figure Z-24 in your installation . . . by the time
you're ready to fly, we'll have published the "fix".
It may well be that your alternator is not so vulnerable.
If it's a factory stock take-off, it's probably
built to withstand the load-dump phenomenon . . .
I'mg only guessing, but one explanation for their
experience could be based on the use of overhauled
alternators with after-market regulators not
designed to withstand the load-dump phenomenon.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bobby Hester" <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: OV and Vans 60amp Alternator was 55 Amp Suzuki
Alternator
>
>
> John Crate wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Question 2
>>My plan is to use the OVM-14 with the requisite contactor for over-voltage
>>protection as per the Aeroelectric book/drawings. Reading a warning on
>>Van's web page about over-voltage protection on their 60 amp internally
>>regulated alternator now has me worried. In bright red letters it states:
>>Warning!
>>The internally regulated 60 ampere alternator should not be used with
>>overvoltage protection systems. If you open the charging circuit while it
>>is
>>in operation, it will destroy the regulator.
>>I am now confused more than normal. Is this something I should be worried
>>about with respect to my particular alternator and planned application?
>>
>>
> John did you get any responses to this question? I'd like to here them!
>
> --
> Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
> RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Contactor |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
If you have normal voltage (charging) after start then all is well.
A stuck starter will surely result in low voltage when you check it
after start as the starter will be drawing more current than the
alternator can produce at idle. Thus the voltage will be lower than
normal. Turning on additional loads will depress the voltage even further.
If you have a battery ammeter, it will not be showing a normal charge
current as the alternator output will be going to the starter rather
than charging the battery. Notice I said abnormal rather than high or
low. I would expect the battery to be discharging at idle but the
battery ammeter may or may not be wired to sense starter current which
can tend to confuse someone who doesn't know his system. In some systems
the ammeter may show a reassuringly high alternator current going into
the battery terminal while an even larger current is coming out of the
battery terminal on a different wire and going to the starter. I guess
this is part of the reason why I prefer a voltmeter over
ammeters/loadmeters if one is only going to have one electrical meter.
.
If you have an alternator loadmeter it will show the alternator
producing max current. That high current will increase as you go above
idle but will not cut back as it normally does since the voltage won't
get up to the voltage regulating point unless you have a very large
alternator. So the meter reads abnormally high alternator output current.
Ken
>> Would anything show on the
>>voltmeter or ammeter? I have wired in a "STRTR PWRD" annunciator that senses
>>power downstream of the starter relay, and hoped that it would stay lit if
>>the starter hung up.
>>
>>
>
> A loadmeter would show an extra-ordinary load on the alternator.
> Some spam cans have STARTER ENERGIZED lights that monitor downstream
> side of contactor.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: whalen strobe wire size |
>
>Since you bumped this thread a couple times and none have answered I'll give
>it a shot. I don't think the wire size is too important here. The duty
>cycle is low and the power to the strobe cannot be more than the power to
>the power supply so the same gauge you used to wire to the supply would
>surely work between the supply and the strobe. Actually the average current
>to the strobe tube is likely much less because the voltage is high. I made
>a cable for mine that is about 3 feet long with 24ga and it's fine.
>That being said, I think considerations more important than gage are
>insulation ratings and shielding. What I used was just plain old 600v and
>it's working but I'm keeping my eye out for some higher voltage stuff - I'd
>be more comfortable with 1kv or more..
>Joel Jacobs
Good answer Joel . . . This came up some time back and a responder
said he'd substituted a shielded, twisted trio of 22AWG wires in
his strobe system with no OBSERVABLE ill effects. I suspect if
we explored the peak currents flowing during flash time at each
bulb, we would find that 22AWG wire did indeed have more drop
but the system runs at about 350 volts. Assuming a 10A pulse
on 15' of wire at 16 milliohms/foot then the round trip voltage
loss would be on the order of 5 volts of drop. 5 volts out of
a total of 350 volts ain't bad.
The same scenario at 14 volts is obviously worse . . . 5 volts
out of 14 would cause a very observable degredation in performance
of an accessory.
I think we can assure Bill that the wire size is not critical.
I'll further suggest that unless he has access to wire by the
foot from a supplier that he might be better off buying a
kit from Whelan. Warehouse suppliers want to sell you a
500' spool as a minimum purchase.
B&C has shielded 22AWG trio for pretty cheap as I recall.
Steinair probably does too.
Bob . . .
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net>
>To:
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: whalen strobe wire size
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: whalen strobe wire size
> >
> >
> > > How do you calculate wire size for flash tubes? I'm useing a HDACF
> > > Whalen power suply with A610 wingtip tubes and a A500 series taillight
> > > assy. Max. joules will be 42. Thanks Bill S. Pulsar III
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> Starter Contactor |
| Subject: | Re: Starter engaged lamp wiring was Re: |
Starter Contactor
Contactor
Bob,
Thanks for the reminder to add this warning lamp to my Main Power
Distribution schematic. Please tell me where the I terminal connects
internally on the Ford style starter relay you mentioned earlier? Is it
wired to the output contact or to the primary coil winding?
Charlie Kuss
>snipped
> It's important that one use a REAL starter contactor
> (intermittent duty) and it's a good idea to put a warning
> light on the contactor's "I" terminal as suggested
> in:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s702wire.jpg
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | whalen strobe wire size |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Bill and Marsha"
<>
12/21/2004
Hello Bill S. Are you absolutely determined to not use the wire (cable)
that Whelen provides for this specific purpose? If so, why?
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Starter engaged lamp wiring was Re: Starter Contactor |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Bob -
Is it also wise to put a fuse link in the wire attached to the "I"
terminal? It would be attached to the I terminal itself and then to the
wire itself.
Thanks,
John
>
>> snipped
>> It's important that one use a REAL starter contactor
>> (intermittent duty) and it's a good idea to put a warning
>> light on the contactor's "I" terminal as suggested
>> in:
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s702wire.jpg
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mcculleyja(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 27 Msgs - 12/20/04 |
In a message dated 12/21/04 2:57:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, -->
AeroElectric-List message posted by: writes:
>(SNIP)The SD-8 alternator cannot be utilized without a battery (I searched
the
> archives, msg #11464). In the event of a battery 'open' failure the
> panel would remain dark even with two alternators aboard. (SNIP)
I may be mis-understanding the above statement with respect to your overall
design, but FWIW, I operate an SD-8 alternator in a single battery system and
have added a 33,000 mfd capacitor across the output to act as a simulated
"battery" in parallel with the real battery. In both ground and flight tests I
have found that the SD-8 output is unaffected by turning off the battery
contactor. Of course the battery no longer receives a charge, but the buss and
all
loads continue as normal so long as the demand is within the SD-8 capability.
Whether this has some downside aspect for long term operation, I would be
interested in hearing some input. I am not planning to depend on this in my case
but perhaps in a short term emergency it could save some consternation.
Jim McCulley
Tailwind
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Starter Contactor |
| Subject: | Re: Starter engaged lamp wiring was Re: |
Starter Contactor
Starter Contactor
> Starter Contactor
>
>Bob,
> Thanks for the reminder to add this warning lamp to my Main Power
>Distribution schematic. Please tell me where the I terminal connects
>internally on the Ford style starter relay you mentioned earlier? Is it
>wired to the output contact or to the primary coil winding?
>Charlie Kuss
It's a tiny output contact . . . when the contactor closes,
both FAT terminals and the "I" terminal are all connected
together. When the contactor is de-energized, both fat
terminals and the "I" terminal are isolated. Hence, if
the contactor sticks, the "I" terminal will still be hot
and light the STARTER ENGAGED LIGHT.
Of course, you should use an in-line fuse or fusible
like 24AWG driving a 20AWG lead to the lamp fixture.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 and battery requirements |
>
>In a message dated 12/21/04 2:57:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, -->
>AeroElectric-List message posted by: writes:
>
> >(SNIP)The SD-8 alternator cannot be utilized without a battery (I searched
>the
> > archives, msg #11464). In the event of a battery 'open' failure the
> > panel would remain dark even with two alternators aboard. (SNIP)
>
>I may be mis-understanding the above statement with respect to your overall
>design, but FWIW, I operate an SD-8 alternator in a single battery system and
>have added a 33,000 mfd capacitor across the output to act as a simulated
>"battery" in parallel with the real battery. In both ground and flight
>tests I
>have found that the SD-8 output is unaffected by turning off the battery
>contactor. Of course the battery no longer receives a charge, but the
>buss and all
>loads continue as normal so long as the demand is within the SD-8
>capability.
>Whether this has some downside aspect for long term operation, I would be
>interested in hearing some input. I am not planning to depend on this in
>my case
>but perhaps in a short term emergency it could save some consternation.
The last time I looked at an SD-8 regulator, it needed a battery
to start but would run after that should the battery become
disconnected . . . and of course, the big capacitor helps smooth
out the horrible ripple on the SD-8's single-phase rectifier.
Given that all good OBAM aircraft owners are going to capacity
check or replace the battery annually, likelihood of loosing
the battery is on the same order as loosing prop bolts. The
weakest link in battery system is the wiring to the posts. Use
soft, supper-flexible cables and Belville washers to hold battery
connection tension. I belive these are supplied with new batteries
having lead posts.
Figure Z-13 featuring a well maintained battery will be
VERY reliable compared to the spam cans that our brothers
are flying . . . IFR and all.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LVWM and Kilovac contactors |
Hi Bob and all,
Here is the test I'm intending to conduct next week :
- Change the relay : I'll replace the existing finnicky relay with an NAIS
DK1a I happen to have in my box. It is 10 amp/ 12V relay with 8.4 VDC pick
up voltage and 1.2 VDC drop out voltage. These values should -hopefully-
insure correct operation everytime the e-bus is powered, regardless of any
reasonable noise or bus voltage fluctuation.
Otherwise what other step would you suggest ?
Thanks,
Gilles
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Fw: AeroElectric-List: LVWM and Kilovac contactors
<Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Bob,
>
> Thank you for responding.
>
> I'm mystified by your experience. I'm wondering
> > what the Kilovac contactor uses in the way of electronics
> > for holding current reduction and if that feature has
> > some noise that interacts with the LVM/ABMM modules.
> >
>
>
> In fact I believe I traced the problem down to the small relay that powers
> the LVWM. I removed the LVWM fuse and the problem still seemed to be with
> the relay. I made the same test with a different relay : same problem.
>
> > Just for grins, can you put your hands on one of those
> > el-cheepo contactors. Substituting a plain-vanilla contactor
> > for the Kilovac product would, by process of elimination,
> > point us in the right direction.
>
>
> This is what I did : I removed a standard contactor from an aerobatic
> airplane and tested it with jumpers : no more problems, the small relay
and
> the LVWM operate as intended.
> What mystifies me is that the contactor powers the e-bus, and the relay
> should not care who's bringing power to the bus. I thought about the noise
> issue, but how come this noise disturbs only the relay in question ?
> I'm intending to conduct any investigation needed to sort out the problem.
> Would it help to wire a diode between the plus contact and the relay coil
> lead ?
>
> Thanks ,
> Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen J. Soule" <SSoule(at)pfclaw.com> |
| Subject: | Pinout or installation manual for KLN-90A? |
Good Morning,
Anyone out there have a pinout for the Bendix King KLN-90A?
Even better, an installation manual that they want to part with?
Email me off list if you want to.
Stephen Soule
ssoule(at)pfclaw.com
Swanton, Vermont
N227RV RV-6A flying
N222SZ RV-8 under construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> KLN-90A? |
| Subject: | Re: Pinout or installation manual for |
KLN-90A?
KLN-90A?
>
>
>Good Morning,
>
>Anyone out there have a pinout for the Bendix King KLN-90A?
>
>Even better, an installation manual that they want to part with?
>
>Email me off list if you want to.
I've posted what I have for pinouts at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/KLN90-90A-90B.pdf
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu> |
I have just bought the tach sender fromVANS that screws on the back of the
engine. It ( IE VTACHGEN2) has 3 leads on it. Red Black and White.
I assume:
Red - 12V
Black - Ground/Earth
White - Signal.
Can anyone confirm my assumption about the black and white leads is correct.
It has no docs.
Thanks, Steve
RV9a #90360
G-IINI
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen J. Soule" <SSoule(at)pfclaw.com> |
| Subject: | Pinout or installation manual for KLN-90A? |
Thank you very much.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
I've posted what I have for pinouts at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/KLN90-90A-90B.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mkejrj(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Voltage reduction circuit design |
I'm installing a Garmin GPS 18 LVC to provide Nav data to my TRUTRAK Pictoral Pilot.
The specs for the Garmin indicate it will operate at from 4 to 5.5 volts
; also that the unit needs 60 mv of current at 5 volts.The vendor cautions that
higher voltage will fry the unit.
I would be very grateful to any electrical Guru type who will assist me in designing
a circuit that will reduce Bus Voltage and Current to the specified level.
I tried to use Bob's first chapter to determine the amount of Resistance required
to drop Line Voltage 7 Volts ( from 12 to 5 ) at 60 mv and came up with a required
resistor value of 116.6 OHMS.. I don't feel comfortable with my methodology
or my answer and would appreciate assistance.
Thanks in advance,
Dick Jordan
RV 8A
I'm installing a Garmin GPS 18 LVC to provide Nav data to my TRUTRAK Pictoral Pilot.
The specs for the Garmin indicate it will operate at from 4 to 5.5 volts
; also that the unit needs 60 mv of current at 5 volts.The vendor cautions that
higher voltage will fry the unit.
I would be very grateful to any electrical Guru type who will assist me in designing
a circuit that will reduce Bus Voltage and Current to the specified level.
I tried to use Bob's first chapter to determine the amount of Resistance required
to drop Line Voltage 7 Volts ( from 12 to 5 ) at 60 mv and came up with a required
resistor value of 116.6 OHMS.. I don't feel comfortable with my methodology
or my answer and would appreciate assistance.
Thanks in advance,
Dick Jordan
RV 8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mkejrj(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Voltage reduction required for Garmin GPS |
I'm installing a Garmin GPS 18 LVC which operates at from 4 to 5.5 volts and uses
60 mv of current at 5 volts.
I would appreciate any help on how to reduce the line voltage and current to the
required values.
I took a stab at computing the size of the Resistor required and my answer is 116.6
OHMS. I don't feel very comfortable with this answer and, even assuming it
is correct, don't know how to implement it.Does one simply purchase a Resistor
of that exact value and wire it in?
Thanks in advance for your help,
Dick Jordan
I'm installing a Garmin GPS 18 LVC which operates at from 4 to 5.5 volts and uses
60 mv of current at 5 volts.
I would appreciate any help on how to reduce the line voltage and current to the
required values.
I took a stab at computing the size of the Resistor required and my answer is 116.6
OHMS. I don't feel very comfortable with this answer and, even assuming it
is correct, don't know how to implement it.Does one simply purchase a Resistor
of that exact value and wire it in?
Thanks in advance for your help,
Dick Jordan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage reduction circuit design |
Dick
First of all, your units of measure are very suspect. Current is not
measured in mv (millivolts) but in ma (milliamps) So- - - assuming this
is just a typo and your requirements are to create a voltage drop of 7
volts across a resistance while a current of 60 ma is flowing, then
according to ohms law which states E=IR then R=E/I. In your specific
numbers R=7/.060 which = 116.7 ohms as you stated. The power dissipated
in this resistor will be I2 x R which would be .06 X .06 x 116.7 = .42
watts. Therefore a 1/2 watt resistor would suffice. If however the
current drawn by the unit is not constant and the 60 ma is an average or
a maximum or ???? then as the current drawn by the device varies so then
will your applied voltage. Not good. If the current drawn by the unit
isn't constant and falls to say 20 ma then your 116.7 ohm resistor will
only drop E=.02 X 116.7 = 2.3 volts and you will be applying 14 - 2.3 =
11.7 volts to the unit while your alternator is keeping buss voltage at
14 volts. A resistor can be used for providing a reduced voltage only if
the load is constant. Do you have any assurance that in this
application the load is constant??? A better solution would be a proper
power supply which will provide the required 5 volts regardless of load
variation. There are many simple circuits which can accomplish this but
all are more complex than a single resistor.
Bob McC
mkejrj(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
>I'm installing a Garmin GPS 18 LVC to provide Nav data to my TRUTRAK Pictoral
Pilot. The specs for the Garmin indicate it will operate at from 4 to 5.5 volts
; also that the unit needs 60 mv of current at 5 volts.The vendor cautions that
higher voltage will fry the unit.
>
>I would be very grateful to any electrical Guru type who will assist me in designing
a circuit that will reduce Bus Voltage and Current to the specified level.
>
>I tried to use Bob's first chapter to determine the amount of Resistance required
to drop Line Voltage 7 Volts ( from 12 to 5 ) at 60 mv and came up with a
required resistor value of 116.6 OHMS.. I don't feel comfortable with my methodology
or my answer and would appreciate assistance.
>
>Thanks in advance,
> Dick Jordan
> RV 8A
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Freeman <flyeyes(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage reduction required for Garmin GPS |
There are multiple experts on the list, but since I lurk more than help
lately I'll try this one ;-)
You can go to Radio Shack (or Digikey, or Mouser, or anywhere) and buy
a part called a 7805 regulator for about a buck. This little gizmo
will take your bus voltage and regulate it to 5v. At 60ma, you
probably don't even need to heat sink it. The wiring diagram (pinout)
is on the package.
James Freeman
Worlds Slowest QB RV8 (soon though...)
On Dec 22, 2004, at 11:15 PM, mkejrj(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
> I'm installing a Garmin GPS 18 LVC which operates at from 4 to 5.5
> volts and uses 60 mv of current at 5 volts.
>
> I would appreciate any help on how to reduce the line voltage and
> current to the required values.
>
> I took a stab at computing the size of the Resistor required and my
> answer is 116.6 OHMS. I don't feel very comfortable with this answer
> and, even assuming it is correct, don't know how to implement it.Does
> one simply purchase a Resistor of that exact value and wire it in?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help,
> Dick Jordan
>
> I'm installing a Garmin GPS 18 LVC which operates at from 4 to 5.5
> volts and uses 60 mv of current at 5 volts.
>
> I would appreciate any help on how to reduce the line voltage and
> current to the required values.
>
> I took a stab at computing the size of the Resistor required and my
> answer is 116.6 OHMS. I don't feel very comfortable with this answer
> and, even assuming it is correct, don't know how to implement it.Does
> one simply purchase a Resistor of that exact value and wire it in?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help,
> Dick Jordan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stuck Starter Contactor |
>
>If you have normal voltage (charging) after start then all is well.
>
>A stuck starter will surely result in low voltage when you check it
>after start as the starter will be drawing more current than the
>alternator can produce at idle. Thus the voltage will be lower than
>normal. Turning on additional loads will depress the voltage even further.
>
>If you have a battery ammeter, it will not be showing a normal charge
>current as the alternator output will be going to the starter rather
>than charging the battery. Notice I said abnormal rather than high or
>low. I would expect the battery to be discharging at idle but the
>battery ammeter may or may not be wired to sense starter current which
>can tend to confuse someone who doesn't know his system. In some systems
>the ammeter may show a reassuringly high alternator current going into
>the battery terminal while an even larger current is coming out of the
>battery terminal on a different wire and going to the starter. I guess
>this is part of the reason why I prefer a voltmeter over
>ammeters/loadmeters if one is only going to have one electrical meter.
>.
>If you have an alternator loadmeter it will show the alternator
>producing max current. That high current will increase as you go above
>idle but will not cut back as it normally does since the voltage won't
>get up to the voltage regulating point unless you have a very large
>alternator. So the meter reads abnormally high alternator output current.
>
>Ken
A well considered and descriptive analysis/explanation sir.
Thank you!
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>I have just bought the tach sender fromVANS that screws on the back of the
>engine. It ( IE VTACHGEN2) has 3 leads on it. Red Black and White.
>
>I assume:
>Red - 12V
>Black - Ground/Earth
>White - Signal.
>
>Can anyone confirm my assumption about the black and white leads is correct.
>It has no docs.
If I were designing this product, that's the color coding
I would use. But as an absolute guarantee on our assumptions,
may I suggest you contact Van's directly? I've forwarded a copy
of this note to our friend Scott Risen at Van's. I trust
he or someone else from Van's will be responding to you
directly as their schedule permits.
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
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | PIDG splice sources? |
Anyone have a really good source for 24-20 PIDG splices (323975)? The
best I could find on the web was at www.crimptools.com, at $22.95/100.
Thanks,
Andy Elliott
Lycoming owner, Corvair wannabe!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu> |
Bob, thanks for that. Yes I have had a confirmation from VANS that this is
correct. Steve.
PS I wonder why people dont just label things. Occasionally I have seen some
pretty odd use of colour. Assuming people use standards can be expensive.
-----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: Tach sender
>
>
>I have just bought the tach sender fromVANS that screws on the back of the
>engine. It ( IE VTACHGEN2) has 3 leads on it. Red Black and White.
>
>I assume:
>Red - 12V
>Black - Ground/Earth
>White - Signal.
>
>Can anyone confirm my assumption about the black and white leads is
correct.
>It has no docs.
If I were designing this product, that's the color coding
I would use. But as an absolute guarantee on our assumptions,
may I suggest you contact Van's directly? I've forwarded a copy
of this note to our friend Scott Risen at Van's. I trust
he or someone else from Van's will be responding to you
directly as their schedule permits.
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
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System
on behalf of the London Business School community.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PIDG splice sources? |
>
>
>Anyone have a really good source for 24-20 PIDG splices (323975)? The
>best I could find on the web was at www.crimptools.com, at $22.95/100.
23 cents each is a really good price for PIDG splices . . .
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ray Allen stick grip controls |
Hello Group,
I am installing a Ray Allen control stick grip on my yet to be completed
RV-7A. The wire that is supplied with the grip is 26 AWG (19 stranded). I
want to exit the base of the stick with these 26 AWG wires and secure to a
terminal block so I can branch out from this terminal block. I don't see any
terminals available for wire smaller than 22 AWG at the websites I visit. The
smallest my crimpers will handle is 22 AWG. Do they make crimp terminals for
this small wire or do I have to get bare terminals and solder? I guess I could
use 22 instead of the 26 the company supplies? Any and all thoughts are
appreciated. John Robinson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Ray Allen stick grip controls |
I just used the smallest Dsub pins I could find and used a 9 pin D connector at
the base of the control stick. You can go from the other side of the D sub connector
with any small wire size you want to a terminal block or wherever your
wire travles take you. I got my D sub connectors with male and female crimp
on pins and crimper at radio shack.
-------------- Original message --------------
>
> Hello Group,
>
> I am installing a Ray Allen control stick grip on my yet to be completed
> RV-7A. The wire that is supplied with the grip is 26 AWG (19 stranded). I
> want to exit the base of the stick with these 26 AWG wires and secure to a
> terminal block so I can branch out from this terminal block. I don't see any
> terminals available for wire smaller than 22 AWG at the websites I visit. The
> smallest my crimpers will handle is 22 AWG. Do they make crimp terminals for
> this small wire or do I have to get bare terminals and solder? I guess I could
> use 22 instead of the 26 the company supplies? Any and all thoughts are
> appreciated. John Robinson
>
>
>
>
>
>
I just used the smallest Dsub pins I could find and used a 9 pin D connector at
the base of the control stick. You can go from the other side of the D sub connector
with any small wire size you want to a terminal block or wherever your
wire travles take you. I got my D sub connectors with male and female crimp on
pins and crimper at radio shack.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bikcrzy(at)aol.com
Hello Group,
I am installing a Ray Allen control stick grip on my yet to be completed
RV-7A. The wire that is supplied with the grip is 26 AWG (19 stranded). I
want to exit the base of the stick with these 26 AWG wires and secure to a
terminal block so I can branch out from this terminal block. I don't see any
terminals available for wire smaller than 22 AWG at the websites I visit. The
smallest my crimpers will handle is 22 AWG. Do they make crimp terminals for
this small wire or do I have to get bare terminals and solder? I guess I could
use 22 instead of the 26 the company supplies? Any and all thoughts are
appreciated. John Robinson
_-
=====================================================================
_-
= Photo Share: http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard V. Reynolds" <rvreynolds(at)macs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ray Allen stick grip controls |
To wire the Stick switches, I used a Belkin 156462 Pro Series 6 ft PC Monitor
VGA/SVGA cable, High Density DB15 Male/Male. I cut the cable in half and wired
both sticks switches. You should be able to find a mating DB15 Female/Female
cable to continue your wiring or use a DB15 female connector with solder cups
(uhg!).
Richard Reynolds, Norfolk, VA, RV-6A flying
Bikcrzy(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Hello Group,
>
> I am installing a Ray Allen control stick grip on my yet to be completed
> RV-7A. The wire that is supplied with the grip is 26 AWG (19 stranded). I
> want to exit the base of the stick with these 26 AWG wires and secure to a
> terminal block so I can branch out from this terminal block. I don't see any
> terminals available for wire smaller than 22 AWG at the websites I visit. The
> smallest my crimpers will handle is 22 AWG. Do they make crimp terminals for
> this small wire or do I have to get bare terminals and solder? I guess I could
> use 22 instead of the 26 the company supplies? Any and all thoughts are
> appreciated. John Robinson
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neil K Clayton <harvey4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ray Allen stick grip controls |
I tried using a D-sub connector for my Infinity stick wiring but the wires
coming from the stick's switches are too large for the D-sub pins.
I've been thinking about a circular bayonet type of connector, but there's
such a bewildering array of connectors in the Digikey and Mouser
catalogues, that I'm at an impasse.
Basically I want to be able to mate/demate the stick from the aircraft. It
has 17 wires in a single bundle.
Any suggestions welcome.
Neil C
At 07:55 PM 12/23/2004, you wrote:
>
>
>To wire the Stick switches, I used a Belkin 156462 Pro Series 6 ft PC Monitor
>VGA/SVGA cable, High Density DB15 Male/Male. I cut the cable in half and wired
>both sticks switches. You should be able to find a mating DB15 Female/Female
>cable to continue your wiring or use a DB15 female connector with solder cups
>(uhg!).
>
>Richard Reynolds, Norfolk, VA, RV-6A flying
>
>
>Bikcrzy(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello Group,
> >
> > I am installing a Ray Allen control stick grip on my yet to be
> completed
> > RV-7A. The wire that is supplied with the grip is 26 AWG (19 stranded). I
> > want to exit the base of the stick with these 26 AWG wires and secure to a
> > terminal block so I can branch out from this terminal block. I don't
> see any
> > terminals available for wire smaller than 22 AWG at the websites I
> visit. The
> > smallest my crimpers will handle is 22 AWG. Do they make crimp
> terminals for
> > this small wire or do I have to get bare terminals and solder? I guess
> I could
> > use 22 instead of the 26 the company supplies? Any and all thoughts are
> > appreciated. John Robinson
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Melvin <melvinke(at)direcway.com> |
How does one wire the three terminals on a push-to-test lamp?
Kenneth Melvin
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ray Allen stick grip controls |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Neil -
What makes the wire bundle so full of wires? !!
The Infinities come with all switches wired, but you don't have to run all
of the wires out of the stick - just the ones you need. AMP CPC's work
well and the Type II's use the same machined pins as the D Subs. The pins
handle up to 20AWG, and that is probably bigger than you need.
Another solution, is the Molex Mini-Fit Juniors. You can get pins that fit
26 to 22 AWG. We used them on all of the trim circuits in our Lancair ES
(3 axis trim tabs and indicators for pitch and yaw). Palladin makes a
great and fairly inexpensive crimper frame (Series 3300, I believe). They
make an open barrel die set that crimps 28 to 22 AWG and 18 to 22. We've
used this die for about 60% of all our crimps.
We'll probably use DSubs for the stick wiring, but I'll have to wait to
see what the wires actually look like on our Infinities.
Cheers,
John
> Basically I want to be able to mate/demate the stick from the
> aircraft. It has 17 wires in a single bundle. Any suggestions welcome.
>
> Neil C
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> |
| Subject: | Kitfox Electrical |
Hi all!
I'm finishing a Kitfox with a 582 and Bob's Z-17 electrical. The
question is where to put everything.
1. I searched the list and it seemed the consensus was to put the Rotax
264870 finned regulator on the engine side of the firewall, even though it
might suffer from the heat, to minimize the comm interference. Still true?
Any experience with it on the back side of the firewall?
2. What about the large filter cap? Since it's filtering noise I guess it
really wants to be forward of the firewall as well.
3. I need to mount a Sigtronics RES-401 intercom control box. Is this box
OK next to the regulator? Is it OK on the firewall? Or should I mount it to
the back of the instrument panel for some vibration isolation?
4. Is the overvoltage relay OK aft of the firewall? Or should I put it
forward as well to minimize noise?
Thanks for the help.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Service ceiling of batteries? |
Curious.
Is there a service ceiling where any of these batteries?
Odyssey 680 AGM
Alkaline D cells in ELT
NiMh - NiCad - LiIon in handheld stuff
Small button battery memory stuff
Lithium Polymer batteries as used on E-Models that I will be carrying around
GellCells as used for backup on EFIS
Any other airplane related things need to be aware of that could cause problems
at FL250
in a unpressurized Europa XS?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Pflanzer" <f1rocket(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ray Allen stick grip controls |
John,
Just strip the ends of the wire double the length you need and fold it back
on itself. Stick it into a #22 terminal and crimp.
Pictures of this setup can be found below.
http://www.pflanzer-aviation.com/RigFinalAssembly3.html#Control%20Stick
http://www.pflanzer-aviation.com/RigFinalAssembly4.html
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <Bikcrzy(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen stick grip controls
>
> Hello Group,
>
> I am installing a Ray Allen control stick grip on my yet to be
> completed
> RV-7A. The wire that is supplied with the grip is 26 AWG (19 stranded). I
> want to exit the base of the stick with these 26 AWG wires and secure to
> a
> terminal block so I can branch out from this terminal block. I don't see
> any
> terminals available for wire smaller than 22 AWG at the websites I
> visit. The
> smallest my crimpers will handle is 22 AWG. Do they make crimp terminals
> for
> this small wire or do I have to get bare terminals and solder? I guess I
> could
> use 22 instead of the 26 the company supplies? Any and all thoughts are
> appreciated. John Robinson
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Stick grip wiring |
Randy,
I like your idea of just folding the wire back on itself and using a
22AWG terminal. Is there any problem with the insulated portion of the wire not
securing properly due to the size? John Robinson
AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randy Pflanzer"
John,
Just strip the ends of the wire double the length you need and fold it back
on itself. Stick it into a #22 terminal and crimp.
Pictures of this setup can be found below.
http://www.pflanzer-aviation.com/RigFinalAssembly3.html#Control%20Stick
http://www.pflanzer-aviation.com/RigFinalAssembly4.html
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <Bikcrzy(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen stick grip controls
>
> Hello Group,
>
> I am installing a Ray Allen control stick grip on my yet to be
> completed
> RV-7A. The wire that is supplied with the grip is 26 AWG (19 stranded). I
> want to exit the base of the stick with these 26 AWG wires and secure to
> a
> terminal block so I can branch out from this terminal block. I don't see
> any
> terminals available for wire smaller than 22 AWG at the websites I
> visit. The
> smallest my crimpers will handle is 22 AWG. Do they make crimp terminals
> for
> this small wire or do I have to get bare terminals and solder? I guess I
> could
> use 22 instead of the 26 the company supplies? Any and all thoughts are
> appreciated. John Robinson
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net> |
| Subject: | Off/On/Mom Switch |
I'm looking for a switch that can control the electric fuel pump and primer
solenoid on a RV-8 from one switch . . . Off/On/Mom.
Can anyone tell me where to find on and what to ask for?
Thanks,
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Off/On/Mom Switch |
| From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
Bob,
Check the electical catalogs for an ON/ON/(ON). A quick search of the Mouser catalog
shows this switch to be available in a variety of styles. Don't wire the
first "ON" and it will work the same as an OFF/ON/(ON) switch.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Maureen & Bob Christensen
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Off/On/Mom Switch
I'm looking for a switch that can control the electric fuel pump and primer
solenoid on a RV-8 from one switch . . . Off/On/Mom.
Can anyone tell me where to find on and what to ask for?
Thanks,
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Off/On/Mom Switch |
B & C has this switch also. That is where I got mine.
Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker"
>
> Bob,
> Check the electical catalogs for an ON/ON/(ON). A quick search of the
Mouser catalog shows this switch to be available in a variety of styles.
Don't wire the first "ON" and it will work the same as an OFF/ON/(ON)
switch.
>
> Mark S.
>
>
>
> I'm looking for a switch that can control the electric fuel pump and
primer
> solenoid on a RV-8 from one switch . . . Off/On/Mom.
>
> Can anyone tell me where to find on and what to ask for?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Off/On/Mom Switch |
Maureen & Bob Christensen wrote:
>
>I'm looking for a switch that can control the electric fuel pump and primer
>solenoid on a RV-8 from one switch . . . Off/On/Mom.
>
>Can anyone tell me where to find on and what to ask for?
>
>Thanks,
>Bob
>
>
I have one on my plane, not flying yet :-(
Go here:
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?11X358218#s700-2-3
I think the one you need is this one: S700-2-51 DPDT (ON) - ON - OFF
Switch
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Off/On/Mom Switch |
>
>
>Maureen & Bob Christensen wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I'm looking for a switch that can control the electric fuel pump and primer
> >solenoid on a RV-8 from one switch . . . Off/On/Mom.
> >
> >Can anyone tell me where to find on and what to ask for?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Bob
> >
> >
>I have one on my plane, not flying yet :-(
>
>Go here:
>http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?11X358218#s700-2-3
>
>I think the one you need is this one: S700-2-51 DPDT (ON) - ON - OFF
>Switch
Close but the last digits are -50 not -51. This switch and its cousins
are described at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/switches.pdf
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Off/On/Mom Switch |
>
>
>Maureen & Bob Christensen wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I'm looking for a switch that can control the electric fuel pump and primer
> >solenoid on a RV-8 from one switch . . . Off/On/Mom.
> >
> >Can anyone tell me where to find on and what to ask for?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Bob
> >
> >
>I have one on my plane, not flying yet :-(
>
>Go here:
>http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?11X358218#s700-2-3
>
>I think the one you need is this one: S700-2-51 DPDT (ON) - ON - OFF
>Switch
Close but the last digits are -50 not -51. This switch and its cousins
are described at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/switches.pdf
P.S. Also see this document that explains the differences
for terminal numbering between various brands of switches.
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Carling_Micro/Carling_Micro.pdf
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | PIDG splice sources |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Dr. Andrew Elliott"
>
> Anyone have a really good source for 24-20 PIDG splices (323975)? The
> best I could find on the web was at www.crimptools.com, at $22.95/100.
> Thanks, Andy Elliott
12/24/2004
Hello Andy, Is it possible that some MS terminals from Terminal Town would
do the job?
See <<http://www.terminaltown.com/Pages/page98.html>>
Cost per item is high, but may be OK for just a few are needed.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Pflanzer" <f1rocket(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stick grip wiring |
My airplane is back at the hangar, and it's about -6 F at the moment, so I
won't be going over there any time soon. I'll have to double check to be
absolutely sure, but I believe the B & C crimper that I use will crimp down
on the insulation. I just remember wiring mine up without a problem, but
I'm not flying yet so I can say with absolute certainty. Best thing to do
is crimp one and try to pull it apart or make it fail. That way, you can be
sure.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: <Bikcrzy(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Stick grip wiring
>
> Randy,
>
> I like your idea of just folding the wire back on itself and using a
> 22AWG terminal. Is there any problem with the insulated portion of the
> wire not
> securing properly due to the size? John Robinson
>
>
>
> John,
>
> Just strip the ends of the wire double the length you need and fold it
> back
> on itself. Stick it into a #22 terminal and crimp.
>
> Pictures of this setup can be found below.
> http://www.pflanzer-aviation.com/RigFinalAssembly3.html#Control%20Stick
> http://www.pflanzer-aviation.com/RigFinalAssembly4.html
>
> Randy
> F1 Rocket
> www.pflanzer-aviation.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Bikcrzy(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen stick grip controls
>
>
>>
>> Hello Group,
>>
>> I am installing a Ray Allen control stick grip on my yet to be
>> completed
>> RV-7A. The wire that is supplied with the grip is 26 AWG (19 stranded).
>> I
>> want to exit the base of the stick with these 26 AWG wires and secure
>> to
>> a
>> terminal block so I can branch out from this terminal block. I don't
>> see
>> any
>> terminals available for wire smaller than 22 AWG at the websites I
>> visit. The
>> smallest my crimpers will handle is 22 AWG. Do they make crimp
>> terminals
>> for
>> this small wire or do I have to get bare terminals and solder? I guess
>> I
>> could
>> use 22 instead of the 26 the company supplies? Any and all thoughts are
>> appreciated. John Robinson
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Altimeters- TSO vs non TSO |
Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Fred Fillinger"
> ....skip....... It cannot be installed in a production aircraft, unless it
> is FAA-approved by other means, such as
> an STC.....skip.....
12/24/2004
Hello Fred, Your statement above regarding altimeters permitted to be
installed in "production aircraft" (I assume that you mean standard type
certificated aircraft) puzzles me.
I am aware that the FAA, by means of the FAR's, requires some instruments
and equipment in aircraft (both standard type certificated and amateur built
experimental) to be "approved" by some FAA approval process. I am also aware
that there are various ways that the FAA can grant approval for a piece of
equipment that is to be installed in an airplane. But there are also
instruments and equipment required to be in both those aircraft categories
that do not have to be FAA approved.
If one reads FAR Sec 91.205 carefully it identifies which items of required
equipment must be "approved" in order to be used in aircraft. Some examples
are: collision lights, safety belts, shoulder harness', ELT's (by reference
to FAR Sec 91.207), and position lights.**
Altimeters are not identified as one of the items that must be "approved" by
some FAA approval process in order to be installed in an aircraft.
My question to you is: What is the basis for your statement above? Thanks.
OC
**PS: I would like to point out again that since there are no certification
requirements for amateur built experimental aircraft that the FAA approval
process for some of these items used in those aircraft comes in the form of
the initial inspection and airworthiness approval of these aircraft.
PPS: One should also be aware that though FAR Sec 91.205 itself says that
the Section applies to "...civil aircraft with a standard category US
airworthiness certificate..." the Operating Limitations that are part of the
Special Airworthiness Certificate issued for each amateur built experimental
aircraft contains the words ".....In addition, this aircraft must be
operated in accordance with the applicable air traffic and general operating
rules of Part 91...........".
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Off/On/Mom Switch |
Thanks eveyone!
Don't know how I missed it!
Merry Christmas!
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Off/On/Mom Switch
>
>
> >
> >
> >Maureen & Bob Christensen wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > >I'm looking for a switch that can control the electric fuel pump and
primer
> > >solenoid on a RV-8 from one switch . . . Off/On/Mom.
> > >
> > >Can anyone tell me where to find on and what to ask for?
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Bob
> > >
> > >
> >I have one on my plane, not flying yet :-(
> >
> >Go here:
>
>http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?11X358218#s700-2-3
> >
> >I think the one you need is this one: S700-2-51 DPDT (ON) - ON - OFF
> >Switch
>
> Close but the last digits are -50 not -51. This switch and its cousins
> are described at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/switches.pdf
>
> P.S. Also see this document that explains the differences
> for terminal numbering between various brands of switches.
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Carling_Micro/Carling_Micro.pdf
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Testing.
Matt
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> (by way of Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>) |
| Subject: | Kitfox Electrical |
of Matt Dralle )
Hi all!
I'm finishing a Kitfox with a 582 and Bob's Z-17 electrical. The
question is where to put everything.
1. I searched the list and it seemed the consensus was to put the Rotax
264870 finned regulator on the engine side of the firewall, even though it
might suffer from the heat, to minimize the comm interference. Still true?
Any experience with it on the back side of the firewall?
2. What about the large filter cap? Since it's filtering noise I guess it
really wants to be forward of the firewall as well.
3. I need to mount a Sigtronics RES-401 intercom control box. Is this box
OK next to the regulator? Is it OK on the firewall? Or should I mount it to
the back of the instrument panel for some vibration isolation?
4. Is the overvoltage relay OK aft of the firewall? Or should I put it
forward as well to minimize noise?
Thanks for the help.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Franck ILMAIN" <f_ilmain(at)hotmail.com> |
Anyone has a wiring diagram for the KN 65A DME and KI 267 indicator ?
Can another tupe of indicator be used instead of the KI 267 ?
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Koyich" <Ron(at)Koyich.com> |
Merry Christmas all!
Why would anyone want to install a KN-65 DME - or any old DME in an
aircraft in 2005?
Heavy, old, junk, IMO. I was making money fixing those things in 1975 and
they weren't reliable then.
Sure they're a TSO'd DME - and a Garmin 196 isn't - but I'd rather the
Garmin any day.
To answer your question, the KI-266 mechanical indicator was a large part of
the problems of the KN-65 - the KI-267 indicators (there are variants),
was a better choice. I no longer have a wiring diagram.
Ron
**********************************************
Anyone has a wiring diagram for the KN 65A DME and KI 267 indicator ?
Can another tupe of indicator be used instead of the KI 267 ?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Franck ILMAIN" <f_ilmain(at)hotmail.com> |
Agree with you. Only problem is: it is there and it works except for the
Radial reading
It gives Distance / Speed but the radial indication is always 180 . I am
suspecting a wrong wiring.
I have a similar problem with a KR-85 ADF. A (heavy) piece of junk, but a
shop would charge me to take it off !
Merry Christmas
>From: "Ron Koyich" <Ron(at)Koyich.com>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: KN65A DME
>Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 14:49:27 +1100
>
>
>Merry Christmas all!
>
>Why would anyone want to install a KN-65 DME - or any old DME in an
>aircraft in 2005?
>
>Heavy, old, junk, IMO. I was making money fixing those things in 1975 and
>they weren't reliable then.
>
>Sure they're a TSO'd DME - and a Garmin 196 isn't - but I'd rather the
>Garmin any day.
>
>To answer your question, the KI-266 mechanical indicator was a large part
>of
>the problems of the KN-65 - the KI-267 indicators (there are variants),
>was a better choice. I no longer have a wiring diagram.
>
>
>Ron
>
>**********************************************
>
>Anyone has a wiring diagram for the KN 65A DME and KI 267 indicator ?
>
>Can another tupe of indicator be used instead of the KI 267 ?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Dec 24, 2004, at 9:49 PM, Ron Koyich wrote:
>
> Merry Christmas all!
>
> Why would anyone want to install a KN-65 DME - or any old DME in an
> aircraft in 2005?
Uh, let's see:
1. it is dirt simple to use;
2. the Air Force is unlikely to turn it off in the middle of your
approach;
3. ATC understands what, '35 DME from foobar' means;
4. it is faster and easier to get a distance from a VORTAC with a DME
than it is with a GPS.
Need I go on?
> Heavy, old, junk, IMO. I was making money fixing those things in 1975
> and
> they weren't reliable then.
I had a KN-64 in one airplane and a KNS-80 in another. They both have
been more reliable than GPS.
There are some really interesting ways that GPS fails.
> Sure they're a TSO'd DME - and a Garmin 196 isn't - but I'd rather
> the
> Garmin any day.
Until it stops working.
GPS is not a panacea. I have had enough GPS failures to know that you
cannot rely on it as the sole source of navigation. I actively use my
VOR receivers and have gone back to flying the victor airways for the
most part. They tend to keep you out of restricted airspace and there
tend to be more airports along or near the airways.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> GPS is not a panacea. I have had enough GPS failures to know that you
>
>cannot rely on it as the sole source of navigation. I actively use my
>VOR receivers and have gone back to flying the victor airways for the
>most part. They tend to keep you out of restricted airspace and there
>tend to be more airports along or near the airways.
>
Not to pile-on, but I have to agree with Brian. GPS is the greatest
thing since sliced bread, but my plane will also have a VOR receiver.
Partly, I guess, I'm just being retro, but it seems prudent to have 2
independent, unrelated (except thru the electrical system) means of
navigating.
--
Tom Sargent
RV-6A, firewall.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Alternative navigation sources, was: KN65A DME |
In a message dated 12/25/2004 8:57:40 A.M. Central Standard Time,
sarg314(at)comcast.net writes:
Not to pile-on, but I have to agree with Brian. GPS is the greatest
thing since sliced bread, but my plane will also have a VOR receiver.
Partly, I guess, I'm just being retro, but it seems prudent to have 2
independent, unrelated (except thru the electrical system) means of
navigating.
--
Tom Sargent
RV-6A, firewall.
Good Morning Tom,
I suppose I should start by mentioning that my current steed has GPS, ADF,
DME and dual VORs, However!!
I see nothing dangerous or even inconvenient with having nothing more than
one GPS as long as it is a GPS that is legally authorized for single source
navigation.
To my knowledge, the only box so authorized also has a VOR in the same unit
so I guess the question is academic. Nevertheless, I flew many hours and many
approaches in airplanes equipped with one Low Frequency range receiver and
one HF transceiver capable of transmitting on only one frequency. I did not
consider that to be an unusual risk at the time and I would not consider a
similar piece of equipment to entail a high risk today.
I fly a single engine airplane equipped with a single alternator quite often
with full confidence.
Engines quit and wings break off. We do what we can to alleviate such
disasters, but there are safety options that can be used to ameliorate both of
those conditions.
I have known many fine and experienced aviators who will not fly in a single
engine airplane unless it is equipped with a parachute equipped, zero
altitude, ejection seat.
We do all need to operate to our own level of comfort.
I try very hard to fly airplanes that have wings that won't break. That, I
think we will all agree, is not too hard to do.
The engine situation is a little tougher. Engines do quit. Fortunately,
under most flight conditions, an engine failure can be handled adequately so as
to result in a survivable landing.
Some of us do accept that additional risk.
A far more likely to occur situation is one where the entire electrical
system fails. In the days of the low frequency range, I tried to carry enough
fuel so that I could DR to a point where visual flight to a landing could be
assured. With modern fuel efficient airplanes, that is a lot easier to do than
it was sixty years ago! On top of that, we now have excellent, lightweight,
low cost, handheld communication and navigation devices.
I firmly believe that reliance on a single source of navigation is a very
rational decision, and always has been, provided that alternative plans have
been made.
Today, alternative plans are a snap.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
Brian,
Interesting observations I have a GX60 and yes it great, but.... you can be
sure that ATC will think up some way to re vector you that takes a good
amount of button pushing to accommodate. I have both now, A Narco 122
VOR/LOC/GS and a GPS. On VOR approaches a simple twist of the dial gets you
where you want to be every time.
Paul
> Uh, let's see:
>
> 1. it is dirt simple to use;
> 2. the Air Force is unlikely to turn it off in the middle of your
> Need I go on?
>
> GPS is not a panacea. I have had enough GPS failures to know that you
> cannot rely on it as the sole source of navigation. I actively use my
> VOR receivers and have gone back to flying the victor airways for the
> most part. They tend to keep you out of restricted airspace and there
> tend to be more airports along or near the airways.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Dec 25, 2004, at 9:44 AM, Paul McAllister wrote:
>
>
> Brian,
>
> Interesting observations I have a GX60 and yes it great,
Yeah, I have one in my Comanche. I just performed my first GPS approach
the other day too. Nice.
But when ATC says, "say DME from frotzblat," the DME is still a lot
easier and quicker to use.
> but.... you can be
> sure that ATC will think up some way to re vector you that takes a good
> amount of button pushing to accommodate.
I have. Once when my area nav was an IFR-certified LORAN (now replaced
by the GX-60) I was on an IFR flight across the LA TCA (now class-B)
and they amended my routing three times in five minutes. They so
overloaded me with button pushing and knob twisting that I gave up,
asked for an approach to a nearby airport, landed, and quit for the
day.
> I have both now, A Narco 122
> VOR/LOC/GS and a GPS. On VOR approaches a simple twist of the dial
> gets you
> where you want to be every time.
Ah grasshopper, you show wisdom.
There are certainly people on this list with more experience with older
nav systems than I but I have a fair bit of experience. I have flow IFR
using everything from the Adcock range with a GCA/PAR at the end of the
flight, ADF/NDB, VOR, VOR/DME, RNAV, ILS, LORAN, GPS enroute, and now
GPS approach. The interesting thing is that as the technology has
gotten more capable and sophisticated the learning curve has gotten
much steeper. My father has been flying for 52 years and has amassed
something like 20,000 hours. He can fly IFR just fine using VOR/DME/ADF
but the LORAN and GPS learning curves have just proven too steep for
him. Still, he can get the airplane anywhere and then shoot an ILS to
minimums at the end of the flight.
Not every improvement is. There is great beauty in simplicity.
(Do you really need that gizmo in your airplane?)
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: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 12/25/2004 1:10:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brianl(at)lloyd.com writes:
Not every improvement is. There is great beauty in simplicity.
Good Afternoon Brian,
I agree totally with the above statement, but I think the GPS IS the
simplification.
It is, in my mind, much easier to use than the average DME. Obviously, some
GPSs are easier to use than others and some DMEs are easier to use than
others, but I can't see how setting a GPS identifier in a window is ever any harder
than tuning a frequency in a DME receiver. For some DME receivers there are
even auxiliary switches that must be set correctly to display the desired
information in the manner that will be most usable. The same is true of the
GPS.
If you know how to use the box you own, neither the DME nor the GPS is hard
to tune.
I find my GPS to be easier to set for distance measurements than most DMEs.
If one wants to learn how to use all of the other functions available in a
GPS, it can be daunting. However, I have been flying for quite a bit longer
than has your father and I think I have managed to be able to learn how to use
the functions of my GPS adequately for my purposes.
I am sure if he wanted to, he could do as well, probably better.
It was amazing how many people complained about having to learn to use the
VOR when we first got them. Now some folks are saying the same thing about
GPS.
The GPS is cheaper, more accurate and more reliable than anything we have
had before.
It took training to use the Loop range, the ADF, the VOR, the ILS and the
Radar approach. The GPS is no different.
I think it is easier, but it is certainly no harder!
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> |
On Dec 25, 2004, at 2:44 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 12/25/2004 1:10:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> brianl(at)lloyd.com writes:
>
> Not every improvement is. There is great beauty in simplicity.
>
>
> Good Afternoon Brian,
>
> I agree totally with the above statement, but I think the GPS IS the
> simplification.
In some ways it is. In others, it is not.
> It is, in my mind, much easier to use than the average DME. Obviously,
> some
> GPSs are easier to use than others and some DMEs are easier to use than
> others, but I can't see how setting a GPS identifier in a window is
> ever any harder
> than tuning a frequency in a DME receiver. For some DME receivers
> there are
> even auxiliary switches that must be set correctly to display the
> desired
> information in the manner that will be most usable. The same is true
> of the
> GPS.
I have never met a GPS or LORAN that I could use completely without
referring to the manual at least once. I have never met a DME I could
not use immediately. The reason is that the knobs on the DME are
clearly labeled as to their function. They are not overloaded. About
the only think you really need to know about the DME is whether it is
being remotely channeled by the Nav and whether you have to press the
'hold' button to lock the DME frequency when you switch to the
localizer freq on an ILS/DME approach that uses the DME off the
on-field VORTAC.
Most people can use the 'direct-to' feature of their GPS without too
much trouble but when it comes time to define and/or modify a flight
plan, all bets are off. Also, using the GPS to provide DME functions
from a nearby navaid while still using the GPS to navigate a
flight-plan route can be a real challenge. Again, the DME wins
hands-down in this area for simplicity.
> If you know how to use the box you own, neither the DME nor the GPS is
> hard
> to tune.
No, GPS is not difficult but it is still more difficult than using
VOR/DME. It requires much more training but if used correctly can
greatly improve situational awareness.
> I find my GPS to be easier to set for distance measurements than most
> DMEs.
Oh well, my experience differs from yours.
> If one wants to learn how to use all of the other functions available
> in a
> GPS, it can be daunting. However, I have been flying for quite a bit
> longer
> than has your father
Sorry. It seems I can't subtract in my head anymore. He has been
flying for 62 years. He started in 1942. He is 82. Not too many people
still flying who have been flying longer than my father. Regardless I
know you have a great deal of experience.
> and I think I have managed to be able to learn how to use
> the functions of my GPS adequately for my purposes.
Many (most) people do. My point is that not all advances are
simplification.
> I am sure if he wanted to, he could do as well, probably better.
Perhaps. It does not come naturally to him. Most GPSes have abysmal
user interfaces that are anything but obvious to use. This is where I
make the point that DME is easier to use.
> It was amazing how many people complained about having to learn to use
> the
> VOR when we first got them. Now some folks are saying the same thing
> about
> GPS.
The VOR requires interpretation in your head. That can be more of a
challenge too. The GPS is more direct in that respect. OTOH they keep
loading more and more features in and it makes the user interface more
and more complex.
> The GPS is cheaper, more accurate and more reliable than anything we
> have
> had before.
It is more accurate. It is not necessarily more reliable. As I have
said, I found some interesting ways in which GPS fails. If you don't
fly often enough or long enough for it to get a full update of its
Almanac and its ephemeris it just stops working after a couple of
months. I had that happen to me in flight. Poof -- no more GPS halfway
to the destination. It is most disconcerting. The solution? Let is sit
on the ramp for 45 minutes without moving it. Yeah, I knew that ...
after a call to the manufacturer.
In the southwest the Air Force plays games with the accuracy. This is
also quite disconcerting.
And I have had the pleasure of holding a Russian GPS jammer in my hand.
To think that I could have taken out GPS in the LA basin with that
little gadget. Do you think I could have taken out all VOR/DME/ILS with
one little hand-held box? I don't.
So, yes, GPS is wonderful. It just isn't quite as wonderful as everyone
hoped it would be. Now a GPS/LORAN combo would be quite robust.
> It took training to use the Loop range, the ADF, the VOR, the ILS and
> the
> Radar approach. The GPS is no different.
>
> I think it is easier, but it is certainly no harder!
Well, you caught me playing devil's advocate. I own an approach GPS and
wouldn't trade it for the world. I was trying to make the point that
the old stuff is not necessarily worse and a DME is certainly useful. I
do know that when ATC amends my clearance enroute I can shift gears
more easily when flying VOR or VOR/DME than when flying GPS. You should
hear the young guys grumble in the cockpit when they hear the words, "I
have amended routing. Advise when ready to copy clearance." Imagine
trying to write a new flight plan into your GPS at night, on the
gauges, in turbulence without an autopilot or copilot to keep the wings
level. It is a challenge.
> Happy Skies,
Always.
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox Electrical |
>(by way of Matt Dralle )
>
>
>Hi all!
> I'm finishing a Kitfox with a 582 and Bob's Z-17 electrical. The
>question is where to put everything.
>
>1. I searched the list and it seemed the consensus was to put the Rotax
>264870 finned regulator on the engine side of the firewall, even though it
>might suffer from the heat, to minimize the comm interference. Still true?
>Any experience with it on the back side of the firewall?
I'd rather put it on the cool side. There's no
evidence that this regulator is any more prone
to radiated noise into comms or any other radio.
However, given the relatively low area of real
estate on the firewall of this airplane, I'd
have no problem putting it out in the engine
side. It's not as hot out there as one might
think in flight . . . and that's the only time
this regulator is going to be putting out much
heat.
>2. What about the large filter cap? Since it's filtering noise I guess it
>really wants to be forward of the firewall as well.
This filter has nothing to do with radio specific
noise. I.e., if you're hearing noises in a radio
where the noise goes up and down with volume control
(means radiated into the antenna) then the fat
electrolytic capacitor intended for ripple filtering
is not likely to help with high frequency noises as
well.
>3. I need to mount a Sigtronics RES-401 intercom control box. Is this box
>OK next to the regulator? Is it OK on the firewall? Or should I mount it to
>the back of the instrument panel for some vibration isolation?
It's a good idea to isolate power control and generation
equipment as far as practical from small signal avionics
and audio systems. This has to do more with MAGNETIC
coupling from the power system into the small signal
system and is MUCH more difficult to deal with later.
4. Is the overvoltage relay OK aft of the firewall? Or should I put it
forward as well to minimize noise?
It's not a contributor to the noise issues. Mount it
on same side as regulator.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Altimeters- TSO vs non TSO |
Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Fred Fillinger"
> ....skip....... It cannot be installed in a production aircraft, unless it
> is FAA-approved by other means, such as an STC.....skip.....>>
>> My question to you is: What is the basis for your statement above?
> Think it works like this. Part 91 isn't the only rule for maintaining
> type-certificated aircraft, but also Parts 21 and 43. These make it
> clear it to me at least that only actual aircraft parts go into actual
> airplanes....skip...
> However, an altimeter is not a trivial item, and the Regs forbid
> anyone from making one and selling it as an aircraft part, except for
> homebuilts and ultralights. If they sell a nonTSOd instrument but
> with a PMA, maybe a shop might go with that, if it's not the specific
> part the airframe mfr used. Is there such an animal out there? None
> of the instruments I have, sold for homebuilt only, say PMA. Fred F.
12/25/2004
Hello Fred, Thanks for your prompt and on point response. I am inclined to
agree.
FAR Sec21.303 says "....no person may produce a modification or replacement
part for sale for installation on a type certificated product unless it is
produced pursuant to a Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under this
subpart."**
That would seem to prevent the manufacture of non approved parts intended to
be installed in type certificated aircraft.
But what FAR Sec in Part 43, or elsewhere in the regulations, do you feel
prevents the installation of non approved parts in type certificated
aircraft?
The closest that I can come to such a prohibition is FAR Sec 43.13 (b) which
says "Each person maintaining or altering, or performing preventive
maintenance, shall do that work in such a manner and use materials of such a
quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine,
propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or
properly altered condition with regard to aerodynamic function, structural
strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and other qualities
affecting airworthiness).##
Thanks for your help.
OC
**PS: This is the FAR that Bill Bainbridge of B&C was accused of violating
by the FAA in a famous case in which the FAA was forced to drop the charges
and apologize.
##PPS: We had some pompous FAA ass who made a presentation to our local EAA
Chapter several years ago that tried to tell us that that section of the
FAR's meant that we could not make modifications to our amateur built
experimental aircraft that improved any of those characteristics because the
aircraft must remain equal to the condition that it was in when it received
its original airworthiness inspection.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fox5flyer" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Garmin 196 vs 295 |
As much as I'd like to contribute a meaningful argument to the GPS/VOR
thread, I don't really have the long term experience that I need. However,
I learned to fly in the early 70s and got into GPS when the Garmin 95 AVD
hit the streets which I later upgraded to the Garmin 95XL. Overall it's
been a great unit, very reliable, and has always gotten me where I was
going, except for a few times. Once in a while the signal just drops off
completely and the few times it has I was left to dead reckoning (oh my
gawd!) with my compass which wasn't a crisis because I always try to keep
myself pinpointed with a chart next to me. Since I don't fly IFR it hasn't
been a big problem, but I'd hate to be in total IMC with turbulence at night
and have something like that happen.
Anyway, I'm in the market to upgrade my GPS (probably another Garmin) and am
considering the 196 and the 295. Can anybody who has considerable
experience with both of these units tell me which one is the best bang for
the buck? Both seem to be nice units, but I can't seem to find anything
that compares the two for user friendliness and overall bang. I can go
either with a used unit or new, doesn't matter. Better yet, does anybody
who is upgrading have one they want to sell (offlist)?
Thanks for any help.
Darrel
From: sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KN65A DME
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> GPS is not a panacea. I have had enough GPS failures to know that you
>
>cannot rely on it as the sole source of navigation. I actively use my
>VOR receivers and have gone back to flying the victor airways for the
>most part. They tend to keep you out of restricted airspace and there
>tend to be more airports along or near the airways.
>
Not to pile-on, but I have to agree with Brian. GPS is the greatest
thing since sliced bread, but my plane will also have a VOR receiver.
Partly, I guess, I'm just being retro, but it seems prudent to have 2
independent, unrelated (except thru the electrical system) means of
navigating.
--
Tom Sargent
RV-6A, firewall.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 196 vs 295 |
Take a look at:
http://www.avionix.com/gps-hand.html
for lots of reviews and information.
I'd take a good look at the displays on both. My old eyes have a lot of
trouble reading either...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 196 vs 295
>
> As much as I'd like to contribute a meaningful argument to the GPS/VOR
> thread, I don't really have the long term experience that I need.
However,
> I learned to fly in the early 70s and got into GPS when the Garmin 95 AVD
> hit the streets which I later upgraded to the Garmin 95XL. Overall it's
> been a great unit, very reliable, and has always gotten me where I was
> going, except for a few times. Once in a while the signal just drops off
> completely and the few times it has I was left to dead reckoning (oh my
> gawd!) with my compass which wasn't a crisis because I always try to keep
> myself pinpointed with a chart next to me. Since I don't fly IFR it
hasn't
> been a big problem, but I'd hate to be in total IMC with turbulence at
night
> and have something like that happen.
> Anyway, I'm in the market to upgrade my GPS (probably another Garmin) and
am
> considering the 196 and the 295. Can anybody who has considerable
> experience with both of these units tell me which one is the best bang for
> the buck? Both seem to be nice units, but I can't seem to find anything
> that compares the two for user friendliness and overall bang. I can go
> either with a used unit or new, doesn't matter. Better yet, does anybody
> who is upgrading have one they want to sell (offlist)?
> Thanks for any help.
> Darrel
>
>
> From: sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KN65A DME
>
>
> Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> > GPS is not a panacea. I have had enough GPS failures to know that you
> >
> >cannot rely on it as the sole source of navigation. I actively use my
> >VOR receivers and have gone back to flying the victor airways for the
> >most part. They tend to keep you out of restricted airspace and there
> >tend to be more airports along or near the airways.
> >
>
> Not to pile-on, but I have to agree with Brian. GPS is the greatest
> thing since sliced bread, but my plane will also have a VOR receiver.
> Partly, I guess, I'm just being retro, but it seems prudent to have 2
> independent, unrelated (except thru the electrical system) means of
> navigating.
> --
> Tom Sargent
> RV-6A, firewall.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: push-to-test |
Haven't seen a reply to your question yet Kenneth, so I'll try to get
you started.
One terminal, (common) is connected to ground, as in a normal indicator.
Another terminal, (signal or lamp) is connected to the signal you wish
to annunciate, again just like a normal indicator. The third wire (and I
presume the basis for your question, the push-to-test wire) goes to a
source of power like the buss which supplies power to the signalling
device providing the signal you are trying to annunciate. Now, having
said all that, there could be an alternate to this situation if the
signalling device normally operates the indicator by grounding it. If
this is the case, then the common terminal goes to the power source and
the mysterious third wire goes to ground.
In simplest terms the third wire (push-to-test function) goes to the
same place as the side of the signalling device (pressure switch, gear
switch, whatever) AWAY from the lamp. The other two wires are connected
exactly the same as a normal NON push-to-test lamp. There should be some
indication, either on the device itself, or in the accompanying
literature, identifying the terminals as to which ones are, the common,
the lamp, and the push-to-test switch.
I hope this doesn't sound way too confusing and has helped with your
problem.
Bob McC
Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>
>How does one wire the three terminals on a push-to-test lamp?
>
>Kenneth Melvin
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | bnc 90 fittings in the tray |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
My trays for my 430/330/ etc all come with a straight BNC mounted to the
tray. It floats a bit so the unit sliding in can mate up nicely.
Coming out the back of the tray I am out of room. I tried putting on a
90 degree adapter but there is no room for the adapter. If the fitting
coming out of the tray was 90 degrees instead of straight, Id be in
business. Does Garmin make these? They are like a bulkhead fitting in
that they have a retaining nut and a special sleeve that hold it in the
tray. No doubt if they do, Im gonna have to hock the house to buy it. I
need 5 of em.
Help!
Thanks
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 196 vs 295 |
Fox5flyer wrote:
> Anyway, I'm in the market to upgrade my GPS (probably another Garmin) and am
> considering the 196 and the 295. Can anybody who has considerable
> experience with both of these units tell me which one is the best bang for
> the buck? Both seem to be nice units, but I can't seem to find anything
> that compares the two for user friendliness and overall bang. I can go
> either with a used unit or new, doesn't matter. Better yet, does anybody
> who is upgrading have one they want to sell (offlist)?
> Thanks for any help.
> Darrel
Hi Darrel,
I've never used the 196, but I have had the 295
for about 4 years now, and I really love it. The color
screen makes it very easy to distinguish between items
on the screen. I think you can get these used and/or
refurbished for about $700-$800.
However, if the Garmin 296 had been out at the
time, that would be the one I would buy. Same features as
the 295, plus has the simulated instrument screen of the 196 and
has the terrain and obstacle database. Quite impressive.
They are a bit more expensive - around $1600-$1700.
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: push-to-test |
>
>
>How does one wire the three terminals on a push-to-test lamp?
>
>Kenneth Melvin
The term "press-to-test" lamp can cover many different brands
and styles but I'll assume you're asking about the dimmable
MS25041 series like these:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/presstotest.php
If so, then there is an exemplar wiring diagram on page 3
of this document:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
If you're talking about some other device, I'd have to know
more about it to offer any advice.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox Electrical |
>
>
> It's a good idea to isolate power control and generation
> equipment as far as practical from small signal avionics
> and audio systems. This has to do more with MAGNETIC
> coupling from the power system into the small signal
> system and is MUCH more difficult to deal with later.
Bob,
Thanks so much for the reply. It sounds like the safest course is
to put the power control hardware forward of the stainless firewall. I had
a note on the Kitfox forum where at least one builder had had noise issues
resolved by moving the regulator forward.
Thanks again,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Melvin <melvinke(at)direcway.com> |
Thank you so much for your help, Robert. The lamp in question is from
Aircraft Spruce, and is to indicate when the hydraulic pump is running--
connected to the switched side of the pump contactor. When I connected the
third wire to a power distribution bus, it blew the 5A fuse. So either the
push-to-test actually grounds the lamp, which doesn't sound correct for the
intended purpose or circumstances, or I have the three wires improperly
labelled as to origin on the lamp. Will remove and check.
Thanks again,
Kenneth
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
McCallum
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: push-to-test
-->
Haven't seen a reply to your question yet Kenneth, so I'll try to get you
started.
One terminal, (common) is connected to ground, as in a normal indicator.
Another terminal, (signal or lamp) is connected to the signal you wish to
annunciate, again just like a normal indicator. The third wire (and I
presume the basis for your question, the push-to-test wire) goes to a source
of power like the buss which supplies power to the signalling device
providing the signal you are trying to annunciate. Now, having said all
that, there could be an alternate to this situation if the signalling device
normally operates the indicator by grounding it. If this is the case, then
the common terminal goes to the power source and the mysterious third wire
goes to ground.
In simplest terms the third wire (push-to-test function) goes to the same
place as the side of the signalling device (pressure switch, gear switch,
whatever) AWAY from the lamp. The other two wires are connected exactly the
same as a normal NON push-to-test lamp. There should be some indication,
either on the device itself, or in the accompanying literature, identifying
the terminals as to which ones are, the common, the lamp, and the
push-to-test switch.
I hope this doesn't sound way too confusing and has helped with your
problem.
Bob McC
Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>-->
>
>How does one wire the three terminals on a push-to-test lamp?
>
>Kenneth Melvin
>
>
>
>
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Electric hints and kinks #4 |
Cheers,
I ran across a material which seems to have an endless list of
uses. The material comes under several categories, but in my case is usually
out of a craft store and reads "Liquid Embroidery" or similar.
I comes in squeeze bottles of two ounce size or similar and
comes in a myriad of colours including "Neon" bright and metallic (silver,
gold, bronze) themes. It is used by crafters to mark, write or decorate
clothes and fabrics. I found it to be excellent for 'softening' openings
where chafing may be easily inspected and refurbished as it is easy to use,
controllabe and hardy. It hardens from an applied 'touthpaste' consitency to
rubbery in two hours and over a week harden into a hard rubber surface. When
part cured, it is easily finished with a wet platen to form the surface
sought. I use the neon colours for important and vital parts and signs, and
the metallic quality finishes are ideal for filling in unsightly cracks and
visible areas. The open section of bearings (i.e:Outriggers) is a perfect
example. Each bottle is about $2 and can be used over several years if
properly stoppered.
When Ms. Perfect gets out of jail you can revert to her advice.
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Dance of the Elders - diversion |
Hi. I have just been enlightened by the byplay twixt Old Bob and Brian -
both of whom appear to be contemporaries of mine and of similar if not
superior experience, although 20,00 hours might still be a bit short on
time!
Both of these gentlemen (and one's Dad) have my respect and eyeball
when they put finger to keyboard, and when they differ if only slightly, I'm
there to learn. The day you stop finding out something is the day to set
fire to your airman's certificate, licence, permit, whatever.
The late discussion regarding GPS, DME and simplicity keeps
reminding me of the Adcock and the earphones singing:
"Neep- nahhhhhhhhhhhhh,neep- nahhhhhhhhhhh" for perhaps two hours at a time.
This tune versus, "nahp-neeeeeeeeeeeee, nahp-neeeeeeeeeee" will tell you
whether your in the port otr starboard side of the leg and in the bi-signal
zone.
All it took basically was an LF receiver and a pair of 'phones - so
simple BUT it only took you across the country in a very tiny segment of the
sky. To me the DME sounds more like it than the GPS does, but I can see the
logic in both attitudes.............. Most entertaining, thank you!
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: push-to-test |
Sounds like you might have the "signal" and "common" connections
reversed. This would cause the push to test feature to be seen as a
short by your fuse but would allow the lamp itself to function properly.
Bob McC
Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>
>Thank you so much for your help, Robert. The lamp in question is from
>Aircraft Spruce, and is to indicate when the hydraulic pump is running--
>connected to the switched side of the pump contactor. When I connected the
>third wire to a power distribution bus, it blew the 5A fuse. So either the
>push-to-test actually grounds the lamp, which doesn't sound correct for the
>intended purpose or circumstances, or I have the three wires improperly
>labelled as to origin on the lamp. Will remove and check.
>Thanks again,
>Kenneth
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox Electrical |
>
> >
> >
> > It's a good idea to isolate power control and generation
> > equipment as far as practical from small signal avionics
> > and audio systems. This has to do more with MAGNETIC
> > coupling from the power system into the small signal
> > system and is MUCH more difficult to deal with later.
>
>Bob,
> Thanks so much for the reply. It sounds like the safest course is
>to put the power control hardware forward of the stainless firewall. I had
>a note on the Kitfox forum where at least one builder had had noise issues
>resolved by moving the regulator forward.
Interesting! Could you see if the builder who had the
problem would be interesting in talking with me about
it? You could give him my direct e-mail address
b.nuckolls(at)cox.net. It would be useful to talk to
him about his experiences.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Melvin <melvinke(at)direcway.com> |
Most helpful, as ever. Thank you Bob.
Ken melvin
-----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: push-to-test
-->
>
>
>How does one wire the three terminals on a push-to-test lamp?
>
>Kenneth Melvin
The term "press-to-test" lamp can cover many different brands
and styles but I'll assume you're asking about the dimmable
MS25041 series like these:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/presstotest.php
If so, then there is an exemplar wiring diagram on page 3
of this document:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
If you're talking about some other device, I'd have to know
more about it to offer any advice.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Melvin <melvinke(at)direcway.com> |
You are absolutely correct! Good diagnosis. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
McCallum
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: push-to-test
-->
Sounds like you might have the "signal" and "common" connections reversed.
This would cause the push to test feature to be seen as a short by your fuse
but would allow the lamp itself to function properly.
Bob McC
Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>-->
>
>Thank you so much for your help, Robert. The lamp in question is from
>Aircraft Spruce, and is to indicate when the hydraulic pump is
>running-- connected to the switched side of the pump contactor. When I
>connected the third wire to a power distribution bus, it blew the 5A
>fuse. So either the push-to-test actually grounds the lamp, which
>doesn't sound correct for the intended purpose or circumstances, or I
>have the three wires improperly labelled as to origin on the lamp. Will
remove and check.
>Thanks again,
>Kenneth
>
>
>
>
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
| Subject: | Garmin 196 vs 295 |
I've had both. I like the 196 better. Faster screen. More value. I don't
miss the color.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Burton [mailto:dburton(at)nwlink.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 9:22 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 196 vs 295
>
> -->
>
> Take a look at:
> http://www.avionix.com/gps-hand.html
> for lots of reviews and information.
> I'd take a good look at the displays on both. My old eyes
> have a lot of trouble reading either...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fox5flyer" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 196 vs 295
>
>
>
> >
> > As much as I'd like to contribute a meaningful argument to
> the GPS/VOR
> > thread, I don't really have the long term experience that I need.
> However,
> > I learned to fly in the early 70s and got into GPS when the
> Garmin 95 AVD
> > hit the streets which I later upgraded to the Garmin 95XL.
> Overall it's
> > been a great unit, very reliable, and has always gotten me
> where I was
> > going, except for a few times. Once in a while the signal
> just drops off
> > completely and the few times it has I was left to dead
> reckoning (oh my
> > gawd!) with my compass which wasn't a crisis because I
> always try to keep
> > myself pinpointed with a chart next to me. Since I don't fly IFR it
> hasn't
> > been a big problem, but I'd hate to be in total IMC with
> turbulence at
> night
> > and have something like that happen.
> > Anyway, I'm in the market to upgrade my GPS (probably
> another Garmin) and
> am
> > considering the 196 and the 295. Can anybody who has considerable
> > experience with both of these units tell me which one is
> the best bang for
> > the buck? Both seem to be nice units, but I can't seem to
> find anything
> > that compares the two for user friendliness and overall
> bang. I can go
> > either with a used unit or new, doesn't matter. Better
> yet, does anybody
> > who is upgrading have one they want to sell (offlist)?
> > Thanks for any help.
> > Darrel
> >
> >
> > From: sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KN65A DME
> >
>
> >
> > Brian Lloyd wrote:
> >
> > > GPS is not a panacea. I have had enough GPS failures to
> know that you
> > >
> > >cannot rely on it as the sole source of navigation. I
> actively use my
> > >VOR receivers and have gone back to flying the victor
> airways for the
> > >most part. They tend to keep you out of restricted
> airspace and there
> > >tend to be more airports along or near the airways.
> > >
> >
> > Not to pile-on, but I have to agree with Brian. GPS is the greatest
> > thing since sliced bread, but my plane will also have a VOR
> receiver.
> > Partly, I guess, I'm just being retro, but it seems prudent
> to have 2
> > independent, unrelated (except thru the electrical system) means of
> > navigating.
> > --
> > Tom Sargent
> > RV-6A, firewall.
> >
> >
>
>
> =========
> =========
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
> =========
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Comparison between VOR/DME and GPS based navigation can be apples vs. oranges.
The former is a simple distance/bearing system while the GPS provides that and
a whole lot more. If the GPS box is used only for the same point-to-point routing,
is it any more complicated entering a waypoint and hitting direct to than
putting a new frequency into the nav receiver and twisting the OBS? In some
airplanes that I have flown the DME was tuned separately, introducing additional
steps. Then too there was the mental math that went with slant range considerations
at higher altitudes.
Complaints that amended clearances cause much knob twisting when using a GPS reflects
its capability to fly preloaded flight plans and automatically sequence,
something NA in the VOR world (unless you have a $100K FMS on board).
As practical matter we will have both kinds in our airplanes. Despite the WAAS
capable GPS's legality as the primary navigation device, FAR 91.205(d)(2) still
requires: "....navigation equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to
be used." So a VOR receiver or ADF has to back up your Garmin 480.
Regards, Bruce McGregor
Comparison between VOR/DME and GPS based navigation can be apples vs. oranges.
The former is a simple distance/bearing system while the GPS provides that and
a whole lot more. If the GPS box is used only for the same point-to-point routing,
is it any more complicated entering a waypoint and hitting direct to than
putting a new frequency into the nav receiver and twisting the OBS? In some
airplanes that I have flown the DME was tuned separately, introducing additional
steps. Then too there was the mental math that went with slant range considerations
at higher altitudes.
Complaints that amended clearances cause much knob twistingwhen using a GPS reflects
its capability to fly preloaded flight plans and automatically sequence,
something NA in the VOR world (unless you have a $100K FMS on board).
As practical matter we will have bothkinds in our airplanes. Despite the WAAS capable
GPS's legality as the primary navigation device, FAR 91.205(d)(2) still
requires: "....navigation equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be
used." So a VOR receiver or ADF has to back up your Garmin 480.
Regards, Bruce McGregor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: push-to-test |
>
>
>Sounds like you might have the "signal" and "common" connections
>reversed. This would cause the push to test feature to be seen as a
>short by your fuse but would allow the lamp itself to function properly.
>
>Bob McC
>
>Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Thank you so much for your help, Robert. The lamp in question is from
> >Aircraft Spruce, and is to indicate when the hydraulic pump is running--
> >connected to the switched side of the pump contactor. When I connected the
> >third wire to a power distribution bus, it blew the 5A fuse. So either the
> >push-to-test actually grounds the lamp, which doesn't sound correct for the
> >intended purpose or circumstances, or I have the three wires improperly
> >labelled as to origin on the lamp. Will remove and check.
> >Thanks again,
> >Kenneth
I can't deduce how mis-wiring this fixture would cause
a fuse-popping fault.
About the most that can happen is that the lamp either
fails to illuminate or illuminates continuously while
not depressed while properly indicating the monitored
function while held in the "test" position. There are
no two terminals of this fixture that form a low resistance
pathway in either a depressed or relaxed position of
the press-to-test switch.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Dec 26, 2004, at 7:25 PM, brucem(at)att.net wrote:
>
> Comparison between VOR/DME and GPS based navigation can be apples vs.
> oranges. The former is a simple distance/bearing system while the GPS
> provides that and a whole lot more.
There are also DME/DME navigators that compute position from the
distance from two DMEs but other than the Narco Star*Nav I have never
seen one for light GA aircraft.
> If the GPS box is used only for the same point-to-point routing, is it
> any more complicated entering a waypoint and hitting direct to than
> putting a new frequency into the nav receiver and twisting the OBS?
Perhaps and perhaps not. It is certainly interesting when you plug in
SJC VOR expecting to get the one near San Jose, California, and instead
get the one in Costa Rica or wherever. Getting the correct navaid when
there is more than one with the same identifier can make it a tad bit
more difficult. It means you do need to pay attention when entering
data into your GPS receiver to ensure that what it is telling you is
what you really want to know.
> In some airplanes that I have flown the DME was tuned separately,
> introducing additional steps. Then too there was the mental math that
> went with slant range considerations at higher altitudes.
Yes, that does happen. Still, the user interface is unambiguous. Most
people who have learned to use a VOR or VOR/DME in one airplane can get
into another with equipment from a different manufacturer and make it
work immediately. Not necessarily true with GPS receivers.
> Complaints that amended clearances cause much knob twisting when using
> a GPS reflects its capability to fly preloaded flight plans and
> automatically sequence, something NA in the VOR world (unless you have
> a $100K FMS on board).
Right. And you have to consider how hard it is to mentally sequence
your VORs vs. how hard it is to reprogram the route in your GPS.
> As practical matter we will have both kinds in our airplanes. Despite
> the WAAS capable GPS's legality as the primary navigation device, FAR
> 91.205(d)(2) still requires: "....navigation equipment appropriate to
> the ground facilities to be used." So a VOR receiver or ADF has to
> back up your Garmin 480.
And my point was not to say that VOR/DME is better than GPS. My point
was to have people consider how GPS has its own set of idiosyncrasies
and that VOR/DME has its own set of advantages. Advances in technology
are not always the panacea the marketing departments would have us
think they are.
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: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox Electrical |
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's a good idea to isolate power control and generation
> > > equipment as far as practical from small signal avionics
> > > and audio systems. This has to do more with MAGNETIC
> > > coupling from the power system into the small signal
> > > system and is MUCH more difficult to deal with later.
> >
> >Bob,
> > Thanks so much for the reply. It sounds like the safest course is
> >to put the power control hardware forward of the stainless firewall. I had
> >a note on the Kitfox forum where at least one builder had had noise issues
> >resolved by moving the regulator forward.
>
> Interesting! Could you see if the builder who had the
> problem would be interesting in talking with me about
> it? You could give him my direct e-mail address
> b.nuckolls(at)cox.net. It would be useful to talk to
> him about his experiences.
Sure! He loves to chat. (On the list, that is.)
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 196 vs 295 |
Larry Bowen wrote:
>
> I've had both. I like the 196 better. Faster screen. More value. I don't
> miss the color.
After using the color, I can't imagine going
back to B&W! *grin*
I guess it is just personal preference.
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Tholen" <ttholen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Garmin 196 vs 295 |
Hi Darrell,
I have been using a 196 for about 2 years now and love it. I had a
GarminIII before that and it was also a very good GPS. The color would be
nice but for the extra cost I dont feel its worth it. Plus it eats batteries
faster, so whichever u get make sure u have a cigarette lighter plug or
direct wire it, or buy stock in Duracell! The 196 is easy to use but there
is a learning curve. Mainly learning which menu and tab gets u where u wanna
go. As Brian has said its not as easy or quick to change as DME is, but it
can to some really awesome things. If you would like to make some
comparasions you can go to Avshop and they have and they have an independent
GPS review at http://www.avshop.com/gpsroundup.html . Hope this helps in
the decision but i wouldnt give up my 196 except for a 296 and then the
price has to come WAY down!
Tom
Future builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Melvin <melvinke(at)direcway.com> |
Taken it apart and found a single strand of wire straddling two terminals.
Your deduction was right on target Bob. I'll start over.
Thanks,
Kenneth
-----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: push-to-test
-->
>
>
>Sounds like you might have the "signal" and "common" connections
>reversed. This would cause the push to test feature to be seen as a
>short by your fuse but would allow the lamp itself to function properly.
>
>Bob McC
>
>Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Thank you so much for your help, Robert. The lamp in question is from
> >Aircraft Spruce, and is to indicate when the hydraulic pump is
> >running-- connected to the switched side of the pump contactor. When
> >I connected the third wire to a power distribution bus, it blew the
> >5A fuse. So either the push-to-test actually grounds the lamp, which
> >doesn't sound correct for the intended purpose or circumstances, or I
> >have the three wires improperly labelled as to origin on the lamp. Will
remove and check.
> >Thanks again,
> >Kenneth
I can't deduce how mis-wiring this fixture would cause
a fuse-popping fault.
About the most that can happen is that the lamp either
fails to illuminate or illuminates continuously while
not depressed while properly indicating the monitored
function while held in the "test" position. There are
no two terminals of this fixture that form a low resistance
pathway in either a depressed or relaxed position of
the press-to-test switch.
Bob . . .
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: push-to-test |
With all due respect Bob this isn't necessarily true, depending upon
which specific lamp holder is employed here. The three connections to a
simple push to test lamp socket are: 1; to the "shell" of the lamp
socket. 2; to the "centre contact" of the lamp socket. 3; to the
"push-to-test" switch which becomes connected to the centre contact when
pressed. i.e. in the test state. Now if you were to wire this
particular type of lamp holder with the "ground" wire on the centre pin,
the "signal" wire ( made live via the circuit you wish to have
notification of) to the lamp shell and your "push to test" pin powered
from the buss via a fuse, then when you "press to test" you will be
directly connecting the live buss to the grounded centre pin of the
socket resulting in a dead short. This will blow the fuse as Kenneth
described but the light itself will work properly if the "test" feature
is not pressed. If the socket is wired correctly with the ground wire on
the shell, then the light will also work correctly but the press to test
will now apply buss power via the fuse to the lamp, testing its
function, though the signal wire may not otherwise be powered. If the
lamp holder is more sophisticated with a double throw feature to the
push to test then the short will not happen, but the simplest of push to
test sockets simply attach the "test" wire to the "signal" pin via a
SPST switch which can result in the symptoms Kenneth experienced. In the
more sophisticated lamp holders which feature SPDT switching then of
course your statement is correct and he could not blow the fuse this way.
Bob McC
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Sounds like you might have the "signal" and "common" connections
>>reversed. This would cause the push to test feature to be seen as a
>>short by your fuse but would allow the lamp itself to function properly.
>>
>>Bob McC
>>
>>Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Thank you so much for your help, Robert. The lamp in question is from
>>>Aircraft Spruce, and is to indicate when the hydraulic pump is running--
>>>connected to the switched side of the pump contactor. When I connected the
>>>third wire to a power distribution bus, it blew the 5A fuse. So either the
>>>push-to-test actually grounds the lamp, which doesn't sound correct for the
>>>intended purpose or circumstances, or I have the three wires improperly
>>>labelled as to origin on the lamp. Will remove and check.
>>>Thanks again,
>>>Kenneth
>>>
>>>
>
> I can't deduce how mis-wiring this fixture would cause
> a fuse-popping fault.
>
> About the most that can happen is that the lamp either
> fails to illuminate or illuminates continuously while
> not depressed while properly indicating the monitored
> function while held in the "test" position. There are
> no two terminals of this fixture that form a low resistance
> pathway in either a depressed or relaxed position of
> the press-to-test switch.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rduplooy" <rduplooy(at)iafrica.com> |
Hi,
Is there a PDF version of Z13...?
I opened with IE...got the schematic but cannot read the print?..( Very "blocky"
writing)
Thanks
Robert
RV-8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fox5flyer" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 196 vs 295 |
Thanks Tom. Appreciate the feedback.
Darrel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Tholen" <ttholen(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 196 vs 295
>
> Hi Darrell,
> I have been using a 196 for about 2 years now and love it. I had a
> GarminIII before that and it was also a very good GPS. The color would be
> nice but for the extra cost I dont feel its worth it. Plus it eats
batteries
> faster, so whichever u get make sure u have a cigarette lighter plug or
> direct wire it, or buy stock in Duracell! The 196 is easy to use but there
> is a learning curve. Mainly learning which menu and tab gets u where u
wanna
> go. As Brian has said its not as easy or quick to change as DME is, but it
> can to some really awesome things. If you would like to make some
> comparasions you can go to Avshop and they have and they have an
independent
> GPS review at http://www.avshop.com/gpsroundup.html . Hope this helps in
> the decision but i wouldnt give up my 196 except for a 296 and then the
> price has to come WAY down!
>
>
> Tom
> Future builder
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Melvin <melvinke(at)direcway.com> |
My setup was, in fact, exactly as you describe, with the center contact to
ground. Push-to-test promptly blew the fuse. I cannot be sure whether that
has been the problem, or whether the strand of wire seen after removal and
possibly created in the removal process shorted out the other terminal. No
circuit diagram came with the lamp, which has all the appearances of a
military-style push-to-test. Googling for answers produced a zero. This
commentary has been most useful, in that I now recognize that the terminals
are numbered, and that there is logic to the correct wiring process.
Thankyou!
Kenneth
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
McCallum
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: push-to-test
-->
With all due respect Bob this isn't necessarily true, depending upon which
specific lamp holder is employed here. The three connections to a simple
push to test lamp socket are: 1; to the "shell" of the lamp socket. 2; to
the "centre contact" of the lamp socket. 3; to the "push-to-test" switch
which becomes connected to the centre contact when pressed. i.e. in the test
state. Now if you were to wire this particular type of lamp holder with the
"ground" wire on the centre pin, the "signal" wire ( made live via the
circuit you wish to have notification of) to the lamp shell and your "push
to test" pin powered from the buss via a fuse, then when you "press to test"
you will be directly connecting the live buss to the grounded centre pin of
the socket resulting in a dead short. This will blow the fuse as Kenneth
described but the light itself will work properly if the "test" feature is
not pressed. If the socket is wired correctly with the ground wire on the
shell, then the light will also work correctly but the press to test will
now apply buss power via the fuse to the lamp, testing its function, though
the signal wire may not otherwise be powered. If the lamp holder is more
sophisticated with a double throw feature to the push to test then the short
will not happen, but the simplest of push to test sockets simply attach the
"test" wire to the "signal" pin via a SPST switch which can result in the
symptoms Kenneth experienced. In the more sophisticated lamp holders which
feature SPDT switching then of course your statement is correct and he
could not blow the fuse this way.
Bob McC
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>-->
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Sounds like you might have the "signal" and "common" connections
>>reversed. This would cause the push to test feature to be seen as a
>>short by your fuse but would allow the lamp itself to function properly.
>>
>>Bob McC
>>
>>Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Thank you so much for your help, Robert. The lamp in question is from
>>>Aircraft Spruce, and is to indicate when the hydraulic pump is
>>>running-- connected to the switched side of the pump contactor. When
>>>I connected the third wire to a power distribution bus, it blew the
>>>5A fuse. So either the push-to-test actually grounds the lamp, which
>>>doesn't sound correct for the intended purpose or circumstances, or I
>>>have the three wires improperly labelled as to origin on the lamp. Will
remove and check.
>>>Thanks again,
>>>Kenneth
>>>
>>>
>
> I can't deduce how mis-wiring this fixture would cause
> a fuse-popping fault.
>
> About the most that can happen is that the lamp either
> fails to illuminate or illuminates continuously while
> not depressed while properly indicating the monitored
> function while held in the "test" position. There are
> no two terminals of this fixture that form a low resistance
> pathway in either a depressed or relaxed position of
> the press-to-test switch.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: E-mail Contact Request |
D02020A0409(at)comcast.net>
>Hello Bob:
>
>I am using your fuse block system as per the "AeroElectric Connection". I
>will be using a split switch Bat/Alt master switch (Cessna), and I am
>confused about how to wire the 5A Alt Field circuit breaker into the main
>fuse block. Referencing figures Z-11 and Z-13 it shows a fusible link
>between the main fuse block post and the breaker, and in figure Z-12 it
>shows the breaker connected directly to the bus.
If you're using fuseblocks, then you can't tie a breaker to the
bus 'cause there's no "bus" suited for directly feeding a breaker.
Use the fusible link technique to extend the bus to the breaker
on the panel.
>
>Can I connect the breaker to one of the fast-on tabs on the fuse block
>then the other end of the breaker to the switch, or is the fusible link
>the proper method.
The breaker will not open before a fuse . . . you need to
have a much longer time constant in the protection for the
short lead that comes off the bus to the breaker . . . hence
the fusible links.
>
>Thanks for helping a wiring newbie. Your book has been extremely useful,
>but some of this stuff still draws a blank with me.
>
>Regards,
No problem.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 196 vs 295 |
On Dec 26, 2004, at 9:36 PM, Dj Merrill wrote:
>
>
> Larry Bowen wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've had both. I like the 196 better. Faster screen. More value.
>> I don't
>> miss the color.
>
> After using the color, I can't imagine going
> back to B&W! *grin*
The monochrome displays work better in bright sunlight and tend to have
better contrast. This means they are easier to read. I tend to prefer
monochrome where the color is not used to carry more information. YMMV.
> I guess it is just personal preference.
Yup.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Franck ILMAIN" <f_ilmain(at)hotmail.com> |
All good stuff on what we needs to be on the panel.
Back to the original question:
I happen to have both a GPS and the DME. (DME was there before the GPS
install)
KI 267 indicates: Distance / Speed / Radial.
Having a GPS, the 2 most useful would be Distance and Radial. I get the
Ground Speed read from the GPS unit.
And my Radial read is not working hence my e mail request on the wiring of
the KI 267
Happy Holidays !
>From: Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: KN65A DME Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004
>
>
>On Dec 26, 2004, at 7:25 PM, brucem(at)att.net wrote:
>
> >
> > Comparison between VOR/DME and GPS based navigation can be apples vs.
> > oranges. The former is a simple distance/bearing system while the GPS
> > provides that and a whole lot more.
>
>There are also DME/DME navigators that compute position from the
>distance from two DMEs but other than the Narco Star*Nav I have never
>seen one for light GA aircraft.
>
> > If the GPS box is used only for the same point-to-point routing, is it
> > any more complicated entering a waypoint and hitting direct to than
> > putting a new frequency into the nav receiver and twisting the OBS?
>
>Perhaps and perhaps not. It is certainly interesting when you plug in
>SJC VOR expecting to get the one near San Jose, California, and instead
>get the one in Costa Rica or wherever. Getting the correct navaid when
>there is more than one with the same identifier can make it a tad bit
>more difficult. It means you do need to pay attention when entering
>data into your GPS receiver to ensure that what it is telling you is
>what you really want to know.
>
> > In some airplanes that I have flown the DME was tuned separately,
> > introducing additional steps. Then too there was the mental math that
> > went with slant range considerations at higher altitudes.
>
>Yes, that does happen. Still, the user interface is unambiguous. Most
>people who have learned to use a VOR or VOR/DME in one airplane can get
>into another with equipment from a different manufacturer and make it
>work immediately. Not necessarily true with GPS receivers.
>
> > Complaints that amended clearances cause much knob twisting when using
> > a GPS reflects its capability to fly preloaded flight plans and
> > automatically sequence, something NA in the VOR world (unless you have
> > a $100K FMS on board).
>
>Right. And you have to consider how hard it is to mentally sequence
>your VORs vs. how hard it is to reprogram the route in your GPS.
>
> > As practical matter we will have both kinds in our airplanes. Despite
> > the WAAS capable GPS's legality as the primary navigation device, FAR
> > 91.205(d)(2) still requires: "....navigation equipment appropriate to
> > the ground facilities to be used." So a VOR receiver or ADF has to
> > back up your Garmin 480.
>
>And my point was not to say that VOR/DME is better than GPS. My point
>was to have people consider how GPS has its own set of idiosyncrasies
>and that VOR/DME has its own set of advantages. Advances in technology
>are not always the panacea the marketing departments would have us
>think they are.
>
>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: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | bnc 90 fittings in the tray |
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: bnc 90 fittings in the tray
> From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net>
>
>
>
> My trays for my 430/330/ etc all come with a straight BNC mounted to the
> tray. It floats a bit so the unit sliding in can mate up nicely.
> Coming out the back of the tray I am out of room. I tried putting on a
> 90 degree adapter but there is no room for the adapter. If the fitting
> coming out of the tray was 90 degrees instead of straight, Id be in
> business. Does Garmin make these? They are like a bulkhead fitting in
> that they have a retaining nut and a special sleeve that hold it in the
> tray. No doubt if they do, Im gonna have to hock the house to buy it. I
> need 5 of em. Help! Thanks Mike
12/27/2004
Hello Mike, This may help. The tray for my SL-30 (back when it was still
built by UPS) came with two 90 degree BNC slide-into connections on it. I
wanted straight ones (the opposite of your desires) and did some research. I
discovered that my 90 degree BNC connections were from Delta ARF with a part
number of 4205018N995.
If you go to this URL and look at the lower left hand corner of the picture
you will see that part.
http://www.deltarf.com/specs.asp
This part (or some other type from Delta) may solve your problem. Note how
it is fastened to the back of the tray (with holes through flanges) and the
fact that the coax cable gets routed directly into the fitting at a 90
degree angle.
Delta can be reached at 978-927-1060 or sales(at)deltaarf.com
Good luck.
OC
PS: I never did get compatible straight fittings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Melvin <melvinke(at)direcway.com> |
The lamp has been rewired and reinstalled with the center terminal to
ground, and the other two terminals to switched 12v+ (pump) and pre-switched
12v+ (push-to-test)respectively. Works as predicted.
Thank you,
Kenneth
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kenneth
Melvin
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: push-to-test
-->
Most helpful, as ever. Thank you Bob.
Ken melvin
-----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: push-to-test
-->
>
>
>How does one wire the three terminals on a push-to-test lamp?
>
>Kenneth Melvin
The term "press-to-test" lamp can cover many different brands
and styles but I'll assume you're asking about the dimmable
MS25041 series like these:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/presstotest.php
If so, then there is an exemplar wiring diagram on page 3
of this document:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
If you're talking about some other device, I'd have to know
more about it to offer any advice.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: bnc 90 fittings in the tray |
Mike,
Can't answer for Garmin, but my SL-70 (UPS) transponder tray sports what I
think you are looking for. Extension from be back face of the tray is 0.6 in.
The GPS/Comm tray sports a different type, attached with nuts onto embedded
screws -- would be hard to implement and requires 0.7+ clearance.
Doug Windhorn
In a message dated 12/26/2004 8:27:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mstewart(at)iss.net writes:
> My trays for my 430/330/ etc all come with a straight BNC mounted to the
> tray. It floats a bit so the unit sliding in can mate up nicely.
> Coming out the back of the tray I am out of room. I tried putting on a
> 90 degree adapter but there is no room for the adapter. If the fitting
> coming out of the tray was 90 degrees instead of straight, Id be in
> business. Does Garmin make these? They are like a bulkhead fitting in
> that they have a retaining nut and a special sleeve that hold it in the
> tray.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Bean <jim-bean(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bnc 90 fittings in the tray |
You probably want 90 degree BNC connectors on the cable. These are a
little pricy but not too bad. I had room for the 90 degree adaptors but
found that they radiated energy into the other instruments. Replacing
the adaptors and single shielded cable with crimped-on 90 degree
connectors on double shielded cable solved both the radiation and space
problems for me. The 90 degree connector is a little shorter than the
adaptor. It's worth looking into.
I don't think that there is a 90 degree fitting that will go in the
tray. I have an access door behind the 430 just for putting the coax
cables on. I don't know how I could have put them on otherwise. Maybe
you need one too.
Jim Bean
RV-8 almost done.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Hi,
>Is there a PDF version of Z13...?
>I opened with IE...got the schematic but cannot read the print?..( Very
>"blocky" writing)
>Thanks
>Robert
>RV-8
Z-13 is one page of 22 in http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
Download this document and store it to your hard drive. Then use
Acrobat to open and read/print whatever you need.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Radio/Intercom interference with engine issue |
rv-list(at)matronics.com, aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
I have an interesting issue. I am flying my friends RV-7, this is the
second flight. I had the throttle basically full (breaking in the engine) and
the
radio progressively seemed to get worse (over a 515 minute period) with
static when receiving transmissions from ATC. It got so bad, I could barely hear
him. He said he had no issues hearing me. I told him I was going to come
in for a full stop, pulled back the throttle, and could hear fine once again.
So I called the controller and told him I was going to go around again and
once I gave it over about 75% power, the radio once again had a bunch of
static (only when receiving transmissions).
The plane has a PS Engineering PM1000 intercom, Garmin 430 radio, and a
Headsets Inc ANR in a Dave Clark 13.4 headset. It also has a Lightspeed
electronic ignition on the right mag. I did a mag check in the air and it did
not
seem to make a difference.
I pulled and reseated the headset plugs and that did not fix the issue.
Does anyone have any ideas what to check? We had no issues on the first
flight. Thanks in advance!
-Mike Kraus
N223RV RV-4 Flying
N213RV RV-10 Tailcone Complete, working on wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 196 vs Airmap 2000c |
Hi Rick,
You might also take a look at the AvMap IV. I spent some time with a
pre-production model last summer and really liked it. The software upgrades
are somewhat expensive and I have some concern about how long the company
might be around (based only on the fact that they are a fairly small
company, selling into a fairly small market. They do have other none
aviation products which does give them another market to sell into). This
used to be the Magellan 10X two builds ago which was fairly worthless. This
new unit is in no way the same, except in appearance. It's large and meant
to be a kneepad unit, although I have a friend who did mount it on his yoke.
I love my 195, but want color and a larger display at some point...
Dave
RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Land Shorter <landshorter2(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | WTB: Garming GPSMAP 195 |
Was Santa good to any listers that might have received a new Garmin 196 GPS in
their stocking and would be willing to sell their old 195??? I'm looking for
one that's been gently used and needs a nice home.
Joa
www.landshorter.com
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WTB: Garming GPSMAP 195 |
There is a brand new Garmin 195 on ebay currently at $150. They typically
sell for around $300. You might watch there for one.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: E-mail Contact Request |
You might try this site for circuit breakers that plug
directly into the bussman busses:
www.waytekwire.com
I believe these circuit breakers are used in the
automotive industry where a circuit breaker is called
for and the busses are used. Perhaps Bob can comment
on their suitability for the alternator control
application in his designs.
Regards,
Dan Fritz
Velocity RG
__________________________________
http://my.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: push-to-test |
>
>
>With all due respect Bob this isn't necessarily true, depending upon
>which specific lamp holder is employed here. The three connections to a
>simple push to test lamp socket are: 1; to the "shell" of the lamp
>socket. 2; to the "centre contact" of the lamp socket. 3; to the
>"push-to-test" switch which becomes connected to the centre contact when
>pressed. i.e. in the test state. Now if you were to wire this
>particular type of lamp holder with the "ground" wire on the centre pin,
>the "signal" wire ( made live via the circuit you wish to have
>notification of) to the lamp shell and your "push to test" pin powered
>from the buss via a fuse, then when you "press to test" you will be
>directly connecting the live buss to the grounded centre pin of the
>socket resulting in a dead short. This will blow the fuse as Kenneth
>described but the light itself will work properly if the "test" feature
>is not pressed. If the socket is wired correctly with the ground wire on
>the shell, then the light will also work correctly but the press to test
>will now apply buss power via the fuse to the lamp, testing its
>function, though the signal wire may not otherwise be powered. If the
>lamp holder is more sophisticated with a double throw feature to the
>push to test then the short will not happen, but the simplest of push to
>test sockets simply attach the "test" wire to the "signal" pin via a
>SPST switch which can result in the symptoms Kenneth experienced. In the
>more sophisticated lamp holders which feature SPDT switching then of
>course your statement is correct and he could not blow the fuse this way.
The type of fixture you describe wouldn't be very popular with
systems designers. Initiating the PTT feature would have a potential
for back-feeding a lamp's signal system with PTT power . . . a potential
for many unintended consequences. The MS25041 fixture has a pure
SPDT switch on the shell side of the lamp, the center contact
is hard wired to terminal 1 as depicted in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/MS25041_PTT_Fixture.gif
Initiating the PTT feature disconnects the shell from terminal
2 and moves it to terminal 3.
I note that the terminal numbering convention called out in
my article at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
. . . is contrary to the configuration cited in the sketch
above. Terminals 1 and 2 are reversed both on the schematic
-AND- the rear view of the lamp fixture. It would still
function properly if any numbers on the back of the lamp
fixture were simply ignored and only drawing data was
used. I note that about half of the MS25041 fixtures
in my drawers have numbers physically stamped on the back . . .
these conform to the sketch cited above.
I probably had one of the un-numbered devices in hand
when I did the drawing for the article and assigned my
own convention. Something to add to the go-fix-it-list.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
Hi Bob,
Appendix Z at the URL given below is dated 11/01 (bottom right of each
page, 22 pages total). My paper edition came with Appendix Z dated 12/02
(also 22 pages). Which App Z is the most current one? (should be the web
one, but based on the date it doesn't look that way) Please clarify. Thanks.
Rumen
P.S. Wouldn't it be a good idea to add the revision number on each page
footer in addition to the revision date..
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Robert L. Nuckolls, III; Date: 03:10 PM
>
>Hi,
>Is there a PDF version of Z13...?
>I opened with IE...got the schematic but cannot read the print?..( Very
>"blocky" writing)
>Thanks
>Robert
>RV-8
Z-13 is one page of 22 in http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
Download this document and store it to your hard drive. Then use
Acrobat to open and read/print whatever you need.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | f1rocket(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Avoiding Ignition Noise |
The tach pickup for my GRT EIS6000 engine monitor is a wire from the magneto with
a 27 K ohm resistor wired in. My question is if I place the resistor in the
line close to the magneto, can I then run this wire near or in with my other
"sensor" wires firewall forward? Normally, I would keep the magneto wire separate
from the other "sensor" wires, and run it with my other "power" wires.
However, I don't know whether the resistor changes this wire so that it would
not be a noise propogator.
It sure would make the wiring simpler if I could include it in my "sensor" wires,
but if I need to, I can re-route it with the "power" wires with about a day's
worth of work.
Thanks.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.Pflanzer-aviation.com
The tach pickup for my GRT EIS6000 engine monitor is a wire from the magneto with
a 27 K ohm resistor wired in. My question is if I place the resistor in the
line close to the magneto, can I then run this wire near or in with my other
"sensor" wires firewall forward? Normally, I would keep the magneto wire separate
from the other "sensor" wires, and run it with my other "power" wires. However,
I don't know whether the resistor changes this wire so that it would not
be a noise propogator.
It sure would make the wiring simpler if I could include it in my "sensor" wires,
but if I need to, I can re-route it with the "power" wires with about a day's
worth of work.
Thanks.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.Pflanzer-aviation.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoiding Ignition Noise |
>
>The tach pickup for my GRT EIS6000 engine monitor is a wire from the
>magneto with a 27 K ohm resistor wired in. My question is if I place the
>resistor in the line close to the magneto, can I then run this wire near
>or in with my other "sensor" wires firewall forward? Normally, I would
>keep the magneto wire separate from the other "sensor" wires, and run it
>with my other "power" wires. However, I don't know whether the resistor
>changes this wire so that it would not be a noise propogator.
>
>It sure would make the wiring simpler if I could include it in my "sensor"
>wires, but if I need to, I can re-route it with the "power" wires with
>about a day's worth of work.
Use shielded wire from the resistor to the tachometer and you're going
to be fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Service ceiling of batteries? |
>
>
>Curious.
>
>Is there a service ceiling where any of these batteries
>Odyssey 680 AGM
>Alkaline D cells in ELT
>NiMh - NiCad - LiIon in handheld stuff
>Small button battery memory stuff
>Lithium Polymer batteries as used on E-Models that I will be carrying around
>GellCells as used for backup on EFIS
>
>Any other airplane related things need to be aware of that could cause
>problems at FL250
>in a unpressurized Europa XS?
Not that I'm aware of. The AGM batteries will vent and expel
some internal gasses and have a partial vacuum in it when
you get back on ground but this is not a problem. The other
products are relatively "solid" . . . don't see any reason
for them to be sensitive to ambient pressures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bnc 90 fittings in the tray |
>
>You probably want 90 degree BNC connectors on the cable. These are a
>little pricy but not too bad. I had room for the 90 degree adaptors but
>found that they radiated energy into the other instruments. Replacing
>the adaptors and single shielded cable with crimped-on 90 degree
>connectors on double shielded cable solved both the radiation and space
>problems for me. The 90 degree connector is a little shorter than the
>adaptor. It's worth looking into.
>
>I don't think that there is a 90 degree fitting that will go in the
>tray. I have an access door behind the 430 just for putting the coax
>cables on. I don't know how I could have put them on otherwise. Maybe
>you need one too.
>Jim Bean
Here's a poor man's 90-degree connector solution . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/BNC_Rt_Angle/BNC_Rt_Angle.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Appendix Z at the URL given below is dated 11/01 (bottom right of each
>page, 22 pages total). My paper edition came with Appendix Z dated 12/02
>(also 22 pages). Which App Z is the most current one? (should be the web
>one, but based on the date it doesn't look that way) Please clarify. Thanks.
>
>Rumen
>
>P.S. Wouldn't it be a good idea to add the revision number on each page
>footer in addition to the revision date..
What differences do you find in the two? I don't believe there
are any. Keep in mind that these are ARCHITECTURE drawings and
not intended to drive sizing of wires/fuses or selection of
detailed components.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Service ceiling of batteries? |
>
>
>Curious.
>
>Is there a service ceiling where any of these batteries
>Odyssey 680 AGM
>Alkaline D cells in ELT
>NiMh - NiCad - LiIon in handheld stuff
>Small button battery memory stuff
...........etc----
I had a 12V lantern battery powering my intercom and the battery died after
one flight. I harassed the hardware store owner to give me a new one, since
I assumed someone had done the old switcheroo on the one I had bought.
The next flight (on engine shutdown) I smelled something burning and the
lantern battery was so hot I had to hold it by the wires to pull it out of
the airplane.
I presume lantern batteries have big flat plates that could respond to
pressure changes rather poorly. Or then again maybe not.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
.
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and
wrong.
- H. L. Mencken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BNC 90 fittings in the tray |
At 02:28 PM 12/28/2004, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >You probably want 90 degree BNC connectors on the cable. These are a
> >little pricy but not too bad. I had room for the 90 degree adaptors but
> >found that they radiated energy into the other instruments. Replacing
> >the adaptors and single shielded cable with crimped-on 90 degree
> >connectors on double shielded cable solved both the radiation and space
> >problems for me. The 90 degree connector is a little shorter than the
> >adaptor. It's worth looking into.
> >
> >I don't think that there is a 90 degree fitting that will go in the
> >tray. I have an access door behind the 430 just for putting the coax
> >cables on. I don't know how I could have put them on otherwise. Maybe
> >you need one too.
> >Jim Bean
>
> Here's a poor man's 90-degree connector solution . . .
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/BNC_Rt_Angle/BNC_Rt_Angle.html
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
I seem to recall recently you mention that there is a loss of signal when
you use either the adapter mentioned above or a 90 degree fitting. Which
(or both) is this loss of signal pertinent to? I'll be faced with this same
situation soon.
Charlie Kuss
RV-8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: push-to-test |
Bob
I agree completely that it certainly has some major drawbacks, but there
are manufacturers who feel that "cheap" is the way to go unfortunately.
Cheap doesn't mean inexpensive either, sometimes it's just plain
substandard and leaves the unwary user with problems he shouldn't have
to be saddled with. Some of these drawbacks can be circumvented with a
diode but the better solution is obviously the fixture you've described
and diagrammed in your articles. I think the majority (maybe all) of
the fixtures I've seen with the SPST design have been intended for
industrial use and were certainly not MIL spec or intended for aircraft use.
This doesn't, of course, preclude the possibility of someone using this
style and experiencing problems as a result. I certainly would never
advocate their use, but I think it's important that people be aware of
their existence so that should the problem arise we understand a
possible explanation. The original symptoms described by Kenneth fitted
this scenario. It would now appear from his follow-up that it may have
been a stray wire strand achieving the same result however.
Bob McC
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> The type of fixture you describe wouldn't be very popular with
> systems designers. Initiating the PTT feature would have a potential
> for back-feeding a lamp's signal system with PTT power . . . a potential
> for many unintended consequences. The MS25041 fixture has a pure
> SPDT switch on the shell side of the lamp, the centre contact
> is hard wired to terminal 1 as depicted in:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/MS25041_PTT_Fixture.gif
>
> Initiating the PTT feature disconnects the shell from terminal
> 2 and moves it to terminal 3.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Diagram of Duel Battery, Single Alternator with Steering |
Diodes
Is there a Diagram of Duel Battery, Single Alternator system with Steering Diodes
in Bob's plethora of drawings? I intend to have both batteries being changed
any time the master is on with the endurance bus separated from the battery
buss with a switch. I've looked but I must have missed it. Thanks.
Mark Banus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
Sorry I didn't have the time at the moment to compare page by page - just
thought that the revision on the web would/should be the most recent one -
and according to how it was dated, it wasn't - which confused me.
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Robert L. Nuckolls, III; Date: 01:32 PM
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Appendix Z at the URL given below is dated 11/01 (bottom right of each
>page, 22 pages total). My paper edition came with Appendix Z dated 12/02
>(also 22 pages). Which App Z is the most current one? (should be the web
>one, but based on the date it doesn't look that way) Please clarify. Thanks.
>
>Rumen
>
>P.S. Wouldn't it be a good idea to add the revision number on each page
>footer in addition to the revision date..
What differences do you find in the two? I don't believe there
are any. Keep in mind that these are ARCHITECTURE drawings and
not intended to drive sizing of wires/fuses or selection of
detailed components.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | f1rocket(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Hall Effect Sensor |
I'm getting ready to mount my Hall Effect sensor for my engine monitor. I have
the option to measure either the output from the two alternators (primary and
auxiliary) or the load on the battery.
I'm guessing that there may be more value in measuring battery load since that
will give me the option to manage that load in the event of alternator failure.
However, with a single battery/dual laternator architecture, I don't know if
I will ever need too.
I'd like to hear a few opinions on what your choice would be and why. Thanks.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
I'm getting ready to mount my Hall Effect sensor for my engine monitor. I have
the option to measure either the output from the two alternators (primary and
auxiliary) or the load on the battery.
I'm guessing that there may be more value in measuring battery load since that
will give me the option to manage that load in the event of alternator failure.
However, with a single battery/dual laternator architecture, I don't know if
I will ever need too.
I'd like to hear a few opinions on what your choice would be and why. Thanks.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Sensor |
Agree it's too tough to choose. I would choose none of the above.
Stick with a voltmeter. It will tell you all you need to know,
simpler, one less thing to screw up..
On Dec 29, 2004, at 8:34 AM, f1rocket(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
> I'm getting ready to mount my Hall Effect sensor for my engine
> monitor. I have the option to measure either the output from the two
> alternators (primary and auxiliary) or the load on the battery.
>
> I'm guessing that there may be more value in measuring battery load
> since that will give me the option to manage that load in the event of
> alternator failure. However, with a single battery/dual laternator
> architecture, I don't know if I will ever need too.
>
> I'd like to hear a few opinions on what your choice would be and why.
> Thanks.
>
> Randy
> F1 Rocket
> www.pflanzer-aviation.com
>
> I'm getting ready to mount my Hall Effect sensor for my engine
> monitor. I have the option to measure either the output from the two
> alternators (primary and auxiliary) or the load on the battery.
>
> I'm guessing that there may be more value in measuring battery load
> since that will give me the option to manage that load in the event of
> alternator failure. However, with a single battery/dual laternator
> architecture, I don't know if I will ever need too.
>
> I'd like to hear a few opinions on what your choice would be and why.
> Thanks.
>
> Randy
> F1 Rocket
> www.pflanzer-aviation.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Smoke test failed |
On Dec 28, 2004, at 8:23 AM, Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
> Well, While doing a circuit test last night, I hooked power to the
> Garmin 430 nav and gps circuit, and psssttt, smoke and smell. ARGH!! OK
> so it was the only thing hooked up with power, which all worked on the
> bench. The only thing I could find was a 232 port shorted to ground.
> Would this smoke the 232 serial circuit in the 430? Any chance the
> other 232 circuits still work? The unit still powers up and so forth.
The RS-232 outputs should survive a short to ground with no ill
effects. It will not be able to source enough power to generate smoke.
If the RS-232 port is supposed to provide power, it should have an
internal fuse to prevent just what you experienced.
I would look more closely for a source of the problem.
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: | "Roger & Alice Hoffman" <rognal(at)clipper.net> |
| Subject: | Aeroflash Nav/Pos/Strobe Lights |
I am installing the Aeroflash Nav/Pos/Strobe lights to the wingtips of a Murphy
Rebel (all metal structure). I have also installed the individual strobe power
supplies in each wingtip.
Being a new builder I am struggling to understand the wiring process for the Aeroflash
lights. Between some of the past posts to this list, and the few wiring
diagrams I've found on the web, I'm still confused. I thought I would describe
my intentions here, hoping I could get some feedback as to whether my plan
is workable. Here goes:
The units are Aeroflash PN #156-0049. The Strobe power supplies are their 12V Single
Flash units. Aeroflash Technical Support tells me each power supply draws
1.5 amps. Each Nav light bulb draws 2 amps. Each position light bulb draws 2.8
amps. They also advised any wires to the power supplies would not need to be
shielded unless the wire was routed near an antenna.
I am planning a single on/off toggle switch for the strobes, and a single on/off
toggle switch for nav/pos lights.
If my figures are correct, when the nav/pos lights are turned on, total amperage
draw should be 9.6 amps. Can I run a single 18 AWG wire from the bus to the
switch (5 ft), then from one terminal of the switch run a 20 AWG wire 17 feet
to the left wingtip nav light (2A) AND from the same switch terminal run an 18
AWG wire the same distance to the same wingtip pos light (2.8A)? THEN using a
second terminal on the same switch run a 20 AWG wire 20 feet to the right wingtip
nav light and from the same switch terminal run an 18 AWG wire the same distance
to the right pos light? If this works, am I correct using a fuse adequate
for the 9.6 amp load? Say a 15A fuse?
The strobe power supplies would be wired similiarly if this works OK.
I would appreciate any comments or suggestions.
Thanks for any and all help.
Roger Hoffman
Eugene, OR USA!
________________________________________________________________________________
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Plans |
>
>Bob, I bought the book and will be at the next St. Louis class but have a
>question or two now. I am building a RV7a xp360 carb CS with the dual GRT
>EFIS panels(2), TT Digiflight II with VS control, Electro Air P-Mag and one
>slick mag. Airplane will be flown light IFR.
>
>I am thinking that I want to use the Z11 (All Electric on a Budget) but I
>want to use the Vans 60 amp internal alt as the main. I know I will need
>some kind of OV protection and also was wondering if the B&C SD8 will run
>without a battery in the off chance of a true battery failure?
All Electric on a Budget is Figure Z-13. Modify the alternator
installation per Figure Z-24. Note that Z-24 will be updated to
ADD a load-dump protection feature at the next revision next month.
The SD-8 will run without a battery . . . it won't start without
a battery. A properly maintained RG battery is not going to fail.
They're just so much better than a flooded battery that gross failure
of cells due to mechanical opens or shorts is simply not part of
our failure mode concerns any more. Likelihood of a battery
failure taking your whole system down is very remote . . . especially
if you keep the battery relatively fresh. Have you considered a less
expensive battery and putting a new one in each annual inspection?
Batteries that fail are those flogged beyond their 80% capacity
life limits. If install a premium battery, you're more inclined
to run it until it won't crank the engine any more. Install a garden
variety product and toss it every year - battery failures will
be the same order of probability as prop bolt failures.
>I see that you have circuit protection on the contactors and was considering
>sending the ones that came in the Vans FWF kit back and getting them from
>you or B&C. If I wanted to do the Z11 with the Vans 60 Amp alternator, do
>you have a "kit" or can make one up with all the contactors, relays, and OV
>circuits, ground buss, etc. that I would need.
I don't sell any parts. B&C has all of the parts I used to sell.
I don't think they've "kited" any selections of parts . . . there
are so few parts involved and so many variations on a theme that
it's probably not practical.
>Would you also have a diagram showing the Z11 plan but with the Vans 60 amp
>internal reg with an OV circuit?
I've done a draft copy of Z-13 Rev A which will show an internally
regulated alternator -AND- load dump protection. You can download
an interim copy at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Architecture/z13A.pdf
>Is the Odyssey PC680 battery OK for the Z11 plan? If I read it right, it's
>only a 13 AH battery but with the SD8 backup alt, I would think it's just
>right for the mission.
The PC680 is an excellent example of the current crop of
RG battery offerings. It's not a poor selection but perhaps
not the most practical. Unless you plan to capacity test
and pitch it at 80% (in spite of fact that it still
starts your engine) then I'd suggest the yearly change-out
of a less expensive battery.
>Thanks for the help, your forum is very educational.
Thank you for the kind words. May I suggest we do this
conversation on the AeroElectric List? It's better if
we can share the information with as many interested
folks as possible.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Sensor |
>
>I'm getting ready to mount my Hall Effect sensor for my engine monitor. I
>have the option to measure either the output from the two alternators
>(primary and auxiliary) or the load on the battery.
>
>I'm guessing that there may be more value in measuring battery load since
>that will give me the option to manage that load in the event of
>alternator failure. However, with a single battery/dual laternator
>architecture, I don't know if I will ever need too.
>
>I'd like to hear a few opinions on what your choice would be and why. Thanks.
If you have active notification of low voltage -AND- you
KNOW that under all anticipated operating modes that you're
not going to over-load either alternator, then an ammeter
is of no value to you as an in-flight operating display.
Ammeters and voltmeters are excellent diagnostic tools
but offer little assistance if your system is designed,
operated and maintained with an understanding of limits
in various modes of operation.
Since you have two alternators and the key questions to
be answered involve load analysis for normal ops and load
shedding for alternator-out ops, then configuring as
a loadmeter (run both alternator feeds through the same
sensor) makes the most sense.
Battery ammeters were fine in your '41 Chevy and '48
C-170 but not very practical today.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BNC 90 fittings in the tray |
>
>At 02:28 PM 12/28/2004, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >You probably want 90 degree BNC connectors on the cable. These are a
> > >little pricy but not too bad. I had room for the 90 degree adaptors but
> > >found that they radiated energy into the other instruments. Replacing
> > >the adaptors and single shielded cable with crimped-on 90 degree
> > >connectors on double shielded cable solved both the radiation and space
> > >problems for me. The 90 degree connector is a little shorter than the
> > >adaptor. It's worth looking into.
> > >
> > >I don't think that there is a 90 degree fitting that will go in the
> > >tray. I have an access door behind the 430 just for putting the coax
> > >cables on. I don't know how I could have put them on otherwise. Maybe
> > >you need one too.
> > >Jim Bean
> >
> > Here's a poor man's 90-degree connector solution . . .
> >
> >http://aeroelectric.com/articles/BNC_Rt_Angle/BNC_Rt_Angle.html
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>Bob,
> I seem to recall recently you mention that there is a loss of signal when
>you use either the adapter mentioned above or a 90 degree fitting. Which
>(or both) is this loss of signal pertinent to? I'll be faced with this same
>situation soon.
There are "losses" and "mismatches" associated with EVERY
part in the feedline. As long as you keep the coax length
less than 50 feet and use connectors and fittings only as necessary
for a practical installation, detrimental effects of component
and configuration choices will be acceptable.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Alternator with Steering |
Diodes
| Subject: | Re: Diagram of Duel Battery, Single |
Alternator with Steering Diodes
Alternator with Steering Diodes
>
>Is there a Diagram of Duel Battery, Single Alternator system with Steering
>Diodes in Bob's plethora of drawings? I intend to have both batteries
>being changed any time the master is on with the endurance bus separated
>from the battery buss with a switch. I've looked but I must have missed
>it. Thanks.
No, that architecture is not recommended. That's not to say
that you can't do it any way you wish but the functionality
you're looking for is offered. What is the driver for adding
a second battery? What problems do you see, for example,
with Figure Z-11 with a second battery added per Z-30?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Service ceiling of batteries? |
>
> >
> >
> >Curious.
> >
> >Is there a service ceiling where any of these batteries
>
> >Odyssey 680 AGM
> >Alkaline D cells in ELT
> >NiMh - NiCad - LiIon in handheld stuff
> >Small button battery memory stuff
>...........etc----
>
>I had a 12V lantern battery powering my intercom and the battery died after
>one flight. I harassed the hardware store owner to give me a new one, since
>I assumed someone had done the old switcheroo on the one I had bought.
>
>The next flight (on engine shutdown) I smelled something burning and the
>lantern battery was so hot I had to hold it by the wires to pull it out of
>the airplane.
>
>I presume lantern batteries have big flat plates that could respond to
>pressure changes rather poorly. Or then again maybe not.
Interesting! Do you recall the battery and type? Was this
a 6-volt battery with the springs on top? I have several
flashlights of this variety. I'll be getting into the lab
with the super-sucker chambers sometime next month. I'll
get some batteries and take them up to 55,000 feet.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Figure Z-13A Draft Copy |
>
>Sorry I didn't have the time at the moment to compare page by page - just
>thought that the revision on the web would/should be the most recent one -
>and according to how it was dated, it wasn't - which confused me.
>
>Rumen
I've posted a draft copy of Z-13A which will appear in print
in Revision 11 to the 'Connection. You can download this
document at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Architecture/z13A.pdf
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> issue |
| Subject: | Re: Radio/Intercom interference with engine |
issue
issue
>
>I have an interesting issue. I am flying my friends RV-7, this is the
>second flight. I had the throttle basically full (breaking in the
>engine) and the
>radio progressively seemed to get worse (over a 515 minute period) with
>static when receiving transmissions from ATC. It got so bad, I
>could barely hear
>him. He said he had no issues hearing me. I told him I was going to come
>in for a full stop, pulled back the throttle, and could hear fine once
>again.
>So I called the controller and told him I was going to go around again and
>once I gave it over about 75% power, the radio once again had a bunch of
>static (only when receiving transmissions).
>
>The plane has a PS Engineering PM1000 intercom, Garmin 430 radio, and a
>Headsets Inc ANR in a Dave Clark 13.4 headset. It also has a Lightspeed
>electronic ignition on the right mag. I did a mag check in the air and
>it did not
>seem to make a difference.
>
>I pulled and reseated the headset plugs and that did not fix the issue.
>
>Does anyone have any ideas what to check? We had no issues on the first
>flight. Thanks in advance!
Suggest you review the 'Connection's chapter on Noise. You need
to identify the specific victim, the noise source and the
propagation mode. This is something akin to playing the game
of Clue . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
I blew a the nose seal on my O-360, and most of the resulting oil seems to
have passed through my Niagara 40 amp alternator before it slimed all over
the cowl, etc. Is the alternator doomed or is it possible it won't effect
it?
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | BandC current sensor installation? |
Can someone tell me how to hook up the B&C current sensor? I called them today,
and they said they'd get back to me but they didn't. I'm hooking it up to my
SB1B, and I'm confused by the schematic. I can see clearly how the the small
white/orange/blue wires are connected to the regulator, but the larger (10Ga
I think) wire has one ring terminal and one unterminated end. The schematic
shows a dashed line (not a wire) to a annular ring/hall effet sensor that surrounds
the SB20's B-lead.
1) Should this B-lead pass through the sensors ring-terminal?
2) If so, where does the unterminated end go?
3) If not, do the two ends come together somehow around the B-Lead, and if so how?
Thanks for any help.
Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | Re: Figure Z-13A Draft Copy |
Tx a lot, Bob.
Happy New Year to you and everyone on the list.
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Robert L. Nuckolls, III; Date: 03:52 PM
>
>Sorry I didn't have the time at the moment to compare page by page - just
>thought that the revision on the web would/should be the most recent one -
>and according to how it was dated, it wasn't - which confused me.
>
>Rumen
I've posted a draft copy of Z-13A which will appear in print
in Revision 11 to the 'Connection. You can download this
document at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Architecture/z13A.pdf
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Sensor |
Bob:
In chapter 7 of your book you say "if you plan only one electrical
system instrument, make it a battery ammeter". You had me convinced.
So, how do I understand the statement you made below, or have I got the
context wrong?
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> Battery ammeters were fine in your '41 Chevy and '48
> C-170 but not very practical today.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, firewall.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert E. Falstad" <RandBFalstad(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Looking for Source for "Good" Wire Stripper |
Folks,
I'm looking for sources & P/Ns for "good" (~$150)wire stripper. The
closest I've come is Ideal Industries
P/N 45-171 (for PVC), 45-177 (for Teflon) or 45-1987 (for MIL-W-22759/32
thru 46 -- but not listed for /16).
See http://www.idealindustries.com/pt/HandTools.nsf
Ideal will test a wire sample and tell you what will work but I thought I'd
try the list first. Thanks and
Best regards,
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oily alternator |
Hi Larry,
I would be inclined to take it apart for cleaning if for no other reason
than concerns about dirt build-up. The oil might have gotten into the
brushes and dust and oil there will not be doing any particular good.
Did you get full scope on the cause of the blown seal? Was there no retainer
plates?
Happy New Year!,
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Oily alternator
>
>
> I blew a the nose seal on my O-360, and most of the resulting oil seems to
> have passed through my Niagara 40 amp alternator before it slimed all over
> the cowl, etc. Is the alternator doomed or is it possible it won't effect
> it?
>
> -
> Larry Bowen
> Larry(at)BowenAero.com
> http://BowenAero.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
Is disassembly something a novice can do? Or is it one of those things
where little springs and other bits go flying when you unfasten that one
bolt?
No retaining plates. From what I've read, I thought those were only for
older, smaller displacement engines.....
Thanks,
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jewell [mailto:jjewell(at)telus.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 10:27 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Oily alternator
>
> -->
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> I would be inclined to take it apart for cleaning if for no
> other reason than concerns about dirt build-up. The oil might
> have gotten into the brushes and dust and oil there will not
> be doing any particular good.
>
> Did you get full scope on the cause of the blown seal? Was
> there no retainer plates?
>
> Happy New Year!,
>
> Jim in Kelowna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Oily alternator
>
>
> >
> >
> > I blew a the nose seal on my O-360, and most of the
> resulting oil seems to
> > have passed through my Niagara 40 amp alternator before it
> slimed all over
> > the cowl, etc. Is the alternator doomed or is it possible
> it won't effect
> > it?
> >
> > -
> > Larry Bowen
> > Larry(at)BowenAero.com
> > http://BowenAero.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> =========
> =========
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
> =========
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Service ceiling of batteries? |
>Do you recall the battery and type?
>Bob . . .
(I think....)
Eveready 732 12Volt Screw Top Battery
$11.99 Eveready 732, 12Volts, 7500 mAh Carbon Zinc Battery -
This was in 1985---so I have no idea if the design has been changed. I
couldn't have been the only customer who had a problem.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes
less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe.
For example, there are no solids in the universe. There's
not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute con-
tinuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall Effect Sensor |
>
>Bob:
> In chapter 7 of your book you say "if you plan only one electrical
>system instrument, make it a battery ammeter". You had me convinced.
>So, how do I understand the statement you made below, or have I got the
>context wrong?
No. Chapter 7 was written about 10 years ago . . . before we
understood that there were better ways to go. Chapter 7 is
is heavily revised in Rev 11 . . . the battery ammeter
will be discussed but not recommended. In fact, if one wants
to AVOID bringing alternator b-leads into the cockpit, battery
ammeters are not even practical (except as hall-effect devices).
Battery ammeters have a story to tell . . . so do alternator
load meters. No amount of instrumentation on the panel will
allow you to thoroughly troubleshoot a mis-behaving electrical
system.
Given that there is no information from ammeters/voltmeters that
is useful to help you fly the airplane . . . and only
marginally useful for troubleshooting the airplane, the
choice of what you install and how it's wired is not
critical.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Looking for Source for "Good" Wire Stripper |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
I'm using an Ideal Frame #L5217 and a die set #88A081X P/N 45-1610-1 on
Tefzel 22759/16 and it works great.
Hope this helps,
John
>
> I'm looking for sources & P/Ns for "good" (~$150)wire stripper. The
> closest I've come is Ideal Industries
> P/N 45-171 (for PVC), 45-177 (for Teflon) or 45-1987 (for MIL-W-22759/32
> thru 46 -- but not listed for /16).
>
> See http://www.idealindustries.com/pt/HandTools.nsf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BandC current sensor installation? |
>
>
>Can someone tell me how to hook up the B&C current sensor? I called them
>today, and they said they'd get back to me but they didn't. I'm hooking
>it up to my SB1B, and I'm confused by the schematic. I can see clearly
>how the the small white/orange/blue wires are connected to the regulator,
>but the larger (10Ga I think) wire has one ring terminal and one
>unterminated end. The schematic shows a dashed line (not a wire) to a
>annular ring/hall effet sensor that surrounds the SB20's B-lead.
>1) Should this B-lead pass through the sensors ring-terminal?
The wiring diagram at:
http://bandc.biz/14-SB1B.pdf
shows three wires in a cable that attach to three terminals
of the regulator. The dotted line leading to the toroidal
shape below says that the sensor is used to detect current in
the alternator b-lead. The sensor is an AMPLOC device
like those described in:
http://amploc.com/PRO%20Series.pdf
>2) If so, where does the unterminated end go?
>3) If not, do the two ends come together somehow around the B-Lead, and if
>so how?
The diagram is quite explicit. The #10 wire passes one time through the
opening in the sensor. Further, the sensor should be marked as
to which opening faces the alternator. This will be described in
the installation instructions. The #10 wire is left un-terminated
on one end so that it can be passed through the sensor. Most terminals
that are used with #10 wire are too large. The end that has a terminal
on it is probably sized to fit the alternator. The free end needs
a terminal that matches the connection you choose to install at the
bus end . . . probably the wiring screw on the 40A breaker.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: overvoltage protection |
>Warning!
> >The internally regulated 60 ampere alternator
> >should not be used with overvoltage protection
> >systems. If you open the charging circuit while
> >it is in operation, it will destroy the
> >regulator.
>
>Bob, we placed this warning on our web site some time ago after we
>discovered that many of the reported alternator failures were
>occurring to builders who were using various overvoltage protection.
>The one thing that they seemed to have in common was that the charge
>line was being opened on a functioning alternator.
Yes, there is a phenomenon commonly referred to in the
automotive circles as "load dump" . . . when an alternator
is loaded and then suddenly relived of both system loads
-AND- the stabilizing effect of a battery, there's a brief,
relatively low energy surge at the alternator's output
terminal. The majority of regulator suppliers understand
this phenomenon and craft their regulators to withstand
the event . . . however some, as we've discovered, do
not design with such attention to detail.
If the alternator (with Figure Z-24 OV system installed)
is operated like we usually do it in an airplane, the
engine is at low RPM and loads are relatively light when
the alternator is shut down. The caution would have been
more useful to suggest that the alternator not be shut
down except when the engine is at idle RPM and other
system loads are already minimized.
> We realize that
>there are ways to utilize this alternator with overvoltage protection
>but felt the alternator was reliable enough in this failure mode to
>be used without it.
It's quite true that the modern automotive alternator
is a very reliable device . . . but so are many other
DC power systems for vehicles including certified aircraft.
While the failure rate is very low, it's not zero. An when
failure occurs, there is NO way using Van's recommended
wiring that the errant alternator can be brought to heal.
Removing power from the control signal to the back of the
failed alternator will not shut it off. Further, expecting
the pilot to become aware of an OV condition and react to
it in a timely manner is unrealistic.
> We have thousands of hours on our factory
>aircraft with a fair share of alt. failures and never has one failed
>in the overvoltage mode.
. . . and your experience is typical of many other
installations. But in 15 years of writing for the
'Connection, I've become aware of three unprotected
OV events with internally regulated alternators . . . all
were sad days with respect to damage done to the rest
of the airplane. I've had several builders report
relief that OV systems installed in their airplanes
were called upon to do the job of halting a runaway
alternator and the system performed as expected.
> Understandably, many builders are
>installing high end avionics and want to protect them against even a
>remote possibility of losing them to a rougue alternator. For this
>reason, we intend to change our warning to the following:
It's more than a matter of protecting "high end avionics".
Everything on the bus is subject to reduced life if not
immediate damage from the effects of a runaway alternator.
If the builder is flying at night or has some IMC to
transit, probability of success is improved greatly
with the addition of some inexpensive components to
stand off an OV event.
If you've followed the state of the art on the AeroElectric
List, you'll understand that good preventative maintenance
on batteries, active notification of low voltage, automatic
shutdown of runaway alternator(s), and dual feedpath
architectures for powering an endurance bus all go toward
eliminating the possibility that any of our OBAM aircraft
brothers will have a dark-n-stormy night tale to tell
in one of the monthly flying rags . . . or worse yet,
didn't survive to tell the tale.
>"Caution, Builders planning to utilize overvoltage protection with
>Van's internally regulated 60 amp alternator should consult with the
>manufacturer of the overvoltage device to insure that any special
>wiring requirements are met during installation."
Certainly good words with respect to relieving
Van's of any liability/responsibility for damage
resulting from poorly designed protection being added
to a Van's supplied alternator. My only disappointment
in the matter rises from the fact that the design
deficiency for the system I was recommending was
not made known to me (nor was it discussed on the
AeroElectric-List) until long after Van's published
a warning suggesting that OV protection NOT be installed
lest inappropriate use of the system damage the alternator.
Van's is safe with either approach . . . (1) recommend
that OV protection not be installed at all -OR-
(2) push all responsibility for future difficulties
off on the provider of such protection.
May I suggest and encourage that someone at
Van's become a regular contributor on the AeroElectric-
List? Would it not be better for Van's to be
an active participant in the refinement of our craft
than to seek an appropriate set of words to
limit liability and/or responsibility?
Revision 11 to the 'Connection will be published this
spring. It will include a modification to OV protection
for built-in regulators that will prevent the alternator
damage noted by Van's customers. A simple addition
of a solid state transient suppressor to the system
as described in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Architecture/z13A.pdf
. . . will keep the alternator from killing itself
even when the switch is cycled at inappropriate times.
Numerous technically competent individuals
frequent the List who, like myself, are interested in
understanding why things do not work as intended
and crafting remedies. The services of these
folk doesn't cost anyone more than the time to
make a problem known and contribute what knowledge
they have to the discussion.
Is there someone at Van's who shares the List's
quest for advancing the best we know how to do?
Van's products are fine examples of airframe design
and power-plant integration. But may I suggest that
when you publish a recommended list of components
and a wiring diagram to install them, it would be
in the best interests of both Van's and the customer to
craft an electrical system with the same care and
understanding as for the airplane and it's power-plant?
Regards,
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brett Ferrell <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BandC current sensor installation? |
Quoting "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" :
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Can someone tell me how to hook up the B&C current sensor? I called them
> >today, and they said they'd get back to me but they didn't. I'm hooking
> >it up to my SB1B, and I'm confused by the schematic. I can see clearly
> >how the the small white/orange/blue wires are connected to the regulator,
> >but the larger (10Ga I think) wire has one ring terminal and one
> >unterminated end. The schematic shows a dashed line (not a wire) to a
> >annular ring/hall effet sensor that surrounds the SB20's B-lead.
> >1) Should this B-lead pass through the sensors ring-terminal?
>
> The wiring diagram at:
>
> http://bandc.biz/14-SB1B.pdf
>
> shows three wires in a cable that attach to three terminals
> of the regulator. The dotted line leading to the toroidal
> shape below says that the sensor is used to detect current in
> the alternator b-lead.
Had that, and this is exactly what the diagram depicts, 3 colored leads to the
regulator and that the sensor somehow detects current in the B lead.
The sensor is an AMPLOC device
> like those described in:
>
> http://amploc.com/PRO%20Series.pdf
Didn't have that.
> >2) If so, where does the unterminated end go?
> >3) If not, do the two ends come together somehow around the B-Lead, and if
> >so how?
>
> The diagram is quite explicit
I disagree, it may be intuitively obvious to you, but it is not in my opinion
explicit. It shows only the annular ring, not the other free end of wire.
Since I've seen current sensors before, and none of them looked like a common
ring terminal, I was a little sceptical that this (ring terminal on the sensor)
was in fact the sensor lead. However, the diagram does not address the free end
in any way, even if you do understand that the ring terminal is the sensor.
The #10 wire passes one time through the
> opening in the sensor. Further, the sensor should be marked as
> to which opening faces the alternator.
It is so marked
This will be described in
> the installation instructions
They do not, at least not any instructions that recieved, the sensor itself had
no instructions packed with it. Since the diagram (14-SB1B.pdf) did not show
this (explicitly), I was at a loss. Granted, my alternators and regulators
were shipped to my engine shop, and they cold have misplaced the sensor
instructions, so I don't assume that they were omitted by B&C.
The #10 wire is left un-terminated
> on one end so that it can be passed through the sensor. Most terminals
> that are used with #10 wire are too large. The end that has a terminal
> on it is probably sized to fit the alternator. The free end needs
> a terminal that matches the connection you choose to install at the
> bus end . . . probably the wiring screw on the 40A breaker.
Since I'm using current limiters on the aft firewall of my canard (Velocity),
and not a breaker, I will use the always-hot lug of the ANL. If the diagram
showed this lead coming of the sensor to the alternator breaker with a notation
of "bus sense", I would consider it to be explicit. The sensor and the breaker
are depicted, why is this connection not? Thanks very much for you help, Bob,
even if I'm overlooking the blindingly obvious. ;-)
Brett
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BandC current sensor installation? |
>
>Quoting "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" :
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Can someone tell me how to hook up the B&C current sensor? I called them
> > >today, and they said they'd get back to me but they didn't. I'm hooking
> > >it up to my SB1B, and I'm confused by the schematic. I can see clearly
> > >how the the small white/orange/blue wires are connected to the regulator,
> > >but the larger (10Ga I think) wire has one ring terminal and one
> > >unterminated end. The schematic shows a dashed line (not a wire) to a
> > >annular ring/hall effet sensor that surrounds the SB20's B-lead.
> > >1) Should this B-lead pass through the sensors ring-terminal?
> >
> > The wiring diagram at:
> >
> > http://bandc.biz/14-SB1B.pdf
> >
> > shows three wires in a cable that attach to three terminals
> > of the regulator. The dotted line leading to the toroidal
> > shape below says that the sensor is used to detect current in
> > the alternator b-lead.
>
>Had that, and this is exactly what the diagram depicts, 3 colored leads to the
>regulator and that the sensor somehow detects current in the B lead.
>
>The sensor is an AMPLOC device
> > like those described in:
> >
> > http://amploc.com/PRO%20Series.pdf
>
December 15, 2004 - December 30, 2004
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-du