AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-dv
December 30, 2004 - January 07, 2005
>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.
If you have a "sensor" that looks like a "common ring terminal" then
it sounds like your talking about the temperature probe where temp sensing
device is potted into a heavy copper ring terminal and the wire to the
regulator is a single strand of shielded wire. How many wires are in
the cable that runs to the regulator? Does the "sensor" look like
one of the AMPLOC devices or does it look more like a solid copper
ring terminal that might go on a 4AWG wire?
>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.
Have to talked to B&C about this? I think they're open this week.
>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. ;-)
Okay . . . that's not a problem. We need to deduce whether or
not you have the right parts. It sounds like you MIGHT have a
temp sensor as opposed to a current sensor. They may have
packed the wrong sensor. I use the AMPLOC sensors in my instrumentation
tasks. Here's a photo of an AMPLOC sensor on a 3-wire lead. Does this
look something like the sensor we're talking about?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 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.
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 . . .
Bob, They will work just fine. Thanks. Let me refine my question. If I use Z-11/30
with 2 batteries do I need to isolate the charging circuits from each other?
Mark Banus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BandC current sensor (oops, forgot link to picture) |
> Okay . . . that's not a problem. We need to deduce whether or
> not you have the right parts. It sounds like you MIGHT have a
> temp sensor as opposed to a current sensor. They may have
> packed the wrong sensor. I use the AMPLOC sensors in my instrumentation
> tasks. Here's a photo of an AMPLOC sensor on a 3-wire lead.
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/AmpLOC_Sensor.jpg
>
> Does this look something like the sensor we're talking about?
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BandC current sensor installation? |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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.
>>
>>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.
>
> If you have a "sensor" that looks like a "common ring terminal" then
> it sounds like your talking about the temperature probe where temp
> sensing
> device is potted into a heavy copper ring terminal and the wire to the
> regulator is a single strand of shielded wire. How many wires are in
> the cable that runs to the regulator? Does the "sensor" look like
> one of the AMPLOC devices or does it look more like a solid copper
> ring terminal that might go on a 4AWG wire?
Actually, now that you mention it, it does not look like the Amploc device,
so now I'm really confused, because it came in a bag labelled "Current
Sensor 218-300" and has an white, organge/white, and blue/white signal
wires, and 2 white heavy gauge wires, one with a yellow ring terminal, the
other is unterminated, the ring terminal has a tag attached with safety wire
that says "towards alternator". I called B&C yesterday, but the guy who
answered said that somone would need to get back to me after lunch, and they
never returned the call. I'm going to try to attach a picture, though it
probably won't come through. If it does not, perhaps you could reply
directly to me so I can send the picture, because now I'm quite perplexed.
Brett
>>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.
>
> Have to talked to B&C about this? I think they're open this week.
>
>
>>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. ;-)
>
> Okay . . . that's not a problem. We need to deduce whether or
> not you have the right parts. It sounds like you MIGHT have a
> temp sensor as opposed to a current sensor. They may have
> packed the wrong sensor. I use the AMPLOC sensors in my instrumentation
> tasks. Here's a photo of an AMPLOC sensor on a 3-wire lead. Does this
> look something like the sensor we're talking about?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BandC current sensor (oops, forgot link to |
picture)
OK - I've posted this picture here:
http://www.velocityxl.com/218-300.htm
Is it possible that maybe I've got a 2-in-1 current and temp sensor, and the
sensor is wrapped in shrink wrap?
Brett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: BandC current sensor (oops, forgot link to
picture)
>
>
>
>> Okay . . . that's not a problem. We need to deduce whether or
>> not you have the right parts. It sounds like you MIGHT have a
>> temp sensor as opposed to a current sensor. They may have
>> packed the wrong sensor. I use the AMPLOC sensors in my
>> instrumentation
>> tasks. Here's a photo of an AMPLOC sensor on a 3-wire lead.
>>
>>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/AmpLOC_Sensor.jpg
>>
>> Does this look something like the sensor we're talking about?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BandC current sensor (oops, forgot link to |
picture)
Bob,
OK, after closer inspection, I see what I've got. What they've given me
*IS* the B lead for the SB-20, with the sensor already looped through it. I
just need to put the ring terminal over the B lead of the alternator and the
other end of the large gauge goes to the ANL, and wire the small wires to
the regulator. Very nice this way, I just didn't find any instruction
telling me that's what it was, and I was expecting to just get the sensor.
Thanks again.
Brett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: BandC current sensor (oops, forgot link to
picture)
>
>
>
>> Okay . . . that's not a problem. We need to deduce whether or
>> not you have the right parts. It sounds like you MIGHT have a
>> temp sensor as opposed to a current sensor. They may have
>> packed the wrong sensor. I use the AMPLOC sensors in my
>> instrumentation
>> tasks. Here's a photo of an AMPLOC sensor on a 3-wire lead.
>>
>>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/AmpLOC_Sensor.jpg
>>
>> Does this look something like the sensor we're talking about?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rduplooy" <rduplooy(at)iafrica.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 27 Msgs - 12/29/04 |
----- Original Message -----
From: AeroElectric-List Digest Server
To: AeroElectric-List Digest List
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 9:55 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 27 Msgs - 12/29/04
9. 01:27 PM - Re: Wiring Plans (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wiring Plans
>
>. 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
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the Z13 pdf.( Draft). I was unable to download the Z..dwg...'s...
I am looking for a 25A/h "garden variety"RG battery...?...To change on an annual
basis..?
Any brand names?
I Will be installing a GRT display-,Dual Plasma III,- B&C 60 A.Alt as well as
8A SD driven from vacuum pump.....
Do I not need a back-up battery of approx.8-17 A/h....for "not having an impulse
coupler -magneto"?.....(as a back-up spark supplier..)?
Thank you for your help thus far.
Robert
RV-8... Big Battery in the back behind backbencher...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
12/30/2004
Previously from Walter Tondu
<<....skip.....Airplane will be flown light IFR.....skip....>>
<<....skip.....I believe this is enough to fly light IFR.....skip....>>
12/30/2004
Hello Walter, I am curious about your concept of "light IFR".
Your panel appears robust enough to handle just about anything (maybe not
Cat II ILS).
I am inclined to think that IFR is a lot like pregnancy -- you either are
or not.
Thanks.
OC
PS: Great web site.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
Not so. Here in Monterey, we have summer stratus that rolls in mid-afternoon
to late afternoon and clears the next morning. The stratus is normally 1000'
or less thick. So the procedure turn or vectors are in VMC and it's only
after the outer marker that IMC is encountered. If the stratus or even high
ground fog is from 800' to DH, then that is the harder approach to fly,
since it requires some "head-down" while still VMC. Lot's of fun, but it can
be down to minimums. However, one knows that a miss doesn't require long
climbs in the goo with big bumps.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: light IFR
>
> 12/30/2004
>
> Previously from Walter Tondu
>
> <<....skip.....Airplane will be flown light IFR.....skip....>>
>
> <<....skip.....I believe this is enough to fly light IFR.....skip....>>
> 12/30/2004
>
> Hello Walter, I am curious about your concept of "light IFR".
>
> Your panel appears robust enough to handle just about anything (maybe not
> Cat II ILS).
>
> I am inclined to think that IFR is a lot like pregnancy -- you either are
> or not.
>
> Thanks.
>
> OC
>
> PS: Great web site.
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
On 12/30 3:56, bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>
> 12/30/2004
>
> Previously from Walter Tondu
>
> <<....skip.....Airplane will be flown light IFR.....skip....>>
>
> <<....skip.....I believe this is enough to fly light IFR.....skip....>>
> 12/30/2004
>
> Hello Walter, I am curious about your concept of "light IFR".
>
> Your panel appears robust enough to handle just about anything (maybe not
> Cat II ILS).
>
> I am inclined to think that IFR is a lot like pregnancy -- you either are
> or not.
Several factors lead me to believe that I will only fly "light" IFR.
Let me define what my notion of light IFR is; If there is the
possiblity/probability of T-storms, mod to heavy turb, or Icing
I'll be on the ground having a beer.
But I cannot be more specific since I'm not IFR rated. That is the
first thing I will rectify, as soon as the plane is flying. It has
been my intention all along, since I got my PPL, that getting
my ticket is #1 as far as items that can make me a more proficient
and safer pilot. But things got in the way, like work. Not any more.
I've configured the panel as I liked, keeping in mind that I want
to fly this plane to get my ticket. I may have to make some changes
to the panel down the road but this is a pretty good "first attempt".
I think I also went a bit nuts too. Oh well, it's only money.
And I'll have to fix that little issue you mentioned about not being
able to shoot a Cat II aproach :)
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 . . .
>
>Bob, They will work just fine. Thanks. Let me refine my question. If I
>use Z-11/30 with 2 batteries do I need to isolate the charging circuits
>from each other?
Nope. The use of contactors for isolation was selected so that
the two batteries could be used in tandem for both normal operations
(charging) and cranking. The only time you have an interest in
separating them is when the alternator fails. If you plan active
notification of low voltage, then you'll know seconds after the
failure event. Opening battery master switches either manually
or automatically is something which may be accomplished with a
rather leisurely pace. Whether you re-configure the system for
alternator-out ops in 5 seconds or one minute has no effect on
how the flight will proceed.
Batteries charge and discharge nicely in hard-wired parallel.
There are many hangar myths that argue with this philosophy . . .
none of which are supported by the physics of the matter.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Holland" <hollandm(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Calibration of Amploc Current Sensors |
I'm using these sensors and would welcome any suggestions as to how to go about
calibrating them so they provide an accurate measure of current. The input is
to a Grand Rapid EIS.
Thanks
Mike Holland
RV9A in assembly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | AMP 59500 Crimper |
Anyone know what an AMP 59500 is used for?
Thanks
Mark Banus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: AMP 59500 Crimper |
Mark Banus wrote:
>
>Anyone know what an AMP 59500 is used for?
>Thanks
>Mark Banus
>
>
Enter 59500 as a part # on this web page. It's used for crimping ferules
on several different cable types. After entering the number and clicking
"submit" Open the fifth "view" box for a description (second one down)
and the second "view" box for a picture (drawing).
http://ecommas.tycoelectronics.com/commerce/DocumentDelivery/DDEController
Bob McC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | E bus list opinions |
I'm laying out the systems for my panel and have hit an analysis paralysis
wall. I'd be grateful for opinions on what to put on the E bus.
I'm planning on using Z-13, with an SD-8, and dual batteries.
My panel has:
BMA Efis 1 (4 amps)
Garmin 480 (1.3 amps)
Altitude encoder. (unknown)
Garmin 33 transponder (the transponder is remotely operated by the 480) (2
amps)
Turn coordinator (drain unknown)
2 1/4" AI (drain unknown)
(TC and AI are 24 volts, fed from a DC/DC converter)
Cockpit lighting 1 amp
Electric trim, landing brake (rarely used, power supply is on a common IC
board)
Fuel pump (rarely used, shouldn't be a drain unless really needed)
2 each LSE ignitions. 3.6 amps
SL30 nav/com
Intercom/marker beacon
Strobes/Position lights
Landing lights
Main gear pump
Pitot heat
I'll be installing a DigiTrak autopilot in the fullness of time, driven off
the Garmin 480.
I'm currently VFR but will be getting my IFR shortly after the plane
flies. I live in Southern California, so most of my IFR will be through
early morning/late afternoon low clouds.
Opinions, anyone?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AMP 59500 Crimper |
>Anyone know what an AMP 59500 is used for?
>Thanks
>Mark Banus
>
>
Enter 59500 as a part # on this web page. It's used for crimping ferules
on several different cable types. After entering the number and clicking
"submit" Open the fifth "view" box for a description (second one down)
and the second "view" box for a picture (drawing).
http://ecommas.tycoelectronics.com/commerce/DocumentDelivery/DDEController
Bob McC
Thanks Bob, Looks like I don't need that for my aircraft project.
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: E bus list opinions |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Richard -
There are 2 power inputs for the Garmin 480: a 5 amp for the NAV/GPS
section and a 5 amp for the Comm section. I don't believe that you will
use that much power, but that is what Stark Avionics wired our harness
for. The 480 has a heater for the display and vent fans in it. They also
wired the SL-30 for a 5 amp comm power and a 2 amp Nav power. Their wire
for the GTX 330 is for 5 amps. Again, I don't think that they actually
require that much amperage. In an emergency, I certainly would turn off
the Sl-30 and rely on the 480. BMA also recommends a 10 amp cb/fuse for
the EFIS ONE. I certainly does not take that much, but if you have the
autopilot option, the servos use some power.
I'd forego all lighting except for what would be needed to illiminate the
panel and maybe a low power map light like B&C sells (2 watts). Pitot heat
is a killer, but should be available if you are in the clouds and the FAT
is 40 degrees or below.
Hope this helps.
John
> I'm laying out the systems for my panel and have hit an analysis
> paralysis
> wall. I'd be grateful for opinions on what to put on the E bus.
>
> I'm planning on using Z-13, with an SD-8, and dual batteries.
>
> My panel has:
>
> BMA Efis 1 (4 amps)
> Garmin 480 (1.3 amps)
> Altitude encoder. (unknown)
> Garmin 33 transponder (the transponder is remotely operated by the 480)
> (2
> amps)
>
> Turn coordinator (drain unknown)
> 2 1/4" AI (drain unknown)
> (TC and AI are 24 volts, fed from a DC/DC converter)
>
> Cockpit lighting 1 amp
> Electric trim, landing brake (rarely used, power supply is on a common IC
> board)
> Fuel pump (rarely used, shouldn't be a drain unless really needed)
> 2 each LSE ignitions. 3.6 amps
>
> SL30 nav/com
> Intercom/marker beacon
> Strobes/Position lights
> Landing lights
> Main gear pump
> Pitot heat
>
> I'll be installing a DigiTrak autopilot in the fullness of time, driven
> off
> the Garmin 480.
>
> I'm currently VFR but will be getting my IFR shortly after the plane
> flies. I live in Southern California, so most of my IFR will be through
> early morning/late afternoon low clouds.
>
> Opinions, anyone?
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: E bus list opinions |
Now that's interesting...I found someone in my same dilema, with a
very similar panel layout. I'm planning all the same items, except
instead of the BMA EFIS1, using the Grand Rapids probably dual
system.
I'm very closely watching the thread titled:
"Diagram of Duel Battery, Single Alternator with Steering Diodes"
Because I, like you, am planning on using DUAL lightspeed
ignitions. In my mind, I've been picturing a 3 battery system,
with the 3rd being a 12Ah sealed battery like used in APC UPS's
(Computer backup supplies). This is because if I lose an alternator,
in my opinion I would think I need an "essential bus", and a
"REALLY REALLY essential bus"... the latter being solely used to
power my LSE Ignition....and maybe my small horizon gauge
(Probably the new TruTrak ADI).
The only way I can see going with just 2 batteries is if I could
virutally guarantee 1 hour minimum run-time after alternator loss
and low battery alert, and I'd want to have at least the following:
My EFIS
Garmin 480
Alt. Encoder
TruTrak ADI
Electric Trim
Fuel Pump
Audio Panel
Pitot Heat (would turn off manually if not needed)
TruTrak Autopilot
Of course, if those guys making the new Electronic Ignition
EMag have that powered one ready (P-Mag?) ready for 6cylinder
engines by about April/May, then that would solve my problem
to my satisfaction....at least my engine would keep turning.
One other option I've thought would be worth thinking about is
just using a 2nd very small alternator for redundancy.
2 alternators and 2 batteries would seem to be a comfortable
option if the P-Mag isn't available.
Any thoughts?
Tim
Richard Riley wrote:
>
> I'm laying out the systems for my panel and have hit an analysis paralysis
> wall. I'd be grateful for opinions on what to put on the E bus.
>
> I'm planning on using Z-13, with an SD-8, and dual batteries.
>
> My panel has:
>
> BMA Efis 1 (4 amps)
> Garmin 480 (1.3 amps)
> Altitude encoder. (unknown)
> Garmin 33 transponder (the transponder is remotely operated by the 480) (2
> amps)
>
> Turn coordinator (drain unknown)
> 2 1/4" AI (drain unknown)
> (TC and AI are 24 volts, fed from a DC/DC converter)
>
> Cockpit lighting 1 amp
> Electric trim, landing brake (rarely used, power supply is on a common IC
> board)
> Fuel pump (rarely used, shouldn't be a drain unless really needed)
> 2 each LSE ignitions. 3.6 amps
>
> SL30 nav/com
> Intercom/marker beacon
> Strobes/Position lights
> Landing lights
> Main gear pump
> Pitot heat
>
> I'll be installing a DigiTrak autopilot in the fullness of time, driven off
> the Garmin 480.
>
> I'm currently VFR but will be getting my IFR shortly after the plane
> flies. I live in Southern California, so most of my IFR will be through
> early morning/late afternoon low clouds.
>
> Opinions, anyone?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Z13a plus Z30 Aux Battery - Questions ? |
Having just started the process, to me wiring still looks more like a maze
than amazing so a little help with a couple of basic questions would be
greatly appreciated. RV7a 0-360 running one slick mag and one ElectoAir
P-Mag(probable) Dual GRT Displays, Digi II VS AP, Garmin 430/330 tpx.
Just checking to be sure, couple of questions ...if I add the Aux Battery
Z30 to the Z13a plan, it looks like it would wire into the starter side of
the original battery contactor which also powers the main power distribution
bus and the "battery bus". Yes ???
Using the S701-1 contactor, normal operating procedure would be to run both
battery masters in the "ON" & "ON/ALT" position with the Aux Alt "OFF". No
charging problems running this way ???? Aux Battery always powers the
battery bus, and the contactor only determines if the Aux Battery is
available to the primary system for charging or use ??
With the Main Master in the "OFF" position but with the E-Bus Alternate Feed
"ON" and the Aux Battery "ON", and Aux Alt "ON" .... wouldn't you still have
the Main buss on line with the Aux Bat contactor in the ON position ??, then
... a hot battery bus with the aux battery available independent of the main
battery, essential and battery buss hot from the SD-8,.... zat-so ??
It seems that all you are doing with this sequence is dumping the primary
alternator and Battery and passing the full load to the Aux battery and the
SD-8 if ON ?? It seems that in this sequence the E-Bus alternate feed
switch doesn't matter since with the Aux Battery switch ON,... power would
still flow through the Main Buss to the Essential Buss
With the Main Master "Off", E-Bus alternate feed "ON", Aux Bat "Off", Aux
Alt "On",... the Aux battery would be feeding the Battery bus and E-bus
only, main buss would be offline,..... does that sound right ??
then would the AUX battery be getting any charge in this situation assuming
the draw on the battery and E-Buss was less than the SD8 output ???
Procedure question,.... Would assume that if the Master Switch (2-10) is in
the center position, Alt off, Bat on,.. Aux Bat "On", Aux Alt "ON" that
everything would be hot with the SD-8 humming and doing whatever it could
for both batteries whether the E-Buss Alt Switch was on or off????
Batteries would eventually discharge if draw was > 8 amps but take a lot
longer than without the SD-8?? Yes/No-how come?
What would the sequence be for primary alternator failure ??? Main Master
to "Off", E-Bus master to "ON", Aux battery goes to "OFF" to keep it from
feeding the Main Buss, Aux Alt to "ON",...... then on landing Aux Bat back
to "ON", Main Master to center (Bat on, alt off)
Also wondering what the current draw should I use for planning purposes for
a GNS430. Install manual indicates something on the order of milliamps for
receive and 3.0 amp transmit. I am assuming that the max draw is only in
transmit mode and putting it on the E-buss or would have negligible impact
except in transmit mode ????
Thanks for the help! Great forum
Bill Schlatterer
501 851 0310
Maumelle, Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
Bob,
I think I know the answer, but. When wiring though the S701-1 alternator
ov/disconnect contactor, does it make any difference which side of the
contactor is wired to the B lead?
In other words can the fat wires be on either side of the concator?
What gives me question, is that the diode would appear to be in backwards if
I reverse the fat wires.
Also can I mount the contactor horizontaly?
Thanks,
Kevin Boddicker
Luana, Iowa
Tri Q200 N7868B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Drawing Z13a Note xx on load dump suppressor |
Apparently I haven't got the code cracked yet. On Z13a there is a Note XX on
the load dump suppressor shown on the alternator and I can't seem to find it
anywhere? Can somebody point me at it?
Thanks Bill S
7a fuse/panel
Bill Schlatterer
501 851 0310
Maumelle, Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Calibration of Amploc Current Sensors |
>
>I'm using these sensors and would welcome any suggestions as to how to go
>about calibrating them so they provide an accurate measure of
>current. The input is to a Grand Rapid EIS.
>
>Thanks
>
>Mike Holland
I put some known magnetic excitation into the sensor and measure
the change in voltage at the output. For example, wind an excitation
wire through the aperture of the sensor so that it passes through
the opening 10 times. Cause some constant current to flow through
this wire while observing the changes in sensor output voltage from
it's zero-current resting point. Keep in mind that the sensor is
VERY rudimentary. It has a zero-current resting point that is about
1/2 of supplied voltage. So if it's powered by a 10v supply, the
zero current output will be about 5 volts. When current flows through
the wire being monitored, the voltage rise or fall from the zero-current
value depending on the polarity of the current. Further, output
voltage is ratiometric to the supply voltage. You need to power
the sensor with a stable voltage.
Practical use of these devices hinges on an ability to (1) get rid
of the zero-current (offset) voltage reading and (2) calibrate the
rise/fall of the signal voltage with respect to current changes in
the wire being monitored.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/AMPLOC_Sensor_Assy.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/AMPLOC_Sensor_Schm.gif
The images above are one example of an AMPLOC sensor application.
I built this to look at very small changes of current driving
the power input pin of an accessory. Steady state current was on
the order of 500 mA and the changes I was looking for were on the
order of +/- 10 mA with transients that might exceed 100 mA.
With the assembly I've illustrated, I was able to pass the supply
for the accessory through the aperture of the sensor 15 times
and not saturate the device (10A-T limit). With 1 amp of
current flowing through a ten-turn test coil, the output
of this sensor went up 2.27 volts. The sensitivity
of the AMPLOC sensor was calculated to be 227 millivolts per
ampere-turn. With 15 turns of the monitored wire through the
sensor, signal sensitivity for the setup was 227*15 or 3,385
millivolts per amp . . . or 3.38 millivolts per milliamp.
With the fixture as illustrated, offset voltage was nulled
to zero with the potentiometer and the 'scope set up to something
on the order of 50mV per major division. The transients were
easily observed without breaking into the wire . . .
I'm skeptical of the practicality of using the AMPLOC
sensor with an off-the-shelf panel instrument. Unless
the instrument is specifically designed to work with
the unique characteristics of the AMPLOC sensor, I think
your goal is not achievable. Have you talked with
EIS about this?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> ? |
| Subject: | Re: Z13a plus Z30 Aux Battery - Questions |
?
?
>
>
>Having just started the process, to me wiring still looks more like a maze
>than amazing so a little help with a couple of basic questions would be
>greatly appreciated. RV7a 0-360 running one slick mag and one ElectoAir
>P-Mag(probable)
EMAG is the manufacturer of electronic magneto replacements . . .
both externally powered and internally powered.
http://www.emagair.com/
ElectroAir is the supplier of an electronic ignition system that
has been on the market for about 15 years. See:
http://www.exp-aircraft.com/vendors/electroa.html
> . . . Dual GRT Displays, Digi II VS AP, Garmin 430/330 tpx.
>
>Just checking to be sure, couple of questions ...if I add the Aux Battery
>Z30 to the Z13a plan, it looks like it would wire into the starter side of
>the original battery contactor which also powers the main power distribution
>bus and the "battery bus". Yes ???
yes
>Using the S701-1 contactor, normal operating procedure would be to run both
>battery masters in the "ON" & "ON/ALT" position with the Aux Alt "OFF". No
>charging problems running this way ???? Aux Battery always powers the
>battery bus, and the contactor only determines if the Aux Battery is
>available to the primary system for charging or use ??
Normal operations are main alternator ON, both battery masters ON, aux
alternator OFF.
>With the Main Master in the "OFF" position but with the E-Bus Alternate Feed
>"ON" and the Aux Battery "ON", and Aux Alt "ON" .... wouldn't you still have
>the Main buss on line with the Aux Bat contactor in the ON position ??, then
>... a hot battery bus with the aux battery available independent of the main
>battery, essential and battery buss hot from the SD-8,.... zat-so ??
>
>It seems that all you are doing with this sequence is dumping the primary
>alternator and Battery and passing the full load to the Aux battery and the
>SD-8 if ON ?? It seems that in this sequence the E-Bus alternate feed
>switch doesn't matter since with the Aux Battery switch ON,... power would
>still flow through the Main Buss to the Essential Buss
>
>With the Main Master "Off", E-Bus alternate feed "ON", Aux Bat "Off", Aux
>Alt "On",... the Aux battery would be feeding the Battery bus and E-bus
>only, main buss would be offline,..... does that sound right ??
>
>then would the AUX battery be getting any charge in this situation assuming
>the draw on the battery and E-Buss was less than the SD8 output ???
>
>Procedure question,.... Would assume that if the Master Switch (2-10) is in
>the center position, Alt off, Bat on,.. Aux Bat "On", Aux Alt "ON" that
>everything would be hot with the SD-8 humming and doing whatever it could
>for both batteries whether the E-Buss Alt Switch was on or off????
>Batteries would eventually discharge if draw was > 8 amps but take a lot
>longer than without the SD-8?? Yes/No-how come?
>
>What would the sequence be for primary alternator failure ??? Main Master
>to "Off", E-Bus master to "ON", Aux battery goes to "OFF" to keep it from
>feeding the Main Buss, Aux Alt to "ON",...... then on landing Aux Bat back
>to "ON", Main Master to center (Bat on, alt off)
>
>Also wondering what the current draw should I use for planning purposes for
>a GNS430. Install manual indicates something on the order of milliamps for
>receive and 3.0 amp transmit. I am assuming that the max draw is only in
>transmit mode and putting it on the E-buss or would have negligible impact
>except in transmit mode ????
Not sure why one would want to position the switches as described. The
ENDURANCE bus philosophy is to allow you to drop to a minimum power
consumption mode in the en-route mode of flight so as to conserve
energy stored in the battery(ies) for the approach to landing phase.
When you ADD an auxiliary alternator, one can operate accessories
up to and including the full output of the alternator and retain 100%
of battery energies for descent and landing.
The only reason for dual batteries would be to eliminate single
point of failure for electrically dependent engine components.
1/2 of engine accessories run from each of two always-hot battery
busses. Consider making one of your e-
During lost of main alternator, you close the ENDURANCE bus alternate
feed switch, and open both battery master switches. I would also
shut down engine accessories that run from the aux battery. Close
the aux alternator control switch and continue to airport of intended
destination while holding the totality of battery capacity in reserve
for descent -OR- a REAL emergency. This system EXPECTS the main alternator
to fail at some time and the goal is to prevent this event from becoming
an emergency. When you begin descent, turn both battery master switches
ON (leave main alternator OFF) and do your normal approach to landing
tasks knowing that you've got plenty of snort on board to operate
any needed accessories.
Quoting an ancient philosopher William of Occam, "Entia non sunt
multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" which translates literally to
"entities should not be multiplied needlessly". In practical terms,
we can interpret this to suggest, "The simplest of two or more
competing theories is preferable".
In the interest of simplicity, if you plan to use P-mags . . . internally
powered, then you probably don't need dual batteries. Consider
Z-13 without a second battery.
>Thanks for the help! Great forum
You're most welcome sir.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: E bus list opinions |
>
>I'm laying out the systems for my panel and have hit an analysis paralysis
>wall. I'd be grateful for opinions on what to put on the E bus.
>
>I'm planning on using Z-13, with an SD-8, and dual batteries.
First, what drives the need for two batteries? Is your engine
electrically dependent? Have you considered EMAG's P-Mag
products? See:
http://www.emagair.com/
Perhaps one fat battery would suffice . . .
>My panel has:
>
>BMA Efis 1 (4 amps)
>Garmin 480 (1.3 amps)
>Altitude encoder. (unknown)
>Garmin 33 transponder (the transponder is remotely operated by the 480) (2
>amps)
>
>Turn coordinator (drain unknown)
>2 1/4" AI (drain unknown)
>(TC and AI are 24 volts, fed from a DC/DC converter)
>
>Cockpit lighting 1 amp
>Electric trim, landing brake (rarely used, power supply is on a common IC
>board)
>Fuel pump (rarely used, shouldn't be a drain unless really needed)
>2 each LSE ignitions. 3.6 amps
>
>SL30 nav/com
>Intercom/marker beacon
>Strobes/Position lights
>Landing lights
>Main gear pump
>Pitot heat
>
>I'll be installing a DigiTrak autopilot in the fullness of time, driven off
>the Garmin 480.
>
>I'm currently VFR but will be getting my IFR shortly after the plane
>flies. I live in Southern California, so most of my IFR will be through
>early morning/late afternoon low clouds.
Assume you're en-route at cruise and the main alternator
quits. What equipment is necessary for continued cruise
to the point where you start a descent and configure the
airplane for approach to landing. The goal is reduce
total loads on system to 8A or less while you're watching
the ground go by. The goal is to land with the BATTERY
master ON, MAIN BUS hot and everything running that's
useful for descent, approach and landing. The battery
can and will do this if it's properly sized and maintained
so your e-bus configuration task is to figure out
what needs to be operating in the en-route mode of flight
only.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> suppressor |
| Subject: | Re: Drawing Z13a Note xx on load dump |
suppressor
suppressor
>
>
>Apparently I haven't got the code cracked yet. On Z13a there is a Note XX on
>the load dump suppressor shown on the alternator and I can't seem to find it
>anywhere? Can somebody point me at it?
This is a DRAFT copy of a drawing that will be included in
revision 11 to the 'Connection. The note has not yet be
crafted or number assigned.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob,
>I think I know the answer, but. When wiring though the S701-1 alternator
>ov/disconnect contactor, does it make any difference which side of the
>contactor is wired to the B lead?
no
>In other words can the fat wires be on either side of the concator?
yes
>What gives me question, is that the diode would appear to be in backwards if
>I reverse the fat wires.
no, the coil circuit that closes the contactor is
entirely separate from the fat-wires.
>Also can I mount the contactor horizontaly?
yes
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: E bus list opinions |
At 11:24 AM 12/31/04, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >I'm planning on using Z-13, with an SD-8, and dual batteries.
>
> First, what drives the need for two batteries? Is your engine
> electrically dependent? Have you considered EMAG's P-Mag
> products? See:
>
> http://www.emagair.com/
>
> Perhaps one fat battery would suffice . . .
Yes, I have two LSE electronic ignitions. The 6 Cyl P-Mag isn't likely to
be available until late next year and I hope to be flying in the
spring. Once the P mag is available I'll buy one - the crank sensors on
the dual LSE's make for a single point failure (not electrically, but
mechanically, if the mounting board is damaged.)
> Assume you're en-route at cruise and the main alternator
> quits. What equipment is necessary for continued cruise
> to the point where you start a descent and configure the
> airplane for approach to landing. The goal is reduce
> total loads on system to 8A or less while you're watching
> the ground go by. The goal is to land with the BATTERY
> master ON, MAIN BUS hot and everything running that's
> useful for descent, approach and landing. The battery
> can and will do this if it's properly sized and maintained
> so your e-bus configuration task is to figure out
> what needs to be operating in the en-route mode of flight
> only.
That's the conundrum.
If I were using a regular transponder I'd have one LSE, the EFIS 1, the
SL-30 and the transponder on the e-bus. With the remote transponder, I
have to have the 480 on for the transponder to run.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Wayne Sweet"
>
> Not so. Here in Monterey, we have summer stratus that rolls in
> mid-afternoon
> to late afternoon and clears the next morning. The stratus is normally
> 1000'
> or less thick. So the procedure turn or vectors are in VMC and it's only
> after the outer marker that IMC is encountered. If the stratus or even
> high
> ground fog is from 800' to DH, then that is the harder approach to fly,
> since it requires some "head-down" while still VMC. Lot's of fun, but it
> can
> be down to minimums. However, one knows that a miss doesn't require long
> climbs in the goo with big bumps. Wayne
12/31/2004
Hello Wayne, I am not sure what you are saying is "Not so".
The history of aviation is filled with adverse incidents of pilots treating
IMC conditions as not really requiring their full attention and adherence to
sound instrument flying procedures because the duration of the conditions
was expected to be short. Unfortunately sometimes the duration turned out to
be even shorter than anticipated because the flight was terminated by either
controlled flight into terrain or loss of control and subsequent impact with
terrain.
I did not want some beginning instrument pilot to read the term "light IFR"
and come to the conclusion that one could pick and choose the flavor of IMC
desired, dial it in, and only eat as much as they chose. When flying down
the weather cafeteria line one sometimes gets more dumped on their plate
than they wanted regardless of their plans and protestations.
OC
PS: I flew out of NALF Monterey for over three years in 1965-1968. Great
country. Is the stud farm still there on the way in from Salinas?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <rlee468(at)comcast.net> |
I had to let my King 99 go with the plane I sold. I acquired an ICOM-A21 as a token
for leaving the King in the plane. I now find I need to have special equipment
to use the ICOM with a headset, no side tone without an external amplifier.
My question is, how does this radio compare to the new models for power and
transmission capabilities. I hooked it to a base antenna and it seems to be
fine as far as transmitting and receiving. Is it feasible to buy what I need to
make this radio work in my plane with a headset or should I invest in a new
radio and just forget the IC-A21
Ron Lee Tucson, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: E bus list opinions |
>
>At 11:24 AM 12/31/04, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > >I'm planning on using Z-13, with an SD-8, and dual batteries.
> >
> > First, what drives the need for two batteries? Is your engine
> > electrically dependent? Have you considered EMAG's P-Mag
> > products? See:
> >
> > http://www.emagair.com/
> >
> > Perhaps one fat battery would suffice . . .
>
>Yes, I have two LSE electronic ignitions. The 6 Cyl P-Mag isn't likely to
>be available until late next year and I hope to be flying in the
>spring. Once the P mag is available I'll buy one - the crank sensors on
>the dual LSE's make for a single point failure (not electrically, but
>mechanically, if the mounting board is damaged.)
Okay . . . I'd forgotten that. We did discuss it. I recommend
two batteries with each ignition running from it's own hot battery
bus.
> > Assume you're en-route at cruise and the main alternator
> > quits. What equipment is necessary for continued cruise
> > to the point where you start a descent and configure the
> > airplane for approach to landing. The goal is reduce
> > total loads on system to 8A or less while you're watching
> > the ground go by. The goal is to land with the BATTERY
> > master ON, MAIN BUS hot and everything running that's
> > useful for descent, approach and landing. The battery
> > can and will do this if it's properly sized and maintained
> > so your e-bus configuration task is to figure out
> > what needs to be operating in the en-route mode of flight
> > only.
>
>That's the conundrum.
>
>If I were using a regular transponder I'd have one LSE, the EFIS 1, the
>SL-30 and the transponder on the e-bus. With the remote transponder, I
>have to have the 480 on for the transponder to run.
Hmmm . . . what data does the transponder get from the 480?
Altitude?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Microair 760-N to Flightcom 403mc |
Has anyone matched up the flightcom 403mc intercom to the microair 760-N
transceiver.
I've received two different pinout diagrams and niether one matches the
schematics I have for the units.
A working pinout diagram would sure make me feel better before I apply power
to this combo.
Mike Sigman
601XL N7092N
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: E bus list opinions |
At 02:31 PM 12/31/04, you wrote:
> >If I were using a regular transponder I'd have one LSE, the EFIS 1, the
> >SL-30 and the transponder on the e-bus. With the remote transponder, I
> >have to have the 480 on for the transponder to run.
>
> Hmmm . . . what data does the transponder get from the 480?
> Altitude?
The transponder doesn't have a display or controls of it's own - it's a
featureless box, and lives behind the panel. It displays it's squawk on
the 480 screen, and you use the 480 controls to change the squawk and ident.
It can get it's altitude from the BMA EFIS, but I've decided to use a stand
alone encoder - probably a SANDIA SAE5-35, because I want gray code for the
transponder, and serial for the 480.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | E bus list opinions |
Another reason he needs 2 batteries is for the EFIS/one to be available with
the engine instruments and not re-boot during start-up, on a 14 volt system
BMA says he needs another battery. At least that's why I went to a
two-battery system. The second battery can be very small and do this job,
but I wired to allow a second 17ah battery.
Terry
RV-8A BMA EFIS/one
>
>At 11:24 AM 12/31/04, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > >I'm planning on using Z-13, with an SD-8, and dual batteries.
> >
> > First, what drives the need for two batteries? Is your engine
> > electrically dependent? Have you considered EMAG's P-Mag
> > products? See:
> >
> > http://www.emagair.com/
> >
> > Perhaps one fat battery would suffice . . .
>
>Yes, I have two LSE electronic ignitions. The 6 Cyl P-Mag isn't likely to
>be available until late next year and I hope to be flying in the
>spring. Once the P mag is available I'll buy one - the crank sensors on
>the dual LSE's make for a single point failure (not electrically, but
>mechanically, if the mounting board is damaged.)
Okay . . . I'd forgotten that. We did discuss it. I recommend
two batteries with each ignition running from it's own hot battery
bus.
> > Assume you're en-route at cruise and the main alternator
> > quits. What equipment is necessary for continued cruise
> > to the point where you start a descent and configure the
> > airplane for approach to landing. The goal is reduce
> > total loads on system to 8A or less while you're watching
> > the ground go by. The goal is to land with the BATTERY
> > master ON, MAIN BUS hot and everything running that's
> > useful for descent, approach and landing. The battery
> > can and will do this if it's properly sized and maintained
> > so your e-bus configuration task is to figure out
> > what needs to be operating in the en-route mode of flight
> > only.
>
>That's the conundrum.
>
>If I were using a regular transponder I'd have one LSE, the EFIS 1, the
>SL-30 and the transponder on the e-bus. With the remote transponder, I
>have to have the 480 on for the transponder to run.
Hmmm . . . what data does the transponder get from the 480?
Altitude?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
Hi,
No the stud farm is history. I instructed at the Navy Flying Club part-time
for about 20 years and all my instrument students had lots of ILS approaches
into MRY and elsewhere in the stratus. This type of IFR flying is easier
than departing in 1 1/2 & 300 overcast, flying 3 hours in IMC and shooting
an approach down to minimums, missing and going to the alternate. That is
hard IFR, with lots of chances to screw up, particularly after fatigue has
set in and the most demanding part of the trip, the approach and miss (THE
MOST demanding), etc.
Easy IFR (but still not without chances to screw up) is as I described. If
you have experienced both, then you surely know the difference.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Light IFR
>
> AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Wayne Sweet"
>
>>
>> Not so. Here in Monterey, we have summer stratus that rolls in
>> mid-afternoon
>> to late afternoon and clears the next morning. The stratus is normally
>> 1000'
>> or less thick. So the procedure turn or vectors are in VMC and it's only
>> after the outer marker that IMC is encountered. If the stratus or even
>> high
>> ground fog is from 800' to DH, then that is the harder approach to fly,
>> since it requires some "head-down" while still VMC. Lot's of fun, but it
>> can
>> be down to minimums. However, one knows that a miss doesn't require long
>> climbs in the goo with big bumps. Wayne
>
>
> 12/31/2004
>
> Hello Wayne, I am not sure what you are saying is "Not so".
>
> The history of aviation is filled with adverse incidents of pilots
> treating
> IMC conditions as not really requiring their full attention and adherence
> to
> sound instrument flying procedures because the duration of the conditions
> was expected to be short. Unfortunately sometimes the duration turned out
> to
> be even shorter than anticipated because the flight was terminated by
> either
> controlled flight into terrain or loss of control and subsequent impact
> with
> terrain.
>
> I did not want some beginning instrument pilot to read the term "light
> IFR"
> and come to the conclusion that one could pick and choose the flavor of
> IMC
> desired, dial it in, and only eat as much as they chose. When flying down
> the weather cafeteria line one sometimes gets more dumped on their plate
> than they wanted regardless of their plans and protestations.
>
> OC
>
> PS: I flew out of NALF Monterey for over three years in 1965-1968. Great
> country. Is the stud farm still there on the way in from Salinas?
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: overvoltage protection |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
Neat!
Anybody find a source for small quantities of the 5KP18 yet?
Ken
>>snip
> 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.
>
>
>snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: overvoltage protection clamav-milter |
version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
They appear to be available from mouser in quantities of 1 for $1.34 each
http://www.mouser.com/index.cfm?&handler=data.listcategory&D=576-5KP18&terms=576-5KP18&Ntt=*5765KP18*&N=0&crc=true
Bob McC
Ken wrote:
>
>Neat!
>Anybody find a source for small quantities of the 5KP18 yet?
>Ken
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Instrument lighting, what a fool! |
Have a raging not complete Europa build at hand. Began work on panel, and
quickly found out the lighting on this chronograph leaves much to be desired.
Nice timepiece, nice box, supplied with a 24 volt bulb and I need a 12 volt. A
std. post light is just bout the correct brightness, wrong color and "WAY TOO
MUCH HEAT" inside the instrument for my liking
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/benz.php
OK turn a piece of 1/16 G-10" to fit inside nylon spacer, strategic place and
drill 24 .031" holes, bond in 12 3MM High intensity LEDs.
OK not bad, not bad, but the Passenger gets a bit of an eyeful from the slits
on the left of the instrument. No problem Progressive have left LEDs dimmer
and right a bit hotter, fool a bit more to have the thing ramp close to the
same as the EL which is on most other stuff.
The color of the LEDs even match pretty good the EL and there is very little
heat.
There you have it.
What a fool, raging build at hand, progressively matching intensity of LEDs
for timepiece.
What a way to start off a New Year.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Microair 760-N to Flightcom 403mc |
>
>Has anyone matched up the flightcom 403mc intercom to the microair 760-N
>transceiver.
>I've received two different pinout diagrams and niether one matches the
>schematics I have for the units.
>A working pinout diagram would sure make me feel better before I apply power
>to this combo.
Referring to MC403 manual at:
http://www.flightcom.net/pdf/403mcManual.pdf
and 760VHF manual at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/avionics/760imB.pdf
You connect:
MC403 "Tramnsmit Key Line" to Microair Pin 7
MC403 "Receive Audio" to Microair Pin 14
MC403 "Transmit Audio" to Microair Pin 1
MC403 "Avionics Ground" to Microair Pin 2 and
eliminate the avionics ground shown just to the
right of the aircraft radio in the MC403 wiring.
Ignore Micorair Pin 3, "COPILOT MIC HI"
Ignore all headphone, microphone and push to talk
wiring shown on the Microair wiring diagram including
the intercom wiring to pin 5.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Suffoletto" <rsuffoletto(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld |
Im in the market for a new hand held nav/com transceiver. Ive
searched the archives and learned a few things. However, I could not
find anything on the JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com. It seems to have a lot of
good features and comes at a reasonable price. Does anyone have any
experience with this unit? Or comments on units I should absolutely
stay away from?
Thanks
Richard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld |
I have one. I like it. Haven't used others to compare to it though.
The NAV functions work, but I can't see actually ever using them, given
today's GPS's. If I'd do it all over again I'd just get a Com.
Had someone drop it off a scaffolding tower and the company was very
good about repairing it.
Tim
Richard Suffoletto wrote:
>
> Im in the market for a new hand held nav/com transceiver. Ive
> searched the archives and learned a few things. However, I could not
> find anything on the JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com. It seems to have a lot of
> good features and comes at a reasonable price. Does anyone have any
> experience with this unit? Or comments on units I should absolutely
> stay away from?
>
> Thanks
>
> Richard
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I bought an IC-A23 for my Dad this Christmas. We took it out and
flew around with it a fair amount and were both very happy with its
performance. I will buy one for myself. BTW, I got the Sport
model, because I think it is a better value - $220 from Spruce.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Im in the market for a new hand held nav/com transceiver. Ive
> searched the archives and learned a few things. However, I could not
> find anything on the JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com. It seems to have a lot of good
> features and comes at a reasonable price. Does anyone have any
> experience with this unit? Or comments on units I should absolutely stay
> away from?
>
> Thanks
>
> Richard
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AI Nut <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld |
I chose the Icom A23 and have been really happy with it.
Richard Suffoletto wrote:
>
>Im in the market for a new hand held nav/com transceiver. Ive
>searched the archives and learned a few things. However, I could not
>find anything on the JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com. It seems to have a lot of
>good features and comes at a reasonable price. Does anyone have any
>experience with this unit? Or comments on units I should absolutely
>stay away from?
>
>Thanks
>
>Richard
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LVWM and Kilovac contactors |
Hi Bob and all,
In order to pinpoint the origin of my problem with the LVWM and the Kilovac
contactors I tried four different models of relays. I ended with a
transparent case relay which revealed the problem is not with the relay.
After extensive tests I've come to the conclusion it may be the association
of the LVWM with the Kilovac contactors. For some reasons when the Kilovac
contactors are energized they seem to somehow disturb something inside the
LVWM.
More details can be found at the following URL :
http://gilles.thesee.free.fr/Elec_architecture.htm
At the moment we still can perform the flight tests but I would really
appreciate any help or workaround. In effect the LVWM is the only practical
means of informing the pilot that something may be wrong with the auxiliary
battery. And wih our electrically dependant engine this aux battery is the
last resort if the alternator quits.
Thanks for your help,
Best wishes for 2005
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>
>
> 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>
> To:
> 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: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 196 vs 295 |
In a message dated 12/26/2004 11:10:10 P.M. Central Standard Time,
ttholen(at)hotmail.com writes:
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
Good Evening Tom,
All that you said makes good sense and I agree that GPSs do take time to
learn completely, but for 'one use' training, they are no more complicated than
any old UHF based DME transceiver.
However, I must mention that in order for a GPS to be used in IFR conditions
as a replacement for required DME information, the GPS has to be an IFR
approved installation and must be equipped with a current data card.
Now, having said that, there is rarely any real requirement that such
information absolutely has to be available.
With reasonable knowledge of how the system works, conditions that require
DME distances can be avoided in all but approach scenarios. Even for shooting
approaches, the lack of distance information is a planning problem rather
than an operational problem.
More equipment always adds to easier and more complete flexibility, but we
can still operate safely to the vast majority of IFR destinations with nothing
more than communications and a single VOR. Or in a very few cases, no VOR
at all but with a single ADF or a single GPS.
The idea is to understand what is installed and what that equipment's
capabilities really are!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 12/26/2004 7:27:23 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brucem(at)att.net writes:
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.
Good Evening Bruce,
Been gone for a week or so. Consequently I am way behind on this thread, but
I feel compelled to comment on this last point.
The FAR you reference requires that you must have equipment available to
utilize required ground based equipment.
Since the 480 is authorized as standalone navigation using only the GPS,
there is no requirement for any ground based equipment at all.
The statement: "navigation equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to
be used" only applies to cases where ground based equipment is to be used.
It does not say that you can't navigate without it.
No ground based equipment required means that no VOR, or anything else, has
to be on board.
Highly unlikely to occur since the 480 has VHF navigational capabilities,
but those capabilities are not required.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Electric hints and kinks #4 |
In a message dated 12/26/2004 12:21:01 P.M. Central Standard Time,
VE3LVO(at)rac.ca writes:
VE3LVO(at)rac.ca
Good Evening Ferg my friend,
Remember that when you were listening to those funny sounds from the Adcock
range, you were using the tremendously improved system that replaced the
original Loop LF Range stations.
You haven't really lived until you have used a loop range when the
temperature was such that the ice was forming on the loop transmitting antenna
and the
wind was blowing strong enough to get the range legs wildly swinging to and
fro. If it got strong enough, it would blow down the wires and the signal
was lost.
Ahh YES, for the Good Old Days!!!
All it took was a low frequency receiver and a T&B to keep the beast right
side up. I'll still take the GPS!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: LVWM and Kilovac contactors |
Gilles,
I have a dumb question: why do you have 2 LVWMs? It's my understanding that
those modules are designed to monitor the alternator, not the batteries. The
modules trigger at something like 12.5V - above what a battery puts out, but
below what an alternator delivers. Both LVWMs should tell you exactly the
same thing - but could the problem you are having be explained if they are
triggered at slightly different voltages? Just a wild guess - if the aux
battery is fully charged and not loaded, and the LVWM is set a touch low, it
might not be triggered.
Your voltmeter seems to be connected to the main bus and the E-bus. That's
OK, but since you have LV warning you don't really need it on the main bus -
I'd connect it (with a 2 position switch) to the two hot busses (main and
aux) so that you can monitor both battery voltages during alternator out
operations.
I'm doing a 2 battery 1 alternator system for a Subaru powered RV7A - so
your architecture has a lot of similarities to mine.
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
For those of you who are using the SL-30, are you using the intercom built
into the radio? If so, are you happy with its performance? Any drawbacks? Is
volume/squelch easily controlled? Would you prefer or recommend using a
separate intercom?
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
www.rv-8a.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <steve(at)lbho.freeserve.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: overvoltage protection clamav-milter |
version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
This exchange implies the 'load dump ' report is out. Is this correct? If so
I missed it. Where can I find it?
Thanks, Steve.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ken
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: overvoltage protection clamav-milter
version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
Neat!
Anybody find a source for small quantities of the 5KP18 yet?
Ken
>>snip
> 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.
>
>
>snip
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fw: LVWM and Kilovac contactors |
Dennis,
Thank you for your message.
> I have a dumb question: why do you have 2 LVWMs? It's my understanding
> that
> those modules are designed to monitor the alternator, not the batteries.
> The
> modules trigger at something like 12.5V - above what a battery puts out,
> but
> below what an alternator delivers. Both LVWMs should tell you exactly the
> same thing - but could the problem you are having be explained if they are
> triggered at slightly different voltages? Just a wild guess - if the aux
> battery is fully charged and not loaded, and the LVWM is set a touch low,
> it
> might not be triggered.
>
You're right, that is what happens sometimes. When the batteries are fully
charged their voltage is somewhere around 13 V. But as soon as the voltage
drops a bit, when the ship's systems are energized, the LVWMs are triggered.
The systems work as expected when powered by a bench supply, or when the
Kilovac contactors are replaced by plain contactors. But I do need the
Kilovacs because my alternator output is limited. And the aux battery LVWM
seems to be the only system to be disturbed by them.
> Your voltmeter seems to be connected to the main bus and the E-bus.
> That's
> OK, but since you have LV warning you don't really need it on the main
> bus -
> I'd connect it (with a 2 position switch) to the two hot busses (main and
> aux) so that you can monitor both battery voltages during alternator out
> operations.
>
It is on the main bus just for reasons of convenience during "normal"
flight. If the alternator quits, what matters to us is the main bus voltage.
When operating on E-bus only, the voltmeter is automatically connected to
the E-bus (and therefore direct to the main battery) through the S2 switch
on the general diagram. A momentary switch near the voltmeter allows the
pilot to monitor the aux battery hot bus voltage at any moment.
I just uploaded the voltmeter diagram at :
http://gilles.thesee.free.fr
> I'm doing a 2 battery 1 alternator system for a Subaru powered RV7A - so
> your architecture has a lot of similarities to mine.
>
Thank you for your comments. Do feel free to correct my English.
Regards,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SL-30 Intercom |
I use the intercom built in my SL40 comm. and I am
satisfied with it. Mic Squelch is easilly adjusted
and the VOX works very well. Once you adjust it for a
pair of headsets, you don't really need to touch it
again. The only drawback I can see is that there is
no auxiliary input (like for plugging music in for
example) and the intercom is mono only.
For me, this is not a problem since as a beginner
pilot, the engine gets all my auditive attention and
music is therefore not yet welcome.
Michel
--- Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote:
> Speedy11(at)aol.com
>
> For those of you who are using the SL-30, are you
> using the intercom built
> into the radio? If so, are you happy with its
> performance? Any drawbacks?
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
__________________________________
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
Works great for what it is ... overall. Lot's of flexibility to adjust in
the "setup" mode.
Not that easy to change when flying along (as compared to just turning the
squelch knob).
If you can, get a stereo intercom (like the DRE-244e and others) and provide
yourself the most options (music input and output, easier to adjust squelch,
pilot isolate, ATC recording (and option)).
I have friends with the SL40 (COMM only) in their C-140 and it is just fine
as it provides the intercom and ability to monitor another frequency (like
the SL-30). We have the SL30 in our RV but with the intercom and would have
it no other way as on those long trips it is nice sometimes to have a few
"tunes" in the background.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> Speedy11(at)aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:43 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: SL-30 Intercom
>
>
> For those of you who are using the SL-30, are you using the
> intercom built
> into the radio? If so, are you happy with its performance? Any
> drawbacks? Is
> volume/squelch easily controlled? Would you prefer or recommend using a
> separate intercom?
> Stan Sutterfield
> Tampa
> www.rv-8a.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | Re: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld |
Richard -
-----snip-----------
Im in the market for a new hand held nav/com transceiver. Ive
searched the archives and learned a few things. However, I could not
find anything on the JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com. It seems to have a lot of
good features and comes at a reasonable price. Does anyone have any
experience with this unit? Or comments on units I should absolutely
stay away from?
----snip------------
I was attracted by one of the ad/descriptions saying it can simultaneously
receive 2 frequencies. Which was suspicious, as this would require 2
receivers. As I thought, this turned out to be a continuous flip-flop
feature between 2 selected frequencies (if there is signal on one of them
the receiver locks on that frequency). Not a bad feature at all (actually a
very useful one) - just it was misrepresented by the ads.
I like that it can scan the NAV band in addition to the COM.
Display (LCD) is a bit small for my aging eyes but bearable and has very
good contrast (the contrast of a similar transceiver from Sporty's was not
nearly as good despite polarization, especially in sunlight).
Transmission and reception were very good, tested as the main radio during
emergencies (incl. for turning on the runway lights) or as a NAV aid or
just to feed an additional ATIS signal into the intercom.
It will receive the LOC but without further indication (unlike the
Sporty's, which indicates) - but I wouldn't try shooting a LOC with a
handheld anyway (I am currently working on my instrument rating).
Some vendors sell it with a headset adapter cable (incl. in price; got mine
for about $270-280 I think), others sell the adapter for an additional ~$50.
The 520 comes with a NiCad battery, but (being concerned about the NiCad
memory issues in the future) I got an empty battery case (~$25) and use
rechargeable NiMeHi batteries.
Overall I'd give it high marks for price-to-performance, features etc. ratio.
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | Re: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld |
Matt -
> BTW, I got the Sport
> model, because I think it is a better value - $220 from Spruce.
This is probably the COM only model, Sporty's used to sell the NAV-COM for
about 300-320, if I remember correctly.
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SL-30 Intercom |
I plan to buy an SL-30 very soon, so I tried looking into this. The
feedback on the intercom seems to range from bad to tepid. I asked
John Stark at Stark Avionics who sells a lot of these and and he said
his cutomers love the radio but don't like the intercom. I'm resigned
to getting a separate intercom, probably the pm501 from Precision Eng.
It has a good rep. and is not real expensive.
Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>For those of you who are using the SL-30, are you using the intercom built
>into the radio? If so, are you happy with its performance? Any drawbacks? Is
>volume/squelch easily controlled? Would you prefer or recommend using a
>separate intercom?
>Stan Sutterfield
>Tampa
>www.rv-8a.net
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld |
>>This is probably the COM only model,<<
Interestingly enough, the Spruce website lists the JHP-520 Sport model
as a "Nav/Com"....
But, the current price is $289. How long ago did you get it for $220?
And/or is there a discount schedule that we should know about?
Harley Dixon
rd2(at)evenlink.com wrote:
>
>Matt -
>
>
>
>>BTW, I got the Sport
>>model, because I think it is a better value - $220 from Spruce.
>>
>>
>
>This is probably the COM only model, Sporty's used to sell the NAV-COM for
>about 300-320, if I remember correctly.
>
>Rumen
>
>
>
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SL-30 Intercom |
On Jan 2, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> For those of you who are using the SL-30, are you using the intercom
> built
> into the radio?
No.
> If so, are you happy with its performance?
Tried it, didn't like it. (Actually I tried it in the SL-60 but they
appear to be the same but I could be wrong.)
> Any drawbacks?
See below.
> Is volume/squelch easily controlled?
No. You have to go through a menu to change them and I find I need to
change the squelch several times during a flight so it is a pain in the
butt.
> Would you prefer or recommend using a separate intercom?
Yes.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SL-30 Intercom |
On Jan 2, 2005, at 9:53 AM, sarg314 wrote:
>
> I plan to buy an SL-30 very soon, so I tried looking into this. The
> feedback on the intercom seems to range from bad to tepid. I asked
> John Stark at Stark Avionics who sells a lot of these and and he said
> his cutomers love the radio but don't like the intercom. I'm resigned
> to getting a separate intercom, probably the pm501 from Precision Eng.
> It has a good rep. and is not real expensive.
This is what I did also. I tried using the intercom in the SL-60 and
finally installed a pm501 from PS Engineering. It is the best 'cheap'
panel-mounted intercom I have used (and I have used a LOT of
intercoms). I even put one in my Comanche to replace the various
sigtronics units I had in there. (I tried two and liked neither.)
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: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SL-30 Intercom |
Assuming the intercom is the same as in the SL40, I
suggest you try it before "resigning". You may keep
panel space ready in case you don't like it. As a
user of it, I am very satisfied with it.
Michel
--- sarg314 wrote:
>
>
> I plan to buy an SL-30 very soon, so I tried looking
> into this. The
> feedback on the intercom seems to range from bad to
> tepid. I asked
> John Stark at Stark Avionics who sells a lot of
> these and and he said
> his cutomers love the radio but don't like the
> intercom. I'm resigned
> to getting a separate intercom, probably the pm501
> from Precision Eng.
> It has a good rep. and is not real expensive.
>
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
__________________________________
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SL-30 Intercom |
Stan,
I've found the SL-30 intercom to be slightly tolerable when using my Bose
headset
and my copilot is wearing a David Clark headset. However, one of my flying
buddies
insists on bringing along his LightSpeed noise reduction headset and the
SL-30
doesn't work well with that at all. I've not found any squelch or volume
adjustment
that makes the two headsets compatible with the SL-30. There's a lot of
external
noise that gets into the intercom and the VOX can take a long time to
squelch after
speech has stopped.
Your mileage may vary........
Greg
----------------------------------------------
Original Message
From: ""<Speedy11(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: SL-30 Intercom
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:43:24 EST
>
>For those of you who are using the SL-30, are you using the intercom built
>into the radio? If so, are you happy with its performance? Any
drawbacks? Is
>volume/squelch easily controlled? Would you prefer or recommend using a
>separate intercom?
>Stan Sutterfield
>Tampa
>www.rv-8a.net
>
>
http://www.MyOwnEmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Woops! I misquoted the price - its $229.95. I just bought
this unit - got delivered on 12/23/2004. It includes nav.
Course Deviation Indicator and bearing to/from. Plus duplex
operation - transmit on a com frequency, receive on a nav
frequency.
Link to page...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/nsearch.php?s=11-01093
When you request the quote, it comes in at $229.95.
Several other outfits sell for this price too - Spruce is
price matching.
Regards,
Matt-
>
> Matt -
>
>> BTW, I got the Sport
>> model, because I think it is a better value - $220 from Spruce.
>
> This is probably the COM only model, Sporty's used to sell the NAV-COM
> for about 300-320, if I remember correctly.
>
> Rumen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Unsupported Cable Length |
Hello List,
I am building a tube and fabric airplane with the battery in the tail:
Currently installing Eric Nelson's (Perihelion Design) Copper Clad Aluminum
Cables, securing the cable to the fuselage structure with wax string &
silicone tape per Bob's shop notes:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/cable_lace/cable_lace.html
I am tying everywhere the cable & structure cross, which varies from ~6" -
~12" along the line of the cable. There is one stretch, however, where
there is no structure for about 18" -24":
Should I build another cable support here? What is the longest un-supported
length of battery cable recommended?
Thanks,
Grant
Krueger
S-5 Kitfox
w/ O-235, Panel & Firewall Fwd
San Luis
Obispo, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Nav/Com Handheld |
I have an ICOM IC-A-23 hand held nav/com and love it. It came with a
headset/mic adapter and works great with my Lightspeed headset. The
adapter also has a connector for a remote PTT button, but I have not
tried that feature, yet. I get great RT feedback when transmitting using
the Lightspeed boom mic. The A-23 only produces mono to the headset,
while my aircraft intercom produces stereo, but that is about the only
difference between the two.
I installed a second external VHF antenna with the idea of adding a back
up comm radio sometime in the future. However; the hand held proved to
be a cheaper and more flexible option. I rewired the #2 external antenna
to terminate with a BNC connector on my panel and made a three foot
antenna patch cord out of RG-58 with a BNC connector at each end. The
patch cord connects to the hand held and allows me to move the hand held
just about anywhere in the cockpit. I used RG-400 for all of my other
antenna runs, but chose RG-58 for the patch cord because it is
considerably more flexible.
Note: I tried my hookup with a friend's Vertec hand held. Wouldn't
work. The Vertec uses a screw in antenna while ICOM uses BNC antenna
connection.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
> From: "Richard Suffoletto"
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld
>
>
> Im in the market for a new hand held nav/com transceiver. Ive
> searched the archives and learned a few things. However, I could not
> find anything on the JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com. It seems to have a lot of
> good features and comes at a reasonable price. Does anyone have any
> experience with this unit? Or comments on units I should absolutely
> stay away from?
>
> Thanks
>
> Richard
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
I am getting very close to drilling my panel (again).....There is a small
protrusion on keyway washers that prevent toggle switches from rotating in
their mounting holes......The small protrusion locks into a small hole in
the panel.
Does one drill the hole for the protrusion all the way through the panel &
mount the washer on the front side of the panel? Or is it practicable to
mount the washer on the back side of the panel & only drill part way through
the panel so as to hide this washer protrusion hole?
I strongly suspect mounting the washer on the front side of the panel is
best, but am wondering if anyone has tried putting them on the back side.
Thank You
Again,
Grant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Key-Way Washers |
The backside will work great if your panel is thick enough and you can
control the depth of the hole correctly.
Dick Tasker
Tinne maha wrote:
>
>I am getting very close to drilling my panel (again).....There is a small
>protrusion on keyway washers that prevent toggle switches from rotating in
>their mounting holes......The small protrusion locks into a small hole in
>the panel.
>
>Does one drill the hole for the protrusion all the way through the panel &
>mount the washer on the front side of the panel? Or is it practicable to
>mount the washer on the back side of the panel & only drill part way through
>the panel so as to hide this washer protrusion hole?
>
>I strongly suspect mounting the washer on the front side of the panel is
>best, but am wondering if anyone has tried putting them on the back side.
>
> Thank You
>Again,
>
> Grant
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: Key-Way Washers |
At 11:16 AM 1/2/05, you wrote:
>Does one drill the hole for the protrusion all the way through the panel &
>mount the washer on the front side of the panel? Or is it practicable to
>mount the washer on the back side of the panel & only drill part way through
>the panel so as to hide this washer protrusion hole?
>
>I strongly suspect mounting the washer on the front side of the panel is
>best, but am wondering if anyone has tried putting them on the back side.
It depends on a couple of things. Your panel has to be relatively
thick. You have to be VERY careful with your drill from the back side. It
also helps if you file a point on the anti-rotation nib, so it fits the
pointy ended hole a drill leaves.
But it can be done.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ljohnson94" <ljohnson94(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Unsupported Cable Length |
Hello Grant,
"Wires and cables are supported by suitable clamps, grommets, or other
devices at intervals of not more than 24 inches, except when contained in
troughs, ducts or conduits."
Page 11-43 of AC43.13-1B. Para 11-96, a.
Regards,
Darrell Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Unsupported Cable Length
>
> Hello List,
>
> I am building a tube and fabric airplane with the battery in the tail:
> Currently installing Eric Nelson's (Perihelion Design) Copper Clad
Aluminum
> Cables, securing the cable to the fuselage structure with wax string &
> silicone tape per Bob's shop notes:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/cable_lace/cable_lace.html
>
>
> I am tying everywhere the cable & structure cross, which varies from ~6" -
> ~12" along the line of the cable. There is one stretch, however, where
> there is no structure for about 18" -24":
>
> Should I build another cable support here? What is the longest
un-supported
> length of battery cable recommended?
>
> Thanks,
> Grant
> Krueger
> S-5
Kitfox
> w/ O-235, Panel & Firewall Fwd
> San Luis
> Obispo, CA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: ""<Speedy11(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: SL-30 Intercom
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:43:24 EST
AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11(at)aol.com
For those of you who are using the SL-30, are you using the intercom built
into the radio? If so, are you happy with its performance? Any drawbacks?
Is volume/squelch easily controlled? Would you prefer or recommend using a
separate intercom?
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
Hi Stan,
I've not used the SL-30, however have an SL-40 and find the intercom to be
satisfactory, and the com to be excellent. It isn't as easy to set squelch as
a knob would be, but when I got it set I didn't have to mess with it again.
I'm using a matched pair of "something com" headsets and they work OK.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Key-Way Washers |
In a message dated 1/2/2005 1:19:10 P.M. Central Standard Time,
tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com writes:
I strongly suspect mounting the washer on the front side of the panel is
best, but am wondering if anyone has tried putting them on the back side.
Thank You
Again,
Good Afternoon Grant,
I am under the impression that the washer should be on the back of the panel
and I try to have the holes not penetrate the mounting surface. However,
with some thin materials, that just won't work. In that case, I try to mount
the switches such that the keyway will be on the bottom and not as noticeable.
In either case, it is important to determine that the switch positions will
be On, Off or Momentary when you want them to be so.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Potter&Brumfield |
I got some P&B W31 series circuit breakers (they are the ones with switches)
from Steinair and the toggle switch in the breaker is loose in all of them.
It will surely vibrate in an aircraft. Does anyone know if it is normal for
the toggle switch in this breaker to be loose? To clarify, imagine holding a
normal bat switch in your fingers and it moves around in the housing.
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
www.rv-8a.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Key-Way Washers |
Another way to skin this cat is to make a doubler plate of appropriate
thickness for the keyway tabs and put it behind the panel. The switches
hold it in place. Then your IP only needs the switch holes. It adds a few
ounces but is a lot easier than trying to drill holes only part way through
thin metal.
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SL-30 Intercom |
On Jan 2, 2005, at 12:21 PM, lucky wrote:
>
> Sell your sl-30 and get an XCOM760. Same price range I think.
>
> Built in VOX intercom IS FULLY functional and it's immediate to get to
> squelch level/volumes. Dual watch is also slick. Plus it's super
> lightweight and small.
I don't believe the XCOM760 is a full nav-com. The SL-30, in addition
to its dual-frequency receive feature on the com, will also track two
VORs or a VOR and the LOC/ILS simultaneously, a feature I have seen on
no other nav-com. The SL-30 is the closest thing to two nav-coms in a
single box I have ever seen.
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: | Neil K Clayton <harvey4(at)earthlink.net> |
Please enlighten an 'ol mechanical engineer....
When a high current circuit (like a starter) is switched via a relay from a
low current circuit (like a starter switch), there really are two
independent circuits. Do they both need protecting with circuit breakers,
or is the presumption that the low current circuit is safe without fuse
protection?
Thanks
Neil C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Key-Way Washers |
In a message dated 1/2/2005 4:12:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com writes:
Another way to skin this cat is to make a doubler plate of appropriate
thickness for the keyway tabs and put it behind the panel. The switches
hold it in place. Then your IP only needs the switch holes. It adds a few
ounces but is a lot easier than trying to drill holes only part way through
thin metal.
Dennis Glaeser
Great idea Dennis!
I wish I had thought of it.
I will do that in the future.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: SL-30 Intercom |
sl-40 was what I was thinking of when comparing.
sl-30 looks like a nice radio for the $.
-------------- Original message --------------
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2005, at 12:21 PM, lucky wrote:
>
> >
> > Sell your sl-30 and get an XCOM760. Same price range I think.
> >
> > Built in VOX intercom IS FULLY functional and it's immediate to get to
> > squelch level/volumes. Dual watch is also slick. Plus it's super
> > lightweight and small.
>
> I don't believe the XCOM760 is a full nav-com. The SL-30, in addition
> to its dual-frequency receive feature on the com, will also track two
> VORs or a VOR and the LOC/ILS simultaneously, a feature I have seen on
> no other nav-com. The SL-30 is the closest thing to two nav-coms in a
> single box I have ever seen.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
sl-40 was what I was thinking of when comparing.
sl-30 looks like a nice radio for the $.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
On Jan 2, 2005, at 12:21 PM, lucky wrote:
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Sell your sl-30 and get an XCOM760. Same price range I think.
Built in VOX intercom IS FULLY functional and it's immediate to get to
squelch level/volumes. Dual watch is also slick. Plus it's super
lightweight and small.
I don't believe the XCOM760 is a full nav-com. The SL-30, in addition
to its dual-frequency receive feature on the com, will also track two
VORs or a VOR and the LOC/ILS simultaneously, a feature I have seen on
no other nav-com. The SL-30 is the closes
t thing to two nav-coms in a
single box I have ever seen.
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
List.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | AP servo wire selection |
Hi all,
Just wrapping up my RV-10 wings and want to quick buy the necessary
wires for the wings. I was going to call SteinAir, since I've heard
of them before. Any other suggestions are appreciated.
My big question is I want to finish wiring my TruTrak digital AP
and need to pull 7 wires to the servo. 2 power wires at #20,
and the rest (5 more) can be #20-#24. What have others chosen
for these harnesses....multi-wire shielded, or just running separate
strands in a bundle? I'd like to just throw in an order for
something like 50' which should cover doing both servos.
Thanks for any guidance you can give.
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
I have a spare JET 2.5" AI. It's military, 110v 3ph 400 hz, but I will
include an inverter made for it. $1000. Anyone interested?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AP servo wire selection |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
B&C also sells colored wire. We got ours from Wiremasters, but they have a
100 ft min. per color. However, their prices are the best by far so it may
be a wash wi/r to Steinair or B&C. Some other RV-10 builder may want to
wire his servos and you could sell the leftover from a 100 ft spool. We
did our trim servos (pitch & yaw) in colored wire, as well as the two Tru
Trak servos. We also used red (and a bit of yellow) for power wires and
black for grounds wherever we could, or to match some of the gear we
bought that had yellow for power. Neither TRu Trak or RC Allen call for
shielded wire, so we made our own wire harnesses and tied them wi/ waxed
flat lacing.
Hope this is of some help.
John
> Just wrapping up my RV-10 wings and want to quick buy the necessary
> wires for the wings. I was going to call SteinAir, since I've heard
> of them before. Any other suggestions are appreciated.
>
> My big question is I want to finish wiring my TruTrak digital AP
> and need to pull 7 wires to the servo. 2 power wires at #20,
> and the rest (5 more) can be #20-#24. What have others chosen
> for these harnesses....multi-wire shielded, or just running separate
> strands in a bundle? I'd like to just throw in an order for
> something like 50' which should cover doing both servos.
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello Old Bob,
Always a pleasure to read your considered comments. As I understand the WAAS approval,
the GNS 480 may be used as a "sole source" navigation system as you argue,
although I have not seen this from any offcial source. So one may file
to a destination and an alternate airport that both have only GPS approaches.
But should the WAAS correction fail or not be received, then the rules revert
back to the first generation GPS use in IFR and require ground based navigation
capability at the alternate. No WAAS and no VOR, no go!
Regards, Bruce
> From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: KN65A DME
>
>
>
> In a message dated 12/26/2004 7:27:23 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> brucem(at)att.net writes:
>
> 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.
>
>
> Good Evening Bruce,
>
> Been gone for a week or so. Consequently I am way behind on this thread, but
> I feel compelled to comment on this last point.
>
> The FAR you reference requires that you must have equipment available to
> utilize required ground based equipment.
>
> Since the 480 is authorized as standalone navigation using only the GPS,
> there is no requirement for any ground based equipment at all.
>
> The statement: "navigation equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to
> be used" only applies to cases where ground based equipment is to be used.
> It does not say that you can't navigate without it.
>
> No ground based equipment required means that no VOR, or anything else, has
> to be on board.
>
> Highly unlikely to occur since the 480 has VHF navigational capabilities,
> but those capabilities are not required.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
Hello Old Bob,
Always a pleasure to read your considered comments. As I understand the WAAS approval,
the GNS 480 may be used as a "sole source" navigation system as you argue,
although I have not seen this from any offcial source. So one may file to
a destination and an alternate airport that both have only GPS approaches. But
should the WAAS correction fail or not be received, then the rules revert back
to the first generation GPS use in IFR and require ground based navigation
capability at the alternate. No WAAS and no VOR, no go!
Regards, Bruce
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: KN65A DME
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
In a message dated 12/26/2004 7:27:23 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brucem(at)att.net writes:
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.
Good Evening Bruce,
Been gone for a week or so. Consequently I am way behind on this thread, but
I feel compelled to comment on this last point.
The FAR you reference requires that you must have equipment available to
utilize required ground based equipment.
Since the 480 is authorized as standalone navigation using only the GPS,
there is no requirement for any ground based equipment at all.
The statement: "navigation equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to
be used" only applies to cases where ground based equipment is to be used.
It does not say that you can't navigate without it.
No ground based equipment required means that no VOR, or anything else, has
to be on board.
Highly unlikely to occur since the 480 has VHF navigational capabilities,
but those capabilities are not required.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Gro
ve, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 1/2/2005 8:17:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brucem(at)att.net writes:
But should the WAAS correction fail or not be received, then the rules
revert back to the first generation GPS use in IFR and require ground based
navigation capability at the alternate. No WAAS and no VOR, no go!
Good Evening Bruce,
I do not believe that is the case.
The 480 is approved as standalone just as is an ADF or a VOR. I don't know
of any airway in the lower 48 where you could go with just an ADF, but if
there is one, you could legally fly a trip following that route with nothing
more than the ADF and communication capability.
The same thing goes for operations with a single VOR. If it fails, there is
no requirement for a backup as it is "sole source" approved.
It is also true for the 480 GPS. It is "sole source" approved and no backup
is required.
If you lost just the WAAS, but still had the basic GPS capability, I suppose
you could use it under your emergency authority, but there is no requirement
that you be able to navigate in any manner following the failure of any
"sole source" navigation equipment!
The earlier GPSs are all approved only as supplementary navigation equipment
under TSO C129 and require that another means of navigation be available
should the GPS in the airplane or the GPS system itself fail.
As just an academic exercise, I have often considered that an alternate
means of navigation for the 129 GPSs could be VFR in some parts of the country
and under some weather conditions, though I think the FAA considers that a VOR
capability is what should be used in the lower forty eight. In any case, what
that back up device needs to be is not spelled out in the FARs.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
No, the ground based VOR/NDB are only needed if it's a GPS overlay. There
are hundreds (thousands??) of GPS only approaches where no other NAV
approaches have ever been approved. I have shot two at different airports in
my area on flights of less than 45 minutes. Dig out your Jepps or whatever
and spend 3 minutes flipping through the plates and you will find dozens. I
can file IFR and fly without ever turning on the VOR on a 500 mn flight with
an approach at the destination down to 400 - 500' MDA. Obviously the GPS
must be approach approved and in an experimental that is not a big deal
(MONEY!!!).
Don't know where this idea of GPS's being some sort of backup has come from.
Haven't you ever file DIRECT and were issued such a routing?? That requires
GPS and obviously a VOR or NDB is of no help, unless you happen to chose a
direct routing along an airway.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <brucem(at)att.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: KN65A DME
>
> Hello Old Bob,
>
> Always a pleasure to read your considered comments. As I understand the
> WAAS approval, the GNS 480 may be used as a "sole source" navigation
> system as you argue, although I have not seen this from any offcial
> source. So one may file to a destination and an alternate airport that
> both have only GPS approaches. But should the WAAS correction fail or not
> be received, then the rules revert back to the first generation GPS use in
> IFR and require ground based navigation capability at the alternate. No
> WAAS and no VOR, no go!
>
> Regards, Bruce
>
>
>> From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: KN65A DME
>>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 12/26/2004 7:27:23 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>> brucem(at)att.net writes:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Good Evening Bruce,
>>
>> Been gone for a week or so. Consequently I am way behind on this thread,
>> but
>> I feel compelled to comment on this last point.
>>
>> The FAR you reference requires that you must have equipment available to
>> utilize required ground based equipment.
>>
>> Since the 480 is authorized as standalone navigation using only the GPS,
>> there is no requirement for any ground based equipment at all.
>>
>> The statement: "navigation equipment appropriate to the ground facilities
>> to
>> be used" only applies to cases where ground based equipment is to be
>> used.
>> It does not say that you can't navigate without it.
>>
>> No ground based equipment required means that no VOR, or anything else,
>> has
>> to be on board.
>>
>> Highly unlikely to occur since the 480 has VHF navigational capabilities,
>> but those capabilities are not required.
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>> AKA
>> Bob Siegfried
>> Ancient Aviator
>> Stearman N3977A
>> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
>> Downers Grove, IL 60516
>> 630 985-8502
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Old Bob,
>
>
> Always a pleasure to read your considered comments. As I understand the
> WAAS approval, the GNS 480 may be used as a "sole source" navigation
> system as you argue, although I have not seen this from any offcial
> source. So one may file to a destination and an alternate airport that
> both have only GPS approaches. But should the WAAS correction fail or not
> be received, then the rules revert back to the first generation GPS use in
> IFR and require ground based navigation capability at the alternate. No
> WAAS and no VOR, no go!
>
>
> Regards, Bruce
>
>
> From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: KN65A DME
>
> -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 12/26/2004 7:27:23 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> brucem(at)att.net writes:
>
> 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.
>
>
> Good Evening Bruce,
>
> Been gone for a week or so. Consequently I am way behind on this thread,
> but
> I feel compelled to comment on this last point.
>
>
> The FAR you reference requires that you must have equipment available to
> utilize required ground based equipment.
>
> Since the 480 is authorized as standalone navigation using only the GPS,
> there is no requirement for any ground based equipment at all.
>
> The statement: "navigation equipment appropriate to the ground facilities
> to
> be used" only applies to cases where ground based equipment is to be used.
> It does not say that you can't navigate without it.
>
> No ground based equipment required means that no VOR, or anything else,
> has
> to be on board.
>
> Highly unlikely to occur since the 480 has VHF navigational capabilities,
> but those capabilities are not required.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Gro
> ve, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
>
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
Bob,
There is a LF route across the Gulf of Mexico for your amusement in flying solely
by reference to ADF.
At least there was a couple of years ago.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: KN65A DME
In a message dated 1/2/2005 8:17:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brucem(at)att.net writes:
But should the WAAS correction fail or not be received, then the rules
revert back to the first generation GPS use in IFR and require ground based
navigation capability at the alternate. No WAAS and no VOR, no go!
Good Evening Bruce,
I do not believe that is the case.
The 480 is approved as standalone just as is an ADF or a VOR. I don't know
of any airway in the lower 48 where you could go with just an ADF, but if
there is one, you could legally fly a trip following that route with nothing
more than the ADF and communication capability.
The same thing goes for operations with a single VOR. If it fails, there is
no requirement for a backup as it is "sole source" approved.
It is also true for the 480 GPS. It is "sole source" approved and no backup
is required.
If you lost just the WAAS, but still had the basic GPS capability, I suppose
you could use it under your emergency authority, but there is no requirement
that you be able to navigate in any manner following the failure of any
"sole source" navigation equipment!
The earlier GPSs are all approved only as supplementary navigation equipment
under TSO C129 and require that another means of navigation be available
should the GPS in the airplane or the GPS system itself fail.
As just an academic exercise, I have often considered that an alternate
means of navigation for the 129 GPSs could be VFR in some parts of the country
and under some weather conditions, though I think the FAA considers that a VOR
capability is what should be used in the lower forty eight. In any case, what
that back up device needs to be is not spelled out in the FARs.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Key-Way Washers |
>
>
>In a message dated 1/2/2005 1:19:10 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
>I strongly suspect mounting the washer on the front side of the panel is
>best, but am wondering if anyone has tried putting them on the back side.
I always put them on the back side. If your switch panel includes
an engraved overlay, then holes in the panel for the tabs can go
all the way through . . . and tabs on washers sanded to insure they
are flush or under flush to the panel surface. Others have suggested
a rear overlay of sheet metal but I prefer the engraved overlay for
switch labeling that covers the tab holes in the panel.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 1/2/2005 9:11:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet(at)comcast.net writes:
Don't know where this idea of GPS's being some sort of backup has come from.
Haven't you ever file DIRECT and were issued such a routing?? That requires
GPS and obviously a VOR or NDB is of no help, unless you happen to chose a
direct routing along an airway.
Wayne
Good Evening Wayne,
I am very glad to see that you are using your GPS to get around the country
efficiently, but I do think a bit of clarification is needed as to just what
is legal and what is not.
Any early generation GPS that has been IFR approved under the guidelines of
TSO C129 is authorized as supplementary navigation equipment only. That
information can be found by reading TSO C129 or studying the pertinent section
of
the AIM.
That does not mean that the underlying approach has to be available for
shooting a GPS overlay approach based on an NDB or VOR approach. All that is
required is that another means of navigation be available for use should the GPS
fail or go out of service. You do not have to be able to continue the
approach, just be able to go somewhere else via that other source of navigation.
You can execute any GPS approach, including an overlay approach, without any
ground facilities being available at that particular airport.
You can file for and be given a direct course to anywhere at the discretion
of the controller responsible for the area in question.
One method of navigation is to use a GPS. Another acceptable device is an
IFR approved LORAN. Another is a VOR/DME based RNAV unit such as the KNS-80.
There are also many FMS units that use other approved methods for off airway
flight. Beyond that you can use ded reckoning if the controller agrees.
Many possibilities for direct flight.
Unlike all previous GPS units, the 480 is approved under TSO C146 (I think
that is correct, but don't hold me to the precise number). It allows for "sole
source" GPS navigation.
No supplementary navigation equipment need be on board.
To my knowledge, the 480 is the only GA GPS so approved.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld |
>
>Richard -
>
>-----snip-----------
>Im in the market for a new hand held nav/com transceiver. Ive
>searched the archives and learned a few things. However, I could not
>find anything on the JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com. It seems to have a lot of
>good features and comes at a reasonable price. Does anyone have any
>experience with this unit? Or comments on units I should absolutely
>stay away from?
>----snip------------
>
>I was attracted by one of the ad/descriptions saying it can simultaneously
>receive 2 frequencies. Which was suspicious, as this would require 2
>receivers. As I thought, this turned out to be a continuous flip-flop
>feature between 2 selected frequencies (if there is signal on one of them
>the receiver locks on that frequency). Not a bad feature at all (actually a
>very useful one) - just it was misrepresented by the ads.
>I like that it can scan the NAV band in addition to the COM.
>Display (LCD) is a bit small for my aging eyes but bearable and has very
>good contrast (the contrast of a similar transceiver from Sporty's was not
>nearly as good despite polarization, especially in sunlight).
>Transmission and reception were very good, tested as the main radio during
>emergencies (incl. for turning on the runway lights) or as a NAV aid or
>just to feed an additional ATIS signal into the intercom.
>It will receive the LOC but without further indication (unlike the
>Sporty's, which indicates) - but I wouldn't try shooting a LOC with a
>handheld anyway (I am currently working on my instrument rating).
>Some vendors sell it with a headset adapter cable (incl. in price; got mine
>for about $270-280 I think), others sell the adapter for an additional ~$50.
>The 520 comes with a NiCad battery, but (being concerned about the NiCad
>memory issues in the future) I got an empty battery case (~$25) and use
>rechargeable NiMeHi batteries.
>Overall I'd give it high marks for price-to-performance, features etc. ratio.
I've had a JHP520 for several years and found it to be a good
value. Dealer net qty of one is $239. There's one on Ebay right
now with a buy-it-now price of $250 . . . pretty good deal
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4515899989&category=90979&sspagename=WDVW
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Unsupported Cable Length |
>
>Hello List,
>
>I am building a tube and fabric airplane with the battery in the tail:
>Currently installing Eric Nelson's (Perihelion Design) Copper Clad Aluminum
>Cables, securing the cable to the fuselage structure with wax string &
>silicone tape per Bob's shop notes:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/cable_lace/cable_lace.html
>
>
>I am tying everywhere the cable & structure cross, which varies from ~6" -
>~12" along the line of the cable. There is one stretch, however, where
>there is no structure for about 18" -24":
>
>Should I build another cable support here? What is the longest un-supported
>length of battery cable recommended?
Is this for one or two strands of wire? That's a pretty long jump. I think
I'd run an aluminum angle along the run to support the middle of the span.
You could fold it out of sheet metal or use thin aluminum extrusion.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
>
>
>This exchange implies the 'load dump ' report is out. Is this correct? If so
>I missed it. Where can I find it?
No. Paul's report is not yet published. He gave me enough
verbal information to make a conservative selection for
a part. I'm buying an alternator test-stand and will be
able to duplicate/confirm/refine this selection but with
what we know to date, there's no big rush. The 5KP18 is
a VERY robust component to the task and the price is certainly
right.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 1/2/2005 9:21:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
gwbraly(at)gami.com writes:
Bob,
There is a LF route across the Gulf of Mexico for your amusement in flying
solely by reference to ADF.
At least there was a couple of years ago.
Regards, George
Good Evening George,
I do remember that route, but the current charts no longer show the
appropriate beacons on either end nor do they show any airway other than the ones
based on the VORs.
I have flown the New Orleans to Tampa route in my Bonanza many years ago,
but I think it was after the GPS became available. I also flew it often in my
previous life, but I usually had an INS available to back up the ADFs.
I am still looking for a lower forty-eight LF route though!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse question |
>
>
>Please enlighten an 'ol mechanical engineer....
>
>When a high current circuit (like a starter) is switched via a relay from a
>low current circuit (like a starter switch), there really are two
>independent circuits. Do they both need protecting with circuit breakers,
>or is the presumption that the low current circuit is safe without fuse
>protection?
I'm not visualizing your question well. If you study the
Z-figures in:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
. . . you'll see that the LOW current side (contactor coil
and start switch) is consistently protected while the high
current side (starter feed) is not.
This is concurrent with both practice and experience with
small aircraft for about 90 years and generally follows the
advice of FAR23 where we read:
Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
(a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be
installed in all electrical circuits other than--
(1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and
(2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Potter&Brumfield |
>
>I got some P&B W31 series circuit breakers (they are the ones with switches)
>from Steinair and the toggle switch in the breaker is loose in all of them.
>It will surely vibrate in an aircraft. Does anyone know if it is normal for
>the toggle switch in this breaker to be loose? To clarify, imagine holding a
>normal bat switch in your fingers and it moves around in the housing.
>Stan Sutterfield
>Tampa
>www.rv-8a.net
These are not the most robust of mechanisms due to their
mechanical complexity of combining switch and breaker
functions. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/W31_1.jpg
I personally don't like them and don't recommend them in
new designs. Having said that, know also that these have been
used in LARGE quantities on Bonanzas and Barons for decades
and have been 'relatively' free of trouble . . . There are some
issues currently being discussed involving breakage of the
upper soft-wire flexible conductor after lots of years
in service. On high current systems (landing lights, pitot
heat, etc) this may cause spring in upper left corner to
overheat and make bad smells in cockpit. Likelihood of
OBAM aircraft having this problem is pretty remote.
In a nutshell, if these critters float your boat . . . row on.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jacklockamy" <jacklockamy(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Stereo speaker connection? |
Can the LT and RT speakers (+) of an automovtive stereo be connected together without
damaging the stereo?
I'd like to use the amplified outputs of a Sony stereo to a mono-intercom system.
Currently the speaker outputs are coming off the pre-amp jacks without much
boost (volume).
TIA,
Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Melvin <melvinke(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Accountability Poster |
Hi Jopie! Since this came to my address (I have forwarded it to Lil's), I
will give you my immediate reaction, even if unsolicited. If I were to
receive that communication, I would feel uncomfortable at the rather
bureaucratic and demanding connotation of "accountability", and would tend
to shy away from the idea. Maybe the addition of "personal" to "personal
accountability" might tone it down a bit. My suggestion would be for
something like:
Measure Your Success
Would you like to ring in the New Year with support .... etc
If so, please sign up for this "measure your success" program at the front
desk.
Forgive me for putting my oar in, and recognize that I am very
anti-authoritarian in my responses.
Love,
Ken
_____
From: jopie [mailto:jopie(at)curvesatbethany.com]
Subject: Accountability Poster
Hi Lil,
Well here goes.
ACCOUNTABILITY
WOULD YOU LIKE TO RING IN THE NEW YEAR WITH SUPPORT FROM CURVES
STAFF?
TO WEIGH YOU ON A WEEKLY BASIS?
IF SO, PLEASE SIGN UP FOR THIS "ACCOUNTABILITY WEIGH IN" AT THE
FRONT DESK.
THANKS CALL ME IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. THIS IS THE ONLY ONE AT THIS TIME.
LOVE JOPIE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stereo speaker connection? |
jacklockamy wrote:
>
>Can the LT and RT speakers (+) of an automovtive stereo be connected together
without damaging the stereo?
>
>I'd like to use the amplified outputs of a Sony stereo to a mono-intercom system.
Currently the speaker outputs are coming off the pre-amp jacks without much
boost (volume).
>
>TIA,
>Jack
>
short answer: no
less short answer: what you want can be accomplished. If you don't get a
complete answer tonight, email me tomorrow for a complete answer.
(it's bedtime)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Key-Way Washers |
FWIW, here's an easy, clean way to use anti-rotation washers on the back of
the panel without having to drill the little holes in the panel (ugly). See
the photos about 1/3 way down this page:
http://www.rvproject.com/20030615.html
It's a small piece of .063" aluminum that has the anti-rotation holes in it.
It gets sandwiched behind the panel, between the panel and switches.
Anti-rotation washers penetrate the little holes in the little strip but
don't have to penetrate the panel.
Hope this helps,
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Key-Way Washers
>
>
> In a message dated 1/2/2005 1:19:10 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
> I strongly suspect mounting the washer on the front side of the panel is
> best, but am wondering if anyone has tried putting them on the back side.
>
> Thank You
> Again,
>
>
> Good Afternoon Grant,
>
> I am under the impression that the washer should be on the back of the
panel
> and I try to have the holes not penetrate the mounting surface. However,
> with some thin materials, that just won't work. In that case, I try to
mount
> the switches such that the keyway will be on the bottom and not as
noticeable.
> In either case, it is important to determine that the switch positions
will
> be On, Off or Momentary when you want them to be so.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernest Kells" <ernest.kells(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: SL-30 Intercom |
> > Sell your sl-30 and get an XCOM760. Same price range I think.
> >
> > Built in VOX intercom IS FULLY functional and it's immediate to get to
> > squelch level/volumes. Dual watch is also slick. Plus it's super
> > lightweight and small.
>
> I don't believe the XCOM760 is a full nav-com. The SL-30, in addition
> to its dual-frequency receive feature on the com, will also track two
> VORs or a VOR and the LOC/ILS simultaneously, a feature I have seen on
> no other nav-com. The SL-30 is the closest thing to two nav-coms in a
> single box I have ever seen.
I have the ICOM/760 - without a separate intercom. It has no NAV feature.
For that I plan to use a PDA with AnywhereMAP and a GPS (Bluetooth). I
will carry a portable ICOM A23 for portable backup using the 12V receptacle.
If I lose the electricals or any instrument I will have the A23 on a full
battery for either or both NAV and COM. That way I don't lose all panel
mounted Navs and Comms at once. Seems sound for my mission - VFR only.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | DC motor reversing relay schematic |
Can someone point me to a schematic for a DC motor circuit reversing
polarity using a SPDT switch and two relays. I'll also be using up/dn limit
switches but I think I can figure out where they fit if not already in the
diagram. ;-)
This is for a high current linear actuator application.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: DC motor reversing relay schematic |
James, if you can wait a few weeks I'm having an IC board with an LMD18200
H-bridge motor controller made up. It's good for 3 amps continuous, 6 amps
peak. I'll be using it for a landing brake too.
At 10:15 PM 1/2/05, you wrote:
>
>Can someone point me to a schematic for a DC motor circuit reversing
>polarity using a SPDT switch and two relays. I'll also be using up/dn limit
>switches but I think I can figure out where they fit if not already in the
>diagram. ;-)
>
>This is for a high current linear actuator application.
>
>James Redmon
>Berkut #013 N97TX
>http://www.berkut13.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
Hi All,
I found the following article to be quite informative regarding GPS for IFR:
http://www.avionicswest.com/myviewpoint/ifrgpsbasics.htm
Regards,
/\/elson
Austin, TX
RV-7A - right wing/tank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | GPS usage, Was: KN65A DME |
In a message dated 1/3/2005 9:13:23 A.M. Central Standard Time,
david.nelson(at)pobox.com writes:
Hi All,
I found the following article to be quite informative regarding GPS for IFR:
http://www.avionicswest.com/myviewpoint/ifrgpsbasics.htm
Regards,
/\/elson
Good Morning Nelson,
The article is good and reasonably accurate for the time it was written, but
a lot has changed since then.
There are a few errors that were wrong even when it was written. For
instance, Tom does not discuss the use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME correctly
and
that provision has been in the AIM since 1997.
I agree that such details are very hard to keep up with.
In any case, I wish I could express myself as competently as he does!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
....want to quick buy the necessary
wires..... Any other suggestions are appreciated.....
try http://www.skycraftsurplus.com/ For good deals on surplus wire. If
you don't find what you want on the web site, be sure to give them a call.
Their stock doesn't always match what's on the site, and the prices can be
very attractive.
gm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS usage, Was: KN65A DME |
Hi Bob,
Ahhh, very interesting. Thanks for pointing out that it was dated info.
I also found an article on avweb:
http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/181617-1.html
but it too seems dated (May of 2002).
Regards,
/\/elson
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 1/3/2005 9:13:23 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> david.nelson(at)pobox.com writes:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I found the following article to be quite informative regarding GPS for IFR:
>
> http://www.avionicswest.com/myviewpoint/ifrgpsbasics.htm
>
> Regards,
> /\/elson
>
>
> Good Morning Nelson,
>
> The article is good and reasonably accurate for the time it was written, but
> a lot has changed since then.
>
> There are a few errors that were wrong even when it was written. For
> instance, Tom does not discuss the use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME correctly
and
> that provision has been in the AIM since 1997.
>
> I agree that such details are very hard to keep up with.
>
> In any case, I wish I could express myself as competently as he does!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
Been and still quite sick.
However perhaps some short comments.
The load dump testing included dumps of 10, 20, 30, 40 amps. The non dumped
load was normally 10 amps so a dump of 20 amps from above is a 30 amp load
dumped to 10 amps. Dumps to no load were also tested.
The dump wave form is very close a very sharp rise and a near linear decay
to pre dump voltages.
The testing was limited to approx 40 amps because of the HP of the electric
motor driving the alternator. As the increasing load increments of 10 amps
were quite regular its reasonable to project the levels to 60 amps for
example.
The load dump needing suppression is a large hi-energy pulse. The average
current can be as large as 25 amps and 200 ms long. It starts at 50 amps and
is zero at the end of 200 ms. This is rough info as the report has detailed
info.
Transorbs in varying wattages and voltage ratings were tested.
1.5K at 16, 18, 20, 24V ratings with one to 4 parallel as well as the 5K
unit Bob has suggested were examined. The 5k units tested suppressed at a
higher voltage than 3 1.5k units in parallel.
WE (Eric is my partner in this effort) decided that 3 1.5k units in parallel
rated at 18V was the simplest and easiest to use both from a availability
and packaging concern.
One 1.5K transorb was overstressed (but did not fail) under hi current load
dumps while two in parallel seemed to be OK. Use of a 5k unit or 3 1.5K
units appeared to be conservative. Both from testing and analysis.
The testing showed the internal DIE heating of the transorb (during the load
dump) and was part of the overall analysis besides the mfgr spec for the
device.
The devices parallel and load share quite well so using 3 in parallel is
reasonable.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
>
> >
> >
> >This exchange implies the 'load dump ' report is out. Is this correct? If
so
> >I missed it. Where can I find it?
>
> No. Paul's report is not yet published. He gave me enough
> verbal information to make a conservative selection for
> a part. I'm buying an alternator test-stand and will be
> able to duplicate/confirm/refine this selection but with
> what we know to date, there's no big rush. The 5KP18 is
> a VERY robust component to the task and the price is certainly
> right.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: DC motor reversing relay schematic |
James;
Try this http://aeroelectric.com/articles/flaps.pdf
All you have to do is make sure the relays you use have contacts rated
for the current of your motor and use appropriate wire and fuse sizes.
If you want only one control switch eliminate either of the two
depicted, the limits are already in the diagram, and this circuit
provides dynamic braking when you release the switch. You can substitute
the name of whatever your motor drives in place of the word flaps.
Bob McC
James Redmon wrote:
>
>Can someone point me to a schematic for a DC motor circuit reversing
>polarity using a SPDT switch and two relays. I'll also be using up/dn limit
>switches but I think I can figure out where they fit if not already in the
>diagram. ;-)
>
>This is for a high current linear actuator application.
>
>James Redmon
>Berkut #013 N97TX
>http://www.berkut13.com
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <steve(at)lbho.freeserve.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
Bob - sorry if I am being obtuse. I have Z13A and the diagram is I think as
before with one added component. I see the 5KP18 connected between the B -
lead (power) and what? (I dont see note XX) There are only three wires (from
memory) coming off the VANS unit and they are spoken for. Presumably its to
ground? What is a 5KP18 and how does this function.
Sorry I must have missed an earlier relevant mail.
Thanks, Steve.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
>
>This exchange implies the 'load dump ' report is out. Is this correct? If
so
>I missed it. Where can I find it?
No. Paul's report is not yet published. He gave me enough
verbal information to make a conservative selection for
a part. I'm buying an alternator test-stand and will be
able to duplicate/confirm/refine this selection but with
what we know to date, there's no big rush. The 5KP18 is
a VERY robust component to the task and the price is certainly
right.
Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DC motor reversing relay schematic |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
James -
I have a circuit for our Lancair ES flaps. It is a reversing flap motor,
uses two relays, two magnetic limit switches and a DPDT momentary up and
momentary down switch. Can send it to you in .pdf format if you like. We
wired it and it works as advertised: no coasting; up is up and down is
down.
John
> Can someone point me to a schematic for a DC motor circuit reversing
> polarity using a SPDT switch and two relays. I'll also be using up/dn
> limit switches but I think I can figure out where they fit if not
> already in the diagram. ;-)
>
> This is for a high current linear actuator application.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stereo speaker connection? |
On Jan 2, 2005, at 11:17 PM, jacklockamy wrote:
>
>
> Can the LT and RT speakers (+) of an automovtive stereo be connected
> together without damaging the stereo?
No. You run into a couple of problems because most automotive stereo
speaker outputs are bridged and not referenced to ground.
Try this, it might work and it won't hurt anything.
1. place a 100 ohm resistor in series with each of the LT+ and RT+
speaker leads.
2. tie the free ends of the 100 ohm resistors together and use that
point to feed your mono intercom input.
If this doesn't work or there is too much distortion you may need to
resort to using an isolation transformer.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Jan 2, 2005, at 10:26 PM, George Braly wrote:
>
>
> Bob,
>
> There is a LF route across the Gulf of Mexico for your amusement in
> flying solely by reference to ADF.
There are many ADF 'Amber' routes in the Bahamas and Caribbean. The GPS
does a good job of flying them but I keep the ADF on for old time's
sake. The beacon on Great Inagua is receivable and usable by my KR-87
from Puerto Rico all the way up to Florida.
> At least there was a couple of years ago.
Still are. My usual is Amber 555 but there are all sorts of 'amber'
routes down here.
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Solid-state relays for trim/flaps system? |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Bob, a few weeks ago you said you were working on a schematic for a
solid-state relay system that could be used to drive trim motors, flaps,
etc. Any progress on that? I'm very interested in it since I'm about to
the point where I need to wire that stuff up. I have an Infinity grip in
the front stick with coolie hat for trim and toggle switch for flaps in
my RV-8A. Also have back seat controls for trim/flaps, and a toggle
switch up front that I can use to open the ground path for the rear seat
controls to disable them. Right now I have some automotive relays
(mechanical) sitting on my workbench that I've been planning to use for
these functions but would much prefer solid state stuff. It would be
really nice if the wiring schematic were identical for solid-state relays
as it is for the mechanical setup if this is possible...would make things
much easier for me at this stage...
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D up to my neck in spaghetti....
________________________________________________________________________________
Well, Old Bob, there is a certain logic to your view that a WAAS capable GPS is
the only navigation aid required for legal IFR operations. But is the FAA always
logical? Unfortunately little has been stated by any "offcial source", at
least that I have seen.
I have read TSO-C129a for first generation GPS and TSO-C146a for WAAS GPS, but
they address only the requirements of the boxes, not how they are used. AC-20-138A
covers the installation of several kinds of satnav systems, but again says
nothing about utilization in flight.
The best I can find is language in the AIM, Chapter 1-1-20(c.7.): "Unlike TSO-129
avionics, which were certified as a supplement to other means of navigation,
WAAS avionics are evaluated without reliance on other navigations systems.
As such, installation of WAAS avionics does not require the aircraft to have
other equipment appropriate to the route flown."
So far, so good, BUT the preceding section states....."in the event of a WAAS failure,
GPS/WAAS equipment reverts to GPS-only operation and satisfies the requirements
of basic GPS equipment." Now, what does that mean? Only an FAA lawyer
knows for sure! To me "basic GPS equipment" sounds like TSO-129 and back
to the supplemental status which means VOR required. As the FAA issues notams
about predicted WAAS availability, preflight planning could encounter an outage
and my "No WAAS and no VOR, No Go" situation results.
With its announced intentions to phase out VORs and ILSs, the FAA indicates its
belief in "sole source" satellite navigation, but perhaps not yet. The FAA has
lagged behind technology developments with first Loran and now GPS, perhaps
due to "not invented here" and "we don't control it" attitudes. Also it suffers
from embarrassment when its major contribution, WAAS, arrived five years late
and billions of dollars over budget. Eventually they'll get it right, but
meanwhile I'd be cautious about getting ahead of them.
With apologies for sounding like a jailhouse lawyer, Bruce McGregor
Well, Old Bob, there is a certain logic to your view that a WAAS capable GPS is
the only navigation aid required for legal IFR operations. But is the FAA always
logical? Unfortunately little has been stated by any "offcial source", at
least that I have seen.
I have read TSO-C129a for first generation GPS and TSO-C146a for WAAS GPS, but
they address only the requirements of the boxes, not how they are used. AC-20-138A
covers the installation of several kinds of satnav systems, but again says
nothing about utilization in flight.
The best I can find is language in the AIM, Chapter 1-1-20(c.7.): "Unlike TSO-129
avionics, which were certified as a supplement to other means of navigation,
WAAS avionics are evaluated without reliance on other navigations systems. As
such, installation of WAAS avionics does not require the aircraft to have other
equipment appropriate to the route flown."
So far, so good, BUT the preceding section states....."in the event of a WAAS failure,
GPS/WAAS equipment reverts to GPS-only operation and satisfies the requirements
of basic GPS equipment." Now, what does that mean? Only an FAA lawyer
knows for sure! To me "basic GPS equipment" sounds like TSO-129 and back to
the supplemental status which means VOR required. As the FAA issues notams about
predicted WAAS availability, preflight planning could encounter an outage and
my "No WAAS and no VOR, No Go" situation results.
With its announced intentions to phase out VORs and ILSs, the FAA indicates its
belief in "sole source" satellite navigation, but perhaps not yet. The FAA has
lagged behindtechnology developments with first Loran and now GPS, perhaps due
to "not invented here" and "we don't control it" attitudes. Also it suffers
from embarrassment when its major contribution, WAAS, arrived five years late
and billions of dollars over budget. Eventually they'll get it right, but meanwhile
I'd be cautious about getting ahead of them.
With apologies for sounding like a jailhouse lawyer, Bruce McGregor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Turbo Tom" <turbotom(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Solid-state relays for trim/flaps system? |
>It would be
> really nice if the wiring schematic were identical for solid-state relays
> as it is for the mechanical setup if this is possible...would make things
> much easier for me at this stage...
Hey Mark!
I went through this a few months ago and found some really neat relays that
solve all the problems, dual inputs, pilot override, two speeds [custom
selectable yet] all in one box. I'm not flying, and haven't even powered
them up, but they wired right up to the Infinity grip. They are
solid-state, light, compact, and use PWM to control speed. If they do all
that's promised, I'm a happy camper.
http://www.f1-rocketboy.com/tcm.html
TT
RV-8 QB Panel, systems, wiring.
ATL-GA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | sole-source nav (was: KN65A DME) |
On Jan 3, 2005, at 9:18 PM, brucem(at)att.net wrote:
> With its announced intentions to phase out VORs and ILSs, the FAA
> indicates its belief in "sole source" satellite navigation, but
> perhaps not yet. The FAA has lagged behindtechnology developments with
> first Loran and now GPS, perhaps due to "not invented here" and "we
> don't control it" attitudes. Also it suffers from embarrassment when
> its major contribution, WAAS, arrived five years late and billions of
> dollars over budget. Eventually they'll get it right, but meanwhile
> I'd be cautious about getting ahead of them.
Regardless what the FAA says or does, if you look at the GPS system you
can see all the different and interesting ways that GPS can fail. Given
the nature of the weak signals it would be amazingly easy to jam GPS or
seriously degrade its accuracy.
Now consider how much effort most of the people on this list are
putting into building redundancy into their aircraft. Would someone who
has put this much effort into redundancy of systems then bet the entire
farm on GPS as their sole-source of navigation? I certainly wouldn't
regardless of what the FAA says about how good it is. The FAA certifies
electrical systems in spam cans too and I doubt there is anyone on this
list who would settle for a spam-can electrical system in their OBAM
aircraft.
The interesting thing is that perhaps the best complement to GPS is
LORAN. They both provide accurate area navigation. The Europeans were
working on using LORAN to transmit the WAAS data. That seemed like a
wonderfully sensible way to do things, i.e. to have a WAAS system that
can double as a backup for your primary navigation system and is
virtually unjammable.
So I fly IFR. In the airplane I have flying right now, my Comanche, I
have a GX-60 approach-certified GPS which I love. I flew IFR today and
used it the whole way. But I still have and use my two KX-155s with
their KI-209 VOR/LOC/GS indicators. When ATC changes my routing and
clears me direct to a new VOR, I dial in the VOR first and make the
turn. Then I can reprogram my route in the GPS at my leisure while
tracking the VOR.
Food for thought.
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: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wire selection |
The wire shown at http://www.skycraftsurplus.com/ is not aviation grade
wire it appears to me.
Try Steinair.com (www.steinair.com) for aviation wire priced at or near
lowest prices. You will need awg22 wire. Try to get a hundred ft. each of
red, black, blue, green, yellow, and what ever other color he carries awg22
in. That will be your most needed wire size. You will need some heavier
wires also, but you are on your own in making those estimations. BandC is a
good source for quality stuff also.
Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker"
Evansville, Indiana (just north of western Kentucky)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: wire selection
>
> ....want to quick buy the necessary
> wires..... Any other suggestions are appreciated.....
>
>
> try http://www.skycraftsurplus.com/ For good deals on surplus wire. If
> you don't find what you want on the web site, be sure to give them a call.
> Their stock doesn't always match what's on the site, and the prices can be
> very attractive.
>
> gm
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: amploc sensor |
Bob:
I followed the amploc discussion with interest (still thinking about
a hall effect battery current meter). If the amploc sensor is powered
by a regulated +-12v DC/DC converter, it should output a stable,
accurate signal, shouldn't it? An op amp with appropriate gain should
then be able to make it drive a typical aircraft battery meter.
Granted, compared to a simple shunt this is a lot of parts and a
fair amount of wasted current (mostly to run the DC/DC converter), but
it seems to me it ought to work. In any case, the amploc part is cheap
enough ($18) to experiment with.
Do you think this is futile or just misguided?
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: wire selection |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
wrote:
> Try Steinair.com (www.steinair.com) for aviation wire priced at or near
> lowest prices. You will need awg22 wire. Try to get a hundred ft. each
> of red, black, blue, green, yellow, and what ever other color he carries
> awg22 in. That will be your most needed wire size. You will need some
> heavier
> wires also, but you are on your own in making those estimations. BandC
> is a good source for quality stuff also.
Larry-
If you buy 100 ft. of each of the 7 colors of 22 AWG listed on Steinair,
it is 700' x $0.13 or $91.
The same amount of wire (22759/16) in the same gage and same colors is 700
x $.05 or $35 at Wiremasters.com. Even with their $50 minimum, you save
$41. I certainly would put together an order of the 22 AWG (I totally
agree that color coding is the way to go), 150' of 20 AWG (Red & Black)
and at least 150 ft of red and black 18 AWG. Call Deb Sullivan at
Wiremasters and have her price it.
The value of Steinair is considerable because you can get short lengths of
most any wire and a wide range of other electrical-related goodies.
However, I believe that the figures above make a tight case for buying the
initial load of wire at Wiremasters.
Cheers,
John
PS: I have no financial interest in Wiremasters. I just have a warm
feeling of great service at very good prices.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mitch Faatz" <mitchf(at)skybound.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wire selection |
> The same amount of wire (22759/16) in the same gage and same colors is 700
> x $.05 or $35 at Wiremasters.com. Even with their $50 minimum, you save
That would be www.wiremasters.net
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Ideas on painting panel? |
In near future need to paint panel on Europa XS.
It has a fiberglass Instrument Module that will have 3 aluminium inserts.
The fiberglass has an eyebrow for glare.
What suggestions on painting? Should the bottom of brow be very dark? I
imagine the top of the fiberglass does not want to be too dark so it does
not heat up too much?
I imagine I want flat on instrument module and brow, what is preference out
there for face of panel, light / dark flat or gloss?
What ideas for on type of paint to use.
Thx.
Sincerely
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wire selection |
Wow, you guys are really coming through on the wire question! I
definitely will check the websites all out tomorrow, and hopefully
place an order right away. Just need to find out what sizes I need
for a couple other things. Thanks again everyone!
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Wing Kit - Almost Complete
QB Fuse - Coming soon!
'77 Sundowner - Flying
John Schroeder wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Try Steinair.com (www.steinair.com) for aviation wire priced at or near
>>lowest prices. You will need awg22 wire. Try to get a hundred ft. each
>>of red, black, blue, green, yellow, and what ever other color he carries
>>awg22 in. That will be your most needed wire size. You will need some
>>heavier
>>wires also, but you are on your own in making those estimations. BandC
>>is a good source for quality stuff also.
>
>
> Larry-
>
> If you buy 100 ft. of each of the 7 colors of 22 AWG listed on Steinair,
> it is 700' x $0.13 or $91.
> The same amount of wire (22759/16) in the same gage and same colors is 700
> x $.05 or $35 at Wiremasters.com. Even with their $50 minimum, you save
> $41. I certainly would put together an order of the 22 AWG (I totally
> agree that color coding is the way to go), 150' of 20 AWG (Red & Black)
> and at least 150 ft of red and black 18 AWG. Call Deb Sullivan at
> Wiremasters and have her price it.
>
> The value of Steinair is considerable because you can get short lengths of
> most any wire and a wide range of other electrical-related goodies.
> However, I believe that the figures above make a tight case for buying the
> initial load of wire at Wiremasters.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> PS: I have no financial interest in Wiremasters. I just have a warm
> feeling of great service at very good prices.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: amploc sensor |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
Tom,
We use two different versions of the AMPloc devices in our Supplenator installations.
While we don't implement them in the way you are wanting to do that, nevertheless,
for the specific use you describe, I can think of several simple ways to
accomplish what you are seeking to accomplish.
I would probably use a 5 volt regulator and a 5 volt charge pump to get a +- 5
volt supply and feed that to the +- power terminals of the amploc.
It should use only a tiny amount of power, and could be implemented rather simply
with a dozen discreet components (a few resistors, caps, the 7805 and the charge
pump) or less. There may be simpler ways to do that, if I think about it.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of sarg314
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: amploc sensor
Bob:
I followed the amploc discussion with interest (still thinking about
a hall effect battery current meter). If the amploc sensor is powered
by a regulated +-12v DC/DC converter, it should output a stable,
accurate signal, shouldn't it? An op amp with appropriate gain should
then be able to make it drive a typical aircraft battery meter.
Granted, compared to a simple shunt this is a lot of parts and a
fair amount of wasted current (mostly to run the DC/DC converter), but
it seems to me it ought to work. In any case, the amploc part is cheap
enough ($18) to experiment with.
Do you think this is futile or just misguided?
--
Tom Sargent
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on painting panel? |
Ron,
I painted mine with epoxy paint with a clear coat over the top. It seems to
be holding up okay. I used gray with a satin finish.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on painting panel? |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Ron -
Definitely flat paint. Gloss aids glare and reflections. Bad for night
flying. Top should also be very dark and flat, or covered with a dark,
flat, non-reflective fabric/leather/...
Cheers,
John
> What suggestions on painting? Should the bottom of brow be very dark? I
> imagine the top of the fiberglass does not want to be too dark so it does
> not heat up too much?
>
> I imagine I want flat on instrument module and brow, what is preference
> out
> there for face of panel, light / dark flat or gloss?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: amploc sensor |
Perhaps I should have mentioned I was looking at the CS50 closed loop
current sensor. Not the PRO or AMP series.
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)provalue.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
Bob,
I wonder why did you select 5KP18 which begins to sink current (5mA) at
a voltage of approximately 21V? Is such a big voltage margin necessary?
5KP14 opens at a voltage of approximately 16V which seems to be
sufficiently higher than the battery voltage, and hopefully it would
clamp the output to a lower peak voltage.
Did you manage to find voltage versus current curves for these diodes?
How much voltage do we get accross the diode at the rated peak surge
current of 400A?
Jerzy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
| Subject: | LM317 LED power supply |
I've been playing around with LEDs and decided to make a constant voltage
power supply using a LM317 voltage regulator. I bought one at Radio Shack
along with some resistors and wired it up to get a 3.5V output required for
the LEDs. Works great. But when I put 5 LEDs in parallel on it, the LM317
got pretty hot (no temp data, but way to hot to touch). The tech data said
it may need a heat sink, so this wasn't a total surprise, but I didn't
expect only 5 LEDs to cause it to heat up so much.
From their spec sheet (http://www.superbrightleds.com/specs/w5_specs.htm
<http://www.superbrightleds.com/specs/w5_specs.htm> ): the LEDs draw .03a at
3.5V which is .105W. The spec sheet also says the power dissipation for the
LEDs is .08W - I don't understand what that is vs. the calculated value.
Using the calculated value, all 5 LEDs draw .525W. The package says max
power for the LM317 is 15W, so that is why I am surprised it got so hot.
Dropping down to 3 LEDs, it still gets pretty warm - but touchable.
So my questions are:
Do these devices typically get that hot even when (what appears to be)
lightly loaded?
Are my calculations wrong somewhere?
What is the Power Dissipation value from the spec sheet vs. the calculated
power?
Is the Radio Shack device just a low quality unit - would I get different
results from something bought from DigiKey?
My application is for indicator lights, where potentially multiple LEDs can
share the same power source, if activated by grounding. Typically the only
time multiple lights would be on is prior to startup (i.e. LV, Fuel
pressure) - or if I get in real trouble on some dark and stormy night. Some
lights will be activated by applying power (i.e. Pitot Heat, not sure about
- ECM, EIS, OV) so no sharing there.
Is there any real advantage to using an LM317 circuit instead of just
resistors to drop the voltage to LEDs? The one I know is: the voltage to
the LED is constant despite fluctuating input voltage (no dimming when you
turn on a big load like the landing light or pitot heat). I was thinking
the LM317 was more efficient than just heating up a resistor, but now I'm
not so sure.
Thanks,
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Berg" <wfberg(at)msn.com> |
I am building a Van's RV-8 and have designed my own annunciator panel. I am using
LED light bars. I have dual Lightspeed ignitions that I would like to wire
up to the panel to indicate a failure of the ignition. They are interconnected
to automatically compensate for a failure of either and it is not noticeable
in engine sound or performance when one fails or is turned off. The only available
output from the Lightspeed is the tach output which is around 100mv per 100
rpm.
I would appreciate any suggestions you might have as to adapting the tach signal
to light the LED on the panel. The factory said that the tach output dropping
to zero would indicate system failure or shutdown.
Thanks for any help.
Wayne Berg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)provalue.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on painting panel? |
Paul McAllister wrote:
>
>Ron,
>
>I painted mine with epoxy paint with a clear coat over the top. It seems to
>be holding up okay. I used gray with a satin finish.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
I made my panel top of carbon fiber and I left it with no painting,
happy with the good looking black color.
Recently, I discovered problems with operation of ELT. Checking the
panel mounted remote RLT indicator I found that the box made of cheap
plastic was badly deformed, sagging down, clearly showing that it was
overheated by the Oklahoma summer sun.
I will have to paint the cover with some white-ish color.
Stay away from dark panels.
Jerzy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
You are being somewhat unfair to Bob as I was the one that did the testing
and parts selection. Bob simply posted one reasonable part choice.
For more info please refer to my post yesterday.
As for your specific questions.
The purpose of the alternator load dump clamp is to protect the alternator
internal regulator NOT your aircraft electrical system. Thus the selection
of clamp voltage (in the internal regulator) is often as high as 30+ v.
There is an APPARENT issue with the rebuilt alternators Vans sells. I say
apparent as its not clear to many of us exactly what is causing the
alternator regulator to fail when the alternator is switched off line.
Remember auto alternators are designed for a system where its not possible
to remove the battery load when the engine is running except by wire
breakage or an uninformed mechanic. I have never heard of any internal
regulator that did not have load dump protection built in.
Most OVP protection circuits are set to trigger at around 16V. The minimum
clamp transorb V rating I could see being used, considering tolerance
buildup etc, was an 1.5K 18V unit. Also there is the matter of having a part
that is easy to find in reasonable quantity. Even at the 100 part level
there is only a few voltages stocked in the 5k size.
Most of the time to get specific parameters one must use the tabular data
and crunch the numbers.
I found that a 1.5k 18V transorb had a lower breakdown voltage than a 5K 18V
device. Not sure if that is due to different mfgrs or??
The part Bob specified or the part specified in my prior post are both well
suited to the defined task of alternator internal regulator protection and
both have been extensively tested in a real circuit.
Your questions seem to make me think you are also interested in keeping the
electrical system buss voltage as a reasonable level. This is a very
different case unless you are considering a no battery condition with the
alternator providing the power and perhaps a large cap as a load stabilizer.
This case is beyond the scope of the present issue.
Also I will be posting more in the days to come as I am still very much
under the weather and this is 50% of my total useful work per day right now.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerzy Krasinski" <krasinski(at)provalue.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
> Bob,
>
> I wonder why did you select 5KP18 which begins to sink current (5mA) at
> a voltage of approximately 21V? Is such a big voltage margin necessary?
>
> 5KP14 opens at a voltage of approximately 16V which seems to be
> sufficiently higher than the battery voltage, and hopefully it would
> clamp the output to a lower peak voltage.
>
> Did you manage to find voltage versus current curves for these diodes?
> How much voltage do we get accross the diode at the rated peak surge
> current of 400A?
>
> Jerzy
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Erickson" <alaner_rv8(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | LM317 LED power supply |
Howdy, Dennis! I'm assuming that you've hooked up the LEDs through
resistors, and I'll further assume that you've calculated it so that each
LED is taking 30ma as per the specs you gave. I also assume you're feeding
the 317 from a 12V rig.
Please, crosscheck all the math below before actually using it!! (better,
recalc from scratch)
The total current being drawn through the 317 is (5 * 0.030A) = 0.150A.
The voltage that the 317 is dropping is (14V - 3.5V) = 10.5V
P=IV, so the power being dissipated in the 317 is (0.150A * 10.5V) = 1.6W
Now, hit the LM317 specs:
http://www.national.com/ds/LM/LM117.pdf
You've probably got the TO-220 package which is listed on page 1 as the 'T'
package (the metal tab - careful to protect it, that tab is connected to
Vout, not ground! It also makes the whole chip wiggly on its pins). Go to
page 5, and look for the T package near the bottom, in the row marked
"thermal resistance, junction to ambient (no heat sink)". They're gonna tell
you here how fast the heat produced inside the chip gets transferred to an
air (or finger) temperature. For the T package, I read 50C/W. So in your
existing circuit you should expect a temperature rise of roughly
T = (1.6W)(50C/W) =80C
Now, going by Bob and Doug McKenzie's formula (double it and add 30), 80C is
about 190F. That's why it feels hot!
That was interesting and all, but the real question is what to do about it?
Well, if you don't want stuff getting that hot (I usually don't), you need
to change something in the equations above. There are a bunch of options,
but here's what I'd do:
Do you need to regulate the LED supply voltage? Probably not. Supply changes
of a few volts won't change the brightness much at all -- try calculating
the change in current through the LEDs for a change of 2V (remember the
resistors!), then look at your LED specs to see how much that changes the
light output -- and anyway what variation there is may be useful information
for the pilot. Your easiest option is to ditch the regulator, feed the LEDs
from the mains, and recalculate the resistors: R=V/I, where V is
(Vsupply-Vled). Vled is specified for the LED, and will be a coupla volts
(go to the LED specs) -- I'll assume Vled=2V:
R ~= (14V-2V)/0.030A = 400 ohms, close standard value = 390 ohms
Each resistor is now dissipating
P=IV=(0.030A)(14V-2V) = 0.36W, so use 0.5W resistors rather than 0.25W.
Another option: if you *do* want flicker-free LEDs, don't regulate down to
3.5V. It doesn't really matter what the voltage comes out as, as long as
it's regulated, right? Just recaclulate the LED resistors appropriately. If
you don't drop all those volts (14V-3.5V) in the regulator, then the power
dissipation *in the regulator* is much lower. Dissipate more power in each
LED's resistor to take the load off the regulator.
So: regulate to a voltage that is as high as possible, but which is
guaranteed to be lower than the electrical system. To throw a dart, try 10V
and recalculate the power dissipation and resistors:
Preg = IV = (14V-10V)(0.030A) = 0.120W , therefore
Treg = (0.120W)(50C/W) = 6C = 42F (no problems!)
Rled = V/I = (10V-2V)/0.030A = 270ohms
Presistor = (10V)(0.030A) = 0.3W (use 0.5W resistors)
Everything's fine now, and your LED supply is regulated if that's what you
want! Note that you don't even have to use an adjustable regulator if you
don't want the extra components: you could use an LM7808 for 8V output, for
example.
If you use a regulator, I would *highly* recommend using a 0.1uF ceramic
capacitor ('Shack is fine) on at least the output of the LM317 and LM78xx
series, or you risk bad behavior (oscillation). Also note their 'minimum
load current' on page 5, which means that you should connect an
appropriately-sized resistor from output to ground for when all the lights
are out - a frequent 'gotcha' on regulator circuit design!
Have fun!
Alan Erickson
Socorro, NM
8A, IO-360M1B6, 2xPlasma2+, invert, WW200RV
D-10a, 430, SL-30, ACS2002, AlTrak, Trio, ~Z-12
flight est. summer 05
|
|
|I've been playing around with LEDs and decided to make a
|constant voltage power supply using a LM317 voltage regulator
..
|the LM317 got pretty hot
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LM317 LED power supply |
Possible reasons:
1. You didn't say what package the LM317 you are using is, but even with
the TO-3 (large metal case) the temperature rise will be about 32C per
watt of dissipation in the LM317. If we assume that you are starting
with 13.5V then the LM317 has 10V across it and is supplying 0.15A -
which gives 1.5W dissipation. That will give a 48C rise in case
temperature. If we assume a 25C ambient then the case is at 73C (163F)
which is too hot to touch. This is still well below the permissible
operating temperature. Any other package will be a worse case (hotter)
than the TO-3.
2. LEDs are current operated devices. That is, an LED should be driven
by a current source or a higher voltage source with a resistor in series
(simulating a current source). If you are providing a regulated 3.5V to
the LEDs the current drawn by any one LED could be (probably is) totally
different from what you are concluding from the data sheets. Have you
actually measured the current through your circuit? Obviously, if the
current is higher than you have stated, the power dissipated in the
LM317 will be higher.
As for your other questions: If you want the light output to be
constant with varying input voltages (when turning on heavy loads or if
the alternator fails and the voltage drops) you could use the LM317 to
regulate to a higher voltage (say 8 volts) and then use a resistor in
series with each LED (value chosen for desired brightness).
On the other hand, if you don't mind slight changes in brightness with
varying loads on your electrical system, there is no advantage in using
the LM317 over just using resistors.
The DigiKey part will work just the same as the RadShack part.
Dick Tasker
Glaeser, Dennis A wrote:
>
>I've been playing around with LEDs and decided to make a constant voltage
>power supply using a LM317 voltage regulator. I bought one at Radio Shack
>along with some resistors and wired it up to get a 3.5V output required for
>the LEDs. Works great. But when I put 5 LEDs in parallel on it, the LM317
>got pretty hot (no temp data, but way to hot to touch). The tech data said
>it may need a heat sink, so this wasn't a total surprise, but I didn't
>expect only 5 LEDs to cause it to heat up so much.
>
>>From their spec sheet (http://www.superbrightleds.com/specs/w5_specs.htm
><http://www.superbrightleds.com/specs/w5_specs.htm> ): the LEDs draw .03a at
>3.5V which is .105W. The spec sheet also says the power dissipation for the
>LEDs is .08W - I don't understand what that is vs. the calculated value.
>
>Using the calculated value, all 5 LEDs draw .525W. The package says max
>power for the LM317 is 15W, so that is why I am surprised it got so hot.
>Dropping down to 3 LEDs, it still gets pretty warm - but touchable.
>
>So my questions are:
>Do these devices typically get that hot even when (what appears to be)
>lightly loaded?
>Are my calculations wrong somewhere?
>What is the Power Dissipation value from the spec sheet vs. the calculated
>power?
>Is the Radio Shack device just a low quality unit - would I get different
>results from something bought from DigiKey?
>
>My application is for indicator lights, where potentially multiple LEDs can
>share the same power source, if activated by grounding. Typically the only
>time multiple lights would be on is prior to startup (i.e. LV, Fuel
>pressure) - or if I get in real trouble on some dark and stormy night. Some
>lights will be activated by applying power (i.e. Pitot Heat, not sure about
>- ECM, EIS, OV) so no sharing there.
>
>Is there any real advantage to using an LM317 circuit instead of just
>resistors to drop the voltage to LEDs? The one I know is: the voltage to
>the LED is constant despite fluctuating input voltage (no dimming when you
>turn on a big load like the landing light or pitot heat). I was thinking
>the LM317 was more efficient than just heating up a resistor, but now I'm
>not so sure.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Dennis Glaeser
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | List: wire selection |
Hi Larry-
...The wire shown at http://www.skycraftsurplus.com/ is not aviation grade
wire it appears to me....
Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker"
I'm curious as to why you say that. Some of the wire / cable I've
purchased there has an MS number printed on it, some doesn't. It's all
fine stranded, tinned wire in Teflon or tefzel insulation. My
multi-conductor shielded cable does not have the MS number on the outside,
but it does have the numbered paper strip through the center with the
conductors. While not all of it is labelled "Mil Spec", I do believe it is
aircraft quality.
Regards,
gm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LM317 LED power supply |
>The spec sheet also says the power dissipation for the LEDs is .08W - I
don't understand what that is vs. the calculated value.
You are looking at the wrong end of the horse. Ignore it for your
application.
>Using the calculated value, all 5 LEDs draw .525W. The package says max
>power for the LM317 is 15W, so that is why I am surprised it got so hot.
>Dropping down to 3 LEDs, it still gets pretty warm - but touchable.
See below.
>Do these devices typically get that hot even when (what appears to be)
lightly loaded?
>Are my calculations wrong somewhere?
>What is the Power Dissipation value from the spec sheet vs. the calculated
>power?
See below
>Is the Radio Shack device just a low quality unit - would I get different
results from something bought from DigiKey?
When I go to Radio Shack, I always buy a pizza next door so as not to waste
the trip. But here the part is okay.
>Is there any real advantage to using an LM317....
Any application where you don't want to adjust the brightness individually
needs only a resistor.
Dennis,
It would be nice to not have the penalty of a hot part when reducing the
voltage, but linear regulators like the LM317 just dissipate power in
exactly the same way as a series resistor. But the advantages the LM317
yields are many, dimmability, ouput regulation, noise filtering (often
overlooked!), built-in over-current protection, etc.
Looking at the voltage drops gives us a clue to what happens. The voltage
drop from the power input of the 317 to its output must yield a voltage that
demanded by the input of the LEDs (or series chain of LEDs). For example
the 317 input is 14Vbatt and the output is 2V. Then we must have a voltage
drop of 12V. The power dissipation of the LM317 is the voltage drop X the
current (ignoring a small amount for the adjustment current), so the power
dissipation would be W=12V X 0.030=0.36 Watts.
If you add LEDs in parallel you dissipate 0.36W for each one. For 5 LEDs you
dissipate over 1.8 W. For the TO-220 Package this leads to a package
temperature of 20 degC+1.8 X 50 degC/W or 110 degC (as you say...way too hot
to touch).
So what's going on here? Well, you could run the LEDs in series, then the
current would still be 0.030A but the voltage needed would be 5 X 2V or 10
volts, and the voltage drop would be only 14V-10V=4V. Thus the power
dissipation would be 4V X 0.030=0.12W. and the temperature would be 20
degC+0.12 X 50 degC/W or 32 degC (or just slightly warm to the touch).
Suggestions: String up as many LEDs in series as you can get away with, then
add parallel strings AND a heatsink. Always use a resistor in parallel
strings to help prevent cascade failures and in series strings to limit the
current. (I know some LED guys don't use them....but HAH!)
Other suggestion: Buy mine. Four for $99 dollars. Guaranteed 1 ampere
output.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"I tried being reasonable--I didn't like it!"
--Clint Eastwood
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: overvoltage protection clamav-milter |
version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
Nope they are apparently backordered there but I'll keep an eye on mouser.
Ken
Robert McCallum wrote:
>
>They appear to be available from mouser in quantities of 1 for $1.34 each
>http://www.mouser.com/index.cfm?&handler=data.listcategory&D=576-5KP18&terms=576-5KP18&Ntt=*5765KP18*&N=0&crc=true
>Bob McC
>
>Ken wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Neat!
>>Anybody find a source for small quantities of the 5KP18 yet?
>>Ken
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: List: wire selection |
Tefzel is fine and Teflon is NOT suitable for any aircraft etc. Cold flow.
Been discussed here last summer. Some businesses seem to ignore how
important insulation is and promote Teflon insulation.
Beware it can short out after months or years depending on the stress on the
wire in the bundle etc Really bad when using connectors with wire grips.
MS numbers in and of themselves do not mean its aircraft wire. Hundreds of
MS numbered wire types with most not suitable for aircraft.
Teflon insulated wire has been banned from aircraft and aerospace in general
for over 25 years.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: List: wire selection
>
> Hi Larry-
>
> ...The wire shown at http://www.skycraftsurplus.com/ is not aviation grade
> wire it appears to me....
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker"
>
> I'm curious as to why you say that. Some of the wire / cable I've
> purchased there has an MS number printed on it, some doesn't. It's all
> fine stranded, tinned wire in Teflon or tefzel insulation. My
> multi-conductor shielded cable does not have the MS number on the outside,
> but it does have the numbered paper strip through the center with the
> conductors. While not all of it is labelled "Mil Spec", I do believe it
is
> aircraft quality.
>
> Regards,
>
> gm
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 1/4/2005 1:14:06 P.M. Central Standard Time,
dwight(at)openweave.org writes:
Would the airway G13 over the outer banks of NC be what you are looking
for? I am not sure it is still commissioned (I thought they took down
some of the NDBs along that route a year or so ago) but a quick look
at my AOPA flight planner still shows it there.
Good Evening Dwight,
A quick look at my Jeppesen charts does not reveal that airway to me, but it
could be I don't know where to look!
I agree that route is fun to fly. I like to go a half mile off shore at
about two hundred feet MSL
Last time I was down there was for the Wright Flyer extravaganza in 2003.
That was a ball, flight or no flight.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I wonder why did you select 5KP18 which begins to sink current (5mA) at
>a voltage of approximately 21V? Is such a big voltage margin necessary?
>
>5KP14 opens at a voltage of approximately 16V which seems to be
>sufficiently higher than the battery voltage, and hopefully it would
>clamp the output to a lower peak voltage.
Why would one wish to select a lower voltage?
>Did you manage to find voltage versus current curves for these diodes?
>How much voltage do we get accross the diode at the rated peak surge
>current of 400A?
Only the point data charts that are offered by the manufacturers.
You're never going to see 400A . . . the MOST you can ever
see is the alternator's maximum capability.
During a REAL ov condition, you want enough headroom between
onset of load-dump mitigation and the reaction time of an
OV protection system so that you don't pop the Transorb. I
selected the 5KP18 as likely to stay out of the OV protection
loop while meeting the need to limit load-dump transients
to levels well inside DO-160 recommendations.
Keep in mind also that we're probably only concerned with
alternators having after-market regulators in them. I cannot
imagine that a modern alternator manufacturer will not account
for the load dump transient in design and selection of components
in their regulators. It would be interesting to see the pedigree
on regulators that failed when the alternator was unloaded in
a Figure Z-24 configuration.
The important data point from Paul's experiments is that
load dump energies are quite low. I suspected this given the
relative sizes of components offered specifically for the
purpose of standing off alternator load-dump events. I'm negotiating
for a used alternator test stand and should be able to refine
the data base next spring (my garage shop isn't heated). In
the mean time, I'm reasonably certain that adding the 5KP18
will mitigate the problems cited by Van's builders.
Others may have different criteria for selecting lower targets
for peak voltage but I'm comfortable with DO-160 recommendations.
I've not found it difficult to work within those bounds for 35
years or so. A part recommended for 14V load dump mitigation
was discussed on this list some months ago. It's the ST-MicroElectronics
LDP24A which has a threshold voltage of 24 volts and clamps
a 30A dump at about 40 volts. The 5KP18 will clamp a 100A
dump to some value less than 30 volts . . . quite comfortably
inside the limits of DO-160 and plenty of headroom for
OV protection to do its job independently from the
load-dump protection.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wire selection |
Sorry to have to keep this thread going, but I have a note to add...
John, you said the same amount of 22759/16 wire from wiremasters.net
was $.05/ft.
I just went online and pulled up their 22 ga. wires....all 22ga
basically (except white) was listed as: $79.000/MFT, which if I'm
thinking right is $.079/ft. White was $.066/ft.
Where did you see the $.05/ft?? Is the pricing better than that
if you call them via phone?
Tim
John Schroeder wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Try Steinair.com (www.steinair.com) for aviation wire priced at or near
>>lowest prices. You will need awg22 wire. Try to get a hundred ft. each
>>of red, black, blue, green, yellow, and what ever other color he carries
>>awg22 in. That will be your most needed wire size. You will need some
>>heavier
>>wires also, but you are on your own in making those estimations. BandC
>>is a good source for quality stuff also.
>
>
> Larry-
>
> If you buy 100 ft. of each of the 7 colors of 22 AWG listed on Steinair,
> it is 700' x $0.13 or $91.
> The same amount of wire (22759/16) in the same gage and same colors is 700
> x $.05 or $35 at Wiremasters.com. Even with their $50 minimum, you save
> $41. I certainly would put together an order of the 22 AWG (I totally
> agree that color coding is the way to go), 150' of 20 AWG (Red & Black)
> and at least 150 ft of red and black 18 AWG. Call Deb Sullivan at
> Wiremasters and have her price it.
>
> The value of Steinair is considerable because you can get short lengths of
> most any wire and a wide range of other electrical-related goodies.
> However, I believe that the figures above make a tight case for buying the
> initial load of wire at Wiremasters.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> PS: I have no financial interest in Wiremasters. I just have a warm
> feeling of great service at very good prices.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LM317 LED power supply |
Alan, Dick, and Eric,
Thanks for the explanations! I guess the first thing I need to do is read
the whole spec document (not just stop at the formula for Vout ...). But
then I had the power dissipation wrong, so I would have still had the
question. Eric nailed my problem - looking at the wrong end.
Just to fill in the blanks: Alan gets points for correct assumptions (except
for the resistors). I did get the TO-220 package. I'm currently just using
a couple of 6V lantern batteries in series for my sandbox. That also allowed
me to switch between 6V and 12V and see that the output stayed at 3.5V. I
just connected the LEDs in parallel across Vout - no series resistors -
that's what I was looking to eliminate (before you guys pointed out the
error of my ways). I had this misguided notion that resistors aren't
'elegant'.
I just measured the current for 3 LEDs - started out at over 180ma and
climbed to the 190s in a few seconds - my simple multi-meter is only good
for 200ma (has a .315a fuse) so I disconnected and don't know where it would
have stopped, so score one for Dick. I guess no resistors means not much
current limiting going on!
Sounds like just plain old resistors are the best way to go (simple is
elegent too). The lights in question are fault lights, so they aren't on
much, and when they are, I don't think flickering will be my immediate
concern...
I will be using LEDs to backlight my panel legends, and I don't want those
to flicker, so Eric's "EGPAVR" is on my parts list - as well as some
resistors.
Thanks again for limiting my trip into the weeds...
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Potter&Brumfield |
Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> I got some P&B W31 series circuit breakers (they are the ones with switches)
> from Steinair and the toggle switch in the breaker is loose in all of them.
> It will surely vibrate in an aircraft. Does anyone know if it is normal for
> the toggle switch in this breaker to be loose? To clarify, imagine holding a
> normal bat switch in your fingers and it moves around in the housing.
> Stan Sutterfield
> Tampa
> www.rv-8a.net
Hi Stan,
I have about a dozen of these in my Glasair.
The switch handle does feel a bit loose in the housing,
but I have not had any trouble with them. The plane was built in
1984 and there is a good chance that most of them
are the original installation.
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
Bob,
With the battery off line, I have repeatedly been able to destroy 5KP18 devices
with load dumps from 40 amp alternators on 14 volt systems.
In my experience, nothing short of a very active and robust OV clamp circuit,
with lots of capacitance also on line, is sufficient to prevent the destruction
of the 5KP18 devices - - - in which case those devices become unnecessary.
Regards, George
-----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: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I wonder why did you select 5KP18 which begins to sink current (5mA) at
>a voltage of approximately 21V? Is such a big voltage margin necessary?
>
>5KP14 opens at a voltage of approximately 16V which seems to be
>sufficiently higher than the battery voltage, and hopefully it would
>clamp the output to a lower peak voltage.
Why would one wish to select a lower voltage?
>Did you manage to find voltage versus current curves for these diodes?
>How much voltage do we get accross the diode at the rated peak surge
>current of 400A?
Only the point data charts that are offered by the manufacturers.
You're never going to see 400A . . . the MOST you can ever
see is the alternator's maximum capability.
During a REAL ov condition, you want enough headroom between
onset of load-dump mitigation and the reaction time of an
OV protection system so that you don't pop the Transorb. I
selected the 5KP18 as likely to stay out of the OV protection
loop while meeting the need to limit load-dump transients
to levels well inside DO-160 recommendations.
Keep in mind also that we're probably only concerned with
alternators having after-market regulators in them. I cannot
imagine that a modern alternator manufacturer will not account
for the load dump transient in design and selection of components
in their regulators. It would be interesting to see the pedigree
on regulators that failed when the alternator was unloaded in
a Figure Z-24 configuration.
The important data point from Paul's experiments is that
load dump energies are quite low. I suspected this given the
relative sizes of components offered specifically for the
purpose of standing off alternator load-dump events. I'm negotiating
for a used alternator test stand and should be able to refine
the data base next spring (my garage shop isn't heated). In
the mean time, I'm reasonably certain that adding the 5KP18
will mitigate the problems cited by Van's builders.
Others may have different criteria for selecting lower targets
for peak voltage but I'm comfortable with DO-160 recommendations.
I've not found it difficult to work within those bounds for 35
years or so. A part recommended for 14V load dump mitigation
was discussed on this list some months ago. It's the ST-MicroElectronics
LDP24A which has a threshold voltage of 24 volts and clamps
a 30A dump at about 40 volts. The 5KP18 will clamp a 100A
dump to some value less than 30 volts . . . quite comfortably
inside the limits of DO-160 and plenty of headroom for
OV protection to do its job independently from the
load-dump protection.
Bob . . .
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
>
>
>Bob - sorry if I am being obtuse. I have Z13A and the diagram is I think as
>before with one added component. I see the 5KP18 connected between the B -
>lead (power) and what?
Case of the alternator. Many alternators have ground studs.
If so, use that. Otherwise, a cooling shroud screw or
other hardware on alternator case might suffice. If this
is impractical, install Transorb on the starter contactor.
Run from fat-wire output terminal to mounting base (assuming
metal firewall).
>(I dont see note XX) There are only three wires (from
>memory) coming off the VANS unit and they are spoken for. Presumably its to
>ground? What is a 5KP18 and how does this function.
See:
http://www.littelfuse.com/data/en/Data_Sheets/5kp_revised.pdf
http://www.powerdesigners.com/InfoWeb/design_center/Appnotes_Archive/AN9312.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | LVWM and Kilovac contactors |
Bob,
Maybe my recent post got through unnoticed.
I'd welcome any hints as to how I could cure or work around the problem.
Any suggestion ?
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>
>
> Hi Bob and all,
>
> In order to pinpoint the origin of my problem with the LVWM and the
> Kilovac
> contactors I tried four different models of relays. I ended with a
> transparent case relay which revealed the problem is not with the relay.
> After extensive tests I've come to the conclusion it may be the
> association
> of the LVWM with the Kilovac contactors. For some reasons when the Kilovac
> contactors are energized they seem to somehow disturb something inside the
> LVWM.
> More details can be found at the following URL :
>
> http://gilles.thesee.free.fr/Elec_architecture.htm
>
> At the moment we still can perform the flight tests but I would really
> appreciate any help or workaround. In effect the LVWM is the only
> practical
> means of informing the pilot that something may be wrong with the
> auxiliary
> battery. And wih our electrically dependant engine this aux battery is the
> last resort if the alternator quits.
>
> Thanks for your help,
> Best wishes for 2005
>
> Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
I remember your comments about this when this issue first started early last
year.
Because I value your comments and experience highly, we need to look into
your experience further as it would appear there is something going on that
is not apparent in my testing and that testing was reviewed by my partner
and 6 other experts. This in no way is to suggest I question your results,
just we need to look further to see what is being missed. Perhaps it unique
to a specific alternator ?? ; what ever it does need investigation.
Both the ST load dump transorb and the 5K device I have tested are above the
load dump energies mfgrs spec for protection.
I was unable to damage even a single 1.5K 18V device (but it was
overstressed based on Observed junction overheating and the estimated energy
vs the data sheet max.) with a 50 amp load dump with the alternator I was
using which was a 60 amp unit from a Subaru EA81 designed and sold in Japan.
The residual alternator load was 1 amp and 1000 MFD to smooth the pulse for
data recording. I would be very interested in the exact conditions where you
were able to destroy 5K devices.
I did test using a 25,000 mfd capacitor with no battery and keeping the
alternator on line to the system load of 10 amps and the above 25,000 mfd
cap and the test 40 amp load dump was controlled with the above remaining on
the buss.
Basically the B lead was connected to the mockup electrical system with a
total load of 50 amps. The alternator side of the alternator B lead
contactor had the 10 amp load and the 25,000 mfd cap. NO Transorb. The 40
amp load was then removed creating a load dump of 40 amps.
This was part of the testing where the possibiliy of no battery operation
was investigated. The bus voltage was controlled by the cap but not all that
well and much higher than desired. My conclusion was that even 25,000 mfd
was insufficent to stabilize the system buss with no battery. Even 10 amp
load dumps like landing lights being turned off caused the system bus to
exceed 16V where the common OVP protection kicks in. In any case the common
OVP circuit would have prevented no battery operation as a resonable size
capacitor to stabilize the buss will not stabilize it enough..
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
>
> Bob,
>
> With the battery off line, I have repeatedly been able to destroy 5KP18
devices with load dumps from 40 amp alternators on 14 volt systems.
>
> In my experience, nothing short of a very active and robust OV clamp
circuit, with lots of capacitance also on line, is sufficient to prevent
the destruction of the 5KP18 devices - - - in which case those devices
become unnecessary.
>
> Regards, George
>
>
> -----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
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >I wonder why did you select 5KP18 which begins to sink current (5mA) at
> >a voltage of approximately 21V? Is such a big voltage margin necessary?
> >
> >5KP14 opens at a voltage of approximately 16V which seems to be
> >sufficiently higher than the battery voltage, and hopefully it would
> >clamp the output to a lower peak voltage.
>
> Why would one wish to select a lower voltage?
>
> >Did you manage to find voltage versus current curves for these diodes?
> >How much voltage do we get accross the diode at the rated peak surge
> >current of 400A?
>
>
> Only the point data charts that are offered by the manufacturers.
> You're never going to see 400A . . . the MOST you can ever
> see is the alternator's maximum capability.
>
> During a REAL ov condition, you want enough headroom between
> onset of load-dump mitigation and the reaction time of an
> OV protection system so that you don't pop the Transorb. I
> selected the 5KP18 as likely to stay out of the OV protection
> loop while meeting the need to limit load-dump transients
> to levels well inside DO-160 recommendations.
>
> Keep in mind also that we're probably only concerned with
> alternators having after-market regulators in them. I cannot
> imagine that a modern alternator manufacturer will not account
> for the load dump transient in design and selection of components
> in their regulators. It would be interesting to see the pedigree
> on regulators that failed when the alternator was unloaded in
> a Figure Z-24 configuration.
>
> The important data point from Paul's experiments is that
> load dump energies are quite low. I suspected this given the
> relative sizes of components offered specifically for the
> purpose of standing off alternator load-dump events. I'm negotiating
> for a used alternator test stand and should be able to refine
> the data base next spring (my garage shop isn't heated). In
> the mean time, I'm reasonably certain that adding the 5KP18
> will mitigate the problems cited by Van's builders.
>
> Others may have different criteria for selecting lower targets
> for peak voltage but I'm comfortable with DO-160 recommendations.
> I've not found it difficult to work within those bounds for 35
> years or so. A part recommended for 14V load dump mitigation
> was discussed on this list some months ago. It's the
ST-MicroElectronics
> LDP24A which has a threshold voltage of 24 volts and clamps
> a 30A dump at about 40 volts. The 5KP18 will clamp a 100A
> dump to some value less than 30 volts . . . quite comfortably
> inside the limits of DO-160 and plenty of headroom for
> OV protection to do its job independently from the
> load-dump protection.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
> ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
I am leaving for an appointment. More later. In the mean time.
It was a Denso 40 amp alternator core, at 4000 shaft rpm, into landing light loads,
which were switched "off". Residual load was less than 1 amp.
There was only about 10MFD of capacitance on the system.
It would fry otherwise modestly protected 5 volt power supplies also on the same
buss, as well as the transorbs.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Messinger
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
I remember your comments about this when this issue first started early last
year.
Because I value your comments and experience highly, we need to look into
your experience further as it would appear there is something going on that
is not apparent in my testing and that testing was reviewed by my partner
and 6 other experts. This in no way is to suggest I question your results,
just we need to look further to see what is being missed. Perhaps it unique
to a specific alternator ?? ; what ever it does need investigation.
Both the ST load dump transorb and the 5K device I have tested are above the
load dump energies mfgrs spec for protection.
I was unable to damage even a single 1.5K 18V device (but it was
overstressed based on Observed junction overheating and the estimated energy
vs the data sheet max.) with a 50 amp load dump with the alternator I was
using which was a 60 amp unit from a Subaru EA81 designed and sold in Japan.
The residual alternator load was 1 amp and 1000 MFD to smooth the pulse for
data recording. I would be very interested in the exact conditions where you
were able to destroy 5K devices.
I did test using a 25,000 mfd capacitor with no battery and keeping the
alternator on line to the system load of 10 amps and the above 25,000 mfd
cap and the test 40 amp load dump was controlled with the above remaining on
the buss.
Basically the B lead was connected to the mockup electrical system with a
total load of 50 amps. The alternator side of the alternator B lead
contactor had the 10 amp load and the 25,000 mfd cap. NO Transorb. The 40
amp load was then removed creating a load dump of 40 amps.
This was part of the testing where the possibiliy of no battery operation
was investigated. The bus voltage was controlled by the cap but not all that
well and much higher than desired. My conclusion was that even 25,000 mfd
was insufficent to stabilize the system buss with no battery. Even 10 amp
load dumps like landing lights being turned off caused the system bus to
exceed 16V where the common OVP protection kicks in. In any case the common
OVP circuit would have prevented no battery operation as a resonable size
capacitor to stabilize the buss will not stabilize it enough..
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
>
> Bob,
>
> With the battery off line, I have repeatedly been able to destroy 5KP18
devices with load dumps from 40 amp alternators on 14 volt systems.
>
> In my experience, nothing short of a very active and robust OV clamp
circuit, with lots of capacitance also on line, is sufficient to prevent
the destruction of the 5KP18 devices - - - in which case those devices
become unnecessary.
>
> Regards, George
>
>
> -----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
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >I wonder why did you select 5KP18 which begins to sink current (5mA) at
> >a voltage of approximately 21V? Is such a big voltage margin necessary?
> >
> >5KP14 opens at a voltage of approximately 16V which seems to be
> >sufficiently higher than the battery voltage, and hopefully it would
> >clamp the output to a lower peak voltage.
>
> Why would one wish to select a lower voltage?
>
> >Did you manage to find voltage versus current curves for these diodes?
> >How much voltage do we get accross the diode at the rated peak surge
> >current of 400A?
>
>
> Only the point data charts that are offered by the manufacturers.
> You're never going to see 400A . . . the MOST you can ever
> see is the alternator's maximum capability.
>
> During a REAL ov condition, you want enough headroom between
> onset of load-dump mitigation and the reaction time of an
> OV protection system so that you don't pop the Transorb. I
> selected the 5KP18 as likely to stay out of the OV protection
> loop while meeting the need to limit load-dump transients
> to levels well inside DO-160 recommendations.
>
> Keep in mind also that we're probably only concerned with
> alternators having after-market regulators in them. I cannot
> imagine that a modern alternator manufacturer will not account
> for the load dump transient in design and selection of components
> in their regulators. It would be interesting to see the pedigree
> on regulators that failed when the alternator was unloaded in
> a Figure Z-24 configuration.
>
> The important data point from Paul's experiments is that
> load dump energies are quite low. I suspected this given the
> relative sizes of components offered specifically for the
> purpose of standing off alternator load-dump events. I'm negotiating
> for a used alternator test stand and should be able to refine
> the data base next spring (my garage shop isn't heated). In
> the mean time, I'm reasonably certain that adding the 5KP18
> will mitigate the problems cited by Van's builders.
>
> Others may have different criteria for selecting lower targets
> for peak voltage but I'm comfortable with DO-160 recommendations.
> I've not found it difficult to work within those bounds for 35
> years or so. A part recommended for 14V load dump mitigation
> was discussed on this list some months ago. It's the
ST-MicroElectronics
> LDP24A which has a threshold voltage of 24 volts and clamps
> a 30A dump at about 40 volts. The 5KP18 will clamp a 100A
> dump to some value less than 30 volts . . . quite comfortably
> inside the limits of DO-160 and plenty of headroom for
> OV protection to do its job independently from the
> load-dump protection.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Jensen <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Bob,
What do you use for camera/lense and any special settings for the photos you
provide. We (at least me) would appreciate some clues on how to get
digitals with the same sharpness and fine detail.
Thanks
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
Sorry... 10K mfd capacitance on the system... not 10mfd.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of George Braly
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
I am leaving for an appointment. More later. In the mean time.
It was a Denso 40 amp alternator core, at 4000 shaft rpm, into landing light loads,
which were switched "off". Residual load was less than 1 amp.
There was only about 10MFD of capacitance on the system.
It would fry otherwise modestly protected 5 volt power supplies also on the same
buss, as well as the transorbs.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Messinger
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
I remember your comments about this when this issue first started early last
year.
Because I value your comments and experience highly, we need to look into
your experience further as it would appear there is something going on that
is not apparent in my testing and that testing was reviewed by my partner
and 6 other experts. This in no way is to suggest I question your results,
just we need to look further to see what is being missed. Perhaps it unique
to a specific alternator ?? ; what ever it does need investigation.
Both the ST load dump transorb and the 5K device I have tested are above the
load dump energies mfgrs spec for protection.
I was unable to damage even a single 1.5K 18V device (but it was
overstressed based on Observed junction overheating and the estimated energy
vs the data sheet max.) with a 50 amp load dump with the alternator I was
using which was a 60 amp unit from a Subaru EA81 designed and sold in Japan.
The residual alternator load was 1 amp and 1000 MFD to smooth the pulse for
data recording. I would be very interested in the exact conditions where you
were able to destroy 5K devices.
I did test using a 25,000 mfd capacitor with no battery and keeping the
alternator on line to the system load of 10 amps and the above 25,000 mfd
cap and the test 40 amp load dump was controlled with the above remaining on
the buss.
Basically the B lead was connected to the mockup electrical system with a
total load of 50 amps. The alternator side of the alternator B lead
contactor had the 10 amp load and the 25,000 mfd cap. NO Transorb. The 40
amp load was then removed creating a load dump of 40 amps.
This was part of the testing where the possibiliy of no battery operation
was investigated. The bus voltage was controlled by the cap but not all that
well and much higher than desired. My conclusion was that even 25,000 mfd
was insufficent to stabilize the system buss with no battery. Even 10 amp
load dumps like landing lights being turned off caused the system bus to
exceed 16V where the common OVP protection kicks in. In any case the common
OVP circuit would have prevented no battery operation as a resonable size
capacitor to stabilize the buss will not stabilize it enough..
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
>
> Bob,
>
> With the battery off line, I have repeatedly been able to destroy 5KP18
devices with load dumps from 40 amp alternators on 14 volt systems.
>
> In my experience, nothing short of a very active and robust OV clamp
circuit, with lots of capacitance also on line, is sufficient to prevent
the destruction of the 5KP18 devices - - - in which case those devices
become unnecessary.
>
> Regards, George
>
>
> -----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
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >I wonder why did you select 5KP18 which begins to sink current (5mA) at
> >a voltage of approximately 21V? Is such a big voltage margin necessary?
> >
> >5KP14 opens at a voltage of approximately 16V which seems to be
> >sufficiently higher than the battery voltage, and hopefully it would
> >clamp the output to a lower peak voltage.
>
> Why would one wish to select a lower voltage?
>
> >Did you manage to find voltage versus current curves for these diodes?
> >How much voltage do we get accross the diode at the rated peak surge
> >current of 400A?
>
>
> Only the point data charts that are offered by the manufacturers.
> You're never going to see 400A . . . the MOST you can ever
> see is the alternator's maximum capability.
>
> During a REAL ov condition, you want enough headroom between
> onset of load-dump mitigation and the reaction time of an
> OV protection system so that you don't pop the Transorb. I
> selected the 5KP18 as likely to stay out of the OV protection
> loop while meeting the need to limit load-dump transients
> to levels well inside DO-160 recommendations.
>
> Keep in mind also that we're probably only concerned with
> alternators having after-market regulators in them. I cannot
> imagine that a modern alternator manufacturer will not account
> for the load dump transient in design and selection of components
> in their regulators. It would be interesting to see the pedigree
> on regulators that failed when the alternator was unloaded in
> a Figure Z-24 configuration.
>
> The important data point from Paul's experiments is that
> load dump energies are quite low. I suspected this given the
> relative sizes of components offered specifically for the
> purpose of standing off alternator load-dump events. I'm negotiating
> for a used alternator test stand and should be able to refine
> the data base next spring (my garage shop isn't heated). In
> the mean time, I'm reasonably certain that adding the 5KP18
> will mitigate the problems cited by Van's builders.
>
> Others may have different criteria for selecting lower targets
> for peak voltage but I'm comfortable with DO-160 recommendations.
> I've not found it difficult to work within those bounds for 35
> years or so. A part recommended for 14V load dump mitigation
> was discussed on this list some months ago. It's the
ST-MicroElectronics
> LDP24A which has a threshold voltage of 24 volts and clamps
> a 30A dump at about 40 volts. The 5KP18 will clamp a 100A
> dump to some value less than 30 volts . . . quite comfortably
> inside the limits of DO-160 and plenty of headroom for
> OV protection to do its job independently from the
> load-dump protection.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
---
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Digital Photos |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I have had good luck using the 'macro' feature that my Canon
A80 has. Here's a link to a picture of a camlock that I took for
a buddy of mine:
http://www.webpak.net/~mprather/Airplanes/Share/040314%20023_crop.JPG
Make sure you get the whole link...
I took this with the camlock sitting in the sun on the concrete
hangar floor.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Bob,
>
> What do you use for camera/lense and any special settings for the photos
> you provide. We (at least me) would appreciate some clues on how to get
> digitals with the same sharpness and fine detail.
>
> Thanks
> Chuck
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Girard <fly.ez(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Digital Photos |
Having just splurged an a digital camera in the after Christmas frenzy,
let me share a few things I learned.
1. For web postings and most photo usage, 3 Mpixels will do quite nicely.
2. Make sure the camera has a USB cord. Windows XP's camera wizard will
let you download directly to your computer without special software.
3. Check the type of memory card the camera uses. At the time I
purchased, Sd chips were the cheapest. I was able to get 4 times the
memory for less than half the price of Xd memory. The more memory, the
more pictures you can take. With 512 Mbytes, I can take 250 pictures at
the highest density setting.
4. Some cameras have plastic lenses, some have glass. My personal
preference is for glass.
5. While I like rechargeable batteries, I bought one that uses alkalines
and has the option of several rechargeables. Nothing will upset me as
much as getting the low battery signal while in the field and having no
way to recharge.
6. Whatever camera you buy, download a copy of Irfanview. It's free and
is an amazingly easy to use photo editor. It has more features than
either of the software that came with my cameras (I have a video cam
that takes low resolution digital stills, which is how I learned about
what I wanted in a still digital camera)
7. If you decide to buy off the web, get a guarantee that they have the
camera in stock. Some dealers are stocking dealers, some are drop
shippers who wait to get enough orders to submit. My friend got screwed
around for over a month while they had his money. I found when all
things were taken into account, one of the big electronics stores was
only a few dollars more than the web stores and they could put it in my
hand as they took my money.
Good Luck,
Rick Girard
LongEZ builder and very happy Nikon Coolpix owner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
> With the battery off line, I have repeatedly been able to destroy 5KP18
>devices with load dumps from 40 amp alternators on 14 volt systems.
>
> Regards, George
George....George....George....Something else is going on in your test setup
to blow the 5KP18's. A schematic and enough information to duplicate your
results would be appreciated.
Paul Messinger and I have been working on this for some time and I agree
with him that blowing up the 5KP18 seems impossible. There is one way it
might have happened--Zeners and Mosorbs and Transorbs have a very
(picosecond) short trip time. It would seem to be good practice to try by
component placement and very short lead lengths to keep the trip time very
short by minimizing lead inductance (thus length). Engineers familiar with
high frequencies would do this by second nature.
A small note in the 1N6267A-series On-Semi datasheet page 5, gives one
pause: "Some input impedance...is essential to prevent overstress of the
protection device. This impedance should be as high as possible, without
restricting the circuit operation."
Oops....! It is true that the initial discharge of capacitors, inductors,
batteries, static accumulations, etc. would be infinite were it not for lead
inductance (and a little internal resistance and stray capacitance...etc.).
So On Semiconductor says use the highest impedance that will still do the
job.
Paul and I and others have discussed the proper value for the Load Dump
Suppressor trip voltage. I was holding out for 22 volts but Paul convinced
me that it made no sense to go any higher than was absolutely necessary to
allow the other OVP devices to function. Since this OVP voltage seems to
be-- by consensus--16.2V, then 18V was entirely adequate. Why not...?
Nothing good happens by letting the voltage get higher.
I am now selling the WhackJack Load Dump Suppressor (18V) on my website that
will do the job. It uses three Mosorbs, since the oscilloscope shows a very
nice flattening of the Load Dump curve overshoot when using parallel
devices. The redundancy is nice too.
See: http://www.periheliondesign.com/whackjack18.htm
Paul has been a bit under the weather lately but I anxiously await the
finished Load Dump report.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New
York
and his head meows in Los Angeles. And radio operates exactly the same way--
you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that
there is no cat."
--Albert Einstein
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
Eric:
I am impressed, as an electrical theory student still in 101 what you wrote
looks like a master's class and very interesting.
I know you have an interest in selling your WhackJacks (love the name) but
is there an operational technique that will also mitigate load dump; i.e.
with engine idling turn off all electronic loads, deactivate alternator
field, shut down engine.
Regards
Dick Sipp
RV4/RV10
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
>
>
>> With the battery off line, I have repeatedly been able to destroy 5KP18
>>devices with load dumps from 40 amp alternators on 14 volt systems.
>>
>> Regards, George
>
> George....George....George....Something else is going on in your test
> setup
> to blow the 5KP18's. A schematic and enough information to duplicate your
> results would be appreciated.
>
> Paul Messinger and I have been working on this for some time and I agree
> with him that blowing up the 5KP18 seems impossible. There is one way it
> might have happened--Zeners and Mosorbs and Transorbs have a very
> (picosecond) short trip time. It would seem to be good practice to try by
> component placement and very short lead lengths to keep the trip time very
> short by minimizing lead inductance (thus length). Engineers familiar with
> high frequencies would do this by second nature.
>
> A small note in the 1N6267A-series On-Semi datasheet page 5, gives one
> pause: "Some input impedance...is essential to prevent overstress of the
> protection device. This impedance should be as high as possible, without
> restricting the circuit operation."
>
> Oops....! It is true that the initial discharge of capacitors, inductors,
> batteries, static accumulations, etc. would be infinite were it not for
> lead
> inductance (and a little internal resistance and stray
> capacitance...etc.).
> So On Semiconductor says use the highest impedance that will still do the
> job.
>
> Paul and I and others have discussed the proper value for the Load Dump
> Suppressor trip voltage. I was holding out for 22 volts but Paul convinced
> me that it made no sense to go any higher than was absolutely necessary to
> allow the other OVP devices to function. Since this OVP voltage seems to
> be-- by consensus--16.2V, then 18V was entirely adequate. Why not...?
> Nothing good happens by letting the voltage get higher.
>
> I am now selling the WhackJack Load Dump Suppressor (18V) on my website
> that
> will do the job. It uses three Mosorbs, since the oscilloscope shows a
> very
> nice flattening of the Load Dump curve overshoot when using parallel
> devices. The redundancy is nice too.
>
> See: http://www.periheliondesign.com/whackjack18.htm
>
> Paul has been a bit under the weather lately but I anxiously await the
> finished Load Dump report.
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> Phone (508) 764-2072
> Email: emjones(at)charter.net
>
> "telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New
> York
> and his head meows in Los Angeles. And radio operates exactly the same
> way--
> you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is
> that
> there is no cat."
> --Albert Einstein
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
I talked with Paul at some length today.
You are right, he is a sick puppy, right now.
Hope he gets better.
Eric, I'm not saying your device does not work. I don't know that. I assume
it works, just because you say it does and you do good work.
OTOH, I have blown a couple of dozen 1.5, and even 5K TVS devices of a variety
of different trip voltages.
They did not protect other components in the same system.
40amp alternator at 4000 rpm, into landing lights for a load.
Switch the landing lights off ... and ZAP... smoke comes out.
I tried several of them in various combinations in parallel --- more smoke.
That was my experience. After playing around trying to figure it out over a period
of a couple of months, I confessed defeat, and backed up and re-thought
the whole issue, and took a different approach that is relatively inexpensive,
straightforward, and works. Consistently.
Further, it is thermally protected so that it does not fail from overload.
It works so well that I made a flight a few weeks ago - - 2.5 hours, night, IMC
flight with nothing pumping electrons but the 40 AMP alternator - - the battery
and aircraft primary alternator were disabled. At the end of the flight,
I load dumped every thing in a real airplane with a real panel of expensive electronics.
Everything came back to life.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M. Jones
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
> With the battery off line, I have repeatedly been able to destroy 5KP18
>devices with load dumps from 40 amp alternators on 14 volt systems.
>
> Regards, George
George....George....George....Something else is going on in your test setup
to blow the 5KP18's. A schematic and enough information to duplicate your
results would be appreciated.
Paul Messinger and I have been working on this for some time and I agree
with him that blowing up the 5KP18 seems impossible. There is one way it
might have happened--Zeners and Mosorbs and Transorbs have a very
(picosecond) short trip time. It would seem to be good practice to try by
component placement and very short lead lengths to keep the trip time very
short by minimizing lead inductance (thus length). Engineers familiar with
high frequencies would do this by second nature.
A small note in the 1N6267A-series On-Semi datasheet page 5, gives one
pause: "Some input impedance...is essential to prevent overstress of the
protection device. This impedance should be as high as possible, without
restricting the circuit operation."
Oops....! It is true that the initial discharge of capacitors, inductors,
batteries, static accumulations, etc. would be infinite were it not for lead
inductance (and a little internal resistance and stray capacitance...etc.).
So On Semiconductor says use the highest impedance that will still do the
job.
Paul and I and others have discussed the proper value for the Load Dump
Suppressor trip voltage. I was holding out for 22 volts but Paul convinced
me that it made no sense to go any higher than was absolutely necessary to
allow the other OVP devices to function. Since this OVP voltage seems to
be-- by consensus--16.2V, then 18V was entirely adequate. Why not...?
Nothing good happens by letting the voltage get higher.
I am now selling the WhackJack Load Dump Suppressor (18V) on my website that
will do the job. It uses three Mosorbs, since the oscilloscope shows a very
nice flattening of the Load Dump curve overshoot when using parallel
devices. The redundancy is nice too.
See: http://www.periheliondesign.com/whackjack18.htm
Paul has been a bit under the weather lately but I anxiously await the
finished Load Dump report.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New
York
and his head meows in Los Angeles. And radio operates exactly the same way--
you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that
there is no cat."
--Albert Einstein
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg.Puckett(at)united.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on painting panel? |
Ron,
I can't remember now who gave me this idea but I love the way it came
out.
http://204.31.68.69/DCP=5F252.JPG
It's black Krylon Wrinkle paint in a rattle can from Checker. I then
sprayed textured grey (or whatever color you want) over top.
It took many days to fully dry with the grey over the wrinkle finish but
when it finally did dry, the finish is extremely durable and absolutely
glare free.
I liked it on the panel so much I used only the black wrinkle paint on
the glare shield and it produced a very nice looking non reflecting
surface.
It takes a little practice and experimenting with temperature/coat
thickness/ and time between coats to get what you want. I found it a
little tough to do small items with this stuff but large areas were easy
to do.
Greg Puckett
Elizabeth, CO
In near future need to paint panel on Europa XS.
It has a fiberglass Instrument Module that will have 3 aluminium
inserts.
The fiberglass has an eyebrow for glare.
What suggestions on painting=3F Should the bottom of brow be very dark=3F I
imagine the top of the fiberglass does not want to be too dark so it
does
not heat up too much=3F
I imagine I want flat on instrument module and brow, what is preference
out
there for face of panel, light / dark flat or gloss=3F
What ideas for on type of paint to use.
Thx.
Sincerely
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com> |
I'm starting to wire my RV-10... Are there any rules of thumb regarding which
components can use airframe ground versus needing a hard return ground wire?
I'm especially interested in landing / position lights, autopilot servo and
heated pitot as that's where I am today.
Cheers,
Jay Brinkmeyer
Colorado Springs, CO
=====
__________________________________
http://my.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack Lockamy <jacklockamy(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | KX-125 Problem Solved |
Just wanted to report back on a recent post I made to the List... too many times
I never see any "fixes" getting reported back to the group.
The RV-7A I'm currently flying for my buddy (23.2 hours and counting...) has a
KX-125 installed. Comm works great, NAV always showed 'FLAGGED'.
A couple listers recommended we check to make sure there was a jumper between Pins
H and J. Sure enough.... no jumper! The builder/owner had indeed overlooked
the jumper when he wired/installed the harness.
Jumper was installed. NAV works as good as the comm now. BTW.... the NAV antenna
is a Bob Archer NAV antenna mounted in the RT wingtip. This thing was picking
up VORs located on the other side of hills were flying AWAY from!!! Amazing....
Thanks again.
Jack Lockamy
Camarillo, CA
Test Pilot N174TY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <n701rr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Protection Diodes |
I checked the archives but keep getting the same hits.
Can someone bring me up to speed on the protection diodes being used on the (battery)
master relay? I bought a couple from Aircraft Spruce but they came diodeless.
Do I need to upgrade??
Thanks in advance,
rick
Rick
Orlando, FL
http://www.geocities.com/n701rr/index.html
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: KX-125 Problem Solved |
Jack,
Could you give a source for the NAV antenna, web address please.
Thanks.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Lockamy" <jacklockamy(at)verizon.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: KX-125 Problem Solved
>
>
> Just wanted to report back on a recent post I made to the List... too many
> times I never see any "fixes" getting reported back to the group.
>
> The RV-7A I'm currently flying for my buddy (23.2 hours and counting...)
> has a KX-125 installed. Comm works great, NAV always showed 'FLAGGED'.
>
> A couple listers recommended we check to make sure there was a jumper
> between Pins H and J. Sure enough.... no jumper! The builder/owner had
> indeed overlooked the jumper when he wired/installed the harness.
>
> Jumper was installed. NAV works as good as the comm now. BTW.... the NAV
> antenna is a Bob Archer NAV antenna mounted in the RT wingtip. This thing
> was picking up VORs located on the other side of hills were flying AWAY
> from!!! Amazing....
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Jack Lockamy
> Camarillo, CA
> Test Pilot N174TY
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
A public thank you for our telecom. (I had requested a private discussion on
this)
For the rest of the group; We concluded that we were both right. George has
a slightly different application than what is under discussion on this list
with the standard electrical system circuit. However the failures Gorge had
were real, repeatable, and currently with no definable cause.
On the other hand I have tested hundreds of times with lower power
protection devices and had no failures.
We both are puzzled at what is different that could cause them to fail for
George and not for Paul. The application is essentially identical with
regard to the use of a transorb to clamp load dumps.
The issue is open but neither of us has any ideas at present.
George went on to a different approach that is a little more complex (than a
single transorb) that, In my opinion, is far superior to anything I have
seen to date for load dump protection etc.
Georges solution is a drop in replacement to the failed transorbs that
worked with no failures. This shows that something was killing the transorbs
and his design under the identical conditions did not fail. While we do not
know what was killing the transorbs we have a more robust design solution.
I have encouraged George to consider marketing this module (currently a part
of a larger product)
Thanks again George.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
> I talked with Paul at some length today.
>
> You are right, he is a sick puppy, right now.
>
> Hope he gets better.
>
> Eric, I'm not saying your device does not work. I don't know that. I
assume it works, just because you say it does and you do good work.
>
> OTOH, I have blown a couple of dozen 1.5, and even 5K TVS devices of a
variety of different trip voltages.
>
> They did not protect other components in the same system.
>
> 40amp alternator at 4000 rpm, into landing lights for a load.
>
> Switch the landing lights off ... and ZAP... smoke comes out.
>
> I tried several of them in various combinations in parallel --- more
smoke.
>
> That was my experience. After playing around trying to figure it out
over a period of a couple of months, I confessed defeat, and backed up and
re-thought the whole issue, and took a different approach that is
relatively inexpensive, straightforward, and works. Consistently.
>
> Further, it is thermally protected so that it does not fail from overload.
>
> It works so well that I made a flight a few weeks ago - - 2.5 hours,
night, IMC flight with nothing pumping electrons but the 40 AMP
alternator - - the battery and aircraft primary alternator were disabled.
At the end of the flight, I load dumped every thing in a real airplane with
a real panel of expensive electronics. Everything came back to life.
>
> Regards, George
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M.
Jones
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
>
>
> > With the battery off line, I have repeatedly been able to destroy 5KP18
> >devices with load dumps from 40 amp alternators on 14 volt systems.
> >
> > Regards, George
>
> George....George....George....Something else is going on in your test
setup
> to blow the 5KP18's. A schematic and enough information to duplicate your
> results would be appreciated.
>
> Paul Messinger and I have been working on this for some time and I agree
> with him that blowing up the 5KP18 seems impossible. There is one way it
> might have happened--Zeners and Mosorbs and Transorbs have a very
> (picosecond) short trip time. It would seem to be good practice to try by
> component placement and very short lead lengths to keep the trip time very
> short by minimizing lead inductance (thus length). Engineers familiar with
> high frequencies would do this by second nature.
>
> A small note in the 1N6267A-series On-Semi datasheet page 5, gives one
> pause: "Some input impedance...is essential to prevent overstress of the
> protection device. This impedance should be as high as possible, without
> restricting the circuit operation."
>
> Oops....! It is true that the initial discharge of capacitors, inductors,
> batteries, static accumulations, etc. would be infinite were it not for
lead
> inductance (and a little internal resistance and stray
capacitance...etc.).
> So On Semiconductor says use the highest impedance that will still do the
> job.
>
> Paul and I and others have discussed the proper value for the Load Dump
> Suppressor trip voltage. I was holding out for 22 volts but Paul convinced
> me that it made no sense to go any higher than was absolutely necessary to
> allow the other OVP devices to function. Since this OVP voltage seems to
> be-- by consensus--16.2V, then 18V was entirely adequate. Why not...?
> Nothing good happens by letting the voltage get higher.
>
> I am now selling the WhackJack Load Dump Suppressor (18V) on my website
that
> will do the job. It uses three Mosorbs, since the oscilloscope shows a
very
> nice flattening of the Load Dump curve overshoot when using parallel
> devices. The redundancy is nice too.
>
> See: http://www.periheliondesign.com/whackjack18.htm
>
> Paul has been a bit under the weather lately but I anxiously await the
> finished Load Dump report.
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> Phone (508) 764-2072
> Email: emjones(at)charter.net
>
> "telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New
> York
> and his head meows in Los Angeles. And radio operates exactly the same
way--
> you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is
that
> there is no cat."
> --Albert Einstein
>
>
> ---
>
>
> ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
Couple of comments.
First any load removal when the alternator is producing power is a load
dump. Turn off your navcom and you get a load dump. Landings lights bigger
load dump etc.
The secret that keeps these load dumps from causing a problem is the battery
or something on the buss that is capable of absorbing the load dump without
an excessive voltage increase. Small (1-5 amp) load dumps can be mitigated
with A 10-30k mfd battery.
Yes your approach will work but there is no need to turn off the alternator
before shutdown.
The real concern is not the field but the current in the "B" lead.
Looking at Bobs designs you can see there is a contactor in the "B" lead of
internally regulated alternators in case the alternator fails in the max
output mode,
An OVP that opens this contactor can produce a large load dump that can
stress the alternator electronics including apparently the internal regular
of vans alternators.
Another just as big a problem is disconnection of the battery when the
alternator is charging it. Here the system buss will overvoltage and the OVP
will trip with the same end result.
I have gone into this and lots more in my report but the simple conclusion
is as a minimum a load dump clamp across the "B" lead of internally
regulated alternators.
BTW externally regulated alternators have the same load dump, the difference
is the regulator is isolated so the regulator is not the issue but the
internal diodes in the power side of the alternator can be damaged if the
"B" lead is disconnected under load.
What happens is the output current wants to keep going and the output
voltage increases (to hundreds of volts if necessary) until the higher
voltage finds a load.
So if you have an external regulated alternator and disconnect the battery
when its being charges the rest of the system must absorb the current that
was being delivered to the battery.
If the system load is only a few amps and the battery is being charged at
say 20 amps the 20 amp load dump is diverted to the system and the buss
voltage increases until something absorbs the excess current. Again the OVP
circuit can shutdown the alternator regulator (see Bob's circuits but the
over voltage can exceed the duration of the crowbar action and leave a
smaller but still a problem remaining.
There are several different issues here and so far on this list I have only
addressed load dump protection for the internally regulated alternator,
specifically when the "B" lead is disconnected when the engine is running.
As Eric was and is my partner in the electrical system analysis which
includes load dump, the part Eric is selling is a convenient mechanical
package of a well tested design that evolved during our testing.
Paul
PS sorry but mind is drugged up some so thoughts are not as well spelled out
as I would like.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
> Eric:
>
> I am impressed, as an electrical theory student still in 101 what you
wrote
> looks like a master's class and very interesting.
>
> I know you have an interest in selling your WhackJacks (love the name) but
> is there an operational technique that will also mitigate load dump; i.e.
> with engine idling turn off all electronic loads, deactivate alternator
> field, shut down engine.
>
> Regards
> Dick Sipp
> RV4/RV10
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> With the battery off line, I have repeatedly been able to destroy
5KP18
> >>devices with load dumps from 40 amp alternators on 14 volt systems.
> >>
> >> Regards, George
> >
> > George....George....George....Something else is going on in your test
> > setup
> > to blow the 5KP18's. A schematic and enough information to duplicate
your
> > results would be appreciated.
> >
> > Paul Messinger and I have been working on this for some time and I agree
> > with him that blowing up the 5KP18 seems impossible. There is one way it
> > might have happened--Zeners and Mosorbs and Transorbs have a very
> > (picosecond) short trip time. It would seem to be good practice to try
by
> > component placement and very short lead lengths to keep the trip time
very
> > short by minimizing lead inductance (thus length). Engineers familiar
with
> > high frequencies would do this by second nature.
> >
> > A small note in the 1N6267A-series On-Semi datasheet page 5, gives one
> > pause: "Some input impedance...is essential to prevent overstress of the
> > protection device. This impedance should be as high as possible, without
> > restricting the circuit operation."
> >
> > Oops....! It is true that the initial discharge of capacitors,
inductors,
> > batteries, static accumulations, etc. would be infinite were it not for
> > lead
> > inductance (and a little internal resistance and stray
> > capacitance...etc.).
> > So On Semiconductor says use the highest impedance that will still do
the
> > job.
> >
> > Paul and I and others have discussed the proper value for the Load Dump
> > Suppressor trip voltage. I was holding out for 22 volts but Paul
convinced
> > me that it made no sense to go any higher than was absolutely necessary
to
> > allow the other OVP devices to function. Since this OVP voltage seems to
> > be-- by consensus--16.2V, then 18V was entirely adequate. Why not...?
> > Nothing good happens by letting the voltage get higher.
> >
> > I am now selling the WhackJack Load Dump Suppressor (18V) on my website
> > that
> > will do the job. It uses three Mosorbs, since the oscilloscope shows a
> > very
> > nice flattening of the Load Dump curve overshoot when using parallel
> > devices. The redundancy is nice too.
> >
> > See: http://www.periheliondesign.com/whackjack18.htm
> >
> > Paul has been a bit under the weather lately but I anxiously await the
> > finished Load Dump report.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Eric M. Jones
> > www.PerihelionDesign.com
> > 113 Brentwood Drive
> > Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> > Phone (508) 764-2072
> > Email: emjones(at)charter.net
> >
> > "telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New
> > York
> > and his head meows in Los Angeles. And radio operates exactly the same
> > way--
> > you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is
> > that
> > there is no cat."
> > --Albert Einstein
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: KX-125 Problem Solved |
bobsantennas(at)earthlink.net is Bob Archer's e-mail!
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor-in-Chief & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
Actively supporting Bellancas every day
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KX-125 Problem Solved
>
> Jack,
> Could you give a source for the NAV antenna, web address please.
> Thanks.
> Wayne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Lockamy" <jacklockamy(at)verizon.net>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: KX-125 Problem Solved
>
>
> >
> >
> > Just wanted to report back on a recent post I made to the List... too
many
> > times I never see any "fixes" getting reported back to the group.
> >
> > The RV-7A I'm currently flying for my buddy (23.2 hours and counting...)
> > has a KX-125 installed. Comm works great, NAV always showed 'FLAGGED'.
> >
> > A couple listers recommended we check to make sure there was a jumper
> > between Pins H and J. Sure enough.... no jumper! The builder/owner had
> > indeed overlooked the jumper when he wired/installed the harness.
> >
> > Jumper was installed. NAV works as good as the comm now. BTW.... the
NAV
> > antenna is a Bob Archer NAV antenna mounted in the RT wingtip. This
thing
> > was picking up VORs located on the other side of hills were flying AWAY
> > from!!! Amazing....
> >
> > Thanks again.
> >
> > Jack Lockamy
> > Camarillo, CA
> > Test Pilot N174TY
> >
> >
> >
>
> Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Protection Diodes |
>
>I checked the archives but keep getting the same hits.
>Can someone bring me up to speed on the protection diodes being used on
>the (battery) master relay? I bought a couple from Aircraft Spruce but
>they came diodeless. Do I need to upgrade??
>
>Thanks in advance,
>rick
Yup, get some diodes from Radio Shack (2 for $1) and
do the "upgrade" . . .
See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s701-1l.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: KX-125 Problem Solved |
Jack, thank you for this feedback!
Bob . . .
>
>
>Just wanted to report back on a recent post I made to the List... too many
>times I never see any "fixes" getting reported back to the group.
>
>The RV-7A I'm currently flying for my buddy (23.2 hours and counting...)
>has a KX-125 installed. Comm works great, NAV always showed 'FLAGGED'.
>
>A couple listers recommended we check to make sure there was a jumper
>between Pins H and J. Sure enough.... no jumper! The builder/owner had
>indeed overlooked the jumper when he wired/installed the harness.
>
>Jumper was installed. NAV works as good as the comm now. BTW.... the NAV
>antenna is a Bob Archer NAV antenna mounted in the RT wingtip. This thing
>was picking up VORs located on the other side of hills were flying AWAY
>from!!! Amazing....
>
>Thanks again.
>
>Jack Lockamy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ground returns? |
>
>
>I'm starting to wire my RV-10... Are there any rules of thumb regarding which
>components can use airframe ground versus needing a hard return ground wire?
>I'm especially interested in landing / position lights, autopilot servo and
>heated pitot as that's where I am today.
Yes. Remote items in airplane which are neither strong antagonists
nor vulnerable victims can be grounded locally. This includes
lighting and pitot heaters. I'd run all other accessories to
the ground block on the firewall.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
On Jan 6, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Paul Messinger wrote:
> We both are puzzled at what is different that could cause them to fail
> for
> George and not for Paul. The application is essentially identical with
> regard to the use of a transorb to clamp load dumps.
I can see a scenario that would cause what George has been seeing. Load
dump occurs because it takes a finite amount of time for the B-field in
the armature to collapse when one reduces the field current (no longer
asking the alternator to produce as much current). I can see George's
problem occurring if the regulator is slew-rate limited in reducing the
field current. In that case he is not seeing an actual a load-dump
incident but rather a delay in the regulator reducing the output of the
alternator which would make the available energy a LOT higher. Any
chance George's regulator had a big cap across the field output to
reduce switching noise from the field circuit?
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: | Wichita Ice Storm |
We've been pre-occupied with the consequences of Tuesday's
ice storm. Two of our family's households are without power.
Our house stayed lit up but event today, my uninterruptible
beeps from time to time . . . pieces of ice falling from trees
and lines are causing short interruptions in power.
The last of the old Bradford Pears in our neighborhood was
at the west end of our house and relatively protected from
the winds. I was working in my office when the first limb
fell . . . really noisy! After a few hours, the only limbs
left on the tree are those which extended over the house!
I've posted a few pictures at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Ice/
I'm trying to get spooled back up on tasks at Raytheon
so my participation over the next few days will be limited.
We're supposed to get some warm weather Saturday and Sunday
that will allow me to start on the wreckage. Should get
enough fireplace wood for the next five years out of that
old tree!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | f1rocket(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition and Engine Monitors |
Thought I'd share a "gotcha" that I found out about today. If you're using a GRT
EIS system and a Lightspeed Engineering electronic ignition, you CANNOT use
the Lightspeed to drive the RPM input to the EIS without modification of the
EIS unit. Sandy at EIS said she could walk me through the modification, or I
could send the unit in for them to fix. Neither looked appealing to me so I'm
just driving the RPM input from the magneto instead.
If you are going to order an EIS unit, you might want to let them know if you are
using a LSE ignition system so they can ship the unit to you correctly the
first time.
As an aside, I'm a little disappointed that there isn't any way to drive the RPM
input with both signals. Now, I won't be able to measure the RPM drop when
the EI is shut off during run up. It's not a big deal, but it would be nice if
the EIS unit handled this.
I looked at using the other side of the DPDT mag switches to drive the RPM input,
but the progressive transfer switch used (I think it's a 2-5) doesn't really
work in this case.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
Thought I'd share a "gotcha" that I found out about today. If you're using a GRT
EIS system and a Lightspeed Engineering electronic ignition, you CANNOT use
the Lightspeed to drive the RPM input to the EIS without modification of the EIS
unit. Sandy at EIS said she could walk me through the modification, or I could
send the unit in for them to fix. Neither looked appealing to me so I'm just
driving the RPM input from the magneto instead.
If you are going to order an EIS unit, you might want to let them know if you are
using a LSE ignition system so they can ship the unit to you correctly the
first time.
As an aside, I'm a little disappointed that there isn't any way to drive the RPM
input with both signals. Now, I won't be able to measure the RPM drop when the
EI is shut offduring run up. It's not a big deal, but it would be nice if the
EIS unit handled this.
I looked at using the other sideof the DPDT mag switches to drive the RPM input,
but the progressive transfer switch used (I think it's a 2-5) doesn't really
work in this case.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition and Engine Monitors |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
Randy I had the same issue on my ACS 2002 unit and since the pick up off
the mag is from the sensor and NOT the p-lead, then you will get the rpm
drop checking either unit with the ACS unit.
But I am with you, I was very disappointed to find this out.
Does yours get rpm from P-lead?
Mike
S8
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
f1rocket(at)comcast.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition and Engine Monitors
Thought I'd share a "gotcha" that I found out about today. If you're
using a GRT EIS system and a Lightspeed Engineering electronic ignition,
you CANNOT use the Lightspeed to drive the RPM input to the EIS without
modification of the EIS unit. Sandy at EIS said she could walk me
through the modification, or I could send the unit in for them to fix.
Neither looked appealing to me so I'm just driving the RPM input from
the magneto instead.
If you are going to order an EIS unit, you might want to let them know
if you are using a LSE ignition system so they can ship the unit to you
correctly the first time.
As an aside, I'm a little disappointed that there isn't any way to drive
the RPM input with both signals. Now, I won't be able to measure the
RPM drop when the EI is shut off during run up. It's not a big deal,
but it would be nice if the EIS unit handled this.
I looked at using the other side of the DPDT mag switches to drive the
RPM input, but the progressive transfer switch used (I think it's a 2-5)
doesn't really work in this case.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
Thought I'd share a "gotcha" that I found out about today. If you're
using a GRT EIS system and a Lightspeed Engineering electronic ignition,
you CANNOT use the Lightspeed to drive the RPM input to the EIS without
modification of the EIS unit. Sandy at EIS said she could walk me
through the modification, or I could send the unit in for them to fix.
Neither looked appealing to me so I'm just driving the RPM input from
the magneto instead.
If you are going to order an EIS unit, you might want to let them know
if you are using a LSE ignition system so they can ship the unit to you
correctly the first time.
As an aside, I'm a little disappointed that there isn't any way to drive
the RPM input with both signals. Now, I won't be able to measure the RPM
drop when the EI is shut offduring run up. It's not a big deal, but it
would be nice if the EIS unit handled this.
I looked at using the other sideof the DPDT mag switches to drive the
RPM input, but the progressive transfer switch used (I think it's a 2-5)
doesn't really work in this case.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McFarland, Randy" <Randy.McFarland(at)novellus.com> |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition and Engine Monitors |
I just had Sandy walk me thru the modification to the EIS and it was simple
and took 5 minutes. Believe it or not, she had me remove two ceramic
components from the board, and that was it. Haven't fired up the engine yet,
so don't know if I did it works yet, but soon (I hope!!)
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: f1rocket(at)comcast.net [mailto:f1rocket(at)comcast.net]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition and Engine Monitors
Thought I'd share a "gotcha" that I found out about today. If you're using
a GRT EIS system and a Lightspeed Engineering electronic ignition, you
CANNOT use the Lightspeed to drive the RPM input to the EIS without
modification of the EIS unit. Sandy at EIS said she could walk me through
the modification, or I could send the unit in for them to fix. Neither
looked appealing to me so I'm just driving the RPM input from the magneto
instead.
If you are going to order an EIS unit, you might want to let them know if
you are using a LSE ignition system so they can ship the unit to you
correctly the first time.
As an aside, I'm a little disappointed that there isn't any way to drive the
RPM input with both signals. Now, I won't be able to measure the RPM drop
when the EI is shut off during run up. It's not a big deal, but it would be
nice if the EIS unit handled this.
I looked at using the other side of the DPDT mag switches to drive the RPM
input, but the progressive transfer switch used (I think it's a 2-5) doesn't
really work in this case.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
Thought I'd share a "gotcha" that I found out about today. If you're using a
GRT EIS system and a Lightspeed Engineering electronic ignition, you CANNOT
use the Lightspeed to drive the RPM input to the EIS without modification of
the EIS unit. Sandy at EIS said she could walk me through the modification,
or I could send the unit in for them to fix. Neither looked appealing to me
so I'm just driving the RPM input from the magneto instead.
If you are going to order an EIS unit, you might want to let them know if
you are using a LSE ignition system so they can ship the unit to you
correctly the first time.
As an aside, I'm a little disappointed that there isn't any way to drive the
RPM input with both signals. Now, I won't be able to measure the RPM drop
when the EI is shut offduring run up. It's not a big deal, but it would be
nice if the EIS unit handled this.
I looked at using the other sideof the DPDT mag switches to drive the RPM
input, but the progressive transfer switch used (I think it's a 2-5) doesn't
really work in this case.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition and Engine Monitors |
When I ordered my VM-1000 I had to specify what ignition I was going to
use. I am sure this is important and if you dont mention it, well, you get
what you got. For the LightSpeed ignition I think I also had to install a
resistor somewhere dont remember exactly.
>
>
>I just had Sandy walk me thru the modification to the EIS and it was simple
>and took 5 minutes. Believe it or not, she had me remove two ceramic
>components from the board, and that was it. Haven't fired up the engine yet,
>so don't know if I did it works yet, but soon (I hope!!)
>Randy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: f1rocket(at)comcast.net [mailto:f1rocket(at)comcast.net]
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition and Engine Monitors
>
>
>Thought I'd share a "gotcha" that I found out about today. If you're using
>a GRT EIS system and a Lightspeed Engineering electronic ignition, you
>CANNOT use the Lightspeed to drive the RPM input to the EIS without
>modification of the EIS unit. Sandy at EIS said she could walk me through
>the modification, or I could send the unit in for them to fix. Neither
>looked appealing to me so I'm just driving the RPM input from the magneto
>instead.
>
>If you are going to order an EIS unit, you might want to let them know if
>you are using a LSE ignition system so they can ship the unit to you
>correctly the first time.
>
>As an aside, I'm a little disappointed that there isn't any way to drive the
>RPM input with both signals. Now, I won't be able to measure the RPM drop
>when the EI is shut off during run up. It's not a big deal, but it would be
>nice if the EIS unit handled this.
>
>I looked at using the other side of the DPDT mag switches to drive the RPM
>input, but the progressive transfer switch used (I think it's a 2-5) doesn't
>really work in this case.
>
>Randy
>F1 Rocket
>www.pflanzer-aviation.com
>
>Thought I'd share a "gotcha" that I found out about today. If you're using a
>GRT EIS system and a Lightspeed Engineering electronic ignition, you CANNOT
>use the Lightspeed to drive the RPM input to the EIS without modification of
>the EIS unit. Sandy at EIS said she could walk me through the modification,
>or I could send the unit in for them to fix. Neither looked appealing to me
>so I'm just driving the RPM input from the magneto instead.
>
>If you are going to order an EIS unit, you might want to let them know if
>you are using a LSE ignition system so they can ship the unit to you
>correctly the first time.
>
>As an aside, I'm a little disappointed that there isn't any way to drive the
>RPM input with both signals. Now, I won't be able to measure the RPM drop
>when the EI is shut offduring run up. It's not a big deal, but it would be
>nice if the EIS unit handled this.
>
>I looked at using the other sideof the DPDT mag switches to drive the RPM
>input, but the progressive transfer switch used (I think it's a 2-5) doesn't
>really work in this case.
>
>Randy
>F1 Rocket
>www.pflanzer-aviation.com
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition and Engine Monitors |
I'm not sure what sensor the EIS uses on the magneto. But, if the GRT unit
is using a hall-effect sensor that plugs into the "vent" hole of the magneto
as most monitors do, you will still get RPM reading with/with-out either the
mag or LSE ignition firing. The magneto still generates "juice" that is
picked up by the sensor as it rotates, even when that energy is grounded to
the magneto's case (off position).
I have this exact setup using my ACS2002 engine monitor. Works like a
charm.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
> As an aside, I'm a little disappointed that there isn't any way to drive
> the RPM input with both signals. Now, I won't be able to measure the RPM
> drop when the EI is shut off during run up. It's not a big deal, but it
> would be nice if the EIS unit handled this.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | f1rocket(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition and Engine Monitors |
Yep.
-------------- Original message --------------
>
>
> Randy I had the same issue on my ACS 2002 unit and since the pick up off
> the mag is from the sensor and NOT the p-lead, then you will get the rpm
> drop checking either unit with the ACS unit.
>
> But I am with you, I was very disappointed to find this out.
> Does yours get rpm from P-lead?
>
> Mike
> S8
Yep.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
Randy I had the same issue on my ACS 2002 unit and since the pick up off
the mag is from the sensor and NOT the p-lead, then you will get the rpm
drop checking either unit with the ACS unit.
But I am with you, I was very disappointed to find this out.
Does yours get rpm from P-lead?
Mike
S8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | f1rocket(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition and Engine Monitors |
Nope. The EIS unit wires directly to the P-lead of the magneto to sense the ignition
pulses. When the mag is grounded, there's no signal.
Since it looks like I'm not the first one to hit this problem, (I didn't think
I was), it sure would be nice if GRT would modify their stellar documentation
to inform us. In fact their wiring diagram for the tach input clearly states
that "Connect directly to the tach output from the ignition system. No resistor
required." Well, this doesn't apply to the Lightspeed.
-------------- Original message --------------
>
> I'm not sure what sensor the EIS uses on the magneto. But, if the GRT unit
> is using a hall-effect sensor that plugs into the "vent" hole of the magneto
> as most monitors do, you will still get RPM reading with/with-out either the
> mag or LSE ignition firing. The magneto still generates "juice" that is
> picked up by the sensor as it rotates, even when that energy is grounded to
> the magneto's case (off position).
>
> I have this exact setup using my ACS2002 engine monitor. Works like a
> charm.
>
> James Redmon
> Berkut #013 N97TX
> http://www.berkut13.com
>
Nope. The EIS unit wires directly to the P-lead of the magneto to sense the ignition
pulses. When the mag is grounded, there's no signal.
Since it looks like I'm not the first one to hit this problem, (I didn't think
I was), it sure would be nice if GRT would modify their stellar documentation
to inform us. In fact their wiring diagram for the tach input clearly states that
"Connect directly to the tach output from the ignition system. No resistor
required." Well, this doesn't apply to the Lightspeed.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon"
I'm not sure what sensor the EIS uses on the magneto. But, if the GRT unit
is using a hall-effect sensor that plugs into the "vent" hole of the magneto
as most monitors do, you will still get RPM reading with/with-out either the
mag or LSE ignition firing. The magneto still generates "juice" that is
picked up by the sensor as it rotates, even when that energy is grounded to
the magneto's case (off position).
I have this exact setup using my ACS2002 engine monitor. Works like a
charm.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ground returns? |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Bob -
We are doing a fiberglass airplane and grounding everything back to the G3
or G2 grounds. When a piece of avionics like a Garmin (UPS) SL-30 NAV/COM
has 2 grounds (one for comm and one for nav) is it OK to tie them together
at the stack and use one ground wire to the G3?
Thanks,
John
>> I'm starting to wire my RV-10... Are there any rules of thumb regarding
>> which components can use airframe ground versus needing a hard return
>> ground wire? I'm especially interested in landing / position lights,
>> autopilot servo and heated pitot as that's where I am today.
>
> Yes. Remote items in airplane which are neither strong antagonists
> nor vulnerable victims can be grounded locally. This includes
> lighting and pitot heaters. I'd run all other accessories to
> the ground block on the firewall.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Load Dump Mitigation |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> Paul Messinger and I have been working on this for some time....skip....
1/6/2005
Hello Eric, As a complete electrical novice I have watched this load dump
information exchange on the list with the same fascination that one has when
watching a poisonous snake show on public TV. I don't believe that there are
any King Cobras living in northern Virginia, but now I want to hedge my bets
with your help.
My engine ( TCM IO-240 B9B) has a 60 AMP gear driven alternator that is
externally regulated by a B&C LR3B-14 voltage regulator. My questions are:
1) Are any components in my electrical / electronic system at risk as I turn
major amperage items (landing lights, taxi lights, pitot heat, etc) off
during normal in flight engine operating conditions?
2) Are any components in my electrical / electronic system at risk if I
should accidentally turn my battery switch off during normal in flight
engine operating conditions? Single battery, single alternator wiring.
In case of the low voltage warning light coming on (abnormal flight
conditons) indicating insufficient alternator output, I would be turning the
battery switch off and operating on an essential bus.
3) If any components are at risk in items 1) and 2) above would a Whack Jack
mitigate / eliminate such risk?
4) Is a Whack Jack a one time use item? In other word, does it get consumed
in one use and need to be replaced after that one use, or does it continue
to provide protection for multiple events of load dump?
Many thanks for your help.
OC
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Load Dump Mitigation |
OC
> 1) Are any components in my electrical / electronic system at risk as I
turn
> major amperage items (landing lights, taxi lights, pitot heat, etc) off
> during normal in flight engine operating conditions?
Nobody really knows how many planes' electronics have been damaged by load
dump. Paul's point (and mine) is that this problem has been known about for
many years. The car companies have strict standards for it. The deleterious
effects are well understood. So let's fix it.
> 2) Are any components in my electrical / electronic system at risk if I
should accidentally turn my battery switch off during normal in flight
> engine operating conditions? Single battery, single alternator wiring.
Yes, that's why you never could turn off your car battery I suspect.
> In case of the low voltage warning light coming on (abnormal flight
conditions) indicating insufficient alternator output, I would be turning
the >battery switch off and operating on an essential bus.
If the alternator has failed you are better off disconnecting battery than
if the alternator is cranking happily.
> 3) If any components are at risk in items 1) and 2) above would a
WhackJack mitigate / eliminate such risk?
Yes, that's the idea.
> 4) Is a Whack Jack a one time use item? In other word, does it get
consumed in one use and need to be replaced after that one use, or does it
continue to provide protection for multiple events of load dump?
It should never require replacement. A check at annuals would be to measure
the trip voltage, I'll add that to my literature.
> Many thanks for your help.
>
> OC
>
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"Doctors are the same as lawyers; the only difference is that
lawyers merely rob you, whereas doctors rob you and kill
you too."
~ Anton Chekhov
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg.Puckett(at)united.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on painting panel? |
Sorry for the bad link,
For some strange reason when I post to the list from work, some special
character get replace with what must be their ASCII code. In this case
it is replacing the underscore with '5F'
the link should be:
http://204.31.68.69/DCP=5F252.jpg
the file name after the url should be dcp=5F252.jpg
if you see a 5F after dcp replace it with an underscore.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on painting panel? |
Try this link http://204.31.68.69/DCP_252.JPG
----- Original Message -----
From: <Greg.Puckett(at)united.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ideas on painting panel?
>
> Sorry for the bad link,
>
>
> For some strange reason when I post to the list from work, some special
> character get replace with what must be their ASCII code. In this case
> it is replacing the underscore with '5F'
>
> the link should be:
>
>
> http://204.31.68.69/DCP=5F252.jpg
>
>
> the file name after the url should be dcp=5F252.jpg
>
> if you see a 5F after dcp replace it with an underscore.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>
>
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DC motor reversing relay schematic |
| From: | "Tom Brusehaver" <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
I don't know if you have seen my lm18200 controller:
http://home.mn.rr.com/brusehaver/circuit.html
The software on the page isn't real good. I have updated
what is there and am using that. It works with the
landing brake linear actuator and the strong electric
trim (you need a 0.01uf cap near the motor).
Let me know if you like it, or want any help.
tom
wrote:
>
>
> James, if you can wait a few weeks I'm having an IC board with an
> LMD18200
> H-bridge motor controller made up. It's good for 3 amps continuous, 6
> amps
> peak. I'll be using it for a landing brake too.
>
>
> At 10:15 PM 1/2/05, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Can someone point me to a schematic for a DC motor circuit reversing
>> polarity using a SPDT switch and two relays. I'll also be using up/dn
>> limit
>> switches but I think I can figure out where they fit if not already in
>> the
>> diagram. ;-)
>>
>> This is for a high current linear actuator application.
>>
>> James Redmon
>> Berkut #013 N97TX
>> http://www.berkut13.com
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Streit <wooody04(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition and Engine Monitors |
f1rocket(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
>Thought I'd share a "gotcha" that I found out about today. If you're using a
GRT EIS system and a Lightspeed Engineering electronic ignition, you CANNOT use
the Lightspeed to drive the RPM input to the EIS without modification of the
EIS unit. Sandy at EIS said she could walk me through the modification, or I
could send the unit in for them to fix. Neither looked appealing to me so I'm
just driving the RPM input from the magneto instead.
>
>If you are going to order an EIS unit, you might want to let them know if you
are using a LSE ignition system so they can ship the unit to you correctly the
first time.
>
>
>I looked at using the other sideof the DPDT mag switches to drive the RPM input,
but the progressive transfer switch used (I think it's a 2-5) doesn't really
work in this case.
>
>Randy
>F1 Rocket
>www.pflanzer-aviation.com
>
>
>
>Randy and all, The EIS doen _not_ need to be modified if you are using the Lightspeed
lll, but it does need the modification for the lightspeed ll
>
>
Jim Streit
90073
finish
Lightspeed lll owner....
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
Worth asking about. The alternator regulator is George design not auto
based.
Still the transorb should take it.
The peak was not clipped resulting in other component damage and the
transorb simply burned up as really burned. These things should both clip
(it did not) and take much more than it was asked to do thus the question.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
>
> On Jan 6, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Paul Messinger wrote:
>
> > We both are puzzled at what is different that could cause them to fail
> > for
> > George and not for Paul. The application is essentially identical with
> > regard to the use of a transorb to clamp load dumps.
>
> I can see a scenario that would cause what George has been seeing. Load
> dump occurs because it takes a finite amount of time for the B-field in
> the armature to collapse when one reduces the field current (no longer
> asking the alternator to produce as much current). I can see George's
> problem occurring if the regulator is slew-rate limited in reducing the
> field current. In that case he is not seeing an actual a load-dump
> incident but rather a delay in the regulator reducing the output of the
> alternator which would make the available energy a LOT higher. Any
> chance George's regulator had a big cap across the field output to
> reduce switching noise from the field circuit?
>
> 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: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump Mitigation |
> 2) Are any components in my electrical / electronic system at risk if I
> should accidentally turn my battery switch off during normal in flight
> engine operating conditions? Single battery, single alternator wiring.
It matters not what type of alternator (and or regulator) you have you are
going to have buss voltage regulation issues with no battery.
You should not be able to turn off the battery (Physical interlock is best)
with the alternator still on. Erics clamp will keep things under 24V but are
you sure all your equipment is rated for 24V?? I have several that has an
upper limit of 20V.
> In case of the low voltage warning light coming on (abnormal flight
> conditons) indicating insufficient alternator output, I would be turning
the
> battery switch off and operating on an essential bus.
FIRST TURN OFF THE ALTERNATOR, NEVER NEVER disconnect the battery when the
alternator is on line unless your electrical system is specifically designed
to work in this mode and few are.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ground returns? |
>
>
>Bob -
>
>We are doing a fiberglass airplane and grounding everything back to the G3
>or G2 grounds. When a piece of avionics like a Garmin (UPS) SL-30 NAV/COM
>has 2 grounds (one for comm and one for nav) is it OK to tie them together
>at the stack and use one ground wire to the G3?
>
>Thanks,
I'd run separate wires to G3. That way loss of one wire doesn't
crap both radios.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
Brian,
Good question about the "slew rate" on the regulator.
The regulator was specifically designed to be certified hardware - - - AND built
into the alternator in place of the automotive regulators. As such, it is designed
so as to avoid the single point failure modes and the potential for "run-away"
that are normally inherent in the automotive built-in regulator designs.
Those are very good and very reliable units - - and because of the mass production
and QC efforts, they are nearly bullet proof, but they do have some
design features that are more appropriate for vehicles that can pull over to
the side of the road and stop.
In any event, on this regulator, the full ON to full OFF slew rate to kill the
field current is a fraction of the duration of a normal load dump event.
Further, the fully independent over voltage circuit operates at even faster rates
to kill the field current when it senses over voltage conditions.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump mitigation
On Jan 6, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Paul Messinger wrote:
> We both are puzzled at what is different that could cause them to fail
> for
> George and not for Paul. The application is essentially identical with
> regard to the use of a transorb to clamp load dumps.
I can see a scenario that would cause what George has been seeing. Load
dump occurs because it takes a finite amount of time for the B-field in
the armature to collapse when one reduces the field current (no longer
asking the alternator to produce as much current). I can see George's
problem occurring if the regulator is slew-rate limited in reducing the
field current. In that case he is not seeing an actual a load-dump
incident but rather a delay in the regulator reducing the output of the
alternator which would make the available energy a LOT higher. Any
chance George's regulator had a big cap across the field output to
reduce switching noise from the field circuit?
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: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator control switch |
Here's a question for the list: I'm working up my wiring architecture right now
and trying to keep parts count low and simple. As a result, I'm questioning
the need for an alternator control switch. In normal operation, don't I just
want the alternator to come alive when the main bus is powered (via the main
contactor) and the engine begins to turn? Is there any time I would want to turn
the alternator off with the engine running in normal operations? In a non-normal
situation, could I not just pull the alternator field circuit breaker
to take the alternator off line? (Keep in mind, the need to disable the alternator
appears to be a very low probability event, I know I've never needed to.)
I'm not a EE, so if this question is way out in left field, I apologize for
taking up time and bandwidth, but I just can't seem to see why I would need to
include this switch in the architecture.
Thanks for all your helpful experience, the list is an endless source of learning
thanks to all of you.
Dan Fritz
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator control switch |
On Jan 6, 2005, at 10:32 PM, D Fritz wrote:
> In normal operation, don't I just want the alternator to come alive
> when the main bus is powered (via the main contactor) and the engine
> begins to turn?
Yes.
> Is there any time I would want to turn the alternator off with the
> engine running in normal operations?
No.
> In a non-normal situation, could I not just pull the alternator field
> circuit breaker to take the alternator off line?
Yes.
This is how I wire things. The battery master switch is a double-pole
unit with one pole controlling the battery contactor and the other
controlling the alternator field. You can't turn off the battery with
the alternator left on. If you really need the alternator off, pull the
alternator field breaker.
> (Keep in mind, the need to disable the alternator appears to be a very
> low probability event, I know I've never needed to.) I'm not a EE, so
> if this question is way out in left field, I apologize for taking up
> time and bandwidth, but I just can't seem to see why I would need to
> include this switch in the architecture.
Your thinking seems very clear and proper to me but then, I agree with
you so you must be right. ;-)
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: | aeroelectric(at)cleanh2o.com |
| Subject: | COM static on 123.05 |
I've been scratching my head and searching the archives about this
problem. No static on 120.6 or 118.3. Static on 123.05 and 122.7.
My COM worked fine for > 125 hours and now this.
I've checked all the connections. I do have grounded ignition
switch wires. I don't have the problem on the ground, only at
cruise. I noticed that if I put the ignition switch in R or L
no static. I only have static on BOTH. So I replaced the switch
- no joy.
The static tone does change with RPM so I 'know' that it is
ignition noise.
Any thoughts on what to do? I don't want to fly on one magneto.
(It's a Jabiru 3300 with stock ignition.)
Cheers, Joe E
N633Z @ BFI
150 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst(at)taroom.qld.gov.au> |
| Subject: | COM static on 123.05 |
Joe E wrote:-
> I've been scratching my head and searching the archives about this
problem. No static on 120.6 or 118.3. Static on 123.05 and 122.7.
My COM worked fine for > 125 hours and now this. . . . . . .
Joe,
A friend of mine has a Jabiru with the 3300 engine and he has short
earth wires running from each carburettor to the engine.
I understand this is a Jabiru Co mod because it was found the throttle
and choke cables were acting like aerials.
No experience with this myself but it might be worth a try.
Regards
Kingsley Hurst
Europa Mono Classic 281 in Oz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Trampas" <tstern(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition and Engine Monitors |
The Pulsar 200 has dual p-lead inputs as well as an inductive pickup for the
tachometer inputs.
The Pulsar 40 uses a square wave input which is compatible with most
electronic ignition. Additionally we supply adapter circuits if you want to
use inductive or P-leads.
Regards,
Trampas Stern
www.sterntech.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stewart,
Michael (ISS Atlanta)
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition and Engine Monitors
Randy I had the same issue on my ACS 2002 unit and since the pick up off
the mag is from the sensor and NOT the p-lead, then you will get the rpm
drop checking either unit with the ACS unit.
But I am with you, I was very disappointed to find this out.
Does yours get rpm from P-lead?
Mike
S8
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
f1rocket(at)comcast.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition and Engine Monitors
Thought I'd share a "gotcha" that I found out about today. If you're
using a GRT EIS system and a Lightspeed Engineering electronic ignition,
you CANNOT use the Lightspeed to drive the RPM input to the EIS without
modification of the EIS unit. Sandy at EIS said she could walk me
through the modification, or I could send the unit in for them to fix.
Neither looked appealing to me so I'm just driving the RPM input from
the magneto instead.
If you are going to order an EIS unit, you might want to let them know
if you are using a LSE ignition system so they can ship the unit to you
correctly the first time.
As an aside, I'm a little disappointed that there isn't any way to drive
the RPM input with both signals. Now, I won't be able to measure the
RPM drop when the EI is shut off during run up. It's not a big deal,
but it would be nice if the EIS unit handled this.
I looked at using the other side of the DPDT mag switches to drive the
RPM input, but the progressive transfer switch used (I think it's a 2-5)
doesn't really work in this case.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
Thought I'd share a "gotcha" that I found out about today. If you're
using a GRT EIS system and a Lightspeed Engineering electronic ignition,
you CANNOT use the Lightspeed to drive the RPM input to the EIS without
modification of the EIS unit. Sandy at EIS said she could walk me
through the modification, or I could send the unit in for them to fix.
Neither looked appealing to me so I'm just driving the RPM input from
the magneto instead.
If you are going to order an EIS unit, you might want to let them know
if you are using a LSE ignition system so they can ship the unit to you
correctly the first time.
As an aside, I'm a little disappointed that there isn't any way to drive
the RPM input with both signals. Now, I won't be able to measure the RPM
drop when the EI is shut offduring run up. It's not a big deal, but it
would be nice if the EIS unit handled this.
I looked at using the other sideof the DPDT mag switches to drive the
RPM input, but the progressive transfer switch used (I think it's a 2-5)
doesn't really work in this case.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator control switch |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
It may be a little more complicated for an internal vr alternator. Yes
you need to switch off the power to the ov contactor after flight. If
using a double pole Batt/Alt switch for that, you would be at idle when
you turned it off during normal ops and it should not be a problem.
However if the DP switch is erroneously turned off in flight and the
batt contactor opens before or simultaneously with the ov contactor, it
seems to me that there will be a major load dump and I did not want that
risk with an electrically dependant EFI engine. So perhaps a separate
guarded ALT switch still makes sense in some cases.
Ken
(still looking for a source for the 5KP18, the mouser site says to
expect 14 weeks for a backorder)
snip
>This is how I wire things. The battery master switch is a double-pole
>unit with one pole controlling the battery contactor and the other
>controlling the alternator field. You can't turn off the battery with
>the alternator left on. If you really need the alternator off, pull the
>alternator field breaker.
>
>snip
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator control switch |
Lots of interesting posts on this general subject, which has to do with load
dumps. In an effort to keep things simple:
1. The simplest way to connect the alternator output seems to be via a
large fuse to the bus side of the master battery switch.
2. The alternator could be wired with no switch to the field supply except
a circuit breaker, which would be pulled if the need arose.
The "normal" split master switch shuts the battery and alternator field
supply off simultaneously. This would theoretically produce a load dump
event as the alternator won't instantly stop producing current and the
circuit to the battery is now open. Apparently this doesn't happen because
there is a longer delay in the master relay that what it takes to stop
alternator output?
Using a manual master contactor (large switch) takes away the simultaneous
nature of shutting off the battery and alternator field supply. In that
case I assume if the battery is disconnected there will be a load dump event
that will trigger the OV limit in the (B&C) regulator and shut off the
alternator. However, the load dump event will still be there and could be
of a fairly high voltage. The cure would be to remember to pull the
alternator field circuit breaker first. I hate having to "remember" things.
On the other hand, having to shut off the master with the engine running is
an extremely rare event - I've never had to do it in 35 years of flying. Or
one could connect the alternator output directly to the battery. I'm not
sure what's wrong with this as if there is a short in the alternator the
fuse will blow. If the alternator over-produces the normal OV system takes
care of it. Why NOT connect it directly to the battery? The only (very
unlikely) scenario that I can come up with that would make that a problem is
if the alternator developed a partial short - enough to prevent it from
delivering current, but not enough to blow the fuse. In that case it would
pull the battery down, making use of the endurance bus of very short
endurance.
Just trying to keep things simple,
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bnc 90 fittings in the tray |
Listers,
Did anyone else succeed in finding the part mentioned by OC below? I went
to Delta's site and used the PART FINDER search feature. No joy. Any
suggestions OC?
Charlie Kuss
snipped
>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: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Ideas on Painting Panel |
Thx. for all who responded.
I will get hold of some supplies to sample test in near future.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | How to light labels? |
Looking at Europa Panel, it sure would be nice to have labels for breakers and
switches
lighted.
Is there some sort of illuminated lets say EL or flat LED that can be engraved
or printed
on?
Perhaps some sort of stick on engraved mini label that can be lit with a surface
mount LED
or lit from behind?
Is there such a thing as a mini Black light or UV LED where you can make labels
with a
coating that will glow?
Other ideas?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wire Separations |
| From: | Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com |
09:27:16 AM
Bob,
I have several wire/cable runs that will need to run under the baggage and
seat floors in an RV-7. So far I have:
Flap Motor
Strobe cables to power supply
Strobe power supply power from main bus
Tail Nav Light power
Pitch Trim (RAC) cable bundle
Pitch Servo (TruTrak autopilot)
Transponder Antenna RG-400
What can I bundle together? The only constraint I know of is a possible
separation of the autopilot servo wires from the strobe cabling. I would
like to divide these into two bundles with XPNDR coax and Autopilot in one,
then the other in the second bundle.
Regards,
Jim
Jim Piavis
RV-7
Mountain View, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | KX-125 Problem Solved |
| From: | "Nightingale Michael" <NightingaleMichaelV(at)JohnDeere.com> |
A couple listers recommended we check to make sure there was a jumper
> between Pins H and J. Sure enough.... no jumper! The builder/owner had
> indeed overlooked the jumper when he wired/installed the harness.
This jumper is between VOR/LOC in & VOR/LOC out. It then must go to remote devices.
Was flag at the VOR/LOC CDI in the center of the KX125 or in a remote CDI?
I'm running a KX125 as a stand alone, is the jumpper still needed?
Thanks
Michael V. Nightingale
@ DEERE & Co. Computer Center
400 19th ST
MOLINE, IL. 61265
309-314-6806 cell NightingaleMichaelV(at)JohnDeere.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Wayne
Sweet
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KX-125 Problem Solved
Jack,
Could you give a source for the NAV antenna, web address please.
Thanks.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Lockamy" <jacklockamy(at)verizon.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: KX-125 Problem Solved
>
>
> Just wanted to report back on a recent post I made to the List... too many
> times I never see any "fixes" getting reported back to the group.
>
> The RV-7A I'm currently flying for my buddy (23.2 hours and counting...)
> has a KX-125 installed. Comm works great, NAV always showed 'FLAGGED'.
>
> A couple listers recommended we check to make sure there was a jumper
> between Pins H and J. Sure enough.... no jumper! The builder/owner had
> indeed overlooked the jumper when he wired/installed the harness.
>
> Jumper was installed. NAV works as good as the comm now. BTW.... the NAV
> antenna is a Bob Archer NAV antenna mounted in the RT wingtip. This thing
> was picking up VORs located on the other side of hills were flying AWAY
> from!!! Amazing....
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Jack Lockamy
> Camarillo, CA
> Test Pilot N174TY
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on Painting Panel |
In a message dated 1/7/2005 11:14:49 A.M. Central Standard Time,
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US writes:
Thx. for all who responded.
I will get hold of some supplies to sample test in near future.
Ron Parigoris
Just a question, have you ever owned an airplane with a panel that had
crinkle paint?
I hate that finish!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Ideas on Painting Panel |
I'm curious, why do I have one of the only RV's I've seen with a flat black
panel? I wouldn't consider anything else. There is enough glare with other
junk in the cockpit, why create more?
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 563 glare-free hours, see link below
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/panel.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on Painting Panel |
In a message dated 1/7/2005 12:42:16 P.M. Central Standard Time,
alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net writes:
I'm curious, why do I have one of the only RV's I've seen with a flat black
panel? I wouldn't consider anything else. There is enough glare with other
junk in the cockpit, why create more?
Good Afternoon Alex,
I think it is best if you have the panel painted just the way you like it.
Sixty years ago almost all instrument panels were flat black.
When I started in the business it was so. When we got the first Douglas
DC-6s, they came from the factory with a flat grey color on the panel. Many
folks thought that glare would be a problem. As the years went by, most airlines
switched away from the flat black. The same is true for most spam can
manufacturers. Boeing entered the glass cockpit era with the Boeing 767 and it
came with a flat beige color panel.
So far, I like the flat beige the best, but who knows what will be next.
The only one I really despise is the flat black crinkle finish.
Isn't it nice that we can all paint our panels any way we want?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on Painting Panel |
> I'm curious, why do I have one of the only RV's I've seen with a flat
black
> panel? I wouldn't consider anything else. There is enough glare with
other
> junk in the cockpit, why create more?
Personally I like higher contrast, i.e. dark instruments on a medium gray
panel. Not a big fan of black panels. Just my 2 cents.
http://images.rvproject.com/images/panel/panel_640x210.jpg
When I take photos, I get more glare from the instrument details & throttle
quadrant on the canopy than the panel itself. I find there's only really
one angle where I get a lot of glare -- down and to the left:
http://images.rvproject.com/images/2004/20040622_boston3.jpg
Most other angles I don't get any glare at all:
http://images.rvproject.com/images/2004/20041122_mountains9.jpg
FWIW, I'm very happy with my Canon PowerShot A75 that I got a few months
ago. Reasonable price (less than $200), and more camera feature-wise than I
really need.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on Painting Panel |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
If you aren't trying to fly the airplane and take pictures at the same time,
a piece of black cloth is a pretty manageable way to keep from getting a
bunch of glare in the frame. Hold the camera and part of the cloth with
one hand, and extend the cloth along the window to block the glare.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
>> I'm curious, why do I have one of the only RV's I've seen with a flat
> black
>> panel? I wouldn't consider anything else. There is enough glare with
> other
>> junk in the cockpit, why create more?
>
> Personally I like higher contrast, i.e. dark instruments on a medium
> gray panel. Not a big fan of black panels. Just my 2 cents.
>
> http://images.rvproject.com/images/panel/panel_640x210.jpg
>
> When I take photos, I get more glare from the instrument details &
> throttle quadrant on the canopy than the panel itself. I find there's
> only really one angle where I get a lot of glare -- down and to the
> left:
>
> http://images.rvproject.com/images/2004/20040622_boston3.jpg
>
> Most other angles I don't get any glare at all:
>
> http://images.rvproject.com/images/2004/20041122_mountains9.jpg
>
> FWIW, I'm very happy with my Canon PowerShot A75 that I got a few months
> ago. Reasonable price (less than $200), and more camera feature-wise
> than I really need.
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | coax center pin crimping |
Hi,
I've got the recommended coax connector show on this page:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/coaxconn/crimpcm.jpg
I also have a tool that will crimp the outer sleeve, but
what should I use to crimp the center pin?
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bobby Hester" <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | Re: coax center pin crimping |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:11 (CDT)
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: coax center pin crimping
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I've got the recommended coax connector show on this page:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/coaxconn/crimpcm.jpg
>
> I also have a tool that will crimp the outer sleeve, but
> what should I use to crimp the center pin?
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?9X358218#RCT-2
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
-------
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
RV7A web site: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | LOAD dump comments |
Ken,
I had posted a few days ago that 3 1.5k 18V units was a far easier part to
find and just as good, in fact based on testing, Better than one 5K 18v unit
and in-stock most everywhere. Eric has a packaged assy that is easier to
install but a few more $$.
You also point out something I have been holding back for the report.
Its not when you command something to happen its when it finally takes
place.
Consider the 3 position switch Bob suggests for off, battery and battery and
alternator. Then use a Kilovac contactor for the battery and a auto starter
contactor for the alternator "B" lead.
The Kilovac opens in under 10 ms the auto contactor around 50 ms. If you
rapidly throw the toggle switch from alt to off you can generate a load dump
for nearly 40 ms with no battery to absorb the current surge and have
potentially high system voltages. 40 ms is quite long enough to damage
equipment considering the potential voltage increase.
Its worse if you have the standalone OVP and an internally regulated
alternator IF the OVP trips during flight; here is what happens. (This combo
is not recommended as I understand by Vans. And I agree! at least with any
type of crowbar OVP device.)
1. The OVP trips from real OV, not real OV, or fails and trips.
2. The design is such that this produces a dead short on the battery and
currents of 400-700+ AMPS result during the 50-80MS it takes for the 5 amp
CB to trip open.
3. During this shorted condition the bus voltage drops and the alternator
goes to FULL on in an attempt to correct the low voltage.
4. Then the CB opens and the alternator "B" lead contactor opens and the
alternator is still recovering from the "FULL" output condition as a full
load reduction can take 200ms and a nominal reduction in load can take 100ms
to recover from.
Thus the Crowbar OVP action not only shorts the buss it creates a load dump,
neither action is desirable or necessary. OVP protection does not need to be
crowbar in nature and surely not a unlimited current short.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator control switch clamav-milter
version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
>
> It may be a little more complicated for an internal vr alternator. Yes
> you need to switch off the power to the ov contactor after flight. If
> using a double pole Batt/Alt switch for that, you would be at idle when
> you turned it off during normal ops and it should not be a problem.
>
> However if the DP switch is erroneously turned off in flight and the
> batt contactor opens before or simultaneously with the ov contactor, it
> seems to me that there will be a major load dump and I did not want that
> risk with an electrically dependant EFI engine. So perhaps a separate
> guarded ALT switch still makes sense in some cases.
>
> Ken
> (still looking for a source for the 5KP18, the mouser site says to
> expect 14 weeks for a backorder)
>
> snip
>
> >This is how I wire things. The battery master switch is a double-pole
> >unit with one pole controlling the battery contactor and the other
> >controlling the alternator field. You can't turn off the battery with
> >the alternator left on. If you really need the alternator off, pull the
> >alternator field breaker.
> >
> >snip
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bobby Hester" <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LOAD dump comments |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
> To:
> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:04 (CDT)
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: LOAD dump comments
>
>
> Eric has a packaged assy that is easier to
> install but a few more $$.
>
>
> Its worse if you have the standalone OVP and an internally regulated
> alternator IF the OVP trips during flight; here is what happens. (This combo
> is not recommended as I understand by Vans. And I agree! at least with any
> type of crowbar OVP device.)
Ok, so let me get this right.
If I add the "Whackjack" http://www.periheliondesign.com/whackjack18.htm to my currently installed Vans 60amp internally regulated alternator and Bob Nuckolls OV protection setup which includes a crowbar, then I will be ok and I won't fry my alternator.
I don't mind paying a little extra for a part, if I know it is going to do the
job, because somebody has done the test and knows that it will do the job. You
guys spent some time working on this.
What about it Bob Nuckolls, is this going to do what we need it do? Does it have
December 30, 2004 - January 07, 2005
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-dv