AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-dw
January 07, 2005 - January 16, 2005
your blessings?
-------
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
RV7A web site: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joel Harding <cajole76(at)ispwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on Painting Panel |
There is a big difference in glare factor between an airliner panel and
an RV. Due to the relatively narrow glare shield, and bubble canopy,
the RV with a light colored panel is going to expose you to a lot more
reflectivity. Like you Bob, I like the looks of the light colored
panels, but I'm not sure I would want to put up with all those
reflections produced in the RV. But hey, what ever floats your boat.
Joel Harding (Charcoal colored panel)
On Jan 7, 2005, at 11:52 AM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> 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: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
| Subject: | [PLEASE READ NOW] - Addressing Upgrade At Matronics |
TONIGHT!
Dear Listers,
Service Provider to upgrade to a larger IP subnet. I will be
re-addressing all of the machines on the network including the
Matronics Web Server and Matronics Email Server at that time. Name
Service will be updated at that time as well and most things should
work again pretty quick. There may be some bounced email for a few hours
or even a day or so as the new name-to-ip-address resolutions propagate
into the depths of the Internet.
If you have problems posting a message to one of the Lists or get a
bounced message back, please wait a couple of hours and try sending it
again. Generally, access to the web site should work within 1-hour of
Hopefully the transition will go smoothly and you'll hardly even
notice! :-)
Thanks for your patience!
Matt Dralle
List Administrator
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to light labels? |
Ron,
Here are some commercial options available:
FiberLights:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/fiberlitelabels.php
Glow strips: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/glowstrips.php
(you can probably use these for backlighting)
I've been playing with doing my own backlighting. I had a local trophy shop
engrave a sample panel on a piece of black over white plastic (they have
lots of colors if you want to get creative). I mounted it on a panel which
was cut-out behind the words and put some bright LEDs behind it
(superbrightleds.com). The words light up great. Add a dimmer and you're
all set. You can even use colored LEDs (like red) if you don't like white
at night.
My test panel is an annunciator panel with LEDs (fault lights) mounted on
the panel . The backlighting comes through the LEDs, which I don't like, so
I'm working on a way to block that. I have some LED mounts coming which I
hope will solve that problem. I'll let you know.
On a switch panel, the switch body blocks wording close to the mounting hole
(like ON and OFF) but you can put the name of the switch far enough away
that it will light up just fine. I plan to make a test panel to see how
this looks - haven't gotten there yet. To mount the backlight LEDs, my
current thinking is to make a thin metal "Z" (only the bends are 90 degrees)
and drill one leg to be a doubler behind the switches and mount the LEDs on
the other leg.
SuperbrightLEDs.com does have UV LEDs. I didn't think about that
possibility.
Well, that't my $.02
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | 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
Yes, Bob, I agree regarding the black krinkle, makes them look like a tool
chest. Anyway, have you flown in a bubble canopy airplane like the RV?
Most store bought airplanes do not have direct sunlight on the panel like
the RV's do, so I might suspect that glare is more of a problem with them
than in a conventional plane.
To each their own...
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 563 hours
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | BNC 90 Connectors |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Charlie Kuss
<>1/7/2005Hello Charlie, I can't find that part
either using Delta's part finder search feature.I suggest that you get that
picture in front of you on your computer and then call them up and ask them
for help.I have examined the back side of my Garmin 430 since your request
and am not that optimistic that that Delta connection will do the job for
you. It looks more like a bulkhead connector is needed to fasten into the
back of the 430. If there is such a thing as a BNC UG 90 degree bulkhead
fitting with the plug and the jack in the right orientation that should do
the job for you. I feel that there must be such a connection because there
were hundreds of different UG connection configurations. The problem is
findingthe mother lode of the pictures or diagrams of those connections so
that you can pick the right one.Something from Delta may still be your best
bet. Try the phone call.OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "earl_schroeder(at)juno.com" <earl_schroeder(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Ideas on Painting Panel |
With over 1000 hrs in a Mustang II with a 'wrinkle painted' panel I can say it
didn't bother us much. We didn't look at it much. Earl
-- "Alex Peterson" wrote:
>
>
> 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
Yes, Bob, I agree regarding the black krinkle, makes them look like a tool
chest. Anyway, have you flown in a bubble canopy airplane like the RV?
Most store bought airplanes do not have direct sunlight on the panel like
the RV's do, so I might suspect that glare is more of a problem with them
than in a conventional plane.
To each their own...
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 563 hours
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: How to light labels? |
In a message dated 01/07/2005 7:59:36 PM Central Standard Time,
glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com writes:
To mount the backlight LEDs, my
current thinking is to make a thin metal "Z" (only the bends are 90 degrees)
and drill one leg to be a doubler behind the switches and mount the LEDs on
the other leg.
>>>>
I had pretty good luck using project board cut into thin strips and mounted
with 1/4" standoffs- the LEDs and resistors are soldered direct to the project
board in gangs of 3 and 4, and shine through panel overlays cut by Steve Davis
(Panel Pilot) in Memphis TN. Dimming is by PWM kit from Marlin Jones:
http://www.mpja.com/productview.asp?product=4057+MD
modified to remove the F/R switch and remote mounting a higher quality pot to
the panel. I'd suggest doing some testing which LEDs to use here- I used the
superbrights and they are just that- SUPER BRIGHT! I'd use standard ones
next time...
fotos on request...
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LOAD dump comments |
"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."
In reading the above, it sounds like we should be looking at another method of
overvoltage protection, am I understanding this correctly? Does anyone have suggested
architectures? Is this load dump only an issue with internally regulated
alternators, or do externally regulated alternators just have protection
already built in? In another thread, Gary raises the question of why we don't
just attach the alternator directly to the battery (vice through the main contactor)
to mitigate the load dump issue, any comments out there on why we should
or should not do this?
Dan Fritz
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JOHNATHAN MACY <bushpilot(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Instrument Decals |
At one time on the web I came across a company that will make decals / overlays
per your drawing for instrument panels. For example, they could make a decal
that could go across you panel above all the switches. Now I can not find them.
Any idea? - Thx - Johnathan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LOAD dump comments |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
Well the advantage of using a proven OV module is that it should rarely
nuisance or falsely trip. In a real OV situation the alternator is
already going full bore so there is no disadvantage of the crowbar
method. Perhaps even an advantage as it draws down the voltage even
before the OV contactor opens. Yes there have been a few nuisance trips
mentioned here but I don't recall any associated equipment damage. I
don't recall any nuisance trips since the last module re-design??
The advantage of the external VR alternator is that you don't need the
OV contactor. My internal VR alternator is connected through a fuse to
the battery (not through the battery contactor) but that pesky OV
contactor is still necessary. We had a discussion a year or so ago on
alternative OV protection methods and this is still what I decided to
do. However I also chose to use a small 40 amp alternator to further
limit the magnitude of the energy that could be stored in the stator
windings and the amount of excess alternator current available.
So my battery contactor interupts current to all the things that do not
power any of my engine requirements, it does not disconnect either of my
alternators from their respective batteries.
Paul - thanks for expanding on the use of the three 1.5k devices instead
of the 5kp18.
Ken
D Fritz wrote:
>
>"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."
>
>In reading the above, it sounds like we should be looking at another method of
overvoltage protection, am I understanding this correctly? Does anyone have
suggested architectures? Is this load dump only an issue with internally regulated
alternators, or do externally regulated alternators just have protection
already built in? In another thread, Gary raises the question of why we don't
just attach the alternator directly to the battery (vice through the main contactor)
to mitigate the load dump issue, any comments out there on why we should
or should not do this?
>
>Dan Fritz
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
Bob/folks,
Is there an easy way to get my radio spacing correct? I couldn't buy all of my
radios right away, but I did get their mounting trays. Can I just stack these
one on top of the other and mate their front edges to the front edge of my panel,
or should I allow some space between the mounting boxes (vertically), and
if so, how much? Thanks.
Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump comments |
>"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."
>In reading the above, it sounds like we should be looking at another method
of
>overvoltage protection, am I understanding this correctly? Does anyone
have suggested
>architectures?
Dan,
I think the old crowbar is dead. When batteries had high internal resistance
and the only method of disconnecting a circuit was a fuse, and the need for
greater control of OV was less important---maybe crowbar OVs were okay.
Today it seems unreasonable to me to take this approach. Would you crowbar
your computer?
I used to sell both crowbar and non-crowbar OVP and I never really liked the
crowbar method. Paul Messinger's testing has shown that the old crowbar
method drops humongous (~1000A) currents through the busses and tops it off
with a load dump. I just can't think of any reason why one would want to do
this when simpler, kinder, gentler methods are available.
I sell these on my website of course. I call them Linear OVPs
http://www.periheliondesign.com/ovp.htm When a monitored voltage stays
above 16.2 volts for more than 200 milliSeconds (glitch filter), the Linear
OVP politely disconnects the circuit. Okay so it's not very macho....
>Is this load dump only an issue with internally regulated alternators, or
do externally regulated alternators just have protection already built in?
Load dump is an issue with any source of power that uses a rotating
conductor in a magnetic field. By the way, overvoltage and load dump are
related in that they both have associated overvoltages. Load dump is a
strictly transient OV condition caused by disconnecting a load, but an
overvoltage condition can be caused by a failed regulator or other causes
and may be long term. Both need to be addressed.
>In another thread, Gary raises the question of why we don't just attach the
alternator directly to the battery (vice through the main contactor)
>to mitigate the load dump issue, any comments out there on why we should
>or should not do this? .........Dan Fritz
Just preventing the battery from being disconnected would help, but would
cause it's own problems. Besides, events other than battery disconnection
can cause load dumps, like a circuit breaker or fuse popping or a big load
being turned off.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"The man who carries a cat by the tail
learns something that can be learned
in no other way."
--Mark Twain
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio Spacing |
Brett
I would download the installation manuals for the items you intend to buy
and check the spacing they recommend. Another problem arises if you buy
different brands (Garmin vs Garmin AT vs Tru Trak, for example.)The bezels
may not line up exactly and you could get one box sticking out past the
others. This would not be by a lot, but somewhat noticeable. You can
compensate by mounting the trays a bit in front or behind the one above or
below.
I would then build the stack of trays with the spacing required. ie. mount
the trays on rails and also adding straps (braces) on the aft ends of the
trays as well. One problem that comes up in all of this is if one of the
trays is mounted slightly twisted in the rails. You could then expect the
boxe to bind a bit when sliding it into the tray and also it may not seat
completely into the back plane jacks/plugs.
Contact me off line if you want a copy of a "builder's hint" paper that
reflects the experiences of two Lancair ES builders' panel construction.
Hope this helps,
John
>Is there an easy way to get my radio spacing correct? I couldn't buy all
of my radios right away, but I did get their mounting trays. Can I just
stack these one on top of the other and mate their front edges to the front
edge of my panel, or should I allow some space between the mounting boxes
(vertically), and if so, how much? Thanks.
>
>Brett
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Radio Spacing |
In a message dated 1/8/2005 8:29:52 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bferrell(at)123mail.net writes:
Bob/folks,
Is there an easy way to get my radio spacing correct? I couldn't buy all of
my radios right away, but I did get their mounting trays. Can I just stack
these one on top of the other and mate their front edges to the front edge of
my panel, or should I allow some space between the mounting boxes
(vertically), and if so, how much? Thanks.
Brett
Different Bob here, but if you think you may be readjusting the sleeves in
the future, I would strongly consider using a set of RadioRax rails. They not
only make the between set adjustments easy, they are FAA approved for
mounting the radios with no rear support.
I installed a set recently and they seem to work very well. Should make
further changes a snap!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jacklockamy" <jacklockamy(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: KX-125 Problem Solved |
YES! You still need the jumper.....
My buddy's set-up was exactly like yours (stand-alone unit, no CDI). His thinking
was also liken to yours..... no CDI, guess I don't need the jumper. WRONG.
Install the jumper and your KX-125 will work as advertised.
Thanks again to all those list members who helped solve the problem we were having.
Jack Lockamy
Camarillo, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio Spacing |
Yea, I looked at those, and really wanted to use them, but the cant in my
velocity panel procludes their use, they didn't have a set thin enough to
utilize unfortunately.
Brett
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio Spacing
>
>
> In a message dated 1/8/2005 8:29:52 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> bferrell(at)123mail.net writes:
>
> Bob/folks,
>
> Is there an easy way to get my radio spacing correct? I couldn't buy all
> of
> my radios right away, but I did get their mounting trays. Can I just
> stack
> these one on top of the other and mate their front edges to the front
> edge of
> my panel, or should I allow some space between the mounting boxes
> (vertically), and if so, how much? Thanks.
>
> Brett
>
>
> Different Bob here, but if you think you may be readjusting the sleeves
> in
> the future, I would strongly consider using a set of RadioRax rails.
> They not
> only make the between set adjustments easy, they are FAA approved for
> mounting the radios with no rear support.
>
> I installed a set recently and they seem to work very well. Should make
> further changes a snap!
>
> 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: Radio Spacing |
In a message dated 1/8/2005 9:16:37 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bferrell(at)123mail.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brett Ferrell"
Yea, I looked at those, and really wanted to use them, but the cant in my
velocity panel procludes their use, they didn't have a set thin enough to
utilize unfortunately.
Brett
Good Morning Brent,
I used the RK 1020 as they were no bigger than the aluminum angle most folks
use.
Radio Rax has come out with a set of canted racks to be used for the Bonanza
and another set for the Baron. The ones for the Baron should work well for
any canted panel. The ones for the Bonanza don't work as well because it
moves the radios a half inch to the right and wastes a bit of panel space.
That came about because they wanted to use the same right hand extrusion for
both. But that is not pertinent unless you are putting them in a Bonanza!
For a canted panel in a home built, I would seriously consider the Radio Rax
designed for the Baron.
For a Bonanza, I would recommend using the RK 1020 mounted in the original
Bonanza canted panel.
See: _www.RadioRax.com_ (http://www.RadioRax.com)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Load dump and PM alternators |
Hi Eric and all,
Please pardon me for having followed the load dump thread with a casual eye.
> Load dump is an issue with any source of power that uses a rotating
> conductor in a magnetic field. By the way, overvoltage and load dump are
> related in that they both have associated overvoltages. Load dump is a
> strictly transient OV condition caused by disconnecting a load, but an
> overvoltage condition can be caused by a failed regulator or other causes
> and may be long term. Both need to be addressed.
>
Question : is the load dump issue the same for permanent magnet alternators
? At first glance I would say there are differences, but would one of you
experts tell me if I have to reconsider my "ordinary" crowbar OV module
setup ?
Thanks.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump comments |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
Sure that sounds scary but I'll wait for the report before getting
concerned. With 6 feet of 18awg wire in series with a C/B, an SCR, and
several connections it may be possible to get a couple of hundred amps
of instantaneous current flowing but so what? It is drawing down the
voltage which is what we want.
The interesting thing to me is a nuisance trip. It sounds like it is
possible to ramp up the alternator output during the delay (40 ms?)
waiting for the OV contactor to open. However I haven't seen any reason
to be concerned about that yet and I will await the report. If it turns
out to be a concern, perhaps I will replace my OV C/B with a fuse for
quicker current interuption. A few folks have advocated transorbs to
tame these scenarios for several years now and it seems like they do the
job just fine. I really really appreciate it when someone like Paul or
Bob documents and shares the numbers so that I have more than anecdotal
evidence that my transorbs are up to the task that I installed them for.
Sorry if I sound snippy. I appreciate being able to purchase an elegant
solution when I want to. After all that does help the entire homebuilt
movement. However the fun of homebuilt aviation for me is being able to
try different things and sharing public domain solutions like we do
here. It is great that we can purchase a OV module from B&C (or Eric)
but it is really really neat that BOB also gives us the design to build
our own and experiment with if we choose. I don't think I really even
saved any money by building my own OV module, but I know how it works,
how to adjust it, how to repair it, and I can keep a spare around if I
choose. Well yes I guess the second one I needed cost me next to nothing
but the knowledge gained was still worth more than that saving and was
definately worth the time invested.
Ken
snip
>I used to sell both crowbar and non-crowbar OVP and I never really liked the
>crowbar method. Paul Messinger's testing has shown that the old crowbar
>method drops humongous (~1000A) currents through the busses and tops it off
>with a load dump. I just can't think of any reason why one would want to do
>this when simpler, kinder, gentler methods are available.
>
>
snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
it's background for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
Bob McC
lucky wrote:
>
>Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH NAV/STROBE/POSITION
LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is measurably less than the single
flash? Just observing these lights in single flash form vs whelens in formation
flight leaves my to personally believe that the whelens aren't worth any
the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up these kits often enough
to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
>
>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
>
>Lucky
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Modified Z-12 comments |
I have a builder buddy (not on list) that is in the process of wiring his
plane using a slightly modified Z-12 with the addition of an aux battery
wired in per Figure 17-6. He's asked me for my comments on the
"modifications" he made and I'm not too sure how to respond. It a "I would
not do it this way, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't", kinda thing.
The main parts of Z-12 are not changed other than adding the second battery
and contactor I mentioned above. The thing he changed was in the switching
of the main/aux batteries and the main/aux alternators. E-bus is run off
the main battery only - just like in Figure 17-6.
For the switches, he has used 2 DPST switches - one simultaneously activates
the main battery and main alternator together, and the second activates the
aux battery and the aux alternator together. There is no single "master"
switch in this combination, but there is also no way to run the aux
alternator from the main battery only. There are still two ways to send
power to the main bus - main on, aux on (or both of those on), and the e-bus
can be powered from the main battery via a separate e-bus switch. However,
there is now no way to isolate an alternator only from it's respective
battery.
Now, for you "theory" folks out there...is this an acceptable design
modification? It certainly saves panel switch space (two vs 4 switch
holes), but I'd like to hear some of the "knows more than me" crowd's
opinions on coupling the battery and alt switches together.
Thanks!
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | erie(at)shelbyvilledesign.com |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Decals |
Johnathan, contact me off list
erie
Quoting JOHNATHAN MACY :
>
>
> At one time on the web I came across a company that will make decals /
> overlays per your drawing for instrument panels. For example, they could make
> a decal that could go across you panel above all the switches. Now I can not
> find them. Any idea? - Thx - Johnathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernest Kells" <ernest.kells(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Decals |
Jonathan and Others:
I think that you are looking for
http://engravers.net/aircraft/standard_placards.htm
They provide a lot more design flexibility than you request. At $0.50 per
word I plan to use them for most or all of my panel. In addition, I will
also probably use them for engraving my fuel caps. Look at the RV example -
meets my needs perfectly (seems a little pricey for two colour matched
caps - - but very, very slick).
>> At one time on the web I came across a company that will make decals /
overlays per your drawing for instrument panels. For example, they could
make a decal that could go across you panel above all the switches. Now I
can not find them. Any idea? - Thx - Johnathan <<
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio Spacing |
The Velocity's cant doesn't have enough space for angles on both sides, it's
barely wider than the radios, you actually mount a piece of flat 1/4" bar
stock on that side, and angle AL on the other, so the canted system is still
too wide, sadly.
Brett
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio Spacing
>
>
> In a message dated 1/8/2005 9:16:37 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> bferrell(at)123mail.net writes:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brett Ferrell"
>
>
> Yea, I looked at those, and really wanted to use them, but the cant in my
> velocity panel procludes their use, they didn't have a set thin enough to
> utilize unfortunately.
>
> Brett
>
>
> Good Morning Brent,
>
> I used the RK 1020 as they were no bigger than the aluminum angle most
> folks
> use.
>
> Radio Rax has come out with a set of canted racks to be used for the
> Bonanza
> and another set for the Baron. The ones for the Baron should work well
> for
> any canted panel. The ones for the Bonanza don't work as well because it
> moves the radios a half inch to the right and wastes a bit of panel
> space.
>
> That came about because they wanted to use the same right hand extrusion
> for
> both. But that is not pertinent unless you are putting them in a Bonanza!
>
> For a canted panel in a home built, I would seriously consider the Radio
> Rax
> designed for the Baron.
>
> For a Bonanza, I would recommend using the RK 1020 mounted in the original
> Bonanza canted panel.
>
> See: _www.RadioRax.com_ (http://www.RadioRax.com)
>
> 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: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
Hi,
I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
Since the Aeroflash is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on the internet
anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the double flash
version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do some kind of rough
compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than the single flash version.
The problem is I can't find the detailed info on their 152-0007 or their 152-0011
power supplys. I used to be able to. It doesn't appear to be on their
web site anymore. Maybe someone who bought them has the info.
-------------- Original message --------------
>
>
> The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
> human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
> motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
> strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
> time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
> This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
> units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
> flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
> much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
> it's background for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
> glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
> the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
> zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
> on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
> locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
> flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
> conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
> distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
> guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
>
> Bob McC
>
> lucky wrote:
>
> >
> >Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
> NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is measurably
> less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash form
vs
> whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the whelens
> aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up these
> kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
> >
> >http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
> >
> >Lucky
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hi,
I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
Since the Aeroflash is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on the internet
anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the double flash
version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do some kind of rough
compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than the single flash version.
The problem is I can't find the detailed info on their 152-0007 or their 152-0011
power supplys. I used to be able to. It doesn't appear to be on their web
site anymore. Maybe someone who bought them has the info.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
it's backg
round for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
Bob McC
lucky wrote:
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Has anyone looked into the
single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is measurably
less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash form vs
whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the whelens
aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up these
kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
Lucky
=============================================================
==================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
Has Aeroflash changed their power supplies? The reason I didn't install
Aeroflash-although the price was attractive-was the surging that its power
supply would induce in the electrical system, according to " The Electric
Connection" manual.
Scott in VAncouver
165 hrs on RV-6
police-car strobe power supply, Whelen heads
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucky" <luckymacy(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
>
> Hi,
> I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
>
> Since the Aeroflash is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on
> the internet anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the
> double flash version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do
> some kind of rough compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than
> the single flash version. The problem is I can't find the detailed info
> on their 152-0007 or their 152-0011 power supplys. I used to be able to.
> It doesn't appear to be on their web site anymore. Maybe someone who
> bought them has the info.
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>>
>>
>> The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
>> human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
>> motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
>> strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
>> time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
>> This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
>> units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
>> flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
>> much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
>> it's background for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
>> glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
>> the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
>> zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
>> on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
>> locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
>> flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
>> conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
>> distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
>> guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
>>
>> Bob McC
>>
>> lucky wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
>> NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
>> measurably
>> less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash
>> form vs
>> whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the
>> whelens
>> aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up
>> these
>> kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
>> >
>> >http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
>> >
>> >Lucky
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Hi,
> I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
>
> Since the Aeroflash is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on
> the internet anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the
> double flash version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do
> some kind of rough compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than
> the single flash version. The problem is I can't find the detailed info on
> their 152-0007 or their 152-0011 power supplys. I used to be able to. It
> doesn't appear to be on their web site anymore. Maybe someone who bought
> them has the info.
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
>
>
> The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
> human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
> motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
> strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
> time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
> This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
> units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
> flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
> much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
> it's backg
> round for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
> glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
> the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
> zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
> on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
> locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
> flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
> conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
> distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
> guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
>
> Bob McC
>
> lucky wrote:
>
> -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
>
> Has anyone looked into the
> single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
> NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
> measurably
> less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash
> form vs
> whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the
> whelens
> aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up
> these
> kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
>
> Lucky
>
>
> =============================================================
> ==================================================
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | FW: Z13A - Basic question ? Help anyone? |
Using the Z13A diagram for use with a Vans 60 amp int reg. Ordered the
contactors, etc. from B&C and Todd sent me a S811-1 ID starter contactor
which apparently does not have provisions for a starter engaged light. It
has the two large terminals and one small switch terminal. It also costs $40
as opposed to $26 for a S702-1 which does allow for the starter engaged
light.
Some confusion on my part. I think that on the Z13A:
The starter contactor would be a S702-1
The Battery contactor would be a S701-1
and the OV disconnect is shown as a S701-1
Does this look correct?
Wonder what/why they would have shipped me a S811-1? More costly and fewer
features? I must be missing something here, what would it be?
Experience level: first plane, read the book, read it again, still only
know enough to keep tongue off positive terminal :o)
Thanks Bill S
7a fuse/panel
Maumelle, Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump comments clamav-milter version |
0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
The huge current loop during a shorting crowbar event generates a large
magnetic field that can magnetize steel and mess up your compass
calibration.
I got 400 amps with longer that likely wires. When I simulated my aircraft
wiring I got over 700 amps.
Measurements were made with calibrated equipment. as well as being
repeatable.
If this does not bother you, be my guest.
Paul
> Sure that sounds scary but I'll wait for the report before getting
> concerned. With 6 feet of 18awg wire in series with a C/B, an SCR, and
> several connections it may be possible to get a couple of hundred amps
> of instantaneous current flowing but so what? It is drawing down the
> voltage which is what we want.
>
> The interesting thing to me is a nuisance trip. It sounds like it is
> possible to ramp up the alternator output during the delay (40 ms?)
> waiting for the OV contactor to open. However I haven't seen any reason
> to be concerned about that yet and I will await the report.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LOAD dump comments |
The use of a dead short crowbar is an application I, nor any of my
associates, ever came across during our careers. Lots of shorting crow bars
but NEVER across a battery.
They were used widely across electrical power supplies where the energy
being shorted was small compared to a modern battery. The power supply was
designed to have a crow bar included and thus never produces huge currents
in the process of shutting down.
ALL inductors have load dumps when they are unloaded.
The contactors we all use have enough stored energy to fire a spark plug
when they are disconnected. This is contained with the diode across the
coil. It increases the internal load dump from a couple of ms to around 40
ms. The dump current in this case is one amp.
Both internal and external regulators generate load dumps that must be
suppressed.
Eric has one part of the solution which is his non shorting OVP. This
gracefully disconnects if there is a long term OV vs a load dump.
The load dump transorb across the alternator only protects the alternator,
not the rest of the system and then only from alternator load dumps.
We still need protection from buss spikes from where ever. Bob has said they
are like snipe hunting, never to be found. Well my forth coming report has
scope pix of these spikes I went on a snipe hunt and bagged a few!
Another of Eric's transorb units on the bus will work but also consider a
few transorbs in the non packages form across each bus.
The end of the report will include our recommendation for better transient /
load dump design.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "D Fritz" <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LOAD dump comments
>
> "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."
>
> In reading the above, it sounds like we should be looking at another
method of overvoltage protection, am I understanding this correctly? Does
anyone have suggested architectures? Is this load dump only an issue with
internally regulated alternators, or do externally regulated alternators
just have protection already built in? In another thread, Gary raises the
question of why we don't just attach the alternator directly to the battery
(vice through the main contactor) to mitigate the load dump issue, any
comments out there on why we should or should not do this?
>
> Dan Fritz
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
Where/when/by who was the data collected that demonstrated that?
-------------- Original message --------------
>
>
> Has Aeroflash changed their power supplies? The reason I didn't install
> Aeroflash-although the price was attractive-was the surging that its power
> supply would induce in the electrical system, according to " The Electric
> Connection" manual.
> Scott in VAncouver
> 165 hrs on RV-6
> police-car strobe power supply, Whelen heads
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "lucky"
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
>
>
> >
> > Hi,
> > I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
> >
> > Since the Aeroflash is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on
> > the internet anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the
> > double flash version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do
> > some kind of rough compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than
> > the single flash version. The problem is I can't find the detailed info
> > on their 152-0007 or their 152-0011 power supplys. I used to be able to.
> > It doesn't appear to be on their web site anymore. Maybe someone who
> > bought them has the info.
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
> >> human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
> >> motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
> >> strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
> >> time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
> >> This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
> >> units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
> >> flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
> >> much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
> >> it's background for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
> >> glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
> >> the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
> >> zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
> >> on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
> >> locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
> >> flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
> >> conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
> >> distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
> >> guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
> >>
> >> Bob McC
> >>
> >> lucky wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
> >> NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
> >> measurably
> >> less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash
> >> form vs
> >> whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the
> >> whelens
> >> aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up
> >> these
> >> kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
> >> >
> >> >http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
> >> >
> >> >Lucky
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Hi,
> > I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
> >
> > Since the Aeroflash is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on
> > the internet anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the
> > double flash version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do
> > some kind of rough compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than
> > the single flash version. The problem is I can't find the detailed info on
> > their 152-0007 or their 152-0011 power supplys. I used to be able to. It
> > doesn't appear to be on their web site anymore. Maybe someone who bought
> > them has the info.
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> >
> > -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
> >
> >
> > The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
> > human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
> > motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
> > strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
> > time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
> > This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
> > units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
> > flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
> > much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
> > it's backg
> > round for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
> > glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
> > the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
> > zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
> > on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
> > locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
> > flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
> > conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
> > distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
> > guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
> >
> > Bob McC
> >
> > lucky wrote:
> >
> > -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
> >
> > Has anyone looked into the
> > single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
> > NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
> > measurably
> > less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash
> > form vs
> > whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the
> > whelens
> > aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up
> > these
> > kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
> >
> > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
> >
> > Lucky
> >
> >
> > =============================================================
> > ==================================================
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Where/when/by who was the data collected that demonstrated that?
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Jackson"
Has Aeroflash changed their power supplies? The reason I didn't install
Aeroflash-although the price was attractive-was the surging that its power
supply would induce in the electrical system, according to " The Electric
Connection" manual.
Scott in VAncouver
165 hrs on RV-6
police-car strobe power supply, Whelen heads
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucky" <LUCKYMACY(at)COMCAST.NET>
To:
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Hi,
>
; I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
Since the Aeroflash is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on
the internet anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the
double flash version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do
some kind of rough compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than
the single flash version. The problem is I can't find the detailed info
on their 152-0007 or their 152-0011 power supplys. I used to be able to.
It doesn't appear to be on their web site anymore. Maybe someone who
bought them has the info.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
The question isn't so much one of "h
ow intense is the flash" but one of
human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
it's background for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's move
d before you can
zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
Bob McC
lucky wrote:
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
NAV/STROBE/POSI
TION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
measurably
less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash
form vs
whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the
whelens
aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up
these
kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
Lucky
Hi,
I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
Since the Aerofla
sh is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on
the internet anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the
double flash version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do
some kind of rough compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than
the single flash version. The problem is I can't find the detailed info on
their 152-0007 or their 152-0011 power supplys. I used to be able to. It
doesn't appear to be on their web site anymore. Maybe someone who bought
them has the info.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely we
ll to
motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
it's backg
round for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
on the second, third,
or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
Bob McC
lucky wrote:
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Has anyone looked into the
single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
measurably
less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash
form vs
whelen
s in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the
whelens
aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up
these
kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
Lucky
=============================================================
==================================================
==========================================================
===============================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Load dump and shutdown procedures |
With all the discussion on load dump ever wondered why now and not 50 years
ago?
One reason is then (and now) I have learned and then taught that the
alternator was turned on only after the engine was started and both the
battery and the alternator was only turned off AFTER the engine was
completely stopped.
Recently I have seem and observed first hand cases where the ammeter was
checked during runup by turning the alternator off. Also the alternator and
master were turned off before shutting down the engine.
The latter procedure assures load dump and the former prevents load dump.
Any one know when the latter procedure became popular in some circles???
The above does not include emergency or failure conditions.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump comments |
NOT true exactly.
ANY inductor carrying current, rotating or not, power generating or power
using, will try to continue the circulating current if the load or power
source is disconnected.
The magnitude of the load dump is related to the current being reduced.
Clearly in the case of the alternator where 10-50 amps are being
disconnected the effect is different when compared to the coil of a
contactor where the current is one amp.
Everyone knows that relay coils need suppression diodes. Well the same goes
for alternators just much bigger diodes for the higher current. Also in the
case of alternators or other power producing components the cure is
different.
Relay coils need the diode connected so its out of the circuit except when
needed to continue the circulation current.
Alternators need a voltage clamp to prevent excessive voltage during a
sudden current reduction. We ignore load dumps from alternators in the
normal electrical system as the battery acts like a current absorber and
stabilizes the voltage.
But if the battery is off line then the voltage increases until the
remaining load can accept the current transient.
If you disconnect an internally regulated alternator when it is producing
output current the current has no where to go and the result is a voltage
spike internal to the alternator. MOST internally regulated alternators have
a load dump diode built in that will protect the alternator regulator under
worst case conditions.
Some have suggested that the rebuilt alternators sold by Vans are not
properly protected. While this is an easy finger to point I have not seen
any real investigation to prove this.
Then there is the case of externally regulated alternators. The load dump is
the same but in this case the system bus is still connected so it will see
an overvoltage that may or may not damage equipment. If the alternator "B"
lead is disconnected in this externally regulated alternator the internal
load dump can produce a very hi voltage as there is nothing to clamp it
other than the rectifier diodes in the alternator and they usually are heavy
enough to prevent failure and they break down around 200V.
> Load dump is an issue with any source of power that uses a rotating
> conductor in a magnetic field. By the way, overvoltage and load dump are
> related in that they both have associated overvoltages. Load dump is a
> strictly transient OV condition caused by disconnecting a load, but an
> overvoltage condition can be caused by a failed regulator or other causes
> and may be long term.
>Both need to be addressed.
TRUE
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump comments |
I'm interested as to which two items the crowbar was shorting when
these large currents were measured. I'm assuming this is a different
application than the crowbar OV protection that Bod espouses, where
the crowbar shorts out the field circuit, popping a 5A CB. I can't
imagine how 400 to 700 amps could be generated in the field circuit
before the 5A CB popped. Are CBs that slow to trip? Or, was this a
different application of a crowbar?
Kevin Horton
>
>The huge current loop during a shorting crowbar event generates a large
>magnetic field that can magnetize steel and mess up your compass
>calibration.
>
>I got 400 amps with longer that likely wires. When I simulated my aircraft
>wiring I got over 700 amps.
>
>Measurements were made with calibrated equipment. as well as being
>repeatable.
>
>If this does not bother you, be my guest.
>
>Paul
>
>
>> Sure that sounds scary but I'll wait for the report before getting
>> concerned. With 6 feet of 18awg wire in series with a C/B, an SCR, and
>> several connections it may be possible to get a couple of hundred amps
>> of instantaneous current flowing but so what? It is drawing down the
>> voltage which is what we want.
>>
>> The interesting thing to me is a nuisance trip. It sounds like it is
>> possible to ramp up the alternator output during the delay (40 ms?)
>> waiting for the OV contactor to open. However I haven't seen any reason
> > to be concerned about that yet and I will await the report.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump comments |
Its wired exactly as Bob shows.
The power path is thru the CB that powers the relay (in the case of a "B"
lead the contactor) and the crow bar shorts the CB to ground and the 400
amps is thru the wiring and thru the CB and OVP SCR. There is no HI current
thru the field.
Draw a wire from the load side of the CB to ground (thats the OVP). The
resulting circuit is the battery to the CB to the OVP to ground. The OVP
tripps and its scr shorts the OVP to ground. Net result is the CB is
directly across the battery plus wiring. The modern battery will provide
more than 1000 amps (some closer to 2000 amps) across the CB with very short
leads. One solution is a 1/8 to 1/2 ohm resistor in the OVP shorting path to
limit current and still blow the CB.
I got 730 amps with shorter but realistic leads and the Powersonic 12v18ah
battery that Bob promotes. Far cry from a Gill flooded cell acft battery.
I tried 3 different popular 5 amp CB brands and all showed at least 50 ms to
open. (and that is when they are warmed up). After a couple of hours at rest
the CB can take more than 80MS to trip. Yes they are that slow.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load dump comments
>
> I'm interested as to which two items the crowbar was shorting when
> these large currents were measured. I'm assuming this is a different
> application than the crowbar OV protection that Bod espouses, where
> the crowbar shorts out the field circuit, popping a 5A CB. I can't
> imagine how 400 to 700 amps could be generated in the field circuit
> before the 5A CB popped. Are CBs that slow to trip? Or, was this a
> different application of a crowbar?
>
> Kevin Horton
>
> >
> >The huge current loop during a shorting crowbar event generates a large
> >magnetic field that can magnetize steel and mess up your compass
> >calibration.
> >
> >I got 400 amps with longer that likely wires. When I simulated my
aircraft
> >wiring I got over 700 amps.
> >
> >Measurements were made with calibrated equipment. as well as being
> >repeatable.
> >
> >If this does not bother you, be my guest.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >
> >> Sure that sounds scary but I'll wait for the report before getting
> >> concerned. With 6 feet of 18awg wire in series with a C/B, an SCR, and
> >> several connections it may be possible to get a couple of hundred amps
> >> of instantaneous current flowing but so what? It is drawing down the
> >> voltage which is what we want.
> >>
> >> The interesting thing to me is a nuisance trip. It sounds like it is
> >> possible to ramp up the alternator output during the delay (40 ms?)
> >> waiting for the OV contactor to open. However I haven't seen any
reason
> > > to be concerned about that yet and I will await the report.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
I was looking at B+C site and it mentions to use internal tooth Phosphor-Bronze
washers under the head of screws to maintain a good connection to a brass bus.
Is it recommended and good practice to use a Phosphor-Bronze washer under the head
of screw when using ring connectors?
Is it recommended to use Tef-Gel on the connection as well?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
Good questions. I'm also interested in the answers. Also, a
source for these internal tool phosphor-bronze washers would
be most welcome. McMaster-Carr does not seem to have them.
Ronald J. Parigoris wrote:
>
> I was looking at B+C site and it mentions to use internal tooth Phosphor-Bronze
> washers under the head of screws to maintain a good connection to a brass bus.
>
> Is it recommended and good practice to use a Phosphor-Bronze washer under the
head
> of screw when using ring connectors?
>
> Is it recommended to use Tef-Gel on the connection as well?
>
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Nuts, Bolts Battery Terminals |
Speaking of washers leads me to thinking about nut/bolts for connecting
battery terminals. What is the correct hardware for this to ensure good
connection free of vibration and corrosion? What is the normal maintenance
plan for these parts, should they be replaced annually when a new battery is
installed? Where is a source for buying?
Indiana Larry
>
> Good questions. I'm also interested in the answers. Also, a
> source for these internal tool phosphor-bronze washers would
> be most welcome. McMaster-Carr does not seem to have them.
>
> >
> > I was looking at B+C site and it mentions to use internal tooth
Phosphor-Bronze
> > washers under the head of screws to maintain a good connection to a
brass bus.
> >
> > Is it recommended and good practice to use a Phosphor-Bronze washer
under the head
> > of screw when using ring connectors?
> >
> > Is it recommended to use Tef-Gel on the connection as well?
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
Morning, Mickey...
>>McMaster-Carr does not seem to have them.<<
I just did a search there... http://www.mcmaster.com/
Entered "bronze washers" in the search box, and the second item listed
was "Phosphor Bronze Internal Tooth Lock Washers (the first was External
Tooth). When I clicked on it, it listed sizes from #2 to 1/2".
Harley Dixon
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>Good questions. I'm also interested in the answers. Also, a
>source for these internal tool phosphor-bronze washers would
>be most welcome. McMaster-Carr does not seem to have them.
>
>Ronald J. Parigoris wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I was looking at B+C site and it mentions to use internal tooth Phosphor-Bronze
>>washers under the head of screws to maintain a good connection to a brass bus.
>>
>>Is it recommended and good practice to use a Phosphor-Bronze washer under the
head
>>of screw when using ring connectors?
>>
>>Is it recommended to use Tef-Gel on the connection as well?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump comments |
Eric et all
I have a LR3C-14, the B&C external regulator with crowbar. Can Eric's
gentle disconnect device be used in series? Is it necessary? Is it wise?
How would you go about connecting your load dump device with it 1/4-28 stud
that is not visible in the picture on Eric's web site?
Thanks
Matthew M. Jurotich
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
JWST ISIM Systems Engineer
m/c : 443
e-mail mailto: mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov
phone : 301-286-5919
fax : 301-286-7021
JWST URL: <http://ngst1.gsfc.nasa.gov>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump comments |
<<..Also the alternator and master were turned off before shutting down the
engine.
The latter procedure assures load dump and the former prevents load dump.
Any one know when the latter procedure became popular in some circles???
Paul>>
Some of the rentals I used many years ago had the Hobbs meter powered from
the master bus. There may have been some renters that turned off the master
while taxiing in or even (heaven forbid) during flight...who, me? This was
common knowledge at the time, but then later aircraft had the Hobbs powered
live from the battery.
<to mitigate the load dump issue, any comments out there on why we should
>or should not do this?...Dan Fritz
Just preventing the battery from being disconnected would help, but would
cause it's own problems...Eric M. Jones>>
Mind elaborating on those problems?
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mark manda <mark2nite(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on Painting Panel |
and I was about to say, the nicest panel I've seen is
a black crinkle finish and the guy used Harley
Davidson factory engine paint avail. at the dealer.
--- BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> -
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump comments |
<to mitigate the load dump issue, any comments out there on why we should
>or should not do this?...Dan Fritz
>Just preventing the battery from being disconnected would help, but would
>cause it's own problems...Eric M. Jones>>
>Mind elaborating on those problems?
Gary,
Being able to disconnect the battery in the event of a crash is viewed as an
important safety item by many. Of course, you and I are not going to crash
so we don't care.
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: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Paul Messinger"
<>
1/09/2005
Hello Paul, I agree with most of your points above, but would like to expand
a bit on the subject of anti collision or strobe lighting approval.
1) Per the FAR's, Sec 91.205 in particular, some equipment on aircraft, even
amateur built experimentals, must be approved.
2) FAR Sec 91.205 (c) (3) (equipment requirements for VFR night flight)
reads: "An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light
system on all U.S. - registered civil aircraft".
3) FAR Sec 1.1 defines approved as follows: "Approved, unless used with
reference to another person, means approved by the Administrator".
4) These three facts raise two issues:
A) Who is going to do the approving of the anticollison light system on an
amateur built experimental aircraft?
B) What process and criteria is that person going to use to do that
approving?
5) I maintain that the person, FAA inspector or DAR, doing the initial
airworthiness inspection of an amateur built experimental aircraft is the
only person authorized by the FAA Administrator to grant that approval in
his name. The approval cannot come from the builder of the aircraft nor any
pilot who may subsequently fly that aircraft.
6) The person doing the initial airworthiness inspection of the aircraft is
guided by his FAA instructions and his training and experience in granting
or not granting airworthiness approval to the aircraft he is inspecting. The
prudent inspector would choose to use the anticollision light criteria
published in FAR Sec 23.1401 by the FAA for use in certifying standard type
certificated aircraft to Part 23 as his criteria for approval, but that
criteria does not specifically apply to amateur built experimental
aircraft.
7) If there is an accident involving an amateur built experimental aircraft
and it can be shown that the anticollision light system contributed to that
accident and that the anticollision light system did not meet FAR Sec.
23.1401 criteria at the time the aircraft was granted its initial
airworthiness inspection then the lawyers will be attempting to assign blame
to everyone, builder, inspector, and pilot, involved depending upon whose
financial interest each lawyer is representing.
8) If there is an accident involving an amateur built experimental aircraft
and it can be shown that the anticollision light system contributed to that
accident and that the anticollision light system met FAR Sec. 23.1401
criteria at the time the aircraft was granted its initial airworthiness
inspection, but did not at the time of the accident then the lawyers will be
attempting to assign blame to the pilot and everyone involved in the
maintenance of the aircraft depending upon whose financial interest each
lawyer is representing.
9) If the pilot can prove that he had the anticollison light system turned
on in 8) above and that it was functioning in a normal manner to his visual
observation it would be difficult to assign blame to him because the light
did not meet some intensity criteria that could only be determined by light
intensity measuring instruments. That difficulty would not stop a lawyer
from attempting to blame the pilot.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump comments |
>
>
>Eric et all
>
>I have a LR3C-14, the B&C external regulator with crowbar. Can Eric's
>gentle disconnect device be used in series? Is it necessary? Is it wise?
Why would you want to? It's not necessary so I guess I would
question the wisdom as well. Problem arise when NO ov protection
is designed into your electrical system. While the risks are
very low, they are not zero and the results are nearly always
unhappy. Crowbar ov protection is but one of a series of
technologies that have come into being since the first
OV protection systems were installed on small aircraft.
The new ones tend to be better than the last one but
there's no value in "upgrading" unless the present system
is troublesome in some manner . . . and two systems in
series only doubles the probability of trouble.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> anyone? |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Z13A - Basic question ? Help |
anyone?
anyone?
>
>
>
>Using the Z13A diagram for use with a Vans 60 amp int reg. Ordered the
>contactors, etc. from B&C and Todd sent me a S811-1 ID starter contactor
>which apparently does not have provisions for a starter engaged light. It
>has the two large terminals and one small switch terminal. It also costs $40
>as opposed to $26 for a S702-1 which does allow for the starter engaged
>light.
>
>Some confusion on my part. I think that on the Z13A:
>
>The starter contactor would be a S702-1
>The Battery contactor would be a S701-1
>and the OV disconnect is shown as a S701-1
>
>Does this look correct?
>
>Wonder what/why they would have shipped me a S811-1? More costly and fewer
>features? I must be missing something here, what would it be?
Did you order S702-1 or ask for a "kit" . . . the S811-1 is an
STCd contactor that goes into their kits for starters on the
FAA approved starter conversions. I don't think the S811 has
a built in spike suppressor diode either. I'm not sure why
they would substitute it unless they were out of S702-1 contactors
but your perceptions are correct . . . they ARE different in
significant ways not the least of which is price.
Call B&C.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on Painting Panel |
I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but I had my panel powder
coat a nice deep blue. Very resistant to scratches and had not faded in 7
years. Relatively cheap for what you get, I think mine cost $50. I did
find that the coating was sufficient that I needed to ream some of the paint
away from the lips of the instrument holes to have adequate clearance for
the instrument cases. Most places can match you airframe paint with a powder
coat of the same color/hue.
Ed Anderson
----- Original Message -----
From: "mark manda" <mark2nite(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ideas on Painting Panel
>
> and I was about to say, the nicest panel I've seen is
> a black crinkle finish and the guy used Harley
> Davidson factory engine paint avail. at the dealer.
>
>
> --- BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> > BobsV35B(at)aol.com
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Contributions
> > any other
> > Forums.
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> > http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
> > http://www.matronics.com/archives
> > http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> > http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Spike Cathing Diodes |
The recent short thread on spike catching diodes caught my attention, so I
printed the two links Bob Knuckolls posted in reply. Reading them has
spawned a seemingly dumb question, but, once again, I'm not comfortable NOT
asking:
A while back I got two premanufactured diodes from Van's that are made just
for this purpose (Yellow for master relay & blue for starter relay).
Yesterday I read in the instructions that they are 100 Volt diodes.
However, Bob's test results indicated spikes on the order of 300 Volts.
Should I throw the premanufactured ones out & get 300 or 400 volt diodes?
Seems an inescapable conclusion, but am I misunderstanding something?
Thanks In Advance,
Grant Krueger
PS: The recommendations for the list say not to make separate posts just to
say Thank You, so I'll include it here: It is a slow process for me (& I
have a long ways to go), but having this list (and especially the guidance &
patience of Bob Knuckolls) has been, by far, the most valuable resource to
gaining a better understanding (NOT just the 'how', but the 'why') of how
aircraft electrical systems work. Were it not for the list, I almost
certainly would have dumped this project a long time ago. THANK YOU ALL,
but especially to Bob & Matt.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JSMONDAY(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon and IFR |
Does anyone have a Dynon EFIS with out an artificial horizon or DG (vacuum
or electric) and has their experimental plane approved for IFR use? (I know I
will need a heated Pitot tube)
Thanks,
John Monday
KR2S Laguna Beach, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire Separations |
>
>
>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
You can bundle all of these together. All of these wires
(with the exception of the locally grounded strobe) are
not particularly vulnerable to nor to they generate magnetic
noises that couple into adjacent wires. Run them all together
and in the unlikely event that you have some strobe interference
then you can add a filter at the strobe or run a separate ground
for the strobe in the same bundle with the rest of the wires.
If you want to improve on the probability of a quiet system
in the first try, run strobe power AND grounds in the same
bundles and ground the strobe at the single point ground
on the firewall.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel Gauge VS PTT |
I have a EI capacitance fuel gauge in my RV-8. Recently I noticed that the
indicators lights for the right side read empty when I key the PTT switch.
When I'm done transmitting, it returns to an accurate value. Cool, eh? Is
this likely a ground issue? When first powered on, the gauge does a self
test and will show OPEN if there is a ground issue, but mine passes the self
test. Has anyone else seen this?
Thanks,
-
Larry Bowen, RV-8 53.2 hours
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "earl_schroeder(at)juno.com" <earl_schroeder(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Gauge VS PTT |
-- "Larry Bowen" wrote:
>I have a EI capacitance fuel gauge in my RV-8. Recently I noticed >that the
>indicators lights for the right side read empty when I key the PTT >switch.
>When I'm done transmitting, it returns to an accurate value.
My home made Capacitance gauges do the same thing. So far, I've just accepted
it and found that I don't even notice it anymore. Back when I was working at
GE, we noticed our cap level systems(on liquid level storage tanks) would bounce
if a two way radio was keyed near the Cap transmitting device. I may try to
fix it but it is WAY down on my list. Earl
________________________________________________________________________________
I can't address the Dynon question (however, I am definitely interested in
the answer) but (and I'm not advocating flying in icing conditions with
inadequate equipment) I can tell you that the heated pitot tube requirement
is listed ONLY in . . . .
Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Appendix A--Category II Operations: Manual, Instruments, Equipment, and
Maintenance
Sec. A91.2
2. Required Instruments and Equipment.
The instruments and equipment listed in this section must be installed in
each aircraft operated in a Category II operation. This section does not
require duplication of instruments and equipment required by Sec. 91.205 or
any other provisions of this chapter.
(10) For Category II operations with decision heights below 150 feet either
a marker beacon receiver providing aural and visual indications of the inner
marker or a radio altimeter.
(b) Group II. (1) Warning systems for immediate detection by the pilot of
system faults in items (1), (4), (5), and (9) of Group I and, if installed
for use in Category III operations, the radio altimeter and autothrottle
system.
(2) Dual controls.
(3) An externally vented static pressure system with an alternate static
pressure source.
(4) A windshield wiper or equivalent means of providing adequate cockpit
visibility for a safe visual transition by either pilot to touchdown and
rollout.
(5) A heat source for each airspeed system pitot tube installed or an
equivalent means of preventing malfunctioning due to icing of the pitot
system.
Source:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/D32161
D5DEDD635A86256DC000527BAA?OpenDocument&Highlight=pitot
Of course if you intend to shoot Cat II approaches in your Bugsmasher
Special. . . . . :)
An on-line search of the FARs finds no other reference to heated pitot tube
except that shown above in Part 91, and the other parts don't apply to OBAM
aircraft.
A search of Sec. 91.205 does not even find the word "pitot."
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
JSMONDAY(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon and IFR
Does anyone have a Dynon EFIS with out an artificial horizon or DG (vacuum
or electric) and has their experimental plane approved for IFR use? (I know
I
will need a heated Pitot tube)
Thanks,
John Monday
KR2S Laguna Beach, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KX-125 Problem Solved |
On Jan 7, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Nightingale Michael wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
Not necessarily. It is there so you can get at the composite signal or
provide another signal to the VOR/LOC converter. (No, I can't think of
why you would really want do this but someone might.)
> 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?
Probably. The two pins are probably the composite VOR signal output
from the receiver and the input to the VOR/LOC converter. If there is
no jumper there is no VOR operation.
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: | "Dean" <dvanwinkle(at)royell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on Painting Panel |
Alex
Years ago, I was taking night Instrument Dual in a Cessna 172 with an all
black instrument panel. The nighttime visual image sensation that I
experienced, I think was best described by a writer in a major aviation
magazine of that time. His description of the image (IIRC) was that of
"numerous small white objects floating in a sea of black". I have always
preferred a lighter colored panel so that each instrument image has a stand
alone effect, especially at night. I certainly will not criticize your
choice of black when you are happy with it. It is great that we have the
freedom to make those choices. Just my $ .02.
Dean Van Winkle Retired Aeronautical Engineer
RV-9A Fuselage/Finish
----- Original Message ----- > > >
> >> > > 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?
> > >> > >> > >
> > >
> > > -> > __________________________________>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Crinkle Finish Panel |
Ha. I'm with you on the crinkle finish, Old Bob. I wouldn't have that
finish on my panel for any reason.
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
In a message dated 1/8/2005 2:14:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
Just a question, have you ever owned an airplane with a panel that had
crinkle paint?
I hate that finish!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nuts, Bolts Battery Terminals |
>
>
>Speaking of washers leads me to thinking about nut/bolts for connecting
>battery terminals. What is the correct hardware for this to ensure good
>connection free of vibration and corrosion? What is the normal maintenance
>plan for these parts, should they be replaced annually when a new battery is
>installed? Where is a source for buying?
Many new batteries come with hardware for installing terminals
but as long as there is no corrosion on old hardware . . . it can
be reused. If the battery terminals are "hard" (not made
of lead) then clean hardware with recommended installation
torques (see AC43-13) is fine. If the posts are made of lead,
just clean mated surfaces to bright and tighten to recommended
torques for hardware UNLESS there is obvious deformation
(squashing) of the lead. If the lead moves, then stop tightening
as soon as you perceive it. Note what torque produced the deformation
and use that value in the future.
The ideal joint make-up especially for soft posts is to
us a Belleville washer. These are spring disks that you
simply snug up the fastener and then rotate the nut x
turns to compress the washer to about 20% of its full
height. These are commonly used throughout the power
distribution industry to maintain constant pressures
on certain joints in spite of temperature variability
in the mated materials.
I don't have the time right now to research a hardware
combination for using Belleville washers . . . perhaps
someone on the list with some understanding of the
physics involved can crunch the numbers and then
recommend a washer for lead posts along with terminal
sizes (which sets area of the mated connections).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Spike Cathing Diodes |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
Grant
The voltage rating is the ability of the diode to exist while it is
doing nothing in this application. Its ability to resist reverse voltage
without doing anything or shorting or failing. Since the operating bus
voltage is around 14 volts, what you have is just fine and a higher
voltage would be of no benefit. Ask again if that doesn't answer your
concern.
I believe the spikes you are referring to are without the diode in the
circuit. With the diode those spikes are reduced to less than one volt
as when the diode conducts (turns on) the voltage across it is 0.6 volts
nominal in the forward direction. Thus the spike is shorted and
eliminated and never goes to a significant value. The diode is a
unidirectional switch for electricity - a one way valve. When it is on
there is very little pressure or voltage across it.
If you were using the diode in 120 volt ac mains where it blocks 120
volts (rms) 60 times every second (N. America), you'd need a higher
voltage rating.
Ken
Tinne maha wrote:
>
>The recent short thread on spike catching diodes caught my attention, so I
>printed the two links Bob Knuckolls posted in reply. Reading them has
>spawned a seemingly dumb question, but, once again, I'm not comfortable NOT
>asking:
>
>A while back I got two premanufactured diodes from Van's that are made just
>for this purpose (Yellow for master relay & blue for starter relay).
>Yesterday I read in the instructions that they are 100 Volt diodes.
>However, Bob's test results indicated spikes on the order of 300 Volts.
>Should I throw the premanufactured ones out & get 300 or 400 volt diodes?
>Seems an inescapable conclusion, but am I misunderstanding something?
>
> Thanks In Advance,
> Grant Krueger
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi All-
I need some guidance for my antenna configuration. I've checked the archives and
don't find anything relevant. My basic plan is to use gps for enroute and
VOR/loc/gs for terminal ops only. Since the vor etc is for close in work only,
I don't mind some antenna performance degradation, and plan on using an internal
wingtip antenna and a splitter to pull the GS off of the VOR antenna.
My question is, can I reasonably split the MB off of this antenna also, or is
that asking too much?
As ever, TIA for your time and help!
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
>
>
>I was looking at B+C site and it mentions to use internal tooth
>Phosphor-Bronze
>washers under the head of screws to maintain a good connection to a brass bus.
>
>Is it recommended and good practice to use a Phosphor-Bronze washer under
>the head
>of screw when using ring connectors?
yes . . under the fastener head of any threaded joint.
>Is it recommended to use Tef-Gel on the connection as well?
no . . . but it doesn't hurt. A properly mated joint will
extrude any protectant out of the electrical connection leaving
it surrounding the joint for protection from moisture. Unless
you live on the coast or plan to put your airplane on floats,
adding guckums to the joint has problematical benefit.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Spike Cathing Diodes |
>
>The recent short thread on spike catching diodes caught my attention, so I
>printed the two links Bob Knuckolls posted in reply. Reading them has
>spawned a seemingly dumb question, but, once again, I'm not comfortable NOT
>asking:
>
>A while back I got two premanufactured diodes from Van's that are made just
>for this purpose (Yellow for master relay & blue for starter relay).
>Yesterday I read in the instructions that they are 100 Volt diodes.
>However, Bob's test results indicated spikes on the order of 300 Volts.
>Should I throw the premanufactured ones out & get 300 or 400 volt diodes?
>Seems an inescapable conclusion, but am I misunderstanding something?
Look at the articles again. The inductive reaction of the load be
it a relay, contactor or alternator field is to generate a large
reversed voltage transient as the magnetic field collapses unrestrained.
The diode sees SYSTEM voltage as a normal reverse voltage component.
Hence, in our 14v airplanes, even the smallest votlage rated device
(50v) would be just fine.
During the transient event, the voltage WOULD go into the hundreds
of volts range if it were not for the forward conduction characteristics
of the diode that limit the excursion to 1 volt or less. This also has
the effect of not allowing current through the inductor to fall instantly
to zero . . . which has some other considerations for relay dropout
times and/or alternator regulation dynamics . . . but thats another
subject.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
You need a separate antenna for a marker beacon since it operates on a
different frequency. A marker antenna looks like a inverted boat. Splitting
NAV and GS is fine, with no degradation in signal, unless you do as I do now
and use a 1 into 4 splitter; I've noted the GS on both OBS's do not lock on
till about 15 nm out on an ILS, where the LOC is out to 20-25nm.
With my old 1 into 2 before upgrade, both would lockon out at 22-25nm.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: MB splitter
>
>
> Hi All-
>
> I need some guidance for my antenna configuration. I've checked the
> archives and don't find anything relevant. My basic plan is to use gps
> for enroute and VOR/loc/gs for terminal ops only. Since the vor etc is
> for close in work only, I don't mind some antenna performance degradation,
> and plan on using an internal wingtip antenna and a splitter to pull the
> GS off of the VOR antenna. My question is, can I reasonably split the MB
> off of this antenna also, or is that asking too much?
>
> As ever, TIA for your time and help!
>
> Glen Matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures |
On Jan 8, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Paul Messinger wrote:
> With all the discussion on load dump ever wondered why now and not 50
> years
> ago?
Yes.
> One reason is then (and now) I have learned and then taught that the
> alternator was turned on only after the engine was started and both the
> battery and the alternator was only turned off AFTER the engine was
> completely stopped.
I thought that was SOP.
> Recently I have seem and observed first hand cases where the ammeter
> was
> checked during runup by turning the alternator off.
I don't see how this causes a load dump. If you remove the field
excitation the output of the alternator ramps to zero as the existing
B-field in the field collapses. No load dump. Do you get a big
overshoot when you turn it back on?
> Also the alternator and
> master were turned off before shutting down the engine.
That strikes me as rather stupid.
> The latter procedure assures load dump and the former prevents load
> dump.
>
> Any one know when the latter procedure became popular in some
> circles???
No idea. It certainly isn't what I teach. I teach mixture>mags>master
in an aircraft with an idle-cut-off in the mixture control and
mags>master in one that doesn't.
> The above does not include emergency or failure conditions.
Of course.
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: | Cat-II in Cat-I airplanes (was: Dynon and IFR) |
On Jan 9, 2005, at 10:29 PM, Rob Housman wrote:
> Of course if you intend to shoot Cat II approaches in your Bugsmasher
> Special. . . . . :)
I think you will find that there is an exception that allows Cat-II
approaches in Cat-I equipped aircraft if the normal approach speed is
below 90 kts. You must demonstrate proficiency by flying an approach to
Cat-II minimums. If you do so at one airport then you are authorized to
perform Cat-II approaches to that airport and that airport only in the
aircraft tested and that aircraft only. If you demonstrated proficiency
at performing Cat-II approaches at two different airports then you are
authorized to fly that aircraft to Cat-II minimums at any Cat-II
airport in the US.
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 10, 2005, at 9:33 AM, Glen Matejcek wrote:
> I don't mind some antenna performance degradation, and plan on using
> an internal wingtip antenna and a splitter to pull the GS off of the
> VOR antenna. My question is, can I reasonably split the MB off of
> this antenna also, or is that asking too much?
It should work but my suggestion is to try it and see. Fly it that way
in VFR conditions and make sure everything works the way you expect.
Someone may suggest that the marker beacon works at a completely
different frequency (it does -- 75MHz) and therefore will not work with
a VOR antenna cut for 108-118 MHz. But if you think about it, the
transmitter is outputting 50W into a directional antenna only about
2000' away. Your MB receiver should be able to hear that signal with a
wet noodle as an antenna.
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: | "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Zeftronics Regulators? |
I've been lurking here for some time and am surprised to see no mention
of the Zeftronics regulators (alternator controllers). They seem to
offer pretty good features at an attractive price, about 1/2 of the B&C
versions. Perhaps their technology is not up to speed? For example,
the R15V00 Rev A offers low voltage warning, field-ground fault
protection and over-voltage protection, along with a neat visible
trouble-shooting light. I had one on my last airplane for many years
with no problems. Comments?
Andy Elliott
Lycoming owner, Corvair wannabe!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
Thanks! They list it as "Phosphorous Bronze", which threw me.
Best regards,
Mickey
Harley wrote:
>
> Morning, Mickey...
>
> >>McMaster-Carr does not seem to have them.<<
>
> I just did a search there... http://www.mcmaster.com/
>
> Entered "bronze washers" in the search box, and the second item listed
> was "Phosphor Bronze Internal Tooth Lock Washers (the first was External
> Tooth). When I clicked on it, it listed sizes from #2 to 1/2".
>
> Harley Dixon
>
>
> Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Good questions. I'm also interested in the answers. Also, a
>>source for these internal tool phosphor-bronze washers would
>>be most welcome. McMaster-Carr does not seem to have them.
>>
>>Ronald J. Parigoris wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I was looking at B+C site and it mentions to use internal tooth Phosphor-Bronze
>>>washers under the head of screws to maintain a good connection to a brass bus.
>>>
>>>Is it recommended and good practice to use a Phosphor-Bronze washer under the
head
>>>of screw when using ring connectors?
>>>
>>>Is it recommended to use Tef-Gel on the connection as well?
>>>
>>>
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
Good points however I was unable to find any FAA or DAR that said their
inspection went beyond the day vfr flight and stated that the general escape
wording used was other flights must be equipped per fars.
Not exact words but 100% said they did not check nor were resopnsible for
proper equipment that might be required in variour phased of flight.
Agree legals will try to get everyone. Porblem is if the equipment does not
meet fars and an accident happens the INS CO will disavow all
responsibility.
Paul
BTW It does look like Aeroflash has finally gotten it together.
I find the 4 flash much better than double for visibility and single sucks.
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
>
> From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
>
> AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Paul Messinger"
>
>
> < flight. I went around and around with FAA and Aero Flash years ago as well
> as my Ins
> agent. If strobes are required for your flight then they must meet the
Fars
> for
> angle of visibility and intensity. At the time Aero Flash did not. I have
no
> info that Aero Flash ever increased the output to meet the requirements.
> The FAA position is its up to the pilot (not even the owner) to verify
that
> all required equipment for the flight meets the Fars. Thus its not the
DAR's
> responsibility when the acft is inspected to verify lighting that is
proper
> its the builder. Later its who ever is flying the aircraft. The insurance
CO
> position is if the accident was in any way related to sub standard strobes
> your insurance is void. Also at that time the FAA will take
> action against you and your pilots license. But there are lots of stories
> around about what I am saying is not correct as well as the one that says
> carrying a co pilot for part of the flight test
> is OK during the first 25-40 hours. Ask the right FAA person and you will
> find out there are no cases where passengers of any type are allowed.
Dittos
> for the strobe intensity. If you can find a commercial strobe with the
right
> power output its fine for
> experimental use. Paul>>
>
> 1/09/2005
>
> Hello Paul, I agree with most of your points above, but would like to
expand
> a bit on the subject of anti collision or strobe lighting approval.
>
> 1) Per the FAR's, Sec 91.205 in particular, some equipment on aircraft,
even
> amateur built experimentals, must be approved.
>
> 2) FAR Sec 91.205 (c) (3) (equipment requirements for VFR night flight)
> reads: "An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light
> system on all U.S. - registered civil aircraft".
>
> 3) FAR Sec 1.1 defines approved as follows: "Approved, unless used with
> reference to another person, means approved by the Administrator".
>
> 4) These three facts raise two issues:
>
> A) Who is going to do the approving of the anticollison light system on an
> amateur built experimental aircraft?
>
> B) What process and criteria is that person going to use to do that
> approving?
>
> 5) I maintain that the person, FAA inspector or DAR, doing the initial
> airworthiness inspection of an amateur built experimental aircraft is the
> only person authorized by the FAA Administrator to grant that approval in
> his name. The approval cannot come from the builder of the aircraft nor
any
> pilot who may subsequently fly that aircraft.
>
> 6) The person doing the initial airworthiness inspection of the aircraft
is
> guided by his FAA instructions and his training and experience in granting
> or not granting airworthiness approval to the aircraft he is inspecting.
The
> prudent inspector would choose to use the anticollision light criteria
> published in FAR Sec 23.1401 by the FAA for use in certifying standard
type
> certificated aircraft to Part 23 as his criteria for approval, but that
> criteria does not specifically apply to amateur built experimental
> aircraft.
>
> 7) If there is an accident involving an amateur built experimental
aircraft
> and it can be shown that the anticollision light system contributed to
that
> accident and that the anticollision light system did not meet FAR Sec.
> 23.1401 criteria at the time the aircraft was granted its initial
> airworthiness inspection then the lawyers will be attempting to assign
blame
> to everyone, builder, inspector, and pilot, involved depending upon whose
> financial interest each lawyer is representing.
>
> 8) If there is an accident involving an amateur built experimental
aircraft
> and it can be shown that the anticollision light system contributed to
that
> accident and that the anticollision light system met FAR Sec. 23.1401
> criteria at the time the aircraft was granted its initial airworthiness
> inspection, but did not at the time of the accident then the lawyers will
be
> attempting to assign blame to the pilot and everyone involved in the
> maintenance of the aircraft depending upon whose financial interest each
> lawyer is representing.
>
> 9) If the pilot can prove that he had the anticollison light system turned
> on in 8) above and that it was functioning in a normal manner to his
visual
> observation it would be difficult to assign blame to him because the light
> did not meet some intensity criteria that could only be determined by
light
> intensity measuring instruments. That difficulty would not stop a lawyer
> from attempting to blame the pilot.
>
> OC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> |
I followed the recent post re the jumpers and thought i would get oppinion
on my problem. Couple weeks ago after fooling with the Nav a little bit,
then returning from the flight I noticed a growing hiss in my comm as I came
down. Afterpoking around nearly taking the radio out I just happened to turn
the Nav vol control down. and the hiss (white noise) disapeared. It sounded
like having no antena conn. I hooked it to another ant, no change. As long
as I keep the nav vol off Im ok. Could this be something simple or does it
sound like it needs to go to the shop? Charlie heathco Atl.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Heated Pitot Tubes |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Rob Housman"
<robh@hyperion-ef.us>
>
> I can't address the Dynon question (however, I am definitely interested in
> the answer) but (and I'm not advocating flying in icing conditions with
> inadequate equipment) I can tell you that the heated pitot tube
> requirement
> is listed ONLY in . . . .
>
> Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
> Appendix A--Category II Operations: Manual, Instruments, Equipment, and
> Maintenance
>
> Sec. A91.2
>
> 2. Required Instruments and Equipment.
>
> The instruments and equipment listed in this section must be installed in
> each aircraft operated in a Category II operation. This section does not
> require duplication of instruments and equipment required by Sec. 91.205
> or
> any other provisions of this chapter.....skip..... Rob Housman
1/10/2005
Hello Rob, FAR Part 23, which deals with the airworthiness certification
requirements for type certificated airplanes, also has heated pitot tube
requirements.
FAR Sec 23.1323 (d) reads "If certification for instrument flight rules or
flight in icing conditions is requested, each airspeed system must have a
heated pitot tube or an equivalent means of preventing malfunction due to
icing."
Since Part 23 does not apply to amateur built experimental aircraft that
paragraph is not binding on the amateur builder or the initial airworthiness
inspector. However such inspectors, as representatives of the FAA
Administrator, are given significant powers during the inspection. It would
not surprise me if an inspector of an amateur built experimental airplane
for its initial airworthiness certificate that was equipped in every other
regard for IFR, but did not have a heated pitot tube, would find some way
to "influence" the builder to incorporate a heated pitot tube.
How strongly an inspector feels about this issue would be dependent upon the
individual inspector.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Re: Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
Thanks Bob
"unless live on the coast or plan to put your airplane on floats, adding guckums
to the
joint has problematical benefit"
What problematical benefit?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com>
Subject: Aeroflash
>I saw your post on Aero-Electric group. This same "aeroflash" issue came
>up
> in the Cozy canard group.
>
> Per the FARs, you need to have an anti-collision light, but it need not be
> strobe lights. It can be a red beacon. But, but, but....if you have
> strobe
> lights installed, you MUST use them at night. You're not penalized if you
> don't have them, but you are penalized if you have them and don't use
> them.
> Paradox, huh?
>
> The aeroflash units were originally intended to be a replacement unit for
> older Cessnas. As yes, they unfortunately do not "meet" the FAA's
> latest/greatest lighting specs. Why they continue to sell to homebuilders
> without telling us that is beyond me. Wayne Hicks Cozy IV Plans #678
1/10/2005
Hello Wayne, Thanks for your input. I agree, an anticollision light system
can consist of either a rotating beacon or strobe light system and the
anticollision light system must be an approved system in order for it to be
installed on type certificated aircraft. See FAR Sec. 91.205 (c) (3) for
details.
Can I provide some clarification regarding use of anticollision lights?
FAR Sec 91.209 (b) on aircraft lights reads as follows: "No person may:
Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light system,
unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the anticollision
lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that,
because of operation conditions, it woud be in the interest of safety to
turn the lights off."
Three clarification points, if I may:
1) The requirement to have the anticollision lights on is the same in the
day time as it is at night.
2) Turning the anticollision system lights off while in IMC to avoid
disorienting reflections from the flashes would be considered an acceptable
and normal practice.
3) Approved anti collision light systems are required by FAR Sec. 91.205 (c)
(3) for amateur built experimental aircraft as well as for type
certificated aircraft. But since there are no certification criteria
published for amateur built experimental aircraft there is some gray area as
to who will do the approving of anticollision light systems for amateur
built aircraft and what criteria that person will use in his approval
process. See my posting of 1/09/2005 on this issue.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tubes |
Anyone know of a source for straight heated pitots in 12v?
All the ones we have managed to find are 90 deg L shaped and I think the one
straight one we found was 24v.
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | LED position light package |
Does anyone have any experience with these LED position ligths with
replaceable strobes. Their web site is https://ssl.perfora.net/gs-air.com/
. There is a technical pdf doc on their web site that they use to explain
how their LED system meets the FAR's requirement. However, not being of an
electrical background, I have no way of proving that what they state is
valid or not. I was looking at their LED-002 product specifically, and with
their package with strobes and powerpack it seems kind of attactive.
Wick also resells the package, but then that does not mean that it is still
a viable option.
Bob
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kx 125 problem |
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
Reminds me of an option on my SL30, which may or may not apply to the
kx125. Anyway, on the SL30 you can set it up so that the two audios, comm
and nav, mix. Once I realized this I set my nav mix setting (probably
called something else in the manual) zero, and my noise went away.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Charles Heathco said:
>
>
> I followed the recent post re the jumpers and thought i would get oppinion
> on my problem. Couple weeks ago after fooling with the Nav a little bit,
> then returning from the flight I noticed a growing hiss in my comm as I
> came
> down. Afterpoking around nearly taking the radio out I just happened to
> turn
> the Nav vol control down. and the hiss (white noise) disapeared. It
> sounded
> like having no antena conn. I hooked it to another ant, no change. As long
> as I keep the nav vol off Im ok. Could this be something simple or does it
> sound like it needs to go to the shop? Charlie heathco Atl.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kx 125 problem |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Have you checked for the hiss when you have the NAV tuned to a
frequency that allows for good reception of a local VOR transmitter?
With the NAV volume control turned up, you should here the VOR
station transmitted in Morse code. If the NAV isn't actually receiving
a VOR signal, it is normal to here static when the NAV volume is
turned up. Does that make sense?
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
>
> I followed the recent post re the jumpers and thought i would get
> oppinion on my problem. Couple weeks ago after fooling with the Nav a
> little bit, then returning from the flight I noticed a growing hiss in
> my comm as I came down. Afterpoking around nearly taking the radio out
> I just happened to turn the Nav vol control down. and the hiss (white
> noise) disapeared. It sounded like having no antena conn. I hooked it
> to another ant, no change. As long as I keep the nav vol off Im ok.
> Could this be something simple or does it sound like it needs to go to
> the shop? Charlie heathco Atl.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Malcolm Thomson" <mdthomson(at)attglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Heated Pitot Tubes |
Just have Greg make you one!
Are you flying yet?
Malcolm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Heated Pitot Tubes
Anyone know of a source for straight heated pitots in 12v?
All the ones we have managed to find are 90 deg L shaped and I think the
one
straight one we found was 24v.
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | B Tomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Heated Pitot Tubes |
I've straight ones on ebay.
What's the deal with the high prices for new L shaped heated tubes?
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com [SMTP:CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Heated Pitot Tubes
Anyone know of a source for straight heated pitots in 12v?
All the ones we have managed to find are 90 deg L shaped and I think the one
straight one we found was 24v.
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tubes |
I never found any during my searches so I made my own and used a 12v Cessna
heating element.
See details: http://www.berkut13.com/berkut41.htm
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Heated Pitot Tubes
>
> Anyone know of a source for straight heated pitots in 12v?
> All the ones we have managed to find are 90 deg L shaped and I think the
> one
> straight one we found was 24v.
> ...Chrissi
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)provalue.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LED position light package |
Bob Kuc wrote:
>
>Does anyone have any experience with these LED position ligths with
>replaceable strobes. Their web site is https://ssl.perfora.net/gs-air.com/
>. There is a technical pdf doc on their web site that they use to explain
>how their LED system meets the FAR's requirement. However, not being of an
>electrical background, I have no way of proving that what they state is
>valid or not. I was looking at their LED-002 product specifically, and with
>their package with strobes and powerpack it seems kind of attactive.
>
>Wick also resells the package, but then that does not mean that it is still
>a viable option.
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>
I would be careful with such an item. If it is not FAA certified, the
FAA inspector's might approve it, or he might not, it is his choice,
and many of them try to cover the buttt. So, if you want to play a
lottery....
My inspector wanted to see TSO numbers on the position lights, I was
lucky because I installed Grimes lights. He also wanted TSO numbers on
the safety belts. I was less lucky here, I had automotive belts and I
had to replace them. These lights are worth several hundred dollars and
you might loose the money, while you can get TSO'd Grimes lights on ebay
for much less.
Jerzy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | LED position light package |
> My inspector wanted to see TSO numbers on the position lights, I was
> lucky because I installed Grimes lights. He also wanted TSO numbers on
> the safety belts. I was less lucky here, I had automotive belts and I
> had to replace them.
Perhaps this is a dumb question, but is there a list
of things like this? Things that have to be "certified"
in some way?
Did you get an FAA employee to do the inspection, or a DAR?
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tubes |
In a message dated 1/10/2005 12:19:35 PM Central Standard Time,
james(at)berkut13.com writes:
I never found any during my searches so I made my own and used a 12v Cessna
heating element.
See details: http://www.berkut13.com/berkut41.htm
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
Dear James,
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT !!! exactly what we are looking for and way so
easy to make. OK, you can take full credit for making the nose of our Cozy look
so cool when we are done.... now, how much does it draw?
Thanks, Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | LED position light package |
FYI It is unfortunate that rather than stand up for what is right, a
builder will capitulate to the demands of the inspector EVEN though the
inspector is wrong. The Builder gets antsy, wants to fly without further
delay so he easily gives in when he doesn't have to.
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Norris" <jnorris(at)eaa.org>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
Contrary to what some FAA inspectors seem to believe, there's no requirement
that seat belts or harnesses in an experimental aircraft be manufactured
under a TSO authorization. In fact, there's no specific regulatory
requirement for seat belts of any kind!!
The truth is, SAE and ASTM standards for seat belts are far more stringent
than TSO requirements, so auto or racing belts are actually much better than
aircraft belts anyway!
Cheers!
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: cgalley [mailto:cgalley(at)qcbc.org]
Subject: Fw: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
TSO for seat belts for a homebuilt? I thought that there were other
qualifiying numbers from the automotive field that were even stronger than
the FAA TSO.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
>
> > My inspector wanted to see TSO numbers on the position lights, I was
> > lucky because I installed Grimes lights. He also wanted TSO numbers on
> > the safety belts. I was less lucky here, I had automotive belts and I
> > had to replace them.
>
> Perhaps this is a dumb question, but is there a list
> of things like this? Things that have to be "certified"
> in some way?
>
> Did you get an FAA employee to do the inspection, or a DAR?
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 Wiring
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "GEORGE INMAN" <ghinman(at)allstream.net> |
This may be a dumb question,
but if there is only one push to talk switch
for a headset.what do you do if you only
want to talk to a pasenger and not
transmit on the radio?
GEORGE H. INMAN
ghinman(at)allstream.net
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mic talk switch |
It's been awhile since I used it, but if I remember correctly, my
intercom is voice activated...just talk, and the passenger and pilot can
communicate...if a transmission comes in, or if you push the push to
talk button, the passenger's mike is cut out.
Harley
GEORGE INMAN wrote:
>
> This may be a dumb question,
> but if there is only one push to talk switch
> for a headset.what do you do if you only
> want to talk to a pasenger and not
> transmit on the radio?
>
>GEORGE H. INMAN
>ghinman(at)allstream.net
>
>
>
>
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LED position light package |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Agreed.
A good way to get around this is to play dumb. Ask the inspector to
show you the regulation that applies and explain it to you. Your argument
should be that you need to understand the situation well enough that you
can correctly comply with the requirement. This is all for education, right?
You are paying him (either as a private arrangement, or via your taxes)
to be the expert. Make him work for it.
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
> FYI It is unfortunate that rather than stand up for what is right, a
> builder will capitulate to the demands of the inspector EVEN though the
> inspector is wrong. The Builder gets antsy, wants to fly without
> further delay so he easily gives in when he doesn't have to.
>
> Cy Galley
> EAA Safety Programs Editor
> Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Norris" <jnorris(at)eaa.org>
> To: "cgalley"
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
>
>
> Contrary to what some FAA inspectors seem to believe, there's no
> requirement that seat belts or harnesses in an experimental aircraft be
> manufactured under a TSO authorization. In fact, there's no specific
> regulatory requirement for seat belts of any kind!!
>
> The truth is, SAE and ASTM standards for seat belts are far more
> stringent than TSO requirements, so auto or racing belts are actually
> much better than aircraft belts anyway!
>
> Cheers!
>
> Joe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cgalley [mailto:cgalley(at)qcbc.org]
> To: Joe Norris
> Subject: Fw: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
>
>
> TSO for seat belts for a homebuilt? I thought that there were other
> qualifiying numbers from the automotive field that were even stronger
> than the FAA TSO.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
>
>
>
>>
>> > My inspector wanted to see TSO numbers on the position lights, I was
>> lucky because I installed Grimes lights. He also wanted TSO numbers
>> on the safety belts. I was less lucky here, I had automotive belts
>> and I had to replace them.
>>
>> Perhaps this is a dumb question, but is there a list
>> of things like this? Things that have to be "certified"
>> in some way?
>>
>> Did you get an FAA employee to do the inspection, or a DAR?
>>
>> --
>> Mickey Coggins
>> http://www.rv8.ch/
>> #82007 Wiring
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: LED position light package |
This might work but all the inspector might have to do is write it into your
operating limitations. But I really don't know.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Subject: Re: Fw: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
> Agreed.
>
> A good way to get around this is to play dumb. Ask the inspector to
> show you the regulation that applies and explain it to you. Your argument
> should be that you need to understand the situation well enough that you
> can correctly comply with the requirement. This is all for education,
right?
> You are paying him (either as a private arrangement, or via your taxes)
> to be the expert. Make him work for it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
> VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
> >
> > FYI It is unfortunate that rather than stand up for what is right, a
> > builder will capitulate to the demands of the inspector EVEN though the
> > inspector is wrong. The Builder gets antsy, wants to fly without
> > further delay so he easily gives in when he doesn't have to.
> >
> > Cy Galley
> > EAA Safety Programs Editor
> > Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joe Norris" <jnorris(at)eaa.org>
> > To: "cgalley"
> > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
> >
> >
> > Contrary to what some FAA inspectors seem to believe, there's no
> > requirement that seat belts or harnesses in an experimental aircraft be
> > manufactured under a TSO authorization. In fact, there's no specific
> > regulatory requirement for seat belts of any kind!!
> >
> > The truth is, SAE and ASTM standards for seat belts are far more
> > stringent than TSO requirements, so auto or racing belts are actually
> > much better than aircraft belts anyway!
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cgalley [mailto:cgalley(at)qcbc.org]
> > To: Joe Norris
> > Subject: Fw: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
> >
> >
> > TSO for seat belts for a homebuilt? I thought that there were other
> > qualifiying numbers from the automotive field that were even stronger
> > than the FAA TSO.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
> > To:
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > My inspector wanted to see TSO numbers on the position lights, I was
> >> lucky because I installed Grimes lights. He also wanted TSO numbers
> >> on the safety belts. I was less lucky here, I had automotive belts
> >> and I had to replace them.
> >>
> >> Perhaps this is a dumb question, but is there a list
> >> of things like this? Things that have to be "certified"
> >> in some way?
> >>
> >> Did you get an FAA employee to do the inspection, or a DAR?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mickey Coggins
> >> http://www.rv8.ch/
> >> #82007 Wiring
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bkuc1(at)tampabay.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: LED position light package |
That is my initial question. Since the gs-air booklet explains how it meets the
FAR with the LED lighting. This should be sufficient to show the inspector
the document, if need be.
Bob Kuc
> A good way to get around this is to play dumb. Ask the inspector to
> show you the regulation that applies and explain it to you. Your
> argumentshould be that you need to understand the situation well
> enough that you
> can correctly comply with the requirement. This is all for
> education, right?
> > Contrary to what some FAA inspectors seem to believe, there's no
> > requirement that seat belts or harnesses in an experimental
> aircraft be
> > manufactured under a TSO authorization. In fact, there's no
> specific> regulatory requirement for seat belts of any kind!!
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Modified Z-12 comments |
Is no one going to take a stab at this?
>
>
> I have a builder buddy (not on list) that is in the process of wiring his
> plane using a slightly modified Z-12 with the addition of an aux battery
> wired in per Figure 17-6. He's asked me for my comments on the
> "modifications" he made and I'm not too sure how to respond. It a "I
> would
> not do it this way, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't", kinda thing.
>
> The main parts of Z-12 are not changed other than adding the second
> battery
> and contactor I mentioned above. The thing he changed was in the
> switching
> of the main/aux batteries and the main/aux alternators. E-bus is run off
> the main battery only - just like in Figure 17-6.
>
> For the switches, he has used 2 DPST switches - one simultaneously
> activates
> the main battery and main alternator together, and the second activates
> the
> aux battery and the aux alternator together. There is no single "master"
> switch in this combination, but there is also no way to run the aux
> alternator from the main battery only. There are still two ways to send
> power to the main bus - main on, aux on (or both of those on), and the
> e-bus
> can be powered from the main battery via a separate e-bus switch.
> However,
> there is now no way to isolate an alternator only from it's respective
> battery.
>
> Now, for you "theory" folks out there...is this an acceptable design
> modification? It certainly saves panel switch space (two vs 4 switch
> holes), but I'd like to hear some of the "knows more than me" crowd's
> opinions on coupling the battery and alt switches together.
>
> Thanks!
>
> James Redmon
> Berkut #013 N97TX
> http://www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tubes |
> THAT IS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT !!! exactly what we are looking for and way so
> easy to make. OK, you can take full credit for making the nose of our Cozy
> look
> so cool when we are done.... now, how much does it draw?
> Thanks, Chrissi
It's a 12v, 80w element so it pulls about 7amps - I have it on a 10amp fuse.
It works great and it gets VERY hot on the ground.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
| Subject: | LED position light package |
Just like the heated pitot for IFR, you can leave them off on the initial
inspection and add them later. Then the "appropriately equipped for
night/IFR" clause in your operating limitations kicks in.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jerzy
Krasinski
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
Bob Kuc wrote:
>
>Does anyone have any experience with these LED position ligths with
>replaceable strobes. Their web site is https://ssl.perfora.net/gs-air.com/
>. There is a technical pdf doc on their web site that they use to explain
>how their LED system meets the FAR's requirement. However, not being of an
>electrical background, I have no way of proving that what they state is
>valid or not. I was looking at their LED-002 product specifically, and
with
>their package with strobes and powerpack it seems kind of attactive.
>
>Wick also resells the package, but then that does not mean that it is still
>a viable option.
>
>Bob
>
>
I would be careful with such an item. If it is not FAA certified, the
FAA inspector's might approve it, or he might not, it is his choice,
and many of them try to cover the buttt. So, if you want to play a
lottery....
My inspector wanted to see TSO numbers on the position lights, I was
lucky because I installed Grimes lights. He also wanted TSO numbers on
the safety belts. I was less lucky here, I had automotive belts and I
had to replace them. These lights are worth several hundred dollars and
you might loose the money, while you can get TSO'd Grimes lights on ebay
for much less.
Jerzy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tubes |
In a message dated 1/10/2005 5:48:27 PM Central Standard Time,
james(at)berkut13.com writes:
It works great and it gets VERY hot on the ground.
I suppose that would preclude using it as a handle ? =)
Its looking like all of our loads are up in the nose except the starter.
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LED position lights |
I sell LED position lights--someday everyone will. I invite those with an
interest in the subject to look at my paper on the subject--it is a
description of how to build red and green LED position lights.
http://www.periheliondesign.com/downloads/redandgreenledpositionlights.pdf
The FAA's interest is keeping pilots from knocking heads in the dark and we
all have the same interests. My prediction is that many LED position lights
will fail in what is called "far field distribution", since LED luminous
flux is not distributed like most incandescent lamps.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true."
James Clerk Maxwell, discoverer of electromagnetism
"Too much of a good thing can be wonderful."
Mae West, discoverer of personal magnetism
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)provalue.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LED position light package |
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>
>
>>My inspector wanted to see TSO numbers on the position lights, I was
>>lucky because I installed Grimes lights. He also wanted TSO numbers on
>>the safety belts. I was less lucky here, I had automotive belts and I
>>had to replace them.
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps this is a dumb question, but is there a list
>of things like this? Things that have to be "certified"
>in some way?
>
>Did you get an FAA employee to do the inspection, or a DAR?
>
>
>
Funny thing, my safety belts were from Velocity company, and these
belts are a part of their kits. I heard that most of the builders did
not have much troubles with that. Probably the key to this issue is to
contact an already tested inspector or DAR, with known requirements.
FAA part 91 operating rules list things that must be approved. But
"approved " can mean different things to different people. The inspector
or DAR can approve your part based on its look and technical data that
you provide. However, he does not have to approve it even if you provide
the most convincing arguments. He might insist on parts which are
already TSO'd. If you do not like decision of the DAR or inspector,
you are free to challenge his decision through the FAA bureaucracy.
Good luck with that, but I thought that your objective was to get the
plane flying soon.
Dealing with my safety belts I found that one can easy get TSOd lap
belts, which in the FAA slang are called safety belts. To my surprise I
found that there were no certified shoulder belts other than aerobatic
harnesses. In addition these things are not even considered a part of
the safety belts. In FAA zhargon they are called "restraining system"
and they have a different TSO number. So, It looked that the only option
was to buy a totally unnecessary TSOd aerobatic restraining system for
big hundreds of dollars. I did some discussion with the DAR and he
agreed to install TSOd lap belts together with the uncertified shoulder
belts from the same company, made of the same materials and using the
same technology. I found such belts and that solved the problem.
My DAR was very competent and nice. He was also very helpful in
preparing the paperwork, where I was totally lost, while it was not his
duty. But he had strong opinion what does it mean "approved" and I had
to replace the belts.
After my experience with the DAR I would certainly recommend the minimum
friction path. I can imagine similar cans of worms when you start
looking for certified electronic equipment. One way to reduce the future
stress might be to contact the DAR well ahead of time and get his input
before you buy anything expensive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LED position lights |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
>
snip
> The FAA's interest is keeping pilots from knocking heads in the dark and
> we all have the same interests. My prediction is that many LED position
> lights will fail in what is called "far field distribution", since LED
> luminous flux is not distributed like most incandescent lamps.
>
I think this begs the question, is the reg is well written? I gather that
the your
assessment of the far field distribution is that there are nulls in places
where
there shouldn't be. Does it matter from the standpoint of keeping from
knocking
heads in the dark?
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> Phone (508) 764-2072
> Email: emjones(at)charter.net
>
> "Nothing is too wonderful to be true."
> James Clerk Maxwell, discoverer of electromagnetism
> "Too much of a good thing can be wonderful."
> Mae West, discoverer of personal magnetism
>
>
Regards,
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cookin bosch relays |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
I have now cooked my 3rd relay and I am getting very irritated.
I have 2 relays in my buss system, one for my instrument buss, one for
my essential buss.
Both are bosch 0 332 019 155 spst 40A relays with diode protection in
the relay. Drawings here:
http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/217_052
Both relay contactors get their source voltage from the same place, and
the load side of the relays go to their respective fuse panels. Both
relays are energized with a simple switch that pulls the relay coil to
ground.
I have the diode protection for the essential buss down stream from the
relay, between the relay and the buss.
When I engage the relays one at a time, either one, they work and
energize the appropriate buss nicely. If they both are on at the same
time. I cook one. ARGH! The wiring checks out fine. What am I doing
wrong?
Mike
S8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
I think Narco used to make a splitter the went straight onto the back of the
NAV122 that split both glideslope and MB off the VOR antenna input. I often
wondered how it worked because the MB frequency isn't a resonant multiple of
the VOR frequencies, but as Brian points out, there is plenty of RF to
overcome the physics of the situation.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cookin bosch relays |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
It sounds like it must be wired other than how you expect it to be wired. Do
you have a schematic/wiring diagram that shows how you think its hooked
up? I think when you close the switch, you must be inadvertantly shorting
the bus to ground via the high current part of the relay.
Regards,
Matt-
> Atlanta)"
>
> I have now cooked my 3rd relay and I am getting very irritated.
> I have 2 relays in my buss system, one for my instrument buss, one for
> my essential buss.
> Both are bosch 0 332 019 155 spst 40A relays with diode protection in
> the relay. Drawings here:
> http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/217_052
>
> Both relay contactors get their source voltage from the same place, and
> the load side of the relays go to their respective fuse panels. Both
> relays are energized with a simple switch that pulls the relay coil to
> ground.
>
> I have the diode protection for the essential buss down stream from the
> relay, between the relay and the buss.
>
> When I engage the relays one at a time, either one, they work and
> energize the appropriate buss nicely. If they both are on at the same
> time. I cook one. ARGH! The wiring checks out fine. What am I doing
> wrong?
>
> Mike
> S8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Cookin bosch relays |
Mike;
What does the expression "I cook one" mean?. Are you saying the contacts
melt? The coil overheats? The coil melts open? The case melts? The
terminals become hot? "I cook one" is not a very accurate descriptive
term giving the necessary information as to what your problem is so that
we can offer solutions. Could you also supply a link to the schematic of
exactly how these relays are wired? Also which specific relay has a
problem? Or is it randomly either of the two? It sounds like it's not
wired like you think it is.
Bob McC
Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>
>I have now cooked my 3rd relay and I am getting very irritated.
>I have 2 relays in my buss system, one for my instrument buss, one for
>my essential buss.
>Both are bosch 0 332 019 155 spst 40A relays with diode protection in
>the relay. Drawings here:
>http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/217_052
>
>Both relay contactors get their source voltage from the same place, and
>the load side of the relays go to their respective fuse panels. Both
>relays are energized with a simple switch that pulls the relay coil to
>ground.
>
>I have the diode protection for the essential buss down stream from the
>relay, between the relay and the buss.
>
>When I engage the relays one at a time, either one, they work and
>energize the appropriate buss nicely. If they both are on at the same
>time. I cook one. ARGH! The wiring checks out fine. What am I doing
>wrong?
>
>Mike
>S8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
>
>
>Thanks Bob
>
>"unless live on the coast or plan to put your airplane on floats, adding
>guckums to the
>joint has problematical benefit"
>
>What problematical benefit?
I doesn't hurt but doesn't help either . . . insurance
against invasion by pink hippos but takes $time$ to
install.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LED position lights |
emjones(at)charter.net>
snip
>> The FAA's interest is keeping pilots from knocking heads in the dark and
we all have the same interests. My prediction is that many LED >>position
lights will fail in what is called "far field distribution", since LED
luminous flux is not distributed like most incandescent lamps.
>I think this begs the question, is the reg is well written? I gather that
your assessment of the far field distribution is that there are nulls in
places
>where there shouldn't be. Does it matter from the standpoint of keeping
from knocking heads in the dark?
Matt,
The regs are badly written (please read my paper), however they ARE
extremely well intentioned.
Yes, there may be nulls where there should be light. It could be argued that
this is not entirely bad--but it's not regulation either.
Does it matter? I believe it does. Even if the FAA inspector overlooks it,
you have an obligation to be safe AND to make sure other peoples'
flying-assemblages-of-parts in the sky are safe. Unsafe aircraft do damage
to us all.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
Teamwork: " A lot of people doing exactly what I say."
(Marketing exec., Citrix Corp.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cookin bosch relays |
>I have now cooked my 3rd relay and I am getting very irritated.
>I have 2 relays in my buss system, one for my instrument buss, one for
>my essential buss.
ASSUMING the currents are okay. Check if the relay sockets are okay. They
wear out and cause heating due to high resistance....things go downhill from
there. Usually you can see heating damage on the relay tabs--sometimes you
just have to replace the socket on faith.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"People don't appreciate how very difficult it is to be a princess."
-Princess Diana
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cookin bosch relays |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
www.mstewart.net/super8/panel/index_gif_20.gif
You guys crack me up.
Your right, it was not wired as expected. In the above image, you can
see the diagram of the relay. But in looking at it one more damn time, I
see what the problem was. The diagram in not of the relay, but the
receptacle. Meaning I had the relay coil + & - backwards cause I was not
looking at what I though I was looking at. Worked fine on one relay, but
with a second one in , well I was shorting to ground. After digging in
the wires further, I found that the smoke was from wire insulation under
the relay receptacle not the relay itself. I have run new wires and it
now works great. I was very frustrated that a simple thing like a relay
was giving me such a headache.
So, the issue was I was looking at the receptacle schematic, not the
relay schemetic. I spent many hours messin with this thing. Cant believe
how much time can get burned on such a simple matter.
Thanks team for the help.
I threw 3 relays away. Then after finding out what was happening, I dug
em out of the garbage.
Your
1. Its not wired like you think
2. Look at the schematic again did the trick. The 172 time looking at it
triggered the though.
Did the trick.
Many thanks.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cookin bosch relays
It sounds like it must be wired other than how you expect it to be
wired. Do
you have a schematic/wiring diagram that shows how you think its hooked
up? I think when you close the switch, you must be inadvertantly
shorting
the bus to ground via the high current part of the relay.
Regards,
Matt-
> Atlanta)"
>
> I have now cooked my 3rd relay and I am getting very irritated.
> I have 2 relays in my buss system, one for my instrument buss, one for
> my essential buss.
> Both are bosch 0 332 019 155 spst 40A relays with diode protection in
> the relay. Drawings here:
> http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/217_052
>
> Both relay contactors get their source voltage from the same place,
and
> the load side of the relays go to their respective fuse panels. Both
> relays are energized with a simple switch that pulls the relay coil to
> ground.
>
> I have the diode protection for the essential buss down stream from
the
> relay, between the relay and the buss.
>
> When I engage the relays one at a time, either one, they work and
> energize the appropriate buss nicely. If they both are on at the same
> time. I cook one. ARGH! The wiring checks out fine. What am I doing
> wrong?
>
> Mike
> S8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kx 125 problem |
On Jan 10, 2005, at 1:59 PM, Matt Prather wrote:
>
>
> Have you checked for the hiss when you have the NAV tuned to a
> frequency that allows for good reception of a local VOR transmitter?
> With the NAV volume control turned up, you should here the VOR
> station transmitted in Morse code. If the NAV isn't actually receiving
> a VOR signal, it is normal to here static when the NAV volume is
> turned up. Does that make sense?
Yes, this is correct.
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: Kx 125 problem |
On Jan 10, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Larry Bowen wrote:
>
>
> Reminds me of an option on my SL30, which may or may not apply to the
> kx125. Anyway, on the SL30 you can set it up so that the two audios,
> comm
> and nav, mix. Once I realized this I set my nav mix setting (probably
> called something else in the manual) zero, and my noise went away.
Are you using only a single audio output from your SL-30 or do you have
an audio panel? The mix setting is so that you can hear and ID the nav
station using only the standard headphone or speaker audio output from
the comm. If you have an audio panel then you should set this value to
zero because the audio panel handles the audio for the nav.
BTW, you are supposed to verify the morse ID of the station if you are
using VOR or LOC. Just because we have GPS doesn't mean you can ignore
VOR ... yet.
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: Heated Pitot Tubes |
On Jan 10, 2005, at 1:29 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Most IFR is not done in icing conditions.
Right.
> There is valid reasoning that says using pitot heat, if available, may
> help
> reduce the amount of moisture that gets into the pitot system, but many
> airplanes have flown many hours in heavy precipitation without pitot
> heat.
And that is not the purpose of pitot heat anyway.
> On those rare occasions when a little ice is encountered when not
> planned, a
> small stable airplane like a Pacer is no problem at all. An RV or a
> Lancair
> would probably be a bit more difficult to handle, but it should be just
> another of those decisions that are made by the operator, not one that
> is forced
> upon us by regulation.
I agree. After ice modifies your airfoil none of the markings on your
ASI have any meaning any more. You are a test pilot flying a new
airfoil and you are going to have to fly it by feel anyway. You might
be better off without an ASI at that point.
But you are definitely better off getting your butt out of the icing
conditions.
>
> Just my comments!
And I agree with 'em.
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: Mic talk switch |
On Jan 10, 2005, at 5:42 PM, GEORGE INMAN wrote:
>
>
> This may be a dumb question,
> but if there is only one push to talk switch
> for a headset.what do you do if you only
> want to talk to a pasenger and not
> transmit on the radio?
I suspect you are using one of those strap-on PTT switches that get
used in airplanes that do not have PTT buttons on the stick, yoke, or
throttle. I don't know about now but many of those used to be DPST
switches with one pole activating the PTT circuit and the other
connecting the mic to the mic circuit.
The solution to using this type of PTT is to modify it so that the pole
for the mic audio is bypassed and always connected. I had to modify the
David Clark and Telex PTT buttons I have used in the past. Again, I
don't know if they still wire them that way.
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: | Re: Kx 125 problem |
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
I do not have an audio panel.
I didn't say I wasn't verifying the morse code. If switched to NAV mode,
the nav audio can be heard for verification (I think). Also, the SL30
shows the decoded morse signal on it's screen, right? This can be used in
lew of audio verification? Not sure....
.....Don't know. I'm not an expert by any means. I'm probably using 20%
of the radio's capabilities. I just thought I would share what little I
did know to possibly chase down problem....
-
Larry Bowen, Top-poster, RV-8, 53 hours
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Brian Lloyd said:
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Larry Bowen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Reminds me of an option on my SL30, which may or may not apply to the
>> kx125. Anyway, on the SL30 you can set it up so that the two audios,
>> comm
>> and nav, mix. Once I realized this I set my nav mix setting (probably
>> called something else in the manual) zero, and my noise went away.
>
> Are you using only a single audio output from your SL-30 or do you have
> an audio panel? The mix setting is so that you can hear and ID the nav
> station using only the standard headphone or speaker audio output from
> the comm. If you have an audio panel then you should set this value to
> zero because the audio panel handles the audio for the nav.
>
> BTW, you are supposed to verify the morse ID of the station if you are
> using VOR or LOC. Just because we have GPS doesn't mean you can ignore
> VOR ... yet.
>
> 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 10, 2005, at 9:50 PM, Paul McAllister wrote:
>
>
> I think Narco used to make a splitter the went straight onto the back
> of the
> NAV122 that split both glideslope and MB off the VOR antenna input.
Hmm, I don't remember seeing this one. I have seen one that splits VOR
and GS but not MB also.
If you have a plastic airplane, just a piece of hookup wire connected
to the MB antenna input would probably work just as well.
> I often
> wondered how it worked because the MB frequency isn't a resonant
> multiple of
> the VOR frequencies, but as Brian points out, there is plenty of RF to
> overcome the physics of the situation.
BTW, the magic is for the antenna to be an odd multiple of the
fundamental frequency. An antenna cut for 100MHz will work well at
300MHz but will not work well at all at 200MHz.
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: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
Thanks for the input.I'll check out the Narco splitter and see how it goes-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Cookin bosch relays |
>
>
>So, the issue was I was looking at the receptacle schematic, not the
>relay schemetic. I spent many hours messin with this thing. Cant believe
>how much time can get burned on such a simple matter.
Don't beat yourself up too badly on this. I'm working a generator
trip problem on a Beechjet that has been flogged by others for about
7 weeks. We worked over the holidays on it. Just yesterday we had
a breakthrough on the noise coupling mechanism and as one might
guess . . . the problem is not turning out to be an "electronic"
issue but one of mechanics and the ubiquitous GROUND LOOP. Why
this airplane out of 700 others does it is the BIG question
but after lots of stumbling around over the obvious, new questions
were asked and new lights came on.
This effort has involved dozens of folks not the least of which
have been the service folks out at the airport . . . they've dragged
our raggy asses in and out of the hangar in our 10,000 pound,
$3million$ test fixture about a dozen times in the crummiest
of weather (they won't let me run the engines in the hangar!).
If somebody gave me a bizjet, I'd sell it and use the money
to buy something I can work on. Thank you for sharing your
experiences here on the list. In spite of your embarrassment
you've expanded the horizons of our tribal knowledge. I'm going
to get a really nice paper out of this Beechjet problem too.
Fixing the problem is only 10% of the task . . . letting others
know how it came about is 90% of the effort to help others
fix/deal with it in the future.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cookin bosch relays |
Mike and all,
VERY happy to hear your problem is solved. It somehows restores hope,
because I'm getting REALLY frustrated for being unable to find the cause of
my LVWM problem.
> Your
> 1. Its not wired like you think
> 2. Look at the schematic again did the trick. The 172 time looking at it
> triggered the though.
>
> Did the trick.
I'm sure the above advice is key in troubleshooting. And as several eyes and
minds can see more clearly than one, I would GREATLY appreciate any advice
or hint.
See some info at :
http://gilles.thesee.free.fr/Elec_architecture.htm
Thanks in advance for any opinion.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
P.S.
By the way, your website is great ! Lots of info.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Re: Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
Phosphor-Bronze washers 1 more time.
When stacking multiple connections, is it recommended to install the PB star washers
between?
Is it ever recommended to put a PB star washer not only under the head of the screw
or nut
or bolt, but between the bottom and the connector, like in a 4 connector stack?
Sorry for beating this, I just don't know.
Sincerely
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load dump and shutdown procedures
>
> On Jan 8, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Paul Messinger wrote:
SNIP
> > Recently I have seem and observed first hand cases where the ammeter
> > was
> > checked during runup by turning the alternator off.
>
> I don't see how this causes a load dump. If you remove the field
> excitation the output of the alternator ramps to zero as the existing
> B-field in the field collapses. No load dump. Do you get a big
> overshoot when you turn it back on?
Sure for external regulated alternators.
However I have yet to find ANY Jap made alternator with internal regulators
including MI, HI, ND brands that could be turned off once turned on with the
"FIELD" switch.
There is an internal (to the alternator) connection from the "B" lead to the
regulator and the regulator does need external booting on but once on it
stays on. The alternator switch often used with these alternators is a
toggle switch but it could just as well be a momentary push button. The only
way to turn off the alternator once started this way is to stop it from
turning.
This "feature" is often overlooked by builders who install the smaller and
popular Jap alternators. It takes a different approach to design. Far beyond
the "B" lead contactor if you want to control the alternator like turn it
off once started.
Final point is the alternator supplies power to the internal regulator all
the time it is connected to a battery. In once case on one of my autos its
80ma. The dealer says to avoid a dead battery the auto needs to be run at
least once every 7-10 days to recharge the battery. We in Acft, have a
battery contactor so that is not a problem.
In my opinion internally regulated alternators have NO place in aircraft
regardless of availability etc. Bob used to have the same opinion but I
suspect he had to cave in to the widespread use and at least attempt to make
them safe to use.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
Glen,
I think the NARCO splitter was designed specifically to connect directly to
the three BNC's connectors on the back of the unit. Not to say that it
wouldn't work as a stand alone unit, its just that its physical construction
was aligned around this product.
The NAV122 with an internal MB has been an obsolete product for quite some
time, but it may be available as a spare part.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: MB splitter
>
> Thanks for the input.I'll check out the Narco splitter and see how it
goes-
>
> Glen Matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Heated Pitot Tubes |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Good Morning OC,
<>
1/11/2005
Hello Old Bob, You are absolutely right. In fact I would say that the
majority of general aviation aircraft in the US, including those still
being manufactured today, were built to a certification standard that
existed before FAR Part 23 became effective.
Those aircraft only have to meet their original type certification, as
modified, and it is astounding the extent to which the manufacturers have
been able to take the original certification and grandfather it into "new"
airplanes. Look at the Piper PA-28 line for example.
The reason behind this situation is that it takes a huge dollar investment
to obtain FAA certification of a truly new aircraft.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
>
>
>Phosphor-Bronze washers 1 more time.
>
>When stacking multiple connections, is it recommended to install the PB
>star washers
>between?
no
>Is it ever recommended to put a PB star washer not only under the head of
>the screw or nut
>or bolt, but between the bottom and the connector, like in a 4 connector
>stack?
Only under the fastener you tighten to close the joint . . . usually
a nut that rests against the terminal tab . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)provalue.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures |
Paul Messinger wrote:
>
>Sure for external regulated alternators.
>
>However I have yet to find ANY Jap made alternator with internal regulators
>including MI, HI, ND brands that could be turned off once turned on with the
>"FIELD" switch.
>
>There is an internal (to the alternator) connection from the "B" lead to the
>regulator and the regulator does need external booting on but once on it
>stays on. The alternator switch often used with these alternators is a
>toggle switch but it could just as well be a momentary push button. The only
>way to turn off the alternator once started this way is to stop it from
>turning.
>
>This "feature" is often overlooked by builders who install the smaller and
>popular Jap alternators. It takes a different approach to design. Far beyond
>the "B" lead contactor if you want to control the alternator like turn it
>off once started................
>
>In my opinion internally regulated alternators have NO place in aircraft
>regardless of availability etc. Bob used to have the same opinion but I
>suspect he had to cave in to the widespread use and at least attempt to make
>them safe to use.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
Contact magazine a few years ago described a very simple modification
for Mitsubishi and some other Japanese alternator - one wire bridge
inside the alternator must be cut, and one wire connected. This allows
to feed the controller of the field coils from outside. I have done
that modification to a Mitsubishi alternator and it seems to work
perfect. I can switch it on, or off, on demand.
Jerzy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Certification List |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Mickey Coggins
<< ....skip.....Perhaps this is a dumb question, but is there a list
of things like this? Things that have to be "certified"
in some way?....skip....>> Mickey Coggins
1/11/2005
Hello Mickey, Why not make up your own list? Like someone who puts together
their own electrical system you will have a much greater understanding of
what is involved.
Things on a list for an amateur built experimental aircraft should fall into
one of three categories:
1) Things you are required to have, but don't require any FAA approval. See
FAR Sec. 91.205 (b) (1) through (10) for a start.
2) Things that you are required to have, but must have some sort of FAA
approval. See FAR Sec. 91.205 (b) (11), (13), (14), (c), (2), (3) as
examples.
3) Things that you are required to have that must have some sort of FAA
approval and it is pretty damn certain that the best way to get a
satisfactory item is to procure one that has been through a formal FAA
certification process such as a TSO. See FAR Sec. 91.207 (a) (1) and FAR
Sec. 91.215 (a) as examples.
I deliberately did not attempt to make a complete list in these paragraphs.
That is for you to do. Look for the word "approved". We have already
discussed the fact that there are no certification standards for items
installed on an amateur built experimental aircraft and that the FAA
approval source and process for these items can fall into a gray area.
If everyone is scratching around in their copy of the FAR's to look at these
Sections, and maybe some other Sections as well to make up a list for
themselves, I say hooray.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Seatbelts In Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft |
Previously From: "Joe Norris" <jnorris(at)eaa.org>
<<....skip......In fact, there's no specific regulatory
requirement for seat belts of any kind!!....skip.....>>
1/11/2005
Hello Joe, I and FAR Sec. 91.205 (13) and (14) disagree with what you have
written above.
What is your basis for such a statement?
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cookin bosch relays |
We had to disable the ground fault circuit to make our relays stay put.Buss
shedding spuriously. Sensitive stuff. kind of miss it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Cookin bosch relays |
>
>
>Bob -
>
>This reminds me of a problem the electricians were chasing on a Navy
>Lockheed S-3 Viking. The pilots reported getting moderate,
>un-commanded pitch excursions from the auto-pilot system. Turns out
>some windshield heat wiring was in close proximity (coupling) to some
>auto-pilot wiring and when the heat cycled it caused pitch
>excursions. It took those poor buggers a long time to make the
>association with the windshield heat and therefore it took about
>twenty (yikes!) hops before we could "sell" the plane back to the
>squadron.
>
>Sorry I cannot be more specific - I was a mech/work leader and the
>electricians and avionics guys handled this problem.
Yup . . . cyclic high current excursions are common antagonists.
They can couple magnetically between bundles, or generate voltage
transients on a bus and cause other systems to operated in unanticipated
ways.
The original squawk I'm working was that turning on either the air
conditioner motor or testing electric tail de-ice would trip the generator.
Everyone jumped on the spike band-wagon and spent several weeks
looking for them and swapping out components in the usual troubleshoot-
by-substitution techniques.
Turns out that the high inrush currents (normal for these systems) was
causing the generator to switch momentarily from a duty-cycle switch
mode (bus voltage under control) to a 100% mode (bus voltage low) and
then back to a duty-cycle switch mode as the system voltage recovers.
As the system begins to switch, the magnetic field in the generator
is as high as it ever will be (nearly 100% duty cycle but still
modulated on/off). In the brief instance after regulation begins,
a 2 millisecond pulse is generated in the ground fault detection
system fooling the controller into believing there's a problem.
Turns out that duty-cycle switched field current in the field ring of
the generator produces low value AC voltage across the length of the
generator's field ring. There are heavy bonding jumpers (for lightning)
at BOTH ends of generator to components of engine. While the voltages
are low (tens of millivolts) so are the bonding impedances which makes
the circulating currents high. A ground fault detector transformer
is mounted to the engine and is picking up the field system noise in
spite of the fact that the transformer is several inches away from
the generator itself and has operated in that position on about
1500 installations over a period of 14 or so years.
It has taken awhile to track down links in the cause/effect
chain. Turns out there is nothing wrong with the electrical system
or any of its components and the problem is caused by some shift
in conductive characteristics of the ENGINE through pathways
never intended to carry current. Just dismounting the ground fault
transformer from it's normal position "cures" the problem.
I've set up some new experiments to conduct tomorrow to see
if we can see where the new sneak path for this noise came from
that couples to the ground fault transformer.
This is going to make a good story that will cost several
tens of thousands of dollars for the research. Like all
problems, the cause will be a stone simple reason that
cropped up after one systems designer (lightning protection)
had no awareness of the effects of his work on that of
another systems designer (power generation and distribution).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures |
>
>In my opinion internally regulated alternators have NO place in aircraft
>regardless of availability etc. Bob used to have the same opinion but I
>suspect he had to cave in to the widespread use and at least attempt to make
>them safe to use.
Exactly. B&C's alternators start out as brand new ND alternators
and get modified to remove their regulators and make them more
aircraft-friendly. Figure Z-24 was crafted to accommodate our
friends who insisted on following the lead of Van's and numerous
others who opined, "automotive alternators are okay as-is."
The load-dump phenomenon of recent discussion is operator-induced
based on substitution of an automotive alternator that has never
been recommended in the 'Connection. Again, it's a cause/effect
chain that doesn't need to be completely forged.
If you turn battery and alternator ON before starting and
leave them ON until engine is shut down, risk from load-dump
is extremely low and predicated on failure of some part of the
system's wiring or one of its components.
This is why I was reluctant to rush to a 'solution' for
mitigating the load dump phenomenon. It's never bubbled to
the surface of problems in the field for either certified
ships or airplanes flying B&C's modified alternators. This
whole tempest in a teapot grew out of an accommodation of
of what I considered to be poor practice from the outset.
Adding Band-Aids to a marginal system to accommodate poor
operating practice runs against the grain of my personal
design philosophy.
Never-the-less . . . the internally regulated alternators
are here to stay. They are amazing values in terms
of capability and performance for their cost. I cannot
in good faith say "don't use them" but I will encourage
folks to understand the nature of this little beast. It's
sort of like the mostly friendly pit bull that you KNOW
can and will rip your arm off under the right conditions.
Not every part offered is a plug-n-play substitute for
similar components. Satisfactory operation depends on
one's UNDERSTANDING and accommodation of the DIFFERENCES.
Keep that pit bull smiling!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zeftronics Regulators? |
>
>
>I've been lurking here for some time and am surprised to see no mention
>of the Zeftronics regulators (alternator controllers). They seem to
>offer pretty good features at an attractive price, about 1/2 of the B&C
>versions. Perhaps their technology is not up to speed? For example,
>the R15V00 Rev A offers low voltage warning, field-ground fault
>protection and over-voltage protection, along with a neat visible
>trouble-shooting light. I had one on my last airplane for many years
>with no problems. Comments?
Zeftronics has been around for lots of years and has a generally
good track record. No reason why one should not consider these
products in their OBAM aircaraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Load dump and shutdown procedures |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
>>In my opinion internally regulated alternators have NO place in aircraft regardless
of availability etc. Bob used to have the same opinion but I suspect he
had to cave in to the widespread use and at least attempt to make them safe to
use.<<
Your comments are well placed. But the problem is not "internally regulated" per
se . . . just internally regulated by a device that was designed for a vehicle
that could be pulled over and parked on the side of the road.
We have developed an internal regulator that has none of the problems you describe
and is designed to avoid the single point failure modes, etc, that are inherent
in the automotive incarnation of the integrated alternator/regulator.
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: Load dump and shutdown procedures
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load dump and shutdown procedures
>
> On Jan 8, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Paul Messinger wrote:
SNIP
> > Recently I have seem and observed first hand cases where the ammeter
> > was
> > checked during runup by turning the alternator off.
>
> I don't see how this causes a load dump. If you remove the field
> excitation the output of the alternator ramps to zero as the existing
> B-field in the field collapses. No load dump. Do you get a big
> overshoot when you turn it back on?
Sure for external regulated alternators.
However I have yet to find ANY Jap made alternator with internal regulators
including MI, HI, ND brands that could be turned off once turned on with the
"FIELD" switch.
There is an internal (to the alternator) connection from the "B" lead to the
regulator and the regulator does need external booting on but once on it
stays on. The alternator switch often used with these alternators is a
toggle switch but it could just as well be a momentary push button. The only
way to turn off the alternator once started this way is to stop it from
turning.
This "feature" is often overlooked by builders who install the smaller and
popular Jap alternators. It takes a different approach to design. Far beyond
the "B" lead contactor if you want to control the alternator like turn it
off once started.
Final point is the alternator supplies power to the internal regulator all
the time it is connected to a battery. In once case on one of my autos its
80ma. The dealer says to avoid a dead battery the auto needs to be run at
least once every 7-10 days to recharge the battery. We in Acft, have a
battery contactor so that is not a problem.
In my opinion internally regulated alternators have NO place in aircraft
regardless of availability etc. Bob used to have the same opinion but I
suspect he had to cave in to the widespread use and at least attempt to make
them safe to use.
Paul
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<<....skip.....If you turn battery and alternator ON before starting and
leave them ON until engine is shut down, risk from load-dump
is extremely low and predicated on failure of some part of the
system's wiring or one of its components.....skip..... Bob>>
1/12/2005
Hello Bob Nuckolls, I don't understand the necessity or desirability to have
the alternator ON before starting the engine. What problem does it create to
turn the alternator ON after the engine is running?
System involved is externally regulated (LR3B-14) single gear driven
alternator, separate alternator field and battery switch, single battery
feeding a buss through a commonly available continuous duty contactor.
Battery and alternator field switch are left ON at end of flight until after
engine shut down.
Many thanks for your continuing help to all of us.
OC
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
><<....skip.....If you turn battery and alternator ON before starting and
>leave them ON until engine is shut down, risk from load-dump
>is extremely low and predicated on failure of some part of the
>system's wiring or one of its components.....skip..... Bob>>
>
>1/12/2005
>
>Hello Bob Nuckolls, I don't understand the necessity or desirability to have
>the alternator ON before starting the engine. What problem does it create to
>turn the alternator ON after the engine is running?
>
>System involved is externally regulated (LR3B-14) single gear driven
>alternator, separate alternator field and battery switch, single battery
>feeding a buss through a commonly available continuous duty contactor.
>
>Battery and alternator field switch are left ON at end of flight until after
>engine shut down.
Define "problem" . . . in the spare intervals between battles
with my Beechjet dragon, I've been noticing lots of worries about
the effects of the "old crowbar ov system" etc (see chapter 6
of the 'Connection . . . crowbar ov systems have a rather young
evolutionary history in aircraft and there are rational
reasons for its adoption). Just the fact that ordinary and
expected transients occur in the operation of various system
accessories becomes a new problem or worry for some folks.
My recommendations for architecture using internally regulated
alternators ASSUMED that folks would pretty much operate their
alternators like I do in the spam cans I fly . . . there's no
reason to be flipping switches with the alternator loaded and
the engine spooled up except to watch the ammeters and voltmeters
work. None the less, folks have done this and it uncovered (or
created) a new "problem" that has simmered for some time on
the various discussion groups.
We can discuss the causes and effects of the various transients
that occur during alternator switching and possibly come to some
consensus that this particular manipulation of switches is "okay"
while we worry about others. The 100% "solution" to all the
"problems" of any magnitude is to simply turn everything on
before starting and leave it on until the engine stops at
shutdown. The one modus operandi is "safe" irrespective of
your regulator/alternator combination.
>Many thanks for your continuing help to all of us.
You're most welcome sir.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Modified Z-12 comments |
>
>Is no one going to take a stab at this?
Yes . . . but it's going to have to wait a little bit.
I'm up to my ass in alligators and unable to swing all
the bailing buckets.
Bob . . .
> >
> >
> > I have a builder buddy (not on list) that is in the process of wiring his
> > plane using a slightly modified Z-12 with the addition of an aux battery
> > wired in per Figure 17-6. He's asked me for my comments on the
> > "modifications" he made and I'm not too sure how to respond. It a "I
> > would
> > not do it this way, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't", kinda thing.
> >
> > The main parts of Z-12 are not changed other than adding the second
> > battery
> > and contactor I mentioned above. The thing he changed was in the
> > switching
> > of the main/aux batteries and the main/aux alternators. E-bus is run off
> > the main battery only - just like in Figure 17-6.
> >
> > For the switches, he has used 2 DPST switches - one simultaneously
> > activates
> > the main battery and main alternator together, and the second activates
> > the
> > aux battery and the aux alternator together. There is no single "master"
> > switch in this combination, but there is also no way to run the aux
> > alternator from the main battery only. There are still two ways to send
> > power to the main bus - main on, aux on (or both of those on), and the
> > e-bus
> > can be powered from the main battery via a separate e-bus switch.
> > However,
> > there is now no way to isolate an alternator only from it's respective
> > battery.
> >
> > Now, for you "theory" folks out there...is this an acceptable design
> > modification? It certainly saves panel switch space (two vs 4 switch
> > holes), but I'd like to hear some of the "knows more than me" crowd's
> > opinions on coupling the battery and alt switches together.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > James Redmon
> > Berkut #013 N97TX
> > http://www.berkut13.com
>
>
>--
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Aircraft Development Expense OT |
>Those aircraft only have to meet their original type certification, as
>modified, and it is astounding the extent to which the manufacturers have
>been able to take the original certification and grandfather it into "new"
>airplanes. Look at the Piper PA-28 line for example.
>The reason behind this situation is that it takes a huge dollar investment
>to obtain FAA certification of a truly new aircraft. ...........OC
When I started designing products for the medical market as a young
engineer, I got a taste of poor management and bureaucratic inertia and all
the other Dilbert dramas of corporate life. I wanted to immediately start on
incremental improvements so the product would not become obsolete in a few
years. This would ensure that the product development cycle would be as
smooth and orderly as possible, and we would continuously have the best
products on the market.
The management wanted none of it. They insisted on policies that guaranteed
that the old product would become shabbily obsolete and ultimately crash in
a panic-project-cycle that made no sense and continued for years. Who do you
think got the big bonuses?
When I hear that designs are fixed due to the HUGE cost of FAA
certification, I don't believe it. The FAA is a bureaucracy but they respond
to standard engineering documents. Many kitplane companies certify their
aircraft...and the reason Cessna et al didn't introduce truly up-to-date
designs is just their Dilbert management. No forward vision there bubela.
Reminds me of Detroit in 1974.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
The beginning of the end is marked by
replacement of experience and common
sense with policy and procedures.
-- R. L. Nuckolls III
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures |
01/12/2005 08:01:11 AM,
Serialize by Router on MailServ59-US/AUS/H/NIC(Release 6.5.1|January 21,
2004) at
01/12/2005 08:01:12 AM,
Serialize complete at 01/12/2005 08:01:12 AM
Hi Paul,
A couple of weeks ago I stumbled across some text inferring that the alternator
on my truck (2001 Dodge Dakota 4.7L) was externally regulated but I didn't
follow it up w/ any kind of research.
I just found a WWW tech article that states that the PCM (ie the truck's
computer) now has a built-in regulator. Last night I pulled out the factory
maint manual and did some reading up. Apparently, the PCM controls the field
by grounding the field using anywhere from a straight short to 100Hz. I don't
know if the alternator will stop producing power if the field is disconnected
once it's running as the alternator's schematic was rather generic looking (two
external connections for the field leads, a set of bridge rectifiers,
windings). I don't know if this will help any but thought I'd pass it on.
I'd be happy to do simple tests if you'd think it's help out.
Regards,
/\/elson
Austin, TX
RV-7A
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Paul Messinger wrote:
> Sure for external regulated alternators.
>
> However I have yet to find ANY Jap made alternator with internal regulators
> including MI, HI, ND brands that could be turned off once turned on with the
> "FIELD" switch.
>
> There is an internal (to the alternator) connection from the "B" lead to the
> regulator and the regulator does need external booting on but once on it
> stays on. The alternator switch often used with these alternators is a
> toggle switch but it could just as well be a momentary push button. The only
> way to turn off the alternator once started this way is to stop it from
> turning.
>
> This "feature" is often overlooked by builders who install the smaller and
> popular Jap alternators. It takes a different approach to design. Far beyond
> the "B" lead contactor if you want to control the alternator like turn it
> off once started.
>
> Final point is the alternator supplies power to the internal regulator all
> the time it is connected to a battery. In once case on one of my autos its
> 80ma. The dealer says to avoid a dead battery the auto needs to be run at
> least once every 7-10 days to recharge the battery. We in Acft, have a
> battery contactor so that is not a problem.
>
> In my opinion internally regulated alternators have NO place in aircraft
> regardless of availability etc. Bob used to have the same opinion but I
> suspect he had to cave in to the widespread use and at least attempt to make
> them safe to use.
>
> Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net> |
I've read more on this subject than I wanted to know!
I have an internally regulated 55A alternator . . . I plan to turn the
master switch on and leave it on! What additional "protection" do I need to
operate safely? . . . I am considering the addition of a second small
battery or a B&C 8A Dynamo for back-up.
Thanks,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
>
>
> >
> >
> >AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >
> >
> ><<....skip.....If you turn battery and alternator ON before starting and
> >leave them ON until engine is shut down, risk from load-dump
> >is extremely low and predicated on failure of some part of the
> >system's wiring or one of its components.....skip..... Bob>>
> >
> >1/12/2005
> >
> >Hello Bob Nuckolls, I don't understand the necessity or desirability to
have
> >the alternator ON before starting the engine. What problem does it create
to
> >turn the alternator ON after the engine is running?
> >
> >System involved is externally regulated (LR3B-14) single gear driven
> >alternator, separate alternator field and battery switch, single battery
> >feeding a buss through a commonly available continuous duty contactor.
> >
> >Battery and alternator field switch are left ON at end of flight until
after
> >engine shut down.
>
> Define "problem" . . . in the spare intervals between battles
> with my Beechjet dragon, I've been noticing lots of worries about
> the effects of the "old crowbar ov system" etc (see chapter 6
> of the 'Connection . . . crowbar ov systems have a rather young
> evolutionary history in aircraft and there are rational
> reasons for its adoption). Just the fact that ordinary and
> expected transients occur in the operation of various system
> accessories becomes a new problem or worry for some folks.
>
> My recommendations for architecture using internally regulated
> alternators ASSUMED that folks would pretty much operate their
> alternators like I do in the spam cans I fly . . . there's no
> reason to be flipping switches with the alternator loaded and
> the engine spooled up except to watch the ammeters and voltmeters
> work. None the less, folks have done this and it uncovered (or
> created) a new "problem" that has simmered for some time on
> the various discussion groups.
>
> We can discuss the causes and effects of the various transients
> that occur during alternator switching and possibly come to some
> consensus that this particular manipulation of switches is "okay"
> while we worry about others. The 100% "solution" to all the
> "problems" of any magnitude is to simply turn everything on
> before starting and leave it on until the engine stops at
> shutdown. The one modus operandi is "safe" irrespective of
> your regulator/alternator combination.
>
> >Many thanks for your continuing help to all of us.
>
> You're most welcome sir.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Modified Z-12 comments |
Thanks Bob, I understand. I had to ask as I have not received a single
reply...which is very odd for this list.
I want to add one other point now that I have looked the panel over again.
He does also have pullable circuit breakers for each alternator (feed to the
regulators) right next to the combo (batt/alt) master switches. Therefore,
there IS a way to isolate the alternators from the individual batteries and
allow a battery/alternator "crossfeed" to take place. This adds a
different spin to the architecture that seems to have squelched my personal
concerns.
However, I'd still like to have a second opinion if you are willing.
Thanks again,
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Is no one going to take a stab at this?
>
> Yes . . . but it's going to have to wait a little bit.
> I'm up to my ass in alligators and unable to swing all
> the bailing buckets.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> > I have a builder buddy (not on list) that is in the process of wiring
>> > his
>> > plane using a slightly modified Z-12 with the addition of an aux
>> > battery
>> > wired in per Figure 17-6. He's asked me for my comments on the
>> > "modifications" he made and I'm not too sure how to respond. It a "I
>> > would
>> > not do it this way, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't", kinda thing.
>> >
>> > The main parts of Z-12 are not changed other than adding the second
>> > battery
>> > and contactor I mentioned above. The thing he changed was in the
>> > switching
>> > of the main/aux batteries and the main/aux alternators. E-bus is run
>> > off
>> > the main battery only - just like in Figure 17-6.
>> >
>> > For the switches, he has used 2 DPST switches - one simultaneously
>> > activates
>> > the main battery and main alternator together, and the second activates
>> > the
>> > aux battery and the aux alternator together. There is no single
>> > "master"
>> > switch in this combination, but there is also no way to run the aux
>> > alternator from the main battery only. There are still two ways to
>> > send
>> > power to the main bus - main on, aux on (or both of those on), and the
>> > e-bus
>> > can be powered from the main battery via a separate e-bus switch.
>> > However,
>> > there is now no way to isolate an alternator only from it's respective
>> > battery.
>> >
>> > Now, for you "theory" folks out there...is this an acceptable design
>> > modification? It certainly saves panel switch space (two vs 4 switch
>> > holes), but I'd like to hear some of the "knows more than me" crowd's
>> > opinions on coupling the battery and alt switches together.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > James Redmon
>> > Berkut #013 N97TX
>> > http://www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
If you think the risk of your alternator failing wide open warrants it,
then you might add the OV (overvoltage) contactor. Then you would make
or purchase a crowbar OV module from B&C to operate it. See the BOOK for
wiring diagrams. My cost including contactor was about cdn$30. as I had
a 2 amp circuit breaker already. I am comfortable with that. You could
also try a fuse instead of a circuit breaker I suppose but after adding
up my circuit resistances and the SCR characteristics, I have not done
that. Alternately Eric's products seem to do the same thing with a
different kind of OV module.
Now you may want to add the 3 transorbs (1.5KE18A I believe at just over
a $1. ea) to the alternator terminal. They won't help if the alternator
is already failed and toasted but if the OV protection operated when
there was no real problem or if you accidently turned off the OV
contactor or the battery switch in flight, it should insure that the
alternator is not damaged. For $3. why not? Or Eric sells a prepackaged
part if you prefer.
I think that answers your question as I see it.
Depending upon the mission though I'll bet there are other approaches
such as perhaps adding enough transorb capacity to blow the main
alternator fuse in the event of an OV ;) An OV is rare with these
alternators. Transorbs after the individual fuses should protect most
electonic devices. And maybe wire the alternator (through a fuse)
directly to the battery so it can't be accidently disconnected
(parasitic alternator load for a healthy alternator is not significant IMO).
Ken
Maureen & Bob Christensen wrote:
>
>I've read more on this subject than I wanted to know!
>
>I have an internally regulated 55A alternator . . . I plan to turn the
>master switch on and leave it on! What additional "protection" do I need to
>operate safely? . . . I am considering the addition of a second small
>battery or a B&C 8A Dynamo for back-up.
>
>Thanks,
>Bob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures |
I wrote that article. I also covered how to convert the ND alternator.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerzy Krasinski" <krasinski(at)provalue.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load dump and shutdown procedures
>
> Paul Messinger wrote:
>
> >
> >Sure for external regulated alternators.
> >
> >However I have yet to find ANY Jap made alternator with internal
regulators
> >including MI, HI, ND brands that could be turned off once turned on with
the
> >"FIELD" switch.
> >
> >There is an internal (to the alternator) connection from the "B" lead to
the
> >regulator and the regulator does need external booting on but once on it
> >stays on. The alternator switch often used with these alternators is a
> >toggle switch but it could just as well be a momentary push button. The
only
> >way to turn off the alternator once started this way is to stop it from
> >turning.
> >
> >This "feature" is often overlooked by builders who install the smaller
and
> >popular Jap alternators. It takes a different approach to design. Far
beyond
> >the "B" lead contactor if you want to control the alternator like turn it
> >off once started................
> >
> >In my opinion internally regulated alternators have NO place in aircraft
> >regardless of availability etc. Bob used to have the same opinion but I
> >suspect he had to cave in to the widespread use and at least attempt to
make
> >them safe to use.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >
> >
> Contact magazine a few years ago described a very simple modification
> for Mitsubishi and some other Japanese alternator - one wire bridge
> inside the alternator must be cut, and one wire connected. This allows
> to feed the controller of the field coils from outside. I have done
> that modification to a Mitsubishi alternator and it seems to work
> perfect. I can switch it on, or off, on demand.
>
> Jerzy
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures |
I totally agree. The auto alternator was designed to NEVER be disconnected
from the battery. Once you add the variable of battery on/off you open
another can of worms. Its not that it cannot be done just it was never a
design requirement for autos.
As with another device you have developed I sure wish you would market both
to the experimental world.
Paul
Still sick but slowly getting better
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Load dump and shutdown procedures
>
>
> >>In my opinion internally regulated alternators have NO place in aircraft
regardless of availability etc. Bob used to have the same opinion but I
suspect he had to cave in to the widespread use and at least attempt to make
them safe to use.<<
>
> Your comments are well placed. But the problem is not "internally
regulated" per se . . . just internally regulated by a device that was
designed for a vehicle that could be pulled over and parked on the side of
the road.
>
> We have developed an internal regulator that has none of the problems you
describe and is designed to avoid the single point failure modes, etc, that
are inherent in the automotive incarnation of the integrated
alternator/regulator.
>
> 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
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load dump and shutdown procedures
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load dump and shutdown procedures
>
>
> >
> > On Jan 8, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Paul Messinger wrote:
> SNIP
>
> > > Recently I have seem and observed first hand cases where the ammeter
> > > was
> > > checked during runup by turning the alternator off.
> >
> > I don't see how this causes a load dump. If you remove the field
> > excitation the output of the alternator ramps to zero as the existing
> > B-field in the field collapses. No load dump. Do you get a big
> > overshoot when you turn it back on?
>
> Sure for external regulated alternators.
>
> However I have yet to find ANY Jap made alternator with internal
regulators
> including MI, HI, ND brands that could be turned off once turned on with
the
> "FIELD" switch.
>
> There is an internal (to the alternator) connection from the "B" lead to
the
> regulator and the regulator does need external booting on but once on it
> stays on. The alternator switch often used with these alternators is a
> toggle switch but it could just as well be a momentary push button. The
only
> way to turn off the alternator once started this way is to stop it from
> turning.
>
> This "feature" is often overlooked by builders who install the smaller and
> popular Jap alternators. It takes a different approach to design. Far
beyond
> the "B" lead contactor if you want to control the alternator like turn it
> off once started.
>
> Final point is the alternator supplies power to the internal regulator all
> the time it is connected to a battery. In once case on one of my autos its
> 80ma. The dealer says to avoid a dead battery the auto needs to be run at
> least once every 7-10 days to recharge the battery. We in Acft, have a
> battery contactor so that is not a problem.
>
> In my opinion internally regulated alternators have NO place in aircraft
> regardless of availability etc. Bob used to have the same opinion but I
> suspect he had to cave in to the widespread use and at least attempt to
make
> them safe to use.
>
> Paul
>
>
> ---
>
>
> ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Seatbelts In Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft |
<>
1/12/2005
Hello Joe, Thanks for your prompt reply and very interesting interpretation.
I am not in agreement with your position -- let me explain.
1) On the Special Airworthiness Certificate issued for my amateur built
experimental airplane (and similarly for all other amateur built
experimental aircraft) are the words "Operating Limitations Dated 10/31/2003
Are A Part Of This Certificate."
2) In the first paragraph of my Operating Limitations (and similarly for all
other amateur built experimental aircraft) is this sentence "In addition,
this aircraft must be operated in accordance with applicable air traffic and
general operating rules of Part 91 and all additional limitations herein
prescribed under theprovisions of Part 91.319 (e)."
3) The title of FAR Part 91 is "General Operating and Flight Rules" so
everything in Part 91 must be considered either a General Operating Rule or
a Flight Rule.
4) FAR Sec 91.1 Applicability (a) reads "Except as provided in paragraph (b)
of this section and Sec 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the
operation of aircraft ( other than .....skip....) within the United States,
including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U. S. coast."
5) FAR 91.205 (b) Visual Flight Rules (day) ... (13) and (14) require
aircraft to be equipped with approved safety belts (lap restraints) and
shoulder harnesses.
My reading of the logic trail provided in the 5 paragraphs above does not
lead to a conclusion that amateur built experimental aircraft are excused
from complying with FAR Sec. 91.205 (b) (13) and (14) during day VFR flight.
Instead the wording found in the Operating Limitations regarding "in
accordance with .... general operating rules of Part 91" is specific to the
point for the amateur built aircraft being certificated and takes precedence
over the "only applies to aircraft with standard category certificates"
interpretation that you have chosen.**
A somewhat gray area, in my opinion, is how amateur built experimental
aircraft are to come by the approval for their safety belt (lap restraint)
and shoulder harnesses. I maintain that the approval is granted by the
initial airworthiness inspector at the time of that inspection as a
representative of the FAA Administrator (see FAR Sec. 1.1 for a definition
of Approved). The inspector has wide latitude in making his inspection and
should use his FAA guidance, his training, and his experience in granting
approval for the belts.
If the inspector falls back on a crutch of demanding some particular
markings on the belts for amateur built experimental aircraft because he
believes those markings are required by FAR's then he is mistaken and should
be educated otherwise. As you state there are no specific certification
reqirements in this regard for amateur built experimental aircraft. When
requested by me FAA Headquaters has been willing to undertake that education
of inspectors who were mistakenly insisting on TSO markings on a fellow
builder's belts.
OC
**PS: Carrying your interpretation to the remainder of FAR Sec. 91.205 (b)
then an amateur built experimental aircraft could be certified for day VFR
flight without any of the items listed in 91.205 (b) (1) through (11). Do
you believe this is possible?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures 01/12/2005 08:01:11 |
AM, Serialize by Router on MailServ59-US/AUS/H/NIC(Release 6.5.1|January
21, 2004) at 01/12/2005 08:01:12 AM, Serialize complete at 01/12/2005
08:01:12 AM
Interesting but not widespread need I think.
I would not fool with it as too many things can go wrong.
The main issue has been opn the older ND alternators popular with Vans RV's
Thanks for the info as it would appear that the later Post 2000 autos have
different approaches.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load dump and shutdown procedures 01/12/2005
08:01:11 AM, Serialize by Router on MailServ59-US/AUS/H/NIC(Release
6.5.1|January 21, 2004) at 01/12/2005 08:01:12 AM, Serialize complete at
01/12/2005 08:01:12 AM
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> A couple of weeks ago I stumbled across some text inferring that the
alternator
> on my truck (2001 Dodge Dakota 4.7L) was externally regulated but I didn't
> follow it up w/ any kind of research.
>
> I just found a WWW tech article that states that the PCM (ie the truck's
> computer) now has a built-in regulator. Last night I pulled out the
factory
> maint manual and did some reading up. Apparently, the PCM controls the
field
> by grounding the field using anywhere from a straight short to 100Hz. I
don't
> know if the alternator will stop producing power if the field is
disconnected
> once it's running as the alternator's schematic was rather generic looking
(two
> external connections for the field leads, a set of bridge rectifiers,
> windings). I don't know if this will help any but thought I'd pass it on.
>
> I'd be happy to do simple tests if you'd think it's help out.
>
> Regards,
> /\/elson
> Austin, TX
> RV-7A
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Paul Messinger wrote:
>
> > Sure for external regulated alternators.
> >
> > However I have yet to find ANY Jap made alternator with internal
regulators
> > including MI, HI, ND brands that could be turned off once turned on with
the
> > "FIELD" switch.
> >
> > There is an internal (to the alternator) connection from the "B" lead to
the
> > regulator and the regulator does need external booting on but once on it
> > stays on. The alternator switch often used with these alternators is a
> > toggle switch but it could just as well be a momentary push button. The
only
> > way to turn off the alternator once started this way is to stop it from
> > turning.
> >
> > This "feature" is often overlooked by builders who install the smaller
and
> > popular Jap alternators. It takes a different approach to design. Far
beyond
> > the "B" lead contactor if you want to control the alternator like turn
it
> > off once started.
> >
> > Final point is the alternator supplies power to the internal regulator
all
> > the time it is connected to a battery. In once case on one of my autos
its
> > 80ma. The dealer says to avoid a dead battery the auto needs to be run
at
> > least once every 7-10 days to recharge the battery. We in Acft, have a
> > battery contactor so that is not a problem.
> >
> > In my opinion internally regulated alternators have NO place in aircraft
> > regardless of availability etc. Bob used to have the same opinion but I
> > suspect he had to cave in to the widespread use and at least attempt to
make
> > them safe to use.
> >
> > Paul
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
I agree 100%
In the typical auto the alternator is turned on with the ign key and stays
on until the ign is turned off. This includes being on during the starting
process. This is what the alternator regulator was designed for and has
proven to be safe etc.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
> We can discuss the causes and effects of the various transients
> that occur during alternator switching and possibly come to some
> consensus that this particular manipulation of switches is "okay"
> while we worry about others. The 100% "solution" to all the
> "problems" of any magnitude is to simply turn everything on
> before starting and leave it on until the engine stops at
> shutdown. The one modus operandi is "safe" irrespective of
> your regulator/alternator combination.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Guys-
It turns out that Narco did indeed produce a triplexer for their all in one
nav unit. It is the VRP-48, and it does split both GS and MB off of the
nav antenna feedline. I believe that it does in fact mate up physically
with the rear of the nav unit. I haven't found one yet that is cheap
enough to buy on the speculation that it would work in my application, so
it looks like I'm back to plan A.
Thanks for the help-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
Where might one find these articles - particularly the one on making the
Field connection a true on/off item?
Dennis Glaeser
>I wrote that article. I also covered how to convert the ND alternator.
>Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst(at)taroom.qld.gov.au> |
| Subject: | Load dump and shutdown procedures |
Dear Bob N
You said:
"If you turn battery and alternator ON before starting and
leave them ON until engine is shut down, risk from load-dump
is extremely low and predicated on failure of some part of the
system's wiring or one of its components."
Given that we have used your alternate buss feed architecture, if the
battery and alternator should BOTH be turned ON before starting and BOTH
be turned OFF after shutdown, logic would indicate to me that they both
should be controlled by one double pole switch instead of the
progressive type switch unless there are scenarios where it would be
necessary to switch off the 'alternator only' in flight.
SO, my question is, under what conditions would it be necessary to
switch off the alternator only during flight? I'm sorry, but my simple
enquiring mind does not have the ability to work this out with any
degree of certainty.
Thanks as always
Kingsley Hurst
Europa Mono Classic in Oz.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Winn (Matronics List)" <swmat(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Modified Z-12 comments |
I had a similar response to a very similar question a few weeks back. I
wanted to know if my method if integrating the Z-30 dual battery with
the Z-13 'All Electric Airplane on a Budget' would work well or not.
See:
AeroElectric-List: RE: Schematic Review
It's message number 21455.
I don't know how to link to it.
I got one response from another list user but it seemed pretty clear
that 'battery failure' has been discussed before and isn't a topic that
needs to be rehashed. The batteries are infallible and failure is as
likely as the prop coming off. Your question isn basically the same how
is it best to integrage Z-30 with the various diagrams?
I'm still curious why Z-30 exists if properly maintained RG batteries
never fail. A dual alternator, single battery system should be just as
reliable as a dual battery dual alternator system. With the exception
of a twin engine which could use dual batteries for cabling reasons, I
don't know what reasons could be construed for a dual battery
installation.
In the particular aircraft configuration I am working with, we have dual
electronic ignitions and limited weight carrying capability aft of the
firewall (canard). I can't slap an SD-20 on there as a backup, it's
simply getting too heavy. An SD-8 is the lightest backup I can get, but
it doesn't meet the current requirements to power both ignitions (6A)
plus the essential bus. I need a large battery up front to supplement
current to provide electrical power for the long range the aircraft is
capable of. I would also like to add 'Replace and Rotate batteries' to
the annual maintenance task list. This will simplify maintenance for
myself or whoever else may own the aircraft.
If the aircraft was ever sold, and had one battery, it would be much
easier for a third party to later rationalize not replacing a large
battery after only 1 year. It also seems likely to me that even though
I would stress how important proper battery maintenance is, that the
battery would might not be properly maintained with bi-annual capacity
checks and timely replacement. I see two batteries as a simplification
of maintenance. Two, smaller batteries also provide protection in the
event that some future user replaces them with some other type of
battery that is more prone to failure.
In the configuration that you are describing James I think that having
to use the circuit breakers as switches to perform battery isolation
complicates things from a usability point of view. When I integrated
Z-30 with Z-13 I didn't eliminate any switches, and it is a very simple
system to use, although it does take a bit more panel space.
--Scott Winn
San Diego, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
Redmon
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Modified Z-12 comments
-->
Thanks Bob, I understand. I had to ask as I have not received a single
reply...which is very odd for this list.
I want to add one other point now that I have looked the panel over
again.
He does also have pullable circuit breakers for each alternator (feed to
the
regulators) right next to the combo (batt/alt) master switches.
Therefore,
there IS a way to isolate the alternators from the individual batteries
and
allow a battery/alternator "crossfeed" to take place. This adds a
different spin to the architecture that seems to have squelched my
personal
concerns.
However, I'd still like to have a second opinion if you are willing.
Thanks again,
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Is no one going to take a stab at this?
>
> Yes . . . but it's going to have to wait a little bit.
> I'm up to my ass in alligators and unable to swing all
> the bailing buckets.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> > I have a builder buddy (not on list) that is in the process of
>> > wiring
>> > his
>> > plane using a slightly modified Z-12 with the addition of an aux
>> > battery
>> > wired in per Figure 17-6. He's asked me for my comments on the
>> > "modifications" he made and I'm not too sure how to respond. It a
"I
>> > would
>> > not do it this way, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't", kinda
thing.
>> >
>> > The main parts of Z-12 are not changed other than adding the second
>> > battery and contactor I mentioned above. The thing he changed was
>> > in the switching
>> > of the main/aux batteries and the main/aux alternators. E-bus is
run
>> > off
>> > the main battery only - just like in Figure 17-6.
>> >
>> > For the switches, he has used 2 DPST switches - one simultaneously
>> > activates the main battery and main alternator together, and the
>> > second activates the
>> > aux battery and the aux alternator together. There is no single
>> > "master"
>> > switch in this combination, but there is also no way to run the aux
>> > alternator from the main battery only. There are still two ways to
>> > send
>> > power to the main bus - main on, aux on (or both of those on), and
the
>> > e-bus
>> > can be powered from the main battery via a separate e-bus switch.
>> > However,
>> > there is now no way to isolate an alternator only from it's
respective
>> > battery.
>> >
>> > Now, for you "theory" folks out there...is this an acceptable
>> > design modification? It certainly saves panel switch space (two vs
>> > 4 switch holes), but I'd like to hear some of the "knows more than
>> > me" crowd's opinions on coupling the battery and alt switches
>> > together.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > James Redmon
>> > Berkut #013 N97TX
>> > http://www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Instrument panels |
I think "old Bob" will agree to this:
When we were flying the Adcock range [listening to a series of
buried tones] in DC3s at night an article was presented by an expert in
Mesmerisation [hypnosis] which mentioned the five conditions especially
required for success:
(a) a small enclosed room insulated against outside activity;
(b) a tone of high frequency, with
(c) a low frequency tone;
(d) darkness with bright points of light; and
(e) a condition of concentration of the mind.
What better site for all five than a cockpit (a), the Adcock range
tones (b), the growl of the radials (c), the lighted instruments of
ultraviolet excitement in a darkened panel (d) and trying to stay on course
on the right side of the aural beam (e).
So what did six months of lobbying with givvermint and company
produce?
Extra small panel floodlights and an uplifting tract imploring us to watch
each other carefully.
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Berg" <wfberg(at)msn.com> |
I am building an RV-8 and have designed my own annunciator panel. I am using LED
light bars as indicators. I have dual Lightspeed Plasma III 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 box is the tach output which
is around 100mv/100rpm. I would appreciate any suggestions as to adapting the
tach signal to the LED on the panel. Klaus said that the tach output dropping
to zero would indicate a system failure or shutdown. Thanks for any help.
Wayne Berg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panels |
In a message dated 1/12/2005 9:22:44 P.M. Central Standard Time,
VE3LVO(at)rac.ca writes:
When we were flying the Adcock range [listening to a series of
buried tones] in DC3s at night an article was presented by an expert in
Mesmerisation [hypnosis] which mentioned the five conditions especially
required for success:
I remember it well! Both the research and the difficulties presented.
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> |
| Subject: | Re: Annunciators |
LSE has an option for a digital readout of timing advance as well as MP and
RPM. There are switch selectable and are a great asset to checking the
timing on every flight.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Berg" <wfberg(at)msn.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Annunciators
>
> I am building an RV-8 and have designed my own annunciator panel. I am
> using LED light bars as indicators. I have dual Lightspeed Plasma III
> 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 box is the tach output which is around 100mv/100rpm. I would
> appreciate any suggestions as to adapting the tach signal to the LED on
> the panel. Klaus said that the tach output dropping to zero would indicate
> a system failure or shutdown. Thanks for any help.
>
> Wayne Berg
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
Hi all,
Could someone explain to me, in simple terms,
what is the difference between TIS and ADS-B?
Are both of these currently available?
Are there any "experiemental" (non-certified) products that will
do either of these?
Thanks,
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
I've been scanning these "load dump" things and have recently seen some
folks postulate some scenarios and also discuss internally regulated auto
alternators and auto wiring/electrical system architecture as they might
relate (or not) to aircraft ops.
Someone mentioned that some folks have wanted to assure their alternators
are functioning properly before taking off and want something other than
absence of a "low voltage" light - so they turn off the alternator and check
the voltmeter? Actually, if they had a voltmeter, then they should only
need to see "13.4" or more and say "Alternator - OK". If it went
over-voltage, the OVM would kill the B-lead and he'd get a "low voltage
light". If it was putting out 13.0 v, that wouldn't charge a depleted
battery - the "low voltage light" should be on.
Since some folks prefer not to have a voltmeter and use a loadmeter, I guess
you'd have to rely on the OVM and Low Voltage annuciator to tell you the
alternator voltage was fine., like above.
The only reason I can think of to turn off the alternator would be in
conjunction with turning off the battery (contactor) prior to an emergency
landing off field where sparks might be undesirable if parts of the engine
compartment, fuel tanks, etc were damaged/leaked and/or mashed
together/shorted.
Is there a non-emergency scenario I've missed that would justify turning off
the alternator with the engine running with normal electrical loads "on"?
If not, then wouldn't a "switch guard" be cheaper and lower parts count than
adding transorbs and other gizmos to take care of accidental or "mind fart"
events? (Those events do occur - I was in the back seat of an F-100F as IP
with a senior leader in front - we touched down at the end of a mission and
instead of "flaps up" the "gear handle" came up!! Fortunately, the complete
landing gear system was fully functional and a safety switch kept the gear
from retracting.)
I think 'Lectric Bob's response at the bottom of this thread says it all.
Turn it on, leave it on until normal shutdown. Again, is there a scenario
someone is really fond of that this won't work for?
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
>
> I've read more on this subject than I wanted to know!
>
> I have an internally regulated 55A alternator . . . I plan to turn the
> master switch on and leave it on! What additional "protection" do I need
to
> operate safely? . . . I am considering the addition of a second small
> battery or a B&C 8A Dynamo for back-up.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
III"
> > >
> > >
> > ><<....skip.....If you turn battery and alternator ON before starting
and
> > >leave them ON until engine is shut down, risk from load-dump
> > >is extremely low and predicated on failure of some part of the
> > >system's wiring or one of its components.....skip..... Bob>>
> > >
> > >1/12/2005
> > >
> > >Hello Bob Nuckolls, I don't understand the necessity or desirability to
> have
> > >the alternator ON before starting the engine. What problem does it
create
> to
> > >turn the alternator ON after the engine is running?
> > >
> > >System involved is externally regulated (LR3B-14) single gear driven
> > >alternator, separate alternator field and battery switch, single
battery
> > >feeding a buss through a commonly available continuous duty contactor.
> > >
> > >Battery and alternator field switch are left ON at end of flight until
> after
> > >engine shut down.
> >
> > Define "problem" . . . in the spare intervals between battles
> > with my Beechjet dragon, I've been noticing lots of worries about
> > the effects of the "old crowbar ov system" etc (see chapter 6
> > of the 'Connection . . . crowbar ov systems have a rather young
> > evolutionary history in aircraft and there are rational
> > reasons for its adoption). Just the fact that ordinary and
> > expected transients occur in the operation of various system
> > accessories becomes a new problem or worry for some folks.
> >
> > My recommendations for architecture using internally regulated
> > alternators ASSUMED that folks would pretty much operate their
> > alternators like I do in the spam cans I fly . . . there's no
> > reason to be flipping switches with the alternator loaded and
> > the engine spooled up except to watch the ammeters and voltmeters
> > work. None the less, folks have done this and it uncovered (or
> > created) a new "problem" that has simmered for some time on
> > the various discussion groups.
> >
> > We can discuss the causes and effects of the various transients
> > that occur during alternator switching and possibly come to some
> > consensus that this particular manipulation of switches is "okay"
> > while we worry about others. The 100% "solution" to all the
> > "problems" of any magnitude is to simply turn everything on
> > before starting and leave it on until the engine stops at
> > shutdown. The one modus operandi is "safe" irrespective of
> > your regulator/alternator combination.
> >
> > >Many thanks for your continuing help to all of us.
> >
> > You're most welcome sir.
> >
> > Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TIS vs ADS-B |
| From: | "Tom Brusehaver" <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
ADS-b will send your aircraft position to any other
ADS-B equipment, including ground stations.
TIS-B will allow your aircraft to see what the
ground stations see, including non-ADS-b equipped
aircraft. It will display radar tracks and ADS-B
tracks (and mode-c tracks) all correlated (as best
it can).
TIS-B is available in certain areas in the contental
US, and parts (most?) of Alaska. ADS-B ground stations
havn't been deployed in all parts of the country yet.
To take advantage of either ADS-B or TIS-B you need
a mode-S transponder, and the equipment to display
and/or send data. Theoretically it wouldn't be too
difficult to use a laptop/palmtop display for the
output from the mode-S transponder.
Charts are available really cheap on DVD (check e-bay,
sometimes about $10).
wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
> Could someone explain to me, in simple terms,
> what is the difference between TIS and ADS-B?
>
> Are both of these currently available?
> Are there any "experiemental" (non-certified) products that will
> do either of these?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Dj
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: TIS vs ADS-B |
Tom Brusehaver wrote:
>
>
> ADS-b will send your aircraft position to any other
> ADS-B equipment, including ground stations.
>
> TIS-B will allow your aircraft to see what the
> ground stations see, including non-ADS-b equipped
> aircraft. It will display radar tracks and ADS-B
> tracks (and mode-c tracks) all correlated (as best
> it can).
>
> TIS-B is available in certain areas in the contental
> US, and parts (most?) of Alaska. ADS-B ground stations
> havn't been deployed in all parts of the country yet.
>
> To take advantage of either ADS-B or TIS-B you need
> a mode-S transponder, and the equipment to display
> and/or send data. Theoretically it wouldn't be too
> difficult to use a laptop/palmtop display for the
> output from the mode-S transponder.
>
> Charts are available really cheap on DVD (check e-bay,
> sometimes about $10).
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the excellent explanation!
Is ADS-B a "superset" of TIS? In other words, does
it display all of the TIS data, plus send your
aircraft position, or does it see only other ADS-B
traffic, and not include the radar info?
Which one is better overall for seeing more traffic?
What type of charts are you referring to in your last
paragraph?
Thanks,
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CSMALE <smale(at)ncinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Annunciators |
Wayne Sweet wrote:
>
> LSE has an option for a digital readout of timing advance as well as MP and
> RPM. There are switch selectable and are a great asset to checking the
> timing on every flight.
> Wayne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wayne Berg" <wfberg(at)msn.com>
> To: "aeroelectric-list"
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Annunciators
>
>
>
>>
>>I am building an RV-8 and have designed my own annunciator panel. I am
>>using LED light bars as indicators. I have dual Lightspeed Plasma III
>>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 box is the tach output which is around 100mv/100rpm. I would
>>appreciate any suggestions as to adapting the tach signal to the LED on
>>the panel. Klaus said that the tach output dropping to zero would indicate
>>a system failure or shutdown. Thanks for any help.
>>
>>Wayne Berg
>>
>>Look up a lm 2917 chip from national semiconductors should fill the bill.
smale(at)ncinternet.net
>>
>
>
> Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Modified Z-12 comments |
> >>
> >>
> >>Is no one going to take a stab at this?
If you have a wiring diagram showing your changed system, how about
publishing it so we can more easily evaluate it rather than having to
superimpose your changes onto one of Bob's designs? I think that would more
easily get you responses from the many minds on this list. If you haven't
got one, how about making one?
Indiana Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
Bob,
I am using Van's + 0 - ammeter. I believe that Van's meters use an op
amp circuit. When I key my Comm2 transmitter, the meter pegs. This does
not happen with Comm1. I am suspecting that RF is the cause. I would
like to try a capacitor bypass from ammeter termnals to ground. What
capacitance would you suggest?
Thanks in advance.
Richard Dudley
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TIS vs ADS-B |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Tom -
What charts are these? Thanks,
John Schroeder
>
> Charts are available really cheap on DVD (check e-bay,
> sometimes about $10).
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
Dennis,
The AeroElectric archives should have a posting of mine from about a
year ago on converting the 55A Geo alternator to external regulation.
If you can't find it, email me and I will send it to you directly.
I believe you can find Paul's article in Contact Magazine. Back issues
are available at www.contactmagazine.com.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
glaesers
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump
Where might one find these articles - particularly the one on making the
Field connection a true on/off item?
Dennis Glaeser
>I wrote that article. I also covered how to convert the ND alternator.
>Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi All-
A couple of folks have asked why one would even want to be able to turn an
alternator off while the battery remains on. In my case, I have a main alt
and an SD-8 backup. The SD-8 will be regulated to a somewhat lower voltage
than the main alt, so that it idles until the main alt goes off line for
some reason.
If you grid out the various combinations of possible operating conditions
for this system, you find that seven of the nine possible scenarios yield
unique telltales that will indicate the status of the system. Two
conditions, normal ops and main alt good / stby alt failed, yield the same
indications. So, how do you tell if the stby alt is good to go? I plan on
starting the engine with only the batteries on. Once the engine is up and
running, I will turn on the stby system. If the bus voltage rises, the
stby sys is good. Then I will turn on the main system, and the bus voltage
should rise further. Now I know both systems are functioning properly, and
both switches will stay on until after shutdown.
As to the question of split masters vs. progressive switches, I can
envision a case where the split master alt switch contacts could
conceivably open a smidge before the bat switch contacts, triggering a load
dump scenario. (again, not that I have any intention of turning an alt
switch off while the engine is running...) But the real bottom line on
switch choice came from Bob and his great talent for simplification. To
paraphrase, a split master requires the cutting and filing of a rectangular
hole, whereas the toggle just needs a drilled hole. Besides, then the
master matches all the other toggles in the panel....
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
Bob
I have some procedure questions.
I have my plane wired per Z14. In the event of a low volt warning. Do I just
turn on the crossfeed contactor? or do I pull the circuit breaker going to
the B&C regulator and then turn on the crossfeed contactor.
Is there any problem if the crossfeed contactor is accidentally turned on
with both system working properly?
Thanks
Ron Raby
Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Load dump and shutdown procedures |
>
>
>Dear Bob N
>
>You said:
>"If you turn battery and alternator ON before starting and
>leave them ON until engine is shut down, risk from load-dump
>is extremely low and predicated on failure of some part of the
>system's wiring or one of its components."
>
>Given that we have used your alternate buss feed architecture, if the
>battery and alternator should BOTH be turned ON before starting and BOTH
>be turned OFF after shutdown, logic would indicate to me that they both
>should be controlled by one double pole switch instead of the
>progressive type switch unless there are scenarios where it would be
>necessary to switch off the 'alternator only' in flight.
Very perceptive. In the EARLY days of the Z-figures and before
I had located inexpensive toggle switch equivalents of the
classic split-rocker switch (B&C's S700-2-10) the DC PWR MASTER
switch was indeed an S700-2-3 . . . double pole, double throw
wired to bring battery and alternator ON and OFF together.
Just minutes ago, I revised the Z-13 drawing someone requested
a few weeks ago to replace the 2-10 with a 2-3.
>SO, my question is, under what conditions would it be necessary to
>switch off the alternator only during flight? I'm sorry, but my simple
>enquiring mind does not have the ability to work this out with any
>degree of certainty.
It is almost never necessary . . . The most common (and in fact
the only ones I've seen happen) reasons are (1) regulation has
become unstable and the pilot elects to shut down the alternator
and continue battery-only -OR- (2) an OV condition forces shutdown
via the protection system.
99.99% of flights are conducted with no reason for taking an
alternator off line except to shut the system down for parking
the aircraft.
NOW, keep in mind that there are occasions when one wishes
to do some ground maintenance using battery-only power. It's
useful to turn the battery master on and disable the alternator
which can be done even in fuse-block aircraft by pulling the
breaker that is part of the crowbar OV protection system. This
same breaker can be used to shut down the alternator in flight
should one encounter condition (1) above.
In many cases, it may not be necessary to shut the alternator
down to prevent added battery drain during ground maintenance.
Some modern regulator chips have a AC voltage sense lead from
the alternator's stator winding that lets the chip determine
if the alternator is rotating or not . . . this MIGHT also
prevent field current from flowing when the alternator stops
turning . . .
The problem is that once the regulator goes inside the alternator
the system designer's task for deducing all operational
characteristics of the system is difficult. Further, when
alternators are selected literally at random from the field
of automotive takeoffs you have to consider an additional
mix of after-market regulators that my find their way into
the alternator.
At the moment I'm considering a renumbering of the DRAFT
Z-13 as a new figure with supporting notes that explain
the special circumstances under which an internally regulated
alternator can be comfortably integrated on an OBAM aircraft
along with my BEST recommendation that B&C alternators
with either B&C's regulators (or an equivalent) is still
the ideal way to go about it. Yes, the alternators are
relatively expensive compared to a junk-yard takeoff.
However, it's likely that it will be the first and last
alternator you need to put on your airplane . . . B&C's
return rate for wear-out or defect has been under 1% . . .
not PER YEAR but for the ENTIRE FLEET of installations
that extends back over 10 years and thousands of
installations.
One can save a buck or two with this mix-n-match
activity that the OBAM community is so free to exercise.
However, this is the exercise that has prompted many
thousands of words, hours of worries, and even enticed
me to compromise on my best recommendations by publishing
figure Z-24.
There's an old adage about compromise: "When one seeks
middle ground between the best and the worst, only the
worst wins".
This is exactly what we're experiencing now. By departing
from the best we know how to do, a whole host of new
variables need sifting for all the unforeseen risks
to the system.
Bob . . .
>Thanks as always
>
>Kingsley Hurst
>Europa Mono Classic in Oz.
>
>
>--
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Modified Z-12 comments |
I understand, but as I mentioned - it's not "my" system. I don't have any
diagrams to publish or any good way to make them either. Sorry, but you are
right, a picture is worth...well, you know the rest.
It's not so much the wiring that is in question, but the philosophy of
combining bat/alt switch controls and using pull-breakers for alt feed
protection and a way of isolating.
Thanks for the comments.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Modified Z-12 comments
>
>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Is no one going to take a stab at this?
>
> If you have a wiring diagram showing your changed system, how about
> publishing it so we can more easily evaluate it rather than having to
> superimpose your changes onto one of Bob's designs? I think that would
> more
> easily get you responses from the many minds on this list. If you
> haven't
> got one, how about making one?
>
> Indiana Larry
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Gamble" <mp.gamble(at)virgin.net> |
Any reports (good and bad) on the Dynon 10A EFIS ?
Thanks
Mike Gamble
Building Europa Mono in UK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Aircraft Development Expense |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> When I started designing products for the medical market as a young
> engineer, I got a taste of poor management and bureaucratic inertia and
> all
> the other Dilbert dramas of corporate life. I wanted to immediately start
> on
> incremental improvements so the product would not become obsolete in a few
> years. This would ensure that the product development cycle would be as
> smooth and orderly as possible, and we would continuously have the best
> products on the market.
>
> The management wanted none of it. They insisted on policies that
> guaranteed
> that the old product would become shabbily obsolete and ultimately crash
> in
> a panic-project-cycle that made no sense and continued for years. Who do
> you
> think got the big bonuses?
>
> When I hear that designs are fixed due to the HUGE cost of FAA
> certification, I don't believe it. The FAA is a bureaucracy but they
> respond
> to standard engineering documents. Many kitplane companies certify their
> aircraft...and the reason Cessna et al didn't introduce truly up-to-date
> designs is just their Dilbert management. No forward vision there bubela.
> Reminds me of Detroit in 1974. Regards, Eric M. Jones
1/13/2005
Hello Eric, I encountered a similar mindset when I worked as an intern for a
major aerospace company during the summer of 1968 when I was working on an
MS in Aero Engineering. The design project was a "life boat for space" -- an
escape-from-mother-ship-and-return-to-earth life raft for astronauts.
The success of a future government contract to build such a vehicle was
apparently heavily dependent, at least in the minds of the design engineers,
upon the percentage of "space qualified hardware" that could be
incorporated. So a majority of the effort was expended, not on orginal
thinking and problem solving, but upon how much of what hardware that had
previously been to space in some form and was therefore space qualified,
could be crammed into the design of the vehicle.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Development Expense |
>> When I hear that designs are fixed due to the HUGE cost of FAA
>> certification, I don't believe it. The FAA is a bureaucracy but they
>> respond
>> to standard engineering documents.
I disagree: check out this month's Aviation Consumer on page 20 to see just
how this mindset is holding us back..
SCott in VAncover>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TIS vs ADS-B |
| From: | "Tom Brusehaver" <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
>
> Hi Tom,
> Thanks for the excellent explanation!
> Is ADS-B a "superset" of TIS? In other words, does
> it display all of the TIS data, plus send your
> aircraft position, or does it see only other ADS-B
> traffic, and not include the radar info?
> Which one is better overall for seeing more traffic?
TIS-B is a superset of ADS-B. I know I have
seen the specs but right off I can't put my finger
on 'em. (It is probably a RCTA $pec)
Here is a pretty good description of the differences
and similarities:
http://www.ep.liu.se/exjobb/itn/2004/kts/013/exjobb.pdf
>
> What type of charts are you referring to in your last
> paragraph?
>
Regular aeronautical charts, like what you would buy.
Here is the FAA page:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/catalog/charts/digital/Raster_Sectional_Sample/Raster
Here is the $10 one I was talking about:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4519207782&category=26440
> Thanks,
>
> -Dj
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Tierney" <tierneyj3(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Load Dump - Preflight |
I was taught by several instructors to turn off the alternator during the
preflight check to verify that things work on the battery, that the ammeter
shows a draw on the battery and the low voltage light works. I've been
doing this by rote for years. But upon further review, the Cessna operating
manual, normal procedures section says:
"Prior to flight where verification of proper alternator and alternator
control unit operation is essential (such as night or instrument flight) a
positive verification can be made by loading the electrical system
momentarily (3 to 5 seconds) with the landing light or by operating the wing
flaps during engine runup...."
From now on, no more turning off the alternator. Thanks folks,
John Tierney
Salem, WI
RV-7 (under const.)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Carter
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
I've been scanning these "load dump" things and have recently seen some
folks postulate some scenarios and also discuss internally regulated auto
alternators and auto wiring/electrical system architecture as they might
relate (or not) to aircraft ops.
Someone mentioned that some folks have wanted to assure their alternators
are functioning properly before taking off and want something other than
absence of a "low voltage" light - so they turn off the alternator and check
the voltmeter? Actually, if they had a voltmeter, then they should only
need to see "13.4" or more and say "Alternator - OK". If it went
over-voltage, the OVM would kill the B-lead and he'd get a "low voltage
light". If it was putting out 13.0 v, that wouldn't charge a depleted
battery - the "low voltage light" should be on.
Since some folks prefer not to have a voltmeter and use a loadmeter, I guess
you'd have to rely on the OVM and Low Voltage annuciator to tell you the
alternator voltage was fine., like above.
The only reason I can think of to turn off the alternator would be in
conjunction with turning off the battery (contactor) prior to an emergency
landing off field where sparks might be undesirable if parts of the engine
compartment, fuel tanks, etc were damaged/leaked and/or mashed
together/shorted.
Is there a non-emergency scenario I've missed that would justify turning off
the alternator with the engine running with normal electrical loads "on"?
If not, then wouldn't a "switch guard" be cheaper and lower parts count than
adding transorbs and other gizmos to take care of accidental or "mind fart"
events? (Those events do occur - I was in the back seat of an F-100F as IP
with a senior leader in front - we touched down at the end of a mission and
instead of "flaps up" the "gear handle" came up!! Fortunately, the complete
landing gear system was fully functional and a safety switch kept the gear
from retracting.)
I think 'Lectric Bob's response at the bottom of this thread says it all.
Turn it on, leave it on until normal shutdown. Again, is there a scenario
someone is really fond of that this won't work for?
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
>
> I've read more on this subject than I wanted to know!
>
> I have an internally regulated 55A alternator . . . I plan to turn the
> master switch on and leave it on! What additional "protection" do I need
to
> operate safely? . . . I am considering the addition of a second small
> battery or a B&C 8A Dynamo for back-up.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
III"
> > >
> > >
> > ><<....skip.....If you turn battery and alternator ON before starting
and
> > >leave them ON until engine is shut down, risk from load-dump
> > >is extremely low and predicated on failure of some part of the
> > >system's wiring or one of its components.....skip..... Bob>>
> > >
> > >1/12/2005
> > >
> > >Hello Bob Nuckolls, I don't understand the necessity or desirability to
> have
> > >the alternator ON before starting the engine. What problem does it
create
> to
> > >turn the alternator ON after the engine is running?
> > >
> > >System involved is externally regulated (LR3B-14) single gear driven
> > >alternator, separate alternator field and battery switch, single
battery
> > >feeding a buss through a commonly available continuous duty contactor.
> > >
> > >Battery and alternator field switch are left ON at end of flight until
> after
> > >engine shut down.
> >
> > Define "problem" . . . in the spare intervals between battles
> > with my Beechjet dragon, I've been noticing lots of worries about
> > the effects of the "old crowbar ov system" etc (see chapter 6
> > of the 'Connection . . . crowbar ov systems have a rather young
> > evolutionary history in aircraft and there are rational
> > reasons for its adoption). Just the fact that ordinary and
> > expected transients occur in the operation of various system
> > accessories becomes a new problem or worry for some folks.
> >
> > My recommendations for architecture using internally regulated
> > alternators ASSUMED that folks would pretty much operate their
> > alternators like I do in the spam cans I fly . . . there's no
> > reason to be flipping switches with the alternator loaded and
> > the engine spooled up except to watch the ammeters and voltmeters
> > work. None the less, folks have done this and it uncovered (or
> > created) a new "problem" that has simmered for some time on
> > the various discussion groups.
> >
> > We can discuss the causes and effects of the various transients
> > that occur during alternator switching and possibly come to some
> > consensus that this particular manipulation of switches is "okay"
> > while we worry about others. The 100% "solution" to all the
> > "problems" of any magnitude is to simply turn everything on
> > before starting and leave it on until the engine stops at
> > shutdown. The one modus operandi is "safe" irrespective of
> > your regulator/alternator combination.
> >
> > >Many thanks for your continuing help to all of us.
> >
> > You're most welcome sir.
> >
> > Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Z13a Pre-flight alt test procedure? |
Bob, using Z13A, what would the approved pre-flight check for the Primary
Alt and SD8 be? It's normally off, with the primary alt normally on. Bus
voltage over 13+ would indicate that the primary is working so would you
shut it off and turn the SD8 on and check the battery bus voltage again. If
so, there is that Alt off while running load dump thing again. (?)
What would the approved preflight sequence look like?
Thanks Bill S
RV7a fuse/panel thinking wiring
Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
I have a Dynon EFIS D10A with OAT and magnetometer. The DA and true airspeed
seems to be very representative; DA compares well with that calculated in my
GNS430. The magnetometer did not need any correction after the inclination
was entered via the Support Program. A different program is used for that
than that used to calibrate the heading magnetometer, both downloaded from
Dynon's website.
I had to shoot an ILS on the second flight to get back into my home airport
and found using the EFIS with the OBS just under it, and the GNS430 under it
was much easier than the old primary instrument scan.
I mounted the magnetometer aft of the baggage area (this is in a MustangII);
my compass mounted on the glare shield is nearly useless because of very
large deviations (~10 to 25 deg), so the accurate heading information
without ever having to update it is VERY nice.
Installation was a breeze, compared to that of the GNS430, GI-106A and
PMA6000 audio panel. I would NEVER do that wiring again; FastStack would
have made the 45 day trial by "fire" a 4 day delight. I thought my avionics
installation knowledge was rather OK, but I made some rookie mistakes that
cost me some bad stomach aches along the way. There's nothing like not
hearing COM audio on the first test and not having a clue what to look for.
Then after fixing that, having awful COM reception on the 2nd flight and
again not having a clue. Waking up in the morning after not sleeping much
that night with absolutely no appetite and a huge knot in the gut, knowing
that no one would be fixing the problem except the amateur avionics tech who
installed it (ME!!!) was not pleasant. Also having a friend who continually,
during those 45 days, kept asking "But what are you going to do if it
doesn't work""!!"
AGHHHH.....................
Alls well that ends well. The EFIS is delightful and so to is the GNS430, as
well as a true audio panel.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Gamble" <mp.gamble(at)virgin.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis
>
>
> Any reports (good and bad) on the Dynon 10A EFIS ?
> Thanks
> Mike Gamble
> Building Europa Mono in UK
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: TIS vs ADS-B |
Tom Brusehaver wrote:
> TIS-B is a superset of ADS-B. I know I have
> seen the specs but right off I can't put my finger
> on 'em. (It is probably a RCTA $pec)
>
> Here is a pretty good description of the differences
> and similarities:
> http://www.ep.liu.se/exjobb/itn/2004/kts/013/exjobb.pdf
Thanks!!! Lots of good info in that doc!
According to this document, it seems that TIS-B
is a transition between the existing radar systems and
the to-be-used-in-the-future ADS-B system. It is not
really a superset of ADS-B, but it does seem to be
the one with any coverage area now and in the near
future. Eventually ADS-B is supposed to replace it, but
that could take years, so it seems that TIS-B is the one
to buy now if you want traffic information in the cockpit.
Are there any transponders other than the
Garmin 330 or other equipment that support TIS information?
Any reasonably priced displays, certified or not, that
will show the TIS data? I'd even consider a PDA
display as a short term inexpensive display option.
> Regular aeronautical charts, like what you would buy.
>
Heh heh, well I have those! :-)
I'm looking for some additional help with spotting
and avoiding traffic while flying. :-)
Thanks for the info! It has been a big help!
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernest Kells" <ernest.kells(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Installing a DAVTRON Outside Air Temp instrument. |
I have installed a Davtron OAT gauge 307FC - on the instrument panel. See
A.C.S. catalogue, page 353. I would like to wire it now for mounting just
inside the inner inspection plate of the right wing (RV-9A). I would like
to cut the red/black wires for an AMP terminal block in the wing root, as
well as one additional knife/disconnect connection.
My question. Would the two connections compromise the capability of the
instrument as well as the accuracy of the gauge? I live in Northern
Ontario. OAT is a significant question. Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft Development Expense
>
>
> >> When I hear that designs are fixed due to the HUGE cost of FAA
> >> certification, I don't believe it. The FAA is a bureaucracy but they
> >> respond
> >> to standard engineering documents.
>
> I disagree: check out this month's Aviation Consumer on page 20 to see
just
> how this mindset is holding us back..
> SCott in VAncover>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Load Dump - Preflight |
>
>I was taught by several instructors to turn off the alternator during the
>preflight check to verify that things work on the battery, that the ammeter
>shows a draw on the battery and the low voltage light works. I've been
>doing this by rote for years. But upon further review, the Cessna operating
>manual, normal procedures section says:
>
>"Prior to flight where verification of proper alternator and alternator
>control unit operation is essential (such as night or instrument flight) a
>positive verification can be made by loading the electrical system
>momentarily (3 to 5 seconds) with the landing light or by operating the wing
>flaps during engine runup...."
>
> From now on, no more turning off the alternator. Thanks folks,
If you have active notification of low voltage then that
light should be flashing at you as soon as you bring the
battery master on. Starting the engine should put out both
the low volts warning and low oil pressure lights. If the
OV system doesn't immediately take the system off line it's
a 99.9% assurance that (1) the alternator came on line as soon
as the engine started and that (2) it's not in an OV condition
and is, therefore, operating properly. A check of any installed
voltmeter will further reassure you of proper operation.
Probability of detecting anything more interesting about the
alternator by turning it off and back on is zero. There's
no reason to "cycle" the thing after the engine starts.
>I've been scanning these "load dump" things and have recently seen some
>folks postulate some scenarios and also discuss internally regulated auto
>alternators and auto wiring/electrical system architecture as they might
>relate (or not) to aircraft ops.
>
> Someone mentioned that some folks have wanted to assure their alternators
>are functioning properly before taking off and want something other than
>absence of a "low voltage" light - so they turn off the alternator and check
>the voltmeter? Actually, if they had a voltmeter, then they should only
>need to see "13.4" or more and say "Alternator - OK". If it went
>over-voltage, the OVM would kill the B-lead and he'd get a "low voltage
>light". If it was putting out 13.0 v, that wouldn't charge a depleted
>battery - the "low voltage light" should be on.
>
>Since some folks prefer not to have a voltmeter and use a loadmeter, I guess
>you'd have to rely on the OVM and Low Voltage annuciator to tell you the
>alternator voltage was fine., like above.
Not at all . . . if you have a loadmeter, then any positive indication
on the loadmeter commensurate with the readings you saw last time
you started the engine combined with low voltage light being out
are VERY good assurances of proper operation.
>The only reason I can think of to turn off the alternator would be in
>conjunction with turning off the battery (contactor) prior to an emergency
>landing off field where sparks might be undesirable if parts of the engine
>compartment, fuel tanks, etc were damaged/leaked and/or mashed
>together/shorted.
EXACTLY.
>Is there a non-emergency scenario I've missed that would justify turning off
>the alternator with the engine running with normal electrical loads "on"?
>If not, then wouldn't a "switch guard" be cheaper and lower parts count than
>adding transorbs and other gizmos to take care of accidental or "mind fart"
>events?
Not that I can think of.
Switch guards are fine. Transorbs are cheap too. Checklists
help fertilize habits of operation that are unlikely to give you
heartburn.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Load Dump - Preflight |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Other than an additional power cycle on the gear, you could also check
that everything is functional on battery alone prior to engine start.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> I was taught by several instructors to turn off the alternator during
> the preflight check to verify that things work on the battery, that the
> ammeter shows a draw on the battery and the low voltage light works.
> I've been doing this by rote for years. But upon further review, the
> Cessna operating manual, normal procedures section says:
>
> "Prior to flight where verification of proper alternator and alternator
> control unit operation is essential (such as night or instrument flight)
> a positive verification can be made by loading the electrical system
> momentarily (3 to 5 seconds) with the landing light or by operating the
> wing flaps during engine runup...."
>
> From now on, no more turning off the alternator. Thanks folks,
>
> John Tierney
> Salem, WI
> RV-7 (under const.)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
> Carter
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
>
>
>
> I've been scanning these "load dump" things and have recently seen some
> folks postulate some scenarios and also discuss internally regulated
> auto alternators and auto wiring/electrical system architecture as they
> might relate (or not) to aircraft ops.
>
> Someone mentioned that some folks have wanted to assure their
> alternators
> are functioning properly before taking off and want something other than
> absence of a "low voltage" light - so they turn off the alternator and
> check the voltmeter? Actually, if they had a voltmeter, then they
> should only need to see "13.4" or more and say "Alternator - OK". If it
> went
> over-voltage, the OVM would kill the B-lead and he'd get a "low voltage
> light". If it was putting out 13.0 v, that wouldn't charge a depleted
> battery - the "low voltage light" should be on.
>
> Since some folks prefer not to have a voltmeter and use a loadmeter, I
> guess you'd have to rely on the OVM and Low Voltage annuciator to tell
> you the alternator voltage was fine., like above.
>
> The only reason I can think of to turn off the alternator would be in
> conjunction with turning off the battery (contactor) prior to an
> emergency landing off field where sparks might be undesirable if parts
> of the engine compartment, fuel tanks, etc were damaged/leaked and/or
> mashed
> together/shorted.
>
> Is there a non-emergency scenario I've missed that would justify turning
> off the alternator with the engine running with normal electrical loads
> "on"? If not, then wouldn't a "switch guard" be cheaper and lower parts
> count than adding transorbs and other gizmos to take care of accidental
> or "mind fart" events? (Those events do occur - I was in the back seat
> of an F-100F as IP with a senior leader in front - we touched down at
> the end of a mission and instead of "flaps up" the "gear handle" came
> up!! Fortunately, the complete landing gear system was fully functional
> and a safety switch kept the gear from retracting.)
>
> I think 'Lectric Bob's response at the bottom of this thread says it
> all. Turn it on, leave it on until normal shutdown. Again, is there a
> scenario someone is really fond of that this won't work for?
>
> David
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
>
>
>
>>
>> I've read more on this subject than I wanted to know!
>>
>> I have an internally regulated 55A alternator . . . I plan to turn the
>> master switch on and leave it on! What additional "protection" do I
>> need
> to
>> operate safely? . . . I am considering the addition of a second small
>> battery or a B&C 8A Dynamo for back-up.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L.
>> Nuckolls,
> III"
>> > >
>> > >
>> > ><<....skip.....If you turn battery and alternator ON before
>> starting
> and
>> > >leave them ON until engine is shut down, risk from load-dump
>> > >is extremely low and predicated on failure of some part of the
>> system's wiring or one of its components.....skip..... Bob>>
>> > >
>> > >1/12/2005
>> > >
>> > >Hello Bob Nuckolls, I don't understand the necessity or
>> desirability to
>> have
>> > >the alternator ON before starting the engine. What problem does it
> create
>> to
>> > >turn the alternator ON after the engine is running?
>> > >
>> > >System involved is externally regulated (LR3B-14) single gear
>> driven alternator, separate alternator field and battery switch,
>> single
> battery
>> > >feeding a buss through a commonly available continuous duty
>> contactor.
>> > >
>> > >Battery and alternator field switch are left ON at end of flight
>> until
>> after
>> > >engine shut down.
>> >
>> > Define "problem" . . . in the spare intervals between battles
>> with my Beechjet dragon, I've been noticing lots of worries
>> about the effects of the "old crowbar ov system" etc (see
>> chapter 6 of the 'Connection . . . crowbar ov systems have a
>> rather young evolutionary history in aircraft and there are
>> rational
>> > reasons for its adoption). Just the fact that ordinary and
>> expected transients occur in the operation of various system
>> accessories becomes a new problem or worry for some folks.
>> >
>> > My recommendations for architecture using internally regulated
>> alternators ASSUMED that folks would pretty much operate their
>> alternators like I do in the spam cans I fly . . . there's no
>> reason to be flipping switches with the alternator loaded and
>> the engine spooled up except to watch the ammeters and
>> voltmeters work. None the less, folks have done this and it
>> uncovered (or created) a new "problem" that has simmered for
>> some time on the various discussion groups.
>> >
>> > We can discuss the causes and effects of the various transients
>> that occur during alternator switching and possibly come to some
>> consensus that this particular manipulation of switches is
>> "okay" while we worry about others. The 100% "solution" to all
>> the "problems" of any magnitude is to simply turn everything on
>> before starting and leave it on until the engine stops at
>> > shutdown. The one modus operandi is "safe" irrespective of your
>> regulator/alternator combination.
>> >
>> > >Many thanks for your continuing help to all of us.
>> >
>> > You're most welcome sir.
>> >
>> > Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot(at)purephotos.com.au> |
I had to shoot an ILS on the second flight to get back into my home airport
and found using the EFIS with the OBS just under it.
You mean 2nd flight after installing the EFIS, I hope?
Richard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Wayne -
What do you mean by the acronym: "DA"? We have the Dynon D10A, the OAT
and the magnetometer.
We bought our stack from John Stark @ Stark Avionics. After seeing what
those huge bundles of wires looked like (especially the Garmin Audio
Panel), we thankfully admitted that it would have been a nightmare to have
done it ourselves. I had been pretty confident that I could do it. We did
compare prices between the Approach Hub/Cabling product and the price that
John gave us to do all the interface cabling. John was cheaper by a
significant amount. Garmin won't honor the warranty if you do any of the
cabling yourself - according to other folks and John.
Glad you got yours working.
Cheers,
John
> I have a Dynon EFIS D10A with OAT and magnetometer. The DA and true
> airspeed be very representative; DA compares well with that calculated
> in my GNS430. The magnetometer did not need any correction after the
> inclination was entered via the Support Program. A different program is
> used for that
> than that used to calibrate the heading magnetometer, both downloaded
> from Dynon's website.
________________________________________________________________________________
instrument.
| Subject: | Re: Installing a DAVTRON Outside Air Temp |
instrument.
| From: | sjhdcl(at)kingston.net |
No it will read just fine. I did the same thing to my guage.
Steve
Kingston, Ont
>
>
> I have installed a Davtron OAT gauge 307FC - on the instrument panel.
> See
> A.C.S. catalogue, page 353. I would like to wire it now for mounting just
> inside the inner inspection plate of the right wing (RV-9A). I would like
> to cut the red/black wires for an AMP terminal block in the wing root, as
> well as one additional knife/disconnect connection.
>
> My question. Would the two connections compromise the capability of the
> instrument as well as the accuracy of the gauge? I live in Northern
> Ontario. OAT is a significant question. Thanks.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft Development Expense
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >> When I hear that designs are fixed due to the HUGE cost of FAA
>> >> certification, I don't believe it. The FAA is a bureaucracy but they
>> >> respond
>> >> to standard engineering documents.
>>
>> I disagree: check out this month's Aviation Consumer on page 20 to see
> just
>> how this mindset is holding us back..
>> SCott in VAncover>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
My airplane has over 1100 hours on it. Obviously 2nd flight after installing
the EFIS.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot(at)purephotos.com.au>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis
>
>
>
>
>
> I had to shoot an ILS on the second flight to get back into my home
> airport
> and found using the EFIS with the OBS just under it.
>
> You mean 2nd flight after installing the EFIS, I hope?
>
> Richard
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
John,
DA is density altitude, which is displayed on the left side, if it's
configured that way.
Depends on where you purchase the GARMIN whatever. Chief Aircraft said they
could not sell me a GNS430 without installation. I bought mine on eBay and
called Garmin asking about the warrantee. They did not have a problem with
me installing it and would honor the 22 months remaining on the warrantee.
However, PS-Engineering would not honor their warrantee without supplying
the pilot/copilot harness. I purchase those from them, all 8 wires; the
interesting part was the interface with my two NAV/COM, GNS430 GPS and
existing marker beacons.
The terminology used in the wiring diagrams is a bit confusing and that I
had to make calls to get clarified. All in all, not an enjoyable experience.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis
>
>
> Wayne -
>
> What do you mean by the acronym: "DA"? We have the Dynon D10A, the OAT
> and the magnetometer.
>
> We bought our stack from John Stark @ Stark Avionics. After seeing what
> those huge bundles of wires looked like (especially the Garmin Audio
> Panel), we thankfully admitted that it would have been a nightmare to have
> done it ourselves. I had been pretty confident that I could do it. We did
> compare prices between the Approach Hub/Cabling product and the price that
> John gave us to do all the interface cabling. John was cheaper by a
> significant amount. Garmin won't honor the warranty if you do any of the
> cabling yourself - according to other folks and John.
>
> Glad you got yours working.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
>> I have a Dynon EFIS D10A with OAT and magnetometer. The DA and true
>> airspeed be very representative; DA compares well with that calculated
>> in my GNS430. The magnetometer did not need any correction after the
>> inclination was entered via the Support Program. A different program is
>> used for that
>> than that used to calibrate the heading magnetometer, both downloaded
>> from Dynon's website.
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix for radio noise |
I thought I would post the results of noise fix. I installed both mag filters.
(tedious) and fixed the noise. charlie heathco ATL.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
You are still way braver than I am, unless your previous attitude
indicator, ASI and altimeter were still installed, in their original panel
locations. I plan to have quite a few hours on my Dynon EFIS in VMC
conditions before I venture into the clouds. You obviously got away with
it, but that doesn't mean that it is a good idea for other people to head
off into the clouds until they have had lots of time getting used to the
EFIS presentation, and have enough hours on it to confirm that it is
working properly.
Don't take it personally - I just thought it was worth a comment. We all
want to decrease the accident rate of homebuilt aircraft, and that means we
need to be very thoughtful about which risks are worth taking.
Kevin Horton
>
>My airplane has over 1100 hours on it. Obviously 2nd flight after installing
>the EFIS.
>Wayne
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot(at)purephotos.com.au>
>To:
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I had to shoot an ILS on the second flight to get back into my home
> > airport
> > and found using the EFIS with the OBS just under it.
> >
> > You mean 2nd flight after installing the EFIS, I hope?
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Logan <Rob(at)logan.com> |
| Subject: | panel mounted fuses.. |
klixon 7277 breakers are $20 each
http://www.ti.com/snc/products/controls/acb-7277.htm
so when a switch is required, (lights, tube heat..)
potter & brumfield switch/breakers seem to be
the best option.
but for items that just need wire protection
and not a load shedding "off" option, perhaps
fuses would be ok. Found some fuses holders
http://www.excess-solutions.com/FUSES.HTM
and one even with fast on terminals
http://www.excess-solutions.com/SpecSheets/c_fiz.pdf
but I don't see an easy way to attach a bar across a
row of them.. Plus it would be nice if one could swap
fuses without a screw driver.
have you find a better panel mounted fuse
holder? (or a cheap source of klixons? :-)
Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Logan <Rob(at)logan.com> |
there are some items that don't have power buttons
and one doesn't want on when you are trying to start
the plane... in my case
http://rob.com/lancair/Others/woody/2005.01/mahar-gp4-03-011205.pdf
things like:
FPD
MFD
AHRS
T&B
ALTRAK
XPNDR
ENCODER
WSI
WX500
so this is a perfect case for an avionics master.. as much
as I hid in the lancair world http://lancair.net/lists/lml/
I must admit to having heard of this group and its distain for
the avionics master switch... after some research it seemed
to focus on "single point of failure" of the switch or relay
feed. so what about two potter & brumfield switch/breakers
to feed the avionics buss bar? this way either could feed
the bar in the event the first failed. wouldn't that solve
the single failure point and remove 9 switches for each
thing on the avionics buss?
Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
Understand Kevin; I have 1100 hours in my MustangII and 5000 hours
instructing from primary to multi-engine instrument (had a student who got
both at the same time). This is just to put my seemingly reckless attitude
in perspective.
The EFIS replaced both "steam" gages, AI, and DG.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis
>
>
> You are still way braver than I am, unless your previous attitude
> indicator, ASI and altimeter were still installed, in their original panel
> locations. I plan to have quite a few hours on my Dynon EFIS in VMC
> conditions before I venture into the clouds. You obviously got away with
> it, but that doesn't mean that it is a good idea for other people to head
> off into the clouds until they have had lots of time getting used to the
> EFIS presentation, and have enough hours on it to confirm that it is
> working properly.
>
> Don't take it personally - I just thought it was worth a comment. We all
> want to decrease the accident rate of homebuilt aircraft, and that means
> we
> need to be very thoughtful about which risks are worth taking.
>
> Kevin Horton
>
>
>>
>>
>>My airplane has over 1100 hours on it. Obviously 2nd flight after
>>installing
>>the EFIS.
>>Wayne
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot(at)purephotos.com.au>
>>To:
>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I had to shoot an ILS on the second flight to get back into my home
>> > airport
>> > and found using the EFIS with the OBS just under it.
>> >
>> > You mean 2nd flight after installing the EFIS, I hope?
>> >
>> > Richard
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Logan <Rob(at)logan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon EFIS [Chelton] |
> Scrap all the smallish displays ones
> and go for a larger one that can do split screen
http://d2av.com/ can't do split screen, but
it can do three screens...
http://d2av.com/screen/forward.gif
http://d2av.com/screen/shadows.gif
http://d2av.com/screen/tt6.gif
07.2.04 Pilot's Guide:
http://www.cheltonflightsystems.com/FlightLogicCertified/login.asp
newer stuff:
http://mail.d2av.com/lists/news/Message/7.html
Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric Schlanser <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
Wayne,
What is the FastStack of which you speak? I am unable to find a reference to it.
Thanks, Eric
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis
I have a Dynon EFIS D10A with OAT and magnetometer.
Installation was a breeze, compared to that of the GNS430, GI-106A and
PMA6000 audio panel. I would NEVER do that wiring again; FastStack
would
have made the 45 day trial by "fire" a 4 day delight.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien(at)cox.net> |
Haven't flown my Lancair ES yet, but fired up the Dynon (D10, the old
version) in the panel for the first time yesterday. I've replaced my
Attitude indicator with the Dynon, but have retained the five other
standard instruments. I couldn't be more thrilled. For the price of an RC
Allen AI, I've got an AI plus back ups for the five other instruments, plus
some extras (voltage, g meter, timer), all on a single screen. It's also
got 5 checklists which were simple to program and load. It was also simple
to update the software from my laptop. The display is bright and readable,
and my simple "garage test" (moving the panel up, down, sideways, and
banking, as if in flight) suggests that it will be GREAT. Given the
instruments newness and relative lack of experience in the field, I
personally would not rely solely on the Dynon in IMC. The company (which
seems to be "doing it right") says as much on its website. But as a
replacement for a single instrument in a systematic instrument scan, I
personally have no hesitation. I think it's a HUGE improvement over a
single mechanical electric gyro because of the additional backups. It's
reliability remains to be seen, but it is hard to imagine that a solid
state unit like this won't do better than existing mechanical electric
gyros, which do not seem to have a great track record.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon EFIS [Chelton] |
These newer EFIS's are very impressive, but I'm sort of glad those weren't
in my sights at the time I ordered the Dynon. I would have been very tempted
to get the big one or perhaps the dual and that would have meant a HUGE
(REALLY BIG) panel reconfiguration. And that would have also meant a HUGE
$$$$$ outflow; something that would not have been good.
So, no temptation is good sometimes.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Logan" <Rob(at)logan.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dynon EFIS [Chelton]
>
> > Scrap all the smallish displays ones
> > and go for a larger one that can do split screen
>
> http://d2av.com/ can't do split screen, but
> it can do three screens...
> http://d2av.com/screen/forward.gif
> http://d2av.com/screen/shadows.gif
> http://d2av.com/screen/tt6.gif
>
> 07.2.04 Pilot's Guide:
> http://www.cheltonflightsystems.com/FlightLogicCertified/login.asp
> newer stuff:
> http://mail.d2av.com/lists/news/Message/7.html
>
> Rob
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: panel mounted fuses.. |
I am not sure why you want panel mounted fuses, so this may not be
something you would be interested in, but if a fuse block would work
(not panel mounted) try
https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productselection.asp?Product=4402
I am using these in my RV9A.
Dick Tasker
Rob Logan wrote:
>
>klixon 7277 breakers are $20 each
>http://www.ti.com/snc/products/controls/acb-7277.htm
>
>so when a switch is required, (lights, tube heat..)
>potter & brumfield switch/breakers seem to be
>the best option.
>
>but for items that just need wire protection
>and not a load shedding "off" option, perhaps
>fuses would be ok. Found some fuses holders
>http://www.excess-solutions.com/FUSES.HTM
>and one even with fast on terminals
>http://www.excess-solutions.com/SpecSheets/c_fiz.pdf
>but I don't see an easy way to attach a bar across a
>row of them.. Plus it would be nice if one could swap
>fuses without a screw driver.
>
>have you find a better panel mounted fuse
>holder? (or a cheap source of klixons? :-)
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
Here's the link:
http://www.approach-systems.com/prod.asp
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Schlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis
>
>
>
> Wayne,
>
> What is the FastStack of which you speak? I am unable to find a reference
> to it.
>
> Thanks, Eric
>
>
> From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis
>
>
>
> I have a Dynon EFIS D10A with OAT and magnetometer.
>
>
> Installation was a breeze, compared to that of the GNS430, GI-106A and
> PMA6000 audio panel. I would NEVER do that wiring again; FastStack
> would
> have made the 45 day trial by "fire" a 4 day delight.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
Dan,
If you dumped the DG and got the Dynon magnetometer option, you could also
dump the vacuum pump. This makes the aft end of the engine much more clear
for oil filter access AND, under the instrument panel the hoses and filter
for the vacuum gage are GONE!!!!! YEH!!!!!!
The back of my instrument panel is so much more accessible now with all that
garbage gone.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dynon EFIS
>
> Haven't flown my Lancair ES yet, but fired up the Dynon (D10, the old
> version) in the panel for the first time yesterday. I've replaced my
> Attitude indicator with the Dynon, but have retained the five other
> standard instruments. I couldn't be more thrilled. For the price of an
> RC
> Allen AI, I've got an AI plus back ups for the five other instruments,
> plus
> some extras (voltage, g meter, timer), all on a single screen. It's also
> got 5 checklists which were simple to program and load. It was also
> simple
> to update the software from my laptop. The display is bright and
> readable,
> and my simple "garage test" (moving the panel up, down, sideways, and
> banking, as if in flight) suggests that it will be GREAT. Given the
> instruments newness and relative lack of experience in the field, I
> personally would not rely solely on the Dynon in IMC. The company (which
> seems to be "doing it right") says as much on its website. But as a
> replacement for a single instrument in a systematic instrument scan, I
> personally have no hesitation. I think it's a HUGE improvement over a
> single mechanical electric gyro because of the additional backups. It's
> reliability remains to be seen, but it is hard to imagine that a solid
> state unit like this won't do better than existing mechanical electric
> gyros, which do not seem to have a great track record.
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi All-
Can someone explain to me the significance of cat5 and or cat5e cable?
What makes it special? When would I want to use it vs a bundle of plain
old fashioned MS tefzel?
Thanks guys- I haven't found any help locally!
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: panel mounted fuses.. |
>
>klixon 7277 breakers are $20 each
>http://www.ti.com/snc/products/controls/acb-7277.htm
>
>so when a switch is required, (lights, tube heat..)
>potter & brumfield switch/breakers seem to be
>the best option.
have you considered:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/fuseorcb.html
>but for items that just need wire protection
>and not a load shedding "off" option . . .
Why are you considering variables of selective
load shedding in flight? It's seems best to have
a simple array of planned activities to manage
energy consumption and to achieve fault tolerant
design. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch17-9.pdf
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/neveragain/neveragain_2.html
>, perhaps
>fuses would be ok. Found some fuses holders
>http://www.excess-solutions.com/FUSES.HTM
>and one even with fast on terminals
>http://www.excess-solutions.com/SpecSheets/c_fiz.pdf
>but I don't see an easy way to attach a bar across a
>row of them.. Plus it would be nice if one could swap
>fuses without a screw driver.
>
>have you find a better panel mounted fuse
>holder? (or a cheap source of klixons? :-)
Why would you WANT one?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net> |
The only "Cat5" cable that I'm familiar with is for network (Ethernet)
wiring. I don't know if the make it in tefzel or not but I suppose they do.
Regards,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cat 5
>
> Hi All-
>
> Can someone explain to me the significance of cat5 and or cat5e cable?
> What makes it special? When would I want to use it vs a bundle of plain
> old fashioned MS tefzel?
>
> Thanks guys- I haven't found any help locally!
>
>
> Glen Matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tammy and Mike Salzman <arrow54t(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: panel mounted fuses.. |
Rob,
You might want to consider the following fuse holders.
http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/217_063
They accept the ATO/ATC automotive fuses. If your fingers are not too
fat, you can remove the fuses without tools. :) They can handle 200
total amps. I bought the rear terninal model and mounted on the far
right side of the panel.
Mike Salzman
LNCE
Fairfield, CA
--- Rob Logan wrote:
>
> klixon 7277 breakers are $20 each
> http://www.ti.com/snc/products/controls/acb-7277.htm
>
> so when a switch is required, (lights, tube heat..)
> potter & brumfield switch/breakers seem to be
> the best option.
>
> but for items that just need wire protection
> and not a load shedding "off" option, perhaps
> fuses would be ok. Found some fuses holders
> http://www.excess-solutions.com/FUSES.HTM
> and one even with fast on terminals
> http://www.excess-solutions.com/SpecSheets/c_fiz.pdf
> but I don't see an easy way to attach a bar across a
> row of them.. Plus it would be nice if one could swap
> fuses without a screw driver.
>
> have you find a better panel mounted fuse
> holder? (or a cheap source of klixons? :-)
>
>
> Rob
__________________________________
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: panel mounted fuses.. |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Rob & Mike -
We installed two of these Bussman fuse blocks in our panel. The nice part
about them is that you can take the snap-on cover off and get to the fuses
easily for maintenance. We bought the ones that are split buss types -
the Bussman Model 15710. The top stud feeds the first 20 fuses and the
bottom feeds the remaining 8. Good for a primary and endurance buss setup
or primary and avionics setup. David Swartzendruber is a builder like
us'ns. He also sells 14/6's for a very reasaonable price as a kit. Check
out his web page.
http://www.mihdirect.biz/
Or email him for more details.
"David Swartzendruber"
Cheers,
John
> Rob,
>
> You might want to consider the following fuse holders.
>
> http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/217_063
>
> They accept the ATO/ATC automotive fuses. If your fingers are not too
> fat, you can remove the fuses without tools. :) They can handle 200
> total amps. I bought the rear terninal model and mounted on the far
> right side of the panel.
>
> Mike Salzman
> LNCE
> Fairfield, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Glen Matejcek wrote:
>
>Hi All-
>
>Can someone explain to me the significance of cat5 and or cat5e cable?
>What makes it special? When would I want to use it vs a bundle of plain
>old fashioned MS tefzel?
>
>
For the most part you wouldn't. Cat5 is for wiring your home computer.
(or your business network)
>Thanks guys- I haven't found any help locally!
>
>
>Glen Matejcek
>aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
Bob McC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Contactor identification |
>Comments/Questions: Dear Bob;
> Do you have the difference in A/C Starter vs Master solenoids.
>Measured values. How to tell the difference if not marked ? The coils should
>be the key, but what are their different values ???
> Thanks
Continuous duty contactors cannot survive if they dissipate more than 15
watts
or so internally . . . hence a battery contactor will generally draw 1 amp
or less (12 ohm coil minimum). An intermittent duty contactor may draw 3-5
times this current and will have a coil resistance under 6 ohms.
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
A further benefit can be realized with membership on
the list. There are lots of technically capable folks
on the list who can offer suggestions too. You can
join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Thanks!
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | The dragon is slain . . . or at least hog-tied. |
I think I mentioned that I've been extra ordinarily pre-occupied
with troubleshooting a tripping generator problem in a Beechjet for
the past few weeks. Thought I'd share some of the blood and gore
with our friends on the List.
The airplane has been out of service since about a month before
the Christmas shutdown. The owner's service shop worked on it for
three weeks. One of our techs went to join them for another week.
Left generator would trip every time a heavy load was switched on,
especially the air conditioner that has about 1000A inrush.
Right generator worked fine. EVERYTHING was swapped from side to
side, sometimes more than once. Problem stayed on left side. They
brought the airplane to Wichita and we dug into it a couple of days
before Christmas.
Interesting thing about working on bizjets is the EXTRA care one
must take to avoid scratching cabinets, poking holes in leather
seats, dropping solder blobs into the carpets, etc, etc. ANYTHING
you bugger in one of those airplanes is measured in WEEKS of pay.
Generator control circuitry is inside pressure vessel at rear of cabin so
I had test equipment and/or tools setting in about every seat
(after we covered them up). A bizjet makes a terrible research lab.
The thing weighs 10,000 pounds, costs several millions, has to be
maneuvered with a tug and crew of 4. You can't run the engines
at high power anywhere but at the compass rose or unused taxiway,
all of which were 1/2 mile or more from the hangar.
Over the three weeks I've worked it, we were dragged in and out of the
hangar about a dozen times. I built special breakout boxes to
instrument the system and educated myself on the idiosyncrasies
of this particular system. Crawling around in the aft cabin was
like working in the bottom of a 55 gallon drum. EVERY experiment was
a minimum two-hour to one-day turnaround.
We examined EVERY operational and physical aspect of the left
system and compared it with the right hand system . . .
I've got a stack of 'scope traces a half-inch thick!.
Upshot was that noise was getting into the ground fault detection
system. Ground fault detection was added to the local biz-jet
markets in the early 80s . . . I recall quoting some equipment
to Beech while working with Electro-Mech about that same time.
In the last few weeks of getting up close and personal with the
ground fault detection system, I've deduced that this "safety"
mandate has yet to keep any airplane from catching fire but has
generated $millions$ in troubleshooting costs. The cost of this
experience alone probably totals $30,000 and that doesn't include
lost revenue for down time of the asset.
Being dyed-in-the-wool electro-wienners, we were all looking
for an electronic problem. After deducing that the noise was
coming from one of the two ground fault transformers in the
system, we began to look at proximity effects. Turns out that
a bleed air tube was too close to the transformer's most
vulnerable deficiency . . . the upper corners where the cores
have brass-shimmed gaps to calibrate performance. Susceptibility
to external magnetic influences is greatest at these gaps.
Magnetic forces leaking from field ring of generator
were coupling to engine and inducing very low voltage
noises in engine components. Part of these noises flowed
out on the bleed air plumbing and coupled to the gap in
the transformer's magnetic core. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Too_Close.jpg
Moving the transformer 1" away from the bleed air
tube dropped the noise levels to 1/20th of what they
had been.
If this had been a modern, toroidal core transformer,
the problem would never have showed up. Seems that these
tubes are weldments (wide dimensional tolerances for
position) and include soft joints for expansion due to
heating. Not sure how they're going to get the spacing
back to the more usual 1" . . . but that's a job for
a power-plant guy. After three weeks of troubleshooting
in the bottom of a barrel in an ice storm, I'm ready
to hand the task over to someone else.
I think I've mentioned on the list several times that
there's not a noise problem out there that cannot be whipped.
Further, when it's fixed, the solution will turn out to
be stone simple in principle. However, just because it's
simple doesn't make it easy to understand and find.
Now, we still don't have true root cause . . . we don't
fully understand the mechanism by which this noise
propagates to the bleed air tube and ultimately to
the transformer. I'd really like to do the rest of the
science but as I said, a working bizjet is a terrible
and expensive research laboratory. Don't think they'd
let me have it for two more weeks after I told them
what was needed to make the machine airworthy again.
My superiors are eager for me to do a white-paper
on the experience to circulate around RAC service
centers . . . and probably do a lunchtime learning
presentation for my associates at RAC. Once the
"simple" is identified and understood, it behoves
us to spread the word to any who have an interest.
Looking forward to a tighter coupling with the List
in the near future.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Logan <Rob(at)logan.com> |
posted this on a lancair list, but you guys might
enjoy it too. -Rob
WAAS corrected GPS are all the rage. It offers:
1) takes GPS from 6.0m to 3.2m Horizontal accuracy with 95% confidence.
2) promise of newly written vertical LPV guided approaches.
3) promise of maybe getting "Sole means" en route blessing.
It's true WAAS improves accuracy:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/Ftp/gps/status.txt
http://users.erols.com/dlwilson/gpswaas.htm
http://waas.stanford.edu/metrics.html
http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/dgps.htm
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_accuracy.html
http://gpsinformation.net/exe/iono-day.gif Ionosphere temp
http://www.igeb.gov/sa/diagram.shtml
http://www.montana.edu/places/gps/lres357/slides/GPSaccuracy.ppt
http://www.montana.edu/places/gps/lres357/slides/GPSstatus.ppt
and I did find 9 airports with a LPV DA:
http://rob.com/airports/M/G/M
http://rob.com/airports/M/S/L
http://rob.com/airports/F/D/K
http://rob.com/airports/G/A/I
http://rob.com/airports/O/K/C
http://rob.com/airports/S/L/O
http://rob.com/airports/J/Y/O
http://rob.com/airports/H/E/F
http://rob.com/airports/O/S/H
Two of them with lower mins! so one does get greater capability today
with WAAS corrections. But this way over budget, way late government
project also came with a mild threat by Administrator Blakey at the AOPA
convention: "if you are slow to equip [with WAAS], there will be folks
who will say there aren't enough users in the system and push to move
the money away from developing and maintaining procedures for all those
airports I talked about."
http://www.faa.gov/newsroom/speeches/Blakey/2004/speeches_blakey_041021.htm
Users of http://www.freeflightsystems.com/ the first WAAS corrected GPS,
started complaining about losing position reports. Then CNX80 (second WAAS
corrected gps) users also started noticing failed in flight position
reports. When I started playing with a gps18, it worked fine on the
ground, but when I turned away from the southern sky it would freeze its
position. http://rob.com/lancair/flights/kirk/1gps.gif
What's going on here? While I'm not saying GPS is junk
http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/SatNavStatus.htm because we have been
using it reliably for years, but let's look closer at the WAAS
corrections: with 25 ground reference stations
http://gpsinformation.net/exe/waas-coverage-dale.gif
transmitting corrections to (Inmarsat IIIs: POR (Pacific Ocean Region)
http://www.lyngsat.com/tracker/inmar3f3.shtml or
AOR-W (Atlantic Ocean Region-West)
http://www.lyngsat.com/tracker/inmar3f4.shtml
These satellites are 22,300 miles above the equator vs 12,600 miles
mostly over our head. If we look at the angle of the satellite TV
dishes in our neighborhood, they point low on the horizon to get a
satellite above the equator. That one signal is going twice as far,
through more ionosphere. And unlike your satTV dish, the antenna must
be omni directional, making it impossible to achieve any forward gain.
When we lose this one signal, we lose the whole position solution.
So is going from 6.0m to 3.2m with 95% accuracy worth the increased loss of
availability? Wouldn't we increase safety by providing some information
rather than no information? (this is a big one for the FAA)
Perhaps with some new antenna technology, my point will be mute, but the
3 WAAS receivers I've tried, and all unlocked without southern sky.
Heck, this new magic antenna will increase the reliability of
wsi and xm weather service, as they face the same weak signal challenge,
and are unavailable in an uncorrected way. (the weather service, Merlin,
failed because they couldn't make an antenna that worked)
Is accepting the added risk of a more complex system worth it?
FADEC vs mags
EFIS vs HSI
WAAS vs GPS without corrections.
Bonus question: is a TSOed C129A receiver with Receiver Autonomous
Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) better than a 12 channel all in the sky
receiver?
BTW, http://d2av.com has been offering barro corrected GS below MDA
from FAF to MAP on *all* approches for 5+ years, without WAAS or a TSOed GPS,
but please stay legal.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 1/16/2005 1:12:14 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Rob(at)logan.com writes:
posted this on a Lancair list, but you guys might
enjoy it too. -Rob
Good Morning Rob,
Interesting stuff, but I wonder if it really belongs on this forum?
I will comment a bit and hope others will let us know if the discussion
should continue or be taken elsewhere.
Now, about some of the numbers.
You list nine LPVs yet the FEDs are showing forty-nine LPVs as of November
2004. Whither the discrepancy?
I get the impression that you are not too impressed with WAAS accuracy and
reliability. Is that a fair assumption?
January 07, 2005 - January 16, 2005
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-dw