AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-eb
February 26, 2005 - March 04, 2005
>Kevin
>Europa nearing completion, no electrical plan started yet.
Now is a VERY good time to get started!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: aircraft wiring course slides |
>
>
>My apologies if this is information is already widely distributed:
>
>I ran across this PowerPoint wiring course while surfing the net. While I
>haven't read everything, the topic appears to be relevant to wiring best
>practices... Some information appears to be restatement of information already
>contained AC43-13.
>
>http://www.academy.jccbi.gov/airdl/wiringcourse/
This is the first I've heard of them. Thank you for the
heads up. I've downloaded them and may add them to the
CD rom of data we offer after I review them.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Battery cables |
>
>Mine are all parallel. It's neater and just as effective as twisting
>AFAIK. Either way should cancel the magnetic effects.
>The only ones I twisted were the AC feed from the PM alternator to make
>sure they stayed close together when bundled.
>Ken
>
>Angier & Gynna wrote:
>
> >
> >The battery is behind the co-pilot seat in my Lancair. When installing
> the +/- cables going forward through the firewall, should these cables
> have several twists or is it ok to simply run then parallel to eachother?
Run them parallel for as far as practical . . . twisting is
difficult, makes them look messy and has minimal benefits.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> cables? |
Subject: | Re: transponder antenna cable near other |
cables?
cables?
>
>
>Hi,
>
>The most convenient routing for my transponder antenna cable is
>along with cables for my flap motor cables, autopilot servo
>cables, and aileron trim cables. Does anyone know if this
>might cause any problems with electrical interference?
>
>Thanks,
>Mickey
Very unlikely
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: crossfeed contactor |
>
>
>Ron -
>
>If I read the Z-14 diagram correctly, the crossfeed coil is fed from both
>sides thru the two diodes. Let me know if this is true.
>
>Thanks,
>
>John
>
> > If the crossfeed contactors coil is being powered from the side that is
> > dead, it will not work. Does it make sense to power the coil to this
> > contactor from both battery busses?
> >
John is correct. There are 3 diodes on a crosfeed contactor
such that it can power from either bus and enjoy the benefits
of spike suppression.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S701-2.jpg
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Mixing Z13 and Z14 |
>
>
>Ooopps. Didn't mean to imply anything about anyone but me. I was calling
>**ME** overweight. :-)
>
>Second, I am NOT flying yet.
>
>I would *probably* fly with the cross-feed closed **IF** I confirm that this
>does not cause a problem. The way I see it, my larger (B&C) alternator would
>have a bit more load and its regulator would cause it to come online. It
>would do the charging of both batteries.
>
>This will mean that all things will be able to get juice from all sources so
>to speak.
>
>Otherwise, I will fly with it open and if "stuff goes dark", I throw the
>cross-feed switch.
>
>It just seems so much cleaner from an operational standpoint. Maybe I am
>kidding myself but I feel I then have twice the reliability (two potentially
>independent systems) for keeping the lights on. Belt and suspenders so I
>sweat less if I am ever IFR, at night, over the mountains, blah, blah :-)
The idea for Z-14 is that one system can go completely dark
and not affect the other system. If you're going to fly with
the crossfeed closed, you might as well do something simpler
like Z-12 where two alternators feed a common bus. This is
the "upgrade" architecture for spam cans getting an SD-20
installation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | What is this device? |
>
>
>Hal,
>
>It is a capacitor. Used for noise filtering.
>
>Mike Crowe
>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: What is this device?
>
>
>
>
>What the heck is this part? It is red, about half an inch square and about
>1/16th thick plastic with two leads .
>
>Marked
>
>ERIE
>
>3.3 M
>
>100V
>
>
>Found connect from power bus to ground.
Most folks have correctly opined that it is a capacitor. Does
disconnection of this device have any observable effects on system
operation? I am skeptical of the intent for installing this
kind of device right on the bus. I suspect that it's
insurance against stampeding pink elephants.
The only time I've found devices in this range useful is
for reduction of noises detected by ADF and the occasional
LORAN installations. Even then, the capacitor goes right on the
offending device, not on the bus. If leaving it out produces
no observable effects then I wouldn't bother to replace it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Antenna / aerial questions |
>
>
>Bob K wrote
>
> Check out the files you'll find at:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Antennas
>
>Excellent help thank you Bob.
>Will have to see if I can find Shoe Goo or equivalent over here.
It's identical to a hobby adhesive sold as E6000 and dozens
of other part numbers and brands. E6000 is handled by many
hardware stores and at Hobby Lobby.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
Subject: | Re: transponder antenna cable near other cables? |
>>The most convenient routing for my transponder antenna cable is
>>along with cables for my flap motor cables, autopilot servo
>>cables, and aileron trim cables. Does anyone know if this
>>might cause any problems with electrical interference?
>
>
> Very unlikely
>
> Bob . . .
Cool - Bob's back! Thanks for the info, Bob.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com> |
Subject: | Avionics wiring redo |
I'm trying to troubleshoot a whine in the headset audio. I bought the plane finished
and it wasn't an issue until I started using a high quality stereo headset.
I had already planned to replace the existing PM501 with a stereo intercom,
possibly a Flightcom 403.
The noise is present with everything off but the engine and intercom and changes
with engine RPM. The plane does have electronic ignition on one side. I believe
the problem is in how the avionics were wired. For some reason the builder
passed power and audio signals through a terminal strip. I haven't completely
traced it, but it looks like the grounds to the headset jacks originate from
a common ground on the terminal strip, which all go back to a ground bus.
I'm also going to install an auto pilot when I upgrade the intercom. Since I'll
have to tap into the only comm/gps radio and replace the intercom it seems sensible
to just redo the entire avionics wiring. Am I creating to much work for
myself or does this seem a reasonable approach?
Thanks.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Scott;
One way to achieve what you want is to use a commonly available 2 pole
on-on-on progressive transfer switch. You jumper terminal 1 to 5,
connect your load to terminal 2, connect your primary supply to terminal
6, and your auxiliary supply to terminal 4. This, when installed key way
up, gives you down = off, mid = primary, and up = aux.
See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Carling_Micro/Carling_Micro.pdf
for how this switch works.
Bob McC
Scott Winn (Matronics List) wrote:
>
>I have a switching application on my panel that selects between Off,
>Primary and Aux. The switch I selected to perform the switching is a
>2-1 type switch. The problem I am having is that everything else on my
>panel is pointed down for the off positsion. The 2-1 switch has it's
>off position in the middle which isn't what I want. I would really like
>to be consistent with the operation of the switches on my panel so that
>when something is turned Off, it is pointed down. I need a DP3T switch
>to perform this task, but B & C doesn't carry one. It is also very
>important to me to have identical size and feel of switches on the
>panel, so I'd prefer to get a switch that exactly matches the size,
>shape and operation of the B & C switches. Since I ordered a bunch of
>switches from them, I Iooked up the manufacturer and it appears that
>they do not manufacture a DP3T switch. Does anyone know of a DP3T
>switch that has the same size bat toggle as the B&C switches?
>
>--Scott
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Scott;
Sorry, I clicked sent a little too quickly. B&C does carry this switch.
It is a 700-2-10 and is shown at $19.50 on their web site under switches
here.
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?11X358218#s700-2-10
Bob McC
Robert McCallum wrote:
>
>Scott;
>
>One way to achieve what you want is to use a commonly available 2 pole
>on-on-on progressive transfer switch. You jumper terminal 1 to 5,
>connect your load to terminal 2, connect your primary supply to terminal
>6, and your auxiliary supply to terminal 4. This, when installed key way
>up, gives you down = off, mid = primary, and up = aux.
>See
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Carling_Micro/Carling_Micro.pdf
>for how this switch works.
>
>Bob McC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
Subject: | Re: Avionics wiring redo |
Sounds like you are on the right track.
As for re-doing the avionics wiring, if I was a betting man, I'd gamble
that you will. Once you start digging and deciphering some one else's
wiring, you probably find it faster and more enjoyable to just start again.
And I bet you'll add a few things to the panel as well. You know, once
it's out... how about a moving map, satellite radio, microwave oven...
Good luck. Anyone can pound rivets. Real men wire their own panels. :-).
Vern Little
Ken Simmons wrote:
>
>I'm trying to troubleshoot a whine in the headset audio. I bought the plane finished
and it wasn't an issue until I started using a high quality stereo headset.
I had already planned to replace the existing PM501 with a stereo intercom,
possibly a Flightcom 403.
>
>The noise is present with everything off but the engine and intercom and changes
with engine RPM. The plane does have electronic ignition on one side. I believe
the problem is in how the avionics were wired. For some reason the builder
passed power and audio signals through a terminal strip. I haven't completely
traced it, but it looks like the grounds to the headset jacks originate from
a common ground on the terminal strip, which all go back to a ground bus.
>
>I'm also going to install an auto pilot when I upgrade the intercom. Since I'll
have to tap into the only comm/gps radio and replace the intercom it seems sensible
to just redo the entire avionics wiring. Am I creating to much work for
myself or does this seem a reasonable approach?
>
>Thanks.
>Ken
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
Subject: | Re: wire labeling practices |
Has anyone had experience with the Rite-Zit labeller? Google Rite-Zit
(unfortunate name) to see it. Apparently it wraps an adhesive label
around the wire with a special tool. This allows labelling a wire after
installation, and does not require heatshrink which can stiffen a wire
or bind up when pulling.
It's pretty cheap, too. If I hadn't finished my wiring already, I'd try
one.
Vern Little
Richard Dudley wrote:
>
>Hi Jay,
>I have followed the procedure that Bob Nuccolls wrote about. That is
>printing labels and covering them with clear shrink tubing. I used a
>couple of wrinkles that might be a slightly different. Since I use an
>ink jet printer, and knowing that the ink is water affected, I printed
>them on plain paper using the label program for a specific Avery label.
>Then took the paper to Kinko's and had them copy them onto Avery labels
>that I supplied. Their charge was the regular copying per page charge. I
>then peeled off the labels, cut out the pieces that I wanted to use,
>wrapped the label around the wire and shrunk clear shrink tubing that I
>bought from Aeroelectric (now, probably from B&S). By using a small
>point size font and repeating the text vertically, some text will show
>without having to specially orient the label.
>
>This worked well for me and was very easy to do.
>
>If some of this is a bit unclear, I' d be glad to try to re-explain any
>part.
>
>Regards and good luck,
>
>Richard Dudley
>-6A flying
>
>Jay Brinkmeyer wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Can someone point me to a good source/example of wire labeling and
>>identification best practices? Are folks using fancy mil-spec labels, just
>>printing & heat shrinking them on, or something else???
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>Jay
>>
>>P.S. This group is a much appreciated resource!
>>
>>=====
>>
>>
>>
>>__________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Scott Winn (Matronics List)" <swmat(at)cox.net> |
Robert,
I saw that configuration in the AeroElectric connection. However, I
need this functionality on a dual pole device. A 2-10 switch wired in
this way functions as a one pole device. I just noticed that Bob
mentions a 4 pole ON-ON-ON device, and it can be used as I described.
I'm pretty sure B&C doesn't stock the four pole switch, but maybe they
can order it for me.
--Scott
-->
Scott;
Sorry, I clicked sent a little too quickly. B&C does carry this switch.
It is a 700-2-10 and is shown at $19.50 on their web site under switches
here.
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?11X358218#s700-2
-10
Bob McC
Robert McCallum wrote:
>-->
>
>Scott;
>
>One way to achieve what you want is to use a commonly available 2 pole
>on-on-on progressive transfer switch. You jumper terminal 1 to 5,
>connect your load to terminal 2, connect your primary supply to
terminal
>6, and your auxiliary supply to terminal 4. This, when installed key
way
>up, gives you down = off, mid = primary, and up = aux.
>See
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Carling_Micro/Carling_Micro.pdf
>for how this switch works.
>
>Bob McC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeff Hildebrand" <jhildebrand(at)crownequip.com> |
Subject: | JPI EDM-930 information |
I would like to put a JPI EDM-930 engine monitor in our Lancair ES. I want
to get the panel laser cut before we get the instrument, but I am having a
lot of trouble with JPI getting the correct cutout information. They gave
me a cutout drawing, but it is missing information on the button cutouts.
Does anyone have an EDM-930 that they could get me some information on? I
would appreciate and photo of the unit.
Thanks,
Jeff Hildebrand
Lancair ES C-GSPH
HYPERLINK "http://www.lancaires.com/"www.lancaires.com
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
Subject: | Air Pressure "Squat" Switch |
Lancair Kit Components sells an air pressure activated "squat" switch, although
it's pretty pricey at $250. On the other hand, you can be relatively confident
that it will be suited to your application. Here's the link:
http://www.aerocraftparts.com/ItemForm.aspx?item710
Good luck,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy #257
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
Subject: | Re: Mixing Z13 and Z14 |
Thanks for the comment below Bob.
Which means that I will NOW *probably* fly with the cross-feed "open". :-)
James
Seriously, I plan to assign things to the two independent systems in a
manner such that if one dies totally, it is a non-event. That's what I like
about it.
{SNIP}
| >
| >I would *probably* fly with the cross-feed closed **IF** I confirm that
| this
| >does not cause a problem. The way I see it, my larger (B&C) alternator
{SNIP}
| >
| >Otherwise, I will fly with it open and if "stuff goes dark", I throw the
| >cross-feed switch.
| >
| >It just seems so much cleaner from an operational standpoint. Maybe I am
| >kidding myself but I feel I then have twice the reliability (two
| potentially
| >independent systems) for keeping the lights on. Belt and suspenders so I
| >sweat less if I am ever IFR, at night, over the mountains, blah, blah :-
| )
|
|
| The idea for Z-14 is that one system can go completely dark
| and not affect the other system. If you're going to fly with
| the crossfeed closed, you might as well do something simpler
| like Z-12 where two alternators feed a common bus. This is
| the "upgrade" architecture for spam cans getting an SD-20
| installation.
|
| Bob . . .
|
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Hi Bob, My alternator controller. |
What kind of meter and what scale? There's no way that any
failure other than something like lightning strike could
"ground" all terminals . . . and even then, the values
read at each toasted terminal would show some variability.
I suspect your controller is fine and the instrument you're
using is incapable of resolving the resistance characteristics
of the individual pins.
Bob . . .
>
>
>I do the checking with a meter.
>I touch the case and all 7 terminals and get a full needle deflection
>at each terminal. The other probe is grounded to the airframe.
>Cecil
>
>
> writes:
> >
> >
> > Since Bob is out of town for a few days...
> >
> > I assume you are using a meter of some sort to determine that
> > they are 'grounded.'
> >
> > I wouldn't be surprised if each of the inputs have a diode stack or
> > similar structure connected as input polarity protection. Some
> > terminals may have fairly large capacitors on them. Depending on
> > what kind of meter you have and how you hook it up to each terminal,
> > they may look nearly like they are shorted to ground.
> >
> > If you need an answer right away, you could probably contact one
> > of the techies at B and C. They have been very responsive to my
> > questions and requests in the past.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Matt-
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Bob,
> > > My Alternator Controller ( from BNC) has never had volts hooked up
> > to it
> > > yet.
> > > Its bolted to a grounded surface. I find all seven stations are
> > then
> > > grounded
> > > with no wires hooked to it at all. Something smells in denmark.
> > Whats
> > > going on?
> > > Bad Controller??
> > > Cecil Hatfield
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Ex Pilot Question |
>
>
>Hi Dean,
>
>Thanks for pointing this out. I've already wired my Trio Avionics
>EZ Pilot servo, but didn't notice the recommendation to use shielded
>wire on the PWM line. How the heck did I miss this? Anyway...
>
>One question for the experts - would it hurt to have all three
>lines - ground, +14v, and the PWM be in the same shielded bundle?
>
>One concern I have is that the documentation says to ground both
>ends of the shield. This seems to be in conflict with Bob's
>teachings. Are autopilot servos different from strobes in this
>regard?
Conflicting in what way? I think I've always suggested that
manufacturer's instructions should be followed to the letter
first.
Do the instructions say to separate the leadwires? If not
then I would presume that it's okay to bundle them together
like most system installations. I don't ever recall installation
instructions for an appliance that recommended separation
of certain kinds of wires for the purpose of reducing noise.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>I have a switching application on my panel that selects between Off,
>Primary and Aux.
Primary and Aux what?
> The switch I selected to perform the switching is a
>2-1 type switch. The problem I am having is that everything else on my
>panel is pointed down for the off positsion. The 2-1 switch has it's
>off position in the middle which isn't what I want. I would really like
>to be consistent with the operation of the switches on my panel so that
>when something is turned Off, it is pointed down. I need a DP3T switch
>to perform this task, but B & C doesn't carry one.
I'm not sure what you need is made.
> It is also very
>important to me to have identical size and feel of switches on the
>panel, so I'd prefer to get a switch that exactly matches the size,
>shape and operation of the B & C switches. Since I ordered a bunch of
>switches from them, I Iooked up the manufacturer and it appears that
>they do not manufacture a DP3T switch. Does anyone know of a DP3T
>switch that has the same size bat toggle as the B&C switches?
Need more input on your application.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> pinout? |
Subject: | Re: [Stinson] Genave marker receiver |
pinout?
pinout?
Sorry, my data base doesn't cover this radio.
Bob . . .
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data Bob Nuckolls has a data base
>of radio pin-outs/ But it doesn't seem to be on the site.
>
>I am forwarding your request to the aeroelectric-list@matronics list
>
>Cy Galley
>EAA Safety Programs Editor
>Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fixbritishcars
> To: Stinson(at)yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 9:27 AM
> Subject: [Stinson] Genave marker receiver pinout?
>
>
> I an have a Genave Delta 300 marker beacon receiver that I want to
> install in my Stinson. I have no diagram for it. Does anyone have the
> pin out for this? If so please e-mail me, phone me 314-808-0281 or
> fax inro to 573-237-3605. MANY THANKS
> Andy
> 8968K
>
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Stinson/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Stinson-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.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: | "Scott Winn (Matronics List)" <swmat(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | EFIS Backup Battery |
The EFIS we are installing in our aircraft provides multiple power input
terminals, and automatically selects the terminal with the highest
voltage present to power the device. The primary power input is from
our endurance bus. I'd like to utilize a small, 1.2AH sealed lead acid
AGM battery to provide sufficient voltage to drive the EFIS during
engine start when the main bus voltage will fall and cause the EFIS to
reset.
I would like this battery to be charged by the ships main bus, but not
allow current to flow from this battery to the main bus. I can isolate
the battery from the main bus with a diode, but I'm concerned that it
won't get fully charged with the voltage drop across the diode.
My second idea is to use a comparator circuit that drives a relay to
connect the 1.2AH battery to the main bus when the bus voltage exceeds
13.0 volts, and disconnect it when it falls below this value. This
would allow the small battery to receive a full charge when the
alternator is charging, but disconnect it when the voltage falls below
the charge current.
Has anyone done something like this before? Is there a better/simpler
way to provide suffient voltage to the EFIS during tartup than what I
proposing? I thought about a capacitor, but I think it would have to be
pretty large. The total EFIS current draw will be about 4 amps and I
want the EFIS to continue to function even during extended cranking.
--Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Scott Winn (Matronics List)" <swmat(at)cox.net> |
With all of the talk of Voice annunciation and forced landings, I'm
looking for a warning system to put in my panel. I've seen a few of the
high priced ones ($1500+) they cost too much. Before I go re-invent the
wheel, I wanted to check here and see if anyone is aware of any low cost
warning systems that provide functions such as:
- Aural annunciation, warning tone or voice.
- Flight mode aware (I.E. different warning configurations based on
airspeed or something similar)
- Configurable inputs (Not all inputs would produce audible warnings,
some could be caution, etc...)
- External outputs for visual annunciation to allow connection of my own
LEDs/Light as desired.
The ideal device would function in a manner similar to the transport
class devices some have mentioned with an 'acknowledge' button to shut
the warning up after it was noticed by the pilot. It would also cost
somewhere around $100-$300
--Scott
San Diego, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | AI Nut <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
Subject: | Re: EFIS Backup Battery |
I think something from the RV (as in motorhomes, not airplane) world
might be needed here. Look for a unit called 'battery isolator.'
HTH,
David
Scott Winn (Matronics List) wrote:
>
>The EFIS we are installing in our aircraft provides multiple power input
>terminals, and automatically selects the terminal with the highest
>voltage present to power the device. The primary power input is from
>our endurance bus. I'd like to utilize a small, 1.2AH sealed lead acid
>AGM battery to provide sufficient voltage to drive the EFIS during
>engine start when the main bus voltage will fall and cause the EFIS to
>reset.
>
>I would like this battery to be charged by the ships main bus, but not
>allow current to flow from this battery to the main bus. I can isolate
>the battery from the main bus with a diode, but I'm concerned that it
>won't get fully charged with the voltage drop across the diode.
>
>My second idea is to use a comparator circuit that drives a relay to
>connect the 1.2AH battery to the main bus when the bus voltage exceeds
>13.0 volts, and disconnect it when it falls below this value. This
>would allow the small battery to receive a full charge when the
>alternator is charging, but disconnect it when the voltage falls below
>the charge current.
>
>Has anyone done something like this before? Is there a better/simpler
>way to provide suffient voltage to the EFIS during tartup than what I
>proposing? I thought about a capacitor, but I think it would have to be
>pretty large. The total EFIS current draw will be about 4 amps and I
>want the EFIS to continue to function even during extended cranking.
>
>--Scott
>
>
>.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
Subject: | Transponder External Suppression |
My Narco AT155 transponder has a pair of wires that
are labeled "External Suppression (+) and (-).
The text says:
"The AT155 transponder may be externally suppressed by
other avionics equipment whose transmissions may be
interfered with by simultaneous AT155 transmissions.
P101-15 may be connected to equipment that supply
positive suppression pulses. P101-1 may be connected
to equipment that supply negative suppression pulses."
Should I try to hook one of these up to my Icom IC-A200
comm radio, or is there no conflict between transponder
output and radio input?
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Transponder External Suppression |
> ...
> Should I try to hook one of these up to my Icom
> IC-A200 comm radio, or is there no conflict between
> transponder output and radio input?
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey
>
External suppression is intended for purposes other than VHF devices.
The frequencies are so far apart that VHF comm transmissions shouldn't
interfere with xponder. Nor do you even want to suppress xponder
replies while talking to ATC.
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: EFIS Backup Battery |
Scott, what you are looking for is a small device from West Marine Products
called a Battery Combiner
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
Subject: | Re: wire labeling practices |
Richard Dudley wrote:
>
>Hi Jay,
>I have followed the procedure that Bob Nuccolls wrote about. That is
>printing labels and covering them with clear shrink tubing. I used a
>couple of wrinkles that might be a slightly different. Since I use an
>ink jet printer, and knowing that the ink is water affected, I printed
>them on plain paper using the label program for a specific Avery label.
>Then took the paper to Kinko's and had them copy them onto Avery labels
>that I supplied. Their charge was the regular copying per page charge. I
>then peeled off the labels, cut out the pieces that I wanted to use,
>wrapped the label around the wire and shrunk clear shrink tubing that I
>bought from Aeroelectric (now, probably from B&S). By using a small
>point size font and repeating the text vertically, some text will show
>without having to specially orient the label.
>
>This worked well for me and was very easy to do.
>
>If some of this is a bit unclear, I' d be glad to try to re-explain any
>part.
>
I was going to use an laser printer to print my labels and then clear
heat shrink. Problem was the printer was at work and I needed to make
labels as I was running wires.
I bought a Brother P-Touch label maker and made labels as I worked cut
them down to size and clear heat shrinked worked great!
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
Subject: | Re: wire labeling practices |
Well someone has to enter a minority opinion here. I tried the clear
heat shrink and abandoned it. Trimming labels, rolling the little
devils, and squeezing heat shrink over them was slow and tedious and I
abandoned it. Even with two lines of the smallest text from a P-Touch
you couldn't always read the label on 22awg wire. Granted I dealt with
more wires than most aircraft have and I am not a fast worker. Since
part of the point of labelling them was to route them and then connect
the other end, it didn't help when the label would get cut off anyway
when the wire was cut to exact size. If the label isn't near the end of
the wire it isn't much use so putting it farther up the wire didn't help
much. And yes the heat shrink bulked up wire bundles considerably. I did
use some multi color tefzel to help sort out wires but yes it's going to
be more difficult to make changes at a later date without the labels.
Temporary masking tape labels during construction and a good wiring
diagram was the best I could do short of getting hold of a continuous
professional wire labeller. Also I found a labelled diagram of the
forest of tabs ground block connections to be helpful.
On the bright side I am finding that two lines of white lettering on
clear 1/2" P-touch tape seems to make quite acceptable panel labelling
on my medium gray panel.
Ken
Bobby Hester wrote:
>
>Richard Dudley wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Hi Jay,
>>I have followed the procedure that Bob Nuccolls wrote about. That is
>>printing labels and covering them with clear shrink tubing. I used a
>>couple of wrinkles that might be a slightly different. Since I use an
>>ink jet printer, and knowing that the ink is water affected, I printed
>>them on plain paper using the label program for a specific Avery label.
>>Then took the paper to Kinko's and had them copy them onto Avery labels
>>that I supplied. Their charge was the regular copying per page charge. I
>>then peeled off the labels, cut out the pieces that I wanted to use,
>>wrapped the label around the wire and shrunk clear shrink tubing that I
>>bought from Aeroelectric (now, probably from B&S). By using a small
>>point size font and repeating the text vertically, some text will show
>>without having to specially orient the label.
>>
>>This worked well for me and was very easy to do.
>>
>>If some of this is a bit unclear, I' d be glad to try to re-explain any
>>part.
>>
>>
>>
>I was going to use an laser printer to print my labels and then clear
>heat shrink. Problem was the printer was at work and I needed to make
>labels as I was running wires.
>
>I bought a Brother P-Touch label maker and made labels as I worked cut
>them down to size and clear heat shrinked worked great!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
Subject: | Re: wire labeling practices |
See entry dated 9/12/04
http://www.rv7-a.com/avionics_panel_2.htm
K-Sun 2001 XLS. For $300 bucks you get everything you need
to do a professional job. Yes, it's expensive but I guarantee
you'll save a TON of time. Time IS money.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
Scott,
If I understand you correctly, you want a 3 pole, double throw (3
position) switch. I am using one of these for my flap control. I ordered
this from Mouser Electronics. The Carling Technologies (same manufacturer
of the B&C switches) part number is: HM251-78
This was a special order part from Mouser.
Charlie Kuss
>
>
>I have a switching application on my panel that selects between Off,
>Primary and Aux. The switch I selected to perform the switching is a
>2-1 type switch. The problem I am having is that everything else on my
>panel is pointed down for the off positsion. The 2-1 switch has it's
>off position in the middle which isn't what I want. I would really like
>to be consistent with the operation of the switches on my panel so that
>when something is turned Off, it is pointed down. I need a DP3T switch
>to perform this task, but B & C doesn't carry one. It is also very
>important to me to have identical size and feel of switches on the
>panel, so I'd prefer to get a switch that exactly matches the size,
>shape and operation of the B & C switches. Since I ordered a bunch of
>switches from them, I Iooked up the manufacturer and it appears that
>they do not manufacture a DP3T switch. Does anyone know of a DP3T
>switch that has the same size bat toggle as the B&C switches?
>
>--Scott
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer
<>
2/27/2005
Hello Jay, There are many different ways to skin this cat. Here is one of
the simplest and cheapest -- very durable.
1) Print labels on plain printer paper in small type (or to suit wire
diameter) with either Microsoft Word or Excel. You can copy and paste to
generate many dozens of labels on one sheet of paper.
2) Cut the labels off the sheet one at a time with a scissors as you need
them. Two line labels work best for me.
3) Crimp roll the cut off label a bit along their length around a round
toothpick or piece of wire.
4) Cut off a piece of clear shrink tube about a 1/4 -- 3/8 inch longer on
each end than the length of the label. Choose a size of shrink tube that
will squeeze down tight on the wire when heated.
5) Stuff the cut off and curled label into the shrink tube -- a straightened
out large size paper clip (or other poking tool) can be used to center the
label lengthwise in the piece of shrink tube.
(Actually I normally cut off the piece of shrink tube before I cut the label
off so that once I cut the label off the large paper sheet I can curl the
label and stuff it in the tube without ever setting the teeny label down).
6) Slide the shrink tube with the label curled inside into position on the
wire -- preferably before you crimp on the terminal unless you just want
practice in cutting off and replacing terminals.
7) Heat the shrink tube with a heat gun. Admire. Move on to the next label
needed. Pretty soon you realize that you can set up several labels and
shrink them all with one heating of the heat gun.
A tip: If you are using multiple wire connectors like AMP Mate-n-Lock or
similar, consider positioning the labels at different places along the
various wires so that you don't wind up with all the shrink tubes clumped
together.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - 11/17/03
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Wiring trace for headset? |
Gang:
I have a headphone/mic jack pair installed in my plane in a location
where it would be very hard to get a meter on the back side. Elsewhere
in the panel, I have the ends of four wires that run to these jacks. I
know that they must be audio signal, audio ground, mic audio and mic
key. My question is: Using a multimeter and a headset with a
push-to-talk button built in, can I determine which wire is which? If
so, how?
Thanks,
Andy Elliott
N481HY/AA-1(TD,160)/KFFZ
That's "One Hot Yankee"
http://members.cox.net/n481hy/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com> |
Subject: | Re: Avionics wiring redo |
I found some if not all of my noise problem. I checked the wiring a little more
carefully and discovered the mic and headset jacks are grounded to the airframe.
I thought neither one of these should be grounded to the airframe, but a couple
of intercom manuals I looked at indicate only the microphone ground should
be isolated. The simple test I did seems to indicate the headphone jack does
make a difference. I pulled it from it's mount and the small noise from the
strobe system was gone. I didn't get a chance to fire up the engine today, but
I'm confident most of that noise would be eliminated as well.
Since the noise might be a non-issue, I'm considering leaving the PM501 and using
one of Bob's audio isolation amps to get the stereo that I want. Any opinions?
One other question on my endeavor to learn the electrical system on this plane.
I noticed a small box, about 1 1/2 by 2 inches and 1/4 inch thick. It looks like
a metal potting box. It has a red and black wire at one corner and a green,
yellow and red wire coming out of another corner. I'm having trouble tracing
the wires to the other ends. Any idea on what this is? Forgive my ignorance.
Thanks.
Ken
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:43:19 -0800
>
>Sounds like you are on the right track.
>
>As for re-doing the avionics wiring, if I was a betting man, I'd gamble
>that you will. Once you start digging and deciphering some one else's
>wiring, you probably find it faster and more enjoyable to just start again.
>
>And I bet you'll add a few things to the panel as well. You know, once
>it's out... how about a moving map, satellite radio, microwave oven...
>
>Good luck. Anyone can pound rivets. Real men wire their own panels. :-).
>
>Vern Little
>
>
>Ken Simmons wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm trying to troubleshoot a whine in the headset audio. I bought the plane finished
and it wasn't an issue until I started using a high quality stereo headset.
I had already planned to replace the existing PM501 with a stereo intercom,
possibly a Flightcom 403.
>>
>>The noise is present with everything off but the engine and intercom and changes
with engine RPM. The plane does have electronic ignition on one side. I believe
the problem is in how the avionics were wired. For some reason the builder
passed power and audio signals through a terminal strip. I haven't completely
traced it, but it looks like the grounds to the headset jacks originate from
a common ground on the terminal strip, which all go back to a ground bus.
>>
>>I'm also going to install an auto pilot when I upgrade the intercom. Since I'll
have to tap into the only comm/gps radio and replace the intercom it seems
sensible to just redo the entire avionics wiring. Am I creating to much work for
myself or does this seem a reasonable approach?
>>
>>Thanks.
>>Ken
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Avionics wiring redo |
might be a voltage regulator, does it have an adjustment screw on it
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
Bob:
I was just browsing through the new stuff on aeroelectric.com and came
across some conflicting data.
The "Wire chart excerpted from chapter 8 of the 'Connection" shows lots
of useful information but it shows the current ratings with a heading of
"10C rise current". The entries are the same for the 35 C column in
your "Wire Size Selection" paper where you list the ratings for both 10
C rise and 35 C rise.
I believe that the heading should be "35 C", not "10 C".
Dick Tasker
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Re: Wiring trace for headset? |
Dr. Andrew Elliott wrote:
>
>Gang:
>
>I have a headphone/mic jack pair installed in my plane in a location
>where it would be very hard to get a meter on the back side. Elsewhere
>in the panel, I have the ends of four wires that run to these jacks. I
>know that they must be audio signal, audio ground, mic audio and mic
>key. My question is: Using a multimeter and a headset with a
>push-to-talk button built in, can I determine which wire is which? If
>so, how?
>
>Thanks,
>Andy Elliott
>N481HY/AA-1(TD,160)/KFFZ
>That's "One Hot Yankee"
>http://members.cox.net/n481hy/
>
Attach one lead of your ohm meter to the shell (the metal tube into
which the plug is inserted) of the headphone jack. Probe the wires with
the other ohm meter lead until you see one with near 0 ohms resistance.
That's ground.
Plug in the headphone plug (larger diameter one) only & measure with
your ohm meter between ground & the other wires until you find one that
measures somewhere between 300 & 1000 ohms. That's the phones audio
line. Unplug the headset phone plug.
Now plug in the mic plug (smaller diameter one). Attach one lead of the
ohm meter to the ground wire & probe one of the remaining 2 wires,
pressing & releasing the push to talk button. If you see a change from
open circuit to near 0 ohms as you press the PTT, that's the mic key
line. If no joy, repeat with the other line. The remaining line is mic
audio.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
Subject: | Re: wire labeling practices |
On 02/27 1:05, Charlie Kuss wrote:
> Do you have to buy "special" heat shrink tubing for this printer?
> If so, how much does it cost? Where can I buy one?
Yes. $26 per roll. You'll go through about 4-5 rolls on an RV
if you label both ends of every single stinking wire :) Ask
me how I know.
But, man is it a snap to do it. Type in the characters you
want, press print, stick it on the wire, heat that sucker. Boom,
move on to the next one.
It will label wires as small as 20 guage. 22 guage works too
but it's not really tight on the cable and you can pull it off.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Ford" <psychden(at)sonic.net> |
Subject: | Re: Air pressure switch |
Take a look at the World Magnetics Ultra Sensitive Pressure Switch # 9011-902.
Digikey # 384-1010-ND. It is adjustable between 0.1- 0.4 PSI which should provide
a range of 65- 160 kts. There is a deadband noted but not a value but it's
under $15 so two switches could be used with each set for a specific airspeed.
The device uses fast-on spade connectors with a NO and NC plus common. I'm
searching for a pressure switch NC with a 1/8" NPT, set point anywhere from 200-
500psi (proof pressure in excess of 1500 psi) that would warn of a low pressure/
gear not down and locked situation. In series with the above airspeed sensor,
one would have an even better landing gear alarm design as opposed to just
having power to the "down" circuit. Larry Ford, Glasair I RG N149LF, 270hrs
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: wire labeling practices |
>
>Well someone has to enter a minority opinion here. I tried the clear
>heat shrink and abandoned it. Trimming labels, rolling the little
>devils, and squeezing heat shrink over them was slow and tedious and I
>abandoned it.
I print labels out in full sheets of Avery label material . . .
stick the whole sheet down on a poly cutting board and then
use an Xacto knife to cut out the labels.
> Even with two lines of the smallest text from a P-Touch
>you couldn't always read the label on 22awg wire.
A single line of 8pt "Technic" fits on a 22AWG as
shown at the top of:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s817c.jpg
> Granted I dealt with
>more wires than most aircraft have and I am not a fast worker. Since
>part of the point of labelling them was to route them and then connect
>the other end, it didn't help when the label would get cut off anyway
>when the wire was cut to exact size. If the label isn't near the end of
>the wire it isn't much use so putting it farther up the wire didn't help
>much.
These labels will slide on the wire. I put them on the end to "find"
the wire and slide it so that it's just at the terminal end when
trimmed to fit.
> And yes the heat shrink bulked up wire bundles considerably. I did
>use some multi color tefzel to help sort out wires but yes it's going to
>be more difficult to make changes at a later date without the labels.
Bulk? Where were you using labels where more than 4-6 wires came
together into a single component?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Transponder External Suppression |
>
>
>My Narco AT155 transponder has a pair of wires that
>are labeled "External Suppression (+) and (-).
>
>The text says:
>
>"The AT155 transponder may be externally suppressed by
>other avionics equipment whose transmissions may be
>interfered with by simultaneous AT155 transmissions.
>P101-15 may be connected to equipment that supply
>positive suppression pulses. P101-1 may be connected
>to equipment that supply negative suppression pulses."
>
>Should I try to hook one of these up to my Icom IC-A200
>comm radio, or is there no conflict between transponder
>output and radio input?
No. This output is used only for blanking DME
receivers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: EFIS Backup Battery |
>
>
>The EFIS we are installing in our aircraft provides multiple power input
>terminals, and automatically selects the terminal with the highest
>voltage present to power the device. The primary power input is from
>our endurance bus. I'd like to utilize a small, 1.2AH sealed lead acid
>AGM battery to provide sufficient voltage to drive the EFIS during
>engine start when the main bus voltage will fall and cause the EFIS to
>reset.
>
>I would like this battery to be charged by the ships main bus, but not
>allow current to flow from this battery to the main bus. I can isolate
>the battery from the main bus with a diode, but I'm concerned that it
>won't get fully charged with the voltage drop across the diode.
>
>My second idea is to use a comparator circuit that drives a relay to
>connect the 1.2AH battery to the main bus when the bus voltage exceeds
>13.0 volts, and disconnect it when it falls below this value. This
>would allow the small battery to receive a full charge when the
>alternator is charging, but disconnect it when the voltage falls below
>the charge current.
>
>Has anyone done something like this before? Is there a better/simpler
>way to provide suffient voltage to the EFIS during tartup than what I
>proposing? I thought about a capacitor, but I think it would have to be
>pretty large. The total EFIS current draw will be about 4 amps and I
>want the EFIS to continue to function even during extended cranking.
The battery isolator you need is exactly what you've
proposed and described as both a product and a DIY
project at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/LVWarn-ABMM.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/9021-620.pdf
you can buy an ECB to assemble the project at:
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Greg Larson" <hanzonn(at)earthlink.net> |
Greetings,
I have the opportunity to buy a Fluke multimeter (any) at a substantial
discount. Any recommendations on which model or features I need for
building a RV-7?
Thanks, Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
Subject: | Re: Ex Pilot Question |
>>One concern I have is that the documentation says to ground both
>>ends of the shield. This seems to be in conflict with Bob's
>>teachings. Are autopilot servos different from strobes in this
>>regard?
>
>
> Conflicting in what way? I think I've always suggested that
> manufacturer's instructions should be followed to the letter
> first.
You are right - bad choice of words on my part. Your explanation
about why you should ground only one side of a shield is pretty
clear and convincing. When the supplier of the servo says to
ground both ends, without any reason why, it makes me wonder if
they really have a reason, or they just don't know as much about
this stuff as you do.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | pengilly(at)southwest.com.au |
Greg I have had a Fluke 75 for many years and have used it in my trade as
a E/I tech and you could not go wrong with this basic model, mine has
survived many a drop or wrong setting, thats what I love about Flukes if
you have the wrong setting it tells you so not like other meters which
tell you so by blowing up in your face.
I also have a Fluke 87 and they are the meter to buy if you are getting a
great deal on one, the extra features that they have really put them in a
class of their own.
I hope this helps you
Regards
Paul P
>
> I have the opportunity to buy a Fluke multimeter (any) at a substantial
> discount. Any recommendations on which model or features I need for
> building a RV-7?
>
> Thanks, Greg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
Subject: | Re: wire labeling practices |
>
> >Well someone has to enter a minority opinion here. I tried the clear
> >heat shrink and abandoned it. Trimming labels, rolling the little
> >devils, and squeezing heat shrink over them was slow and tedious and I
> >abandoned it.
>
> I print labels out in full sheets of Avery label material . . .
> stick the whole sheet down on a poly cutting board and then
> use an Xacto knife to cut out the labels.
snipped
Bob,
Do you have a product number for the Avery labels in question? I was in
Office Max yesterday. I nearly went blind, looking at the endless variety
of labels available.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Greetings,
>
>I have the opportunity to buy a Fluke multimeter (any) at a substantial
>discount. Any recommendations on which model or features I need for
>building a RV-7?
>
>Thanks, Greg
ANY product from Fluke in the way of a multimeter will suffice
to most of your measurement needs. So purchase based on what your
budget dictates. Keep in mind that while Fluke is the gold standard
for instruments in this class, accuracy of readings is so easy to
attain that the cheapest instruments (including on sale $5 instruments
from Harbor Freight) will produce satisfactory readings for your
tasks. The biggest difference between HF and Fluke will be ruggedness
and service life.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Wire ratings |
>
>
>Bob:
>
>I was just browsing through the new stuff on aeroelectric.com and came
>across some conflicting data.
>
>The "Wire chart excerpted from chapter 8 of the 'Connection" shows lots
>of useful information but it shows the current ratings with a heading of
>"10C rise current". The entries are the same for the 35 C column in
>your "Wire Size Selection" paper where you list the ratings for both 10
>C rise and 35 C rise.
>
>I believe that the heading should be "35 C", not "10 C".
Correct. That's been marked up for correction the next time
I update the wiring chapter. Your note does suggest that we
might publish an errata page for older work to fill the gaps
between chapter updates. Thanks for bringing it up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Avionics wiring redo |
>
>I found some if not all of my noise problem. I checked the wiring a little
>more carefully and discovered the mic and headset jacks are grounded to
>the airframe. I thought neither one of these should be grounded to the
>airframe, but a couple of intercom manuals I looked at indicate only the
>microphone ground should be isolated. The simple test I did seems to
>indicate the headphone jack does make a difference. I pulled it from it's
>mount and the small noise from the strobe system was gone. I didn't get a
>chance to fire up the engine today, but I'm confident most of that noise
>would be eliminated as well.
ALL grounds for avionics/audio should come to a SINGLE point in the
system. Rev 11 will introduce the idea of an avionics ground bus
located at or near the radio stack for the purpose of bringing
avionics and audio grounds together before carrying the whole
system off to the panel/firewall ground.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Ex Pilot Question |
>
>
> >>One concern I have is that the documentation says to ground both
> >>ends of the shield. This seems to be in conflict with Bob's
> >>teachings. Are autopilot servos different from strobes in this
> >>regard?
> >
> >
> > Conflicting in what way? I think I've always suggested that
> > manufacturer's instructions should be followed to the letter
> > first.
>
>You are right - bad choice of words on my part. Your explanation
>about why you should ground only one side of a shield is pretty
>clear and convincing. When the supplier of the servo says to
>ground both ends, without any reason why, it makes me wonder if
>they really have a reason, or they just don't know as much about
>this stuff as you do.
Grounding one end only is good practice for a lot
of reasons which may be set aside when other goals
are identified.
I have designed many systems where shielding is both
electro-static de-coupling (for noise) -AND- a current
pathway (for system operation). There are instances
where shielded wire is used for mechanical convenience
and has no noise reduction functionality. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/Prep2B.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/Prep2C.jpg
It's okay to be skeptical of ANY usage of shielding
but skepticism is easy to mitigate when the
designer shares the thought processes that drove
the design. When the designer is not readily available
for good conversation, you're stuck with taking the
drawings at face value . . . assume there's a good
reason and wire per directions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
Subject: | wire labeling practices |
Charlie,
The ones I have been using are Avery #8165, White full sheet labels, Ink
Jet.
Terry
Bob,
Do you have a product number for the Avery labels in question? I was in
Office Max yesterday. I nearly went blind, looking at the endless variety
of labels available.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
Subject: | Re: wire labeling practices |
>
>
> These labels will slide on the wire. I put them on the end to "find"
> the wire and slide it so that it's just at the terminal end when
> trimmed to fit.
>
>
I must have been away that day as I heat shrunk them tight and they
didn't slide. Never thought of trying to keep them loose.
> Bulk? Where were you using labels where more than 4-6 wires came
> together into a single component?
>
>
The EFI computers and the EIS4000 engine monitor accumulated hefty wire
bundles. I definitely have more wires than normal as I indicated but
computerized items with lots of wires and DB25 and DB37 connectors seem
to be proliferating. Even without avionics, I have at least seven
connectors behind the panel with an average of well over a dozen wires each.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
Subject: | Re: Air pressure switch |
Interesting find Larry
If I read the bottom of http://designflexswitches.com/designflex_psf103.htm
correctly the hysterisis (dead band) might be a bit much. 75% would work
for me but at 50% it would arm at say 100mph and trip the warning at
50mph which is a bit too much spread for my application.
The 102 series might be worth looking at.
Ken
Larry Ford wrote:
>
>Take a look at the World Magnetics Ultra Sensitive Pressure Switch # 9011-902.
Digikey # 384-1010-ND. It is adjustable between 0.1- 0.4 PSI which should provide
a range of 65- 160 kts. There is a deadband noted but not a value but it's
under $15 so two switches could be used with each set for a specific airspeed.
The device uses fast-on spade connectors with a NO and NC plus common. I'm
searching for a pressure switch NC with a 1/8" NPT, set point anywhere from
200- 500psi (proof pressure in excess of 1500 psi) that would warn of a low pressure/
gear not down and locked situation. In series with the above airspeed
sensor, one would have an even better landing gear alarm design as opposed to
just having power to the "down" circuit. Larry Ford, Glasair I RG N149LF, 270hrs
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Franz Fux" <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
I bought a small labeling machine for 30.- at Home Depot and use the
smallest tape available (6mm). The labels are just about the right size to
wrap around the wires, shrink tube over top and you have a very good looking
labeled wire. The advantage of this system is that it is portable, I can
print and label anytime in the garage and I don't need a printer or
computer, works great,
Franz
RV7A
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire Labeling
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer
<>
2/27/2005
Hello Jay, There are many different ways to skin this cat. Here is one of
the simplest and cheapest -- very durable.
1) Print labels on plain printer paper in small type (or to suit wire
diameter) with either Microsoft Word or Excel. You can copy and paste to
generate many dozens of labels on one sheet of paper.
2) Cut the labels off the sheet one at a time with a scissors as you need
them. Two line labels work best for me.
3) Crimp roll the cut off label a bit along their length around a round
toothpick or piece of wire.
4) Cut off a piece of clear shrink tube about a 1/4 -- 3/8 inch longer on
each end than the length of the label. Choose a size of shrink tube that
will squeeze down tight on the wire when heated.
5) Stuff the cut off and curled label into the shrink tube -- a straightened
out large size paper clip (or other poking tool) can be used to center the
label lengthwise in the piece of shrink tube.
(Actually I normally cut off the piece of shrink tube before I cut the label
off so that once I cut the label off the large paper sheet I can curl the
label and stuff it in the tube without ever setting the teeny label down).
6) Slide the shrink tube with the label curled inside into position on the
wire -- preferably before you crimp on the terminal unless you just want
practice in cutting off and replacing terminals.
7) Heat the shrink tube with a heat gun. Admire. Move on to the next label
needed. Pretty soon you realize that you can set up several labels and
shrink them all with one heating of the heat gun.
A tip: If you are using multiple wire connectors like AMP Mate-n-Lock or
similar, consider positioning the labels at different places along the
various wires so that you don't wind up with all the shrink tubes clumped
together.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - 11/17/03
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Subject: | Re: Wiring trace for headset? |
You can get insulating washers for phone jacks so that the socket is not
grounded at the jack end.They are matched pairs, one flat and one with a
collar that centers inside the enlarged jack hole.
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wiring trace for headset?
>
> Gang:
>
> I have a headphone/mic jack pair installed in my plane in a location
> where it would be very hard to get a meter on the back side. Elsewhere
> in the panel, I have the ends of four wires that run to these jacks. I
> know that they must be audio signal, audio ground, mic audio and mic
> key. My question is: Using a multimeter and a headset with a
> push-to-talk button built in, can I determine which wire is which? If
> so, how?
>
> Thanks,
> Andy Elliott
> N481HY/AA-1(TD,160)/KFFZ
> That's "One Hot Yankee"
> http://members.cox.net/n481hy/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | f1rocket(at)comcast.net |
Subject: | Re: Instrument Panel Wiring |
> 1. Should I put Molex or sub-D(?) connectors on all panel wires so I can
> remove it easily? Or should I just plan on disconnecting wiring at the
> instruments?
You can put connectors on everything but I wouldn't unless you see a burning need
to pull your entire panel all the time. Generally speaking, the more connectors,
the more potential points of failure in your system. I strive for one
continious wire from device to device where possible. Some instruments like electric
gyros, EFIS units, etc come with a connector so you don't have to do much
else.
> 2. What wire color convention should I use?
I use all Tefzel white wire. With the proper wiring diagram, I easily know where
each wire starts and where it ends. If you must use color, I'd stick with
red for power and black for ground and then make up the rest to suite your fancy.
>
> 3. What labelling convention should I use?
Again, I don't think any is necessary outside of labeling the ground blocks so
I know which device terminates on which specific terminal of the ground block.
I've found that helpful in tracking down problems. Other than that, I've never
really seen the need to get fancy. However, I have a full set of CAD drawn
wiring diagrams for every circuit in my airplane. With that and a continuity
tester, I can trace any wire in the airframe.
You can really do anything you want. It's a matter of trading off convenience
for the extra work and extra risk. Many folks do none of these and many folks
do all of these. Your call.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
1. Should I put Molex or sub-D(?) connectors on all panel wires so I can
remove it easily? Or should I just plan on disconnecting wiring at the
instruments?
You can put connectors on everything but I wouldn't unless you see a burning need
to pull your entire panel all the time. Generally speaking, the more connectors,
the more potential points of failure in your system. I strive for one continious
wire from device to device where possible. Some instruments like electric
gyros, EFIS units, etc come with a connector so you don't have to do much
else.
2. What wire color convention should I use?
I use all Tefzel white wire. With the proper wiring diagram, I easily know where
each wire starts and where it ends. If you must use color, I'd stick with red
for power and black for ground and then make up the rest to suite your fancy.
3. What labelling convention should I use?
Again, I don't think any is necessary outside of labeling the ground blocks so
I know which device terminates on which specific terminal of the ground block.
I've found that helpful in tracking down problems. Other than that, I've never
really seen the need to get fancy. However, I have a full set of CAD drawn wiring
diagrams for every circuit in my airplane. With that and a continuity tester,
I can trace any wire in the airframe.
You can really do anything you want. It's a matter of trading off convenience for
the extra work and extra risk. Many folks do none of these and many folks do
all of these. Your call.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: wire labeling practices |
>
> >
> >
> > These labels will slide on the wire. I put them on the end to "find"
> > the wire and slide it so that it's just at the terminal end when
> > trimmed to fit.
> >
> >
>I must have been away that day as I heat shrunk them tight and they
>didn't slide. Never thought of trying to keep them loose.
I've never had them be tight. They'll have some "stiction" for
the first time you move them but after that, they slide nicely.
> > Bulk? Where were you using labels where more than 4-6 wires came
> > together into a single component?
> >
> >
>The EFI computers and the EIS4000 engine monitor accumulated hefty wire
>bundles. I definitely have more wires than normal as I indicated but
>computerized items with lots of wires and DB25 and DB37 connectors seem
>to be proliferating. Even without avionics, I have at least seven
>connectors behind the panel with an average of well over a dozen wires each.
Understand . . . this brings up another recommendation for
wiring labels:
The BIG advantage of wire labels is to reduce probability of
errors when replacing the component (switch, relay, etc) to
which wires attach. These devices seldom have more than 6
wires going to them. Connectors are seldom (if ever) replaced
on a working airplane. I wouldn't label these wires for
maintenance but for assembly where pieces of masking tape
work really well.
Fabrication labels and maintenance labels can be entirely
different critters. I built a harness a couple of days ago
and used the following technique:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Wire_Labels
You can find plastic tape at most hardware stores.
Harbor Freight offers white vinyl tape in 2" widths
for very low cost.
Ken is right. The shrink-over-sticker labels would be
very difficult to deal with where a fat bundle of wires
comes into a multi-pin connector.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | wire labeling practices |
I use Avery 5165 full sheets for laser printers. This brings up
another point I had not considered for the original suggestion.
Inkjet printer ink may run under your sweaty fingers or later
when the labels get wet under the shrink.
You can buy Laserjet 5L or 6L printers dirt cheap off ebay.
I keep several around here for "spares". If one craps, I toss it.
The last one I bought was about $40+shipping. I put a $9 feeder mod kit
in it and use locally charged cartridges (which can be salvaged
from a crapped printer). I've put a handle on one so that I can
drag it around with my Tektronix 'scope and dump screens directly
to paper.
They're HP hardware and as robust as any printer in the wild. Used
ones have given very good value. Wouldn't consider any other
machine until these get too hard to find.
Bob . . .
P.S. this exchange reminded me that my last trek to the field
with a "portable" 6L got rained on. It's making lots of noise now.
Just ordered another 6L off Ebay for $55 including shipping.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>I bought a small labeling machine for 30.- at Home Depot and use the
>smallest tape available (6mm). The labels are just about the right size to
>wrap around the wires, shrink tube over top and you have a very good looking
>labeled wire. The advantage of this system is that it is portable, I can
>print and label anytime in the garage and I don't need a printer or
>computer, works great,
Franz, what department sells these? I'd like to go get one
to play with. Can you advise as to brand and perhaps model
number?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I bought a C150 to do some instrument training in. Everything is okay
except the little Narco ADF is lazy. Sometimes it works and points to
the station, and sometimes it doesn't. I have played with all of the
controls
and haven't been able to find any way to make it work better. It doesn't
seem to matter how close I am to the ground station. I have tried tuning
in a couple of different transmitters - an NDB and a compass locator, (I
think). I can select the BFO and get a solid tone, and I can also hear the
station identifier relatively clearly - no noticeable ignition noise.
Anyone have experience debugging this kind of behavior? Do the symptoms
tell me anything about the problem?
If the ADF is trash, I can get a KR87 and indicator from barnstormers for
about $1000 or an overhauled unit from Vista for $1300. Another option
is to bag the ADF altogether and get an IFR cert GPS. Not sure how
much that will run me, but I am guessing about 2x the price for a used
unit. The nice thing about the GPS is that the airplane doesn't have a DME,
and I think a certified GPS can perform those functions. Is that correct?
I know, I know, you can't tune talk radio with a GPS.
Any ideas?
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 2/28/2005 3:24:52 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather(at)spro.net writes:
The nice thing about the GPS is that the airplane doesn't have a DME,
and I think a certified GPS can perform those functions. Is that correct?
I know, I know, you can't tune talk radio with a GPS.
Good Afternoon Matt,
Here I can be of some help!
For flight within the United States National Airspace System, any IFR
approved GPS can be used in lieu of all ADF and DME functions except to execute
an
ADF approach.
The GPS does not have to be an approach approved set to use it for this
function. Enroute and terminal approval is adequate.
If the approach plate has the words "ADF Required" or "DME Required", the
GPS may be used in lieu of that requirement.
There are two or three pages within the AIM that explain all of the where's
and why's of this function, but, since I was involved in getting this
interpretation from the FAA published in the AIM, I would be happy to s discuss
any
of the fine points involved.
For what it is worth, I feel that the KR-87 is the best ADF that I have ever
used. Too bad it wasn't developed until the days when we hardly need it!
Once again, any questions concerning the allowed uses of an IFR approved GPS
in lieu of ADF and DME are more than welcomed.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
Subject: | RE: Wire Labeling |
My schoolteacher wife got a "Dymo Letra Tag 2000" at Target last year for
about $30. It is a handheld unit that runs on 6 AA batteries. It prints
both horizontal and vertical, has different fonts and you can get a variety
of colors and sizes of tape . It will make a wonderful wire labeler.
Dennis Glaeser
>
>
>I bought a small labeling machine for 30.- at Home Depot and use the
>smallest tape available (6mm). The labels are just about the right size to
>wrap around the wires, shrink tube over top and you have a very good
looking
>labeled wire. The advantage of this system is that it is portable, I can
>print and label anytime in the garage and I don't need a printer or
>computer, works great,
Franz, what department sells these? I'd like to go get one
to play with. Can you advise as to brand and perhaps model
number?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
> >I bought a small labeling machine for 30.- at Home Depot and use the
> >smallest tape available (6mm). The labels are just about the right size to
> >wrap around the wires, shrink tube over top and you have a very good looking
> >labeled wire. The advantage of this system is that it is portable, I can
> >print and label anytime in the garage and I don't need a printer or
> >computer, works great,
>
>
> Franz, what department sells these? I'd like to go get one
> to play with. Can you advise as to brand and perhaps model
> number?
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
I was in my local Office Max on Sunday. I noticed that they had several label
making machine (various manufacturers) priced from $30 to $100. You might want
to stop by your local Office Max store.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Wire Labeling |
Bob, I have used a portable Casio KL-7000 E-Z label printer ( from Office
Depot for about $50) for labeling. It can accomidate 6mm or 9mm tapes in various
color combinations. Tapes available from Casio on line. I've used black on
white for hot lines, gold on green for ground lines, black on red for
ignition...etc. LRE
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Troy Maynor" <wingnut54(at)charter.net> |
Subject: | Over Voltage Module/Relay |
I posted these questions on the website then when I found out Bob had gone
out of town I posted it on the forum. Still in holding pattern....
Bob,
I want to install an OVM14. I have a Rotax 912S. On the Z-7 diagram it shows
an overvoltage relay that, in the description of OVM14, should be used with
an alternator having an internal regulator. (See quote below). However the
Z-7 diagram shows both an EXTERNAL regulator AND the OV disconnect relay. In
addition, your parts catalog does not show a overvoltage relay available.
Where can I get one, at an auto parts store? One other thing, I have LEDs
already installed in my panel as warning lights, including the alternator
fail light. Will this work in place of the Alt. lamp shown on Z-7?
Thanks.
Troy Maynor
N120EU Europa Monowheel Classic
Left to finish:
Paint,interior,engine install, wiring.
Quotes from website concerning overvoltage modules for 14 volt systems.
"for additional commentary on the matter . . . However over voltage
protection may be added alternators with built-in regulators by
incorporating an external contactor and a crowbar O.V. module"
.<http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bleadov.pdf>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl> |
Subject: | Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
As an interested party I once made a graph from data on B&C's website:
3000 RPM 0.2 A
3500 RPM 1.7 A
4000 RPM 3.1 A
4500 RPM 4.4 A
5000 RPM 5.6 A
5500 RPM 6.8 A
6000 RPM 7.9 A
With http://www.rotec.com/manuals.htm , the 914 operating manual, I get
55% 4300 RPM 3.9 A
65% 4800 RPM 5.2 A
75% 5000 RPM 5.6 A
100% 5500 RPM 6.8 A
115% 5800 RPM 7.5 A
Also, according to the installation manual, manifold pressure is between
1000 and 1200 hPa and fuel pressure is kept 250 hPa above that.
Atmosferic pressure at sea level is about 1000 hPa. So a fuel pump has
to supply at a pressure difference of 250 to 450 hPa at sea level.
At 16000 ft (4800 m) atmosferic pressure is about 550 hPa and the fuel
pump supplies at 700 to 900 hPa.
There is a graph showing a fuel pump taking about 2.0 A for 300 hPa,
increasing to 2.5 A for 900 hPa.and 3.0 A for 1250 hPa.
So a fuel pump takes between 2.0 and 2.5 A mostly depending on altitude
(and two fuel pumps in series probably between 4.0 and 4.5 A).
Net of the running of one fuel pump the SD-8 would seem to have about
1.5 to 3 spare amps to help the endurance of the endurance bus and/or
keep a second battery charged.
For VFR-only this seems nice enough although not ideal (= redundant
infinite endurance supplying all consumers).
Jan de Jong
Europa 461
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl> |
Subject: | parallelling batteries |
"There are no differences in condition (state of charge, size, age,
temperature, rate of charge/discharge) that would make one 6-cell
lead-acid battery take charge from another 6-cell lead-acid battery when
they are connected in parallel."
I would like to know to what extent this statement is true?
Jan de Jong
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "glong2" <glong2(at)netzero.net> |
Subject: | crossfeed contactor |
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
4d6c55494dc5e95509eca19c797dcc0d3dfce52d01495cf59d18f528d8185cdda96dbd6d817588c83859c8616859889171a57c393d35a83d5c388ca1c5eca109ccec8c552538a998c961b5d9d1c1d95d2d21798d21654c8d2d0c29c9918c9c4d098969e9cca1c52cec2519792905b9cd28b931f52805adbc1900b12129bd01f9e1e1
Ron:
I have my crossover relay powered with two diodes, one from each bus. I
have, during construction, run each of my batteries down and the crossover
relay is activated when just one battery/bus has power. I then use a power
supply connected to the alternator B+ terminal to charge both batteries.
Eugene Long
Lancair Super ES
glong2(at)netzero.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ron
Raby
Subject: AeroElectric-List: crossfeed contactor
To Everyone
If the crossfeed contactors coil is being powered from the side that is
dead, it will not work. Does it make sense to power the coil to this
contactor from both battery busses?
Regards
Ron Raby
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Phil Birkelbach <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
The 87 is a great meter. It can check caps and diodes it has min and
max hold with averages and the thing is bulletproof. Mine got hosed
with hydraulic fluid once and it ate batteries for a while but
eventually it started working right. You can kick 'em, dunk 'em, drop
'em and they just keep on working.
Can you get me a 787 at a substantial discount? :-)
You'll be happy with just about any fluke, they are great meters.
Godspeed,
Phil
On Feb 27, 2005, at 23:50, Greg Larson wrote:
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> I have the opportunity to buy a Fluke multimeter (any) at a substantial
> discount. Any recommendations on which model or features I need for
> building a RV-7?
>
> Thanks, Greg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <kcorr(at)charter.net> |
You can't beat a Fluke meter. I have a 179 that does most anything that a person
needs. It has the usual volts, amps, and resistance. Plus it has diode, capacitance,
frequency, temperature, milivolt, miliamp and probably a few others
I can't remember. Also, get the silicone test leads that will accept different
probes. You can get probes that are the traditional points plus several styles
of clamps. Fluke has a good website with all of the features and accessories.
Good luck.
Kent orr
>
> From: "Greg Larson" <hanzonn(at)earthlink.net>
> Date: 2005/02/28 Mon AM 05:50:12 GMT
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fluke Meter
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Franz Fux" <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
Bob,
I will check ones I am back at home in about a week and will let you know
the model,
Franz
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
chaztuna(at)adelphia.net
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Wire Labeling
> >I bought a small labeling machine for 30.- at Home Depot and use the
> >smallest tape available (6mm). The labels are just about the right size
to
> >wrap around the wires, shrink tube over top and you have a very good
looking
> >labeled wire. The advantage of this system is that it is portable, I can
> >print and label anytime in the garage and I don't need a printer or
> >computer, works great,
>
>
> Franz, what department sells these? I'd like to go get one
> to play with. Can you advise as to brand and perhaps model
> number?
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
I was in my local Office Max on Sunday. I noticed that they had several
label making machine (various manufacturers) priced from $30 to $100. You
might want to stop by your local Office Max store.
Charlie Kuss
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: parallelling batteries |
>
>"There are no differences in condition (state of charge, size, age,
>temperature, rate of charge/discharge) that would make one 6-cell
>lead-acid battery take charge from another 6-cell lead-acid battery when
>they are connected in parallel."
>I would like to know to what extent this statement is true?
Not very. A 100% fully charged battery at room temperature
has a terminal voltage just under 13.0 volts . . . usually
about 12.8
It takes 13.8 to 14.6 volts to convince a battery that it
should accept sufficient energy to bring it up to full charge.
If you connect a fully discharged battery across a fully charged
battery, you will measure a short duration of current flowing
into the discharged battery but it dies down in a few seconds.
If allowed to run to a stable condition, the "charged" battery
will have transferred less than 1% of it's energy to the
"discharged" battery.
It is practical to run batteries in parallel for
charging and discharging even if they're different sizes
and at different points in their service lives. Each battery
will accept only what it's capable of holding and deliver
back only the energy it contains.
The cautions circulating in the wild about paralleling
batteries are not founded in physics or experience.
The way we use paralleled batteries is to run them paralleled
only in the charge mode (normal alternator operations) and
separate them into separate duties within seconds of alternator
failure as indicated by ACTIVE notification of low voltage.
This operation IS founded in physics and practical experience
in aircraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
I had permission to send this message.....................
Good day,
During and after the Battle of Britain, which older folk will
remember is the turning point in the air [mainly] for the defence of
Britain, and thus of Hitler's attempt to eradicate the western world, one of
the many airfields is North Weald, just NE of London.
Of the over 800 airfields and air harbours used in WW II, this
field was extensively used by fighter aircraft (including my RCAF Squadron
401) in the defence of London and the mauling of the Luftwaffe bomber force.
Unsuccessful in the destruction of Brit airfields, Goering sent bombers to
the city centres - never thinking it would rebound on Germany one
thousandfold.
Following WW II, North Weald gradually became a mecca for
wartime aircraft and a popular centre for Fighter airshows. Having the
opportunity to visit Uk during these events brought back the recollection of
desparate days which saved the war. It showed the brilliance and dedication
of ordinary men and women to protect our way of life and stave off the
bestiality of the Hitler regime - and displayed a myriad of forgotten
aircraft types - a magnificent day........... and just at the end of the
London Underground with a short walk to the field.
The usual politicos in regional Britain want to scrap this
memorial ground to jam in 6,000 houses in accordance with a major plan to
re-organise and fill in a precious part of the country - and to Hell with
history. No doubt streets will be named after them. What they don't realise
is that the names could be Adolph Schickelgruber or Hermann Goering were it
not for North Weald.
Since many of the fields are now given over to mills, firms and
houses, only a few truly memorable ones remain and NW is one of these. If
you are a vet of those days, or visitted NW for one of its brilliant
airshows, I urge you to contact the defenders at:
http://www.northwealdevents.com/ and add your words to the growing
defence of this place. Too soon we regret the bottom-line urgency of burying
history for the art of concrete and gain.
The last great war saved us all - let's fight to preserve the
thought!
Ferg Kyle
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Module/Relay |
>
>
>I posted these questions on the website then when I found out Bob had gone
>out of town I posted it on the forum. Still in holding pattern....
>
>Bob,
>
>I want to install an OVM14. I have a Rotax 912S. On the Z-7 diagram it shows
>an overvoltage relay that, in the description of OVM14, should be used with
>an alternator having an internal regulator. (See quote below).
The OVM-14 is a generic ov protection device suited for
use in ANY alternator system when incorporated as suggested
in the various Z-figures . . .
> However the
>Z-7 diagram shows both an EXTERNAL regulator AND the OV disconnect relay. In
>addition, your parts catalog does not show a overvoltage relay available.
The latest diagram replacing Z-7 is Z-16 Revision K which will
be published in an upcoming Rev 11 to the AeroElectric Connection.
You can get a sneak preview copy at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Architecture/Zfigs_K_3.pdf
>Where can I get one, at an auto parts store?
The B&C catalog at:
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?11X358218#s700-2-3
lists an S704-1 relay (about 3/4 way down the page) which is the same
one called out on Z-7/Z-16. If you choose to go with the latest
Z-16 configuration, the ALT WARN light is replaced with ACTIVE
notification of LOW VOLTS. This means that you can use a single
pole, single throw version of the S704-1 . . . These can be had
from Radio Shack p/n 275-226
> One other thing, I have LEDs
>already installed in my panel as warning lights, including the alternator
>fail light. Will this work in place of the Alt. lamp shown on Z-7?
Yes . . . in fact, if you purchase or duplicate the LV Warning
module described at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/LVWarn-ABMM.html
and
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/9021-620.pdf
you can perhaps use your existing LED to satisfy this
functionality. However, I would caution you that the LED
should be EASY to see, high intensity LED with no series
resistor . . . the LV warn module has the necessary
resistor built in.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: RE: Wire Labeling |
>
>
>My schoolteacher wife got a "Dymo Letra Tag 2000" at Target last year for
>about $30. It is a handheld unit that runs on 6 AA batteries. It prints
>both horizontal and vertical, has different fonts and you can get a variety
>of colors and sizes of tape . It will make a wonderful wire labeler.
I have one of these. It's a thermal printer. The whole label
turns black under the heatshrink. Besides, the smallest font
it generates is too big for anything but largest wires.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
>As an interested party I once made a graph from data on B&C's website:
>3000 RPM 0.2 A
>3500 RPM 1.7 A
>4000 RPM 3.1 A
>4500 RPM 4.4 A
>5000 RPM 5.6 A
>5500 RPM 6.8 A
>6000 RPM 7.9 A
The Rotax standard alternator is permanent magnet. VERY robust.
The weakest link in Rotax's electrical system is their piece of
@#$@# regulator. There are more robust products out there. Further,
one might craft a dual regulator system to back up the standard
regulator. Putting an SD-8 on the Rotax vacuum pump drive is a
VERY marginal proposition.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | D Wysong <hdwysong(at)gmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
... how do you REALLY feel about that Rotax 914 Ducati regulator, Bob? ;-)
What are the preferred part numbers for replacing the "piece of @#$@#"
914 regulator?
Thanks!
D
----------------
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>>As an interested party I once made a graph from data on B&C's website:
>>3000 RPM 0.2 A
>>3500 RPM 1.7 A
>>4000 RPM 3.1 A
>>4500 RPM 4.4 A
>>5000 RPM 5.6 A
>>5500 RPM 6.8 A
>>6000 RPM 7.9 A
>
>
>
>
>
> The Rotax standard alternator is permanent magnet. VERY robust.
> The weakest link in Rotax's electrical system is their piece of
> @#$@# regulator. There are more robust products out there. Further,
> one might craft a dual regulator system to back up the standard
> regulator. Putting an SD-8 on the Rotax vacuum pump drive is a
> VERY marginal proposition.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Scott Winn (Matronics List)" <swmat(at)cox.net> |
Bob,
I'm not sure why the application is important? This is long, but here
it goes: It is a replacement for the Essential Bus alternate feed. This
goes back to the discussion I tried to start about adding a second
battery to the Z-13 diagram. I asked about this particular application
before (including posting a schematic) and I was not able to get an
opinion on it because I was not able to satisfactorily justify the
second battery.
My essential bus draws 8 amps continous including the EFIS, GPS/COM,
panel/flood lighting, and AHRS/Magnetometer used for EFIS support. If
the SD-8 alternator will output 8 amps at cruise power settings, this
offsets the entire endurance bus load. However, I still have an engine
that utilizes dual Electronic ignition. I am only required to run one,
and the manufacturer diagrams indicate that each ignition will draw 6
amps at the RPM that I will be running at.
If I suffered from main alternator or alternator belt failure, I would
need to obtain an 8 hour endurance to match the cruise range of my
Long-EZ with full fuel tanks. I would need 8 hours X 6 Amps (1
ignition), 48AH. This wouldn't leave any power for the end of the
flight to run the electrical speed brake, nose gear, doesn't include
radio transmits, etc... If I understood your book correctly you offer
replacement of the battery once it fails a 50% rated capacity test.
This means I would need 96AH of rated battery capacity to have 48AH
available at battery replacement time. I looked at 100AH batteries,
they weigh about 80lbs which I feel is too heavy.
I decided to lower my endurance sights and settle on a smaller amount of
battery capacity. I chose the batteries based on the largest physical
size that will fit into the small nose of the aircraft, and back-tracked
the endurance rating. With 32AH of rated power, this gives me 16AH of
capacity at battery replacement time. This will give me a comfortable
2.5 hour endurance with the SD-8 running at full tilt and one ignition
turned off, with some reserve for radio transmits and gear/brake motors.
I can obtain 32AH of rated capacity with one big battery or I can do it
with two smaller ones. This provides advantages to me in terms of
providing alternate paths of wiring to each ignition. Call it an
emotional decision if you like, I like the idea of having two batteries
and two separate paths of power to the two separate ignition systems.
It adds very little complication, requiring an Aux Battery switch, a
change to ebus alt feed switch and and an extra contactor.
I have one question about this configuration:
Does this design change decrease the safety of flight?
Now back to the switch.
In order to support the dual battery busses that now exist, I modified
the e-bus alt feed switch with a 2-1 On-Off-On switch. This switch
switches the e-bus alt feed to either the main battery or the aux
battery as well as the output of the SD-8 alternator to the same
battery. This way the selected e-bus alt feed path also connects the
SD-8 to the proper battery bus. The 2-1 switch will work fine for this
application.
My problem is with aesthetics and ergonomics. I assembled all my
switches on my mockup panel and noticed that all of the switches are in
the 'Down' position when they are turned off except the Ebus alt feed
switch which is in the middle. I want the Ebus alt feed to be the same
as all of the others. I want a double pole Off-On-On switch.
At the prompting of the helpful folks at B&C, I talked to Carling
product assistance and they do indeed make such a switch. It is Carling
part number 2G-P51-73. I have sent this part number to B&C to see if
they can special order the switch for me.
--Scott Winn
San Diego, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Scott Winn (Matronics List)" <swmat(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | EFIS Backup Battery |
Bob,
This is exactly what I was looking for.
For the small 1.2AH assist battery I'd like to hardwire it into 'auto'
mode, would this be a problem?
Can I replace the contactor with something smaller like a relay for this
small battery?
Also, I've already got a voltage warning light from the LR3C regulator.
Does this warning light provide any additional functionality?
--Scott Winn
San Diego, CA
The battery isolator you need is exactly what you've
proposed and described as both a product and a DIY
project at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/LVWarn-ABMM.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/9021-620.pdf
you can buy an ECB to assemble the project at:
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl> |
Subject: | Re: parallelling batteries |
>
>
>The way we use paralleled batteries is to run them paralleled
> only in the charge mode (normal alternator operations) and
> separate them into separate duties within seconds of alternator
> failure as indicated by ACTIVE notification of low voltage.
>
Z30?
I have some trouble with the rationale. If batteries function well in
parallel, each charging/discharging according to its size and percentage
of charge, then the total endurance when separating them will be smaller
than if you didn't because one of the two batteries will run out first.
So the reason for separating must be that we are not after maximum total
endurance but guaranteed partial endurance - on the battery that we
designed to run out last.
So now we have 3 categories of consumers - "main", "endurance" and
"essential" - and 3 steps of degradation: end of main (alternator
finished), end of endurance (say 3 hours at 4 A finished) and end of
engine (say 4 hours at 3 A finished).
Is this the idea?
I think I might still be happier having an alternator, however tiny, to
supply the "essential" part.
Jan de Jong
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob, and others:
Does anyone know of a Product, circuit diagram or kit that uses optical sensors
to
measure fluid levels such as-- fuel levels in my RV 9.
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "923te" <923te(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Opital sensor |
http://www.aircraftextras.com/FuelSensor1.htm
http://www.aircraftextras.com/LowOilSensor.htm
> Bob, and others:
>
> Does anyone know of a Product, circuit diagram or kit that uses optical
sensors to
> measure fluid levels such as-- fuel levels in my RV 9.
>
>
> Peter
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com> |
Subject: | Re: Opital sensor |
http://www.ppavionics.com/
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: plaurence@the-beach.net
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:15:18 -0500
>
>Bob, and others:
>
>Does anyone know of a Product, circuit diagram or kit that uses optical sensors
to
>measure fluid levels such as-- fuel levels in my RV 9.
>
>
>Peter
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Butcher" <europa(at)triton.net> |
Subject: | Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
Jan,
Your chart for the SD-8 is correct and the % power vs rpm for the Rotax is
also correct. However, the vacuum pump drive pad turns at 54% of engine
speed. So when you are at 75% power (5000 engine rpm) the SD-8 is turning
2700 rpm (54% of 5000) which outputs about 5 amps. That's why I have fitted
a larger alternator driven off the rear of the crankshaft.
Jim Butcher Europa A185 N241BW
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Chris Horsten" <airplanes(at)sympatico.ca> |
Peter,
Check out http://www.aircraftextras.com/. They have the optical low level
warnings but it is based on a simple condition: not getting back a
reflection. If you want to use it for levels, it looks like you would have
to install several sensors at varying heights and then calibrate them. Not
very practical. Perhaps there is another sensor that will "see" fuel and
measure it.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
plaurence@the-beach.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Opital sensor
Bob, and others:
Does anyone know of a Product, circuit diagram or kit that uses optical
sensors to measure fluid levels such as-- fuel levels in my RV 9.
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl> |
Subject: | Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
>
>
>@#$@# regulator. There are more robust products out there. Further,
> one might craft a dual regulator system to back up the standard
> regulator. Putting an SD-8 on the Rotax vacuum pump drive is a
> VERY marginal proposition.
>
This sounds like a very practical idea - taking into account the actual
reliability of the various parts of the power supply.
And switching regulators would not lead to any degradation of service
either.
Thank you very much.
The crafting would require some thought. I wonder if you couldn't just
put the regulators in parallel on the AC inputs and only switch control
lines and outputs. Is a shorted AC-input a failure mode? Then the inputs
need to be switched also. What are possible alternator voltages when
load is removed? Can a regulator in rest be hit with this? Maybe a
make-before break relay is in order. The alternator won't care either
way. And I suppose the output capacitor is better not switched so there
would be two of those too. But the backup one won't like the sudden
inrush from the battery on switchover. Maybe a sequencing of switches is
called for. But no, I seem to remember that electrolytic capacitors like
a voltage applied from time to time to maintain their voltage rating
anyway. A diode or resistor from the other side of the output relay
could supply bus voltage and there would be no inrushes. And there would
be two OV modules, therefore two output relays. Altogether 3 2-pole
relays, one of them m-b-b, to be connected for two panel switches
off-batt-alt and reg1-reg2. I don't see a problem anymore. Could that be
right?
Jan de Jong
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Vern W." <vernw(at)ev1.net> |
Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Module/Relay |
Good stuff, Bob!
I do, however, have a question about the Z-13/20 "sneak peak" /ldrawing.
What I like about the original Z-13 (Z-13/8) drawing is that it uses the
SD-8 dynamo as backup that doesn't NEED a battery to continue powering
accessories in the (very) unlikely event of a battery internal short
failure. To me, that's an even better emergency solution than the Z-14
architecture. (But what I don't like about the Z-13/8 is that you only get 8
amps although that's probably plenty for most applications).
With the Z-13/20 design, you DO get more amps for backup, in fact,
perfect for what I have in mind. But am I wrong in assuming that the SD-20
is a conventional alternator and not a dynamo? If that's the case, failure
of the battery itself would also bring down the SD-20 which means, unlike
with the SD-8, you wouldn't have a positive failsafe in the event of battery
failure.
Do I understand things correctly?
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Over Voltage Module/Relay
>
>
> >
> >
> >I posted these questions on the website then when I found out Bob had
gone
> >out of town I posted it on the forum. Still in holding pattern....
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >I want to install an OVM14. I have a Rotax 912S. On the Z-7 diagram it
shows
> >an overvoltage relay that, in the description of OVM14, should be used
with
> >an alternator having an internal regulator. (See quote below).
>
> The OVM-14 is a generic ov protection device suited for
> use in ANY alternator system when incorporated as suggested
> in the various Z-figures . . .
>
> > However the
> >Z-7 diagram shows both an EXTERNAL regulator AND the OV disconnect relay.
In
> >addition, your parts catalog does not show a overvoltage relay available.
>
> The latest diagram replacing Z-7 is Z-16 Revision K which will
> be published in an upcoming Rev 11 to the AeroElectric Connection.
> You can get a sneak preview copy at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Architecture/Zfigs_K_3.pdf
>
>
> >Where can I get one, at an auto parts store?
>
> The B&C catalog at:
>
>
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?11X358218#s700-2-3
>
> lists an S704-1 relay (about 3/4 way down the page) which is the same
> one called out on Z-7/Z-16. If you choose to go with the latest
> Z-16 configuration, the ALT WARN light is replaced with ACTIVE
> notification of LOW VOLTS. This means that you can use a single
> pole, single throw version of the S704-1 . . . These can be had
> from Radio Shack p/n 275-226
>
>
> > One other thing, I have LEDs
> >already installed in my panel as warning lights, including the alternator
> >fail light. Will this work in place of the Alt. lamp shown on Z-7?
>
> Yes . . . in fact, if you purchase or duplicate the LV Warning
> module described at:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/LVWarn-ABMM.html
>
> and
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/9021-620.pdf
>
> you can perhaps use your existing LED to satisfy this
> functionality. However, I would caution you that the LED
> should be EASY to see, high intensity LED with no series
> resistor . . . the LV warn module has the necessary
> resistor built in.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: parallelling batteries |
>
> >
> >
> >The way we use paralleled batteries is to run them paralleled
> > only in the charge mode (normal alternator operations) and
> > separate them into separate duties within seconds of alternator
> > failure as indicated by ACTIVE notification of low voltage.
> >
>
>Z30?
>I have some trouble with the rationale. If batteries function well in
>parallel, each charging/discharging according to its size and percentage
>of charge, then the total endurance when separating them will be smaller
>than if you didn't because one of the two batteries will run out first.
Not necessarily. The driver for two or more batteries is to
separate them into specific tasks when engine driven power is
not available. Those tasks do not necessarily require the same
battery capacity. For example, a main battery might run an e-bus load
of 5 amps while an ignition battery is drained at only 2.
This is the basis on which some builders have installed unequal
sized batteries in a two-battery system.
I'm partial to the equal size batteries even when alternator
out current draws are different. This allows you to put in one
new battery/year and rotate the main battery into the aux battery
slot. Further, you can use both batteries for cranking.
>
>So the reason for separating must be that we are not after maximum total
>endurance but guaranteed partial endurance - on the battery that we
>designed to run out last.
Your perception is an illustration of why I suggest that
the FIRST task of crafting an electrical system is a load
analysis teamed with a selection of architectures. Until
one has all the numbers and decisions are made as to where
and under what conditions each system will get power, one
is not ready to size alternators, batteries, or bus sizes.
>So now we have 3 categories of consumers - "main", "endurance" and
>"essential" - and 3 steps of degradation: end of main (alternator
>finished), end of endurance (say 3 hours at 4 A finished) and end of
>engine (say 4 hours at 3 A finished).
>Is this the idea?
>I think I might still be happier having an alternator, however tiny, to
>supply the "essential" part.
This is a weight and cost of ownership issue. Aux batteries are
cheaper but perhaps heavier than an SD-8. However, an SD-8
is likely to run the lifetime of the airplane while a battery
is an expendable commodity. Over time, the Z-13 driver will
have equal or better system reliability, higher practical
e-bus loads and a much lighter system. The initial cost is
higher due to cost of alternator. Battery costs are the same
because you're still buying one battery per year. Finally,
Z-13 allows one to save 100% of battery capacity for approach
to landing.
I agree, Z-13 is preferable to a Z-11 with two batteries.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | EFIS Backup Battery |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>This is exactly what I was looking for.
>
>For the small 1.2AH assist battery I'd like to hardwire it into 'auto'
>mode, would this be a problem?
The switch might be a better deal . . . if the LV sensor
dies, you have a manual option for getting the relay closed.
>Can I replace the contactor with something smaller like a relay for this
>small battery?
Most certainly. Suggest S704-1 from B&C or similar
>Also, I've already got a voltage warning light from the LR3C regulator.
>Does this warning light provide any additional functionality?
No, but you'd like to have some notification of proper
functionality. Instead of a second LV warning, put a blue
or green lamp in parallel with the relay coil to show that
it is receiving power after the engine starts and the bus
voltage rises.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
>
>... how do you REALLY feel about that Rotax 914 Ducati regulator, Bob? ;-)
>
>What are the preferred part numbers for replacing the "piece of @#$@#"
>914 regulator?
I'm not current with the present choices. You might check with
suppliers to the ultra-light market. There's an outfit called
AirWolf that used to carry a regulator from Key West. I've not
been privy to conversations about this for several years. A bit
of net-searching would be useful here.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
Hi all,
I am considering getting ProxAlert R5. Does anyone have any experience -
positive, negative, advice - to share, I'd appreciate it. Main use would be
in the more congested NE, both in VFR and IFR.
The other known competitors are SureCheck and Monroy. ProxAlert seems to be
the only one with built-in altitude measurement and ability to show 3
threats simultaneously.
Thanks for the feedback
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I'm not sure why the application is important? This is long, but here
>it goes: It is a replacement for the Essential Bus alternate feed. This
>goes back to the discussion I tried to start about adding a second
>battery to the Z-13 diagram. I asked about this particular application
>before (including posting a schematic) and I was not able to get an
>opinion on it because I was not able to satisfactorily justify the
>second battery.
>
>My essential bus draws 8 amps continous including the EFIS, GPS/COM,
>panel/flood lighting, and AHRS/Magnetometer used for EFIS support. If
>the SD-8 alternator will output 8 amps at cruise power settings, this
>offsets the entire endurance bus load. However, I still have an engine
>that utilizes dual Electronic ignition. I am only required to run one,
>and the manufacturer diagrams indicate that each ignition will draw 6
>amps at the RPM that I will be running at.
>
>If I suffered from main alternator or alternator belt failure, I would
>need to obtain an 8 hour endurance to match the cruise range of my
>Long-EZ with full fuel tanks. I would need 8 hours X 6 Amps (1
>ignition), 48AH. This wouldn't leave any power for the end of the
>flight to run the electrical speed brake, nose gear, doesn't include
>radio transmits, etc... If I understood your book correctly you offer
>replacement of the battery once it fails a 50% rated capacity test.
Not necessarily. In the fat iron world, we run batteries until
they don't meet a paltry 30-minute generator-out endurance
requirement . . . for most of our fleet this is at about 80%
of new capacity. There are no rules of thumb here. You have
properly perceived a need for analysis, establishment of limits
and plans to be followed in case of certain kinds of failure.
>This means I would need 96AH of rated battery capacity to have 48AH
>available at battery replacement time. I looked at 100AH batteries,
>they weigh about 80lbs which I feel is too heavy.
>
>I decided to lower my endurance sights and settle on a smaller amount of
>battery capacity. I chose the batteries based on the largest physical
>size that will fit into the small nose of the aircraft, and back-tracked
>the endurance rating. With 32AH of rated power, this gives me 16AH of
>capacity at battery replacement time. This will give me a comfortable
>2.5 hour endurance with the SD-8 running at full tilt and one ignition
>turned off, with some reserve for radio transmits and gear/brake motors.
>I can obtain 32AH of rated capacity with one big battery or I can do it
>with two smaller ones. This provides advantages to me in terms of
>providing alternate paths of wiring to each ignition. Call it an
>emotional decision if you like, I like the idea of having two batteries
>and two separate paths of power to the two separate ignition systems.
>It adds very little complication, requiring an Aux Battery switch, a
>change to ebus alt feed switch and and an extra contactor.
>
>I have one question about this configuration:
>
>
>Does this design change decrease the safety of flight?
Given that you've fully deduced the system's LIMITS there
is no degradation of SAFETY of flight.
>Now back to the switch.
>In order to support the dual battery busses that now exist, I modified
>the e-bus alt feed switch with a 2-1 On-Off-On switch. This switch
>switches the e-bus alt feed to either the main battery or the aux
>battery as well as the output of the SD-8 alternator to the same
>battery. This way the selected e-bus alt feed path also connects the
>SD-8 to the proper battery bus. The 2-1 switch will work fine for this
>application.
>
>My problem is with aesthetics and ergonomics. I assembled all my
>switches on my mockup panel and noticed that all of the switches are in
>the 'Down' position when they are turned off except the Ebus alt feed
>switch which is in the middle. I want the Ebus alt feed to be the same
>as all of the others. I want a double pole Off-On-On switch.
>
>At the prompting of the helpful folks at B&C, I talked to Carling
>product assistance and they do indeed make such a switch. It is Carling
>part number 2G-P51-73. I have sent this part number to B&C to see if
>they can special order the switch for me.
Have you considered an SD-20? Alternatively, how about
running one ignition only on the SD-8 and dropping to
hand-held support until ready for descent and approach
to landing?
Keep in mind that our modern alternators are 10x better
machines than those installed on the spam-cans. Probability
of alternator failure hinges more on belts (put new one on
regularly) and wiring failure (pay attention to proper use
of that crimp tool!). While the scenario you've suggested
is possible, it's probability is exceedingly low compared
to what our brothers are flying in the certified iron.
Adding the SD-8 or larger backup drives your probability
for a bad day still lower. How about accepting the rare
need to shut everything on the panel down for the time it
takes to complete the en route phase of flight? Do you
plan an autopilot? GPS aided? How much current does it
draw? What's your plan-b for EFIS failure?
You may be making this too complicated. You are perhaps
more likely to have a failure in the back-ups-to-backups
hardware than the normal flight hardware (or make an
operating mistake during a stressful situation).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Subject: | Re: RE: Wire Labeling |
Bummer! Thanks for the heads-up. The font size I could live with, but I
obviously didn't experiment with heat-shrink. It should be good enough for
installation tagging. I will be following this thread a bit closer now :-)
Dennis
>
> >
>
>My schoolteacher wife got a "Dymo Letra Tag 2000" at Target last
year for
>about $30. It is a handheld unit that runs on 6 AA batteries. It
prints
>both horizontal and vertical, has different fonts and you can get a
variety
>of colors and sizes of tape . It will make a wonderful wire
labeler.
I have one of these. It's a thermal printer. The whole label
turns black under the heatshrink. Besides, the smallest font
it generates is too big for anything but largest wires.
Bob . . .
Re: RE: Wire Labeling
Bummer! Thanks for the heads-up. The font size I could live with, but I obviously
didn't experiment with heat-shrink. It should be good enough for installation
tagging. I will be following this thread a bit closer now :-)
Dennis
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert L. Nuckolls, III b.nuckolls(at)cox.net
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: glaesers
glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com
My schoolteacher wife got a Dymo Letra Tag 2000 at Target last year for
about $30. It is a handheld unit that runs on 6 AA batteries. It prints
both horizontal and vertical, has different fonts and you can get a variety
of colors and sizes of tape . It will make a wonderful wire labeler.
I have one of these. It's a thermal printer. The whole label
turns black under the heatshrink. Besides, the smallest font
it generates is too big for anything but largest wires.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Module/Relay |
>
>Good stuff, Bob!
>
> I do, however, have a question about the Z-13/20 "sneak peak" /ldrawing.
>What I like about the original Z-13 (Z-13/8) drawing is that it uses the
>SD-8 dynamo as backup that doesn't NEED a battery to continue powering
>accessories in the (very) unlikely event of a battery internal short
>failure.
The SD-8's current regulator design requires a battery to
start up. It won't self excite.
> To me, that's an even better emergency solution than the Z-14
>architecture. (But what I don't like about the Z-13/8 is that you only get 8
>amps although that's probably plenty for most applications).
It should be for the vast majority of installations. See recent
posting to Scott Winn for some discussion on alternator-out
energy requirements. I think it's more prudent to design a system
that concentrates on the approach to landing phase than attempting
to support hi-draw loads in the en-route phase. Given that the
probability of alternator failure is already low by virtue of
modern components and design, the idea that you MIGHT have to
hand-fly the airplane using hand-helds perhaps once in the lifetime
of the airplane is not a particularly scarry thing to contemplate.
I'll suggest this be fully explored before you add lots of
backups-to-backups that can only grow system complexity.
> With the Z-13/20 design, you DO get more amps for backup, in fact,
>perfect for what I have in mind. But am I wrong in assuming that the SD-20
>is a conventional alternator and not a dynamo? If that's the case, failure
>of the battery itself would also bring down the SD-20 which means, unlike
>with the SD-8, you wouldn't have a positive failsafe in the event of battery
>failure.
>
> Do I understand things correctly?
Yes you do except for behavior of the SD-8. It's too bad that
the present regulator is not self exciting . . . it would not
be difficult to do. None=the-less, given the current state
of the science and art of battery fabrication, I don't
believe it's unreasonable to place as much stock in a well
maintained RG battery as you do in prop bolts. Shorted cells
and total opens are virtually unheard of. This leaves accidents
of connection and neglect, both of which are easily offset
when the guy doing maintenance is the same guy who wants to
depend on the equipment!
May I suggest some thinking that drives toward crafting
plan-b or even plan-c that lives within the simplest,
lightest, least expensive hardware.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
To detect **LOW** fuel, here is a link (for RVs).
http://www.aircraftextras.com/
James
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
| aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of plaurence@the-
| beach.net
| Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:15 AM
| To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: AeroElectric-List: Opital sensor
|
|
| Bob, and others:
|
| Does anyone know of a Product, circuit diagram or kit that uses optical
| sensors to
| measure fluid levels such as-- fuel levels in my RV 9.
|
|
| Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Vern W." <vernw(at)ev1.net> |
Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Module/Relay |
> > Do I understand things correctly?
>
> Yes you do except for behavior of the SD-8. It's too bad that
> the present regulator is not self exciting . . . it would not
> be difficult to do.
> Bob
Talk to me (us), Bob! If not difficult to do, what would it take to
make the SD-8, and better yet, the SD-20, self exciting?
If I could have the Z-13/20, with the SD-20 being self exciteable, then
I'd be ready to start ordering parts!
It's the idea of having a self-exciteable backup alternator that
"excites" me the most because then, a dual-alternator/single battery system
would truly be an independant and unlimited power source. I like it better
than the Z-14 because it's both simpler AND lighter.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Over Voltage Module/Relay
>
>
> >
> >Good stuff, Bob!
> >
> > I do, however, have a question about the Z-13/20 "sneak peak"
/ldrawing.
> >What I like about the original Z-13 (Z-13/8) drawing is that it uses the
> >SD-8 dynamo as backup that doesn't NEED a battery to continue powering
> >accessories in the (very) unlikely event of a battery internal short
> >failure.
>
> The SD-8's current regulator design requires a battery to
> start up. It won't self excite.
>
> > To me, that's an even better emergency solution than the Z-14
> >architecture. (But what I don't like about the Z-13/8 is that you only
get 8
> >amps although that's probably plenty for most applications).
>
> It should be for the vast majority of installations. See recent
> posting to Scott Winn for some discussion on alternator-out
> energy requirements. I think it's more prudent to design a system
> that concentrates on the approach to landing phase than attempting
> to support hi-draw loads in the en-route phase. Given that the
> probability of alternator failure is already low by virtue of
> modern components and design, the idea that you MIGHT have to
> hand-fly the airplane using hand-helds perhaps once in the lifetime
> of the airplane is not a particularly scarry thing to contemplate.
> I'll suggest this be fully explored before you add lots of
> backups-to-backups that can only grow system complexity.
>
> > With the Z-13/20 design, you DO get more amps for backup, in fact,
> >perfect for what I have in mind. But am I wrong in assuming that the
SD-20
> >is a conventional alternator and not a dynamo? If that's the case,
failure
> >of the battery itself would also bring down the SD-20 which means, unlike
> >with the SD-8, you wouldn't have a positive failsafe in the event of
battery
> >failure.
> >
> > Do I understand things correctly?
>
> Yes you do except for behavior of the SD-8. It's too bad that
> the present regulator is not self exciting . . . it would not
> be difficult to do. None=the-less, given the current state
> of the science and art of battery fabrication, I don't
> believe it's unreasonable to place as much stock in a well
> maintained RG battery as you do in prop bolts. Shorted cells
> and total opens are virtually unheard of. This leaves accidents
> of connection and neglect, both of which are easily offset
> when the guy doing maintenance is the same guy who wants to
> depend on the equipment!
>
> May I suggest some thinking that drives toward crafting
> plan-b or even plan-c that lives within the simplest,
> lightest, least expensive hardware.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Here's what Aviation Consumer (a publication I highly recommend for aircraft
owners, and homebuilders in particular- it's sort of a Consumer Reports for
aviators) concluded in an article published in their April 2004 issue:
Recommendations
For the price-$800 to $1200 depending on which unit you select-the portables
strike us as cheap insurance against a mid-air collision or near miss.
But you get what you pay for. Don't expect either unit to find all the
traffic. Both will miss lots of targets, especially those ahead and below
the aircraft. And once you start installing one of these in a panel using an
external antenna, you could nearly double the cost.
In adding all these numbers up, refer to the chart on page 6 which compares
prices on all the current offerings across all price ranges. With the Garmin
Mode-S based TIS available for about $5000, owners will need to put a sharp
pencil on the decision to go down market with a portable. But the $5000
applies only if you already have a GNS430 or 530 in the panel. And maybe you
don't want to spend that much on traffic gear and the portable suits your
needs.
Which is best? Both are improved over previous models and we don't think
you'll go wrong with either, keeping in mind that this technology has sharp
limitations. We give a razor-thin edge to the Monroy ATD-300. It's $400
cheaper than the SureCheck, has a lower profile on the panel and a simpler,
easier-to-read display.
Our impression is that the ATD-300 more often saw traffic that the SureCheck
missed but, to be fair, the performance of both units is strongly influenced
by antenna position. For the extra $400, the SureCheck gives you the ability
to run on batteries and has the onboard altitude sensor, neither of which
the Monroy has.
As noted, this allows the SureCheck to make relative altitude determinations
when the host aircraft Mode-C isn't available, which appears to be the case
about 20 percent of the time for reasons that aren't clear.
If that capability is important to you or you can't run on ship's power
alone, the SureCheck TrafficScope is the better choice, in our view. In any
case, we think SureCheck deserves kudos for dramatically improving its
product over the previous iteration and we give the company high marks for
much improved customer and technical support.
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
rd2(at)evenlink.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ProxAlert R5
Hi all,
I am considering getting ProxAlert R5. Does anyone have any experience -
positive, negative, advice - to share, I'd appreciate it. Main use would be
in the more congested NE, both in VFR and IFR.
The other known competitors are SureCheck and Monroy. ProxAlert seems to be
the only one with built-in altitude measurement and ability to show 3
threats simultaneously.
Thanks for the feedback
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
Subject: | Re: ProxAlert R5 |
After a near mid-air collision, I purschased the Monroy ATD-300. I've
been using it as a portable and plan on permanent install in my RV-9A.
It comes with a panel mount kit as well.
I treat the ATD-300 as an extra set of eyes. It does not replace the
need for a visual scan, and it can miss things. It works better in busy
airspace, which is what you want.
The biggest downfall of these devices is that you have to be in radar
surveillance for them to work. If you are in a 'radar shadow', or if
the offending aircraft does not have a transponder, they do not work.
Nevertheless, I now routinely leave my GPS in the bag, and plug my
ATD-300 in for local flights (Vancouver VTA).
Remember... it's like another set of eyes... it won't find everything,
but it can sometimes see things the pilot doesn't.
Vern Little
Rob Housman wrote:
>
>Here's what Aviation Consumer (a publication I highly recommend for aircraft
>owners, and homebuilders in particular- it's sort of a Consumer Reports for
>aviators) concluded in an article published in their April 2004 issue:
>Recommendations
>For the price-$800 to $1200 depending on which unit you select-the portables
>strike us as cheap insurance against a mid-air collision or near miss.
>But you get what you pay for. Don't expect either unit to find all the
>traffic. Both will miss lots of targets, especially those ahead and below
>the aircraft. And once you start installing one of these in a panel using an
>external antenna, you could nearly double the cost.
>In adding all these numbers up, refer to the chart on page 6 which compares
>prices on all the current offerings across all price ranges. With the Garmin
>Mode-S based TIS available for about $5000, owners will need to put a sharp
>pencil on the decision to go down market with a portable. But the $5000
>applies only if you already have a GNS430 or 530 in the panel. And maybe you
>don't want to spend that much on traffic gear and the portable suits your
>needs.
>Which is best? Both are improved over previous models and we don't think
>you'll go wrong with either, keeping in mind that this technology has sharp
>limitations. We give a razor-thin edge to the Monroy ATD-300. It's $400
>cheaper than the SureCheck, has a lower profile on the panel and a simpler,
>easier-to-read display.
>Our impression is that the ATD-300 more often saw traffic that the SureCheck
>missed but, to be fair, the performance of both units is strongly influenced
>by antenna position. For the extra $400, the SureCheck gives you the ability
>to run on batteries and has the onboard altitude sensor, neither of which
>the Monroy has.
>As noted, this allows the SureCheck to make relative altitude determinations
>when the host aircraft Mode-C isn't available, which appears to be the case
>about 20 percent of the time for reasons that aren't clear.
>If that capability is important to you or you can't run on ship's power
>alone, the SureCheck TrafficScope is the better choice, in our view. In any
>case, we think SureCheck deserves kudos for dramatically improving its
>product over the previous iteration and we give the company high marks for
>much improved customer and technical support.
>
>
>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
>rd2(at)evenlink.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: ProxAlert R5
>
>
>Hi all,
>I am considering getting ProxAlert R5. Does anyone have any experience -
>positive, negative, advice - to share, I'd appreciate it. Main use would be
>in the more congested NE, both in VFR and IFR.
>The other known competitors are SureCheck and Monroy. ProxAlert seems to be
>the only one with built-in altitude measurement and ability to show 3
>threats simultaneously.
>Thanks for the feedback
>Rumen
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: RE: Wire Labeling |
>
>
>Bummer! Thanks for the heads-up. The font size I could live with, but I
>obviously didn't experiment with heat-shrink. It should be good enough for
>installation tagging. I will be following this thread a bit closer now :-)
I tried it for fabrication labels too. Too slow and expensive compared
to a roll of plastic tape, a Sharpie and X-Acto knife. I use it
a lot for labeling parts drawers, etc.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
Bob's comment below is another reason why I prefer Z-14 (for *my* purposes).
If I plan it all right from the beginning, I envision having to make NO
in-flight decisions if I lose one electrical system in its entirety except
for looking at the non-dark EFIS/instruments and choosing at which airport I
will land.
Given I plan for the plane to be IFR, I have decided that the way to save
the extra weight of another PC680 + regulator and the delta of the SD20 over
the SD8 is to TAKE IT OFF ME!! :-)
Just a different, non technical view of things.
James
Go with what works for you,
Your mileage may vary,
Etc., etc.
{LONG SNIP}
| You may be making this too complicated. You are perhaps
| more likely to have a failure in the back-ups-to-backups
| hardware than the normal flight hardware (or make an
| operating mistake during a stressful situation).
|
| Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
Subject: | Re: ProxAlert R5 |
rv-9a-online wrote:
> Remember... it's like another set of eyes... it won't find everything,
> but it can sometimes see things the pilot doesn't.
I have one of the older Surecheck units, and although
the distance displayed is not accurate, it does at least let you
know when somehting is within 5 miles of you. There have been a couple
of times that it has warned me there is something close, and then
I'll find the traffic visually. I bought mine refurbished off
Ebay for $300, and I consider it a great investment.
I agree, though, that you have to consider it like another
set of eyes. It doesn't replace yours, and it won't
catch everything, but IMHO I think it does at least increase
your chances of being aware of other traffic nearby.
When I build my Sportsman, I'm going to include
a TIS aware system in the panel, but until I can afford that,
the portable units are worth the investment in my opinion.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Scott Winn (Matronics List)" <swmat(at)cox.net> |
Bob,
Not necessarily. In the fat iron world, we run batteries until
they don't meet a paltry 30-minute generator-out endurance
requirement . . . for most of our fleet this is at about 80%
of new capacity. There are no rules of thumb here. You have
properly perceived a need for analysis, establishment of limits
and plans to be followed in case of certain kinds of failure.
It never occurred to me to replace the battery sooner. In reality
that's what we'd do, because we'll just replace one of the batteries
each year and rotate. I can't believe they will reach 50% capacity in a
year.
>Does this design change decrease the safety of flight?
Given that you've fully deduced the system's LIMITS there
is no degradation of SAFETY of flight.
Good.
Have you considered an SD-20? Alternatively, how about
running one ignition only on the SD-8 and dropping to
hand-held support until ready for descent and approach
to landing?
We are planning on IFR operations. I don't think handheld support will
suffice unless it is very sophisticated. I thought about the SD-20 but
it adds weight to the wrong end of the aircraft. I prefer to put weight
in the nose instead of the tail. The Long-EZ is typically tail heavy
and I'm trying to minimize the weight behind the firewall. The SD-8 is
a really light piece of hardware.
Keep in mind that our modern alternators are 10x better
machines than those installed on the spam-cans. Probability
of alternator failure hinges more on belts (put new one on
regularly) and wiring failure (pay attention to proper use
of that crimp tool!). While the scenario you've suggested
is possible, it's probability is exceedingly low compared
to what our brothers are flying in the certified iron.
I agree. I sincerely hope that the Aux Alt and E-Bus Alt feed switches
remain in the off position for the life of the aircraft, being exercised
only during preflight.
Adding the SD-8 or larger backup drives your probability
for a bad day still lower. How about accepting the rare
need to shut everything on the panel down for the time it
takes to complete the en route phase of flight? Do you
plan an autopilot? GPS aided? How much current does it
draw? What's your plan-b for EFIS failure?
Plan-b for EFIS failure includes the same equipment that the user of a
spam can would have in the event of a vacuum failure for IFR flight.
This includes a Turn Coord (electric), VSI, altimeter, and compass.
Additionally we also have a tru-trak autopilot which can be utilized to
maintain level flight and follow the GPS flight plan. This is a partial
panel situation that we will train for.
You may be making this too complicated. You are perhaps
more likely to have a failure in the back-ups-to-backups
hardware than the normal flight hardware (or make an
operating mistake during a stressful situation).
I have considered the complexity of the system. The checklist for a
Voltage Warning Light event is as follows:
Turn Off DC PWR MASTER
Turn Off AUX BAT MASTER
Turn Off RIGHT IGN
Switch E-BUS ALT FEED to Aux
Turn On AUX ALT
Sufficient electrical power for 2 Hours of flight time remain, find a
suitable landing field within this time frame.
The number of steps only differs from a single battery configuration
with one step, Turn Off AUX BAT MASTER. This step would not exist with a
standard Z-13 configuration. I do have an additional contactor to
replace if it goes bad. If I find this to be a hassle, I can always
eliminate the AUX BAT switch, the associated contactor and install a
single 32AH battery in the future. It fits into the same physical space
as the two 16AH batts. (Or I could install a paralleling jumper wire)
B&C got back to me today, and they can get the Off-On-On switch for me
at a good price.
--Scott Winn
San Diego, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | B Tomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
Subject: | question re Z-19 |
Bob,
Thank you for your time and effort to make our electrical systems better.
I have a question regarding Z-19 as this is very close to what I need to
do.
The endurance bus alternate feed switch cannot feed power from the
secondary battery without closing 2 contactors. Shouldn't the e-bus be
capable of drawing from either electrical resevoir? OR could solid state
contactors be used as they draw much less current to beep the power
flowing?
My project is an RV7A and my engine choice (at this time) is the
Eggenfellner H6. Can you comment on how to achieve battery sizes for Z-19.
Both batteries may end up being mounted aft of the baggage area. What size
wires need to be run forward? Can/should they be run forward on the same
wire run?
Thank you
Bevan
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: wire labeling practices |
>
>
>After observing the "primer wars" for several years now on the various
>homebuilder lists...I believe we now have our own version! May
>these become known in history as...the "wire labeling wars"!
How about "investigations and debate?" This has come up before and
WILL come up again. If the List is to serve as a good class room,
there will always be new students, new technologies to be explored,
and old myths to be debunked. The big deal is that we strive
to be good teachers and offer the best we know how to do
irrespective of how many times it has been covered in the past.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
>
> The Rotax standard alternator is permanent magnet. VERY robust.
> The weakest link in Rotax's electrical system is their piece of
> @#$@# regulator. There are more robust products out there. Further,
> one might craft a dual regulator system to back up the standard
> regulator. Putting an SD-8 on the Rotax vacuum pump drive is a
> VERY marginal proposition.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Hi Bob and all,
Some time ago I could lay my hands on a 912 Rotax alternator. A buddy
machined a drive coupling to run the unit on test bench. As he is an
researcher in things electrical, we made a survey of the unit and the
Ducati-Rotax regulator. I posted some of his conclusions on this list
some months ago.
To make things short, the Rotax regulator cannot deliver the advertised
output without overheating. Nevertheless, students made some cooling
tests, and a fan or blast tube can greatly improve things.
The safe maximal continuous output seems to be about 12-14 amps.
We chose to use a German Schicke GR4.
When I have some spare time I'll craft some webpages on the results of
our investigations.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
16 happy test hours on our MCR 4S
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: question re Z-19 |
>
>Bob,
>
>Thank you for your time and effort to make our electrical systems better.
>
>I have a question regarding Z-19 as this is very close to what I need to
>do.
>
>The endurance bus alternate feed switch cannot feed power from the
>secondary battery without closing 2 contactors. Shouldn't the e-bus be
>capable of drawing from either electrical resevoir? OR could solid state
>contactors be used as they draw much less current to beep the power
>flowing?
Recall that the rational for dual batteries is to make sure
that the airplane stays operational for a PREDETERMINED period
of time after alternator failure. IF you can craft a system
where this time is for duration of fuel aboard, fine. If not,
KNOW what that period is and maintain the system so that the
requirement is met.
When the alternator quits, e-bus runs from one battery and
engine runs from the other. If you've been a poor steward of
either energy stored or maintenance of the system's components,
then the REAL emergency will arise when you need to switch
the engine over to the e-bus battery . . . here's where sweating
is expected.
The scenario you hypothesize is fodder for a good dark-n-stormy-
night story. You're down to the last few watt-seconds of energy
stored in batteries and as a last gesture of gallant determination
to remain airborne for a few more minutes, you load the engine
battery with e-bus loads or vice-versa.
The goal: When the low volts light comes on you (1) set
E-BUS ALT FEED - ON. (2) set DC PWR MASTER to OFF. (3) E-Bus
Loads - Minimize if practical. Continue flight to airport
of intended destination or to nearest airport within range
of your pre-determined endurance capabilities. The secondary
power switch for the engine is to address failures in wiring and/or
switch on the primary side and/or failure to keep the engine
battery charged. Be sure to add voltmeter check of both battery
busses after the engine starts to verify that both battery
contactors are closed.
This philosophy makes an alternator failure no worse than
failure of nav lights with respect to comfortable completion
of flight.
>My project is an RV7A and my engine choice (at this time) is the
>Eggenfellner H6. Can you comment on how to achieve battery sizes for Z-19.
Do a load analysis. What "stuff" needs to run during
alternator out conditions? How much current do these items
need? You then have one of two choices (1) make batteries
large enough for continued flight to airport of intended
destination or (2) select batteries that are "too small" and
deduce realistic expectations for electrical endurance to make
an alternate airport.
>Both batteries may end up being mounted aft of the baggage area. What size
>wires need to be run forward? Can/should they be run forward on the same
>wire run?
See if you can mount a pair of 17 a.h. batteries forward first.
If they have to go aft, you could consider using airframe ground
for both batteries and bringing each battery lead forward on
4AWG wire.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Subject: | Re: question re Z-19 |
Bevan,
I am also planning on an RV7A with an E-Subaru (single cam at the moment)
and have come up with the following electrical architecture (pre Z-19):
http://www.wideopenwest.com/~glaesers/RV7A/RV7A_Electrical.htm
<http://www.wideopenwest.com/~glaesers/RV7A/RV7A_Electrical.htm>
Differences from Z-19:
- E-Bus fed from either battery.
- Dual fuel pumps with auto-failover
- EIS will provide LV warning and voltmeter (so neither shown on my
diagram).
- Starter solenoid energized by a 40 amp relay (Bosch - $2) rather than
going through a contactor.
- OVP controls the Alternator Field - no B-lead contactor (the internal
regulator on the alternator provided does not 'latch-on')
For the H6 you will need to add a relay to provide power to the O2 sensors.
I have a diagram for how I'd do that also if you're interested.
I look forward to Bob's reply to your questions on battery sizing and
running the leads (in case I change my mind on engines ;-)
Dennis Glaeser
Re: question re Z-19
Bevan,
I am also planning on an RV7A with an E-Subaru (single cam at the moment) and have
come up with the following electrical architecture (pre Z-19):
http://www.wideopenwest.com/~glaesers/RV7A/RV7A_Electrical.htm
Differences from Z-19:
- E-Bus fed from either battery.
- Dual fuel pumps with auto-failover
- EIS will provide LV warning and voltmeter (so neither shown on my diagram).
- Starter solenoid energized by a 40 amp relay (Bosch - $2) rather than going
through a contactor.
- OVP controls the Alternator Field - no B-lead contactor (the internal regulator
on the alternator provided does not 'latch-on')
For the H6 you will need to add a relay to provide power to the O2 sensors. I have
a diagram for how I'd do that also if you're interested.
I look forward to Bob's reply to your questions on battery sizing and running the
leads (in case I change my mind on engines ;-)
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Module/Relay |
>
> > > Do I understand things correctly?
> >
> > Yes you do except for behavior of the SD-8. It's too bad that
> > the present regulator is not self exciting . . . it would not
> > be difficult to do.
> > Bob
>
> Talk to me (us), Bob! If not difficult to do, what would it take to
>make the SD-8, and better yet, the SD-20, self exciting?
First, you need to be SURE that once either one of these systems
is up and running WITHOUT a battery on line that the power quality
is acceptable. The SD-8 installation calls for a fat filter capacitor
but I'm not 100% sure that we'd like the voltage regulation dynamics.
> If I could have the Z-13/20, with the SD-20 being self exciteable, then
>I'd be ready to start ordering parts!
>
Allow me to suggest that it's easier/faster/sure-bet to have
a second battery no matter how small. If you're loosing sleep
over a battery failure in figure Z-13, then perhaps you'd
entertain a small (2-4 a.h.) SVLA battery as the #2 battery
to insure that an SD-8, SD-20 or even the main alternator can
be coaxed on line with a modicum of filtering offered by the
small battery.
> It's the idea of having a self-exciteable backup alternator that
>"excites" me the most because then, a dual-alternator/single battery system
>would truly be an independant and unlimited power source. I like it better
>than the Z-14 because it's both simpler AND lighter.
With an "aux" battery added to Figure Z-13, the aux battery
contactor can be a large relay like S704-1. It can be charged
by using the auto feature of an LVWARN/ABMM module and would
offset whatever risk there may be for loosing the main battery.
Now, this battery certainly wants to be replaced every year
(or tested) along with the main battery . . . and you avoid any new
development programs for regulators and testing for addition of filter
capacitors that may be as heavy as the "too small" aux battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: wire labeling practices |
Very true and I wonder why we do not have a list of old tips?
Having a place for FAQ's would, I think greatly help cut down on recycled
threads etc
The labeling 'heat blackout' issue was thrashed out several years ago on
this list as I recall.
There are several different brands and different types of tape within some
brands.
One that worked then, and I have used it with great success with small type
and clear heat shrink is the following.
I learned of it on this list 2-3 years ago so why the rehashing old what was
solved before?
Brother P touch machines using TZ tape works others do not.
I obtained a P-Touch 1800 that prints 3 lines and type from 6 point to 26
point that is great for even #22 wire. Getting very flexible heat shrink (it
cones in many types and flexibilities) worked for me. Cost $19.00 at the
time as it was on sale.
In any event the key is the TZ tape.
I really suggest a place on the web where FAQ's can be stored and that could
really reduce the seemingly never-ending recycling of questions from year to
year, or (in some cases) several times a year for the same or nearly the
same question.
This way Bob's time could be spent on new ideas etc that could benefit all
of us.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: wire labeling practices
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>After observing the "primer wars" for several years now on the various
>>homebuilder lists...I believe we now have our own version! May
>>these become known in history as...the "wire labeling wars"!
>
>
> How about "investigations and debate?" This has come up before and
> WILL come up again. If the List is to serve as a good class room,
> there will always be new students, new technologies to be explored,
> and old myths to be debunked. The big deal is that we strive
> to be good teachers and offer the best we know how to do
> irrespective of how many times it has been covered in the past.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: Switch type//battery |
Well Bob, I wonder what brand of batteries you are referring to.
The FAA requires a battery capacity test as part of the annual, as specified
by the battery manufacturer, and Concord specifies that the battery must
have at least 85% of its original stated capacity to be airworthy. That is
higher than 80% and far above the above ref of 50%.
I have a 2 year old Power-Sonic (one of the popular 12V 18AH type) that
tests at 6 AH or has lost 66% of its capacity in 2 years and never was deep
discharged nor over charged during this entire time (Recharged with multi
stage charger).
Not typical, but not mistreated, and yet not usable for flight in my
opinion. Starts engine just fine but would fade fast if needed. Room temp
cranking amp tests at over 500AMPs.
Paul
Sorta back we will see.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Switch type
>
>
>>If I understood your book correctly you offer
>>replacement of the battery once it fails a 50% rated capacity test.
>
> Not necessarily. In the fat iron world, we run batteries until
> they don't meet a paltry 30-minute generator-out endurance
> requirement . . . for most of our fleet this is at about 80%
> of new capacity. There are no rules of thumb here. You have
> properly perceived a need for analysis, establishment of limits
> and plans to be followed in case of certain kinds of failure.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
Subject: | Re: question re Z-19 |
Dennis
Is this what you meant to write?
While it is probably better than nothing, AFAIK it is wishful thinking
to believe that the alternator will not latch on with a failed VR during
an OV situation. Once the VR has failed and charging full bore, I don't
think you can reasonably expect that depowering the IGN terminal will
still shut it down.
Ken
Glaeser, Dennis A wrote:
>-->snip
> - OVP controls the Alternator Field - no B-lead contactor (the internal
>regulator on the alternator provided does not 'latch-on')
>-->snip
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
Subject: | Re: question re Z-19 |
Hi Dennis,
I hope you are right, but are you sure about this?
Mickey
> - OVP controls the Alternator Field - no B-lead contactor (the internal
> regulator on the alternator provided does not 'latch-on')
>
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Switch type//battery |
>
>Well Bob, I wonder what brand of batteries you are referring to.
>
>The FAA requires a battery capacity test as part of the annual, as specified
>by the battery manufacturer, and Concord specifies that the battery must
>have at least 85% of its original stated capacity to be airworthy. That is
>higher than 80% and far above the above ref of 50%.
Concord's recommendation and the values levied by the type certificated
installation on an airplane may not be the same number. When we
certify a battery on the airframe, it's emergency operating capacity
is demonstrated for 30 minutes endurance per the FARS . . . whether
this is 70% or 90% of capacity when new is a variable we have to
consider with respect to customer acceptance. If 70% then the battery
is too heavy, if 90% then the battery needs replaced too often. Don't
know about annual testing but our maintenance manuals have cap checks
at hour intervals as well. I think I recall the first one at 600
hours and every 300 hours thereafter . . . but yes, irrespective
of one's testing philosophy or regulations the important feature
is to launch KNOWING that one's battery(ies) are ready to perform
as established in the original design.
My 50% number came from a suggestion that while cranking ability
for a flooded battery was a fair test of battery condition, it
could be misleading for an RG battery. It was my suggestion that
folks who wish to stretch the VSLA battery as far as practical in
a day/vfr machine should build some form of capacity tester and
discard the battery when it drops to 50% in spite of how well it
cranks the engine. This was a recommendation for OBAM aircraft and
only if there was no great dependency on battery capacity.
>I have a 2 year old Power-Sonic (one of the popular 12V 18AH type) that
>tests at 6 AH or has lost 66% of its capacity in 2 years and never was deep
>discharged nor over charged during this entire time (Recharged with multi
>stage charger).
>
>Not typical, but not mistreated, and yet not usable for flight in my
>opinion. Starts engine just fine but would fade fast if needed. Room temp
>cranking amp tests at over 500AMPs.
Point made. I have several instrumentation batteries in the shop
that have fallen to 60% or less capacity that will dump 400+ amps.
They would start an engine but I wouldn't want to fly them. I'm
getting ready to scrap a couple of them.
>Paul
>
>Sorta back we will see.
Please to see you back sir.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
Subject: | Re: Re: question re Z-19 |
Mickey,
I asked specifically that question on the Subaru Yahoo list and got the
reply that the field does not latch. When you think about it, the factory
recommended EXPBUS also depends on controlling the alternator via the field
circuit. I think you will be getting your engine pretty soon, so you can
check it out and let me know for sure!
Ken,
I'm expecting/hoping that the field circuit is the power for the alternator
field, like it is in an externally regulated alternator, and that removing
power kills the field and therefore the output, regardless of what the VR is
doing. I'm a long way from getting my engine, but that will definitely be
something I will verify. If there is any doubt, I will install the B-lead
contactor in a heartbeat (I haven't tossed the version of my diagram with
that contactor :-)
Dennis
Hi Dennis,
I hope you are right, but are you sure about this?
Mickey
Dennis
Is this what you meant to write?
While it is probably better than nothing, AFAIK it is wishful thinking
to believe that the alternator will not latch on with a failed VR during
an OV situation. Once the VR has failed and charging full bore, I don't
think you can reasonably expect that depowering the IGN terminal will
still shut it down.
Ken
> - OVP controls the Alternator Field - no B-lead contactor (the internal
> regulator on the alternator provided does not 'latch-on')
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Switch type//battery |
"Paul Messinger" wrote:
> The FAA requires a battery capacity test as part of the annual,
> as specified by the battery manufacturer ...
>
That may come as news to some of us. If you're referring to Part 43
and arguing that the language of FAR 43.13 requires strict adherehnce
to a manufacturer's service instructions (two long-time A&P/IAs I know
say it does not, though good judgment should control), the service
manual for my plane states only to "check specific gravity." My
battery mfr says, to determine if serviceable, to either check
specific gravity or do a capacity test without specifics on how to do
it, and they label both as "suggested methods."
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: Switch type//battery |
This FAA requirement is a couple of years old as I understand.
Its irrespective of original certification requirements (and overrules them
as needed).
The new reg is obtuse as it says to use the battery mfgr's requirements so
its the brand of battery that determines the load method and amount of loss
before no longer being usable. Not unlike the ELT battery approach the FAA
uses where its the ELT mfgr that rules.
I have not looked at the regs recently but it could be as obtuse as all
installed equipment must meet mfgrs requirements. Like the ELT is worded :-(
NEW (in the past couple of years?) batteries are to be shipped with the
annual retesting methods and go / no-go levels
The way I read the regs is that what applied originally or even a couple of
years ago are no longer valid. The FAA has now stated that the current rules
as published by the battery manufacturer apply. Thus trumping any prior FAA
approvals from the past.
Concord has specs for recertification on their web site for both flooded and
AGM cells. The way I read them if any certificated aircraft has a Concord
brand battery it must be tested in accordance with the concord specs and if
less than 85% of the spec AH value is not approved for flight at that time.
SNEAKY in some ways (that based on your comments) rescind the original type
approval etc.
I agree that these regs may not apply to experimentals but its not really
clear there as some regs do apply depending on the time of day etc:-)
Paul
PS many annuals are performed ignoring this but the IA is at risk if found
out.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch type//battery
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Well Bob, I wonder what brand of batteries you are referring to.
>>
>>The FAA requires a battery capacity test as part of the annual, as
>>specified
>>by the battery manufacturer, and Concord specifies that the battery must
>>have at least 85% of its original stated capacity to be airworthy. That is
>>higher than 80% and far above the above ref of 50%.
>
> Concord's recommendation and the values levied by the type
> certificated
> installation on an airplane may not be the same number. When we
> certify a battery on the airframe, it's emergency operating capacity
> is demonstrated for 30 minutes endurance per the FARS . . . whether
> this is 70% or 90% of capacity when new is a variable we have to
> consider with respect to customer acceptance. If 70% then the battery
> is too heavy, if 90% then the battery needs replaced too often. Don't
> know about annual testing but our maintenance manuals have cap checks
> at hour intervals as well. I think I recall the first one at 600
> hours and every 300 hours thereafter . . . but yes, irrespective
> of one's testing philosophy or regulations the important feature
> is to launch KNOWING that one's battery(ies) are ready to perform
> as established in the original design.
>
> My 50% number came from a suggestion that while cranking ability
> for a flooded battery was a fair test of battery condition, it
> could be misleading for an RG battery. It was my suggestion that
> folks who wish to stretch the VSLA battery as far as practical in
> a day/vfr machine should build some form of capacity tester and
> discard the battery when it drops to 50% in spite of how well it
> cranks the engine. This was a recommendation for OBAM aircraft and
> only if there was no great dependency on battery capacity.
>
>
>>I have a 2 year old Power-Sonic (one of the popular 12V 18AH type) that
>>tests at 6 AH or has lost 66% of its capacity in 2 years and never was
>>deep
>>discharged nor over charged during this entire time (Recharged with multi
>>stage charger).
>>
>>Not typical, but not mistreated, and yet not usable for flight in my
>>opinion. Starts engine just fine but would fade fast if needed. Room temp
>>cranking amp tests at over 500AMPs.
>
> Point made. I have several instrumentation batteries in the shop
> that have fallen to 60% or less capacity that will dump 400+ amps.
> They would start an engine but I wouldn't want to fly them. I'm
> getting ready to scrap a couple of them.
>
>
>>Paul
>>
>>Sorta back we will see.
>
> Please to see you back sir.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: Re: question re Z-19 |
The ND alternator field does not latch and the latest design ND internal
regulator does have OV protection built in.
However there is a seldom seen failure where the internal field switch fails
short and the only way to stop the full output of the alternator is with an
external opening of the power output lead "B" lead wire.
VAN's, EXPBUS, NSI, Eggenfelner etc. do not protect for this; only here on
the Aeroelectric list is this failure mode addressed (as far as I can tell)
.
While quite rare its a huge failure as the system bus will quickly rise to
levels that will fail all the electronics even the engine computers from
very high voltages.
The alternator output goes to current level somewhat over the rated
altrnator max current and the system voltage will rise until this current is
absorbed. A fully charged Concord 25ah battery was unable to clamp a 40 amp
test current I applied and the battery and system voltage rose to over 20V
in 1/2 minute and I stopped the test after one minute at a system voltage of
over 30 v and rising. The alternator is quite capable of over 100 volts
If you are already at a high % of alternator output the voltage rise is
small but what if you have a 55 amp alternator and are only loading under 10
amps? Then the voltage can get to damaging levels very quickly. The above
mfgrs as I understand it do not have automatic flashing lights etc to warn
you as well as NO way to stop the fault from causing system damage (first
your wallet and if you need electronics to power the engine perhaps your
BUTT).
NOTE that an external regulator can do the same thing but usually has a CB
that you can pull to remove all field power. The OR-3 regulator has built in
protection and you can add it to the Ford etc regulators.
Eventually one can litterly burn up things including the alternator from
overheating.
The OVP and "B" lead cutter (Eric Jones) are the only way currently
available to detect and isolate this failure from the rest of the aircraft.
Most common alternator failure is to fail off. Second with modern regulators
is to fail from OV. Very rare to have fail in uncontrolled hi output but
very expensive if it happens.
My point is most of us feel that a sure way of automatically disconnection
of the alternator is not an option as the failure progression happens too
fast in most cases of human seeing and reacting to a volt meter etc.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: question re Z-19
>
>
> Mickey,
>
> I asked specifically that question on the Subaru Yahoo list and got the
> reply that the field does not latch. When you think about it, the factory
> recommended EXPBUS also depends on controlling the alternator via the
> field
> circuit. I think you will be getting your engine pretty soon, so you can
> check it out and let me know for sure!
>
> Ken,
>
> I'm expecting/hoping that the field circuit is the power for the
> alternator
> field, like it is in an externally regulated alternator, and that removing
> power kills the field and therefore the output, regardless of what the VR
> is
> doing. I'm a long way from getting my engine, but that will definitely
> be
> something I will verify. If there is any doubt, I will install the B-lead
> contactor in a heartbeat (I haven't tossed the version of my diagram with
> that contactor :-)
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> Hi Dennis,
>
> I hope you are right, but are you sure about this?
>
> Mickey
>
>
> Dennis
> Is this what you meant to write?
> While it is probably better than nothing, AFAIK it is wishful thinking
> to believe that the alternator will not latch on with a failed VR during
> an OV situation. Once the VR has failed and charging full bore, I don't
> think you can reasonably expect that depowering the IGN terminal will
> still shut it down.
> Ken
>> - OVP controls the Alternator Field - no B-lead contactor (the
>> internal
>> regulator on the alternator provided does not 'latch-on')
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "kfackler" <kfackler(at)ameritech.net> |
Subject: | Ruined lexan and gaffer tape |
> to sit down and cry. Did a quick repair with gaffer's tape
John:
What is gaffer's tape and how did you use it to repair lexan damaged by
gasoline?
-Ken Fackler
Kolb Mark II / A722KWF
Rochester MI
ethods."
>
> Reg,
> Fred F.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | B Tomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
Subject: | question re Z-19 |
Bob
Thanks for you comments.
The scenario you hypothesize is fodder for a good dark-n-stormy-
night story. You're down to the last few watt-seconds of energy
stored in batteries and as a last gesture of gallant determination
to remain airborne for a few more minutes, you load the engine
battery with e-bus loads or vice-versa.
The goal: When the low volts light comes on you (1) set
E-BUS ALT FEED - ON. (2) set DC PWR MASTER to OFF. (3) E-Bus
Loads - Minimize if practical. Continue flight to airport
of intended destination or to nearest airport within range
of your pre-determined endurance capabilities. The secondary
power switch for the engine is to address failures in wiring and/or
switch on the primary side and/or failure to keep the engine
battery charged. Be sure to add voltmeter check of both battery
busses after the engine starts to verify that both battery
contactors are closed.
Yes, I missed that when looking when looking at the drawing.
Do a load analysis. What "stuff" needs to run during
alternator out conditions? How much current do these items
need? You then have one of two choices (1) make batteries
large enough for continued flight to airport of intended
destination or (2) select batteries that are "too small" and
deduce realistic expectations for electrical endurance to make
an alternate airport.
Could you give us a rule of thumb for sizing the batteries if when knew the
ebus + ECU + fuel pump current and wanted X hours endurance minimum from a
1 year old battery? Both batteries would be same size in my case.
See if you can mount a pair of 17 a.h. batteries forward first.
If they have to go aft, you could consider using airframe ground
for both batteries and bringing each battery lead forward on
4AWG wire.
I was thinking it would be preferrable to use a single "4AWG" wire to bring
the switched power forward from both rear batteries and a shared "4AWG"
wire for return ground, therefore single point ground and minimum heavy
wire runs. There would also be a 10 or 12 AWG from each battery coming all
the way forword for the two battery busses. These would be easier to
route.
Bevan
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | B Tomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
Subject: | Re: question re Z-19 |
Dennis
Very nice layout. Thanks for the help. What did you use to draw the layouts?
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: Glaeser, Dennis A [SMTP:dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: question re Z-19
Bevan,
I am also planning on an RV7A with an E-Subaru (single cam at the moment)
and have come up with the following electrical architecture (pre Z-19):
http://www.wideopenwest.com/~glaesers/RV7A/RV7A_Electrical.htm
<http://www.wideopenwest.com/~glaesers/RV7A/RV7A_Electrical.htm>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
Subject: | Re: Re: question re Z-19 |
At 08:09 PM 3/1/2005, you wrote:
>
>The ND alternator field does not latch and the latest design ND internal
>regulator does have OV protection built in.
snipped
Paul,
When was this "latest design" regulator instituted by ND? (year) I have a
60 amp unit which was remanufactured by NAPA 2 years ago.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
Subject: | Re: Re: question re Z-19 |
At 08:09 PM 3/1/2005, you wrote:
>
>The ND alternator field does not latch and the latest design ND internal
>regulator does have OV protection built in.
snipped
Paul
I forgot to mention, my 60 amp alternator is off of a 1991 Toyota Camry.
Reman'ed 2 years ago.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard McCraw" <rmccraw(at)s4t.net> |
Subject: | Ruined lexan and gaffer tape |
I don't know about Lexan repair, but I know gaffer's tape through theater.
It's a heavy-duty fabric tape -- heavy enough to put on a stage and have
actors walk, run and dance on it without destroying it.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of kfackler
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ruined lexan and gaffer tape
> to sit down and cry. Did a quick repair with gaffer's tape
John:
What is gaffer's tape and how did you use it to repair lexan damaged by
gasoline?
-Ken Fackler
Kolb Mark II / A722KWF
Rochester MI
ethods."
>
> Reg,
> Fred F.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
Subject: | Re: wire labeling practices |
what width tape did you use?
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: wire labeling practices
>
>
> Very true and I wonder why we do not have a list of old tips?
>
> Having a place for FAQ's would, I think greatly help cut down on recycled
> threads etc
>
> The labeling 'heat blackout' issue was thrashed out several years ago on
> this list as I recall.
>
> There are several different brands and different types of tape within some
> brands.
>
> One that worked then, and I have used it with great success with small
> type
> and clear heat shrink is the following.
>
> I learned of it on this list 2-3 years ago so why the rehashing old what
> was
> solved before?
>
> Brother P touch machines using TZ tape works others do not.
>
> I obtained a P-Touch 1800 that prints 3 lines and type from 6 point to 26
> point that is great for even #22 wire. Getting very flexible heat shrink
> (it
> cones in many types and flexibilities) worked for me. Cost $19.00 at the
> time as it was on sale.
>
> In any event the key is the TZ tape.
>
> I really suggest a place on the web where FAQ's can be stored and that
> could
> really reduce the seemingly never-ending recycling of questions from year
> to
> year, or (in some cases) several times a year for the same or nearly the
> same question.
>
> This way Bob's time could be spent on new ideas etc that could benefit all
> of us.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: wire labeling practices
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>After observing the "primer wars" for several years now on the various
>>>homebuilder lists...I believe we now have our own version! May
>>>these become known in history as...the "wire labeling wars"!
>>
>>
>> How about "investigations and debate?" This has come up before and
>> WILL come up again. If the List is to serve as a good class room,
>> there will always be new students, new technologies to be explored,
>> and old myths to be debunked. The big deal is that we strive
>> to be good teachers and offer the best we know how to do
>> irrespective of how many times it has been covered in the past.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
Subject: | Re: Re: Re: question re Z-19 |
If I understand correctly, you're saying that even 'non latching' field
leads on internal VRs do not absolutely control the power to the alternator
field (right?).
I put the external OVP only in the field circuit, expecting that removing
power to that lead kills the field (and therefor alternator output) -
period. If that is not the case, it's not really 'non-latching', by my
definition anyway.
I'm not against the contactor on the B-lead, but figured on saving the
weight and complexity if it added no value. Apparently it does.
Dennis Glaeser
The ND alternator field does not latch and the latest design ND internal
regulator does have OV protection built in.
However there is a seldom seen failure where the internal field switch fails
short and the only way to stop the full output of the alternator is with an
external opening of the power output lead "B" lead wire.
VAN's, EXPBUS, NSI, Eggenfelner etc. do not protect for this; only here on
the Aeroelectric list is this failure mode addressed (as far as I can tell)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
Subject: | Re: Switch type//battery |
So... what does this mean in the experimental realm... anyone hazard a guess
?
BTW, Paul... welcome back
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch type//battery
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
Subject: | Re: RE: Re: question re Z-19 |
Bevan,
Thanks. I used a highly specialized tool - PowerPoint ;-)
Dennis
Dennis
Very nice layout. Thanks for the help. What did you use to draw the
layouts?
Bevan
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | question re Z-19 |
>
>Could you give us a rule of thumb for sizing the batteries if when knew the
>ebus + ECU + fuel pump current and wanted X hours endurance minimum from a
>1 year old battery? Both batteries would be same size in my case.
Its reasonable to assume that a 1 year old battery will still
be very close to rated capacity as long as it didn't suffer
serious abuse during the year . . . i.e. deep discharge and
long storage in the discharged state. So if you want 2 hours
endurance and 10A of load, a 20 a.h. battery is called for
as a minimum. 24 gives you 20% headroom. If you use a pair of
17 a.h. batteries and want the same 20% headroom, then 17
x .8 gives you 13.6 or 1.3 hours at 10 amps load.
More time = bigger battery. Reduce weight = smaller
calculated endurance time.
> See if you can mount a pair of 17 a.h. batteries forward first.
> If they have to go aft, you could consider using airframe ground
> for both batteries and bringing each battery lead forward on
> 4AWG wire.
>
>I was thinking it would be preferrable to use a single "4AWG" wire to bring
>the switched power forward from both rear batteries and a shared "4AWG"
>wire for return ground, therefore single point ground and minimum heavy
>wire runs.
That would probably work. How long will the ground wire be?
> There would also be a 10 or 12 AWG from each battery coming all
>the way forword for the two battery busses. These would be easier to
>route.
OOPS! Battery busses go right at the battery. Leads from
always hot side of battery contactor to battery bus
should be as short as practical. You don't want long runs
of always hot wire running through structure. Note the
(*) symbol on various wires in the diagrams . . . this
suggest 6" long leads is a good thing to strive for.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 42 Msgs - 02/28/05 |
Nice schematic and software design tool Vern (this looks useful)! Thanks for
sharing...
Jay
From: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument Panel Wiring
I designed a removable panel for my RV-9A. A complete editable schematic, plus
special wiring adapters to allow panel disconnect using D-sub connectors are
shown.
http://www3.telus.net/aviation/vx
Thanks, Vern Little RV-9A
=====
__________________________________
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: Re: question re Z-19 |
Sorry but I do not know. Just that hi quality rebuilders say later versions
are better. Lots of rebuilders out there and lots of freplacement regulators
also and not all are the same.
Wish I could help. NAPA as with others have various quality products and
priced that way.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Kuss" <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: question re Z-19
>
>
> At 08:09 PM 3/1/2005, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>The ND alternator field does not latch and the latest design ND internal
>>regulator does have OV protection built in.
> snipped
>
> Paul,
> When was this "latest design" regulator instituted by ND? (year) I have a
> 60 amp unit which was remanufactured by NAPA 2 years ago.
> Charlie Kuss
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: wire labeling practices |
My unit handles up to 3 lines on 6mm 1/4" thru 3/4 and then you cut as
needed. (one line on 1/4 and 3 on 3/4 that is)
The key is the tape type that does not blacken.
6 point type is really small and will wrap around once plus a little with
the type readable.
3 lines of type on 3/4" tape and then cut around the letters is lower cost
than one line trimmed.
Easiest to find is 1/2" tape and here 2 lines work on my machine with lots
of room for trimming.
The ability of the machines varies quite a lot with type fonts and sizes
etc.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: wire labeling practices
>
>
> what width tape did you use?
> Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: wire labeling practices
>
>
>>
>>
>> Very true and I wonder why we do not have a list of old tips?
>>
>> Having a place for FAQ's would, I think greatly help cut down on recycled
>> threads etc
>>
>> The labeling 'heat blackout' issue was thrashed out several years ago on
>> this list as I recall.
>>
>> There are several different brands and different types of tape within
>> some
>> brands.
>>
>> One that worked then, and I have used it with great success with small
>> type
>> and clear heat shrink is the following.
>>
>> I learned of it on this list 2-3 years ago so why the rehashing old what
>> was
>> solved before?
>>
>> Brother P touch machines using TZ tape works others do not.
>>
>> I obtained a P-Touch 1800 that prints 3 lines and type from 6 point to 26
>> point that is great for even #22 wire. Getting very flexible heat shrink
>> (it
>> cones in many types and flexibilities) worked for me. Cost $19.00 at the
>> time as it was on sale.
>>
>> In any event the key is the TZ tape.
>>
>> I really suggest a place on the web where FAQ's can be stored and that
>> could
>> really reduce the seemingly never-ending recycling of questions from year
>> to
>> year, or (in some cases) several times a year for the same or nearly the
>> same question.
>>
>> This way Bob's time could be spent on new ideas etc that could benefit
>> all
>> of us.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: wire labeling practices
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>After observing the "primer wars" for several years now on the various
>>>>homebuilder lists...I believe we now have our own version! May
>>>>these become known in history as...the "wire labeling wars"!
>>>
>>>
>>> How about "investigations and debate?" This has come up before and
>>> WILL come up again. If the List is to serve as a good class room,
>>> there will always be new students, new technologies to be explored,
>>> and old myths to be debunked. The big deal is that we strive
>>> to be good teachers and offer the best we know how to do
>>> irrespective of how many times it has been covered in the past.
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: Re: Re: question re Z-19 |
Latching was meant (by me at least) is do you retain control with the
external control lead. I have several brands that once turned on stay on and
opening the control lead makes no difference. Thus with these alternators a
simple push button momentary switch is all you need.
If the external lead is non latching as in late model ND internal regulators
you can turn off the regulator and kill the output of the alternator IF THE
internal regulator has not failed short. Its this last failure mode that
requires the "B" lead cutter.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: Re: question re Z-19
>
>
> If I understand correctly, you're saying that even 'non latching' field
> leads on internal VRs do not absolutely control the power to the
> alternator
> field (right?).
>
> I put the external OVP only in the field circuit, expecting that removing
> power to that lead kills the field (and therefor alternator output) -
> period. If that is not the case, it's not really 'non-latching', by my
> definition anyway.
>
> I'm not against the contactor on the B-lead, but figured on saving the
> weight and complexity if it added no value. Apparently it does.
>
> Dennis Glaeser
>
>
>
>
> The ND alternator field does not latch and the latest design ND internal
> regulator does have OV protection built in.
>
> However there is a seldom seen failure where the internal field switch
> fails
> short and the only way to stop the full output of the alternator is with
> an
> external opening of the power output lead "B" lead wire.
>
> VAN's, EXPBUS, NSI, Eggenfelner etc. do not protect for this; only here on
> the Aeroelectric list is this failure mode addressed (as far as I can
> tell)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | AI Nut <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
Subject: | Spark plug pickup? |
Does anyone know a convenient, cheap way to read an engine's spark plug
signals into an oscilloscope? Would one of those inductive pickups
work, with suitable connector change at the o'scope end?
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: question re Z-19 |
>
>
>If I understand correctly, you're saying that even 'non latching' field
>leads on internal VRs do not absolutely control the power to the alternator
>field (right?).
>
>I put the external OVP only in the field circuit, expecting that removing
>power to that lead kills the field (and therefor alternator output) -
>period. If that is not the case, it's not really 'non-latching', by my
>definition anyway.
>
>I'm not against the contactor on the B-lead, but figured on saving the
>weight and complexity if it added no value. Apparently it does.
>
>Dennis Glaeser
Measure current in the control lead while the alternator is running
with engine at low RPM and lots of "stuff" turned on. If the current
is less than 2A . . . field current is being controlled internally
to the alternator with some manner of solid state device. This is
the device that will launch system voltage to the mood when it shorts.
If the current is over 2A and the alternator shuts down when control
switch is opened, then it's likely that ov protection concentrating
on the control lead will suffice.
Understand that it's risky to make any deduction of alternator
internal configuration and behavior based on make/model of alternator
unless it's factory new or known to be stock. Once an after-market
regulator is fitted to the alternator, all bets are off with
respect to abnormal behavior. I'm seeing traffic on several
'net lists where the pedigree of Van's alternators cannot
be deduced . . .
This internal regulator thing has been a real pain in the arse.
For the first 10 years of publishing I stuck to my recommendations
for purchasing modified alternators or modifying them yourself
to use external regulation. Then as a designer I could state that
external ov protection on the field-lead will do the job EVERY
time. However, there are huge market pressures to use automotive
products right off the car. Risky? Minimally so but NOT zero . . .
and more risky than an externally regulated machine with field-
lead ov protection.
We crafted the low-cost add-on protection for stock automotive
machines only to field some complaints from some quarters about
potential damage to the alternator when the switches were
operated in an unnecessary and inappropriate way. Okay, let's
add some Transorbs. That works for some folks but if the alternator
regulator is slow during a load-dump recovery, the output bump
energy is too much for a Transorb. So another round of
thrashing produces some super Transorbs or combinations of
components that can handle the bump. All this complexity
stacked into a system to avoid modifying the alternator to
perform in an orderly and predictable manner with a minimum
parts count and each little change opens new doors for
problems.
This is a good example of how a "simple" change can have
consequences that ripple through a system's design in
undesirable ways. Earlier today a desire was expressed
for self-exciting alternators. The obvious wish was that
an alternator would start up and produce useful energy sans
battery.
Now we need to consider regulation dynamics and bus noises
when the battery is not present. This is a difficult thing
to predict and defies development of any broad brush
advice. It's a certainty that energy quality will suffer
when the battery is removed. Suffice it to say that one
is best advised to keep some kind of battery on line in
an alternator system so that noise, regulation and excitation
don't even become issues.
This particular missive isn't a crusade or even a
recommendation for everyone to rip out their internal
regulators and buy LR3's from B&C. I would like for
List participants to be aware that "simple" changes
quite often are not so simple and it behooves us to
examine the benefits and risks of "simple" changes
carefully.
>
>The ND alternator field does not latch and the latest design ND internal
>regulator does have OV protection built in.
>
>However there is a seldom seen failure where the internal field switch fails
>short and the only way to stop the full output of the alternator is with an
>external opening of the power output lead "B" lead wire.
>
>VAN's, EXPBUS, NSI, Eggenfelner etc. do not protect for this; only here on
>the Aeroelectric list is this failure mode addressed (as far as I can tell)
Correct. I don't recall seeing ov protection discussed in any
of the texts popular with the OBAM aircraft community. Does anyone
have copies of Tony B's books? I don't think he discussed it either.
I have seen numerous OV conditions in externally regulated systems in
certified aircraft . . . and there have been at least two OV
events in internally regulated alternators discussed here on
the list in years past. So it all goes to personal assessments
of risk mitigation. Van's is perfectly happy recommending that
straight automotive alternators run "barefoot" and has thousands
of hours anecdotal data to back it up. At the same time, I doubt that
anyone at Van's has dissected one of their alternators to
deduce its failure modes. Yet there are folks trying to make
design decisions based on inadequate knowledge of the components
they're working with. I've been bit enough times to understand
the need for an intimate working knowledge of the components
I plan to use.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: Switch type//battery |
I think its a warning to be careful of counting on your battery in an
emergency if you have not load checked and factored in latest AH results.
I feel that even a 10% reduction in AH is cause for concern.
My recent load testing included 3 different batteries.
a PC680, PC625 and the before mentioned 12V18AH Powersonic.
The PC680 was new and load tested near advertised capacity.
The PC625 was 4 years old and while not deep discharged it was well used. It
also tested like new and had 10% more AH than the PC680.
The 2 year old Powersonic had lost 66% of its AH but otherwise appeared fine
in all other respects.
As Bob has said the AGM batteries fail in AH and not in cranking power or
terminal voltage so there is no way I can see to determine AH other than to
test it.
There is no way I would fly with a battery that had not been load tested
first (even a brand new one) and on at least an annual basis. As its so
simple to load test (today) I plan on testing during the year as my acft
requires lots of amps to keep the engine running (10+ amps that is for one
of 2 systems available to run things.
Hi pressure fuel pump 5-7 amps, ign 2-5 amps, injectors and computer 4-6
amps (for one system) ; amps are based on engine rpm and higher rpm is
higher current.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch type//battery
>
>
> So... what does this mean in the experimental realm... anyone hazard a
> guess
> ?
>
> BTW, Paul... welcome back
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch type//battery
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Scott Winn (Matronics List)" <swmat(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | EFIS Backup Battery |
Bob,
What I'd really like to have is a 'charge fault' light. Is there a
simple way to attach an LED that would light IF charge voltage is
present on main bus AND the output of the relay has not been driven to
ground (I.E. bad relay)?
--Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Backup Battery
-->
>
>
>Bob,
>
>This is exactly what I was looking for.
>
>For the small 1.2AH assist battery I'd like to hardwire it into 'auto'
>mode, would this be a problem?
The switch might be a better deal . . . if the LV sensor
dies, you have a manual option for getting the relay closed.
>Can I replace the contactor with something smaller like a relay for
>this small battery?
Most certainly. Suggest S704-1 from B&C or similar
>Also, I've already got a voltage warning light from the LR3C regulator.
>Does this warning light provide any additional functionality?
No, but you'd like to have some notification of proper
functionality. Instead of a second LV warning, put a blue
or green lamp in parallel with the relay coil to show that
it is receiving power after the engine starts and the bus
voltage rises.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: question re Z-19 |
Bob, remember the AH rating of batteries are based on at least 10 hour rate
and many at 20 hour rate.
A discharge of 10 amps from a 20 amp hour battery is less that 2 hours
useful as that rate is at least 5 times the AH its rated at. The higher the
discharge rate the lower the total AH that is available for the user. Also
the final power may be at a terminal voltage below that needed for some or
all uses.
In addition the real load must be known for duration. its voltage dependent
in many cases.
Some equipment will have lower current as the voltage goes down and some
will have a higher current. Depends on the device and its power conversion
if any.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: question re Z-19
>
>
>> So if you want 2 hours
> endurance and 10A of load, a 20 a.h. battery is called for
> as a minimum. 24 gives you 20% headroom. If you use a pair of
> 17 a.h. batteries and want the same 20% headroom, then 17
> x .8 gives you 13.6 or 1.3 hours at 10 amps load.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | wing strobe wire disconnects |
I'm planning to run my Whelan strobe lines (including shield) through 4-pin
Molex mate-n-loc connectors at the wing roots. Does this seem reasonable?
Jay
=====
__________________________________
http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Re: Re: question re Z-19 |
From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I haven't been keeping up with all of this stuff, but your comments
suggest an acceptable design and operational mode for new ND ir
alternators. If I just want to turn the alternator off (for whatever
reason - maybe debugging a noise problem), I can use the control
lead. This allows you to then disconnect the battery (if you are so
inclined) without load dump, as long as you turned the alternator off
first.
If the system goes overvoltage, the only solution is to allow some
OV circuit to open the B-lead contactor, at which point you might
not care about the load dump situation. You just don't want the
alternator connected to your expensive electronics. The remaining
thing I wonder about is whether getting a false OV event will cause
the load dumping alternator to fry itself. That would be a bummer.
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
>
> Latching was meant (by me at least) is do you retain control with the
> external control lead. I have several brands that once turned on stay on
> and opening the control lead makes no difference. Thus with these
> alternators a simple push button momentary switch is all you need.
>
> If the external lead is non latching as in late model ND internal
> regulators you can turn off the regulator and kill the output of the
> alternator IF THE internal regulator has not failed short. Its this
> last failure mode that requires the "B" lead cutter.
>
> Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: question re Z-19 |
From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
How 'good' does a battery have to be in order for it to reliably
start an alternator? What are the fail modes that a modern battery
can suffer which will render it unable to fire and stabilize the alternator.
With glass mat seperators, a shorted cell is unlikely, suggesting that
the voltage with a light load (initial field current excitation) will be
adequate, even with a relatively dead battery.
If my main alternator fails and I am running more loads than my backup
alternator can keep up with, is the behavior going to be that the bus
voltage will sag until some devices stop performing?
Someone commented that their ignition system needs 6A at cruise
power. That's a lot of joules. Maybe too many, considering the
required design tradeoffs. Maybe that's fine for a sport plane, but
not one which you want to be able to burn all your gas before you
use all your Amps. Surely there's a less thirsty EI out there for your
engine. Maybe consumer demand would drive a limp-home mode
where you don't generate so many MSD's if the alternator dies,
dropping power consumption.
Regards,
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
Subject: | Re: question re Z-19 |
> ... Van's is perfectly happy recommending that
> straight automotive alternators run "barefoot" and has thousands
> of hours anecdotal data to back it up. At the same time, I doubt that
> anyone at Van's has dissected one of their alternators to
> deduce its failure modes. ...
Agreed. Additionally, as much as Van's would like to hear about
failures in the field, I doubt they get as much feedback from
their customers as you guys in the certified world do. And I'm
sure you would prefer to get more info than you already do.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl> |
Subject: | Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
>
>
>Your chart for the SD-8 is correct and the % power vs rpm for the Rotax is
>also correct. However, the vacuum pump drive pad turns at 54% of engine
>speed. So when you are at 75% power (5000 engine rpm) the SD-8 is turning
>2700 rpm (54% of 5000) which outputs about 5 amps. That's why I have fitted
>a larger alternator driven off the rear of the crankshaft.
>
>Jim Butcher Europa A185 N241BW
>
The chart takes into account the 54% indeed.
The matter is not urgent for me, unfortunately, but I would be very
interested to know more about a less marginal alternative to the SD-8
that is not driven by a belt. Have you posted details somewhere? Or will
you?
Thank you,
Jan de Jong, Europa 461
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl> |
Subject: | Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
>
>
>>>
>>> The Rotax standard alternator is permanent magnet. VERY robust.
>>> The weakest link in Rotax's electrical system is their piece of
>>> @#$@# regulator. There are more robust products out there. Further,
>>> one might craft a dual regulator system to back up the standard
>>> regulator. Putting an SD-8 on the Rotax vacuum pump drive is a
>>> VERY marginal proposition.
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>Hi Bob and all,
>
>Some time ago I could lay my hands on a 912 Rotax alternator. A buddy
>machined a drive coupling to run the unit on test bench. As he is an
>researcher in things electrical, we made a survey of the unit and the
>Ducati-Rotax regulator. I posted some of his conclusions on this list
>some months ago.
>To make things short, the Rotax regulator cannot deliver the advertised
>output without overheating. Nevertheless, students made some cooling
>tests, and a fan or blast tube can greatly improve things.
>The safe maximal continuous output seems to be about 12-14 amps.
>We chose to use a German Schicke GR4.
>When I have some spare time I'll craft some webpages on the results of
>our investigations.
>
>Regards,
>
>Gilles Thesee
>Grenoble, France
>16 happy test hours on our MCR 4S
>
>
>
Schicke's website is:
http://www.schicke-electronic.de/
Their engineering is probably very good but their marketing and sales
are not.
The website doesn't mention GR4 but it describes GR3.
The GR3 needs either a battery or a capacitor of at least 10000uF.
When it doesn't charge the included led lights.
When it charges the led is out.
When the regulator fuse has popped the led blinks.
This may be a good self-exciting regulator for the SD-8, although the
fuse shown is only 10A.
Jan de Jong
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mark Hall" <mhall67(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Subject: | Question on the Axiliary battery manager |
I'm new at this wiring thing so forgive me if this has been hashed out before.
First it took some time for me to understand that using fuses are OK for aircraft.
I will need something like this battery manager for my project to keep the
EFIS and other stuff running when starting. What I don't understand is, are
there places that I should use breakers like it shows in the Figure 7 batter
manager wiring for the ALT field or can I use a fuse here too?
Thanks
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
>Schicke's website is:
>http://www.schicke-electronic.de/
>Their engineering is probably very good but their marketing and sales
>are not.
>The website doesn't mention GR4 but it describes GR3.
>The GR3 needs either a battery or a capacitor of at least 10000uF.
>When it doesn't charge the included led lights.
>When it charges the led is out.
>When the regulator fuse has popped the led blinks.
>This may be a good self-exciting regulator for the SD-8, although the
>fuse shown is only 10A.
>
>
>
Jan,
You're right, they don't mention the GR4, despite the fact they sell it
to numerous ultra light manufacturers : the CT 80, FK 9, etc...
When I sent an email to Mr Schicke, he sent back the following document,
in german only :
http://gilles.thesee.free.fr/temp/GR4.pdf
We conducted some tests on the GR4. The output voltage is around 14.2
volts rather than the (in my opinion) puny 13.7-13.8 V of the Rotax.
It also produces a generous amount of heat, but the radiator seems
larger and more capable of real heat rejection.
The rated output is 16 amps, more than the Ducati practical number.
Contrary to the Ducati-Rotax unit it doesn't need to have a voltage
applied to it's sense wire to come to life. And so might not turn off
when the sense wire is grounded. This could change the philosophy of the
OV protection.
Any opinion about this point ? Bob ?
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Re: Re: question re Z-19 |
>
>I haven't been keeping up with all of this stuff, but your comments
>suggest an acceptable design and operational mode for new ND ir
>alternators. If I just want to turn the alternator off (for whatever
>reason - maybe debugging a noise problem), I can use the control
>lead. This allows you to then disconnect the battery (if you are so
>inclined) without load dump, as long as you turned the alternator off
>first.
>
>If the system goes overvoltage, the only solution is to allow some
>OV circuit to open the B-lead contactor, at which point you might
>not care about the load dump situation. You just don't want the
>alternator connected to your expensive electronics. The remaining
>thing I wonder about is whether getting a false OV event will cause
>the load dumping alternator to fry itself. That would be a bummer.
My thoughts exactly.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: question re Z-19 |
>
>How 'good' does a battery have to be in order for it to reliably
>start an alternator?
A "failed" battery will start an alternator. Most systems will
come up with 2 volts or less on the bus supplied from a source
capable of less than 100 milliamps. I've seen designers install
2 d-cells in series along with a diode/push-button arrangement
to prod an alternator into action. One version of a C-337
system took AC power from a 3-phase tachometer generator and
rectified it to DC. Another push-button/resistor arrangement
allowed the pilot to bring a stalled alternator to life.
> What are the fail modes that a modern battery
>can suffer which will render it unable to fire and stabilize the alternator.
>With glass mat seperators, a shorted cell is unlikely, suggesting that
>the voltage with a light load (initial field current excitation) will be
>adequate, even with a relatively dead battery.
Excellent question . . . a properly maintained RG battery
has a reliability factor approaching that of prop bolts.
The problem with a "relatively dead" battery is that you
cannot get the battery contactor closed. Again, some designers
have gone to the effort of supplying contactor power from
both battery side and bus side through diodes like we do
with crossfeed contactors. They also take a pushbutton from
the battery bus through a current limiting resistor directly
to the altenrator field terminal. With a "dead" battery,
and the engine running. One has a good chance of bringing
the alternator on line.
Of course, this is a feature one hopes would only be
used on the ground and that the battery contains a healthy
charge on it before departure.
>If my main alternator fails and I am running more loads than my backup
>alternator can keep up with, is the behavior going to be that the bus
>voltage will sag until some devices stop performing?
I presume you will retain the ACTIVE notification of low
voltage warning system. You would be ill advised to
operate in the en route mode with that light flashing
at you. Once the airport is in sight, turn on anything
that suits your fancy. While the light may now be flashing,
it doesn't matter because you've retained 100% of battery
capacity for the approach to landing.
>Someone commented that their ignition system needs 6A at cruise
>power. That's a lot of joules. Maybe too many, considering the
>required design tradeoffs. Maybe that's fine for a sport plane, but
>not one which you want to be able to burn all your gas before you
>use all your Amps. Surely there's a less thirsty EI out there for your
>engine. Maybe consumer demand would drive a limp-home mode
>where you don't generate so many MSD's if the alternator dies,
>dropping power consumption.
This is where p-mags have opened the door for VERY austere
energy budgets while en route leaving all the battery
available for approach to landing.
The breathtaking energy requirements for engine support
invariably arise from various forms of auto-conversions
where you not only have to light the fires but maintain
tens of PSI fuel pressure. To make matters worse, they
are even less friendly with respect to dual engine
driven power sources.
I'm not suggesting these are evil engines but they are
FORCING careful consideration of system design and operating
philosophy.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: wing strobe wire disconnects |
>
>
>I'm planning to run my Whelan strobe lines (including shield) through 4-pin
>Molex mate-n-loc connectors at the wing roots. Does this seem reasonable?
sure
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Performance |
>
>Bob, remember the AH rating of batteries are based on at least 10 hour rate
>and many at 20 hour rate.
>
>A discharge of 10 amps from a 20 amp hour battery is less that 2 hours
>useful as that rate is at least 5 times the AH its rated at. The higher the
>discharge rate the lower the total AH that is available for the user. Also
>the final power may be at a terminal voltage below that needed for some or
>all uses.
>
>In addition the real load must be known for duration. its voltage dependent
>in many cases.
>
>Some equipment will have lower current as the voltage goes down and some
>will have a higher current. Depends on the device and its power conversion
>if any.
>
>Paul
Absolutely. Thanks for bringing this up. Listers, go get the data
sheets on your proposed battery. Batteries we use in the pig-iron
are 1-hour rated. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Capacity_vs_Voltage.gif
For a typical 37 a.h. battery, we can load it to 37 amps
and have it deliver 100% or better of rated capacity. Note
that when we load it at a 2C rate (the ubiquitous 30 minute
requirement) the available capacity falls to about 95% of
rated. If we load it heavier yet, more and more otherwise
useful energy is tossed off in the battery's internal
resistance leaving less and less for running electro-whizzies
in the airplane.
For example: Go to http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data
and click on Batteries . . .
On the 1217 battery data sheet take a look at the
discharge characteristics graph. Note that with a
17 amp load, the battery falls below 11 volts (5%
remaining capacity) in about 30 minutes. If you load
this battery in the original spirit of crafting
an austere e-bus load of say 4 amps, note that it
will deliver useful energy for over 2 hours. If you
want 4 hours of useful power, you need to get down
into the 3 amp range for e-bus loads.
Take a look at the X1220 battery, it will support
a 4A load for 4 hours. The 1233 will support 6+ amps
for 4 hours. This is the foundation for the
suggested 20% headroom in an earlier post but forgive
me, rules-of-thumb are in poor taste when real data
are available.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Spark plug pickup? |
>
>Does anyone know a convenient, cheap way to read an engine's spark plug
>signals into an oscilloscope? Would one of those inductive pickups
>work, with suitable connector change at the o'scope end?
>
>Thanks.
I have used inductive pickups to detect spark plug CURRENT
but never with a goal of characterizing waveform or making
accurate measurements. Tektronix and others have current
probes that would probably do accurate waveform presentation.
See
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=50971&item=3876885503&rd=1
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=0&item=3878259799&rd=1
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Rick Girard <fly.ez(at)verizon.net> |
Subject: | Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
Harley Davidson motorcycles use a PM alternator. Their regulator /
rectifier is available for about $50 to $60 and can handle up to 30 amps.
Rick Girard
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
>
>Harley Davidson motorcycles use a PM alternator. Their regulator /
>rectifier is available for about $50 to $60 and can handle up to 30 amps.
Found some listings at:
http://www.legendmcs.com/Electrical-Ignition/regulators-mounting-brackets-covers.html
Looks like good potential for a beefy replacement of
marginal PM regulators. I'll e-mail these folks and
see if they'll send me installation manuals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl> |
Subject: | Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914 |
> **
>
>When I sent an email to Mr Schicke, he sent back the following document,
>in german only :
>
>http://gilles.thesee.free.fr/temp/GR4.pdf
>
>We conducted some tests on the GR4. The output voltage is around 14.2
>volts rather than the (in my opinion) puny 13.7-13.8 V of the Rotax.
>It also produces a generous amount of heat, but the radiator seems
>larger and more capable of real heat rejection.
>The rated output is 16 amps, more than the Ducati practical number.
>
> **
Thank you Gilles.
Strange that Schicke draws and sizes the fuse ("max. 16A") as protecting
the regulator against delivering too much current instead of protecting
wiring from the battery. It is a way I suppose. Do you use a CB for this
fuse? Ever have to reset it?
> **
>
>Contrary to the Ducati-Rotax unit it doesn't need to have a voltage
>applied to it's sense wire to come to life. And so might not turn off
>when the sense wire is grounded. This could change the philosophy of the
>OV protection.
>
>
> **
Do you mean it will operate (apart from the led) without the 0.2A fuse
in circuit?
It must because it can work without a battery:
"Funktionsmerkmale" says (approximately):
"When the main switch is operated the charge verification light lights
up.It goes out as soon as the generator supplies current. If/when the
battery voltage exceeds regulation voltage the generator is separated
from the battery and charging is thereby interrupted. When the voltage
drops charging resumes. Instead of the battery a capacitor of at least
10000uF can be connected."
> ****
>
>Any opinion about this point ? Bob ?
>
> ****
OV protection from the Ducati-Rotax regulator does not rely on dropping
the control line anyway. The protection is in dropping the relay. IMHO.
I have another question: how much do these regulators cost
approximately? No prices on the website either...
Jan de Jong
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Battery Load tester |
Bob/Paul
As I am going to use the same engine Paul M described requiring up to 10 amps
@ high RPM.
Any recommendations for a battery load tester for the OBAM tool kit?
Mark Banus
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Load tester |
> ...
> Any recommendations for a battery load tester for the OBAM tool
kit?
>
> Mark Banus
>
Harbor Freight Tools has both 50A and 100A load testers, low-priced of
course. They are intended for automotive batteries of typically
higher capacity than we use. But good enough if you know what a new,
fully-charged battery of your capacity will read on its voltmeter.
The lower the cranking amps spec, the more it will try to tell you
that your battery is marginal when it really isn't. However,
discharging to 80% of volts and doing the math on the time required
may cause these things to get too hot. But they are handy for
automotive use if you can't test your electrolyte.
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Subject: | Re: question re Z-19 |
Bob,
Thanks for the explanation on how to check the field lead.
I wholeheartedly empathize with your 'pain in the arse' comments. The
automotive folks have done us almost a favor by making alternators more
reliable and less expensive, but messed it up by putting in IRs, and even
worse by making it difficult to remove them.
Adding external OVP, a contactor, and a transorb (or 3), does add parts and
complexity. But these are relatively inexpensive, not all that difficult to
do, and lower risk than not doing them (IMHO of course).
I appreciate your tolerance for 'pain', and devising solutions despite it.
Dennis Glaeser
Nuckolls, III"
>
>
>If I understand correctly, you're saying that even 'non
latching' field
>leads on internal VRs do not absolutely control the power
to the alternator
>field (right?).
>
>I put the external OVP only in the field circuit, expecting
that removing
>power to that lead kills the field (and therefor alternator
output) -
>period. If that is not the case, it's not really
'non-latching', by my
>definition anyway.
>
>I'm not against the contactor on the B-lead, but figured on
saving the
>weight and complexity if it added no value. Apparently it
does.
>
>Dennis Glaeser
Measure current in the control lead while the alternator
is running
with engine at low RPM and lots of "stuff" turned on. If
the current
is less than 2A . . . field current is being controlled
internally
to the alternator with some manner of solid state device.
This is
the device that will launch system voltage to the mood
when it shorts.
If the current is over 2A and the alternator shuts down
when control
switch is opened, then it's likely that ov protection
concentrating
on the control lead will suffice.
Understand that it's risky to make any deduction of
alternator
internal configuration and behavior based on make/model
of alternator
unless it's factory new or known to be stock. Once an
after-market
regulator is fitted to the alternator, all bets are off
with
respect to abnormal behavior. I'm seeing traffic on
several
'net lists where the pedigree of Van's alternators cannot
be deduced . . .
This internal regulator thing has been a real pain in the
arse.
For the first 10 years of publishing I stuck to my
recommendations
for purchasing modified alternators or modifying them
yourself
to use external regulation. Then as a designer I could
state that
external ov protection on the field-lead will do the job
EVERY
time. However, there are huge market pressures to use
automotive
products right off the car. Risky? Minimally so but NOT
zero . . .
and more risky than an externally regulated machine with
field-
lead ov protection.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Load tester |
Thanks Fred.
I will be using RG batteries. I can live with a false "bad" but not a false
"good" as I need electrons to make noise.
Any other suggestions?
Mark Banus
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Load tester |
>
> > ...
> > Any recommendations for a battery load tester for the OBAM tool
>kit?
> >
> > Mark Banus
> >
>
>Harbor Freight Tools has both 50A and 100A load testers, low-priced of
>course. They are intended for automotive batteries of typically
>higher capacity than we use. But good enough if you know what a new,
>fully-charged battery of your capacity will read on its voltmeter.
>The lower the cranking amps spec, the more it will try to tell you
>that your battery is marginal when it really isn't. However,
>discharging to 80% of volts and doing the math on the time required
>may cause these things to get too hot. But they are handy for
>automotive use if you can't test your electrolyte.
>
>Fred F.
In the interest of clarity of meaning, let's consider the
terms used to describe battery tests . . .
Load Test: In the aircraft world, this refers to a test
wherein the battery's performance under heavy load is
measured. At Concord and Hawker, the final test of a battery
before it is crated is to place so heavy a load on the battery
that its terminal voltage falls to 1/2 the open circuit value.
A little consideration of this condition reveals that
1/2 voltage is achieved when the EXTERNAL test load resistance
is equal to the INTERNAL resistance of the battery. This
load is maintained for 15 seconds and current measured at the
end of the test interval. This must be greater than some
minimum value cited in the battery's specifications. Numbers
in the 1000-1500 amps range are not uncommon for a biz-jet
battery.
Capacity Test (or "Cap Check"): This is a test to confirm
the battery's total energy content -AND- the ability to
deliver it to the outside world. As mentioned in an earlier
post, the apparent capacity can be markedly different than
the true capacity depending on what current prevails during
the test. Higher currents induce higher internal
losses such that the apparent or useful capacity is reduced.
If the load test cited above were continued until the terminal
voltage falls to 5.5 volts then one would realize only one-half
of the total energy stored as useful output. All the rest
would be used up heating the battery internally . . . probably
to destruction. After only a 15 second test, the battery is
markedly warm to the touch in spite of the fact that only
about 5 a.h. of a 40 a.h. battery has been expended.
As Paul mentioned earlier, the apparent capacity you wish for
may be different than the nameplate capacity. This is not a
suggestion of subterfuge on the part of battery manufacturers.
Manufacturers attempt to rate a battery into the service for
which it is designed. When you want a battery to provide backup
lighting for extended periods, the capacity might be given as
a 20 hour rate. When you want a battery to perform in an
"emergency" situation for bringing an airplane down comfortably,
the duration for rating the battery may be much shorter . . .
like 1 hour.
When aviation shops do a CAP CHECK on a battery, it will be at
some fairly heavy rate like 1/2 hour rate . . . because this
is the battery's most critical task aboard the airplane and
is probably an all-inclusive test. A battery that's up to
the 1/2 hour discharge test is certainly capable of cranking
an engine.
This is why Paul's reminder prompted my comments on the
importance of acquiring the test data for any battery that
you're considering for your project.
"Load Testers" in the automotive world are typical of
the gizmos sold in parts stores and Harbor Freight. These
are small, high current resistors and a voltmeter that
make fair guess as to the battery's performance
in the all important CRANKING mode. These testers are NOT
suited for deducing a battery's ability to keep things
working after the alternator craps.
In the chapter on batteries, I proposed a battery capacity
tester that provides an accurate relative measurement
of battery capacity. It uses an electric clock to measure
the time it takes for some nominal load (like 4.5 amps of
lighting load) to discharge a battery to the point where
a relay drops out stopping the clock. I suggested that you
test a new battery and note the reading obtained. Using
the time interval from the first test to make a relative
deduction as to loss of capacity during later tests.
Now, adjust those loads to some value commensurate with
your e-bus or electrically dependent engine loads and
the clock will show you a fair representation of your
expected endurance at that load.
Given that apparent capacity is both time and load dependent,
there are NO off-the-shelf instruments in the automotive
world capable of deducing useful battery capacity.
The professional tools for capacity measurement are
probably beyond the reach of average-Joe OBAM aircraft
owners. I'll get with my byte-thrasher guy and see
if we can craft an etched circuit board with micro-
processor and a/d that would form the seed of a kit
whereby po' folks can afford to build and own a reasonably
accurate capacity meter.
In the mean time, please be aware of the limitations of
testing a battery with off-the-shelf automotive tools.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Load tester |
What you want is NOT a battery load tester but a battery capacity tester.
Very different.
A load tester tells you the terminal voltage under a typically hi current
load.
A Capacity tester measures the amp hour capacity of the battery.
www.westmountainradio.com has the one I use as well as being used by several
FBO's for annual checks.
It puts a constant current load on the battery that you program the amount
of current as well as the cutoff point. Then you get a graphic display of
volts vs. time at that current as well as the Amp hour delivered down to the
cutoff point.
It needs a computer with a USB port and is $100. max current for a lead acid
battery is 7.5 amps regardless of the advertising that may lead you to think
it can load to 10 amps.
However its very accurate and has the ability to record battery temp with a
optional temp probe.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery Load tester
>
> Bob/Paul
> As I am going to use the same engine Paul M described requiring up to
> 10 amps @ high RPM.
> Any recommendations for a battery load tester for the OBAM tool kit?
>
> Mark Banus
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | pinout for Narco Mk 24 ? |
Hi all,
A buddy found a Narco Mark 24 VHF. Anyone happen to have the
corresponding pinout ?
Any input appreciated,
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Load tester |
>Thanks Fred.
> I will be using RG batteries. I can live with a false "bad" but
> not a false "good" as I need electrons to make noise. Any other
> suggestions?
>Mark Banus
>
I didn't mean to imply it will give you a "false good" reading." My
50A version was only $15, and the meter scale on it purports to report
condition on a "rainbow" of scales for batts between 200 and 1000
cranking amps, but the translated lliterature doesn't say whether
that's CA, CCA, HCA, or cranking amps on Pluto.
As Bob has stated in his post here, battery mfrs do not specify this
type of test, and the units a good auto shop uses run about $1,000.
However, you need only know what your battery should read at best, at
room temperature range, and the thing will tell you future condition
as the battery weakens, if only approximately so.
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Load tester |
" .......Given that apparent capacity is both time and load dependent, there
are NO off-the-shelf instruments in the automotive world capable of deducing
useful battery capacity.
The professional tools for capacity measurement are
probably beyond the reach of average-Joe OBAM aircraft
owners. I'll get with my byte-thrasher guy and see
if we can craft an etched circuit board with micro-
processor and a/d that would form the seed of a kit
whereby po' folks can afford to build and own a reasonably
accurate capacity meter.
In the mean time, please be aware of the limitations of
testing a battery with off-the-shelf automotive tools.
Bob . . ."
Bob,
Thanks for the detailed explanation of what initially appeared (at least to
this none EE type) a simple question. I am always amazed at how much I don't
know. But learning is what building "experimental aircraft" is all about and
I'm on a steep curve.
If you could provide a circuit board for the OBAM players to give us an accurate
assessment of our battery, I will be first in line.
This issue will become more widespread as the number of electrically dependent
aircraft increase. A good battery assessment could prevent some "dark and
stormy" stories in the future.
I look forward to building your load tester.
Mark Banus
Glasair Super II FT
NSI Subaru
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: pinout for Narco Mk 24 ? |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi all,
>
>A buddy found a Narco Mark 24 VHF. Anyone happen to have the
>corresponding pinout ?
>Any input appreciated,
I checked the database I have and it only shows the MK12.
Sorry.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Load tester |
>
>What you want is NOT a battery load tester but a battery capacity tester.
>Very different.
>
>A load tester tells you the terminal voltage under a typically hi current
>load.
>
>A Capacity tester measures the amp hour capacity of the battery.
>
>www.westmountainradio.com has the one I use as well as being used by several
>FBO's for annual checks.
>
>It puts a constant current load on the battery that you program the amount
>of current as well as the cutoff point. Then you get a graphic display of
>volts vs. time at that current as well as the Amp hour delivered down to the
>cutoff point.
>
>It needs a computer with a USB port and is $100. max current for a lead acid
>battery is 7.5 amps regardless of the advertising that may lead you to think
>it can load to 10 amps.
>
>However its very accurate and has the ability to record battery temp with a
>optional temp probe.
Great catch Paul. I ordered my self one a few minutes ago.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Battery CAPACITY tester |
>
>" .......Given that apparent capacity is both time and load
>dependent, there are NO off-the-shelf instruments in the
>automotive world capable of deducing useful battery capacity.
>
> The professional tools for capacity measurement are
> probably beyond the reach of average-Joe OBAM aircraft
> owners. I'll get with my byte-thrasher guy and see
> if we can craft an etched circuit board with micro-
> processor and a/d that would form the seed of a kit
> whereby po' folks can afford to build and own a reasonably
> accurate capacity meter.
>
> In the mean time, please be aware of the limitations of
> testing a battery with off-the-shelf automotive tools.
>
> Bob . . ."
>
>
>Bob,
> Thanks for the detailed explanation of what initially appeared (at
> least to this none EE type) a simple question. I am always amazed at how
> much I don't know. But learning is what building "experimental aircraft"
> is all about and I'm on a steep curve.
>
> If you could provide a circuit board for the OBAM players to give us
> an accurate assessment of our battery, I will be first in line.
>
> This issue will become more widespread as the number of electrically
> dependent aircraft increase. A good battery assessment could prevent
> some "dark and stormy" stories in the future.
>
> I look forward to building your load tester.
Mark, Check out Paul M's find at
http://www.westmountainradio.com/CBA.htm
For the money, this is a VERY capable product. I just
ordered one for me. It will do about 95% of my battery
testing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Subject: | APU versus battery |
You won't find gigantic batteries on gigantic airplanes---but you will find
APU's (Auxiliary Power Units)--an efficient way of turning fuel into
electricity.
Are tiny APU's reasonable for tiny airplanes?---let's take a look:
Honda makes an excellent 4-cycle 1 hp (GX22) that is approximately 7 pounds
stripped and is roughly an 8-inch cube. (I have taken the liberty of
removing the fuel tank, and muffler, etc.) To this little engine we add a
30A or larger alternator--In fact this little engine could drive a 50A
alternator--minus inefficiency. The completed assembly would be 8X8X12 and
it would weigh about 15 pounds.
Now, with such an APU, we would go out to our airplane, start the APU, wait
a minute to fill up our "UltraCapacitors", and start the engine. As soon as
we achieve a steady idle, we shut down the APU and run the airplane on the
alternator alone. If the main alternator dies---start the APU. Camping out
under the wing--run the APU. Crashed in the outback--run the APU. Dead
battery---Oops--- we have no stinking battery!
The APU would share the common avgas supply, sipping 400 grams per
kilowatt-hour when in use. The air intake and exhaust would port to the
outside. It requires some fooling with because it has a carburetor--so
altitude compensation has to be added. The thing is very quiet.
An interesting choice--and the APU will outlast your airplane.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes
less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe.
For example, there are no solids in the universe. There's
not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute con-
tinuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Load tester |
>
> >Thanks Fred.
> > I will be using RG batteries. I can live with a false "bad" but
> > not a false "good" as I need electrons to make noise. Any other
> > suggestions?
> >Mark Banus
> >
>
>I didn't mean to imply it will give you a "false good" reading." My
>50A version was only $15, and the meter scale on it purports to report
>condition on a "rainbow" of scales for batts between 200 and 1000
>cranking amps, but the translated lliterature doesn't say whether
>that's CA, CCA, HCA, or cranking amps on Pluto.
>
>As Bob has stated in his post here, battery mfrs do not specify this
>type of test, and the units a good auto shop uses run about $1,000.
>However, you need only know what your battery should read at best, at
>room temperature range, and the thing will tell you future condition
>as the battery weakens, if only approximately so.
Fred is correct in that this kind of test can BENCHMARK a battery
but you need to put TIME into the activity. For example, I have
an SB-5 Autometer (See: http://www.batterymart.com/battery.mv?p=ACC-SB-5 )
that's simply a VARIABLE load tester like those found in most
automotive shops. The tester sold by Harbor Freight is a FIXED
load meter and marginally useful.
The SB-5 has a 15 second timer in it that allows one to
manually orchestrate a kind of combination load/capacity
test. You manually adjust the load value such that voltage falls
into the proper point on the voltmeter based on temperature
of the battery. When the timer light stops flashing, note the
current the battery supports at the pre-determined test voltage.
It's not uncommon for a new car battery to test in the 400-600
amp range after 15 seconds (tester really stinks!). A new
Panasonic 1217 will test at 300-350 amps. New Odyssey 17 a.h.
batteries will dump better than 400.
Knowing what this number is lets you make a fair judgement
as to the battery's internal health both in terms of internal
impedance and capacity. I think I'd take it out of service
in an airplane if the test current fell below 250 amps.
However, the SB-5 is half a kilobuck and the CBA-II is
only $100 . . . great value. Sombody mail Paul a 5th
of his favorite for this tidbit!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: question re Z-19 |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for the explanation on how to check the field lead.
>
>I wholeheartedly empathize with your 'pain in the arse' comments. The
>automotive folks have done us almost a favor by making alternators more
>reliable and less expensive, but messed it up by putting in IRs, and even
>worse by making it difficult to remove them.
>
>Adding external OVP, a contactor, and a transorb (or 3), does add parts and
>complexity. But these are relatively inexpensive, not all that difficult to
>do, and lower risk than not doing them (IMHO of course).
>
>I appreciate your tolerance for 'pain', and devising solutions despite it.
>
>Dennis Glaeser
No problem, it's my job . . . and certainly easier
to do in the OBAM aircraft world than the heavy-iron
world. Very nearly EVERYTHING we do in certified aircraft
is less than the best we know how to do for a whole host
of reasons!
Bob . . .
>Nuckolls, III"
>
>
> >
> >
> >If I understand correctly, you're saying that even 'non
>latching' field
> >leads on internal VRs do not absolutely control the power
>to the alternator
> >field (right?).
> >
> >I put the external OVP only in the field circuit, expecting
>that removing
> >power to that lead kills the field (and therefor alternator
>output) -
> >period. If that is not the case, it's not really
>'non-latching', by my
> >definition anyway.
> >
> >I'm not against the contactor on the B-lead, but figured on
>saving the
> >weight and complexity if it added no value. Apparently it
>does.
> >
> >Dennis Glaeser
>
> Measure current in the control lead while the alternator
>is running
> with engine at low RPM and lots of "stuff" turned on. If
>the current
> is less than 2A . . . field current is being controlled
>internally
> to the alternator with some manner of solid state device.
>This is
> the device that will launch system voltage to the mood
>when it shorts.
>
> If the current is over 2A and the alternator shuts down
>when control
> switch is opened, then it's likely that ov protection
>concentrating
> on the control lead will suffice.
>
> Understand that it's risky to make any deduction of
>alternator
> internal configuration and behavior based on make/model
>of alternator
> unless it's factory new or known to be stock. Once an
>after-market
> regulator is fitted to the alternator, all bets are off
>with
> respect to abnormal behavior. I'm seeing traffic on
>several
> 'net lists where the pedigree of Van's alternators cannot
> be deduced . . .
>
> This internal regulator thing has been a real pain in the
>arse.
> For the first 10 years of publishing I stuck to my
>recommendations
> for purchasing modified alternators or modifying them
>yourself
> to use external regulation. Then as a designer I could
>state that
> external ov protection on the field-lead will do the job
>EVERY
> time. However, there are huge market pressures to use
>automotive
> products right off the car. Risky? Minimally so but NOT
>zero . . .
> and more risky than an externally regulated machine with
>field-
> lead ov protection.
>
>
>--
>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: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Load tester |
I do not drink alki but I really love to help others.
Your kind thanks makes my day, week, and perhaps month.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Load tester
>
>
> However, the SB-5 is half a kilobuck and the CBA-II is
> only $100 . . . great value. Sombody mail Paul a 5th
> of his favorite for this tidbit!
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Load tester |
I disagree to a small extent. The new AGM batteries seem to loose capacity
and not cranking amps. Thus you can start the engine but not have reserve
power if needed. SEE Bob's comments on this in more detail
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Load tester
>
>
>>Thanks Fred.
>> I will be using RG batteries. I can live with a false "bad" but
>> not a false "good" as I need electrons to make noise. Any other
>> suggestions?
>>Mark Banus
>>
>
> I didn't mean to imply it will give you a "false good" reading." My
> 50A version was only $15, and the meter scale on it purports to report
> condition on a "rainbow" of scales for batts between 200 and 1000
> cranking amps, but the translated lliterature doesn't say whether
> that's CA, CCA, HCA, or cranking amps on Pluto.
>
> As Bob has stated in his post here, battery mfrs do not specify this
> type of test, and the units a good auto shop uses run about $1,000.
> However, you need only know what your battery should read at best, at
> room temperature range, and the thing will tell you future condition
> as the battery weakens, if only approximately so.
>
> Reg,
> Fred F.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl> |
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: Opital sensor |
http://www.gemssensors.com/PDF/Catalog/ELS1100.pdf
http://www.gemssensors.com/PDF/IOM_Bulletins/138184.pdf
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T051/1464.pdf
143570 for $73.95 at Digikey
Jan de Jong
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bryan Hooks" <bryanhooks(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | wing strobe wire disconnects |
Snip
>I'm planning to run my Whelan strobe lines (including shield)
>through 4-pin
>Molex mate-n-loc connectors at the wing roots. Does this seem
>reasonable?
>
>Jay
I just posed this question to Bill at Creative Air. Here is the answer
I got for what it's worth:
Bryan... The problem is that you can't do anything with the strobe
leads...
They need to be continuous and the shield grounded...
However, I should have single strobe power paks soon, then you can put
them
in the wing tips and use connectors at the wing for power leads to
them...
Hope this helps...
-Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "BRYAN HOOKS" <bryanhooks(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Enquiry from CreativAir
I am going to buy your strobe light kit and led positions lights for a
Vans
RV-7A (I'll get the tail pos/strobe combo from vans). Can you please
tell me
if there is an elegant way to make a wiring conector at the wing root,
so
that I can wire the wings and fuselage seperately? I'm building in my
garage
and don't have room to put the wings on just yet, but I'd like to get
the
wiring runs done now.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay
Brinkmeyer
Subject: AeroElectric-List: wing strobe wire disconnects
I'm planning to run my Whelan strobe lines (including shield) through
4-pin
Molex mate-n-loc connectors at the wing roots. Does this seem
reasonable?
Jay
=====
__________________________________
http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Randy Pflanzer" <f1rocket(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: wing strobe wire disconnects |
Sounds like hooey to me. You can certainly cut the strobe leads, including
the ground wire, and insert a 4-pin Molex connector. I've done it and I'm
quite sure many others have as well.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Hooks" <bryanhooks(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: wing strobe wire disconnects
>
>
> Snip
>>I'm planning to run my Whelan strobe lines (including shield)
>>through 4-pin
>>Molex mate-n-loc connectors at the wing roots. Does this seem
>>reasonable?
>>
>>Jay
>
> I just posed this question to Bill at Creative Air. Here is the answer
> I got for what it's worth:
>
> Bryan... The problem is that you can't do anything with the strobe
> leads...
> They need to be continuous and the shield grounded...
>
> However, I should have single strobe power paks soon, then you can put
> them
> in the wing tips and use connectors at the wing for power leads to
> them...
>
> Hope this helps...
>
> -Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "BRYAN HOOKS" <bryanhooks(at)comcast.net>
> To: "CreativAir"
> Subject: Enquiry from CreativAir
>
>
> I am going to buy your strobe light kit and led positions lights for a
> Vans
> RV-7A (I'll get the tail pos/strobe combo from vans). Can you please
> tell me
> if there is an elegant way to make a wiring conector at the wing root,
> so
> that I can wire the wings and fuselage seperately? I'm building in my
> garage
> and don't have room to put the wings on just yet, but I'd like to get
> the
> wiring runs done now.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay
> Brinkmeyer
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: wing strobe wire disconnects
>
>
>
> I'm planning to run my Whelan strobe lines (including shield) through
> 4-pin
> Molex mate-n-loc connectors at the wing roots. Does this seem
> reasonable?
>
> Jay
>
>
> =====
>
>
> __________________________________
> http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Michael Ashura" <ashuramj(at)hotmail.com> |
I have a 35 amp ND--removing external reg for LR-3--I assume (hate doing that)
I can ignore "N" and "E", use only "B" and "F"? Also have left over new Eaton
6041H105 (Master Battery Contactor) and new Prestolite SAW-4204 (Starter solenoid)
from failed Bonanza restoration. Again, I assume these will work in my
RV-6? Thanks, Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks Chris
I had made capacitance senders for my RV6 and thought there might be an
alternativefor my RV9. A friend who is restoring a 1954 Piper Tripacer removed
the
old float resistive senders. One still worked.
I agree. Not very practical.
Peter
On 1 Mar 2005 at 8:32, Chris Horsten wrote:
>
>
> Peter,
>
> Check out http://www.aircraftextras.com/. They have the optical low
> level warnings but it is based on a simple condition: not getting back
> a reflection. If you want to use it for levels, it looks like you
> would have to install several sensors at varying heights and then
> calibrate them. Not very practical. Perhaps there is another sensor
> that will "see" fuel and measure it.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Load tester |
>www.westmountainradio.com has the one I use as well as being used by several
>FBO's for annual checks.
>
>It puts a constant current load on the battery that you program the amount
>of current as well as the cutoff point. Then you get a graphic display of
>volts vs. time at that current as well as the Amp hour delivered down to the
>cutoff point.
>
>It needs a computer with a USB port and is $100. max current for a lead acid
>battery is 7.5 amps regardless of the advertising that may lead you to think
>it can load to 10 amps.
>
>However its very accurate and has the ability to record battery temp with a
>optional temp probe.
Great catch Paul. I ordered my self one a few minutes ago.
Bob . . .
Bob,
Can I assume you will test this device and let us know if it fits the bill?
Thanks
Mark Banus
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Load tester |
> I disagree to a small extent. The new AGM batteries seem to loose
> capacity and not cranking amps. Thus you can start the engine but
not
> have reserve power if needed. SEE Bob's comments on this in more
detail.
>
> Paul
>
That can be possible. I remember from long-ago days in the auto
repair business where sometimes diagnosing occasional odd behavior in
a newish battery was more intuition than science -- given the test
tools we had at the time. Ultimately it came down to our customer
service philosophy on replacement where mild argument with a customer
was preferable to minimizing "callbacks" at the jump-start end of our
trusty tow truck But there's a vast world of difference between
getting to work on time the next morning and launching IFR at night
where your best alternate is forecast marginal.
Regarding computer technology to do what needs to be done re
rechargeable batteries -- fascinating, as recently I bought for $30 a
spare, oriental knockoff, lithium-ion battery off eBay for my tiny,
Sony Cyber-Shot digital camera -- takes even great high-res movies at
20+ fps ref the competition, if you can afford the proprietary memory
cards. The "etailer" made good on a return of the battery, but in
polite email exchanges he refused to believe that a battery -- with
only three terminals of output -- could cause the camera's computer to
display an error message before shutting down the charge operation:
"Use only a genuine Sony Cyber-Shot battery."
So a couple weeks ago, I spotted a genuine Sony battery tagged at $39
at a Circuit City, but the guy at the register wanted $70 for this
tiny thing. Pointing out what display said, he checked computer and
told me, oops, we have the wrong product tag in the display. That's
for the Maxell aftermarket product, out of stock; our mistake is your
gain....
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Load tester |
>
> >www.westmountainradio.com has the one I use as well as being used by several
> >FBO's for annual checks.
> >
> >It puts a constant current load on the battery that you program the amount
> >of current as well as the cutoff point. Then you get a graphic display of
> >volts vs. time at that current as well as the Amp hour delivered down to the
> >cutoff point.
> >
> >It needs a computer with a USB port and is $100. max current for a lead acid
> >battery is 7.5 amps regardless of the advertising that may lead you to think
> >it can load to 10 amps.
> >
> >However its very accurate and has the ability to record battery temp with a
> >optional temp probe.
>
> Great catch Paul. I ordered my self one a few minutes ago.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>Bob,
>
> Can I assume you will test this device and let us know if it fits the
> bill?
Sure, but Paul has already weighed in and I have no
foundation for being skeptical. As soon as it gets here,
I'll test every battery in the shop and then take the batteries
out to RAC for testing on a 10 Killobuck Christie. The
technology to do a good job at this is a rudimentary programming
task using jelly-bean parts. I fully expect the results of my
effort to confirm what Paul has already told us.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: APU versus battery |
Surely you jest. If King Air's have batteries (and they do), then batteries
are for us small guys. APU's in LARGE aircraft are for running all the
accessories while on the ground so the paying customers can enter a
cooled/warmed aircraft and the flight crew can enter the all that stuff into
the FMS.
And for starting those bruts if GPU's are not available at the megalopolis
airports. One still must remember to shut the thing off and to have it
maintained regularily; after all it's really just another engine or one sort
or another. Just what our little planes need, another maintenance item. My
B&C RG battery lasts 6 years with no attention, then it's put out to pasture
and a new one installed. Works for me.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: APU versus battery
>
>
> You won't find gigantic batteries on gigantic airplanes---but you will
> find
> APU's (Auxiliary Power Units)--an efficient way of turning fuel into
> electricity.
>
> Are tiny APU's reasonable for tiny airplanes?---let's take a look:
>
> Honda makes an excellent 4-cycle 1 hp (GX22) that is approximately 7
> pounds
> stripped and is roughly an 8-inch cube. (I have taken the liberty of
> removing the fuel tank, and muffler, etc.) To this little engine we add a
> 30A or larger alternator--In fact this little engine could drive a 50A
> alternator--minus inefficiency. The completed assembly would be 8X8X12 and
> it would weigh about 15 pounds.
>
> Now, with such an APU, we would go out to our airplane, start the APU,
> wait
> a minute to fill up our "UltraCapacitors", and start the engine. As soon
> as
> we achieve a steady idle, we shut down the APU and run the airplane on the
> alternator alone. If the main alternator dies---start the APU. Camping out
> under the wing--run the APU. Crashed in the outback--run the APU. Dead
> battery---Oops--- we have no stinking battery!
>
> The APU would share the common avgas supply, sipping 400 grams per
> kilowatt-hour when in use. The air intake and exhaust would port to the
> outside. It requires some fooling with because it has a carburetor--so
> altitude compensation has to be added. The thing is very quiet.
>
> An interesting choice--and the APU will outlast your airplane.
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> Phone (508) 764-2072
> Email: emjones(at)charter.net
>
> "Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes
> less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe.
> For example, there are no solids in the universe. There's
> not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute con-
> tinuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines."
>
> - R. Buckminster Fuller
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bryan Hooks" <bryanhooks(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | wing strobe wire disconnects |
Good to hear. I wonder if it's got anything to do with HIS power pack?
Seems 'lectrons are 'lectrons though.
Has anyone used the Creative Air strobe power pack and the molex
conectors at the wing root? It's called the EX-AVI-PAK.
-bryan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy
Pflanzer
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: wing strobe wire disconnects
Sounds like hooey to me. You can certainly cut the strobe leads,
including
the ground wire, and insert a 4-pin Molex connector. I've done it and
I'm
quite sure many others have as well.
Randy
F1 Rocket
www.pflanzer-aviation.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Hooks" <bryanhooks(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: wing strobe wire disconnects
>
>
> Snip
>>I'm planning to run my Whelan strobe lines (including shield)
>>through 4-pin
>>Molex mate-n-loc connectors at the wing roots. Does this seem
>>reasonable?
>>
>>Jay
>
> I just posed this question to Bill at Creative Air. Here is the
answer
> I got for what it's worth:
>
> Bryan... The problem is that you can't do anything with the strobe
> leads...
> They need to be continuous and the shield grounded...
>
> However, I should have single strobe power paks soon, then you can put
> them
> in the wing tips and use connectors at the wing for power leads to
> them...
>
> Hope this helps...
>
> -Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "BRYAN HOOKS" <bryanhooks(at)comcast.net>
> To: "CreativAir"
> Subject: Enquiry from CreativAir
>
>
> I am going to buy your strobe light kit and led positions lights for a
> Vans
> RV-7A (I'll get the tail pos/strobe combo from vans). Can you please
> tell me
> if there is an elegant way to make a wiring conector at the wing root,
> so
> that I can wire the wings and fuselage seperately? I'm building in my
> garage
> and don't have room to put the wings on just yet, but I'd like to get
> the
> wiring runs done now.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay
> Brinkmeyer
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: wing strobe wire disconnects
>
>
>
> I'm planning to run my Whelan strobe lines (including shield) through
> 4-pin
> Molex mate-n-loc connectors at the wing roots. Does this seem
> reasonable?
>
> Jay
>
>
> =====
>
>
> __________________________________
> http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: APU versus battery |
>
>You won't find gigantic batteries on gigantic airplanes---but you will find
>APU's (Auxiliary Power Units)--an efficient way of turning fuel into
>electricity.
>
>Are tiny APU's reasonable for tiny airplanes?---let's take a look:
>
>Honda makes an excellent 4-cycle 1 hp (GX22) that is approximately 7 pounds
>stripped and is roughly an 8-inch cube. (I have taken the liberty of
>removing the fuel tank, and muffler, etc.) To this little engine we add a
>30A or larger alternator--In fact this little engine could drive a 50A
>alternator--minus inefficiency. The completed assembly would be 8X8X12 and
>it would weigh about 15 pounds.
>
>Now, with such an APU, we would go out to our airplane, start the APU, wait
>a minute to fill up our "UltraCapacitors", and start the engine. As soon as
>we achieve a steady idle, we shut down the APU and run the airplane on the
>alternator alone. If the main alternator dies---start the APU. Camping out
>under the wing--run the APU. Crashed in the outback--run the APU. Dead
>battery---Oops--- we have no stinking battery!
>
>The APU would share the common avgas supply, sipping 400 grams per
>kilowatt-hour when in use. The air intake and exhaust would port to the
>outside. It requires some fooling with because it has a carburetor--so
>altitude compensation has to be added. The thing is very quiet.
>
>An interesting choice--and the APU will outlast your airplane.
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
About 15 years ago B&C and I teamed with a combustion
research house in Annapolis, MD to progotype a diesel
ground power unit for Grumman. The core engine was
stolen out of a chain saw. The "generator" was a 48v permanent
magnet DC motor that also served as starter. The carb and
head was modified to run diesel in an Otto cycle mode. I did
the software and controls to start the beastie, warm it up,
and regulate throttle for charging voltage.
Years later I learned that during field trials of the whole
system our GPU was the only sub-system that ran as "advertised."
About a year ago, I was involved in a discussion about mating
a small gas engine to a 3-phase, PM alternator. The alternator
could be used as a brushless motor for starting and revert to
generator mode for running. Power from this system would be
VERY clean due to ability to throttle engine for power control
as opposed to hashing up the DC output with switchmode
components. Electrical efficiencies are high too.
The guy is still thinking about it. Our last
discussion centered on the notion of ditching the carb
in favor of throttle-body fuel injection. Most carbs are
very sensitive to contamination, dried out diaphragms, etc.
Fuel injection can be run from the same processor making
the device tolerant to long periods of inactivity.
He's also thinking about going to propane for fuel so as
to eliminate aging issues with gasoline. This particular
application calls for high degree of readiness in spite
of long storage intervals.
I agree with Eric. If price is no object (development
expenses are always gut wrenching), the hardware
to do this kind of thing is laying out there on the
ground. There are no technological dragons to slay.
The pig-iron airplanes are already going to smaller
batteries to start mini-turboshaft engines under
the nacelle which in turn starts the main engine.
Electrical energy required to start the engine is
1/10th that of pure electric start and overall system
weight goes down when 100 pounds of battery and 30 pounds
of starter are replaced with 15 pounds of battery,
2 pounds of starter and 15 pounds of turboshaft
engine for a weight reduction of 98 pounds and a 10x
increase in MTBO of the starting system. Emergency
power is supplied from a similarly miniaturized
APU that runs from kerosene. Big batteries should
be (and generally are) a thing of the past in
many applications not the least of which is aircraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
Has anyone got any experience with this alternator:
http://www.gami.com/frames.htm
It may be a solution for the folks with dual electronic ignitions and EFISs (EFII?)
who want endurance busses that can handle all their endurance loads in a
Z-13 arrangement.
Dan Fritz
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Battery Load tester |
>
>I disagree to a small extent. The new AGM batteries seem to loose capacity
>and not cranking amps. Thus you can start the engine but not have reserve
>power if needed. SEE Bob's comments on this in more detail
>
>Paul
The reason for this apparent aberration in operation
of modern AGM batteries is pretty simple. Consider a
24 a.h. flooded cell with perhaps 12 milliohms source
impedance will Ip test at about 540 amps. As cell
sites die in the battery, capacity goes down and
source impedance goes up approximately on the same
proportion. So a battery degraded to 12 a.h. has
24 milliohms resistance and Ip goes down to 270 amps.
A VSLA/AGM battery starts at about 7 milliohms and Ip
tests at 930 amps. When it degrades to 12 a.h. the
source impedance goes up to 14 milliohms and an Ip
tests at 460 amps.
This means that the half-used VSLA/AGM battery
has about as much cranking ability as a new flooded
battery. This makes casual observation of engine cranking
ability a poor indicator of battery capacity.
Many builders have come to the booth at OSH and extoll
the virtues of the new batteries, "Hey Bill, remember
that battery I bought here 5 years ago, it's still
in my airplane!" I tried to offer the above explanation
to most of them but I don't recall that any of them
bought a new battery on the spot. They were waiting
until it wouldn't crank the engine any more.
This phenomenon won't be so apparent where builders
are down-sizing batteries from 24 a.h. flooded
to 17 a.h. VSLA/AGM. Here there is value in trading
weight for battery longevity especially when it lets
you use commercial off-the-shelf batteries that are
especially inexpensive to purchase.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | EFIS Backup Battery |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>What I'd really like to have is a 'charge fault' light. Is there a
>simple way to attach an LED that would light IF charge voltage is
>present on main bus AND the output of the relay has not been driven to
>ground (I.E. bad relay)?
>
>--Scott
The only way I can think to automate that is two LVW/ABMM. One
to control the relay and a second to monitor that the output
has come up to bus voltage and is now supporting the battery.
The most efficient way would be a rotary selector switch to
zip the voltmeter around to the various battery busses to
see that they are all elevated to main bus voltage as part
of a pre-flight test.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Switch type//battery |
>
>"Paul Messinger" wrote:
>
> > The FAA requires a battery capacity test as part of the annual,
> > as specified by the battery manufacturer ...
> >
>
>That may come as news to some of us. If you're referring to Part 43
>and arguing that the language of FAR 43.13 requires strict adherehnce
>to a manufacturer's service instructions (two long-time A&P/IAs I know
>say it does not, though good judgment should control), the service
>manual for my plane states only to "check specific gravity." My
>battery mfr says, to determine if serviceable, to either check
>specific gravity or do a capacity test without specifics on how to do
>it, and they label both as "suggested methods."
Yeah, there's been a lot of praying over the meanings of
words in the various documents in an effort to deduce The Law.
The FARS have had verbage like this for a some time:
(h) In the event of a complete loss of the primary electrical power
generating system, the battery must be capable of providing at least 30
minutes of electrical power to those loads that are essential to continued
safe flight and landing. The 30 minute time period includes the time needed
for the pilots to recognize loss of power and take appropriate
load shedding action.
Compliance with this rule has a ton of open ended questions
as to what is essential? How big is the battery when new?
How many a.h. of capacity does it take to meet the 30 minute
requirement?
It would be interesting to go through the dockets and amendments
over the period of 1965 to 1996 and find out when those words
were added. I know that in 1965 we had no factory recommended
testing procedures or test intervals in the maintenance manuals
at Cessna. I was writing those words from 1964 to 1969. The only
thing we did was publish a specific gravity chart to aid in
assessing state of charge. I'm not sure how s.g. varies with
capacity if at all. I think the words we wrote suggested
battery replacement if it couldn't be charged to 100% as
indicated by the s.g. reading.
I think it was because the words about 30-minute reserves
were not present in the FAR that folks like Concord reached
into a dark, warm place and pulled out an 80% number . . .
it was as good as any other number.
Nowadays, the official maintenance manual for the airframe
trumps all others as the last word in battery maintenance and
replacement criteria.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: wing strobe wire disconnects |
>
>
>Sounds like hooey to me. You can certainly cut the strobe leads, including
>the ground wire, and insert a 4-pin Molex connector. I've done it and I'm
>quite sure many others have as well.
>
>Randy
>F1 Rocket
>www.pflanzer-aviation.com
I agree.
Bob . . .
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bryan Hooks" <bryanhooks(at)comcast.net>
>To:
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: wing strobe wire disconnects
>
>
> >
> >
> > Snip
> >>I'm planning to run my Whelan strobe lines (including shield)
> >>through 4-pin Molex mate-n-loc connectors at the wing roots. Does this seem
> >>reasonable?
> >>
> >>Jay
> >
> > I just posed this question to Bill at Creative Air. Here is the answer
> > I got for what it's worth:
> >
> > Bryan... The problem is that you can't do anything with the strobe
> > leads... They need to be continuous and the shield grounded...
> >
> > However, I should have single strobe power paks soon, then you can put
> > them in the wing tips and use connectors at the wing for power leads to
> > them...
> >
> > Hope this helps...
> >
> > -Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Question on the Axiliary battery manager |
>
>I'm new at this wiring thing so forgive me if this has been hashed out
>before. First it took some time for me to understand that using fuses are
>OK for aircraft. I will need something like this battery manager for my
>project to keep the EFIS and other stuff running when starting. What I
>don't understand is, are there places that I should use breakers like it
>shows in the Figure 7 batter manager wiring for the ALT field or can I use
>a fuse here too?
You can use fuses anywhere in the Z-figures except that
a breaker is recommended for crowbar-protected field
supply circuits.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: Switch type//battery |
Disagree.
The FAA has somewhere (as I misplaced the ref) requiring the battery
manufacturers to publish the required annual testing. Concord has done this
as I have a copy and it states that battery must test to at least 85% of the
new advertiesd rating based on the testing procedure herein (my words but
the entire document is at the concord battery site.
This "trumps" any older requirements any where.
Not sure how this relates to the 30 min flight time (I see no relation here
its strictly battery condition) but Concord says now the battery is not
airworthy if it tests under 85% of original capacity. Local FSDO ( I asked
and was provided with a 100% yes reply) among others all agree. This rule is
only a couple of years old and ALL batteries shipped since this was issued
include by (FAA edict) the related annual testing requirements. Basically
just as ELT batteries are controlled but not by the FAA but the ELT maker.
Here its the battery maker that provides the FAA approved test and GO/NO GO
requirements. Neither are trumpted by acft manuals etc.
I suggest you contact Concord (or go to the web site and download the
testing requirements, mine are old and could have changed) and the local
FSDO.
Your results may vary based on who you contact at the FAA :-)
westmountain radio is also current on this issue as they are considering a
higher powered unit just for this application. They also have several FBO's
using their current tester for the annual requirements.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch type//battery
>
>
>>
> Nowadays, the official maintenance manual for the airframe
> trumps all others as the last word in battery maintenance and
> replacement criteria.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Question about dimmer circuits and annunicators... |
From: | "Marcos Della" <mdella(at)cstone.com> |
I have a set of 12 annunicators that are either all activated by active
ground (either through a diode to a ground switch like oil pressure or
via a diode and a NPN transistor to tie the line to ground from a power
lead like turning on landing lights)
So all the hot leads are tied to power and the push-to-test is a ground
switch (again via diodes to the annunciators). I wanted to tie the hot
lead to the dimmer circuit (its way too bright at night) but if I turn
the dimmer all the way down (or its off during the day) then the
annunicators wouldn't work.
What I'd like is to take the bigger of two power supplies, 9V (my lowest
for the annunicators) vs the dimmer circuit. And if the dimmer circuit
is off, then it uses the full 14v.
Is this beginning to be too big a request? Should I just leave it tied
to power and not bother with worrying about the annunicators being too
bright at night?
(P.S. I am almost done with the circuit board for a 12 indicator that
has 5 ground switches, 6 power switches, and a "gear in motion"
(difference between gear up and gear down indicator))
Marcos
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: Switch type//battery//ref link |
Here are the links I was referring to.
Instructions for continued airworthiness:
http://www.concordebattery.com/otherpdf/IFCA1.pdf
The first page covers modification of the aircraft maintenance manual and
page 8 provides 85% for return to service.
The second link has the 80% as well as the 85% numbers but the first link is
the binding FAA document where 85% is also stated.
Owner manual:
http://www.concordebattery.com/otherpdf/ownermanual.pdf
The westmountainradio capacity checker is limited to around 7.5 amps for a
large 12V battery and thus will not meet FAA requirements for certificated
aircraft but is great for our usage where most applications in "alternator
out" modes have a battery load under that and thus one can test the battery
under the "real" expected emergency flight conditions.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch type//battery
>
>
> Disagree.
>
> The FAA has somewhere (as I misplaced the ref) requiring the battery
> manufacturers to publish the required annual testing. Concord has done
> this
> as I have a copy and it states that battery must test to at least 85% of
> the
> new advertiesd rating based on the testing procedure herein (my words but
> the entire document is at the concord battery site.
>
> This "trumps" any older requirements any where.
>
> Not sure how this relates to the 30 min flight time (I see no relation
> here
> its strictly battery condition) but Concord says now the battery is not
> airworthy if it tests under 85% of original capacity. Local FSDO ( I asked
> and was provided with a 100% yes reply) among others all agree. This rule
> is
> only a couple of years old and ALL batteries shipped since this was issued
> include by (FAA edict) the related annual testing requirements. Basically
> just as ELT batteries are controlled but not by the FAA but the ELT maker.
> Here its the battery maker that provides the FAA approved test and GO/NO
> GO
> requirements. Neither are trumpted by acft manuals etc.
>
> I suggest you contact Concord (or go to the web site and download the
> testing requirements, mine are old and could have changed) and the local
> FSDO.
>
> Your results may vary based on who you contact at the FAA :-)
>
> westmountain radio is also current on this issue as they are considering a
> higher powered unit just for this application. They also have several
> FBO's
> using their current tester for the annual requirements.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch type//battery
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>> Nowadays, the official maintenance manual for the airframe
>> trumps all others as the last word in battery maintenance and
>> replacement criteria.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
Subject: | Re: Question about dimmer circuits and annunicators... |
Marcos: I understand your question.
I made a 4-channel annunciator (the IL-4A), available from
http://www3.telus.net/aviation/vx . In the application section of the
datasheet, you see how it can be wired to a dimmer bus and an Nav light
switch to give you what you are looking for.
During the day (Nav Off), the SPDT switch (B&C sells them as S700-1-3)
connects the +12V to the lighting controller. When the Nav is On, the
power is disconnected, but the dimmer power is active because it is
powered from the Nav light circuit. A simple diode switch in the IL-4A
allows either power source to operate it, thus automatically giving you
full brightness during the day, and variable dimming at night. The lamp
test works either way as well.
The IL-4A also senses active ground or active power inputs
(programmable), and reversing switches (such as flap motors).
You can use the same powering technique for your design, if your Nav
switch has two poles. The datasheet has a complete schematic of the
IL-4A, plus the application information.
Thanks,
Vern Little
RV-9A
Marcos Della wrote:
>
> I have a set of 12 annunicators that are either all activated by active
>ground (either through a diode to a ground switch like oil pressure or
>via a diode and a NPN transistor to tie the line to ground from a power
>lead like turning on landing lights)
>
>So all the hot leads are tied to power and the push-to-test is a ground
>switch (again via diodes to the annunciators). I wanted to tie the hot
>lead to the dimmer circuit (its way too bright at night) but if I turn
>the dimmer all the way down (or its off during the day) then the
>annunicators wouldn't work.
>
>What I'd like is to take the bigger of two power supplies, 9V (my lowest
>for the annunicators) vs the dimmer circuit. And if the dimmer circuit
>is off, then it uses the full 14v.
>
>Is this beginning to be too big a request? Should I just leave it tied
>to power and not bother with worrying about the annunicators being too
>bright at night?
>
>(P.S. I am almost done with the circuit board for a 12 indicator that
>has 5 ground switches, 6 power switches, and a "gear in motion"
>(difference between gear up and gear down indicator))
>
>Marcos
>
>
>
>
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Switch type//battery |
Concord's ICA (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness) that were
included with my battery had a clause that it did not require load
testing until the 2nd year. I don't have the exact wording in front of
me so I don't know if you could tap dance and stretch it to a 3rd year
but, at minimum, if you're willing to replace it every 2 years, you
don't have to load test it.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
> -----Original Message-----
> -->
> The FAA has somewhere (as I misplaced the ref) requiring the
> battery manufacturers to publish the required annual testing.
> Concord has done this as I have a copy and it states that
> battery must test to at least 85% of the new advertiesd
> rating based on the testing procedure herein (my words but
> the entire document is at the concord battery site.
>
> I suggest you contact Concord (or go to the web site and
> download the testing requirements, mine are old and could
> have changed) and the local FSDO.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: pinout for Narco Mk 24 ? |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III a crit :
>
>
>
>
>><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>A buddy found a Narco Mark 24 VHF. Anyone happen to have the
>>corresponding pinout ?
>>Any input appreciated,
>>
>>
>
> I checked the database I have and it only shows the MK12.
> Sorry.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Bob,
Thank you.
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Frank & Dorothy <frankvdh(at)xtra.co.nz> |
Subject: | Re: APU versus battery |
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>An interesting choice--and the APU will outlast your airplane.
>
>
So, why bother with an alternator on your engine? Why not use just the
little engine (eventually to be replaced by a fuel cell, I guess) to
generate electricty, and just use the big engine (perhaps also to
eventually be replaced by a fuel cell?) to propel you round the sky?
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Switch type//battery |
In a message dated 3/3/2005 5:40:14 A.M. Central Standard Time,
gyoung@cs-sol.com writes:
Concord's ICA (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness) that were
included with my battery had a clause that it did not require load
testing until the 2nd year. I don't have the exact wording in front of
me so I don't know if you could tap dance and stretch it to a 3rd year
but, at minimum, if you're willing to replace it every 2 years, you
don't have to load test it.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
Good Morning Greg,
That is undoubtedly true, but there are other possibilities depending on the
use to which the battery is being put.
A few questions if you don't mind.
Do you have the latest revision to your ICA?
Is the Battery a flooded cell or a Recombinant Gas unit?
Is the battery being used for "Essential Power" or as a standby unit?
What type engine is the battery expected to start?
All of the above and actual operating experience determine the time
intervals between required capacity checks.
The latest revision for the Flooded Lead-Acid Main Battery is Revision E
dated 10/27/04
For the Valve Regulated Lead Acid Main Battery it is Revision H dated
06/24/03.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: APU versus battery |
>
>Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
> >An interesting choice--and the APU will outlast your airplane.
> >
> >
>So, why bother with an alternator on your engine?
Because it is but one of several independent, engine
driven power sources that have acceptable power to weight
and volume ratios and manageable cost of ownership.
> Why not use just the
>little engine (eventually to be replaced by a fuel cell, I guess) to
>generate electricty, and just use the big engine (perhaps also to
>eventually be replaced by a fuel cell?) to propel you round the sky?
There are folks working exactly those issues. I'm aware of
several UAV programs where the aircraft is total electric
powered. They are small and, of course unmanned. In this
venue there are no imperatives for making the system safe
and inhabitable by humans . . . but others are watching
this technology and thinking . . .
If the power/weight ratios -AND- system reliability
requirements can be met, you can bet that it will happen.
A good friend of mine has spent half his life working
the problems on Stirling engines for motive power in
aircraft. This is an external combustion engine that
burns ANYTHING liquid having sufficient BTU/Pound to
be useful. The engine runs slow, turns very quiet
propellers, has very few moving parts and is totally
free of vibration. Do a google on "stirling engine".
Also see:
http://www.qrmc.com/
http://www.stirlingengine.com/
http://www.qrmc.com/animationtext.htm
for some introduction to the technology. So far,
lots of time and money have been spent and progress
has been disappointing. But the effort has not used
tax dollars. Further, it's been accomplished in
a true Skunk Works environment where one has the
freedom to fail inexpensively. I have no doubt that
at some time in the future, folks with the mindset
of my friends, Burt Rutan, John Ronz, Charles Kettering,
and Thomas Edison will produce products that will
stand current technologies on their heads.
In the mean time, we're FORCED to figure out
the best ways to paste SD-8s, SD-20s, ND and
John Deere alternators and 150 year-old lead-acid
technologies into our airplanes in useful and
practical combinations. But only because those
are the present Tinker Toys in our toy box.
But rest assured that as long as "anti-leadership"
does not intervene, times ahead are more exciting
than anything we've enjoyed in the past. (True
leaders are running ahead moving obstacles
to progress aside. Many who would call them selves
leaders are in fact, fabricators of obstacles.)
Stirlings have already been used to produce
totally quiet and vibration free ground power
units for RVs . . . VERY expensive and not the
most reliable. Still looking for a toehold in the
marketplace. "Build it and they will come".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan(at)chartermi.net> |
Subject: | Battery regulations. Was Switch type//battery |
Strictly on the topic of regulations, and specificaly exempting "what we
should do" from this post.
FAR 43.1 Applicability
(b) This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued
an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a
different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft.
So there are no battery regulations for experimentals, nor does any part of
43 apply to them.
This relives us of any regulatory burden and allows us to focus on best
practice.
Eric
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >"Paul Messinger" wrote:
> > > The FAA requires a battery capacity test as part of the annual,
> > > as specified by the battery manufacturer ...
> > >
> >
> >That may come as news to some of us. If you're referring to Part 43
> >and arguing that the language of FAR 43.13 requires strict adherehnce
> >to a manufacturer's service instructions (two long-time A&P/IAs I know
> >say it does not, though good judgment should control), the service
> >manual for my plane states only to "check specific gravity." My
> >battery mfr says, to determine if serviceable, to either check
> >specific gravity or do a capacity test without specifics on how to do
> >it, and they label both as "suggested methods."
>
> Yeah, there's been a lot of praying over the meanings of
> words in the various documents in an effort to deduce The Law.
> The FARS have had verbage like this for a some time:
>
> (h) In the event of a complete loss of the primary electrical power
> generating system, the battery must be capable of providing at least 30
> minutes of electrical power to those loads that are essential to continued
> safe flight and landing. The 30 minute time period includes the time
needed
> for the pilots to recognize loss of power and take appropriate
> load shedding action.
>
> Compliance with this rule has a ton of open ended questions
> as to what is essential? How big is the battery when new?
> How many a.h. of capacity does it take to meet the 30 minute
> requirement?
>
> It would be interesting to go through the dockets and amendments
> over the period of 1965 to 1996 and find out when those words
> were added. I know that in 1965 we had no factory recommended
> testing procedures or test intervals in the maintenance manuals
> at Cessna. I was writing those words from 1964 to 1969. The only
> thing we did was publish a specific gravity chart to aid in
> assessing state of charge. I'm not sure how s.g. varies with
> capacity if at all. I think the words we wrote suggested
> battery replacement if it couldn't be charged to 100% as
> indicated by the s.g. reading.
>
> I think it was because the words about 30-minute reserves
> were not present in the FAR that folks like Concord reached
> into a dark, warm place and pulled out an 80% number . . .
> it was as good as any other number.
>
> Nowadays, the official maintenance manual for the airframe
> trumps all others as the last word in battery maintenance and
> replacement criteria.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Subject: | RE: RE: EFIS Backup Battery |
If you are planning on an EIS - most (probably all) provide the capability
to monitor multiple battery voltages - and provide active notification when
they drop below a specified value (along with a myriad of other things like
oil pressure, oil and coolant temperatures, fuel level, . . .). So, your
after-startup preflight action is to be sure your EIS warning isn't blinking
(or yelling) at you :-)
Dennis Glaeser
>
> >
>
>Bob,
>
>What I'd really like to have is a 'charge fault' light. Is there a
>simple way to attach an LED that would light IF charge voltage is
>present on main bus AND the output of the relay has not been driven to
>ground (I.E. bad relay)?
>
>--Scott
The only way I can think to automate that is two LVW/ABMM. One
to control the relay and a second to monitor that the output
has come up to bus voltage and is now supporting the battery.
The most efficient way would be a rotary selector switch to
zip the voltmeter around to the various battery busses to
see that they are all elevated to main bus voltage as part
of a pre-flight test.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Paul Pengilly <pengilly(at)southwest.com.au> |
Subject: | Re: wing strobe wire disconnects |
Bryan Hooks wrote:
>
>Snip
>
>
>>I'm planning to run my Whelan strobe lines (including shield)
>>through 4-pin
>>Molex mate-n-loc connectors at the wing roots. Does this seem
>>reasonable?
>>
>>Jay
>>
>>
>
>I just posed this question to Bill at Creative Air. Here is the answer
>I got for what it's worth:
>
>Bryan... The problem is that you can't do anything with the strobe
>leads...
>They need to be continuous and the shield grounded...
>
>However, I should have single strobe power paks soon, then you can put
>them
>in the wing tips and use connectors at the wing for power leads to
>them...
>
>Hope this helps...
>
>-Bill
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "BRYAN HOOKS" <bryanhooks(at)comcast.net>
>To: "CreativAir"
>Subject: Enquiry from CreativAir
>
>
>I am going to buy your strobe light kit and led positions lights for a
>Vans
>RV-7A (I'll get the tail pos/strobe combo from vans). Can you please
>tell me
>if there is an elegant way to make a wiring conector at the wing root,
>so
>that I can wire the wings and fuselage seperately? I'm building in my
>garage
>and don't have room to put the wings on just yet, but I'd like to get
>the
>wiring runs done now.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay
>Brinkmeyer
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: wing strobe wire disconnects
>
>
>
>I'm planning to run my Whelan strobe lines (including shield) through
>4-pin
>Molex mate-n-loc connectors at the wing roots. Does this seem
>reasonable?
>
>Jay
>
>
>=====
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>
That's strange I bought my strobe kit and if came with connectors all
ready on the lights and plugs for the cables and this was from the
manufacturer.
Regards
Paul P
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> type//battery |
Subject: | Re: Battery regulations. Was Switch |
type//battery
type//battery
>
>
>Strictly on the topic of regulations, and specificaly exempting "what we
>should do" from this post.
>
>FAR 43.1 Applicability
> (b) This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued
>an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a
>different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft.
>
>So there are no battery regulations for experimentals, nor does any part of
>43 apply to them.
>
>This relives us of any regulatory burden and allows us to focus on best
>practice.
>
>Eric
ABSOLUTELY! However it behooves us to understand the regulations
that are in place and deduce for ourselves whether they offer
insight for more comfortable operation of our airplanes.
I'm going to look into the details of recent revelations with
respect to who-trumps-who . . . but mostly to satisfy my own
curiosity and because it has a small influence on me in my day-job.
But make no mistake about it folks, your OBAM airplane's configuration
belongs to YOU and no one else. Take shelter in regulations if
that offers your comfort but I'll always suggest that the
greatest comfort comes from understanding.
Bob . . .
-------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
-------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Switch type//battery |
"Paul Messinger" wrote:
>
> The FAA has somewhere (as I misplaced the ref) requiring the battery
> manufacturers to publish the required annual testing. Concord has
done this
Gill has too very recently revised its service manual, but they
provide instructions if you don't have a load tester. Put a known
load on it (automotive headlamp or two I guess is OK), and time it to
"10V" -- note no decimals. Then refer to a simple chart they provide.
Apparently the chart is valid for their batteries of any size, so
FAA's approval of this was relaxed.
However, if I have the battery theory correct, it appears their
popular G-25 might fail the test, as it looks like its for G-35 at
least. Possibly their way of encouraging shops to buy a load tester
if they don't have one?
The 1st test is at one year from installation; subsequent checks every
6 months. This means that likely most small airplanes with a Gill
battery are technically unairworthy. Since they specify these
procedures under "airworthiness limitations," FAR 43.16 becomes the
applicable law, unless amateur-built. Odd also is an instruction that
the battery must be removed from the aircraft to perform the test.
What's really silly here is that if you have an antique airplane with
no electrical system, but an STC'd or 337'd battery/starter/etc. just
to start the engine, you must test the battery every 6 months, if a
Gill at least. Without such a mod, you can just hand-prop and go fly!
In fact, FAA's recent Special Airworthiness Bulletin for maintaining
old airplanes uses the phrase "capacity check" under Electrical.
Reg,
Fred F.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
Subject: | Re: ProxAlert R5 |
I wonder if the Garmin 330 works better than the likes of ATD-3000. Anyone
have the Garmin?
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "rv-9a-online" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ProxAlert R5
>
>
> After a near mid-air collision, I purschased the Monroy ATD-300. I've
> been using it as a portable and plan on permanent install in my RV-9A.
> It comes with a panel mount kit as well.
>
> I treat the ATD-300 as an extra set of eyes. It does not replace the
> need for a visual scan, and it can miss things. It works better in busy
> airspace, which is what you want.
>
> The biggest downfall of these devices is that you have to be in radar
> surveillance for them to work. If you are in a 'radar shadow', or if
> the offending aircraft does not have a transponder, they do not work.
>
> Nevertheless, I now routinely leave my GPS in the bag, and plug my
> ATD-300 in for local flights (Vancouver VTA).
>
> Remember... it's like another set of eyes... it won't find everything,
> but it can sometimes see things the pilot doesn't.
>
> Vern Little
>
> Rob Housman wrote:
>
>><robh@hyperion-ef.us>
>>
>>Here's what Aviation Consumer (a publication I highly recommend for
>>aircraft
>>owners, and homebuilders in particular- it's sort of a Consumer Reports
>>for
>>aviators) concluded in an article published in their April 2004 issue:
>>Recommendations
>>For the price-$800 to $1200 depending on which unit you select-the
>>portables
>>strike us as cheap insurance against a mid-air collision or near miss.
>>But you get what you pay for. Don't expect either unit to find all the
>>traffic. Both will miss lots of targets, especially those ahead and below
>>the aircraft. And once you start installing one of these in a panel using
>>an
>>external antenna, you could nearly double the cost.
>>In adding all these numbers up, refer to the chart on page 6 which
>>compares
>>prices on all the current offerings across all price ranges. With the
>>Garmin
>>Mode-S based TIS available for about $5000, owners will need to put a
>>sharp
>>pencil on the decision to go down market with a portable. But the $5000
>>applies only if you already have a GNS430 or 530 in the panel. And maybe
>>you
>>don't want to spend that much on traffic gear and the portable suits your
>>needs.
>>Which is best? Both are improved over previous models and we don't think
>>you'll go wrong with either, keeping in mind that this technology has
>>sharp
>>limitations. We give a razor-thin edge to the Monroy ATD-300. It's $400
>>cheaper than the SureCheck, has a lower profile on the panel and a
>>simpler,
>>easier-to-read display.
>>Our impression is that the ATD-300 more often saw traffic that the
>>SureCheck
>>missed but, to be fair, the performance of both units is strongly
>>influenced
>>by antenna position. For the extra $400, the SureCheck gives you the
>>ability
>>to run on batteries and has the onboard altitude sensor, neither of which
>>the Monroy has.
>>As noted, this allows the SureCheck to make relative altitude
>>determinations
>>when the host aircraft Mode-C isn't available, which appears to be the
>>case
>>about 20 percent of the time for reasons that aren't clear.
>>If that capability is important to you or you can't run on ship's power
>>alone, the SureCheck TrafficScope is the better choice, in our view. In
>>any
>>case, we think SureCheck deserves kudos for dramatically improving its
>>product over the previous iteration and we give the company high marks for
>>much improved customer and technical support.
>>
>>
>>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
>>rd2(at)evenlink.com
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: ProxAlert R5
>>
>>
>>Hi all,
>>I am considering getting ProxAlert R5. Does anyone have any experience -
>>positive, negative, advice - to share, I'd appreciate it. Main use would
>>be
>>in the more congested NE, both in VFR and IFR.
>>The other known competitors are SureCheck and Monroy. ProxAlert seems to
>>be
>>the only one with built-in altitude measurement and ability to show 3
>>threats simultaneously.
>>Thanks for the feedback
>>Rumen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
Subject: | Master alarm circuit |
Anyone out there know of a warning alarm circuit diagram, kit, etc. that can
be used for an "aircraft master alarm". It would be based on grounded
trigger switches for things like canopy open/throttle advanced, gear not
down/throttle retarded, etc.
Ideally, it would have a master warning light and an audible alarm that can
be "muted" per event - for instance, to silence while taxiing with the
canopy open, but still want alert for T.O.
The aircraft in question (not mine) does not have provision for the nifty
integrated systems like the ACS2002, or Vision Micro Systems, etc. Just
need a stand alone circuit.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | D Wysong <hdwysong(at)gmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Master alarm circuit |
Hello James -
This isn't a schematic but perhaps it'll give you a top-level start
(see 'fail-safe design'):
http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/Digital/DIGI_6.html
You should be able to do what you're after with a pile of digital 'OR'
gates. They're packaged nicely on IC's these days, so you're not
looking at much real estate. You'll need circuitry out at the end to
drive your buzzer, flash the lights, and time the duration of the
'mute' button function... but I'm sure I could dig up a schematic for
that part if you're interested.
Hope this helps!
D
(Beautiful airplane, by the way. I got to fly with Dave on a near IMC
day when he came into ADS for potential gov't work with a Berkut a few
years ago. Nice fellow.)
----------------------------------
>
> Anyone out there know of a warning alarm circuit diagram, kit, etc. that can
> be used for an "aircraft master alarm". It would be based on grounded
> trigger switches for things like canopy open/throttle advanced, gear not
> down/throttle retarded, etc.
>
> Ideally, it would have a master warning light and an audible alarm that can
> be "muted" per event - for instance, to silence while taxiing with the
> canopy open, but still want alert for T.O.
>
> The aircraft in question (not mine) does not have provision for the nifty
> integrated systems like the ACS2002, or Vision Micro Systems, etc. Just
> need a stand alone circuit.
>
> James Redmon
> Berkut #013 N97TX
> http://www.berkut13.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Question about dimmer circuits and annunicators... |
In a message dated 3/2/05 11:12:30 PM Central Standard Time,
mdella(at)cstone.com writes:
> Should I just leave it tied
> to power and not bother with worrying about the annunicators being too
> bright at night
>>>
Hi Marcos- IMHO you definately need BRT/DIM capability, especially if your
annunciator is mounted direct center of vision. I used zener diodes and a
BRT/DIM toggle switch on my 10 function LED annunciator and it works well- you
can
play with the zener diodes and LED resistor values to achieve the levels you
desire. If you can do AutoCAD (I'm R14) I can send you a copy of my circuits,
if you'd like...
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
Subject: | Re: Master alarm circuit |
> This isn't a schematic but perhaps it'll give you a top-level start
> (see 'fail-safe design'):
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/Digital/DIGI_6.html
Good theory page. However, being a coumputer systems engineer/architect
type - my usual work mode assumes that the "computer" is physically built
before it gets to me...so this kind of circuit theory is a little lost on
me. ;-)
> You should be able to do what you're after with a pile of digital 'OR'
> gates. They're packaged nicely on IC's these days, so you're not
> looking at much real estate. You'll need circuitry out at the end to
> drive your buzzer, flash the lights, and time the duration of the
> 'mute' button function.
Bingo! That's exactly what I'll need...but before re-inventing the wheel,
I'm sure someone out there has already done it. If not, sure seems like
something that alot of builders could use and take advantage of if not using
glass panel works.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kenneth Melvin <melvinke(at)direcway.com> |
Subject: | Master alarm circuit |
Try .
Kenneth Melvin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
Redmon
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Master alarm circuit
-->
Anyone out there know of a warning alarm circuit diagram, kit, etc. that can
be used for an "aircraft master alarm". It would be based on grounded
trigger switches for things like canopy open/throttle advanced, gear not
down/throttle retarded, etc.
Ideally, it would have a master warning light and an audible alarm that can
be "muted" per event - for instance, to silence while taxiing with the
canopy open, but still want alert for T.O.
The aircraft in question (not mine) does not have provision for the nifty
integrated systems like the ACS2002, or Vision Micro Systems, etc. Just
need a stand alone circuit.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | WD-40 as Contact Cleaner |
I moved to central Florida several months ago. Due to the humid summers
here, local avionics techs swear by WD-40 to clean contacts. They believe
that its residual film protects against subsequent corrosion while
conventional contact cleaners leave the metal exposed to the wet air.
On the other hand, I recall reading that some avionics manufacturers regard use
of anti-corrosives, such as WD-40 and Corrosion X, as voiding their
warranties.
Comments?
TIA, Bruce McGregor
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I asked them about it and the price was something on the order of $1,800 to
2,000 or more if I remember right. Looks good but way up there for an
experimental. They think its a Bonanza part not budget exp.
Bill S
7a Ark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of D
Fritz
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch type
Has anyone got any experience with this alternator:
http://www.gami.com/frames.htm
It may be a solution for the folks with dual electronic ignitions and EFISs
(EFII?) who want endurance busses that can handle all their endurance loads
in a Z-13 arrangement.
Dan Fritz
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: WD-40 as Contact Cleaner |
>
>I moved to central Florida several months ago. Due to the humid summers
>here, local avionics techs swear by WD-40 to clean contacts. They believe
>that its residual film protects against subsequent corrosion while
>conventional contact cleaners leave the metal exposed to the wet air.
>
>On the other hand, I recall reading that some avionics manufacturers
>regard use of anti-corrosives, such as WD-40 and Corrosion X, as voiding their
>warranties.
WD-40 and close cousins are often used to displace moisture
and add some degree of corrosion proofing to metals exposed
to less than ideal atmospheres. Ag airplane owners have been
known to spray down the insides of an aluminum airplane to
provide some resistance to corrosive chemicals that find
their way into the airplane's spray hopper.
I've used WD-40 in a pinch but don't recommend it. It
ultimately leaves a film that can be rather tough. I sprayed
down a bunch of brand new Jacobs chucks and wrapped them
in foil for long storage. After several years, the chucks
were seized up so tight that it took soaking in acetone
to free them up. WD-40's magic happens only while it's
fresh. Repeated use of SD-40 on electronics is likely to
build a film that is, to some degree, hygroscopic and
dust trapping.
There are commercial contact cleaner/lubricant concoctions
crafted for use on switches. You need to select a product
that is both cleaner and lubricant and use it periodically.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Paul Pengilly <pengilly(at)southwest.com.au> |
Subject: | Re: WD-40 as Contact Cleaner |
Warning I have a warning regarding the use of contact cleaners if you
have to use these check and make sure that you are not using a flammable
type CRC make both types and one of my techs was court out a few years
back when cleaning some electric's with the flammable type unknowingly,
and once power was applied there was quite a large bang and a few
missing eye brow hairs caused by using the flammable type.
Regards
Paul P
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>I moved to central Florida several months ago. Due to the humid summers
>>here, local avionics techs swear by WD-40 to clean contacts. They believe
>>that its residual film protects against subsequent corrosion while
>>conventional contact cleaners leave the metal exposed to the wet air.
>>
>>On the other hand, I recall reading that some avionics manufacturers
>>regard use of anti-corrosives, such as WD-40 and Corrosion X, as voiding their
>>warranties.
>>
>>
>
> WD-40 and close cousins are often used to displace moisture
> and add some degree of corrosion proofing to metals exposed
> to less than ideal atmospheres. Ag airplane owners have been
> known to spray down the insides of an aluminum airplane to
> provide some resistance to corrosive chemicals that find
> their way into the airplane's spray hopper.
>
> I've used WD-40 in a pinch but don't recommend it. It
> ultimately leaves a film that can be rather tough. I sprayed
> down a bunch of brand new Jacobs chucks and wrapped them
> in foil for long storage. After several years, the chucks
> were seized up so tight that it took soaking in acetone
> to free them up. WD-40's magic happens only while it's
> fresh. Repeated use of SD-40 on electronics is likely to
> build a film that is, to some degree, hygroscopic and
> dust trapping.
>
> There are commercial contact cleaner/lubricant concoctions
> crafted for use on switches. You need to select a product
> that is both cleaner and lubricant and use it periodically.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mike & Lee Anne Wiebe" <mwiebe(at)sympatico.ca> |
Subject: | EFIS Backup Battery and fuseblocks - Attn Bob |
Bob - we haven't talked in about four years. Your designs are flying
well in our Falco. Thanks for the advice back then, and here's a
question for the new project.
I very much like the low voltage warning system and the setup in your
recently reference schematic
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/9021-620.pdf . This setup is
exactly to my needs. However, one thing is getting complicated and I
wonder if you have any thoughts.
I really like the fuseblock idea instead of acres of breakers. But this
design requires four buses, so we're starting to get "acres of buses".
When you divvy up the load this way, there are not many circuits on each
bus. What would be ideal is one common mechanical bus, with the ability
to segregate it electrically. Obviously nobody is likely to have it set
up the way I want, but perhaps yours (or other products?) can be "cut"
and fed from both ends, so that each mechanical block is good for two
electrical buses? Thoughts?
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> Attn Bob |
Subject: | Re: EFIS Backup Battery and fuseblocks - |
Attn Bob
February 26, 2005 - March 04, 2005
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-eb