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  . . .
      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
From: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Switch type
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
From: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Switch type
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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>
Subject: Switch type
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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 . . . | ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Switch type
> > >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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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>
Subject: Master Alarm
Date: Feb 26, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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 > > >. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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
Date: Feb 27, 2005
> ... > 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
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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 :-) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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! > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2005
From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Switch type
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>
Subject: Wire Labeling
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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?
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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 >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dww0708(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 27, 2005
Subject: Re: Avionics wiring redo
might be a voltage regulator, does it have an adjustment screw on it ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2005
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: 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". Dick Tasker ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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>
Subject: Fluke Meter
Date: Feb 27, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
Subject: Re: Fluke Meter
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Fluke Meter
> >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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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>
Subject: Wire Labeling
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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?
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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
Date: Feb 28, 2005
> 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: 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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
Subject: ADF Debug
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
Date: Feb 28, 2005
Subject: ADF Debug
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
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
From: <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LRE2(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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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>
Subject: Re: Fluke Meter
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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>
Subject: Re: Fluke Meter
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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>
Subject: Wire Labeling
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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>
Subject: Off the topic
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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 $30. It is a handheld unit that runs on 6 AA batteries. It prints >both horizontal and vertical, has different fonts and you can get a variety >of colors and sizes of tape . It will make a wonderful wire labeler. I have one of these. It's a thermal printer. The whole label turns black under the heatshrink. Besides, the smallest font it generates is too big for anything but largest wires. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: SD-8 on a Rotax 914
>As an interested party I once made a graph from data on B&C's website: >3000 RPM 0.2 A >3500 RPM 1.7 A >4000 RPM 3.1 A >4500 RPM 4.4 A >5000 RPM 5.6 A >5500 RPM 6.8 A >6000 RPM 7.9 A The Rotax standard alternator is permanent magnet. VERY robust. The weakest link in Rotax's electrical system is their piece of @#$@# 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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 28, 2005
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>
Subject: Switch type
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: plaurence@the-beach.net
Date: Mar 01, 2005
Subject: 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: "923te" <923te(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Opital sensor
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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>
Subject: Opital sensor
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
From: rd2(at)evenlink.com
Subject: 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Switch type
> > >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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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>
Subject: Opital sensor
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
> > 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 . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
Subject: ProxAlert R5
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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>
Subject: Switch type
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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>
Subject: Switch type
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
"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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
> 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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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) > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2005
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- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
> ... > 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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
>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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
" .......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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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>
Subject: ND Alternator
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: plaurence@the-beach.net
Date: Mar 02, 2005
Subject: Opital sensor
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
>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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
> 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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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/ > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
From: D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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...
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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 . . . >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2005
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
Date: Mar 03, 2005
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
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. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2005
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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
Date: Mar 03, 2005
"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
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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
Date: Mar 03, 2005
> 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: brucem(at)att.net
Subject: WD-40 as Contact Cleaner
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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>
Subject: Switch type
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2005
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 . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2005
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
Date: Mar 04, 2005
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2005
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