AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-eg
April 05, 2005 - April 10, 2005
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VHF tape antenna |
>
>
>Cheers, all,
> I am building the same kit as Kingsley and am using the supplied
>copper tape per the instructions. As Bob says, the tape widens the range of
>frequencies available but is susceptible to cracking if stuck to epoxy
>stuff.
> I slid the tape into an envelope of polythene and epoxied That
>to the fin close-out, leaving the last two inches each end for trimming in
>situ. Seems to work............
Slick . . . no pun intended.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | The ULTIMATE ground loop . . . |
We slew the dragon today . . .
A bizjet with a nose-mounted air conditioning compressor brings
power and ground through a pair of twisted trios of 2AWG wire
all the way from the tail.
This same airplane has a rather sophisticated (read complex)
ground fault detection system that features really twitchy
detectors . . . they are prone to trip when uninteresting things
happen in the airplane.
This airplane has been down for months. Customer techs worked on
it for about 6 weeks. A/C soft start module (a variable duty
cycle ramp-up controller used on golf cart motors) goes into
fits of apoplexy when you try to turn it on. Just turning on
the battery master switch causes lots of things in the airplane
to react in unusual ways . . . including the ground fault detectors
which will trip the system off almost immediately. Now, just plug
in a ground power cart and the problem goes away for bringing the
battery on line . . . the cart doesn't have to be turned on, just
plugged in. Attaching a battery right across the (+) and (-) terminal
at the A/C will let it start up and run too. Opening various
bus feeder breakers will make things get "better" but not
serviceable.
I put a 'scope on the (+) and (-) feeders to the A/C and
measured astounding 60 volt pk-pk, 30 Khz noises on both wires
. . . noise that far exceed DO160/M704 suggestions.
Finally ferried the airplane to Wichita. Several experiments
to bypass various fat-wires in the system produced positive
results. Running a separate (+) wire to the A/C made things
much better, running a separate (-) wire made ALL problems
go away.
Okay, start ripping up the floorboards.
Just damn . . . found a too-long screw holding down a floor
board panel that was cutting into the insulation on the A/C
power (-) line. No sparks, no fire, just an artificially
induced GROUND LOOP that put huge circulating currents into
the airframe when the (1) battery was switched on or (2) when
we tried to power up the A/C. I measured artifacts of the soft start
module's switching signature on just about every wire in the
airplane. Seems this ground wire with two grounds runs parallel
and tightly coupled magnetically to some major power feeders.
Really sad part about this is that we were not the first
to discover it. There was a silicone rubber tape repair to the
damaged wire covering an earlier case of mounting screw intrusion
on the OTHER side. The most astounding thing was that the
offending screw was STILL TOO LONG and therefore primed and
enabled to attack the OTHER side of the repaired-once wire.
This is an extreme example but nicely illustrates the degree
of risk one assumes when ground systems are not carefully
considered or understood. In this case, the ground loop
and problems it generated were induced by installation
errors. The interference was so great that it was noticed
by a lot of ship's systems. We've seen other ground loop problems
get DESIGNED into a system by an inattentive engineer.
It also illustrates how a simple lack of craftsmanship in
installation of a 10 cent screw can cost tens of thousands
of dollars to find and fix. In this case, funding for
the extraordinary experiment in trouble shooting science
came from taxpayer pockets . . . what the heck, they've got
lots of money. They'll never miss what it cost to fix this one.
Got to help ferret out a poor mounting technique on an AHRS
system last week. Another case of a $100 error growing into
a hundred thousand dollar safari into the physics jungle. This
one was a DESIGN error and the customer was a first time
turbo-prop buyer who may never buy another RAC product . . .
and will be sure to advice his friends to do likewise. We
have a recall-retrofit to do on a bunch of airplanes.
Bagged two dragons in two weeks; two GREAT days.
Too bad they were so expensive. Incidentally, both were
STONE-SIMPLE conditions as they always tend to be.
There's no substitute for craftsmanship and understanding.
We've been regulated to the eyeballs, ISO approved head
to toe and have long shelves of policy and procedure documents
but they haven't prevented really simple conditions from costing
folks tons of dollars and generating a lot of customer ill-will.
Be your own best supplier of quality goods and carefully
crafted services. Strive to seek the same quality from others.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: PMags and RPM |
Negative. Stalling the wing has nothing to do with the engine RPM - or with
having an engine at all.
Stan Sutterfield
In a message dated 4/2/2005 3:57:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
I don't know about fixed pitch props, but with a c/s, if your rpm was down
to 800, you would probably have already stalled due to low airspeed. Flight
idle at approach speeds is well above 800.
Alex Peterson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Race Car Load Dump? |
I was looking at manual battery switches when I noticed the following. Guess
the racing guys want OV/Load Dump protection also.
Part No. 4430 has three sets of contacts for cars with alternators. The main
contacts disconnect the battery while the auxiliary contacts disconnect the
ignition coil and short the alternator output to ground through a 3 ohm resistor
that is furnished with the switch.
It can be found at
http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/ProductDetails.asp?RecId=1464
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PMags and RPM |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Stan,
Respectfully, I don't think you got Alex's point.. With idle throttle
setting, but without changes in propellor pitch, engine RPM IS related to
airspeed. On an airplane with a constant speed prop, at idle throttle
setting, and the prop set at max, the governor will allow the blades to go
to a very flat pitch setting. The effect this has is to cause the RPM to
remain relatively high, even though the engine is essentially not putting
out any power. In order to get the engine RPM to fall to 800RPM on an
aircraft with c/s prop, the airspeed has to be VERY low. Probably below
the VS0...
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
> Negative. Stalling the wing has nothing to do with the engine RPM - or
> with having an engine at all.
> Stan Sutterfield
>
>
> In a message dated 4/2/2005 3:57:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
> I don't know about fixed pitch props, but with a c/s, if your rpm was
> down to 800, you would probably have already stalled due to low
> airspeed. Flight idle at approach speeds is well above 800.
>
> Alex Peterson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Two independent systems |
In a message dated 4/6/2005 1:15:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
b.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
I've asked for weirder stuff and got answers. I'll ask tomorrow.
I'd really like to see the wiring diagrams for the first Bonanzas
too.
Bob . . .
Good Evening Bob,
I do have a relatively early copy of a Beech maintenance manual that covers
serial numbers from D-1 up through the C35. Last revision date was January 1,
1951. I am not sure just how accurately it portrays the actual production
electrical systems, but they are listed. There sure were a lot of
modifications on the early airplanes.
My first Bonanza was D-10. When I had it (circa 1954) the fabric covered
flaps had been replaced by magnesium ones , but the ailerons were still fabric
covered.
Very nice flying airplane. Unfortunately, I have no recollection at all of
the electrical details.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Uncovered circuit boards? |
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>I think both these are etched boards, so I could just coat them with
>>urethane. The only question is the jumper wires I need. I'll plan
>>to use insulated jumpers, and coat the exposed portions.
>
> I think what you've proposed will live happily behind the panel
> un-housed if you give it some decent moisture/dust protection.
One final (I hope) question: do you recommend urethane from a spray
bomb, or urethane applied with a brush?
Thanks,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> |
Due to long wait time to get these, I had my mags OH'd and am considering getting
in line to buy E/P mags but wanted to see how they were working for the ones
who have rec and installed them. Last I saw, several had them on order. Pls
reply via my e-mail if you can. cheathco(at)comcast.net Charlie Heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PMags and RPM |
Stan, the point is a different one. In an RV, the airspeed needed to slow a
windmilling prop to 800 rpm, at least in a C/S, is near the stall airspeed.
The whole thing was brought up by someone wondering if it mattered that the
Pmag didn't self generate below 800 rpm. The only way in flight to get the
rpm below 800 is to slow the airspeed to at or below around 60 knots.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 608 hours
Maple Grove, MN
> Negative. Stalling the wing has nothing to do with the
> engine RPM - or with
> having an engine at all.
> Stan Sutterfield
>
>
> In a message dated 4/2/2005 3:57:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
> I don't know about fixed pitch props, but with a c/s, if your
> rpm was down to 800, you would probably have already stalled
> due to low airspeed. Flight idle at approach speeds is well
> above 800.
>
> Alex Peterson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ducati regulator terminals |
| From: | <max.johansson(at)nokia.com> |
Hello list and Bob !
Here is a practical question, not related to any previous discussion,
regarding the Ducati rectifier/regulator used with the permanent
magnet generator found on Rotax 912 engines.
It has the following terminals:
G - for the ac from the eight generator coils
G - for the ac from the eight generator coils
R - ?
B - probably to be connected directly to the battery
L - probably for the no_charging warning light
C - ?
In various schematics I have seen the R and B connected together,
sometimes the B and C connected together, sometimes a 20A
fuse in the B line and sometimes a 22 mF capacitor connected to
main ground from either R or C. Often the C is connected to the fuse
box positive bus and live only after activating the main on/off switch.
Just now about to start wiring. To select between these
bevildering alternatives it would be nice to know what is
the real use and function of the R and the C terminals ?
Answers received with gratitude and without talk-back !
rgrds, Max
701_on_ floats builder in Helsinki
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ducati regulator terminals |
>Ducati rectifier/regulator used with the permanent
>magnet generator found on Rotax 912 engines.
>
>It has the following terminals:
>
> G - for the ac from the eight generator coils
> G - for the ac from the eight generator coils
> R - ?
> B - probably to be connected directly to the battery
> L - probably for the no_charging warning light
> C - ?
>
>In various schematics I have seen the R and B connected together,
>sometimes the B and C connected together, sometimes a 20A
>fuse in the B line and sometimes a 22 mF capacitor connected to
>main ground from either R or C. Often the C is connected to the fuse
>box positive bus and live only after activating the main on/off switch.
>
>Just now about to start wiring. To select between these
>bevildering alternatives it would be nice to know what is
>the real use and function of the R and the C terminals ?
>
>
>
Hi Max,
Terminal C is the control or sense terminal. It senses the bus bar or
battery voltage.
Terminal B and R are internally connected.
Last year we conducted some tests on the Ducati and Schicke
rectifier/regulators. You'll find interesting posts in the archives.
When I have time I'll include some of our findings on my website. I'm
afraid you'll have to be patient...;-)
I would suggest you thoroughly study fig Z 16 in the Aeroelectric
Connection.
By the way, concerning the recent posts on "new age architecture", I'm
not aware of any RG battery failing open, but I'm directly aware of more
than 10 Ducati regulators giving up the ghost in the Europa/MCR/CT circles.
I actually was given two such failed regulators, and ripped one of them
to check the innards.
Hope this helps,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
Rotax 914 MCR 4S with 17 flight hours
Electrical and streamlining finishing touches in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi all,
This is to say I just received the CBA II Computerized Battery Analyser
from the English dealer Aurrora. Quick reaction and same day shipping,
but two weeks in the meanders of French customs and postal services.....
If memory serves me right, it was Paul Messinger who mentionned this
device in a recent post.
Maybe some listers will be interested in my first tests with this new
toy. Any tips or suggestions welcome.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
Electrically dependant Rotax 914
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Race Car Load Dump? |
>I was looking at manual battery switches when I noticed the following.
Guess the racing guys want OV/Load Dump protection also.
>Part No. 4430 has three sets of contacts for cars with alternators. The
main contacts disconnect the battery while the auxiliary contacts disconnect
>the ignition coil and short the alternator output to ground through a 3 ohm
resistor that is furnished with the switch.
>It can be found at
http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/ProductDetails.asp?RecId=1464
>Stan Sutterfield
Hi Stan,
The boat and race car people have known for year that you can't disconnect
the alternator from the battery without handling the load dump. A 3-ohm
resistor would tame the beast. By the way, Pegasus's use of the abbreviation
DNF is "Did Not Finish". I had to look it up.
The proposed simple system handles the battery disconnect load dump with big
transorbs---a more reliable way to handle it.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes
less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe.
For example, there are no solids in the universe. There's
not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute con-
tinuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Uncovered circuit boards? |
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>I think both these are etched boards, so I could just coat them with
> >>urethane. The only question is the jumper wires I need. I'll plan
> >>to use insulated jumpers, and coat the exposed portions.
> >
> > I think what you've proposed will live happily behind the panel
> > un-housed if you give it some decent moisture/dust protection.
>
>One final (I hope) question: do you recommend urethane from a spray
>bomb, or urethane applied with a brush?
I've brushed it on in a pinch but spray cans are best.
Do two or three thin coats with ample drying time between.
There are some gee-whizzy mil-spec products for this task
but they're just $high$ versions of polyurethane varnish from
a paint store.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Emag/mag timing question |
Why not two electronic ignitions?
Because, then your plane is electrically dependent. With one side a mag,
you can limp home on the mag if your electronics crap out. Your engine
keeps running. You don't fall out of the sky. AND Your electrical system
is much simpler and less costly to install and maintain. You can tolerate a
battery going bad or an alternator dying our your EI side making its last
spark. Indiana Larry
Friends are like angels who lift us to our feet
when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly....unknown
>
>
> Why
> not two electronic ignitions? The cost savings in spark plugs alone
> is pretty attractive.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an
> electronic system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
>
> Regards, George
>
> ---
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Emag/mag timing question |
Hi, George,
I'll answer that since I have two LSE CDI's. The plugs cost $2.50 each vice
~$19.00 each for aircraft plugs.
I probably changed aircraft plugs too often, about every 100 hours. It would
take a long time to pay for the dual CDI's, but I'm a gadget freak (I have
GAMI's also), so the smoother running, and easier hot starts are worth it
for me.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
>
>
> Why
> not two electronic ignitions? The cost savings in spark plugs alone
> is pretty attractive.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an
> electronic system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
>
> Regards, George
>
> ---
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Christopher Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
Gilles...
I for one will be very interested in what you find in using this device. I hope
you publish your finding here.
If it works as advertised and reviewed in the Model Aviation press it sounds like
it could be a very usefull tool to monitor actual battey condition (capicity)
over time thus adding to A/C electrical system reliability.
CS
Newberg, OR
Hi all,
This is to say I just received the CBA II Computerized Battery Analyser
from the English dealer Aurrora. Quick reaction and same day shipping,
but two weeks in the meanders of French customs and postal services.....
If memory serves me right, it was Paul Messinger who mentionned this
device in a recent post.
Maybe some listers will be interested in my first tests with this new
toy. Any tips or suggestions welcome.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
Electrically dependant Rotax 914
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Emag/mag timing question |
>
>
>George Braly wrote:
>
> > Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an
> electronic system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
> >
> > Regards, George
>
>Hi George,
> The electronic systems generally use automotive spark
>plugs, which are significantly cheaper (an order of magnitude)
>than the aircraft spark plugs. You'd have to go through
>10 auto spark plugs to equal the cost of a single
>aircraft spark plug, so the savings is significant
>even if you replaced them 4-5 times more often than
>an aircraft spark plug (which I don't think is the case).
>
> At least, I think that is what he is referring to... :-)
Exactly. I'd really like to do a detailed, instrumented comparative
study of trade-offs offered by the various ignition systems. There's
a lot of marketing hype flying around out there but it would be
really interesting to get the numbers.
We KNOW that fuel efficiency is influenced by adequate ignition
and timing appropriate to manifold pressure. All the airplanes I
fly run smoothly so I have to believe that the spark is adequate
and that making it hotter, longer, greener or whatever is not going
to make a big difference in fuel consumption. If I look at my log,
90% of my flying is below 5,000 feet. The real fuel savings in
cruise happen when you're at full throttle and at altitudes . . .
of course, if you're turbocharged, then manifold pressure stays
high, fuel consumption is then related to power setting and not
to atmospheric limits.
I don't know because I've not been able to measure it . . .
but I'll bet that unless you commute twice a week with 2 hour +
cruise at over 8,000 feet, you'll have a difficult time
justifying ripping out perfectly good working mags to replace
them with ANY form of electronic ignition based on $savings$
in fuel.
The advantages of E-I and particularly the e-mag/p-mag
series products as I perceive them today are:
(1) It's a 2004 design, not a 1985 design, not a 1930 design.
(2) It holds a real promise for an ignition TBO equal to or
greater than the engine.
(3) reduced mechanical parts count . . . issues of wear and
lubrication go away.
(4) let's you run automotive plugs and probably run the plugs
MUCH longer. One set of automotives run under an electronic
ignition will outlast a set of aircraft plugs run with
a mag. Aircraft plugs with an electronic ignition can
probably run much longer as well.
(5) easier starting . . . important if you live in cold
country or fly behind a dibble-injection engine.
(6) takes yet another healthy marketplace whack at Lasar's
certified abortion and offers a quantum jump in elegance
to an OBAM aircraft system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dsvs(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Emag/mag timing question |
Larry,
If you run P-Mags you will have the same advantages that you spoke of with the
added advantage of redundency on the self powered ignitions which you do not have
with any other e-ignition. Don
>
>
> Why not two electronic ignitions?
>
> Because, then your plane is electrically dependent. With one side a mag,
> you can limp home on the mag if your electronics crap out. Your engine
> keeps running. You don't fall out of the sky. AND Your electrical system
> is much simpler and less costly to install and maintain. You can tolerate a
> battery going bad or an alternator dying our your EI side making its last
> spark. Indiana Larry
>
> Friends are like angels who lift us to our feet
> when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly....unknown
>
>
> >
> >
> > Why
> > not two electronic ignitions? The cost savings in spark plugs alone
> > is pretty attractive.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> > Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an
> > electronic system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
> >
> > Regards, George
> >
> > ---
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Intersting,
I just ordered my engine with a single mag/Lightspeed setup. As the
timing will be different most of the time I was assuming that I could
simply switch the mag off in cruise flight and save the wear on the
airplane spark plugs.
Am I dreaming?
Frank
-----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: Emag/mag timing question
-->
>
>
>George Braly wrote:
>
> > Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an
> electronic system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 43 Msgs - 04/05/05 |
Matt,
Thanks for your response. Respectfully, I did get Alex' point. As a CFI, I
occasionally teach the nuances of CS props. I also have discovered that many
pilots relate stalling the aircraft to engine power. As you know, it is quite
possible to fly an aircraft at zero airspeed with a dead engine and not stall
the wing. My point was not to ridicule Alex (although I may have
inadvertently done so), but rather to emphasize to readers of the list (particularily
new
pilots) that stalling has nothing to do with the engine speed.
This internet list is an excellent tool for transferring ideas and
information. It is so much better than years past when a builder was on his own
except
for what few builders lived near him. But, as useful as the list is, I think
you'll agree that incorrect infomation is worse than no information at all.
Thanks again for responding to me.
Check Six,
Stan Sutterfield
http://www.rv-8a.net/
In a message dated 4/6/2005 3:02:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
Respectfully, I don't think you got Alex's point.. With idle throttle
setting, but without changes in propellor pitch, engine RPM IS related to
airspeed. On an airplane with a constant speed prop, at idle throttle
setting, and the prop set at max, the governor will allow the blades to go
to a very flat pitch setting. The effect this has is to cause the RPM to
remain relatively high, even though the engine is essentially not putting
out any power. In order to get the engine RPM to fall to 800RPM on an
aircraft with c/s prop, the airspeed has to be VERY low. Probably below
the VS0...
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
> Negative. Stalling the wing has nothing to do with the engine RPM - or
> with having an engine at all.
> Stan Sutterfield
>
>
> In a message dated 4/2/2005 3:57:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
> I don't know about fixed pitch props, but with a c/s, if your rpm was
> down to 800, you would probably have already stalled due to low
> airspeed. Flight idle at approach speeds is well above 800.
>
> Alex Peterson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
Frank,
You will get a more complete burn if you leave the mag ON even if it fires
after the E.I. If you turn the mag off, the respective plugs will probably
foul more readily, I would keep them firing for this reason alone. If you
turn the mag OFF in flight, you will probably note a decrease in CHT which
would indicate that you are losing a little power/efficiency. Finally, if
the E.I. should fail, having the mag ON will prevent power interruptions.
Hope this answers your question.
Pat Hatch
Intersting,
I just ordered my engine with a single mag/Lightspeed setup. As the
timing will be different most of the time I was assuming that I could
simply switch the mag off in cruise flight and save the wear on the
airplane spark plugs.
Am I dreaming?
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
Bob,
I would offer a seventh advantage:
7. It allows you to recover a small amount of power at the higher altitudes
and lower manifold pressures as the timing is advanced, thus enabling you to
get up high enough to catch the strong tailwinds returning from the west
coast.
As you said, it would be interesting to get the actual numbers for these
incremental power increases and fuel flow savings, and until we do, I put
this forward as a hypothesis only. My experience is anecdotal, but it does
seem to make a difference in my RV-6.
Pat Hatch
I don't know because I've not been able to measure it . . .
but I'll bet that unless you commute twice a week with 2 hour +
cruise at over 8,000 feet, you'll have a difficult time
justifying ripping out perfectly good working mags to replace
them with ANY form of electronic ignition based on $savings$
in fuel.
The advantages of E-I and particularly the e-mag/p-mag
series products as I perceive them today are:
(1) It's a 2004 design, not a 1985 design, not a 1930 design.
(2) It holds a real promise for an ignition TBO equal to or
greater than the engine.
(3) reduced mechanical parts count . . . issues of wear and
lubrication go away.
(4) let's you run automotive plugs and probably run the plugs
MUCH longer. One set of automotives run under an electronic
ignition will outlast a set of aircraft plugs run with
a mag. Aircraft plugs with an electronic ignition can
probably run much longer as well.
(5) easier starting . . . important if you live in cold
country or fly behind a dibble-injection engine.
(6) takes yet another healthy marketplace whack at Lasar's
certified abortion and offers a quantum jump in elegance
to an OBAM aircraft system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Thanks Pat...Would you recommend using a dual lightspeed setup for this
reason?...I am using an all electric fuel pumps (want to run mogas and
therfore put the pumps in the wing roots) so I am dependant on battery
storage in the event of alternator failure. I just saw the mag as a way
to conserve the batteries as much as possible.
Thanks
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pat
Hatch
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
Frank,
You will get a more complete burn if you leave the mag ON even if it
fires after the E.I. If you turn the mag off, the respective plugs will
probably foul more readily, I would keep them firing for this reason
alone. If you turn the mag OFF in flight, you will probably note a
decrease in CHT which would indicate that you are losing a little
power/efficiency. Finally, if the E.I. should fail, having the mag ON
will prevent power interruptions.
Hope this answers your question.
Pat Hatch
Intersting,
I just ordered my engine with a single mag/Lightspeed setup. As the
timing will be different most of the time I was assuming that I could
simply switch the mag off in cruise flight and save the wear on the
airplane spark plugs.
Am I dreaming?
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Wysong <hdwysong(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ducati regulator terminals |
Hello Giles/all -
Were the Ducati regulators simply allowed to get too hot thus leading
to the failures, or is the reliability of the Ducati part in ANY
environment questionable?
I read your original posts and convinced myself that the failures were
thermally induced. I was looking for an alternative
regulator/rectifier from the motorcycle camp... but decided to locate
my Ducati regulator in a 'cool' place and stop worrying about it.
Wise decision, or did I just stick my head in the sand!?
Thanks in advance,
D Wysong
Rotax 914 + Colyear Martin3 S100
Cramming 15 lbs into a 5 lbs bag
-----------------------
On Apr 6, 2005 7:58 AM, Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> wrote:
> Last year we conducted some tests on the Ducati and Schicke
> rectifier/regulators. You'll find interesting posts in the archives.
> When I have time I'll include some of our findings on my website. I'm
> afraid you'll have to be patient...;-)
> I would suggest you thoroughly study fig Z 16 in the Aeroelectric
> Connection.
>
> By the way, concerning the recent posts on "new age architecture", I'm
> not aware of any RG battery failing open, but I'm directly aware of more
> than 10 Ducati regulators giving up the ghost in the Europa/MCR/CT circles.
> I actually was given two such failed regulators, and ripped one of them
> to check the innards.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
Frank,
Well yes, I would recommend dual E.I. but not for the same reason. See
Bob's recent post on the 6 advantages to E.I. I think the primary reason is
probably going to be system reliability and ability to last to engine TBO.
The power and fuel efficiencies are secondary benefits, in my opinion. If
your concern is battery endurance, I would consider getting a p-mag as part
of your system (perhaps in addition to the Lightspeed or an e-mag), or even
2 p-mags.
Pat
Thanks Pat...Would you recommend using a dual lightspeed setup for this
reason?...I am using an all electric fuel pumps (want to run mogas and
therfore put the pumps in the wing roots) so I am dependant on battery
storage in the event of alternator failure. I just saw the mag as a way
to conserve the batteries as much as possible.
Thanks
Frank
Frank,
You will get a more complete burn if you leave the mag ON even if it
fires after the E.I. If you turn the mag off, the respective plugs will
probably foul more readily, I would keep them firing for this reason
alone. If you turn the mag OFF in flight, you will probably note a
decrease in CHT which would indicate that you are losing a little
power/efficiency. Finally, if the E.I. should fail, having the mag ON
will prevent power interruptions.
Hope this answers your question.
Pat Hatch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com |
Frank,
Two fuel pumps at the wing roots, interesting. Could you possibly tell us
why you have done this? I would think that one pump in the cockpit, which is
already pretty close to the fuel tanks, would do.
I ask because at one point in time, I also was considering putting in two
fuel pumps.
Also, which pumps did you go for and are you running a carbureted or
injected engine?
Thanks,
Michele
RV8 - Wings
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde, Frank George
> (Corvallis)
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 6:54 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
>
>
>
> Thanks Pat...Would you recommend using a dual lightspeed setup for this
> reason?...I am using an all electric fuel pumps (want to run mogas and
> therfore put the pumps in the wing roots) so I am dependant on battery
> storage in the event of alternator failure. I just saw the mag as a way
> to conserve the batteries as much as possible.
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pat
> Hatch
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
>
>
> Frank,
>
> You will get a more complete burn if you leave the mag ON even if it
> fires after the E.I. If you turn the mag off, the respective plugs will
> probably foul more readily, I would keep them firing for this reason
> alone. If you turn the mag OFF in flight, you will probably note a
> decrease in CHT which would indicate that you are losing a little
> power/efficiency. Finally, if the E.I. should fail, having the mag ON
> will prevent power interruptions.
>
> Hope this answers your question.
>
> Pat Hatch
>
>
> Intersting,
>
> I just ordered my engine with a single mag/Lightspeed setup. As the
> timing will be different most of the time I was assuming that I could
> simply switch the mag off in cruise flight and save the wear on the
> airplane spark plugs.
>
> Am I dreaming?
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
Bob and Interested Listers,
I see all the interest in ignition systems and I would like inject some of
my thoughts into the mix. These are just food for thought and not ment to
show favor or disfavor for any system or its manufacturer.
Ignition Systems
1.. It would be a giant back step to return to single point (spark plug)
ignition system.
2.. Redundancy is not a consideration, so far as efficiency is concerned.
Certified systems are restricted in design because of the redundancy
requirement.
3.. Random and periodic miss-fire of any single spark plug would go
unnoticed by all but the most keenly tuned ear.
4.. Best power Fuel/Air mixture by weight is 12.5:1, and the only control
we have on it is what goes past the intake valve into the cylinder. After it
is in the cylinder there are areas of the mixture, lean and rich, which
would not support ignition.
5.. In a large bore combustion chamber that has no quince area and little
turbulence, the mixture does not move to the ignition point. The flame front
must move across the ever increasing volume of chamber.
6.. A miss fire of one plug in a combustion chamber like that would have
the same effect as retarded ignition. One flame front has twice as far to go
to complete combustion, but doesn't have the time to do it.
7.. Any ignition system that allows the use of greater plug gap with a
more intense ignition would reduce the single plug miss-fire due to
combustion chamber conditions would improve efficiency.
8.. Aviation type spark plugs do not lend themselves to wide gapes.
9.. Automotive spark plugs do lend themselves to wider gapes, and some
come pre-gaped to as much as .080". They also provide a larger choice of
heat range and Tip design that allows better presentation of the gap to the
mixture in the combustion chamber.
10.. The distributor cap and rotor are a week point in that they present a
high maintenance requirement and are in most cases difficult to access. They
must be adequately ventilated to prevent ozone build up and pressurized for
use at altitude. Residue buildup from the center contact at the rotor leads
to unavoidable malfunction and even failure if not properly maintained.
11. Modern aircraft ignition systems do not even approach the state
of the art. Automotive systems have advanced to the point of attaching a
coil to each spark plug, thereby reducing the secondary ignition connection
count from 6 down to 1 for each plug. That average one yard of spark plug
wire per plug has also been eliminated.
12. Some systems even sort out the position of the engine in the
firing order and prime and fire the appropriate cylinder to start the
engine. How'd you like to throw your starter and all the crap it takes to
drive it, away? Then again if you had a warehouse full of starters you
wanted to sell would you put a system like that into mass production?
13. A lot of things drive "State of the Art".
Is redundancy when you incorporate a system that is not apt to fail or
having a secondary system ready when the primary system inevitably dose?
John D. Heath
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Sure Michele,
1) my existing carburetted A/C is set up this way (Subaru conversion
with no mechanical pump) and I like a familiar set up. The RV7 will be
FI however. Currently I use a check valve at the discharge of each pump
and have no selector valve. I simply switch pumps to switch
tanks....elegant solution. I run both pumps on takeoff...I have 2 EI's
and run one set up from each battery and a single alternator...Diode set
between the batteries.
2) I like to run Mogas and with fuel prices going up I am highly
motivated to do so in my new Lyc clone...Mogas means higher vapour
pressure so the cooler the pumps and nearer the source (tanks) the
better.
3) I think the pumps inside the cabin will work ok (nervous about the
pump warming the fuel and returning to its own inlet so I much each pump
having a pressure relief back to its own tank)....Just easier to put it
all into the wing roots.
4) The single mechanical pump will not vapour lock UNLESS you lose the
electric boost pump....I.e hot pump high on the firewall (engine)...So
you could be at take off, loose the boost pump and the mechanical pump
could instantly vapour lock...I.e the Mechanical pump is not an adequate
backup to the boost pump when running mogas.
5) The pumps I got from the Rotary folks (RWS) but they are a NAPA brand
aftermarket pumps. I am told by the rotary folks they are very reliable.
6) Pressure relief valves are from Airflow performance (26 pound spring
and bleed hole to vent any vapours).
7) Final check valves from Van's
8) I will install two filters (redundancy) from Summit Racing part #
SUM-G1516 ($29 ea) with -6AN fittings and 60 micron filter
9) Think I will install Van's gascolator but no selector valve.
Just do not uncover a tank vent doing a big slip to landing on a nearly
empty upwing tank...:)
Hope this helps
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Two Fuel pumps
Frank,
Two fuel pumps at the wing roots, interesting. Could you possibly tell
us why you have done this? I would think that one pump in the cockpit,
which is already pretty close to the fuel tanks, would do.
I ask because at one point in time, I also was considering putting in
two fuel pumps.
Also, which pumps did you go for and are you running a carbureted or
injected engine?
Thanks,
Michele
RV8 - Wings
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde, Frank
> George
> (Corvallis)
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 6:54 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
>
(Corvallis)"
>
>
> Thanks Pat...Would you recommend using a dual lightspeed setup for
> this reason?...I am using an all electric fuel pumps (want to run
> mogas and therfore put the pumps in the wing roots) so I am dependant
> on battery storage in the event of alternator failure. I just saw the
> mag as a way to conserve the batteries as much as possible.
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pat
> Hatch
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
>
> -->
>
> Frank,
>
> You will get a more complete burn if you leave the mag ON even if it
> fires after the E.I. If you turn the mag off, the respective plugs
> will probably foul more readily, I would keep them firing for this
> reason alone. If you turn the mag OFF in flight, you will probably
> note a decrease in CHT which would indicate that you are losing a
> little power/efficiency. Finally, if the E.I. should fail, having the
> mag ON will prevent power interruptions.
>
> Hope this answers your question.
>
> Pat Hatch
>
>
> Intersting,
>
> I just ordered my engine with a single mag/Lightspeed setup. As the
> timing will be different most of the time I was assuming that I could
> simply switch the mag off in cruise flight and save the wear on the
> airplane spark plugs.
>
> Am I dreaming?
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ducati regulator |
D Wysong a crit :
>
>Hello Giles/all -
>
>Were the Ducati regulators simply allowed to get too hot thus leading
>to the failures, or is the reliability of the Ducati part in ANY
>environment questionable?
>I read your original posts and convinced myself that the failures were
>thermally induced.
>
Probably. I believe those regulators are not capable of supplying the
advertised power in ordinary conditions. A reasonable value of around 12
amps continuous seems the most one can expect.
Nevertheless the study showed that with the addition of a computer fan,
things improved greatly. But don't expect to get more than 15-18 amps.
> I was looking for an alternative
>regulator/rectifier from the motorcycle camp... but decided to locate
>my Ducati regulator in a 'cool' place and stop worrying about it.
>Wise decision, or did I just stick my head in the sand!?
>
>
>
IF your power needs are reasonable, you may be right. A cool environment
may include a blast tube, a fan or some active means of cooling.
>Thanks in advance,
>
>D Wysong
>Rotax 914 + Colyear Martin3 S100
>Cramming 15 lbs into a 5 lbs bag
>
>
>
Remember that your 914 is dependant on electric supply.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
It is interesting that Lihtspeed claim some significant advantages to
using one system (10 t0 15%) but a much less benefit with the second
Lightspeed (can't remember what it is exactly). In reading this I wonder
if the "total cost of ownership" is greater with a mag?...Right now I
have ordered an engine with a mag and a Lightspeed but I could change
it.
I have also requested the Lightspeed max advance be limited to 25deg to
simulate a mag. Reason being is that the comapany will not warrant large
ignition advances with the use of Mogas so I want to limit it during the
warranty period and extend it later once more is known about running
Lycs on Mogas.
Without a doubt though, if I was to lose the alternator and already
having two fuel pumps to run, not having to worry about the ignition is
attractive to me.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
D. Heath
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
-->
Bob and Interested Listers,
I see all the interest in ignition systems and I would like inject some
of my thoughts into the mix. These are just food for thought and not
ment to show favor or disfavor for any system or its manufacturer.
Ignition Systems
1.. It would be a giant back step to return to single point (spark
plug) ignition system.
2.. Redundancy is not a consideration, so far as efficiency is
concerned.
Certified systems are restricted in design because of the redundancy
requirement.
3.. Random and periodic miss-fire of any single spark plug would go
unnoticed by all but the most keenly tuned ear.
4.. Best power Fuel/Air mixture by weight is 12.5:1, and the only
control we have on it is what goes past the intake valve into the
cylinder. After it is in the cylinder there are areas of the mixture,
lean and rich, which would not support ignition.
5.. In a large bore combustion chamber that has no quince area and
little turbulence, the mixture does not move to the ignition point. The
flame front must move across the ever increasing volume of chamber.
6.. A miss fire of one plug in a combustion chamber like that would
have the same effect as retarded ignition. One flame front has twice as
far to go to complete combustion, but doesn't have the time to do it.
7.. Any ignition system that allows the use of greater plug gap with a
more intense ignition would reduce the single plug miss-fire due to
combustion chamber conditions would improve efficiency.
8.. Aviation type spark plugs do not lend themselves to wide gapes.
9.. Automotive spark plugs do lend themselves to wider gapes, and some
come pre-gaped to as much as .080". They also provide a larger choice of
heat range and Tip design that allows better presentation of the gap to
the mixture in the combustion chamber.
10.. The distributor cap and rotor are a week point in that they
present a high maintenance requirement and are in most cases difficult
to access. They must be adequately ventilated to prevent ozone build up
and pressurized for use at altitude. Residue buildup from the center
contact at the rotor leads to unavoidable malfunction and even failure
if not properly maintained.
11. Modern aircraft ignition systems do not even approach the
state
of the art. Automotive systems have advanced to the point of attaching a
coil to each spark plug, thereby reducing the secondary ignition
connection count from 6 down to 1 for each plug. That average one yard
of spark plug wire per plug has also been eliminated.
12. Some systems even sort out the position of the engine in the
firing order and prime and fire the appropriate cylinder to start the
engine. How'd you like to throw your starter and all the crap it takes
to drive it, away? Then again if you had a warehouse full of starters
you wanted to sell would you put a system like that into mass
production?
13. A lot of things drive "State of the Art".
Is redundancy when you incorporate a system that is not apt to fail or
having a secondary system ready when the primary system inevitably dose?
John D. Heath
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
In a message dated 4/6/2005 2:10:48 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Alto_Q(at)direcway.com writes:
Modern aircraft ignition systems do not even approach the state
of the art. Automotive systems have advanced to the point of attaching a
coil to each spark plug, thereby reducing the secondary ignition connection
count from 6 down to 1 for each plug. That average one yard of spark plug
wire per plug has also been eliminated.
Good Afternoon John,
I have no argument with the premise you present, but I would like to make a
comment on the newness of one point you make. I do not know when the first use
was made of one coil per spark plug, but Curtiss Wright used that set up on
the Turbo Compound R3350 that was heavily used in the post WW II period.
There is very little new under the sun.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | VOR antenna splitter? |
I am thinking of adding a Garmin AT SL 30 NavCom to the CNX 80
Both have internal splitters for the localizer and the glide slope. It OK
to use ONE VOR antenna for both boxes? I recognize I would be introducing
a single point failure but it seems sufficiently remote. I am concerned
that both would have adequate signal levels.
An archives search on antenna splitter gave no guidance.
Matthew M. Jurotich
e-mail mail to:
phone : 301-286-5919
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Two Fuel pumps |
Dear Frank,
I believe we are using the same fuel pumps from RWS, by the way you can get
AN fittings for them from EARL's... (as Weber carburator adapters)
If they are the same pump you can do without the check valves as the pumps
have them internally.
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Two Fuel pumps |
Hi all,
>[SNIP]
>3) I think the pumps inside the cabin will work ok
>[SNIP]
>
>
In our Rotax turbocharged project we installed the two electric fuel
pumps on the cabin side of the firewall. The idea was to have a cooler
environment, and to gain some room in the engine compartment for the
intercooler and ducts.
The two pumps and their respective check valves are in parallel. No
mechanical pump.
The following may not be applicable to US homebuilts or kitplanes, but
in France kitplanes must comply with FAR 23 (eventually will be JAR 23).
And though we were supposed to comply with the FAR 23 amendment 7, our
Civil Aviation Authority chose to use the current FAR amendment, and
have us shield the pumps with drainable covers.
Here is the relevant paragraph, which appeared only in amendment 14 :
Subpart D--Design and Construction
Sec. 23.853
....
(e) Lines, tanks, or equipment containing fuel, oil, or other flammable
fluids may not be installed in such compartments unless adequately
shielded, isolated, or otherwise protected so that any breakage or
failure of such an item would not create a hazard.
...
FWIW,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Interesting, I was wondering what the parrallel thread was on the exit
of the pump?...The pump inlets are fixed 5/16th barbed fittings on mine.
I did find out that AN fittings are the same as JIC fittings an are
available much cheaper in brass. Not that I want to litter my plane with
heavy brass fittings but it's the first place I have seen an AN-6
fitting with a 5/16th hose barb on the other end. Very useful for coming
from the AN-6 bulkhead tank fitting on the RV to the pump inlet.
Check this out the link if your interested...
Unfortunatly I cannot do without the check valve because the dicharge of
each pump has the relief back to the tank tee'd into it. So if I switch
one pump (and therefore tank) off, the opposite pump can pump fuel to
the opposite tank thru the relief valve unless there is an additional
check valve there.
I nearly built a Cozy, a very nice plane...:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Two Fuel pumps
Dear Frank,
I believe we are using the same fuel pumps from RWS, by the way you can
get AN fittings for them from EARL's... (as Weber carburator adapters)
If they are the same pump you can do without the check valves as the
pumps have them internally.
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/) Cozy Mk-IV RG
13B-turbo Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
In a message dated 4/6/2005 3:40:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Alto_Q(at)direcway.com writes:
Old Bob,
Some where in the back of my mine I new that, I just couldn't dig it out.
Do you remember how the primary ignition was arranged? If you say 18 sets
of points, I'm going to fall off this chair.
John D.
Good Afternoon John,
Unfortunately, I don't. Never worked on them, just flew 'em. I'll see if I
can locate any documentation.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CozyGirrrl(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Two Fuel pumps |
Sorry for the non-electric diversion here:
Dear Frank,
Thanks, we are enjoying the build =)
We have an earlier model of the pump and hope we can find a spare, both ends
are threaded the same.
OK, understand why the check valves in your case, makes sense. In our case
we only take fuel and return fuel from the rail to the same tank, use a
transfer pump for the other tank.
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
John, Bob and Interested Listers,
I know that electronic ignition is the rage these days. I first put
electronic ignition on my '57 Ford in 1962. I also put a breakerless CD ignition
system on my (circle track) race cars back in the '60s when everyone else was
running dual points. After becoming an electronic engineer, I designed
electronic ignition systems for GM for 15 years. Now, I hate authorities on any
subject as much as most of the listers do, but I don't know any way else to
qualify myself to say what I have to say. Experience is a good teacher.
I would caution anyone to not expect miracles from their ignition system,
and to not go too far with their claims. I kept very accurate fuel mileage on
my '74 Cutlass before and after switching from a single point ignition system
to a High Energy Ignition having 3 times the spark energy only to be
disappointed that my mileage didn't increase any measurable amount. You see it
only
takes about 25 micro-joules to ignite a fuel/air mixture. Going from 50 to
150 milli-joules didn't help! It was still nice to get rid of the points,
and the fact that the wear on the rubbing block continuously retarded the
timing until it was reset -- about once a year.
Magnetos are not high energy ignition systems. Aircraft engines are not
hard to ignite. They are run under conditions, beyond half throttle most of the
time, where ignition is not hard to achieve.
There is probably an advantage to be able to advance the timing that the
present magneto system does not lend itself to. This is strictly a mechanical
issue as far as the mags are concerned.
I don't know why one couldn't put automotive plugs in a system with a
magneto. Cost is the only advantage that I know of for using auto plugs. As
for
making the gaps big, there is an advantage -- better lean and part throttle
ignition. This is not much of an advantage on an aircraft engine. The
disadvantage is that the high voltage components -- cap, wires and coil are stressed
-- usually to failure with .080 gaps. GM had to back off to about .060 for
that reason. If you eliminate the wires you still have to make a coil that
will stand the stress. Its not worth it in an airplane.
The partial burns (we call it) are reduced by using auto fuel. This too, is
not that big a problem when operating the engine beyond half throttle.
There is a lot of fuel and air in the chamber, and turbulence is mainly something
that helps part throttle performance. Something you need in an automobile,
but not so much in an airplane, unless you fly at 10 to 20 percent power like
you drive your car.
Well, you get the point! So what ignition do I have in my RV7A? You
guessed it. 2 Slick magnetos. Maybe someday when I get ready, I'll design a
system for my bird. That would be an experiment for me. I appreciate those
who
do this kind of work, but I want to do my own experiment on my plane. There
is a place for it. Right now I'm just happy to be flying my new RV, and I
don't see the magneto ignition system(s) as that much of a disadvantage.
Thanks, if you read this,
Respectfully,
Dan Hopper
Walton, IN
RV-7A (Was flying -- now in the paint shop)
In a message dated 4/6/05 2:10:35 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
Alto_Q(at)direcway.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath"
Bob and Interested Listers,
I see all the interest in ignition systems and I would like inject some of
my thoughts into the mix. These are just food for thought and not ment to
show favor or disfavor for any system or its manufacturer.
Ignition Systems
1.. It would be a giant back step to return to single point (spark plug)
ignition system.
2.. Redundancy is not a consideration, so far as efficiency is concerned.
Certified systems are restricted in design because of the redundancy
requirement.
3.. Random and periodic miss-fire of any single spark plug would go
unnoticed by all but the most keenly tuned ear.
4.. Best power Fuel/Air mixture by weight is 12.5:1, and the only control
we have on it is what goes past the intake valve into the cylinder. After it
is in the cylinder there are areas of the mixture, lean and rich, which
would not support ignition.
5.. In a large bore combustion chamber that has no quince area and little
turbulence, the mixture does not move to the ignition point. The flame front
must move across the ever increasing volume of chamber.
6.. A miss fire of one plug in a combustion chamber like that would have
the same effect as retarded ignition. One flame front has twice as far to go
to complete combustion, but doesn't have the time to do it.
7.. Any ignition system that allows the use of greater plug gap with a
more intense ignition would reduce the single plug miss-fire due to
combustion chamber conditions would improve efficiency.
8.. Aviation type spark plugs do not lend themselves to wide gapes.
9.. Automotive spark plugs do lend themselves to wider gapes, and some
come pre-gaped to as much as .080". They also provide a larger choice of
heat range and Tip design that allows better presentation of the gap to the
mixture in the combustion chamber.
10.. The distributor cap and rotor are a week point in that they present a
high maintenance requirement and are in most cases difficult to access. They
must be adequately ventilated to prevent ozone build up and pressurized for
use at altitude. Residue buildup from the center contact at the rotor leads
to unavoidable malfunction and even failure if not properly maintained.
11. Modern aircraft ignition systems do not even approach the state
of the art. Automotive systems have advanced to the point of attaching a
coil to each spark plug, thereby reducing the secondary ignition connection
count from 6 down to 1 for each plug. That average one yard of spark plug
wire per plug has also been eliminated.
12. Some systems even sort out the position of the engine in the
firing order and prime and fire the appropriate cylinder to start the
engine. How'd you like to throw your starter and all the crap it takes to
drive it, away? Then again if you had a warehouse full of starters you
wanted to sell would you put a system like that into mass production?
13. A lot of things drive "State of the Art".
Is redundancy when you incorporate a system that is not apt to fail or
having a secondary system ready when the primary system inevitably dose?
John D. Heath
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
Frank,
I got a little diffrent read on that. I understand a 10% improvement with
one Lightspeed system and up to 15% with two. Correct me if I'm Wrong.
As for that little built in back up alternator, count me in. At that if the
Mag pads are vacant, could not one of the small aux alternators that are
available be used as an engine support buss and include the fuel pumps?
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>
>
> It is interesting that Lihtspeed claim some significant advantages to
> using one system (10 t0 15%) but a much less benefit with the second
> Lightspeed (can't remember what it is exactly). In reading this I wonder
> if the "total cost of ownership" is greater with a mag?...Right now I
> have ordered an engine with a mag and a Lightspeed but I could change
> it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
You maybe right John on the Lightspeed I was going from faded memory.
Certainly the fuel economy is going to be based on the hugely advanced
timing, which I won't have until the warranty expires on the engine.
The auxilery pad alternator (nice to have) is about $700! I would run
one FI pump from each alternator in that case.
My system is a single $165 Toyota Camry alt (80A+...Mamma!) driving two
isolated batteries, with one pump from each batt, and each pump is
dedicated to each tank.
Can't imagine having less than half an hour left in either tank at any
time so with a low voltage warning (Using the Dynon audio warning
feature) I should always have plenty of everyhting to get me down in
something that resembles and airport...:)
. I just wanted the mag so I could shut off the Lightspeed and just
worry about keeping one fuel pump going and a radio if absolutly
necessary.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
D. Heath
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
-->
Frank,
I got a little diffrent read on that. I understand a 10% improvement
with one Lightspeed system and up to 15% with two. Correct me if I'm
Wrong.
As for that little built in back up alternator, count me in. At that if
the Mag pads are vacant, could not one of the small aux alternators that
are available be used as an engine support buss and include the fuel
pumps?
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
(Corvallis)"
>
>
> It is interesting that Lihtspeed claim some significant advantages to
> using one system (10 t0 15%) but a much less benefit with the second
> Lightspeed (can't remember what it is exactly). In reading this I
wonder
> if the "total cost of ownership" is greater with a mag?...Right now I
> have ordered an engine with a mag and a Lightspeed but I could change
> it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
Frank,
Since you are operating an electrically dependent aircraft, I would think that
finding ways of minimizing the total electrical costs to keep your plane in the
air would be paramount. I think you would be better served by either 2 P Mags
or a P Mag and a magneto to reduce your emergency electrical loads to the fuel
system draws (fuel pumps, injectors and computer)
Using Lightspeed or ElectroAire Ignitions simply adds an additional 3.5 to 6 amps
current draw to your battery.
Charlie Kuss
---- "Hinde wrote:
>
> Thanks Pat...Would you recommend using a dual lightspeed setup for this
> reason?...I am using an all electric fuel pumps (want to run mogas and
> therfore put the pumps in the wing roots) so I am dependant on battery
> storage in the event of alternator failure. I just saw the mag as a way
> to conserve the batteries as much as possible.
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pat
> Hatch
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
>
>
> Frank,
>
> You will get a more complete burn if you leave the mag ON even if it
> fires after the E.I. If you turn the mag off, the respective plugs will
> probably foul more readily, I would keep them firing for this reason
> alone. If you turn the mag OFF in flight, you will probably note a
> decrease in CHT which would indicate that you are losing a little
> power/efficiency. Finally, if the E.I. should fail, having the mag ON
> will prevent power interruptions.
>
> Hope this answers your question.
>
> Pat Hatch
>
>
> Intersting,
>
> I just ordered my engine with a single mag/Lightspeed setup. As the
> timing will be different most of the time I was assuming that I could
> simply switch the mag off in cruise flight and save the wear on the
> airplane spark plugs.
>
> Am I dreaming?
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Yes that was my thought too.
Thanks
Frank
-----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: Emag/mag timing question
Frank,
Since you are operating an electrically dependent aircraft, I would
think that finding ways of minimizing the total electrical costs to keep
your plane in the air would be paramount. I think you would be better
served by either 2 P Mags or a P Mag and a magneto to reduce your
emergency electrical loads to the fuel system draws (fuel pumps,
injectors and computer) Using Lightspeed or ElectroAire Ignitions
simply adds an additional 3.5 to 6 amps current draw to your battery.
Charlie Kuss
---- "Hinde wrote:
> --> (Corvallis)"
>
> Thanks Pat...Would you recommend using a dual lightspeed setup for
> this reason?...I am using an all electric fuel pumps (want to run
> mogas and therfore put the pumps in the wing roots) so I am dependant
> on battery storage in the event of alternator failure. I just saw the
> mag as a way to conserve the batteries as much as possible.
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pat
> Hatch
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
>
> -->
>
> Frank,
>
> You will get a more complete burn if you leave the mag ON even if it
> fires after the E.I. If you turn the mag off, the respective plugs
> will probably foul more readily, I would keep them firing for this
> reason alone. If you turn the mag OFF in flight, you will probably
> note a decrease in CHT which would indicate that you are losing a
> little power/efficiency. Finally, if the E.I. should fail, having the
> mag ON will prevent power interruptions.
>
> Hope this answers your question.
>
> Pat Hatch
>
>
> Intersting,
>
> I just ordered my engine with a single mag/Lightspeed setup. As the
> timing will be different most of the time I was assuming that I could
> simply switch the mag off in cruise flight and save the wear on the
> airplane spark plugs.
>
> Am I dreaming?
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
Hello John,
Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 3:47:11 PM, you wrote:
JDH> quince area
What does "quince area" mean?
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
John,
The point is that claims about electronic ignitions improving engine
performance are often overstated. I also agreed that there was room for
improvement, but that the improvement came more from timing flexibility than from
hotter
spark.
I understand quench chambers, swirl, turbulence, etc., helping to spread the
flame in the combustion chamber. And I agree that the Lyc could probably
benefit some from that. However, the Indy engines have an open chamber (no
quench) with one centrally located plug. Much smaller bore, higher RPM.
Probably no comparison, I know. I doubt if 4 inch vs. 5 inch chambers change
things all that much. The Lycoming has two plugs which are each very far from
the
optimum location for a single plug, if you know what I mean. I agree with
Bob that two electronic ignitions firing simultaneously would be better than a
later firing mag. I don't think that increasing spark energy is going to
correct for a poor shaped combustion chamber. I know, that too is just an
opinion.
I don't expect anyone to change their mind based on my post. I guess as
much as anything I would like to encourage those people using magnetos, that
they are not that far off. I don't want to get into a heated debate. I am just
expressing an opinion. I have nothing to gain here.
Thanks for your reply,
Dan
In a message dated 4/6/05 5:51:01 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
Alto_Q(at)direcway.com writes:
On the other hand a good old Lycosaurus with its
more than 5.00" bore and a combustion chamber shaped like an old Simonize
can and "bigger is better" ports might just react a little differently. I
know I would sure like to have had Dual Lightspeed ignition systems when I
was making that tour of Siam. I would have been happy with half the
improvement that Lightspeed Claims.
Perhaps I just don't understand your point.
Respectively and I do mean Respectively
John D.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
Steve,
Quince area is an area in the combustion chamber where the piston comes so
close at TDC that any combustion charge in that position is, shall we say ,
squirted out causing turbulence in the chamber. That turbulence makes for
greatly improved completion of combustion. Most modern piston engine designs
incorporate that quince area in some way, Lycoming dose not.
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Thomas" <lists(at)stevet.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>
> Hello John,
>
> Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 3:47:11 PM, you wrote:
>
> JDH> quince area
>
>
> What does "quince area" mean?
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
>
> Bob and Interested Listers,
>
> I see all the interest in ignition systems and I would like inject some of
>my thoughts into the mix. These are just food for thought and not ment to
>show favor or disfavor for any system or its manufacturer.
>
>Ignition Systems
>
> 1.. It would be a giant back step to return to single point (spark plug)
>ignition system.
. . . yet folks running one mag and one EI are doing essentially that.
>11. Modern aircraft ignition systems do not even approach the state
>of the art. Automotive systems have advanced to the point of attaching a
>coil to each spark plug, thereby reducing the secondary ignition connection
>count from 6 down to 1 for each plug. That average one yard of spark plug
>wire per plug has also been eliminated.
That's been done on lots of engines and not so recently and there
have been a lot of coil per plug or coil per pair of plug systems
designed and flown . . . perhaps not the BEST we can do but certainly
a long way from airplanes we all learned to fly in.
>12. Some systems even sort out the position of the engine in the
>firing order and prime and fire the appropriate cylinder to start the
>engine. How'd you like to throw your starter and all the crap it takes to
>drive it, away? Then again if you had a warehouse full of starters you
>wanted to sell would you put a system like that into mass production?
Saw Klaus demonstrate that at OSH in 87 or 88 . . . more often than
not, an engine that had been primed and rotated by hand to distribute
some mixture in each cylinder would simply start up and run when the
ignition system was first turned on. Seems his system at the time
generated a single spark when the system was first energized. I've
read about this action being proposed as a feature of a design.
>13. A lot of things drive "State of the Art".
. . . and I'll suggest that the elegant solution is not necessarily
tied to state of the art nor state of the science. It's a mix of
simple-ideas of any level of maturity that provides the customer
with a high degree of perceived value that is also something that
he/she can afford to install in their airplane.
You can have all the multi-killobuck systems you like that incorporate
the very best that the art and science can offer but sales
will be severely limited by customer perceptions of return on
investment.
> Is redundancy when you incorporate a system that is not apt to fail or
>having a secondary system ready when the primary system inevitably does?
Reducing failure to the point of insignificance is reliability
and robustness . . . like prop bolts and flight controls. Redundancy
is having a plan-B that you hope you'll never have to use but
always grateful that it's there when you need it. Plan-B for
broken prop bolts is a BRS system fitted to your airplane or
a 'chute strapped to your fanny. Few folks fly that way but
if you read the BRS marketing pitch, there HAVE been a few
folks who's dark-n-stormy night stories ended happily by
pulling the rip cord.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ducati regulator terminals |
>
>Hello Giles/all -
>
>Were the Ducati regulators simply allowed to get too hot thus leading
>to the failures, or is the reliability of the Ducati part in ANY
>environment questionable?
>
>I read your original posts and convinced myself that the failures were
>thermally induced. I was looking for an alternative
>regulator/rectifier from the motorcycle camp... but decided to locate
>my Ducati regulator in a 'cool' place and stop worrying about it.
>Wise decision, or did I just stick my head in the sand!?
I belive it was Giles who sent me some photos of a dissected
Ducati regulator . . . they didn't even bother to activly heat
sink the most thermally stressed components and depended on
the potting compound for heat transfer. There HAS to be somebody
who builds a better product that will replace the Ducati regulator.
What regulator are you flying Giles?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
>
>
>Thanks Pat...Would you recommend using a dual lightspeed setup for this
>reason?...I am using an all electric fuel pumps (want to run mogas and
>therfore put the pumps in the wing roots) so I am dependant on battery
>storage in the event of alternator failure. I just saw the mag as a way
>to conserve the batteries as much as possible.
What is the concern for "battery conservation"? If you take the trouble
to design your system for a certain level of performance and maintain
it to that level, then adding electronic ignition loads to your
suit of electrical requirements is no different that having the same
electrical system support as many radios, fuel pumps, etc as is useful
for comfortable completion of flight.
Making a decision to incorporate a magneto over an electronic ignition
for conservation of electrical system capacity doesn't seem like
a well considered choice.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
>
>
>Without a doubt though, if I was to lose the alternator and already
>having two fuel pumps to run, not having to worry about the ignition is
>attractive to me.
Then why not p-mags?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR antenna splitter? |
>
>
>I am thinking of adding a Garmin AT SL 30 NavCom to the CNX 80
>
>Both have internal splitters for the localizer and the glide slope. It OK
>to use ONE VOR antenna for both boxes? I recognize I would be introducing
>a single point failure but it seems sufficiently remote. I am concerned
>that both would have adequate signal levels.
>
>An archives search on antenna splitter gave no guidance.
See http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/com_couplers3.php
These work good and last a long time.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
>
>Frank,
>I got a little diffrent read on that. I understand a 10% improvement with
>one Lightspeed system and up to 15% with two. Correct me if I'm Wrong.
> As for that little built in back up alternator, count me in. At that if the
>Mag pads are vacant, could not one of the small aux alternators that are
>available be used as an engine support buss and include the fuel pumps?
Magneto pads run at 1/2 engine speed . . . very poor place to pull
out mechanical energy to run a real power producing alternator.
It's a credit to the p-mag design that they make it run well from
power derived at that RPM . . . but it's not MUCH power and suited
at present only for the single task of making sparks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Race Car Load Dump? |
>While all of this may in fact be true, the primary reason why all of the
racing sanctioning bodies REQUIRE this type of master switch, on an
>alternator equipped car, is so that when the car crashes ......... It's a
safety issue, not to protect any of the equipment. Doesn't negate any side
benefit provided however
>>I was looking at manual battery switches when I noticed the following.
>Guess the racing guys want OV/Load Dump protection also.
Thanks Bob,
The disconnect switch has a 3 ohm resistor in it. If the switch disconnects
the battery, the remaining resistor load is 15v / 3 ohms=4 amps at 4a x 4a
x 3 ohm=48 watts. This loads the alternator enough to suppress the load
dump....I suspect...since it certainly can't load the alternator enough to
do anything else. I also suspect that race car drivers offer some very
choice slang alternatives for "DNF".
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
Teamwork: " A lot of people doing exactly what I say."
(Marketing exec., Citrix Corp.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
Well, yes the explanation is correct, but the term is "quench".
Dick Tasker
John D. Heath wrote:
>
>Steve,
>
> Quince area is an area in the combustion chamber where the piston comes so
>close at TDC that any combustion charge in that position is, shall we say ,
>squirted out causing turbulence in the chamber. That turbulence makes for
>greatly improved completion of combustion. Most modern piston engine designs
>incorporate that quince area in some way, Lycoming dose not.
>
> John D.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Steve Thomas" <lists(at)stevet.net>
>To: "John D. Heath"
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Hello John,
>>
>>Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 3:47:11 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>JDH> quince area
>>
>>
>>What does "quince area" mean?
>>
>>--
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
----
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Race Car Load Dump? |
Eric M Jones wrote
>Thanks Bob,
>
> I also suspect that race car drivers offer some very
>choice slang alternatives for "DNF".
>
>
You have good perception there sir.
Bob McC
do no archive
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Emag/mag timing question |
Bob,
To your list I would add: much smoother operation particularly at low RPM,
idles smooth as a babies butt at 700 RPM. This based on using a Laser
abortion for 650 hours now.
Dick Sipp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>George Braly wrote:
>>
>> > Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an
>> electronic system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
>> >
>> > Regards, George
>>
>>Hi George,
>> The electronic systems generally use automotive spark
>>plugs, which are significantly cheaper (an order of magnitude)
>>than the aircraft spark plugs. You'd have to go through
>>10 auto spark plugs to equal the cost of a single
>>aircraft spark plug, so the savings is significant
>>even if you replaced them 4-5 times more often than
>>an aircraft spark plug (which I don't think is the case).
>>
>> At least, I think that is what he is referring to... :-)
>
> Exactly. I'd really like to do a detailed, instrumented comparative
> study of trade-offs offered by the various ignition systems. There's
> a lot of marketing hype flying around out there but it would be
> really interesting to get the numbers.
>
> We KNOW that fuel efficiency is influenced by adequate ignition
> and timing appropriate to manifold pressure. All the airplanes I
> fly run smoothly so I have to believe that the spark is adequate
> and that making it hotter, longer, greener or whatever is not going
> to make a big difference in fuel consumption. If I look at my log,
> 90% of my flying is below 5,000 feet. The real fuel savings in
> cruise happen when you're at full throttle and at altitudes . . .
> of course, if you're turbocharged, then manifold pressure stays
> high, fuel consumption is then related to power setting and not
> to atmospheric limits.
>
> I don't know because I've not been able to measure it . . .
> but I'll bet that unless you commute twice a week with 2 hour +
> cruise at over 8,000 feet, you'll have a difficult time
> justifying ripping out perfectly good working mags to replace
> them with ANY form of electronic ignition based on $savings$
> in fuel.
>
> The advantages of E-I and particularly the e-mag/p-mag
> series products as I perceive them today are:
>
> (1) It's a 2004 design, not a 1985 design, not a 1930 design.
>
> (2) It holds a real promise for an ignition TBO equal to or
> greater than the engine.
>
> (3) reduced mechanical parts count . . . issues of wear and
> lubrication go away.
>
> (4) let's you run automotive plugs and probably run the plugs
> MUCH longer. One set of automotives run under an electronic
> ignition will outlast a set of aircraft plugs run with
> a mag. Aircraft plugs with an electronic ignition can
> probably run much longer as well.
>
> (5) easier starting . . . important if you live in cold
> country or fly behind a dibble-injection engine.
>
> (6) takes yet another healthy marketplace whack at Lasar's
> certified abortion and offers a quantum jump in elegance
> to an OBAM aircraft system.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <Richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: Race Car Load Dump? |
At 04:21 PM 4/6/05, you wrote:
>(DNF- did not finish---DNS- did not start-- DSQ- disqualified--- NRF- not
>running at finish)
As my father once said after coasting into the winner's circle, in reply to
someone asking why he didn't take a victory lap -
"6 lap race, 6 lap engine."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AI Nut <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
That might be 'quench.'
John D. Heath wrote:
>
>Steve,
>
> Quince area is an area in the combustion chamber where the piston comes so
>close at TDC that any combustion charge in that position is, shall we say ,
>squirted out causing turbulence in the chamber. That turbulence makes for
>greatly improved completion of combustion. Most modern piston engine designs
>incorporate that quince area in some way, Lycoming dose not.
>
> John D.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Steve Thomas" <lists(at)stevet.net>
>To: "John D. Heath"
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Hello John,
>>
>>Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 3:47:11 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>JDH> quince area
>>
>>
>>What does "quince area" mean?
>>
>>--
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gilles St-Pierre" <ranchlaseigneurie(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
Quince or quench area
i believe the second term is right
gilles st pierre
>From: AI Nut <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:01:18 -0500
>
>
>That might be 'quench.'
>
>
>John D. Heath wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Steve,
> >
> > Quince area is an area in the combustion chamber where the piston comes
>so
> >close at TDC that any combustion charge in that position is, shall we say
>,
> >squirted out causing turbulence in the chamber. That turbulence makes for
> >greatly improved completion of combustion. Most modern piston engine
>designs
> >incorporate that quince area in some way, Lycoming dose not.
> >
> > John D.
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Steve Thomas" <lists(at)stevet.net>
> >To: "John D. Heath"
> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Hello John,
> >>
> >>Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 3:47:11 PM, you wrote:
> >>
> >>JDH> quince area
> >>
> >>
> >>What does "quince area" mean?
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >>Best regards,
> >>Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
Bob,
Small planitary gear sets are easy to make and at any ratio if you're
making you might as well make what you need.
There are some off the shelf sets that might fill the bill. I plan to do
something along that line when the time comes but haven't even started The
research yet. I spent a long time in automotive repair (Porsche, MB, BMW,
and such) and in over twenty years I only saw one ECU replaced that was not
below the water line on an excursion through flood and was realy the problem
in the first place.
Thanks
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Frank,
>>I got a little diffrent read on that. I understand a 10% improvement with
>>one Lightspeed system and up to 15% with two. Correct me if I'm Wrong.
>> As for that little built in back up alternator, count me in. At that if
>> the
>>Mag pads are vacant, could not one of the small aux alternators that are
>>available be used as an engine support buss and include the fuel pumps?
>
> Magneto pads run at 1/2 engine speed . . . very poor place to pull
> out mechanical energy to run a real power producing alternator.
> It's a credit to the p-mag design that they make it run well from
> power derived at that RPM . . . but it's not MUCH power and suited
> at present only for the single task of making sparks.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
Richard,
You're right. Sorry about that. My spell checker went to bed.
Thanks
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>
>
> Well, yes the explanation is correct, but the term is "quench".
>
> Dick Tasker
>
> John D. Heath wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Steve,
>>
>> Quince area is an area in the combustion chamber where the piston comes
>> so
>>close at TDC that any combustion charge in that position is, shall we say
>>,
>>squirted out causing turbulence in the chamber. That turbulence makes for
>>greatly improved completion of combustion. Most modern piston engine
>>designs
>>incorporate that quince area in some way, Lycoming dose not.
>>
>> John D.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Steve Thomas" <lists(at)stevet.net>
>>To: "John D. Heath"
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Hello John,
>>>
>>>Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 3:47:11 PM, you wrote:
>>>
>>>JDH> quince area
>>>
>>>
>>>What does "quince area" mean?
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ----
> Please Note:
> No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede,
> however,
> that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily
> inconvenienced.
> ----
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
>
>Bob,
> Small planitary gear sets are easy to make and at any ratio if you're
>making you might as well make what you need.
Gear trains in a reciprocating engine application . . . ESPECIALLY
those designed to increase RPM are tricky. We looked at a number
of engine pad driven designs at Electro-Mech back in the 80's that
we elected not to pursue . . . pad output velocity is heavily modulated for
speed with each firing of a cylinder. Not suggesting that it cannot
be done but I've watched some real talented folks pause, ponder and
elect no to rope that tiger. Gear driven alternators are STILL my
least favorite energy source on engines.
A number of magneto pad alternators have come and gone at OSH. Don't
know the details of why but this problem seems waiting to be solved.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
Thanks Bob,
I'm going to look at this and see what can be done. Stranger thing have
happened than I should come up with a solution.
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Bob,
>> Small planitary gear sets are easy to make and at any ratio if you're
>>making you might as well make what you need.
>
> Gear trains in a reciprocating engine application . . . ESPECIALLY
> those designed to increase RPM are tricky. We looked at a number
> of engine pad driven designs at Electro-Mech back in the 80's that
> we elected not to pursue . . . pad output velocity is heavily modulated
> for
> speed with each firing of a cylinder. Not suggesting that it cannot
> be done but I've watched some real talented folks pause, ponder and
> elect no to rope that tiger. Gear driven alternators are STILL my
> least favorite energy source on engines.
>
> A number of magneto pad alternators have come and gone at OSH. Don't
> know the details of why but this problem seems waiting to be solved.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Horsten" <airplanes(at)sympatico.ca> |
Hi Folks,
First off thanks to the few guys who have suggested some possible sources
for our radio problem. As some may recall, we are ferrying an OBAM to Denver
and though they did arrive, they still have a problem. Here is a summary of
symptoms:
Aircraft is a CH-250 with an O-300 Continental. It has a generator.
Unbearable static in the radio when power is applied, less so at idle.
System is charging, starts no problem.
Aircraft seems to emit noise (as evidenced by a portable radio) even when
the engine is not running and the master is off. The portable is connected
to ships antenna though.
Transponder was re-aligned and tested a couple of weeks ago, but now seems
to need it again. Also it seems to be malfunctioning as a result of this
problem (perhaps it is the problem). We had switched out the encoder a
couple of weeks ago so could there be a bad ground?
Suggestions I have had:
Voltage regulator
Master relay
Sparkplugs
Noise filters, capacitor
Mag filters
Airframe static
Generator brushes
We have one day left to work on it before the ferry pilot must return home
with a substantially reduced cheque. We're all amateurs but good guys and we
don't want to leave the buyer with a bum steer. Any more suggestions would
be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Emag/mag timing question |
>
>Bob,
>
>To your list I would add: much smoother operation particularly at low RPM,
>idles smooth as a babies butt at 700 RPM. This based on using a Laser
>abortion for 650 hours now.
Lest folks misunderstand, the Laser system works as
advertised when it works. The problem I have with
it is design philosophy that make it redundant to the
2nd degree by backing up what should have been more
reliable electronics with magneto technology,
adding all the new goodies in an external box and
driving up parts and wiring count.
With all the $ they spent on that program it should
and could have been a lot cleaner. I understand how
they got there . . . the same folks who had been doing
mags for years got the task and it just seemed easier
to ADD to existing stuff. We do it in the airplanes
too. I sometime fantasize about taking a stripped out
green Bonanza and starting from scratch with the wires
and plumbing.
I'll bet we could take a lot of $time$ out of the
manufacturing costs for that airplane.
The e-mag/p-mag guys are the ones to watch . . . and
who knows, maybe a few years from now we'll be rooting
for yet another new kid on the block intent upon
yanking those guys in Texas right out of the saddle.
It's all but a sure bet it wont be an individual who
has been delivering stuff to the certified side for
half a century.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
Hello Dan,
the advantage I see with the electronic ignition is, that you can much
better lean the engine and that due to the variable timing my engine is
running smoother (less vibration) and the spark plugs just stay much cleaner
then with the magnetos, fuel savings? Maybe a tad when I'm flying above 8000
ft, but also easier starting as well as the other aspects did convince me
that I did the right move.
Kind regards
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: <Hopperdhh(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>
>
> John, Bob and Interested Listers,
>
> I know that electronic ignition is the rage these days. I first put
> electronic ignition on my '57 Ford in 1962. I also put a breakerless CD
ignition
> system on my (circle track) race cars back in the '60s when everyone else
was
> running dual points. After becoming an electronic engineer, I designed
> electronic ignition systems for GM for 15 years. Now, I hate authorities
on any
> subject as much as most of the listers do, but I don't know any way else
to
> qualify myself to say what I have to say. Experience is a good teacher.
>
> I would caution anyone to not expect miracles from their ignition system,
> and to not go too far with their claims. I kept very accurate fuel
mileage on
> my '74 Cutlass before and after switching from a single point ignition
system
> to a High Energy Ignition having 3 times the spark energy only to be
> disappointed that my mileage didn't increase any measurable amount. You
see it only
> takes about 25 micro-joules to ignite a fuel/air mixture. Going from 50
to
> 150 milli-joules didn't help! It was still nice to get rid of the
points,
> and the fact that the wear on the rubbing block continuously retarded the
> timing until it was reset -- about once a year.
>
> Magnetos are not high energy ignition systems. Aircraft engines are not
> hard to ignite. They are run under conditions, beyond half throttle most
of the
> time, where ignition is not hard to achieve.
>
> There is probably an advantage to be able to advance the timing that the
> present magneto system does not lend itself to. This is strictly a
mechanical
> issue as far as the mags are concerned.
>
> I don't know why one couldn't put automotive plugs in a system with a
> magneto. Cost is the only advantage that I know of for using auto plugs.
As for
> making the gaps big, there is an advantage -- better lean and part
throttle
> ignition. This is not much of an advantage on an aircraft engine. The
> disadvantage is that the high voltage components -- cap, wires and coil
are stressed
> -- usually to failure with .080 gaps. GM had to back off to about .060
for
> that reason. If you eliminate the wires you still have to make a coil
that
> will stand the stress. Its not worth it in an airplane.
>
> The partial burns (we call it) are reduced by using auto fuel. This too,
is
> not that big a problem when operating the engine beyond half throttle.
> There is a lot of fuel and air in the chamber, and turbulence is mainly
something
> that helps part throttle performance. Something you need in an
automobile,
> but not so much in an airplane, unless you fly at 10 to 20 percent power
like
> you drive your car.
>
> Well, you get the point! So what ignition do I have in my RV7A? You
> guessed it. 2 Slick magnetos. Maybe someday when I get ready, I'll
design a
> system for my bird. That would be an experiment for me. I appreciate
those who
> do this kind of work, but I want to do my own experiment on my plane.
There
> is a place for it. Right now I'm just happy to be flying my new RV, and
I
> don't see the magneto ignition system(s) as that much of a disadvantage.
>
> Thanks, if you read this,
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Dan Hopper
> Walton, IN
> RV-7A (Was flying -- now in the paint shop)
>
>
> In a message dated 4/6/05 2:10:35 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
> Alto_Q(at)direcway.com writes:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath"
>
>
> Bob and Interested Listers,
>
> I see all the interest in ignition systems and I would like inject some
of
> my thoughts into the mix. These are just food for thought and not ment to
> show favor or disfavor for any system or its manufacturer.
>
> Ignition Systems
>
> 1.. It would be a giant back step to return to single point (spark plug)
> ignition system.
> 2.. Redundancy is not a consideration, so far as efficiency is concerned.
> Certified systems are restricted in design because of the redundancy
> requirement.
> 3.. Random and periodic miss-fire of any single spark plug would go
> unnoticed by all but the most keenly tuned ear.
> 4.. Best power Fuel/Air mixture by weight is 12.5:1, and the only control
> we have on it is what goes past the intake valve into the cylinder. After
it
> is in the cylinder there are areas of the mixture, lean and rich, which
> would not support ignition.
> 5.. In a large bore combustion chamber that has no quince area and little
> turbulence, the mixture does not move to the ignition point. The flame
front
> must move across the ever increasing volume of chamber.
> 6.. A miss fire of one plug in a combustion chamber like that would have
> the same effect as retarded ignition. One flame front has twice as far to
go
> to complete combustion, but doesn't have the time to do it.
> 7.. Any ignition system that allows the use of greater plug gap with a
> more intense ignition would reduce the single plug miss-fire due to
> combustion chamber conditions would improve efficiency.
> 8.. Aviation type spark plugs do not lend themselves to wide gapes.
> 9.. Automotive spark plugs do lend themselves to wider gapes, and some
> come pre-gaped to as much as .080". They also provide a larger choice of
> heat range and Tip design that allows better presentation of the gap to
the
> mixture in the combustion chamber.
> 10.. The distributor cap and rotor are a week point in that they present
a
> high maintenance requirement and are in most cases difficult to access.
They
> must be adequately ventilated to prevent ozone build up and pressurized
for
> use at altitude. Residue buildup from the center contact at the rotor
leads
> to unavoidable malfunction and even failure if not properly maintained.
> 11. Modern aircraft ignition systems do not even approach the
state
> of the art. Automotive systems have advanced to the point of attaching a
> coil to each spark plug, thereby reducing the secondary ignition
connection
> count from 6 down to 1 for each plug. That average one yard of spark plug
> wire per plug has also been eliminated.
>
> 12. Some systems even sort out the position of the engine in the
> firing order and prime and fire the appropriate cylinder to start the
> engine. How'd you like to throw your starter and all the crap it takes to
> drive it, away? Then again if you had a warehouse full of starters you
> wanted to sell would you put a system like that into mass production?
>
> 13. A lot of things drive "State of the Art".
>
> Is redundancy when you incorporate a system that is not apt to fail or
> having a secondary system ready when the primary system inevitably dose?
>
>
> John D. Heath
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
Hello Dan,
the advantage I see with the electronic ignition is, that you can much
better lean the engine and that due to the variable timing my engine is
running smoother (less vibration) and the spark plugs just stay much cleaner
then with the magnetos, fuel savings? Maybe a tad when I'm flying above 8000
ft, but also easier starting as well as the other aspects did convince me
that I did the right move.
Kind regards
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: <Hopperdhh(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Ignition
>
>
> John, Bob and Interested Listers,
>
> I know that electronic ignition is the rage these days. I first put
> electronic ignition on my '57 Ford in 1962. I also put a breakerless CD
ignition
> system on my (circle track) race cars back in the '60s when everyone else
was
> running dual points. After becoming an electronic engineer, I designed
> electronic ignition systems for GM for 15 years. Now, I hate authorities
on any
> subject as much as most of the listers do, but I don't know any way else
to
> qualify myself to say what I have to say. Experience is a good teacher.
>
> I would caution anyone to not expect miracles from their ignition system,
> and to not go too far with their claims. I kept very accurate fuel
mileage on
> my '74 Cutlass before and after switching from a single point ignition
system
> to a High Energy Ignition having 3 times the spark energy only to be
> disappointed that my mileage didn't increase any measurable amount. You
see it only
> takes about 25 micro-joules to ignite a fuel/air mixture. Going from 50
to
> 150 milli-joules didn't help! It was still nice to get rid of the
points,
> and the fact that the wear on the rubbing block continuously retarded the
> timing until it was reset -- about once a year.
>
> Magnetos are not high energy ignition systems. Aircraft engines are not
> hard to ignite. They are run under conditions, beyond half throttle most
of the
> time, where ignition is not hard to achieve.
>
> There is probably an advantage to be able to advance the timing that the
> present magneto system does not lend itself to. This is strictly a
mechanical
> issue as far as the mags are concerned.
>
> I don't know why one couldn't put automotive plugs in a system with a
> magneto. Cost is the only advantage that I know of for using auto plugs.
As for
> making the gaps big, there is an advantage -- better lean and part
throttle
> ignition. This is not much of an advantage on an aircraft engine. The
> disadvantage is that the high voltage components -- cap, wires and coil
are stressed
> -- usually to failure with .080 gaps. GM had to back off to about .060
for
> that reason. If you eliminate the wires you still have to make a coil
that
> will stand the stress. Its not worth it in an airplane.
>
> The partial burns (we call it) are reduced by using auto fuel. This too,
is
> not that big a problem when operating the engine beyond half throttle.
> There is a lot of fuel and air in the chamber, and turbulence is mainly
something
> that helps part throttle performance. Something you need in an
automobile,
> but not so much in an airplane, unless you fly at 10 to 20 percent power
like
> you drive your car.
>
> Well, you get the point! So what ignition do I have in my RV7A? You
> guessed it. 2 Slick magnetos. Maybe someday when I get ready, I'll
design a
> system for my bird. That would be an experiment for me. I appreciate
those who
> do this kind of work, but I want to do my own experiment on my plane.
There
> is a place for it. Right now I'm just happy to be flying my new RV, and
I
> don't see the magneto ignition system(s) as that much of a disadvantage.
>
> Thanks, if you read this,
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Dan Hopper
> Walton, IN
> RV-7A (Was flying -- now in the paint shop)
>
>
> In a message dated 4/6/05 2:10:35 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
> Alto_Q(at)direcway.com writes:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John D. Heath"
>
>
> Bob and Interested Listers,
>
> I see all the interest in ignition systems and I would like inject some
of
> my thoughts into the mix. These are just food for thought and not ment to
> show favor or disfavor for any system or its manufacturer.
>
> Ignition Systems
>
> 1.. It would be a giant back step to return to single point (spark plug)
> ignition system.
> 2.. Redundancy is not a consideration, so far as efficiency is concerned.
> Certified systems are restricted in design because of the redundancy
> requirement.
> 3.. Random and periodic miss-fire of any single spark plug would go
> unnoticed by all but the most keenly tuned ear.
> 4.. Best power Fuel/Air mixture by weight is 12.5:1, and the only control
> we have on it is what goes past the intake valve into the cylinder. After
it
> is in the cylinder there are areas of the mixture, lean and rich, which
> would not support ignition.
> 5.. In a large bore combustion chamber that has no quince area and little
> turbulence, the mixture does not move to the ignition point. The flame
front
> must move across the ever increasing volume of chamber.
> 6.. A miss fire of one plug in a combustion chamber like that would have
> the same effect as retarded ignition. One flame front has twice as far to
go
> to complete combustion, but doesn't have the time to do it.
> 7.. Any ignition system that allows the use of greater plug gap with a
> more intense ignition would reduce the single plug miss-fire due to
> combustion chamber conditions would improve efficiency.
> 8.. Aviation type spark plugs do not lend themselves to wide gapes.
> 9.. Automotive spark plugs do lend themselves to wider gapes, and some
> come pre-gaped to as much as .080". They also provide a larger choice of
> heat range and Tip design that allows better presentation of the gap to
the
> mixture in the combustion chamber.
> 10.. The distributor cap and rotor are a week point in that they present
a
> high maintenance requirement and are in most cases difficult to access.
They
> must be adequately ventilated to prevent ozone build up and pressurized
for
> use at altitude. Residue buildup from the center contact at the rotor
leads
> to unavoidable malfunction and even failure if not properly maintained.
> 11. Modern aircraft ignition systems do not even approach the
state
> of the art. Automotive systems have advanced to the point of attaching a
> coil to each spark plug, thereby reducing the secondary ignition
connection
> count from 6 down to 1 for each plug. That average one yard of spark plug
> wire per plug has also been eliminated.
>
> 12. Some systems even sort out the position of the engine in the
> firing order and prime and fire the appropriate cylinder to start the
> engine. How'd you like to throw your starter and all the crap it takes to
> drive it, away? Then again if you had a warehouse full of starters you
> wanted to sell would you put a system like that into mass production?
>
> 13. A lot of things drive "State of the Art".
>
> Is redundancy when you incorporate a system that is not apt to fail or
> having a secondary system ready when the primary system inevitably dose?
>
>
> John D. Heath
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
At 10:54 PM 4/5/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>Hello there,
>
>I was listening to an urban legend that told me the best hi output
>alternator for use on a Lycoming clone was from a 1987 Toyota Camry. I
>went to Autozone and bought said alternator and found it has a
>serpentine belt pulley on it.
>
>Clearly this is not correct so now I am wondering if the Camry unit
>really is the right one and where one can buy a v groove pulley to match
>the Lyc...I don't have the engine yet either so I'm sure even if I do go
>get a v pulley if it will be the correct profile...Like are all V
>pulleys the same?
>
>
>I have a 1987 Suzuki Samuri unit on my existing plane but this unit will
>not have enough output for my IFR equipped RV.
>
>Any help greatly appreciated.
>
>Frank
Frank
Go to your local automotive electrical re-builder or local junk yard. You
want the pulley off of a 1977 to 1983 Honda Civic or Accord alternator. I
suspect that the same era Toyota alternator pulley will also work. Wander
the junk yard. Any ND alternator with a standard pulley will work. Swap
that pulley to your alternator. Rotor shaft is 15mm in diameter. Outside
pulley diameter (belt location) is about 2.5" in diameter. Mark Landoll
markets an after market 4" aluminum pulley to reduce the alternator's speed
by about 38 - 40%. The down side to the larger pulley is, on some cowls, it
presents a clearance problem.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Emag/mag timing question |
At 10:14 PM 4/5/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >I have some experience in electronic ignition design, and there is
> a nagging
> >question in my mind. Apparently I know just enough to be confused!
> >
> >Assume a system with one electronic ignition system and one magneto.
> >
> >When the timing is advanced on the plug being controlled by the electronic
> >ignition, doesn't the cylinder pressure cause electrical stress on the
> >magneto
> >system -- the coil, cap and plug wiring? Isn't the KV requirement of the
> >magneto significantly increased by the increased pressure in the chamber
> >after
> >the fuel has been ignited by the earlier firing electronic ignition?
>
> If it does, the effects must be insignificant. Yes, when at low manifold
> pressures, the electronic ignition will advance and pressure in the
>cylinder
> will no doubt be on the rise when the johnny-come-lately mageneto fires.
> The pressures may indeed be so great the a spark never materializes
> across
> the plug's electrodes.
>
> The OBAM community has been flying one-mag/one-electronic now for over 15
> years. I have to believe that if the phenomenon you've identified was
> a significant problem that we would have heard about it by now. Why
> not two electronic ignitions? The cost savings in spark plugs alone
> is pretty attractive.
>
> Bob . . .
Dan
Since a magneto's output energy rises with RPMs, I suspect that this is a
bit of a non issue. The reduced manifold pressure conditions (where an
electronic ignition's spark advance comes into play) exist at cruise RPMs.
The magneto makes plenty of energy to fire a measly .018" spark plug gap
under these conditions. During ground operations, your concerns may be
valid. However, as a percentage of total engine operating time, ground ops
are a very small fraction.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
Werner,
You certainly have nailed the benefits of electronic ignition. The hotter
spark should definitely help starting. I forgot about that benefit in my
original post. After all the hot starting trouble I've had with my IO-360 you'd
think I would have considered that!
As I have replied to some off list, I think its all in the timing. Being
able to advance the spark at high altitude is the other great advantage.
Anytime you can get the engine to run more efficiently, the plugs will run cleaner
-- less carbon to build up. I really don't think the spark energy does
anything to clean the plugs. IMHO of course.
I think electronic ignition is better than magnetos, actually. I just
wanted to caution people not to expect miracles. Maybe I'm being too negative.
In my case I wanted to get the airplane done and flying. The engine I bought
had 2 new Slick mags, so they are still on it. If I had to buy them vs.
going electronic, I may have gone the other way. I have plans in the back of
my
mind for a custom electronic system, but I know what a can of worms that can
turn into! Right now, my plane has other things it needs more.
Regards,
Dan Hopper
Walton, IN
RV-7A (Flying about 80 hours. Now being painted. Flying borrowed Warrior
to SnF, oh well.)
In a message dated 4/7/05 8:00:35 A.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
glastar(at)gmx.net writes:
Hello Dan,
the advantage I see with the electronic ignition is, that you can much
better lean the engine and that due to the variable timing my engine is
running smoother (less vibration) and the spark plugs just stay much cleaner
then with the magnetos, fuel savings? Maybe a tad when I'm flying above 8000
ft, but also easier starting as well as the other aspects did convince me
that I did the right move.
Kind regards
Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Gilles...
>
>I for one will be very interested in what you find in using this
>device. I hope you publish your finding here.
>
>If it works as advertised and reviewed in the Model Aviation press it
>sounds like it could be a very usefull tool to monitor actual battey
>condition (capicity) over time thus adding to A/C electrical system
>reliability.
>
>CS
>Newberg, OR
>
>
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi all,
>
>This is to say I just received the CBA II Computerized Battery Analyser
>from the English dealer Aurrora. Quick reaction and same day shipping,
>but two weeks in the meanders of French customs and postal services.....
>If memory serves me right, it was Paul Messinger who mentionned this
>device in a recent post.
>Maybe some listers will be interested in my first tests with this new
>toy. Any tips or suggestions welcome.
I purchased one right after Paul mentioned it. I went right out to
the shop and started to set it up to do some testing of my fleet
of instrumentation and test batteries. The ol' dog data acquision
computer wouldn't boot. Went down to computer purgatory and bought
a school system cast off ($20, 233 Mhz Pentium II) to replace the
current (100 Mhz 486) test computer and haven't had time to load
an new operating system in it. As soon as R11 goes to printers
I'll get my cap checker running also and we can compare notes. Paul
has already given us a favorable review. I expect we'll enjoy a repeat
of his experience.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Emag/mag timing question |
>
>
>Why not two electronic ignitions?
>
>Because, then your plane is electrically dependent. With one side a mag,
>you can limp home on the mag if your electronics crap out. Your engine
>keeps running. You don't fall out of the sky. AND Your electrical system
>is much simpler and less costly to install and maintain. You can tolerate a
>battery going bad or an alternator dying our your EI side making its last
>spark.
Electrical dependency is not necessarily a driver for retaining
a magneto. We discuss the variables in failure modes effects analysis
and choices of architectures offer a plan-b for loss of any component
of the electrical system and continued sweat-free flight in spite
of the failure in chapter 17. There are LOTS of electrically dependent
engines
flying with single ignition systems where one couldn't install a mag if
they wanted to. Experience and reliability studies based on good
science has shown this is not a particularly significant threat
to your well being as pilot. The VAST majority of events that
threaten life and aluminum are weather, fuel starvation, loss
of control, and close encounters of the aluminum kind, etc. I've had
several near collision experiences with other aircraft where the
outcome was happy only because of variability in timing by a few
seconds or a few feet of altitude and I've never had a catastrophic
failure of an electrical system component in flight.
>Friends are like angels who lift us to our feet
>when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly....unknown
Absolutely. There's a lot of folklore fueled by television and Hollywood
writers that tend to boost mechanical failures well above human
failures as paramount concerns for safety of flight. Working
the mechanical side here on the list of friends will help
drive those concerns to their rightful status as statistically
insignificant. Only when we can stop worrying about the mechanics of
the airplane can we concentrate on improving the mechanics and
skills of flying. Even if you DO experience an mechanical failure
that forces an unplanned arrival with the earth, your survival
is STILL mostly dependent upon skill and judgement.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Evil gremlins |
>Aircraft is a CH-250 with an O-300 Continental. It has a generator.
>Unbearable static in the radio when power is applied, less so at idle.
>System is charging, starts no problem.
>Aircraft seems to emit noise (as evidenced by a portable radio) even when
>the engine is not running and the master is off. The portable is connected
>to ships antenna though.
>Transponder was re-aligned and tested a couple of weeks ago, but now seems
>to need it again. Also it seems to be malfunctioning as a result of this
>problem (perhaps it is the problem). We had switched out the encoder a
>couple of weeks ago so could there be a bad ground?
>Suggestions I have had:
>Voltage regulator
>Master relay
>Sparkplugs
>Noise filters, capacitor
>Mag filters
>Airframe static
>Generator brushes
Chris--Then you need a plan.
Basic tests? Voltage? Check generator brushes, can you inspect the
commutator? Have you checked the plugs AND plug wires? Is anything hot that
shouldn't be hot? Can you have the airport graybeard look at it?
1) >Unbearable static in the radio when power is applied, less so at
idle.
>System is charging, starts no problem.
Question: Does the noise only get louder with engine RPM or does it seem to
have a component in sync with the RPM?
Rationale: Airframe static, master relay and the voltage regulator probably
have no RPM component. If the noise has a basic frequency much higher than
the engine RPM, then the generator or associated filters, wiring, etc. is
suspect
2) >Aircraft seems to emit noise (as evidenced by a portable radio) even
when
>the engine is not running and the master is off. The portable is
connected
>to ships antenna though.
Suggestion---This may be misleading info.
Test---Operated AM radio tuned to an empty channel when near the plane?
Conditions: engine not running; master OFF.
Result and comment?---
3) >Transponder was re-aligned and tested a couple of weeks ago, but now
seems
>to need it again. Also it seems to be malfunctioning as a result of
this
>problem (perhaps it is the problem). We had switched out the
encoder a
>couple of weeks ago so could there be a bad ground?
Test---Pull out the transponder and open associated CB or disconnect its
fuse?
Result and comment?---
This is a solvable problem--Take heart and you will be rewarded.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"People don't appreciate how very difficult it is to be a princess."
--Princess Diana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joel Jacobs" <jj(at)sdf.lonestar.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Race Car Load Dump? |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Race Car Load Dump?
> The disconnect switch has a 3 ohm resistor in it. If the switch
disconnects
> the battery, the remaining resistor load is 15v / 3 ohms=4 amps at 4a x
4a
> x 3 ohm=48 watts. This loads the alternator enough to suppress the load
> dump....I suspect...since it certainly can't load the alternator enough to
> do anything else. I also suspect that race car drivers offer some very
> choice slang alternatives for "DNF".
Also remember that in a racecar, the alternator load is basically just the
ignition system so it's not likely to be putting out more than a few amps
when it's dis-connected. I doubt the 3 ohms would be sufficient to suppress
a load dump from an alternator that was cranking out allot of power.
Joel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Cost...I think?
Frank
-----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: Electronic Ignition
-->
>
>
>Without a doubt though, if I was to lose the alternator and already
>having two fuel pumps to run, not having to worry about the ignition is
>attractive to me.
Then why not p-mags?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Thanks Charlie,
I pulled of the serp pulley last night (Impact wrenches are
great!...:)..) and your right it is indeed a 15mm shaft. I will almost
swear it's the same pulley off my little Suzuki Samuri ND alt on my
other plane.
I have an alt shop scanning the shelves for one, little extra mail order
will be worth saving a junk yard trip.
Yes Someone sentme a pic of the 4" pulley and noted the cowl
clearance...As I'm going with the Sam James Holy cowl clearances are
likely to be even tighter so I'll start with a standard pulley if I can
find one.
This is a great list!!
Cheers
Frank
Frank
Go to your local automotive electrical re-builder or local junk yard.
You want the pulley off of a 1977 to 1983 Honda Civic or Accord
alternator. I suspect that the same era Toyota alternator pulley will
also work. Wander the junk yard. Any ND alternator with a standard
pulley will work. Swap that pulley to your alternator. Rotor shaft is
15mm in diameter. Outside pulley diameter (belt location) is about 2.5"
in diameter. Mark Landoll markets an after market 4" aluminum pulley to
reduce the alternator's speed by about 38 - 40%. The down side to the
larger pulley is, on some cowls, it presents a clearance problem.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Just started a test on a 17 a.h. battery used in the white paper
experiments posted a few weeks ago. The CBA II is very intuitive
and appears well crafted. Will have results to post this afternoon.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stanley Blanton" <stanb(at)door.net> |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
Does the e-mag use any advance greater than 25 degrees (same as a mag)?
Last I heard they did not. Perhaps they have changed the advance curve.
Stan Blanton
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Good points and I appreciate the discussion...Particularly as my a** is
on the line...:)
In MY experience the biggest issue is not not knowing exactly how much
time one has to run on the batteries...Mainly because I keep mine
charged on voltage sensing trickle chargers...Works great...Now after 5
years I just changed them...and only because the GCFI tripped supplying
the chargers and after a week my batterries were dead!
Hmmm....Kinda glad I didn't have an alternator failure on my last
flight.
Apart from my ignorance in not changing the batterries sooner on my
electrically dependant airplane I can imagine in a real alt failure not
knowing for sure how much time I had.
To me the fact I could just flip everything off except one fuel pump
(this is all weather dependant of course) and focus my gaze on the volt
meter (knowing I have some in my second battery) just seemed attractive.
At the time (Monday when I ordered the engine) I didn't see that much
more benefit in a second Lightspeed...I am limited to 25deg timing to
maintain the 2 year warranty for use with Mogas...So a Lightspeed and a
mag seemed reasonable and is a setup that lots of others have been using
successfully.
Am still wondering what the long term ownership costs of the mag
are...i.e can I save the plugs by just using the Lightspeed in cruise
etc, or am I destined for a $100 set of plugs each year?
The Pmag with auto plugs is about the same cost of a second Lightspeed
(using the hall effect unit as it is very hard to adjust the max timing
on the crank trigger setup after the warranty).
Pmag "appears" to be set to a constant timing just like a mag so
performs the same function with presumably lower ongoing costs/hassle
but without variable timing like the Lightspeed.
Decisions decisions
So how does one be sure how much reserve the battery(s) have? If there
was a way to know then I could be persuaded to a second Lightspeed.
Tahnks
Frank
Electrical dependency is not necessarily a driver for retaining
a magneto. We discuss the variables in failure modes effects analysis
and choices of architectures offer a plan-b for loss of any component
of the electrical system and continued sweat-free flight in spite
of the failure in chapter 17. There are LOTS of electrically
dependent engines
flying with single ignition systems where one couldn't install a mag
if
they wanted to.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Travis Hamblen" <TravisHamblen(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Flaps Switch diagram |
The flaps switch I got from Van's came with no pin out/diagram. Does anyone
out there have a diagram for this switch? Please e-mail it to me if you can
scan it in, or even a text description of each pin would be greatly
appreciated.
Travis
RV7A Wiring
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ducati regulator terminals |
> I belive it was Giles who sent me some photos of a dissected
> Ducati regulator . . .
>
Yes sir.
>they didn't even bother to activly heat
> sink the most thermally stressed components and depended on
> the potting compound for heat transfer. There HAS to be somebody
> who builds a better product that will replace the Ducati regulator.
>
> What regulator are you flying Giles?
>
>
A Schicke GR 4. The supplied voltage is about 14.2 V as opposed to the
13.8 V of the Ducati. The heat sink seems much better devised.
Nevertheless, the Schicke doesn't close down when the sense wire is
grounded, so I'll have to move this wire from the bus to the capacitor
(see Fig Z 16). Thus the alternator will always see a load.
Regards,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dsvs(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
P-Mags have fully variable timing in one mode or set timing in the other mode.
They also can be maped to the manifold pressure.
The performance is supposed to be equal to the lightspeed without the additional
parts (sensors and coils ) to be mounted some where on the engine. Don
>
>
> Good points and I appreciate the discussion...Particularly as my a** is
> on the line...:)
>
> In MY experience the biggest issue is not not knowing exactly how much
> time one has to run on the batteries...Mainly because I keep mine
> charged on voltage sensing trickle chargers...Works great...Now after 5
> years I just changed them...and only because the GCFI tripped supplying
> the chargers and after a week my batterries were dead!
>
> Hmmm....Kinda glad I didn't have an alternator failure on my last
> flight.
>
> Apart from my ignorance in not changing the batterries sooner on my
> electrically dependant airplane I can imagine in a real alt failure not
> knowing for sure how much time I had.
>
> To me the fact I could just flip everything off except one fuel pump
> (this is all weather dependant of course) and focus my gaze on the volt
> meter (knowing I have some in my second battery) just seemed attractive.
>
> At the time (Monday when I ordered the engine) I didn't see that much
> more benefit in a second Lightspeed...I am limited to 25deg timing to
> maintain the 2 year warranty for use with Mogas...So a Lightspeed and a
> mag seemed reasonable and is a setup that lots of others have been using
> successfully.
>
> Am still wondering what the long term ownership costs of the mag
> are...i.e can I save the plugs by just using the Lightspeed in cruise
> etc, or am I destined for a $100 set of plugs each year?
>
> The Pmag with auto plugs is about the same cost of a second Lightspeed
> (using the hall effect unit as it is very hard to adjust the max timing
> on the crank trigger setup after the warranty).
>
> Pmag "appears" to be set to a constant timing just like a mag so
> performs the same function with presumably lower ongoing costs/hassle
> but without variable timing like the Lightspeed.
>
> Decisions decisions
>
> So how does one be sure how much reserve the battery(s) have? If there
> was a way to know then I could be persuaded to a second Lightspeed.
>
> Tahnks
>
> Frank
>
>
> Electrical dependency is not necessarily a driver for retaining
> a magneto. We discuss the variables in failure modes effects analysis
> and choices of architectures offer a plan-b for loss of any component
> of the electrical system and continued sweat-free flight in spite
> of the failure in chapter 17. There are LOTS of electrically
> dependent engines
> flying with single ignition systems where one couldn't install a mag
> if
> they wanted to.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
Charlie, how do I get ahold of this Mark Landoll? Is that the pulley
CNC machined out of 6061-T6 aluminum that Aircraft Spruce had in the
catalog last year but no longer available? I also need a big pulley for
my 1987 Suzuki Samurai ND alternator, if I don't change my mind and put
in a $639 B&C. Thanks.
John Swartout
Zenith STOL CH-801
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Charlie Kuss
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
At 10:54 PM 4/5/2005, you wrote:
(Corvallis)"
>
>
>Hello there,
>
>I was listening to an urban legend that told me the best hi output
>alternator for use on a Lycoming clone was from a 1987 Toyota Camry. I
>went to Autozone and bought said alternator and found it has a
>serpentine belt pulley on it.
>
>Clearly this is not correct so now I am wondering if the Camry unit
>really is the right one and where one can buy a v groove pulley to
match
>the Lyc...I don't have the engine yet either so I'm sure even if I do
go
>get a v pulley if it will be the correct profile...Like are all V
>pulleys the same?
>
>
>I have a 1987 Suzuki Samuri unit on my existing plane but this unit
will
>not have enough output for my IFR equipped RV.
>
>Any help greatly appreciated.
>
>Frank
Frank
Go to your local automotive electrical re-builder or local junk yard.
You
want the pulley off of a 1977 to 1983 Honda Civic or Accord alternator.
I
suspect that the same era Toyota alternator pulley will also work.
Wander
the junk yard. Any ND alternator with a standard pulley will work. Swap
that pulley to your alternator. Rotor shaft is 15mm in diameter. Outside
pulley diameter (belt location) is about 2.5" in diameter. Mark Landoll
markets an after market 4" aluminum pulley to reduce the alternator's
speed
by about 38 - 40%. The down side to the larger pulley is, on some cowls,
it
presents a clearance problem.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Yeah I just saw that....An emag looks way cheaper than a Lightspeed as
well....Hmm
2 emags look pretty good at first glance...does anyone have any
experience of them in real life?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
dsvs(at)comcast.net
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
P-Mags have fully variable timing in one mode or set timing in the other
mode. They also can be maped to the manifold pressure.
The performance is supposed to be equal to the lightspeed without the
additional parts (sensors and coils ) to be mounted some where on the
engine. Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
John,
http://www.cantonracingproducts.com/alternators/alternators.html
Don't know what engine you got but the Suzuki Sam alt I have been told
is good for 18000RPM...So you may not need to slow it down.
If you have a 2 1/2 v pulley for that alt and you really don't want
it...Can I make you an offer?...It should fit my Camry alt.
Check out the link, they have 3.5 and 5" dia 15mm shaft size pulleys
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Swartout
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
-->
Charlie, how do I get ahold of this Mark Landoll? Is that the pulley
CNC machined out of 6061-T6 aluminum that Aircraft Spruce had in the
catalog last year but no longer available? I also need a big pulley for
my 1987 Suzuki Samurai ND alternator, if I don't change my mind and put
in a $639 B&C. Thanks.
John Swartout
Zenith STOL CH-801
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Charlie Kuss
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
At 10:54 PM 4/5/2005, you wrote:
(Corvallis)"
>
>
>Hello there,
>
>I was listening to an urban legend that told me the best hi output
>alternator for use on a Lycoming clone was from a 1987 Toyota Camry. I
>went to Autozone and bought said alternator and found it has a
>serpentine belt pulley on it.
>
>Clearly this is not correct so now I am wondering if the Camry unit
>really is the right one and where one can buy a v groove pulley to
match
>the Lyc...I don't have the engine yet either so I'm sure even if I do
go
>get a v pulley if it will be the correct profile...Like are all V
>pulleys the same?
>
>
>I have a 1987 Suzuki Samuri unit on my existing plane but this unit
will
>not have enough output for my IFR equipped RV.
>
>Any help greatly appreciated.
>
>Frank
Frank
Go to your local automotive electrical re-builder or local junk yard.
You
want the pulley off of a 1977 to 1983 Honda Civic or Accord alternator.
I
suspect that the same era Toyota alternator pulley will also work.
Wander
the junk yard. Any ND alternator with a standard pulley will work. Swap
that pulley to your alternator. Rotor shaft is 15mm in diameter. Outside
pulley diameter (belt location) is about 2.5" in diameter. Mark Landoll
markets an after market 4" aluminum pulley to reduce the alternator's
speed by about 38 - 40%. The down side to the larger pulley is, on some
cowls, it presents a clearance problem.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
See my engine supplier's comments on the E/Pmags
We have no experience with the Emags as to date anyone who wanted them
has been left waiting for them. We have no idea of the support that
they offer, or how well they work. If you would like us to order the and
install them on your behalf we will, but feel at this stage you would be
little more than a "guinea pig".
Comments?
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dsvs(at)comcast.net |
Frank,
Bart at Aero Sport power had a problem ( he caused it) with my P-mags when he installed
them. Brad at Emagair sent him two replacement units the same day.
Bart reported to me that he was happy with the service as well as the way the
units ran once installed properly.
Brad has informed me that he will send me the latest production units to replace
my earlier versions once they get caught up, not many companies work that way.
I have not flown my units yet but the reports from Bart and the service from Brad
have me convinced that I made the right choice. Don
>
>
> See my engine supplier's comments on the E/Pmags
>
>
> We have no experience with the Emags as to date anyone who wanted them
> has been left waiting for them. We have no idea of the support that
> they offer, or how well they work. If you would like us to order the and
> install them on your behalf we will, but feel at this stage you would be
> little more than a "guinea pig".
>
> Comments?
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
John
I bought my 4" alternator pulley from another RV builder. I just "googled" Mark
Landoll and found his phone number.
MARK LANDOLL (405)392-3847
Local RV-9A builder Eddie Fernandez has one of Mark's alternator pulleys on his
project. It's a nice looking unit.
Charlie
PS The RV Yeller Pages is a great resource for experimental aviation vendors.
See
http://www.matronics.com/YellerPages/
---- John Swartout wrote:
>
> Charlie, how do I get ahold of this Mark Landoll? Is that the pulley
> CNC machined out of 6061-T6 aluminum that Aircraft Spruce had in the
> catalog last year but no longer available? I also need a big pulley for
> my 1987 Suzuki Samurai ND alternator, if I don't change my mind and put
> in a $639 B&C. Thanks.
>
> John Swartout
> Zenith STOL CH-801
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Charlie Kuss
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
>
>
>
> At 10:54 PM 4/5/2005, you wrote:
> (Corvallis)"
> >
> >
> >Hello there,
> >
> >I was listening to an urban legend that told me the best hi output
> >alternator for use on a Lycoming clone was from a 1987 Toyota Camry. I
> >went to Autozone and bought said alternator and found it has a
> >serpentine belt pulley on it.
> >
> >Clearly this is not correct so now I am wondering if the Camry unit
> >really is the right one and where one can buy a v groove pulley to
> match
> >the Lyc...I don't have the engine yet either so I'm sure even if I do
> go
> >get a v pulley if it will be the correct profile...Like are all V
> >pulleys the same?
> >
> >
> >I have a 1987 Suzuki Samuri unit on my existing plane but this unit
> will
> >not have enough output for my IFR equipped RV.
> >
> >Any help greatly appreciated.
> >
> >Frank
>
>
> Frank
> Go to your local automotive electrical re-builder or local junk yard.
> You
> want the pulley off of a 1977 to 1983 Honda Civic or Accord alternator.
> I
> suspect that the same era Toyota alternator pulley will also work.
> Wander
> the junk yard. Any ND alternator with a standard pulley will work. Swap
> that pulley to your alternator. Rotor shaft is 15mm in diameter. Outside
>
> pulley diameter (belt location) is about 2.5" in diameter. Mark Landoll
> markets an after market 4" aluminum pulley to reduce the alternator's
> speed
> by about 38 - 40%. The down side to the larger pulley is, on some cowls,
> it
> presents a clearance problem.
> Charlie Kuss
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Interesting thanks Don
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
dsvs(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag/Pmag
Frank,
Bart at Aero Sport power had a problem ( he caused it) with my P-mags
when he installed them. Brad at Emagair sent him two replacement units
the same day. Bart reported to me that he was happy with the service as
well as the way the units ran once installed properly.
Brad has informed me that he will send me the latest production units to
replace my earlier versions once they get caught up, not many companies
work that way.
I have not flown my units yet but the reports from Bart and the service
from Brad have me convinced that I made the right choice. Don
(Corvallis)"
>
>
> See my engine supplier's comments on the E/Pmags
>
>
> We have no experience with the Emags as to date anyone who wanted them
> has been left waiting for them. We have no idea of the support that
> they offer, or how well they work. If you would like us to order the
> and install them on your behalf we will, but feel at this stage you
> would be little more than a "guinea pig".
>
> Comments?
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Horsten" <airplanes(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | RE: Evil gremlins |
Thanks for the input Eric, and again to everyone else. In the end the
aircraft has been left with the new owner for half the sales price until he
gets the problem sorted out locally. I am convinced it cannot be worse than
replacing a mag or even the generator, but probably something far less
expensive. The time will be the clincher. I hope he finds someone
knowledgeable.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M.
Jones
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Evil gremlins
-->
>Aircraft is a CH-250 with an O-300 Continental. It has a generator.
>Unbearable static in the radio when power is applied, less so at idle.
>System is charging, starts no problem.
>Aircraft seems to emit noise (as evidenced by a portable radio) even
>when the engine is not running and the master is off. The portable is
>connected to ships antenna though.
>Transponder was re-aligned and tested a couple of weeks ago, but now
>seems to need it again. Also it seems to be malfunctioning as a result
>of this problem (perhaps it is the problem). We had switched out the
>encoder a couple of weeks ago so could there be a bad ground?
>Suggestions I have had:
>Voltage regulator
>Master relay
>Sparkplugs
>Noise filters, capacitor
>Mag filters
>Airframe static
>Generator brushes
Chris--Then you need a plan.
Basic tests? Voltage? Check generator brushes, can you inspect the
commutator? Have you checked the plugs AND plug wires? Is anything hot that
shouldn't be hot? Can you have the airport graybeard look at it?
1) >Unbearable static in the radio when power is applied, less so at
idle.
>System is charging, starts no problem.
Question: Does the noise only get louder with engine RPM or does it seem to
have a component in sync with the RPM?
Rationale: Airframe static, master relay and the voltage regulator probably
have no RPM component. If the noise has a basic frequency much higher than
the engine RPM, then the generator or associated filters, wiring, etc. is
suspect
2) >Aircraft seems to emit noise (as evidenced by a portable radio) even
when
>the engine is not running and the master is off. The portable is
connected
>to ships antenna though.
Suggestion---This may be misleading info.
Test---Operated AM radio tuned to an empty channel when near the plane?
Conditions: engine not running; master OFF.
Result and comment?---
3) >Transponder was re-aligned and tested a couple of weeks ago, but now
seems
>to need it again. Also it seems to be malfunctioning as a result of
this
>problem (perhaps it is the problem). We had switched out the
encoder a
>couple of weeks ago so could there be a bad ground?
Test---Pull out the transponder and open associated CB or disconnect its
fuse?
Result and comment?---
This is a solvable problem--Take heart and you will be rewarded.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"People don't appreciate how very difficult it is to be a princess."
--Princess Diana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
In a message dated 06-Apr-05 8:51:47 Pacific Standard Time, Speedy11(at)aol.com
writes:
As you know, it is quite
possible to fly an aircraft at zero airspeed with a dead engine and not stall
the wing.
OK, Speedy11, I am sure you have a good explanation for this statement; it's
a curve ball to me. As I am always willing to be enlightened, I invite you to
do so.
Regards, Doug Windhorn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
Speedy's just playing mind games. A stall requires exceeding the
critical angle of attack. By definition there is no AOA at zero airspeed
since there is no flow. But with no airspeed and no engine there are no
aerodynamics at work so one could argue that it is not really flying at
all. You could pitch to vertical and achieve this state for an instant
but there is no steady state for this condition without the airframe
being anchored to something, like the ground or a skyhook.
Greg
>
>
> In a message dated 06-Apr-05 8:51:47 Pacific Standard Time,
> Speedy11(at)aol.com
> writes:
> As you know, it is quite
> possible to fly an aircraft at zero airspeed with a dead
> engine and not stall the wing.
> OK, Speedy11, I am sure you have a good explanation for this
> statement; it's a curve ball to me. As I am always willing
> to be enlightened, I invite you to do so.
>
> Regards, Doug Windhorn
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN" <glastar(at)3rivers.net> |
| Subject: | Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
AN AIRPLANE WON'T STALL AT ZERO G.
NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT MAINTAINING ALTITUDE.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | E-mag/Pmag timing question (Belt and suspenders) |
I don't mean to be redundant, but why do you *need* two P-mags? The chance of having
total or partial electrical failure AND at the same time loosing the P-mag
is slim to none. Multi failures of two unrelated systems is not likely, so
an E-mag / P-mag combo is just fine IMHO. If you have an alternator failure and
want to conserve power you could turn the E-mag off, as the P-mag will still
be there, unless you really are having a bad day.
Also if youre electrical system can't stand the 1.0 amp draw from one E-mag ignition,
long enough to get on the ground, than electrical capacity should be increased
or a regular magneto used.
I am amazed at how complex people are making electrical systems. For the most part
we are talking about small single engine airplanes. One engine right? However,
if you feel you need two P-mags, two batteries, two alternators and OV protection,
than by golly you should install it. Keeping the single fan turning
should be one of the most important items.
Cheers George
(1) LS is about 1.2 amp at 13.8 volt each; E-mag is less than 1 amp at 13.8 volts.
>Since you are operating an electrically dependent aircraft, I would think that
>finding ways of minimizing the total electrical costs to keep your plane in the
>air would be paramount. I think you would be better served by either 2 P Mags
>or a P Mag and a magneto to reduce your emergency electrical loads to the fuel
>system draws (fuel pumps, injectors and computer)
>Using Lightspeed or ElectroAire Ignitions simply adds an additional 3.5 to 6
amps
>current draw to your battery.
>Charlie Kuss
---------------------------------
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: E-mag/Pmag timing question (Belt and suspenders) |
The same reason that certified airplanes have two mags. Also the engine will
start and run better.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: E-mag/Pmag timing question (Belt and suspenders)
>
>
> I don't mean to be redundant, but why do you *need* two P-mags? The chance
> of having total or partial electrical failure AND at the same time loosing
> the P-mag is slim to none. Multi failures of two unrelated systems is not
> likely, so an E-mag / P-mag combo is just fine IMHO. If you have an
> alternator failure and want to conserve power you could turn the E-mag
> off, as the P-mag will still be there, unless you really are having a bad
> day.
>
> Also if youre electrical system can't stand the 1.0 amp draw from one
> E-mag ignition, long enough to get on the ground, than electrical capacity
> should be increased or a regular magneto used.
>
> I am amazed at how complex people are making electrical systems. For the
> most part we are talking about small single engine airplanes. One engine
> right? However, if you feel you need two P-mags, two batteries, two
> alternators and OV protection, than by golly you should install it.
> Keeping the single fan turning should be one of the most important items.
>
> Cheers George
>
> (1) LS is about 1.2 amp at 13.8 volt each; E-mag is less than 1 amp at
> 13.8 volts.
>
>
>>Since you are operating an electrically dependent aircraft, I would think
>>that
>>finding ways of minimizing the total electrical costs to keep your plane
>>in the
>>air would be paramount. I think you would be better served by either 2 P
>>Mags
>>or a P Mag and a magneto to reduce your emergency electrical loads to the
>>fuel
>>system draws (fuel pumps, injectors and computer)
> >Using Lightspeed or ElectroAire Ignitions simply adds an additional 3.5
> >to 6 amps
>>current draw to your battery.
>>Charlie Kuss
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Davidson" <pdavidson(at)familynet.net> |
| Subject: | Collins DPU-84 Prints |
Hello, does anybody happen to have at least a pinout for a Collins DPU-84?
If possible, I'd also like to find some info on all the ways it can interact
with Nav recievers.
Peter Davidson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Emag/mag timing question |
>
>
> >
> >I think you're right.
> >
> >Actually, I'd go for independent electrical actuators on each
> >gear. We're seeing very compact, ball-screw actuators that talk
> >to each other on a serial bus and a small system interface controller
> >at the panel. All the gear extension/retraction hardware goes
> >away for a big weight savings. Rigging gets simpler too. Of course,
> >"latching" in the up condition becomes a non-issue since gear
> >position is constantly monitored by a servo system that will hold
> >it in any position desired.
> >
> >Watch the Eclipse . . . this is a 100% actuator driven airplane
> >with no mechanical connections between major components of flaps,
> >landing gear or pitch trim. Very easy to build and maintain.
>
>We looked at doing that with Berkut. In fact, an electric nose gear became
>standard. We didn't replace the main gear hydraulics with electric
>actuators because there was no alternate gear extension mechanism - no blow
>down or dump. With a pusher, a nose landing is a non-event. A main gear
>up landing is expensive.
There are electrically driven actuators being produced for
Eclipse that will fall into down and locked by pulling on
a cable attached to the gearbox. The ball screws run very
low friction so that the no-power gear extension is quite
doable.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA II Good news and bad news |
>
>
>Just started a test on a 17 a.h. battery used in the white paper
>experiments posted a few weeks ago. The CBA II is very intuitive
>and appears well crafted. Will have results to post this afternoon.
>
>Bob . . .
Just got home and took a look at results for the test I mentioned
above . . . See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/West_Mountain/Panasonic_1.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
>
>Does the e-mag use any advance greater than 25 degrees (same as a mag)?
>Last I heard they did not. Perhaps they have changed the advance curve.
check out the data at their website:
http://emagair.com/
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
> John
> I bought my 4" alternator pulley from another RV builder. I just
> "googled" Mark Landoll and found his phone number.
>MARK LANDOLL (405)392-3847
>Local RV-9A builder Eddie Fernandez has one of Mark's alternator pulleys
>on his project. It's a nice looking unit.
>Charlie
Why a 4" pulley on the alternator? Get the rotor balanced
and run the smaller pulley. More output at ramp idle and taxi
speeds, better cooling in the air and better cowl clearance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flaps Switch diagram |
Travis,
The flap switch is symmetrical in that you can wire it up in reverse and
still have it work (but the motor may run backwards).
Here is one method of wiring that works:
Looking at the switch from behind:
Top left terminal connect to +12v AND to the bottom right terminal.
Top right terminal connect to Ground AND to the bottom left terminal.
The middle terminals connect to the flap motor wires.
If the flap motor runs backwards, reverse the flap motor wires, or the
power and ground wires.
Now, here is some food for thought: I chucked the Van's switch and
replaced it with an S700-2-5 from B&C. This switch is momentary in the
down position only, much like (some of the) Cessna flap switches.
To deploy flaps, you hold the switch down and release to stop. To
retract flaps, you flip the switch up and leave it up (you don't have to
hold it) while the flaps retract. This is very useful after landing or
a go-around when you need your right hand for other things!
You just have to remember to neutralize the switch after the flaps are
retracted. The flap mechanism has a run-out so that it won't hurt it to
leave the motor running, but it's still a good idea to switch it off.
I used a lamp bridged across the flap motor as a reminder.
Vern Little RV-9A http://www3.telus.net/aviation/flying/RV-9A/rv-9a
Travis Hamblen wrote:
>
>The flaps switch I got from Van's came with no pin out/diagram. Does anyone
>out there have a diagram for this switch? Please e-mail it to me if you can
>scan it in, or even a text description of each pin would be greatly
>appreciated.
>
>Travis
>RV7A Wiring
>
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
Boy, Frank, it's hard to know what to do. I know others have left the
stock pulley on the Samurai alternator and not had trouble--but
anecdotal evidence--especially based on one or two anecdotes--doesn't
pass my internal FAA (@@).... The guys at B&C run the L40 at 10,000 rpm
or so, and say that the alternator "likes" to run at that speed & it
improves cooling significantly, but of course they balance the rotating
part, so it could probably run as fast as they want it to without
wearing out bearings.
The pulley on mine is v-belt, 2 3/4" O.D. It's going on a
Mattituck-built ECI O-360 Lycoming clone. Because I plan to put a 44"
pitch propeller on it, I'll be cruising around 2,500 rpm. That's 9,000
rpm on the alternator. Just "seems" like a lot to me, when it's
intended (on the Samurai) to turn up to maybe 6000.
Give me a little while to think about parting with my pulley. Thanks a
million for the link!
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
(Corvallis)"
John,
http://www.cantonracingproducts.com/alternators/alternators.html
Don't know what engine you got but the Suzuki Sam alt I have been told
is good for 18000RPM...So you may not need to slow it down.
If you have a 2 1/2 v pulley for that alt and you really don't want
it...Can I make you an offer?...It should fit my Camry alt.
Check out the link, they have 3.5 and 5" dia 15mm shaft size pulleys
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Swartout
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
-->
Charlie, how do I get ahold of this Mark Landoll? Is that the pulley
CNC machined out of 6061-T6 aluminum that Aircraft Spruce had in the
catalog last year but no longer available? I also need a big pulley for
my 1987 Suzuki Samurai ND alternator, if I don't change my mind and put
in a $639 B&C. Thanks.
John Swartout
Zenith STOL CH-801
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Charlie Kuss
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
At 10:54 PM 4/5/2005, you wrote:
(Corvallis)"
>
>
>Hello there,
>
>I was listening to an urban legend that told me the best hi output
>alternator for use on a Lycoming clone was from a 1987 Toyota Camry. I
>went to Autozone and bought said alternator and found it has a
>serpentine belt pulley on it.
>
>Clearly this is not correct so now I am wondering if the Camry unit
>really is the right one and where one can buy a v groove pulley to
match
>the Lyc...I don't have the engine yet either so I'm sure even if I do
go
>get a v pulley if it will be the correct profile...Like are all V
>pulleys the same?
>
>
>I have a 1987 Suzuki Samuri unit on my existing plane but this unit
will
>not have enough output for my IFR equipped RV.
>
>Any help greatly appreciated.
>
>Frank
Frank
Go to your local automotive electrical re-builder or local junk yard.
You
want the pulley off of a 1977 to 1983 Honda Civic or Accord alternator.
I
suspect that the same era Toyota alternator pulley will also work.
Wander
the junk yard. Any ND alternator with a standard pulley will work. Swap
that pulley to your alternator. Rotor shaft is 15mm in diameter. Outside
pulley diameter (belt location) is about 2.5" in diameter. Mark Landoll
markets an after market 4" aluminum pulley to reduce the alternator's
speed by about 38 - 40%. The down side to the larger pulley is, on some
cowls, it presents a clearance problem.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
Who would be skilled at balancing the rotor, besides B&C?
John
-----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: Alternator help
>
> John
> I bought my 4" alternator pulley from another RV builder. I just
> "googled" Mark Landoll and found his phone number.
>MARK LANDOLL (405)392-3847
>Local RV-9A builder Eddie Fernandez has one of Mark's alternator
pulleys
>on his project. It's a nice looking unit.
>Charlie
Why a 4" pulley on the alternator? Get the rotor balanced
and run the smaller pulley. More output at ramp idle and taxi
speeds, better cooling in the air and better cowl clearance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com |
| Subject: | E-mag/Pmag timing question (Belt and suspenders) |
Murphy's law lurking in the background will incite me into installing two
PMags. Redundancy is a desirable safety concern, which gets implemented
depending on cost. Figure that the delta on two PMags instead of one is a
few hundred dollars, practically no weight increase, no added complexity...
If I had a total electrical failure and were running on two PMags I'd feel a
lot more comfortable than running on one only.
Michle
RV8 - Wings
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 3:41 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: E-mag/Pmag timing question (Belt and
> suspenders)
>
>
>
> I don't mean to be redundant, but why do you *need* two P-mags? The chance
> of having total or partial electrical failure AND at the same time loosing
> the P-mag is slim to none. Multi failures of two unrelated systems is not
> likely, so an E-mag / P-mag combo is just fine IMHO. If you have an
> alternator failure and want to conserve power you could turn the E-mag
> off, as the P-mag will still be there, unless you really are having a bad
> day.
>
> Also if youre electrical system can't stand the 1.0 amp draw from one E-
> mag ignition, long enough to get on the ground, than electrical capacity
> should be increased or a regular magneto used.
>
> I am amazed at how complex people are making electrical systems. For the
> most part we are talking about small single engine airplanes. One engine
> right? However, if you feel you need two P-mags, two batteries, two
> alternators and OV protection, than by golly you should install it.
> Keeping the single fan turning should be one of the most important items.
>
> Cheers George
>
> (1) LS is about 1.2 amp at 13.8 volt each; E-mag is less than 1 amp at
> 13.8 volts.
>
>
> >Since you are operating an electrically dependent aircraft, I would think
> that
> >finding ways of minimizing the total electrical costs to keep your plane
> in the
> >air would be paramount. I think you would be better served by either 2 P
> Mags
> >or a P Mag and a magneto to reduce your emergency electrical loads to the
> fuel
> >system draws (fuel pumps, injectors and computer)
> >Using Lightspeed or ElectroAire Ignitions simply adds an additional 3.5
> to 6 amps
> >current draw to your battery.
> >Charlie Kuss
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | install manuals for kx155 |
Hi all,
I'll be installing an overhauled kx155 (to replace kx170b), but cannot find
an install manual for the 155.
Can anyone point me to the appropriate URL to download it from? I tried the
King site, did searches, but the only manual/s that turned up as pdfs were
of 165.
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
At 12:21 AM 4/8/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > John
> > I bought my 4" alternator pulley from another RV builder. I just
> > "googled" Mark Landoll and found his phone number.
> >MARK LANDOLL (405)392-3847
> >Local RV-9A builder Eddie Fernandez has one of Mark's alternator pulleys
> >on his project. It's a nice looking unit.
> >Charlie
>
> Why a 4" pulley on the alternator? Get the rotor balanced
> and run the smaller pulley. More output at ramp idle and taxi
> speeds, better cooling in the air and better cowl clearance.
>
> Bob . . .
Because I don't need the extra RPMs at ramp idle. I'm installing a 60 amp
unit. On my RV-8A, clearance can be achieved without modifying the cowl. I
simply have to move the alternator as far inboard as it will go and use a
36 inch belt. I'd prefer to simply swap pulleys, if the alternator ever
needs replacement, rather than have to balance the new rotor as well. Just
my personal preference. Your way works too.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com> |
| Subject: | Re: install manuals for kx155 |
Rumen
The install manual I bought off Essco covers both 155 and 165 but there is very
little in it over and above the pinouts. I could scan one of the diagrams and
email it to you if that would help. Let me know which indicator you are using
so I get the right one.
Best regards
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: rd2(at)evenlink.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: install manuals for kx155
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:42:39 -0400
>
>
> Hi all,
> I'll be installing an overhauled kx155 (to replace kx170b), but cannot find
> an install manual for the 155.
> Can anyone point me to the appropriate URL to download it from? I tried the
> King site, did searches, but the only manual/s that turned up as pdfs were
> of 165.
>
> Rumen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
In a message dated 4/8/2005 6:34:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
jgswartout(at)earthlink.net writes:
Who would be skilled at balancing the rotor, besides B&C?
John
Aircraft Systems, Rockford, Illinois, has the requisite skills and equipment.
815 399-0225 E-Mail: _ACS5187(at)hotmail.com_ (mailto:ACS5187(at)hotmail.com)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
>
>
>Apart from my ignorance in not changing the batterries sooner on my
>electrically dependant airplane I can imagine in a real alt failure not
>knowing for sure how much time I had.
Lack of hard data on this point plagues almost every pilot
who experiences alternator failure. This is why we advocate
active preventative maintenance of batteries and lucid
energy management policies in crafting procedures for
alternator-out operations. It's not hard to do, just takes
some time and understanding.
>To me the fact I could just flip everything off except one fuel pump
>(this is all weather dependant of course) and focus my gaze on the volt
>meter (knowing I have some in my second battery) just seemed attractive.
Without doing a simple analysis of loads and acquiring knowledge
of battery condition, one cannot depend on any battery only
operations . . . See chapter 17 at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch17-9.pdf
>Pmag "appears" to be set to a constant timing just like a mag so
>performs the same function with presumably lower ongoing costs/hassle
>but without variable timing like the Lightspeed.
Pmags and Emags can be set up for either fixed timing to
emulate a magneto or you can hook up the manifold pressure
sense line and take advantage of spark advance at lower
manifold pressures. The option can be added/deleted at
will.
>Decisions decisions
>
>So how does one be sure how much reserve the battery(s) have? If there
>was a way to know then I could be persuaded to a second Lightspeed.
It's called load analysis. Calculate or measure the real loads
required for sustained flight sans-alternator, decide what
endurance you want to maintain (some folks fly comfortably
with a 30 minute reserve . . . this strikes me as being
an "emergency" mode of operation). We've suggested and demonstrated
many times that practical electrical endurance approaching or
exceeding fuel limited endurance is possible.
I just tested a 17 a.h. battery that I've had laying around the
shop for a number of years. I thought it was about 3 years old.
Turns out to have a 1999 date code on it. Test results on this
battery for a 4A load are shown at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/West_Mountain/Panasonic_1.pdf
There are simple techniques and low cost tools for KNOWING and
PLANNING for comfortable margins during battery-only operations.
But better yet, put an SD-8 or larger on the vacuum pump pad
and battery sizing and maintenance issues are considerably
reduced.
There are no excuses for an electrical system that is capable
of producing an "emergency" situation in response to component
failure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)"
<<......skip......In MY experience the biggest issue is not not knowing
exactly how much
time one has to run on the batteries...Mainly because I keep mine
charged on voltage sensing trickle chargers...Works great...Now after 5
years I just changed them...and only because the GCFI tripped supplying
the chargers and after a week my batterries were dead!>>
4/8/2005
Hello Frank, What brand, type, size batteries were these? Thanks.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Larkin" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | install manuals for kx155 |
I will send you the pin outs to your email address....
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Mather
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: install manuals for kx155
Rumen
The install manual I bought off Essco covers both 155 and 165 but there
is very little in it over and above the pinouts. I could scan one of the
diagrams and email it to you if that would help. Let me know which
indicator you are using so I get the right one.
Best regards
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: rd2(at)evenlink.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: install manuals for kx155
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:42:39 -0400
>
>
> Hi all,
> I'll be installing an overhauled kx155 (to replace kx170b), but cannot
find
> an install manual for the 155.
> Can anyone point me to the appropriate URL to download it from? I
tried the
> King site, did searches, but the only manual/s that turned up as pdfs
were
> of 165.
>
> Rumen
>
>
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
I agree with this and thats what I thought I did on my plane, I had at
least an hours worth of flight on a VFR only plane based on 3AH of
reserve in the second batt...It all came down to how many AH did I
really have in the battery considering it was almost dead after a week
without charging...Probably not 3AH I would guess.
Needless to say I have two fresh batteries installed asof now..:)
Having said all that I am now seriously considering a dual Emag (only 1
amp each?) setup and two 17AH batts if I can test them each year for
degradation...Havent read your article yet Bob but maybe this tester is
a way to do this reasonably ecomnomically?
The Emag turns out to be Way cheaper than a Hall effect lightspeed and I
have some 6 to 9 months before I fly so even with leadtime it may well
be the way to go.
Thanks
Frank
-----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: Emag/mag timing question
-->
>
>
>Apart from my ignorance in not changing the batterries sooner on my
>electrically dependant airplane I can imagine in a real alt failure not
>knowing for sure how much time I had.
Lack of hard data on this point plagues almost every pilot
who experiences alternator failure. This is why we advocate
active preventative maintenance of batteries and lucid
energy management policies in crafting procedures for
alternator-out operations. It's not hard to do, just takes
some time and understanding.
>To me the fact I could just flip everything off except one fuel pump
>(this is all weather dependant of course) and focus my gaze on the volt
>meter (knowing I have some in my second battery) just seemed
attractive.
Without doing a simple analysis of loads and acquiring knowledge
of battery condition, one cannot depend on any battery only
operations . . . See chapter 17 at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch17-9.pdf
>Pmag "appears" to be set to a constant timing just like a mag so
>performs the same function with presumably lower ongoing costs/hassle
>but without variable timing like the Lightspeed.
Pmags and Emags can be set up for either fixed timing to
emulate a magneto or you can hook up the manifold pressure
sense line and take advantage of spark advance at lower
manifold pressures. The option can be added/deleted at
will.
>Decisions decisions
>
>So how does one be sure how much reserve the battery(s) have? If there
>was a way to know then I could be persuaded to a second Lightspeed.
It's called load analysis. Calculate or measure the real loads
required for sustained flight sans-alternator, decide what
endurance you want to maintain (some folks fly comfortably
with a 30 minute reserve . . . this strikes me as being
an "emergency" mode of operation). We've suggested and demonstrated
many times that practical electrical endurance approaching or
exceeding fuel limited endurance is possible.
I just tested a 17 a.h. battery that I've had laying around the
shop for a number of years. I thought it was about 3 years old.
Turns out to have a 1999 date code on it. Test results on this
battery for a 4A load are shown at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/West_Mountain/Panasonic_1.pdf
There are simple techniques and low cost tools for KNOWING and
PLANNING for comfortable margins during battery-only operations.
But better yet, put an SD-8 or larger on the vacuum pump pad
and battery sizing and maintenance issues are considerably
reduced.
There are no excuses for an electrical system that is capable
of producing an "emergency" situation in response to component
failure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Panasonic sealed LA batteries.....I have a 18Ah for the main and a 3AH
for the second. I had changed the 3AH unit about three years ago to the
same thing marketted by "Helious" from.. www.batteries.com Have very
keen prices.
The 3Ah unit is just used to run a Facet fuel pump at about 1.5 amps I
believe and the backup EI system.
FRank
-----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: Battery life
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)"
<<......skip......In MY experience the biggest issue is not not knowing
exactly how much time one has to run on the batteries...Mainly because I
keep mine charged on voltage sensing trickle chargers...Works
great...Now after 5 years I just changed them...and only because the
GCFI tripped supplying the chargers and after a week my batterries were
dead!>>
4/8/2005
Hello Frank, What brand, type, size batteries were these? Thanks.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA II Good news and bad news |
Bob,
Thanks for the update. I have held off purchasing one until you have finished
"experimenting".
Mark Banus
Glasair Super II FT
Crimping Wires in VA Beach
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA II Good news and bad news |
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Just started a test on a 17 a.h. battery used in the white paper
> >experiments posted a few weeks ago. The CBA II is very intuitive
> >and appears well crafted. Will have results to post this afternoon.
> >
> >Bob . . .
>
>Just got home and took a look at results for the test I mentioned
>above . . . See:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/West_Mountain/Panasonic_1.pdf
>
>Bob . . .
Opened the "smoked" CBA III . . . here's a picture of
the internals.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/CBA2_2.jpg
Turns out that the little guy in the center is an
International Rectifier IRL2910. Ratings for this
device can be found at:
http://www.irf.com/product-info/datasheets/data/irl2910.pdf
This device is NOT capable of performing under
the range of test conditions advertised for the
CBA II. I am completely mystified as to the selection
of this part when there are so many others offered by
International Rectifier and others that would do the job.
For the moment, I have to advise caution with respect
to purchase and use of this product for testing large
batteries. It would probably be fine for small, single
cells. The software is nicely crafted (which is the
real hard part). I'm going to suggest they add some
features to do constant power and constant resistance
discharge tests. It would also be more meaningful if
the battery's capabilities were stated both in ampere
hours and watt-seconds.
By the way. The plastic on the IRL2910 was so damaged
as to make the printing unreadable under ordinary light.
I carry a blue-white LED pocket light in my nerd-pack.
There's a quality of this light source that I've discovered
makes otherwise hidden surface features visible. In this
case, shinning the light on the uniformly black surface
of the transistor raised the letters out of the "fog"
and they became quite readable.
I hope to hear from West_Mountain soon to begin
detailed discussions. There's great potential here but
right now, it's not ready for prime time.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA II Good news and bad news |
>
>Bob,
>
> Thanks for the update. I have held off purchasing one until you have
> finished "experimenting".
>
>Mark Banus
>Glasair Super II FT
>Crimping Wires in VA Beach
I've just updated the .pdf on the website. Go get the latest
at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/West_Mountain/Panasonic_1.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
>In a message dated 4/8/2005 6:34:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>jgswartout(at)earthlink.net writes:
>Who would be skilled at balancing the rotor, besides B&C?
>John
>Aircraft Systems, Rockford, Illinois, has the requisite skills and
equipment.
I keep their phone number right next to my elephant stick. Who can balance
alternators? Nippondenso, Delco, Bosch, Konlen, Ningbo, Unipoint, all those
other Chinese guys, Ford, Mitsubishi, all those other Japanese guys, Iskra,
Lucas....okay, so maybe not Lucas.
The point is that balancing alternators is like the "special sealer" the
dealer want to charge you $375 for when you buy a new car--a way to earn
their Salesmanship merit badge!
If I were selling alternators I think I would start with ones that didn't
need balancing. Am I making too much sense?
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"I tried being reasonable--I didn't like it!"
--Clint Eastwood
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
In a message dated 4/8/2005 10:36:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
emjones(at)charter.net writes:
If I were selling alternators I think I would start with ones that didn't
need balancing. Am I making too much sense?
Good Morning Eric,
Wouldn't it be nice if we could count on all manufactured products being
fault free?
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.
I have no idea whether or not any of those units you list are well balanced.
I do know that the gentleman had asked where such balancing could be done.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
I'd be very interested in the results (before and after balance specs)
from one or more Nippondenso's (or any brand) sent to these guys.
Ken
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>In a message dated 4/8/2005 6:34:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>>jgswartout(at)earthlink.net writes:
>>Who would be skilled at balancing the rotor, besides B&C?
>>John
>>Aircraft Systems, Rockford, Illinois, has the requisite skills and
>>
>>
>equipment.
>
>I keep their phone number right next to my elephant stick. Who can balance
>alternators? Nippondenso, Delco, Bosch, Konlen, Ningbo, Unipoint, all those
>other Chinese guys, Ford, Mitsubishi, all those other Japanese guys, Iskra,
>Lucas....okay, so maybe not Lucas.
>
>The point is that balancing alternators is like the "special sealer" the
>dealer want to charge you $375 for when you buy a new car--a way to earn
>their Salesmanship merit badge!
>
>If I were selling alternators I think I would start with ones that didn't
>need balancing. Am I making too much sense?
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge MA 01550-2705
>Phone (508) 764-2072
>Email: emjones(at)charter.net
>
>"I tried being reasonable--I didn't like it!"
> --Clint Eastwood
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
I was trying to do all responses off list, but with Greg's comments I'm
forced to respond on list.
Actually, I'm not trying to play mind games. I'm trying to point out that
there is a common misconception among pilots (especially new pilots) that if the
engine quits they will stall. That simply is not true. The original
question was from Michele' and was regarding concern about the PMag not producing
a
spark below 800 RPM. Another lister said, "I don't know about fixed pitch
props, but with a c/s, if your rpm was down to 800, you would probably have
already stalled due to low airspeed." My answer was that is not necessarily true.
I can show you 5 to 8 seconds of zero airspeed (airborne) in a C-172 without
stalling the wing. In fact, depending on the calibration of the airspeed
indicator, I can show you zero airspeed in level, unaccelerated flight in a C-172.
The wing will still be flying, but due to calibration errors and the angle
of attack of the pitot tube to the relative wind, the airspeed indicator will
indicate zero, or very near zero. Don't believe me? Talk to me at the BMA
booth at Sun n Fun on Tues, Wed, or Thur. I don't work for them, just helping.
I can also demonstrate that it is SAFE to lose all power in a C-150 at 200'
AGL and land on the runway from which you departed. It is based on certain
flying techniques and accurate knowledge of and control of AOA. The FAA
suggestion to land straight ahead is the safest action for most GA pilots, however,
there are other, safe valid options if the pilot PLANS for an engine failure on
each takeoff, has PRACTICED, and PROPERLY EXECUTES the maneuver. The
technique can be applied to all airplanes, but the minimum altitude at which the
engine can fail and the pilot still be able to land on the departure runway will
change. The variables are: type of airplane, altitude achieved at power loss,
length of runway, airspeed at power loss, wind direction and strength, and
pilot proficiency.
So, no mind games here. I enjoy teaching other pilots how to optimally
operate an airplane. Wish I had more time to do it. The flying part is easy,
now,
if only I could learn the best design for an electrical system and wire it.
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
www.rv-8a.net
In a message dated 4/8/2005 5:53:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
Speedy's just playing mind games. A stall requires exceeding the
critical angle of attack. By definition there is no AOA at zero airspeed
since there is no flow. But with no airspeed and no engine there are no
aerodynamics at work so one could argue that it is not really flying at
all. You could pitch to vertical and achieve this state for an instant
but there is no steady state for this condition without the airframe
being anchored to something, like the ground or a skyhook.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Speedy,
I can't stand the suspense. What are the engine out maneuvers w/engine out on
TO? And, how is one to gauge what the appropriate minimum altitude is for a particular
aircraft? Glide ratio? Wing loading? It may be a little off topic,
though I would think most of the people on this list are pilots and would be
at least mildly interested.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed
I was trying to do all responses off list, but with Greg's comments I'm
forced to respond on list.
Actually, I'm not trying to play mind games. I'm trying to point out that
there is a common misconception among pilots (especially new pilots) that if the
engine quits they will stall. That simply is not true. The original
question was from Michele' and was regarding concern about the PMag not producing
a
spark below 800 RPM. Another lister said, "I don't know about fixed pitch
props, but with a c/s, if your rpm was down to 800, you would probably have
already stalled due to low airspeed." My answer was that is not necessarily true.
I can show you 5 to 8 seconds of zero airspeed (airborne) in a C-172 without
stalling the wing. In fact, depending on the calibration of the airspeed
indicator, I can show you zero airspeed in level, unaccelerated flight in a C-172.
The wing will still be flying, but due to calibration errors and the angle
of attack of the pitot tube to the relative wind, the airspeed indicator will
indicate zero, or very near zero. Don't believe me? Talk to me at the BMA
booth at Sun n Fun on Tues, Wed, or Thur. I don't work for them, just helping.
I can also demonstrate that it is SAFE to lose all power in a C-150 at 200'
AGL and land on the runway from which you departed. It is based on certain
flying techniques and accurate knowledge of and control of AOA. The FAA
suggestion to land straight ahead is the safest action for most GA pilots, however,
there are other, safe valid options if the pilot PLANS for an engine failure on
each takeoff, has PRACTICED, and PROPERLY EXECUTES the maneuver. The
technique can be applied to all airplanes, but the minimum altitude at which the
engine can fail and the pilot still be able to land on the departure runway will
change. The variables are: type of airplane, altitude achieved at power loss,
length of runway, airspeed at power loss, wind direction and strength, and
pilot proficiency.
So, no mind games here. I enjoy teaching other pilots how to optimally
operate an airplane. Wish I had more time to do it. The flying part is easy,
now,
if only I could learn the best design for an electrical system and wire it.
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
www.rv-8a.net
In a message dated 4/8/2005 5:53:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
Speedy's just playing mind games. A stall requires exceeding the
critical angle of attack. By definition there is no AOA at zero airspeed
since there is no flow. But with no airspeed and no engine there are no
aerodynamics at work so one could argue that it is not really flying at
all. You could pitch to vertical and achieve this state for an instant
but there is no steady state for this condition without the airframe
being anchored to something, like the ground or a skyhook.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
| From: | "Craig P. Steffen" <craig(at)craigsteffen.net> |
Stan,
> there is a common misconception among pilots (especially new pilots)
> that if the
> engine quits they will stall.
But pilots who have completed their training know that's not true.
It's the zero airspeed without a stall that had people squawking.
> stalling the wing. In fact, depending on the calibration of the airspeed
> indicator, I can show you zero airspeed in level, unaccelerated
> flight in a C-172.
> The wing will still be flying, but due to calibration errors and the angle
> of attack of the pitot tube to the relative wind, the airspeed
> indicator will
> indicate zero, or very near zero.
So what you're saying is that you can be at zero INDICATED airspeed
and not be stalled, which is completely different than at zero
airspeed (which implies zero TRUE airspeed). I can fly a plane just
fine too at zero indicated, just put a piece of tape over the pitot
tube before takeoff.
> I can also demonstrate that it is SAFE to lose all power in a C-150 at 200'
> AGL and land on the runway from which you departed.
> So, no mind games here. I enjoy teaching other pilots how to optimally
> operate an airplane. Wish I had more time to do it. The flying
> part is easy, now,
Stan: before people start bickering about this information, let's get
some basics down:
What are you pilot certifications?
How many hours do you have?
Are you a flight instructor? If so, how many people have received
their PPL under your instruction?
Do you have a video of this turn-around maneuver upon power loss on
takeoff?
Craig Steffen
[I do not have a pilot's license, nor any formal education in
aeronautical engineering]
--
craig(at)craigsteffen.net
public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/
current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books
career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv6n6r(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
I think you missed the original point. The way I read it, the original poster was
saying that at 'normal' approach speeds (and presumably reasonable AOA),
your engine/prop will spin faster than 800RPM even at engine idle power. The
issue isn't whether engine power alone will keep you from stalling (duh) but
whether maintaining normal airspeed/attitude will keep enough air going
through the prop to 'encourage' it above 800RPM even at idle. I kinda think
it will in my RV-6 -- on the ground it idles at about 500RPM but at flying
speeds even at idle it's higher for obvious reasons.
I've never explored that concept to the edges of the envelope however. Maybe
we could discuss it from that angle?
Randall Henderson
I think you missed the original point. The way I read it, the original poster was
saying that at 'normal' approach speeds (and presumably reasonable AOA),
your engine/prop will spin faster than 800RPM even at engine idle power. The
issue isn't whether engine power alone will keep you from stalling (duh) but
whether maintaining normal airspeed/attitude will keep enough air going
through the prop to 'encourage' it above 800RPM even at idle. I kinda think
it will in my RV-6 -- on the ground it idles at about 500RPM but at flying
speeds even at idle it's higher for obvious reasons.
I've never explored that concept to the edges of the envelope however. Maybe
we could discuss it from that angle?
Randall Henderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
>
>I'd be very interested in the results (before and after balance specs)
>from one or more Nippondenso's (or any brand) sent to these guys.
>Ken
Ken,
You have an excellent point.
Another is that if you really want to balance something try THE PROPELLER,
then the engine, then the wheels, then the checkbook.
These are far more important.
Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
I agree,
If you look at the diameter of the rotating mass of the alt it is tiny
in comparison to the prop.
Having had a dynamic prop balance done I can tell you the results can be
dramatic!
Frank
You have an excellent point.
Another is that if you really want to balance something try THE
PROPELLER, then the engine, then the wheels, then the checkbook.
These are far more important.
Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
Frank, what model Facet pump is it? I've been wondering where to find
out how much mine draws. It came from Aircraft Spruce without any
documentation. Facet No. 478360. Haven't been able to figure out how
to use my el cheapo multitester to measure draw, and don't know if it
would hurt the pump to run it dry, or if it would draw the same dry as
pushing fuel.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
(Corvallis)"
Panasonic sealed LA batteries.....I have a 18Ah for the main and a 3AH
for the second. I had changed the 3AH unit about three years ago to the
same thing marketted by "Helious" from.. www.batteries.com Have very
keen prices.
The 3Ah unit is just used to run a Facet fuel pump at about 1.5 amps I
believe and the backup EI system.
FRank
-----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: Battery life
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)"
<<......skip......In MY experience the biggest issue is not not knowing
exactly how much time one has to run on the batteries...Mainly because I
keep mine charged on voltage sensing trickle chargers...Works
great...Now after 5 years I just changed them...and only because the
GCFI tripped supplying the chargers and after a week my batterries were
dead!>>
4/8/2005
Hello Frank, What brand, type, size batteries were these? Thanks.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery life |
Afternoon, John....
>>I've been wondering where to find out how much mine draws.<<
I did a quick search on Google, using "Facet 478360 current draw" as the
search terms, and BINGO! ... It pointed me to someplace called the
Aeroelectric Connection! Imagine that!
Anyway...here's what it said:
The *478360* draws 1 amp max. The 40108 draws 1.4 amps max
Harley Dixon
John Swartout wrote:
>
>Frank, what model Facet pump is it? I've been wondering where to find
>out how much mine draws. It came from Aircraft Spruce without any
>documentation. Facet No. 478360. Haven't been able to figure out how
>to use my el cheapo multitester to measure draw, and don't know if it
>would hurt the pump to run it dry, or if it would draw the same dry as
>pushing fuel.
>
>John
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
>
>(Corvallis)"
>
> Panasonic sealed LA batteries.....I have a 18Ah for the main and a 3AH
>for the second. I had changed the 3AH unit about three years ago to the
>same thing marketted by "Helious" from.. www.batteries.com Have very
>keen prices.
>
>The 3Ah unit is just used to run a Facet fuel pump at about 1.5 amps I
>believe and the backup EI system.
>
>FRank
>
>-----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
>To: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
>
>
>AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
>(Corvallis)"
>
><<......skip......In MY experience the biggest issue is not not knowing
>exactly how much time one has to run on the batteries...Mainly because I
>keep mine charged on voltage sensing trickle chargers...Works
>great...Now after 5 years I just changed them...and only because the
>GCFI tripped supplying the chargers and after a week my batterries were
>dead!>>
>
>4/8/2005
>
>Hello Frank, What brand, type, size batteries were these? Thanks.
>
>OC
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Mine are 40106. This is the 4 to 6psi pump without a checkvalve. It's
the little square solid state unit. Incidently these are sold by most of
the autoparts shops under the Purolator name....Useful if one should die
500 miles away from home.
I can't quite remember but I think mine were about 1 to 1.5 amps. They
will draw more current pumping fuel I think.
Running these types dry does not seem to hurt them. I am told the
rotovane high pressure FI pumps must not be run dry...Not that I have
ever sucked a tank dry in 350 hours o flying nor do I intend to.
You'll need a ammeter shunt for your multimeter to measure the current
draw.
Facet has a web site (do a google search) with lots of tech info. They
may have what your looking for.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Swartout
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
-->
Frank, what model Facet pump is it? I've been wondering where to find
out how much mine draws. It came from Aircraft Spruce without any
documentation. Facet No. 478360. Haven't been able to figure out how
to use my el cheapo multitester to measure draw, and don't know if it
would hurt the pump to run it dry, or if it would draw the same dry as
pushing fuel.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
(Corvallis)"
Panasonic sealed LA batteries.....I have a 18Ah for the main and a 3AH
for the second. I had changed the 3AH unit about three years ago to the
same thing marketted by "Helious" from.. www.batteries.com Have very
keen prices.
The 3Ah unit is just used to run a Facet fuel pump at about 1.5 amps I
believe and the backup EI system.
FRank
-----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: Battery life
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)"
<<......skip......In MY experience the biggest issue is not not knowing
exactly how much time one has to run on the batteries...Mainly because I
keep mine charged on voltage sensing trickle chargers...Works
great...Now after 5 years I just changed them...and only because the
GCFI tripped supplying the chargers and after a week my batterries were
dead!>>
4/8/2005
Hello Frank, What brand, type, size batteries were these? Thanks.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)NetZero.com> |
The pulley on mine is v-belt, 2 3/4" O.D. It's going on a
Mattituck-built ECI O-360 Lycoming clone. Because I plan to put a 44"
pitch propeller on it, I'll be cruising around 2,500 rpm. That's 9,000
rpm on the alternator. Just "seems" like a lot to me, when it's
intended (on the Samurai) to turn up to maybe 6000
Hmmm..
A 44" pitch prop on an Zenith 801 with a 0-360... I think that might be a little
under propped. It will accelerate good though.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Ok still can't find a standard ND alternator pulley (2 1/2) but I can
find an aftermarket 3 1/4" pulley. At say 1000 RPM on a long IFR decent
with everything running the alt will be turning at 2600RPM with this
pulley.
Is there a way to tell easily if this Toyota Camry will pump out enough
amps at this speed?...Is there a chart somewhere that shows amps vs RPM
for this unit??
Thanks
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Prop Balance, was: Balance, Was: Alternator help |
In a message dated 04/08/2005 3:06:47 PM Central Standard Time,
BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes:
Having had a dynamic prop balance done I can tell you the results can be
dramatic!
>>>>
Agreed! Just had mine done by Rodney Douglas at Douglas Aviation, Muhlenberg
Co. KY (M21) and the results are worth every $$$.
Mark Phillips - no commision, just a happy camper...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
John
Not sure where you are getting you "normal" alternator speeds as
intended by the auto manufacturer. My van turns approximately 3300 RPM @
75 MPH highway speeds. The alternator pulley is 2-3/8 " and the crank
pulley is 7-3/8 ". This gives an alternator speed "as intended by
Chrysler" of 7-3/8 / 2-3/8 X 3300 = 10,250 RPM at highway speeds and @ a
500 RPM idle of approx. 1500 RPM. During "hard" acceleration when the
transmission shifts near 4500 RPM or even more, the alternator is
turning at least 14,000 RPM. These numbers are for a totally stock Dodge
van 5.9 litre (360 cu in) engine, with 3.90 diff ratio and 137 amp
factory original Denso alternator . Small four cylinder cars will
obviously rev faster but I don't know the pulley ratios for them so
can't comment on alternator RPM. I suspect the pulley ratios would be
adjusted accordingly such that the alternator RPM is approximately the
same as my truck. I guess what I'm saying is that for the Chrysler built
trucks that I've been driving for the past 25 years the 9000 RPM you
seem to worry about as being "high" is quite well within the "normal"
range. With your 2-3/4 " pulley and a max. engine speed of 2500 RPM you
could have a crank pulley of 11-1/4 " and be within the speeds chosen by
Chrysler.
Just as a side note with respect to internally vs externally regulated
alternators, Chrysler has incorporated the voltage regulator within the
engine control computer on this vehicle and the alternator has both ends
of the field windings present as terminals on the outside as well as the
"B" lead making this a three terminal alternator with all functional
connections readily accessible. This is an observation that not "all"
automotive alternators are going with internal regulation.
Bob McC
John Swartout wrote:
>
>Boy, Frank, it's hard to know what to do. I know others have left the
>stock pulley on the Samurai alternator and not had trouble--but
>anecdotal evidence--especially based on one or two anecdotes--doesn't
>pass my internal FAA (@@).... The guys at B&C run the L40 at 10,000 rpm
>or so, and say that the alternator "likes" to run at that speed & it
>improves cooling significantly, but of course they balance the rotating
>part, so it could probably run as fast as they want it to without
>wearing out bearings.
>
>The pulley on mine is v-belt, 2 3/4" O.D. It's going on a
>Mattituck-built ECI O-360 Lycoming clone. Because I plan to put a 44"
>pitch propeller on it, I'll be cruising around 2,500 rpm. That's 9,000
>rpm on the alternator. Just "seems" like a lot to me, when it's
>intended (on the Samurai) to turn up to maybe 6000.
>
>Give me a little while to think about parting with my pulley. Thanks a
>million for the link!
>
>John
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mprather <mprather(at)spro.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
This sounds like it might be THE alternator for electron hungry airplane
systems installations..
What year is this vehicle?
Thanks for sharing the info.
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
Robert McCallum wrote:
>
>John
>
>Not sure where you are getting you "normal" alternator speeds as
>intended by the auto manufacturer. My van turns approximately 3300 RPM @
>75 MPH highway speeds. The alternator pulley is 2-3/8 " and the crank
>pulley is 7-3/8 ". This gives an alternator speed "as intended by
>Chrysler" of 7-3/8 / 2-3/8 X 3300 = 10,250 RPM at highway speeds and @ a
>500 RPM idle of approx. 1500 RPM. During "hard" acceleration when the
>transmission shifts near 4500 RPM or even more, the alternator is
>turning at least 14,000 RPM. These numbers are for a totally stock Dodge
>van 5.9 litre (360 cu in) engine, with 3.90 diff ratio and 137 amp
>factory original Denso alternator . Small four cylinder cars will
>obviously rev faster but I don't know the pulley ratios for them so
>can't comment on alternator RPM. I suspect the pulley ratios would be
>adjusted accordingly such that the alternator RPM is approximately the
>same as my truck. I guess what I'm saying is that for the Chrysler built
>trucks that I've been driving for the past 25 years the 9000 RPM you
>seem to worry about as being "high" is quite well within the "normal"
>range. With your 2-3/4 " pulley and a max. engine speed of 2500 RPM you
>could have a crank pulley of 11-1/4 " and be within the speeds chosen by
>Chrysler.
>
>Just as a side note with respect to internally vs externally regulated
>alternators, Chrysler has incorporated the voltage regulator within the
>engine control computer on this vehicle and the alternator has both ends
>of the field windings present as terminals on the outside as well as the
>"B" lead making this a three terminal alternator with all functional
>connections readily accessible. This is an observation that not "all"
>automotive alternators are going with internal regulation.
>
>Bob McC
>
>
>John Swartout wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Boy, Frank, it's hard to know what to do. I know others have left the
>>stock pulley on the Samurai alternator and not had trouble--but
>>anecdotal evidence--especially based on one or two anecdotes--doesn't
>>pass my internal FAA (@@).... The guys at B&C run the L40 at 10,000 rpm
>>or so, and say that the alternator "likes" to run at that speed & it
>>improves cooling significantly, but of course they balance the rotating
>>part, so it could probably run as fast as they want it to without
>>wearing out bearings.
>>
>>The pulley on mine is v-belt, 2 3/4" O.D. It's going on a
>>Mattituck-built ECI O-360 Lycoming clone. Because I plan to put a 44"
>>pitch propeller on it, I'll be cruising around 2,500 rpm. That's 9,000
>>rpm on the alternator. Just "seems" like a lot to me, when it's
>>intended (on the Samurai) to turn up to maybe 6000.
>>
>>Give me a little while to think about parting with my pulley. Thanks a
>>million for the link!
>>
>>John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Nuckoll's Paper on Electrical System Reliability |
Bob,
Your referenced paper is excellent on all counts and clearly spells out
the logic you have long advocated.
You might want to note that Figure 17-7 (referenced on page 17-12,
second paragraph)is missing. It appears that the referenced figure
should be the one shown as Figure 17-8. Changing the existing figure
17-8 to 17-7 would appear to fix this.
In Figure 17-1, shouldn't the "F" and "B" markings at the Alternator
symbol be swapped?
There are also a few scattered editorial/typo comments I can offer
"off-list" if you let me know whether you are interested. Please
understand none of my comments are in any way meant to be criticism.
I stand in awe of the wealth and substance of material you continuously
generate on this list. I only wonder if you ever sleep!!
Jim McCulley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
Matt;
It's a 1996 Dodge B2500 Wagon (full size window van with seats) Dual air
conditioning, SLT luxury trim package, power everything, trailer towing
package and heated rear window. Depending on the options, Chrysler
installed either 81 A, 117 A, or 137 A alternators on these vehicles,
which is why I mention the options above. According to the factory
service manual, all of these alternators are a similar configuration and
all are Denso brand. In further reading the shop manual it seems that
there is a temperature sensor for the battery also connected to the
engine control computer, so the voltage regulator may be fairly
sophisticated, taking into account battery temperature to decide on what
the correct charge voltage should be. I don't know if it bears any
relevance but this is a Canadian built vehicle.
Bob McC
mprather wrote:
>
>This sounds like it might be THE alternator for electron hungry airplane
>systems installations..
>
>What year is this vehicle?
>
>Thanks for sharing the info.
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
>VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Notall alternators are created equal....I bought the ND Toyota Camry
unit because it has a stella reputation...Not all of them do.
Now can someone find me a pulley?...:)...My local junkyard has a pile of
cores that I can search thru apparently...:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert McCallum
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
-->
Matt;
It's a 1996 Dodge B2500 Wagon (full size window van with seats) Dual air
conditioning, SLT luxury trim package, power everything, trailer towing
package and heated rear window. Depending on the options, Chrysler
installed either 81 A, 117 A, or 137 A alternators on these vehicles,
which is why I mention the options above. According to the factory
service manual, all of these alternators are a similar configuration and
all are Denso brand. In further reading the shop manual it seems that
there is a temperature sensor for the battery also connected to the
engine control computer, so the voltage regulator may be fairly
sophisticated, taking into account battery temperature to decide on what
the correct charge voltage should be. I don't know if it bears any
relevance but this is a Canadian built vehicle.
Bob McC
mprather wrote:
>
>This sounds like it might be THE alternator for electron hungry
>airplane systems installations..
>
>What year is this vehicle?
>
>Thanks for sharing the info.
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
>VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner->aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
n801bh(at)netzero.com
>Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 5:06 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
>
>The pulley on mine is v-belt, 2 3/4" O.D. It's going on a
>Mattituck-built ECI O-360 Lycoming clone. Because I plan to put a 44"
>pitch propeller on it, I'll be cruising around 2,500 rpm. That's 9,000
>rpm on the alternator. Just "seems" like a lot to me, when it's
>intended (on the Samurai) to turn up to maybe 6000
>Hmmm..
>A 44" pitch prop on an Zenith 801 with a 0-360... I think that might be
a >little under propped. It will accelerate good though.
>Ben Haas
>N801BH
>www.haaspowerair.com
Hi Ben. My rationale for the 44" pitch is this--tell me you think it's
erroneous:
The factory demonstrator has a 56" prop. When I took a demo ride, I
never saw more than 95 mph on the ASI. That was about 6 years ago.
Since then, they tell me, they are seeing 110 mph in cruise. I don't
know if this is due to the strut fairings, tweaking of the slats,
tweaking of the flaperons, or all or none of the above, or whether it is
indeed true. But A C-172 with less hp cruises 115+ with a 56" prop.
Alaskan bush pilots use mostly Borer props on their Supercubs--pitched
at 41 to 44 inches. With the stock prop, (also 56" IIRC) Supercubs
cruise around 100-105 mph. With the Borer, they run 2500 rpm and cruise
about 95-100. But takeoff time and distance is substantially better.
The 801 and the Supercub are both slow STOL airplanes, about the same
size and similar performance. I also will be flying mostly on floats.
My theory is that an airplane as draggy as the 801 is not using the 56"
prop very efficiently. I think by reducing the pitch and increasing the
diameter to the maximum that ground clearance will allow (I know of one
with an 82" diameter prop), the prop will be more efficient and probably
cruise at 95 mph, on wheels or floats.
What do you think?
Are you flying yours yet? How's your speed?
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
My new ND 55 amp came with an output graph. FWIW, it starts making
juice at about 1200 rpm, and output climbs rapidly to 27 amps at 2000
rpm. Then the rate of increase begins to diminish with increasing
speed.
39 amps at 3000
47 amps at 4000
51 amps at 5000
53 amps at 6000
that's as high as the graph goes.
Can't ASSume other ND alternators would have a similar profile, much
less Toyota alternators, but maybe it suggests something.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternators
(Corvallis)"
Ok still can't find a standard ND alternator pulley (2 1/2) but I can
find an aftermarket 3 1/4" pulley. At say 1000 RPM on a long IFR decent
with everything running the alt will be turning at 2600RPM with this
pulley.
Is there a way to tell easily if this Toyota Camry will pump out enough
amps at this speed?...Is there a chart somewhere that shows amps vs RPM
for this unit??
Thanks
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
Oops-- Sorry Bob, you caught me in an ASSumption. Since the alternator
comes with an output graph which ends at 6000 rpm, I assumed that this
is a reasonable limit which OEM wouldn't mess with. But I realize,
since you brought me up short, that one can't assume anything. Maybe
the graph ends at 6000 rpm because by then it has reached advertised
capacity, and won't put out any more no matter how fast you turn it.
Interesting that the very nice document that came with the alternator
does not have a DO NOT EXCEED speed.
I haven't any idea who wrote it, but my generic alternator bracket from
Aircraft Spruce came with a sheet suggesting some automotive alternators
that make reasonably good--and cheap, if you are daring enough to get
them at a junkyard(@@)--airplane alternators. This anonymous writer said
that some builders feel more comfortable using a larger pulley, or
getting a smaller ring gear for their engine. An air pump pulley from a
mid-70's Chevy Camaro, which is a deep-V 4" pulley which apparently
requires some "slight modification," whatever that means, was suggested
as a replacement for the alt pulley.
Believe me, the term "experimental aviation" is appropriate. Once you
leave the certified reservation, you are in the wilderness, and reliable
guides are hard to find and hard to qualify. All information, opinions,
and particularly testimony (which springs from authority, my college
speech teacher told me)is welcome.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert McCallum
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
John
Not sure where you are getting you "normal" alternator speeds as
intended by the auto manufacturer. My van turns approximately 3300 RPM @
75 MPH highway speeds. The alternator pulley is 2-3/8 " and the crank
pulley is 7-3/8 ". This gives an alternator speed "as intended by
Chrysler" of 7-3/8 / 2-3/8 X 3300 = 10,250 RPM at highway speeds and @ a
500 RPM idle of approx. 1500 RPM. During "hard" acceleration when the
transmission shifts near 4500 RPM or even more, the alternator is
turning at least 14,000 RPM. These numbers are for a totally stock Dodge
van 5.9 litre (360 cu in) engine, with 3.90 diff ratio and 137 amp
factory original Denso alternator . Small four cylinder cars will
obviously rev faster but I don't know the pulley ratios for them so
can't comment on alternator RPM. I suspect the pulley ratios would be
adjusted accordingly such that the alternator RPM is approximately the
same as my truck. I guess what I'm saying is that for the Chrysler built
trucks that I've been driving for the past 25 years the 9000 RPM you
seem to worry about as being "high" is quite well within the "normal"
range. With your 2-3/4 " pulley and a max. engine speed of 2500 RPM you
could have a crank pulley of 11-1/4 " and be within the speeds chosen by
Chrysler.
Just as a side note with respect to internally vs externally regulated
alternators, Chrysler has incorporated the voltage regulator within the
engine control computer on this vehicle and the alternator has both ends
of the field windings present as terminals on the outside as well as the
"B" lead making this a three terminal alternator with all functional
connections readily accessible. This is an observation that not "all"
automotive alternators are going with internal regulation.
Bob McC
John Swartout wrote:
>
>Boy, Frank, it's hard to know what to do. I know others have left the
>stock pulley on the Samurai alternator and not had trouble--but
>anecdotal evidence--especially based on one or two anecdotes--doesn't
>pass my internal FAA (@@).... The guys at B&C run the L40 at 10,000
rpm
>or so, and say that the alternator "likes" to run at that speed & it
>improves cooling significantly, but of course they balance the rotating
>part, so it could probably run as fast as they want it to without
>wearing out bearings.
>
>The pulley on mine is v-belt, 2 3/4" O.D. It's going on a
>Mattituck-built ECI O-360 Lycoming clone. Because I plan to put a 44"
>pitch propeller on it, I'll be cruising around 2,500 rpm. That's 9,000
>rpm on the alternator. Just "seems" like a lot to me, when it's
>intended (on the Samurai) to turn up to maybe 6000.
>
>Give me a little while to think about parting with my pulley. Thanks a
>million for the link!
>
>John
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
Hmmm. Lately my Google searches have been producing a lot of fluff and
not much of what I'm looking for. I tried a search for "alternator
pulley" and found practically nothing of value, yet Frank turned me on
to this:
http://www.cantonracingproducts.com/alternators/alternators.html, which
has exactly what I'm looking for. This was the 17th item the search
turned up--I just gave up too soon.
Anyway thanks for the dope on the fuel pump.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Harley
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
Afternoon, John....
>>I've been wondering where to find out how much mine draws.<<
I did a quick search on Google, using "Facet 478360 current draw" as the
search terms, and BINGO! ... It pointed me to someplace called the
Aeroelectric Connection! Imagine that!
Anyway...here's what it said:
The *478360* draws 1 amp max. The 40108 draws 1.4 amps max
Harley Dixon
John Swartout wrote:
>
>Frank, what model Facet pump is it? I've been wondering where to find
>out how much mine draws. It came from Aircraft Spruce without any
>documentation. Facet No. 478360. Haven't been able to figure out how
>to use my el cheapo multitester to measure draw, and don't know if it
>would hurt the pump to run it dry, or if it would draw the same dry as
>pushing fuel.
>
>John
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
>
>(Corvallis)"
>
> Panasonic sealed LA batteries.....I have a 18Ah for the main and a 3AH
>for the second. I had changed the 3AH unit about three years ago to the
>same thing marketted by "Helious" from.. www.batteries.com Have very
>keen prices.
>
>The 3Ah unit is just used to run a Facet fuel pump at about 1.5 amps I
>believe and the backup EI system.
>
>FRank
>
>-----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
>To: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery life
>
>
>AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
>(Corvallis)"
>
><<......skip......In MY experience the biggest issue is not not knowing
>exactly how much time one has to run on the batteries...Mainly because
I
>keep mine charged on voltage sensing trickle chargers...Works
>great...Now after 5 years I just changed them...and only because the
>GCFI tripped supplying the chargers and after a week my batterries were
>dead!>>
>
>4/8/2005
>
>Hello Frank, What brand, type, size batteries were these? Thanks.
>
>OC
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CBA II Good news and bad news |
Hi all,
> Opened the "smoked" CBA III . . . here's a picture of
> the internals.
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/CBA2_2.jpg
>
> Turns out that the little guy in the center is an
> International Rectifier IRL2910. Ratings for this
> device can be found at:
>
>http://www.irf.com/product-info/datasheets/data/irl2910.pdf
>
> This device is NOT capable of performing under
> the range of test conditions advertised for the
> CBA II. I am completely mystified as to the selection
> of this part when there are so many others offered by
> International Rectifier and others that would do the job.
>
>
Rats ! I had hopes you could just have had a strike of bad luck. 4 amps
instead of the 40 advertised, and 48-50 watts instead of 100 seems way
below expectation. Il opened my unit and it has the same p/n and the
same rectifier.
I'll perform my first experiment this afternoon with one of my 7.5 Ah
Hawker SBS8. I'll start with 2 amps. I'll take some photos of the test
setup before and after, just in case...
I hope they rapidly sort out the problem, because this small device
seems very promising, and the software is expertly crafted.
Bob, thanks for sharing the info,
Regards,
Gilles
Now looking at my unit with suspicion...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | DOGS and LIGHTBULBS |
tiger96l(at)cox.net
From: T18WGH(at)aol.com
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:11:57 EDT
Subject: DOGS and LIGHTBULBS
Smiley1255(at)aol.com, DGH1951(at)aol.com, huntr(at)ix.netcom.com,
gaelic1(at)earthlink.com, bob.murphy(at)insightbb.com, gdsieg(at)insightbb.com,
mrjsmith(at)tampabay.rr.com, Triggins39(at)aol.com, iflyasonex(at)msn.com
-------------------------------1112886717
Subject: DOGS and LIGHTBULBS
"How Many Dogs Does It Take to Change A Light Bulb?"
Golden Retriever: The sun is shining, the day is young, we've got our
whole lives ahead of us, and you're inside worrying about a stupid
burned out bulb?
Border Collie: Just one. And then I'll replace any wiring that's not up
to code.
Dachshund: You know I can't reach that stupid lamp!
Rottweiler: Make me.
Boxer: Who cares? I can still play with my squeaky toys in the dark.
Lab: Oh, me, me!!!!! Pleeeeeeeeeze let me change the light bulb! Can I?
CanI? Huh? Huh? Huh? Can I? Pleeeeeeeeeze, please, please, please!
German Shepherd: I'll change it as soon as I've led these people from
the dark, check to make sure I haven't missed any, and make just one
more perimeter patrol to see that no one has tried to take advantage of the
situation.
Jack Russell Terrier: I'll just pop it in while I'm bouncing off the
walls and furniture.
Old English Sheep Dog: Light bulb? I'm sorry, but I don't see a light bulb!
Cocker Spaniel: Why change it? I can still pee on the carpet in the dark.
Pointer: I see it, there it is, there it is, right there.....
Greyhound: It isn't moving. Who cares?
Australian Shepherd: First, I'll put all the light bulbs in a little
circle...
Poodle: I'll just blow in the Border Collie's ear and he'll do it. By the
time he finishes rewiring the house, my nails will be dry.
"Dogs do not change light bulbs. People change light bulbs. So, the
real question is: How long will it be before I can expect some light, some
dinner, and a massage?"
Chihuahua: Yo quiero Taco Bulb.
-------------------------------1112886717
Subject:DOGS and LIGHTBULBS
"How Many Dogs Does It Take to
Change A Light Bulb?"
Golden Retriever: The sun is shining, the day
is young, we've got our
whole lives ahead of us, and you're inside worrying
about a stupid
burned out bulb?
Border Collie: Just one. And then I'll replace=20any
wiring that's not up
to code.
Dachshund: You know I can't reach that
stupid lamp!
Rottweiler: Make me.
Boxer: Who cares? I can still
play with my squeaky toys in the dark.
Lab: Oh, me, me!!!!! Pleeeeeeeeeze
let me change the light bulb! Can I?
CanI? Huh? Huh? Huh? Can I?
Pleeeeeeeeeze, please, please, please!
German Shepherd: I'll change it as
soon as I've led these people from
the dark, check to make sure I haven't
missed any, and make just one
more perimeter patrol to see that no one has tried to take advantage of
the
situation.
Jack Russell Terrier: I'll just pop it in while I'm
bouncing off the
walls and furniture.
Old English Sheep Dog: Light
bulb? I'm sorry, but I don't see a light bulb!
Cocker Spaniel: Why change
it? I can still pee on the carpet in the dark.
Pointer: I see it, there
it is, there it is, right there.....
Greyhound: It isn't moving. Who
cares?
Australian Shepherd: First, I'll put all the light bulbs in a
little circle...
Poodle: I'll just blow in the Border Collie's ear and
he'll do it. By the
time he finishes rewiring the house, my nails will be
dry.
"Dogs do not change light bulbs. People change light bulbs. So,
the
real question is: How long will it be before I can expect some light,
some
dinner, and a massage?"
Chihuahua: Yo quiero Taco
Bulb.
-------------------------------1112886717--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | Michel MC-60 ILS/GPS Indicator |
Anybody have any experience with this indicator? Eastern Avionics
carries this item at a great price, but it seems like one of those "too
good to be true" things.
http://www.avionix.com/indicator.html
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
All the Chryslers that I"ve owned or looked at closely had an external
voltage regulator (1963 through 1997). None of them had a true battery
temperature sensor although all the electronic regulators had a sensor
in the computer or in the vicinity of the battery that was called a batt
temp sensor. Ambient air temp perhaps - but not really battery
temperature. Even the standalone electronic regulators of the 70's
varied voltage with temperature. IMO these alternators were also all too
large and heavy for 99.9% of airplanes where I prefer the smallest
alternator that can do the job to minimise OV excursions and possibly
load dumps, not to mention weight.
I like the little 40amp ND units that are sold for small offroad
equipment ( not even large enough to be found on a car) although they
all seem to be internal VR! The Niagra Airparts unit looks like one of
those.
Ken
Robert McCallum wrote:
>
>Matt;
>
>It's a 1996 Dodge B2500 Wagon (full size window van with seats) Dual air
>conditioning, SLT luxury trim package, power everything, trailer towing
>package and heated rear window. Depending on the options, Chrysler
>installed either 81 A, 117 A, or 137 A alternators on these vehicles,
>which is why I mention the options above. According to the factory
>service manual, all of these alternators are a similar configuration and
>all are Denso brand. In further reading the shop manual it seems that
>there is a temperature sensor for the battery also connected to the
>engine control computer, so the voltage regulator may be fairly
>sophisticated, taking into account battery temperature to decide on what
>the correct charge voltage should be. I don't know if it bears any
>relevance but this is a Canadian built vehicle.
>
>Bob McC
>
>mprather wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>This sounds like it might be THE alternator for electron hungry airplane
>>systems installations..
>>
>>What year is this vehicle?
>>
>>Thanks for sharing the info.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Matt-
>>VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
Hello List,
Not sure if this is off-topic or not. I'm looking for info on how best to
NEATLY slant my GPS/Comm to my panel such that it is more easily viewed from
the pilot's seat. Any info or direction to a good source of info would be
greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Grant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Light Weight Coaxial Cable |
Bob/List,
A while back I paid Bob Knuckolls for some shielded wire with BNC connectors
on the end to use as ignition leads on my Lightspeed ignition. Is it
possible to use the same for antennas? Bob, would you be willing to sell me
some more?
Grant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
Ken;
I was not advocating using this alternator in an aircraft. John was
concerned with rotational speed and I was merely demonstrating what
speeds are "normal" for some road vehicles. Matt then asked the
specifics of what alternator I was referring to, which resulted in the
details you are replying to. The temperature sensor cited is installed
through the base of the battery tray in contact with the battery case
and is referred to in the factory service manual as a "battery
temperature sensor". It is separate and distinct from the "ambient
temperature sensor" used for engine management. You are correct that
most Chrysler vehicles have historically used external regulators and,
yes, most regulators use some form of temperature compensation, but this
is the only one I've personally seen which actually measures battery
temperature. I whole heartedly agree that the smaller alternators are
probably much more suited to aircraft use and will probably use B&C's
offering when I get to that stage on my Falco.
Bob McC
Ken wrote:
>
>All the Chryslers that I"ve owned or looked at closely had an external
>voltage regulator (1963 through 1997). None of them had a true battery
>temperature sensor although all the electronic regulators had a sensor
>in the computer or in the vicinity of the battery that was called a batt
>temp sensor. Ambient air temp perhaps - but not really battery
>temperature. Even the standalone electronic regulators of the 70's
>varied voltage with temperature. IMO these alternators were also all too
>large and heavy for 99.9% of airplanes where I prefer the smallest
>alternator that can do the job to minimise OV excursions and possibly
>load dumps, not to mention weight.
>I like the little 40amp ND units that are sold for small offroad
>equipment ( not even large enough to be found on a car) although they
>all seem to be internal VR! The Niagra Airparts unit looks like one of
>those.
>Ken
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
John;
Sorry, I wasn't trying to "catch you out", I was just wondering if the
concern that you and others have expressed with rotational speed is a
valid concern or is just a perceived problem without any basis in fact.
I don't know for sure if my example is typical, but I think the
observation you make below with respect to the relationship between
"rated" output vs speed, and consequently where the chart ends, might be
valid. If this is true, and based on the fact that aircraft engines are
relatively constant speed compared to road vehicles, then there may be
some validity in reducing wear by slowing the alternator to the speed
where rated output is achieved. As far as your original question about
replacement pulleys Google should reveal some sources. They are
manufactured by several race car suppliers to slow alternators on race
cars thus reducing HP requirements for driving them. I also find it
interesting, as do you, that no Max speed is given on the rating charts.
Bob McC
John Swartout wrote:
>
>Oops-- Sorry Bob, you caught me in an ASSumption. Since the alternator
>comes with an output graph which ends at 6000 rpm, I assumed that this
>is a reasonable limit which OEM wouldn't mess with. But I realize,
>since you brought me up short, that one can't assume anything. Maybe
>the graph ends at 6000 rpm because by then it has reached advertised
>capacity, and won't put out any more no matter how fast you turn it.
>Interesting that the very nice document that came with the alternator
>does not have a DO NOT EXCEED speed.
>
>
>I haven't any idea who wrote it, but my generic alternator bracket from
>Aircraft Spruce came with a sheet suggesting some automotive alternators
>that make reasonably good--and cheap, if you are daring enough to get
>them at a junkyard(@@)--airplane alternators. This anonymous writer said
>that some builders feel more comfortable using a larger pulley, or
>getting a smaller ring gear for their engine. An air pump pulley from a
>mid-70's Chevy Camaro, which is a deep-V 4" pulley which apparently
>requires some "slight modification," whatever that means, was suggested
>as a replacement for the alt pulley.
>
>
>Believe me, the term "experimental aviation" is appropriate. Once you
>leave the certified reservation, you are in the wilderness, and reliable
>guides are hard to find and hard to qualify. All information, opinions,
>and particularly testimony (which springs from authority, my college
>speech teacher told me)is welcome.
>
>
>John
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> timing question |
timing question
question
>snipped
> I just tested a 17 a.h. battery that I've had laying around the
> shop for a number of years. I thought it was about 3 years old.
> Turns out to have a 1999 date code on it. Test results on this
> battery for a 4A load are shown at:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/West_Mountain/Panasonic_1.pdf
snipped
Bob,
Could you please tell me what make & model the "blue - white LED light
mentioned in the link article above is? I'd like to purchase one, as I
could put it to good use.
Thanks
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> Alternator help |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Balance, was: Balance, Was: |
Alternator help
help
At 07:27 PM 4/8/2005, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 04/08/2005 3:06:47 PM Central Standard Time,
>BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes:
>Having had a dynamic prop balance done I can tell you the results can be
>dramatic!
> >>>>
>Agreed! Just had mine done by Rodney Douglas at Douglas Aviation, Muhlenberg
>Co. KY (M21) and the results are worth every $$$.
>
>Mark Phillips - no commision, just a happy camper...
Mark
Perspiring minds want to know, exactly how many pennies did you have to
exchange for a balanced alternator rotor?
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
At 06:16 PM 4/8/2005, you wrote:
>
>
> Ok still can't find a standard ND alternator pulley (2 1/2) but I can
>find an aftermarket 3 1/4" pulley. At say 1000 RPM on a long IFR decent
>with everything running the alt will be turning at 2600RPM with this
>pulley.
>
>Is there a way to tell easily if this Toyota Camry will pump out enough
>amps at this speed?...Is there a chart somewhere that shows amps vs RPM
>for this unit??
>
>Thanks
>
>Frank
Frank,
Your alternator should be able to produce about 2/3s of rated output at
that speed. Unless your battery is totally junk, you should stay airborne
with everything on for quite some time. Do as Bob advocates and take
inventory of what your electrical loads are, during all flight regimes. My
instructors always told me "test, don't guess".
If you are unable to find the requested chart (I'd also like a copy), may
I suggest removing the alternator in question and taking it to your local
Pep Boys, AutoZone, Advance Auto or other reputable auto electric shop, to
check it's output at 2600 rpms?
Charlie Kuss
One repeatable test is worth a hundred expert opinions.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
At 11:13 PM 4/8/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>Notall alternators are created equal....I bought the ND Toyota Camry
>unit because it has a stella reputation...Not all of them do.
>
>Now can someone find me a pulley?...:)...My local junkyard has a pile of
>cores that I can search thru apparently...:)
>
>Frank
Frank,
Why not look to see if your junkyard has any old Hondas or Toyotas, say
1983 or earlier. The alternators on these vehicles will have the pulley you
lust after. :-) I was just going through my saved files on this subject and
came across this old post. It may help if others are also interested.
I am involved in the manufacturing of these pulleys. We can make them to
any diameter you want. To give you best price however, we need to make them
in lot sizes of 20 minimum.It's not just a matter of turning down a larger
one to make a smaller one, we use smaller bar stock to begin with. If you
are interested e mail me or call me at Alloy Cutting 1 (650) 363 1601...
Redwood City Calif . Markvn(at)aol.com
I hope this helps
Charlie Kuss
PS Send me a phone number (off list) and I'll gladly call you to offer more
help.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
> -->
>
> Hello List,
>
> Not sure if this is off-topic or not. I'm looking for info
> on how best to
> NEATLY slant my GPS/Comm to my panel such that it is more
> easily viewed from
> the pilot's seat. Any info or direction to a good source of
> info would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Grant
Grant, consider putting the moving map directly in front of the pilot. I
put the 430 directly under the six-pack, and am very happy with that
location. See http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/panel.htm
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 608 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> timing question |
timing question
timing question
>
>Bob,
> Could you please tell me what make & model the "blue - white LED light
>mentioned in the link article above is? I'd like to purchase one, as I
>could put it to good use.
Every "white" LED lamp is not quite white. Try any of the
white LED flashlight products out there. My particular
favorite for carrying around in the nerd-pack is
this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=16037&item=5182657480&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Precise Aircraft Manuevering |
Sorry guys. I didn't mean to stir up a firestorm. I'm already getting grief
about discussing this subject on the list. Notice I've changed the subject
title from "Flying unstalled at 0 airspeed." Everyone is focused on that title
when, in fact, what I'm talking about is knowing your airplane and flying it
to it's maximum potential.
Craig, you correctly pointed out that what I am talking about is zero, or
near zero, INDICATED airspeed. Most of us do not have a true airspeed indicator.
Many pilots have a hangup with not allowing indicated airspeed to be too
low. For the most part they are correct. However, just because your indicated
airspeed is low doesn't necessarily mean you will stall the wing. Stalling
depends on the wings angle of attack whereas indicated airspeed depends on
several factors, including calibration.
To discuss my return to landing techniques after engine failure will take too
much list space. Let me see if I can build a description and post it on my
web site. My only hesitation in doing so is that someone will try it without
properly preparing. Proper preparation includes studying your airframes V
speeds, turn rate at various bank angles, turn radius at various bank angles,
practicing at higher altitude with a safety observer, and then analyzing the
particular situation on each takeoff (ie., runway surface and length, density
altitude, wind speed/direction, and the pilots alertness and proficiency on that
particular day).
To answer your questions below:
ATP, CFI
I quit counting, but about 14k hours
About 10 pilots trained to PPL, one of which was my son - now flying F-15Cs
(not enough hours in the day to do more) (Also, I don't charge for instruction.
Students can't pay me enough to make it worthwhile so I do it free. For
example, one hour of airborne instruction requires 4 hours of my time. Driving
to and from airport, 1 hour prebrief and one hour debrief). I also trained
numerous pilots in the T-38, F-4, F-5, and F-16, in the classroom, briefing room,
and the cockpit. I've flown numerous civilian aircraft, except the one I'm
building - RV-8.
No video of the turnaround to landing. Maybe I should make one. The only
drawback is the damn lawyers. They would go nuts on a liability lawsuit. We're
all in the hunker down mode because of them. They believe there is no
personal responsibility, only victims.
Perhaps that is sufficient info on my qualifications.
Okay, to those who are going to flame me for a verbose, off subject post on
the list, save your effort. I'll flame myself for you and tell myself to stop
posting comments about flying airplanes on an airplane electrics internet
list. Flying airplanes is just too far off the subject and too few people are
interested. Still, just watch, there will be someone who feels obligated to
flame me. Flame away. : )
I'm happy to discuss offline. You can contact me at speedy11(at)aol.com.
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
www.rv-8a.net
In a message dated 4/9/2005 3:00:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
Stan: before people start bickering about this information, let's get
some basics down:
What are you pilot certifications?
How many hours do you have?
Are you a flight instructor? If so, how many people have received
their PPL under your instruction?
Do you have a video of this turn-around maneuver upon power loss on
takeoff?
Craig Steffen
[I do not have a pilot's license, nor any formal education in
aeronautical engineering]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
>snipped
>I haven't any idea who wrote it, but my generic alternator bracket from
>Aircraft Spruce came with a sheet suggesting some automotive alternators
>that make reasonably good--and cheap, if you are daring enough to get
>them at a junkyard(@@)--airplane alternators. This anonymous writer said
>that some builders feel more comfortable using a larger pulley, or
>getting a smaller ring gear for their engine. An air pump pulley from a
>mid-70's Chevy Camaro, which is a deep-V 4" pulley which apparently
>requires some "slight modification," whatever that means, was suggested
>as a replacement for the alt pulley.
>
>
>Believe me, the term "experimental aviation" is appropriate. Once you
>leave the certified reservation, you are in the wilderness, and reliable
>guides are hard to find and hard to qualify. All information, opinions,
>and particularly testimony (which springs from authority, my college
>speech teacher told me)is welcome.
>
>
>John
John & listers,
May I suggest forgetting about using the pulley from a GM "smog pump".
Local RV-4 builder Jody Edwards tried this, with less than (long term)
successful results. The modification will require access to a lathe to
"accurately" drill a center hole to mount this pulley. The stock mounting
is 3 evenly spaced bolts to a flange on the smog pump. There is no "center
hole" on this pulley. These 4" pulleys are stamped sheet steel and not
particularly sturdy.
Just my opinion (and worth what you paid for it), but I think you'd be
better off obtaining a 2 3/4" V belt pulley off of an older junkyard ND
alternator, OR purchasing one of the over sized, after market aluminum pulleys.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Light Weight Coaxial Cable |
>
>Bob/List,
>
>A while back I paid Bob Knuckolls for some shielded wire with BNC connectors
>on the end to use as ignition leads on my Lightspeed ignition. Is it
>possible to use the same for antennas? Bob, would you be willing to sell me
>some more?
Antennas should be wired with COAXIAL feedline characterized
for performance at high frequencies where your radios operate.
Shielded wire is NOT so characterized and except for VERY short
feedlines (inches) will produce variable and degraded performance.
I don't recall the application for installing BNC connectors on
shielded wire except perhaps for coax replacement on the Lightspeed
system. This is not (in spite of Klaus' protestations) a critical
fast rise-time (read high frequency) application. I got a big nastygram
from Klaus over that one . . . after reading the rationale of the
engineer who designed his system, I decided that spending any effort on
it had an exceedingly low return on investment of $time$.
If you're wanting to wire antennas, please use coaxial cable
designed for that purpose. There are some very small coaxial cables
but their losses are higher than the commonly used RG400/142/58
styles in common useage.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA II Good news and bad news |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi all,
>
> > Opened the "smoked" CBA III . . . here's a picture of
> > the internals.
> >
> >http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/CBA2_2.jpg
> >
> > Turns out that the little guy in the center is an
> > International Rectifier IRL2910. Ratings for this
> > device can be found at:
> >
> >http://www.irf.com/product-info/datasheets/data/irl2910.pdf
> >
> > This device is NOT capable of performing under
> > the range of test conditions advertised for the
> > CBA II. I am completely mystified as to the selection
> > of this part when there are so many others offered by
> > International Rectifier and others that would do the job.
> >
> >
>Rats ! I had hopes you could just have had a strike of bad luck. 4 amps
>instead of the 40 advertised, and 48-50 watts instead of 100 seems way
>below expectation. Il opened my unit and it has the same p/n and the
>same rectifier.
The 'rectifier' is a MOSFET and as near as I can tell, operates
in a pure linear energy dissipation mode. There's a fat, SMT
resistor on the board which appears to be sorta cooled by
sandwiching between the board and heatsink . . . but I'm thinking
this is the current sense shunt for the data acquisition system.
This "misapplication" is a common error seen many times over
the past 40 years. There are characteristics of the transistor
that folks latch onto like max current (ID=55A), max power
dissipation (Pd=200W), and in the case of transistors used as
switches - on resistance (RdsON=0.026 ohms) and declare, "Wow,
this one will do the job nicely". Problem is that ALL of those
characteristics are not applicable at all four corners of the
operating envelope. There's an extremely important characteristic
called thermal resistance. There are two that are relatively fixed:
Junction to Case (theta-JC) and case to heatsink (theta-CH).
These two values set your ability to get heat from inside the
transistor to the heatsink where it can be dealt with. I've
seen transistors fail on WATER COOLED heatsinks because the designer
did not adequately manage his thermal resistance requirements/
limitations.
>I'll perform my first experiment this afternoon with one of my 7.5 Ah
>Hawker SBS8. I'll start with 2 amps. I'll take some photos of the test
>setup before and after, just in case...
>I hope they rapidly sort out the problem, because this small device
>seems very promising, and the software is expertly crafted.
>Bob, thanks for sharing the info,
My pleasure. I've not waited to hear from these guys. I'm
modifying mine to run a separate, much fatter MOS-FET on
an external heatsink. I'd like to separate the heat and
transistor selection issued from other features of the product.
If this experiment is successful, I'll be able to recommend
things they can do to bring their device up to advertised
specifications and at least, be able to use my cobbled up
unit for doing useful measurements.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator help |
>
>
>In a message dated 4/8/2005 10:36:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>emjones(at)charter.net writes:
>
>If I were selling alternators I think I would start with ones that didn't
>need balancing. Am I making too much sense?
Degrees of balance are exactly that . . . DEGREES. The issue
that drove B&C to balance all products was the perception
about 15 years ago that the largest threat to bearing life
was not gross speed but vibration which goes up with the
square of speed. So, Bill's decision to do the best he knows
how to do in fabrication and delivery of products bearing
his label called for running every alternator over the balancing
machine.
Is there hard data to support the value of this activity? No.
The research project to confirm or deny the value was too
costly in $time$ for a small operation like B&C to conduct . . .
particularly in light of the relatively small production
volumes.
It would be interesting to see how much metal is removed from
the average brand-new ND rotor to bring it inside his production
tolerances but that would also be anecdotal information. It's
certainly true that many airplanes are flying with stock ND
and other brands of alternators. Some choose to band-aid their
project with the best we know how to do from B&C or slow the
critter down with a larger pulley. There are trade-offs driven
buy either decision.
Bottom line is that there are hard no data to support the value
of doing either. Anecdotal data from the B&C experience suggests
that the totality of operations they conduct on their products
is not a bad thing to do. Return rate on the FLEET of shipments
for over 10 years has been under 1% and most of that for repairs
of user induced damage.
Do whatever makes you feel good . . . but keep in mind that
your $time$ has some value toward the ultimate cost of producing
your finished airplane. Every second spent driving a rivet is
immediate value received. Every second spent trying to find
a lower cost way of installing an alternator takes away from
those seconds that drive rivets and ADDS to the cost of your
project in ways that are not immediately obvious. Several writers
have suggested that OBAM projects are not at all cost effective.
Many builders would have spent less overall $time$ acquiring an
airplane by getting a second job and paying for someone else's
project with the proceeds.
So, if you're enjoying this conversation and find value in
acquiring the knowledge from which good decisions can be made
in the selection, acquisition and application of your alternator,
great. That's what the list is all about. But take care lest an
impression that you're saving any $time$ by doing so may be
in error.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Reliability |
| Subject: | Re: Nuckoll's Paper on Electrical System |
Reliability
Reliability
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Your referenced paper is excellent on all counts and clearly spells out
>the logic you have long advocated.
>
>You might want to note that Figure 17-7 (referenced on page 17-12,
>second paragraph)is missing. It appears that the referenced figure
>should be the one shown as Figure 17-8. Changing the existing figure
>17-8 to 17-7 would appear to fix this.
>
>In Figure 17-1, shouldn't the "F" and "B" markings at the Alternator
>symbol be swapped?
>There are also a few scattered editorial/typo comments I can offer
>"off-list" if you let me know whether you are interested. Please
>understand none of my comments are in any way meant to be criticism.
There's a difference between critical whiners and critical
reviewers.
I'd be VERY pleased to get marked up pages from you or anyone
else who wants to participate in evolution of the 'Connection.
This isn't MY book, it's OUR book. I don't know what to write
about without communication from those who read it. I've got
several packages of mark-ups from the field on older chapters
that will be incorporated in due course. Thank you so much for
the offer.
>I stand in awe of the wealth and substance of material you continuously
>generate on this list. I only wonder if you ever sleep!!
Shucks, when you get to be a gray-haired ol' dog, 4-5 hours
a night suffices . . . no?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Prop Balance, was: Balance, Was: Alternator help |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
150 bucks...worth every pennie
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Charlie Kuss
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Prop Balance, was: Balance, Was:
Alternator help
--> Alternator help
At 07:27 PM 4/8/2005, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 04/08/2005 3:06:47 PM Central Standard Time,
>BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes:
>Having had a dynamic prop balance done I can tell you the results can
>be dramatic!
> >>>>
>Agreed! Just had mine done by Rodney Douglas at Douglas Aviation,
>Muhlenberg Co. KY (M21) and the results are worth every $$$.
>
>Mark Phillips - no commision, just a happy camper...
Mark
Perspiring minds want to know, exactly how many pennies did you have
to exchange for a balanced alternator rotor?
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nuckoll's Paper on Electrical System Reliability |
Reliability
Shucks, when you get to be a gray-haired ol' dog, 4-5 hours
> a night suffices . . . no?
>
> Bob . . .
NO! Like I thought--you are a better man than I am.
Perhaps the most efficient way to send my other offerings would be by
fax of the marked-up document. I don't have a scanner. If you have a
fax number, let me know.
Jim McCulley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
>
>
>Why
> not two electronic ignitions? The cost savings in spark plugs alone
> is pretty attractive.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an
>electronic system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
If you have the voltage to jump the gap in spite of well rounded
edges, then spark plug life can be loosely deemed "enhanced". The
more proper explanation might be, "electronic ignitions have
a capability to ignite a mixture in spite of plugs worn far
beyond limits that a magneto would fire. Further, substituting
automotive plugs is a distinct savings over aircraft plugs even
if they both had the same service life."
I have my Safari tuned every 40-50,000 miles. I'm amazed at the
condition of the plugs removed. The car wasn't running bad. The
mileage wasn't atypical. My ol' chevy-6 would have been limping
into the shop with those plugs if it ran at all.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Two independent systems |
>
> >Is there any possibility that Raytheon has documentation that would tell us
> >how the first 18s were set up?
>
> I've asked for weirder stuff and got answers. I'll ask tomorrow.
> I'd really like to see the wiring diagrams for the first Bonanzas
> too.
>
> Bob . . .
The documentation exists but it's in the salt mines at Hutchinson. Too
bad nobody microfilmed that stuff before it got stored.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
Hi all,
I am having intermittent problems with my electric trim. Sometimes when I need
to slow and trim the aircraft for landing the trim motor won't actuate. I initially
suspected the down trim button, but then I have it not wanting to respond
to an "UP" button press as well.
So far I haven't been able to duplicate the problem when the aircraft is on the
ground. I'd be interested in anyone's ideas for trouble shooting. I have a 4
way trim switch with a Ray Allen relay deck driving an older MAC servo unit.
Thanks, Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul <pwilson(at)climber.org> |
Interesting. I did a google search for the CBA II and found several people who
sell it.
I wonder if powerwerx.com is the source. I don't think West Mountain Radio has
any thing to do with the design or build of the product???
Mountain West Radio $99.95, Power werx $94.95
The products appear to be identical.
Does the actual product say who makes it?
Paul Wilson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EL Panel Lights |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Stein -
You originally said that you had a 1.5" x 36" strip installed. Why the
change to only 1" width? I have two .5" x 48" and it does not seem that
they will be bright enough to illuminate the whole panel - especially the
switches on the lower part of the panel where it is most needed.
Could one do a special order?
Thanks.
John
> I now have the Elecroluminescent light strips in stock. These are 1" x
> 36"
> flatlite EL strips in the natural 'blue/green' color, that can be
> trimmed to
> a shorter length if you desire. The light draws very little current, and
> comes with a nice smal 1" square 12VDC inverter. This light can be
> dimmed using your regular dimmer as well.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 4/9/2005 8:57:26 A.M. Central Standard Time,
tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com writes:
Hello List,
Not sure if this is off-topic or not. I'm looking for info on how best to
NEATLY slant my GPS/Comm to my panel such that it is more easily viewed from
the pilot's seat. Any info or direction to a good source of info would be
greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Grant
Good Afternoon Grant,
Radio Rax makes a set of extruded rails for a Beechcraft Baron that will set
your radios at the same angle that Beech used in their right side radio
stack. Nice units, but not cheap!
_www.radiorax.com_ (http://www.radiorax.com)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Larkin" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Precise Aircraft Manuevering |
From the movie Wind, "Some times you have to play the percentages." I
have been flying for over twenty-five years in airplanes, helicopters,
gliders, ultra lights, military import jets, turboprop airliners, jet
airliners and home built airplanes. More people die trying to make it
back to the airport when an engine quits then flying it strait ahead and
landing (crashing under control). It is my opinion that unless you
believe without a doubt you can safely turn around (at that particular
point in time) you should land under control wing level strait ahead. I
have always used what I learned when flying gliders, figuring out a
minimum altitude I can safely and easily turn around and make the
airport. There are many-documented fatal accidents of pilots trying to
make it back to the field and crashing out of control. Many of the
"turn around" accidents were performed by very experienced pilots with
many hours in type and in a few cases the pilots were test pilots.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Precise Aircraft Manuevering
Sorry guys. I didn't mean to stir up a firestorm. I'm already getting
grief
about discussing this subject on the list. Notice I've changed the
subject
title from "Flying unstalled at 0 airspeed." Everyone is focused on
that title
when, in fact, what I'm talking about is knowing your airplane and
flying it
to it's maximum potential.
Craig, you correctly pointed out that what I am talking about is zero,
or
near zero, INDICATED airspeed. Most of us do not have a true airspeed
indicator.
Many pilots have a hangup with not allowing indicated airspeed to be
too
low. For the most part they are correct. However, just because your
indicated
airspeed is low doesn't necessarily mean you will stall the wing.
Stalling
depends on the wings angle of attack whereas indicated airspeed depends
on
several factors, including calibration.
To discuss my return to landing techniques after engine failure will
take too
much list space. Let me see if I can build a description and post it on
my
web site. My only hesitation in doing so is that someone will try it
without
properly preparing. Proper preparation includes studying your airframes
V
speeds, turn rate at various bank angles, turn radius at various bank
angles,
practicing at higher altitude with a safety observer, and then analyzing
the
particular situation on each takeoff (ie., runway surface and length,
density
altitude, wind speed/direction, and the pilots alertness and proficiency
on that
particular day).
To answer your questions below:
ATP, CFI
I quit counting, but about 14k hours
About 10 pilots trained to PPL, one of which was my son - now flying
F-15Cs
(not enough hours in the day to do more) (Also, I don't charge for
instruction.
Students can't pay me enough to make it worthwhile so I do it free.
For
example, one hour of airborne instruction requires 4 hours of my time.
Driving
to and from airport, 1 hour prebrief and one hour debrief). I also
trained
numerous pilots in the T-38, F-4, F-5, and F-16, in the classroom,
briefing room,
and the cockpit. I've flown numerous civilian aircraft, except the one
I'm
building - RV-8.
No video of the turnaround to landing. Maybe I should make one. The
only
drawback is the damn lawyers. They would go nuts on a liability
lawsuit. We're
all in the hunker down mode because of them. They believe there is no
personal responsibility, only victims.
Perhaps that is sufficient info on my qualifications.
Okay, to those who are going to flame me for a verbose, off subject post
on
the list, save your effort. I'll flame myself for you and tell myself
to stop
posting comments about flying airplanes on an airplane electrics
internet
list. Flying airplanes is just too far off the subject and too few
people are
interested. Still, just watch, there will be someone who feels
obligated to
flame me. Flame away. : )
I'm happy to discuss offline. You can contact me at speedy11(at)aol.com.
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
www.rv-8a.net
In a message dated 4/9/2005 3:00:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
Stan: before people start bickering about this information, let's get
some basics down:
What are you pilot certifications?
How many hours do you have?
Are you a flight instructor? If so, how many people have received
their PPL under your instruction?
Do you have a video of this turn-around maneuver upon power loss on
takeoff?
Craig Steffen
[I do not have a pilot's license, nor any formal education in
aeronautical engineering]
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
All the give-and-take on this subject has been very useful and has
modified my plans. Considering that my alternator doesn't produce power
til it turns 1200 rpm, and it would be nice to start charging the
battery as soon as the engine is running (idling) --and with electronic
ignition, idle might be pretty slow--I'll opt for the 3.25" pulley
instead of the 5". That should keep the top end down around 7500, but
still produce 18 amps or so at idle. I agree with Charlie Kuss--why
spend the money to get the rotor balanced? If the alternator craps out,
I'll replace it and swap out the pulley & not have to balance another
alternator. If I had absolute faith in the main alternator, I wouldn't
be installing the SD-8 as a back-up. But the fact that the SD-8 doesn't
start producing power til about 1500 engine rpm, I'm also thinking of
putting in a little battery in the glove compartment or someplace,
totally isolated from the airplane except that I could plug it in to a
jack on the panel to provide emergency power for P-mags, GRT EIS and
Dynon EFIS. Charging would come from a solar panel on the glarescreen.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert McCallum
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
John;
Sorry, I wasn't trying to "catch you out", I was just wondering if the
concern that you and others have expressed with rotational speed is a
valid concern or is just a perceived problem without any basis in fact.
I don't know for sure if my example is typical, but I think the
observation you make below with respect to the relationship between
"rated" output vs speed, and consequently where the chart ends, might be
valid. If this is true, and based on the fact that aircraft engines are
relatively constant speed compared to road vehicles, then there may be
some validity in reducing wear by slowing the alternator to the speed
where rated output is achieved. As far as your original question about
replacement pulleys Google should reveal some sources. They are
manufactured by several race car suppliers to slow alternators on race
cars thus reducing HP requirements for driving them. I also find it
interesting, as do you, that no Max speed is given on the rating charts.
Bob McC
John Swartout wrote:
>
>Oops-- Sorry Bob, you caught me in an ASSumption. Since the
alternator
>comes with an output graph which ends at 6000 rpm, I assumed that this
>is a reasonable limit which OEM wouldn't mess with. But I realize,
>since you brought me up short, that one can't assume anything. Maybe
>the graph ends at 6000 rpm because by then it has reached advertised
>capacity, and won't put out any more no matter how fast you turn it.
>Interesting that the very nice document that came with the alternator
>does not have a DO NOT EXCEED speed.
>
>
>I haven't any idea who wrote it, but my generic alternator bracket from
>Aircraft Spruce came with a sheet suggesting some automotive
alternators
>that make reasonably good--and cheap, if you are daring enough to get
>them at a junkyard(@@)--airplane alternators. This anonymous writer
said
>that some builders feel more comfortable using a larger pulley, or
>getting a smaller ring gear for their engine. An air pump pulley from a
>mid-70's Chevy Camaro, which is a deep-V 4" pulley which apparently
>requires some "slight modification," whatever that means, was suggested
>as a replacement for the alt pulley.
>
>
>Believe me, the term "experimental aviation" is appropriate. Once you
>leave the certified reservation, you are in the wilderness, and
reliable
>guides are hard to find and hard to qualify. All information,
opinions,
>and particularly testimony (which springs from authority, my college
>speech teacher told me)is welcome.
>
>
>John
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Two independent systems |
In a message dated 4/9/2005 1:29:54 P.M. Central Standard Time,
b.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
The documentation exists but it's in the salt mines at Hutchinson. Too
bad nobody microfilmed that stuff before it got stored.
Bob . . .
Thanks Bob,
I will see if the Tullahoma based Beechcraft museum wants to take on that
task. Never know, it might be helpful!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Socan Ihave your 2 1/2 pulley?...:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Swartout
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
-->
All the give-and-take on this subject has been very useful and has
modified my plans. Considering that my alternator doesn't produce power
til it turns 1200 rpm, and it would be nice to start charging the
battery as soon as the engine is running (idling) --and with electronic
ignition, idle might be pretty slow--I'll opt for the 3.25" pulley
instead of the 5". That should keep the top end down around 7500, but
still produce 18 amps or so at idle. I agree with Charlie Kuss--why
spend the money to get the rotor balanced? If the alternator craps out,
I'll replace it and swap out the pulley & not have to balance another
alternator. If I had absolute faith in the main alternator, I wouldn't
be installing the SD-8 as a back-up. But the fact that the SD-8 doesn't
start producing power til about 1500 engine rpm, I'm also thinking of
putting in a little battery in the glove compartment or someplace,
totally isolated from the airplane except that I could plug it in to a
jack on the panel to provide emergency power for P-mags, GRT EIS and
Dynon EFIS. Charging would come from a solar panel on the glarescreen.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert McCallum
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator help
John;
Sorry, I wasn't trying to "catch you out", I was just wondering if the
concern that you and others have expressed with rotational speed is a
valid concern or is just a perceived problem without any basis in fact.
I don't know for sure if my example is typical, but I think the
observation you make below with respect to the relationship between
"rated" output vs speed, and consequently where the chart ends, might be
valid. If this is true, and based on the fact that aircraft engines are
relatively constant speed compared to road vehicles, then there may be
some validity in reducing wear by slowing the alternator to the speed
where rated output is achieved. As far as your original question about
replacement pulleys Google should reveal some sources. They are
manufactured by several race car suppliers to slow alternators on race
cars thus reducing HP requirements for driving them. I also find it
interesting, as do you, that no Max speed is given on the rating charts.
Bob McC
John Swartout wrote:
>
>Oops-- Sorry Bob, you caught me in an ASSumption. Since the
alternator
>comes with an output graph which ends at 6000 rpm, I assumed that this
>is a reasonable limit which OEM wouldn't mess with. But I realize,
>since you brought me up short, that one can't assume anything. Maybe
>the graph ends at 6000 rpm because by then it has reached advertised
>capacity, and won't put out any more no matter how fast you turn it.
>Interesting that the very nice document that came with the alternator
>does not have a DO NOT EXCEED speed.
>
>
>I haven't any idea who wrote it, but my generic alternator bracket from
>Aircraft Spruce came with a sheet suggesting some automotive
alternators
>that make reasonably good--and cheap, if you are daring enough to get
>them at a junkyard(@@)--airplane alternators. This anonymous writer
said
>that some builders feel more comfortable using a larger pulley, or
>getting a smaller ring gear for their engine. An air pump pulley from a
>mid-70's Chevy Camaro, which is a deep-V 4" pulley which apparently
>requires some "slight modification," whatever that means, was suggested
>as a replacement for the alt pulley.
>
>
>Believe me, the term "experimental aviation" is appropriate. Once you
>leave the certified reservation, you are in the wilderness, and
reliable
>guides are hard to find and hard to qualify. All information,
opinions,
>and particularly testimony (which springs from authority, my college
>speech teacher told me)is welcome.
>
>
>John
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Reliability |
| Subject: | Re: Nuckoll's Paper on Electrical System |
Reliability
Reliability
>
>
> Reliability
>
> Shucks, when you get to be a gray-haired ol' dog, 4-5 hours
> > a night suffices . . . no?
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>
>NO! Like I thought--you are a better man than I am.
>
>Perhaps the most efficient way to send my other offerings would be by
>fax of the marked-up document. I don't have a scanner. If you have a
>fax number, let me know.
How about snail mail? I don't have a fax machine. I got
tired of picking piles of paper spam off the floor so I went
to a computer based fax receiver that would store on hard drive.
After sorting through dozens of digital spam with nothing
of interest to read, I finally decided that return on investment
for owning a fax was nil to negative.
6936 Bainbridge, Wichita, Ks 67226-1008 works really good.
I'll work a trade that will make it worth your trouble.
Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: flying unstalled at 0 airspeed |
The way to gauge it is to try it (at a safe altitude). Head into the
wind. Put your plane in the climb attitude you use for take off. Pull
your mixture to cut-off. Note the altitude when the engine quits.
Perform the maneuver you would make to return to the strip. Note how
much altitude you have lost. Be sure that you allow for your reaction
time if figuring what happened and what you are going to do about it.
Repeat with cross wind and various wind velocities.
You may also want to do this within gliding distance of the field in case
your engine wont restart.
Jim Hasper
Franklin, TN
(snip)
And, how is one to gauge what the appropriate minimum altitude is for a
particular
aircraft?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN" <glastar(at)3rivers.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Precise Aircraft Manuevering |
Well said Mike,
I've been flying for almost 40 years, after the AF most of it in crop
dusters. I just got my float rating this winter at Wiley's Seaplanes in
Lake Oswego OR. Dave Wiley is a glider pilot, balloon pilot, SES,
gyro-plane, MEL etc. etc. and a designated examiner in most of these. His
philosophy is the same as yours..............(and mine).
I'd like to hear from "Old Bob" on this subject.
Best...................Buck
From the movie Wind, "Some times you have to play the percentages." I
have been flying for over twenty-five years in airplanes, helicopters,
gliders, ultra lights, military import jets, turboprop airliners, jet
airliners and home built airplanes. More people die trying to make it
back to the airport when an engine quits then flying it strait ahead and
landing (crashing under control). It is my opinion that unless you
believe without a doubt you can safely turn around (at that particular
point in time) you should land under control wing level strait ahead. I
have always used what I learned when flying gliders, figuring out a
minimum altitude I can safely and easily turn around and make the
airport. There are many-documented fatal accidents of pilots trying to
make it back to the field and crashing out of control. Many of the
"turn around" accidents were performed by very experienced pilots with
many hours in type and in a few cases the pilots were test pilots.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Precise Aircraft Manuevering
Sorry guys. I didn't mean to stir up a firestorm. I'm already getting
grief
about discussing this subject on the list. Notice I've changed the
subject
title from "Flying unstalled at 0 airspeed." Everyone is focused on
that title
when, in fact, what I'm talking about is knowing your airplane and
flying it
to it's maximum potential.
Craig, you correctly pointed out that what I am talking about is zero,
or
near zero, INDICATED airspeed. Most of us do not have a true airspeed
indicator.
Many pilots have a hangup with not allowing indicated airspeed to be
too
low. For the most part they are correct. However, just because your
indicated
airspeed is low doesn't necessarily mean you will stall the wing.
Stalling
depends on the wings angle of attack whereas indicated airspeed depends
on
several factors, including calibration.
To discuss my return to landing techniques after engine failure will
take too
much list space. Let me see if I can build a description and post it on
my
web site. My only hesitation in doing so is that someone will try it
without
properly preparing. Proper preparation includes studying your airframes
V
speeds, turn rate at various bank angles, turn radius at various bank
angles,
practicing at higher altitude with a safety observer, and then analyzing
the
particular situation on each takeoff (ie., runway surface and length,
density
altitude, wind speed/direction, and the pilots alertness and proficiency
on that
particular day).
To answer your questions below:
ATP, CFI
I quit counting, but about 14k hours
About 10 pilots trained to PPL, one of which was my son - now flying
F-15Cs
(not enough hours in the day to do more) (Also, I don't charge for
instruction.
Students can't pay me enough to make it worthwhile so I do it free.
For
example, one hour of airborne instruction requires 4 hours of my time.
Driving
to and from airport, 1 hour prebrief and one hour debrief). I also
trained
numerous pilots in the T-38, F-4, F-5, and F-16, in the classroom,
briefing room,
and the cockpit. I've flown numerous civilian aircraft, except the one
I'm
building - RV-8.
No video of the turnaround to landing. Maybe I should make one. The
only
drawback is the damn lawyers. They would go nuts on a liability
lawsuit. We're
all in the hunker down mode because of them. They believe there is no
personal responsibility, only victims.
Perhaps that is sufficient info on my qualifications.
Okay, to those who are going to flame me for a verbose, off subject post
on
the list, save your effort. I'll flame myself for you and tell myself
to stop
posting comments about flying airplanes on an airplane electrics
internet
list. Flying airplanes is just too far off the subject and too few
people are
interested. Still, just watch, there will be someone who feels
obligated to
flame me. Flame away. : )
I'm happy to discuss offline. You can contact me at speedy11(at)aol.com.
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
www.rv-8a.net
In a message dated 4/9/2005 3:00:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
Stan: before people start bickering about this information, let's get
some basics down:
What are you pilot certifications?
How many hours do you have?
Are you a flight instructor? If so, how many people have received
their PPL under your instruction?
Do you have a video of this turn-around maneuver upon power loss on
takeoff?
Craig Steffen
[I do not have a pilot's license, nor any formal education in
aeronautical engineering]
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Barter" <kesleyel(at)iowatelecom.net> |
| Subject: | six pack spacing |
As I begin to lay out the instrument panel on my Avid Magnum, I am looking for
some information or insight as to the closest practical spacing for the "six pack"
of 3-1/4" instruments. I would like to make the cluster as compact as reasonably
possible, and yet leave enough material between the the instruments to
assure adequate panel rigidity and space for the mounting screws. Any and all
input appreciated.
Tom Barter
Kesley, IA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
The problem I see is that the higher voltage required to jump the ugly worn gap
- - is the same whether it is a magneto or an electronic system.
If the gap is large, the mag will build the voltage... easily.
The problem then is usually associated with arcing across the insulation.
I have one electronic ignition running on the test stand and you can see the spark
coming out of one ignition lead and jumping to a nearby piece of steel.
The plugs are brand new.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag/mag timing question
>
>
>Why
> not two electronic ignitions? The cost savings in spark plugs alone
> is pretty attractive.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>Bob, Why do you think that you get better spark plug life from an
>electronic system than you do from a magneto fired spark ?
If you have the voltage to jump the gap in spite of well rounded
edges, then spark plug life can be loosely deemed "enhanced". The
more proper explanation might be, "electronic ignitions have
a capability to ignite a mixture in spite of plugs worn far
beyond limits that a magneto would fire. Further, substituting
automotive plugs is a distinct savings over aircraft plugs even
if they both had the same service life."
I have my Safari tuned every 40-50,000 miles. I'm amazed at the
condition of the plugs removed. The car wasn't running bad. The
mileage wasn't atypical. My ol' chevy-6 would have been limping
into the shop with those plugs if it ran at all.
Bob . . .
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Alternators on the AeroElectric List |
<002c01c53d77$ef5206a0$69318a45@cat1>
At 10:49 PM 4/9/2005, you wrote:
>Thanks John, this site is fantastic!
>I did a search for Mitsubishi alternators that I have directions to for
>making externally regulated and came up with part # ALT 3056 a 75 amp unit
>for $139.99 NEW PRICE, not reman.
>
>Also, found a Nippondenso 70 amp NSA #Alt 5067 70 amp Toyoda for $137.79,
>again NEW PRICE
>
>And my favorite, for my Sebring......a 125 amp honker NSA #ALT 6090,
>EXTERNALLY regulated for $150.79
>
>All nice options.....but it appears one needs to change the pulley out. Then
>there is the matter of making a mount assuming Van's doesn't fit. Also, I'm
>not familiar with the NSA brand and can't say anything about their quality.
>
>What I really want is an externally regulated 60~75 amp, light weight
>Nippondenso unit.
>
>Marty
Marty,
If you want a 60 amp ND externally regulated alternator with a V belt
pulley, you can ask for one from a 1981-1983 (last years for external
regulators) Honda Accord or Toyota Camry. Be sure to specify WITH air
conditioning (otherwise you'll get a 40 amp unit) This will get you an
alternator that will work with no modifications, right out of the box.
The down side of this is: Where do you think all those cars are now?
Right, they are in the junk yard! How long do you suppose the parts stores
will continue to stock these units? (If you can find one in stock now??)
When my alternator releases it's magic smoke in Dubuque, Iowa on a Saturday
or Sunday afternoon, I want the parts man to hand me a replacement right
away. WHY? Because I don't care to spend 1 or 2 nights at the local motel
(plus FedEx overnight shipping charges) while I wait in a strange town for
a replacement. I prefer to use an alternator from a vehicle new enough that
I can get a replacement for it in 5-8 years. Just something else to
consider. Hey, if you don't travel cross country, it's not a big issue.
See, I've got this friend........ his name is Murphy. Maybe you know him? :-)
My current plan is to convert my internally regulated 60 amp ND for an
external regulator. However, Bob, Eric Jones & perhaps Paul M. will soon
make me change my plans.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | hebeard(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Six Pack Spacing |
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
For Tom Barter. Guru Tony Bingelis before his death recommended the minimum distance
between instrument centers for 3 1/8" instruments as 3 1/2".
Harley E.
For Tom Barter. Guru Tony Bingelis before his death recommended the minimum distance
between instrument centers for 3 1/8" instruments as 3 1/2".
Harley E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> |
| Subject: | Molex Extraction Tool |
All,
I bought the cheapo Molex extraction tool and, no surprise, it
doesn't work worth a damn. Does anyone have a recommendation for a good
one? Price no object at this point. I want it to work.
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> |
| Subject: | How to Wire an Aircraft |
Pretty broad title, I know. However I'm discovering as I wire my simple
Kitfox that I really have no clue what I'm doing. Does anyone have a source
for the basics of how to wire an aircraft. I'm talking about how to
actually do the wiring, not how to do the design. I've got a pretty good
design, though I'm still unsure of the supports and things. I've read Bob's
book, and AC 43-13, but can't find hands-on knowledge on the best way to
actually do it. My questions run like:
1. Which end do I start with?
2. Do I bundle as I go? Or do I leave a rats nest and try to bundle it all
at the end?
3. Do I leave one end clear until I'm done bundling?
4. What type of connectors should I use where? Where do I find
waterproof/fireproof connectors for firewall forward and do I even need them?
You see what I mean. Any guidance would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Six Pack Spacing |
In a message dated 4/9/2005 11:40:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,
hebeard(at)comcast.net writes:
For Tom Barter. Guru Tony Bingelis before his death recommended the minimum
distance between instrument centers for 3 1/8" instruments as 3 1/2".
Harley E.
Good Morning Harley,
That is a reasonable ball park figure. Unfortunately, it won't work for all
instruments and it is wasteful for others.
As an example, Beechcraft regularly uses three and three eighths inch on
production airplanes for the older AN style instrument cases. A Century One
combination Roll Controller and Turn Coordinator measures a full three and one
half inches side to side and top to bottom.
Personally, when space is at a premium, I decide which instruments are to be
used, measure them accurately, (I have found that manufacturers dimensions
are often in error even when the dimensions are given in .001 increments) then
place the holes so that there will be a minimum of one sixteenth of an inch
between all instruments. When measuring, be sure to consider screw heads
that protrude beyond the case itself and light trays that may extend further
than the case.
Back in WW II, the military did have standard sizes that were closely
adhered to. That is not the case today.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Precise Aircraft Manuevering |
In a message dated 4/10/2005 5:25:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
More people die trying to make it
back to the airport when an engine quits then flying it strait ahead and
landing (crashing under control). It is my opinion that unless you
believe without a doubt you can safely turn around (at that particular
point in time) you should land under control wing level strait ahead.
Mark,
Thanks for your comments. I have to use one of Bob's favorite lines and say,
"Show me the statistics you are referring to which document that more people
die trying to turn back to the airport compared to a straight-ahead landing
and 'crashing under control.'" Without facts, your comment is unsubstantiated.
Further, you implication is that the pilot will be out-of-control should he
turn around. Perhaps - but I suggest that by using safe techniques and careful
preparation, a turn around to the airport could be much safer than landing
straight ahead.
Ha, tell you what, I'll stir the pot a little more with another topic. I
advocate striving to land on a highway should the engine fail out of reach of an
airport. I have good rationale why it's the safest thing to do and I have
techniques for accomplishing it safely. Maybe I should put that on the web site
also.
Whew! I can feel the flames already! : )
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "james wickert" <jimw_btg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tailwind-List: Wally's return |
enough is enough why fill the group with wasted mail
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Critchlow" <wjc1(at)sprint.ca>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tailwind-List: Wally's return
>
> Interested parties .. I'm back.
> The south will never be the same
> W.C.
> C/FRDF
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Engines-List(at)matronics.com, Europa-List(at)matronics.com,
Kitfox-List(at)matronics.com, Kolb-List(at)matronics.com,
Pietenpol-List(at)matronics.com, Rocket-List(at)matronics.com,
RV-List(at)matronics.com, RV9-List(at)matronics.com, RV10-List(at)matronics.com,
Tailwind-List(at)matronics.com, Yak-List(at)matronics.com,
Zenith-List(at)matronics.com
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Wally Messages Stopped! |
Dear Listers,
My sincere apologies! At about 4:30am this morning there was an odd system
problem on the Matornics email server, causing many mail files to become
marked as "read-only". This wedged many of the List filters causing all
sorts of weird behavior. Perhaps the oddest was that an innocent message
from Walter Critchlow, kept getting posted instead of the actual incoming
List message.
If you receive this message, and sent a list message to any of the lists
your message was one of the ones that got subverted. Please repost your
message to the respective list.
AeroElectric-list
Commandaer-list
Engines-List
Europa-List
Kitfox-List
Kolb-List
Pietenpol-List
Rocket-List
RV-List
RV9-List
RV10-List
Tailwind-List
Yak-List
Zenith-List
Again, my sincere apologies for the problems. I was doing my Taxes (!)
today and wasn't keeping as close an eye on the Lists as I normally do.
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to Wire an Aircraft |
Guy Buchanan wrote:
>My questions run like:
>
>1. Which end do I start with?
>2. Do I bundle as I go? Or do I leave a rats nest and try to bundle it all
>at the end?
>3. Do I leave one end clear until I'm done bundling?
>4. What type of connectors should I use where? Where do I find
>waterproof/fireproof connectors for firewall forward and do I even need them?
>
>You see what I mean. Any guidance would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Guy Buchanan
>K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
>
>
>
I'm no expert or anything, but what I did was this. I don't have a
engine or my battery yet, so I got a power converter to hook up to the
contactor on the firewall I started there and work one wire at a time
carrying the power into the aircraft to the fuse busses. From there I
started working one wire at a time from the fuse busses to the switches.
I decided on the route that all the wires would follow and then in
stalled some cushion clamps with just one leg screwed down so that I
could slip the wires into the clamp to hold them in place allong the
way. Do this to all the wires. Now run the wires from the switches to
what they control. I tested each item as I got it hooked up to insure it
worked properly. I left the wires somewhat loose along the way but you
don't want them so loose that when you are done and start to zip tie
them that you end up with wires that are too long or too short. One wire
at a time supports along the wire route and follow the power flow. One
day there will not be anymore wires to run and zip tie it all up and
your done. I am at the point of adding the last 3-4 wires and then I
start the zip ties.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Six Pack Spacing |
Something to keep in mind is that a lot of people are "upgrading" to Dynons
or Blue Mountains and what not. While these instruments do simply "slide
into" a 3 1/8" hole, they are much larger than most people have left space
for. Unless you have pretty significant spacing, they might overlap
adjacent instruments.
Anyway, food for thought in your layout planning.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <hebeard(at)comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Six Pack Spacing
>
> For Tom Barter. Guru Tony Bingelis before his death recommended the
minimum distance between instrument centers for 3 1/8" instruments as 3
1/2".
> Harley E.
>
>
>
> For Tom Barter. Guru Tony Bingelis before his death recommended the
minimum distance between instrument centers for 3 1/8" instruments as 3
1/2".
>
>
> Harley E.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W Livingston" <livingjw(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EL Panel Lights |
you can get a 12 inverter and a 1 inch by 36 in strip along with a 6x6 inch
square white el light for $75 from e. lite. They both can be driven together
with the inverter but the light does dip a little.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to Wire an Aircraft |
> Guy Buchanan wrote:
>
>>
>> Pretty broad title, I know. However I'm discovering as I wire my
>> simple Kitfox that I really have no clue what I'm doing. Does anyone
>> have a source for the basics of how to wire an aircraft. I'm talking
>> about how to actually do the wiring, not how to do the design. I've
>> got a pretty good design, though I'm still unsure of the supports and
>> things. I've read Bob's book, and AC 43-13, but can't find hands-on
>> knowledge on the best way to actually do it. My questions run like:
>>
>>
> The wire supports bothered me for awhile too. Adel clamps worked for
> large wires. Eventually I started using nylon supports that rivet to
> the airframe and let you tie wires to them. Similar to the pic for
> Spruce part CTM-2. However I got them locally for dramatically cheaper
> and was able to pick two appropriate sizes. There are adhesive
> versions of these as well. In some cases I wrapped an engine mount
> tube with silicone tape and then tied directly to that.
>
>> 1. Which end do I start with?
>>
> I started at the engine reasoning that wire length and neatness was
> more important at the high vibration end. I probably left too much
> slack at a lot of the instrument panel connections but I'm not trying
> for any cosmetic awards and several times I've been glad to have an
> extra bit of wire to recrimp two wires together or reroute something.
>
>> 2. Do I bundle as I go? Or do I leave a rats nest and try to bundle
>> it all at the end?
>>
> Yes yes yes. I used a lot of twist tie wrap wires (from the kitchen)
> and then started replacing them with lacing. Some prefer a gazilion
> plastic tie wraps. The tighter you tie it after every wire, the neater
> it will end up.
>
>> 3. Do I leave one end clear until I'm done bundling?
>>
> I did not except for items that weren't installed yet. Some bundles
> were convenient to run all together and then make all the connections.
>
>> 4. What type of connectors should I use where? Where do I find
>> waterproof/fireproof connectors for firewall forward and do I even
>> need them?
>>
>>
> I used the AMP PIDG connectors everywhere I could and was very
> pleased. These are covered in the "connection" aren't they? I also put
> heat shrink over all the bare push ons so that there was no exposed
> metal. By definition a crimp connection is moisture proof and anything
> metal or silicone will stand a lot more heat than the wire insulation
> so I don't thing you need to worry about that. I found wiring about
> the same as the rest of the project. Intimidating until you get
> started. You crimp a few wires for practice, you do a few things
> twice, you ask a few specific questions, think about a few things
> overnight, you gradually get comfortabls with it and find that you are
> finished ;)
> Ken
>
>> You see what I mean. Any guidance would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Guy Buchanan
>> K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Speed |
Ken wrote:
Wow - Real numbers!
Belt and fan losses have to be significant to get 7.5 hp or 10%
efficiency. I notice "calculated" load rather than measured though. A
very clever gentleman once suggested that magnetic losses also ramp up
fast as the speed (frequency) gets really high. Eddy currents?? He
postulated that efficiency probably fell off as you went above the
minimum rpm required to generate rated current.
Ken
>
>> snip
>>
> On a 358 cu.in chevy, running at 8300 rpm and the alt spinning 12,450
> rpms we calculated a load of 38 amps.
>
> snip
>
>> The horsepower loss to generate 38 amps at 8300 engine rpm was 7.5.
>> The water pump ate up 15 and the power steering pump on the straight
>> a ways used 5 and when loaded for the turns 13 HP. Keep in mind that
>> was 17 years ago. I bet the water pump has not changed much,power
>> steering pumps are more efficient, and alts are about the same. do
>> not archive
>> Ben Haas
>> N801BH
>> www.haaspowerair.com
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Hall" <mhall67(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Printed circuit board question |
Has any one ever used a printed circuit board for a fuse block? Or made a fuse
block from a printed circuit board? What would be the problems if you did something
like this? For me it would really be nice if my connections came out
the back instead out the side like all the ones you can buy now. And it would
be nice if you could put the main bus and the essential bus on the same board
with a break between them and a spot for the diode. The wiring would be the same
as the Z13 just all in one spot. Any thoughts?
Thanks
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Emag/mag timing question |
>
>
>The problem I see is that the higher voltage required to jump the ugly
>worn gap - - is the same whether it is a magneto or an electronic system.
>
>If the gap is large, the mag will build the voltage... easily.
>
>The problem then is usually associated with arcing across the insulation.
>
>I have one electronic ignition running on the test stand and you can see
>the spark coming out of one ignition lead and jumping to a nearby piece of
>steel.
>
>The plugs are brand new.
That's a different problem. I used to build transistorized versions of
the Kettering
system for hot-rodders that provided up to 6x the spark energy. While
installing
a system in a customer's car one night in the driveway, we started the
car up
and it ran terribly. Fussed with it for some time before I accidently yanked
the plug out on the trouble light. When the light went out, one could see a
Kansas thunderstorm of sparks jumping out of harness fittings in several
places.
Just getting more snort doesn't help if the pipes leak.
Further, the fortunes of my customer's efforts at the track didn't
change as a result
of having hotter spark.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator Speed |
>
>
>So the torque required to drive the alt reduces with increasing RPM??
>Maybe it does it has to be for your argument to be true but if the
>torque is constant, the HP will increase with RPM as
>
>HP=torque*speed.
There are three strong components of alternator input power
requirements. The first and most pronounced is in the mechanical
to electrical energy conversion. It doesn't happen at 100% efficiency
so there's a multiplier (L) in this component. The next strongest
component is windage issues which generally follow the cube-of-speed
relationship and finally, there's plain friction (bearings and brushes).
HP(in) = (L*watts(out)/746) + (K*RPM(cubed)*windage) + (K*RPM*friction)
When the alternator is loaded then ALL other effects on driving torque
are insignificant compared to the mechanical-electrical energy
conversion and yes, as speed goes up, driving torque will go down.
As load is reduced, parasitic loads on driving torque become more
significant and at some point on great comparative graphing of loading
effects, windage and friction will become dominant. I've not studied
these effects in detail so I don't have a good feeling for how lightly
the alternator must be loaded and at what speeds this will happen. But
I'm certain that for loadings from day-vfr (8-10A) to night-ifr (20-35
amps) the parasitic effects are small compared to the task of converting
mechanical to electrical energy.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Molex Extraction Tool |
>
>All,
> I bought the cheapo Molex extraction tool and, no surprise, it
>doesn't work worth a damn. Does anyone have a recommendation for a good
>one? Price no object at this point. I want it to work.
Here's a few of thousands of hits for Waldom/Molex and AMP
extraction tools for the white-nylon housings using
open-barrel pins.
http://www.action-electronics.com/molex.htm
http://www.unicornelex.com/newunicorn/subcategory.php?cat=E24J07&sortby=ITEMNO&style=LONG&page=0&
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T051/0115.pdf
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T051/0114.pdf
Also, just in case you're REALLY talking about AMP mate-n-lock
connectors see
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T051/0120.pdf
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T051/0121.pdf
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T051/0119.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA II battery analyzer |
>
>Interesting. I did a google search for the CBA II and found several people
>who sell it.
> I wonder if powerwerx.com is the source. I don't think West Mountain
> Radio has any thing to do with the design or build of the product???
>
>Mountain West Radio $99.95, Power werx $94.95
>
>The products appear to be identical.
>
> Does the actual product say who makes it?
Nothing obvious.
I've completed the dissection and analysis of the failure on
my CBA II. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/WestMountain_CBAII.pdf
This isn't a really "bad" design but it is thermally marginal
with respect to meeting specifications under the inevitable
variability of hand assembled production.
I haven't heard from West Mountain . . . and even if I
do, they can't do much about it if they don't build the
thing. Perhaps the actual designers will run across my
article is a net-search and elect to revisit their design
decisions. All-in-all, it's a slick product and with some
care will perform as specified. I plan to use mine (with
modifications) a great deal.
If anyone runs across some information that suggests the
April 05, 2005 - April 10, 2005
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-eg