AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-el

May 19, 2005 - May 28, 2005



        might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which
        has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle
        movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back
        course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to
        change the mode of needle movement.
      
        The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which
        localizer region that the aircraft is flying in.
      
        OC
      
        PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit
        more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound
        course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region
        the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would
        produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications 
      
      
        ________________________________  Message 8  _____________________________________
      
      
        From: dsvs(at)comcast.net<mailto:dsvs(at)comcast.net>
        Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs(at)comcast.net
      
        OC,
        The HSI is no smarter, the needle is always pointed aat the transmitter.  When
        you are in the backcourse it points behind the ac nose and this corrects for
      the
        "backwards" needle.  Don
      
      
        > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net<mailto:jschroeder(at)perigee.net>>
        > To: >
        > Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course
        >
        >
        > > OC -
        > >
        > > My understanding is that the MD200 needle is directional on the back
        > > course. ie. If the needle is off to the right, you turn right to
        > > intercept. I do not know how the GI-106A needle works. My recollection of
        > > the CDI's of 40 years ago + or -, is that on the back course, one turns
        > > opposite to the needle to intercept. Of course, this is perhaps a moot
        > > topic for discussion because of the apparent paucity of true back course
        > > ILS's. John
        >
        > 5/18/2005
        >
        > Hello John, While flying a localizer back course most pilots would find it
        > easier if their equipment had the capability to be put into a back course
        > mode because then the pilot would be turning towards the needle to get back
        > on the localizer center line just as they would do in a front course
        > approach -- one less "different thing" to remember.
        >
        > Since the electronic emission pattern sent from the localizer antenna
        > remains the same over time, regardless of where the aircraft is located or
        > the what the pilot's intentions are, the pilot must take some overt physical
        > action (move a switch) on his equipment (normally the localizer receiver or
        > the autopilot / flight director) in the cockpit in order to tell that
        > equipment to:
        >
        >  1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the
        > centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course
        > region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order
        > to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point.
        >
        > 2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the
        > cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my
        > equipment.
        >
        > If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a
        > light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one
        > might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which
        > has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle
        > movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back
        > course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to
        > change the mode of needle movement.
        >
        > The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which
        > localizer region that the aircraft is flying in.
        >
        > OC
        >
        > PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit
        > more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound
        > course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region
        > the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would
        > produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      
      
        ________________________________  Message 9  _____________________________________
      
      
        From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com<mailto:stein(at)steinair.com>>
        Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" >
      
        The MD-200-306 operates as you require below.  Their manual nearly states
        verbatim for operation as you noted below.  Also, that indicator has the
        "BC" annunciation on the face of it as wel.
      
        Just as an aside, you guys do realize the GI-102/106A and the MD-200 202/203
        & 206/207 are all the same instrument.
      
        Just my 2 cents as usual!
      
        Cheers,
        Stein.
      
      
        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com<mailto: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: Re: GI-106A Back Course
      
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: >
      
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net<mailto:jschroeder(at)perigee.net>>
        Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course
      
        5/18/2005
      
      
         1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the
        centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course
        region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order
        to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point.
      
        2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the
        cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my
        equipment.
      
        If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a
        light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one
        might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which
        has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle
        movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back
        course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to
        change the mode of needle movement.
      
        The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which
        localizer region that the aircraft is flying in.
      
        OC
      
        PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit
        more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound
        course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region
        the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would
        produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications
      
      
        ________________________________  Message 10  ____________________________________
      
      
        Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
        From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com<mailto:Tdawson(at)avidyne.com>>
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" >
      
      
        The very nature of the geometry of an HSI sets you up well for backcourse approaches
        if you follow the correct procedure.
      
        The real challenge is for those without an HSI, who must use a conventional CDI
        . . .
      
        TDT
      
      
        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com>
        [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Stein
        Bruch
        Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
      
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" >
      
        The MD-200-306 operates as you require below.  Their manual nearly states
        verbatim for operation as you noted below.  Also, that indicator has the
        "BC" annunciation on the face of it as wel.
      
        Just as an aside, you guys do realize the GI-102/106A and the MD-200 202/203
        & 206/207 are all the same instrument.
      
        Just my 2 cents as usual!
      
        Cheers,
        Stein.
      
      
        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com<mailto: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: Re: GI-106A Back Course
      
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: >
      
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net<mailto:jschroeder(at)perigee.net>>
        Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course
      
        5/18/2005
      
      
         1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the
        centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course
        region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order
        to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point.
      
        2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the
        cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my
        equipment.
      
        If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a
        light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one
        might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which
        has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle
        movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back
        course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to
        change the mode of needle movement.
      
        The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which
        localizer region that the aircraft is flying in.
      
        OC
      
        PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit
        more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound
        course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region
        the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would
        produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications
      
      
        ________________________________  Message 11  ____________________________________
      
      
        Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
        From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com<mailto:frank.hinde(at)hp.com>>
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" >
      
        While we're on the subject of CDI's.
      
        Does anyone have any experience of using the BMA glass screen CDI driven
        from the Nav radio in actual IFR conditions?
      
        Does it really work?
      
        Frank
        Trying to decide on instruments for an IFR RV7.
      
      
        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com>
        [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
        Dawson-Townsend
        Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
        --> >
      
      
        The very nature of the geometry of an HSI sets you up well for
        backcourse approaches if you follow the correct procedure.
      
        The real challenge is for those without an HSI, who must use a
        conventional CDI . . .
      
        TDT
      
      
        ________________________________  Message 12  ____________________________________
      
      
        Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis
        From: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com<mailto:Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com>
         05/18/2005 02:56:20 PM
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com
      
        I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7
        electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on
        the following:
      
        When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment
        item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the
        purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state?
        Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on
        transmit.
      
        Thanks,
      
        Jim
      
      
        ________________________________  Message 13  ____________________________________
      
      
        Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis
        From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com<mailto:frank.hinde(at)hp.com>>
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" >
      
        Depends if you intend to transmit all the time I guess?...:)
      
        The steady state loads for sizing the alternator and wiring...Use the
        transient loads only if the load is sustained...say more than 10
        seconds?...That should give you a cut off.
      
        The little bit of extra the alt needs to give will be taken care by the
        fact you will oversize the alt by some margin...Say 5amps minimum.
      
        Frank
      
        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com>
        [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
        Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com
        Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com
      
        I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7
        electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure
        on the following:
      
        When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each
        equipment item, there's usually a steady state current and a max
        current. For the purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the
        max or steady state?
        Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up
        on transmit.
      
        Thanks,
      
        Jim
      
      
        ________________________________  Message 14  ____________________________________
      
      
        From: <davgray(at)sbcglobal.net<mailto:davgray(at)sbcglobal.net>>
        Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Full Charge on Battery?
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: >
      
        I chanced apon this site.  The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may not be
      getting
        a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is made.  If true,
        this could be a problem for electrically dependent engines.
      
        http://batterytender.com/notice_odyssey.php?osCsid88978aa7c540510e2215932c22b512e5>
      
        Any clarification would be appreciated.
      
        Gary
      
      
        ________________________________  Message 15  ____________________________________
      
      
        From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr(at)cox.net>>
        Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >
      
      
        >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com
        >
        >I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7
        >electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on
        >the following:
        >
        >When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment
        >item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the
        >purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state?
        >Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on
        >transmit.
      
           STEADY states for load analysis, MAX load for wire and fuse/CB
           sizing.
      
           On similar topic, I was doing a lunchtime learning session for
           some of my fellow RAC employees and the question was asked
           about how fragile is a wire? If you're set up to protect a
           22AWG wire at 5A . . . what is the risk at say, 10A? or more?
           I've read conversation on this matter numerous times on the list,
           folks are belabored of the impression that wire will poof and
           smoke at just over the "rated" current.
      
           Just for grins, I went to the bench and rigged a segment
           of 22AWG Tefzel wire between two c-clamps, attached a
           thermocouple and biased the wire up in 5A steps to 20A.
           The picture at . . .
      
        http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/20A_22AWG.jpg>
      
           was taken after 10 minutes operation at 20A! The wire
           temperature was just over 100C. The wire was rated for
           150C. I was going to increase the current until the
           wire smoked but when I tried to push 25A through it,
           the breaker on my bench supply feeder popped. I need
           to run a 220 line to the bench supply before I can
           finish the experiment. Suffice it to say that fears
           about burning wires when even severely overloaded
           with respect to breaker size and wire "rating" are
           not well founded. These wires are quite robust and
           in fact,  we depend on those qualities for crafting
           VERY robust electrical systems.
      
           Bob . . .
      
      
        ________________________________  Message 16  ____________________________________
      
      
        From: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net<mailto:rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>>
        Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online >
      
        Jim, it's good to analyze both.
      
        The sum of steady state loads should be about 80% or less of your
        alternator rating, in 'normal' configuration (typical worst case flight
        such as night operations).  Any excess capacity is good for charging
        your battery.
      
        Worst case transient loads, such as your comm in tx mode can be handled
        by the battery.
      
        If the worst case transient is less than your alternator rating, your
        battery will be somewhat less stressed.
      
        Vern Little
      
        Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com wrote:
      
        >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com
        >
        >I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7
        >electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on
        >the following:
        >
        >When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment
        >item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the
        >purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state?
        >Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on
        >transmit.
        >
        >Thanks,
        >
        >Jim
        >
        >
        > 
        >
      
      
        ________________________________  Message 17  ____________________________________
      
      
        From: "Chris" <toaster73(at)earthlink.net<mailto:toaster73(at)earthlink.net>>
        Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis (TKT wire)
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris" >
      
        Speaking of wire is TKT an available wire for home building or is it
        expensive and not worth it?
        Thanks
        Chris Lucas
        RV-10
        #40072
        wings
      
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr(at)cox.net>>
        Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis
      
      
        > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
        > >
        >
        >
        >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com
        >>
        >>I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7
        >>electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure
        >>on
        >>the following:
        >>
        >>When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment
        >>item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the
        >>purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state?
        >>Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on
        >>transmit.
        >
        >   STEADY states for load analysis, MAX load for wire and fuse/CB
        >   sizing.
        >
        >   On similar topic, I was doing a lunchtime learning session for
        >   some of my fellow RAC employees and the question was asked
        >   about how fragile is a wire? If you're set up to protect a
        >   22AWG wire at 5A . . . what is the risk at say, 10A? or more?
        >   I've read conversation on this matter numerous times on the list,
        >   folks are belabored of the impression that wire will poof and
        >   smoke at just over the "rated" current.
        >
        >   Just for grins, I went to the bench and rigged a segment
        >   of 22AWG Tefzel wire between two c-clamps, attached a
        >   thermocouple and biased the wire up in 5A steps to 20A.
        >   The picture at . . .
        >
        > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/20A_22AWG.jpg>
        >
        >   was taken after 10 minutes operation at 20A! The wire
        >   temperature was just over 100C. The wire was rated for
        >   150C. I was going to increase the current until the
        >   wire smoked but when I tried to push 25A through it,
        >   the breaker on my bench supply feeder popped. I need
        >   to run a 220 line to the bench supply before I can
        >   finish the experiment. Suffice it to say that fears
        >   about burning wires when even severely overloaded
        >   with respect to breaker size and wire "rating" are
        >   not well founded. These wires are quite robust and
        >   in fact,  we depend on those qualities for crafting
        >   VERY robust electrical systems.
        >
        >   Bob . . .
        >
        >
        >
      
      
        ________________________________  Message 18  ____________________________________
      
      
        From: Scott Winn <sbwinn(at)gmail.com<mailto:sbwinn(at)gmail.com>>
        Subject: AeroElectric-List: Starter Contactor Location on Long-EZ
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Winn >
      
        Hi,
      
        I am utilizing a Z-13 diagram in my Long-EZ.  I am trying to decide on
        the location of the starter contactor, if it should be on the firewall
        or in the nose with the batteries.  Looking at the Z13 diagram there
        is nothing to indicate that the 4AWG wire going from the battery
        contactor to the starter contactor has to be especially short.  This
        would indicate to me that the large wire can be run the length of the
        plane with the contactor on the firewall. I am actually planning to
        run 2AWG because of the extra length.  This allows me to connect the
        alternator output to the starter contactor so I don't have to make two
        runs of large wire to hook up both the alternator and the starter.  If
        the concactor was in the nose, I'd have to run a second large wire
        just for the alternator.
      
        My concern is that I don't see any protection for the 4AWG wire that
        runs between the starter contactor and battery contactor.  Is it
        really OK to string an unprotected wire capable of delivering 100+
        amps all the way down the plane?
      
        Secondly, my engine has an automotive starter conversion on it.  Is
        there any disadavantage to using the built in soleniod instead of an
        external contactor?  The starter is off of a Toyota and the soleniods
        are quite reliable.  Obviously if I need to put the contactor in the
        nose then I'll have to use an external one.
      
        Thanks for your thoughts!
      
      
        ________________________________  Message 19  ____________________________________
      
      
        From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr(at)cox.net>>
        Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Full Charge on Battery?
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >
      
      
        >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: >
        >
        >I chanced apon this site.  The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may not
        >be getting a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is
        >made.  If true, this could be a problem for electrically dependent engines.
        >
        >http://batterytender.com/notice_odyssey.php?osCsid88978aa7c540510e2215932c22b512e5
        >
        >Any clarification would be appreciated.
      
            The 14.4 to 14.7 value is recommended for rapid recharge
            of the battery . . . and probably assumes that the battery
            was deeply discharged before the recharge cycle begins.
            The charging recommendations publication for Odyssey can
            be found at . . .
      
        http://www.enersysreservepower.com/odycharg_a.asp>
      
             . . . where we read that the fast recharge voltage
            should not be sustained for more than 24 hours. They
            recommend reduction to a "standby" charge value of
            13.6 to 13.8 volts. A value that is consistent with
            the rest of the lead-acid battery industry. One could
            use the numbers on this chart for ANY lead-acid technology
            except that I would say that you don't leave the fast-charge
            level on for more thank, say one tank of fuel duration
            or much less than 24 hours. Any battery in an airplane
            should be fully recharged in about one hour after
            starting the engine.  This is the reason for the "75%
            rule" on alternator sizing in certified ships. If one
            has used a max of 45A on a 60A machine to run the
            airplane, you have 15A left over to quickly recharge
            a deeply discharged battery. Boosting the voltage
            to 14.7 increases the battery's willingness to accept
            energy . . . but this level should not be maintained
            indefinitely.
      
            Check out page 8 of . . .
      
        http://www.enersysreservepower.com/documents/US_GPL_SG_001_0303.pdf>
      
            and you see the same kinds of fast charge and float
            voltage ranges. Same goes for Panasonic where on
            page 3 of . . .
      
        http://www.enersysreservepower.com/documents/US_GPL_SG_001_0303.pdf>
      
            . . . we find 13.7 as a recommended float charge and 14.7
            as a recommended fast charge voltage at 25C.
      
            Bottom line is that ANY lead acid battery by ANY manufacturer
            will ultimately achieve 100% charge at 13.8V at 25C. It'a all
            a matter of how long you want to wait. If you're in a hurry,
            then jack the voltage up a tad for a SHORT period of time to
            speed up the recharge process. If your system is not endowed
            with a automatic recharge/float voltage controller . . . well
            shucks. Guess we'll have to compromise and set the critter up
            for 14.2 and quit worrying about it. That's the lead-acid
            set-point of choice for light aircraft since Duane Wallace
            bolted the first batteries into the C-140/C-170 products nearly
            60 years ago.
      
            With respect to the writer's objections about "Pulse Current
            Amps" take a peek at . . .
      
        http://www.enersysreservepower.com/ody_b.asp?routineody_dchrg&brandID5>
      
            The graphical data for battery performance under various loads
            is quite specific and yields factual engineering data. The
            fact that Odyssey quantifies their batteries in a different manner
            than some industry standards doesn't automatically mean that
            their product is inferior or that the company is trying to
            obscure any facts as to their product's performance.
      
            Take a peek at . . .
      
        http://www.batteryweb.com/faq.cfm>
      
            . . . where we find the following definitions:
      
        Cold Cranking Amps (CCA): "Discharge load measured in amps that a
        fully charged battery at 0  F can deliver for 30 seconds
        while maintaining its voltage above 7.2V"
      
            Hmmm . . . Odyssey gives similar data but at 25C. Could it
            be that the majority of Odyssey's customers use their
            batteries as more mundane temperatures wherein the high
            discharge rate performance data is more useful when plotted
            at the higher temperatures? Don't know. But I doubt that
            Odyssey believes they are competing with Die Hards and
            boat batteries. And what's all this 7.2 volt stuff anyhow?
            B&C has quantified their batteries for a 15 second dump
            based on dragging the battery down to and holding it at
            8.5 volts. This is easily accomplished with the tester that
            both B&C and the 'Connection use in their shops. See . . .
      
        http://www.batteryweb.com/autometer-detail.cfm?ModelSB-5>
      
            Does that mean that B&C's marketing numbers are
            bad or that they're trying to obscure any facts? No, I picked
            that value 15 years ago because I didn't know of any starters
            that would continue to crank an engine all the way down to
            7.2 volts . . . And guess what? We DON'T do that test at
           0C.
      
        Reserve Capacity (RC):  "Number of minutes a fully charged battery
        at 80.F can be discharged at 25 amps until the voltage drops below
        10.5 volts."
      
            Well fooey, my e-bus runs only 5 amps . . . should I be bent
            out of shape that Odyssey or any other manufacturer doesn't
            give me a 5A value instead of the 25A value? Only if I'm
            an ignorant consumer likely to make decisions based on a
            particular manufacturer's marketing hype. If I'm a designer
            who deals in engineering facts and data, then what ever data the
            manufacturer supplies is GOOD data as long as it's accurate.
      
            If I need ADDITIONAL data plotted in some other venue, then it's my
            responsibility go get that data myself or request it from
            the manufacturer. Most have much more data than they publish
            and will supply it as needed.
      
            Deltran's position on Odyssey products is not well researched.
            It does not mirror any considered understanding of lead-acid
            technology in general nor Odyssey's engineering and marketing
            philosophies in particular.
      
            The short answer is, "I'm not going to loose any sleep over it."
      
            Bob . . .
      
      
        ________________________________  Message 20  ____________________________________
      
      
        From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr(at)cox.net>>
        Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis (TKT wire)
      
        --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >
      
      
        >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris" >
        >
        >Speaking of wire is TKT an available wire for home building or is it
        >expensive and not worth it?
      
            What would be the advantage of using it for house wiring? You
            can purchase any kind of wire from anybody and use it any way
            you like with complete confidence as long as you observe the
            products limitations. But it might be an action akin to running
            130 avgas in a mogas rated engine . . . expensive but doesn't
            get you any more snort . . .
      
            Bob . . .
      
      
      
      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 19, 2005
From: "Chris" <toaster73(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris" Thanks for the insight. Like anybody I want the best but will settle for what works for the best price. I think the heavy iron folks are always thinking of the bundles that are as thick as an arm and carrying lots of load. I am use to mil-specs and Navy needs. My RV-10 won't be doing 6 month floats. -Chris Lucas #40072 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." >> >>Bob, >> As long as we're kicking around a discussion on wire, where would the >>Raychem 44 or Raychem 55 fit in with all this for aircraft use? > > > When I had the electrical/avionics group on the GP-180 project > at Lear about 22 years ago, 22759 was an export controlled substance > and we needed special licences to sell airplanes overseas that were > wired with 22759. I was ready to use Spec 55 wire in the GP-180 > until my betters decided to go for the export license. > > It's very good wire too. > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 19, 2005
From: "r falstad" <bobair8(at)msn.com>
Subject: Alternator Wiring Question
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "r falstad" I plan on installing my alternator, then my prop on my GlaStar this weekend. I have to have the wires on the back of the alternator before it goes in otherwise I don't have enough access room. My alternator is a Prestolite ALY-6421. I know, I know, the B&C alternators are much better and lighter but this one came with the engine and is paid for. The alternator has a 1/4"x28 stud for ALT +, a #10x32 stud for "AUX" (which I don't plan to use and really don't know what it's for), and a #6x32 stud for the Field. The confusing part is there are two #10x24 termination screws near the Field post that are labeled "F1" and "F2". Do I just terminate my 20 AWG field wire on the threaded post? What function, if any, do the two screws have? Thanks and best regards, Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: AeroElectric-List Digest Server<mailto:aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com> To: AeroElectric-List Digest List Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:55 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 32 Msgs - 05/17/05 * Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-05-17.html> Text Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-05-17.txt> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 05/17/05: 32 Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:59 AM - Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant (rd2(at)evenlink.com) 2. 04:44 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (cgalley) 3. 06:33 AM - Re: Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant (Steve Thomas) 4. 06:36 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (Paul Folbrecht) 5. 06:37 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: Chinese Tools (Casey Rayman) 6. 06:41 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (BobsV35B(at)aol.com) 7. 06:41 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (BobsV35B(at)aol.com) 8. 06:41 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (William Bernard) 9. 06:41 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (William Bernard) 10. 07:04 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (BobsV35B(at)aol.com) 11. 07:21 AM - Re: Rash of hijacked e-mail addresses (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 12. 07:23 AM - Kilovac Konfession (Eric M. Jones) 13. 07:49 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 14. 07:58 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 15. 08:10 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 16. 08:24 AM - Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV () 17. 08:33 AM - Re: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV (BobsV35B(at)aol.com) 18. 08:52 AM - Re: Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 19. 08:57 AM - Re: (no subject) (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 20. 08:58 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (Ronald J. Parigoris) 21. 09:12 AM - GI-106A Back Course () 22. 09:12 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (Paul Folbrecht) 23. 09:21 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (cgalley) 24. 09:37 AM - Re: Avionics breaker (Ken Simmons) 25. 11:28 AM - Re: Kilovac Konfession (Gilles Thesee) 26. 11:37 AM - Re: Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT (Richard Tasker) 27. 11:55 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (BobsV35B(at)aol.com) 28. 11:57 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (BobsV35B(at)aol.com) 29. 01:11 PM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 30. 02:54 PM - Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 (Ken Simmons) 31. 03:10 PM - Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters (Charlie England) 32. 07:43 PM - Re: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV (John Schroeder) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ From: rd2(at)evenlink.com<mailto:rd2(at)evenlink.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2(at)evenlink.com Absolutely agree. If we keep giving away freedoms by voting-in and agreeing with bureaucrats and media who tell us how to behave in our families, how to raise children, when and how to punish them - or not (in most cases), how to teach them to use condoms (how about introducing that in kindergarden), how to accept the unacceptable as "normal", "politically correct", or whatever nonsense adjective or noun they describe it with, the future does not look rosy. I don't remember that from my childhood and have my solution: that's the way I like it, that's the way it's gonna be. Sometimes we have to fight. Oh, well... Rumen do not archive P.S. Bob, BTW, did this come from your old (hijacked) address: >> From: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net<mailto:bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: S.O.S. Kiez! Polizei schlaegt Alarm --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net Lese selbst: http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm> >> _____________________Original message __________________________ (received from Robert L. Nuckolls, III; Date: 11:02 PM --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > ........... Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind. There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future of the US will be much less bright and more difficult. Bob . . . Do not archive ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ From: "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org<mailto:cgalley(at)qcbc.org>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" > MLI has one I believe. ----- Original Message ----- From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com > > > In a message dated 5/16/2005 9:51:56 P.M. Central Standard Time, > paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com writes: > > Well, BC indicator is hardly necessary to fly a BC anyway. None of the > older > King, etc. indicators tell you you're flying a BC - you need to know > that. > > > How many back course approaches are still in service? > > I haven't shot one in at least twenty years. Maybe more. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Ancient Aviator > Stearman N3977A > Brookeridge Airpark LL22 > Downers Grove, IL 60516 > 630 985-8502 > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net<mailto:lists(at)stevet.net>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas > Hello Robert, Monday, May 16, 2005, 9:02:44 PM, you wrote: RLNI> However, I've observed first hand, a very RLNI> powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't RLNI> radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future RLNI> of the US will be much less bright and more difficult. I have been very impressed lately by a pervasive attitude of entitlement. It seems to me that a lot of our crime, welfare state, education, job, retirement, and daily life activities are becoming centered on a you-owe-me or government-owes-me attitude. This is a 180 degree shift on what this country was founded upon. Consider this quote from Alexis de Toqueville, a Frenchman touring this country in the early 19th century: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." We have arrived, have we not? Do Not Archive -- Best regards, Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ From: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com<mailto:paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht > It does. What got it for me was just thinking "same direction as course - normal sensing; opposite direction of course - reverse sensing". It'll come one day and then you'll never think about it again. --- Matt Prather > wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" > > > I know this probably shouldn't turn into a "There's one here... There's > one here too..." type thing... But, I am finishing up my instrument > rating right now, and use the Localizer Back Course a couple of times each > week at Boise. Fly the ILS to published missed, then vectors (normal > because of terrain) for the BC going the opposite direction, then miss - > climb runway heading for the procedure turn back to the ILS. Keeps the > neurons whirring.. > > Regards, > > Matt- > > do not archive > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com > > > > > > In a message dated 5/16/2005 9:51:56 P.M. Central Standard Time, > > paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com writes: > > > > Well, BC indicator is hardly necessary to fly a BC anyway. None of the > > older > > King, etc. indicators tell you you're flying a BC - you need to know > > that. > > > > > > How many back course approaches are still in service? > > > > I haven't shot one in at least twenty years. Maybe more. > > > > Happy Skies, > > > > Old Bob > > AKA > > Bob Siegfried > > Ancient Aviator > > Stearman N3977A > > Brookeridge Airpark LL22 > > Downers Grove, IL 60516 > > 630 985-8502 > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ From: Casey Rayman <theturbodog(at)yahoo.com<mailto:theturbodog(at)yahoo.com>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: Chinese Tools --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Casey Rayman > > Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services > to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind. > There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play > to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very > powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't > radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future > of the US will be much less bright and more difficult. I have had great luck with most HF tools. Their hand electric tools like drills and jugsaws are not worth the trouble unless you are only going to use them once or twice. The heavier tools like bandsaws and mills are actually decent, but they are definately put together in the quickest/easiest way possible. Out of the box they are not too accurate or easy to work with, but once they are cleaned up they work great. My opinion on the future is that we, the US, has lost focus. In the last century we had back to back war for almost the entire century. War gives people great focus. I'm not saying we should create war or anything, but lack of a genuine goal leads us to boredom and lazyness. Which is where we as a nation are right now. I suspect as oil supplies get tighter(40 or 50 years from now) we will get back in the saddle again if we still have it in us. Casey __________________________________ http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail> ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com In a message dated 5/17/2005 6:48:07 A.M. Central Standard Time, cgalley(at)qcbc.org writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" > MLI has one I believe. Good Morning Cy, I believe you will find that MLI had one, but no longer does. That is the point I was so clumsily trying to make. When ILS first came on the scene, back course localizer approaches were very common. The CAA tried to build them at every site, if the surrounding terrain and obstacles would allow. They even had a few with glide slopes. As the years went by, most busy airports were equipped with either a full ILS or a localizer with "normal" sensing. (When I say "normal" sensing, we must remember that the localizer was designed in the days when VAR range stations were also being built and for which needle sensing depended on the direction you were flying. Flying toward the needle was no more normal than flying away from the needle with the VAR. Once VOR came upon the scene, pilots lost comfort "pulling" the needle and back courses became less popular.) The main reason the air carriers generally no longer train for, and utilize, circling approaches is not because they are less safe than straight in approaches, it is because they have so little need to do them. By eliminating circling approaches they can shorten the time spent in training and checking. If the weather is VFR, they can circle in those conditions, but that maneuver does not have to be trained for nor checked on a six month hood check. But I digress! The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out. I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt if you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The ones that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare. If it is possible to save a few bucks and reduce complexity by not providing the capability of flying a back course localizer approach, I would opt for the lower cost, lighter weight and fewer parts. If the back course capability can be provided with no additional cost, that is fine with me! I recently replaced my roll autopilot. S-Tec has a roll unit without back course coupling capability at a substantially lower cost and weight than their unit which does provide that function. When I considered that I had not had the need to use a back course localizer approach in at least twenty years, I elected to save the money, space, and weight that the more sophisticated unit needed. Many years ago, I would try to include a back course approach in Instrument Competency Checks every three or four years. It has been increasingly difficult to find one to use for the check rides. The only ones that I know of in Illinois are the one for Rwy 17 at RFD and the one for Rwy 11 at BMI. Matt Prather mentioned that he has one to play with at Boise. I do recall landing on Rwy 28 at Boise often in the distant past, but I do believe it was equipped with a full front course ILS back then. I see that it now has an MLS and I do believe that particular MLS was one of the first ones certificated in the USA. It is very unusual for a back course approach to be the only approach available for use in actual IFR conditions on a heavily used low weather runway. I checked Idaho and find there is one other in that state at the Idaho Falls Rwy 2. I may have missed one in my quick check, but I think you get the point. The few back course approaches still in service tend to be for runways where the back course approach is rarely used during actual instrument conditions. Do Not Archive Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Airpark LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8502 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com Good Morning Cy, I believe you will find that MLI had one, but no longer does. That is the point I was so clumsily trying to make. When ILS first came on the scene, back course localizer approaches were very common. The CAA tried to build them at every site, if the surrounding terrain and obstacles would allow. They even had a few with glide slopes. As the years went by, most busy airports were equipped with either a full ILS or a localizer with "normal" sensing. (When I say "normal" sensing, we must remember that the localizer was designed in the days when VAR range stations were also being built and for which needle sensing depended on the direction you were flying. With the VAR, flying toward the needle was no more normal than flying away from the needle. Once VOR came upon the scene, pilots lost comfort "pulling" the needle and back courses became less popular.) The main reason the air carriers generally no longer train for, and utilize, circling approaches is not because they are less safe than straight in approaches, it is because they have so little need to do them. By eliminating circling approaches they can shorten the time spent in training and checking. If the weather is VFR, they can circle in those conditions, but that maneuver does not have to be trained for nor checked on a six month hood check. But I digress! The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out. I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt if you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The ones that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare. If it is possible to save a few bucks and reduce complexity by not providing the capability of flying a back course localizer approach, I would opt for the lower cost, lighter weight and fewer parts. If the back course capability can be provided with no additional cost, that is fine with me! I recently replaced my roll autopilot. S-Tec has a roll unit without back course coupling capability at a substantially lower cost and weight than their unit which does provide that function. When I considered that I had not had the need to use a back course localizer approach in at least twenty years, I elected to save the money, space, and weight that the more sophisticated unit needed. Many years ago, I would try to include a back course approach in Instrument Competency Checks every three or four years. It has been increasingly difficult to find one to use for the check rides. The only ones that I know of in Illinois are the one for Rwy 17 at RFD and the one for Rwy 11 at BMI. Matt Prather mentioned that he has one to play with at Boise. I do recall landing on Rwy 28 at Boise often in the distant past, but I do believe it was equipped with a full front course ILS back then. I see that it now has an MLS and I do believe that particular MLS was one of the first ones certificated in the USA. It is very unusual for a back course approach to be the only approach available for use in actual IFR conditions on a heavily used low weather runway. I checked Idaho and find there is one other in that state at the Idaho Falls Rwy 2. I may have missed one in my quick check, but I think you get the point. The few back course approaches still in service tend to be for runways where the back course approach is rarely used during actual instrument conditions. Do Not Archive Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Airpark LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8502 In a message dated 5/17/2005 6:48:07 A.M. Central Standard Time, cgalley(at)qcbc.org writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" > MLI has one I believe. ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ From: "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net<mailto:billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > Bob, the electrical system did energize briefly for a few seconds, until I pressed the starter button then everything was dead again. The switch to activate the e-buss had no effect (the turn coordinator and the engine instruments should have started, but they did not). The electronic ignition is wired to the battery buss and the power LED did not come on. I replaced the battery and everything worked normally. (I was able to borrow a battery and get the plane home.) There were aboslutely no other problems. The battery showed 12+ volts at the battery shop and given the minor tests the clerk did, appeared to be normal. I did try to charge it briefly. Typically, on a discharged battery, the meter on the charger will go to about 6 amps and then drop back slowly. In this case, the meter went to about 2 amps and was pretty steady. I suspect some sort of sudden fault in the battery itself, but have no way to test it. I don't even have the battery any more. My main concern is to know if this is just a random failure, or if it is something preventable. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr(at)cox.net>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > >> > > > >Hi all: I had an interesting situation yesterday afternoon, fortunately on > >the ground. > > > >I had completed a flight to another airport and when I went to start the > >aircraft for the return tirp, there was no electricity. The trip over had > >been about an hour earlier and no, I didn't leave the master switch on. > > > >The aircraft is wired using Bob's ideas with both a main and emergency > >buss. The single electronic ignition is wired directly from a battery > >buss. Nothing worked although the master contactor would click sometimes. > >It sounds like a classic dead battery, but the battery is only 2 1/2 - 3 > >years old and is an RG type. There has been no obvious signs of impending > >failure. > > > >I plan to replace the battery, but I wondered if anyone had any thoughts > >as to what the problem might be and how to prevent a recurrence. > > You say "sometimes" . . . on times that it DID click, did the > system come up? Were you able to start the engine? How did you > get the airplane home or is it stuck on the other airport. > > If your battery started the airplane earlier that day, it's > far from DEAD. If the contactor made no noise at all, the > most likely problem is the battery-master side of your > DC POWER MASTER switch. Do you have a diode across the > coil of the battery contactor as illustrated in: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s701-1l.jpg> > > If not, then the contactor's de-energizing spike > may have burned the contacts of the master switch > so as to make it unreliable. Replacement of the switch > and ADDITION of the diode would be indicated. > > Bob . . . > > > -- > > -- ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ From: "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net<mailto:billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > Bob, the bolts holding the wires to the terminals were tight, with no corrosion. A loose terminal may have been a problem, but, if so, it wasn't very loose. I thought I could feel a very slight movement in one of them and, after jiggling it a bit, I got the "best" response of having a few lights come on on the panel when the master switch was turned on. The effect didn't last long - only until I pressed the starter button. That may be as good an explanation as any I'm going to get, especially as I no longer have the battery. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr(at)cox.net>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > >> > > > >I don't believe it is a switch problem for the simple reason that three > >switches would all have to die suddenly. The master would produce the clicks > >from the master contacter, but when the switch that turns on the e-buss was > >turned on, nothing happened either. Also, there is a power light on the > >electronic ignition circuit and the powe comes directly from the battery. > >That circuit was dead also. > > > >Replacing the battery corrected all the problems. > > > >I just wonder if there is a way to prevent a recurrence. > > Yes, periodic cap testing of your battery . . . or some > other considered preventative maintenance program. I think > you mentioned that the battery was several years old. > 95% of the time, my "sudden" failures of batteries in > my vehicles was a loose post on the battery. Several > years ago, I did have a flooded battery behave as you've > described. Got in the car at store 2 miles away and it > started right up. Ten minutes after arriving home, I > identified another procurement task and the car wouldn't > start. Battery refused to carry even 8A worth of headlamp > loads. I stuck one of my 32 a.h. RG instrumentation batteries > in and drove to the parts store to buy a new battery for > the van. This battery was several years old too . . . more > than 3 and probably less than 5. > > Do you still have the old battery? Are you SURE that the > problem wasn't a poor connection at the battery post? > > Bob . . . > > > -- > > -- ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com Good Morning Bill, Just as a data point, I had a similar failure in a sealed battery on my minivan. One day it would start fine, the next day it did not. Tapping the connections seemed to bring it back on line sufficiently to allow some lighting, and so forth, to be powered, but when I hit the starter, it went completely sour again. Replacing the battery fixed the problem. My local auto service person tells me that such internal failures are relatively common. I have noted that some of the aircraft battery suppliers brag quite heavily as to their having higher quality internal connections than are found in competitive batteries. Unfortunately, I do not remember which provider it was that was doing the bragging! In any case, my last three batteries purchased for certificated aircraft have been Recombinant Gas Concordes. So far, so good. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Airpark LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8502 In a message dated 5/17/2005 8:47:21 A.M. Central Standard Time, billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net writes: Bob, the bolts holding the wires to the terminals were tight, with no corrosion. A loose terminal may have been a problem, but, if so, it wasn't very loose. I thought I could feel a very slight movement in one of them and, after jiggling it a bit, I got the "best" response of having a few lights come on on the panel when the master switch was turned on. The effect didn't last long - only until I pressed the starter button. ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr(at)cox.net>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rash of hijacked e-mail addresses --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > P.S. Bob, BTW, did this come from your old (hijacked) address: >> From: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net<mailto:bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: S.O.S. Kiez! Polizei schlaegt Alarm --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net Lese selbst: http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm> >> Yes, I got about a dozen bounces of the same message sent to a lot of folks I don't know and services I don't subscribe to. Actually, the bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net is my personal account that I run with a server based spam filter. The filter is fairly effective but I still get 20-30 pieces a of spam per day to that account. I've been hijacked several times before and both were cases where my email address was clearly published on my website. Since I went to a hidden address accessed through a form-mailer, the incidences have dropped way off . . . but that still doesn't keep the 'bots from finding your address in someone's address files. This goes directly to the point I was making about how children are raised. A very wise philosopher once noted: ----------------- "If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame. "If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good." ------------ With the probability of punishment becoming ever more remote in both our courts and other institutions of authority, many citizens are operating as if "freedom" means a license to indulge in any whim. When our parents (AND TEACHERS) don't endow their charges with a sense of shame, then it is expected that many will take pleasure in attacking the liberties of others be it through direct assault upon their persons or property or indirectly through things like floods of spam on the 'net. It takes no great talent or resources to be terribly destructive or disruptive. 9-11 demonstrated that. The roots of that behavior by any individual are firmly grounded in the absence of shame for not behaving in honorable ways. I have to believe that this is what the philosopher was thinking about when it was observed that, "The sins of the fathers shall beset the children for generations." This wasn't about observance of any particular dogma but the byproduct of having lost or ignored one's sense of shame. Bob . . . Do not archive ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net<mailto:emjones(at)charter.net>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Kilovac Konfession --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" > In case you were wondering, John, Steve, Scott and others...I confess--Yes, it was I who snatched up all the Kilovac EV200AAANA contactors on eBay yesterday. Regards, Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com<http://www.periheliondesign.com/> 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge MA 01550-2705 Phone (508) 764-2072 Email: emjones(at)charter.net "I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my father did.... Not screaming in terror like the passengers in his airplane." --anonymous ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr(at)cox.net>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" >> > >Bob, the bolts holding the wires to the terminals were tight, with no >corrosion. A loose terminal may have been a problem, but, if so, it wasn't >very loose. I thought I could feel a very slight movement in one of them >and, after jiggling it a bit, I got the "best" response of having a few >lights come on on the panel when the master switch was turned on. The effect >didn't last long - only until I pressed the starter button. > >That may be as good an explanation as any I'm going to get, especially as I >no longer have the battery. Too bad. I would ask that anyone on the list who observes or experiences a mystifying failure of ANY device . . . be it a battery, contactor, switch, etc. to try and capture the offending article and send it to me. We are beset by innumerable anecdotal incidences that go forever unexplained and never understood. Yet the fear of potential consequences for these incidences prompt decisions that drive up costs and may even drive system reliability down. In any case, no real considered design changes can take place unless we can get beyond the "tis so, taint so" phase of deliberations and deduce the simple-ideas upon which the failure was based. This battery may have suffered some form of chemical failure which might have been deduced in advance by periodic testing. It may have suffered a crack in a major conductor. I note that many battery manufacturers are moving away from pure lead terminal posts and bringing harder, more durable connections to the outside world. But in any case, please consider using 4AWG welding cable jumpers for your short leads from battery(-) to ground and battery(+) to contactor. This will greatly reduce the installation and operating stresses on the battery's terminals. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr(at)cox.net>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" >> > >Bob, the electrical system did energize briefly for a few seconds, until I >pressed the starter button then everything was dead again. The switch to >activate the e-buss had no effect (the turn coordinator and the engine >instruments should have started, but they did not). The electronic ignition >is wired to the battery buss and the power LED did not come on. > >I replaced the battery and everything worked normally. (I was able to borrow >a battery and get the plane home.) There were aboslutely no other problems. >The battery showed 12+ volts at the battery shop and given the minor tests >the clerk did, appeared to be normal. I did try to charge it briefly. >Typically, on a discharged battery, the meter on the charger will go to >about 6 amps and then drop back slowly. In this case, the meter went to >about 2 amps and was pretty steady. I suspect some sort of sudden fault in >the battery itself, but have no way to test it. I don't even have the >battery any more. > >My main concern is to know if this is just a random failure, or if it is >something preventable. > >Bill It sounds very much like a mechanical failure . . . cracked conductor perhaps? Without a teardown inspection, we'll never know. We DO know that batteries are manufactured in the millions and that the vast majority will perform as designed over the service life of the battery. We also know that most of the VSLA products are being used in stationary and/or relatively benign portable applications. Our use of such products in aircraft is undoubtedly pushing any battery's performance envelope with respect to both mechanical capabilities and chemical activity. In another post, I've encouraged everyone to capture mystifying failures and get them to me (or any other willing investigator) for failure evaluation. Without such data, the vast majority of decisions made on the evidence known are simple "whistles in the dark." Worse yet, such cases often tie brand names to failures that tend to unfairly reduce perceived value of the brand. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr(at)cox.net>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > >I have noted that some of the aircraft battery suppliers brag quite heavily >as to their having higher quality internal connections than are found in >competitive batteries. Unfortunately, I do not remember which provider >it was >that was doing the bragging! > >In any case, my last three batteries purchased for certificated aircraft >have been Recombinant Gas Concordes. > >So far, so good. > >Happy Skies, When I visited the Concord manufacturing facility about two years ago, folks there shared their personal experiences concerning internal connection failures (do to battery abuse) which ultimately produced a battery explosion. I related this story in a post about a month ago. Since that time, the same batteries have been deliberately abused by Navy battery testing labs in Crane, Indiana. The failure mode could not be re-produced. I've seen the Hawker production facilities too . . . they spot weld their inter-cell connections. One could debate reliability due to process sensitivity of the hand welded (see http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_1.jpg> and http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_2.jpg> ) crossovers versus spot welded. I know that both companies have submitted numerous test articles to the Crane labs for evaluation and both companies are qualified suppliers to the military based on those evaluations. I cannot speak to other brands . . . However, this failure mode included a pre-abuse cycle of the battery that damaged the crossovers. An aggressive recharge was next followed by an attempt to start which produced the final failure of the crossover and the explosion (which did no damage to the airplane). This is not likely to occur in a piston powered light aircraft. This, my friends, is the kind of data upon which rational design, purchasing and operating decisions are made. Anything less than this detail is is only fodder for television advertising or perhaps an "investigative report" by popular news media. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net<mailto:bakerocb(at)cox.net>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "John Schroeder" > <> 5/17/2005 Hello John, Thanks for the input. Yes, I think the light is coming on a little. I am at a real disadvantage in discussing this subject since I know very little about the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of CDI's and the means of feeding them. Here is my current thinking / guessing. The problems arise when you are trying to feed two different CDI's with one SL-30 and try to shift between CDI's. Since each CDI (and its resolver?) is a bit different it is not possible / convenient to accurately calibrate both of them to the one SL-30. But if you have one CDI, as I do, you can calibrate that one CDI to the one SL-30 using the set up procedure in the SL-30 manual and it will remain in calibration as you shift the CDI away from and then back to that same SL-30 by means of the multiple pole relay box installed. I am not sure how or why that same CDI stays accurately matched up to both the GPS outputs and the VOR/LOC outputs from the Garmin GNS 430, as mine does, when that source is connected to the CDI. It may have something to do with the nature of the signals coming from the GNS 430 and the devices within the CDI receiving those signals so that, no matter how the CDI may have been calibrated to the SL-30, the GNS 430 outputs are accurately displayed. So my conclusion about all the problems people discuss regarding shifting back and forth between CDI's and SL-30's is only a real problem if one is trying to feed two different CDI's / resolvers with one SL-30. Or if one is trying to feed one CDI with an SL-30 and another source (including a second SL-30) that demands that the CDI also be calibrated to it and the two calibrations are not compatible. It would be nice if David Buckwalter or John Stark would participate on this subject and provide some additional insight. OC PS: The pagination in my SL-30 manual is a bit different than yours. Mine is dated February 2000 on the front with a UPS part number of 560-0404-01. What is the date, company, and part number of your manual? ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com In a message dated 5/17/2005 10:26:24 A.M. Central Standard Time, bakerocb(at)cox.net writes: But if you have one CDI, as I do, you can calibrate that one CDI to the one SL-30 using the set up procedure in the SL-30 manual and it will remain in calibration as you shift the CDI away from and then back to that same SL-30 by means of the multiple pole relay box installed. Good Morning OC, The entire discussion is way over my head, but I do know that my local electronics guru does occasionally use a "smart box" to convert a non compatible signal to a compatible one when mixing various boxes together. What is inside the smart boxes and what the efficiency, or failure rate is, is another thing about which I know nothing, but it does seem to work! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Airpark LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8502 ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com<mailto:frank.hinde(at)hp.com>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > HF tools are very good value for money... Good tools I have bought 10" wood compound miter saw $100 14" benchtop bandsaw $100 6" chop saw/aluminium oxide wheels for alu angles $34 Due grinders...Superb $8 to 29 14" metal chop saw $49 Bunch of other stuff...which I can't remember right now. As to how fast the economy is going to slip away...try working in hi tech...All of our IT support is already in India and if you go on the web and put in "China manufacturing" you will get forms to fill in, send a drawing and the quote will come back...All shipping and customs taken care of. They will do anything from injection molding to CNC machining. I bet within 10 years we won't have a manufacturing economy and to be honest there is only so much innovation that the world needs. Sad but I think when you realise the Global rate for an IT professional is $320 a month....Well...we're screwed! Do not archive Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rd2(at)evenlink.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2(at)evenlink.com Absolutely agree. If we keep giving away freedoms by voting-in and agreeing with bureaucrats and media who tell us how to behave in our families, how to raise children, when and how to punish them - or not (in most cases), how to teach them to use condoms (how about introducing that in kindergarden), how to accept the unacceptable as "normal", "politically correct", or whatever nonsense adjective or noun they describe it with, the future does not look rosy. I don't remember that from my childhood and have my solution: that's the way I like it, that's the way it's gonna be. Sometimes we have to fight. Oh, well... Rumen do not archive P.S. Bob, BTW, did this come from your old (hijacked) address: >> From: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net<mailto:bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: S.O.S. Kiez! Polizei schlaegt Alarm --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net Lese selbst: http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm> >> _____________________Original message __________________________ (received from Robert L. Nuckolls, III; Date: 11:02 PM --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > ........... Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind. There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future of the US will be much less bright and more difficult. Bob . . . Do not archive ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: (no subject) From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com<mailto:frank.hinde(at)hp.com>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > The $7.99 trickle chargers (voltage sensing) have worked great for me for the last five years. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com<mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of TSaccio(at)aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: (no subject) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio(at)aol.com Sometime ago there was an article written on this site about low cost battery chargers from Harbor Freight. Does anyone have information as to the best one to buy? Tom Saccio ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ From: "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US<mailto:rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronald J. Parigoris" > Watch it if you wish to tap on connections of a suspect bad internal connection battery. My brother did such a thing on a car, it really was a bad connection internal where the terminals were, anyway the thing exploded and spewed acid all over. We had a pool pretty close, besides burning in his eyes for a while he was OK. Symptoms were as described, started OK, then bearly would light a few lights. When it exploded I was in the car and only the key was in the on position, no other load. I forget brand but it was kinda sortta a maintenance free battery, but you could still take the covers off to top up, but they were the type that were plenty stuck in place. Ron Parigoris > Tapping the > connections seemed to bring it back on line sufficiently to allow some lighting, and so > forth, to be powered, but when I hit the starter, it went completely sour > again." ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net<mailto:bakerocb(at)cox.net>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com <<....skip....... I wouldn't spend much to have back course capability. Old Bob 5/17/2005 Hello Old Bob, I agree, but then one doesn't have to spend anything extra to have localizer back course capability in their aircraft. If they have basic localizer front course capable airborne equipment they also have the capability to fly a published back course approach. They just need to remember to turn away from the needle to get to the localizer course centerline when actually flying inbound on a localizer back course approach. The fundamental airborne equipment capability is the same for either front course or back course operations. The only additional cost consideration for the airborne equipment is whether you want to add some localizer back course bells and whistles: 1) One can have just an indicator in the cockpit that tells the pilot "You are flying a localizer back course -- make sure that you turn away from the needle to get to the course centerline." 2) One can have equipment selectability that feeds the CDI in a fashion so that one would turn towards the needle to get to the localizer course centerline even though one is flying a localizer back course. This capability should also be accompanied by a cockpit indicator showing that that capability has been selected. UPS / Garmin built item 2) capability inherently into the SL-30 VHF Nav Comm. It probably took only a few lines of computer code in that digital device and the cost differential was trivial. But, as has been pointed out, published localizer back course approaches are not very common these days and as more GPS approaches and WAAS capability become available localizer back courses may become even rarer. OC PS: One should also use caution in attempting to fly on the localizer center line beyond the localizer antenna into the back course region if there is no published back course approach for that facility. There may be no relationship between your position, your CDI indications, and a hypothetically projected back course localizer centerline. ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ From: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com<mailto:paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht > Bob, I think you're totally right but I was thinking and I've flown the most LOC backcourses when flying a NON-back LOC approach but flying the full approach, outbound on the procedure turn. LOC 31 at ETB comes to mind - if you fly the full approach you intercept the LOC outbound (IAF is an on-field VOR) and have reverse-sensing. That is not going to go away.. of course full approaches are very rare in the radar environment but we should have the skill.. do not archive --- BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: > The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out. > > I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt if > you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The ones > that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare. ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ From: "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org<mailto:cgalley(at)qcbc.org>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" > You see what happens when old memory and being a non-instrument pilot brings. ----- Original Message ----- From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com > > Good Morning Cy, > > I believe you will find that MLI had one, but no longer does. > > That is the point I was so clumsily trying to make. > > When ILS first came on the scene, back course localizer approaches were > very > common. > > The CAA tried to build them at every site, if the surrounding terrain and > obstacles would allow. They even had a few with glide slopes. > > As the years went by, most busy airports were equipped with either a full > ILS or a localizer with "normal" sensing. (When I say "normal" sensing, we > must > remember that the localizer was designed in the days when VAR range > stations > were also being built and for which needle sensing depended on the > direction > you were flying. With the VAR, flying toward the needle was no more > normal > than flying away from the needle. Once VOR came upon the scene, pilots > lost > comfort "pulling" the needle and back courses became less popular.) > > The main reason the air carriers generally no longer train for, and > utilize, > circling approaches is not because they are less safe than straight in > approaches, it is because they have so little need to do them. > > By eliminating circling approaches they can shorten the time spent in > training and checking. If the weather is VFR, they can circle in those > conditions, > but that maneuver does not have to be trained for nor checked on a six > month > hood check. > > But I digress! > > The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out. > > I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt > if > you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The > ones > that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare. > > If it is possible to save a few bucks and reduce complexity by not > providing > the capability of flying a back course localizer approach, I would opt > for > the lower cost, lighter weight and fewer parts. > > If the back course capability can be provided with no additional cost, > that > is fine with me! > > I recently replaced my roll autopilot. > > S-Tec has a roll unit without back course coupling capability at a > substantially lower cost and weight than their unit which does provide > that function. > > When I considered that I had not had the need to use a back course > localizer > approach in at least twenty years, I elected to save the money, space, > and > weight that the more sophisticated unit needed. > > Many years ago, I would try to include a back course approach in > Instrument > Competency Checks every three or four years. It has been increasingly > difficult to find one to use for the check rides. The only ones that I > know of in > Illinois are the one for Rwy 17 at RFD and the one for Rwy 11 at BMI. > > Matt Prather mentioned that he has one to play with at Boise. > > > I do recall landing on Rwy 28 at Boise often in the distant past, but I do > believe it was equipped with a full front course ILS back then. I see > that it > now has an MLS and I do believe that particular MLS was one of the first > ones > certificated in the USA. It is very unusual for a back course approach to > be > the only approach available for use in actual IFR conditions on a heavily > used low weather runway. > > > I checked Idaho and find there is one other in that state at the Idaho > Falls > Rwy 2. I may have missed one in my quick check, but I think you get the > point. > > The few back course approaches still in service tend to be for runways > where > the back course approach is rarely used during actual instrument > conditions. > > Do Not Archive > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Ancient Aviator > Stearman N3977A > Brookeridge Airpark LL22 > Downers Grove, IL 60516 > 630 985-8502 > > > In a message dated 5/17/2005 6:48:07 A.M. Central Standard Time, > cgalley(at)qcbc.org writes: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" > > > MLI has one I believe. > > > ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ From: "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com<mailto:ken(at)truckstop.com>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics breaker --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" > Bob, Thanks for the reply. I hadn't thought about the basic similarity to the Z drawings. I do have another question for you. I understand the diode in the Z drawings prevents back feeding the main bus during a "main buss loss" event. In my case I can isolate these two buses by the use of the avionics master/relay without a diode. I can see a potential procedural problem if feeding the aux avionics breaker from the battery, though. If the normal avionics master and the aux avionics switch were on at the same time during a start I can see a potential for a big current through a little wire problem. I'm sure I can add the diode, but if I can eliminate a component and achive the same functionality, why not? I could "interlock" the two switches by using a double throw, but I have the Honeywell/Microswitch AML34 series rocker switches. I can't find one of these in a double through configuration, just SPST and DPST. If you or anyone else knows otherwise please let me know. It may be a moot point anyway. Moving the feed for the aux avionics breaker to the battery will take a bunch more work. There is a wire from the battery now (in the rear of the plane) to the breaker panel that feeds an LSE ignition. It's only 16AWG, though, so I couldn't enlist it to feed the aux avionics breaker. That's assuming I'm reading the current capacity numbers correctly. I hope I made all that clear enough. Thanks. Ken ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr(at)cox.net>> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" > >> >>My flying Glastar has a "conventional" electrical system with an avionics >>master switch and solenoid. I guess for fault tolerance reasons there is >>also a separate "aux avionics switch" with a separate breaker that can >>bypass the avionics solenoid and feed the avionics bus directly. >> >>This seems to add a level of complexity that provides very little if any >>benefit. There are only three pieces of avionics, a GNC250XL(10A), a >>GTX320(3A) and an intercom(1A). The aux avionics breaker is 15 Amps. >> >>As they say "if it ain't broke don't fix it". In this case I'm not trying >>to fix it, I'm trying to add a Trutrak autopilot and I'm trying to figure >>out the best way to wire in the power. The quickest would be to feed it >>separately from the main bus and not use the avionics bus. The most >>complex would be to re-wire the entire plane using a Z-drawing type >>configuration. I'm looking for a in-between solution, preferably closer to >>the first idea. > > the only difference between what you describe and what I've recommended > in the z-figures is where the alternate power feed for the endurance > (avionics) bus comes from. I prefer to take it right from the battery > bus . . . and then move a few useful items like minimal panel lighting, > turn coordinator and perhaps a voltmeter to the endurance bus. > > your autopilot could run from the endurance bus nicely . . . I think > I'd add a no-feedback diode into the normal feedpath and move the second > feedpath to the battery. The "aux avionics" breaker could move to the > battery bus and you could use miniature contactor (relay) to support > the larger than normal aux feed path. See figure Z-32. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr<mailto:Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Kilovac Konfession --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> >-Yes, >it was I who snatched up all the Kilovac EV200AAANA contactors on eBay >yesterday. > > > Eric, Would you care to conduct some tests on these babies and share the results with us ? Two questions keep nagging at me : - What was that Kilovac-induced noise that was disturbing my LVWM ? - Do the Kilovacs really need a diode across the coil/control wires ? To this moment I've not been in a position to perform such tests, although I've just been given an ITT/Metrix OX 7520 oscilloscope. By the way, anyone around happen to have a manual for this 'scope ? Thanks, Regards, Gilles Thesee Grenoble, France ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ From: Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net<mailto:retasker(at)optonline.net>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker > Perhaps not all hope is not lost. My company is doing fine (www.astsensors.com<http://www.astsensors.com/>) and we do all our design and manufacturing in the USA. We do buy a few machined parts from China when the cost is significantly lower, but we buy the majority from US suppliers. Yes, the prices are a little higher for the US parts but that is outweighed by the response time, the ease of interfacing with local vendors and the lack of international shipping. Our annual sales have been growing by 40-50% per year for the last five years and we expect that to continue (60% for the first quarter this year). We successfully compete with manufacturers in the US, Europe (including Eastern Europe) and China for sales internationally. It turns out that treating your employees right, good customer support and a quality product allows you to remain competitive despite slightly higher manufacturing costs. Our major hindrance to even faster growth is lack of available financing. It seems that the banks (and everyone else for that matter) don't want to talk to you unless you don't really need money or unless you have a pie-in-the-sky idea with no actual product. Someone like us - who have a viable product and growing sales - don't interest them. Sorry for the rant, but it is very frustrating and one of the reasons there are not more successful small businesses. Dick Tasker Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" > >> >>A couple of nights ago I was working out on a stair machine at my health >>club in a Seattle suburb, reading Thomas Friedman's book, "The World is >>Flat", which Eric mentioned. >> >> > > I just ordered that book on a audio CD from my local library. > I'll keep it in the CD player in my car for the next week or so. > > > > >>We can all have our own reasons for buying or not buying from any company or >>country we want, but to dismiss anything manufactured in China as being of >>low quality is to be maybe a quarter of a century behind the times. >> >> > > Well put. I've been gigged by many dishonorable and/or incapable > individuals over the years. Some were in China, most were not. > I have several machine tools from HF that have demonstrated > some limitations but for the most part, have been good value. > I was able to produce parts that sold for a great deal more than > the tools cost. In the grand scheme of things, the consumer/ > supplier transactions were all accomplished to the satisfaction of > persons involved. > > Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services > to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind. > There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play > to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very > powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't > radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future > of the US will be much less bright and more difficult. > > Bob . . . > >Do not archive > > > > ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com In a message dated 5/17/2005 11:14:36 A.M. Central Standard Time, paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com writes: Bob, I think you're totally right but I was thinking and I've flown the most LOC backcourses when flying a NON-back LOC approach but flying the full approach, outbound on the procedure turn. LOC 31 at ETB comes to mind - if you fly the full approach you intercept the LOC outbound (IAF is an on-field VOR) and have reverse-sensing. That is not going to go away.. of course full approaches are very rare in the radar environment but we should have the skill.. do not archive Good Afternoon Paul, Obviously, if one is to fly outbound via the localizer front course, the pilot should be aware of how that is done. What I was trying to emphasize is that there is very little, if any, advantage to be gained by spending any extra funds to get an autopilot that will track in that mode. If you can get the capability in a flight management system or on an autopilot at no cost in dollars, weight or extra panel space, I would go for it, but I would not spend one red cent, give up one once of payload, one inch of panel space, for that capability. Modern navigation is all To-To navigation and flying outbound on any approach is such a very rare thing that I feel it can be handled comfortably using raw data and visual pilot observation and manipulation. If someone absolutely has to use an autopilot to fly that outbound leg, use the heading mode!. Better yet, load the point being flown TO in an IFR approved GPS and couple the autopilot to that. More than one way to skin a cat. Do Not Archive Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Airpark LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8502 ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com<mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com In a message dated 5/17/2005 11:11:52 A.M. Central Standard Time, bakerocb(at)cox.net writes: The only additional cost consideration for the airborne equipment is whether you want to add some localizer back course bells and whistles: 1) One can have just an indicator in the cockpit that tells the pilot "You are flying a localizer back course -- make sure that you turn away from the needle to get to the course centerline." Good Afternoon OC, That is, of course, completely correct. I was commenting primarily on those autopilots and flight directors which have the extra bells and whistles to help the folks who have not been taught to "pull" the needle. As I mentioned earlier, in the days of VARs, we all knew how to do that, but the technique is rarely used these days. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Airpark LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8502 ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net<mailto:nuckollsr(at)cox.net>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht >> > >Bob, > >I think you're totally right but I was thinking and I've flown the most LOC >backcourses when flying a NON-back LOC approach but flying the full approach, >outbound on the procedure turn. LOC 31 at ETB comes to mind - if you fly the >full approach you intercept the LOC outbound (IAF is an on-field VOR) and have >reverse-sensing. That is not going to go away.. of course full approaches are >very rare in the radar environment but we should have the skill.. At Cessna in the 60's we offered an optional double-pole, double-throw switch next to the LOC indicator that would reverse the connections to the needle for flying the back-course. It's an easy thing to add to an installation where the back-course capability is desired. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ From: "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com<mailto:ken(at)truckstop.com>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" > Does anyone know a source for these rocker switches other than NewGlasair. I finally got ahold of them today and the factory has given them a six week lead time. Thanks. Ken DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net<mailto:ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England > AI Nut wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AI Nut > > >Nearly EVERYthing one gets that was made in China is pure junk. And I >don't mean just the boats, either. >And don't forget they are still killing Americans (and others) with >impunity. > The 1st statement is obviously not true. As to the 2nd, perhaps you are better informed than the rest of us & can enlighten us? Charlie ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net<mailto:jschroeder(at)perigee.net>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" > > PS: The pagination in my SL-30 manual is a bit different than yours. > Mine is dated February 2000 on the front with a UPS part number of > 560-0404-01. What is the date, company, and part number of your manual? OC: My Manual is: August 2003 560-0404-03A I would agree with your interpretation of the page I referenced: You should not switch the SL-30's between separate OBS's (CDI's) without calibrating the instrument per the book before using the OBS. As to why yours appears to work when it is switched from the 430 between its nav section to its GPS section: Perhaps, Garmin specked that their "G-106A" have circuitry that automatically does this. Another alternative is that the signals in the 430 are sync'd to a standard before they are sent to the OBS (G-106). These are guesses. Does the installation manual for the 430 have a calibration procedure for the VOR/ILS section to an external OBS? From the GPS section to an external OBS. Might be worth a check. Best, John -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 19, 2005
From: Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com>
Subject: Re: Something Completely Different
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu On 05/19 8:59, Chuck Jensen wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" > > Walter wrote... > The number of lead spheres, just fitting into the barrel, that would > equal one pound. So if 12 perfectly fitting lead balls fit > into the barrel and weigh 1 pound, then this is a 12ga shotgun. > > Except for shotguns with bores measuring less than 1/2". > Then you use the bore measurment, ie. .410 shotguns. > > I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. It sound more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge. Completely off topic but fossilized minds want to know--at least this one. You are right, they were essentially measureing barrel/sphere diameters and barrel length, hence the guage. Today's shotguns shoot a variety of pellet sizes, not slugs, or single lead spheres. Of course you can still buy slug for shotguns today but they are less popular. A standard shot sphere size was determined after much trial and error. Powder, shot, wads, casings, caps, crimps, barrel length, chokes and a bunch of other things are taken into consideration when creating today's shotgun shells, of any guage. The shot size, shot weight, barrel length, powder type, etc, need to be such that an appropriate amount of gunpowder will effectivly eject the shot, kill it's intended victim, and not blow up the barrel and shooter. You must remember that way back in the day, steel wasn't the steel we have today. I wouldn't put today's 12ga shotgun shells into a Damascus barrel shotgun more than a few times, for fear of it blowing up. The physics of creating the perfect shot shell is something that ballistics experts continue to tinker with today. You can't have a 6' long barrel and it can't be 5" in diameter. Neither of them will kill anything, except perhaps the shooter. You can only get so much lead into any given configuration, and have it fire in an expected, repeatable way, and kill something you want to eat, or otherwise. There is a happy medium (of shot sphere size) for any given barrel length and amount of powder, and type of powder. Since I wasn't there when the guages were developed, I'm recanting what I know from heresay and book reading. Don't take my word for it but it sounds fair. Does that make any sense or should I have another glass of wine? do not archive -- Walter Tondu http://www.rv7-a.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 19, 2005
From: chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org
Subject: 12/14v instruments and accessories in a 24/28v plane
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID487JeTD5N0290X38 1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org Hi folks - newcomer to the list. My family is building a Lancair IV P-T here in Arizona. It's got a starter/generator as the main electrical supply at 28v. Most of the stuff on the panel and in the plane is happy at either 14/28v or at 28v only. However, one critical Becker comm. is 14v only (on the essential bus). There's also some creature comfort entertainment stuff that's designed to run off 14v as well (very low on the priority list). For a battery we're stacking two Oddessy batteries in series. It occurs to me that we could run two separate DC-DC converters to step down the 28v to 14v. Or we could simply run a couple of busses off the lower potential battery and get out 12v directly. Anyone have any thoughts on a down side to running my 12v stuff diretly off one battery? Will there be a problem as the two batteries will be (slightly) unevenly loaded? My understanding is that the spare electrons from the higher potential battery will migrate to the second battery and both will then charge from the generator. There'd be no problem adding a few DC-DC converters if strictly necessary, but I liked the elegance of not including them if possible. Thanks- Chad Chad Sipperley chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org Phoenix, AZ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 19, 2005
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Something Completely Different
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England Chuck Jensen wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" > >Walter wrote... >The number of lead spheres, just fitting into the barrel, that would >equal one pound. So if 12 perfectly fitting lead balls fit >into the barrel and weigh 1 pound, then this is a 12ga shotgun. > >Except for shotguns with bores measuring less than 1/2". >Then you use the bore measurment, ie. .410 shotguns. > >I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. It sound more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge. Completely off topic but fossilized minds want to know--at least this one. > >chuck >DO NOT ARCHIVE > I had to scratch body parts for a while, too. My take: the balls are the same diameter as the bore of the barrel. Add balls to the scale until you get a pound, count the balls & that's your gauge. .410 is 410 thousanths of an inch. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 19, 2005
From: Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET>
Subject: Re: Something Completely Different
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley At 07:34 PM 5/19/05, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" > > >If you take one pound of lead and make exactly 12 perfect spheres with >it, their diameter is the bore size of a 12 ga. shotgun. Likewise for >16 ga. or 20 ga. There used to be larger gauges like 10 or 8 ga., but >the gauges above 12 are not used any more. Not true. There are plenty of 10 guage autos, pumps, doubles and singles on the market. Browning has a very nice auto 10 called the "Gold Hunter" for geese and turkeys. Now, I have a 4 gage side by side "punt gun" with Damascus barrels that's - um - difficult to get ammo for. It was meant for market hunting - go out in a small boat and take out a flock of ducks with 2 shots, sell them at market. Do not archive ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2005
From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Fat Wire Terminals on Starter Contactor
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" Hello Bob, you're on the right way, I did exactly the same and did use two rubber boots slightly modified, on my Star, so they cover all the exposed metal parts of the stud and cables. Not pretty but functional. Werner ----- Original Message ----- From: "r falstad" <bobair8(at)msn.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fat Wire Terminals on Starter Contactor > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "r falstad" > > I'm starting to wire my GlaStar. I plan on terminating the 2 AWG from the battery + and the 6 AWG from the alternator + to the same post on the starter contactor. I also need to terminate the wire from the power bus somewhere and the closest place that will see the battery is the same post on the starter contactor. Is this right? That will put three fairly large terminals on one post. Don't you need a rubber terminal nipple to cover the terminals and post so if anything gets loose in the engine compartment, you don't run the risk of a direct short to ground? How do you insulate that arrangement? > > Best regards, > > Bob > ----- Original Message ----- > From: AeroElectric-List Digest Server > To: AeroElectric-List Digest List > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 1:55 AM > Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 20 Msgs - 05/18/05 > > > * > > > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive > > > Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the > two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted > in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes > and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version > of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor > such as Notepad or with a web browser. > > HTML Version: > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-05-18.html> > > Text Version: > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-05-18.txt> > > > EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive > > > AeroElectric-List Digest Archive > --- > Total Messages Posted Wed 05/18/05: 20 > > > Today's Message Index: > ---------------------- > > 1. 02:36 AM - Trickle Chargers (Mike Lehman) > 2. 04:38 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (William Bernard) > 3. 05:57 AM - Re: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 (flmike) > 4. 08:37 AM - Re: Re: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 (Ken Simmons) > 5. 11:34 AM - Re: Trickle Chargers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) > 6. 11:56 AM - Re: Trickle Chargers (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) > 7. 01:07 PM - Re: GI-106A Back Course () > 8. 02:03 PM - Re: Re: GI-106A Back Course (dsvs(at)comcast.net) > 9. 02:05 PM - Re: Re: GI-106A Back Course (Stein Bruch) > 10. 02:21 PM - Re: Re: GI-106A Back Course (Tim Dawson-Townsend) > 11. 02:38 PM - Re: Re: GI-106A Back Course (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) > 12. 02:57 PM - Load Analysis (Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com) > 13. 03:20 PM - Re: Load Analysis (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) > 14. 03:51 PM - Re: Full Charge on Battery? () > 15. 07:12 PM - Re: Load Analysis (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) > 16. 07:17 PM - Re: Load Analysis (rv-9a-online) > 17. 07:45 PM - Re: Load Analysis (TKT wire) (Chris) > 18. 09:26 PM - Starter Contactor Location on Long-EZ (Scott Winn) > 19. 09:48 PM - Re: Re: Full Charge on Battery? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) > 20. 09:52 PM - Re: Load Analysis (TKT wire) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) > > > ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ > > > From: "Mike Lehman" <lehmans(at)sympatico.ca<mailto:lehmans(at)sympatico.ca>> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Trickle Chargers > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Lehman" > > > Got any unused AC adapters around? I've found that 12 VDC units will > typically trickle charge a wet cell at about 50 to 100 mA. If, after a few > days, you find the battery voltage rise becomes higher than you like, a > timer can be used to cycle the adapter. Getting fancy, a higher voltage > adapter can used with a LM317 regulator. > > Mike > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > > > > The $7.99 trickle chargers (voltage sensing) have worked great for me > for the last five years. > > -----Original Message----- > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio(at)aol.com > > Sometime ago there was an article written on this site about low cost > battery chargers from Harbor Freight. Does anyone have information as to > the best one to buy? Tom Saccio > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ > > > From: "William Bernard" > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > > > Thanks, Bob and all. The new battery has noticably larger posts, but they > are still lead. The cables are #4 welding cable, but due to geometry issues > the one on the "+" post is pretty short where it goes through the side of > the battery box. The cables do lie pretty much parallel to the side of the > battery posts and within about 1/8" of them so the strain on the battery > posts from the cables should be minimal. > > Thanks again for the help. > > Bill > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > > > > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > > >> > > > > > >Bob, the electrical system did energize briefly for a few seconds, until > I > > >pressed the starter button then everything was dead again. The switch to > > >activate the e-buss had no effect (the turn coordinator and the engine > > >instruments should have started, but they did not). The electronic > ignition > > >is wired to the battery buss and the power LED did not come on. > > > > > >I replaced the battery and everything worked normally. (I was able to > borrow > > >a battery and get the plane home.) There were aboslutely no other > problems. > > >The battery showed 12+ volts at the battery shop and given the minor > tests > > >the clerk did, appeared to be normal. I did try to charge it briefly. > > >Typically, on a discharged battery, the meter on the charger will go to > > >about 6 amps and then drop back slowly. In this case, the meter went to > > >about 2 amps and was pretty steady. I suspect some sort of sudden fault > in > > >the battery itself, but have no way to test it. I don't even have the > > >battery any more. > > > > > >My main concern is to know if this is just a random failure, or if it is > > >something preventable. > > > > > >Bill > > > > It sounds very much like a mechanical failure . . . cracked conductor > > perhaps? Without a teardown inspection, we'll never know. We DO know > > that batteries are manufactured in the millions and that the vast > majority > > will perform as designed over the service life of the battery. We > > also know that most of the VSLA products are being used in stationary > > and/or relatively benign portable applications. Our use of such > products > > in aircraft is undoubtedly pushing any battery's performance envelope > > with respect to both mechanical capabilities and chemical activity. > > > > In another post, I've encouraged everyone to capture mystifying > failures > > and get them to me (or any other willing investigator) for failure > > evaluation. Without such data, the vast majority of decisions made > > on the evidence known are simple "whistles in the dark." Worse yet, > > such cases often tie brand names to failures that tend to unfairly > > reduce perceived value of the brand. > > > > Bob . . . > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > -- > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ > > > From: flmike <flmike2001(at)yahoo.com<mailto:flmike2001(at)yahoo.com>> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: flmike > > > Allied shows stock. > > http://www.alliedelec.com/cart/ProductDetail.asp?SKU642-0131&SEARCHaml34&ID&DESCAML34FBA4AC01> > > > __________________________________ > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ > > > From: "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com<mailto:ken(at)truckstop.com>> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" > > > Thanks for the help. I finally found the same one at Newark. This one is a double > pole. That's why I couldn't find it before because I was looking for a specific > part number. Shouldn't make a difference in this application. I think this > is what NewGlasair calls their master switch. The one from Allied is cheaper > and the one from Newark is cheaper still. > > Thanks. > Ken > > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: flmike <flmike2001(at)yahoo.com<mailto:flmike2001(at)yahoo.com>> > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: flmike > > > > >Allied shows stock. > > > >http://www.alliedelec.com/cart/ProductDetail.asp?SKU642-0131&SEARCHaml34&ID &DESCAML34FBA4AC01 > > > > > > > >__________________________________ > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ > > > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Trickle Chargers > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Lehman" > > > > >Got any unused AC adapters around? I've found that 12 VDC units will > >typically trickle charge a wet cell at about 50 to 100 mA. If, after a few > >days, you find the battery voltage rise becomes higher than you like, a > >timer can be used to cycle the adapter. Getting fancy, a higher voltage > >adapter can used with a LM317 regulator. > > > >Mike > > A few years ago, I published a compendium of circuits which > suggested various power sources and techniques for long term > storage and controlled charging of batteries. Several circuits > touch on Mike's suggestion above. > > If you have the goodies laying around and really want to spend > the time to assemble your own, by all means. It's an excellent > learning experience. However, please consider commercial off-the- > shelf (COTS) products that do a better job and often cost less than > the bill of materials for a DIY project. I've added the Battery Tender > data to the back of the diagrams now available at: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/Charger_Maintainers.pdf> > > I just received a couple of Battery Tender Jr.s in the mail which > cost me right at $30 each. > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ > > > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Trickle Chargers > From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > > > Or $7.99 from Harbor Freight...:) > > www.harborfreight.com<http://www.harborfreight.com/> > > Frank > > > I just received a couple of Battery Tender Jr.s in the mail which > cost me right at $30 each. > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ > > > From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net<mailto:bakerocb(at)cox.net>> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Schroeder" > > Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course > > > > OC - > > > > My understanding is that the MD200 needle is directional on the back > > course. ie. If the needle is off to the right, you turn right to > > intercept. I do not know how the GI-106A needle works. My recollection of > > the CDI's of 40 years ago + or -, is that on the back course, one turns > > opposite to the needle to intercept. Of course, this is perhaps a moot > > topic for discussion because of the apparent paucity of true back course > > ILS's. John > > 5/18/2005 > > Hello John, While flying a localizer back course most pilots would find it > easier if their equipment had the capability to be put into a back course > mode because then the pilot would be turning towards the needle to get back > on the localizer center line just as they would do in a front course > approach -- one less "different thing" to remember. > > Since the electronic emission pattern sent from the localizer antenna > remains the same over time, regardless of where the aircraft is located or > the what the pilot's intentions are, the pilot must take some overt physical > action (move a switch) on his equipment (normally the localizer receiver or > the autopilot / flight director) in the cockpit in order to tell that > equipment to: > > 1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the > centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course > region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order > to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point. > > 2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the > cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my > equipment. > > If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a > light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one > might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which > has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle > movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back > course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to > change the mode of needle movement. > > The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which > localizer region that the aircraft is flying in. > > OC > > PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit > more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound > course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region > the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would > produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ > > > From: dsvs(at)comcast.net<mailto:dsvs(at)comcast.net> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs(at)comcast.net > > OC, > The HSI is no smarter, the needle is always pointed aat the transmitter. When > you are in the backcourse it points behind the ac nose and this corrects for the > "backwards" needle. Don > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "John Schroeder" > > > To: > > > Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course > > > > > > > OC - > > > > > > My understanding is that the MD200 needle is directional on the back > > > course. ie. If the needle is off to the right, you turn right to > > > intercept. I do not know how the GI-106A needle works. My recollection of > > > the CDI's of 40 years ago + or -, is that on the back course, one turns > > > opposite to the needle to intercept. Of course, this is perhaps a moot > > > topic for discussion because of the apparent paucity of true back course > > > ILS's. John > > > > 5/18/2005 > > > > Hello John, While flying a localizer back course most pilots would find it > > easier if their equipment had the capability to be put into a back course > > mode because then the pilot would be turning towards the needle to get back > > on the localizer center line just as they would do in a front course > > approach -- one less "different thing" to remember. > > > > Since the electronic emission pattern sent from the localizer antenna > > remains the same over time, regardless of where the aircraft is located or > > the what the pilot's intentions are, the pilot must take some overt physical > > action (move a switch) on his equipment (normally the localizer receiver or > > the autopilot / flight director) in the cockpit in order to tell that > > equipment to: > > > > 1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the > > centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course > > region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order > > to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point. > > > > 2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the > > cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my > > equipment. > > > > If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a > > light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one > > might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which > > has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle > > movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back > > course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to > > change the mode of needle movement. > > > > The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which > > localizer region that the aircraft is flying in. > > > > OC > > > > PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit > > more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound > > course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region > > the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would > > produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ > > > From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com<mailto:stein(at)steinair.com>> > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" > > > The MD-200-306 operates as you require below. Their manual nearly states > verbatim for operation as you noted below. Also, that indicator has the > "BC" annunciation on the face of it as wel. > > Just as an aside, you guys do realize the GI-102/106A and the MD-200 202/203 > & 206/207 are all the same instrument. > > Just my 2 cents as usual! > > Cheers, > Stein. > > > -----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: Re: GI-106A Back Course > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Schroeder" > > Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course > > 5/18/2005 > > > 1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the > centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course > region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order > to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point. > > 2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the > cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my > equipment. > > If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a > light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one > might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which > has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle > movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back > course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to > change the mode of needle movement. > > The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which > localizer region that the aircraft is flying in. > > OC > > PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit > more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound > course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region > the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would > produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications > > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ > > > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course > From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" > > > > The very nature of the geometry of an HSI sets you up well for backcourse approaches > if you follow the correct procedure. > > The real challenge is for those without an HSI, who must use a conventional CDI > . . . > > TDT > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Stein > Bruch > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" > > > The MD-200-306 operates as you require below. Their manual nearly states > verbatim for operation as you noted below. Also, that indicator has the > "BC" annunciation on the face of it as wel. > > Just as an aside, you guys do realize the GI-102/106A and the MD-200 202/203 > & 206/207 are all the same instrument. > > Just my 2 cents as usual! > > Cheers, > Stein. > > > -----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: Re: GI-106A Back Course > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Schroeder" > > Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course > > 5/18/2005 > > > 1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the > centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course > region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order > to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point. > > 2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the > cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my > equipment. > > If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a > light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one > might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which > has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle > movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back > course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to > change the mode of needle movement. > > The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which > localizer region that the aircraft is flying in. > > OC > > PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit > more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound > course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region > the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would > produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications > > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ > > > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course > From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > > > While we're on the subject of CDI's. > > Does anyone have any experience of using the BMA glass screen CDI driven > from the Nav radio in actual IFR conditions? > > Does it really work? > > Frank > Trying to decide on instruments for an IFR RV7. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim > Dawson-Townsend > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" > --> > > > > The very nature of the geometry of an HSI sets you up well for > backcourse approaches if you follow the correct procedure. > > The real challenge is for those without an HSI, who must use a > conventional CDI . . . > > TDT > > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ > > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis > From: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com<mailto:Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com> > 05/18/2005 02:56:20 PM > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com > > I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7 > electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on > the following: > > When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment > item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the > purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state? > Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on > transmit. > > Thanks, > > Jim > > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ > > > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis > From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > > > Depends if you intend to transmit all the time I guess?...:) > > The steady state loads for sizing the alternator and wiring...Use the > transient loads only if the load is sustained...say more than 10 > seconds?...That should give you a cut off. > > The little bit of extra the alt needs to give will be taken care by the > fact you will oversize the alt by some margin...Say 5amps minimum. > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com > > I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7 > electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure > on the following: > > When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each > equipment item, there's usually a steady state current and a max > current. For the purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the > max or steady state? > Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up > on transmit. > > Thanks, > > Jim > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ > > > From: <davgray(at)sbcglobal.net<mailto:davgray(at)sbcglobal.net>> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Full Charge on Battery? > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > > I chanced apon this site. The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may not be getting > a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is made. If true, > this could be a problem for electrically dependent engines. > > http://batterytender.com/notice_odyssey.php?osCsid88978aa7c540510e2215932c22b512e5> > > Any clarification would be appreciated. > > Gary > > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ > > > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com > > > >I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7 > >electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on > >the following: > > > >When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment > >item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the > >purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state? > >Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on > >transmit. > > STEADY states for load analysis, MAX load for wire and fuse/CB > sizing. > > On similar topic, I was doing a lunchtime learning session for > some of my fellow RAC employees and the question was asked > about how fragile is a wire? If you're set up to protect a > 22AWG wire at 5A . . . what is the risk at say, 10A? or more? > I've read conversation on this matter numerous times on the list, > folks are belabored of the impression that wire will poof and > smoke at just over the "rated" current. > > Just for grins, I went to the bench and rigged a segment > of 22AWG Tefzel wire between two c-clamps, attached a > thermocouple and biased the wire up in 5A steps to 20A. > The picture at . . . > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/20A_22AWG.jpg> > > was taken after 10 minutes operation at 20A! The wire > temperature was just over 100C. The wire was rated for > 150C. I was going to increase the current until the > wire smoked but when I tried to push 25A through it, > the breaker on my bench supply feeder popped. I need > to run a 220 line to the bench supply before I can > finish the experiment. Suffice it to say that fears > about burning wires when even severely overloaded > with respect to breaker size and wire "rating" are > not well founded. These wires are quite robust and > in fact, we depend on those qualities for crafting > VERY robust electrical systems. > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ > > > From: rv-9a-online > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online > > > Jim, it's good to analyze both. > > The sum of steady state loads should be about 80% or less of your > alternator rating, in 'normal' configuration (typical worst case flight > such as night operations). Any excess capacity is good for charging > your battery. > > Worst case transient loads, such as your comm in tx mode can be handled > by the battery. > > If the worst case transient is less than your alternator rating, your > battery will be somewhat less stressed. > > Vern Little > > Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com > > > >I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7 > >electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on > >the following: > > > >When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment > >item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the > >purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state? > >Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on > >transmit. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Jim > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ > > > From: "Chris" <toaster73(at)earthlink.net<mailto:toaster73(at)earthlink.net>> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis (TKT wire) > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris" > > > Speaking of wire is TKT an available wire for home building or is it > expensive and not worth it? > Thanks > Chris Lucas > RV-10 > #40072 > wings > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > > > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com > >> > >>I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7 > >>electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure > >>on > >>the following: > >> > >>When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment > >>item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the > >>purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state? > >>Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on > >>transmit. > > > > STEADY states for load analysis, MAX load for wire and fuse/CB > > sizing. > > > > On similar topic, I was doing a lunchtime learning session for > > some of my fellow RAC employees and the question was asked > > about how fragile is a wire? If you're set up to protect a > > 22AWG wire at 5A . . . what is the risk at say, 10A? or more? > > I've read conversation on this matter numerous times on the list, > > folks are belabored of the impression that wire will poof and > > smoke at just over the "rated" current. > > > > Just for grins, I went to the bench and rigged a segment > > of 22AWG Tefzel wire between two c-clamps, attached a > > thermocouple and biased the wire up in 5A steps to 20A. > > The picture at . . . > > > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/20A_22AWG.jpg> > > > > was taken after 10 minutes operation at 20A! The wire > > temperature was just over 100C. The wire was rated for > > 150C. I was going to increase the current until the > > wire smoked but when I tried to push 25A through it, > > the breaker on my bench supply feeder popped. I need > > to run a 220 line to the bench supply before I can > > finish the experiment. Suffice it to say that fears > > about burning wires when even severely overloaded > > with respect to breaker size and wire "rating" are > > not well founded. These wires are quite robust and > > in fact, we depend on those qualities for crafting > > VERY robust electrical systems. > > > > Bob . . . > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ > > > From: Scott Winn <sbwinn(at)gmail.com<mailto:sbwinn(at)gmail.com>> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Starter Contactor Location on Long-EZ > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Winn > > > Hi, > > I am utilizing a Z-13 diagram in my Long-EZ. I am trying to decide on > the location of the starter contactor, if it should be on the firewall > or in the nose with the batteries. Looking at the Z13 diagram there > is nothing to indicate that the 4AWG wire going from the battery > contactor to the starter contactor has to be especially short. This > would indicate to me that the large wire can be run the length of the > plane with the contactor on the firewall. I am actually planning to > run 2AWG because of the extra length. This allows me to connect the > alternator output to the starter contactor so I don't have to make two > runs of large wire to hook up both the alternator and the starter. If > the concactor was in the nose, I'd have to run a second large wire > just for the alternator. > > My concern is that I don't see any protection for the 4AWG wire that > runs between the starter contactor and battery contactor. Is it > really OK to string an unprotected wire capable of delivering 100+ > amps all the way down the plane? > > Secondly, my engine has an automotive starter conversion on it. Is > there any disadavantage to using the built in soleniod instead of an > external contactor? The starter is off of a Toyota and the soleniods > are quite reliable. Obviously if I need to put the contactor in the > nose then I'll have to use an external one. > > Thanks for your thoughts! > > > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ > > > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Full Charge on Battery? > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > > > >I chanced apon this site. The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may not > >be getting a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is > >made. If true, this could be a problem for electrically dependent engines. > > > >http://batterytender.com/notice_odyssey.php?osCsid88978aa7c540510e2215932c2 2b512e5 > > > >Any clarification would be appreciated. > > The 14.4 to 14.7 value is recommended for rapid recharge > of the battery . . . and probably assumes that the battery > was deeply discharged before the recharge cycle begins. > The charging recommendations publication for Odyssey can > be found at . . . > > http://www.enersysreservepower.com/odycharg_a.asp> > > . . . where we read that the fast recharge voltage > should not be sustained for more than 24 hours. They > recommend reduction to a "standby" charge value of > 13.6 to 13.8 volts. A value that is consistent with > the rest of the lead-acid battery industry. One could > use the numbers on this chart for ANY lead-acid technology > except that I would say that you don't leave the fast-charge > level on for more thank, say one tank of fuel duration > or much less than 24 hours. Any battery in an airplane > should be fully recharged in about one hour after > starting the engine. This is the reason for the "75% > rule" on alternator sizing in certified ships. If one > has used a max of 45A on a 60A machine to run the > airplane, you have 15A left over to quickly recharge > a deeply discharged battery. Boosting the voltage > to 14.7 increases the battery's willingness to accept > energy . . . but this level should not be maintained > indefinitely. > > Check out page 8 of . . . > > http://www.enersysreservepower.com/documents/US_GPL_SG_001_0303.pdf> > > and you see the same kinds of fast charge and float > voltage ranges. Same goes for Panasonic where on > page 3 of . . . > > http://www.enersysreservepower.com/documents/US_GPL_SG_001_0303.pdf> > > . . . we find 13.7 as a recommended float charge and 14.7 > as a recommended fast charge voltage at 25C. > > Bottom line is that ANY lead acid battery by ANY manufacturer > will ultimately achieve 100% charge at 13.8V at 25C. It'a all > a matter of how long you want to wait. If you're in a hurry, > then jack the voltage up a tad for a SHORT period of time to > speed up the recharge process. If your system is not endowed > with a automatic recharge/float voltage controller . . . well > shucks. Guess we'll have to compromise and set the critter up > for 14.2 and quit worrying about it. That's the lead-acid > set-point of choice for light aircraft since Duane Wallace > bolted the first batteries into the C-140/C-170 products nearly > 60 years ago. > > With respect to the writer's objections about "Pulse Current > Amps" take a peek at . . . > > http://www.enersysreservepower.com/ody_b.asp?routineody_dchrg&brandID5> > > The graphical data for battery performance under various loads > is quite specific and yields factual engineering data. The > fact that Odyssey quantifies their batteries in a different manner > than some industry standards doesn't automatically mean that > their product is inferior or that the company is trying to > obscure any facts as to their product's performance. > > Take a peek at . . . > > http://www.batteryweb.com/faq.cfm> > > . . . where we find the following definitions: > > Cold Cranking Amps (CCA): "Discharge load measured in amps that a > fully charged battery at 0 F can deliver for 30 seconds > while maintaining its voltage above 7.2V" > > Hmmm . . . Odyssey gives similar data but at 25C. Could it > be that the majority of Odyssey's customers use their > batteries as more mundane temperatures wherein the high > discharge rate performance data is more useful when plotted > at the higher temperatures? Don't know. But I doubt that > Odyssey believes they are competing with Die Hards and > boat batteries. And what's all this 7.2 volt stuff anyhow? > B&C has quantified their batteries for a 15 second dump > based on dragging the battery down to and holding it at > 8.5 volts. This is easily accomplished with the tester that > both B&C and the 'Connection use in their shops. See . . . > > http://www.batteryweb.com/autometer-detail.cfm?ModelSB-5> > > Does that mean that B&C's marketing numbers are > bad or that they're trying to obscure any facts? No, I picked > that value 15 years ago because I didn't know of any starters > that would continue to crank an engine all the way down to > 7.2 volts . . . And guess what? We DON'T do that test at > 0C. > > Reserve Capacity (RC): "Number of minutes a fully charged battery > at 80.F can be discharged at 25 amps until the voltage drops below > 10.5 volts." > > Well fooey, my e-bus runs only 5 amps . . . should I be bent > out of shape that Odyssey or any other manufacturer doesn't > give me a 5A value instead of the 25A value? Only if I'm > an ignorant consumer likely to make decisions based on a > particular manufacturer's marketing hype. If I'm a designer > who deals in engineering facts and data, then what ever data the > manufacturer supplies is GOOD data as long as it's accurate. > > If I need ADDITIONAL data plotted in some other venue, then it's my > responsibility go get that data myself or request it from > the manufacturer. Most have much more data than they publish > and will supply it as needed. > > Deltran's position on Odyssey products is not well researched. > It does not mirror any considered understanding of lead-acid > technology in general nor Odyssey's engineering and marketing > philosophies in particular. > > The short answer is, "I'm not going to loose any sleep over it." > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ > > > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis (TKT wire) > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris" > > > > >Speaking of wire is TKT an available wire for home building or is it > >expensive and not worth it? > > What would be the advantage of using it for house wiring? You > can purchase any kind of wire from anybody and use it any way > you like with complete confidence as long as you observe the > products limitations. But it might be an action akin to running > 130 avgas in a mogas rated engine . . . expensive but doesn't > get you any more snort . . . > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2005
Subject: Re: Something Completely Different
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" Thanks--now I understand the gauge method. You mentioned that some of the bigger guns are no longer used. Maybe you were referring to the 4 ga (Elephant gun--before they found out that 3-4 clips from an AK-47 would do the same thing). We used to pass shoot geese with a 31/2" 10 gauge. It packed a fearsome wallop but it would reach way out there and touch 'em. The problem was, it was so darn heavy that you couldn't stand to carry it out to the blind, so we drilled a big hole in the stock, tied a rope through it and drug it behind us. Chuck Do Not Archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dan Brown Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dan Brown -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chuck Jensen wrote: | I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. | It sound more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge. It's as Walter said--the "guage" system is defined by the number of lead balls of a certain diameter whose weight adds up to one pound. Twelve balls of 0.729" diameter weigh a total of one pound, so a shotgun with a bore of 0.729" is a 12 ga shotgun. This is why larger numbers indicate smaller bore diameters. The largest that I'm aware of is 4 ga, and the smallest is 28 ga. Do not archive this either, but it should cover the explanation. - -- Dan Brown, KE6MKS, dan(at)familybrown.org "Since all the world is but a story, it were well for thee to buy the more enduring story rather than the story that is less enduring." ~ -- The Judgment of St. Colum Cille -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFCjUVPyQGUivXxtkERAtXlAKDtjAv2Ezcx//G43rVwACLEb9sNBACfUGd8 HlDFOqRU5R+Dlf+F/2g11Zo=bICK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2005
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator Wiring Question
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "r falstad" >The confusing part is there are two #10x24 termination screws near the Field post >that are labeled "F1" and "F2". Do I just terminate my 20 AWG field wire on >the threaded post? What function, if any, do the two screws have? Bob, Here is a handy list of terminal marking descriptions. Mr. Reman's other technical papers are to be recommended too.
http://www.mrreman.com/downloadsgateway/TECH/MRTSB-TECH-006.htm Contact me off-list for various Glastar parts if you don't have them. Regards, Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge MA 01550-2705 Phone (508) 764-2072 Email: emjones(at)charter.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2005
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: 14/28v
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org >It occurs to me that we could run two separate DC-DC converters to step down >the 28v to 14v. Or we could simply run a couple of busses off the lower >potential battery and get out 12v directly. Welcome Chad, You can certainly just tap off one battery for the 12V outlets as long as the currents are not large. Maybe 12V from one battery and an inverter to 120VAC off the other to run that laptop computer. For DC-DC converters I recommend : www.astrodyne.com great selection and quality, very low price. Digikey etc is fine too. But one suggestion---Don't use an instrument of a different voltage just because you have it. (E.g. using a 28V radio in a 14V panel). The internet make trading for the right thing a snap. Regards, Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge MA 01550-2705 Phone (508) 764-2072 Email: emjones(at)charter.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2005
From: "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Something Completely Different
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" Thanks to all for the responses! The discussion was fascinating! Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" > > Thanks--now I understand the gauge method. You mentioned that some of the bigger guns are no longer used. Maybe you were referring to the 4 ga (Elephant gun--before they found out that 3-4 clips from an AK-47 would do the same thing). > > We used to pass shoot geese with a 31/2" 10 gauge. It packed a fearsome wallop but it would reach way out there and touch 'em. The problem was, it was so darn heavy that you couldn't stand to carry it out to the blind, so we drilled a big hole in the stock, tied a rope through it and drug it behind us. > > Chuck > Do Not Archive > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dan > Brown > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dan Brown > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Chuck Jensen wrote: > > > It's as Walter said--the "guage" system is defined by the number of > lead balls of a certain diameter whose weight adds up to one pound. > Twelve balls of 0.729" diameter weigh a total of one pound, so a shotgun > with a bore of 0.729" is a 12 ga shotgun. This is why larger numbers > indicate smaller bore diameters. The largest that I'm aware of is 4 ga, > and the smallest is 28 ga. Do not archive this either, but it should > cover the explanation. > > - -- > Dan Brown, KE6MKS, dan(at)familybrown.org > "Since all the world is but a story, it were well for thee to buy the > more enduring story rather than the story that is less enduring." > ~ -- The Judgment of St. Colum Cille > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iD8DBQFCjUVPyQGUivXxtkERAtXlAKDtjAv2Ezcx//G43rVwACLEb9sNBACfUGd8 > HlDFOqRU5R+Dlf+F/2g11Zo=bICK > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > -- > > -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2005
From: Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: toggle switch action?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan de Jong > > >>Small question: >>Does a 3-position switch as the 2-10 in Z13 require 1 or 2 hand >>movements to move it from end to end? > > > > Not real clear on question . . . the 2-5, 2-7, 2-10, 2-50 > and 2-70 switches are all three position meaning that you have > three stable positions for the handle . . . one at each extreme > and one in the center. > > To clarify, I hope. In Z13 there is a switch with positions off-battery-alternator. One action should suffice - I think - to get it from "alternator" through "battery" directly to "off" to achieve immediate battery isolation. I seem to have known switches that require the opportunity to reset the internal spring after each position change, but that may not be common. Thank you, Jan de Jong ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2005
From: "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Something Completely Different
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis" Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Be a free spirit!!! Leo Corbalis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" > > > Walter wrote... > The number of lead spheres, just fitting into the barrel, that would > equal one pound. So if 12 perfectly fitting lead balls fit > into the barrel and weigh 1 pound, then this is a 12ga shotgun. > > Except for shotguns with bores measuring less than 1/2". > Then you use the bore measurment, ie. .410 shotguns. > > I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. It > sound more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge. Completely off > topic but fossilized minds want to know--at least this one. > > chuck > DO NOT ARCHIVE > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2005
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: HSI Operations
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: dsvs(at)comcast.net <> 5/20/2005 Hello Don, This subject probably falls below the level of "who cares", but since we are trying to clarify things please let me add a bit of clarification to your input above. Rather than parse your input I'll just quote from the printed instruction for the KI-525A HSI: "When tuned to a localizer frequency, the course select pointer MUST be set to the inbound front course for BOTH the front and back-course approaches to retain this pictorial presentation." (their emphasis) The pictorial presentation they are referring to is the one where the airplane is flown towards the course deviation bar in order to get to the localizer centerline. OC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2005
From: "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com>
Subject: Chroma LED Switches
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Sletten" Bob and/or other experts, We'd like to use these switches in our panel to control various accessories (land/taxi/nav/strobe lights, pumps, etc.). Assume a standard 14V electrical system (Pri/backup alternators and a battery). http://www.lumex.com/product.asp?id=1006229 If you click on one of the part numbers you'll get a PDF with all the specs. Can anyone think of a reason (besides asthetics) not to use these switches? Thanks, Mark & Lisa Sletten Legacy FG N828LM http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2005
From: "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net>
Subject: HSI Operations
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" Not sure what your point is. We are sayiny evactly the same thing. Don -----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: HSI Operations --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: dsvs(at)comcast.net <> 5/20/2005 Hello Don, This subject probably falls below the level of "who cares", but since we are trying to clarify things please let me add a bit of clarification to your input above. Rather than parse your input I'll just quote from the printed instruction for the KI-525A HSI: "When tuned to a localizer frequency, the course select pointer MUST be set to the inbound front course for BOTH the front and back-course approaches to retain this pictorial presentation." (their emphasis) The pictorial presentation they are referring to is the one where the airplane is flown towards the course deviation bar in order to get to the localizer centerline. OC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2005
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Chroma LED Switches
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com In a message dated 05/20/2005 1:49:14 PM Central Standard Time, marknlisa(at)hometel.com writes: Can anyone think of a reason (besides asthetics) not to use these switches? >>> I used a couple like these for fuel pump and cabin fan- love 'em, especially the LED, and they work just fine. On the down side, unless you like cutting square holes or use a CNC machine to cut, installation could be pretty time-consuming- I'd make sure the cutout is large enough to remove them without destroying them- (lesson lernt!) I found some at the local Autozone that are very similar and use a round hole, same size as standard toggles with anti-rotate flats on two sides. I'll send ya a pitcher off-list... Mark Phillips ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2005
From: "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: HF meters
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis" The sun finally came out today. I rounded up 3 small HF digital meters and my 2 other large meters. I hooked them all to a 9 volt battery. Set all to 20 volts. I put the 3 small ones in the sun for 5 minutes. then I switched the board around putting the 2 big meters in the sun. I kept the battery in the shade. All readings held steady and fully legible. Leo Corbalis ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2005
From: "r falstad" <bobair8(at)msn.com>
Subject: Alternator Wiring Question (Re Do)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "r falstad" I plan on installing my alternator, then my prop on my GlaStar this weekend. I have to have the wires on the back of the alternator before it goes in otherwise I don't have enough access room. My alternator is a Prestolite ALY-6421. I know, I know, the B&C alternators are much better and lighter but this one came with the engine and is paid for. The alternator has a 1/4"x28 stud for ALT +, a #10x32 stud for "AUX" (which I don't plan to use and really don't know what it's for), and a #6x32 stud for the Field. The confusing part is there are two #10x24 termination screws near the Field post that are labeled "F1" and "F2". Do I just terminate my 20 AWG field wire on the threaded post? What function, if any, do the two screws have? Thanks and best regards, Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2005
From: "r falstad" <bobair8(at)msn.com>
Subject: Fat Wire Terminals on Starter Contactor
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "r falstad" I'm starting to wire my GlaStar. I plan on terminating the 2 AWG from the battery + and the 6 AWG from the alternator + to the same post on the starter contactor. I also need to terminate the wire from the power bus somewhere and the closest place that will see the battery is the same post on the starter contactor. Is this right? That will put three fairly large terminals on one post. Don't you need a rubber terminal nipple to cover the terminals and post so if anything gets loose in the engine compartment, you don't run the risk of a direct short to ground? How do you insulate that arrangement? Best regards, Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2005
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Fat Wire Terminals on Starter Contactor
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "r falstad" > > I'm starting to wire my GlaStar. I plan on terminating the 2 AWG from the battery + and the 6 AWG from the alternator + to the same post on the starter contactor. I also need to terminate the wire from the power bus somewhere and the closest place that will see the battery is the same post on the starter contactor. Is this right? ((Right.)) That will put three fairly large terminals on one post. Don't you need a rubber terminal nipple to cover the terminals and post so if anything gets loose in the engine compartment, you don't run the risk of a direct short to ground? ((Yes you do want to insulate that.)) How do you insulate that arrangement? ((You do what ever you do to do. Try silicone tape or get a large termminal nipple and cut a slit in it so it will fit and secure it with a tie wrap and/or silicone tape.)) > > Best regards, > > Bob > ((Best wishes, Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's own money." Alexis de Toqueville)) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2005
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: HSI Operations
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 5/21/2005 Hello Don, Now this has really gotten below the level of "who cares", but since you insist I'll parse your original comment on my input just a bit. I know that you think that you said it clearly and that you think you said the same thing that I quoted, but a reader can be mislead by your original input. To whit: 1) <> Not true for three reasons: A) The needle on the HSI does not initially point at the transmitter on its own. It is positioned on the compass card by the pilot rotating the needle to make a course setting. Depending upon the aircraft location and heading after course selection the needle may not be pointing anywhere near the localizer transmitter (antenna). B) Then while flying inbound on the front course region of the localizer antenna pattern the only time the needle will actually be pointing at the transmitter is when the aircraft is on the localizer center line. If the aircraft is off the centerline then the needle is pointing off in space either to the left or right of the antenna location. A more accurate statement for the front course would be to say that the needle setting should be on the desired inbound course and pointing in the general direction of the transmitter. C) When the aircraft is inbound towards the runway and the antenna location while flying in the back course region of the localizer antenna pattern the needle is definitely not pointed at the transmitter. Instead it is pointed towards the rear of the aircraft because the pilot has set in the front course inbound couse as required by the instructions that I quoted. An accurate statement for the back couse operation would be that the needle setting is the front course setting and the needle will be pointing in the opposite direction of the transmitter. 2) << When you are in the backcourse it points behind the ac nose........skip.......>> I am not sure that everyone would know where "behind the ac nose" is. When a person is sitting in the cockpit he could easily think that "behind the ac nose" is in front of him. Do you see now how a reader, particularly one not intimately familiar with HSI operations (probably the majority of aeroelectri-list readers), could be misled or confused by the wording in your input? OC AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "DonVS" <> AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: dsvs(at)comcast.net <> 5/20/2005 Hello Don, This subject probably falls below the level of "who cares", but since we are trying to clarify things please let me add a bit of clarification to your input above. Rather than parse your input I'll just quote from the printed instruction for the KI-525A HSI: "When tuned to a localizer frequency, the course select pointer MUST be set to the inbound front course for BOTH the front and back-course approaches to retain this pictorial presentation." (their emphasis) The pictorial presentation they are referring to is the one where the airplane is flown towards the course deviation bar in order to get to the localizer centerline. OC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: HF meters
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis" > > >The sun finally came out today. I rounded up 3 small HF digital meters and >my 2 other large meters. I hooked them all to a 9 volt battery. Set all to >20 volts. I put the 3 small ones in the sun for 5 minutes. then I switched >the board around putting the 2 big meters in the sun. I kept the battery in >the shade. All readings held steady and fully legible. > >Leo Corbalis A fine repeatable experiment sir. Thank you. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2005
From: "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com>
Subject: GPS I/O shielding
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" For everyone that helped with the intercom wiring/shielding questions, I finally did get it all wired up and it worked great on the first go. I haven't started the engine yet, but the strobes don't add any noise. The next question is on GPS I/O. I'm installing a Trutrak AP and possibly a fuel totalizer. The Trutrak harness from Steinair has a unshielded wire for the GPS input. The fuel totalizer, bought used, also had unshielded wires for the GPS input/output. The drawing for the GPS shows these wires shielded. The fuel totalizer obviously worked without shielded wires and I can't imagine Steinair making something that wouldn't work properly. Is Garmin indicating shielding just for CYA purposes? For such short distances and a digital signal, I don't see how it will make much difference unless I was trying to shield against EMP. Thanks. Ken DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2005
From: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: GPS I/O shielding
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online The reason for shielding these signals is to protect other wires from the electrical noise generated by the serial data signals. The serial data signals themselves are reasonably tolerant of outside interference... but that is installation dependent. It's not likely to be a problem if you are just connecting locally on your panel. Having said that, it is good practice to use shielded cable whenever a signal is sensitive to electrical noise (audio signals) or is a generator of electrical noise (p-leads). In the spirit of too much information, many of the 'RS-232' signals used in an aircraft are not true RS-232 levels. For example, hand-held GPSs put low-voltage signals out. Generally, modern avionics will tolerate these signals quite happily... but they are less tolerant to electrical interference, and I would never run them off-panel or close to large disturbers (I'm not talking about your right seat passenger here). Vern Little, RV-9A Ken Simmons wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" > >For everyone that helped with the intercom wiring/shielding questions, I finally did get it all wired up and it worked great on the first go. I haven't started the engine yet, but the strobes don't add any noise. > >The next question is on GPS I/O. I'm installing a Trutrak AP and possibly a fuel totalizer. The Trutrak harness from Steinair has a unshielded wire for the GPS input. The fuel totalizer, bought used, also had unshielded wires for the GPS input/output. The drawing for the GPS shows these wires shielded. > >The fuel totalizer obviously worked without shielded wires and I can't imagine Steinair making something that wouldn't work properly. Is Garmin indicating shielding just for CYA purposes? For such short distances and a digital signal, I don't see how it will make much difference unless I was trying to shield against EMP. > >Thanks. >Ken > >DO NOT ARCHIVE > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net
Date: May 22, 2005
Subject: Auslaenderpolitik
Lese selbst: http://www.mjoelnirsseite.de/2100.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "colyncase on earthlink" <colyncase(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: about those 1965 radios
Date: May 22, 2005
Bob, I've been digging through the archives trying to find everything about Avionics Masters, a subject I'm sure you're tired of but I am still trying to get my mind around. Anyway, in several messages you mention that in 1965 there were a lot of radio deaths that were attributed (apparently without reason) to power issues on the bus. So did they ever figure out what caused all those deaths? ...I'm supposing that it was not the power quality. Also, some of the threads appear to have been concluded elsewhere. I was particularly interested in Ed and Shannon's system, which you threatened to critique thoroughly but I couldn't find where the critique actually happened.. thanks, Colyn Case L IVP ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: RE: Avionics Masters (about those 1965 radios)
Date: May 22, 2005
>.... in 1965 there were a lot of radio deaths that were attributed (apparently without reason) to power issues on the bus. So did they ever figure out >what caused all those deaths?...I'msupposing that it was not the power quality. Also, some of the threads appear to have been concluded >elsewhere. >Colyn Case I'll answer the Avionics Master question if YOU tell me why so many Lancair pilots have the same first and last initials? It's gotten so that when one of my customers says his name is Luke Lugnuts, I already know what he's building. Now for my part--- Avionics Master were invented so that the radio settings would be the same when you powered down and back up. Then they started blowing up early transistors so the Avionics Master was still a good idea. The original purpose still makes a lot of sense and I have been leaning toward using the A.M. switch for its convenience. But if you plan on protecting the radios from "bad power", I don't think it's a great idea to depend on a switch. The day will come when you'll forget. My solution---transorbs at the sources of inductive spikes---and a spike catcher on the inputs to the expensive boxes. Cheap insurance. And don't forget the starter solenoid. Regards, Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge MA 01550-2705 Phone (508) 764-2072 Email: emjones(at)charter.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net>
Subject: Wiring question
Date: May 22, 2005
Scenario- Approach systems wiring hub (Garmin Pro series) EXP switch panel. Avionics that will be installed. I do not have the avionics yet but have installed the trays. Also do not have the install manuals for the avionics. My issue is whether the power wires for each piece of equipment (same amp rating) can be joined to one appropriate circuit on the EXP bus? Garmin 340 audio panel - two power wires labeled as 5amp Garmin 430 GPS - Two power wires labeled 10 amps 3 power wires labeled 5 amps SL 30 - one power wire labled 5 amps Garmin 330S transponder - two power wires no label but believed to be 5 amps. Everything is installed in final locations and I'm wanting to terminate some of the wires. Thanks in advance. Darwin N. Barrie P19 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
Date: May 22, 2005
Subject: Cranking the first time, melted wires
Hi all After filling up my 0-360A1A with new oil I cranked the engine the first time with removed ignition plugs to distribute the oil. After 10-20 seconds it smelled bad and I saw a melting jacket of a thin wire. As I analyzed the problem I found out that the overloaded wire was the ground of the alternator field. There was no power applied to the regulator. Is there a bad ground?! I tested the resistance with an ohmmeter from the battery ground to the starter and it shows 0.00 ohm. My battery is on the firewall and I have a ground bus on the firewall connected with a 2AWG cable (12?). From there I run the cable (19?) to the engine case I used a mounting hole at the back housing next to the oil refill. I removed the paint to have a good metal to metal connection. I do not know what else could be checked or even what was the reason? Thanks in advance Daniel Lancair 360, Switzerland ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2005
Subject: Re: Wiring question
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Darwin - My advice is to run a separate power and ground for each box. If one box fails and blows the cb/fuse, you won't lose all your avionics. This also goes for the boxes that have dual functions - one power and one ground for each function. The fact that you feel you need to do what you proposed tells me that the EXP buss may be marginal for your system. It is a nice piece of equipment, but it sure constrains ones options for wiring the bird with some built-in flexibility. I'm not sure you have the numbers down for the power circuits on the equipment you listed below. I know for sure that the SL-30 has one power and one ground for the nav and for the comm side of the box. Also, be aware that the tray for the SL-30 was modified sometime after it was released. We got a tray and had installed it; only to find that the box did not fit into it correctly. The 330 transponder has one power in and that is "y'd" to pins 21 & 42 in the plug at the box (after the cb/fuse). There is an optional power line if you have a reason to connect it. There are two grounds that are tied together at the plug to get one wire to the ground buss. I would download the installation manuals ASAP before doing much more planning on the avionics electrical system. If you can't find them, I have the 330, the SL-30 and the 340 that i could email you - if you have wideband internet and your ISP allows large file thru the screens. If not, I can burn a cd with them and send it to you. Hope this helps. John > > Avionics that will be installed. I do not have the avionics yet but have > installed the trays. Also do not have the install manuals for the > avionics. My issue is whether the power wires for each piece of > equipment (same amp rating) can be joined to one appropriate circuit on > the EXP bus? > > Garmin 340 audio panel - two power wires labeled as 5amp > > Garmin 430 GPS - Two power wires labeled 10 amps 3 power wires labeled 5 > amps > > SL 30 - one power wire labled 5 amps > > Garmin 330S transponder - two power wires no label but believed to be 5 > amps. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Cranking the first time, melted wires
Date: May 22, 2005
>After filling up my 0-360A1A with new oil I cranked the engine the first >time with removed ignition plugs to distribute the oil. After 10-20 seconds >it smelled bad and I saw a melting jacket of a thin wire. ....I do not know what else could be checked or even what was the reason? ...Daniel Daniel, I don't know the answer but maybe melted wire is just the Lancair's way of telling you something is wrong. I do want to point out that if the alternator/regulator/battery is hooked up wrong when you crank the engine, the possibility that you fried the alternator diodes or something else is very high. The alternator depends on the battery to regulate its voltage. Disconnecting the alternator from the battery when the alternator is spinning will often fry the diodes. 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: "brucebell74" <brucebell74(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Cranking the first time, melted wires
Date: May 22, 2005
Do you have a ground cable to the engine? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cranking the first time, melted wires > > >>After filling up my 0-360A1A with new oil I cranked the engine the first >>time with removed ignition plugs to distribute the oil. After 10-20 >>seconds >>it smelled bad and I saw a melting jacket of a thin wire. > ....I do not know what else could be checked or even what was the reason? > ...Daniel > > Daniel, > > I don't know the answer but maybe melted wire is just the Lancair's way of > telling you something is wrong. > > I do want to point out that if the alternator/regulator/battery is hooked > up > wrong when you crank the engine, the possibility that you fried the > alternator diodes or something else is very high. > > The alternator depends on the battery to regulate its voltage. > Disconnecting > the alternator from the battery when the alternator is spinning will often > fry the diodes. > > 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: "colyncase on earthlink" <colyncase(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: where to find steady state power usage for avionics
Date: May 22, 2005
Doing my load analysis but I don't know where to get steady state power usage. e.g. If I go to Garmin's web page they don't list watts or amps for a gns530 (and if they did it would probably be the max). I dug around in the archive and didn't find what I was looking for. Does anyone have or have a pointer to this information? I need gns530, gns430, nsd1000, misc gyros thanks, Colyn Case ________________________________________________________________________________ Received-SPF: softfail (mta6: domain of transitioning trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt does not designate 85.138.30.109 as permitted sender) receiver=mta6; client_ip=85.138.30.109; envelope-from=trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt;
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Transorb
Date: May 22, 2005
Please forgive my ignorance (not everybody on this list is an expert) but, what is a transorb ? And where can it be purchased? And how is it installed at "the source of inductive spikes" ? Thanks Carlos Trigo ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Franz Fux" <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com>
Subject: Re:Shielded wiret
Date: Jun 21, 2005
Hi everybody, I have a question regarding the shielded wire that leads to the strobes in the Weelen system 6 for my RV7A. I would like to t interrupt the wire run and use a connector at the wing root. Two reasons for this, one is to be able to take the wing off in the future and the second one is that I cut the wire twice already and it is still to short. Would I loose the shielding effect of the wire and would I have noise interference in the future, thanks fore any comments Franz Fux RV7A wiring - -- -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2005
From: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Cranking the first time, melted wires
Daniel; It is almost a certainty that you do not have the engine casing properly grounded and what overheated the wire was starter current flowing through it. The starter is by far the heaviest load in your plane and therefore the best place for the battery ground is on the engine case. From there you run the ground to the airframe. This wire can be somewhat smaller than if it has to carry starter loads. Checking with an ohmmeter does not properly ascertain sufficient ground for your starter because of the load it draws. Your ohmmeter may well indicate zero ohms, but if this path is only an 18 gauge wire (or 16 or 14) you can rest assured that when you try to pull the hundred (or so) amps required by the starter it is going to get VERY hot very quickly even if it does measure zero ohms with a meter. (It is certainly NOT truly zero but in reality some other small value) If the path is a #4 or #2 wire with good solid connections all will be well. You may have a loose or poor connection between your batteries firewall ground and the engine case and the path of least resistance turned out to be the alternator ground which is insufficient to carry starter current. Bob McC >battery ground to the starter and it shows 0.00 ohm. >My battery is on the firewall and I have a ground bus on the firewall connected >with a 2AWG cable (12?). From there I run the cable (19?) to the engine case >I used a mounting hole at the back housing next to the oil refill. I removed >the paint to have a good metal to metal connection. > >I do not know what else could be checked or even what was the reason? > >Thanks in advance >Daniel >Lancair 360, Switzerland > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: RE: Transorbs
Date: May 22, 2005
>....what is a transorb? And where can it be purchased? And how is it installed at "the source of inductive spikes" ?........ Carlos, The recommended device is P6KE18CA bidirectional zener transient voltage suppressor from Digikey (p/n P6KE18CALFCT-ND). You can see the pdf on my website. I sell a dozen of them and the parts and hardware for attaching them on my website. http://www.periheliondesign.com/suppressors/SnapJack.pdf Regards, Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge MA 01550-2705 Phone (508) 764-2072 Email: emjones(at)charter.net Ring the bells that still can ring Forget your perfect offering There is a crack in everything That's how the light gets in - - Leonard Cohen ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Stone" <jsto1(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re:Shielded wiret
Date: May 22, 2005
I have connectors at my wing roots for all electrical connections, circular Cannon plugs that twist lock on and off. Just carry the strobe shield as a seperate pin. I chose to put P/S's in wingtips so only 12 Vdc goes by fuel tanks. Jim Stone Jabiru J450 (trailerable) Clearwater FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Franz Fux Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re:Shielded wiret --> Hi everybody, I have a question regarding the shielded wire that leads to the strobes in the Weelen system 6 for my RV7A. I would like to t interrupt the wire run and use a connector at the wing root. Two reasons for this, one is to be able to take the wing off in the future and the second one is that I cut the wire twice already and it is still to short. Would I loose the shielding effect of the wire and would I have noise interference in the future, thanks fore any comments Franz Fux RV7A wiring - -- -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re:Shielded wiret
> > >Hi everybody, >I have a question regarding the shielded wire that leads to the strobes in >the Weelen system 6 for my RV7A. I would like to t interrupt the wire run >and use a connector at the wing root. Two reasons for this, one is to be >able to take the wing off in the future and the second one is that I cut the >wire twice already and it is still to short. Would I loose the shielding >effect of the wire and would I have noise interference in the future, >thanks fore any comments >Franz Fux RV7A wiring Not at all. Take the shield lead through the connector on it's own pin and it will be fine. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: about those 1965 radios
> > >Bob, > I've been digging through the archives trying to find everything > about Avionics Masters, a subject I'm sure you're tired of but I am still > trying to get my mind around. > Anyway, in several messages you mention that in 1965 there were a lot > of radio deaths that were attributed (apparently without reason) to power > issues on the bus. So did they ever figure out what caused all those > deaths? ...I'm supposing that it was not the power quality. > Also, some of the threads appear to have been concluded > elsewhere. I was particularly interested in Ed and Shannon's system, > which you threatened to critique thoroughly but I couldn't find where the > critique actually happened.. > >thanks, > >Colyn Case >L IVP How about digging around on my website instead? See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/avmaster.pdf Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RURUNY(at)aol.com
Date: May 23, 2005
Subject: Engraved overlay and S700-2-10 terminals
I'm drilling holes for the switches at this time and noticed that the S700-2-10 switch from B&C I'm using for the Master (OFF/BATT/ALT) has the upper left terminal marked 1 looking from the rear with the keyway up. Z-16 shows number 1 at the bottom left terminal in the same orientation. Should I use the no 1 on the switch? The post below shows a post from Bob in Jan in response to a switch keyway question. My question here is where are engraved overlays for switch labeling available, are they custom or do it yourself kits? My plan for labeling after panel drilling is complete is to paint it with dark grey rustoleum, use rub on transfer letters and numbers from Tower Hobbies, then use rustoleum flat clear over panel. Any better sugestions within a reasonable budget other than stickers from a label maker? Thanks Brian _http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/bunruh/_ (http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/bunruh/) >I strongly suspect mounting the washer on the front side of the panel is >best, but am wondering if anyone has tried putting them on the back side. - I always put them on the back side. If your switch panel includes - an engraved overlay, then holes in the panel for the tabs can go - all the way through . . . and tabs on washers sanded to insure they - are flush or under flush to the panel surface. Others have suggested - a rear overlay of sheet metal but I prefer the engraved overlay for - switch labeling that covers the tab holes in the panel. - - Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Cessna SB on transients.
Date: May 23, 2005
This is from 2002 ForPilots.com. I think it is of general interest to the discussion. My question is--Where do I get an online copy of the SB? > >(Mike wrote): > >The key to eliminating spike-induced damage to avionics and/or the OVP/VR > >is having said equipment off line at the instant the spikes are generated, > >and also by installing "catch" diodes across the starter and master solenoids, > >as well as having a "transorb" (MOV or Zener) across the main bus... > Peter wrote: > Is there a US STC for these devices? Or are any "FAA-certified"? I am > in the UK and cannot do anything although if there is a STC the UK CAA > respects that (in trivial mods like this). >Cessna realized that they screwed up by producing aircraft from >the 1950s thru the 1980s with no catch diodes across the master, >starter, and external power solenoid, and they issued Service >Bulletins instructing owners to install a Cessna Part >No xxxxx diode(s) across the coils of the solenoid(s). >As I recall, the diodes turned out to be 1N4007... >My mechanic installed the diode per the service bulletin instructions >and maked a log entry "complied with SBxxxx" in the airfame log. >In the US, an AP mechanic can also make a "minor" mod, like adding a >transorb or a catch diode, and just make a log entry to return the >aircraft to service. My mechanic let me install other spike >catching components, and then just took care of the logs. >The spikes I recorded in my 1968 Skylane (14V) during cranking, >(prior to installing a catch diode across the starter solenoid) >were more than 400 V peak to peak, sort of a highly-damped sine >wave, that lasted about 10msec. My Skylane came out of the factory >with a catch diode on the master solenoid, but not on the aux >power solenoid or the starter solenoid. >It also had a factory-installed normally-closed relay which shut >off all of the avionics while the key switch is held in the >START position. However, the avionics relay reclosed before the >Starter Solenoid released as the key switch is returned to the >BOTH position, making it ineffective in protecting the avionics >from the transient. It did "unload" the battery during cranking, >however... >MikeM Regards, Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge MA 01550-2705 Phone (508) 764-2072 Email: emjones(at)charter.net "Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to one's self-esteem...." -Thomas Szasz ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Load Analysis (details)
From: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com
Date: May 23, 2005
05/23/2005 10:26:28 AM As I'm continuing the saga of my load analysis, I've come to this point and would appreciate any feedback. The assumption is that the aircraft is going to be used for IFR and I'm planning on using the "All Electric on a Budget" diagrams (60 Amp alt with SD-8 secondary). At this time I'm planning dual electronic ignition. Sorry for the lengthy list, but here's the equipment listing and average loads. The big question for those smarter than I on the subject; does this make sense? The main issue is the -530 on the E-Buss. It draws about 3.6A for main power, plus another half Amp for nav and comm sides. This will be coupled to the CDI and autopilot and I hate to pull it out but I could swap the SL-30 for it. The down side is that I lose AP and CDI (SL-30 ties to the BMA G3 Lite in HSI mode). MAIN DC BUSS Alt Field (1A) Lights- LND (9A) Lights - Taxi (9A) Lights - Nav (6A) Lights - Strobe (3A) Pitot Heat (8A) Flap Motor (3A - intermittent) AP - Pitch (1A) AP - Roll (1A) AP- Control Head (.5A) Total: (32.5A worst case for night Take Off) E-BUSS Alt Field (1A) BMA G3 #1 ADI (1.3A) BMA G3 #2 HSI (1.3A) Trim - Roll (.2A - intermittent) Trim - Pitch (.2A - intermittent) GNS-530 (Main Power) (3.6A) GNS-530 (Nav) (.25) GNS-530 (Com) (.15) Transponder (1A) Total (8.6A - consistant across all senarios) BATTERY BUSS Main Battery Contactor (1A) Fuel Pump (4A - intermittent) Starter Starter Contactor (1A - Intermittent) Engine Monitor (3A) Audio Panel (.1A) SL-30 (Comm) (.32A) SL-30 (Nav) (.27A) EI# Left (2A) EI#Right (2A) Turn Coordinator (.35A) Lights - Interior (1A) Clock (.25A) Total: 9.25A most flight senarios, 13.3A for landing) Jim RV-7 Fuse Mountain View, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: where to find steady state power usage for avionics
From: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com
Date: May 23, 2005
05/23/2005 11:20:13 AM Colyn, The only source I found was the 530 Install Manual which I was able to find on the web. Main Power: 3.6A NAV: .25 steady Com: .15 steady, .3 max Jim RV-7 Fuse ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Engraved overlay and S700-2-10 terminals
Date: May 23, 2005
From: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com>
I suggest you go visit a local Trophy shop and ask them about engraving a plastic overlay. I think you'll find the price quite reasonable and a LOT less work than rub-on transfers. Of course you can also find plenty of folks who do this on-line... Dennis Glaeser My question here is where are engraved overlays for switch labeling available, are they custom or do it yourself kits? My plan for labeling after panel drilling is complete is to paint it with dark grey rustoleum, use rub on transfer letters and numbers from Tower Hobbies, then use rustoleum flat clear over panel. Any better suggestions within a reasonable budget> other than stickers from a label maker? Thanks Brian ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: Metric vs. Imperial
Date: May 23, 2005
I know I'm late (I was away), but am re mnded of the dear old gal in UK when they went Metric: "We're too old for a new system......why don't they wait till we're dead?" Ferg Europa A064 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 23, 2005
terminals
Subject: Re: Engraved overlay and S700-2-10
terminals
From: Gerry Holland <gnholland(at)onetel.com>
I used the following Company: Wayne Cahoon Aircraft Engravers (860) 653-2780 (860) 653-7324 Fax http://www.engravers.net Very pleased with results and furthermore Wayne will create from the back of a cigarette packet sketch if necessary, no complex CAD stuff if you dont want. Look at the Website. Regards Gerry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Wiring question
Date: May 23, 2005
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Darwin N. Barrie" <<....skip.....Avionics that will be installed......skip...... Garmin 340 audio panel - two power wires labeled as 5amp Garmin 430 GPS - Two power wires labeled 10 amps 3 power wires labeled 5 amps SL 30 - one power wire labled 5 amps Garmin 330S transponder - two power wires no label but believed to be 5 amps. .....skip.......Darwin N. Barrie>> 5/23/2005 Hello Darwin, I am curious. What are you using in the way of external CDI's for your Garmin 430 and SL-30? How are you connecting to or shifting connections to any of these CDI's. Thanks. OC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 23, 2005
From: chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Solid State Relays vs. Solenoids
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID494JeXe4X0393X31 1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO Can anyone give me pros and cons of using solid state relays instead of solenoids for driving large current loads (lights, A/C compressor/hydraulic pump, etc.). I've used Crydom SCRs in the past for switching AC systems. I'm wondering if I couldn't use something like this: http://www.crydom.com/userResources/productFamilies/40/crydom_d06d.pdf to trigger my high-current loads. I'll still get transient spikes from switching inductive loads on the downstream side of the relay. But I shouldn't get the spikes on the bus-feed side of the relay as I would with a solenoid. Is that correct? I'd appreciate any input. I've got to make a decision about how I want to wire these loads up in the next day or three. Thanks. Chad Chad Sipperley Lancair IVP - turbine (under construction) Phoenix, AZ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2005
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Engraved overlay and S700-2-10 terminals
I am quite happy with white letters on clear TZ tape from a brother P-touch. The panel is painted medium gray. Once applied and pressed down, it is difficult to remove them without pulling the paint away too. I used half inch tape which on a 1180 model (about $40. on sale) which allows two lines of text if desired. Unlike lettraset the labels can easily be applied after the panel is installed and populated. Ken RURUNY(at)aol.com wrote: > >I'm drilling holes for the switches at this time and noticed that the >S700-2-10 switch from B&C I'm using for the Master (OFF/BATT/ALT) has the upper >left terminal marked 1 looking from the rear with the keyway up. Z-16 shows >number 1 at the bottom left terminal in the same orientation. Should I use the no >1 on the switch? > >The post below shows a post from Bob in Jan in response to a switch keyway >question. >My question here is where are engraved overlays for switch labeling >available, are they custom or do it yourself kits? >My plan for labeling after panel drilling is complete is to paint it with >dark grey rustoleum, >use rub on transfer letters and numbers from Tower Hobbies, then use >rustoleum flat clear >over panel. Any better sugestions within a reasonable budget other than >stickers from a label >maker? > >Thanks >Brian >_http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/bunruh/_ >(http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/bunruh/) > > > >>I strongly suspect mounting the washer on the front side of the panel is >>best, but am wondering if anyone has tried putting them on the back side. >> >> > >- I always put them on the back side. If your switch panel includes >- an engraved overlay, then holes in the panel for the tabs can go >- all the way through . . . and tabs on washers sanded to insure they >- are flush or under flush to the panel surface. Others have suggested >- a rear overlay of sheet metal but I prefer the engraved overlay for >- switch labeling that covers the tab holes in the panel. >- >- Bob . . . > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2005
From: Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com>
Subject: Re: Load Analysis (details)
On 05/23 1:25, Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > Thanks for the list Jim, > Can you tell me...Have you actually measured the current drawn by the > fuel pump?...I am planning a dual electric fuel pump (no mechanical > pump) and was wondering if the SD-8 had enough oomph to run an Emag and > and one fuel pump at minimum. If you are talking about the Airflow Performance fuel pump (http://www.airflowperformance.com) that Vans sells with their kits you should amend your numbers to show a 7A draw for this pump. This number comes directly from the fine folks there. I have not measured it directly. [...] > BATTERY BUSS > Main Battery Contactor (1A) > Fuel Pump (4A - intermittent) <--- > Starter > Starter Contactor (1A - Intermittent) [...] -- Walter Tondu http://www.rv7-a.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Cessna SB on transients.
>This is from 2002 ForPilots.com. I think it is of general interest to the >discussion. > >My question is--Where do I get an online copy of the SB? > > > >(Mike wrote): > > >The key to eliminating spike-induced damage to avionics and/or the OVP/VR > > >is having said equipment off line at the instant the spikes are >generated, > > >and also by installing "catch" diodes across the starter and master >solenoids, > > >as well as having a "transorb" (MOV or Zener) across the main bus... This is the standard mantra being propagated for over 4 decades. Just enough science stirred together with lots of conjecture to give it credibility. > > Peter wrote: > > Is there a US STC for these devices? Or are any "FAA-certified"? I am > > in the UK and cannot do anything although if there is a STC the UK CAA > > respects that (in trivial mods like this). > > >Cessna realized that they screwed up by producing aircraft from > >the 1950s thru the 1980s with no catch diodes across the master, > >starter, and external power solenoid, and they issued Service > >Bulletins instructing owners to install a Cessna Part > >No xxxxx diode(s) across the coils of the solenoid(s). > >As I recall, the diodes turned out to be 1N4007... "Screwed up"???? Cessna, like every other light airplane company of the era installed the same components in their airplanes as Ford and Chevy did in their cars. There was no reason to treat the airplane different than any other vehicle fitted with engine, generator/alternator and battery. Until solid state devices showed up in airplanes in the early 60's there was no reason to be concerned or even investigate inductive spikes from contactors. The radios were vacuum tube and got high voltage from vibrator or dynamotor supplies. There were no systems in the airplane that even MIGHT be vulnerable to short duration, low energy transients. > >My mechanic installed the diode per the service bulletin instructions > >and maked a log entry "complied with SBxxxx" in the airfame log. > > >In the US, an AP mechanic can also make a "minor" mod, like adding a > >transorb or a catch diode, and just make a log entry to return the > >aircraft to service. My mechanic let me install other spike > >catching components, and then just took care of the logs. > > >The spikes I recorded in my 1968 Skylane (14V) during cranking, > >(prior to installing a catch diode across the starter solenoid) > >were more than 400 V peak to peak, sort of a highly-damped sine > >wave, that lasted about 10msec. My Skylane came out of the factory > >with a catch diode on the master solenoid, but not on the aux > >power solenoid or the starter solenoid. Measured where? I've measured and demonstrated the high voltage spiking capability of contactors and written about them in detail. See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf This same article speaks to the error in an original issue of an AD against the ACS/Gerdes 510 ignition switch where the diode was installed in the wrong place to protect the switch. I note that later issues correct this error. I need to update that article. I was at Cessna when our chief scientist, Dr. Gordon Wood purchased a brand new, Hewlett-Packard peak reading voltmeter. We were all amazed at readings we got off the coils of starter and battery master contactor coils. Gordon's work prompted us to research available silicon diodes and device suitable means for installing them on production aircraft. I seem to recall the little 1N2070 plastic "bullet" being selected to install on strip of phenolic with eyelets in each end to facilitate attachment of PIDG terminated wires with screws. See . . . even in 1965 we were wrestling with those little leaded critters to figure out a good way to mount them. So, the statement about Cessna's "screw up" is a product of somebody's uninformed rhetoric. What the author does not point out and Gordon Wood measured was that such spikes DO NOT propagate to the bus. Yes, we could put the voltmeter on the un-suppressed contactor coil and get readings that would impress even Nicky Tesla but those energies were dissipated 99%+ in arcing at the controlling switch. Remnants that showed up on the bus were very short (microseconds), heavily loaded by system dynamic impedance consisting of battery, capacitors on inputs to electronics, and any equipment turned on, etc. We knew in 1965 that starter and battery master contactor spikes were not a risk to any other parts of the airplane beyond the controlling switches. We also knew that bus voltage transients due to starter activity were well inside the range of bus voltages expected by the designers of the radios. Capacitors charged up to some value and then discharged to a bus can deliver LOTS of current for a short time but a a voltage no higher than they were charged with in the first place. Inductors can deliver LOTS of volts for a short time but at a current no greater than they were initially charged with. Okay, it takes a 1A source to close a battery contactor. Discharging a short (milliseconds), 1A constant current source of any voltage into the bus is a non-event. Starter contactors are a bit meaner, perhaps 4-5 amps. But still, no big deal with a battery on line. The NUMBER ONE reason for installing catch diodes was to protect switch contacts and not to save overly delicate avionics from the occasional transient that was WELL inside DO-160 limits. I am still looking for the repeatable experiment that demonstrates even a small fraction of the risks and worries that are freely circulated amongst folks who claim to know how dangerous it is out there in the "spike" jungle. There are folks who would have you sprinkle little spike catchers all over the airplane and there are those who still worship at the altar of avionics master switches an cringe at the thought of hitting the system with starter currents. I've taken more starting event traces off the bus of cars, light planes and biz jets than I can count and I've yet to catch one of the evil critters in the wild. And to date, no one has answered my challenge to produce a trace from a repeatable experiment that demonstrates their existence. It's always been, "My brother-in-law's cousin has a next door neighbor who knows a guy at the airport who melted his whole stack of avionics to the ground 'cause he . . . (1) left the avionics master on (2) didn't install certain kinds of "protection" (3) etc. (4) etc. Until such data comes forward, I have to advise that I have 40 years experience, analysis and data that argues against the majority of the dogma being preached with respect to transients and bus quality and ZERO supporting data from anyone to the contrary. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2005
From: Hal Kempthorne <hal_kempthorne(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: HF meters
My old British Skymap non-color has developed some blank lines making it nearly unusable. King now services these but not in an economically sane way. They suggested contacting the Brits. I sent them email but no response. I suspect they too want no part of it. My fear is that if I fix it, a different part will fail. Do any of you have any ideas of what to do with this once fabulous device? I mean, besides chuck it in the dumpster or sell it 'as is' on ebay? hal ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "czechsix(at)juno.com" <czechsix(at)juno.com>
Date: May 24, 2005
Subject: Odyssey battery hold-down in an RV-8
Guys, I just got my Odyssey PC680 battery and am trying to figure out how to strap it down to the battery tray on the firewall of my -8A. Vans plans show to use a U-shaped extrusion across the top of the battery with two long bolts that go through each end of the extrusion and down through the sides of the battery tray. Looks like it would work fine for a bigger Concorde battery but the tall/skinny PC680 is a different story. I can sorta fit the extruded bar across the aft part of the battery with enough clearance to stay away from the terminals, but I'm wondering if I also need to secure the battery in some way to keep it from tipping or sliding forward. What have others done? Any pics out there? Thanks, --Mark Navratil Cedar Rapids, Iowa RV-8A N2D wiring almost done...! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Solid State Relays vs. Solenoids
> >Can anyone give me pros and cons of using solid state relays instead of >solenoids for driving large current loads (lights, A/C compressor/hydraulic >pump, etc.). I've used Crydom SCRs in the past for switching AC systems. I'm >wondering if I couldn't use something like this: >http://www.crydom.com/userResources/productFamilies/40/crydom_d06d.pdf to >trigger my high-current loads. > >I'll still get transient spikes from switching inductive loads on the >downstream side of the relay. But I shouldn't get the spikes on the bus-feed >side of the relay as I would with a solenoid. Is that correct? Conventional contactors do not propagate spikes to the supply side that are any more noteworthy than a pure manual switch. See my earlier post on Cessna service bulletin. We use solid state contactors in our most demanding situations. Here's a relay I helped develop for the tail de-ice system in a Beechjet. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Solid_State_100A_Contactor.jpg Here's the same relay getting a "extreme environment" proof test . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Solid_State_Endurance.jpg This critter is good for 100A continuous and self-protects at 525A after about 100 mS. >I'd appreciate >any input. I've got to make a decision about how I want to wire these loads up >in the next day or three. The Crydom products are not leading edge but they are the wave of the future for switching high currents in silicon at DC. In the past 5 years, we've seen 60V Power MOS transistors drop below 5 milliohms on-resistance. The 100A device illstrated above has less than one milliohm on-resistance . . . it drops less than 100 mV at 100A load for an internal dissipation of less than 10 watts. They're only going to get better from here. As to spike suppression on the load side . . . whatever there is to deal with is easily controlled with transorbs or the like. The 100A relay is protected from 600V open circuit transients with source impedance of 5 ohms (120A short circuit). This is the design goal for induced lightning transients. The Crydom product doesn't speak to such stresses and we wouldn't expect it to. If your design goal is to go solid state for contactors, your risk is low . . . IF you know and account for all the variables in the application you propose. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2005
From: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: Engraved overlay and S700-2-10 terminals
I have used Superior Panel Technologies (from Aircraft Spruce) custom back-lit labels. They show up well during the day and at night. I wrecked one and had to reorder... they doubled the price! Anyway, for about $50 you can get a 14" label strip. You'll need a light source in addition to this that can drive two or three label strips. Although I don't like fiber optic lights in general (the fibers are fragile and can be attacked by chemicals like lock-tite), the results were great. Vern Little Ken wrote: > >I am quite happy with white letters on clear TZ tape from a brother >P-touch. The panel is painted medium gray. Once applied and pressed >down, it is difficult to remove them without pulling the paint away too. >I used half inch tape which on a 1180 model (about $40. on sale) which >allows two lines of text if desired. Unlike lettraset the labels can >easily be applied after the panel is installed and populated. >Ken > >RURUNY(at)aol.com wrote: > > > >> >>I'm drilling holes for the switches at this time and noticed that the >>S700-2-10 switch from B&C I'm using for the Master (OFF/BATT/ALT) has the upper >>left terminal marked 1 looking from the rear with the keyway up. Z-16 shows >>number 1 at the bottom left terminal in the same orientation. Should I use the no >>1 on the switch? >> >>The post below shows a post from Bob in Jan in response to a switch keyway >>question. >>My question here is where are engraved overlays for switch labeling >>available, are they custom or do it yourself kits? >>My plan for labeling after panel drilling is complete is to paint it with >>dark grey rustoleum, >>use rub on transfer letters and numbers from Tower Hobbies, then use >>rustoleum flat clear >>over panel. Any better sugestions within a reasonable budget other than >>stickers from a label >>maker? >> >>Thanks >>Brian >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger Evenson" <revenson(at)comcast.net>
"Darwin N. Barrie"
Subject: Panel vs Firewall Ground--do the electrons care?
Date: May 24, 2005
Just read Bob's new chapter on Audio Systems. Given that a single-point ground system is best to eliminate noise from ground loops, I don't understand the rationale for a separate audio ground near the radio stack. Why is it considered poor practice to run both audio and all other aircraft equipment grounds to a single firewall ground block? Further, what's the difference between a single firewall ground for everything and a panel ground with a wire connecting the panel ground to the firewall ground? Does it matter to the audio system? Roger Evenson, Toasty in Tucson. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2005
Subject: Re: Load Analysis
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
I don't know much about thermo, but it seems like heat transfer through conduction is at least as effective as through radiation and convection. If a single wire in a bundle is being asked to carry lots of continuous current, but the rest of the bundle only handles momentary loads, isn't it possible that the bundle may be a cooler environment than in air? Regards, Matt- VE N34RD, C150 N714BK > > > >> >> >>A small problem with your experiment. A single wire in air should >> dissipate a lot of heat to the surrounding air. That same wire in the >> middle of a wire bundle is going to get very much hotter. That is why >> most in aerospace insist on significant derating. > > Not a problem at all. The experiment shows what the experiment shows > . . . 20A through a 22AWG wire in free air runs at about 100C . . . > WELL below the rating of the insulation. This speaks nothing to > de-rating the wire for lots of reasons including voltage drop due to > length, elevated temperature of the environment AND restriction of > heat rejection capabilities due to bundling of > the wire. > > I wasn't suggesting that one should even consider running 20A > through a 22AWG wire as an installed equipment design goal. What I > WAS suggesting is that folks who worry about wire behaving > like fuses and breakers have mis-placed their concerns. The fusing > constant (I-squared*T) for wire is many times that of a breaker and > still more times that of most fuses. The notion that just because a > 5A breaker opens pretty quickly at 10A somehow translates to a 22AWG > wire treading up to the edge of destruction is a waste of worry > resources. > > Wires installed and protected in accordance with the recommendations > of AC43-13 or any other reference document are de-rated and VERY > conservative with respect to risks to wire . . . the fact that > circuit protection operates relatively quickly does not mean that > the wire cheated death by a narrow margin. > > Bob. . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cessna SB on transients.
Date: May 24, 2005
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Bob, I don't want to repeat the experiment. But I did fry an encoding altimeter with an alternator load dump about six weeks ago. By choice, it is not repeatable. But it is first hand. However, it is not a solenoid issue, which was the focus of your well stated message. 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: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cessna SB on transients. >This is from 2002 ForPilots.com. I think it is of general interest to the >discussion. > >My question is--Where do I get an online copy of the SB? > > > >(Mike wrote): > > >The key to eliminating spike-induced damage to avionics and/or the OVP/VR > > >is having said equipment off line at the instant the spikes are >generated, > > >and also by installing "catch" diodes across the starter and master >solenoids, > > >as well as having a "transorb" (MOV or Zener) across the main bus... This is the standard mantra being propagated for over 4 decades. Just enough science stirred together with lots of conjecture to give it credibility. > > Peter wrote: > > Is there a US STC for these devices? Or are any "FAA-certified"? I am > > in the UK and cannot do anything although if there is a STC the UK CAA > > respects that (in trivial mods like this). > > >Cessna realized that they screwed up by producing aircraft from > >the 1950s thru the 1980s with no catch diodes across the master, > >starter, and external power solenoid, and they issued Service > >Bulletins instructing owners to install a Cessna Part > >No xxxxx diode(s) across the coils of the solenoid(s). > >As I recall, the diodes turned out to be 1N4007... "Screwed up"???? Cessna, like every other light airplane company of the era installed the same components in their airplanes as Ford and Chevy did in their cars. There was no reason to treat the airplane different than any other vehicle fitted with engine, generator/alternator and battery. Until solid state devices showed up in airplanes in the early 60's there was no reason to be concerned or even investigate inductive spikes from contactors. The radios were vacuum tube and got high voltage from vibrator or dynamotor supplies. There were no systems in the airplane that even MIGHT be vulnerable to short duration, low energy transients. > >My mechanic installed the diode per the service bulletin instructions > >and maked a log entry "complied with SBxxxx" in the airfame log. > > >In the US, an AP mechanic can also make a "minor" mod, like adding a > >transorb or a catch diode, and just make a log entry to return the > >aircraft to service. My mechanic let me install other spike > >catching components, and then just took care of the logs. > > >The spikes I recorded in my 1968 Skylane (14V) during cranking, > >(prior to installing a catch diode across the starter solenoid) > >were more than 400 V peak to peak, sort of a highly-damped sine > >wave, that lasted about 10msec. My Skylane came out of the factory > >with a catch diode on the master solenoid, but not on the aux > >power solenoid or the starter solenoid. Measured where? I've measured and demonstrated the high voltage spiking capability of contactors and written about them in detail. See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf This same article speaks to the error in an original issue of an AD against the ACS/Gerdes 510 ignition switch where the diode was installed in the wrong place to protect the switch. I note that later issues correct this error. I need to update that article. I was at Cessna when our chief scientist, Dr. Gordon Wood purchased a brand new, Hewlett-Packard peak reading voltmeter. We were all amazed at readings we got off the coils of starter and battery master contactor coils. Gordon's work prompted us to research available silicon diodes and device suitable means for installing them on production aircraft. I seem to recall the little 1N2070 plastic "bullet" being selected to install on strip of phenolic with eyelets in each end to facilitate attachment of PIDG terminated wires with screws. See . . . even in 1965 we were wrestling with those little leaded critters to figure out a good way to mount them. So, the statement about Cessna's "screw up" is a product of somebody's uninformed rhetoric. What the author does not point out and Gordon Wood measured was that such spikes DO NOT propagate to the bus. Yes, we could put the voltmeter on the un-suppressed contactor coil and get readings that would impress even Nicky Tesla but those energies were dissipated 99%+ in arcing at the controlling switch. Remnants that showed up on the bus were very short (microseconds), heavily loaded by system dynamic impedance consisting of battery, capacitors on inputs to electronics, and any equipment turned on, etc. We knew in 1965 that starter and battery master contactor spikes were not a risk to any other parts of the airplane beyond the controlling switches. We also knew that bus voltage transients due to starter activity were well inside the range of bus voltages expected by the designers of the radios. Capacitors charged up to some value and then discharged to a bus can deliver LOTS of current for a short time but a a voltage no higher than they were charged with in the first place. Inductors can deliver LOTS of volts for a short time but at a current no greater than they were initially charged with. Okay, it takes a 1A source to close a battery contactor. Discharging a short (milliseconds), 1A constant current source of any voltage into the bus is a non-event. Starter contactors are a bit meaner, perhaps 4-5 amps. But still, no big deal with a battery on line. The NUMBER ONE reason for installing catch diodes was to protect switch contacts and not to save overly delicate avionics from the occasional transient that was WELL inside DO-160 limits. I am still looking for the repeatable experiment that demonstrates even a small fraction of the risks and worries that are freely circulated amongst folks who claim to know how dangerous it is out there in the "spike" jungle. There are folks who would have you sprinkle little spike catchers all over the airplane and there are those who still worship at the altar of avionics master switches an cringe at the thought of hitting the system with starter currents. I've taken more starting event traces off the bus of cars, light planes and biz jets than I can count and I've yet to catch one of the evil critters in the wild. And to date, no one has answered my challenge to produce a trace from a repeatable experiment that demonstrates their existence. It's always been, "My brother-in-law's cousin has a next door neighbor who knows a guy at the airport who melted his whole stack of avionics to the ground 'cause he . . . (1) left the avionics master on (2) didn't install certain kinds of "protection" (3) etc. (4) etc. Until such data comes forward, I have to advise that I have 40 years experience, analysis and data that argues against the majority of the dogma being preached with respect to transients and bus quality and ZERO supporting data from anyone to the contrary. Bob . . . --- --- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Ground Test????
Date: May 25, 2005
From: "Eric Henson" <ehenson(at)teamhorner.com>
Bob, is it possible to test your airframe ground? I hooked my B&C grounding strap to the 1/4" bolts on my prop gov boss (Its blanked off, not using the governor). I'm suspicious because the boss is removable, which means its separated from the accessory case by two gaskets. Does the current just run through the steel stud/nut connection? Any way I can test it before I fry a radio? Thanks as always Eric Henson RV-6 in perpetuity ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: HF meters
Date: May 25, 2005
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Hal, I also have a Skymap that I'm going to get around to selling as I replaced it with a UPSat 80 (ne: Garmin 480), but the Skymap was, and still is, a very nice VFR instrument. I'm not sure how the screen plugs into the electronics but you might try disconnecting the screen, cleaning the male/female contact surfaces and put it back together. Sometimes the connectors will corrode a little and lose contact, resulting in the symptoms you are seeing. Its' worth a try. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Hal Kempthorne Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: HF meters My old British Skymap non-color has developed some blank lines making it nearly unusable. King now services these but not in an economically sane way. They suggested contacting the Brits. I sent them email but no response. I suspect they too want no part of it. My fear is that if I fix it, a different part will fail. Do any of you have any ideas of what to do with this once fabulous device? I mean, besides chuck it in the dumpster or sell it 'as is' on ebay? hal ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2005
Subject: Re: Solid State Relays vs. Solenoids
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Bob - What does one of these critters cost and are they available to the OBAM community? Thanks, John wrote: > We use solid state contactors in our most demanding situations. Here's a > relay > I helped develop for the tail de-ice system in a Beechjet. > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Solid_State_100A_Contactor.jpg -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Solid State Relays vs. Solenoids
Date: May 25, 2005
From: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com>
These aren't the ones Bob references, but Eric Jones has a couple of solid-state relays on his website: 35-50 amps for $35 - http://www.periheliondesign.com/powerlinkjr.htm A bigger one for $99 - http://www.periheliondesign.com/moreproducts.htm (Eric's gotta approve your application) I also checked Digikey for the Crydom D60D devices (60+ amps) and they run $83 and up (unless you buy in bulk). It will be interesting to see the price of the certified item... Dennis Glaeser Bob - What does one of these critters cost and are they available to the OBAM community? Thanks, John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Cessna SB on transients.
Date: May 25, 2005
> >My question is--Where do I get an online copy of the SB? Same question: Where do I get an online copy of the SB? > > > >as well as having a "transorb" (MOV or Zener) across the main bus... > > This is the standard mantra being propagated for over 4 decades. > Just enough science stirred together with lots of conjecture > to give it credibility. > > > > Peter wrote: > > > Is there a US STC for these devices? Or are any "FAA-certified"? I am > > > in the UK and cannot do anything although if there is a STC the UK CAA > > > respects that (in trivial mods like this). > > > > >Cessna realized that they screwed up by producing aircraft from > > >the 1950s thru the 1980s with no catch diodes across the master, > > >starter, and external power solenoid, and they issued Service > > >Bulletins instructing owners to install a Cessna Part > > >No xxxxx diode(s) across the coils of the solenoid(s). > > >As I recall, the diodes turned out to be 1N4007... > > "Screwed up"???? Cessna, like every other light airplane > company of the era installed the same components in their > airplanes as Ford and Chevy did in their cars. There was > no reason to treat the airplane different than any other > vehicle fitted with engine, generator/alternator and battery. > > Until solid state devices showed up in airplanes in the early > 60's there was no reason to be concerned or even investigate > inductive spikes from contactors. The radios were vacuum tube > and got high voltage from vibrator or dynamotor supplies. There > were no systems in the airplane that even MIGHT be vulnerable > to short duration, low energy transients. Absolutely true. The design of electronics went through a learning curve in the transition to solid state. It was a while before enough analysis was done to determine that voltage transients that were previously no problem now had to be controlled. Perhaps Cessna didn't "screw up" and the SB's were just a modification to update the system. > > >......The spikes I recorded in my 1968 Skylane (14V) during cranking, > > >(prior to installing a catch diode across the starter solenoid) > > >were more than 400 V peak to peak, sort of a highly-damped sine > > >wave, that lasted about 10msec. My Skylane came out of the factory > > >with a catch diode on the master solenoid, but not on the aux > > >power solenoid or the starter solenoid. > > Measured where? I've measured and demonstrated the high > voltage spiking capability of contactors and written about them > in detail. See: > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf > > This same article speaks to the error in an original issue > of an AD against the ACS/Gerdes 510 ignition switch where > the diode was installed in the wrong place to protect the > switch. I note that later issues correct this error. I need > to update that article. > > ......... So, the statement about Cessna's "screw up" is a product of > somebody's uninformed rhetoric. What the author does not point > out and Gordon Wood measured was that such spikes DO NOT propagate > to the bus. Yes, we could put the voltmeter on the un-suppressed > contactor coil and get readings that would impress even Nicky Tesla > but those energies were dissipated 99%+ in arcing at the > controlling switch. Remnants that showed up on the bus were very > short (microseconds), heavily loaded by system dynamic impedance > consisting of battery, capacitors on inputs to electronics, and > any equipment turned on, etc. > > We knew in 1965 that starter and battery master contactor > spikes were not a risk to any other parts of the airplane > beyond the controlling switches. We also knew that bus > voltage transients due to starter activity were well inside > the range of bus voltages expected by the designers of the > radios. > > Capacitors charged up to some value and then discharged to > a bus can deliver LOTS of current for a short time but a a > voltage no higher than they were charged with in the first > place. Inductors can deliver LOTS of volts for a short time > but at a current no greater than they were initially charged > with. Okay, it takes a 1A source to close a battery contactor. > Discharging a short (milliseconds), 1A constant current source > of any voltage into the bus is a non-event. Starter contactors > are a bit meaner, perhaps 4-5 amps. But still, no big deal with > a battery on line. > > The NUMBER ONE reason for installing catch diodes was to > protect switch contacts and not to save overly delicate avionics > from the occasional transient that was WELL inside DO-160 limits. > > I am still looking for the repeatable experiment that demonstrates > even a small fraction of the risks and worries that are freely > circulated amongst folks who claim to know how dangerous it is > out there in the "spike" jungle. There are folks who would have > you sprinkle little spike catchers all over the airplane and > there are those who still worship at the altar of avionics > master switches .......... > > ....Until such data comes forward, I have to advise that I have 40 years > experience...... ........Activities include: Teaching gophers to dig postholes and roping whole herds of cattle at a time. Rode everything in the West, including a mountain lion and a cyclone. Horse was named "Widow Maker". Drinks his whiskey with fishhooks and nitroglycerin....... Dear Bob, Dr. Woods tests may or may not have been correct and applicable to all situations. What was true for the metal airplanes with production-line electrical systems may or may not be true for the Owner Built And Maintained product. What was true in 1965 should certainly be re-examined in light of new equipment and new technology. Science involves the perpetual re-examination of what we believe is true, but now we can look closer. My reason for posting this old email about an even older subject is to bring up the subject of damping transients at the starter solenoid, contactor and motor. These are areas that require attention EVEN IF NOBODY CAN PRODUCE A TEST THAT SAYS SO---just because allowing transients on the bus is poor engineering de facto. What's the likely outcome of damping transients with a sprinking of Transient Voltage Suppressors? 1) Greater reliability (but we don't know how much) 2) Greater survivability in lightning (Those avionics shops get rich...). 3) Reduced noise in the headphones (We don't know how much...but your Rx and Tx range improves as a bonus...but we don't know how much) 4) A better quality product (but we don't know how much). The argument here is--Just what is good engineering practice? Demanding that one show proof that a certain TVS is needed is silly. Circuit boards are sprinkled with 0.1 caps....can you prove that they are really needed? Much electronic assembly is done with ESD control--is this really needed if it is raining outside? Prove it....It is easy to produce an infinite number items for which proof is an utter impossibility (Godel). Since voltage transients are so sensitive to conditions, what was true of a 1965 Cessna 150 with particular equipment has little relevance. Even today it is a real trick to show spikes that will wipe out some electronics. Can you show that the "forest of tabs" grounding is really necessary? In all cases? But it's certainly best practice. A lot of engineering is just a kind of aesthetic bet. You do some things because it prevents uncontrollable factors from getting out of hand. You cannot analyze everything. Especially if you make just ONE. I am still working on Z100. It has sufficient TVS's to guarantee that the B+ and ground are never more than 18V from each other. Can I prove this is needed? Not at all, but when that lightning bolt strikes a pole 300 feet from my parked Glastar someday in Guadeloupe (the Caribbean French Hawaii), I may not be spending any euros at the non-English-speaking avionics shop. That's my bet. I'd still like to see those SB's Regards, Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge MA 01550-2705 Phone (508) 764-2072 Email: emjones(at)charter.net "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H. L. Mencken ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown(at)ashcreekwireless.com>
Subject: Re: Engraved overlay and S700-2-10 terminals
Date: May 25, 2005
For another idea, FASTsigns will make up rub-on labels (using individual letters) in any font/color. I used this stuff on an exterior door for 10 years and it didn't fade or come off with daily abuse from customers... just a thought... Bob Brown RV7A - gluing rear canopy skirts ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: More panel labels
Date: May 25, 2005
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Another way...its still working great after 6 years...is to make your own labels on MS Word and print them on the large label sheets...It think they may even have an exterior grade film/adhesive?...hmm can't quite remember. Anyway, print your own labels, any font any colour and print them on clear and go stick 'em on. They look great as long as you put a box around the text...razor blade to the edge of the box and you won't see the edge of the label. The great thing about this is you can then save the files and if your labels ever peeled up...Just print of the file and voila you have a new set...:) Frank ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2005
From: chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Solid State Relays vs. Solenoids
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID168JeyqHs0336X38 I don't see companies like Crydom being all that excited to certify their components. They sell millions every year to industry and they change specs. almost every year. Perhaps I'm wrong and there are some MOSFET relays that are certified, but Im guessing they'd be obselete within a year or two. Yes, these devices are a bit pricier than solenoids. But I only need about 4 in the plane. And when you consider that the input (control) current runs only a few milliamps the actual abuse on the switch is very, very small. Certainly less need to select very expensive switches now. Chad Chad Sipperley Lancair IVP - turbine Phoenix, AZ > > I also checked Digikey for the Crydom D60D devices (60+ amps) and they > run $83 and up (unless you buy in bulk). > > It will be interesting to see the price of the certified item... > > Dennis Glaeser > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Expensive switches???
Date: May 25, 2005
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Expensive switches...Hmmm I bought my switches 6 years ago from my local automotive store...Now I did not select the cheesy plastic toggled...not sure if its on or off type switch. 360 hours and not one of my switches has failed. These have a nice snap and have chrome toggles...But were only a couple of bucks each...rated to 10A DC. Right now I see no reason not to install them on my new RV project? Frank ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2005
From: John Swartout <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: More panel labels
Frank, do those labels require a very SMOOTH, --maybe even glossy--paint surface to adhere well? -----Original Message----- From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: More panel labels Another way...its still working great after 6 years...is to make your own labels on MS Word and print them on the large label sheets...It think they may even have an exterior grade film/adhesive?...hmm can't quite remember. Anyway, print your own labels, any font any colour and print them on clear and go stick 'em on. They look great as long as you put a box around the text...razor blade to the edge of the box and you won't see the edge of the label. The great thing about this is you can then save the files and if your labels ever peeled up...Just print of the file and voila you have a new set...:) Frank ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Solid State Relays vs. Solenoids
> >I don't see companies like Crydom being all that excited to certify their >components. They sell millions every year to industry and they change specs. >almost every year. Perhaps I'm wrong and there are some MOSFET relays that are >certified, but Im guessing they'd be obselete within a year or two. > >Yes, these devices are a bit pricier than solenoids. But I only need about 4 >in the plane. And when you consider that the input (control) current runs only >a few milliamps the actual abuse on the switch is very, very small. Certainly >less need to select very expensive switches now. Actually, when you use a switch to drive a very low control current, you're more likely to get a failure because of TOO LITTLE current than for too much. The last switch problem I encountered on a Beechjet was a $high$ switch that carried only a few milliamps of current. The switch went effectively open after about 10 years in service and having been physically operated perhaps a few dozen times over that period. Similarly, a C-150 I used to rent suffered the FIRST failure of a factory installed 69-cent rocker switch after nearly 30 years in service. It was the DOME light switch. Seldom used, low current. I swapped it with the landing light switch and both system became operable. If your only reason for installing solid state contactors is to improve on switch life, you may be disappointed. I strive for low cost of ownership. Select parts which are capable, easily replaced and reasonably priced. If you design your system for failure TOLERANCE, parts are not hard to replace and don't drive you into sticker shock . . . then you'll have an airplane you enjoy owning and never surprises you. That's why I've stuck with the $LOW$ contactors in my recommendations, the next step up is MUCH more expensive and not likely to offer performance that equates to lower cost of ownership. If you had a Rotax alternator with only 18A of output, then some form of solid state contactor might be attractive for a battery master just to conserve on a limited energy supply . . . but a manual battery master is simpler yet and MORE energy efficient than a solid state contactor . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: More panel labels
Date: May 25, 2005
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
I just used a rattle can to put three coats of smooth paint on the panel....I think if you hade a wrinkle finish it might not stick so well. Wouldn't say my panel was glossy it's a little flatter than that...I think I painted it with Krylon or something? 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: More panel labels --> Frank, do those labels require a very SMOOTH, --maybe even glossy--paint surface to adhere well? -----Original Message----- From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: More panel labels --> (Corvallis)" Another way...its still working great after 6 years...is to make your own labels on MS Word and print them on the large label sheets...It think they may even have an exterior grade film/adhesive?...hmm can't quite remember. Anyway, print your own labels, any font any colour and print them on clear and go stick 'em on. They look great as long as you put a box around the text...razor blade to the edge of the box and you won't see the edge of the label. The great thing about this is you can then save the files and if your labels ever peeled up...Just print of the file and voila you have a new set...:) Frank ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Cessna SB on transients.
> > > ....Until such data comes forward, I have to advise that I have 40 >years > > experience...... > >........Activities include: Teaching gophers to dig postholes and roping >whole herds of cattle at a time. Rode everything in the West, including a >mountain lion and a cyclone. Horse was named "Widow Maker". Drinks his >whiskey with fishhooks and nitroglycerin....... > >Dear Bob, > >Dr. Woods tests may or may not have been correct and applicable to all >situations. What was true for the metal airplanes with production-line >electrical systems may or may not be true for the Owner Built And Maintained >product. What was true in 1965 should certainly be re-examined in light of >new equipment and new technology. Science involves the perpetual >re-examination of what we believe is true, but now we can look closer. Absolutely. So run out a plot of what you've observed and share it with us. >My reason for posting this old email about an even older subject is to bring >up the subject of damping transients at the starter solenoid, contactor and >motor. These are areas that require attention EVEN IF NOBODY CAN PRODUCE A >TEST THAT SAYS SO---just because allowing transients on the bus is poor >engineering de facto. So if nobody has produced a test, we act on the seriousness of the allegation? >What's the likely outcome of damping transients with a sprinking of >Transient Voltage Suppressors? > >1) Greater reliability (but we don't know how much) >2) Greater survivability in lightning (Those avionics shops get rich...). >3) Reduced noise in the headphones (We don't know how much...but your Rx and >Tx range improves as a bonus...but we don't know how much) >4) A better quality product (but we don't know how much). > >The argument here is--Just what is good engineering practice? Demanding that >one show proof that a certain TVS is needed is silly. Circuit boards are >sprinkled with 0.1 caps....can you prove that they are really needed? Much >electronic assembly is done with ESD control--is this really needed if it is >raining outside? Prove it....It is easy to produce an infinite number items >for which proof is an utter impossibility (Godel). Since voltage transients >are so sensitive to conditions, what was true of a 1965 Cessna 150 with >particular equipment has little relevance. Even today it is a real trick to >show spikes that will wipe out some electronics. Can you show that the >"forest of tabs" grounding is really necessary? In all cases? But it's >certainly best practice. >A lot of engineering is just a kind of aesthetic bet. You do some things >because it prevents uncontrollable factors from getting out of hand. You >cannot analyze everything. Especially if you make just ONE. I belive it was Lord Kelvin who suggested: "When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science." If we're attempting to discuss a phenomenon that cannot be quantified because no one has been able to or has attempted to measure it, then the term "best practice" has no meaning. It's no trick at all to identify, quantify and mitigate ANY stimulus that might be damaging to ANY component and deal with it in terms of the physics and present technologies. We do it all the time in certified aviation. It does require an understanding of all the physics involved and an effort to verify your designs both in the lab and marketplace. Granted, it may be simpler to apply liberal prophylactic measures . . . after all, the excess devices don't "hurt" anything. I know folks who have lots of bottles of stuff from the health food stores who claim some benefit for having consumed the contents . . . but if this is "good" would it not be "better" to have one of every product? Perhaps one could achieve physiological Utopia and require no other sustenance than to consume a little bit of everything "good". >I am still working on Z100. It has sufficient TVS's to guarantee that the B+ >and ground are never more than 18V from each other. Can I prove this is >needed? Not at all, but when that lightning bolt strikes a pole 300 feet >from my parked Glastar someday in Guadeloupe (the Caribbean French Hawaii), >I may not be spending any euros at the non-English-speaking avionics shop. When you're establishing a new paradigm wherein the design goal is to bound all activity on the bus between 0 and 18 volts, then we're not talking about "best" practice but a "new" practice . . . which is just fine. But let us make clear distinctions between what is NECESSARY to live under the new and old paradigms and be prepared to evaluate the cost of ownerships of each. MOST important, let us take care not to market a new paradigm with any manner of scare tactics, unsubstantiated rumors or over enthusiastic allegations. There's tons of that going on virtually every other Internet aviation resource. We owe it to our readers here on the List to sell good with an interest can understand and MEASURE if they so choose . . . after we show them how we measured it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: EuropaXSA276(at)aol.com
Date: May 25, 2005
Subject: Re: More panel labels
In a message dated 5/25/2005 1:35:57 PM Central Standard Time, frank.hinde(at)hp.com writes: Anyway, print your own labels, any font any color and print them on Clear and go stick 'em on. They look great as long as you put a box around the text...razor blade to the edge of the box and you won't see The edge of the label. I tried this once on my old Cherokee. The problem was that when I cleaned the instrument panel the label would smudge. I think that HP ink must be water based. To remedy I took a second clear label and put it over the printed one. Worked great. Brian Skelly Texas Europa # A276 TriGear See My build photos at: http://www.europaowners.org/BrianS ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: More panel labels
Date: May 25, 2005
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
I think you may have used the wrong cartridge...I think image permamence might be much better using a photo cartridge. Either that or just don't clean the panel...I never have...:) -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of EuropaXSA276(at)aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: More panel labels In a message dated 5/25/2005 1:35:57 PM Central Standard Time, frank.hinde(at)hp.com writes: Anyway, print your own labels, any font any color and print them on Clear and go stick 'em on. They look great as long as you put a box around the text...razor blade to the edge of the box and you won't see The edge of the label. I tried this once on my old Cherokee. The problem was that when I cleaned the instrument panel the label would smudge. I think that HP ink must be water based. To remedy I took a second clear label and put it over the printed one. Worked great. Brian Skelly Texas Europa # A276 TriGear See My build photos at: http://www.europaowners.org/BrianS ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Cessna SB on transients (repaired last paragraph)
> > > ....Until such data comes forward, I have to advise that I have 40 >years > > experience...... > >........Activities include: Teaching gophers to dig postholes and roping >whole herds of cattle at a time. Rode everything in the West, including a >mountain lion and a cyclone. Horse was named "Widow Maker". Drinks his >whiskey with fishhooks and nitroglycerin....... > >Dear Bob, > >Dr. Woods tests may or may not have been correct and applicable to all >situations. What was true for the metal airplanes with production-line >electrical systems may or may not be true for the Owner Built And Maintained >product. What was true in 1965 should certainly be re-examined in light of >new equipment and new technology. Science involves the perpetual >re-examination of what we believe is true, but now we can look closer. Absolutely. So run out a plot of what you've observed and share it with us. >My reason for posting this old email about an even older subject is to bring >up the subject of damping transients at the starter solenoid, contactor and >motor. These are areas that require attention EVEN IF NOBODY CAN PRODUCE A >TEST THAT SAYS SO---just because allowing transients on the bus is poor >engineering de facto. So if nobody has produced a test, we act on the seriousness of the allegation? >What's the likely outcome of damping transients with a sprinking of >Transient Voltage Suppressors? > >1) Greater reliability (but we don't know how much) >2) Greater survivability in lightning (Those avionics shops get rich...). >3) Reduced noise in the headphones (We don't know how much...but your Rx and >Tx range improves as a bonus...but we don't know how much) >4) A better quality product (but we don't know how much). > >The argument here is--Just what is good engineering practice? Demanding that >one show proof that a certain TVS is needed is silly. Circuit boards are >sprinkled with 0.1 caps....can you prove that they are really needed? Much >electronic assembly is done with ESD control--is this really needed if it is >raining outside? Prove it....It is easy to produce an infinite number items >for which proof is an utter impossibility (Godel). Since voltage transients >are so sensitive to conditions, what was true of a 1965 Cessna 150 with >particular equipment has little relevance. Even today it is a real trick to >show spikes that will wipe out some electronics. Can you show that the >"forest of tabs" grounding is really necessary? In all cases? But it's >certainly best practice. >A lot of engineering is just a kind of aesthetic bet. You do some things >because it prevents uncontrollable factors from getting out of hand. You >cannot analyze everything. Especially if you make just ONE. I belive it was Lord Kelvin who suggested: "When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science." If we're attempting to discuss a phenomenon that cannot be quantified because no one has been able to or has attempted to measure it, then the term "best practice" has no meaning. It's no trick at all to identify, quantify and mitigate ANY stimulus that might be damaging to ANY component and deal with it in terms of the physics and present technologies. We do it all the time in certified aviation. It does require an understanding of all the physics involved and an effort to verify your designs both in the lab and marketplace. Granted, it may be simpler to apply liberal prophylactic measures . . . after all, the excess devices don't "hurt" anything. I know folks who have lots of bottles of stuff from the health food stores who claim some benefit for having consumed the contents . . . but if this is "good" would it not be "better" to have one of every product? Perhaps one could achieve physiological Utopia and require no other sustenance than to consume a little bit of everything "good". >I am still working on Z100. It has sufficient TVS's to guarantee that the B+ >and ground are never more than 18V from each other. Can I prove this is >needed? Not at all, but when that lightning bolt strikes a pole 300 feet >from my parked Glastar someday in Guadeloupe (the Caribbean French Hawaii), >I may not be spending any euros at the non-English-speaking avionics shop. When you're establishing a new paradigm wherein the design goal is to bound all activity on the bus between 0 and 18 volts, then we're not talking about "best" practice but a "new" practice . . . which is just fine. But let us make clear distinctions between what is NECESSARY to live under the new and old paradigms and be prepared to evaluate the cost of ownerships of each. MOST important, let us take care not to market a new paradigm with any manner of scare tactics, unsubstantiated rumors or over enthusiastic allegations. There's tons of that going on virtually every other Internet aviation resource. We owe it to our readers here on the List to sell good ideas and products founded on simple-ideas that anyone with an interest can understand and MEASURE if they so choose . . . after we show them how we measured it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Solid State Relays vs. Solenoids
> >It will be interesting to see the price of the certified item... > > Dennis Glaeser The one I illustrated is in the neighborhood of $2700 each out the factory door. A non certified device could be sold in volume for about $500. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Solid State Relays vs. Solenoids
> > >Bob - > >What does one of these critters cost and are they available to the OBAM >community? Sure, he'd sell you one . . . but it's 28v only and the overhead for qualifying to get on certified machines is staggering. I'd guess they're about $2700. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Cessna SB on transients.
> >Bob, > >I don't want to repeat the experiment. > >But I did fry an encoding altimeter with an alternator load dump about six >weeks ago. > >By choice, it is not repeatable. But it is first hand. > >However, it is not a solenoid issue, which was the focus of your well >stated message. > >Regards, George Yup, once the battery is off line, all bets are off for things not rigorously qualified for standing off the big transients. The battery is still our most robust and reliable firewall against such unhappy experiences. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> electrons care?
Subject: Re: Panel vs Firewall Ground--do the
electrons care? > > >Just read Bob's new chapter on Audio Systems. Given that a single-point >ground system is best to eliminate noise from ground loops, I don't >understand the rationale for a separate audio ground near the radio >stack. Why is it considered poor practice to run both audio and all other >aircraft equipment grounds to a single firewall ground block? good question. Ground LOOPS are defined as two or more grounds for a single system or appliance. For example, fuel gages get into trouble when the "sender" grounds in the wing and the instrument grounds behind the panel. Radios or intercoms get noisy when headset or microphone leads ground out on the airframe while the electronics for the system ground elsewhere. The critical single point ground is for all grounds needed for each system or appliance. >Further, what's the difference between a single firewall ground for >everything and a panel ground with a wire connecting the panel ground to >the firewall ground? Does it matter to the audio system? One would like to minimize the numbers and lengths of wires in the whole aircraft . . . panels tend to have lots of grounding requirements for instruments, lighting, audio systems and individual radios. The avionics ground block offers an opportunity to convert your entire panel assembly into a single appliance by offering a local ground for all panel mounted accessories and extending that as a robust, high quality ground (relatively fat wires) to the firewall ground. You're still observing the necessity for making all grounds for any one system (or related systems like radios and audio system) at a single location and then extending that location down to the firewall on a few wires. This can have a marked effect on size of wire bundles and on convenience of fabrication and installation. We do this in big airplanes too . . . their are MULTIPLE single point grounds scattered about a biz jet . . . the designer's rules dictated that no single system should be grounded in more than one place on the airplane unless specifically designed for that kind of installation. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger Evenson" <revenson(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Panel vs Firewall Ground--do the electrons care?
Date: May 25, 2005
Thanks for that explanation. Then to be consistent, we really shouldn't use local grounds for nav lights and landing lights. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III electrons care?" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel vs Firewall Ground--do the electrons care? > electrons care? > > >> >> >>Just read Bob's new chapter on Audio Systems. Given that a single-point >>ground system is best to eliminate noise from ground loops, I don't >>understand the rationale for a separate audio ground near the radio >>stack. Why is it considered poor practice to run both audio and all other >>aircraft equipment grounds to a single firewall ground block? > > good question. Ground LOOPS are defined as two or more grounds > for a single system or appliance. For example, fuel gages get into > trouble when the "sender" grounds in the wing and the instrument > grounds behind the panel. Radios or intercoms get noisy when headset > or microphone leads ground out on the airframe while the electronics > for the system ground elsewhere. The critical single point ground is > for all grounds needed for each system or appliance. > > >>Further, what's the difference between a single firewall ground for >>everything and a panel ground with a wire connecting the panel ground to >>the firewall ground? Does it matter to the audio system? > > One would like to minimize the numbers and lengths of wires in > the whole aircraft . . . panels tend to have lots of grounding > requirements for instruments, lighting, audio systems and individual > radios. The avionics ground block offers an opportunity to > convert your entire panel assembly into a single appliance > by offering a local ground for all panel mounted accessories > and extending that as a robust, high quality ground (relatively > fat wires) to the firewall ground. You're still observing the > necessity for making all grounds for any one system (or related > systems like radios and audio system) at a single location and > then extending that location down to the firewall on a few > wires. This can have a marked effect on size of wire bundles and > on convenience of fabrication and installation. > > We do this in big airplanes too . . . their are MULTIPLE single > point grounds scattered about a biz jet . . . the designer's > rules dictated that no single system should be grounded in more > than one place on the airplane unless specifically designed for > that kind of installation. > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2005
From: chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Solid State Relays vs. Solenoids
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID741JeZBkt0133X31 > That's why I've stuck with the $LOW$ contactors in my recommendations, > the next step up is MUCH more expensive and not likely to offer > performance that equates to lower cost of ownership. If you had > a Rotax alternator with only 18A of output, then some form of > solid state contactor might be attractive for a battery master > just to conserve on a limited energy supply . . . but a manual > battery master is simpler yet and MORE energy efficient than > a solid state contactor . . . > > Bob . . . I'm not actually looking to replace the startrer contactors on the Lancair. I'd need something way bigger than I linked to in my first post. Even my master will still be a mechanical device. I'm looking to replace the lower-current (anything under 100 amps) solenoids on the plane with solid-state relays (A/C compressor, hydraulic pump, etc.). The concept of no moving parts - and myself having more familiarity with solid-state relays - is what appealed to me in replacing the coil devices. I'm not necessarily looking to make the system less expensive. Only as reliable as with coils and maybe a bit quieter (RFI-wise) for our stormscope antenna. If that's not going to happen with relays I'll go back to the solenoids that are more normal. Thanks for the input on the topic. Chad Chad Sipperley Lancair IVP - turbine (under construction) Phoenix, AZ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> electrons care?
Subject: Re: Panel vs Firewall Ground--do the
electrons care? > > >Thanks for that explanation. Then to be consistent, we really shouldn't use >local grounds for nav lights and landing lights. No . . . there's no risk to local grounds for devices that are not potential victims nor antagonists. Heaters and lights fall into this category. You're also in a low risk of problems by grounding strobe supply locally since it's easily filtered and all potential victims won't be looped with it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Dynon D-10A Ticking
Date: May 25, 2005
Tonite I had a visitor looking at my RV-4 when he asked if he could turn on the master switch. I said "Sure, go ahead" because I always like to see the little lights come on and and then hear "ANGLE, ANGLE, PUSH" (Yeah that's right, I spent the money for an AOA). Well nothing happened! No master relay picking up, no lights, no nothing. I then tried to turn on the Dynon thinking it would come up on battery back up. Again nothing. The entire electrical system was dead. I immediately hooked a battery charger to my Oddessy PC-680 and started a charge. I tried the master switch again and everything powered up as expected so obviously the battery was completely dead. The problem is I don't know why. I checked all of the switches and everything was turned off so I do not think anything was left on. So now for the real question. I have noticed lately that the Dyon D-10A was making a ticking noise when everything on the plane was turned off. The tick is about every second. I have the keep alive circuit wired up to an always hot bus so that the internal battery in the Dynon will stay charged up. I think the noise is from this circuit because I disconnected the connector from the back of the Dynon and the noise stopped and resumed when it was reconnected. Is this ticking noise normal? Could this be the cause of my dead battery? Will a dead battery on the plane drain the internal battery on the Dynon? Will a PC-680 go completely dead if you let the voltage get down to about 10.5 volts (I have not charged the battery in a while)? Thanks, Jerry Isler RV-4 N455J Donalsonville, GA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2005
From: chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Dynon D-10A Ticking
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID694JeZetb0438X36 Do you have an ammeter that you could use to check the current flow out of your battery when the Dynon is making the clicking sound? Simply disconnect the hot (+) lead on the battery and run through your ammeter (with everything else off!). Doing that on a Great Lakes my family recently acquired I discovered that the slow drain that had been flattening the battery was a 9.8 mA current being eaten by the master solenoid. New solenoid, new battery, new starter and she starts like a charm every time now (we think the starter went bad from low-voltage starts from a drained battery over the last few years). My understanding is that the Odyssey batteries don't mind being deep-cycled a few times, but it might be worth disconnecting it and running a deep cycle analysis on your charger if you've got a fancy enough one. Or you might take it to your local Sears and see if they'll run it through their monitor for you. Good luck! Chad Chad Sipperley Lancair IVP - turbine (under construction) Phoenix, AZ > > Tonite I had a visitor looking at my RV-4 when he asked if he could turn > on the master switch. I said "Sure, go ahead" because I always like to see > the little lights come on and and then hear "ANGLE, ANGLE, PUSH" (Yeah > that's right, I spent the money for an AOA). Well nothing happened! No > master relay picking up, no lights, no nothing. I then tried to turn on the > Dynon thinking it would come up on battery back up. Again nothing. The > entire electrical system was dead. I immediately hooked a battery charger to > my Oddessy PC-680 and started a charge. I tried the master switch again and > everything powered up as expected so obviously the battery was completely > dead. The problem is I don't know why. I checked all of the switches and > everything was turned off so I do not think anything was left on. > So now for the real question. I have noticed lately that the Dyon D-10A > was making a ticking noise when everything on the plane was turned off. The > tick is about every second. I have the keep alive circuit wired up to an > always hot bus so that the internal battery in the Dynon will stay charged > up. I think the noise is from this circuit because I disconnected the > connector from the back of the Dynon and the noise stopped and resumed when > it was reconnected. Is this ticking noise normal? Could this be the cause of > my dead battery? Will a dead battery on the plane drain the internal battery > on the Dynon? Will a PC-680 go completely dead if you let the voltage get > down to about 10.5 volts (I have not charged the battery in a while)? > > Thanks, > > Jerry Isler > RV-4 N455J > Donalsonville, GA > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Dynon D-10A Ticking
Date: May 26, 2005
Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Jerry, check once your software version, there was a version which did excessive drain the battery: 02.03 8/25/04 Added: New high-contrast skid ball for better visibility in sunlight. Fixed: Problem causing excessive battery drain when turned off. current version is 2.08. Werner ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler(at)alltel.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dynon D-10A Ticking > > Tonite I had a visitor looking at my RV-4 when he asked if he could turn > on the master switch. I said "Sure, go ahead" because I always like to see > the little lights come on and and then hear "ANGLE, ANGLE, PUSH" (Yeah > that's right, I spent the money for an AOA). Well nothing happened! No > master relay picking up, no lights, no nothing. I then tried to turn on the > Dynon thinking it would come up on battery back up. Again nothing. The > entire electrical system was dead. I immediately hooked a battery charger to > my Oddessy PC-680 and started a charge. I tried the master switch again and > everything powered up as expected so obviously the battery was completely > dead. The problem is I don't know why. I checked all of the switches and > everything was turned off so I do not think anything was left on. > So now for the real question. I have noticed lately that the Dyon D-10A > was making a ticking noise when everything on the plane was turned off. The > tick is about every second. I have the keep alive circuit wired up to an > always hot bus so that the internal battery in the Dynon will stay charged > up. I think the noise is from this circuit because I disconnected the > connector from the back of the Dynon and the noise stopped and resumed when > it was reconnected. Is this ticking noise normal? Could this be the cause of > my dead battery? Will a dead battery on the plane drain the internal battery > on the Dynon? Will a PC-680 go completely dead if you let the voltage get > down to about 10.5 volts (I have not charged the battery in a while)? > > Thanks, > > Jerry Isler > RV-4 N455J > Donalsonville, GA > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Solid State Relays vs. Solenoids
> > > That's why I've stuck with the $LOW$ contactors in my recommendations, > > the next step up is MUCH more expensive and not likely to offer > > performance that equates to lower cost of ownership. If you had > > a Rotax alternator with only 18A of output, then some form of > > solid state contactor might be attractive for a battery master > > just to conserve on a limited energy supply . . . but a manual > > battery master is simpler yet and MORE energy efficient than > > a solid state contactor . . . > > > > Bob . . . > >I'm not actually looking to replace the startrer contactors on the Lancair. >I'd need something way bigger than I linked to in my first post. Even my >master will still be a mechanical device. I'm looking to replace the >lower-current (anything under 100 amps) solenoids on the plane with >solid-state relays (A/C compressor, hydraulic pump, etc.). The concept of no >moving parts - and myself having more familiarity with solid-state relays - is >what appealed to me in replacing the coil devices. I'm not necessarily looking >to make the system less expensive. Only as reliable as with coils and maybe a >bit quieter (RFI-wise) for our stormscope antenna. If that's not going to >happen with relays I'll go back to the solenoids that are more normal. > >Thanks for the input on the topic. There's no doubt that we're going to see an ever increasing number of solid state, power switching devices with a lot of appealing performance features . . . but it will be some time before they can offer the value of the lowly relay in a failure tolerant system. The S-704 plastic relay offered by B&C is mass produced by totally automated machines. These devices run for years under the hood of a car. They're so inexpensive as to make them strong contenders in the race of low cost of ownership. If one were concerned about component specific reliability, you could initiate some sort of PM program to periodically change them out. Further, the low on-resistance of the relay combined with the double-throw operation and it's ability to carry current happily in either direction makes it almost universally attractive. I wouldn't suggest that we ignore what's coming over the horizon . . . and there may be cases where other features of the solid state technology are overwhelmingly attractive. One example I'll offer is a design I did a few years ago to replace the electro-mechanical relay power distribution box in one of our targets with a solid state replacement. The original design was in a hog-out aluminum enclosure about 10 x 3 x 4 inches, weighed about 7 pounds and used mil-spec, circular connectors on the top to interface with target wiring. The relays were all hand-wired within. Cost to manufacture was about $6000. Bill of materials was about $2,500 (the hog-out housing was NOT a cost effective way to enclose this thing). I replaced it with a 5 x 5 x 1 inch device populated with d-sub connectors and all surface mounted power MOS-FETS. 90% of the assembly work was automated on a pick-n-place machine. Bill of materials was under $400 and cost to manufacture was under $1500. Much better deal for a vehicle that has a service life of a few hours and goes into the ocean every time! Here I didn't need double-throw switching capability and heat issues for losses across the FETs were not a critical driver in the design decision. This is an excellent example of solid-state winning out over older technologies in a really big way. I wouldn't suggest that you won't find equally compelling features of solid state power switching for your project . . . but I will suggest that solid-state switching is not a shoo-in just because it's the latest and greatest. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: revenson(at)comcast.net
Subject: Noise and Spare Wires?
Date: May 26, 2005
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO I've strung several spare wires in my fuselage for unanticipated future use. Should I do anything to prevent them from becoming an unwanted antenna or some other kind of noise vector? Ground one end? Roger. I've strung several spare wires in my fuselage for unanticipated future use. Should I do anything to prevent them from becoming anunwanted antenna or some other kind of noise vector? Ground one end? Roger. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
Subject: Securing small wires
From: sjhdcl(at)kingston.net
I'm looking for an elegant way to secure a single wire (small 22 AWG) to an aircraft part such as a rib. Too small for clamps unless build up wire with electrical tape. Needs to be removable. Any neat iders? Perhaps just a dab of 'Shoe Goo' or silicone. Steve RV7A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
From: Larry McFarland <larrymc(at)qconline.com>
Subject: Re: Securing small wires
Steve, Try an aluminum pop rivet and a ring type connector. I used one for grounding my wing tanks. Elegant, no, but practical and can be removable with std knife connectors. Larry McFarland - 601HDS sjhdcl(at)kingston.net wrote: > >I'm looking for an elegant way to secure a single wire (small 22 AWG) to >an aircraft part such as a rib. Too small for clamps unless build up wire >with electrical tape. Needs to be removable. Any neat iders? Perhaps just >a dab of 'Shoe Goo' or silicone. > >Steve >RV7A > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
From: Scott Winn <sbwinn(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 22 ga too small?
I installed the first few wires in the LongEZ yesterday, the main battery cables, the master contactor and it's switch. The wires driving the master contactor are 22 ga, I didn't realize how small those wires were! I printed some labels for the wires with my laser printer and then shrunk some clear shrink on them. The problem is that the wire is so small that the shrink and the label make the wire so stiff I'm worried about the stress points created by the shrink tube & label. I'll be securing the wires, but is there any harm in replacing all the 22ga wire with 18ga? I should even be able to leave the fuses at the same rating since a fuse that protects 22ga would be overkill for 18ga. I checked the weight of the roll of 18 vs. the roll of 22 and I don't see it as a significant weight penalty. Are there any disadvantages to using 18 throughout the system in place of 22? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 22 ga too small?
Date: May 26, 2005
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Like you I tend to avoid smaller than 18 for the very reasons you describe..The one difference is when using a multicore wire that has secondary insulation...I picked up a bunch of 4 core 22GA wire from our scrap bins...Two runs of this were almost perfect for a single tail light and the Mac servo in the tail...I used mainly silicone dabs on the flat skins and tywraps where it went over a rib or bulkhead. Frank Zenair zodiac 360 hours -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Winn Subject: AeroElectric-List: 22 ga too small? I installed the first few wires in the LongEZ yesterday, the main battery cables, the master contactor and it's switch. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Noise and Spare Wires?
> >I've strung several spare wires in my fuselage for unanticipated future >use. Should I do anything to prevent them from becoming an unwanted >antenna or some other kind of noise vector? Ground one end? >Roger. > >I've strung several spare wires in my fuselage for unanticipated future >use. Should I do anything to prevent them from becoming anunwanted antenna >or some other kind of noise vector? Ground one end? >Roger. I don't think this is necessary. We have lots of capped and stowed spare or abandoned wires in the big airframes with no special treatment. Further, I can deduce no basis in physics that suggests special treatment would be useful. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
Subject: Re: Noise and Spare Wires?
From: "Craig P. Steffen" <craig(at)craigsteffen.net>
> I don't think this is necessary. We have lots of capped and > stowed spare or abandoned wires in the big airframes with > no special treatment. I would guess that this comes under the heading of stuff that almost never effects anything substantially, particularly when equipment is properly grounded, so it's probably not worth worrying about. > Further, I can deduce no basis in physics > that suggests special treatment would be useful. Lots of potential ones. Any wire that's not grounded is an antenna. And at high frequencies, EM disturbances can travel between conductors that don't touch because they are capacitively coupled. For instance, if you had an unconnected wire that ran alongside the supply wire to a strobe, and somewhere else ran alongside a wire coming from a microphone, then pulses from the strobe will show up on the mic line. Grounding spare wires at one end (not both) is the best bet to eliminate such problems. Craig Steffen -- 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 22 ga too small?
> >I installed the first few wires in the LongEZ yesterday, the main >battery cables, the master contactor and it's switch. The wires >driving the master contactor are 22 ga, I didn't realize how small >those wires were! I printed some labels for the wires with my laser >printer and then shrunk some clear shrink on them. > >The problem is that the wire is so small that the shrink and the label >make the wire so stiff I'm worried about the stress points created by >the shrink tube & label. > >I'll be securing the wires, but is there any harm in replacing all the >22ga wire with 18ga? I should even be able to leave the fuses at the >same rating since a fuse that protects 22ga would be overkill for >18ga. I checked the weight of the roll of 18 vs. the roll of 22 and I >don't see it as a significant weight penalty. Are there any >disadvantages to using 18 throughout the system in place of 22? Just weight and harness bulk. I have builders who used 20AWG exclusively for situations that called for 22 and 20AWG wire. I think there's a specification for wiring under the cowl on Beechcraft products that requires 20AWG or larger for mechanical robustness. 20AWG will fit into most connectors and is a reasonable compromise. Your total wire weight is so low as to offer insignificant differences between the two wires. In more complex aircraft, we're flirting with 24AWG in wire bundles. The folks on the line don't like it much. I'm not aware if the smaller wire can be tagged for any field service issues. However, if your major issue is labeling, the situation you cited doesn't raise big concerns. I've used shrink-over-labels on 22AWG Tefzel wire with great results. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s817c.jpg Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Noise and Spare Wires?
> > > > > > I don't think this is necessary. We have lots of capped and > > stowed spare or abandoned wires in the big airframes with > > no special treatment. > >I would guess that this comes under the heading of stuff that almost >never effects anything substantially, particularly when equipment is >properly grounded, so it's probably not worth worrying about. > > > Further, I can deduce no basis in physics > > that suggests special treatment would be useful. > >Lots of potential ones. Any wire that's not grounded is an antenna. >And at high frequencies, EM disturbances can travel between conductors >that don't touch because they are capacitively coupled. > >For instance, if you had an unconnected wire that ran alongside the >supply wire to a strobe, and somewhere else ran alongside a wire >coming from a microphone, then pulses from the strobe will show up on >the mic line. This is an electro-static coupling mode that is broken by BOTH shielding on strobe lines and shielding on microphone lines. Electro-static coupling between adjacent wires in a bundle is extremely weak to begin with. If your concerns were operative, we'd have to consider wires that NORMALLY float. An example might be an actuator wire that gets power to drive an actuator to a limit whereupon a limit switch opens the load end. When the command button is released, the wire would be open on the source end as well. Wires which are potential antagonists and/or victims are by design already isolated so as to live with other wires whether active or spare. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
Subject: Re: 22 ga too small?
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Hello Bob, In the interest of the repeatable experiment, do you know of a simple test rig that could be used to generate data for the quality of strain relief on wire? This topic seems to come up periodically, and it seems like it might be good to develop a cheap way to help settle the debate. Make a sample wire termination, clamp it in the machine, and then time how long it takes the machine to fail the sample. I guess then the question would be to judge whether the test fixture acurately models an installed system. Regards, Matt- VE N34RD, C150 N714BK > > > snip > However, if your major issue is labeling, the situation you > cited doesn't raise big concerns. I've used shrink-over-labels on > 22AWG Tefzel wire with great results. See: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s817c.jpg > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
From: Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov>
Subject: Calibration curves for pressure transducers
I have 2 pressure transducers, one for fuel pressure and one for oil pressure that where used with JPI stand alone digital instruments, one wire in and one out, almost certainly variable resistance. Are there standard calibration curves for these transducers and if so how does one go about getting them? Thanks in advance Matthew M. Jurotich e-mail mail to: phone : 301-286-5919 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> transducers
Subject: Re: Calibration curves for pressure
transducers > > >I have 2 pressure transducers, one for fuel pressure and one for oil >pressure that where used with JPI stand alone digital instruments, one wire >in and one out, almost certainly variable resistance. Are there standard >calibration curves for these transducers and if so how does one go about >getting them? > >Thanks in advance You need to start with the brand and part number of the transducer . . . assuming that JPI didn't make them or rebrand them. If you have this data, you can start with the manufacturer's website for data sheets on their products. If there's no way to identify the original manufacturer, then you can always contact JPI and ask. Failing success there, you'll need to pressure them up on the bench and deduce their performance numbers by empirical measurements. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 22 ga too small?
> >Hello Bob, > >In the interest of the repeatable experiment, do you know of a simple test >rig that could be used to generate data for the quality of strain relief >on wire? This topic seems to come up periodically, and it seems like it >might be good to develop a cheap way to help settle the debate. Make a >sample wire termination, clamp it in the machine, and then time how long >it takes the machine to fail the sample. I guess then the question would >be to judge whether the test fixture acurately models an installed system. I guess I've never considered this feature of wire that's so widely applied and an evolutionary descendant of Mil-W-76 wires characterized 60 years ago. If you'd like to look over the spec for 22759, you can get a copy of the spec at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Mil-W-22759/M22759.pdf There are no "vibration" tests required for qualification. There is a "wrap" test to demonstrate robustness of the insulation. I guess I'm not sure where the "debate" bubbled up from . . . has someone experienced an event that they've attributed to a vibration induced failure? I suspect there's an analytical approach to deducing resistance to damage due to all forms of flexing . . . not being privy to the thought processes behind the specification, I can only guess. If one were to craft an experiment, what vibration levels and frequency would you choose to use? DO-160 calls out vibration levels for testing equipment that may be operating at or near stress limits . . . these are general robustness tests conducted in 3 hours that offer some level of confidence that the device is for all practical purposes, immune from failure due to vibration. I suspect that as long as the insulation is intact, analysis would show even the worst case vibration level expected in aircraft does not represent a risk to the copper conductors. This is part of what the fine (19+) stranding is about. It would be an interesting experiment but I suspect that the outcome is already well known. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
Subject: Re: 22 ga too small?
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
> > snip > There are no "vibration" tests required for qualification. There is > a "wrap" test to demonstrate robustness of the insulation. > I guess I'm not sure where the "debate" bubbled up from . . . > has someone experienced an event that they've attributed to > a vibration induced failure? > > I haven't had luck finding the specific thread in the archive that I was thinking of - referenced a 2 stroke engine installation with wires leading to controls/instrumentation. Had vibration induced failures. I did find a different thread that discussed a similar scenario: http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=15989953?KEYS=crimping_vs._soldering?LISTNAME=AeroElectric?HITNUMBER=5?SERIAL=15200432715?SHOWBUTTONS=YES Message number: #10218 I guess this goes back to 'good practice' - provide strain relief, damping, and support to all structures so that vibrational mode frequencies are high above any normal excitation frequency. Then strain relief becomes a much less interesting issue. Thanks for the discussion. Regards, Matt- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Chroma LED Switches
> > >Bob and/or other experts, > >We'd like to use these switches in our panel to control various >accessories (land/taxi/nav/strobe lights, pumps, etc.). Assume a >standard 14V electrical system (Pri/backup alternators and a battery). > >http://www.lumex.com/product.asp?id=1006229 > >If you click on one of the part numbers you'll get a PDF with all the >specs. Can anyone think of a reason (besides asthetics) not to use >these switches? As long as your system is failure tolerant . . . please feel confident in the use of any switch that meets your design goals. The switches you're considering are no worse than the plastic rockers used on many thousands of Cessnas which have performed well for decades. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> switch action?
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: toggle
switch action? > > > > > > >>Small question: > >>Does a 3-position switch as the 2-10 in Z13 require 1 or 2 hand > >>movements to move it from end to end? > > > > > > > > Not real clear on question . . . the 2-5, 2-7, 2-10, 2-50 > > and 2-70 switches are all three position meaning that you have > > three stable positions for the handle . . . one at each extreme > > and one in the center. > > > > > >To clarify, I hope. >In Z13 there is a switch with positions off-battery-alternator. One >action should suffice - I think - to get it from "alternator" through >"battery" directly to "off" to achieve immediate battery isolation. I >seem to have known switches that require the opportunity to reset the >internal spring after each position change, but that may not be common. >Thank you, >Jan de Jong The reason for 3-positions is to permit an airplane on the ground to operate battery-only and not burden the battery with alternator field current. You've correctly observed that a 2-3 switch could be used for the DC Power Master . . . and you can pull the alternator field breaker for ground ops. Before we had a low cost offering for the 2-10 functionality, all the Z-figures recommended a 2-3/breaker combination for DC power control. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: PTACKABURY(at)aol.com
Date: May 26, 2005
Subject: Charging multiple batteries
Bob et al: I have wired my Lancair IV with two batteries and one alternator--an adaptation of the Z diagrams in your book. So as I check out the avionics and other electrically powered systems, I need to top up the batteries. The easiest way to do that is to turn on both battery switches and hook the charger to the fat B field wire on the alternator (it is a TSIO-550, so the alternator is easily reached thru the air inlet when the cowling is installed). Question: is this a good idea? thanks, paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: PDA power
Date: May 26, 2005
Are any of you using PDA's or Pocket PC's such as Dell Axim or HP iPAQ to run GPS moving map navigation programs such as AnywhereMap or MountainScope or TeleType, and here is my question: Are you using batteries to run this device, or feeding it from your airplane's electrical system? I haven't seen in the specifications for any of these devices how many volts they run on (I don't own one yet), nor whether they can run on external power sources. Also, if you are using a separate GPS receiver, either Bluetooth or wired, to feed the PDA, are you running THAT on batteries, does it receive power from the PDA, or are you running it from ship's power? Bottom line, to save $$$ on batteries and avoid the nuisance of wanting to start a trip and not having any charged Ni-cad's on hand, I would like to supply these devices--GPS receiver and PDA, from ship's power, and would like to know the best way to supply the correct voltage. I have read numerous posts on the subject of converting DC to DC of a different voltage but nothing definitive. Thanks in advance. John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
Subject: Re: PDA power
From: "Craig P. Steffen" <craig(at)craigsteffen.net>
> Bottom line, to save $$$ on batteries and avoid the nuisance of wanting > to start a trip and not having any charged Ni-cad's on hand, I would > like to supply these devices--GPS receiver and PDA, from ship's power, > and would like to know the best way to supply the correct voltage. As far as the PDA, assuming your airplane as a 12V electrical system, I think your best bet is to buy a "car charger" and put a "cigarette lighter" port in the plane to power it from. Trying to guess the correct direct voltage is really asking for it; I fried a cell phone that way once. As far as the GPS, Garmin units have a power plug that will take anything from 10 to 40 V (I think it varies a little between models). You can plug that directly into an "auxiliary" circuit. Craig Steffen -- 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Securing small wires
For just one or a couple of 22awg I like the self adhesive nylon wire clips that the wires snap into. About 1/2" square. For inaccessible places I use the rivet on nylon wire tie points and tie the wire to them. Works for one or many wires as they come in multiple sizes. Commercially parts in small quantity run about 10 cents each for either. Ken sjhdcl(at)kingston.net wrote: > >I'm looking for an elegant way to secure a single wire (small 22 AWG) to >an aircraft part such as a rib. Too small for clamps unless build up wire >with electrical tape. Needs to be removable. Any neat iders? Perhaps just >a dab of 'Shoe Goo' or silicone. > >Steve >RV7A > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com>
Subject: PDA power
Date: May 26, 2005
John, Probably the easiest way is to add a few cigarette lighter outlets around the cockpit. The iPAQ with AnywhereMap and GPS comes with all the adapters you will need. Just plug it into the cig lighter outlet and you're good to go. You will probably end up with a few more accessories that will need the 12v cig lighter outlets. I put one in each armrest and one on the center console. Get the outlets that come with a plastic cap to keep the trash out. Pat Hatch Are any of you using PDA's or Pocket PC's such as Dell Axim or HP iPAQ to run GPS moving map navigation programs such as AnywhereMap or MountainScope or TeleType, and here is my question: Are you using batteries to run this device, or feeding it from your airplane's electrical system? I haven't seen in the specifications for any of these devices how many volts they run on (I don't own one yet), nor whether they can run on external power sources. Also, if you are using a separate GPS receiver, either Bluetooth or wired, to feed the PDA, are you running THAT on batteries, does it receive power from the PDA, or are you running it from ship's power? Bottom line, to save $$$ on batteries and avoid the nuisance of wanting to start a trip and not having any charged Ni-cad's on hand, I would like to supply these devices--GPS receiver and PDA, from ship's power, and would like to know the best way to supply the correct voltage. I have read numerous posts on the subject of converting DC to DC of a different voltage but nothing definitive. Thanks in advance. John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com>
Subject: PDA power
Date: May 26, 2005
My AnyWhereMap (Weather) System (Ipaq 5550) came with a power plug that will plug into the cigarette light plug of your ship. I have used mine in both 14 volt (Piper PA28, Van's RV6) and 28 volt (Bonanza A36) airplanes. James | -----Original Message----- | From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner- | aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Swartout | Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 9:19 PM | To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com | Subject: AeroElectric-List: PDA power | | | | | Are any of you using PDA's or Pocket PC's such as Dell Axim or HP iPAQ | to run GPS moving map navigation programs such as AnywhereMap or | MountainScope or TeleType, and here is my question: | | Are you using batteries to run this device, or feeding it from your | airplane's electrical system? I haven't seen in the specifications for | any of these devices how many volts they run on (I don't own one yet), | nor whether they can run on external power sources. Also, if you are | using a separate GPS receiver, either Bluetooth or wired, to feed the | PDA, are you running THAT on batteries, does it receive power from the | PDA, or are you running it from ship's power? | | Bottom line, to save $$$ on batteries and avoid the nuisance of wanting | to start a trip and not having any charged Ni-cad's on hand, I would | like to supply these devices--GPS receiver and PDA, from ship's power, | and would like to know the best way to supply the correct voltage. | | I have read numerous posts on the subject of converting DC to DC of a | different voltage but nothing definitive. | | Thanks in advance. | | John | | | | | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: May 26, 2005
Subject: Re: PDA power
In a message dated 05/26/2005 7:21:53 PM Central Standard Time, jgswartout(at)earthlink.net writes: Are you using batteries to run this device, or feeding it from your airplane's electrical system? >>> Hi John- My PDAs (Dell Axim) are fed from two modified cigar lighter adapters marketed specifically for Axims on e-bay for about $9 each (plus rapi........er, SHIPPIng!), although anything with the correct voltage out and plug style & polarity should be fine. I just dissasembled, de-soldered and tossed the connections to the cigar lighter leads from the board, and soldered new 22awg wire direct back to the e-bus fuse & ground. (iPAQs have power leads built into the serial cable, I'm pretty sure, but not familiar with them) You could probably figure out how to do the "roll yer own" deal with parts from Mouser-Key, but this was cheap, simple, and has worked fine for 180 hours so far, and the PDA batts stay almost fully charged after a week or two of downtime. My Garmin 35 is integrated into the PCFlightSystems EFIS unit and powered from it. If you are using a handheld, you'll have to stick with the batts or buy another cigar lighter adapter of the correct voltage & config. Mark Phillips ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Charging multiple batteries
> >Bob et al: I have wired my Lancair IV with two batteries and one >alternator--an adaptation of the Z diagrams in your book. So as I >check out the >avionics and other electrically powered systems, I need to top up the >batteries. >The easiest way to do that is to turn on both battery switches and hook the >charger to the fat B field wire on the alternator (it is a TSIO-550, so the >alternator is easily reached thru the air inlet when the cowling is >installed). >Question: is this a good idea? >thanks, paul Funny you should ask. I was just finishing up an illustration of how to use the CBA-II battery analyzer as a data acquisition system for evaluating battery maintainers. I purchased an el-cheeso maintainer from Harbor Freight a few weeks ago but I've not had a chance to see how "smart" it is. http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF_Battery_Maintainer.jpg Also picked up a brand name (Schumacher) charger maintainer at Wallmart for about $18. I set it up to charge a dead car battery. I clipped the CBA-II across the battery to "test" it as a 16V, 8-cell, lead-acid battery with a discharge rate of 0.02 A. The charger chugged along and produced this peformance graph: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Battery_Maintenance/Schumacher_Bat_Maintainer.jpg Seems the $low$ item from Wallmart performs as expected and is about 1/2 the price of a Battery Tender, Jr and recharges almost twice as fast. I'm going to run the battery back down and then test the El-Cheeso from HF. In the mean time (to answer your question), if it were my airplane, I'd add a 3A fused maintainer circuit to the battery bus of both batteries. Arrange a connector let you plug in a pair of low cost maintainers, one for each battery. You need to be able to do this with EVERYTHING else in the airplane turned OFF and with zero risk of having a maintainer fuse open should you try to parallel a dead battery with a good one so that you can use a single maintainer. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2005
From: Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com>
Subject: Re: PDA power
John... ControlVision (Anywhere Map) has an adapter that plugs into the iPaq that comes with the GPS antenna they supply that runs everything on the vehicle's power. It just plugs into a cigar lighter in your car or plane (or a power outlet, common on the newer cars). It also charges the battery in the unit while it's running it, or while sitting (if the vehicle power remains on to that plug when the ignition is off). I use it all the time in my car as well. Harley Dixon Long EZ N28EZ Canandaigua, NY John Swartout wrote: > > >Are any of you using PDA's or Pocket PC's such as Dell Axim or HP iPAQ >to run GPS moving map navigation programs such as AnywhereMap or >MountainScope or TeleType, and here is my question: > >Are you using batteries to run this device, or feeding it from your >airplane's electrical system? I haven't seen in the specifications for >any of these devices how many volts they run on (I don't own one yet), >nor whether they can run on external power sources. Also, if you are >using a separate GPS receiver, either Bluetooth or wired, to feed the >PDA, are you running THAT on batteries, does it receive power from the >PDA, or are you running it from ship's power? > >Bottom line, to save $$$ on batteries and avoid the nuisance of wanting >to start a trip and not having any charged Ni-cad's on hand, I would >like to supply these devices--GPS receiver and PDA, from ship's power, >and would like to know the best way to supply the correct voltage. > >I have read numerous posts on the subject of converting DC to DC of a >different voltage but nothing definitive. > >Thanks in advance. > >John > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 22 ga too small?
> > >I haven't had luck finding the specific thread in the archive that I was >thinking of - referenced a 2 stroke engine installation with wires leading >to controls/instrumentation. Had vibration induced failures. I did find >a different thread that discussed a similar scenario: > >http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=15989953?KEYS=crimping_vs._soldering?LISTNAME=AeroElectric?HITNUMBER=5?SERIAL=15200432715?SHOWBUTTONS=YES > >Message number: #10218 > >I guess this goes back to 'good practice' - provide strain relief, >damping, and support to all structures so that vibrational mode >frequencies are high above any normal excitation frequency. Then strain >relief becomes a much less interesting issue. > >Thanks for the discussion. Hmmmm . . . there's that term "good practice" again. Let's consider the posting cited: We have had a series of planes having problems with wires breaking because the solder flowing back into the wire 3/8 to 1/2" and making a solid to flexible junction a little ways back from the terminal. The wire will break at this junction after a while. If it is the wrong wire things get very Quite. Charles Dunn Flint Hills Technical School 3/8 to 1/2" . . . sheesh! perhaps he should try to get the whole roll of solder flowed into those joints. Many technicians fall prey to a lack of observation for the deduction of cause and effect. When you're soldering a terminal to a wire, the FIRST signs of solder appearing at the wire end of the joint is the sign to STOP . . . any more solder will not add useful features to the joint. I heard someone say don't solder wires as the vibrations will crack at some point? Yup, one of those decades old mantras that have been circulated and observed with reverence . . . I installed a battery cable last night and after crimping it I soldered it. Now if the solder cracks, it's still been crimped - so wouldn't that be the best of both worlds? No, unless he also observes the need for wire support outside EITHER a soldered or crimped joint. When you take a stranded wire and crimp it into a terminal, the stranding in the wire becomes just as solid as if it were soldered. See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html and in particular . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/GL.jpg . . . here we see how the metal of the terminal and metal of the wire strands have become a single entity. This is NECESSARY for achievement of a gas-tight joint that will withstand the worst the environment can throw at it. If you review . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf . . . you will see where I've described the importance of SUPPORT beyond the gas-tight joint . . . this applies whether the joint is soldered or crimped. There are practical exceptions. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/bndstrpl.jpg Here we see a finely stranded grounding jumper that has been soldered into terminals. The strands are so small and the flow of solder beyond the back of the joint is so limited as to pose no great risk to wire breakage when extra support is not provided. Some battery jumpers offered by B&C are assembled like this: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/sbl.jpg Here too the joints are soldered and the terminals fitted with rigid heat-shrink covers. This makes for a nicer looking assembly but the covers add little if any improvement in resistance to breaking for the very fine strands in the welding cable. I've considered this conversation some more last night and recalled that someone was concerned about "stress risers" in the wire. This is EXACTLY the point that makes the wire last . . . LACK of stress risers. The stranding is small so as to reduce stresses due to flexing (consider flexibility of 1/4" glass rod compared to Fiberglas strands in insulation). Review text and supporting figure 8-1 in the 'Connection. The Tefzel is a tough plastic . . . the term "plastic" implies flexibility while minimizing stress. The evolution of wire insulation materials from cotton covered rubber up through the present family of plastics has stepped to ever higher degrees of robustness and resistance to mechanical and chemical stresses. I was initially challenged by your request for the description of a repeatable experiment and after some consideration I came to realize that the supporting experiments in the case of wire have been carried out in the plastics laboratories for decades. Flexibility of the wire has not been an issue for 100+ years. Make the strands sufficiently fine and lost of strands due to flexing/vibration goes to zero. This leaves only the insulation which has taken quantum jumps about every 20 years to a level that makes the selection a VERY comfortable choice between materials that will in all likelihood outlast the airplane's service life by factors of 2-10 . . . This explains the relatively simple qualification requirements in Mil-W-22759. One wastes a lot of $time$ repeating tests that have no fallout. If there is no risk of a particular failure important to the design and application of a product, then there is no value in testing for that failure. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Securing small wires
sjhdcl(at)kingston.net wrote: > >I'm looking for an elegant way to secure a single wire (small 22 AWG) to >an aircraft part such as a rib. Too small for clamps unless build up wire >with electrical tape. Needs to be removable. Any neat iders? Perhaps just >a dab of 'Shoe Goo' or silicone. > >Steve >RV7A > > > >For just one or a couple of 22awg I like the self adhesive nylon wire >clips that the wires snap into. About 1/2" square. >For inaccessible places I use the rivet on nylon wire tie points and tie >the wire to them. Works for one or many wires as they come in multiple >sizes. >Commercially parts in small quantity run about 10 cents each for either. >Ken I was going to suggest these. Radio Shack used to stock them. No matter where you buy them, I would be wary of the adhesive's ability to withstand the rigors of temperature extremes. Few folks can match 3M when it comes to robustness of adhesives. We use these at RAC for non-critical support tasks like small bundles of wires. When using them in your OBAM project, I think I'd throw a pop-rivet into the center before mouting the wire(s) to it. If the surface is not conducive to use of screws or rivets, consider cleaning the adhesive pad off the bottom of the anchor and gluing the pad into place with E-6000. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Charging multiple batteries
> >Bob et al: I have wired my Lancair IV with two batteries and one >alternator--an adaptation of the Z diagrams in your book. So as I >check out the >avionics and other electrically powered systems, I need to top up the >batteries. >The easiest way to do that is to turn on both battery switches and hook the >charger to the fat B field wire on the alternator (it is a TSIO-550, so the >alternator is easily reached thru the air inlet when the cowling is >installed). >Question: is this a good idea? >thanks, paul Funny you should ask. I was just finishing up an illustration of how to use the CBA-II battery analyzer as a data acquisition system for evaluating battery maintainers. I purchased an el-cheeso maintainer from Harbor Freight a few weeks ago but I've not had a chance to see how "smart" it is. http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF_Battery_Maintainer.jpg Also picked up a brand name (Schumacher) charger maintainer at Wallmart for about $18. I set it up to charge a dead car battery. I clipped the CBA-II across the battery to "test" it as a 16V, 8-cell, lead-acid battery with a discharge rate of 0.02 A. The charger chugged along and produced this peformance graph: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Battery_Maintenance/Schumacher_Bat_Maintainer.jpg Seems the $low$ item from Wallmart performs as expected and is about 1/2 the price of a Battery Tender, Jr and recharges almost twice as fast. I'm going to run the battery back down and then test the El-Cheeso from HF. In the mean time (to answer your question), if it were my airplane, I'd add a 3A fused maintainer circuit to the battery bus of both batteries. Arrange a connector let you plug in a pair of low cost maintainers, one for each battery. You need to be able to do this with EVERYTHING else in the airplane turned OFF and with zero risk of having a maintainer fuse open should you try to parallel a dead battery with a good one so that you can use a single maintainer. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Charging multiple batteries
> > > > > > >Bob et al: I have wired my Lancair IV with two batteries and one > >alternator--an adaptation of the Z diagrams in your book. So as I > >check out the > >avionics and other electrically powered systems, I need to top up the > >batteries. > >The easiest way to do that is to turn on both battery switches and hook the > >charger to the fat B field wire on the alternator (it is a TSIO-550, so the > >alternator is easily reached thru the air inlet when the cowling is > >installed). > >Question: is this a good idea? > >thanks, paul I think I missed the gist of your original inquiry. The problem you're posing is how to put power on the airplane for ground operations. The technique you describe is certainly functional. There are some cautions . . . if the "charger" is not a quiet power supply, there may be risks to system components if the charger is used to power up the airplane without the BEST filter in the airplane . . . BATTERIES. May I suggest that a ground power receptacle is in order? See figure Z-31 in . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11B.pdf This connection will allow you to plug in a ground power cart for starting assist in cold weather. You can also plug in a high quality power supplies like: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=88758&item=5777099961&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=48708&item=5777375867&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW and http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=99265&item=5775145551&rd=1&ssPageName=WD1V for extended maintenance operations on the ground. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Automatic x-feed contactor control???
Coments/Questions: Bob- First some background. I have already decided on a dual battery, dual alt for my IO-550 powered Velocity XL. I have the 70amp "main" alt and the B&C SD-20 "essential" alt. I have B&C regulators for both with warning lights for each. My plan was for a crossfeed switch "off,auto,on" position like you suggest. But I was NOT planning on ganging the buses together for starting. My plan was for your LOW volt module to hang off the essential bus and "auto" switch if it went down. If the main went down I would switch when workload permitted if at all. The essential is sized for running it's load for the endurance of the tanks. I planned on wiring a "Xfeed" warning light also. My problem is, I thought that your Low Voltage module would handle the "auto" switch feature. I have bought the bare board, compontents from Digikey and have the instructions. But looking more closely I see it's designed to close the crossfeed contactor when the things are good, not bad. What mod do I need to do to switch it's functionality around. The low voltage warning system was designed to handle AUX batteries, not the cross-feed contactor. Not easily done without adding more components. Why automate the crossfeed function. The whole idea about Figure Z-14 is to design a situation where one side can go down completely and NOT cause you to break a sweat. In this case, there is no urgency in doing anything to bring a black-system back up . . . further, the likelihood that any single failure will take a system to black is very rare. Your regulators are already fitted with low voltage warning lights. If any one of these lights comes on, there's no value in having the system automatically react to this condition. You're better off making a considered judgement as to WHEN the cross-feed will be closed and what items will be operated off the compromised bus. The automatic feature you contemplate adds complexity, cost of ownership, reduced reliability and adds no safety. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2005
Subject: Re: Charging multiple batteries
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Paul - We wired in the piper type adaptor per Bob's paper to the Z-14 diagram. We put the receptacle on the aft wall of the baggage compartment of our ES. We wired to male plug to a shop power supply we bought off of eBay and plug it into the receptacle. We use it all the time to trouble shoot the system. It was set for 13.6 volts and it runs both our busses at that voltage. Pics available if you need them. John >> > >> >Bob et al: I have wired my Lancair IV with two batteries and one >> >alternator-- > >> May I suggest that a ground power receptacle is in order? See > figure Z-31 in . . . > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11B.pdf > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2005
Subject: Re: Securing small wires
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
I've had trouble with these things falling off, unless I use a dab of 5minute epoxy to attach them. I slightly scuff-sand the place to be bonded to, mix up a blob of 5min and hold the tab in place with a piece of tape. None have dis-bonded that have been attached like this. The little sticky area in the center doesn't seem to cause any problems with epoxy. Additionally, I think you can buy these tabs without the sticky stuff, but I'll bet they are more money. Regards, Matt- > > > > sjhdcl(at)kingston.net wrote: > > > > >I'm looking for an elegant way to secure a single wire (small 22 AWG) > to an aircraft part such as a rib. Too small for clamps unless build > up wire with electrical tape. Needs to be removable. Any neat iders? > Perhaps just a dab of 'Shoe Goo' or silicone. > > > >Steve > >RV7A > > > > > > >> >>For just one or a couple of 22awg I like the self adhesive nylon wire >> clips that the wires snap into. About 1/2" square. >>For inaccessible places I use the rivet on nylon wire tie points and >> tie the wire to them. Works for one or many wires as they come in >> multiple sizes. >>Commercially parts in small quantity run about 10 cents each for >> either. Ken > > > I was going to suggest these. Radio Shack used to stock > them. No matter where you buy them, I would be wary of > the adhesive's ability to withstand the rigors of temperature > extremes. Few folks can match 3M when it comes to robustness > of adhesives. > > We use these at RAC for non-critical support tasks like > small bundles of wires. When using them in your OBAM project, > I think I'd throw a pop-rivet into the center before mouting > the wire(s) to it. If the surface is not conducive to use > of screws or rivets, consider cleaning the adhesive pad > off the bottom of the anchor and gluing the pad into place > with E-6000. > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Larkin" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: Automatic x-feed contactor control???
Date: May 27, 2005
I would agree with Bob (he is a god after all), I have the same basic system going into my Lancair Legacy illustrated in the comments/questions. Ponder this: if you have a bus short that causes a failure on one bus, would you want the bus to AUTO X-feed. Remember 1/2 a system is better then none at all... And if you have dual electronic ignitions you will need 1/2 the system.. Or one could transform their airplane into a glider. Mike Larkin -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Subject: AeroElectric-List: Automatic x-feed contactor control??? Coments/Questions: Bob- First some background. I have already decided on a dual battery, dual alt for my IO-550 powered Velocity XL. I have the 70amp "main" alt and the B&C SD-20 "essential" alt. I have B&C regulators for both with warning lights for each. My plan was for a crossfeed switch "off,auto,on" position like you suggest. But I was NOT planning on ganging the buses together for starting. My plan was for your LOW volt module to hang off the essential bus and "auto" switch if it went down. If the main went down I would switch when workload permitted if at all. The essential is sized for running it's load for the endurance of the tanks. I planned on wiring a "Xfeed" warning light also. My problem is, I thought that your Low Voltage module would handle the "auto" switch feature. I have bought the bare board, compontents from Digikey and have the instructions. But looking more closely I see it's designed to close the crossfeed contactor when the things are good, not bad. What mod do I need to do to switch it's functionality around. The low voltage warning system was designed to handle AUX batteries, not the cross-feed contactor. Not easily done without adding more components. Why automate the crossfeed function. The whole idea about Figure Z-14 is to design a situation where one side can go down completely and NOT cause you to break a sweat. In this case, there is no urgency in doing anything to bring a black-system back up . . . further, the likelihood that any single failure will take a system to black is very rare. Your regulators are already fitted with low voltage warning lights. If any one of these lights comes on, there's no value in having the system automatically react to this condition. You're better off making a considered judgement as to WHEN the cross-feed will be closed and what items will be operated off the compromised bus. The automatic feature you contemplate adds complexity, cost of ownership, reduced reliability and adds no safety. Bob . . . -- -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Securing small wires
> >I've had trouble with these things falling off, unless I use a dab of >5minute epoxy to attach them. I slightly scuff-sand the place to be >bonded to, mix up a blob of 5min and hold the tab in place with a piece of >tape. None have dis-bonded that have been attached like this. The little >sticky area in the center doesn't seem to cause any problems with epoxy. >Additionally, I think you can buy these tabs without the sticky stuff, but >I'll bet they are more money. I'll bet you're right. The ones we use at RAC are 3M products fitted with their VHB (very high bond) adhesive technologies. Somebody had to look at these pretty carefully before they allowed them on the airplane and then, I'm sure their use is restricted. Any other product should be applied with caution. I would caution also about use of any epoxy to grab onto either metal or plastic. When I did the bond-stud tests a couple of years ago we looked at various adhesives. The fast setting, pure plastic epoxies were the worst. Very moderate adhesion at room temp . . . poor at 160F. JB Weld was a little better: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Bond_Stud_A.jpg The best was E-6000 or "Sho-Goo" http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Bond_Stud_B.jpg This stuff hangs on well at 160F . . . the test illustrated held over 50# in sheer at 160+ degrees for the aluminum bond stud. I would expect similar performance for the nylon mounts. A pop-rivet through the center is probably the best overall. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vern W." <vernw(at)ev1.net>
Subject: Re: Securing small wires
Date: May 27, 2005
Add E-6000 to the mix as well. As an adhesive, it's almost magical. Vern ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Securing small wires > > > > > >I've had trouble with these things falling off, unless I use a dab of > >5minute epoxy to attach them. I slightly scuff-sand the place to be > >bonded to, mix up a blob of 5min and hold the tab in place with a piece of > >tape. None have dis-bonded that have been attached like this. The little > >sticky area in the center doesn't seem to cause any problems with epoxy. > >Additionally, I think you can buy these tabs without the sticky stuff, but > >I'll bet they are more money. > > I'll bet you're right. The ones we use at RAC are 3M products fitted > with their VHB (very high bond) adhesive technologies. Somebody had > to look at these pretty carefully before they allowed them on the > airplane and then, I'm sure their use is restricted. Any other > product should be applied with caution. > > I would caution also about use of any epoxy to grab onto either > metal or plastic. When I did the bond-stud tests a couple of > years ago we looked at various adhesives. The fast setting, pure > plastic epoxies were the worst. Very moderate adhesion > at room temp . . . poor at 160F. > > JB Weld was a little better: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Bond_Stud_A.jpg > > The best was E-6000 or "Sho-Goo" > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Bond_Stud_B.jpg > > This stuff hangs on well at 160F . . . the test > illustrated held over 50# in sheer at 160+ degrees > for the aluminum bond stud. > > I would expect similar performance for the nylon > mounts. A pop-rivet through the center is probably the > best overall. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2005
Subject: Re: Securing small wires
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Bob - We bought some of these from you and absolutely love them. I know you are out of them, but if you get a line on some more, let us know. I've looked all over the internet and could find none that could fill their shoes. We used E-6000 and have four #2 welding cables hanging off of them and they are solid. John wrote: > I would caution also about use of any epoxy to grab onto either > metal or plastic. When I did the bond-stud tests a couple of > years ago we looked at various adhesives. -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bryan Hooks" <bryanhooks(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Calculating Electrical Load
Date: May 27, 2005
Would you believe I had almost 1700 emails when I got home? Talk to ya when you get back in town. I'm anxious to find out what info you got on this subject. Just off the top of my head - and I may be way off base - but shouldn't it take the same amount of power to operate the device? So 5.19V x 1.05A = 5.45W , and therefore 5.45W / 14V = .39Amps? Anyway - see ya' soon. -bh -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of SMITHBKN(at)aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Calculating Electrical Load I've just getting started on the electrical system of my RV-7A. I have the AeroElectric Connection book and I've read it, but being a rookie on things electrical I'm going to need some help. I've started calculating loads for the system that I would like to have and I'm not sure how to handle components that are rated for a voltage different than the voltage of the system on the plane. For example, I have a roll servo, built by Superior Electric, that has on the spec plate the following information: Stepping Motor Type KML061F02 5.19 VDC 1.05 AMP I assume my plane's system voltage while operating normally will be "about 14 volts" according to information on page 2-8 of AeroElectric Connection. So, in order to calculate the amperage required to run the servo motor do I use the 1.05 amp shown on the spec plate, or do I need to calculate a new amperage using the 14 volt system voltage that will be supplied to the motor by my plane's alternator? If it is the latter, am I doing the calculation correctly? Volts = Amps X Resistance 5.19 V = 1.05 amp X (unknown) 5.19 V/1.05 amp = 4.94 ohms Then, substituting the know resistance back into the same formula I can calculate a new amperage for the 14 volt situation: 14 V = (unknown amps) X 4.94 ohms 14 V/4.94 ohms = 2.8 amps So, for my load calculations on my system I would have to use a 2.8 amp value for the current needed to run the motor. Is this correct? I suppose the motor could have some sort of internal step-down function that takes the 14 V system voltage and reduces it to 5.19 V stated on the spec plate, but I have no idea if this is how things like this work. I know this is basic stuff, but I really appreciate someone's help. Jeff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Larkin" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: PDA power
Date: May 27, 2005
The PDA system from anywhere map comes with the proper adapter. Most if not all PDA's use Lithium-ion or Lithium polymer batteries which use a constant voltage charging system. If you try to use a Ni-cad type charger you will trip the circuit protection of the battery. If the battery doesn't have a protection circuit you will cook the battery or possibly start a fire. So always use the correct adapter/charger when using these types of devices. Mike Larkin -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Swartout Subject: AeroElectric-List: PDA power Are any of you using PDA's or Pocket PC's such as Dell Axim or HP iPAQ to run GPS moving map navigation programs such as AnywhereMap or MountainScope or TeleType, and here is my question: Are you using batteries to run this device, or feeding it from your airplane's electrical system? I haven't seen in the specifications for any of these devices how many volts they run on (I don't own one yet), nor whether they can run on external power sources. Also, if you are using a separate GPS receiver, either Bluetooth or wired, to feed the PDA, are you running THAT on batteries, does it receive power from the PDA, or are you running it from ship's power? Bottom line, to save $$$ on batteries and avoid the nuisance of wanting to start a trip and not having any charged Ni-cad's on hand, I would like to supply these devices--GPS receiver and PDA, from ship's power, and would like to know the best way to supply the correct voltage. I have read numerous posts on the subject of converting DC to DC of a different voltage but nothing definitive. Thanks in advance. John -- -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: May 27, 2005
Subject: Re: Securing small wires
In a message dated 05/27/2005 2:14:13 PM Central Standard Time, vernw(at)ev1.net writes: Add E-6000 to the mix as well. As an adhesive, it's almost magical. >>>> If this is the same as GOOP, I gotta agree- Isn't this the stuff Grumman used to skin their singles? 8-) Mark ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Securing small wires
> >In a message dated 05/27/2005 2:14:13 PM Central Standard Time, vernw(at)ev1.net >writes: >Add E-6000 to the mix as well. As an adhesive, it's almost magical. > >>>> > >If this is the same as GOOP, I gotta agree- Isn't this the stuff Grumman >used to skin their singles? 8-) The stuff is sold under a ton of brand names including GOOP who sells lots of stickums besides the E-6000. Hobby lobby and most hardware stores handle E-6000 as does Walmart in the hobbies/crafts department. As far as I know right now, it's only offered in water-clear formulations and uses trichlorethane or similar as a solvent . . . it's reminiscent of the smell you get in a dry-cleaning establishment. This is a solvent based adhesive that would be vulnerable to hydrocarbons . . . it also takes quite awhile to reach full strength especially in deep sections. Don't load the joint for 24 hours and 48 is better. Once set up, it's quite tenacious. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com>
Subject: Re: Securing small wires
Date: May 27, 2005
> The stuff is sold under a ton of brand names including GOOP who > sells lots of stickums besides the E-6000. Hobby lobby and most > hardware stores handle E-6000 as does Walmart in the hobbies/crafts > department. > > As far as I know right now, it's only offered in water-clear > formulations and uses trichlorethane or similar as a solvent . . . > it's reminiscent of the smell you get in a dry-cleaning > establishment. This is a solvent based adhesive that would be > vulnerable to hydrocarbons . . . it also takes quite awhile > to reach full strength especially in deep sections. Don't > load the joint for 24 hours and 48 is better. From our buddies at McMaster-Carr: High-Strength Adhesives/Sealants As the industrial version of Goop, these elastomeric adhesives bond and seal spaces in metal, wood, glass, some plastics (including ABS, acrylic, polycarbonate, and PVC), composites, tile, cement, rubber, leather, and vinyl. They stay flexible for use on dissimilar materials and can be painted. Begin to harden in 4-5 minutes; reach full strength in 24-72 hours. Application temperature range is +70 to +85 F. Operating temperature range is -40 to +150 F. Color is clear. The 10.2-oz cartridges fit a standard caulk gun. Note: Will dissolve or soften when used with solvents such as gasoline and toluene. Standard- For indoor use. Resists acids and caustics. Marine- For outdoor use. Resists yellowing when exposed to sunlight. Can be used as an underwater sealant. Excellent resistance to saltwater spray and corrosives. Nonsagging- Ideal for indoor overhead and vertical use. Standard Marine Nonsagging Size Each Each Each 3.7-oz. Tube 7475A65 $4.27 7475A67 $6.36 -- -- 10.2-oz. Cartridge 7475A66 6.13 7475A68 7.67 7475A69 $6.51 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 28, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Securing small wires
> > From our buddies at McMaster-Carr: > >High-Strength Adhesives/Sealants > As the industrial version of Goop, these elastomeric adhesives bond and >seal spaces in metal, wood, glass, some plastics (including ABS, acrylic, >polycarbonate, and PVC), composites, tile, cement, rubber, leather, and >vinyl. They stay flexible for use on dissimilar materials and can be >painted. Begin to harden in 4-5 minutes; reach full strength in 24-72 hours. >Application temperature range is +70 to +85 F. Operating temperature >range is -40 to +150 F. Color is clear. The 10.2-oz cartridges fit a >standard caulk gun. Note: Will dissolve or soften when used with solvents >such as gasoline and toluene. > Standard- For indoor use. Resists acids and caustics. Marine- For >outdoor use. Resists yellowing when exposed to sunlight. Can be used as an >underwater sealant. Excellent resistance to saltwater spray and corrosives. >Nonsagging- Ideal for indoor overhead and vertical use. > Standard Marine Nonsagging >Size Each Each Each > >3.7-oz. Tube 7475A65 $4.27 > 7475A67 $6.36 > -- -- > >10.2-oz. Cartridge 7475A66 6.13 > 7475A68 7.67 > 7475A69 $6.51 Here's the poop from the folks who make it and I think rebrand it for everyone else. http://www.gluguru.com/1_part_adhesives.htm#Eclectic I think we get the 3.7 oz tubes at Wallmart and Hobby Lobby for under $3 each. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 28, 2005
From: Larry McFarland <larrymc(at)qconline.com>
Subject: Headset pains
Hi Guys, My wife is a small gal and the headphone bows become a vise on the ears and pain at the top of the skull after too short a time. Has anyone seen a set of headphones that are lighter and smaller that were capable of passive noise cancellation in a light enclosed aircraft? Sennheiser have a set that has a double bows but are designed for jets. Not sure if they would be correct for conventional engine noise. Any recommendations for this problem? Larry McFarland - 601HDS ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 28, 2005
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Headset pains
I suspect that the "jet" ones just let them advertise a higher attenuation number at the higher frequency and will be fine. There are a


May 19, 2005 - May 28, 2005

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-el