AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-em
May 28, 2005 - June 08, 2005
couple of other possible issues though. Many headsets do not have enough
depth in the ear cups for me and produce the symptoms you describe. The
lightspeeds such as the -15 have deep comfortable ear cups and a nice
headband. If you can possibly borrow a set to try (even though they are
active) you might (like me) consider the price to be good value compared
to Sennheiser. I don't find the double bows to be an advantage and I
don't spread them apart anyway.
Ken
Larry McFarland wrote:
>
>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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Headset pains |
Hi Larry,
I would recommend Sigtronics with the 'child' band. They supply adult
and child band sizes in one package. Mine work fine. Earl
Larry McFarland wrote:
> Has anyone seen a set of headphones
>that are lighter and smaller that were capable of passive noise
>cancellation in a light enclosed aircraft?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Melvin <melvinke(at)direcway.com> |
Check out Pantherelectronics.com
Kenneth Melvin N36KM
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
McFarland
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: 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
Hi Larry,
How about no earcups, and no headband?
Check out these from LightSpeed:
http://www.anrheadsets.com/productsL1.asp
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cory Emberson" <bootless(at)earthlink.net> |
Hello -
Quiet Technologies (www.quiettechnologies.com), Aloft Technologies
(www.clarityaloft.com) and Panther Electronics (www.pantherelectronics.com)
all have similar no-band-or-earcup headsets.
I saw the L1s at Sun n Fun, and they are light as a feather!
best, Cory
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dj
Merrill
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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
Hi Larry,
How about no earcups, and no headband?
Check out these from LightSpeed:
http://www.anrheadsets.com/productsL1.asp
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cory Emberson" <bootless(at)earthlink.net> |
P.S. To Larry - my headsets are a nice set of Peltors that are incredibly
comfortable, even for long trips. I'm a small gal, too, and don't like the
heavy feel of David Clam- ... Clarks. They feel like they weigh more than my
head!
best, Cory
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ken
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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
couple of other possible issues though. Many headsets do not have enough
depth in the ear cups for me and produce the symptoms you describe. The
lightspeeds such as the -15 have deep comfortable ear cups and a nice
headband. If you can possibly borrow a set to try (even though they are
active) you might (like me) consider the price to be good value compared
to Sennheiser. I don't find the double bows to be an advantage and I
don't spread them apart anyway.
Ken
Larry McFarland wrote:
>
>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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Larkin" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
I have tried them all.... The Bose 10X is very
comfortable.............. A little on the pricey......
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
McFarland
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: toggle switch action? |
>
> 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 . . .
>
> Hey Bob,
So that I am clear on this, does a 2-10 switch replace the 2-3 switch plus
breaker for field? If so, then a second 2-10 switch will operate the AUX
batt manager.
Thanks,
Jim
HRII
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Graham Singleton <graham(at)gflight.f9.co.uk> |
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.
Bob
isn't this stuff a "moisture cure polyurethane"? There may be solvent too but once
that has gone the urethane reacts with atmospheric water vapour and cures,
eventually it will be sovent resistant.
Graham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Headset pains |
After 1400 hours and many different type headsets including ANR my wife and I both wear AuriComm's. http://www.quiettechnologies.com/ They are the best headsets I have every worn, and at $365.00 each, when adjusted for inflation they are the cheapest headsets I have purchased in the past 30+ years.
Russ Daves
RV-10 (Fuselage)
RV-6A Sold
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Glasgow" <willfly(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Headset pains |
My wife is using a headset from http://www.quiettechnologies.com/
They are not noise cnx but work as well as the Light Speeds I use.
Steve Glasgow
N123SG RV-8
Cappy's Toy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Repost from 10/24/03
Most of the various GOOP products (Household, Plumber's, Automotive,
Amazing, Craftsman, and Shoe GOO) are simply "retail" versions of E6000
industrial adhesive. They contain a more consumer-friendly solvent, but have
the same performance characteristics. Marine GOOP differs only in that it
contains UV inhibitors it's their E6800 industrial adhesive, solvent and
all. Shoo Goo used to be made from a harder resin, but that's not true any
longer. Eclectic Products (manufacturers of Goop) says that if you live in
the U.S. there is a different formula for Goop than in Canada. The Canadian
formula contains perchloroethylene which is a known carcinogenic but is
non-flammable and also does not work quite as well. The U.S. Goop contains
toluene, which although is a flammable solvent, it is not carcinogenic.
Duco (made by Devcon) is made of nitro cellulose with toluene solvent.
Pretty much a tube of rocket fuel it seems to me. It's an older
formulation--most of the newer household goops use styrene monomers. The
solvents may depend on where you buy it.
So in short Shoo Goo is not on the critical materials list. Just buy
anything in the hardware store that says "miracle" and is not a white glue,
a rubber, a cyanoacrylate, or an epoxy. Look for the picture of a teacup
with a broken handle. That's the stuff.............
End of repost----
I want to add that Gorilla Glue has a lot to recommend it. It has become a
favorite of mine, although it has some quirks.
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> switch action? |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: toggle |
switch action?
>
> >
> > 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 . . .
> >
> > Hey Bob,
>So that I am clear on this, does a 2-10 switch replace the 2-3 switch plus
>breaker for field? If so, then a second 2-10 switch will operate the AUX
>batt manager.
>Thanks,
>Jim
>HRII
No, you ALWAYS need the breaker . . . it's just that the 3-position
2-10 offers battery-only ground ops without pulling the breaker.
If you don't mind pulling the breaker to achieve battery-only
operation, then a 2-3 switch will suffice. There's no great magic
in bringing alternator on/off separately.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
>
>
>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.
>
>Bob
>isn't this stuff a "moisture cure polyurethane"? There may be solvent too
>but once that has gone the urethane reacts with atmospheric water vapour
>and cures, eventually it will be sovent resistant.
>Graham
Eric has addressed this . . . I don't think moisture has
any direct role in effecting a cure of this stuff. Further,
if you check the data sheets for cured material, it cites
good resistance to water, weak bases and weak alkalies. A
resistance to hydrocarbons and/or solvents is conspicuously
absent.
I would used this stuff under the cowl with consideration.
It's good everywhere else for non-structural attachment.
Stay with welds, nuts, screws and rivets for these joints.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Headset pains |
Do those tried headsets include Bose X? These are light, and very effective
with the best mic I've have used. My MII is very noisy so ANR is an absolute
necessity.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Headset pains
>
> After 1400 hours and many different type headsets including ANR my wife
> and I both wear AuriComm's. http://www.quiettechnologies.com/ They are the
> best headsets I have every worn, and at $365.00 each, when adjusted for
> inflation they are the cheapest headsets I have purchased in the past 30+
> years.
>
> Russ Daves
> RV-10 (Fuselage)
> RV-6A Sold
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Charging the battery through the E-bus diode |
Hi Bob,
I'm wiring my plane pretty much according to Z-16, with some minor mods
since I'm using a coil and points based ignition system on my Corvair
engine and have implemented an Always-Hot bus.
In studying the schematic and trying to list all possible failures and
their impact, I began wondering about battery failures. So I have some
questions. I think these would have to involve in-flight battery failures,
(let's say one dead cell), so they may be extremely rare, but I wonder still:
1. If you open the battery contactor and close the E-bus switch in flight,
and the battery needs a lot of charging, the alternator will attempt to do
so through the E-bus diode, which could presumably blow if the charge
current is high enough. Will it ever get that high? I've got a B&C heat
sink on mine.
2. I'm using a John Deere (PM) dynamo with a regulator whose supply pin is
connected to the main bus. The battery fails for some reason. I have a
big electrolytic cap on the output, so everything is fine and dandy, but
while trying to diagnose what exactly is happening, let's say I make the
mistake of pulling the dynamo breaker. I will not be able to reset the
breaker or do anything else to get the dynamo back online, because there is
no supply voltage to power the regulator.
So maybe these are very rare, and could be easily overcome by simply using
two 17ah batteries instead of a single larger battery. Am I wasting my
time worrying about these?
Thanks,
Dave Morris
www.DaveMorris.com/Dave/DFly.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shoo Goo Repost |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
wrote:
> I want to add that Gorilla Glue has a lot to recommend it. It has become
> a favorite of mine, although > it has some quirks.
Eric -
Like, what quirks. We always need ideas as to what sticks to what -
especially to epoxy-glass.
Thanks,
John
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shoo Goo Repost |
By the way, I just went to my local Wal-Mart and found E6000 in the
"crafts" section.
Dave Morris
At 01:36 PM 5/29/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>wrote:
>
> > I want to add that Gorilla Glue has a lot to recommend it. It has become
> > a favorite of mine, although > it has some quirks.
>
>Eric -
>
>Like, what quirks. We always need ideas as to what sticks to what -
>especially to epoxy-glass.
>
>Thanks,
>
>John
>
>
>--
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Byrne" <jack.byrne(at)bigpond.com> |
Hi Bob
Am in the process of ordering the components for this installation. Z-13/8
Which battery contactor do I use.
S701-1 or S701-2?
Also the Low Voltage Monitor Module shown on the drawing.
Will the Low Voltage section of the GRT EIS take the place of this module or
do I need this component. If so where will I get it and the Part Number
please.
Regards
Chris Byrne
Sydney
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pat Salvati <pats4p(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Is there any good reason, safety standpoint, that NiMH batteries should not be
used in an aircraft. I have a dual alternator dual battery ship I'm building ,
NiMH battery packs come in some very attractive packaging versus 28v RG battery
dimensions. The only one that I have come across is the one from B+C (7.5 AH
or 11 AH) that would fit for me. Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bobsv35b(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Headset pains |
Good Morning Larry,
This may not be applicable to your situation, but I did have a similar difficulty
with headsets for my diminutive wife. She absolutely refused to use any headset
I tried including older Bose headsets.
One day at Oshkosh, she was walking past the Bose tent and they were pitching their
wares by offering something to listen to that interested my little lady.
After trying the Bose X headsets, she came back to our tent and informed that
she wanted a set. I purchased a unit for her and she has been a happy user for
the last three years.
I know you stated that you wanted a passive set, but if you do not have electricity
to power them, they are available with a nice long lasting small battery
powered cord.
I am certain we all agree that headset use is a very subjective thing, but the
Bose Xs are the first ones that made my significant other happy and I do believe
we had previously tried every other brand, including earlier Bose units, that
anybody has ever offered!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman 3977A
Downers Grove, IL
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry McFarland <larrymc(at)qconline.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PeterHunt1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | LRI Audio Warning Wanted |
I have a Lift Reserve Indicator (LRI) and want to add an audio warning to it.
Has anyone experimented with a pressure differential switch (the LRI needle
operates by indicating pressure differential) to actuate a warning tone in
your headset? The LRI manufacturer has told me for three years he is working on
this. I am tired of waiting for something he is likely not going to develop
and want to develop something on my own.
Pete - Clearwater, FL
RV-6, all electric panel
Getting ready for first flight.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Winn <sbwinn(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Z-13/8 Drawing |
Chris,
You want the S701-1 for the Z-13/8 master battery contactor. S701-1
and S702-1 are the same physical 4 terminal contactor device with
different external wiring. B&C pre-wires them into either the -1
configuration for battery contactors, and the -2 configuration for
crossfeed contactor applications.
As for the low voltage warning, I also have the GRT EFIS system. I am
using the B&C lightweight alernator & their regulator as well. Their
regulator has a low volt warning out. The GRT EFIS has a voltage
warning ability that should provide the same funcitionality. It might
be nice to have an external low voltage indicator, I really think it
is up to your own preference. Bob sells the board described in this Z
diagram at his web site as either abare board or a kit with the parts:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
--Scott
San Diego
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Winn <sbwinn(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: NiHM Batteries |
I don't think safety is going to be the biggest concern with using
NiMH batteries. They have a very different charge profile than Sealed
Lead Acid batteries and will require the use of a special charger or
voltage regulator. I'm sure it is possible but I wouldn't know where
to get the required components. Possibly standard regulators can be
adapted?
Another issue may be self discharge. NiMH batteries typically have a
higher rate of self discharge than the Sealed Lead Acid batteries do,
so just sitting they will slowly lose their charge which isn't nice if
you don't fly your airplane for a while.
I know that NiCD batteries heat up, explode and can catch on fire if
severely overcharged. I have seen it in person. I believe NiMH also
heat up as they become overcharged, I have never pushed one past the
'full' mark before, do they have the same ftype of failure if severly
overcharged?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: NiHM Batteries |
I fly radio control aircraft and have used NiHM
batteries. They do require a dedicated charging
system. A charger for NiCad's should not even be
used, let alone an aircraft charging system.
Dave
--- Scott Winn wrote:
>
>
> I don't think safety is going to be the biggest
> concern with using
> NiMH batteries. They have a very different charge
> profile than Sealed
> Lead Acid batteries and will require the use of a
> special charger or
> voltage regulator. I'm sure it is possible but I
> wouldn't know where
> to get the required components. Possibly standard
> regulators can be
> adapted?
>
> Another issue may be self discharge. NiMH batteries
> typically have a
> higher rate of self discharge than the Sealed Lead
> Acid batteries do,
> so just sitting they will slowly lose their charge
> which isn't nice if
> you don't fly your airplane for a while.
>
> I know that NiCD batteries heat up, explode and can
> catch on fire if
> severely overcharged. I have seen it in person. I
> believe NiMH also
> heat up as they become overcharged, I have never
> pushed one past the
> 'full' mark before, do they have the same ftype of
> failure if severly
> overcharged?
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | Contactor vs Power Relay |
Bob and/or other expert,
What's the difference between the Aeroelectric Connection recommended
battery contactor and a high-amperage automotive power relay such as
this: http://www.wiringproducts.com/?target=dept_96.html
Scroll down a bit and you'll find a Bosch 75AMP power relay. This seem
ideal to use in lieu of the bulky contactor and all it's associated
diodes and such. What am I missing?
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Larkin" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
The only down side I can think of is you would have to integrate a
charger system. Also NiMH tend to loose their charger over short
periods of time (two weeks to a month).
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pat
Salvati
Subject: AeroElectric-List: NiMH Batteries
Is there any good reason, safety standpoint, that NiMH batteries should
not be used in an aircraft. I have a dual alternator dual battery ship
I'm building , NiMH battery packs come in some very attractive packaging
versus 28v RG battery dimensions. The only one that I have come across
is the one from B+C (7.5 AH or 11 AH) that would fit for me. Any input
would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Pat
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "alejandroecheverria" <alejandroecheverria(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Contactor vs Power Relay |
FUCK YOU
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Contactor vs Power Relay
>
> Bob and/or other expert,
>
> What's the difference between the Aeroelectric Connection recommended
> battery contactor and a high-amperage automotive power relay such as
> this: http://www.wiringproducts.com/?target=dept_96.html
>
> Scroll down a bit and you'll find a Bosch 75AMP power relay. This seem
> ideal to use in lieu of the bulky contactor and all it's associated
> diodes and such. What am I missing?
>
> Mark
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Contactor vs Power Relay |
If you run your starter through it, what is the max current your starter
will draw?
Dave Morris
At 12:38 PM 5/30/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob and/or other expert,
>
>What's the difference between the Aeroelectric Connection recommended
>battery contactor and a high-amperage automotive power relay such as
>this: http://www.wiringproducts.com/?target=dept_96.html
>
>Scroll down a bit and you'll find a Bosch 75AMP power relay. This seem
>ideal to use in lieu of the bulky contactor and all it's associated
>diodes and such. What am I missing?
>
>Mark
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "alejandroecheverria" <alejandroecheverria(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: NiHM Batteries |
FUCK YOU
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Nellis" <truflite(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: NiHM Batteries
>
> I fly radio control aircraft and have used NiHM
> batteries. They do require a dedicated charging
> system. A charger for NiCad's should not even be
> used, let alone an aircraft charging system.
>
> Dave
> --- Scott Winn wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't think safety is going to be the biggest
> > concern with using
> > NiMH batteries. They have a very different charge
> > profile than Sealed
> > Lead Acid batteries and will require the use of a
> > special charger or
> > voltage regulator. I'm sure it is possible but I
> > wouldn't know where
> > to get the required components. Possibly standard
> > regulators can be
> > adapted?
> >
> > Another issue may be self discharge. NiMH batteries
> > typically have a
> > higher rate of self discharge than the Sealed Lead
> > Acid batteries do,
> > so just sitting they will slowly lose their charge
> > which isn't nice if
> > you don't fly your airplane for a while.
> >
> > I know that NiCD batteries heat up, explode and can
> > catch on fire if
> > severely overcharged. I have seen it in person. I
> > believe NiMH also
> > heat up as they become overcharged, I have never
> > pushed one past the
> > 'full' mark before, do they have the same ftype of
> > failure if severly
> > overcharged?
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
Nimh batteries have very low tolerence for vibration. I lost a couple of rc
helicopters as a result. I went back to Nicad's and have had no problems.
Just my 2 cents. Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike
Larkin
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: NiMH Batteries
The only down side I can think of is you would have to integrate a
charger system. Also NiMH tend to loose their charger over short
periods of time (two weeks to a month).
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pat
Salvati
Subject: AeroElectric-List: NiMH Batteries
Is there any good reason, safety standpoint, that NiMH batteries should
not be used in an aircraft. I have a dual alternator dual battery ship
I'm building , NiMH battery packs come in some very attractive packaging
versus 28v RG battery dimensions. The only one that I have come across
is the one from B+C (7.5 AH or 11 AH) that would fit for me. Any input
would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Pat
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org |
| Subject: | Re: Charging the battery through the E-bus diode |
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID948JedwSy0043X36
As I read the schematic you're correct. I suppose this situation could happen
if you've really flattened your battery during a difficult start-up then
didn't allow the alternator to recharge the battery very soon after
(disengaged the alternator or master contactor).
If you're really worried about that failure mode you can simply oversize your
diode connecting the master to the endurance bus. A quick search of Allied
Electronics lists power diodes capable of passing 20A for about $20 up to
about $80 for 100A. Depending on how big your alternator is you could go with
one of those (and a big heat sink mind you!).
But if you're in a situation where your alternator is capable of producing
enough current to fry your e-bus diode, why would you want to shut off the
main bus contactor? I suppose if you had a battery failure AND a main bus
contactor you could get into this situation - but now we're getting into the
realm of really low odds I think.
Chad
Chad Sipperley
Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
Phoenix, AZ
------ Original Message ------
From: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Charging the battery through the E-bus diode
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I'm wiring my plane pretty much according to Z-16, with some minor mods
> since I'm using a coil and points based ignition system on my Corvair
> engine and have implemented an Always-Hot bus.
>
> In studying the schematic and trying to list all possible failures and
> their impact, I began wondering about battery failures. So I have some
> questions. I think these would have to involve in-flight battery failures,
> (let's say one dead cell), so they may be extremely rare, but I wonder
still:
>
> 1. If you open the battery contactor and close the E-bus switch in flight,
> and the battery needs a lot of charging, the alternator will attempt to do
> so through the E-bus diode, which could presumably blow if the charge
> current is high enough. Will it ever get that high? I've got a B&C heat
> sink on mine.
>
> 2. I'm using a John Deere (PM) dynamo with a regulator whose supply pin is
> connected to the main bus. The battery fails for some reason. I have a
> big electrolytic cap on the output, so everything is fine and dandy, but
> while trying to diagnose what exactly is happening, let's say I make the
> mistake of pulling the dynamo breaker. I will not be able to reset the
> breaker or do anything else to get the dynamo back online, because there is
> no supply voltage to power the regulator.
>
> So maybe these are very rare, and could be easily overcome by simply using
> two 17ah batteries instead of a single larger battery. Am I wasting my
> time worrying about these?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave Morris
> www.DaveMorris.com/Dave/DFly.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Cordless drill - anyone know amp hours? |
I'm thinking of using the batteries from a couple of 12 or 14 volt cordless
drills for a non-aircraft application. I figure buy 2 from Harbor Freight
($10 of $15 each) cut one apart and save the handle, turn it upside down
and attach it to the Infernal Device.
I'd have 2 batteries and a charger, so I could swap them whenever
needed. But experience shows I need about 2.5-3AH for the
application. Anyone know if these battery packs come close to that?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cordless drill - anyone know amp hours? |
| From: | "Tom Brusehaver" <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
I bought one of the HF 18V cordless drills. It seems
they work, butare kinda wimpy (compared to the bosch/
craftsman type). I don't think their batteries are that
good either.
I've been replacing the 1200MAh nicads in the stock packs
with after market 2000MAh Ni cads. Depending on your charger
metal hydride, and lithium ion aren't directly replacable.
They may also not be suitable. They use the sub-C batteries
and getting the ones with tabs is the easiest way.
It might work.
wrote:
>
>
> I'm thinking of using the batteries from a couple of 12 or 14 volt
> cordless
> drills for a non-aircraft application. I figure buy 2 from Harbor
> Freight
> ($10 of $15 each) cut one apart and save the handle, turn it upside down
> and attach it to the Infernal Device.
>
> I'd have 2 batteries and a charger, so I could swap them whenever
> needed. But experience shows I need about 2.5-3AH for the
> application. Anyone know if these battery packs come close to that?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Isler" <jlisler(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Dynon D-10A Ticking |
I think I have figured out what is going on with my Dynon D-10A. It appears
that if you have the keep alive circuit wired up to the Dynon and you let
the main bus voltage drop to 10.5 volts or so due to not maintaining the
proper charge on the main battery, the keep alive circuit cannot function
properly due to the low voltage on it's input. At this low voltage it will
start making an audible ticking noise as it tries to keep the internal
battery charged. However it cannot properly charge the battery in this
condition. The Dynon internal battery indicates slightly greater than 16
volts when charged and the charging circuit is normally operating at ~ 13
volts on it's input. Through some magic the Dynon internal charging circuit
output has to be greater than 16 volts to keep the battery charged. Now that
I have a full charge on the PC-680 everything is working fine. No more
ticking.
Be aware if you hear your Dynon ticking. Your ships bus voltage is probably
low. Also the Dynon will not power up if it's voltage drops below some
voltage threshold. I do not know this exact voltage.
Jerry Isler
RV-4 N455J
Donalsonville, GA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler(at)alltel.net>
Subject: RV-List: Dynon D-10A Ticking
> 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)?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Contactor vs Power Relay |
>
>
>Bob and/or other expert,
>
>What's the difference between the Aeroelectric Connection recommended
>battery contactor and a high-amperage automotive power relay such as
>this: http://www.wiringproducts.com/?target=dept_96.html
>
>Scroll down a bit and you'll find a Bosch 75AMP power relay. This seem
>ideal to use in lieu of the bulky contactor and all it's associated
>diodes and such. What am I missing?
I have no idea. Without specifics as to the ratings and
termination techniques for these products, I cannot accurately
assess their suitability as battery contactors. Do you
have a specific part number from Bosch and/or can point
me to a data sheet?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NiMH Batteries |
>
>Is there any good reason, safety standpoint, that NiMH batteries should
>not be used in an aircraft. I have a dual alternator dual battery ship I'm
>building , NiMH battery packs come in some very attractive packaging
>versus 28v RG battery dimensions. The only one that I have come across is
>the one from B+C (7.5 AH or 11 AH) that would fit for me. Any input would
>be appreciated.
How do you want to use this battery? Which Z-figure are
you considering? The NiMH is not going to be able to help
crank an engine . . . further, it's trickier to charge
than lead-acid and has a 10x higher self-discharge rate
than SVLA batteries.
I think I would recommend that NiMH be limited to portable
power such has handhelds and then if maintained at home in
chargers specific to the characteristics of the cells.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Perplexed by Intercom and radio ground complexities |
I am installing a flighttech intercom and an icom radio on a metal panel
and both have dedicated ground wires going to the firewall forest of
tabs. All the ground pins (signal and power) on both devices are common
to their metal cases. But how to connect the two devices together? The
intercom instructions show connecting individual single wires to the mic
and headphone connections on the radio but it seems to make sense to use
shielded cable for this since they run for several inches beside the
electronic ignition and fuel injector wires if I leave a reasonable
length of wire for servicing. Those noisy wires are fairly numerous and
not shielded. So my first inclination is to ground one end only of the
shield. After all it seems that I already have a potential ground loop
going on with the devices grounded together through the panel mounting
screws and through wires going to the firewall. But it doesn't seem
quite right that the mic and headphone grounds go through the firewall
ground if the case grounds become high resistance. Keying the mic adds a
couple of amps to the radio ground wires although they are double runs
of 18awg to keep the voltage drop minimal. I will do it this way unless
someone suggests a better approach.
However the radio instructions show shielded wire for the mic and
headphone with the shield connected at both ends between the radio and
the audio panel. An audio panel is about the same as an intercom on this
aircraft I figure. At first glance this seems better to me with a direct
ground connection between the devices. But it would also give a triple
ground route through 1. the case grounds 2. the shield 3. the wires
from the power ground pins to the firewall. That does not seem like a
good idea.
As always, any thoughts are appreciated
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> diode |
| Subject: | Re: Charging the battery through the E-bus |
diode
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I'm wiring my plane pretty much according to Z-16, with some minor mods
>since I'm using a coil and points based ignition system on my Corvair
>engine and have implemented an Always-Hot bus.
>
>In studying the schematic and trying to list all possible failures and
>their impact, I began wondering about battery failures. So I have some
>questions. I think these would have to involve in-flight battery failures,
>(let's say one dead cell), so they may be extremely rare, but I wonder still:
>
>1. If you open the battery contactor and close the E-bus switch in flight,
>and the battery needs a lot of charging, the alternator will attempt to do
>so through the E-bus diode, which could presumably blow if the charge
>current is high enough. Will it ever get that high? I've got a B&C heat
>sink on mine.
Only if you leave the alternator ON . . . all of my drawings
insure that the alternator is OFF when the battery contactor is
opened.
>2. I'm using a John Deere (PM) dynamo with a regulator whose supply pin is
>connected to the main bus. The battery fails for some reason. I have a
>big electrolytic cap on the output, so everything is fine and dandy, but
>while trying to diagnose what exactly is happening, let's say I make the
>mistake of pulling the dynamo breaker. I will not be able to reset the
>breaker or do anything else to get the dynamo back online, because there is
>no supply voltage to power the regulator.
If you plan to use the PM alternator breaker for control of this device,
then perhaps you're better advised to connect the PM alternator directly
to the battery like I show for the PM aux alternator in Z-13/8.
>So maybe these are very rare, and could be easily overcome by simply using
>two 17ah batteries instead of a single larger battery. Am I wasting my
>time worrying about these?
That's a judgement call only you can make for yourself. If the potential
for battery failure worries you this much, then perhaps two batteries
are in order. I believe probability of loss of a well maintained battery
is along the same order as loss of a major component of your single
ignition system. With reasonable maintenance, both have been attractive
performers for a host of builders.
I don't think I'd go two 17 a.h. batteries. Your ignition system will
run for hours on a 4 a.h. battery. Just add a second battery per Z-30
except small battery and 30A plastic relay instead of big contactor.
Don't close second battery contactor for cranking . . . in fact, consider
automatic aux battery switching as suggested in
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/9021-620.pdf
Use small battery as primary supply for ignition and main battery
bus as secondary supply.
And arrange for PM altenrator to be disconnected from the main
bus any time the battery contactor is open.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NiMH Batteries |
> The NiMH is not going to be able to help
> crank an engine . . . further, it's trickier to charge
> than lead-acid and has a 10x higher self-discharge rate
> than SVLA batteries.
> I think I would recommend that NiMH be limited to portable
> power such has handhelds and then if maintained at home in
> chargers specific to the characteristics of the cells. Bob . . .
My advice is to go ahead and try it. This is an EXPERIMENTAL list. Just keep
good notes and report back.
>The NiMH is not going to be able to help crank an engine . . .
Data point: Last Saturday I tried to put a Craftsman 6.5 HP lawn mower back
into use. I stripped it down to its essentials and diagnosed the beast. Good
compression pop, some spark (weak?). Plug was okay, getting fresh gasoline,
air filter clean. But I needed to spray gas into it while I turned it over.
Whipped out the socket set and my Makita 14.4V 2.6 amp-hour drill. I knew
this was problematic. The Makita, however, had plenty of power to turn over
the lawnmower engine--and did it every time I asked it to through the span
of a short afternoon. And I haven't had to recharge it yet. (I finally sent
the lawnmower to the lawnmower repair shop....)
>Nimh batteries have very low tolerence for vibration. I lost a couple of
rc
>helicopters as a result. I went back to Nicad's and have had no problems.
>Just my 2 cents. Don
I think this may be a fairly random event. There are many high-vibration
applications in battery-powered tools (even hammer-drills) where NiMH do
just fine. I haven't heard of this problem before.
The other post make good points about the limitations and advantages. It is
quite possible to use NiMH power packs from portable drills (or just the
batteries) in your airplane. Biz jets use nicads, and NiMHs are worlds
better. Satellites use NiMHs. Yes, the charging circuitry is different but
you can buy it off-the-shelf.
And even better batteries are coming.
Lithiums have been in the news from burning cellphones....so be careful. As
much as I am in favor of new technology, I am putting a single Optima D51
into my Glastar. This seems to make the most sense for my needs.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." -- Elbert Hubbard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LRI Audio Warning Wanted |
>
>I have a Lift Reserve Indicator (LRI) and want to add an audio warning to it.
> Has anyone experimented with a pressure differential switch (the LRI needle
>operates by indicating pressure differential) to actuate a warning tone in
>your headset? The LRI manufacturer has told me for three years he is
>working on
>this. I am tired of waiting for something he is likely not going to develop
>and want to develop something on my own.
>
>Pete - Clearwater, FL
>RV-6, all electric panel
>Getting ready for first flight.
Hey Peter, I heard that your airplane was finally out of the
living room. Great news!
The "hard" part is to accurately and repeatedly sense the
pressure at which you want the warning to sound. This would
probably take some form of solid state pressure transducer
like those found on:
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T052/1507.pdf
These would be combined with a power supply, precision
comparator and calibration potentiometer to make the
alarm sound at the right place.
Do you plan to conduct a lot of "close tolerance" approaches?
This seems like an expensive feature . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom & Carol Strong <tstrong(at)ida.net> |
I am getting ready to wire up my RV 9 using the Z-11 plan 12/02 version.
I just noticed on Bob's web site there is a newer version of Z-11 from 4/05.
Is the 12/02 version using the LR-3 alternator controller no longer
acceptable?
Thanks, Tom Strong
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> complexities |
| Subject: | Re: Perplexed by Intercom and radio ground |
complexities
>
>I am installing a flighttech intercom and an icom radio on a metal panel
>and both have dedicated ground wires going to the firewall forest of
>tabs. All the ground pins (signal and power) on both devices are common
>to their metal cases. But how to connect the two devices together? The
>intercom instructions show connecting individual single wires to the mic
>and headphone connections on the radio but it seems to make sense to use
>shielded cable for this since they run for several inches beside the
>electronic ignition and fuel injector wires if I leave a reasonable
>length of wire for servicing. Those noisy wires are fairly numerous and
>not shielded. So my first inclination is to ground one end only of the
>shield. After all it seems that I already have a potential ground loop
>going on with the devices grounded together through the panel mounting
>screws and through wires going to the firewall. But it doesn't seem
>quite right that the mic and headphone grounds go through the firewall
>ground if the case grounds become high resistance. Keying the mic adds a
>couple of amps to the radio ground wires although they are double runs
>of 18awg to keep the voltage drop minimal. I will do it this way unless
>someone suggests a better approach.
>
>However the radio instructions show shielded wire for the mic and
>headphone with the shield connected at both ends between the radio and
>the audio panel. An audio panel is about the same as an intercom on this
>aircraft I figure. At first glance this seems better to me with a direct
>ground connection between the devices. But it would also give a triple
>ground route through 1. the case grounds 2. the shield 3. the wires
>from the power ground pins to the firewall. That does not seem like a
>good idea.
>
>As always, any thoughts are appreciated
have you reviewed the new chapter on audio systems in the
'Connection. See:
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T052/1507.pdf
Suggest you congregate ALL panel grounds locally on the panel
before extending them to the firewall ground bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground Test???? |
>
>
>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?
You're correct with your concerns for adequate ground path when the
terminal sets on top of a gasketed cover! The ground strap terminal
needs to be clamped directly against the crankcase.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Shoo Goo Repost |
>> I want to add that Gorilla Glue has a lot to recommend it. It has become
>> a favorite of mine, although > it has some quirks. Eric -
>Like, what quirks. We always need ideas as to what sticks to what -
>especially to epoxy-glass.
John, et al:
Gorilla Glue is a polyurethane glue. Its advantages are very low cost
compared to epoxy. Very stable bond after hardening. Reasonably fast
setting. Used for most materials. Waterproof and permanent. No fumes--barely
any smell. It is a one-part adhesive that uses water as a kind of
accelerator--you spray a bit of water onto the surfaces you are gluing. This
speeds up the cure (but I think makes the bond more brittle).
The downsides are that it foams when it cures--so clean cosmetic bondlines
are difficult. And it is difficult to remove from fingers (like superglue).
Epoxy-glass often has a weird surface--adhesion is dependent on surface
prep.
I don't necessarily recommend it for everything, but it's a good glue to
become familiar with.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"Every conscious act of learning requires the willingness to suffer an
injury to one's self-esteem...."
-Thomas Szasz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Clinic in St. Louis and P-Mag call ? |
>
>Bob,
>
>Sobering response - thanks. Since my background in electrical engineering is
>close to nil, I am having to climb up a long incline, which leads me to
>occasional tentative decisions based on the most recent information which
>makes sense to me, hence I see-saw between extremes - over simplification to
>bring me to a level I can master and complexity to meet perceived mission
>requirements.
>
>As for rentals, I'd say that if I were intellectually honest, I would only
>rent an airplane after I've had someone knowledgeable fully check it out,
>but I don't do that - so there is a contradiction between my design
>principles and my behavior. Call it rationalization. When I rent I look at
>the track record of the people I rent from and figure if nothing has
>happened so far, there is little likelihood that something will happen as I
>fly the rental.
>
>So, it seems that Z-11 plus a small alternator which makes it Z-13 (correct
>me if I am wrong) would be the way to go - you suggest a small alternator;
>my question is: small alternator or small generator?
It's almost a certainty that the SD-8 will suffice. This
is a very compact, 8A permanent magnet machine from B&C.
Have you conducted a load analysis on your proposed system?
How do you plan to use this airplane? Night? Long flights
over very unfriendly territory? Extended operations in clouds
with ANY risk of ice?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Contactor vs Power Relay |
>Bob and/or other expert,
>What's the difference between the Aeroelectric Connection recommended
>battery contactor and a high-amperage automotive power relay such as
>this: http://www.wiringproducts.com/?target=dept_96.html
>Scroll down a bit and you'll find a Bosch 75AMP power relay. This seem
>ideal to use in lieu of the bulky contactor and all it's associated
>diodes and such. What am I missing?
Hi Mark,
Paul Messinger mentioned this part to me. For some reason the specs are hard
to come by. Maybe someone can find them, but I think the device is just a
slightly upgraded R51 Series 70A design.
In general this device is used for a high current contactor in many vehicle
applications. It would make a great landing light relay even in its smaller
40A version.
But be careful regarding some things--(these data are for the 70A part)
The maximum surge current through the part is only about 120A--for cold
filaments. It will only carry AND break 70A. It would not be useful to start
an engine (but a few in parallel would probably do the job).
Don't use these for a B-line contactor since they will not necessarily break
the connection if the alternator runs away.
The current draw seems to be 1 amp or more. This can add up.
Darned nice part though.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never
tried before.
--Mae West
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Perplexed by Intercom and radio ground complexities |
I betting that's not the right link . . . try:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf
Regards,
Bob Christensen
RV8 Bldr - SE Iowa
On 5/31/05, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> nuckollsr(at)cox.net> complexities
>
>
> >
> >I am installing a flighttech intercom and an icom radio on a metal panel
> >and both have dedicated ground wires going to the firewall forest of
> >tabs. All the ground pins (signal and power) on both devices are common
> >to their metal cases. But how to connect the two devices together? The
> >intercom instructions show connecting individual single wires to the mic
> >and headphone connections on the radio but it seems to make sense to use
> >shielded cable for this since they run for several inches beside the
> >electronic ignition and fuel injector wires if I leave a reasonable
> >length of wire for servicing. Those noisy wires are fairly numerous and
> >not shielded. So my first inclination is to ground one end only of the
> >shield. After all it seems that I already have a potential ground loop
> >going on with the devices grounded together through the panel mounting
> >screws and through wires going to the firewall. But it doesn't seem
> >quite right that the mic and headphone grounds go through the firewall
> >ground if the case grounds become high resistance. Keying the mic adds a
> >couple of amps to the radio ground wires although they are double runs
> >of 18awg to keep the voltage drop minimal. I will do it this way unless
> >someone suggests a better approach.
> >
> >However the radio instructions show shielded wire for the mic and
> >headphone with the shield connected at both ends between the radio and
> >the audio panel. An audio panel is about the same as an intercom on this
> >aircraft I figure. At first glance this seems better to me with a direct
> >ground connection between the devices. But it would also give a triple
> >ground route through 1. the case grounds 2. the shield 3. the wires
> >from the power ground pins to the firewall. That does not seem like a
> >good idea.
> >
> >As always, any thoughts are appreciated
>
> have you reviewed the new chapter on audio systems in the
> 'Connection. See:
>
> http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T052/1507.pdf
>
> Suggest you congregate ALL panel grounds locally on the panel
> before extending them to the firewall ground bus.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> complexities |
| Subject: | Re: Perplexed by Intercom and radio ground |
complexities
Oops . . . thanks Bob!
Bob . . .
>
>I betting that's not the right link . . . try:
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf
> Regards,
>Bob Christensen
>RV8 Bldr - SE Iowa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Perplexed by Intercom and radio ground complexities |
OK I got the impression from the new chapter that a panel ground was
just another convenient way of doing it rather than the preferred
method. Sounds like it is preferred so I'll do something similar for the
audio and avionics grounds. I imagined pros and cons (both performance
and installation wise) of both methods but obviously this method
generally works well..
thanks
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III complexities wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>I am installing a flighttech intercom and an icom radio on a metal panel
>>and both have dedicated ground wires going to the firewall forest of
>>tabs. All the ground pins (signal and power) on both devices are common
>>to their metal cases. But how to connect the two devices together? The
>>intercom instructions show connecting individual single wires to the mic
>>and headphone connections on the radio but it seems to make sense to use
>>shielded cable for this since they run for several inches beside the
>>electronic ignition and fuel injector wires if I leave a reasonable
>>length of wire for servicing. Those noisy wires are fairly numerous and
>>not shielded. So my first inclination is to ground one end only of the
>>shield. After all it seems that I already have a potential ground loop
>>going on with the devices grounded together through the panel mounting
>>screws and through wires going to the firewall. But it doesn't seem
>>quite right that the mic and headphone grounds go through the firewall
>>ground if the case grounds become high resistance. Keying the mic adds a
>>couple of amps to the radio ground wires although they are double runs
>>of 18awg to keep the voltage drop minimal. I will do it this way unless
>>someone suggests a better approach.
>>
>>However the radio instructions show shielded wire for the mic and
>>headphone with the shield connected at both ends between the radio and
>>the audio panel. An audio panel is about the same as an intercom on this
>>aircraft I figure. At first glance this seems better to me with a direct
>>ground connection between the devices. But it would also give a triple
>>ground route through 1. the case grounds 2. the shield 3. the wires
>>
>>
>>from the power ground pins to the firewall. That does not seem like a
>
>
>>good idea.
>>
>>As always, any thoughts are appreciated
>>
>>
>
> have you reviewed the new chapter on audio systems in the
> 'Connection. See:
>
> http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T052/1507.pdf
>
> Suggest you congregate ALL panel grounds locally on the panel
> before extending them to the firewall ground bus.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Brandes" <matthew(at)n523rv.com> |
| Subject: | SOT: GPS/NAV Switch |
(Slightly off-topic... someone have place to get avionics questions
answered?)
I'm trying to figure out what sort of "external switch" I need to use for my
KLN-89B/KX-155/KI-209A installation. The 209A has the relay built in, I just
need some sort of external switch. Do I really need a full-blown annunciator
panel? Can I get by with a toggle switch? A Cessna I recently flew in had a
simple button that illuminated GPS or NAV when pressed. I'd like not to
spend $800+/- for an annunciator I really don't need.
Matthew Brandes,
Van's RV-9A (Electrical/FWF)
#90569
http://www.n523rv.com
EAA Chapter 1329 President
EAA Chapter 868 Web Editor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> complexities |
| Subject: | Re: Perplexed by Intercom and radio ground |
complexities
>
>OK I got the impression from the new chapter that a panel ground was
>just another convenient way of doing it rather than the preferred
>method. Sounds like it is preferred so I'll do something similar for the
>audio and avionics grounds. I imagined pros and cons (both performance
>and installation wise) of both methods but obviously this method
>generally works well..
>thanks
>Ken
I got the idea from a visit to Lancair's avionics shop out
in Oregon a couple years ago. They were assembling turn-key
panels and fitted each one with a panel ground block
fabricated from a captive stud terminal strip like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/MVC-698X.JPG
Of course, their ground block was a lot larger and had
many more wires.
We commiserated about it's bulkiness and discussed
several ways to make it more compact and user friendly.
The bussed d-sub was discussed and seemed to make the most
sense.
In the mean time, I've seen several audio distribution
amplifiers that fitted an avionics ground block right into
the rear of the amplifier . . . just a whole connector
dedicated to grounding things on the panel. The audio
system was a good "central" accessory that not only
touched a lot of the radios, it was also the most vulnerable
to ground loop induced noise. It made sense to build this
functionality into that accessory as long as it was in
the stack or at least on the panel with other radios.
This also addresses the need for dealing with multiple
shield grounds which tend also to cluster up around the
audio distribution amplifier.
Hence the development of the panel ground block extension
to the ground system architecture illustrated for the past
ten years in the 'Connection. Note that all the z-figures
now include an extended panel ground block that speaks to
this very issue.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Weismann" <p_weismann(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Automotive wiring harness tape-suitable? |
7.50 BARRACUDA_HEADER_FP56 RBL: Blacklist bl.spamcop
[Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?64.4.51.220>]
I am following the standards of AC43-13B in my use of metal supports to
prevent excess bending or stress of wire bundles. However, in certain
areas, I am thinking of using standard automotive wiring harness tape as a
way to neaten things up and add an additional layer of protection and
support.
For example, I am building a Rotorway helicopter, and there are
approximately 15 wires running down it (not including antenna coax) for
various devices along its length (about 11 feet). I wrapped this bundle in
tape to see how it worked and it seems to make the bundle quite sturdy
(although I have metal standoffs every 12-18 inches in the boom).
Of course, adding wires to such a bundle would be a major PITA, so I stuck
another 2 conductors through it for spares. Any other issues or problems
with this setup?
Thanks
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PeterHunt1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | LRI Audio Warning Wanted |
Hi Bob,
Thanks for helping me understand that a pressure transducer switch on my LRI
will be complex and expensive. I may play with a Digikey pressure sensor and
will let everyone know if I come up with a practical solution.
No, I do not plan close tolerance approaches. My LRI sits right next to my
air speed indicator and between the two I should have no trouble making safe
approaches. I just thought a warning tone associated with my LRI would be a
nice feature and so I asked.
Yes, my RV-6 is out of the living room and at South Lakeland. The prop goes
on this week, so I'll be lighting the engine soon. You will remember that I
have your latest and greatest Z-10 (all electric airplane with 20-amp E-bus)
wiring system.
Pete Hunt, Clearwater
RV-6, almost ready for first flight
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Instrument Panel labels |
Here is an approach to labeling panels in the airplane:
Inkjet and LaserJet decals.
http://www.decal-paper.com/index.html
Throw a cartridge of fluorescent ink into your inkjet---
http://www.ink4art.com/
Add a UV led into your brow lighting and watch these babies glow.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true."
James Clerk Maxwell, discoverer of electromagnetism
"Too much of a good thing can be wonderful."
Mae West, discoverer of personal magnetism
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Load analysis - resources |
Is there a resource out there listing current draws for all the popular
avionics? And perhaps accessories like common heated pitots? Would be a quick
way to put together your max load figure.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Drawing Z-11 |
>
>I am getting ready to wire up my RV 9 using the Z-11 plan 12/02 version.
>I just noticed on Bob's web site there is a newer version of Z-11 from 4/05.
>Is the 12/02 version using the LR-3 alternator controller no longer
>acceptable?
NOTHING that's presented in the 'Connection and I would hope
very little of what appears here on the List is offered
as "acceptable" or "not acceptable" . . .
Z-11 is an assemblage of ideas. You may find that some ideas
from Z-14, Z-28, or any other figure would be useful if
incorporated into Z-11. There may be things in Z-11 you don't
need/want and will toss out.
If you have focused your attention on Z-11 as depicting
either upper or lower bounds on functionality, please take
the time to review the notes that accompany ALL of the
Z-figures and then post any questions you have here on the List.
If you have deep roots in certified aviation, I understand
how foreign this concept may be. I work in that environment too
and sometimes feel that we're working with one foot in a
bucket of concrete and the other in a fire. Let's pull your
foot from the "bucket" and address your specific question:
The LR-3 is a useful assemblage of regulator, ov protection
and low voltage warning that has a long and successful track
record in the OBAM aircraft industry. It is beginning to make
its mark in the certified side as well. It should be considered
as one option in configuring your electrical system.
Further, there are other options that include purchasing (or
even building) your own regulator, ov protection and/or low
voltage monitoring appliances and putting them together as
illustrated in Z-11 (and others) to achieve the desired
functionality.
If you could use supporting input from other builders in
you decision-making processes, you've come to the right place.
How may we assist you?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NiMH Batteries |
>
>
>
> > I think I would recommend that NiMH be limited to portable
> > power such has handhelds and then if maintained at home in
> > chargers specific to the characteristics of the cells. Bob . . .
>
>My advice is to go ahead and try it. This is an EXPERIMENTAL list. Just keep
>good notes and report back.
Let's try to be a bit more helpful . . .
Hey Pat, can you elaborate on how you thought you might
incorporate this technology into your airplane? Have you
observed any specific products in NiMH technology that
appeared to have utility in some task you're considering?
We're seeing NiMH technology pop up in the larger COTS
(commercial off-the-shelf) cell sizes. See:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=50624&item=5777388815&rd=1
This product suggests that we could assemble 10 each
of the 5.3 oz cells for a total weight on the order of
3.5 pounds to achieve over 9 a.h. of capacity. Not bad
compared to 8-10 pounds for the same capacity in SVLA.
To achieve VERY reliable inter-cell connections, we'd have
to find cells with welded tabs or solder our own lead wires
on as described in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Solder_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Solder_2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Solder_3.jpg
There are questions to be asked and answered will set
your design goals and ultimately drive the go/no-go
decision to incorporate the technology in your project.
Do you care about the relatively fast self discharge
rate of the NiMH/NiCac class of energy storage devices
(on the order of 1%/day)?
How well would this array of cells perform if simply
tied to a bus for charging/discharging like a SVLA battery?
Are there special qualities of the NiMH cell above
weight that suggest these critters could take on a
role in your project?
Keep in mind that performance includes issues like
cost of ownership where you have to "build" your own
battery and perhaps take special steps to monitor
battery condition and then take action to refurbish
or replace based on your findings. This probably won't
be a plug-n-play device from Batteries-R-Us.
Certainly the weight savings are attractive as long
as the $time$ it takes to purchase, fabricate, install,
monitor and maintain doesn't stack so deep as to
make it more attractive to simply shed a few pounds
from one's bod and install an SVLA product instead.
This would be an excellent design study topic for
discussion here on the List . . . Pat, since you tossed
the first ball up, let us know what drove your
original thoughts and let's see if we can help
expand and amplify the spectrum of ideas that
you'll need to make a considered decision.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Re: NiMH Batteries |
I fly Model Electric Aeroplanes. I plan on carrying around with my Europa XS Monowheel
with 914 rotax.
There are plenty of NiMhs around, and they are far from robust if you begin to
draw some
amps from them. Since not too long ago, GP (Gold Peak) is making a can Sub C cell
that has
a capacity of 3700mAs. Hotliner guys are pulling 150 plus amps from these!!! mind
you
general for under 5 second bursts. These things are pretty happy at dumping 50
amps plus
for their entire capacity. OK since i will have these cells on board anyway, i
will design
model for 12 cells (~14.4V). If I have a problem starting the 914, I will just
put 2 packs
in series with starter. The alternator will not put out enough to charge these,
but would
not leave them on line once motor starts.
In event electrical quits to my electric fuel pumps, I will have a quick insert
battery
for aux. pump.
If you overcharge a NiMh they can explode or have a major meltdown. The very best
way to
charge them for easy use and max. life is 1/10C for ` 150 hours, so you would need
a
constant amp charger. For maximum amp dump, you need these cells fairly warm. So
if you
charge with a Delta Peak Charger at 2C, that is a good start point. Easier on the
cell is
a 1C charge, but these new cells may accept 3 or more C and not hurt them. I have
not
fooled with them yet, but am using about 2 revisions old technology.
I will have a integral peak charger built into aeroplane so i can charge models.
This is the way I will be using them. If I were to consider use actual in system
all the
time, I would look pretty hard at the Red top or Red hat high dump amps Lead Acid
in the
circuit all the time. That battery is used on large 2 strokes, and will probably
bearly
start a 914. I would supplement start ups with a 12 or 13 cell pack as described
that
could be brought on line for starting, or if the lead acid/charger quit. It would
have a
delta peak charger integral that would be manual started.
Usual when a pack begins to go south, you just loose capacity, and drop voltage
under
load.Once in a while a cell will internal open. That is always fun when you are
running
your radio off the pack.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LRI Audio Warning Wanted |
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Thanks for helping me understand that a pressure transducer switch on my LRI
>will be complex and expensive. I may play with a Digikey pressure sensor and
>will let everyone know if I come up with a practical solution.
Holler if I can help. As I recall the LRI operates over a range of 2-5
inches of water for pressure. There are solid state sensors that perform
well in that range. It may be that a simple comparator could be used
to detect the switchpoint. The pressure transducer may be ratiometric
with respect to output versus pressure and supply voltage. This would
eliminate one of drift issues.
>No, I do not plan close tolerance approaches. My LRI sits right next to my
>air speed indicator and between the two I should have no trouble making safe
>approaches. I just thought a warning tone associated with my LRI would be a
>nice feature and so I asked.
Don't see why not.
>Yes, my RV-6 is out of the living room and at South Lakeland. The prop goes
>on this week, so I'll be lighting the engine soon. You will remember that I
>have your latest and greatest Z-10 (all electric airplane with 20-amp E-bus)
>wiring system.
Good news my friend. Bob tells me that his Form337 mod to the
Grumman is looking good too. Sounds like lots of progress go'n
on in St. Pete! Dee finished her PhD . . . we still need to get
her down to Florida. Maybe next fall.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Re: NiMH Batteries |
OOOOOOPPPPPPS
Correction
"The very best way to charge them for easy use and max. life is 1/10C for ` 150
hours"
That would be 15 hours, not 150 hours.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Brown <dan(at)familybrown.org> |
| Subject: | Re: LRI Audio Warning Wanted |
Quoting "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" :
> Holler if I can help. As I recall the LRI operates over a range of 2-5
> inches of water for pressure. There are solid state sensors that perform
> well in that range. It may be that a simple comparator could be used
I'm sure it wouldn't be the lightest-weight solution, but a Dwyer
Photohelic gauge measures differential pressure and includes an
adjustable pressure switch. They're available in a wide variety of
pressure ranges, including one that runs 0-5 inches of water pressure.
It seems like this would be a simple way to handle this.
--
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load analysis - resources |
>
>
>Is there a resource out there listing current draws for all the popular
>avionics? And perhaps accessories like common heated pitots? Would be a
>quick
>way to put together your max load figure.
There was some discussion here on the List about gathering such
data together into a single Excel file for publication. A couple
of individuals traded some data and there was discussions about
the status of the Excel file . . .
I've not heard anything about this project lately. Can anybody
jump in here and update us? I'd be pleased to post the file and
any updates on the 'Connection website.
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NiMH Batteries |
>
>
>I fly Model Electric Aeroplanes. I plan on carrying around with my Europa
>XS Monowheel
>with 914 rotax.
>
>There are plenty of NiMhs around, and they are far from robust if you
>begin to draw some
>amps from them. Since not too long ago, GP (Gold Peak) is making a can Sub
>C cell that has
>a capacity of 3700mAs. Hotliner guys are pulling 150 plus amps from
>these!!! mind you
>general for under 5 second bursts. These things are pretty happy at
>dumping 50 amps plus
>for their entire capacity. OK since i will have these cells on board
>anyway, i will design
>model for 12 cells (~14.4V). If I have a problem starting the 914, I will
>just put 2 packs
>in series with starter.
In series . . . or parallel?
What kind of terminals are available for connection high current
wiring?
> The alternator will not put out enough to charge these, but would
>not leave them on line once motor starts.
I think this a lot more load than anyone expects to
need . . . my sense is that aside from engine cranking
(which we're agreed that the NiMH is not yet applicable)
the next step down is for bus stabilization and endurance
energy storage. So we're talking about relatively light
loads for endurance support of 2-4 hours.
>In event electrical quits to my electric fuel pumps, I will have a quick
>insert battery
>for aux. pump.
How do you expect your electrical system to become so completely
crippled?
>If you overcharge a NiMh they can explode or have a major meltdown. The
>very best way to
>charge them for easy use and max. life is 1/10C for ` 150 hours, so you
>would need a
>constant amp charger. For maximum amp dump, you need these cells fairly
>warm. So if you
>charge with a Delta Peak Charger at 2C, that is a good start point. Easier
>on the cell is
>a 1C charge, but these new cells may accept 3 or more C and not hurt them.
>I have not
>fooled with them yet, but am using about 2 revisions old technology.
Quick chargers can do a 1 to 2C recharge if they monitor
temperature of the cell. I've not tried putting a NiMH array
across a constant voltage bus to see how they would behave
in a vehicular system.
>I will have a integral peak charger built into aeroplane so i can charge
>models.
>
>This is the way I will be using them. If I were to consider use actual in
>system all the
>time, I would look pretty hard at the Red top or Red hat high dump amps
>Lead Acid in the
>circuit all the time. That battery is used on large 2 strokes, and will
>probably bearly
>start a 914. I would supplement start ups with a 12 or 13 cell pack as
>described that
>could be brought on line for starting, or if the lead acid/charger quit.
>It would have a
>delta peak charger integral that would be manual started.
>
>Usual when a pack begins to go south, you just loose capacity, and drop
>voltage under
>load.Once in a while a cell will internal open. That is always fun when
>you are running
>your radio off the pack.
Are you telling us that folks are or have used NiMH technologies
to start relatively large engines like on ultra-lights, etc? I'm certain
that the practical utilization of NiMH technology will not involve a special
charging system . . . the cost of ownership for that makes the NiMH versus
SVLA decision very easy.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LRI Audio Warning Wanted |
>
>Quoting "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" :
>
> > Holler if I can help. As I recall the LRI operates over a range of 2-5
> > inches of water for pressure. There are solid state sensors that perform
> > well in that range. It may be that a simple comparator could be used
>
> I'm sure it wouldn't be the lightest-weight solution, but a Dwyer
>Photohelic gauge measures differential pressure and includes an
>adjustable pressure switch. They're available in a wide variety of
>pressure ranges, including one that runs 0-5 inches of water pressure.
>It seems like this would be a simple way to handle this.
I've got some of those . . . pretty beefy gizmos as you've noted.
Make the nickel-sized solid state transducers look pretty attractive.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Re: NiMH Batteries |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >I fly Model Electric Aeroplanes. I plan on carrying around with my Europa
> >XS Monowheel
> >with 914 rotax.
> >
> >There are plenty of NiMhs around, and they are far from robust if you
> >begin to draw some
> >amps from them. Since not too long ago, GP (Gold Peak) is making a can Sub
> >C cell that has
> >a capacity of 3700mAs. Hotliner guys are pulling 150 plus amps from
> >these!!! mind you
> >general for under 5 second bursts. These things are pretty happy at
> >dumping 50 amps plus
> >for their entire capacity. OK since i will have these cells on board
> >anyway, i will design
> >model for 12 cells (~14.4V). If I have a problem starting the 914, I will
> >just put 2 packs
> >in series with starter.
>
> In series . . . or parallel?
>
> What kind of terminals are available for connection high current
> wiring?
>
12 cells in series will yield ~ 14.4 volts. They are ~ 1.2 volts. as far as connecting
them, for outrageous amp draw, end to end soldering is least resistance. They make
a
hammerhead iron and you can make or buy a jig that is essential a piece of angle
to get
proper alignment. For the most part i solder with a thick braid made for this application.
It allows the alignment of the batteries in my application have a higher factor
of
"Wiggulation" compared to end to end soldered. if you want to break opened a end
to end
pack, put in freezer and bust opened. There are also jumper bars, hobby shops often
have
this stuff for model car guys.
One of my favorite connectors are sermos, or anderson power pole. McMaster sells
them
under modular connectors. You can parallel them, often i double the rating by paralleling
2. if you are real careful they are OK reliable at their rating if they remain
clean,
tension is right, you didn't hurt them soldering and the silver plate is not worn
off. 2
paralleled, I have never had a failure.
>
> > The alternator will not put out enough to charge these, but would
> >not leave them on line once motor starts.
>
> I think this a lot more load than anyone expects to
> need . . . my sense is that aside from engine cranking
> (which we're agreed that the NiMH is not yet applicable)
> the next step down is for bus stabilization and endurance
> energy storage. So we're talking about relatively light
> loads for endurance support of 2-4 hours.
I am not agreed at all in any way shape or form that NiMhs are not applicable for
starting
currents!!! I think NiMhs are ready at this very moment to handle starting currents.
I
stated that the GP3700s are capable of 150 amps plus for 5 seconds bursts, but
could run
continuous at 50 amps plus. Thus if I want a "HELPER" boost for starting, 2 parallel
packs
(each pack 12 cells series) could give up 100 amps (~50 amps each) and yield a
long, long
life. asking 300 amps out of them, I would probably be looking close at replacement
after
only perhaps 500 starts??? Asking only 50 amps would probably switch out at main
battery
replacement, but literal thousand and thousand of starts would be possible.
>
>
> >In event electrical quits to my electric fuel pumps, I will have a quick
> >insert battery
> >for aux. pump.
>
> How do you expect your electrical system to become so completely
> crippled?
The Rotax 914 internal alternator can only be called upon to produce 12 amps or
less
continuous. Over that the regulator and supposedly the windings can and do fail.
So one
nice day when cranking my motor in the cold, and I was too lazy to add the model
booster
pack, just as the motor catches, the battery is going to internal fail with a partial
short. Then the alternator is going to attempt to charge full, which will bearly
show 15
amps, which is its max. and i will attribute it to the long cranking and just trying
to
play catch up. Just out of gliding distance from anything suitable is when the
charging
system will fail and silent Night will begin playing.
In reality I was more interested in boost, but i will set it up so in seconds i
could run
a pump if i really needed. I feel it is kinda sortta like my trim motor. If I install
anchor nuts (they are near impossible to get to unless you do some major surgery)
and a
connector that will insure i will never have a servo problem or failure. if i did
not,
when I am in a rush to get somewhere.......
>
>
> >If you overcharge a NiMh they can explode or have a major meltdown. The
> >very best way to
> >charge them for easy use and max. life is 1/10C for ` 150 hours, so you
> >would need a
> >constant amp charger. For maximum amp dump, you need these cells fairly
> >warm. So if you
> >charge with a Delta Peak Charger at 2C, that is a good start point. Easier
> >on the cell is
> >a 1C charge, but these new cells may accept 3 or more C and not hurt them.
> >I have not
> >fooled with them yet, but am using about 2 revisions old technology.
>
> Quick chargers can do a 1 to 2C recharge if they monitor
> temperature of the cell. I've not tried putting a NiMH array
> across a constant voltage bus to see how they would behave
> in a vehicular system.
You need constant amperage charger. As the cell charges from a weakened state you
need to
keep increasing the voltage to keep the amps flowing in. That is till the cell
is charged,
then you need to start, and rapid lowering the voltage to maintain a constant amperage.
If
you charge beyond peak very far, things get HOT! A delta peak charger measures
this peak,
and discontinues the charge a short ways on the way down. remember we are not talking
cheap NiMhs here where they have a high internal resistance. Charging those, you
are lucky
to charge at 1C, often 3/4C better, and you best monitor temperature. The model
packs, I
monitor temp if charging over 1C with my hand. charging over 1C needs you to careful
monitor. If the charger failed, you have a potential disaster.
If someone has not a lot of experience charging and knowing what to look for, leave
all
charging to be done at home. If you wish to charge from your car, i would not charge
much
over 10 amps off the cigarette lighter. you need to go right to the battery. I
have read
more than once of cars developing a high resistance connection under the dash somewhere
and the car catching fire and burning because of it!
>
>
> >I will have a integral peak charger built into aeroplane so i can charge
> >models.
> >
> >This is the way I will be using them. If I were to consider use actual in
> >system all the
> >time, I would look pretty hard at the Red top or Red hat high dump amps
> >Lead Acid in the
> >circuit all the time. That battery is used on large 2 strokes, and will
> >probably bearly
> >start a 914. I would supplement start ups with a 12 or 13 cell pack as
> >described that
> >could be brought on line for starting, or if the lead acid/charger quit.
> >It would have a
> >delta peak charger integral that would be manual started.
> >
> >Usual when a pack begins to go south, you just loose capacity, and drop
> >voltage under
> >load.Once in a while a cell will internal open. That is always fun when
> >you are running
> >your radio off the pack.
>
> Are you telling us that folks are or have used NiMH technologies
> to start relatively large engines like on ultra-lights, etc? I'm certain
> that the practical utilization of NiMH technology will not involve a special
> charging system . . . the cost of ownership for that makes the NiMH versus
> SVLA decision very easy.
I knew what i was saying ;-) I was trying to say, if someone wanted to save some
weight,
on a 914 install they could probably get away with the light (think 4 or 5 pound
same
technology as oddessey can dump amps pretty good for lead acid) lead acid battery
that
they often use with 2 strokes, and supplement just starting with NiMhs.
I will have this technology on board anyway, since one of the missions of the Europa
is to
whisk people and models away to far off soaring sites. Why not for minimal effort
in my
mind help starting if needed and make the fuel pumps run a bit longer. In reality
I will
only be adding a terrible fire hazard to a cockpit in which you are sitting on
the fuel
tanks.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load analysis - resources |
I've reformatted my information and added actual equipment types:
http://www3.telus.net/aviation/flying/RV-9A/photos/Electrical/Electrical_photos
The third link down is to the Excel spreadsheet. Your mileage may vary.
Vern Little
RV-9A
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Is there a resource out there listing current draws for all the popular
>>avionics? And perhaps accessories like common heated pitots? Would be a
>>quick
>>way to put together your max load figure.
>>
>>
>
> There was some discussion here on the List about gathering such
> data together into a single Excel file for publication. A couple
> of individuals traded some data and there was discussions about
> the status of the Excel file . . .
>
> I've not heard anything about this project lately. Can anybody
> jump in here and update us? I'd be pleased to post the file and
> any updates on the 'Connection website.
>
> Bob. . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | "Preferred architecture" for all-electric IFR RV with |
1 EI and 1
mag?
Well, I am now about 1/2 through Bob's excellent book and have studied
the various system diagrams a few times and done a lot of other reading.
I am building an RV that will be all-electric and intended for IFR and
will have 1 LSE (most likely) and 1 mag. Basically it comes down to
dual alt/single battery or single alt/dual battery. I see pros and cons
to both. My thinking right now is that this is not an uncommon setup
and so there must be a "preferred" or at least most-common way this is
being done these days.. and I should take advantage of that common wisdom.
I have read comments from Bob in the archive like "don't let an unused
vacuum pad" go to waste (i.e. put an alternator on it). I do lean
towards the dual-alt soln now, I think, but would certainly like to hear
any and all opinions as to the relative merits of each.... I stand to
learn a great deal more, I think.
~Paul
~RV-9A QB #1176
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Morris <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load analysis - resources |
Sweet web page, Vern!!
Dave Morris
>
>I've reformatted my information and added actual equipment types:
>
>http://www3.telus.net/aviation/flying/RV-9A/photos/Electrical/Electrical_photos
>
>The third link down is to the Excel spreadsheet. Your mileage may vary.
>
>Vern Little
>RV-9A
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Is there a resource out there listing current draws for all the popular
> >>avionics? And perhaps accessories like common heated pitots? Would be a
> >>quick
> >>way to put together your max load figure.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > There was some discussion here on the List about gathering such
> > data together into a single Excel file for publication. A couple
> > of individuals traded some data and there was discussions about
> > the status of the Excel file . . .
> >
> > I've not heard anything about this project lately. Can anybody
> > jump in here and update us? I'd be pleased to post the file and
> > any updates on the 'Connection website.
> >
> > Bob. . .
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
Bob,
I was looking at the current version (in your down load section) of z13/8.
I also looked at the install instructions for the P mag from their site. It
appears that you have switched the red and orange leads. Please advise.
thanks. Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Bob,
>I was looking at the current version (in your down load section) of z13/8.
>I also looked at the install instructions for the P mag from their site. It
>appears that you have switched the red and orange leads. Please advise.
>thanks. Don
You are correct. Thank you! The drawing has been fixed
and an updated Appendix Z has been posted at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11C.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | loose connection trips OVP |
While tracking down a electrical problem ( haven't run the engine yet) I
was sidetracked for awhile by the circuit breaker that feeds a 40 amp OV
relay on my permanent magnet alternator popping. It seems that wiggling
a loose connection between the breaker and the relay will trip the OVP
and open the breaker. The crowbar OVP is constructed from the new
design. It tests OK and it doesn't trip if the alternator switch is
operated. I does trip if I intentionally rapidly connect and disconnect
the wire to the relay. The relay coil draws about 130 mA. If I
disconnect the OVP I am unable to make the C/B trip so it would seem
that the OVP is activating. It doesn't seem to make any difference
whether a diode is across the relay coil.
I'm guessing this is normal and I'm making voltage spikes at a faster
rate than the OVP time delay resets but I would have expected negative
spikes rather than positive spikes. Temporarilly adding a unidirectional
transorb across it makes it more resistant to tripping which seems to
confirm that I am generating positive spikes.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Ashura" <ashuramj(at)hotmail.com> |
K&S Stock No. 247 as recomended by Bob. 0.064x3/4x12"
I had to buy 3, will sell remaining 2 for $5 each plus actual USPS.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "randall" <rv6n6r(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Headset pains |
Peltors, definitely.
----- Original Message -----
From: <bobsv35b(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Headset pains
>
> Good Morning Larry,
>
> This may not be applicable to your situation, but I did have a similar
difficulty with headsets for my diminutive wife. She absolutely refused to
use any headset I tried including older Bose headsets.
>
> One day at Oshkosh, she was walking past the Bose tent and they were
pitching their wares by offering something to listen to that interested my
little lady. After trying the Bose X headsets, she came back to our tent and
informed that she wanted a set. I purchased a unit for her and she has been
a happy user for the last three years.
>
> I know you stated that you wanted a passive set, but if you do not have
electricity to power them, they are available with a nice long lasting small
battery powered cord.
>
> I am certain we all agree that headset use is a very subjective thing, but
the Bose Xs are the first ones that made my significant other happy and I do
believe we had previously tried every other brand, including earlier Bose
units, that anybody has ever offered!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman 3977A
> Downers Grove, IL
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry McFarland <larrymc(at)qconline.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | portable push to talk switch |
I bought a headset from Spruce not long ago and decided to invest an
additional $8.95 in their "economy" push to talk switch. You know, the
kind you plug in between the headset and jacks and gives you ptt
capability without hardwiring a switch into the stick. My pax stick is
removable so I didn't bother with wiring some sort of plug or even a
dash mounted ptt switch.
My problem with my el cheapo portable ptt is that when it's plugged in
it kills the intercom. The passenger can transmit and receive ok but we
can't communicate with each other. I've used these switches with no
such problems in other planes without a hard-wired passenger ptt
(notably a G33 bonanza).
The audio panel is a Garmin 340 that works great in every other respect.
Is this a problem with the cheap switch or is it something in the way
my stuff is wired? I don't need this capability very often but it's
nice to have when I need it. Anyone else have this problem or have an
idea what's going on?
TIA
Robert Dickson
RV-6A
Carrboro NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe & Jan Connell" <jconnell(at)rconnect.com> |
| Subject: | Buss Bar Material |
Hi guys,
I'm building an RV-9A. When I needed a buss bar
between the main and starter relays, and to join a
row of circuit breaker or switches, I used a length
of thick wall, soft drawn, gas tubing made of copper.
I squeezed it flat and drilled the necessary holes.
The flat section is between 1/2" to 3/4" wide.
Joe Connell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> all-electric IFR RV with |
1 EI and 1 mag?
| Subject: | Re: "Preferred architecture" for |
all-electric IFR RV with 1 EI and 1 mag?
>
>
>Well, I am now about 1/2 through Bob's excellent book and have studied
>the various system diagrams a few times and done a lot of other reading.
>
>I am building an RV that will be all-electric and intended for IFR and
>will have 1 LSE (most likely) and 1 mag. Basically it comes down to
>dual alt/single battery or single alt/dual battery. I see pros and cons
>to both. My thinking right now is that this is not an uncommon setup
>and so there must be a "preferred" or at least most-common way this is
>being done these days.. and I should take advantage of that common wisdom.
What's "common" for anyone else may have no bearing on what you
need/want to to do. Any of the architectures depicted will perform
with greater reliability than anything certified simply because you're
not saddled with less-than-the-best-by-decree hardware.
>I have read comments from Bob in the archive like "don't let an unused
>vacuum pad" go to waste (i.e. put an alternator on it). I do lean
>towards the dual-alt soln now, I think, but would certainly like to hear
>any and all opinions as to the relative merits of each.... I stand to
>learn a great deal more, I think.
If I were building an airplane today, Z-13 with dual p-mags would
be my choice . . . the vast majority of OBAM aircraft being
constructed today have a close or close copy of a C-172 which is
what Van's sells and/or recommends in his kits. I've had at least
two builders put Z-14 in their RV-8's . . . and if they're reading
this and wish to join the conversation, I'm sure they can give
you persuasive monologs as to their reasoning for those choices.
I'm not trying to belittle anyone's offer to give you advice or
an opinion but at the end of the day, the electrical system can
be as personalized as your upholstery or paint job. If you bought
and read the book (in particular chapter 17) what are YOUR impressions
a system that meets your needs? If you have doubts, can you articulate
them? It's better that we offer guidance to re-enforce or refine
what's attractive to you than to give you a data dump on what everyone
else is doing.
Suppose you start with Z-13. Do you perceive any shortcomings?
Do you have any special-needs equipment? Do you have a FADEC or
EFIS system that wanders off into the woods if powered from
the engine cranking battery?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Miller <tutuzulu(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | GS-Air LED position and strobes |
Received my GS-Air position and strobe light system, very impressive
set-up. The design and worksmanship appear impeccable. Giovanni at
GS-Air was very patient and thorough answering all my excessive
pre-purchase questions, and I received the system two business days
after ordering it. Jabiru is now installing the system in all their
new aircraft, and I can see why. Now I won't have to buy a bigger
alternator, and can sell my old hi amp consuming strobe and position
lights!
--
Bob Miller
601HD N722Z
Charlottesville, Virginia
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | battery charger/maintainers |
I've finished testing the Schumacher WM-1562A charger/maintainer
and find it to be a very satisfactory product and good value at
$18 from Wallmart.
The Harbor Freight 38895 charger doesn't kick
into the CHARGE mode unless the battery being serviced is below
4 volts. I DO NOT recommend this product.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | B Tomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | GS-Air LED position and strobes |
Can you supply a link for the GS-Air?
Bevan
RV7A
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Miller [SMTP:tutuzulu(at)gmail.com]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GS-Air LED position and strobes
Received my GS-Air position and strobe light system, very impressive
set-up. The design and worksmanship appear impeccable. Giovanni at
GS-Air was very patient and thorough answering all my excessive
pre-purchase questions, and I received the system two business days
after ordering it. Jabiru is now installing the system in all their
new aircraft, and I can see why. Now I won't have to buy a bigger
alternator, and can sell my old hi amp consuming strobe and position
lights!
--
Bob Miller
601HD N722Z
Charlottesville, Virginia
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GS-Air LED position and strobes |
www.gs-air.com worked for me. Earl
B Tomm wrote:
>
>Can you supply a link for the GS-Air?
>
>Bevan
>RV7A
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Miller [SMTP:tutuzulu(at)gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:55 PM
>To: aeroelectric matronics list
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: GS-Air LED position and strobes
>
>
>Received my GS-Air position and strobe light system, very impressive
>set-up. The design and worksmanship appear impeccable. Giovanni at
>GS-Air was very patient and thorough answering all my excessive
>pre-purchase questions, and I received the system two business days
>after ordering it. Jabiru is now installing the system in all their
>new aircraft, and I can see why. Now I won't have to buy a bigger
>alternator, and can sell my old hi amp consuming strobe and position
>lights!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SkyKing <skyking135(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GS-Air LED position and strobes |
B Tomm wrote:
>
>Can you supply a link for the GS-Air?
>
>Bevan
>RV7A
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Miller [SMTP:tutuzulu(at)gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:55 PM
>To: aeroelectric matronics list
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: GS-Air LED position and strobes
>
>
>Received my GS-Air position and strobe light system, very impressive
>set-up. The design and worksmanship appear impeccable. Giovanni at
>GS-Air was very patient and thorough answering all my excessive
>pre-purchase questions, and I received the system two business days
>after ordering it. Jabiru is now installing the system in all their
>new aircraft, and I can see why. Now I won't have to buy a bigger
>alternator, and can sell my old hi amp consuming strobe and position
>lights!
>
>
I found it at www.gs-air.com .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
We're climbing on the big iron bird for a weekend in Apex, NC
to do a weekend seminar. See you all Monday.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Battery Contactor. |
| From: | Cecil Hatfield <cecilth(at)Juno.com> |
Bob, Looking at the battery contactor schmetic, it tells me that I send a
ground wire to it, to make it operate.
Tell me I'm right.
Cecil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GS-Air LED position and strobes |
Bob,
Which of their products are you using? What type of plane are you building?
Larry Rosen
RV-10
Waiting on QB Wings
Bob Miller wrote:
>
>Received my GS-Air position and strobe light system, very impressive
>set-up. The design and worksmanship appear impeccable. Giovanni at
>GS-Air was very patient and thorough answering all my excessive
>pre-purchase questions, and I received the system two business days
>after ordering it. Jabiru is now installing the system in all their
>new aircraft, and I can see why. Now I won't have to buy a bigger
>alternator, and can sell my old hi amp consuming strobe and position
>lights!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Contactor. |
I'm not Bob, but you're right =(;o)
As you switch the positive lead to the battery you have already a + source
for that unit, switching the ground on or off operates the contactor.
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cecil Hatfield" <cecilth(at)juno.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor.
>
> Bob, Looking at the battery contactor schmetic, it tells me that I send a
> ground wire to it, to make it operate.
> Tell me I'm right.
> Cecil
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GS-Air LED position and strobes |
LEDs are going to revolutionize lighting everywhere. Buy stock in
LEDs! Eric has got some good stuff on LEDs as well as some products at
www.PerihelionDesign.com and everyone should keep an eye on rapid
developments in this field for aviation.
I just bought a strip of EmeraLights from Wicks for $10 that illuminates
the entire instrument panel with only 70mA of current. I bought a Lumiled
Luxeon 1W LED and nearly blinded myself when I turned it on. Awesome power.
Check out http://members.misty.com/don/led.html for a list of links.
Dave Morris
At 06:54 PM 6/2/2005, you wrote:
>
>Received my GS-Air position and strobe light system, very impressive
>set-up. The design and worksmanship appear impeccable. Giovanni at
>GS-Air was very patient and thorough answering all my excessive
>pre-purchase questions, and I received the system two business days
>after ordering it. Jabiru is now installing the system in all their
>new aircraft, and I can see why. Now I won't have to buy a bigger
>alternator, and can sell my old hi amp consuming strobe and position
>lights!
>--
>Bob Miller
>601HD N722Z
>Charlottesville, Virginia
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GS-Air LED position and strobes |
>LEDs are going to revolutionize lighting everywhere. Buy stock in
>LEDs! Eric has got some good stuff on LEDs as well as some products at
>www.PerihelionDesign.com and everyone should keep an eye on rapid
>developments in this field for aviation.
>I just bought a strip of EmeraLights from Wicks for $10 that illuminates
>the entire instrument panel with only 70mA of current. I bought a Lumiled
>Luxeon 1W LED and nearly blinded myself when I turned it on. Awesome
power.
It really looks GS-air worked to get the photometrics right. And I think
they are on the right track----
BUT
If these things survive thermally I will REALLY BE AMAZED. (And since I am
frequently amazed, anything is possible).
We Aeroelectric-list types would love to have someone stick a thermocouple
on the position light and get us a delta-T for these puppies. Since the
engineers at Whelen, Goodrich, and Perihelion Design (hey, that's me!)
decided this normal-bulb replacement scheme was not thermally possible--Send
us some convincing data please.
Incandescent lamps are not very sensitive to heat. LEDs lifetime and
reliability is a function of their junction temperature. The reduction in
lifetime, brightness, and reliability as a function of time is hard
information to come by with long-lifetime parts. My guess is that these LEDs
will not last as long as one would like.
My white 5W LED tail light has a heatsink on it that is 40 square inches,
necessary to keep the LED temperature down to delta-T of 30 degrees C.
Other short notes on LED:
The scoop is that "major" automakers will introduce LED headlights starting
in the 2008 model year. And no they won't make economic sense. Cree (an LED
chipmaker) has demonstrated LEDs with 100 lumens/watt--similar to
fluorescent efficiency. The highest LED efficiency on the market today is
about 55 lumens/watt for white.
So BE AMAZED---but don't be fooled either. And good luck to GS-Air.
https://ssl.perfora.net/www.gs-air.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=15429fb0b78100c/shopdata/index.shopscript
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice
there is."
---Yogi Berra
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov> |
Bob and all
The p-mag people have never answered my important to me question. With
mags if turn off both mags the prop stops very promptly, much faster than
pulling the mixture. Can P-mags be turned off in a similar manner, i.e.
stop the prop as fast as turning off both mags. By the way this important
enough to me to verify at least once every 10 hours that mags off stops the
engine.
Matthew M. Jurotich
e-mail mail to:
phone : 301-286-5919
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Kilovac EV200AAANA with economizers |
I have new Kilovac EV200AAANA Contactors (with economizers) and spec sheets
for $80 each. I have to charge postage on these USPS Priority (about 20
ounces packed.)
Send me an email off-list
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | EuropaXSA276(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GS-Air LED position and strobes |
I have been looking at 3 in one strobe units for my Europa's wings.
AeroFlash, GS and others. I finally settled on Whelen 600 units after considerable
investigation. I chose them for candela output, proven track record and
certification.
My foremost concerns were quality and doing my best to eliminate the chance
of any hideous bleed over to the radio.
Dislikes are weight and of course power consumption. Oh yes a BIG dislike
was that they cost twice as much as the others too!
Tailwinds
Brian Skelly
Texas
Europa # A276 TriGear
See My build photos at:
http://www.europaowners.org/BrianS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
The following was posted on the Lancair Mail List. Although it deals wi/
ground planes for TCAS, it has other good info about groundplanes.
John
===========================================================
Several different techniques are being used on composite aircraft to
produce the antenna ground plane required by a 'spherics (Stormscope) and
a TCAS-type traffic alert. I started an investigation into the use of a
metallized graphite scrim that could be easily applied. At this point
that application is questionable because the Ryan TAS operating frequency
is 1 GHz and the wavelength is so short that the open spaces in the scrim
might become re-transmitting antennae. Jury's still out on that one.
However the engineers at Ryan like Bob Schofield have been helpful beyond
measure, and here is what I have gleaned from them so far:
The ground plane must be VERY conductive. The resistance from center
antenna attach point to aircraft ground must be less than 10 milliOhm -
0.01 Ohm. Don't try to measure that with the VOM that you bought at
NAPA. The plane must be symmetrical along 2 axis fore-aft and
port-starbord. Curved to match the fuselage shape is OK.
A ground plane of solid metal foil seems to work best. Conductive paints
based on Ni or Ag plated copper will NOT work over time. Tests on
composite helicopters have shown that the painted plane is effective
initially but after one year begins to degrade. The engineers theorize
that the paint becomes brittle with age and begins to crack. That leaves
slots that re-transmit and isolated islands that are not grounded. The
situation would be worse with a pressurized aircraft where the skin walls
flex out and back with every flight, so a definite no-no for the Lancair
IV-P and ES-P.
One material recommended is a thin Al foil available from McMaster-Carr,
p/n 9060K16. It is dead soft, 0.005" thick, and comes in rolls 36" wide
will sell you smaller quantities. Typical installations require two
pieces about 3 ft by 3 ft each. The material is soft enough to conform to
curves and bumps on the cabin deck and overhead, and could be adhered with
a contact spray like 3M 7700. The ground plane must be connected to the
aircraft ground with at least two 12 to 14 ga. wires - do not rely on the
coax cable shield to ground the plane.
The external antenna should be mounted over a thin Al sheet cut the exact
same footprint as the antenna. That sheet should be affixed to the
fuselage with two 6/32 countersunk machine screws that go through the Al
sheet, then the fuselage and then the internal Al ground plane where the
screws are fastened with two self-locking nuts. The external antenna is
then attached with its six screws to the fuselage, trapping the Al plate
beneath, and the external sandwich edge is sealed with RTV.
The coax cable to use is 50 Ohm RG-400 cut 16 feet long. Not about "15
feet" - cut it 16 feet long. The extra could be looped into a large coil
at least 2 feet in diameter. You will need 4 of the leads, they each must
be 16 feet long, and they should measure 2.5 dB to 3.5dB at 1 GHz.
More details when and if I get 'em.
Robert M. Simon, GlaStar N161GS and Lancair ES-P(xl) N301ES.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Morris <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground Planes |
At 12:07 PM 6/3/2005, you wrote:
>The coax cable to use is 50 Ohm RG-400 cut 16 feet long. Not about "15
>feet" - cut it 16 feet long. The extra could be looped into a large coil
>at least 2 feet in diameter. You will need 4 of the leads, they each must
>be 16 feet long, and they should measure 2.5 dB to 3.5dB at 1 GHz.
I don't understand this. If it is being used as normal feedline, then the
length is totally irrelevent, except that it should be as short as possible
to reduce losses at 1GHz (difference in loss between 1GHz and the aircraft
band is a whopping 14.3dB). Maybe they just want all the feedlines to be
exactly the same length so as to avoid differences in time of arrival of
the signals from all 4 antennas.
Also, as I understand it, the reason for having antennas on top and on
bottom of the aircraft is to get a clear shot of the surrounding airspace
and avoid attenuation in the shadow of the metal fuselage. If your plane
is a composite, there is little to impede the signal, right? Maybe there
could be a (cheaper) 2 antenna version for composites.
Dave Morris
N5UP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Preferred architecture" for all-electric |
IFR RV with 1 EI and 1 mag?
Thanks for the reply, Bob. Comments below.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III all-electric IFR RV with 1 EI and 1 mag? wrote:
> If I were building an airplane today, Z-13 with dual p-mags would
> be my choice . . . the vast majority of OBAM aircraft being
> constructed today have a close or close copy of a C-172 which is
> what Van's sells and/or recommends in his kits. I've had at least
>
>
Yes; of course, Van's thinking is all about VFR. Not at all where I'm
going or where many RV builders are going these days.
> two builders put Z-14 in their RV-8's . . . and if they're reading
> this and wish to join the conversation, I'm sure they can give
> you persuasive monologs as to their reasoning for those choices.
>
>
I've gotten some, and enjoy hearing them all.
Z-14 is where I've been leaning as well. Basically, I have been balking
at the idea of a 2nd alternator for cost reasons, but the more I turn it
over in my head the more I like it. You can't put a price tag on piece
of mind.
> I'm not trying to belittle anyone's offer to give you advice or
> an opinion but at the end of the day, the electrical system can
> be as personalized as your upholstery or paint job. If you bought
>
>
Unlike those things, however, the set of possibilities here is much
smaller and the set of *sane and smart* possibilities smaller still.
> and read the book (in particular chapter 17) what are YOUR impressions
> a system that meets your needs? If you have doubts, can you articulate
> them? It's better that we offer guidance to re-enforce or refine
> what's attractive to you than to give you a data dump on what everyone
> else is doing.
>
>
Springing for the 2nd alternator has been my only hickup, as I said. I
noticed (I think - I do not have the book in front of me at the moment)
that -14 calls for two 40A alternators. Is it even possible to mount
two belt-driven alternators on a Lyc? When I think of a 2nd alternator,
I think of a pump-mounted gear-driven unit. I would guess that one of
those (the 20A B&C) would also work just fine with Z-14 with a <20A
essential bus.
> Suppose you start with Z-13. Do you perceive any shortcomings?
> Do you have any special-needs equipment? Do you have a FADEC or
> EFIS system that wanders off into the woods if powered from
> the engine cranking battery?
>
>
I plan a GRT EFIS and do not think it has any problems working off the
main battery.. one more thing to investigate.
Thanks again for your comments.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PeterHunt1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Where is Bob's Z-10? |
HTTP_ESCAPED_HOST@roxy.matronics.com, URI:, Uses@roxy.matronics.com,
@-escapes, inside(at)roxy.matronics.com, a(at)roxy.matronics.com,
URL's(at)roxy.matronics.com, hostname(at)roxy.matronics.com
Bob,
Following my recent Aeroelectric posts where I mentioned utilizing your
Figure Z-10 wiring diagram, I have gotten several questions of where someone can
find it. This is your all electric airplane with 20 amp E-bus. You made it
specifically for me when I upgraded to the SD-20 and wanted a manual switch to
turn on my essential bus should the main alternator fail. I cannot find it
with a quick look through http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11C.pdf
and it is not in your book. Is Z-10 available in electronic form somewhere? I
think Z-10 is an excellent approach, especially for an IFR panel.
So glad Dee has finished her Ph.D. Give her my "Well Done." Yes, do stop for
a visit if you get nearby in the fall. My guest room is clean and waiting.
Pete Hunt, Clearwater
RV-6, getting ready for first flight.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <PeterHunt1(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Where is Bob's Z-10? |
"IMB Recipient 1"
Bob,
Following my recent Aeroelectric posts where I mentioned utilizing your
Figure Z-10 wiring diagram, I have gotten several questions of where someone can
find it. This is your all electric airplane with 20 amp E-bus. You made it
specifically for me when I upgraded to the SD-20 and wanted a manual switch to
turn on my essential bus should the main alternator fail. I cannot find it
with a quick look through http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11C.pdf
and it is not in your book. Is Z-10 available in electronic form somewhere? I
think Z-10 is an excellent approach, especially for an IFR panel.
So glad Dee has finished her Ph.D. Give her my "Well Done." Yes, do stop for
a visit if you get nearby in the fall. My guest room is clean and waiting.
Pete Hunt, Clearwater
RV-6, getting ready for first flight.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | headset weirdness |
I've got two headsets, both lightspeed cross country anr sets. One was
bought last summer and the other was purchased recently. The new set
works great in the passenger jacks (RV-6A) but in the pilot jacks the
sidetone is very weak. If I try to turn up the volume I get a feedback
squeal and still can't hear the mic. The older set works great in both
sets of jacks.
I'm guessing that this is probably some sort of problem with the mic
jack on the pilot side, but I can't understand why one headset works in
those jacks while the other doesn't. The new headset has some
improvements over the old set so I really like to be able to use it on
the pilot side.
anyone ever have such a problem or care to offer a solution?
Robert Dickson
RV-6A
Carrboro NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | high density d-sub pins |
yet another question. . .
I'm interested in adding music to my flying experiences so i want to
wire my Garmin 340 audio panel to accept input from my ipod. I've got
the wiring diagram but have discovered that the plug is a high density
d-sub and needs different pins than the ones I've got.
I'm assuming I'll be able to get the pins at my local electronics
supply house since they carry the regular d-subs, but will my Eclipse
crimper also crimp the high density pins?
I guess I'm really asking what's the difference between the regular
ones and the high density version.
thanks,
Robert Dickson
RV-6A
Carrboro NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: high density d-sub pins |
On 06/03 7:09, Robert Dickson wrote:
> I'm interested in adding music to my flying experiences so i want to
> wire my Garmin 340 audio panel to accept input from my ipod. I've got
> the wiring diagram but have discovered that the plug is a high density
> d-sub and needs different pins than the ones I've got.
> I'm assuming I'll be able to get the pins at my local electronics
> supply house since they carry the regular d-subs, but will my Eclipse
> crimper also crimp the high density pins?
> I guess I'm really asking what's the difference between the regular
> ones and the high density version.
For some reason I had a *hell* of a time trying to obtain HD dsub
pins. Finally found a source. The standard barrel crimper I have
worked for the hd dsub pins as well.
http://www.rv7-a.com/141_4180.jpg
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: headset weirdness |
A friend had this problem and traced it to one being a stereo type and
the other mono. The phone jack in his airplane was mono only. Earl
Robert Dickson wrote:
>
>I've got two headsets, both lightspeed cross country anr sets. One was
>bought last summer and the other was purchased recently. The new set
>works great in the passenger jacks (RV-6A) but in the pilot jacks the
>sidetone is very weak. If I try to turn up the volume I get a feedback
>squeal and still can't hear the mic. The older set works great in both
>sets of jacks.
>I'm guessing that this is probably some sort of problem with the mic
>jack on the pilot side, but I can't understand why one headset works in
>those jacks while the other doesn't. The new headset has some
>improvements over the old set so I really like to be able to use it on
>the pilot side.
>anyone ever have such a problem or care to offer a solution?
>
>Robert Dickson
>RV-6A
>Carrboro NC
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | high density d-sub pins |
I keep both the male and female high density pins in stock, though not
listed on my website like the regular density pins (I should do that one of
these days).
Drop me a line off list and I'll get you some on the way.
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
Dickson
Subject: AeroElectric-List: high density d-sub pins
<robert@thenews-journal.com>
yet another question. . .
I'm interested in adding music to my flying experiences so i want to
wire my Garmin 340 audio panel to accept input from my ipod. I've got
the wiring diagram but have discovered that the plug is a high density
d-sub and needs different pins than the ones I've got.
I'm assuming I'll be able to get the pins at my local electronics
supply house since they carry the regular d-subs, but will my Eclipse
crimper also crimp the high density pins?
I guess I'm really asking what's the difference between the regular
ones and the high density version.
thanks,
Robert Dickson
RV-6A
Carrboro NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
Maybe I missed it but I don't believe anyone responded to my 4/26/05
comment and question as repeated below. My assumption is that for
confirming that the installed battery has adequate capacity to support
some known endurance-buss load, a battery capacity-test should duplicate
the constant current load that the buss must support for a
pre-determined time. OR is it that most buss loads operate on
proportionally less current as buss voltage drops, similar to the way a
typical resistive load responds, and therefore a resistive test-load is
adequate, rather than a constant-current load?
J. Mcculley wrote:
>
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III cells wrote:
>
>
>
>
> The curve is neat but the only thing we're interested in is that
>
>> intersection with 11.0 volts. That can be a simple comparator and
>> timer mechanism teamed with a set of resistors tailored to emulate
>> your e-loads . . . I don't think it needs to be complicated to
>> be very useful.
>
>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
>
> Since resistors won't maintain a constant current as the voltage falls
> toward the desired end-point cutoff, how about using the higher current
> rated versions of the LM 317 linear regulator wired in the constant
> current configuration? I have done this for lower current requirements
> using the 5 amp rated chip. Could several of these be wired in parallel
> to obtain the desired total discharge current? I haven't had a need to
> do this higher current load and so don't know they would perform in
> parallel, but would guess that works. Anyone know for sure?
>
> Jim McCulley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian & Debi Shannon" <wings(at)theshannons.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Contactor vs Power Relay |
I don't have the specifics about the relays in question (although I'm
curious about the answer), but found a neat website dealing with photos of
the Bosch relays and others...seems very helpful, so I thought I'd post a
link.
- Brian
HYPERLINK "http://www.bcae1.com/relays.htm"http://www.bcae1.com/relays.htm
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
Hi Jim
Yes LM317's work fine in parallel but the voltage range of interest is
so small that I think a resistor is just fine. Once the battery voltage
drops about 2 volts it is for all practical purposes fully discharged
and items will begin dropping offline. I think the number is 95%
discharged at 10.5 volts but it is in the archives a number of times.
The current through a resistor won't change that much over this voltage
range.
Ken
J. Mcculley wrote:
>
>Maybe I missed it but I don't believe anyone responded to my 4/26/05
>comment and question as repeated below. My assumption is that for
>confirming that the installed battery has adequate capacity to support
>some known endurance-buss load, a battery capacity-test should duplicate
>the constant current load that the buss must support for a
>pre-determined time. OR is it that most buss loads operate on
>proportionally less current as buss voltage drops, similar to the way a
>typical resistive load responds, and therefore a resistive test-load is
>adequate, rather than a constant-current load?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
TI/Raytheon built lots of military stuff, they don't solder terminals -
reason the wire will break at the solder point after a period of time. I
figure their a lot smarter about this than most of us. You know you don't
use solid center connector antenna wire in aircraft for the same reason.
jerb
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >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 . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Zodie Rocket" <zodierocket(at)hsfx.ca> |
| Subject: | Telex PC 4 aircraft intercom |
Does anyone have an installation manual for a Telex pc-4 intercom, I
have the unit but need to have wiring info in which to install it.
Thanks
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac 601XL , Osprey 2 serial # 751
President: Kitchener/Waterloo RAA Chapter
www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / www.Osprey2.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> |
1 mag?
| Subject: | "Preferred architecture" for all-electric, IFR RV |
with 1 EI and
1 mag?
Robert L. Nuckolls, III all-electric IFR RV with 1 EI and 1
mag? wrote:
>> If I were building an airplane today, Z-13 with dual
p-mags would
>> be my choice . . . the vast majority of OBAM aircraft
being
>> constructed today have a close or close copy of a
C-172 which is
>> what Van's sells and/or recommends in his kits. I've
had at least
>>
>>
Yes; of course, Van's thinking is all about VFR. Not at all
where I'm
going or where many RV builders are going these days.
Great thread here ...... along the same lines as what I
started a few weeks ago. Above applies to Rockets as well !!
>> two builders put Z-14 in their RV-8's . . . and if
they're reading
>> this and wish to join the conversation, I'm sure they
can give
>> you persuasive monologs as to their reasoning for
those choices.
>>
>>
I've gotten some, and enjoy hearing them all.
Z-14 is where I've been leaning as well. Basically, I have
been balking
at the idea of a 2nd alternator for cost reasons, but the
more I turn it
over in my head the more I like it. You can't put a price
tag on piece
of mind.
I'm at the same place ....... and would like to know how
practical it would be to build a Z-12 / 13 combo
(essentially a dual alt / single bat using the SD-8 as the
second alt) and if desired to add the second battery later
?? What I'm seeing is that all that would be done is add
the battery (smaller than the primary is cool), add a
contactor, and add a wire run with a starter cross-feed
switch ??
>> I'm not trying to belittle anyone's offer to give you
advice or
>> an opinion but at the end of the day, the electrical
system can
>> be as personalized as your upholstery or paint job.
If you bought
>>
>>
Unlike those things, however, the set of possibilities here
is much
smaller and the set of *sane and smart* possibilities
smaller still.
>> and read the book (in particular chapter 17) what are
YOUR impressions
>> a system that meets your needs? If you have doubts,
can you articulate
>> them? It's better that we offer guidance to
re-enforce or refine
>> what's attractive to you than to give you a data dump
on what everyone
>> else is doing.
>>
>>
Springing for the 2nd alternator has been my only hickup, as
I said. I
noticed (I think - I do not have the book in front of me at
the moment)
that -14 calls for two 40A alternators. Is it even possible
to mount
two belt-driven alternators on a Lyc? When I think of a 2nd
alternator,
I think of a pump-mounted gear-driven unit. I would guess
that one of
those (the 20A B&C) would also work just fine with Z-14 with
a <20A
essential bus.
For a simpler configuration; minimizing load to the
essential buss to work with the SD-8 ???
>> Suppose you start with Z-13. Do you perceive any
shortcomings?
>> Do you have any special-needs equipment? Do you have
a FADEC or
>> EFIS system that wanders off into the woods if
powered from
>> the engine cranking battery?
>>
>>
I plan a GRT EFIS and do not think it has any problems
working off the
main battery.. one more thing to investigate.
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2 fuselage / systems
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Headset weirdness |
If the stereo/mono suggestion made in another post is not the problem, I
suggest you write or call LightSpeed about your problem. I have found
them to be a GREAT outfit to work with. They really back up their
products with great service.
I bought a set of factory reconditioned 20XL headsets from LightSpeed
for less than half what a new set cost. After nearly three years, one of
the ear pads began to deteriorate. I wrote LightSpeed for a replacement,
and they sent me two full sets of ear pads AT NO COST. You can't beat
service like that.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
--------------------------------------------
> From: Robert Dickson
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: headset weirdness
>
>
> I've got two headsets, both lightspeed cross country anr sets. One was
> bought last summer and the other was purchased recently. The new set
> works great in the passenger jacks (RV-6A) but in the pilot jacks the
> sidetone is very weak. If I try to turn up the volume I get a feedback
> squeal and still can't hear the mic. The older set works great in both
> sets of jacks.
> I'm guessing that this is probably some sort of problem with the mic
> jack on the pilot side, but I can't understand why one headset works in
> those jacks while the other doesn't. The new headset has some
> improvements over the old set so I really like to be able to use it on
> the pilot side.
> anyone ever have such a problem or care to offer a solution?
>
> Robert Dickson
> RV-6A
> Carrboro NC
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
It's been my experience that the wire breaks at the crimp point so I solder
everything connection possible. I suspect that most companies crimp because
it's cost not longevity.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "jerb" <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 22 ga too small?
>
> TI/Raytheon built lots of military stuff, they don't solder terminals -
> reason the wire will break at the solder point after a period of time. I
> figure their a lot smarter about this than most of us. You know you don't
> use solid center connector antenna wire in aircraft for the same reason.
> jerb
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >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 . . .
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
FWIW . . . I crimp, but a dab of solder on the "far end" where the wire just
comes through the terminal.
The solder will ensure a good electrical connection . . . it serves no
mechanical purpose . . . I guess it just make me feel better . . .
Good Luck,
Bob
On 6/4/05, Wayne Sweet wrote:
>
> w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
>
> It's been my experience that the wire breaks at the crimp point so I
> solder
> everything connection possible. I suspect that most companies crimp
> because
> it's cost not longevity.
> Wayne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jerb" <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 22 ga too small?
>
>
> >
> > TI/Raytheon built lots of military stuff, they don't solder terminals -
> > reason the wire will break at the solder point after a period of time. I
> > figure their a lot smarter about this than most of us. You know you
> don't
> > use solid center connector antenna wire in aircraft for the same reason.
> > jerb
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >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?INDEX15989953?KEYS>>
> crimping_vs._soldering?LISTNAMEAeroElectric?HITNUMBER5?SERIAL15200432715?SHOWBUTTONSYES
> >> >
> >> >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 . . .
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
Bingo.
(If you hear something from a pilot in an old hangar, it just might be
an old hangar tale.)
Charlie
(old electronics tech who's seen more crimp failures than solder joint
failures, which says nothing about the inherent reliability of either one)
Wayne Sweet wrote:
>
>It's been my experience that the wire breaks at the crimp point so I solder
>everything connection possible. I suspect that most companies crimp because
>it's cost not longevity.
>Wayne
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "jerb" <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
>To:
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 22 ga too small?
>
>
>
>
>>
>>TI/Raytheon built lots of military stuff, they don't solder terminals -
>>reason the wire will break at the solder point after a period of time. I
>>figure their a lot smarter about this than most of us. You know you don't
>>use solid center connector antenna wire in aircraft for the same reason.
>>jerb
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>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 . . .
>>>
>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org |
| Subject: | B&C toggle switches |
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID979JFeg6V0449X38
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
Are the switches sold by B&C all the same size regardless of how many poles?
The only drawing I see has their width at 0.750".
Thanks for the answer to such a simply question!
Chad
Chad Sipperley
Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
Phoenix, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org |
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID232JFeHZR0206X38
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
I accidentally posted this to the avionics list instead of here. Apologies to
those receiving it twice.
------------------------------------------------------
My family is currently building a Lancair IVP-turbine and I'm tasked with
doing all of the electronics and lighting. My father (the primary pilot)
wants
"logo" lights - lights that shine on the vertical stab. to improve visibility
at night. The only place I really have to mount such lights is in on the
inside surface of the winglets which aren't themsleves very thick. Given
that,
I've been thinking that an array of white LED's might be a good way to get
the
amount of light I'm looking for while keeping the form factor very flat to
fit
inside the winglet.
I'm considering using Lumex's SSP-LX6144A9UC high-intensity LEDs as the
lights
of choice (a PDF of their characteristics can be found at
http://www.lumex.com/product.asp?id=1006182 - short version: 10 deg. double
angle, 2 lumens total flux, 12 candella axial intensity, ~400mW). I can buy
these at $22 ea. at Allied Electronics. I'm not 100% sure how many I'll need
but I suspect I'll want more than 8 on a side. Ideally, I'd want a light with
a double angle of 9 degrees.
First, can anyone else suggest a white LED that has a higher intentisty in
the
angle I'm looking for at less money total? If we decide to paint the tail
something like red I'll simply use a red LED as the logo light.
Secondly, I've got a question about wiring up such devices. Usually when
wiring an LED you put a current-limiting resistor in series with the LED and
then put a bunch of such pairs in parallel. This helps to overcome the
temperature/current correlation common in diodes (and bipolar transistors)
that allows a single element in a parallel array to hog current and burn out
first. However, I've got a 28v supply native to the aircraft and each LED is
happiest with 3.4V. Could I simply put 7 of these in series with a small
resistor to fix the desired current at 100-120 mA? That would give me 14
lumens per side on a surface a few feet high and wide. Would that be bright
enough to make the tail visible to other planes from far enough away to
matter?
Thanks for the input.
Chad
Chad Sipperley
Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
Phoenix, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Byrne" <jack.byrne(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C toggle switches |
Chad
Just received an order from B & C today.
They are not all the same width.
S700-1-3 are 1/2 in wide.
S700-2-3 are 3/4 inch wide
S700-2-10 are 3/4 inch wide.
This is eyeball, didn't put a ruler on them, but there is a definite dif in
size.
All the same size round mounting hole though.
Chris Byrne
Sydney
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LED logo lights |
$22. ea does not sound cost effective.
You can series them but I'd suggest only 5 or maybe 6.
The more you put in series the more that normal voltage variations will
cause large current (and brightness) changes. For a worst case example
(7 in series) with the alternator off they might not even light and a
slight overvoltage might burn them all out. For a 12 volt system that
will run similar LED's anywhere from 12 to 15 volts I settled on two in
series as a reasonable compromise. In fact though I wired two off the
shelf fixtures in series with one resistor but each fixture has 3 LED's
in parallel. Those LED's were cheap (well under $1.).
Ken
chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>My family is currently building a Lancair IVP-turbine and I'm tasked with
>doing all of the electronics and lighting. My father (the primary pilot)
>wants
>"logo" lights - lights that shine on the vertical stab. to improve visibility
>at night. The only place I really have to mount such lights is in on the
>inside surface of the winglets which aren't themsleves very thick. Given
>that,
>I've been thinking that an array of white LED's might be a good way to get
>the
>amount of light I'm looking for while keeping the form factor very flat to
>fit
>inside the winglet.
>
>I'm considering using Lumex's SSP-LX6144A9UC high-intensity LEDs as the
>lights
>of choice (a PDF of their characteristics can be found at
>http://www.lumex.com/product.asp?id=1006182 - short version: 10 deg. double
>angle, 2 lumens total flux, 12 candella axial intensity, ~400mW). I can buy
>these at $22 ea. at Allied Electronics. I'm not 100% sure how many I'll need
>but I suspect I'll want more than 8 on a side. Ideally, I'd want a light with
>a double angle of 9 degrees.
>
>First, can anyone else suggest a white LED that has a higher intentisty in
>the
>angle I'm looking for at less money total? If we decide to paint the tail
>something like red I'll simply use a red LED as the logo light.
>
>Secondly, I've got a question about wiring up such devices. Usually when
>wiring an LED you put a current-limiting resistor in series with the LED and
>then put a bunch of such pairs in parallel. This helps to overcome the
>temperature/current correlation common in diodes (and bipolar transistors)
>that allows a single element in a parallel array to hog current and burn out
>first. However, I've got a 28v supply native to the aircraft and each LED is
>happiest with 3.4V. Could I simply put 7 of these in series with a small
>resistor to fix the desired current at 100-120 mA? That would give me 14
>lumens per side on a surface a few feet high and wide. Would that be bright
>enough to make the tail visible to other planes from far enough away to
>matter?
>
>Thanks for the input.
>
>Chad
>
>
>Chad Sipperley
>Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
>Phoenix, AZ
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Call" <billcall(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Stripping RG400 coax |
Bob,
I read your shop note on stripping coax with a 3-blade stripper. I
understand you can adjust the blades for depth of cut for the RG400.
My question is: There are 3-blade strippers with different lengths of cut.
Some are .25 & .25, others are different. What are the required strip
dimensions for the male and female BNC connectors I purchased from B&C?
BTW, they did not come with any instructions.
Thanks,
Bill Call
Lancair Super ES ~80% complete and for sale.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joseph P. Larson" <jpl(at)showpage.org> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
Soldering wire moves the stress point to wherever the solder ends. I've seen a
lot of electronics
with fatigued wire connections at the end of a solder joint. The solder wicks
up the wire a certain
distance, making that section of wire very stiff. Where the solder stops, the
wire becomes suddenly
much less stiff, so that becomes your stress/fatigue point. This is no different
than other aspects
of airplane design, where you need to be careful about strengthening one area,
as that will
frequently cause a fatigue point somewhere else.
If you are going to solder at all, I strongly recommend you avoid creating this
stress point. One
of the other posters said "a dab of solder at the other end" -- the trimmed end
of the connection
where the wire noses just barely poke out from beneath the crimp. Thus, you would
still use crimp
connectors.
Also make sure you are using a good heat shrink material and that you shrink it
down nicely. This
provides support to avoid a stress point at the edge of the crimp.
And of course, make sure your wires aren't wiggling around. If they can wiggle
and vibrate, I would
think eventually something is going to fatigue and break.
-Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 22 ga too small?
>
> It's been my experience that the wire breaks at the crimp point so I solder
> everything connection possible. I suspect that most companies crimp because
> it's cost not longevity.
> Wayne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jerb" <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 22 ga too small?
>
>
> >
> > TI/Raytheon built lots of military stuff, they don't solder terminals -
> > reason the wire will break at the solder point after a period of time. I
> > figure their a lot smarter about this than most of us. You know you don't
> > use solid center connector antenna wire in aircraft for the same reason.
> > jerb
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >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 . . .
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LED logo lights |
Chad
>My family is currently building a Lancair IVP-turbine and I'm tasked with
>doing all of the electronics and lighting. My father (the primary pilot)
>wants "logo" lights - lights that shine on the vertical stab. to improve
visibility
>at night.
Now, why couldn't I get a father like that!
>I'm considering using Lumex's SSP-LX6144A9UC high-intensity LEDs as the
>lights of choice (a PDF of their characteristics can be found at
>http://www.lumex.com/product.asp?id=1006182 - short version:
Allied is charging too much for these.
>First, can anyone else suggest a white LED that has a higher intentisty in
>the angle I'm looking for at less money total? If we decide to paint the
tail
>something like red I'll simply use a red LED as the logo light.
These things are changing by the minute. I would guess Lumileds Luxeon IIIs
would be better. Check Kingbright also. I think you should get some kind of
commitment for the tail paint before proceeding. Then look at lux (surface
brightness) per dollar. Any way you go--it's money well spent.
Remember too, that you'll do better with wide angle LEDs in the tail instead
of reflected off the tail. But maybe it won't look like the big birds.
>Secondly, I've got a question about wiring up such devices. Usually when
>wiring an LED you put a current-limiting resistor in series with the LED
and
>then put a bunch of such pairs in parallel. ..........Would that be bright
>enough to make the tail visible to other planes from far enough away to
>matter?
You've got it about right. Many people just put one current limiting
resistor before the parallel strings but I prefer to put a small ballast
resistor in each string. I theorize that this matters only when the LEDs get
old--then their original balance can get strange and whole strings will fail
"cascade". If you have 28V and the LEDs are each 3.4Vf, then seven LEDs in a
parallel string (ignoring the resistor) will not produce light below about 7
X 3.4V=24V.
So you have to trade-off using strings of LEDs with slightly fancier systems
that employ current control. For example, an LM317 and one resistor and one
(optional) capacitor is a great current controller and costs maybe 40 cents.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LED logo lights |
Yes, you can wire them in series to get the desired voltage drop. Be aware
that they are typically mounted on a heat sink, so you must consider what
surface you are mounting them on and make sure it can handle the heat. See
http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/AB05.PDF for the thermal details.
Lumileds are cheaper per Watt than the ones you've described. Check these
out http://www.lumileds.com/products/family.cfm?familyId=10
Dave Morris
At 02:24 AM 6/5/2005, you wrote:
>
>I accidentally posted this to the avionics list instead of here. Apologies to
>those receiving it twice.
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>My family is currently building a Lancair IVP-turbine and I'm tasked with
>doing all of the electronics and lighting. My father (the primary pilot)
>wants
>"logo" lights - lights that shine on the vertical stab. to improve visibility
>at night. The only place I really have to mount such lights is in on the
>inside surface of the winglets which aren't themsleves very thick. Given
>that,
>I've been thinking that an array of white LED's might be a good way to get
>the
>amount of light I'm looking for while keeping the form factor very flat to
>fit
>inside the winglet.
>
>I'm considering using Lumex's SSP-LX6144A9UC high-intensity LEDs as the
>lights
>of choice (a PDF of their characteristics can be found at
>http://www.lumex.com/product.asp?id=1006182 - short version: 10 deg. double
>angle, 2 lumens total flux, 12 candella axial intensity, ~400mW). I can buy
>these at $22 ea. at Allied Electronics. I'm not 100% sure how many I'll need
>but I suspect I'll want more than 8 on a side. Ideally, I'd want a light with
>a double angle of 9 degrees.
>
>First, can anyone else suggest a white LED that has a higher intentisty in
>the
>angle I'm looking for at less money total? If we decide to paint the tail
>something like red I'll simply use a red LED as the logo light.
>
>Secondly, I've got a question about wiring up such devices. Usually when
>wiring an LED you put a current-limiting resistor in series with the LED and
>then put a bunch of such pairs in parallel. This helps to overcome the
>temperature/current correlation common in diodes (and bipolar transistors)
>that allows a single element in a parallel array to hog current and burn out
>first. However, I've got a 28v supply native to the aircraft and each LED is
>happiest with 3.4V. Could I simply put 7 of these in series with a small
>resistor to fix the desired current at 100-120 mA? That would give me 14
>lumens per side on a surface a few feet high and wide. Would that be bright
>enough to make the tail visible to other planes from far enough away to
>matter?
>
>Thanks for the input.
>
>Chad
>
>
>Chad Sipperley
>Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
>Phoenix, AZ
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stripping RG400 coax |
Bill Call wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>I read your shop note on stripping coax with a 3-blade stripper. I
>understand you can adjust the blades for depth of cut for the RG400.
>
>My question is: There are 3-blade strippers with different lengths of cut.
>Some are .25 & .25, others are different. What are the required strip
>dimensions for the male and female BNC connectors I purchased from B&C?
>BTW, they did not come with any instructions.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Bill Call
>Lancair Super ES ~80% complete and for sale.
>
>
>
Directions: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
I used my 3 blade stripper right out of the package and it worked great!
Here is a link from Dan Checkoway's site about the stripper:
http://www.rvproject.com/20041005.html
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Yamokoski" <yamokosk(at)lakemichigancollege.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio Noise Redux |
While waiting for the return of my fried radios (got em back now...just
a fuse needed replacing) I fabricated one of Bob's d-sub avionics ground
collection gizmos. Used a female solder cup type and connected all of
the wells as per Bob's article. Using crimp pins on the male side.
Works fine. I now have one ground wire coming out of the female side,
8 (as of now) on the male side. Question is, can I run that single
ground to the forest of tabs on the firewall, or should it have its own
termination point somewhere, e.g., somewhere on the cage? Thanks for
any input.
Bill Yamokoski
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B&C toggle switches |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Chad -
I goofed. Memory is not a substitute from checking the items. Chris is
right-on.
John
>
>
> Chad
>
> Just received an order from B & C today.
> They are not all the same width.
> S700-1-3 are 1/2 in wide.
> S700-2-3 are 3/4 inch wide
> S700-2-10 are 3/4 inch wide.
>
> This is eyeball, didn't put a ruler on them, but there is a definite dif
> in
> size.
>
> All the same size round mounting hole though.
>
> Chris Byrne
> Sydney
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B&C toggle switches |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Chad -
We got 2-10, 2-50, 2-3 & 1-3. They are all the same size and form factor.
I believe that all of the switches are of the same line made by Carling.
John
Lancair ES - 80%
>
> Are the switches sold by B&C all the same size regardless of how many
> poles?
> The only drawing I see has their width at 0.750".
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stripping RG400 coax |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Bill -
We used the BNC's from B&C almost exclusively because of the quality. The
cheaper ones seemed to be harder to crimp - especially the last crimp on
the ferrule - hard to get it fully down over the braid.
Am sending a .pdf of the assembly instructions for the B&C item to you on
the ES mail list. Can't do it on this list. I believe they are Amphenols.
We bought the same stripper and it is hard to get the exact dimensions set
forth in the assembly instructions, but they are close enough to get good
seating of the center pin and good crimps on the RG-400.
Try this website if you buy a different model of Amphenols:
http://www.amphenolrf.com/sitetools/assembly.asp
Put the part number in the blank and search for the right page. We bought
a TNC and a couple of angle connectors and they have their own pages of
assembly instructions.
Cheers,
John
wrote:
>
> My question is: There are 3-blade strippers with different lengths of
> cut. Some are .25 & .25, others are different. What are the required
> strip
> dimensions for the male and female BNC connectors I purchased from B&C?
> BTW, they did not come with any instructions.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
There is nothing wrong with 22 gage, they make it for a reason. Mostly in large
aircraft with lots of wires, you save (a lot of) weight. However in a small
airplane you are not going to save much weight. There is also nothing wrong with
just making 20 gage or even 18 gage the min gage for your project. Depending
on how much wire you have you can easily determine the weight penalty for over
sizing wire runs.
***** The biggest problem with a 22 gage wire is handling it and the crimp connector
itself. With a smaller 22-gage wire, the crimp connector size is important.
Any connector you use, the 22-gage wire is going to be on the small end of
the crimp connectors range which is usually from 18-22 gage. The smaller 22-gage
wire does not fill the crimp terminal as well a 18 gage and therefore good
crimp operations; technique, connector quality/size and good quality tool are
more critical. ******
There are work-arounds, but make sure you have the proper sized crimp terminal.
Also some just feel that 22 gage is harder to stip and handle, that is a good
reason also to use a bigger wire (smaller gage).
Strength wise the bigger wires are going to be slightly physically stronger and
likely to take more abuse and vibration. However this is not always factor, so
the 22 gage gets the job done and can be just as durable. Why add the weight.
Again for the small amount of wires in a small plane it does not make too much
difference. In a B747 all the wire together, stretched out would go around
the world or to the moon or some crazy trivia like that.
As far as soldering, I don't want to make this a debate because there has been
so much definitive things written about it, but you can solder very carefully
and strain relief to get a good quality joint. However in most cases a good crimp
joint is best (if done properly) and is well suited for large commercial production.
As an individual we can take our time to make "watch work" joints with
carefully applied dabs of solder and heat shrink and get a good joint, but
it takes more time and skill. Soldered wires where they want to flex is bad,
as we know. If they don't flex or you keep solder away from those areas, it is
not a problem. Makes sense.
Cheers George
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
George -
A couple of comments on your excellent discussion of wire sizing.
One, is that a lot of avionics plugs are mini d-sub and the largest wire
(I was informed by an avionics installer) for these is 22 AWG. For doing
avionics, especially the audio panels, doing it all in 20 would really
make for rather large and stiff wire bundles in a cramped space aft of,
and to the sides of the stack. Machined pins (B&C, Stein Air, ...) and the
right crimper makes 22 AWG very easy to work with on avionics wiring in
d-subs and AMP CPC Type 2 plugs & receptacles.
Cheers,
John
>
>
> There is nothing wrong with 22 gage, they make it for a reason. Mostly
> in large aircraft with lots of wires, you save (a lot of) weight.
> However in a small airplane you are not going to save much weight. There
> is also nothing wrong with just making 20 gage or even 18 gage the min
> gage for your project. Depending on how much wire you have you can
> easily determine the weight penalty for over sizing wire runs.
>
>
> ***** The biggest problem with a 22 gage wire is handling it and the
> crimp connector itself. With a smaller 22-gage wire, the crimp
> connector size is important. Any connector you use, the 22-gage wire is
> going to be on the small end of the crimp connectors range which is
> usually from 18-22 gage. The smaller 22-gage wire does not fill the
> crimp terminal as well a 18 gage and therefore good crimp operations;
> technique, connector quality/size and good quality tool are more
> critical. ******
>
>
> There are work-arounds, but make sure you have the proper sized crimp
> terminal. Also some just feel that 22 gage is harder to stip and handle,
> that is a good reason also to use a bigger wire (smaller gage).
>
>
> Strength wise the bigger wires are going to be slightly physically
> stronger and likely to take more abuse and vibration. However this is
> not always factor, so the 22 gage gets the job done and can be just as
> durable. Why add the weight. Again for the small amount of wires in a
> small plane it does not make too much difference. In a B747 all the wire
> together, stretched out would go around the world or to the moon or some
> crazy trivia like that.
>
>
> As far as soldering, I don't want to make this a debate because there
> has been so much definitive things written about it, but you can solder
> very carefully and strain relief to get a good quality joint. However in
> most cases a good crimp joint is best (if done properly) and is well
> suited for large commercial production. As an individual we can take our
> time to make "watch work" joints with carefully applied dabs of solder
> and heat shrink and get a good joint, but it takes more time and skill.
> Soldered wires where they want to flex is bad, as we know. If they
> don't flex or you keep solder away from those areas, it is not a
> problem. Makes sense.
>
>
> Cheers George
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jlundberg(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Wanted-Narco Transponder Tray |
Does anyone have a Narco Transponer tray to sell??
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio Noise Redux |
Hi Bill
Yes I'm pretty sure your best bet is to run it to your forrest of tabs.
Ken
William Yamokoski wrote:
>
> go away, then a 14v supply filter as suggested earlier is in order.
>
> The noise abatement process can be tedious but the technique
> is always the same. Isolate one potential propagation path
> and explore its characteristics. All of the ideas/solutions
> suggested have merit on some level but the vast majority
> of noise issues involve conducted (+14v input), ground loop
> (mic/headsets grounded in two or more places) and radiated
> (noise comes in through antenna). Until you have eliminated
> all of these as potential solutions, exploring all the
> long-shots is likely to be fruitless. Each experiment takes
> about the same amount of time to conduct so I'd make real
> sure that you've covered the big-dogs first.
>
> Bob . . .>
>
>While waiting for the return of my fried radios (got em back now...just
>a fuse needed replacing) I fabricated one of Bob's d-sub avionics ground
>collection gizmos. Used a female solder cup type and connected all of
>the wells as per Bob's article. Using crimp pins on the male side.
>Works fine. I now have one ground wire coming out of the female side,
>8 (as of now) on the male side. Question is, can I run that single
>ground to the forest of tabs on the firewall, or should it have its own
>termination point somewhere, e.g., somewhere on the cage? Thanks for
>any input.
>Bill Yamokoski
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
Thanks Ken. That certainly makes sense, but I'm also glad to know that
the LM 317 family will work in parallel, if desired for other purposes.
Jim
Ken wrote:
>
> Hi Jim
> Yes LM317's work fine in parallel but the voltage range of interest is
> so small that I think a resistor is just fine. Once the battery voltage
> drops about 2 volts it is for all practical purposes fully discharged
> and items will begin dropping offline. I think the number is 95%
> discharged at 10.5 volts but it is in the archives a number of times.
> The current through a resistor won't change that much over this voltage
> range.
> Ken
>
> J. Mcculley wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Maybe I missed it but I don't believe anyone responded to my 4/26/05
>>comment and question as repeated below. My assumption is that for
>>confirming that the installed battery has adequate capacity to support
>>some known endurance-buss load, a battery capacity-test should duplicate
>>the constant current load that the buss must support for a
>>pre-determined time. OR is it that most buss loads operate on
>>proportionally less current as buss voltage drops, similar to the way a
>>typical resistive load responds, and therefore a resistive test-load is
>>adequate, rather than a constant-current load?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
I just finished doing some DB-9 connectors for a Rocky Mountain Instruments
MicroEncoder and a Grand Rapids Technologies EIS. I had a mix of 22 and 20
gauge wires that worked just fine with my standard crimp style pins. I did
some .093 Molex pins recently too, and had everything from 22 to 10 gauge.
I understand all the theory about crimping being better than
soldering. But I know for a fact that it's a lot easier (for me anyway) to
make a poor crimp connection that pulls apart, than it is to make a poor
solder connection. I have to do a lot more closer inspection of the
finished product on a crimp connector.
And there is a HUGE difference between the $40 crimp tool at B&C than the
cheaper "generic" crimp tools that just basically mangle the connector. If
you're going to crimp, be sure to get the best possible crimp tool FOR THAT
CONNECTOR, because if you try to "wing it" with the wrong tool or with
pliers, your connectors will be worse than soldered.
Dave Morris
At 02:15 PM 6/5/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>George -
>
>A couple of comments on your excellent discussion of wire sizing.
>
>One, is that a lot of avionics plugs are mini d-sub and the largest wire
>(I was informed by an avionics installer) for these is 22 AWG. For doing
>avionics, especially the audio panels, doing it all in 20 would really
>make for rather large and stiff wire bundles in a cramped space aft of,
>and to the sides of the stack. Machined pins (B&C, Stein Air, ...) and the
>right crimper makes 22 AWG very easy to work with on avionics wiring in
>d-subs and AMP CPC Type 2 plugs & receptacles.
>
>Cheers,
>
>John
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with 22 gage, they make it for a reason. Mostly
> > in large aircraft with lots of wires, you save (a lot of) weight.
> > However in a small airplane you are not going to save much weight. There
> > is also nothing wrong with just making 20 gage or even 18 gage the min
> > gage for your project. Depending on how much wire you have you can
> > easily determine the weight penalty for over sizing wire runs.
> >
> >
> > ***** The biggest problem with a 22 gage wire is handling it and the
> > crimp connector itself. With a smaller 22-gage wire, the crimp
> > connector size is important. Any connector you use, the 22-gage wire is
> > going to be on the small end of the crimp connectors range which is
> > usually from 18-22 gage. The smaller 22-gage wire does not fill the
> > crimp terminal as well a 18 gage and therefore good crimp operations;
> > technique, connector quality/size and good quality tool are more
> > critical. ******
> >
> >
> > There are work-arounds, but make sure you have the proper sized crimp
> > terminal. Also some just feel that 22 gage is harder to stip and handle,
> > that is a good reason also to use a bigger wire (smaller gage).
> >
> >
> > Strength wise the bigger wires are going to be slightly physically
> > stronger and likely to take more abuse and vibration. However this is
> > not always factor, so the 22 gage gets the job done and can be just as
> > durable. Why add the weight. Again for the small amount of wires in a
> > small plane it does not make too much difference. In a B747 all the wire
> > together, stretched out would go around the world or to the moon or some
> > crazy trivia like that.
> >
> >
> > As far as soldering, I don't want to make this a debate because there
> > has been so much definitive things written about it, but you can solder
> > very carefully and strain relief to get a good quality joint. However in
> > most cases a good crimp joint is best (if done properly) and is well
> > suited for large commercial production. As an individual we can take our
> > time to make "watch work" joints with carefully applied dabs of solder
> > and heat shrink and get a good joint, but it takes more time and skill.
> > Soldered wires where they want to flex is bad, as we know. If they
> > don't flex or you keep solder away from those areas, it is not a
> > problem. Makes sense.
> >
> >
> > Cheers George
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org |
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID937JFFDuR0046X31
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
Bob mentions bundles of wires in his book. I'm sure I could find all sorts of
wire bundles at my local Radio Shack or Fry's Electronics, but there's no
telling what kind of wire that is. Does anyone have a good source of Tefzel
wire bundles? Shielded or unshielded is fine by me.
Thanks folks.
Chad
Chad Sipperley
Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
Phoenix, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Subject: battery charger/maintainers |
Bob, I stopped at my local Wall Mart today and they didn't have this model,
but said they had been upgraded to model WM600A. The man at the store said
it was the same but now "you can mount it on the wall". Price was $25.86
here in Nashville TN. Also, I could not find either of these on the Wall
Mart web site.
Marty in Brentwood TN
Date: Jun 02, 2005 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: battery charger/maintainers
I've finished testing the Schumacher WM-1562A charger/maintainer
and find it to be a very satisfactory product and good value at
$18 from Wallmart.
The Harbor Freight 38895 charger doesn't kick
into the CHARGE mode unless the battery being serviced is below
4 volts. I DO NOT recommend this product.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel bundles |
_Click here: WireMasters, Inc @ 800-635-5342 -[or]- EMail wminfo @
wiremasters.net_ (http://www.wiremasters.net/)
Try this company. Tom Saccio
_tsaccio(at)aol.com_ (mailto:tsaccio(at)aol.com)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
Typically, most places carry the "M27500" (That's the mil spec for shielded
multi-conductor tefzel) which is the shielded multi-conductor wire.
Unshielded multi-conductor cables are not commonly stocked by many retailers
or distributors, due to the cost, and frankly if you don't need it shielded
it's just not worth the much higher cost for multi-conductor cable IMHO.
B&C (http://www.bandc.biz) has a lot of wire in stock, and we stock 2,3&4
conductor AWG22 shielded wire. Above 4 conductors gets REALLY expensive and
pretty difficult to find - I know I can buy it up to 20 conductors, but then
I'd have a bunch of it sitting here and never sell it. I think Van's and
ACS also stock some multi-conductor cable as well. Wiremasters is a good
outfit, but they're more of a distributor than retailer, and usually want
you to buy hundreds of feet at a time (although I know people have gotten
smaller amounts occasionally) - for someone like us who buy 10's of
thousands of feet, those are ok places to shop, but for a few foot chunks
they usually aren't too excited..though it can't hurt to try.
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
Bob mentions bundles of wires in his book. I'm sure I could find all sorts
of
wire bundles at my local Radio Shack or Fry's Electronics, but there's no
telling what kind of wire that is. Does anyone have a good source of Tefzel
wire bundles? Shielded or unshielded is fine by me.
Thanks folks.
Chad
Chad Sipperley
Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
Phoenix, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Wysong <hdwysong(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel bundles |
Chad -
Stein's a humble chap so I'll throw in a shameless plug on his behalf:
steinair.com
We've ordered plenty of tefzel wire from his shop and have been
pleased with the prompt service. I'd also recommend making your own
multiconductor bundles because (1) costs to do otherwise are plain
silly, and (2) there's no magic to it. Buy the wire gauge you want
and bundle away. If you're feeling really ambitious add a protective
overbraid to your harness.
D Wysong
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
>
>
>I just finished doing some DB-9 connectors for a Rocky Mountain Instruments
>MicroEncoder and a Grand Rapids Technologies EIS. I had a mix of 22 and 20
>gauge wires that worked just fine with my standard crimp style pins. I did
>some .093 Molex pins recently too, and had everything from 22 to 10 gauge.
>
>I understand all the theory about crimping being better than
>soldering.
Don't know what theory you're referring too . . . crimping
and soldering are electrically and mechanically equivalent.
They're simply different processes and required different tools
and skills so a preference for one over the other is just
a personal choice.
> But I know for a fact that it's a lot easier (for me anyway) to
>make a poor crimp connection that pulls apart, than it is to make a poor
>solder connection. I have to do a lot more closer inspection of the
>finished product on a crimp connector.
Yup, if the tool doesn't match the terminal which matches the
wire and/or not properly attended to with respect to process,
a crimped joint can be must as unreliable as a poorly crafted
solder joints.
>And there is a HUGE difference between the $40 crimp tool at B&C than the
>cheaper "generic" crimp tools that just basically mangle the connector. If
>you're going to crimp, be sure to get the best possible crimp tool FOR THAT
>CONNECTOR, because if you try to "wing it" with the wrong tool or with
>pliers, your connectors will be worse than soldered.
>
>Dave Morris
Dead on sir. We just spent the weekend with about 20 real
attentive folks in North Carolina discussing this very matter.
We crimped some, we soldered some and I belive everyone went
home with an appreciation for the value and REQUIREMENTS of
both technologies.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
>
>It's been my experience that the wire breaks at the crimp point so I solder
>everything connection possible. I suspect that most companies crimp because
>it's cost not longevity.
>Wayne
Crimped and soldered wires both become one solid mass
of metal with respect to the terminal and BOTH are
vulnerable to breakage when the wire doesn't get SUPPORT
a-la PIDG terminal just past the joint.
If you're having problems with either technology, the
difficulty has a root cause in application or craftsmanship
and not with the technology. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
It doesn't matter if the joint is crimped or soldered. If
the second support point is not provided then the reliablity
of both technologies is compromised.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Where is Bob's Z-10? |
>
>Bob,
>
>Following my recent Aeroelectric posts where I mentioned utilizing your
>Figure Z-10 wiring diagram, I have gotten several questions of where
>someone can
>find it. This is your all electric airplane with 20 amp E-bus. You made it
>specifically for me when I upgraded to the SD-20 and wanted a manual
>switch to
>turn on my essential bus should the main alternator fail. I cannot find it
>with a quick look through
>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11C.pdf
>and it is not in your book. Is Z-10 available in electronic form
>somewhere? I
>think Z-10 is an excellent approach, especially for an IFR panel.
Z-10 was a Rotax drawing that was retired after Revision 9. I think you're
referring to FIGURE Z-2 which was on PAGE Z-10 which is the same as
current Z-11 but with second battery and a key-lock ignition switch.
Peter is dating himself with references to the older publications. He's
been a reader for some years. Nobody is "missing out" by not having a
copy of Z-2. Go with Z-11 and add a second battery if needed by
incorporating Z-30. If you gotta have a key lock ignition switch,
add Z-26 also.
>So glad Dee has finished her Ph.D. Give her my "Well Done." Yes, do stop for
>a visit if you get nearby in the fall. My guest room is clean and waiting.
Thank you my friend . . . we'll see if we can get soemthing on the
schedule for later this year or early in 2006.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Contactor. |
>
>Bob, Looking at the battery contactor schmetic, it tells me that I send a
>ground wire to it, to make it operate.
>Tell me I'm right.
>Cecil
Yup, you pull the switch terminal to ground to complete the
circuit . . . but the OTHER end of the coil has to be connected
to the battery. In out 4-terminal devices, the top coil terminal
needs a jumper as illustrated in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s701-1l.jpg
you can also purchase 3-terminal contactors wherein the jumper
from coil to battery is made INSIDE the contactor . . . this
is why you see the marking "BAT" on the fat terminal of many
contactors . . . the folks who make it offer the 3-terminal
version and need to let you know which of the fat terminals
goes to the battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Bob and all
>
>The p-mag people have never answered my important to me question. With
>mags if turn off both mags the prop stops very promptly, much faster than
>pulling the mixture. Can P-mags be turned off in a similar manner, i.e.
>stop the prop as fast as turning off both mags. By the way this important
>enough to me to verify at least once every 10 hours that mags off stops the
>engine.
>
>Matthew M. Jurotich
Sure . . . grounding the control lead (ORN) will cause
all output from the p-mag to cease . . . if the RPM is
too low for a p-mag's internal alternator to support
operation -OR- if you have an e-mag, then opening the
connection between power supply and the RED lead will
also cause operation to cease.
In the case of e-mags, you have TWO ways to shut it
down, for p-mags only ONE way if the rpms are up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 23 Msgs - 06/05/05 |
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>First, can anyone else suggest a white LED that has a higher intentisty in
>the
>angle I'm looking for at less money total? If we decide to paint the tail
>something like red I'll simply use a red LED as the logo light.
>
>
>
If you're putting the LEDs in the winglets, then the light will have
quite a distance to travel before hitting the tail. You'll want a
fairly narrow angled LED. I have a webpage describing how you can embed
LEDs into a piece of plexiglass for a flush mount device. You could
embed the lamps in a composite skin with a little work. The lights
would all but disappear in the daytime.
http://ernest.isa-geek.org/Delta/Experiments/Dyke_Experiment_LED.html
--
,|"|"|, |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Subject: battery charger/maintainers |
>
>Bob, I stopped at my local Wall Mart today and they didn't have this model,
>but said they had been upgraded to model WM600A. The man at the store said
>it was the same but now "you can mount it on the wall". Price was $25.86
>here in Nashville TN. Also, I could not find either of these on the Wall
>Mart web site.
>Marty in Brentwood TN
Well, fooey. I've found that charger on several net sites
for $40 or more. Probably explains why WallyWorld priced them
at $17 to clear them off the shelves.
In any case, this experiment validates Shumacher's skills
and understanding of the task and suggests that any of their
battery charger/maintainers will operated as advertised
irrespective of price.
Soooo . . . I guess my personal maintainer of choice is still
the Deltran Battery Tender Jr which is offered in VOLUMES on
e-bay for most going under $25 with rip off shipping of 12.00
but still less than 39.95 total for buying at the corner
Batteries-R-Us stores.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel bundles |
>
>Bob mentions bundles of wires in his book. I'm sure I could find all sorts of
>wire bundles at my local Radio Shack or Fry's Electronics, but there's no
>telling what kind of wire that is. Does anyone have a good source of Tefzel
>wire bundles? Shielded or unshielded is fine by me.
When I use the word bundles, I'm pretty sure I'm always speaking
of two or more wires installed one at a time and tied together
for common support and routing . . . but I seem to recall some
discussions on the List about MULTI-CONDUCTOR cable for trim
actuators and servos . . .
Others have suggested that making up your own bundles of as
many wires as necessary is an easy task and very common
technique. Other than multi-conductor wiring that might
come in an accessory kit, 99+ percent of all wiring in
our airplanes is not multi-conductor cable.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio Noise Redux |
>
>Hi Bill
>Yes I'm pretty sure your best bet is to run it to your forrest of tabs.
>Ken
Agreed
Bob . . .
]
> >
> >While waiting for the return of my fried radios (got em back now...just
> >a fuse needed replacing) I fabricated one of Bob's d-sub avionics ground
> >collection gizmos. Used a female solder cup type and connected all of
> >the wells as per Bob's article. Using crimp pins on the male side.
> >Works fine. I now have one ground wire coming out of the female side,
> >8 (as of now) on the male side. Question is, can I run that single
> >ground to the forest of tabs on the firewall, or should it have its own
> >termination point somewhere, e.g., somewhere on the cage? Thanks for
> >any input.
> >Bill Yamokoski
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stripping RG400 coax |
>
>
>Bill -
>
>We used the BNC's from B&C almost exclusively because of the quality. The
>cheaper ones seemed to be harder to crimp - especially the last crimp on
>the ferrule - hard to get it fully down over the braid.
>
>Am sending a .pdf of the assembly instructions for the B&C item to you on
>the ES mail list. Can't do it on this list.
I think B&C is using the instructions I crafted some years
ago and is accessible from . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
I need to update this thing. In fact, ignore dimensions cited
and use the Gilchrist tool mentioned below . . .
> I believe they are Amphenols.
Nope, at least not when I turned that portion of the business
over to them . . . they are really inexpensive connectors screened
for compatibility with the tools we were selling for installing
connectors on RG-400 or RG-142.
>We bought the same stripper and it is hard to get the exact dimensions set
>forth in the assembly instructions, but they are close enough to get good
>seating of the center pin and good crimps on the RG-400.
The Gilchrist sripper . . .
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4693&item=5779986481&rd=1
comes nicely set up for stripping RG-400 and RG-142 and works
well with the connectors offered by B&C.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> cells |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh |
cells
>
>
>Maybe I missed it but I don't believe anyone responded to my 4/26/05
>comment and question as repeated below. My assumption is that for
>confirming that the installed battery has adequate capacity to support
>some known endurance-buss load, a battery capacity-test should duplicate
>the constant current load that the buss must support for a
>pre-determined time. OR is it that most buss loads operate on
>proportionally less current as buss voltage drops, similar to the way a
>typical resistive load responds, and therefore a resistive test-load is
>adequate, rather than a constant-current load?
It's not a big deal. You have no way to predict how your
combination of e-bus loads will behave and could be a mix
of constant power or constant resistance . . . and the
test results won't be wildly different.
I'd suggest a combination of lamps to get a load equal to
that which the e-bus draws AT 12.5 VOLTS not 14.2 volts.
Measure time to drop to 11 volts and that's your e-bus runtime
give or take a few minutes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
OK...I've read and re-read Bob's chapter (18) on audio systems...with his thoughts
on grounding panel stuff together and then going to the ground block with
one or two wires. I'm hesitant to dredge anything up here, but I finished wiring
my plane except for the engine monitor wiring to the ACS2002 analog box.
I did all of this prior to Chapter 18, so every ground terminates at the ground
block (the "forest of grounds"). While I DID label each ground going to the
block, I would certainly rather NOT redo the entire grounding system if I don't
have to. Without an engine hung yet, I can't say if there is engine noise
in my radios or intercom. Am I going to gain anything by cutting all my wire
ties and sorting all my ground wiring to pull several feet of wire back through
adels, clamps and snap bushings to make up a ground block to put the panel grounds
to and then re-run to the ground block? The panel has two radios, an audio
panel (w/integral intercom), a transponder, TruTrak Autopilots and a Trutrak
ADI and a GPS, plus switches and dimmers, etc...
My thoughts now are to "flag" the panel grounds at the ground block...if I pick
up noise in the system...I can then pull the flagged terminals, cut the terminal
ends off and pull them back through and run them to a panel ground block later.
My issue is finding out whether it really is broke or not...because if it's not,
I don't want to fix it.
Bob Brown
RV7A - wiring Trutrak ADI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: General wiring questions for Bob |
1) Do circuit breakers (specifically P&B W28's) have a specific +ve and -ve
terminal, or doesn't it matter which way round they're connected?
Yeah, maybe . . . most manufacturers have a 'prefered'
orientation but by friends on the inside say that the
connection involves service life on a breaker that operates
thousands of times . . . how many thousands of times do
you plan to have your breakers operate?
2) For Bob Nuckolls; On B&C's OVM-14 wiring diagram, they show the orange
lead of the OVM connected the winding of an "Alternator Disconnect
Contactor, S701-1"). I don't have such a beast. Can I just connect it to
the alternator field lead?
The OVM-14 is intended for use with alternators having
EXTERNAL regulators. The OVM-14 is then wired as shown in
figures Z-11, Z-13/8, etc. It's installed at some convenient
point downstream of your alternator field supply breaker.
This wiring is also described in installation instructions
that are shipped with the OVM-14.
3) Metal starter and master relay's "automatically" have their bodies
grounded on a metal aeroplane. For a glass plane, do I need to run specific
ground leads to the bodies of these devices?
If your contactor has fully floating coil like the
4-terminal devices illustrated in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S701-2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S701-1l.jpg
However, there ARE some 3-terminal devices that
that tie one side of the coil to one of the
contactor's fat terminals -OR- to the contactor's
mounting base. In this last case, you DO need to
add a wire from contactor base to firewall ground
block. My sense is that the only one you'll need
to accommodate this way is the starter contactor
like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S702-1l.jpg
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Grounding |
>
>
>OK...I've read and re-read Bob's chapter (18) on audio systems...with his
>thoughts on grounding panel stuff together and then going to the ground
>block with one or two wires. I'm hesitant to dredge anything up here, but
>I finished wiring my plane except for the engine monitor wiring to the
>ACS2002 analog box. I did all of this prior to Chapter 18, so every
>ground terminates at the ground block (the "forest of grounds"). While I
>DID label each ground going to the block, I would certainly rather NOT
>redo the entire grounding system if I don't have to. Without an engine
>hung yet, I can't say if there is engine noise in my radios or
>intercom. Am I going to gain anything by cutting all my wire ties and
>sorting all my ground wiring to pull several feet of wire back through
>adels, clamps and snap bushings to make up a ground block to put the panel
>grounds to and then re-run to the ground block? The panel has two radios,
>an audio panel (w/integral intercom), a transponder, Tru!
> Trak Autopilots and a Trutrak ADI and a GPS, plus switches and dimmers,
> etc...
>
>My thoughts now are to "flag" the panel grounds at the ground block...if I
>pick up noise in the system...I can then pull the flagged terminals, cut
>the terminal ends off and pull them back through and run them to a panel
>ground block later.
>
>My issue is finding out whether it really is broke or not...because if
>it's not, I don't want to fix it.
Sounds like a plan . . .
Keep in mind that designs SHOULD evolve to take advantage
of new technologies, processes or labor saving techniques.
Just because Cessna puts a new technique into this year's
airplanes, there's little or no reason to retrofit the
technique to product already in existence unless it
helps solve a problem.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
To everyone:
I saw this 500 amp load tester for $49.99. Thought that there may be some
interest.
Regards
Ron Raby
Lancair ES
flying
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?function=Search
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III cells" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells
> cells
>
>
>>
>>
>>Maybe I missed it but I don't believe anyone responded to my 4/26/05
>>comment and question as repeated below. My assumption is that for
>>confirming that the installed battery has adequate capacity to support
>>some known endurance-buss load, a battery capacity-test should duplicate
>>the constant current load that the buss must support for a
>>pre-determined time. OR is it that most buss loads operate on
>>proportionally less current as buss voltage drops, similar to the way a
>>typical resistive load responds, and therefore a resistive test-load is
>>adequate, rather than a constant-current load?
>
> It's not a big deal. You have no way to predict how your
> combination of e-bus loads will behave and could be a mix
> of constant power or constant resistance . . . and the
> test results won't be wildly different.
>
> I'd suggest a combination of lamps to get a load equal to
> that which the e-bus draws AT 12.5 VOLTS not 14.2 volts.
>
> Measure time to drop to 11 volts and that's your e-bus runtime
> give or take a few minutes.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
Sorry add the part # to the search selection 91129-1rhc.
Ron Raby
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?function=Search
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
'Letric Bob ...
Have you ever tried to crimp, say ... AWG-18 ... 22, in the usual fashion,
and then, secure the insulation to the plastic insulating jacket with super
glue? A fairly thick super glue would probably work better than the watery
kind I used.
Or, and maybe better yet ... before crimping, dip the conductor end of the
wire & insulation, into silicone sealant, insert conductor into the
connector and crimp in the usual fashion.
I've done a superficial test with silicone and the conduction does take
place through the silicone sealant. The curing of the sealant would seem to
ease the point of stress for the conductor somewhat, by dampening those
concentrating stress loads in the wire. It didn't take much effort to dip
into the silicone and then crimp. I would think the silicone would
guarantee a gas tight connection as well.
For what it's worth ...
Jerry Grimmonpre
> Crimped and soldered wires both become one solid mass
> of metal with respect to the terminal and BOTH are
> vulnerable to breakage when the wire doesn't get SUPPORT
> a-la PIDG terminal just past the joint.
>
> If you're having problems with either technology, the
> difficulty has a root cause in application or craftsmanship
> and not with the technology. See:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
>
> It doesn't matter if the joint is crimped or soldered. If
> the second support point is not provided then the reliablity
> of both technologies is compromised.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
Here is my current thought process regarding Z-14 vs. Z-19, FWIW.
First of all, the mission is an IFR RV-9 with an O-320 running two
p-mags, all-electric panel based on a GRT EFIS. Thus, engine needs
battery power but is not battery-dependent and also does not require a
high-draw fuel pump.
My #1 requirement is that there be no single point of failure for the
entire panel. I cannot have a system where any one failure causes the
whole thing to go black in the soup - which should be an uncompromisable
requirement for any aircraft with no vacuum system intended for IFR, I
think. (This is why I ruled out Z-13 - unlikely as it may be, an open
battery is total disaster. I THINK - correct me if I'm wrong there.
Anyway I prefer two batteries.)
(FWIW, part of my IFR backup includes a battery-powered Garmin 296 with
its wonderful instrument page. So, it is conceivable that I could
survive even such a complete panel failure. But it's not something I'm
willing to put in the realm of possibility nonetheless.)
The reasons I like -19 over -14 are:
1) It's slightly simpler.
2) One-alternator requirement. I do not see dual altnernators as
necessary for safety in a system with an e-bus with two power paths and
two large-capacity (17Ah) batteries. I admit cost is a driving factor
here as well, with what the good-quality alternators and regulators run.
So, question for Bob & the list: is this a sensible system for my stated
needs? As I said, as long as I've got an e-bus with two power-paths, no
single-point-of-failure, I'm happy. I've got that with Z-19. Anything
I'm failing to consider?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Morris <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
Some of that RTV uses acetic acid (hence the vinegar smell) and I wonder if
that would cause corrosion.
Dave Morris
At 01:24 PM 6/6/2005, you wrote:
>
>'Letric Bob ...
>Have you ever tried to crimp, say ... AWG-18 ... 22, in the usual fashion,
>and then, secure the insulation to the plastic insulating jacket with super
>glue? A fairly thick super glue would probably work better than the watery
>kind I used.
>
>Or, and maybe better yet ... before crimping, dip the conductor end of the
>wire & insulation, into silicone sealant, insert conductor into the
>connector and crimp in the usual fashion.
>
>I've done a superficial test with silicone and the conduction does take
>place through the silicone sealant. The curing of the sealant would seem to
>ease the point of stress for the conductor somewhat, by dampening those
>concentrating stress loads in the wire. It didn't take much effort to dip
>into the silicone and then crimp. I would think the silicone would
>guarantee a gas tight connection as well.
>For what it's worth ...
>Jerry Grimmonpre
>
>
> > Crimped and soldered wires both become one solid mass
> > of metal with respect to the terminal and BOTH are
> > vulnerable to breakage when the wire doesn't get SUPPORT
> > a-la PIDG terminal just past the joint.
> >
> > If you're having problems with either technology, the
> > difficulty has a root cause in application or craftsmanship
> > and not with the technology. See:
> >
> > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
> >
> > It doesn't matter if the joint is crimped or soldered. If
> > the second support point is not provided then the reliablity
> > of both technologies is compromised.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
>
>'Letric Bob ...
>Have you ever tried to crimp, say ... AWG-18 ... 22, in the usual fashion,
>and then, secure the insulation to the plastic insulating jacket with super
>glue? A fairly thick super glue would probably work better than the watery
>kind I used.
>
>Or, and maybe better yet ... before crimping, dip the conductor end of the
>wire & insulation, into silicone sealant, insert conductor into the
>connector and crimp in the usual fashion.
>
>I've done a superficial test with silicone and the conduction does take
>place through the silicone sealant. The curing of the sealant would seem to
>ease the point of stress for the conductor somewhat, by dampening those
>concentrating stress loads in the wire. It didn't take much effort to dip
>into the silicone and then crimp. I would think the silicone would
>guarantee a gas tight connection as well.
>For what it's worth ...
What deficiency are you trying to overcome with this extra
activity? I don't know the beginning history of the PIDG
crimp technology from AMP . . . but it was the technology of
choice when I worked at Boeing in '61. Since that time
there have to have been countless billions of terminals
installed by simply stripping the wire and installing
the terminal per instructions with the recommended
tools.
When the munch is properly applied, gas tight happens. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
It's so easy to get good tools to install great terminals
that I can't understand how processes you've cited can
add value to the finished product.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Wysong <hdwysong(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | busted link to Z diagrams |
Hello Bob -
Got a 'Not Found' message when trying to access your "Latest Appendix Z
Diagrams" via the website. It appears that the link is still pointing
to rev B (AppZ_R11B.pdf) instead of rev C. No worries... it's Monday
here, too! :-)
D Wysong
Long-EZ (in progress)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 1/8" mini jack wiring |
I'm wiring up the music input to my Garmin 340 audio panel and am
curious about the terminals on the stereo mini plug jack I've got.
First, how do you determine which are the left and right channels?
Second, the jack has two extra terminals that would be appear to hot
when no plug is inserted. What are these for?
thanks,
Robert Dickson
RV-6A
Carrboro NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 |
>
>
>Here is my current thought process regarding Z-14 vs. Z-19, FWIW.
>
>First of all, the mission is an IFR RV-9 with an O-320 running two
>p-mags, all-electric panel based on a GRT EFIS. Thus, engine needs
>battery power but is not battery-dependent and also does not require a
>high-draw fuel pump.
>
>My #1 requirement is that there be no single point of failure for the
>entire panel. I cannot have a system where any one failure causes the
>whole thing to go black in the soup - which should be an uncompromisable
>requirement for any aircraft with no vacuum system intended for IFR, I
>think. (This is why I ruled out Z-13 - unlikely as it may be, an open
>battery is total disaster. I THINK - correct me if I'm wrong there.
>Anyway I prefer two batteries.)
Then Z-13 with Z-30 ought to do it.
>(FWIW, part of my IFR backup includes a battery-powered Garmin 296 with
>its wonderful instrument page. So, it is conceivable that I could
>survive even such a complete panel failure. But it's not something I'm
>willing to put in the realm of possibility nonetheless.)
>
>The reasons I like -19 over -14 are:
>
>1) It's slightly simpler.
>2) One-alternator requirement. I do not see dual altnernators as
>necessary for safety in a system with an e-bus with two power paths and
>two large-capacity (17Ah) batteries. I admit cost is a driving factor
>here as well, with what the good-quality alternators and regulators run.
????? I'm lost here. Before all electric was an option due to
super-ordinary cost of electro-mechanical gyros, we readily
strapped a suck-system to the engine and launched into the
gray grinn'n ear-to-ear with system that were heavier, higher
parts count and certainly more expensive with respect to the
alternative energy source to run gyros.
Now, we can take the vacuum system off and replace it with
a device having 1/2 to 1/3 rd the weight and about half the
price of the suck-system. Where's the down-side here?
>So, question for Bob & the list: is this a sensible system for my stated
>needs? As I said, as long as I've got an e-bus with two power-paths, no
>single-point-of-failure, I'm happy. I've got that with Z-19. Anything
>I'm failing to consider?
I don't know . . . your worry bucket seems pretty full
and you've cited some concerns already addressed
by simply adding an e-bus to a classic C-172 system,
replacing the certified junk alternator and substituting
an abused and ignored flooded battery with a well maintained
RG battery. This quantum jump in electrical system reliability
will power flight instruments with redundant power sources
that avoids single source (suck pump) reliance for powering
gyros.
EVERYTHING you do beyond this . . . second battery, second
alternator, backups inside the instruments, flight-bag
full of hand helds, etc., etc. stacks capability on top of
capability. It becomes impossible to accurately
deduce a credible probability of experiencing a series
of events that are going to ruin your day. This is because
the risks have become infinitesimally small. My sense is
that you're worrying about things that are going to take
much of the fun out of flying.
There's another thread here on the list that
explores the percentage of one's airborne time where ANY
much less ALL of those electro-whizzies on your panel are
really useful. For the vast majority of us here on the list
is somewhere between very little and none.
I've been flying for 24 years and in 850+ hrs have punched
dozens of cloud layers for a grand total of perhaps 45 minutes
total time in the grey doing a task that one could competently
accomplish needle-ball-n-airspeed. I've put 30x that time on
the gages with a flight instructor or check-pilot in the right seat.
I've flown A-36's with a panel full of goodies and J-3's with
a road map and all of those experiences were a lot of fun.
If I had as many worries wrapped around the axle as you seem
to have, the joy in all those experiences would have be
seriously diluted.
Z-11 with modern (and well maintained) components will give
you system reliability that would mitigated all but a handful
of dark-n-stormy night stories that got darker when the lights
went out. Z-13 with P-Mags is almost overkill but it's so cheap
and light, shucks . . . why not?
I cannot recommend moving past this level without a lucid
evaluation of special needs like an electrically dependent
engine or an airplane that is being specifically configured
to spend a LOT of time in the gray. Even then, I doubt
that time in the clouds would rise to more than 10-20% of total
flight time. The reason for that capability in most projects
is to stay right side up while you navigate OUT of the gray
stuff.
Z-19 is specific to the electrically dependent engine where
only a single alternator is possible . . . my original
recommendation as elaborated upon above is the MOST that
99.9% of the OBAM aircraft community needs to consider.
The project you've described lies well within that majority.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> cells |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh |
cells
>
>Sorry add the part # to the search selection 91129-1rhc.
>
>Ron Raby
>
>http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?function=Search
>
Good catch Ron. My local store has them. I'll go get one
and take it for a test drive.
Watch this space.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: busted link to Z diagrams |
>
>Hello Bob -
>
>Got a 'Not Found' message when trying to access your "Latest Appendix Z
>Diagrams" via the website. It appears that the link is still pointing
>to rev B (AppZ_R11B.pdf) instead of rev C. No worries... it's Monday
>here, too! :-)
Fixed it. Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
>
>Some of that RTV uses acetic acid (hence the vinegar smell) and I wonder if
>that would cause corrosion.
It could. In 1967-69 or thereabouts we experienced a rash of
ov conditions in the newly incorporated alternator systems
when the loose wire bobbin in the regulator's voltage regulation
relay rattled and broke the fine lead wire to the winding.
No big deal . . . we opened up a whole warehouse full of regulators
and stuck the bobbins down with a blob of RTV and put the covers
back on.
A short time later we were getting piles of DOA regulators back
from the field that had a thin layer of corrosion on the relay contacts
that caused the regulator to go inop. Opened them up AGAIN to
clean the contacts and all was well.
If we'd let them set open for a week or so before putting the
covers back on, the problem would have been avoided. There
are "electronic grade" RTVs that do not contain the acid but
the garden variety stuff poses no special problems as long as
you don't allow the corrosive vapors to be contained.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
>>I've done a superficial test with silicone and the conduction does take
>>place through the silicone sealant. The curing of the sealant would seem
>>to
>>ease the point of stress for the conductor somewhat, by dampening those
>>concentrating stress loads in the wire. It didn't take much effort to dip
>>into the silicone and then crimp. I would think the silicone would
>>guarantee a gas tight connection as well.
>>For what it's worth ...
>
> What deficiency are you trying to overcome with this extra
> activity? I don't know the beginning history of the PIDG
> crimp technology from AMP . . . but it was the technology of
> choice when I worked at Boeing in '61. Since that time
> there have to have been countless billions of terminals
> installed by simply stripping the wire and installing
> the terminal per instructions with the recommended
> tools.
>
> When the munch is properly applied, gas tight happens. See:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
>
> It's so easy to get good tools to install great terminals
> that I can't understand how processes you've cited can
> add value to the finished product.
>
> Bob . . .
Bob ...
I haven't started wiring yet ... just experimenting a little with strain
relief of the smaller AWG wires.
I am primarily asking what you may have tried in order to achieve better
strain relief on the smaller wires. I have the AMP crimpers. They should
produce the best crimps possible ... but broken wires crop-up now and then
because of insufficient strain relief and vibration.
Have YOU done any experimenting to achieve a strain resistant connector for
the smaller AWG wires? If so ... what did you try and what were the
results?
Thanks ...
Jerry Grimmonpre
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
Thanks Dave ...
I've considered that possibility and it wouldn't be a good thing to have
that happen in possibly hundreds of connections. At this point I'm just
experimenting so nothing is at risk. I'm months from wiring.
Jerry Grimmonpre
>
> Some of that RTV uses acetic acid (hence the vinegar smell) and I wonder
> if
> that would cause corrosion.
>
> Dave Morris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | 22 ga too small? |
Well...the PIDG styly terminals already have their own built in strain
releif (hence the nylon insulation and insulation support sleeve inside them
unlike auto terminals). But, if you're not using the PIDG type terminals, or
using un-insulated terminals, then a simple piece of heatshrink will suffice
just fine. I guess you "could" put a piece of heatsrhink over the pidg
terminals, but you wouldn't be gaining much at all. For uninsulated
terminals, a piece of good heatshrink is fairly standard practice.
The above being said, on the little tiny wire gauges the additional strain
relief might be beneficial. It really depends on where you have your wires
run, how much support the terminals/bundles have, and how they are
terminated.
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 Jerry
Grimmonpre
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 22 ga too small?
Bob ...
I haven't started wiring yet ... just experimenting a little with strain
relief of the smaller AWG wires.
I am primarily asking what you may have tried in order to achieve better
strain relief on the smaller wires. I have the AMP crimpers. They should
produce the best crimps possible ... but broken wires crop-up now and then
because of insufficient strain relief and vibration.
Have YOU done any experimenting to achieve a strain resistant connector for
the smaller AWG wires? If so ... what did you try and what were the
results?
Thanks ...
Jerry Grimmonpre
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 |
Bob,
Thanks for responding. My comments below.
>>My #1 requirement is that there be no single point of failure for the
>>entire panel. I cannot have a system where any one failure causes the
>>whole thing to go black in the soup - which should be an uncompromisable
>>requirement for any aircraft with no vacuum system intended for IFR, I
>>think. (This is why I ruled out Z-13 - unlikely as it may be, an open
>>battery is total disaster. I THINK - correct me if I'm wrong there.
>>Anyway I prefer two batteries.)
>>
>>
>
> Then Z-13 with Z-30 ought to do it.
>
>
Er.. Z-13 has us back at two alternators. I don't think this mission requires
two alternators.. as you note below, in the event of a failure in IMC the task
becomes to navigate to VFR or get on the ground.. battery power ought to be
sufficient for that task with minimal load.
> ????? I'm lost here. Before all electric was an option due to
> super-ordinary cost of electro-mechanical gyros, we readily
> strapped a suck-system to the engine and launched into the
> gray grinn'n ear-to-ear with system that were heavier, higher
> parts count and certainly more expensive with respect to the
> alternative energy source to run gyros.
>
> Now, we can take the vacuum system off and replace it with
> a device having 1/2 to 1/3 rd the weight and about half the
> price of the suck-system. Where's the down-side here?
>
>
Nowhere, of course.
> I don't know . . . your worry bucket seems pretty full
> and you've cited some concerns already addressed
> by simply adding an e-bus to a classic C-172 system,
>
>
You may be quite right.. I'm the newbie and you're the guru, that's for sure.
:->
> replacing the certified junk alternator and substituting
> an abused and ignored flooded battery with a well maintained
> RG battery. This quantum jump in electrical system reliability
> will power flight instruments with redundant power sources
> that avoids single source (suck pump) reliance for powering
> gyros.
>
>
I completely agree that this results in a "quantum leap in electrical system
reliability" but the difference betwixt this and a C-172 is that for us the
electrical is the primary and only IFR instrument power source, to state the
blatantly obvious. In other words.. the spam-can can tolerate an inferior
lectrical system and possibly still be "safer" than an all-electric by virtue
of the crappy, heavy and unreliable vacuum system.. (and BTW I've experienced 1
total vacuum failure already in 300 hours and I hate the things and consider
the dry pumps especially to be total junk).
> EVERYTHING you do beyond this . . . second battery, second
> alternator, backups inside the instruments, flight-bag
> full of hand helds, etc., etc. stacks capability on top of
> capability. It becomes impossible to accurately
> deduce a credible probability of experiencing a series
> of events that are going to ruin your day. This is because
> the risks have become infinitesimally small. My sense is
> that you're worrying about things that are going to take
> much of the fun out of flying.
>
>
I wish you would be more straightforward with your opinions, sir, instead of
requiring me to read between the lines so much. :->
What gives you the idea I'm worrying too much? I just want the bases covered.
Then I won't have to worry. Like most pilots, I know the risks and accept
them. I just try to minimize them realistically. I do fly IFR now in a
25-year-old Cessna 152 with no autopilot and a crappy, unreliable dry vacuum
system with no backup bank information but the standard electric TC and my
GPS's HSI. I want the RV to be as safe as realistically possible, that's all.
But I'm considering carefully everything you have to say, you may be sure.
> There's another thread here on the list that
> explores the percentage of one's airborne time where ANY
> much less ALL of those electro-whizzies on your panel are
> really useful. For the vast majority of us here on the list
> is somewhere between very little and none.
>
> I've been flying for 24 years and in 850+ hrs have punched
> dozens of cloud layers for a grand total of perhaps 45 minutes
> total time in the grey doing a task that one could competently
>
>
45 minutes actual IMC in 850 hours? I've had much more actual time in 100
hours of IFR training and flying since I got the rating... there would be more
but here in the midwest icing keeps us out of the clouds pretty effectively
half the year. So, yes, I do expect more actual time than that but not a lot,
if any, hard IFR down to mins or close. That I expect to do only when the
forecast didn't cooperate.
> accomplish needle-ball-n-airspeed. I've put 30x that time on
> the gages with a flight instructor or check-pilot in the right seat.
> I've flown A-36's with a panel full of goodies and J-3's with
> a road map and all of those experiences were a lot of fun.
> If I had as many worries wrapped around the axle as you seem
> to have, the joy in all those experiences would have be
> seriously diluted.
>
> Z-11 with modern (and well maintained) components will give
> you system reliability that would mitigated all but a handful
> of dark-n-stormy night stories that got darker when the lights
> went out. Z-13 with P-Mags is almost overkill but it's so cheap
> and light, shucks . . . why not?
>
>
You may consider my priorities out of whack, but adding that second alternator,
with the regulator, costs nearly $1,000. Is that really that cheap? Maybe I
am missing something, but I don't see the 2nd alternator as critical if you've
got two batteries and an e-bus.
However, I am going to take a hard look at Z-11 with Z-30 and see if that
doesn't make sense for me. Maybe you're right, and it does.
> I cannot recommend moving past this level without a lucid
> evaluation of special needs like an electrically dependent
> engine or an airplane that is being specifically configured
> to spend a LOT of time in the gray. Even then, I doubt
>
>
See the above - perhaps I'll be in the gray much more than you are assuming.
> that time in the clouds would rise to more than 10-20% of total
> flight time. The reason for that capability in most projects
> is to stay right side up while you navigate OUT of the gray
> stuff.
>
> Z-19 is specific to the electrically dependent engine where
> only a single alternator is possible . . . my original
>
>
I was trying to figure out exactly what was "specific" to the
electriclaly-dependent engine. Certainly, it could still be used with p-mags?
> recommendation as elaborated upon above is the MOST that
> 99.9% of the OBAM aircraft community needs to consider.
> The project you've described lies well within that majority.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Thanks for your opinions. I do value them. I have much to learn.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Good debate
But I Thought the SD-8 was about $400 or so?...As my airplane will be
all lectric (electric fuel pumps with no mechanical pump) I am hoping
the SD-8 will drive a FI pump and a emag...Thus allow my battery reserve
to run everything else.
In this case, (the dynon will be battery backed up) I will probably shut
off the GPS and get ATC to guide me down the airway, should be doable as
the Dynon has a DG function and then its just a case of doing the ILS
and I believe the radio in receive mode is minimal but then there is the
transponder which may limit time in the air..
Hey sounds feasible sat here in my warm cozy office with the lights
on...:)
Frank
RV7a...Prospective IFR pilot and airplane
You may consider my priorities out of whack, but adding that second
alternator, with the regulator, costs nearly $1,000. Is that really
that cheap? Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see the 2nd
alternator as critical if you've got two batteries and an e-bus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
>
>I haven't started wiring yet ... just experimenting a little with strain
>relief of the smaller AWG wires.
>
>I am primarily asking what you may have tried in order to achieve better
>strain relief on the smaller wires. I have the AMP crimpers. They should
>produce the best crimps possible ... but broken wires crop-up now and then
>because of insufficient strain relief and vibration.
>
>Have YOU done any experimenting to achieve a strain resistant connector for
>the smaller AWG wires? If so ... what did you try and what were the
>results?
No, haven't had any reason to do the experiments. I've never had
nor have I heard any reports of broken wires due to lack of strain
relief on a PIDG style terminal applied with the recommended tools.
If anyone puts their hands on a broken wire in a PIDG terminal they
believe was properly installed, I'll offer $25 reward for the carcasses.
Need the terminal and about 1/2" segment of failed wire. THIS
is the experiment that needs to be conducted and it's a whole
lot easier than trying to disprove the work of AMP, Molex, T&B
that supports an astoundingly successful line of products.
Failures need to be analyzed to see if and how the product was
misapplied. This is much more fruitful than hypothesizing a
suite of fixes or work-arounds for something that my not NEED
to be fixed . . . worse yet, the activity should be carefully
evaluated to make sure it doesn't CREATE a new problem while
failing to mitigate an imagined problem.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel bundles |
Stein,
Do you happen to know how many conductors the Digiflight II auto pilots
require? I think that is two wire runs I don't want to make multiple times.
Thanks,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
>
>
> Typically, most places carry the "M27500" (That's the mil spec for
> shielded
> multi-conductor tefzel) which is the shielded multi-conductor wire.
> Unshielded multi-conductor cables are not commonly stocked by many
> retailers
> or distributors, due to the cost, and frankly if you don't need it
> shielded
> it's just not worth the much higher cost for multi-conductor cable IMHO.
>
> B&C (http://www.bandc.biz) has a lot of wire in stock, and we stock 2,3&4
> conductor AWG22 shielded wire. Above 4 conductors gets REALLY expensive
> and
> pretty difficult to find - I know I can buy it up to 20 conductors, but
> then
> I'd have a bunch of it sitting here and never sell it. I think Van's and
> ACS also stock some multi-conductor cable as well. Wiremasters is a good
> outfit, but they're more of a distributor than retailer, and usually want
> you to buy hundreds of feet at a time (although I know people have gotten
> smaller amounts occasionally) - for someone like us who buy 10's of
> thousands of feet, those are ok places to shop, but for a few foot chunks
> they usually aren't too excited..though it can't hurt to try.
>
> Cheers,
> Stein.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
>
>
> Bob mentions bundles of wires in his book. I'm sure I could find all sorts
> of
> wire bundles at my local Radio Shack or Fry's Electronics, but there's no
> telling what kind of wire that is. Does anyone have a good source of
> Tefzel
> wire bundles? Shielded or unshielded is fine by me.
>
> Thanks folks.
>
> Chad
>
>
> Chad Sipperley
> Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
> Good debate
Ahem.. I hope to God I am not _debating_ Mr. Nuckolls as that isn't going to
turn out good for me.
> But I Thought the SD-8 was about $400 or so?...As my airplane will be
The 20A is $700 and you need a regular too.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel bundles |
Jim
I'm not Stein but I did make the bundles for my d-2 Trutrak ap. I used
the expando-sleeve stuff and it was a snap. That stuff turns a snarling
mass of wires into something that's easily handled. I even made a 5
wire bundle for the run all the way back to the electric trim. I think
the trutrak bundles were 7 and 9 wires.
Robert Dickson
RV-6A 110 hrs
Carrboro NC
On Jun 6, 2005, at 7:19 PM, Jim Stone wrote:
Stein,
Do you happen to know how many conductors the Digiflight II auto pilots
require? I think that is two wire runs I don't want to make multiple
times.
Thanks,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
>
>
> Typically, most places carry the "M27500" (That's the mil spec for
> shielded
> multi-conductor tefzel) which is the shielded multi-conductor wire.
> Unshielded multi-conductor cables are not commonly stocked by many
> retailers
> or distributors, due to the cost, and frankly if you don't need it
> shielded
> it's just not worth the much higher cost for multi-conductor cable
> IMHO.
>
> B&C (http://www.bandc.biz) has a lot of wire in stock, and we stock
> 2,3&4
> conductor AWG22 shielded wire. Above 4 conductors gets REALLY
> expensive
> and
> pretty difficult to find - I know I can buy it up to 20 conductors, but
> then
> I'd have a bunch of it sitting here and never sell it. I think Van's
> and
> ACS also stock some multi-conductor cable as well. Wiremasters is a
> good
> outfit, but they're more of a distributor than retailer, and usually
> want
> you to buy hundreds of feet at a time (although I know people have
> gotten
> smaller amounts occasionally) - for someone like us who buy 10's of
> thousands of feet, those are ok places to shop, but for a few foot
> chunks
> they usually aren't too excited..though it can't hurt to try.
>
> Cheers,
> Stein.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
>
>
> Bob mentions bundles of wires in his book. I'm sure I could find all
> sorts
> of
> wire bundles at my local Radio Shack or Fry's Electronics, but there's
> no
> telling what kind of wire that is. Does anyone have a good source of
> Tefzel
> wire bundles? Shielded or unshielded is fine by me.
>
> Thanks folks.
>
> Chad
>
>
> Chad Sipperley
> Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for responding. My comments below.
>
> >>My #1 requirement is that there be no single point of failure for the
> >>entire panel. I cannot have a system where any one failure causes the
> >>whole thing to go black in the soup - which should be an uncompromisable
> >>requirement for any aircraft with no vacuum system intended for IFR, I
> >>think. (This is why I ruled out Z-13 - unlikely as it may be, an open
> >>battery is total disaster. I THINK - correct me if I'm wrong there.
> >>Anyway I prefer two batteries.)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Then Z-13 with Z-30 ought to do it.
> >
> >
>
>Er.. Z-13 has us back at two alternators. I don't think this mission requires
>two alternators.. as you note below, in the event of a failure in IMC the task
>becomes to navigate to VFR or get on the ground.. battery power ought to be
>sufficient for that task with minimal load.
Then go Z-11 and leave the second alternator off. It can be added
at any time in the future.
> > replacing the certified junk alternator and substituting
> > an abused and ignored flooded battery with a well maintained
> > RG battery. This quantum jump in electrical system reliability
> > will power flight instruments with redundant power sources
> > that avoids single source (suck pump) reliance for powering
> > gyros.
> >
> >
>
>I completely agree that this results in a "quantum leap in electrical system
>reliability" but the difference betwixt this and a C-172 is that for us the
>electrical is the primary and only IFR instrument power source, to state the
>blatantly obvious. In other words.. the spam-can can tolerate an inferior
>lectrical system and possibly still be "safer" than an all-electric by virtue
>of the crappy, heavy and unreliable vacuum system.. (and BTW I've
>experienced 1
>total vacuum failure already in 300 hours and I hate the things and consider
>the dry pumps especially to be total junk).
. . . then Z-11 with two batteries ought to be plenty of
support. Further, the only reason you need two batteries
is to cover a concern for failure of any battery . . . so
the second battery can be quite small to support alternator
operation in cases where the main battery is not available.
>What gives you the idea I'm worrying too much? I just want the bases
>covered.
>Then I won't have to worry. Like most pilots, I know the risks and accept
>them. I just try to minimize them realistically. I do fly IFR now in a
>25-year-old Cessna 152 with no autopilot and a crappy, unreliable dry vacuum
>system with no backup bank information but the standard electric TC and my
>GPS's HSI. I want the RV to be as safe as realistically possible, that's
>all.
>But I'm considering carefully everything you have to say, you may be sure.
Forgive me, "too much" is a non-quantified, non-engineering
term. Let's focus on YOUR phrase, "realistically possible".
Toward that goal, let's consider that the probability of TWO
failures on any single load of fuel is exceedingly remote . . .
Would we agree that two batteries (even if something like
a 17 and perhaps a 7 a.h. battery) and a single modern alternator
is extremely likely to offer 17 a.h. or greater reserve capacity
for comfortable completion of any flight?
>You may consider my priorities out of whack, but adding that second
>alternator,
>with the regulator, costs nearly $1,000. Is that really that cheap? Maybe I
>am missing something, but I don't see the 2nd alternator as critical if you've
>got two batteries and an e-bus.
The SD-8 is about $400 including a regulator which is much
less $ and weight than the vacuum pump and system it replaces.
>However, I am going to take a hard look at Z-11 with Z-30 and see if that
>doesn't make sense for me. Maybe you're right, and it does.
>
> > I cannot recommend moving past this level without a lucid
> > evaluation of special needs like an electrically dependent
> > engine or an airplane that is being specifically configured
> > to spend a LOT of time in the gray. Even then, I doubt
> >
>
>See the above - perhaps I'll be in the gray much more than you are assuming.
Okay, suppose you spend ALL of your time flying on instruments.
What failures do you hypothesize will be unmanageable with Z-11
and two p-mags and an all electric panel? Let's stipulate at the
outset that you're concerned about battery failure so z-30 will
offer a second, small battery.
Now, which items would you drive from which busses and what
failures do you deduce cannot be simply and comfortably managed
with this configuration?
> > that time in the clouds would rise to more than 10-20% of total
> > flight time. The reason for that capability in most projects
> > is to stay right side up while you navigate OUT of the gray
> > stuff.
> >
> > Z-19 is specific to the electrically dependent engine where
> > only a single alternator is possible . . . my original
> >
>
>I was trying to figure out exactly what was "specific" to the
>electriclaly-dependent engine. Certainly, it could still be used with p-mags?
Figure Z-19 offers two, independent battery sources backed
up with a single alternator to drive redundant electronic
controlled fuel injection systems. The p-mags require no
back up, that's built in.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Prestolite field resistance.... |
Folks,
Have been lurking here for some time soaking up the good info on
crimps and busses and the like. Have a question related to alternator
field resistance and not sure if this is the place but here goes....
Before I call Kelly Aerospace in the morning and ask them I'll ask
here. Converting over to a Zeftronics ACU/OV unit on a '71 Bellanca
Viking that has the Prestolite two field post arrangement on the
alternator. Everything I see from all sources says the resistance
between the two field posts should be 3 to 6 ohms. On the one
installed in the bird now and the rebuilt/replacement alternator unit I
just got tonight, I'll be danged if I can get anywhere near 3 to 6 ohms
(which was the reason for ordering the rebuilt unit), usually 15 ohms
and up, bouncing all over the place depending on the position of the
pulley. This result from two separate DVOMs. I'm perplexed, to say
the least. Am I missing something or just being stupid ( perhaps a
rhetorical question......)?
Thanks,
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel bundles |
Thanks,
That is what I will do.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Dickson" <robert@thenews-journal.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
> <robert@thenews-journal.com>
>
> Jim
> I'm not Stein but I did make the bundles for my d-2 Trutrak ap. I used
> the expando-sleeve stuff and it was a snap. That stuff turns a snarling
> mass of wires into something that's easily handled. I even made a 5
> wire bundle for the run all the way back to the electric trim. I think
> the trutrak bundles were 7 and 9 wires.
> Robert Dickson
> RV-6A 110 hrs
> Carrboro NC
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2005, at 7:19 PM, Jim Stone wrote:
>
>
>
> Stein,
> Do you happen to know how many conductors the Digiflight II auto pilots
> require? I think that is two wire runs I don't want to make multiple
> times.
> Thanks,
> Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
> To:
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
>
>
>>
>>
>> Typically, most places carry the "M27500" (That's the mil spec for
>> shielded
>> multi-conductor tefzel) which is the shielded multi-conductor wire.
>> Unshielded multi-conductor cables are not commonly stocked by many
>> retailers
>> or distributors, due to the cost, and frankly if you don't need it
>> shielded
>> it's just not worth the much higher cost for multi-conductor cable
>> IMHO.
>>
>> B&C (http://www.bandc.biz) has a lot of wire in stock, and we stock
>> 2,3&4
>> conductor AWG22 shielded wire. Above 4 conductors gets REALLY
>> expensive
>> and
>> pretty difficult to find - I know I can buy it up to 20 conductors, but
>> then
>> I'd have a bunch of it sitting here and never sell it. I think Van's
>> and
>> ACS also stock some multi-conductor cable as well. Wiremasters is a
>> good
>> outfit, but they're more of a distributor than retailer, and usually
>> want
>> you to buy hundreds of feet at a time (although I know people have
>> gotten
>> smaller amounts occasionally) - for someone like us who buy 10's of
>> thousands of feet, those are ok places to shop, but for a few foot
>> chunks
>> they usually aren't too excited..though it can't hurt to try.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Stein.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>> chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob mentions bundles of wires in his book. I'm sure I could find all
>> sorts
>> of
>> wire bundles at my local Radio Shack or Fry's Electronics, but there's
>> no
>> telling what kind of wire that is. Does anyone have a good source of
>> Tefzel
>> wire bundles? Shielded or unshielded is fine by me.
>>
>> Thanks folks.
>>
>> Chad
>>
>>
>> Chad Sipperley
>> Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
>> Phoenix, AZ
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel bundles |
I am not Stein either, but did just finish running the wires for my
Digiflight II servos. The roll servo uses seven wires (including power
and ground) and the pitch servo uses eight wires (including power and
ground). Obviously, if you chose to ground them locally (I did not) you
would need one less wire in the wire runs to the cockpit area.
I made up a bundle of wires for each the approximate correct length and
laced the wires together using lacing cord. Then ran the whole thing
through the corrugated conduit like Vans sells.
Dick Tasker
Jim Stone wrote:
>
>Stein,
>Do you happen to know how many conductors the Digiflight II auto pilots
>require? I think that is two wire runs I don't want to make multiple times.
>Thanks,
>Jim
>
----
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Prestolite field resistance.... |
>
>Folks,
>
>Have been lurking here for some time soaking up the good info on
>crimps and busses and the like. Have a question related to alternator
>field resistance and not sure if this is the place but here goes....
>
>Before I call Kelly Aerospace in the morning and ask them I'll ask
>here. Converting over to a Zeftronics ACU/OV unit on a '71 Bellanca
>Viking that has the Prestolite two field post arrangement on the
>alternator. Everything I see from all sources says the resistance
>between the two field posts should be 3 to 6 ohms. On the one
>installed in the bird now and the rebuilt/replacement alternator unit I
>just got tonight, I'll be danged if I can get anywhere near 3 to 6 ohms
>(which was the reason for ordering the rebuilt unit), usually 15 ohms
>and up, bouncing all over the place depending on the position of the
>pulley. This result from two separate DVOMs. I'm perplexed, to say
>the least. Am I missing something or just being stupid ( perhaps a
>rhetorical question......)?
Great question! This shines a very bright light on the problems
of measuring field resistance in the alternator without disassembling
the critter. An ohmmeter simply doesn't generate enough measurement
energy to cut through the film on the alternator's slip rings. Secondly,
slip ring contact resistance can vary wildly as the shaft is rotated.
The most accurate measurement is accomplished by hooking a small
metered bench supply up to the alternator to externally excite
it independently of the ship's regulator. Fire up the engine,
turn on lots of heavy stuff like landing light, taxi light, pitot
heat, nav lights. Run up to 1000 rpm and adjust power supply to
achieve a bus voltage of 14.0 volts. Read field current and
voltage off the power supply and calculate resistance from these
values.
Now, the purpose of KNOWING resistance before installing a new
regulator is to know that the alternator is good first and at least
doesn't have an open or severely shorted field. My personal favorite
tool for this task is to fit a $low$ regulator like a VR-166 with
short leads that allow you to wire it right to the back of an installed
alternator with all but the b-lead disconnected from ship's wiring.
Start the engine and observe ship's voltmeter. If it looks okay at
idle (13.8 to 14.5 v) then increase rpm to about 1500 and turn on
lots of stuff as cited above. If you're alternator is okay, it will
come on line and carry the test loads.
Then you can remove the test regulator and reattach wires
from the ship's regulator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 |
> Then go Z-11 and leave the second alternator off. It can be added
> at any time in the future.
Yes, it looks like Z-11 + Z-30 (with the necessary small mods for p-mags) will
do it for me.
> . . . then Z-11 with two batteries ought to be plenty of
> support. Further, the only reason you need two batteries
> is to cover a concern for failure of any battery . . . so
> the second battery can be quite small to support alternator
> operation in cases where the main battery is not available.
Yes.. FWIW, I like the idea of two batts of the same size so I can rotate them
at annual and replace the older one each year.
> Forgive me, "too much" is a non-quantified, non-engineering
> term. Let's focus on YOUR phrase, "realistically possible".
> Toward that goal, let's consider that the probability of TWO
> failures on any single load of fuel is exceedingly remote . . .
Yes, of course, two failures is something you don't plan for. Big guy's
probably got your # if it comes to that, eh?
> Would we agree that two batteries (even if something like
> a 17 and perhaps a 7 a.h. battery) and a single modern alternator
> is extremely likely to offer 17 a.h. or greater reserve capacity
> for comfortable completion of any flight?
Certainly.
I'm just not totally comfortable with the systems that fail with an open
battery (-13). Possibly that's just because I don't have enough experience
with these things to have an appropriate level of trust in them.
> Okay, suppose you spend ALL of your time flying on instruments.
> What failures do you hypothesize will be unmanageable with Z-11
> and two p-mags and an all electric panel? Let's stipulate at the
> outset that you're concerned about battery failure so z-30 will
> offer a second, small battery.
In that case there's no problem at all. Totally comfortable with that. I
was/am just not real comfortable with the single batt systems that will fail
with an open battery (maybe so unlikely it doesn't bear designing for - I
really don't know).
> Now, which items would you drive from which busses and what
> failures do you deduce cannot be simply and comfortably managed
> with this configuration?
Well, to answer the question of what's on which bus, the e-bus needs to have
the EFIS, the gps/com #1, panel lighting, and pitot heat (definitely left off
unless absolutely needed!!!). I think that's it.
> Figure Z-19 offers two, independent battery sources backed
> up with a single alternator to drive redundant electronic
> controlled fuel injection systems. The p-mags require no
> back up, that's built in.
Yes, I know, what I meant was that it's a simple matter to remove things like
the ECU circuits from -19 that wouldn't be needed in the case of a non-auto
engine with p-mags. Of course, what would result from that would be pretty
close to Z-11 + 30, wouldn't it?
I think I am good with 11 + 30 (with some mods like using a B&C regular instead
of the "generic Ford")and can figure out the details. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
Bob
There is also a cheaper one for 27.99 item # 90636-0rhh.
Same company Chicago Electric power tools.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III cells" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells
> cells
>
>
>>
>>
>>Sorry add the part # to the search selection 91129-1rhc.
>>
>>Ron Raby
>>
>>http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?function=Search
>>
>
> Good catch Ron. My local store has them. I'll go get one
> and take it for a test drive.
>
> Watch this space.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | re: harbor freight battery load tester |
>
>Bob
>
>There is also a cheaper one for 27.99 item # 90636-0rhh.
>Same company Chicago Electric power tools.
This one is a fixed load device . . . in fact, it's
on sale right now for about $14
The other one says it has a carbon pile (BIG variable
resistor) with which to load the battery under test.
The technique is to apply enough load on the battery
to drag it down to some consistent test value like
9V. Keep load applied and adjust over time to maintain
9V. Read load current after 15 seconds.
This is a general test of cranking ability. You need
something in excess of 200A. New batteries will test
at 400-700A depending on size.
The big question about this el-cheeso model is if it
will take a 15 second load test of a robust battery.
I have a lunch appointment on the west side today.
I'll stop by HF and pick one up. We shall see . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | battery maintainer |
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Subject: battery
>>
>>Bob, I stopped at my local Wall Mart today and they didn't have this model,
>>but said they had been upgraded to model WM600A. The man at the store said
>>it was the same but now "you can mount it on the wall". Price was $25.86
>>here in Nashville TN. Also, I could not find either of these on the Wall
>>Mart web site.
>>Marty in Brentwood TN
>
>
Well, fooey. I've found that charger on several net sites
for $40 or more. Probably explains why WallyWorld priced them
at $17 to clear them off the shelves.
In any case, this experiment validates Shumacher's skills
and understanding of the task and suggests that any of their
battery charger/maintainers will operated as advertised
irrespective of price.
Soooo . . . I guess my personal maintainer of choice is still
the Deltran Battery Tender Jr which is offered in VOLUMES on
e-bay for most going under $25 with rip off shipping of 12.00
but still less than 39.95 total for buying at the corner
Batteries-R-Us stores.
Bob . . .
Bob,
Thank you for coming to NC. The timing was perfect for my
situation, as I have 'just a little more' work to do on the structure
and I'll be ready to run some wire.
Concerning battery maintainers. Just got a sales paper from Harbor
Freight, and they have one on sale for $5. The illustration showed a
wall wart, followed by a black box (I'm assuming the regulator), then
out to a couple of aligator clips. They also have the solar battery
charger for $12. Since the solar charger is unregulated, I'm wondering
about the feasibility of combining the two. Cut the walwart off the
regulator and the end off the solar panels output lead. Connect the
solar panel to the regulator. Remove the panel's housing and build it
into a custom battery cover and mount the regulator's black box with a
couple of ties to a longeron close to the battery. Cut the aligator
clips, and solder on a couple of ring terminals. Now the system can be
added inline with the battery contactor leads, and all but forgotten.
Is it feasible? What sort of gotchas would I have to test for beyond
insuring that it has enough capacity to maintain the battery in moderate
lighting?
--
,|"|"|, |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Prestolite field resistance.... |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
Bob,
I sort of think he was wanting to check the alternator before he installed it on
the aircraft...
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Prestolite field resistance....
>
>Folks,
>
>Have been lurking here for some time soaking up the good info on
>crimps and busses and the like. Have a question related to alternator
>field resistance and not sure if this is the place but here goes....
>
>Before I call Kelly Aerospace in the morning and ask them I'll ask
>here. Converting over to a Zeftronics ACU/OV unit on a '71 Bellanca
>Viking that has the Prestolite two field post arrangement on the
>alternator. Everything I see from all sources says the resistance
>between the two field posts should be 3 to 6 ohms. On the one
>installed in the bird now and the rebuilt/replacement alternator unit I
>just got tonight, I'll be danged if I can get anywhere near 3 to 6 ohms
>(which was the reason for ordering the rebuilt unit), usually 15 ohms
>and up, bouncing all over the place depending on the position of the
>pulley. This result from two separate DVOMs. I'm perplexed, to say
>the least. Am I missing something or just being stupid ( perhaps a
>rhetorical question......)?
Great question! This shines a very bright light on the problems
of measuring field resistance in the alternator without disassembling
the critter. An ohmmeter simply doesn't generate enough measurement
energy to cut through the film on the alternator's slip rings. Secondly,
slip ring contact resistance can vary wildly as the shaft is rotated.
The most accurate measurement is accomplished by hooking a small
metered bench supply up to the alternator to externally excite
it independently of the ship's regulator. Fire up the engine,
turn on lots of heavy stuff like landing light, taxi light, pitot
heat, nav lights. Run up to 1000 rpm and adjust power supply to
achieve a bus voltage of 14.0 volts. Read field current and
voltage off the power supply and calculate resistance from these
values.
Now, the purpose of KNOWING resistance before installing a new
regulator is to know that the alternator is good first and at least
doesn't have an open or severely shorted field. My personal favorite
tool for this task is to fit a $low$ regulator like a VR-166 with
short leads that allow you to wire it right to the back of an installed
alternator with all but the b-lead disconnected from ship's wiring.
Start the engine and observe ship's voltmeter. If it looks okay at
idle (13.8 to 14.5 v) then increase rpm to about 1500 and turn on
lots of stuff as cited above. If you're alternator is okay, it will
come on line and carry the test loads.
Then you can remove the test regulator and reattach wires
from the ship's regulator.
Bob . . .
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | MY Defiant Plans on eBay |
1.30 UNDISC_RECIPS Valid-looking To "undisclosed-recipients"
Morning...
Just thought I'd put the word out that I have put my Rutan Defiant plans
up for bids on eBay. I had grandiose thoughts of building one of these
after I finished my Long EZ, but at the rate I am going on the Long, and
my fast approaching "old age" , I don't think I will ever have the
time or desire to do them.
So, I want to pass them on to someone who can use them. I would
appreciate it if you know someone who may also be interested, please let
them know as well. I have also included the appropriate Canard Pusher
newsletters in pdf format on CDs along with a few other items such as
the owners manual, an HTM copy of the EZ Squadron's resource list and
RAF introductory letters.
BTW...the Defiant will make a great platform for a couple of Renesis
engines you could scavenge from those RX-8s you see all over the road
now!
The plans are on eBay for 10 days, no reserve, starting at under $100
and no buy-it-now price. So they will sell for whatever the market bears.
Just search for my offers (ageless_wings), or search using the keywords
"Defiant Plans", or go directly to the item at:
cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4555013840
Harley Dixon
Long EZ N28EZ
Canandaigua, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternators |
>Sorry to labour this, Bob, and thanks for your input so far, but....
>
>what does "If your alternator is internally regulated (it is), then
>I have no recommendations for adding the OVM-14 crowbar ov module
>to the system" mean?
>
> 1) don't use it
> 2) you can't use it
> 3) put it anywhere on the Alt output side
> 4) You can't add an OVM to an internally reg'd alternator.
> 5) ????
I can't tell you to DO anything. I can tell you NOT to do anything.
The original thrust of Z-24 (revision 10, removed at rev 11) was
to suggest a means of adding ov protection to an internally regulated
alternator. Field experience and further analysis of the architecture
illuminated design problems with Z-24 that have no immediate elegant
solution.
There are folks who will tell you that running an internally
regulated alternator is no big risk. However, we have documented
field experiences from others who have suffered damage to their
airplanes due to uncontrollable failures in internally regulated
alternators.
So until I have time and resources to develop a practical solution
-OR- someone else comes forward with a repeatable experiment to
demonstrate a solution that withstands a critical review, I have
no recommendations to make to assist you in installation of the
internally regulated alternator.
Sorry, but I can't be helpful on a matter for which I have no
specific knowledge. Van will tell you that there are thousands
of his designs flying with stock automotive alternators . . . and
he is probably right. I cannot share his enthusiasm for this
technology. There are too many different configurations that span
too many years and thousands of overhaul shops that might have touched
your prized automotive alternator. The generic "internally regulated
alternator" is a non-quantified, non-qualified entity. As a system
designer who has no control over the alternator's source and
characteristics, I'm duty bound to ASSUME that an ov condition is
possible and to deduce a means for dealing with it.
>What are my alternatives for checking for over-voltage on an internally
>reg'd alternator?
(1) you need a way to KNOW that an OV condition exists. A flashing
light could be fabricated. Some builders have told me that they
simply keep an eye on their voltmeter. If you have a GOOD battery
in place, it's unlikely that a failed alternator will push the
bus higher than 18 volts or so for a few seconds. This might be
sufficient time to react to a light and shut the thing off but
ONLY IF . . .
(2) you need a way to flip a switch and positively shut down a
failed alternator . . . this is the HARD part. I HAVE a good way
to sense and react to an ov condition, I don't have a way to
bring the runaway alternator to heel.
Check the archives . . . this has been thrashed soundly over
the past year.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | battery maintainer |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Funny you should ask this because I did a similar experiment with a HF
charger a few years ago.
Firstly let me say the plug in charger works great, plug 'em in walk
away.
So I had the bright idea of cutting off the little square box which had
the voltage sensing gizmo in it and wiring it to my alternator output in
the plane to charge a small second emergency battery. Of course the
chargr is limited to 600mA so If I needed the battery to run my fuel
pump it was not going to keep up but for 20 minutes of emergency flying
it seemed an ideal solution.
Sadly the voltage regulator needed quite a bit more than the 14V from
the airplane's (I used my car to test) electrical system to make it
work.....Somewhere above 20 volts I seem to remember.
My guess is you will find the same thing if you try to hook it to a 12v
solar array...I.e it won't work.
Concerning battery maintainers. Just got a sales paper from Harbor
Freight, and they have one on sale for $5. The illustration showed a
wall wart, followed by a black box (I'm assuming the regulator), then
out to a couple of aligator clips. They also have the solar battery
charger for $12. Since the solar charger is unregulated, I'm wondering
about the feasibility of combining the two. Cut the walwart off the
regulator and the end off the solar panels output lead. Connect the
solar panel to the regulator. Remove the panel's housing and build it
into a custom battery cover and mount the regulator's black box with a
couple of ties to a longeron close to the battery. Cut the aligator
clips, and solder on a couple of ring terminals. Now the system can be
added inline with the battery contactor leads, and all but forgotten.
Is it feasible? What sort of gotchas would I have to test for beyond
insuring that it has enough capacity to maintain the battery in moderate
lighting?
--
,|"|"|, |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground Planes |
>
>At 12:07 PM 6/3/2005, you wrote:
> >The coax cable to use is 50 Ohm RG-400 cut 16 feet long. Not about "15
> >feet" - cut it 16 feet long. The extra could be looped into a large coil
> >at least 2 feet in diameter. You will need 4 of the leads, they each must
> >be 16 feet long, and they should measure 2.5 dB to 3.5dB at 1 GHz.
>
>I don't understand this. If it is being used as normal feedline, then the
>length is totally irrelevent, except that it should be as short as possible
>to reduce losses at 1GHz (difference in loss between 1GHz and the aircraft
>band is a whopping 14.3dB). Maybe they just want all the feedlines to be
>exactly the same length so as to avoid differences in time of arrival of
>the signals from all 4 antennas.
>
>Also, as I understand it, the reason for having antennas on top and on
>bottom of the aircraft is to get a clear shot of the surrounding airspace
>and avoid attenuation in the shadow of the metal fuselage. If your plane
>is a composite, there is little to impede the signal, right? Maybe there
>could be a (cheaper) 2 antenna version for composites.
If we're talking about TCAS, the system deduces position
of responding aircraft by measuring TIME differences between
signals arriving from two antennas. Here the feedline length
is critical. Coaxes fabricated and installed professionally
are individually tested and matched to each other to plus
or minus one inch or better. They're also checked for qualities
that are affected by coax material and variability of installation
in connectors.
. . . definitely not a NORMAL feedline.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Chapman" <bcrnfnps(at)swoi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: battery maintainer |
Ernest,
Check the amp hour rating of this system. I picked one up to maintain a
tractor battery and it was rated for up to 125ah, I think. It wouldn't
maintain my battery...but that could be because the battery was dead or on
its way...anyhow I changed the battery and haven't tried it since.
Barry Chapman
Student pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: battery maintainer
>
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Subject: battery
>
>>>
>>>Bob, I stopped at my local Wall Mart today and they didn't have this
>>>model,
>>>but said they had been upgraded to model WM600A. The man at the store
>>>said
>>>it was the same but now "you can mount it on the wall". Price was $25.86
>>>here in Nashville TN. Also, I could not find either of these on the Wall
>>>Mart web site.
>>>Marty in Brentwood TN
>>
>>
>
> Well, fooey. I've found that charger on several net sites
> for $40 or more. Probably explains why WallyWorld priced them
> at $17 to clear them off the shelves.
>
> In any case, this experiment validates Shumacher's skills
> and understanding of the task and suggests that any of their
> battery charger/maintainers will operated as advertised
> irrespective of price.
>
> Soooo . . . I guess my personal maintainer of choice is still
> the Deltran Battery Tender Jr which is offered in VOLUMES on
> e-bay for most going under $25 with rip off shipping of 12.00
> but still less than 39.95 total for buying at the corner
> Batteries-R-Us stores.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Bob,
> Thank you for coming to NC. The timing was perfect for my
> situation, as I have 'just a little more' work to do on the structure
> and I'll be ready to run some wire.
>
> Concerning battery maintainers. Just got a sales paper from Harbor
> Freight, and they have one on sale for $5. The illustration showed a
> wall wart, followed by a black box (I'm assuming the regulator), then
> out to a couple of aligator clips. They also have the solar battery
> charger for $12. Since the solar charger is unregulated, I'm wondering
> about the feasibility of combining the two. Cut the walwart off the
> regulator and the end off the solar panels output lead. Connect the
> solar panel to the regulator. Remove the panel's housing and build it
> into a custom battery cover and mount the regulator's black box with a
> couple of ties to a longeron close to the battery. Cut the aligator
> clips, and solder on a couple of ring terminals. Now the system can be
> added inline with the battery contactor leads, and all but forgotten.
>
> Is it feasible? What sort of gotchas would I have to test for beyond
> insuring that it has enough capacity to maintain the battery in moderate
> lighting?
>
> --
> ,|"|"|, |
> ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
> o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 22 ga too small? |
>
>***** The biggest problem with a 22 gage wire is handling it and the crimp
>connector itself. With a smaller 22-gage wire, the crimp connector size
>is important. Any connector you use, the 22-gage wire is going to be on
>the small end of the crimp connectors range which is usually from 18-22
>gage. The smaller 22-gage wire does not fill the crimp terminal as well a
>18 gage and therefore good crimp operations; technique, connector
>quality/size and good quality tool are more critical. ******
This is unsupported by fact. I've cross-sectioned many an installed
terminal and have yet to find a red PIDG terminal applied with an
adequate tool that was not gas-tight over a 22AWG wire.
Therefore, the desire to "fill the crimp terminal" better with
larger wire is a non-issue. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
>There are work-arounds, but make sure you have the proper sized crimp
>terminal. Also some just feel that 22 gage is harder to stip and handle,
>that is a good reason also to use a bigger wire (smaller gage).
There are countless stripping tools . . . again, specifically
designed for Tefzel . . . but they're not necessary. Just last
week in Apex, NC about 18 folks got first hand experience in
stripping 22AWG Tefzel with an $8 pair of flush cutters! See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html
"Too hard to strip" is an excuse, not a reason . . .
If one can learn to drive a rivet, one can learn to
strip wire.
We've been using 22AWG as the smallest wire in the airframe
for decades on certified ships. For the first time, (as far
as I know) Premier went to 24AWG wire for some requirements.
Yup, there was some fuss from the production line early-on
but haven't heard a beef about it for over a year now.
>Strength wise the bigger wires are going to be slightly physically
>stronger and likely to take more abuse and vibration. However this is not
>always factor, so the 22 gage gets the job done and can be just as
>durable. Why add the weight. Again for the small amount of wires in a
>small plane it does not make too much difference.
Yes a bigger wire has more tensile strength than a smaller wire which
has nothing to do with installed robustness. Keep in mind that RESISTANCE
to bending induced stresses goes down markedly with diameter. See page
8-3 in the 'Connection. Just because a wire is smaller does not
translate into lesser as-installed robustness. Yes, the smaller
wire is less suited for cargo tie-down but a wire fails in vibration
because of stress risers (mitigated by the insulation grip on the
PIDG terminal) which are a function of g-loads and WEIGHT. So while
the smaller wire is not as 'strong' it is also LESS capable of
inducing stresses in it's own materials due to vibration.
In fact, smaller wires are less likely to suffer bending induced
stress cracks than larger wires. Folks who worry about this have
been giving credibility to too many third-hand ol' mechanics tales.
>As far as soldering, I don't want to make this a debate because there has
>been so much definitive things written about it, but you can solder very
>carefully and strain relief to get a good quality joint. However in most
>cases a good crimp joint is best (if done properly) and is well suited for
>large commercial production. As an individual we can take our time to make
>"watch work" joints with carefully applied dabs of solder and heat shrink
>and get a good joint, but it takes more time and skill.
. . . and is a waste of $time$
> Soldered wires where they want to flex is bad, as we know.
. . . just as crimped wires. There's no difference.
> If they don't flex or you keep solder away from those areas, it is not
> a problem. Makes sense.
To be having this discussion discounts decades of development
work and flight-centuries of field experience of a very mature
technology. Band-Aid work-arounds and extra-ordinary processes
added for peace-of-mind cannot replace using the right tool with
the right terminals to install connections per instructions. This
requires no extra-ordinary knowledge on the part of the builder
and doesn't have to be expensive either.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | battery maintainer |
>
>
>Funny you should ask this because I did a similar experiment with a HF
>charger a few years ago.
>
>Firstly let me say the plug in charger works great, plug 'em in walk
>away.
Do you have data on how this charger performs? For a "maintainer"
we need a charge cycle that terminates somewhere above 14 - 14.5
volts that reverts to a maintenance level around 13 - 13.5 volts.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/schumacher_2.jpg
Do you know if the device you tested does this? I had to
discount one HF "maintainer" because it wouldn't go to
the charge mode unless the battery to be charged was
severely discharged.
Snip . . .
>Concerning battery maintainers. Just got a sales paper from Harbor
>Freight, and they have one on sale for $5. The illustration showed a
>wall wart, followed by a black box (I'm assuming the regulator), then
>out to a couple of aligator clips.
I'll see if I can get one of these too and check it out.
> They also have the solar battery
>charger for $12. Since the solar charger is unregulated, I'm wondering
>about the feasibility of combining the two. Cut the walwart off the
>regulator and the end off the solar panels output lead. Connect the
>solar panel to the regulator. Remove the panel's housing and build it
>into a custom battery cover and mount the regulator's black box with a
>couple of ties to a longeron close to the battery. Cut the aligator
>clips, and solder on a couple of ring terminals. Now the system can be
>added inline with the battery contactor leads, and all but forgotten.
>
>Is it feasible? What sort of gotchas would I have to test for beyond
>insuring that it has enough capacity to maintain the battery in moderate
>lighting?
Don't know. Let's find out. On the way home from Apex, I
crafted a DIY maintainer controller. I'll add the drawing
to the battery maintenance article as soon as I can get
around to it. I don't recommend that anyone build such a
device when they're dirt cheap to buy already working. I
think our best effort would research which products do
it right.
Thanks for your feedback.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Small starter contactor (ultralight size) |
I'm working on a 103 legal ultralight with a 22 hp engine. It has electric
start, and I can afford the weight of a battery. I'm looking for a starter
contactor that isn't grossly oversized. The manufacturer says the starter
motor takes 25 amps.
Any suggestions?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Larson <jpl(at)showpage.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Devil's advocate |
> Wow, not too many replies to this thread! Either people aren't
> flying IFR,
> or they just don't want to admit how little IFR they really do fly
> despite
> their fancy electrical systems.
>
> Given all the RV builders I know who have or are installing backup
> alternators and all sorts of fancy whizbang electronic toys, I
> doubt any of
> them will actually ever make use of it! It's interesting, at least
> to me.
> I see a LOT of money being spent on toys for peace of mind, and
> then the
> pilot never flies in the clouds, or even at night!
>
It's not piece of mind if the equipment being backed up ever fails
while in the clouds. It could easily be the difference between an
uneventful arrival at home and a crash.
It's piece of mind until something fails. Then suddenly it's
critical equipment.
-Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Devil's advocate |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
I'm guessing but like a lot of folk who live on the West coast of the US
and spend time wondering if they go will they be able to get back VFR,
start out their $70k RV project and decide to make it IFR and go get
their upgraded ticket...I mean whats another 15k for the instruments
right?
AFTER that point they realise what a royal pain in the butt IFR flying
actually is (says he with a massive 10 hours in the soup)...I mean its
not fun and the recurrancy is a pain and if you have half an ounce of
common sense you realise that to be safe you have to go practice flying
in crappy weather. It sounds like a real chore to be honest.
Hence the RV ends up being a VFR plane after all with a lot of toys in
it.
Sad thing is I can easily see me going down the same path!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Larson
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Devil's advocate
> Wow, not too many replies to this thread! Either people aren't flying
> IFR, or they just don't want to admit how little IFR they really do
> fly despite their fancy electrical systems.
>
> Given all the RV builders I know who have or are installing backup
> alternators and all sorts of fancy whizbang electronic toys, I doubt
> any of them will actually ever make use of it! It's interesting, at
> least to me.
> I see a LOT of money being spent on toys for peace of mind, and then
> the pilot never flies in the clouds, or even at night!
>
It's not piece of mind if the equipment being backed up ever fails while
in the clouds. It could easily be the difference between an uneventful
arrival at home and a crash.
It's piece of mind until something fails. Then suddenly it's critical
equipment.
-Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Small starter contactor (ultralight size) |
>I'm working on a 103 legal ultralight with a 22 hp engine. It has electric
>start, and I can afford the weight of a battery. I'm looking for a starter
>contactor that isn't grossly oversized. The manufacturer says the starter
>motor takes 25 amps. Any suggestions?
Richard,
The Bosch 40A or 75A 12V relays will do this job.
See:
http://order.waytekwire.com/CGI-BIN/LANSAWEB?WEBEVENT+L093F58850CC883CED28BB02+M37+ENG
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: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Devil's advocate |
>AFTER that point they realise what a royal pain in the butt IFR flying
>actually is (says he with a massive 10 hours in the soup)...I mean its
>not fun and the recurrancy is a pain and if you have half an ounce of
>common sense you realise that to be safe you have to go practice flying
>in crappy weather. It sounds like a real chore to be honest.
>
>
Amen to that. I realized this shortly after getting my ticket.
I don't think you have to fly in actual to stay current but you do have
to fly regularly in sim conditions at least. My current schedule is a
night of doing approaches every other week which seems to do it for me.
Any longer than that and I am definitely feeling rusty. I cover up my
side window as well for NO outside peripheral references and it does not
feel much different to me than actual.
On one hand it's a chore but on the other it's a good excuse to fly more.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Devil's advocate |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Out of interest Paul, How long do you spend doing approaches during this
two weekly refresher?...I mean 1 hour, two??
That doesn't sound too bad...and I guess its not often that you will
actually get grounded by the weather is it?....:)
Frank
Do not archve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Folbrecht
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Devil's advocate
-->
>AFTER that point they realise what a royal pain in the butt IFR flying
>actually is (says he with a massive 10 hours in the soup)...I mean its
>not fun and the recurrancy is a pain and if you have half an ounce of
>common sense you realise that to be safe you have to go practice flying
>in crappy weather. It sounds like a real chore to be honest.
>
>
Amen to that. I realized this shortly after getting my ticket.
I don't think you have to fly in actual to stay current but you do have
to fly regularly in sim conditions at least. My current schedule is a
night of doing approaches every other week which seems to do it for me.
Any longer than that and I am definitely feeling rusty. I cover up my
side window as well for NO outside peripheral references and it does not
feel much different to me than actual.
On one hand it's a chore but on the other it's a good excuse to fly
more.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> |
SpamAssassin (score=-2.56, required 4, AWL 0.04, BAYES_00 -2.60)
>>> Okay, suppose you spend ALL of your time flying on
instruments.
>>> What failures do you hypothesize will be
unmanageable with Z-11
>>> and two p-mags and an all electric panel? Let's
stipulate at the
>>> outset that you're concerned about battery failure
so z-30 will
>>> offer a second, small battery.
>In that case there's no problem at all. Totally
comfortable with that. I
>was/am just not real comfortable with the single batt
systems that will fail
>with an open battery (maybe so unlikely it doesn't bear
designing for - I
>really don't know).
Another good thread. I went through a similar thought
process a few weeks ago with Bob and one defining moment for
me was in talking with Bill at B&C: when he said that the
SD-8 would work without the battery. That means to me that
if both the primary alt and only batt fail; I still have
8amps of power. Then, 1-1/2 lbs for the SD-8 vs. 12 lbs for
the extra batt made my mind up to go with the single batt /
dual alt configuration. Of course this is only my reasoning
..... still sound ???
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA Harmon Rocket
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-19 vs. Z-14 SpamAssassin (score=-2.56, |
required 4, AWL 0.04, BAYES_00 -2.60)
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
That's exactly where I got to Larry except I really don't believe a
battery will fail...I mean maybe short a cell or go open circuit...In
that case the primary alt will continue to run the ships power.
Like you the sd-8 (infinite flying time) vs a hunking great weight of
lead (some limited flying time) was a no brainer.
My only issue is will an SD-8 keep up with an electric fuel pump us I
have no mechanical pump?...Really must get around to measuring the draw
one of these days..
In my current plane I have a home grown version of the dual batt set
up...More than once I have come back to the hanger with dead batteries,
due mainly to the hangar power supply going off and not charging the
batts...I.e how do you KNOW how much flying time you got in those
batteries.
After 5 years I found this to be an ongoing problem...Unless one
actually changes out the batteries yearly of course which I have not.
Frank
Corvallis Oregon, RV7A
Another good thread. I went through a similar thought process a few
weeks ago with Bob and one defining moment for me was in talking with
Bill at B&C: when he said that the
SD-8 would work without the battery. That means to me that if both the
primary alt and only batt fail; I still have 8amps of power. Then,
1-1/2 lbs for the SD-8 vs. 12 lbs for the extra batt made my mind up to
go with the single batt / dual alt configuration. Of course this is
only my reasoning ..... still sound ???
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA Harmon Rocket
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Devil's advocate |
I used to do a lot of charter flying and instructing when I lived in St.
Louis (15 years ago). It's not the profile Dan requested, but just for the
heck of it I I checked my logbook. Overall I averaged about 12% IFR over
2500 hours and about 25% of my time is at night (I was an engineer at
McDonnell Douglas during the day). At times I'd wait for IFR weather to fly
with instrument students, so my average may be skewed a bit.
Only one time did I have an electrical problem - at night, in and out of
IMC - but was able to complete the flight uneventfully (don't remember the
diagnosis any more). I'm glad I didn't know then what I know now about
electrical systems!
I'm planning on a Z-19 architecture (one alt - two batteries) because I'll
have an electrically dependent engine. That architecture can tolerate the
failure of any one thing (alternator, battery, switch) and still keep juice
flowing to the engine and essential equipment - and that's my requirement.
I agree with Dan - keep it simple but effective, and that also fits my other
requirement - keep the price down!
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A empennage arriving next week!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: battery maintainer |
Bob, if I remember correctly, you have recently obtained a Schumaker (sp?)
charger. Or someone else has and the overall opinion was favorable.
So, with regard to you post below, saying , "For a "maintainer" we need a
charge cycle that terminates somewhere above 14 - 14.5 volts that reverts to
a maintenance level around 13 - 13.5 volts."
That is essentially what the Schumaker does - when voltage increases to 14.4
or so, it shuts 'OFF' and lets battery "free fall" (internally discharge) to
12.99 (13 v) at which time the voltage & current is turned back on until
reaching 14.4 again. It doesn't "cook" the battery in a "maintenance" mode.
With a fully charged battery, it takes time for about one blink of an eye to
go from 12.99 to 14.4v and shutoff. I think this fills the "requirement" or
"goal".
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: battery maintainer
>
>
(Corvallis)"
> >
> >
> >Funny you should ask this because I did a similar experiment with a HF
> >charger a few years ago.
> >
> >Firstly let me say the plug in charger works great, plug 'em in walk
> >away.
>
> Do you have data on how this charger performs? For a "maintainer"
> we need a charge cycle that terminates somewhere above 14 - 14.5
> volts that reverts to a maintenance level around 13 - 13.5 volts.
> See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/schumacher_2.jpg
>
> Do you know if the device you tested does this? I had to
> discount one HF "maintainer" because it wouldn't go to
> the charge mode unless the battery to be charged was
> severely discharged.
>
> Snip . . .
>
>
> >Concerning battery maintainers. Just got a sales paper from Harbor
> >Freight, and they have one on sale for $5. The illustration showed a
> >wall wart, followed by a black box (I'm assuming the regulator), then
> >out to a couple of aligator clips.
>
> I'll see if I can get one of these too and check it out.
>
> > They also have the solar battery
> >charger for $12. Since the solar charger is unregulated, I'm wondering
> >about the feasibility of combining the two. Cut the walwart off the
> >regulator and the end off the solar panels output lead. Connect the
> >solar panel to the regulator. Remove the panel's housing and build it
> >into a custom battery cover and mount the regulator's black box with a
> >couple of ties to a longeron close to the battery. Cut the aligator
> >clips, and solder on a couple of ring terminals. Now the system can be
> >added inline with the battery contactor leads, and all but forgotten.
> >
> >Is it feasible? What sort of gotchas would I have to test for beyond
> >insuring that it has enough capacity to maintain the battery in moderate
> >lighting?
>
> Don't know. Let's find out. On the way home from Apex, I
> crafted a DIY maintainer controller. I'll add the drawing
> to the battery maintenance article as soon as I can get
> around to it. I don't recommend that anyone build such a
> device when they're dirt cheap to buy already working. I
> think our best effort would research which products do
> it right.
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 SpamAssassin (score=-2.56, |
required 4, AWL 0.04, BAYES_00 -2.60)
Now I am confused b/c in searching the archive doing my research I came across
a thread that specifically stated that the SD-8 MUST in fact have a batt online
to get excited. If what you say is true I would also consider a 2nd batt
totally unnecessary.
> Another good thread. I went through a similar thought
> process a few weeks ago with Bob and one defining moment for
> me was in talking with Bill at B&C: when he said that the
> SD-8 would work without the battery. That means to me that
> if both the primary alt and only batt fail; I still have
> 8amps of power. Then, 1-1/2 lbs for the SD-8 vs. 12 lbs for
> the extra batt made my mind up to go with the single batt /
> dual alt configuration. Of course this is only my reasoning
> ..... still sound ???
> --
> Larry E. James
> Bellevue, WA Harmon Rocket
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | battery maintainer/load tester |
> >Concerning battery maintainers. Just got a sales paper from Harbor
> >Freight, and they have one on sale for $5. The illustration showed a
> >wall wart, followed by a black box (I'm assuming the regulator), then
> >out to a couple of aligator clips.
>
> I'll see if I can get one of these too and check it out.
My local store was sold out of the $low$ maintainers. I did
pick up a load tester:
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=91129
See photos:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_0.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_3.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_4.jpg
This little beastie is surprisingly useful. It has
an audible 15 second timer to help you conduct a
cranking test. The voltmeter does remote sense from
the battery test clips for accurate readings at
high current. The voltmeter is also quite accurate.
I conducted a 500A test first crack out of the box
and got a lot of stinky smoke (new carbon pile
parts). Subsequent tests were less distasteful.
You DO want to let it cool between high current
tests. My $high$ tester has a built in fan, it
wouldn't be hard to add one to this guy but I suspect
most folks won't need it.
The only down side was when I reassembled it, the
1.5MM machine screws threaded into too-thin sheet
metal stripped out when the little battery powered
screwdriver I was using bottomed out the screws . . .
If that's the ONLY thing I can find to carp about,
then this device is a steal at $60. Between this
load tester and the CBA-II cap checker at:
http://westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
. . .you can have all the equipment you need to keep very
close tabs on not just the battery in your airplane
but all the batteries in your life.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Request for comments |
| Subject: | Re: Aerosport Alternator and Overvoltage - |
Request for comments
>
>Hi all, I'd love to hear some comments regarding the alternator and
>overvoltage system that come with my Aerosport engine. They use I think
>a Denso 80 Amp Internally Regulated Alternator which I think is
>supplied by niagaraairparts.com.
>
>Here is a link to info on a similar 40A alternator install:
>http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf
>
>Here is a link to info on the OV protection....the 2nd page
>has the 100A version.
>http://www.niagaraairparts.com/ASP101-PIT%201.pdf
>
>I'd love it if people "in the know", like especially Bob, would provide
>any feedback on the good and bad of this system. Currently I am
>getting it provided with my engine, which I'll have at OSH. If there's
>a major issue though where something is substandard, I'd love to hear
>about it while I can still do something about it.
Aha! They're doing b-lead disconnect protection on internally
regulated alternators . . . Wonder if they've tested their
recommended disconnect relay in the output of a runaway
alternator running at over 10,000 rpm?
I'll have to call my ol' friend Femmi at Zeftronics (assuming
he's still there. Last time I saw him was at OSH about 12 years
ago).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: battery maintainer |
>
>
>Bob, if I remember correctly, you have recently obtained a Schumaker (sp?)
>charger. Or someone else has and the overall opinion was favorable.
I tested a specific model WM-1562A . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Battery_Maintenance/Schumacher_Bat_Maintainer_2.jpg
. . . and found it satisfactory which I'll suggest bodes well
for all of Schumacher's products. Battery chargers ARE their
core business.
>So, with regard to you post below, saying , "For a "maintainer" we need a
>charge cycle that terminates somewhere above 14 - 14.5 volts that reverts to
>a maintenance level around 13 - 13.5 volts."
Yup, here's the charging trace from the maintainer cited:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Battery_Maintenance/Schumacher_Bat_Maintainer.jpg
>That is essentially what the Schumaker does - when voltage increases to 14.4
>or so, it shuts 'OFF' and lets battery "free fall" (internally discharge) to
>12.99 (13 v) at which time the voltage & current is turned back on until
>reaching 14.4 again. It doesn't "cook" the battery in a "maintenance" mode.
>With a fully charged battery, it takes time for about one blink of an eye to
>go from 12.99 to 14.4v and shutoff. I think this fills the "requirement" or
>"goal".
Yes, I've published a compendium of maintainer data in
this .pdf file:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Battery_Maintenance/Charger_Maintainers.pdf
Thus far, the only one I found that was NOT satisfactory
is a Harbor Freight product that I couldn't get to jump out
of the maintainer mode into the charge mode without severely
discharging the battery.
I'll report on more maintainers and test equipment as I have
time and opportunity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: battery maintainer/load tester |
oops... Should be:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91129_2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91129_3.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91129_4.jpg
Dick Tasker
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>Concerning battery maintainers. Just got a sales paper from Harbor
>>>Freight, and they have one on sale for $5. The illustration showed a
>>>wall wart, followed by a black box (I'm assuming the regulator), then
>>>out to a couple of aligator clips.
>>>
>>>
>> I'll see if I can get one of these too and check it out.
>>
>>
>
>
> My local store was sold out of the $low$ maintainers. I did
> pick up a load tester:
>
>http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=91129
>
>
>See photos:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_0.jpg
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_1.jpg
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_2.jpg
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_3.jpg
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91128_4.jpg
>
>
> This little beastie is surprisingly useful. It has
> an audible 15 second timer to help you conduct a
> cranking test. The voltmeter does remote sense from
> the battery test clips for accurate readings at
> high current. The voltmeter is also quite accurate.
>
> I conducted a 500A test first crack out of the box
> and got a lot of stinky smoke (new carbon pile
> parts). Subsequent tests were less distasteful.
> You DO want to let it cool between high current
> tests. My $high$ tester has a built in fan, it
> wouldn't be hard to add one to this guy but I suspect
> most folks won't need it.
>
> The only down side was when I reassembled it, the
> 1.5MM machine screws threaded into too-thin sheet
> metal stripped out when the little battery powered
> screwdriver I was using bottomed out the screws . . .
>
> If that's the ONLY thing I can find to carp about,
> then this device is a steal at $60. Between this
> load tester and the CBA-II cap checker at:
>
>http://westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
>
> . . .you can have all the equipment you need to keep very
> close tabs on not just the battery in your airplane
> but all the batteries in your life.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
--
----
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aerosport Alternator and Overvoltage - Request |
for comments
I can add a single point of data. I have a 40A Denso from Niagara.
I have taken it to no load several times, both inadvertently and
vertently. Not knowing any better, I just wanted to see if pulling
the B lead circuit breaker would shut it down. What the hay, we are
experimenters ain't we?? It did, and nothing else happened that I
know of. I have also shut it down in flight several times using the
alternator switch which is feeding the 12V to the alternator
(regulator). This line goes by several names, but it is not field
current; but it can be used for turn the alternator on and off, which
I do every flight.
Consequently I am using Bob's (discontinued, I believe) OV module
with the contactor on the B lead (and on the 12V line to the
regulator) for (additional) OV protection.
Being a belt and suspender fellow, and stubborn by nature I also have
Bob's low volts warning flasher mounted in line with my nose.
I love my 40A Denso, and know many (virtually all of Bart's
customers) who have one. Have heard of only one failure at about 700
hours, which may be related to vibration. If so it would be
compelling evidence that B&Cs version is worth the extra bucks just
for the balancing. But I wish they would retain that internal
regulator to save a couple hundred bucks. It has passed my tests so
far, and its charging volts seems to be just right.
WARNING: This Denso is not the same as the one Van's sells! It looks
a lot like it but Van's 60A model is rebuilt with a much much
different internal regulator in it. The one Niagara sells, and its
deluxe brethern from B&C is brand new and has later technology.
I repeat the introductory remark. This is a single point of data.
Not recommending any one else perform my test! Especially don't do
it if you have a Van's 60A alternator!
I also have a radio master switch and a Cessna split master switch
but have renamed them because I hate to admit that I use them. I
like them and they have advantages which I feel outweigh the risks of
having them. Other than these minor flaws in my thinking I am a firm
disciple of Bob N's.
Denis Walsh
On Jun 7, 2005, at 8:30 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III Request for
comments wrote:
> Request for comments
>
>
>
>>
>> Hi all, I'd love to hear some comments regarding the alternator and
>> overvoltage system that come with my Aerosport engine. They use I
>> think
>> a Denso 80 Amp Internally Regulated Alternator which I think is
>> supplied by niagaraairparts.com.
>>
>> Here is a link to info on a similar 40A alternator install:
>> http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf
>>
>> Here is a link to info on the OV protection....the 2nd page
>> has the 100A version.
>> http://www.niagaraairparts.com/ASP101-PIT%201.pdf
>>
>> I'd love it if people "in the know", like especially Bob, would
>> provide
>> any feedback on the good and bad of this system. Currently I am
>> getting it provided with my engine, which I'll have at OSH. If
>> there's
>> a major issue though where something is substandard, I'd love to hear
>> about it while I can still do something about it.
>>
>
> Aha! They're doing b-lead disconnect protection on internally
> regulated alternators . . . Wonder if they've tested their
> recommended disconnect relay in the output of a runaway
> alternator running at over 10,000 rpm?
>
> I'll have to call my ol' friend Femmi at Zeftronics (assuming
> he's still there. Last time I saw him was at OSH about 12 years
> ago).
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Byrne" <jack.byrne(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aerosport Alternator and Overvoltage - Request |
for comments
Bob
Any info on this alternator/regulator setup will be very handy.
Am just unpacking my Aero Sport engine with a 40AMP Alt.
Regards
Chris Byrne
Sydney
> Aha! They're doing b-lead disconnect protection on internally
> regulated alternators . . . Wonder if they've tested their
> recommended disconnect relay in the output of a runaway
> alternator running at over 10,000 rpm?
>
> I'll have to call my ol' friend Femmi at Zeftronics (assuming
> he's still there. Last time I saw him was at OSH about 12 years
> ago).
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> |
All,
I'm attaching an Icom A200 VHF to a Sigtronics ST-400 intercom.
The Sigtronics instructions say to connect three wires to the "MIC AUDIO",
"RADIO MIC KEY", and "HEADPHONE AUDIO" pins of the "Aircraft Radio".
Another set of Sigtronics installation instructions, for the SPA-400,
specifically denotes the H, J, and 9 pins, respectively, of the A200 for
these three functions. Does this mean I don't connect anything to the
corresponding aircraft radio ground pins for these functions? Is the
Sigtronics using the power ground as a return? Will this set up a ground loop?
Thanks in advance,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Capacitance style fuel level sensor |
| From: | marknlisa(at)hometel.com |
Gang,
I'm forwarding this message recently posted on the Lancair Mailing List.
Please respond directly to him as well as this list (he isn't a subscriber
although I've encouraged him).
>>SNIP
FROM:
jeffreyb.peterson(at)gmail.com
I extended the wing tanks on my 360 and took the opportunity to
install a homebuilt capacitacne level sensor. I did this because the
commercial sensors are expensive, too short and difficult to tread into
the extended region of the tank. Mine is simple, just a length of 1/4 inch
tubing with holes every six inches, and a wire thin teflon insulated wire
suspeneded near the center. It has 133 pF capacitance empty and about
twice that full.
Now I need to build a circuit to read the capacitance and pass along the
correct signal to some filght instrument computer. I have been told
that these computer systems take a TTL square wave at about 3000 Hz, with
a frequency carrying the level info, and that the computer gets
programmed during setup with the empty and full levels. so, the precise
frequency for empty or full is not critical. I breadboarded up a TLC555
circuit today and it seemed stable.
I have not chosen the computer. Mabye it will be EDM 900...or a
Chelton screen...or whatever seems nice when I get around to the avionics.
I hope the group can help by answering a few questions:
-I am correct that these systems use a 3000 Hz TTL square wave?
-Is there a published (or defacto) standard?
-Can I buy the circuit I need?
I would consider paying a few hundred, but considering that I have spent
JUST $1.49 at radio shack so far, $1000 seems rather steep.
Thanks.
--
Jeff Peterson
>>SNIP
Thanks for looking this over guys/gals.
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern W." <vernw(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 vs. Z-14 SpamAssassin (score=-2.56, |
required 4, AWL 0.04, BAYES_00 -2.60)
My preference is for the Z-13 architecture, but I'm pretty sure it was
Bob N. himself who stated that the SD-8 MUST have a battery to excite it. It
will not power up by itself.
So what I have sort of settled on is the Z-13 plus the Z-30 additional
battery (very small, say 4 amp) which does three things: It gives the SD-8
something to lean on to get it started if need be, the small additional
battery can be use to keep (full voltage) power on my Lightspeed ignition
when starting, and if both the main alternator and the primary battery go
offline, the 4 amp battery with the SD-8 is plenty to keep all the important
systems (and then some) up and running as long as needed.
My big "problem" with just one battery is not the RG battery's
dependability in general, but the (very?) possible occurance of a broken
terminal. I know that's a "full bucket" as Bob says, but a broken battery
terminal definitely qualifies as a "single point of failure" which we are
all using as our baseline in electrical design.
I've seen some posters go a bit further and worry about scenarios of
multiple failures, but the probabability of any more than one critical
failure in a single flight is in the nth degree of possibility. If I lose my
main battery, my main alternator goes over voltage, the SD-8 won't start, I
start to smell smoke, and my one mag on the other side fails, and all this
happens exactly while I'm flying on top a mountain range, then I'm simply
going to assume that I have gotten a personal invitation from God to meet
Him face to face which will allow me to enjoy the ride down :-)
In the end, I'd be just as confident to fly with the Z-19 design as much
as the Z-13 + Z-30 design. While Z-19 is cheaper, it's a lot more weight
that I won't need in my RV7-A.
I'm not totally decided yet being that I won't have to start installing
a chosen system until later this Fall, but Z-13 + Z30 looks good to me. Now
if Bob would only add the Z-30 extra battery to the Z-13/SD-8 drawing and
show it as one sheet...
This is a great discussion, so let's not be afraid to keep it going. I'm
betting there's lot's of people wondering the same things.
Vern
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht" <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-19 vs. Z-14 SpamAssassin (score=-2.56,
required 4, AWL 0.04, BAYES_00 -2.60)
>
> Now I am confused b/c in searching the archive doing my research I came
across
> a thread that specifically stated that the SD-8 MUST in fact have a batt
online
> to get excited. If what you say is true I would also consider a 2nd batt
> totally unnecessary.
>
> > Another good thread. I went through a similar thought
> > process a few weeks ago with Bob and one defining moment for
> > me was in talking with Bill at B&C: when he said that the
> > SD-8 would work without the battery. That means to me that
> > if both the primary alt and only batt fail; I still have
> > 8amps of power. Then, 1-1/2 lbs for the SD-8 vs. 12 lbs for
> > the extra batt made my mind up to go with the single batt /
> > dual alt configuration. Of course this is only my reasoning
> > ..... still sound ???
> > --
> > Larry E. James
> > Bellevue, WA Harmon Rocket
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: battery maintainer/load tester (Picture Links Fixed) |
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: battery maintainer/load tester
> >Concerning battery maintainers. Just got a sales paper from Harbor
> >Freight, and they have one on sale for $5. The illustration showed a
> >wall wart, followed by a black box (I'm assuming the regulator), then
> >out to a couple of aligator clips.
>
> I'll see if I can get one of these too and check it out.
My local store was sold out of the $low$ maintainers. I did
pick up a load tester:
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=91129
See photos:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91129_0.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91129_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91129_2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91129_3.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF91129_4.jpg
This little beastie is surprisingly useful. It has
an audible 15 second timer to help you conduct a
cranking test. The voltmeter does remote sense from
the battery test clips for accurate readings at
high current. The voltmeter is also quite accurate.
May 28, 2005 - June 08, 2005
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-em