AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ez
November 17, 2005 - November 27, 2005
>
> 11/15/2005
>
> Hello Anon, Regarding your question copied below "....how to certify a
> GPS for IFR operations in an experimental aircraft?"
>
> The short answer is: "One should not even attempt such certification
> because
> it is not
> required." Let me explain.
>
> The term "certify" is thrown around too loosely and any attempts to
> discuss a question about certifying a GPS for IFR operations in an
> amateur
> built
> experimental aircraft without first setting some ground rules will
> result in endless wrangling.
>
> To me "certified" in this context means there is a piece of paper
> (certificate or
> equivalent document) signed by a person authorized by the FAA
> Administrator
> to sign
> that certificate or document.
>
> Standard type certificated aircraft get a standard airworthiness
> certificate based on meeting published standards and during its
> operational
> life no one is permitted to legally do anything to that aircraft that
> would
> void that certificate. There are
> tens of thousands of words in the Federal Aviation Regulations, Advisory
> Circulars, Technical Standard Orders, RTCA documents, SAE documents, FAA
> Orders, and other documents such as FAA policy that exist to maintain the
> sanctity of that aircraft's
> standard airworthiness status.
>
> Amateur built experimental aircraft get an initial special airworthiness
> certificate, which includes Operating Limitations specific to that
> individual aircraft, signed by an FAA Inspector or a DAR (Designated
> Airworthiness Representative) acting with the authority of the FAA
> Administrator. Since there are no published standards for amateur built
> experimental aircraft to deviate from, as long as the aircraft remains
> in compliance with its Operating Limitations and the references contained
> therein it is properly certified and no further certification acts are
> required.
>
> Moving on to the subject of IFR equipment and instruments in amateur
> built experimental aircraft. The best discussion of this subject is by
> Dick
> Koehler starting on page 62 of the September 2005 issue of Sport
> Aviation magazine. Also see the MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT
> REQUIREMENTS
> FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
> table available directly from me.
>
> Now focusing specifically on GPS IFR equipment requirements and IFR
> operations in amateur built experimental aircraft. One should read the
> entire paragraph 1-1-19 of the August 4, 2005 edition of the AIM
> (Aeronautical Information Manual)
> <http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19>
>
> Note One to Table 1-1-6 reads "To determine equipment approvals and
> limitations, refer to the AFM, AFM supplements, or pilot guides." The
> amateur builder has control over what his Aircraft Flight Manual says or
> does not say. The pilot has access to the information and limitations
> provided by the maker of his GPS equipment (pilot guides).
>
> If the builder / pilot of an amateur built experimental aircraft is in
> compliance with his aircraft's Operating Limitations, in compliance with
> his AFM, in compliance with the instructions and limitations provided by
> the
> maker of his GPS equipment, and in compliance with the equipment
> requirements and flight procedural instructions regarding GPS IFR in the
> most recent version of the AIM then he has met the legal requirements to
> fly GPS IFR and no additional certification activity or approval is
> required.
>
> I'm happy to continue the discussion if there are differing or additional
> viewpoints.
>
> OC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Anon
>
> Subject: GPS IFR requirements
>
>> Hello O.C. I recall that you did some extensive research on how to
>> certify
>> a GPS
>> for IFR operations in an experimental aircraft. There seems to be a lot
>> of interpretation of the law as written, and I would be interested in
>> your findings and opinions on the subject.
>
>> Regards, Anon
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GPS IFR requirements |
Do I take this to mean that if the GPS mfgr says his product is for VFR only, that
there's no way for the homebuilder to legislate his way around that in the
Pilot's Operating Handbook that he writes for the airplane?
(see excerpts below)
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: bakerocb(at)cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GPS IFR requirements
>>If the builder / pilot of an amateur built experimental aircraft is in
compliance with his aircraft's Operating Limitations, in compliance with
his AFM, in compliance with the instructions and limitations provided by the
maker of his GPS equipment, <<
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ray Allen Position Indicator Light and PTT |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Mike -
We get exactly the same thing when we transmit, using either com. I have
not trouble shot this because it does not have any effect on the actual
trim servos themselves. If you are using the RG400 cable for your antenna
runs, I doubt if they are the culprit.
Are you getting this on both the pitch and yaw trim indicators? One guess
would be that the indicator circuitry in the servos themselves are getting
the RF, when you transmit, from the com antenna in the vertical stab and
sending it all the way to the indicator.
Or, the LED indicator itself is picking up the RF and turning the top LED
on. BTW, as I recall, the LED that seems to indicate the position of the
servo/tab also dims when I transmit. I also cannot recall if the flap
indicator does the same as the trim indicators. Our panel is wrapped to
keep the darned sanding dust from getting to it. When we finish that, I'll
try to see what the flap indicator does.
What does Ray Allen say about this?
Cheers,
John
>
> The trim system is hooked up to a Ray Allen position indicator and
> works fine. When I push the PTT button on the stick (either > one) I
> get a bright top LED on the trim indicator. The LED goes out where
> the trim indication is (center of the scale). The top > LED is the one
> that's illuminated when the trim indicator is extended.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank <frankvdh(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: gpsmap 296/396 on ebay |
While we're talking about auction scams, let me just warn you all about
another one that applies if you're selling something.
You'll get an exceptionally (dare I say unbelievably?) good offer, maybe
even more than your asking price. You will be asked to withdraw the
auction and sell directly. So far, so good. Next, you'll be told that
the buyer is going to over-pay you for some reason... they have a
cheque/money order/whatever that they can't cash in their country is a
common one. You're asked to bank it and send them the difference by
Western Union, keeping an extra couple of hundred for your trouble.
Obviously, you'll find out later that the cheque is a dud. The payment
by WU is untraceable, and you've just lost your money. Maybe you've also
sent the goods, so you've lost that too.
A variation on this scam is to overpay you directly into your bank
account, again asking for the difference to be sent by WU. You can't go
wrong if you've got the actual money in your account, right? Wrong!
What's happening here is that another scam victim, who thinks they're
buying something, has paid the money into your account. In a few weeks,
they'll realise they've been conned, and come at you for the money. This
is a situation that only the lawyers will win.
Another step in the scams is for you to later receive an email from the
FBI, Nigerian Police, Secret Service, CIA, or someone similar (with a
money for you. Needless to say, this recovery will involve you paying
fees to the agency involved, or to lawyers, by WU...
Further information about these and other types of scams can be found at
http://www.scampatrol.org
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ray Allen Position Indicator Light and PTT |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Bill -
This is the way that Ray Allen dims their LED indicators for night ops.
That circuitry is probably complex and may have something to do with these
problems.
John
wrote:
> Probably not relevant, but when +12v is applied to the white wire on
> the RP3 LED Position Indicator, it dims the indicator lighting...
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Will N. Stevenson" <will(at)wavecable.com> |
| Subject: | Thanks Bob; A Good Book |
'Lectric Bob,
Thank you for your wonderful AeroElectric Connection publication. I'm
almost finished and understand what everybody on the List is talking about
now. It's great to read clearly written explanations and lessen areas of
ignorance.
Further in that vein, here's a clearly written and profusely illustrated,
systems type approach to avionics that might be appealing to other beginning
avionics buffs. It's titled "Avionics Training: Systems, Installation and
Troubleshooting" by Len Buckwalter, located at
http://avionics.com/index.html . The chapters on "Connectors" and "Wiring
the Airplane" are good, though he does seem to lean towards ring and knife
connectors. There are chapters on all the different avionic systems out
there now. There is a lot of easily understood information in this book.
It's just recently published.
The website itself has a lot of information and books about avionics,
enjoyable to look through.
Will
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GPS IFR requirements |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
That's correct. As homebuilders we have lots of latitude, but not THAT
much :-)
Dennis Glaeser
Do I take this to mean that if the GPS mfgr says his product is for VFR
only, that there's no way for the homebuilder to legislate his way
around that in the Pilot's Operating Handbook that he writes for the
airplane?
-Stormy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 12v Ipod...Need Vol Help (REAL PROBLEM IS) |
On a related note, one of the biggest problem with little audio devices altogether
not volume control but that they don't put out enough power to drive the intercom
properly in the first place. You end up cranking the portable device up to the
max
and it distorts, and/or you crank the intercom up to compensate which amplifies
the distortion further. Most small audio devices only have enough juice to drive
small ear buds. A pre-amp is the solution.
Here the idea which I plan on using on my RV-7. I am making a little stereo
audio amplifier behind the panel. It can run all the time boosting all aux/music
input signals, taking only milliamps to run. Electronic kits can be bought for
less
than $10. You can get fancy and have access to the volume or even "tone" if you
want, or a little unit that has a fixed boost and hide it behind the panel. The
drain is so low in standby you don't need an on/off.
Some example kits:
http://www.quasarelectronics.com/audio_amplifiers.htm
(scroll down to see stereo modules)
A strong audio input source is not possible with most devices. I have an iPod
and love it of course. I use it in my car with a radio modulator that uses the
bottom plug and it is acceptable, but not perfect. This is a different scenario
using a FM radio modulator than plugging direct into an aux input.
I don't know what its output is like with an aircraft intercom yet, but plan
on
the pre-amp. Also not all "stereo" intercoms are the same. I had a PS
Engineering stereo intercom in my RV-4 and it worked great but suffered
from low input from the portable music source. I did not use a pre-amp .
My RV-7 project has a DRE and is a more powerful stereo unit. Adding a
little pre-amp, I expect good stereo fidelity, at least as much as I can hope
for at 200 MPH and a Lycoming screaming a foot from my feet.
I have not tried it yet, but you can always use more input power with portable
devices (to a point). With a preamp you can run the portable device at low
volume (low distortion) and boost it with the pre-amp; This allows the intercom
to also be at a lower vol. All this is good.
George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto switch wiring |
>
>
>A number of Bob's Z-diagrams show how to do this. I believe Z-11 does
>(don't have the diagrams in front of me).
>
>Dennis Glaeser
>RV 7A Wings (installing ailerons & flaps)
>
>
> Does anyone out there have a drawing of how to wire the magnetos
>with toggle switches
> and a separate starter button? I'd also like wire them with a
>lockout
> in case of kickback (one impulse).
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Ignition/TogMagSw.pdf
(lower of the two diagrams).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
>
>I am not familiar with Jabiru's but if I was ordering new materials for
>this I'd use awg12 wire and a 20 amp breaker.
>
>15 amps might be OK but a 20 amp breaker should not nuisance trip. I
>wouldn't trust a 15 amp fuse as they tend to be quick to trip and might
>well trip when you apply power after an engine start. Your 15 amp
>alternator rating is a nominal rating and it might well put out a little
>more in some conditions. 12 awg wire fits yellow PIDG connectors so it
>is easy to install and will handle 15 or so amps without excessive
>heating or voltage drop for reasonable lengths and wire bundle sizes.
>
>Ken
Good answer, I agree.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Goguen <jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS IFR requirements |
I assumed this to be correct, and bought an IFR certified GPS. On the
other hand, if I look in the Rotax 912S manual, it says the engine is
restricted to use for day VFR only. This injunction also appears in
the manual for the certified version of the engine. I assume that
Rotax-powered ships do get signed off for IFR use, so the restrictions
in the operating manuals must still allow some lattitude. Is this
correct?
Jon
Jon Goguen
jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu
Central Massachusetts
Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved)
Complete except for electrics and avionics
"Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind"
--Woody Allen
On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:26 PM, Glaeser, Dennis A wrote:
>
>
> That's correct. As homebuilders we have lots of latitude, but not THAT
> much :-)
>
> Dennis Glaeser
>
> Do I take this to mean that if the GPS mfgr says his product is for VFR
> only, that there's no way for the homebuilder to legislate his way
> around that in the Pilot's Operating Handbook that he writes for the
> airplane?
>
> -Stormy
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GPS IFR requirements |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Actually you don't need a "sign off" for IFR work. I will have mine
inspected for VFR and slide the GNS 430 in later to the preinstalled
tray...I then have the pitot-static/transponder check don and its legal
for IFR...as long as I say so in my OP-lims.
I mean what does it say for my auto conversion??..Nothing...:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon
Goguen
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GPS IFR requirements
-->
I assumed this to be correct, and bought an IFR certified GPS. On the
other hand, if I look in the Rotax 912S manual, it says the engine is
restricted to use for day VFR only. This injunction also appears in the
manual for the certified version of the engine. I assume that
Rotax-powered ships do get signed off for IFR use, so the restrictions
in the operating manuals must still allow some lattitude. Is this
correct?
Jon
Jon Goguen
jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu
Central Massachusetts
Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved) Complete except for
electrics and avionics
"Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind"
--Woody Allen
On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:26 PM, Glaeser, Dennis A wrote:
>
>
> That's correct. As homebuilders we have lots of latitude, but not THAT
> much :-)
>
> Dennis Glaeser
>
> Do I take this to mean that if the GPS mfgr says his product is for
> VFR only, that there's no way for the homebuilder to legislate his way
> around that in the Pilot's Operating Handbook that he writes for the
> airplane?
>
> -Stormy
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glong2" <glong2(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Ray Allen Position Indicator Light and PTT |
John, Mike:
My LED trim indicators - aileron, elevator, and flaps - all dim when
transmitting from either com. Each of my coms has a different antenna. I,
like John have done no troubleshooting because nothing else is affected
except LED brightness. If there is an easy fix, I will fix, else I will
leave alone!
Eugene Long
Lancair Super ES
glong2(at)netzero.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
Schroeder
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen Position Indicator Light and
PTT
Mike -
We get exactly the same thing when we transmit, using either com. I have
not trouble shot this because it does not have any effect on the actual
trim servos themselves. If you are using the RG400 cable for your antenna
runs, I doubt if they are the culprit.
Are you getting this on both the pitch and yaw trim indicators? One guess
would be that the indicator circuitry in the servos themselves are getting
the RF, when you transmit, from the com antenna in the vertical stab and
sending it all the way to the indicator.
Or, the LED indicator itself is picking up the RF and turning the top LED
on. BTW, as I recall, the LED that seems to indicate the position of the
servo/tab also dims when I transmit. I also cannot recall if the flap
indicator does the same as the trim indicators. Our panel is wrapped to
keep the darned sanding dust from getting to it. When we finish that, I'll
try to see what the flap indicator does.
What does Ray Allen say about this?
Cheers,
John
>
> The trim system is hooked up to a Ray Allen position indicator and
> works fine. When I push the PTT button on the stick (either > one) I
> get a bright top LED on the trim indicator. The LED goes out where
> the trim indication is (center of the scale). The top > LED is the one
> that's illuminated when the trim indicator is extended.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Franz Fux" <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto switch wiring |
It is actually Z-27 that gives details on wiring one mag and one EI
Franz
-----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: Re: Magneto switch wiring
>
>
>A number of Bob's Z-diagrams show how to do this. I believe Z-11 does
>(don't have the diagrams in front of me).
>
>Dennis Glaeser
>RV 7A Wings (installing ailerons & flaps)
>
>
> Does anyone out there have a drawing of how to wire the magnetos
>with toggle switches
> and a separate starter button? I'd also like wire them with a
>lockout
> in case of kickback (one impulse).
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Ignition/TogMagSw.pdf
(lower of the two diagrams).
Bob . . .
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com> |
Bob,
What is the purpose of the rectifier in the wig-wag drawing. It looks like
it could be eliminated with no change in current pathways or switch
function. What am I missing???
Rodney in Tennessee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com> |
| Subject: | MD200-306 indicator shared with two navs |
My original plan was to install the Garmin GNS430 and SL30 with one
MD200-306, which would be shared with the two navs. I have been told that
this will not work as the indicator has to be calibrated for each nav and
will be inaccurate with the other one. I now do not know if I have panel
space for the second indicator (not to mention the bucks!)
Two questions...
One - Is this true? Do I really have to have an indicator dedicated to each
nav?
Two - If not true, how do I switch between the two navs on the indicator?
Thanks,
Bill Bradburry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MikeEasley(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Follow Up on Ray Allen Indicator and PTT |
Yesterday, we did a couple more tests, with no solution found. We
disconnected the antenna and attached a flexible rubber antenna from a handheld
and
transmitted, no change, the LED still illuminated.
His indicator is located right below his radio stack. So it's only a few
inches from the com radio. I took some aluminum foil and placed a sheet of it
below the radios, between the LED indicator and the radios. No help.
We made sure the radio was fully seated in the tray, thinking some RF was
leaking at the back of the radio. No help.
So, have we eliminated RF as the cause? Or is there some other way that RF
is lighting up the LED?
He only has one trim, but we did try both PTTs and it's the same on both.
Another observation, the LED that illuminates is the same one that
illuminates when you disconnect the position sensor. It's also the one that
illuminates when the position sensor is extended. I'm assuming that the movement
of
the position sensor changes the voltage or resistance on one of the three
wires and that's what controls the LEDs. Can you tell I don't know too much
about electricity?
So the PTT is either simulating a disconnected sensor or simulating a fully
extended sensor.
When we disconnect the wiring running from the LED to the position sensor,
we get a bright top LED. Then we push the PTT button and the LED dims. With
the wiring connected, the center LED is illuminated. It goes out and the top
LED comes on bright when we push the PTT. The dimmer circuit works
correctly. When we turn on the panel light switch, the LED dims just like it
should.
It can't be caused by anything at the position sensor because when we
disconnect the wiring running to it the problem is still there. It can't be the
antenna wire running parallel to the position sensor wiring because we hooked
up the flexible antenna and still go the problem.
So what's left? Grounding. On a Glasair airframe we don't have to worry
about any current leaking through the glass.
Where should be start looking for a ground problem? Maybe the com radio
case needs to be grounded. Maybe some current is running through the panel and
triggering the LED. I think we might try measuring from the metal inserts on
the panel to ground and see if there's any voltage across there.
Interestingly, my Lancair doesn't exhibit any of these symptoms. I have my
trim wires bundled with my com antenna wire, RG58, the entire length of the
fuselage. My indicators are mounted 15" away from the radio stack.
Keep the comments coming, thanks in advance.
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2 |
Stormy,
First I must apologize about the tardiness of this reply. My friend sent
his Rockwell hardness testing machine out for repairs shortly before this
discussion began in late August. The repair shop recently reported that
his machine could not be economically repaired, so that eliminated my hope
of directly testing the hardness of my magneto gears.
I subscribe to the Lycoming List on Yahoo. I posed the question of
accessory gear hardness on that list. Dave from Superior replied to me
stating that these gears are hardened to between 25 and 46 Rockwell. As a
point of reference, your typical hand file is 62 Rockwell. Therefore the
EMag folks need to have these gears hardened, if they expect them to have
any sort of longevity in service.
I am currently awaiting a clarification from Dave regarding this "spread"
of Rockwell numbers for these gears. I wish to know if the 25 to 46 is a
tolerance range, OR if the various gears in the accessory case are hardened
to differing numbers. I would suspect that the smaller gears may be heat
treated to a higher (harder) Rockwell number, as they spin faster than the
larger gears. This subjects them to greater wear. Increasing the hardness
of the smaller gears should help extend their life. This is simply
conjecture on my part for the moment.
What did you learn from Brad at EMag
Charlie Kuss
>
>That will be interesting, Charlie. Let us know what you learn about the
>gear hardness. Meanwhile, I will querry Brad at Emag for more details.
>
>-Stormy
>
>
> >>PS I'm on vacation this week. When I get home, I'll check the Rockwell
> hardness
>of some old Lycoming timing gears I have.<<
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William" <wschertz(at)ispwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS IFR requirements |
I believe you will have to take it back into 'test phase', and run a
simulated Instrument Operation and log them into your test setup.
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser # 4045
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GPS IFR requirements
>
>
> Actually you don't need a "sign off" for IFR work. I will have mine
> inspected for VFR and slide the GNS 430 in later to the preinstalled
> tray...I then have the pitot-static/transponder check don and its legal
> for IFR...as long as I say so in my OP-lims.
>
> I mean what does it say for my auto conversion??..Nothing...:)
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon
> Goguen
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GPS IFR requirements
>
> -->
>
> I assumed this to be correct, and bought an IFR certified GPS. On the
> other hand, if I look in the Rotax 912S manual, it says the engine is
> restricted to use for day VFR only. This injunction also appears in the
> manual for the certified version of the engine. I assume that
> Rotax-powered ships do get signed off for IFR use, so the restrictions
> in the operating manuals must still allow some lattitude. Is this
> correct?
>
> Jon
>
> Jon Goguen
> jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu
> Central Massachusetts
> Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved) Complete except for
> electrics and avionics
>
> "Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind"
> --Woody Allen
> On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:26 PM, Glaeser, Dennis A wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> That's correct. As homebuilders we have lots of latitude, but not THAT
>
>> much :-)
>>
>> Dennis Glaeser
>>
>> Do I take this to mean that if the GPS mfgr says his product is for
>> VFR only, that there's no way for the homebuilder to legislate his way
>
>> around that in the Pilot's Operating Handbook that he writes for the
>> airplane?
>>
>> -Stormy
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2 |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Interesting,
I have an ECI parts engine built up by Mattituck and the mag gears came
in a little plastic baggie..I can tell you they are SOFT!
I marked the tips with a file very easily...Havent installed them yet
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Charlie Kuss
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2
-->
Stormy,
First I must apologize about the tardiness of this reply. My friend
sent his Rockwell hardness testing machine out for repairs shortly
before this discussion began in late August. The repair shop recently
reported that his machine could not be economically repaired, so that
eliminated my hope of directly testing the hardness of my magneto gears.
I subscribe to the Lycoming List on Yahoo. I posed the question of
accessory gear hardness on that list. Dave from Superior replied to me
stating that these gears are hardened to between 25 and 46 Rockwell. As
a point of reference, your typical hand file is 62 Rockwell. Therefore
the EMag folks need to have these gears hardened, if they expect them to
have any sort of longevity in service.
I am currently awaiting a clarification from Dave regarding this
"spread"
of Rockwell numbers for these gears. I wish to know if the 25 to 46 is a
tolerance range, OR if the various gears in the accessory case are
hardened to differing numbers. I would suspect that the smaller gears
may be heat treated to a higher (harder) Rockwell number, as they spin
faster than the larger gears. This subjects them to greater wear.
Increasing the hardness of the smaller gears should help extend their
life. This is simply conjecture on my part for the moment.
What did you learn from Brad at EMag
Charlie Kuss
>
>That will be interesting, Charlie. Let us know what you learn about
>the gear hardness. Meanwhile, I will querry Brad at Emag for more
details.
>
>-Stormy
>
>
> >>PS I'm on vacation this week. When I get home, I'll check the
> >>Rockwell
> hardness
>of some old Lycoming timing gears I have.<<
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2 |
Frank,
I'm not sure if you recall the start of this thread. A lister purchased
an electronic ignition from EMag. EMag supplied him with magneto drive
gears. These gears started to shed metal into the oil rather rapidly. The
owner reported that there was no heat treating of the EMag supplied gears.
Since your file is Rockwell 62, it should notch gears which are only
Rockwell 25 to 46. Industrial gears are commonly heat treated to Rockwell
47 to 52. The Lycoming accessory gears are softer. A higher Rockwell number
will reduce normal wear, but makes the parts more brittle. This may be why
the Lycoming parts are not as hard. They want to prevent a catastrophic
failure of any part.
Charlie
>
>
>Interesting,
>
>I have an ECI parts engine built up by Mattituck and the mag gears came
>in a little plastic baggie..I can tell you they are SOFT!
>
>I marked the tips with a file very easily...Havent installed them yet
>
>Frank
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Charlie Kuss
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; sportav8r(at)aol.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2
>
>-->
>
>Stormy,
> First I must apologize about the tardiness of this reply. My friend
>sent his Rockwell hardness testing machine out for repairs shortly
>before this discussion began in late August. The repair shop recently
>reported that his machine could not be economically repaired, so that
>eliminated my hope of directly testing the hardness of my magneto gears.
> I subscribe to the Lycoming List on Yahoo. I posed the question of
>accessory gear hardness on that list. Dave from Superior replied to me
>stating that these gears are hardened to between 25 and 46 Rockwell. As
>a point of reference, your typical hand file is 62 Rockwell. Therefore
>the EMag folks need to have these gears hardened, if they expect them to
>have any sort of longevity in service.
> I am currently awaiting a clarification from Dave regarding this
>"spread"
>of Rockwell numbers for these gears. I wish to know if the 25 to 46 is a
>tolerance range, OR if the various gears in the accessory case are
>hardened to differing numbers. I would suspect that the smaller gears
>may be heat treated to a higher (harder) Rockwell number, as they spin
>faster than the larger gears. This subjects them to greater wear.
>Increasing the hardness of the smaller gears should help extend their
>life. This is simply conjecture on my part for the moment.
> What did you learn from Brad at EMag
>Charlie Kuss
>
>
> >
> >That will be interesting, Charlie. Let us know what you learn about
> >the gear hardness. Meanwhile, I will querry Brad at Emag for more
>details.
> >
> >-Stormy
> >
> >
> > >>PS I'm on vacation this week. When I get home, I'll check the
> > >>Rockwell
> > hardness
> >of some old Lycoming timing gears I have.<<
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Follow Up on Ray Allen Indicator and PTT |
The thread on this topic is germane to some work I'm doing at RAC
right now. We produce some very complex airplanes where the potential
for interference between systems is great. I've often cited the value
of designing products that take advantage of design goals cited in
DO-160 for victims and MIL-STD-704 for potential antagonists in the
electrical system. I just finished "fixing" an airplane fitted with
generator control units crafted and qualified in the 60's and grand-fathered
onto our current production aircraft. I added 16 bypass capacitors
inside the mating plug to attenuate entry of strong RF fields into
the controller's inner works.
In this case, we have a combination of two conditions . . .
(1)the victim GCU was not qualified to modern design goals
and (2) we have a high powered HF radio system with too many
unanswered or poorly understood questions with respect to the
design of the antenna.
A classic example of an antagonist that's broken through the
ceiling of allowable stresses and a victim that's ill equipped
to live in the high stress environment. The ideal fix would be
to re-engineer the antenna . . . a VERY expensive activity. The
next best would be to get the GCU upgraded to add the necessary
capacitors inside . . . but nobody wants to spend a lot of money
to re-qualify a 40 year old design that for the most part, has
worked well.
An examination of this thread suggests that the root cause of symptoms
noted is an extra-ordinary sensitivity by the LED indicator to local
RF stresses. A judicious placement of some simple filters would
make the problem go away on 100% of installations. This is something
the manufacturer should do but won't until the collective
customer base brings sufficient marketplace pressures to bear.
In the mean time, we'll continue to read threads on the 'net how
one builder 'fixed' the problem my moving a ground wire, adding
a ferrite bead, or some other activity. I've likened these efforts
to pushing the muddy water around on the floor with a squeegee
until you've provided sufficient isolation between the mud
and the spot you'd like to make a bit cleaner. There's no effort
made to really scoop up the mud and discard it. We've done
$millions$ of mud-pushing exercises over the years and will
probably do $millions$ more in the future.
If someone can get a schematic of the LED indicator assembly, I
can recommend filters that will actually scoop up some mud. By the
way, I just redesigned an LED bar graph display used on one of
our production aircraft to eliminate a similar sensitivity to RF.
It would not surprise me that the same fix is applicable here.
Be responsible consumers . . . put this in the manufacturer's lap
and let them know that no-cost help is available.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wig-wag wiring |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>What is the purpose of the rectifier in the wig-wag drawing. It looks like
>it could be eliminated with no change in current pathways or switch
>function. What am I missing???
Without the diodes, the two lamp circuits are tied together
and cannot be independently illuminated. The lamps would be
steady-ON in both positions of the control switch.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thanks Bob; A Good Book |
>
>
>'Lectric Bob,
>
>Thank you for your wonderful AeroElectric Connection publication. I'm
>almost finished and understand what everybody on the List is talking about
>now. It's great to read clearly written explanations and lessen areas of
>ignorance.
Thank you sir. I'm pleased that you find the work so useful.
>Further in that vein, here's a clearly written and profusely illustrated,
>systems type approach to avionics that might be appealing to other beginning
>avionics buffs. It's titled "Avionics Training: Systems, Installation and
>Troubleshooting" by Len Buckwalter, located at
>http://avionics.com/index.html . The chapters on "Connectors" and "Wiring
>the Airplane" are good, though he does seem to lean towards ring and knife
>connectors. There are chapters on all the different avionic systems out
>there now. There is a lot of easily understood information in this book.
>It's just recently published.
>
>The website itself has a lot of information and books about avionics,
>enjoyable to look through.
Len is a talented systems integrator and a good teacher. We've
spoken on the phone many times in the past. I've not conversed
with him recently. Your note reminds me that we need to talk
again soon and "catch up" . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> resolved |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe noise on Piper Archer II - |
resolved
>
>
> > I'm getting a lot of strobe noise - kind of a
> > whooping sound - in one of our club's Pipers.
> > It's so bad I can't run the strobes and listen
> > to the radio. I've read in the archives that
> > people have solved this problem with a capacitor
> > somewhere, but I can't find the details. Any
> > hints appreciated before we give it to the shop
> > for them to spend 2 weeks debugging it at a
> > thousand dollars an hour, or whatever they charge.
>
>Just a follow-up on this thread. I didn't get to
>do the work myself, but it seems the problem was
>with multiple ground paths. They say they brought
>everything to a single ground point, and that has
>solved the problem.
>
>I was out chasing needles today, and I can confirm
>that the whoop-whoop sound is gone.
>
>Many thanks to all for the various hints and tips
>that you sent me.
Thanks for the follow up Mickey!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Follow Up on Ray Allen Indicator and PTT |
Getting RF out of components involves some detective work, so I'll just
throw out some suggestions and ideas of the top of my head.
First you have to remember that an LED is a light emitting diode, and a
diode is what is used to detect RF in the first place. If the position
indicator circuit has some form of amplifier in it, then you could be
getting RF in that way.
Putting an aluminum shield between the radio and the LED, but not grounding
the aluminum shield, makes it useless as a shield. If your radio case is
not grounded, then all that aluminum around the circuitry is worthless. I
can't imagine a reason not to ground the case.
Remember that a "ground" in an airplane is a misnomer, because you're not
on the ground, so the more useful term is "common".
If your antenna is severely mismatched to the coax or radio, you will have
a lot of stray RF floating around. (Is the radio connector broken? Is the
coax broken?) I've had this happen in 100W transmitters feeding
incorrectly matched antennas, where I actually burned my lips on the
microphone because there was so much RF in the supposedly grounded metal.
If all else fails, use the position indicator as an "On The Air"
annunciator light. :)
Dave Morris
At 07:35 AM 11/18/2005, you wrote:
>
>Yesterday, we did a couple more tests, with no solution found. We
>disconnected the antenna and attached a flexible rubber antenna from a
>handheld and
>transmitted, no change, the LED still illuminated.
>
>His indicator is located right below his radio stack. So it's only a few
>inches from the com radio. I took some aluminum foil and placed a sheet
>of it
>below the radios, between the LED indicator and the radios. No help.
>
>We made sure the radio was fully seated in the tray, thinking some RF was
>leaking at the back of the radio. No help.
>
>So, have we eliminated RF as the cause? Or is there some other way that RF
>is lighting up the LED?
>
>He only has one trim, but we did try both PTTs and it's the same on both.
>
>Another observation, the LED that illuminates is the same one that
>illuminates when you disconnect the position sensor. It's also the one that
>illuminates when the position sensor is extended. I'm assuming that the
>movement of
>the position sensor changes the voltage or resistance on one of the three
>wires and that's what controls the LEDs. Can you tell I don't know too much
>about electricity?
>
>So the PTT is either simulating a disconnected sensor or simulating a fully
>extended sensor.
>
>When we disconnect the wiring running from the LED to the position sensor,
>we get a bright top LED. Then we push the PTT button and the
>LED dims. With
>the wiring connected, the center LED is illuminated. It goes out and the
>top
>LED comes on bright when we push the PTT. The dimmer circuit works
>correctly. When we turn on the panel light switch, the LED dims just
>like it should.
>
>It can't be caused by anything at the position sensor because when we
>disconnect the wiring running to it the problem is still there. It
>can't be the
>antenna wire running parallel to the position sensor wiring because
>we hooked
>up the flexible antenna and still go the problem.
>
>
>So what's left? Grounding. On a Glasair airframe we don't have to worry
>about any current leaking through the glass.
>
>Where should be start looking for a ground problem? Maybe the com radio
>case needs to be grounded. Maybe some current is running through
>the panel and
>triggering the LED. I think we might try measuring from the metal
>inserts on
>the panel to ground and see if there's any voltage across there.
>
>Interestingly, my Lancair doesn't exhibit any of these symptoms. I have my
>trim wires bundled with my com antenna wire, RG58, the entire length of the
>fuselage. My indicators are mounted 15" away from the radio stack.
>
>Keep the comments coming, thanks in advance.
>
>Mike Easley
>Colorado Springs
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2 |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
I have my suspicions that EMAG gets their gears from ECI...When I spoke
to Emag they said they could not explain the wear...Possibly something
got between the mounting flange mating surfaces and moved the gear out
of alignment...Hmmm
As I just have the gears in the baggie and they appear dead soft I'm
wondering what the outcome will be.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Charlie Kuss
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2
-->
Frank,
I'm not sure if you recall the start of this thread. A lister
purchased an electronic ignition from EMag. EMag supplied him with
magneto drive gears. These gears started to shed metal into the oil
rather rapidly. The owner reported that there was no heat treating of
the EMag supplied gears.
Since your file is Rockwell 62, it should notch gears which are only
Rockwell 25 to 46. Industrial gears are commonly heat treated to
Rockwell
47 to 52. The Lycoming accessory gears are softer. A higher Rockwell
number will reduce normal wear, but makes the parts more brittle. This
may be why the Lycoming parts are not as hard. They want to prevent a
catastrophic failure of any part.
Charlie
(Corvallis)"
>
>
>Interesting,
>
>I have an ECI parts engine built up by Mattituck and the mag gears came
>in a little plastic baggie..I can tell you they are SOFT!
>
>I marked the tips with a file very easily...Havent installed them yet
>
>Frank
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Charlie Kuss
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; sportav8r(at)aol.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2
>
>-->
>
>Stormy,
> First I must apologize about the tardiness of this reply. My friend
>sent his Rockwell hardness testing machine out for repairs shortly
>before this discussion began in late August. The repair shop recently
>reported that his machine could not be economically repaired, so that
>eliminated my hope of directly testing the hardness of my magneto
gears.
> I subscribe to the Lycoming List on Yahoo. I posed the question of
>accessory gear hardness on that list. Dave from Superior replied to me
>stating that these gears are hardened to between 25 and 46 Rockwell. As
>a point of reference, your typical hand file is 62 Rockwell. Therefore
>the EMag folks need to have these gears hardened, if they expect them
>to have any sort of longevity in service.
> I am currently awaiting a clarification from Dave regarding this
>"spread"
>of Rockwell numbers for these gears. I wish to know if the 25 to 46 is
>a tolerance range, OR if the various gears in the accessory case are
>hardened to differing numbers. I would suspect that the smaller gears
>may be heat treated to a higher (harder) Rockwell number, as they spin
>faster than the larger gears. This subjects them to greater wear.
>Increasing the hardness of the smaller gears should help extend their
>life. This is simply conjecture on my part for the moment.
> What did you learn from Brad at EMag Charlie Kuss
>
>
> >
> >That will be interesting, Charlie. Let us know what you learn about
> >the gear hardness. Meanwhile, I will querry Brad at Emag for more
>details.
> >
> >-Stormy
> >
> >
> > >>PS I'm on vacation this week. When I get home, I'll check the
> > >>Rockwell
> > hardness
> >of some old Lycoming timing gears I have.<<
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Yes one day I hoping for a similar solution to my radio noise...Its only
on the radio (noise goes up and down with the volume) and its ignition
noise, alternator...Oh AND strobe....Bloody awful.
Funny thing is when you first start up the alternator is not charging
and there is no noise at all...Then you turn on the alt and I get
evrything..>Its like it tolerates so much and the alternatr kicks it
over the threashold.
I have my behind the seat mounted battery grounded locally...Yep I use
the airframe as the ground path so I'm wondering if I have a multiple
ground path issue..any thoughts??
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobe noise on Piper Archer II -
resolved
--> resolved
>
>
> > I'm getting a lot of strobe noise - kind of a whooping sound - in
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Follow Up on Ray Allen Indicator and PTT |
| From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
Mike,
I had a similar problem on my ES. It was driving me nuts, and I was
about to admit defeat when I accidentally fixed it. I noticed that it
was no longer misbehaving after I moved the BMA EFIS-1 CPU from behind
the panel (near the LED indicators) to under the back seat. I'm no
electronics whiz, but it tells me that it wasn't a bad ground, but RF
related. I also had noise in the radio whenever the EFIS-1 was powered
up. Moving it to the back seat appears to have silenced a lot of
gremlins.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
MikeEasley(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Follow Up on Ray Allen Indicator and PTT
Yesterday, we did a couple more tests, with no solution found. We
disconnected the antenna and attached a flexible rubber antenna from a
handheld and
transmitted, no change, the LED still illuminated.
His indicator is located right below his radio stack. So it's only a
few
inches from the com radio. I took some aluminum foil and placed a
sheet of it
below the radios, between the LED indicator and the radios. No help.
We made sure the radio was fully seated in the tray, thinking some RF
was
leaking at the back of the radio. No help.
So, have we eliminated RF as the cause? Or is there some other way
that RF
is lighting up the LED?
He only has one trim, but we did try both PTTs and it's the same on
both.
Another observation, the LED that illuminates is the same one that
illuminates when you disconnect the position sensor. It's also the one
that
illuminates when the position sensor is extended. I'm assuming that
the movement of
the position sensor changes the voltage or resistance on one of the
three
wires and that's what controls the LEDs. Can you tell I don't know too
much
about electricity?
So the PTT is either simulating a disconnected sensor or simulating a
fully
extended sensor.
When we disconnect the wiring running from the LED to the position
sensor,
we get a bright top LED. Then we push the PTT button and the LED dims.
With
the wiring connected, the center LED is illuminated. It goes out and
the top
LED comes on bright when we push the PTT. The dimmer circuit works
correctly. When we turn on the panel light switch, the LED dims just
like it should.
It can't be caused by anything at the position sensor because when we
disconnect the wiring running to it the problem is still there. It
can't be the
antenna wire running parallel to the position sensor wiring because we
hooked
up the flexible antenna and still go the problem.
So what's left? Grounding. On a Glasair airframe we don't have to
worry
about any current leaking through the glass.
Where should be start looking for a ground problem? Maybe the com
radio
case needs to be grounded. Maybe some current is running through the
panel and
triggering the LED. I think we might try measuring from the metal
inserts on
the panel to ground and see if there's any voltage across there.
Interestingly, my Lancair doesn't exhibit any of these symptoms. I
have my
trim wires bundled with my com antenna wire, RG58, the entire length of
the
fuselage. My indicators are mounted 15" away from the radio stack.
Keep the comments coming, thanks in advance.
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
Does anybody have a fast answer for me. Are data base updates still
available for the Garmin GX50 GPS? If so only from Garmin direct or a
dealer? What is Garmin's track record for supporting older products ie: how
long will updates be available.
Bevan
RV7A wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
I had a GX50 before updating to a GNS430. You get the updates from Jeppesen.
You will need SkyboundUSB from Jeppesen, a user name and password, and also
a subscription of course. It's a piece of cake to download onto the data
card.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GPS updates
>
> Does anybody have a fast answer for me. Are data base updates still
> available for the Garmin GX50 GPS? If so only from Garmin direct or a
> dealer? What is Garmin's track record for supporting older products ie:
> how
> long will updates be available.
>
>
> Bevan
> RV7A wiring
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern W." <highflight1(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2 |
Devils's Advocate here...
First of all, as far as I know, there has been only one case of a gear
"shredding". Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If so, that would indicate that the installation of the gear itself
(alignment?.. in a bind?) may have been the problem rather than the hardness
of the gear. I'm not aware that there has been a rash of these failures.
Secondly, I came across a reference somewhere that from an engineering
standpoint, you would want an accessory gear to fail first rather than the
primary gear way inside the engine. If the accessory gear fails, it's better
if it doesn't take the mating gear with it which WOULD happen if the
accessory gear were hardened, fractured, and ended up in the cogs. Sort of a
sacrificial kind of thing.
An accessory gear failing would take out that mag but leave the other side
running, while losing the primary gear to severe damage caused by a piece of
Rockwell 62 floating around would take out the engine.... at altitude.
While I'm not outright defending Pmag, I think it's prudent to not assume
there's a "real" problem if this were just a one time occurance and the
original installation hasn't been inspected by a "pro".
Vern
On 11/18/05, Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
> >
>
> Frank,
> I'm not sure if you recall the start of this thread. A lister purchased
> an electronic ignition from EMag. EMag supplied him with magneto drive
> gears. These gears started to shed metal into the oil rather rapidly. The
> owner reported that there was no heat treating of the EMag supplied gears.
> Since your file is Rockwell 62, it should notch gears which are only
> Rockwell 25 to 46. Industrial gears are commonly heat treated to Rockwell
> 47 to 52. The Lycoming accessory gears are softer. A higher Rockwell
> number
> will reduce normal wear, but makes the parts more brittle. This may be why
> the Lycoming parts are not as hard. They want to prevent a catastrophic
> failure of any part.
> Charlie
>
> (Corvallis)"
> >
> >
> >Interesting,
> >
> >I have an ECI parts engine built up by Mattituck and the mag gears came
> >in a little plastic baggie..I can tell you they are SOFT!
> >
> >I marked the tips with a file very easily...Havent installed them yet
> >
> >Frank
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> >[mailto: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> >Charlie Kuss
> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; sportav8r(at)aol.com
> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2
> >
> >-->
> >
> >Stormy,
> > First I must apologize about the tardiness of this reply. My friend
> >sent his Rockwell hardness testing machine out for repairs shortly
> >before this discussion began in late August. The repair shop recently
> >reported that his machine could not be economically repaired, so that
> >eliminated my hope of directly testing the hardness of my magneto gears.
> > I subscribe to the Lycoming List on Yahoo. I posed the question of
> >accessory gear hardness on that list. Dave from Superior replied to me
> >stating that these gears are hardened to between 25 and 46 Rockwell. As
> >a point of reference, your typical hand file is 62 Rockwell. Therefore
> >the EMag folks need to have these gears hardened, if they expect them to
> >have any sort of longevity in service.
> > I am currently awaiting a clarification from Dave regarding this
> >"spread"
> >of Rockwell numbers for these gears. I wish to know if the 25 to 46 is a
> >tolerance range, OR if the various gears in the accessory case are
> >hardened to differing numbers. I would suspect that the smaller gears
> >may be heat treated to a higher (harder) Rockwell number, as they spin
> >faster than the larger gears. This subjects them to greater wear.
> >Increasing the hardness of the smaller gears should help extend their
> >life. This is simply conjecture on my part for the moment.
> > What did you learn from Brad at EMag
> >Charlie Kuss
> >
> >
> > >
> > >That will be interesting, Charlie. Let us know what you learn about
> > >the gear hardness. Meanwhile, I will querry Brad at Emag for more
> >details.
> > >
> > >-Stormy
> > >
> > >
> > > >>PS I'm on vacation this week. When I get home, I'll check the
> > > >>Rockwell
> > > hardness
> > >of some old Lycoming timing gears I have.<<
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> ,
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: gpsmap 296/396 on ebay |
I emailed them (there are 6 auctions using 5 email address) and received the
same reply from every auction.
HI
First I want to tell you that my Garmin 396 are brand new,
unopened box all accessories included and also an international
warranty. The invoice will come at the same time with the package.
My price is the best you could get: 500 $, including the shipping
and insurance taxes. We will pay them because the package will be
delivered from Europe.I have 5 units avalaible. As delivery service
we use UPS 2 days air service or overnight (with insurance and 15
days return policy), because it's the faster also free. And if you
will have a quick payment, we must also have a quick delivery. So
that's why we use as a payment method Western Union money
transfer, the fastest and also very secure way of sending money.
So, if you agree with my terms I'm sure that we can close the deal
as soon as possible. Waiting your quick answer right now,
THANK YOU
Here all the auction #'s
5637278065
6227752104
6014568750
6014579860
7197890234
7197890192
All emails got the exact response:
RULY33(at)AOL.COM
SHOP826(at)AOL.COM
ATE12(at)AOL.COM
vero576(at)aol.com
Holly8800(at)aol.com
Also they state they are in the US in the location field of the auction
but than say they are in Europe. Looking at the user ID and the
auctions they bought or sold before they are all in Europe and
had nothing to do with avionics. THIS is a scam and I emailed
eBay but they left it on there? I hope no one mails them $500.
George.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N5SL <nfivesl(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: gpsmap 296/396 on ebay |
Be sure to send a note to "abuse(at)aol.com" so aol will
deactivate the email addresses.
--- gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> All emails got the exact response:
> RULY33(at)AOL.COM
> SHOP826(at)AOL.COM
> ATE12(at)AOL.COM
> vero576(at)aol.com
> Holly8800(at)aol.com
>
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Follow Up on Ray Allen Indicator and PTT |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Hi Mark -
We have had our EFIS/ONE cpu under the left rear seat on our ES and we
still have the problem with the trim & flap LED indicators going mad when
we transmit on either com1 or the com 2 set. We did have a problem with
the SL-30 com and the EFIS. As soon as the EFIS came up, we got a constant
squelch in the headsets of the SL-30. We did a couple of the obvious and
set the squelch threshold a bit higher in the SL-30 setup checklist. That
seemed to cure the problem - for the moment at least.
Each trim system having an indicator (yaw, pitch and flap position) has
its own ground direct to the firewall ground buss. I believe that the
problem is with the LED indicator circuitry itself. Bad design? no EMI/RMI
shielding? Anyway... .
I'm with Gene. Since it doesn't affect the trim servos themselves, I'm not
going to worry about it until this bird flies for the first time and until
we get over the thrills of having our ES.
Cheers,
John
wrote:
> I noticed that it was no longer misbehaving after I moved the BMA EFIS-1
> CPU from behind the panel (near the LED indicators) to > under the back
> seat.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2 |
Vern,
I never said that the Lycoming or clone gears were supposed to be super hard or
dead soft. This thread was started when Frank reported his problem. He simply
wanted to know what, if any hardening treatments were applied to these gears.
I'm sure he wants to know if he simply got a "flute" defective part or if he
has other problems.
Strormy wondered aloud on list whether the gears were heat treated. I offered
to test some gears I own. I planned to use a friend's Rockwell tester. However,
the tester broke prior to my being able to use it. It has since been determined
that my buddy's tester is beyond fixing.
As an alternative I posted a question on another List regarding the manufacture
of these gears. Dave from Superior was kind enough to respond with an answer.
Charlie Kuss
---- "Vern W." wrote:
>
> Devils's Advocate here...
> First of all, as far as I know, there has been only one case of a gear
> "shredding". Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> If so, that would indicate that the installation of the gear itself
> (alignment?.. in a bind?) may have been the problem rather than the hardness
> of the gear. I'm not aware that there has been a rash of these failures.
> Secondly, I came across a reference somewhere that from an engineering
> standpoint, you would want an accessory gear to fail first rather than the
> primary gear way inside the engine. If the accessory gear fails, it's better
> if it doesn't take the mating gear with it which WOULD happen if the
> accessory gear were hardened, fractured, and ended up in the cogs. Sort of a
> sacrificial kind of thing.
> An accessory gear failing would take out that mag but leave the other side
> running, while losing the primary gear to severe damage caused by a piece of
> Rockwell 62 floating around would take out the engine.... at altitude.
> While I'm not outright defending Pmag, I think it's prudent to not assume
> there's a "real" problem if this were just a one time occurance and the
> original installation hasn't been inspected by a "pro".
> Vern
>
> On 11/18/05, Charlie Kuss wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > Frank,
> > I'm not sure if you recall the start of this thread. A lister purchased
> > an electronic ignition from EMag. EMag supplied him with magneto drive
> > gears. These gears started to shed metal into the oil rather rapidly. The
> > owner reported that there was no heat treating of the EMag supplied gears.
> > Since your file is Rockwell 62, it should notch gears which are only
> > Rockwell 25 to 46. Industrial gears are commonly heat treated to Rockwell
> > 47 to 52. The Lycoming accessory gears are softer. A higher Rockwell
> > number
> > will reduce normal wear, but makes the parts more brittle. This may be why
> > the Lycoming parts are not as hard. They want to prevent a catastrophic
> > failure of any part.
> > Charlie
> >
> > (Corvallis)"
> > >
> > >
> > >Interesting,
> > >
> > >I have an ECI parts engine built up by Mattituck and the mag gears came
> > >in a little plastic baggie..I can tell you they are SOFT!
> > >
> > >I marked the tips with a file very easily...Havent installed them yet
> > >
> > >Frank
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > >[mailto: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > >Charlie Kuss
> > >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; sportav8r(at)aol.com
> > >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2
> > >
> > >-->
> > >
> > >Stormy,
> > > First I must apologize about the tardiness of this reply. My friend
> > >sent his Rockwell hardness testing machine out for repairs shortly
> > >before this discussion began in late August. The repair shop recently
> > >reported that his machine could not be economically repaired, so that
> > >eliminated my hope of directly testing the hardness of my magneto gears.
> > > I subscribe to the Lycoming List on Yahoo. I posed the question of
> > >accessory gear hardness on that list. Dave from Superior replied to me
> > >stating that these gears are hardened to between 25 and 46 Rockwell. As
> > >a point of reference, your typical hand file is 62 Rockwell. Therefore
> > >the EMag folks need to have these gears hardened, if they expect them to
> > >have any sort of longevity in service.
> > > I am currently awaiting a clarification from Dave regarding this
> > >"spread"
> > >of Rockwell numbers for these gears. I wish to know if the 25 to 46 is a
> > >tolerance range, OR if the various gears in the accessory case are
> > >hardened to differing numbers. I would suspect that the smaller gears
> > >may be heat treated to a higher (harder) Rockwell number, as they spin
> > >faster than the larger gears. This subjects them to greater wear.
> > >Increasing the hardness of the smaller gears should help extend their
> > >life. This is simply conjecture on my part for the moment.
> > > What did you learn from Brad at EMag
> > >Charlie Kuss
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >That will be interesting, Charlie. Let us know what you learn about
> > > >the gear hardness. Meanwhile, I will querry Brad at Emag for more
> > >details.
> > > >
> > > >-Stormy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>PS I'm on vacation this week. When I get home, I'll check the
> > > > >>Rockwell
> > > > hardness
> > > >of some old Lycoming timing gears I have.<<
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ,
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | GPS IFR requirements |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.4993 1.0000 0.0000
Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Fred Fillinger"
....skip.....There is an Advisory Circular on "certifying" the
installation of GPS for IFR, but I don't see anywhere in the
FARs where we need follow it for a homebuilt as per the
other post. Of course, FAA has a concern where we're
slogging along in cloud and might cause a hazard to others,
due to our navigation error. So whatever is in the AC to
comply with the spirit of the document in that regard, plus
proper installation, seems reasonable to me......skip.....
Fred F.
11/18/2005
Hello Fred, I think that you are right on target. Please let me add a few
words about complying with AC 20-138A from a recent email exchange. OC
--------------------------RECENT EMAIL EXCHANGE----------------------
11/17/2005
Hello Wayne, Good to hear from you again. I'll respond with inserts below.
<<....skip.....My understanding is that any GPS used for primary navigation
must meet the TSO C129 guidelines, which basically boils down to having RAIM
prediction, RAIM notification, and ability for the external indicator to
become more sensitive.....skip......>>
OK, but don't forget AIM paragraph 1-1-19. d. 1. (b).
Otherwise I essentially agree, but let me pick a few nits. I know that AIM
Table 1-1-5 says TSO C129, but that is a bit misleading / out of date. (See
<http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html#1-1-19>). If one digs a
little deeper one finds TSO C129a, TSO C129 (AR), and TSO C146a, are also
relevant. Maybe the best way to describe the TSO requirement is to say that
one has met the
minimum GPS IFR requirements if one complies with the latest / current
version of TSO C129__ and the "appropriate" AIM requirements. More on
"appropriate" AIM requirements later.
Also note the subcategory capabilities within TSO C129__ shown in Table
1-1-5 of the AIM. . Without a copy of the current TSO and Table 1-1-5 in
front of one it is almost impossible to make a decision or take a definitive
stand on GPS IFR requirements.
The problem with getting the TSO documents and doing research is that the
TSO documents don't seamlessly relate to each other content wise and date
wise and frequently the TSO document is a bare shell with the meat of the
subject matter contained in several not readily available, and expensive if
available, documents that are referenced by the TSO.
Not quite. For initial certification the inspector's IFR avionics inspection
obligation is
fulfilled by this sentence in each aircraft's Operating Limitations "After
completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for
night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is
to be operated under VFR, day only." It is up to the builder and not the
inspector to "appropriately equip" his aircraft in this regard. An over
zealous inspector my have personal preferences in regard to IFR avionics and
because he has the power of the Administrator during the initial inspection
he may exert some influence, but he has no valid FAA prerogative with regard
to IFR avionics. That is why the recent great leaps forward in
instrumentation and avionics technology have come from the amateur built
experimental aircraft community -- our hands were not tied by inspectors
forcing us
to use the old fashioned tried and true hardware.
Here is the problem in trying to comply literally with AC 20-138A: When an
FAA bureaucrat or lawyer sits down to write an FAR, a NPRM, an Advisory
Circular, or a paragraph in the
AIM, unless that document is aimed specifically at aircraft with special
airworthiness certificates (and the writer is knowledgable thereof) the
document is fundamentally being written for type certificated aircraft with
standard airworthiness certificates. But the FAA doesn't make note of (or
appreciate) this fact. So AC 20-138A should really begin "1. PURPOSE. This
advisory circular (AC) provides guidance material for the airworthness
approval of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) equipment [and its
installation in standard type certificated aircraft]." My words added in
[xxx].
Now go to paragraph 21 of AC 20-138 INSTALLED PERFORMANCE - DATA SUBMITTAL.
The first sentence of paragraph 21.a. reads "General. This paragraph
identifies documentation typically required by the aircraft certification
authorities to support installation approval."
These "aircraft certification authorities" do not exist for installations in
previously certified amateur built experimental aircraft and if they existed
they would not have any published standards for amateur built aircraft to
measure compliance against. There is no FAA administrative mechanism for
additional certification approval of an amateur built experimental aircraft
after its initial
certification so there are no "certification authorities" to submit amateur
built experimental aircraft subsequent GPS installation documents to for
approval.** The Operating Limitations of each amateur built experimental
aircraft gives direction as to how major modifications are to be
accomplished and recorded by anyone doing so (doesn't have to be the
builder).
Minor modifications of the aircraft are left completely in the hands of
anyone choosing to make them.
The last sentence of paragraph 21. a. reads "The data described in this
paragraph is applicable to obtaining an STC, an amended TC or an amended
STC."
Amateur built experimental aircraft do not have Type Certificates so
it is not feasible to attempt to create documents in order to obtain
supplements or
amendments to a Type Certificate that does not exist.
So we amateur aircraft builders and pilots need to follow the AIM (and other
FAA documents) when appropriate, but recognize that sometimes attempting to
literally follow those documents just is not feasible.
<>
Agreed.
OC
**PS: A few years back a builder posted his experience with trying to get
the FSDO to bless / approve / certify his GPS installation in an already
flying amateur built experimental aircraft in accordance with a then current
AC that called for a flight test (as does AC 20-138A). After months of paper
shuffling and delay he finally coerced a terrified FAA
bureaucrat to fly in his death machine. The FAA gent spent the entire
flight staring out the windshield waiting for either the inevitable mid air
collision or the imminent crash. The performance of the GPS installation was
beneath / beyond
his level of interest.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com>
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GPS IFR requirements
> We've had similar discussions on our canard email lists. My understanding
> is
> that any GPS used for primary navigation must meet the TSO C129
> guidelines,
> which basically boils down to having RAIM prediction, RAIM notification,
> and
> ability for the external indicator to become more sensitive. It must be
> installed according to AC 20-138. Any GPS can be used as long as it meets
> the TSO. But as of right now, the only units capable of doing this are
> from
> the big boys, like the Garmins, Kings, and others. Blue Mountain for
> example is not and cannot. Handhelds need not apply either.
>
> Do I have this right, or is it time to educate Wayne again. (I enjoy this
> so much.)
>
> ====================
> L. Wayne Hicks
> Senior Engineer
> Zel Technologies, LLC
> 757-325-1282 phone
> wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com
> http://www.zeltech.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MikeEasley(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Ray Allen Indicator Light, PTT, More |
I think our next step is to pull the indicator out of the panel and
temporarily move it away from the radios. If that works, I would like suggestions
on
shielding the LED indicator.
From all the tests, it appears that the RF is not coming down the wires, but
penetrating the actual LED indicator case. Even if we could wrap the back
of the indicator with lead, it still would leave the face of the indicator
open to RF penetration.
Does anybody see any reason to shield the position sensor?
Live with it?
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | GPS IFR requirements |
11/19/2005
Hello Frank, You wrote ".....skip.... and its legal for IFR...as long as I
say so in my OP-lims.....skip...."
A clarification, if I may: The wording of the Operating Limitations, which
are part of the Special Airworthiness Certificate for an amateur built
experimental aircraft, is specified in paragraph 153 "ISSUANCE OF
EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR-BUILT OPERATING LIMITATIONS" of FAA Order 8130.2F and
is determined by the inspector.
The only variance that the builder has any real control over (other than
suggesting a flight test area) is whether or not the inspector is going to
include paragraph 15 or 16 in the Operating Limitations. Paragraph 15
prohibiting aerobatic flight will be in the Operating Limitations unless the
builder requests paragraph 16 which will permit aerobatic flight.
Paragraph 8 is the relevant paragraph that will eventually permit IFR flight
and it reads: "After completion of phase I flight testing, unless
appropriately equipped for nightand/or instrument flight in accordance with
91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." This
paragraph will be in each amateur built aircraft Operating Limitations and
the builder has no say so in it being there or what it means.
The builder does have control over what goes into the AFM (Aircraft Flight
Manual).
OC
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)"
>
>
> Actually you don't need a "sign off" for IFR work. I will have mine
> inspected for VFR and slide the GNS 430 in later to the preinstalled
> tray...I then have the pitot-static/transponder check don and its legal
> for IFR...as long as I say so in my OP-lims.
>
> I mean what does it say for my auto conversion??..Nothing...:)
>
> Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ray Allen Indicator Light, PTT, More |
>
>I think our next step is to pull the indicator out of the panel and
>temporarily move it away from the radios. If that works, I would
>like suggestions on
>shielding the LED indicator.
>
> From all the tests, it appears that the RF is not coming down the
> wires, but
>penetrating the actual LED indicator case. Even if we could wrap the back
>of the indicator with lead, it still would leave the face of the indicator
>open to RF penetration.
>
>
>Does anybody see any reason to shield the position sensor?
I would begin with attaching a .01uF monolithic ceramic
capacitor from each of the indicator's input wires to
the indicator's ground wire. If I recall correctly, the
indicator is not fitted with a connector but instead brings
all it's wires out in a short bundle to which the user
splices extension wires. If I were to modify this
product to live in the real world, I might start with
fabricating some sort of bracketry or short enclosure
that would mount a 9-pin d-sub connector to which the
existing pigtails would be terminated. If this connector
were a solder-cup style device, it would also offer a means
for installing the capacitors cited above.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | MD200-306 indicator and dual navs |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0011 1.0000 -4.4747
Avionics-List message previously posted by:
<>
11/19/2005
Hello Bill, To respond:
<>
1) Not really. Early on the manufacturer felt the SL-30 was very sensitive
to this calibration issue and wanted the SL-30 to be connected directly to
one indicator. That was the company policy and the word they put out. As
time has gone by more field experience has been gained and SL-30
modifications may also have been made. Now the experts say it is OK to
connect the SL-30 along with another navigation information source to one
indicator. I can dig back into my files for more specifics if you like.
<| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs |
In a message dated 11/19/2005 12:51:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
Note that field location and runway center line can come in varying degrees
of precision depending upon the information available. You may have runway
end location from a data base and instrument approach quality runway
alignment from an approach plate. You may only have the field location from
a data base or the field lat long printed on an approach plate. You may only
have the numbers painted on the runway for your runway alignment. Regardless
of the source or precision the big picture provided can be of value to you.
Good Afternoon OC,
All that you say is consistent with my understanding of the system, but It
may be helpful for folks to realize that you CAN select the site of the
localizer associated DME transceiver.
That is very helpful when shooting an ILS or localizer approach because all
waypoints along that course will be delineated by that DME site.
For the original Garmin units, that site can be found in the waypoint
section listed under the associated identifier. As an example, at Rockford
Illinois (KRFD) LOC (BACK CRS) Rwy 19 approach, the DME site will have IRFD
as the
identifier of the waypoint. I am not sure how they are handling the 480.
When it was an UPSAT unit, they had that waypoint on a dedicated page for such
locations. In any case, the localizer associated DME site will always use
the same four letter identifier as the approach being executed.
The difficulty using airport identifier delineated waypoints (Airport
Reference Point) is that it is difficult to find where that point is at many
airports. Jeppesen posts them on the airport view at some, but not all, airports
as
the ARP. NACO rarely lists them at all other than giving the long/lat.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ray Allen Indicator Light, PTT, More |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Mike -
Gene also agrees that since it does not effect the actual operation of the
tab servos, I'm going to live with it. The next step, however is to raise
hell with Ray Allen. Did you see Bob Nuckolls email on the subject? He
also thinks it is the LED indicator itself. And if he can get a diagram of
the circuitry, he can suggest a couple of steps/parts to add that would
eliminate the problem.
Cheers,
John
> Does anybody see any reason to shield the position sensor?
> Live with it?
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glong2" <glong2(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Ray Allen Indicator Light, PTT, More |
I like Dave's solution - use it to your advantage. Use the LED's as a
transmit active indicator. If all of your trim LED's are dim/weird and you
are not pushing the transmit key, you know you have a "stuck mic."
Eugene Long
Lancair Super ES
glong2(at)netzero.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
Schroeder
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen Indicator Light, PTT, More
Mike -
Gene also agrees that since it does not effect the actual operation of the
tab servos, I'm going to live with it. The next step, however is to raise
hell with Ray Allen. Did you see Bob Nuckolls email on the subject? He
also thinks it is the LED indicator itself. And if he can get a diagram of
the circuitry, he can suggest a couple of steps/parts to add that would
eliminate the problem.
Cheers,
John
> Does anybody see any reason to shield the position sensor?
> Live with it?
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tammy Goff" <tngoff(at)houston.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Dual Alternator single battery question |
I have a dual alternator (40 amp and a 20 amp from B&C) Z-12 schematic. I have
the OV protective voltage regulators from B&C installed. The fellow that I am
working with would like to wire the system where the silicone diode is left
out and there is no essential bus. There would be a on off switch for each alternator.
My question is what would happen if both alternators were "on" at
the same time? They would both be feeding into the avionics and the regular
bus at the same time. Would those expensive voltage regulators or other part
go up in smoke or would things run without difficulty? Thanks, George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Dual Alternator single battery question |
Normal setup is to set the voltage for the standby alternator about .5 Volts
below normal buss voltage. If the main alternator dies the voltage sags and
the standby kicks in. B&C have a special regulator for this purpose.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tammy
Goff
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Alternator single battery question
I have a dual alternator (40 amp and a 20 amp from B&C) Z-12 schematic. I
have the OV protective voltage regulators from B&C installed. The fellow
that I am working with would like to wire the system where the silicone
diode is left out and there is no essential bus. There would be a on off
switch for each alternator. My question is what would happen if both
alternators were "on" at the same time? They would both be feeding into the
avionics and the regular bus at the same time. Would those expensive
voltage regulators or other part go up in smoke or would things run without
difficulty? Thanks, George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | S704-1 Wiring Diagram - Aux Battery Circuit ? |
Bob has suggested using the S704-1 Relay in place of a battery contactor if
using a small battery for an auxiliary power bus for EFIS systems only. No
Starting duty. I can't seem to find a diagram showing which terminals to
use in this application. I see that in the AE site and B&C site they show
the 704 used in the PM OV diagram but really don't spell it out for the
"electrically challenged" like me.
Would appreciate any help with a wiring diagram or terminal info when using
the S704-1 in a light non-starting aux battery circuit?
Thanks
Bill S
RV7a Ark fuse/panel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gary.stiffler(at)kroger.com |
11/20/2005 12:03:55,
Serialize complete at 11/20/2005 12:03:55
I have a landing gear in-transit light that uses a Tung-Sol flasher model
617. The bi-metalic strip is shot. $.50 worth of materials, Piper Cost
$1000.00. Does anyone have a simple solid state circuit that I could build
inside of this unit? It is about two inches long and one half inch deep.
The bulb is .08 amps X 14 volts.
Thanks:
Gary N952GS
Grumman AA1B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Piper Flasher |
>I have a landing gear in-transit light that uses a Tung-Sol flasher model
>617. The bi-metalic strip is shot. $.50 worth of materials, Piper Cost
>$1000.00. Does anyone have a simple solid state circuit that I could build
>inside of this unit? It is about two inches long and one half inch deep.
>The bulb is .08 amps X 14 volts. Thanks: Gary N952GS Grumman AA1B
Gary,
Tungsol flashers were used on Fords for decades. Have you tried the local
NAPA or Ford dealer?
Failing that, try
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Bill_Bowden/555.htm for a 555 timer
solution.
Also consider just using a blinking LED.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
After reading in Light Plane Maintenance about the bad aspects of plastic ty-wraps,
I am re-doing my wire stays off the engine mount with Adel clamps and as
suggested in the article, with the old fashion, but tedious wire bundling wrap.
It stated the Digikey has this stuff, but I was unable to locate it in my catalog.
Does anyone have a source for this stuff?
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>After reading in Light Plane Maintenance about the bad aspects of plastic
>ty-wraps, I am re-doing my wire stays off the engine mount with Adel
>clamps and as suggested in the article, with the old fashion, but tedious
>wire bundling wrap. It stated the Digikey has this stuff, but I was unable
>to locate it in my catalog.
>Does anyone have a source for this stuff?
>Wayne
String ties don't have to be any more hassle than ty-wraps.
See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/cable_lace/cable_lace.html
for slick technique on getting a two-handed string-tie to
draw down as tight as a plastic ty-wrap.
You're looking for waxed polyester lacing tape. See Aircraft
Spruce catalog for listing below.
BREYDEN NYLON LACING TAPES
Flat braided tape manufactured from 100% high tenacity, continuous
filament nylon yarn. This tape is impregnated with a specially formulated
microcrystalline, fungicidal wax. Conforms to the requirements
of A-A-52080-B-3. Recommended for continuous lacing. 500 yd.
rolls. Width: .077" (min.) / .094" (max.); Thickness: .011" (min.) / .017"
(max.); Tensile Strength: 50 Lb. (min.); Wax Content: 15-32%;
Elongation: 40% (max.)
Natural ............P/N 11-12170 ..........$14.85
Black ..............P/N 11-12160 ..........$17.30
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Wayne;
Digikey lists it as part number LC134-ND, but is out of stock, Mouser
catalogue page 749 lower right corner lists 12 different variations, and
Newark lists part numbers 26C0303, and # 26C0304. I'd suspect that most
other electronics suppliers would have it as well. It is made by Alpha Wire
amongst others.
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire wrap
>
> After reading in Light Plane Maintenance about the bad aspects of plastic
ty-wraps, I am re-doing my wire stays off the engine mount with Adel clamps
and as suggested in the article, with the old fashion, but tedious wire
bundling wrap. It stated the Digikey has this stuff, but I was unable to
locate it in my catalog.
> Does anyone have a source for this stuff?
> Wayne
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Circuit ? |
| Subject: | Re: S704-1 Wiring Diagram - Aux Battery |
Circuit ?
>
>
>Bob has suggested using the S704-1 Relay in place of a battery contactor if
>using a small battery for an auxiliary power bus for EFIS systems only. No
>Starting duty. I can't seem to find a diagram showing which terminals to
>use in this application. I see that in the AE site and B&C site they show
>the 704 used in the PM OV diagram but really don't spell it out for the
>"electrically challenged" like me.
>
>Would appreciate any help with a wiring diagram or terminal info when using
>the S704-1 in a light non-starting aux battery circuit?
See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Relays/s704inst.jpg
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/DCPwr/Z35K_Light_Aux_Battery.pdf
for schematic.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
I'm curious what they say about why nylon cable ties would be bad. By the
way, here's a photo of why you should use the aircraft grade Adel clamps
instead of cheaping out and going to Home Depot. This photo was taken 3
months after taking both out of their plastic packaging and setting them on
a table in my hangar. Black one on the left is from Home Depot. Right one
is from Wicks.
http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Dragonfly%20Electrical/IMG_1028.jpg
Dave Morris
At 01:55 PM 11/20/2005, you wrote:
>
>After reading in Light Plane Maintenance about the bad aspects of plastic
>ty-wraps, I am re-doing my wire stays off the engine mount with Adel
>clamps and as suggested in the article, with the old fashion, but tedious
>wire bundling wrap. It stated the Digikey has this stuff, but I was unable
>to locate it in my catalog.
>Does anyone have a source for this stuff?
>Wayne
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
Here's a quote from a letter to the Editor:
"these things can and do saw their way through any metal components because
of the dirty environment.."
"I have examples of primer lines, oil .lines, fuel lines and even engine
mounts that have been nearly severed..."
This from an aircraft mechanic and instructor of 52 years experience.
Another writer, states he has seen tie-wraps fall off bundles after only 10
years. Apparently these tie-wraps absorb water and expand and contracts with
humidity changes. This can cause the above problems.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Morris "BigD"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire wrap
>
>
> I'm curious what they say about why nylon cable ties would be bad. By the
> way, here's a photo of why you should use the aircraft grade Adel clamps
> instead of cheaping out and going to Home Depot. This photo was taken 3
> months after taking both out of their plastic packaging and setting them
> on
> a table in my hangar. Black one on the left is from Home Depot. Right
> one
> is from Wicks.
>
> http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Dragonfly%20Electrical/IMG_1028.jpg
>
> Dave Morris
>
> At 01:55 PM 11/20/2005, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>After reading in Light Plane Maintenance about the bad aspects of plastic
>>ty-wraps, I am re-doing my wire stays off the engine mount with Adel
>>clamps and as suggested in the article, with the old fashion, but tedious
>>wire bundling wrap. It stated the Digikey has this stuff, but I was unable
>>to locate it in my catalog.
>>Does anyone have a source for this stuff?
>>Wayne
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | MD200-306 indicator and dual navs |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0268 1.0000 -4.1053
11/20/2005
Hello Old Bob, Right you are (see below) and thanks for the opportunity to
amplify.
When I wrote "You may have runway end location from a data
base....skip...." I had in mind three possible end of runway location
sources using a data base instead of just field lat long printed on the
approach plate, but I did not want to digress that extensively. They are:
1) As you suggest if the GPS has an IFR data base one can call up the
identification of the localizer as a destination and then use an approach
plate's description of the end of the runway from that localizer to provide
end of runway location.
2) One can call up the actual end of runway waypoint from the GPS IFR data
base if that waypoint is contained therein. Usually in the form of a five
letter missed approach waypoint such as SHENA on the GPS RWY 22 approach to
Culpeper VA Regional (CJR).
3) Or if one is operating with a VFR only GPS that does not contain
internally either of the two IFR data points described above one can get a
compact disc from NACO
http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/catalog/charts/digital/daicd that
contains the latitude and longitude of all navigation aids and put in the
lat long of the localizer as a user identified waypoint and use an approach
plate's description of the end of the runway from that localizer to provide
end of runway location.
A minor technicallity is to realize that the DME antenna is not co located
with the localizer antenna. Instead the DME antenna is usually installed on
the nearby electronics shack that feeds the localizer antenna. Since there
are normally just a few yards between the electronic shack supporting the
DME antenna and the localizer antenna, that distance difference is of no
significance if one is using the localizer antenna lat long location as also
being the DME antenna location.
OC
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
In a message dated 11/19/2005 12:51:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
<>
Good Afternoon OC,
All that you say is consistent with my understanding of the system, but It
may be helpful for folks to realize that you CAN select the site of the
localizer associated DME transceiver.
That is very helpful when shooting an ILS or localizer approach because all
waypoints along that course will be delineated by that DME site.
For the original Garmin units, that site can be found in the waypoint
section listed under the associated identifier. As an example, at Rockford
Illinois (KRFD) LOC (BACK CRS) Rwy 19 approach, the DME site will have
IRFD
as the identifier of the waypoint. I am not sure how they are handling the
480.
When it was an UPSAT unit, they had that waypoint on a dedicated page for
such
locations. In any case, the localizer associated DME site will always use
the same four letter identifier as the approach being executed.
The difficulty using airport identifier delineated waypoints (Airport
Reference Point) is that it is difficult to find where that point is at many
airports. Jeppesen posts them on the airport view at some, but not all,
airports
as the ARP. NACO rarely lists them at all other than giving the long/lat.
Happy Skies, Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | S704-1 Wiring Diagram |
>
>
>Bob, thanks don't know how I missed Z35. What should the load limit be on
>the S704,... 7-10 amps ?
Z-35 is new. I just created it. You guys drive what goes
into the 'Connection . . .
S-704 and cousins are good for at least 20 amps and some
easily acquired plastic automotive relays will handle
70 amps.
>Just out of curiosity, what does the terminal notation N.O. and N.C stand
>for on the S704 diagram ?
Normally open, normally closed. There's a schematic on the
side of these relays that tells which terminals are which
and often, you'll find tiny "COM", "NO" and "NC" labels
molded into the plastic housing adjacent to the appropriate
terminals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS IFR requirements |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.4999 1.0000 0.0000
11/20/2005
Hello Bill, Thanks for your quick response copied below. Unfortunately I
think that the instructor you referred to gave you some facts jumbled in
with some unsupported opinion BS. There appears to be three issues involved
here. They are aerobatic testing, major modification testing, and IFR
testing.
1) Regarding aerobatic testing here is what FAA Order 8130.2F currently says
should go into the Operating Limitations and what the builder pilot must do:
"(15) This aircraft is prohibited from aerobatic flight, that is, an
intentional maneuver involving
an abrupt change in the aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or
abnormal acceleration not necessary for normal flight.
NOTE: If the builder states that the aircraft is capable of aerobatic
flight,
limitation 16 will be used in lieu of limitation 15.
(16) This aircraft may conduct aerobatic flight in accordance with the
provisions of 91.303.
Aerobatics must not be attempted until sufficient flight experience has been
gained to establish that the aircraft is satisfactorily controllable and in
compliance with 91.319(b). The aircraft may only conduct those aerobatic
flight maneuvers that have been satisfactorily accomplished during flight
testing and recorded in the aircraft maintenance records by use of the
following, or a similarly worded, statement: "I certify that the following
aerobatic maneuvers have been test flown and that the aircraft is
controllable throughout the maneuvers' normal range of speeds, and is safe
for operation. The flight-tested aerobatic maneuvers are _________,
_________, __________, and __________."
NOTE: Aerobatic flights may be permitted in the assigned test area. The
applicant should be advised that aerobatics or violent maneuvers should not
be attempted until sufficient flight experience has been gained to establish
that the aircraft is satisfactorily controllable. These operating
limitations may
be modified to include only those aerobatics/maneuvers that have been
satisfactorily accomplished and recorded in the aircraft records during the
flight test period. These aerobatic maneuvers should be permitted upon
leaving the assigned test area. Appropriate limitations identifying the
aerobatics/maneuvers and conditions under which they may be performed
should be prescribed. The FAA may witness aerobatic maneuvers if deemed
necessary."
That should cover the issue of ".....skip.....you had to perform all the
manuvers in the test phase
that you were going to use in the 'grown up airplane' phase." The instructor
was correct for aerobatic testing.
2) Regarding major modification testing here is what FAA Order 8130.2F
currently says should go into the Operating Limitations and what the builder
pilot must do:
"(19) After incorporating a major change as described in 21.93, the
aircraft owner is required
to reestablish compliance with 91.319(b) and notify the geographically
responsible FSDO of the
location of the proposed test area. The aircraft owner must obtain
concurrence from the FSDO
as to the suitability of the proposed test area. If the major change
includes installing a different
type of engine (reciprocating to turbine) or a change of a fixed-pitch from
or to a controllable propeller, the aircraft owner must fill out a revised
Form 8130-6 to update the aircraft's file in the FAA Aircraft Registry. All
operations must be conducted under day VFR conditions in a sparsely
populated area. The aircraft must remain in flight test for a minimum of 5
hours. The FSDO may require additional time (more than 5 hours) depending on
the extent of the modification. Persons nonessential to the flight must not
be carried. The aircraft owner must make a detailed logbook entry describing
the change before the test flight. Following satisfactory completion of the
required number of flight hours in the flight test area, the pilot must
certify in the records that the aircraft has been shown to comply with
91.319(b). Compliance with 91.319(b) must be recorded in the aircraft
records with the following, or a similarly worded, statement: "I certify
that the prescribed flight test hours have been completed and the aircraft
is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all
maneuvers to be executed, has no hazardous characteristics or design
features, and is safe foroperation. The following aircraft operating data
has been demonstrated during the flight testing:speeds Vso ______, Vx
______, and Vy ______, and the weight ______, and CG location ______ at
which they were obtained.""
The instructor was correct to the extent that there is a requirement for
reentering the test phase, but that requirement exists only after a major
modification to the aircraft.
3) Regarding IFR testing here is what FAA Order 8130.2F currently says
should go into the Operating Limitations and what the builder pilot must do:
"(8) After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately
equipped for night
and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be
operated under VFR, day only."
That is it. As you can see the instructor's position regarding required
instrument flight testing is not supported by the pertinent basic documents.
But any rational builder-pilot should make every reasonable effort to
properly equip and test his airplane for IFR flight, if that is his goal,
and to comply with the appropriate provisions of the AIM and relevant
Advisory Circulars. Not because the FAA has set up the administrative
machinery to force him to do so, but because it is in his, and the amateur
builder's community, best interest to do so.
OC
----- Original Message -----
From: "William" <wschertz(at)ispwest.com>
Subject: Re: GPS IFR requirements
>I took the Sport air course on test flying your project, and I believe the
>statement was that you had to perform all the manuvers in the test phase
>that you were going to use in the 'grown up airplane' phase. i.e. if you
>are going to do loops, you must do a loop in the test phase and state that
>in your list of things done. When asked about IFR and the fact that you
>can't have a safety pilot along, the instructor stated that you 'do the
>ILS' under VFR conditions, verifying that the equipment does what it is
>supposed to do.
> At a separte point, i asked if you wanted to extend a performance point,
> and he stated that you take it back to test phase, do the tests, and then
> bring it out.
> Bill Schertz KIS Cruiser # 4045
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs |
In a message dated 11/20/2005 4:46:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
A minor technicallity is to realize that the DME antenna is not co located
with the localizer antenna. Instead the DME antenna is usually installed on
the nearby electronics shack that feeds the localizer antenna. Since there
are normally just a few yards between the electronic shack supporting the
DME antenna and the localizer antenna, that distance difference is of no
significance if one is using the localizer antenna lat long location as also
being the DME antenna location.
Good Evening OC,
True when the DME transceiver is nearby, but there can be some major
differences.
In fact, some localizer associated DME transceivers are located as much as a
mile or two away from the antenna position of the localizer being used.
It is not at all unusual to use the same transceiver for approaches to both
ends of the runway. That means that there is, at least, the length of the
runway difference between the location of the DME transceiver and the localizer
antenna in use.
Newer installations tend to have two separate transceivers, but many of the
older installations are still in use.
Another common location has been to have the DME transceiver located abeam
the touchdown point for one runway. When that location is used for an
approach from the other direction, the distance from the associated localizer
will
often be well over a mile. I haven't checked recently, but such was the case
at KMSP. The DME site for 30L is at the left side of the runway near the glide
path touch down point. The approach to 12R uses the same transceiver.
Therefore the distances have no relation to either runway end.
When using a localizer associated DME transceiver as a distance reference,
it is very important to know just where the unit is installed. That
information is not always easy to find.
The primary reason I mentioned the localizer associated DME units was to
point out that those mileages will always coincide with the distance shown on
the approach plate for waypoints pertinent to that approach.
And, as we all know, the GPS can be used for all DME distances required for
flight in the US National Airspace System, including any approach which has
the limitation, "DME required".
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>Here's a quote from a letter to the Editor:
>"these things can and do saw their way through any metal components because
>of the dirty environment.."
>"I have examples of primer lines, oil .lines, fuel lines and even engine
>mounts that have been nearly severed..."
>This from an aircraft mechanic and instructor of 52 years experience.
>Another writer, states he has seen tie-wraps fall off bundles after only 10
>years. Apparently these tie-wraps absorb water and expand and contracts with
>humidity changes. This can cause the above problems.
>Wayne
Like the cable clamps that Dave cited, there are equally
variable grades of product in tie-wraps. A big jar of
brightly colored tie-wraps from Harbor Freight is a real
bargain but of unknown pedigree for material. Purchase
tie-wraps from catalogs that cite brand names and ratings
for the products. See:
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T053/1444.pdf
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T053/1446-1447.pdf
and . . .
http://www.tnb.com/contractor/docs/tyfast.pdf
Products from branded sources will cite recommended
limits for usage. The "jelly-bean" products are good
for at least -40C to +80C applications. You can purchase
UV resistant versions for about 20% more but probably
not really useful in aircraft.
I've seen that quotation about severing engine mounts, etc.
and this is mostly hyperbole. ANY banded holding mechanism
operating in a dirty environment can pick up grit. If it's
allowed to move under vibration, it will grind holes in
things. I had a RUBBER power steering hose rub a hole in
a STEEL brake line using greasy dirt from the environment
as a grinding compound. The hose was barely marked and the
brake line failed. The quoted admonition should NOT be uniquely
applied to nylon tie straps and it's a concern only under the
rarest of conditions.
The commercial and military aircraft industries have been
using nylon tie straps for decades in just about every
location except areas subject to high temperatures. Even
if you do use them under the cowl, how long would it take
and what would it cost to replace EVERY tie wrap under the
cowl at every annual?
Not all words from flagship publications are golden and
the ones you've cited are especially odorous. I like string
because it's cheap. One roll fits all size tying jobs. Multiple
passes of string around the job can apply a great deal of
pressure if needed (I've replaced radiator hose clamps with
three or four, two-pass ties). Finally, the knot on the finished
tie doesn't snag like the buckle on a tie-wrap. None-the-less,
I stock and use the nylon ties in a whole lot of applications
as to my contemporaries.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron" <rondefly(at)rtriano.com> |
Z-11 & Z-20 Question
I want to use most of Z-19 but want to use one electronic ignition while
retaining one mag. Can I use 2 2-5 switches as I would rather not have a
push button start switch but use the top momentary portion of the switches
to start per note 2. I have a continental 0200 with one mag.
Thankyou
Ron Triano
Ron's Quickies, Page 8 is the Q200 and 9 is the Quickie and page 10 is a new
Q200 page.
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page8.html
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page9.html
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page10.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
Thanks for the clarification. I will replace these forward of the firewall
but not aft. I take it as a challenge to learn how to use the wire wraps as
I have seen in some professional jobs.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire wrap
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Here's a quote from a letter to the Editor:
>>"these things can and do saw their way through any metal components
>>because
>>of the dirty environment.."
>>"I have examples of primer lines, oil .lines, fuel lines and even engine
>>mounts that have been nearly severed..."
>>This from an aircraft mechanic and instructor of 52 years experience.
>>Another writer, states he has seen tie-wraps fall off bundles after only
>>10
>>years. Apparently these tie-wraps absorb water and expand and contracts
>>with
>>humidity changes. This can cause the above problems.
>>Wayne
>
> Like the cable clamps that Dave cited, there are equally
> variable grades of product in tie-wraps. A big jar of
> brightly colored tie-wraps from Harbor Freight is a real
> bargain but of unknown pedigree for material. Purchase
> tie-wraps from catalogs that cite brand names and ratings
> for the products. See:
>
> http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T053/1444.pdf
>
> http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T053/1446-1447.pdf
>
> and . . .
>
> http://www.tnb.com/contractor/docs/tyfast.pdf
>
> Products from branded sources will cite recommended
> limits for usage. The "jelly-bean" products are good
> for at least -40C to +80C applications. You can purchase
> UV resistant versions for about 20% more but probably
> not really useful in aircraft.
>
> I've seen that quotation about severing engine mounts, etc.
> and this is mostly hyperbole. ANY banded holding mechanism
> operating in a dirty environment can pick up grit. If it's
> allowed to move under vibration, it will grind holes in
> things. I had a RUBBER power steering hose rub a hole in
> a STEEL brake line using greasy dirt from the environment
> as a grinding compound. The hose was barely marked and the
> brake line failed. The quoted admonition should NOT be uniquely
> applied to nylon tie straps and it's a concern only under the
> rarest of conditions.
>
> The commercial and military aircraft industries have been
> using nylon tie straps for decades in just about every
> location except areas subject to high temperatures. Even
> if you do use them under the cowl, how long would it take
> and what would it cost to replace EVERY tie wrap under the
> cowl at every annual?
>
> Not all words from flagship publications are golden and
> the ones you've cited are especially odorous. I like string
> because it's cheap. One roll fits all size tying jobs. Multiple
> passes of string around the job can apply a great deal of
> pressure if needed (I've replaced radiator hose clamps with
> three or four, two-pass ties). Finally, the knot on the finished
> tie doesn't snag like the buckle on a tie-wrap. None-the-less,
> I stock and use the nylon ties in a whole lot of applications
> as to my contemporaries.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Wiring |
>
>Z-11 & Z-20 Question
>I want to use most of Z-11 but want to use one electronic ignition. Can I
>use 2 2-5 switches as I would rather not have a push button start switch but
>use the top momentary portion of the switches to start per note 2. I have a
>continental 0200 with one mag.
Don't see why not. The z-figures are conversation starters intended
to illustrate architectures and suggest A -> B planning for the
various failure modes. You can mix and match detailed features such
as types of alternators, ignition switching, etc between the various
architectures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Ray Allen Position Indicator Light and PTT |
>The trim system is hooked up to a Ray Allen position indicator and works
>fine. When I push the PTT button on the stick (either one) I get a bright
>top
>LED on the trim indicator. The LED goes out where the trim indication is
>(center of the scale). The top LED is the one that's illuminated when the
>trim
>indicator is extended.
Mike--
Assuming I understand the problem....
The RAC trim indicator is an LM3914 chip with 10 comparators in a ladder
configuration. Each comparator gets its reference from a 1.25V source that
is divided by 10. The bottom LED's comparator turns on with an input of
>1.25V and the top LED needs to see only >0.125V to turn on. Thus the ground
reference and ground noise need to be looked into. The LM3914 is not
bulletproof either. Failure of one of the comparators (usually at one end)
is fairly common.
Make sure the orange, green, and blue leads from the MAC/RAC trim box goes
to the corresponding leads on the trim indicator. Twisting or shielding
these three wires would be good practice. The other leads don't matter. Try
grounding the orange/white wire...since it is supposed to be ground. Don't
connect it to + V (smoke!).
Dig up the schematics for this system and measure the voltages. If you had
an oscilloscope you'd be home by now.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"The problem with the world is that only the intelligent people want to be
smarter, and only the good people want to improve."
- E. Stobblehouse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | Re: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs |
Hmmmm.... not sure about that, Bob.
I did read recently (don't remember the source) that using GPS as a DME
substitute when the DME is used for cross-bearings is ok, but not when the
DME is the principal instrument for the approach (like when the plate says
DME required or for DME arcs). Do you remember the source?
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B(at)aol.com; Date: 06:52 PM
------snip-------
............
And, as we all know, the GPS can be used for all DME distances required for
flight in the US National Airspace System, including any approach which has
the limitation, "DME required".
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron" <rondefly(at)rtriano.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Wiring |
Thanks Bob, for the very fast reply.
Ron Triano
Ron's Quickies, Page 8 is the Q200 and 9 is the Quickie and page 10 is a new
Q200 page.
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page8.html
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page9.html
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page10.html
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Starter Wiring
>
>Z-11 & Z-20 Question
>I want to use most of Z-11 but want to use one electronic ignition. Can I
>use 2 2-5 switches as I would rather not have a push button start switch
but
>use the top momentary portion of the switches to start per note 2. I have a
>continental 0200 with one mag.
Don't see why not. The z-figures are conversation starters intended
to illustrate architectures and suggest A -> B planning for the
various failure modes. You can mix and match detailed features such
as types of alternators, ignition switching, etc between the various
architectures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs |
In a message dated 11/20/2005 8:55:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rd2(at)evenlink.com writes:
Hmmmm.... not sure about that, Bob.
I did read recently (don't remember the source) that using GPS as a DME
substitute when the DME is used for cross-bearings is ok, but not when the
DME is the principal instrument for the approach (like when the plate says
DME required or for DME arcs). Do you remember the source?
Rumen
Good Evening Rumen,
Yes I am sure. The only reference is in the AIM and it IS hard to read, but
that was the intent.
Believe it or not, I helped write the language, but since it had to be
blessed by almost every department of the FAA, the language got pretty convoluted
before it was published.
For the first few years after the interpretation was published, I had the
name of a gentleman to call at Oklahoma City who would be glad to talk to any
FSDO office about that subject. He preferred that I NOT give his name out to
routine questions, but specifically asked that I have any FSDO inspector who
was confused about those provisions give him a call. That fellow has since
moved on and is no longer in the office, but I am sure an inquiry at Oklahoma
City by a FSDO inspector would get the correct answer.
If you know any FSDO inspector who is telling anyone something other than
what I said, I would really appreciate giving me that inspector's name. I will
contact the Ok City FAA folks and get the proper information distributed.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs |
In a message dated 11/20/2005 8:55:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rd2(at)evenlink.com writes:
I did read recently (don't remember the source) that using GPS as a DME
substitute when the DME is used for cross-bearings is ok, but not when the
DME is the principal instrument for the approach (like when the plate says
DME required or for DME arcs). Do you remember the source?
Rumen
Good Evening Rumen,
If you care to dig through that AIM language, it can be found at 1-1-19, f.
Look particularly at f, 1, (a), (2)
The revision date on that page is 23 SEP 05. If your AIM is not up to date,
try checking 1-1-20. That is the section the same information was located
in until a year or so ago.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs |
Good Evening Rumen,
If you care to dig through that AIM language, it can be found at 1-1-19, f.
Look particularly at f, 1, (a), (2)
The revision date on that page is 23 SEP 05. If your AIM is not up to date,
try checking 1-1-20. That is the section the same information was located
in until a year or so ago.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/20/2005 8:55:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rd2(at)evenlink.com writes:
I did read recently (don't remember the source) that using GPS as a DME
substitute when the DME is used for cross-bearings is ok, but not when the
DME is the principal instrument for the approach (like when the plate says
DME required or for DME arcs). Do you remember the source?
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Hi all,
Thanks for the alternator wiring info. I will do as bob suggested.
Bob Noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
>
>
>
>>
>>I am not familiar with Jabiru's but if I was ordering new materials for
>>this I'd use awg12 wire and a 20 amp breaker.
>>
>>15 amps might be OK but a 20 amp breaker should not nuisance trip. I
>>wouldn't trust a 15 amp fuse as they tend to be quick to trip and might
>>well trip when you apply power after an engine start. Your 15 amp
>>alternator rating is a nominal rating and it might well put out a little
>>more in some conditions. 12 awg wire fits yellow PIDG connectors so it
>>is easy to install and will handle 15 or so amps without excessive
>>heating or voltage drop for reasonable lengths and wire bundle sizes.
>>
>>Ken
>
> Good answer, I agree.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2-5 switches |
Sure you can use it. The small round push button us surrounded by a round
rim/shield to help prevent accidental activation and give it a different
look and feel than all the other switches.
Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
>
> Z-11 & Z-20 Question
>
> I want to use most of Z-19 but want to use one electronic ignition while
> retaining one mag. Can I use 2 2-5 switches as I would rather not have a
> push button start switch but use the top momentary portion of the switches
> to start per note 2. I have a continental 0200 with one mag.
>
>
> Thankyou
>
> Ron Triano
>
>
> Ron's Quickies, Page 8 is the Q200 and 9 is the Quickie and page 10 is a
> new
> Q200 page.
> http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page8.html
>
> http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page9.html
>
> http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page10.html
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs |
For everyone's edification:
COPIED FROM AOPA's WEBSITE (search for "GPS in lieu of DME").
Effective July 16, 1998, pilots may substitute IFR-certified GPS receivers
for DME and ADF avionics for all operations except NDB approaches without a
GPS overlay. GPS can be used in lieu of DME and ADF on all localizer-type
approaches as well as VOR/DME approaches, including when charted NDB or DME
transmitters are temporarily out of service. It also clarifies that IFR GPS
satisfies the requirement for DME at and above Flight Level 240 specified in
FAR 91.205(e). This approval represents a major step toward removing the
need to retain DME or ADF in our cockpits for any reason.
Note: Air carrier operators should consult their operations specifications
and their principal operations inspector for approval.
LIMITATIONS
There are still three instances in which DME or ADF are required.
NDB approaches that do not have an associated GPS overlay approach must
still be flown using an ADF.
A non-GPS approach procedure must exist at the alternate airport when one is
required to be filed by regulation. If the non-GPS approaches on which the
pilot must rely requires DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME
or ADF avionics as appropriate. GPS substitution for DME/ADF is not
permitted in this case.
DME transmitters associated with a localizer may not be retrievable from
your GPS until the manufacturer incorporates them in the database. Pilots
are not authorized to manually enter coordinates.
AOPA is working with the FAA and the manufacturers to have these
restrictions removed and will keep you informed.
Note: Pilots should exercise caution when selecting the appropriate DME and
NDB/LOM locations to avoid erroneous distance information.
END OF COPY
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | MD200-306 indicator and dual |
navs
Good Morning Mark,
That is an excellent compilation and simplification of what the AIM says.
Unfortunately, there have been a few folks who don't read the paragraph
(attached below) you sent correctly.
They leave off the first sentence of that paragraph and just quote the last
two.
Those two sentences ONLY apply when the airport is being considered for use
as an alternate.
Even then, it is only for planning purposes. If the aircraft does divert to
the alternate, and all components of the GPS are working normally upon
arrival, the GPS may be used as a substitute for the DME or ADF functions.
This is true in all segments of the US National Airspace System. It may or
may not be true in other jurisdictions. Canada was considering adopting the
same specifications. I do not know whether or not they or other countries did
so.
The GPS can ALWAYS be used in lieu of ANY required DME distance.
It can be used for ANY required ADF function other than an NDB based
approach.
We tried to get that changed, but were unsuccessful. The argument at the
time was that we should not worry about ADF approaches because they would all
get overlays and it would not be a problem. That did not happen and there are
still a very few places where the NDB approach has the best minima
available. Very rare, very stupid, but sad when it happens!
For what it is worth, let me brag a bit.
I started bugging the FAA to make the "GPS in Lieu Of" provision in 1994. I
was getting nowhere until I managed to get the ear of an FAA inspector who
was also an avid GA pilot. He liked my idea and he was working in the right
department. By this time, AOPA was also solidly behind my effort. Bob Wright
was promoted to the head of Flight Standards and he put the idea on budget.
Bob called me and asked if I would confer with the folks in Oklahoma to get
the job done. It took about a year, but it did happen!
I am very familiar with all that happened and what was the true intent. We
didn't get all we wanted, but we got most of it!
Between Bob Wright of the FAA and Randy Kenagy and his associates of AOPA,
the program was instituted in 1968.
I came away with the realization that the FAA does have a lot of very good
and very caring people involved. When given good reason, things can be
changed.
Unfortunately, Bob Wright has retired and the people with whom I worked in
Ok City have moved on. There may not be anyone there who was involved in the
actual process that developed the interpretation for the AIM.
More than you ever wanted to know!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/21/2005 8:34:55 A.M. Central Standard Time,
marknlisa(at)hometel.com writes:
"A non-GPS approach procedure must exist at the alternate airport when one
is
required to be filed by regulation. If the non-GPS approaches on which the
pilot must rely requires DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME
or ADF avionics as appropriate. GPS substitution for DME/ADF is not
permitted in this case."
________________________________________________________________________________
indicator and dual navs
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hello listers,
I am enjoying reading this discussion.. I'd like to bring up a question
that's sort of related. I have dual nav-coms in my airplane (old C182), a
loran, and an ADF. Neither of the CDIs include a glideslope needle, but
one of the nav-coms can drive a glideslope (one is a KX165). So, I want
to replace one of the CDIs with one that has a glideslope. I am also sort
of considering removing the loran, and ADF, and getting a King KLN89B or
KLN90B GPS in their stead.
My understanding is that to use the GPS for IFR approaches, I'll need to
have it drive a CDI, and I'll need an annunciator if that CDI is installed
such that it can be driven by both a nav receiver and the GPS.
What I propose, is that I get a Mid Continent MD-200 CDI and install it as
my primary CDI. It includes an annunciator to show whether the Nav or the
GPS is driving it. Get an IFR capable GPS, and set it up to be the GPS
input to the MD-200.
My questions are these:
1. What do I need in the way of switches or relays to swap the source of
the CDI?
2. If I am flying an ILS with the CDI (driven by the Nav), can I still
use the GPS to identify fixes on the approach? Stated differently, does
the GPS have to be driving a CDI in order for me to identify a fix that's
a part of a non-GPS approach? As a side question, can I fly an ILS using
the GPS to act as the localizer?
3. Is there a more cost effective way to get ILS (glideslope) capability
and an approach GPS, starting with the equipment already installed?
Thanks for any thoughts and ideas you might provide..
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK, C182 N4838D
>
>
> Good Morning Mark,
>
> That is an excellent compilation and simplification of what the AIM
> says.
>
> Unfortunately, there have been a few folks who don't read the paragraph
> (attached below) you sent correctly.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
A good source of ty-wraps (neutral and black) at a reasonable price is Altex.
http://www.altex.com/
jerb
At 05:53 PM 11/20/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >Here's a quote from a letter to the Editor:
> >"these things can and do saw their way through any metal components because
> >of the dirty environment.."
> >"I have examples of primer lines, oil .lines, fuel lines and even engine
> >mounts that have been nearly severed..."
> >This from an aircraft mechanic and instructor of 52 years experience.
> >Another writer, states he has seen tie-wraps fall off bundles after only 10
> >years. Apparently these tie-wraps absorb water and expand and contracts with
> >humidity changes. This can cause the above problems.
> >Wayne
>
> Like the cable clamps that Dave cited, there are equally
> variable grades of product in tie-wraps. A big jar of
> brightly colored tie-wraps from Harbor Freight is a real
> bargain but of unknown pedigree for material. Purchase
> tie-wraps from catalogs that cite brand names and ratings
> for the products. See:
>
>http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T053/1444.pdf
>
>http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T053/1446-1447.pdf
>
> and . . .
>
>http://www.tnb.com/contractor/docs/tyfast.pdf
>
> Products from branded sources will cite recommended
> limits for usage. The "jelly-bean" products are good
> for at least -40C to +80C applications. You can purchase
> UV resistant versions for about 20% more but probably
> not really useful in aircraft.
>
> I've seen that quotation about severing engine mounts, etc.
> and this is mostly hyperbole. ANY banded holding mechanism
> operating in a dirty environment can pick up grit. If it's
> allowed to move under vibration, it will grind holes in
> things. I had a RUBBER power steering hose rub a hole in
> a STEEL brake line using greasy dirt from the environment
> as a grinding compound. The hose was barely marked and the
> brake line failed. The quoted admonition should NOT be uniquely
> applied to nylon tie straps and it's a concern only under the
> rarest of conditions.
>
> The commercial and military aircraft industries have been
> using nylon tie straps for decades in just about every
> location except areas subject to high temperatures. Even
> if you do use them under the cowl, how long would it take
> and what would it cost to replace EVERY tie wrap under the
> cowl at every annual?
>
> Not all words from flagship publications are golden and
> the ones you've cited are especially odorous. I like string
> because it's cheap. One roll fits all size tying jobs. Multiple
> passes of string around the job can apply a great deal of
> pressure if needed (I've replaced radiator hose clamps with
> three or four, two-pass ties). Finally, the knot on the finished
> tie doesn't snag like the buckle on a tie-wrap. None-the-less,
> I stock and use the nylon ties in a whole lot of applications
> as to my contemporaries.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | MD200-306 indicator and |
dual navs
Bob,
Not at all; I like to hear the "details." I truly thought this horse dead
many moons ago--just goes to show how powerful disinformation can really be.
I believe only rumor and innuendo are higher on the list. Alas, truth, or
at least my perception of it, falls a distant fourth (fifth, sixth?) for
those whose apathy prevents the research, study and analysis required to
find it.
Please accept my belated thanks for your efforts to make my flying much more
enjoyable and, more importantly, safer!
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com [mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 09:36
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Cc: marknlisa(at)hometel.com
Subject: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: MD200-306 indicator
and dual navs
Good Morning Mark,
That is an excellent compilation and simplification of what the AIM says.
Unfortunately, there have been a few folks who don't read the paragraph
(attached below) you sent correctly.
They leave off the first sentence of that paragraph and just quote the
last two.
Those two sentences ONLY apply when the airport is being considered for
use as an alternate.
Even then, it is only for planning purposes. If the aircraft does divert
to the alternate, and all components of the GPS are working normally upon
arrival, the GPS may be used as a substitute for the DME or ADF functions.
This is true in all segments of the US National Airspace System. It may or
may not be true in other jurisdictions. Canada was considering adopting the
same specifications. I do not know whether or not they or other countries
did so.
The GPS can ALWAYS be used in lieu of ANY required DME distance.
It can be used for ANY required ADF function other than an NDB based
approach.
We tried to get that changed, but were unsuccessful. The argument at the
time was that we should not worry about ADF approaches because they would
all get overlays and it would not be a problem. That did not happen and
there are still a very few places where the NDB approach has the best minima
available. Very rare, very stupid, but sad when it happens!
For what it is worth, let me brag a bit.
I started bugging the FAA to make the "GPS in Lieu Of" provision in 1994.
I was getting nowhere until I managed to get the ear of an FAA inspector who
was also an avid GA pilot. He liked my idea and he was working in the right
department. By this time, AOPA was also solidly behind my effort. Bob
Wright was promoted to the head of Flight Standards and he put the idea on
budget. Bob called me and asked if I would confer with the folks in Oklahoma
to get the job done. It took about a year, but it did happen!
I am very familiar with all that happened and what was the true intent. We
didn't get all we wanted, but we got most of it!
Between Bob Wright of the FAA and Randy Kenagy and his associates of AOPA,
the program was instituted in 1968.
I came away with the realization that the FAA does have a lot of very good
and very caring people involved. When given good reason, things can be
changed.
Unfortunately, Bob Wright has retired and the people with whom I worked in
Ok City have moved on. There may not be anyone there who was involved in the
actual process that developed the interpretation for the AIM.
More than you ever wanted to know!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/21/2005 8:34:55 A.M. Central Standard Time,
marknlisa(at)hometel.com writes:
"A non-GPS approach procedure must exist at the alternate airport when
one is
required to be filed by regulation. If the non-GPS approaches on which
the
pilot must rely requires DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with
DME
or ADF avionics as appropriate. GPS substitution for DME/ADF is not
permitted in this case."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "G McNutt <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca> Was": gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca |
| Subject: | Re: Re GPS Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, |
Was: AeroElectric-List: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs
Hi Matt
Let me give you my opinions.
1) You will need an appropriate switch/annunciator panel with at least a
"waypoint hold" and "approach arm" switch and the required annunciator
lights. Different manufacturers use different names for the same thing
to confuse the issue so switch/light labeling terminology will differ.
2) Distance, bearing, speed etc are not shown on the CDI so are obtained
from the GPS itself at all times so I don't see any problem here. If you
were using the CDI for a GPS approach you would still read distance from
the GPS.
NO you cannot fly a GPS track when doing an ILS approach, ILS is
primary, but there is nothing wrong with having the GPS track showing on
a second CDI.
3) Just a thought, but from my point of view you really want to make
your airplane IFR legal without the GPS (unless you really require GPS
approaches). Have a good VFR GPS as a secondary source of information.
When you talk about cost you have to consider the (outrageous) cost of
keeping a GPS database up to date. The 28 day data cycles can be a
problem, older GPS's may have to be removed from the aircraft for update
and consider a two week holiday trip leaving a week before the database
expires, that may create update problems.
George in Langley BC
Yes - the 7A I am building will have ADF!!
Matt Prather wrote:
>
>My questions are these:
>
>1. What do I need in the way of switches or relays to swap the source of
>the CDI?
>
>2. If I am flying an ILS with the CDI (driven by the Nav), can I still
>use the GPS to identify fixes on the approach? Stated differently, does
>the GPS have to be driving a CDI in order for me to identify a fix that's
>a part of a non-GPS approach? As a side question, can I fly an ILS using
>the GPS to act as the localizer?
>
>3. Is there a more cost effective way to get ILS (glideslope) capability
>and an approach GPS, starting with the equipment already installed?
>
>Matt-
>VE N34RD, C150 N714BK, C182 N4838D
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: |
MD200...
In a message dated 11/21/2005 11:26:30 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather(at)spro.net writes:
My understanding is that to use the GPS for IFR approaches, I'll need to
have it drive a CDI, and I'll need an annunciator if that CDI is installed
such that it can be driven by both a nav receiver and the GPS
Good Morning Matt,
I hope I can add a bit without making any serious errors or omissions!
There are a lot of variables and some of the implementations are dependent
on who is signing for the installation.
However, there is no requirement, as such, that a separate CDI be used.
The CDI within the Panel Control Unit may be used if it meets all other
requirements.
There is a requirement that whatever indication is being used to stay on
course is within the pilots "normal" scan.
There is further amplification in other data that does define normal scan,
though even that interpretation is open to interpretation!
Garmin has pressed the point and has, in some instances, been able to get a
430 approved as the guidance source using the internal CDI when the panel unit
is installed in the ubiquitous Bonanza canted right side radio stack.
It is my opinion that such a location does NOT meet the intent of the TSO.
If you are planning to mount the panel control unit in the normal scan such
as might be done on a 1950s Bonanza, Navion, Stinson, Piper, Cessna etc.
which have the "glove box" radios on the left side, I would say that the unit
was
definitely within normal view. Some of the more modern Piper and Cessna
aircraft have a radio stack mounted in the center very close to the flight
control panel. Those may fit within the guidance as well.
The vast majority of IFR GPS approvals do have some sort of dedicated or
shared external CDI.
If it is a shared CDI, there needs to be some way of telling which
navigational provider is feeding the CDI. It is my contention that a well labeled
switch should be acceptable. Unfortunately, not all FAA folks agree with me on
that point. That in of itself is not a show stopper though, as I haven't
attempted to press the matter. I think the point could be won if it were really
important.
The bigger problem comes when there is an automatic selection device
installed. Many GPS units use a shared indicator that is automatically switched
to
the VHF nav unit whenever a localizer frequency is selected on the "primary"
VHF navigation radio. If that is done, some sort of annunciator should be
added. I have that system on my Bonanza. Instead of using a four hundred
dollar annunciator I used a couple of ten dollar light units.
As an aside, when I installed my IFR GPS, our local office was insisting
that auto switching be provided. In the middle nineties, the FAA sent out a
circular stating that automatic switching was a good idea, but that it was NOT
required. If I were making an installation today, I would NOT do auto
switching.
What I have stated above is strictly for normally certificated flying
machines. You who have experimental machines do not have to jump through the
same
hoops, but it would be my suggestion that whatever CDI you are using be
placed in your normal line of sight as the FEDs suggest.
Clear as mud?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Re GPS Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, |
Was: A...
Good Afternoon George,
I agree that I would want my airplane legal without the GPS, but using the
GPS in lieu of DME and ADF does save considerable weight, cost and panel
space. That saving must be balanced against the need to maintain a current
datacard. The cost of such data has been dropping and it is my hope that
competition will bring it down further in the future.
I do not find the need to install new data to be any problem at all. I
normally receive the new data eight to ten days before it needs to be installed.
By carrying a spare datacard with me, I can insert it when needed. In the
rare event that I will be on the road during that time, I could download the
information and load the new card anytime during that ten day period via a
laptop computer. I find getting such updates easier than getting the paper charts
updated when on the road!
I also agree with you that when flying an ILS localizer, the VHF course must
be followed.
However, it is very handy to have all of the waypoints via GPS and not have
to use bearings and radials to find those positions. The IFR approved GPS
makes it legal to do so
Obviously, we all have to make choices based on our usage and our pocket
books.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/21/2005 1:10:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca writes:
Stated differently, does
>the GPS have to be driving a CDI in order for me to identify a fix that's
>a part of a non-GPS approach? As a side question, can I fly an ILS using
>the GPS to act as the localizer?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Goguen <jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu> |
| Subject: | OV protection cross-talk in dual altenator system |
I'm working on a dual-alternator dual battery system with a ND
automotive alternator and the the PM alternator internal to the Rotax
912S. The Rotax alternator will power the auxiliary battery, which
under normal circumstances will power the turn coordinator but not much
more. Both batteries will be identical (12 Ah), so I can do the annual
swap recommended by Bob. I will include a cross-feed for use during
starting and alternator failure. Although I don't plan to have both
alternators on-line simultaneously, I would prefer the system to
operable in that configuration since I can imagine leaving the
cross-feed closed accidentally, etc. It appears to me that running
both alternators isn't likely to affect regulator operation, but does
present a problem for over voltage protection: if one alternator
drives the buss voltage high, OV protection on both alternators might
be triggered. I plan to avoid this by comparing the current in both
alternator B leads, and introducing circuitry that allows only the OV
protection on the alternator with the highest current (and therefore
the highest voltage) to be active at and given time. Seem reasonable?
Any comments?
Thanks!
Jon
Jon Goguen
jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu
Central Massachusetts
Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved)
Complete except for electrics and avionics
"Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind"
--Woody Allen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Goguen <jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu> |
| Subject: | Latching power relays? |
I'm wondering if there is any data or experience regarding the use of
modern latching power relays like those made by KG Technology or Gruner
in light aircraft. These seem to have good resistance to shock and
vibration.
Jon
Jon Goguen
jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu
Central Massachusetts
Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved)
Complete except for electrics and avionics
"Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind"
--Woody Allen
On Nov 21, 2005, at 2:46 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> altenator system |
| Subject: | Re: OV protection cross-talk in dual |
altenator system
>
>I'm working on a dual-alternator dual battery system with a ND
>automotive alternator and the the PM alternator internal to the Rotax
>912S. The Rotax alternator will power the auxiliary battery, which
>under normal circumstances will power the turn coordinator but not much
>more. Both batteries will be identical (12 Ah), so I can do the annual
>swap recommended by Bob. I will include a cross-feed for use during
>starting and alternator failure. Although I don't plan to have both
>alternators on-line simultaneously, I would prefer the system to
>operable in that configuration since I can imagine leaving the
>cross-feed closed accidentally, etc. It appears to me that running
>both alternators isn't likely to affect regulator operation, but does
>present a problem for over voltage protection: if one alternator
>drives the buss voltage high, OV protection on both alternators might
>be triggered. I plan to avoid this by comparing the current in both
>alternator B leads, and introducing circuitry that allows only the OV
>protection on the alternator with the highest current (and therefore
>the highest voltage) to be active at and given time. Seem reasonable?
> Any comments?
Cross-feeds are intended to be operated only when one of the two
alternators is inoperative. I recommend an annunicator light be
incorporated to show when the cross-feed contactor is energized.
You are correct that unless special provisions are made for selective
ov trip, one alternator runaway can and probably will trip both systems.
B&C regulators are selective-trip . . . i.e. they shut down only the
alternator that is seeing moderate field voltage (the working regulator
will sense a too-high voltage and relax the normally operating system).
Recommend you keep it simple and close the cross-feed only for
starting and for alternator-out operations.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>A good source of ty-wraps (neutral and black) at a reasonable price is Altex.
>http://www.altex.com/
>jerb
Their prices are sure right and they claim UL/MIL approvals.
It would be interesting to know the brands they're selling.
I blew up one of the catalog pictures trying to read the lettering
on one of the offerings but was unable to see it clearly.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | trumansager(at)insightbb.com |
| Subject: | nav/glide slope antenna question |
Has anyone out there mounted a Comant CI 215 cat whisker antenna (or similar)
on the
bottom of a RV?
Iv'e seen some RVs that have them under the horizontal stabilizer. If so, can
you cut the antenna mount
standoffs off and lay it on the skin, or do you have to build a custom frame inside
the fuselage to hold the
block? All this with appropriate doublers of course.
Putting it in the vertical stab. is not an option as the stabilizer was all
completed before I made the
decision to install the Garmin CNX80. This type of antenna is recommended for
the CNX 80.
Any advise would be appreciated. No hits on archive search.
Trying to get the fuselage closed up.
Truman Sager, Floyds Knobs, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: nav/glide slope antenna question |
In a message dated 11/21/2005 8:08:34 P.M. Central Standard Time,
trumansager(at)insightbb.com writes:
Has anyone out there mounted a Comant CI 215 cat whisker antenna (or
similar) on the
bottom of a RV?
Iv'e seen some RVs that have them under the horizontal stabilizer. If so,
can you cut the antenna mount
standoffs off and lay it on the skin, or do you have to build a custom frame
inside the fuselage to hold the
block? All this with appropriate doublers of course.
Putting it in the vertical stab. is not an option as the stabilizer was all
completed before I made the
decision to install the Garmin CNX80. This type of antenna is recommended
for
the CNX 80.
Any advise would be appreciated. No hits on archive search.
Trying to get the fuselage closed up.
Truman Sager, Floyds Knobs, IN
Good Evening Truman,
While I have no knowledge of the construction of an RV, I would strongly
suggest that you consider putting blades on the tail rather than using a cat's
whisker set up. Cat whiskers mounted low have put eyes out in very small
children when they were running around the airplane. I know that we all think we
can watch our children and grandchildren, but accidents do happen.
How far below the horizontal stabilizer does the RV fuselage extend? If
you can get the blades at last eight or ten inches away from the stabilizers,
they should work fine. The closer they are to the stabilizer, the more loss
there will be, but since most use of the VHF navigation equipment will be
close to the airport, not much of a signal is required.
I have had blades on my Bonanza for fifteen years and I love them dearly. I
devised a very strong yet light weight method of mounting them. If you care
to see how they are done for a Bonanza, I would be happy to have our son
send you a copy of the article he wrote concerning the mounting on his Bonanza.
The antennas actually receive a more balanced signal than cat whiskers. If
it wasn't for the interference from the stabilizer, the signal would be
vastly superior to the wires as well as much safer for little kids to bump into.
Comant and Sensor Systems both make very nice examples of VHF blade style
Navigation antennas.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | nav/glide slope antenna question |
Yes, you can cut off the standoffs. It's been done many times. If you mount it
on the .040 skin you can avoid adding doublers. If you go forward of that skin
you'll want to add adoubler that connects with the J-stringers.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
>
>
> Has anyone out there mounted a Comant CI 215 cat whisker
> antenna (or similar) on the bottom of a RV?
> Iv'e seen some RVs that have them under the horizontal
> stabilizer. If so, can you cut the antenna mount
> standoffs off and lay it on the skin, or do you have to build
> a custom frame inside the fuselage to hold the block? All
> this with appropriate doublers of course.
> Putting it in the vertical stab. is not an option as the
> stabilizer was all completed before I made the decision to
> install the Garmin CNX80. This type of antenna is
> recommended for the CNX 80.
> Any advise would be appreciated. No hits on archive
> search.
> Trying to get the fuselage closed up.
> Truman Sager, Floyds Knobs, IN
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | nav/glide slope antenna question |
Truman,
Have you considered mounting a Bob Archer VOR/ILS antenna in one of your
wingtips thus avoiding the cat whisker problem altogether? I have used both
and the wingtip arrangement is definitely superior in my opinion. It is
totally enclosed within the wingtip avoiding the drag and the hazards of
protruding cat whiskers.
Pat Hatch
RV-6
RV-7
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
trumansager(at)insightbb.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: nav/glide slope antenna question
Has anyone out there mounted a Comant CI 215 cat whisker antenna (or
similar) on the
bottom of a RV?
Iv'e seen some RVs that have them under the horizontal stabilizer. If so,
can you cut the antenna mount
standoffs off and lay it on the skin, or do you have to build a custom frame
inside the fuselage to hold the
block? All this with appropriate doublers of course.
Putting it in the vertical stab. is not an option as the stabilizer was
all
completed before I made the
decision to install the Garmin CNX80. This type of antenna is recommended
for
the CNX 80.
Any advise would be appreciated. No hits on archive search.
Trying to get the fuselage closed up.
Truman Sager, Floyds Knobs, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: nav/glide slope antenna question |
Sorry to butt in here, but I have a concern about my VOR/GS antenna and am
interested in the Bob Archer system. Would you post a email or web address
for this antenna?
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: nav/glide slope antenna question
>
> Truman,
>
> Have you considered mounting a Bob Archer VOR/ILS antenna in one of your
> wingtips thus avoiding the cat whisker problem altogether? I have used
> both
> and the wingtip arrangement is definitely superior in my opinion. It is
> totally enclosed within the wingtip avoiding the drag and the hazards of
> protruding cat whiskers.
>
> Pat Hatch
> RV-6
> RV-7
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> trumansager(at)insightbb.com
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: nav/glide slope antenna question
>
>
> Has anyone out there mounted a Comant CI 215 cat whisker antenna (or
> similar) on the
> bottom of a RV?
> Iv'e seen some RVs that have them under the horizontal stabilizer. If
> so,
> can you cut the antenna mount
> standoffs off and lay it on the skin, or do you have to build a custom
> frame
> inside the fuselage to hold the
> block? All this with appropriate doublers of course.
> Putting it in the vertical stab. is not an option as the stabilizer
> was
> all
> completed before I made the
> decision to install the Garmin CNX80. This type of antenna is recommended
> for
> the CNX 80.
> Any advise would be appreciated. No hits on archive search.
> Trying to get the fuselage closed up.
> Truman Sager, Floyds Knobs, IN
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | nav/glide slope antenna question |
> Sorry to butt in here, but I have a concern about my VOR/GS
> antenna and am interested in the Bob Archer system. Would you
> post a email or web address for this antenna?
> Wayne
Type in "bob archer antenna" into a google search, you'll have more than
enough. His wingtip VOR/LOC/GS antenna works quite well.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 691 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Latching power relays? |
Better than a Latching is this device:
http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/datasheets/ev200.pdf
0.13 amp current to hold,
Huge current rating,
20G shock,
light wt.
It does not "Latch" it is held with by electromagnetic
The good part is if power is removed it opens as a safety feature. If you have
a
latched master and can't control it with out power I could see a possible
scenarios where this would be bad news.
George
>From: Jon Goguen <jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Latching power relays?
>
>
>
>I'm wondering if there is any data or experience regarding the use of
>modern latching power relays like those made by KG Technology or Gruner
>in light aircraft. These seem to have good resistance to shock and
>vibration.
>
>Jon
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Latching power relays? |
>
>I'm wondering if there is any data or experience regarding the use of
>modern latching power relays like those made by KG Technology or Gruner
>in light aircraft. These seem to have good resistance to shock and
>vibration.
>
>Jon
How is the latching feature attractive to you? Where would you
use it?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Latching power relays? |
>Better than a Latching is this device:
http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/datasheets/ev200.pdf
I agree George--
This part is available from Blue Sea Systems in two versions for far less
money than most companies charge. See:
http://www.bluesea.com/dept.asp?d_id=6619&l1=7958&l2=6607
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an
injury to one's self-esteem...."
-Thomas Szasz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "923te" <923te(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Latching power relays? |
Hi George,
I like the idea of the relay you suggest. Do you know how one would hook up
diodes on it? Where is a good place to purchase it?
>
> Better than a Latching is this device:
>
> http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/datasheets/ev200.pdf
>
> 0.13 amp current to hold,
> Huge current rating,
> 20G shock,
> light wt.
>
> It does not "Latch" it is held with by electromagnetic
>
> The good part is if power is removed it opens as a safety feature. If
you have a
> latched master and can't control it with out power I could see a
possible
> scenarios where this would be bad news.
>
> George
>
>
> >From: Jon Goguen <jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu>
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Latching power relays?
> >
> >
> >
> >I'm wondering if there is any data or experience regarding the use of
> >modern latching power relays like those made by KG Technology or Gruner
> >in light aircraft. These seem to have good resistance to shock and
> >vibration.
> >
> >Jon
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 22 Msgs - 11/21/05 |
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>>
>>A good source of ty-wraps (neutral and black) at a reasonable price is Altex.
>>http://www.altex.com/
>>jerb
>>
>>
>
>
> Their prices are sure right and they claim UL/MIL approvals.
> It would be interesting to know the brands they're selling.
> I blew up one of the catalog pictures trying to read the lettering
> on one of the offerings but was unable to see it clearly.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Are ty-wraps and lace the only reasonable options for securing wiring?
I use the plastic coils to organize all the computer cables around my
desk. It's really convenient in that it holds all the calbes securely
but is still fairly easy to move wires around. With a tube frame
fuselage, this solution would work really nice by using the coil to
strap the wire to the tube structure. Adding or removing wires would be
a breeze, and there would be no sharp edges to bite me.
At work, we use velcro to secure cable bundles that are heavy enough to
require both hands to hold. This is not the cheap velcro found at
Wal-Mart. It's an inch wide and has a strong grip. I'm guesstimating
that the sample I'm holding in my hand right now has a shear strength of
15lbs for a two inch overlap. (Tested by rolling a piece into a 3" loop,
overlapping about 2", and then pulling it apart...guesstimating the
pressure required.)
Both solutions offer the benefit of a much wider area than ty-wraps or
lace, reducing the effects of abrasion. Both solutions offer much more
holding strength than the wire will ever be able to exert. Both
solutions are much more human and modification friendly.
Both will hold up to the environmental stresses just as well as ty-wraps
or lace. You can get the spiral wrap in a range of materials
(http://www.alphawire.com/pages/157.cfm), even teflon.
Neither is that much more expensive, if you consider that you only have
to buy the strapping material once.
http://www.fastenation.com/fasteners.tmpl has a kit that contains more
velcro material than you'll ever use for $24.95. It contains *5yds* of
the velcro tape. A 25yd roll of Velcro name brand 1" tape can be had
for $35.50 from
http://www.hookandloop.com/site/department.cfm?id=velcro_one_wrap_brand_tape&level=2000
. The spiral wrap can be had for around $20 for 100ft
(http://www.action-electronics.com/jtsw.htm).
Neither velcro or coils exert the locked-in-place pressures of ty-wraps
and lace, but is that a benefit. They will exert enough holding
pressure to keep the wire from vibrating. If solder can be used as a
mechanical connection because it has more strength than the wire will
ever be able to exert, why do we necessarily need a tie down that is
stronger than the wire it's holding?
--
,|"|"|, |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: nav/glide slope antenna question |
Try here <http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/sportcraft.htm>
You can get them from SteinAir
<http://www.steinair.com/avionics.htm#ANTENNAS>, aircraft spruce and others.
Larry Rosen
RV-10
N205EN (reserved)
Alex Peterson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Sorry to butt in here, but I have a concern about my VOR/GS
>>antenna and am interested in the Bob Archer system. Would you
>>post a email or web address for this antenna?
>>Wayne
>>
>>
>
>Type in "bob archer antenna" into a google search, you'll have more than
>enough. His wingtip VOR/LOC/GS antenna works quite well.
>
>Alex Peterson
>RV6-A N66AP 691 hours
>Maple Grove, MN
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912
11/22/2005
Hello Fellow Builders, I have been watching this discussion of the various
methods of wire wrap and the pluses and minuses of using nylon ty-wraps with
some interest. Technology may offer a superior solution, but it doesn't seem
to have gotten much notice yet in our community. Here is a blurb from
Machine Design magazine:
"Cable ties of a polyarletherketone called Victrex
<<http://www.victrex.com/>> PEEK bundle wire and cables securely despite
long exposures to high temperatures and pressures of
oil drilling, aerospace, and military uses. Wires and cables running the
length of an aircraft fuselage or wrapped around an electric pump motor, for
example, must be bundled so they don't touch a potential heat source. Nylon
cable ties often work well in these applications. But they can melt in more
extreme applications such as oil drilling, perhaps interfering with the
pumping apparatus.
According to Richard Moore, spokesman for cable-tie maker Click Bond Inc.,
Carson City, Nev. (www.clickbond.com), drilling applications can see
temperatures of 392F. Victrex PEEK withstands temperatures to 500F and
resists chemicals, electricity, and radiation. Low-moisture absorption and
outgassing properties makes the polymer well suited for aerospace
applications - low-moisture absorption ensures dimensional stability. And
because the PEEK is halogen-free, it emits little smoke and toxic gas during
combustion. Additionally, the inherently lubricious material won't abrade
the plastic coating on the wires as is often the case with its nylon
counterpart."
I am willing to buy some PEEK cable ties from Clickbond, but haven't quite
figured out how to do so. Their marketing and distribution system is a bit
obscure to me. Any suggestions?
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator terminals |
Hello all-
I'm getting ready to wire my alternator and have discovered that I have no
idea how to identify the terminals from the Z draw on the actual alternator
itself! This is an 80 Amp Mitsubishi alternator which is the stock unit for
a Mazda 13B Rotary engine.
A picture of the unit can be seen at:
http://www.rx7.org/jes/images/DSCN1193(1024).jpg
If someone in-the-know could please take a look & tell me which is which, I
would sure appreciate it.
Thanks,
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <bruce(at)justbruce.com> |
| Subject: | Slap Snap Cable Wraps: was PEEK Cable Ties |
Listers,
I haven't used this product on an aircraft yet, but after receiving a sample
of these from Waytek last month, I liked them enough to go ahead and order a
small batch of each of the three smaller sizes. Only problem buying from
Waytek is you need to buy $5.00 of each item, but that isn't an excessive
quantity as they run from 35 to 70 cents each.
I used 6 or 7 of them with great success last weekend while wiring a solar
controller panel. They are lightweight, extremely strong, but easy to open
and close, and were helpful in keeping the bundles neatly together while I
was pulling and routing wires. On my solar controller project, I left them
in place when I finished the job -- on an aircraft you may certainly choose
to replace them with some lighter cable ties or cable-lacing after you are
finished with running your wires.
These helped me wire up a very clean and neat looking project, so I thought
I'd share the idea. FYI: The 1.5 inch size weighs 35 grams each which is
about four times more than the cable tie I also tossed on the scale. Velcro
would do the same thing I guess, but you probably need two hands to close
Velcro-- these you just squeeze to tighten, and a flick of your finger opens
them up so you can add more wires to the bundle.
Click on : www.waytekwire.com click on "Products" and then search for
"Slap".
Regards,
Bruce
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Goguen <jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Latching power relays? |
The main advantage from my point of view is weight. With the
two-battery dual-alternator arrangement, the number of contactors is
multiplying rapidly: a master for each battery, the cross-feed, the
starter, and one for OV protection of the primary alternator, which
needs to go in the B-lead because the alternator is internally
regulated. (I'm aware of the load dump issue, and for the present
discussion I'm assuming that a satisfactory solution with a transient
suppressor will work out). That's about 5 pounds if I use the nice
Tyco EV200 series contactors that others are suggesting. A 100 amp
(continuous) latching contactor with an integral status switch weighs
less than 100 grams. Contactor control is slightly more complex,
generally requiring both a switch and an indicator, but I don't see
this as a big impediment. If they don't have a significant problem
with inadvertent tripping in the aircraft environment, I would consider
using them for all applications except perhaps the starter. The spec
sheet indicates operating limits of 10G for shock, but the vibration
spec is a little harder to interpret (given as 1 mm, 10-55 Hz). I
think this means 1 mm amplitude in the indicated frequency range, but I
don't know vibration resistance is required. The vibration specs for
the Tyco EV 200 series, given as 20 G sine, 80-2000 Hz, are not
directly comparable. Are there specifications for contactor shock and
vibration resistance in light aircraft?
Jon
Jon Goguen
jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu
Central Massachusetts
Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved)
Complete except for electrics and avionics
"Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind"
--Woody Allen
On Nov 22, 2005, at 8:40 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> I'm wondering if there is any data or experience regarding the use of
>> modern latching power relays like those made by KG Technology or
>> Gruner
>> in light aircraft. These seem to have good resistance to shock and
>> vibration.
>>
>> Jon
>
> How is the latching feature attractive to you? Where would you
> use it?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "SteinAir, Inc." <stein(at)steinair.com> |
Here's what I found out about those particular cables.
1st, they are not available yet, it'll be several months.
Second, they will be between $1 - $5 EACH.
So, if it were me I'd go with the Tefzel cable ties at $.20 each or the high
temp nylon which is even cheaper.
Cheers,
Stein.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> bakerocb(at)cox.net
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 10:10 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: PEEK Cable Ties
>
>
> 11/22/2005
>
> Hello Fellow Builders, I have been watching this discussion of
> the various
> methods of wire wrap and the pluses and minuses of using nylon
> ty-wraps with
> some interest. Technology may offer a superior solution, but it
> doesn't seem
> to have gotten much notice yet in our community. Here is a blurb from
> Machine Design magazine:
>
> "Cable ties of a polyarletherketone called Victrex
> <<http://www.victrex.com/>> PEEK bundle wire and cables securely despite
> long exposures to high temperatures and pressures of
> oil drilling, aerospace, and military uses. Wires and cables running the
> length of an aircraft fuselage or wrapped around an electric pump
> motor, for
> example, must be bundled so they don't touch a potential heat
> source. Nylon
> cable ties often work well in these applications. But they can
> melt in more
> extreme applications such as oil drilling, perhaps interfering with the
> pumping apparatus.
>
> According to Richard Moore, spokesman for cable-tie maker Click Bond Inc.,
> Carson City, Nev. (www.clickbond.com), drilling applications can see
> temperatures of 392F. Victrex PEEK withstands temperatures to 500F and
> resists chemicals, electricity, and radiation. Low-moisture absorption and
> outgassing properties makes the polymer well suited for aerospace
> applications - low-moisture absorption ensures dimensional stability. And
> because the PEEK is halogen-free, it emits little smoke and toxic
> gas during
> combustion. Additionally, the inherently lubricious material won't abrade
> the plastic coating on the wires as is often the case with its nylon
> counterpart."
>
> I am willing to buy some PEEK cable ties from Clickbond, but
> haven't quite
> figured out how to do so. Their marketing and distribution system
> is a bit
> obscure to me. Any suggestions?
>
> OC
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
For those wondering what the MIL Spec for cable ties are (gee...I'll
bet you REALLY want to know this....), see attched PDF. Bottom
line...it means very little.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,
you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
---- File information -----------
File: Military%20Specification%20Cross%20Reference.pdf
Date: 22 Nov 2005, 15:21
Size: 50429 bytes.
Type: Unknown
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: |
MD200-306 indicator and dual navs
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Matt -
Get a Garmin AT 480. It has a built-in light and switching system. If you
add up the cost of the separate boxes and the annunciator box (lights and
switch) you get fairly close to the 480's price.
IMHO,
John
wrote:
> my primary CDI. It includes an annunciator to show whether the Nav or
> the
> GPS is driving it. Get an IFR capable GPS, and set it up to be the GPS
> input to the MD-200.
> My questions are these:
> 1. What do I need in the way of switches or relays to swap the source of
> the CDI?
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: |
MD200-306 indicator and dual navs
Just curious, what is a AT 480?
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: Re GPS Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was:
AeroElectric-List: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs
>
>
> Matt -
>
> Get a Garmin AT 480. It has a built-in light and switching system. If you
> add up the cost of the separate boxes and the annunciator box (lights and
> switch) you get fairly close to the 480's price.
>
> IMHO,
>
> John
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> my primary CDI. It includes an annunciator to show whether the Nav or
>> the
>> GPS is driving it. Get an IFR capable GPS, and set it up to be the GPS
>> input to the MD-200.
>> My questions are these:
>> 1. What do I need in the way of switches or relays to swap the source of
>> the CDI?
>
>
> --
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: |
MD200-306 indicator and dual navs
Just curious, what is a AT 480?
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: Re GPS Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was:
AeroElectric-List: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs
>
>
> Matt -
>
> Get a Garmin AT 480. It has a built-in light and switching system. If you
> add up the cost of the separate boxes and the annunciator box (lights and
> switch) you get fairly close to the 480's price.
>
> IMHO,
>
> John
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> my primary CDI. It includes an annunciator to show whether the Nav or
>> the
>> GPS is driving it. Get an IFR capable GPS, and set it up to be the GPS
>> input to the MD-200.
>> My questions are these:
>> 1. What do I need in the way of switches or relays to swap the source of
>> the CDI?
>
>
> --
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg@itmack" <greg(at)itmack.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Latching power relays? |
I couldn't find any pricing, how much are the 9012 and the 9112 versions?
My local supplier sells them for $145 & $216.
>
> This part is available from Blue Sea Systems in two versions for far less
> money than most companies charge. See:
>
> http://www.bluesea.com/dept.asp?d_id=6619&l1=7958&l2=6607
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> (508) 764-2072
>
> "Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an
> injury to one's self-esteem...."
> -Thomas Szasz
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: |
MD200-306 indicator and dual navs
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hi John,
The only Garmin thing that I can find with "480" in the name is the GNS
480.. Unless I buy it from one of the guys on ebay (for $3000), I think
the seperate units are cheaper (assuming I use the 2 NAV/COMs that are
already installed). The MD CDI is about $1500 (new), and the standalone
IFR GPS's can be found for $1500 used. I admit that I might have to add a
relay to switch the source to the CDI, but those are less that $800, I
think. The rest is going to be labor... The cheapest (legitimate
looking) GNS480 I have seen was on ebay for $8100. Now that you mention
it, I notice that the 430's go for about 5k. I'd still have to buy a CDI
with a glideslope though, whatever I do (even if I don't add an approach
GPS).
More good thinking... Thanks John.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Matt -
>
> Get a Garmin AT 480. It has a built-in light and switching system. If
> you add up the cost of the separate boxes and the annunciator box
> (lights and switch) you get fairly close to the 480's price.
>
> IMHO,
>
> John
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> my primary CDI. It includes an annunciator to show whether the Nav or
>> the
>> GPS is driving it. Get an IFR capable GPS, and set it up to be the
>> GPS input to the MD-200.
>> My questions are these:
>> 1. What do I need in the way of switches or relays to swap the source
>> of the CDI?
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: |
MD200-306 indicator and dual navs
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Wayne -
It is the UPS Apollo CNX 80 (WAAS GPS/VOR/COM). It was renamed to the
Garmin AT 480 when Garmin bought the Apollo line from UPS.
John
wrote:
>
>
> Just curious, what is a AT 480?
> Wayne
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: |
MD200...
In a message dated 11/22/2005 8:03:40 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather(at)spro.net writes:
I'd still have to buy a CDI
with a glideslope though, whatever I do (even if I don't add an approach
GPS).
Good Evening Matt,
The 430 is the cheapest way to go. You will need only the CDI and that only
because the 430 has a localizer and glide slope that need to be connected to
one. If the Panel Control Unit is within a reasonable line of sight, such as
in the center or far left of the panel, nothing else is needed.
For an airplane that has no radios at all. The 430 takes care of
everything. Add a handheld Com and a handheld GPS and you will be loaded for
bear. A
480 is a very competent machine, but it is a LOT more money and only allows a
few more approaches. In a few years, there will be a greater need for the
480 style equipment, but I would suggest waiting for competition before
purchasing one. Right now, the 480 is the only unit approved under the WAAS
standards. Of course, if money is no object!!---???
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Master Relay Mount |
Bob,
Just received my shipment with the 701-1 contractor today, with the Plastic
Booties on the mounting feet and without any marking "do no ground case".
There is no continuity between any of the four posts and the case. As you
say below, please confirm it is ok to remove the mounting booties for
cooling reasons. These Booties are molded on the mounting feet and removing
will destroy them in the process I'm sure.
Marty in Brentwood TN
Message: #27006 Date: Oct 31, 2005 Subject: Re: Master Relay Mount From:
sjhdcl(at)kingston.net
No. In fact it says "do not ground case" right on the relay.
Steve
RV7A
> If they're S701-1 contactors, then there should be no continuity
> from any terminal of the contactor to the case. You can check this
> out with an ohmmeter.
>
> Given that these critters run warm anyhow, I think I'd rather
> see them bolted down solid on metal feet to metal surfaces.
> I'm really mystified by the plastic booties. Would they slip
> off? If you took them off, would they then look like the old
> S701-1?
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/s701-1l.jpg
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Relay Mount |
>
>Bob,
>Just received my shipment with the 701-1 contractor today, with the Plastic
>Booties on the mounting feet and without any marking "do no ground case".
>There is no continuity between any of the four posts and the case. As you
>say below, please confirm it is ok to remove the mounting booties for
>cooling reasons. These Booties are molded on the mounting feet and removing
>will destroy them in the process I'm sure.
>Marty in Brentwood TN
Okay. I've not received any reply from inquiries to
White-Rogers/Stancor asking an engineering type to explain
the reason for adding the booties . . .
One would like to believe that there was a good reason for
it but I'm mystified. I'm hard pressed to think of any
reason why they would be necessary after about 60 years
of production without them.
I have no basis for recommending any particular action with
regard to this new feature. I'll see if I can contact anyone
there by telephone tomorrow.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | S704-1 Wiring Diagram |
>
>
>Bob, thanks for the drawing but now I have another question about the relay.
>In the picture it shows a IN4005 diode across the + and - input but in the
>diagram it shows a IN4001. I'm not sure I really understand why it is there
>at all but I assume I should use the IN4001.
>
>Could you explain why it is there?
>
>Thanks and sorry if this is a little basic.
check out this excerpt from the Radio Shack catalog.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/RS_Diodes.jpg
1N4001 through 1N4005 diodes are offered with the only
difference being a voltage rating. For our purposes,
anything 50v or over will suffice hence variabilties
in call outs. Whatever parts between 1N4001 and 1N4007
you can lay your hands on will work fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | GX60 internal battery |
Fellow listers,
I am getting an error message stating that my internal battery needs service in
my GX60. The unit continues to function - I just have to press the msg button
every few minutes.
This only started since I upgraded the datacard - that may be coincidental though.
Anyone else seen this? Is it home-repairable...with the correct battery? I have
done some miniature soldering so I could probably do it......
The archives show some of the portable units needing a similar repair - being done
by the owner. Sure would save some RV gas money!
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Re: Avionics-List: GX60 internal battery - 2nd |
attempt
Forwarded for other list benefit
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Marvin Dupree <97corvette(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GX60 internal battery - 2nd attempt
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Marvin Dupree <97corvette(at)cox.net>
my experience with changing an internal battery in my panel mounted
gps was good. i did talk with the factory service people and they
told me that the battery MUST be changed by them or it would not be
legal to use the gps in an airplane. they wanted $250 minumum
charge to change the battery. i bought one from radio shack and
installed it. costs about 5 bucks and works fine. it's your
call..... if you can do the job and if you want to. good luck.
marvin p.s. if you want more details, e-mail me direct
<97corvette(at)cox.net>
On Nov 23, 2005, at 8:01 AM, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen"
>
>
> Noone responded on the first attempt
>
>
> Fellow listers,
>
> I am getting an error message stating that my internal battery
> needs service in my GX60. The unit continues to function - I just
> have to press the msg button every few minutes.
>
> This only started since I upgraded the datacard - that may be
> coincidental though.
>
> Anyone else seen this? Is it home-repairable...with the correct
> battery? I have done some miniature soldering so I could probably
> do it......
>
> The archives show some of the portable units needing a similar
> repair - being done by the owner. Sure would save some RV gas money!
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph Capen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Avionics Essential Buss |
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
After reading the thread about Latching Relays instead of contactors, I
took a closer look at the B&C 701 contactor. I was surprised to see
that it takes about 1 amp to hold it in operation. This doesn't look
like a good fit to power an Essential Buss. For example, if I used a
701 for an essential buss and had a typical radio in receive mode, more
power would be going into the contactor than the radio.
If I get rid of the contactor, I can double the operational time of the
radio when on batteries or I can cut the battery size in half.
I decided to design a micro-power solid state relay for my RV8 Avionics
Buss. This has expanded to an avionics power conditioner. I have
settled on the following features, but would like your suggestions on
any omissions that might bite me. I am going to PCB soon.
- 30 Amp total switching in two 15 A circuits (one for critical
avionics, on for other - with a power out, I don't need two radios)
- Faston connectors for each load, screw terminal for 30 amp input.
- Built in circuit breakers for each circuit. Self resetting by cycling
the avionics power
- Suitable for wiring to the hot bus (directly to battery)
- Power conditioning:
- Load Dump Diode to trap negative swings in system (none in
this
System since there are no coils or inductors)
- MOV to clamp any voltages above +22V
Wiring is:
- IN Thru fusible link directly from battery
(Screw terminal for #8 wire)
- Out1/2 Output to Avionics Buss 1, 2 (to fuses for each load)
(FastOns for #10 wire)
- SW 1/2 Switch input: Ground to turn on avionics buss 1/2
- Gnd Mounting holes & optional FastOn
It seems that this solves three problems I wanted:
1: Maximum Avionics Essential Buss time - all energy is going into the
radio, not the contactor.
2: Protecting the radios from noise and potentially damaging and
expensive transient spikes
3: Ability to simply apply power to the avionics without powering all
other systems for pre-flight clearances, etc.
So, am I missing anything?
Thanks
Dan Beadle
RV8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Relay Mount |
Bob, another issue with the booties is that they interfere with torquing
the mounting bolts. They will crack before the proper torque is
achieved. I've chucked my B&C contactors for this reason.
Vern Little
RV-9A
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Bob,
>>Just received my shipment with the 701-1 contractor today, with the Plastic
>>Booties on the mounting feet and without any marking "do no ground case".
>>There is no continuity between any of the four posts and the case. As you
>>say below, please confirm it is ok to remove the mounting booties for
>>cooling reasons. These Booties are molded on the mounting feet and removing
>>will destroy them in the process I'm sure.
>>Marty in Brentwood TN
>>
>>
>
> Okay. I've not received any reply from inquiries to
> White-Rogers/Stancor asking an engineering type to explain
> the reason for adding the booties . . .
>
> One would like to believe that there was a good reason for
> it but I'm mystified. I'm hard pressed to think of any
> reason why they would be necessary after about 60 years
> of production without them.
>
> I have no basis for recommending any particular action with
> regard to this new feature. I'll see if I can contact anyone
> there by telephone tomorrow.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Relay Mount |
>
>Bob, another issue with the booties is that they interfere with torquing
>the mounting bolts. They will crack before the proper torque is
>achieved. I've chucked my B&C contactors for this reason.
Excellent point! Okay, that's rational #1 for pulling the booties
off. We'll see if any more surface over the next few days.
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Master Relay Mount |
In a message dated 11/23/2005 10:06:58 A.M. Central Standard Time,
rv-9a-online(at)telus.net writes:
Bob, another issue with the booties is that they interfere with torquing
the mounting bolts. They will crack before the proper torque is
achieved. I've chucked my B&C contactors for this reason.
Vern Little
RV-9A
Good Morning Vern,
That brings up the question as to how we are determining "proper " torque?
To have the attaching hardware stretched to just short of it's elastic limit
is one type of "torque". To squeeze a plastic such as the booties to a
point where no creeping or cracking is another form of "proper" torque. If
elastic stop nuts are used for attachment of the booted device, they should hold
adequately at whatever point is determined to be optimum for the subject
fastening.
The term "torque to specification" is often used without proper regard to
what it is that we are trying to accomplish.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Essential Buss |
A few things to consider:
1. Why do you power your essential bus through a contactor? In the event
you are operating on battery power and worried about current, you should be
powering it through the Normal/EBus switch directly from the battery.
2. But your solution is feeding your entire avionics through a single point
of failure, not just an Avionics Master Switch, but also adding a bunch of
power conditioning circuitry in between, that is even more likely to fail
than an avionics master switch.
3. You went from an avionics bus that is worried about a 1A contactor
current to a power conditioning circuit capable of supplying 30 amps? I
think you've got some "scope creep" going on. Look into the Carnetix line
of power conditioners designed to supply computers from an automotive
electrical system, if you really want a power conditioning circuit that has
already been tested in the field. I think you're overbuilding your
avionics system, though.
Dave Morris
At 09:49 AM 11/23/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>
>After reading the thread about Latching Relays instead of contactors, I
>took a closer look at the B&C 701 contactor. I was surprised to see
>that it takes about 1 amp to hold it in operation. This doesn't look
>like a good fit to power an Essential Buss. For example, if I used a
>701 for an essential buss and had a typical radio in receive mode, more
>power would be going into the contactor than the radio.
>
>If I get rid of the contactor, I can double the operational time of the
>radio when on batteries or I can cut the battery size in half.
>
>I decided to design a micro-power solid state relay for my RV8 Avionics
>Buss. This has expanded to an avionics power conditioner. I have
>settled on the following features, but would like your suggestions on
>any omissions that might bite me. I am going to PCB soon.
>
>- 30 Amp total switching in two 15 A circuits (one for critical
>avionics, on for other - with a power out, I don't need two radios)
>- Faston connectors for each load, screw terminal for 30 amp input.
>- Built in circuit breakers for each circuit. Self resetting by cycling
>the avionics power
>- Suitable for wiring to the hot bus (directly to battery)
>- Power conditioning:
> - Load Dump Diode to trap negative swings in system (none in
>this
> System since there are no coils or inductors)
> - MOV to clamp any voltages above +22V
>
>Wiring is:
>
>- IN Thru fusible link directly from battery
> (Screw terminal for #8 wire)
>- Out1/2 Output to Avionics Buss 1, 2 (to fuses for each load)
> (FastOns for #10 wire)
>- SW 1/2 Switch input: Ground to turn on avionics buss 1/2
>- Gnd Mounting holes & optional FastOn
>
>
>It seems that this solves three problems I wanted:
>
>1: Maximum Avionics Essential Buss time - all energy is going into the
>radio, not the contactor.
>
>2: Protecting the radios from noise and potentially damaging and
>expensive transient spikes
>
>3: Ability to simply apply power to the avionics without powering all
>other systems for pre-flight clearances, etc.
>
>So, am I missing anything?
>
>Thanks
>
>Dan Beadle
>RV8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Essential Buss |
>
>
>
>After reading the thread about Latching Relays instead of contactors, I
>took a closer look at the B&C 701 contactor. I was surprised to see
>that it takes about 1 amp to hold it in operation. This doesn't look
>like a good fit to power an Essential Buss. For example, if I used a
>701 for an essential buss and had a typical radio in receive mode, more
>power would be going into the contactor than the radio.
It's not and was never suggested that it be used in that manner.
When the alternator is running, there is power to burn and tossing
of 12w or so in a continuous duty contactor is a non-issue.
Architectures described in the connection bypass all such contactors
in the alternator-out mode. See this discussion in Chapter 17 and
Appendix Z
>If I get rid of the contactor, I can double the operational time of the
>radio when on batteries or I can cut the battery size in half.
Which is exactly what the architectures presented do for you.
If you have an extraordinary e-bus load, Figure Z-32 suggests
a 100 mA alternative to battery contactors for controlling the
battery bus feeder to the e-bus.
>I decided to design a micro-power solid state relay for my RV8 Avionics
>Buss. This has expanded to an avionics power conditioner. I have
>settled on the following features, but would like your suggestions on
>any omissions that might bite me. I am going to PCB soon.
>
>- 30 Amp total switching in two 15 A circuits (one for critical
>avionics, on for other - with a power out, I don't need two radios)
>- Faston connectors for each load, screw terminal for 30 amp input.
>- Built in circuit breakers for each circuit. Self resetting by cycling
>the avionics power
>- Suitable for wiring to the hot bus (directly to battery)
>- Power conditioning:
> - Load Dump Diode to trap negative swings in system (none in
>this
> System since there are no coils or inductors)
> - MOV to clamp any voltages above +22V
>
>Wiring is:
>
>- IN Thru fusible link directly from battery
> (Screw terminal for #8 wire)
>- Out1/2 Output to Avionics Buss 1, 2 (to fuses for each load)
> (FastOns for #10 wire)
>- SW 1/2 Switch input: Ground to turn on avionics buss 1/2
>- Gnd Mounting holes & optional FastOn
>
>
>It seems that this solves three problems I wanted:
>
>1: Maximum Avionics Essential Buss time - all energy is going into the
>radio, not the contactor.
>
>2: Protecting the radios from noise and potentially damaging and
>expensive transient spikes
>
>3: Ability to simply apply power to the avionics without powering all
>other systems for pre-flight clearances, etc.
>
>So, am I missing anything?
Not sure that you missed anything . . . just pondering the return
on $investment$ for the effort. There are lots of really modern, nice
technologies out there capable of doing things with less weight, less
power, more switching options, etc. The real question to ask and answer
is, "How do any of these efforts or technologies help me achieve the
elegant design?"
As I've suggested in the 'Connection and many times here on the list:
My personal design goals are to minimize parts count, minimize numbers
of options that a pilot must consider when things are not operating
normally, and minimizing cost of ownership where part of those costs
include acquisition and installation dollars. For example, the EV200 is
a fine relay. It costs about 4x that of an el-cheeso S701-1. Does its
PERFORMANCE differences justify the extra dollars? If not, do I KNOW that
I'll get 3-4x the service life? At the moment I have no basis for
suggesting
it will last a whole lot longer. If you're crafting a whole new
technology, do you plan to market it? If this is a one-of-a-kind project
only for your airplane, I'll suggest that the return on $investment$
may be exceedingly low. If this is an educational exercise that addresses
your desire to know and experience, then it doesn't matter. ALL educational
endeavors are quite expensive in time and dollars.
I went out to the flight line with a builder at OSH many years ago
who wanted to demonstrate the electrical distribution system in his
Glasair. He was an airline pilot and took some cues from the system-flow
diagrams in the AFM of his Boeing. In this case, he had engraved the same
kind of flow diagram onto the placard that labeled about six switches.
He attempted to explain how this system covered all the bases but in
the few minutes I spent with him, I could not see how he'd made the system
anything but heavier, higher parts count and more complex.
My question to you would be, "Where to you perceive that any one of the
architectures depicted in the 'Connection fall short of the goals you've
outlined for your efforts?" If I have missed something, I'd certainly
like to be aware of it so that it can be rectified.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Prather <mprather(at)spro.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: |
MD200...
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the suggestion. I would like to be convinced of what you are
saying. However, I can't make the costs work out as you say.
430 Install Costs:
GNS-430....$5000 (used) - $6360 (cheapest, new - gaavionics in Georgia)
CDI.............$1650 (Garmin)
Installation....$1600
Total............$8250 - $9660 (depending on whether new/used)
Alternate0:
KLN89B.....$2200 (reconditioned - avionix.com)
CDI.............$1500 (MD200)
Switchbox......$800 (not sure if needed)
Installation....$1600 (SWAG)
Total............$6300
For what I am going to be doing, I don't know if the GNS is $2100-$3300
better than the KLN...
The unit will be installed in the bottom of an old C182A panel.. Don't
know if that means I can get away without a separate annunciator..
A picture of the panel as it sits:
http://www.webpak.net/~mprather/Airplanes/IMG_1656.JPG
The best I could probably do is put the GNS-430 where the KX165 is now,
and move the KX-165 to where the KX-170B is..
Regards,
Matt-
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
>In a message dated 11/22/2005 8:03:40 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>mprather(at)spro.net writes:
>
>I'd still have to buy a CDI
>with a glideslope though, whatever I do (even if I don't add an approach
>GPS).
>
>
>Good Evening Matt,
>
>The 430 is the cheapest way to go. You will need only the CDI and that only
>because the 430 has a localizer and glide slope that need to be connected to
>one. If the Panel Control Unit is within a reasonable line of sight, such as
>in the center or far left of the panel, nothing else is needed.
>
>For an airplane that has no radios at all. The 430 takes care of
>everything. Add a handheld Com and a handheld GPS and you will be loaded for
bear. A
>480 is a very competent machine, but it is a LOT more money and only allows a
>few more approaches. In a few years, there will be a greater need for the
>480 style equipment, but I would suggest waiting for competition before
>purchasing one. Right now, the 480 is the only unit approved under the WAAS
>standards. Of course, if money is no object!!---???
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>AKA
>Bob Siegfried
>Ancient Aviator
>Stearman N3977A
>Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>Downers Grove, IL 60516
>630 985-8503
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A couple of questions |
>
>Bob, I have a 40 AMP alternator and the B&C 20 AMP alternator. I am also
>using the B&C Alternators that go with FIG Z-12, and wiring largely IAW
>Z-12, but rather than have an essential bus I am planning on turning off
>everything that is not needed in the event of a problem. (Most everything
>will run on the 20 amp short of the pitot heat and cabin/landing lights).
>If they are both wired up to feed into the same system will anything
>horrible happen (cook one of the regulators, wiring, radios) if they are
>left on together?
I'm not sure I understand your concerns. If you purchase the B&C 20A
alternator and its companion regulator, then this system is designed
to operated in concert with another alternator as described in Z-12
as well as B&C's installation literature for that product.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Relay Mount |
>
>
>In a message dated 11/23/2005 10:06:58 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>rv-9a-online(at)telus.net writes:
>
>Bob, another issue with the booties is that they interfere with torquing
>the mounting bolts. They will crack before the proper torque is
>achieved. I've chucked my B&C contactors for this reason.
>
>Vern Little
>RV-9A
>
>
>Good Morning Vern,
>
>That brings up the question as to how we are determining "proper " torque?
>
>To have the attaching hardware stretched to just short of it's elastic limit
>is one type of "torque". To squeeze a plastic such as the booties to a
>point where no creeping or cracking is another form of "proper" torque. If
>elastic stop nuts are used for attachment of the booted device, they
>should hold
>adequately at whatever point is determined to be optimum for the subject
>fastening.
>
>The term "torque to specification" is often used without proper regard to
>what it is that we are trying to accomplish.
Exactly. When I design joints that have compressibility, I'll
call out an all metal locknut. Drive the threaded fasteners together
such that all the slack is out. Finally I'll specify some amount of
additional rotation beyond the zero-slack point where thread pitch
and rotation set the crush value.
Stancor's choice of plastic in this instance is truly mystifying.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
rvlist(at)matronics.com, rv6-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Re: GX60 internal battery |
Just called Garmin-AT - got lucky.....
There is a difference between dead battery and needs service....the needs service
indicates that the unit is charging the battery and could vent into the system.
If the battery was dead I would have gotten a different error message.
According to the service technician......
Good news is that since my airplane has not flown - it is still covered by warranty...great
- allows me to test prior to first flight.
Ralph Capen
RV6A N822AR N06 90% 90%
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GX60 internal battery
Fellow listers,
I am getting an error message stating that my internal battery needs service in
my GX60. The unit continues to function - I just have to press the msg button
every few minutes.
This only started since I upgraded the datacard - that may be coincidental though.
Anyone else seen this? Is it home-repairable...with the correct battery? I have
done some miniature soldering so I could probably do it......
The archives show some of the portable units needing a similar repair - being done
by the owner. Sure would save some RV gas money!
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: |
MD200...
On 23 Nov 2005, at 12:12, Matt Prather wrote:
>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. I would like to be convinced of what
> you are
> saying. However, I can't make the costs work out as you say.
>
> 430 Install Costs:
> GNS-430....$5000 (used) - $6360 (cheapest, new - gaavionics in
> Georgia)
> CDI.............$1650 (Garmin)
> Installation....$1600
> Total............$8250 - $9660 (depending on whether new/used)
>
> Alternate0:
> KLN89B.....$2200 (reconditioned - avionix.com)
> CDI.............$1500 (MD200)
> Switchbox......$800 (not sure if needed)
> Installation....$1600 (SWAG)
> Total............$6300
>
> For what I am going to be doing, I don't know if the GNS is $2100-
> $3300
> better than the KLN...
If you want to do a fair comparison, you need to add a NAV/COM with
glideslope to Alternate0. Or, price out a GPS 400 instead of the GNS
430 (the 400 is a 430 without the NAV/COM). As for pricing, I would
have thought you could do better than that. I purchased a new GNS
430 for less than $6000 from Stark Avionics in 2002. GNS 430 prices
were on the way down at that time.
Mid-Continent Instruments makes the Garmin CDIs - they are clones of
the MD200. You can use the MD200 with the Garmin avionics.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | How to Wire a ND Alternator |
WIRING DIAGRAM:
http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/2122/altwiring4ty.jpg
How do you shut the alternator off?....with a breaker
switch? If so, how do you connect a large wire to those
switch terminals?
OTHER REFS
Niagara has a good dwg showing the warning light (ND w/
out remote volt sense)
http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf
More specific ND info (wiring) troubleshooting as installed
in a Toyota http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h8.pdf
(not all ND alternators have remote V sense)
You will need two/three circuit breakers and or fuses /
fusible links (CB):
-B-LEAD: CB 5-10 amps greater than Alt's rated output
(pull-able type CB required)
-IGN LEAD: CB 5 amp (pull-able type recommended)
-Warning light: use a small fuse/ CB.
-Voltage sense: Fusible link would be good if connected to
battery, or
-Optional V sense wiring to buss use fuse/cb or fusible link.
It's critical you turn the alternator ON before starting the
engine and leave it on until you shut the engine down
(alternator not turning). There are 3 or 4 wires on ND
alternators, depending on the model. They all wire in a
similar fashion except some have a remote voltage sense:
B-lead: Output should be routed direct to a Circuit Breaker
on the panel and than to your main electrical buss or
positive side the battery. Usually the battery and alternator
leads meet at the main buss, since they both are a source of
power (critical never run the alternator with out the battery
connected). Some claim that if you use a CB on the panel
you will get electrical noise. This is plan flat not true. Wire
Gage 6 AWG .
The IGN wire: (This is not a FIELD WIRE) IT DOES NOT
TURN THE ALTERNATOR ON AND OFF. What turns
the alternator ON and OFF normally is starting and shutting
the engine down (spinning the alternator pulley). You wire
the IGN wire to the main buss thru a CB or fuse. A pull-
able CB is best. What the IGN wire does is tell the
regulator to wake-up or go to sleep. IT IS NOT MEANT or
DESIGNED TO TURN THE ALTERNATOR ON OR
OFF WHILE IT IS RUNNING (even though it may do this
you can't count on it if the regulator fails). In the event the
alternator needs to be isolated from the aircraft
(electrically), you pull the B-lead CB in the PANEL,
PERIOD end of story. I recommend a DPST switch for the
ALT/BAT (double poll single throw). That way with the
DPST switch you are always sure the alternator and BATT
are turned on/off together. YOU MUST NOT TURN THE
IGN WIRE OFF OR THE BATTERY MASTER OFF
WHILE THE OTHER IS ON. With the Cessna split switch
you can turn the alternator on / off accidentally while the
alternator is energized and under load. Wire gage 18-20
AWG (I tend to make 18 AWG min gage for wires hanging
off the engine.)
The only time you want to remove power from the IGN
wire while flying is if the alternator has a problem, BUT
your first and primary action is to pull the B-lead CB first.
Remember you DON'T normally turn the alternator on / off
unless typically one of the following occurs:
The voltage is too high
The voltage is too low (dead)
The voltage is irregular or unstable
(Note: Highly recommend a good high/Lo voltage indicator
on panel)
Now if the alternator is dead and no longer needed, you
already pulled the BIG CB on the panel for the B-lead,
isolating the alternator, you now can pull the CB for the
ALT or IGN wire, avoiding possible unnecessary drain to
the regulator if you like. This is how it works in cars, which
these alternators designed for. You don't shut the alternator
down in a car do you? No.
L or LIGHT (WARNING): This should be hooked up. Van
omits this and leaves it disconnected. This is a mistake in
my opinion. It is not only a "no charging" light, it's a fault
light for the voltage regulator (VR). The VR is a
microprocessor and can send a fault signal out and turn the
light on. Use it. Any 12 V bulb will work. If you use a LED
you need a DROP DOWN resistor, or use a LED that
already has the resistor and made for 12 volts. Wire gage
18-20 AWG (I tend to make 18 AWG min gage for wires
hanging off the engine.)
Remote Voltage sense: This is meant to wire direct to the
POS terminal of the battery. However Van again simplifies
the wiring and just ties it together with the IGN wire at the
alternator plug. You cannot leave the remote sense dis-
connected or the alternator will not work properly. It is a
good idea to use it as designed. If you do the Van
recommend piggy backing onto the IGN wire it will work,
but the voltage output may be 0.10 volt higher at the
battery. I also think (not 100%) the voltage regulator looks
at the B-lead voltage and the remote sense to provide better
short detection and protection. Remember the VR is a
microprocessor and it looks at the alternator and the wiring
connected to it for shorts. I would use it if you have it. Cost
and weight of a wire and a fuse/link is nil. Wire gage 18-20
AWG; since you want min voltage drop use 18 AWG.
Typical set-point (voltage) is 14.5 volts on ND alternators.
This is the perfect voltage for both lead acid, SLA or AGM.
The Odyssey is a SLA (sealed lead acid) or AGM
(absorbed glass mat). The two terms are interchangeable
and basically same thing. They are also recumbent batteries
(sealed electrolyte). Per Odyssey technical info, charge
voltage should not be less than 14.2 or more than 15.0
volts.
The whole post is found on Vansairforce.net
vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?p=23385#post23385
There is an interesting link to a thread about an OV case with
a ND alternator at the bottom of the above post.
George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Latching power relays? |
>How is the latching feature attractive to you? Where would
>you use it?
Bob:
You use it for a master. It is attractive because it uses less
power than the inefficient old heavy metal cased relay that gets
too hot to touch after a minute. A "latching" relay like
suggested is a good alternative,
http://www.bluesea.com/dept.asp?d_id=6619&l1=7958&l2=6607
, also as Eric suggested. I hate the idea of a little heat bomb
wasting power. George
>Subject: Re: Latching power relays?
>posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>>AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jon Goguen
>>
>>
>>I'm wondering if there is any data or experience regarding
>>the use of
>>modern latching power relays like those made by KG
>>Technology or Gruner
>>in light aircraft. These seem to have good resistance to
>>shock >and vibration.
>>>
>>Jon
>>
>How is the latching feature attractive to you? Where would
>you use it?
>
>Bob . . .
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: |
MD200...
In a message dated 11/23/2005 11:17:30 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather(at)spro.net writes:
For what I am going to be doing, I don't know if the GNS is $2100-$3300
better than the KLN...
The unit will be installed in the bottom of an old C182A panel.. Don't
know if that means I can get away without a separate annunciator..
A picture of the panel as it sits:
http://www.webpak.net/~mprather/Airplanes/IMG_1656.JPG
The best I could probably do is put the GNS-430 where the KX165 is now,
and move the KX-165 to where the KX-170B is..
Good Morning Matt,
When you are putting it in place of another VHF NAV radio, the economics
won't work out as well. The 430 is the cheapest way to go when you have NO
other radios in the airplane.
Unfortunately, even the very best condition KX170B is not worth much used.
I have installed several Trimble 2000 Approach Plus units doing what you are
suggesting, however, I do the installation myself!
I also do not use any annunciator at all but I do use a dedicated CDI. MCI
originally priced those at four hundred bucks. When they discovered they were
the only game in town, the price went up to well over a grand. It is still
my opinion that I could get a KLN 89B or a Trimble certificated without a
CDI, but it would take a lot of personal effort and if you have to pay someone
to argue with the FEDs, it probably wouldn't be financially viable.
Obviously, in order to get it certificated without a CDI, the Panel Control
Unit would have to be in the "normal" pilot scan.
You might check with J.A. Air Center at DuPage County Airport in the
Suburban Chicago area about the pricing for a KLN 89B. Year before last, they
were
selling freshly rebuilt KLN 89Bs at Oshkosh for less than nine hundred bucks!
I don't know if that included the antenna and sleeve, but I know that had a
bunch of them very cheap.
They do advertise in Trade a Plane and may have an 800 number. Their local
number is 630 584-3200. If you call them, ask for Greg Bernicus.
_gbernickus(at)jaair.com_ (mailto:gbernickus(at)jaair.com) is his E-mail address.
Tell Greg I told you about the cheap 89Bs!
There really is no good economical way to get an IFR unit, but if you can
afford it, the 430 or 480 is probably the best. The installation costs are
about the same for any of them unless you want to fight for the non CDI method.
Unfortunately, you probably won't find a radio shop that wants to bother.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator terminals |
Haven't gotten any feedback from anyone yet. More investigation on my part
has turned up some additional info -- here is an auto wiring diagram for the
alternator.
http://www.rx7.org/jes/images/altsys91.jpg
I presume the "B/W" lead corresponds to the "B" lead from the Z diagrams.
The remaining L and S remain confusing to me -- obviously I need to use one
of them (how to tell them apart on the connector is problem for the future.)
Still looking for an insightful someone to stear me in the right
direction...
Mark
Hello all-
I'm getting ready to wire my alternator and have discovered that I have no
idea how to identify the terminals from the Z draw on the actual alternator
itself! This is an 80 Amp Mitsubishi alternator which is the stock unit for
a Mazda 13B Rotary engine.
A picture of the unit can be seen at:
http://www.rx7.org/jes/images/DSCN1193(1024).jpg
If someone in-the-know could please take a look & tell me which is which, I
would sure appreciate it.
Thanks,
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Peter Laurence" <Dr.Laurence(at)mbdi.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Essential Buss |
>
> A few things to consider:
>
> 1. Why do you power your essential bus through a contactor? In the event
I agree. The Battery bus should come directly off the battery.
And.. Why use a battery contactor at all? A manual battery switch solves
this "problem" . One can place the swtich on the firewall and access it with
a "key" on a extension through the Panel. After shutsown, remove the key.
Hide in the plane or take it with you.
Peter Laurence
Rv9 A wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Latching power relays? |
>How is the latching feature attractive to you? Where would
>you use it?
Bob:
You use it for a master. It is attractive because it uses less
power than the inefficient old heavy metal cased relay that gets
too hot to touch after a minute. A "latching" relay like
suggested is a good alternative,
http://www.bluesea.com/dept.asp?d_id=6619&l1=7958&l2=6607
, also as Eric suggested. I hate the idea of a little heat bomb
wasting power. George
>Subject: Re: Latching power relays?
>posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>>AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jon Goguen
>>
>>
>>I'm wondering if there is any data or experience regarding
>>the use of
>>modern latching power relays like those made by KG
>>Technology or Gruner
>>in light aircraft. These seem to have good resistance to
>>shock >and vibration.
>>>
>>Jon
>>
>How is the latching feature attractive to you? Where would
>you use it?
>
>Bob . . .
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: |
MD200...
In a message dated 11/23/2005 11:17:30 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather(at)spro.net writes:
Thanks for the suggestion. I would like to be convinced of what you are
saying. However, I can't make the costs work out as you say.
One more thing! Are you any relation to the Prather who works at the Chicago
FAA Regional office? I think he is in the engine side of the engineering
office. Seems to be a very decent guy.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Prather <mprather(at)spro.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: |
MD200...
Good Day Bob,
We are now on the same page.. Thanks for all of the comments and ideas.
Regards,
Matt-
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
>In a message dated 11/23/2005 11:17:30 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>mprather(at)spro.net writes:
>
>For what I am going to be doing, I don't know if the GNS is $2100-$3300
>better than the KLN...
>
>The unit will be installed in the bottom of an old C182A panel.. Don't
>know if that means I can get away without a separate annunciator..
>
>A picture of the panel as it sits:
>
>http://www.webpak.net/~mprather/Airplanes/IMG_1656.JPG
>
>The best I could probably do is put the GNS-430 where the KX165 is now,
>and move the KX-165 to where the KX-170B is..
>
>
>Good Morning Matt,
>
>When you are putting it in place of another VHF NAV radio, the economics
>won't work out as well. The 430 is the cheapest way to go when you have NO
>other radios in the airplane.
>
>Unfortunately, even the very best condition KX170B is not worth much used.
>
>I have installed several Trimble 2000 Approach Plus units doing what you are
>suggesting, however, I do the installation myself!
>
>I also do not use any annunciator at all but I do use a dedicated CDI. MCI
>originally priced those at four hundred bucks. When they discovered they were
>the only game in town, the price went up to well over a grand. It is still
>my opinion that I could get a KLN 89B or a Trimble certificated without a
>CDI, but it would take a lot of personal effort and if you have to pay someone
>to argue with the FEDs, it probably wouldn't be financially viable.
>
>Obviously, in order to get it certificated without a CDI, the Panel Control
>Unit would have to be in the "normal" pilot scan.
>
>You might check with J.A. Air Center at DuPage County Airport in the
>Suburban Chicago area about the pricing for a KLN 89B. Year before last, they
were
>selling freshly rebuilt KLN 89Bs at Oshkosh for less than nine hundred bucks!
>I don't know if that included the antenna and sleeve, but I know that had a
>bunch of them very cheap.
>
>They do advertise in Trade a Plane and may have an 800 number. Their local
>number is 630 584-3200. If you call them, ask for Greg Bernicus.
>_gbernickus(at)jaair.com_ (mailto:gbernickus(at)jaair.com) is his E-mail address.
>
>Tell Greg I told you about the cheap 89Bs!
>
>There really is no good economical way to get an IFR unit, but if you can
>afford it, the 430 or 480 is probably the best. The installation costs are
>about the same for any of them unless you want to fight for the non CDI method.
>Unfortunately, you probably won't find a radio shop that wants to bother.
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>AKA
>Bob Siegfried
>Ancient Aviator
>Stearman N3977A
>Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>Downers Grove, IL 60516
>630 985-8503
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Too-close radio reception |
Have recently been doing some close formation work- Transmissions from
adjacent aircraft are often badly garbled as if the signal into the antenna is
overloading the radio- same transmissions sound fine when quarter mile away. Any
explanation and possible "fix"? Pehaps some way to reduce power of signal at
coax connection on back of radio? Other plane always reports my transmissions
as loud&clear. (Microair 760) Have tried changing relative position of
plane to compensate for antenna location with no obvious affect.
Mark Phillips - Columbia, TN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Essential Buss |
I'm planning a manual battery contactor in my RV ... what source do you use
for purchase? What do you use for the extension to fit the key to?
Thanks ... Jerry Grimmonpre' RV8A
>
>
>>
>> A few things to consider:
>>
>> 1. Why do you power your essential bus through a contactor? In the event
>
> I agree. The Battery bus should come directly off the battery.
>
> And.. Why use a battery contactor at all? A manual battery switch solves
> this "problem" . One can place the swtich on the firewall and access it
> with
> a "key" on a extension through the Panel. After shutsown, remove the key.
> Hide in the plane or take it with you.
>
> Peter Laurence
> Rv9 A wings
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Velcro vs Ty-Wraps |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
I have been reading on thread of how to bundle stuff without abraision.
As far as I read I didn't really see anyone mention Koroseal. I am using
both below on Europa build. If one were to in addition read on Ashley book
of knots "Look Out"!!
Koroseal Lacing
Excellent lacing material. Permanently flexible. Resists oxidation,
impervious to petroleum products. Holds tension on knots indefinitely.
Perfect for holding wire bundles, tubing, etc. Rectangular cross-section
3/32" x 5/32".
NYLON LACING TAPES
These braided nylon lacing tapes feature a crystalline wax with a high
melting point which prevents a waxy feel when using. Meets specification.
085" wide. 500 yd. rolls. MIL-T43435B, Type 1, Size 3, Finish B.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Lacing, a lost art? |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
I have been reading on thread of how to bundle stuff without abraision.
As far as I read I didn't really see anyone mention Koroseal. I am using
both below on Europa build. If one were to in addition read on Ashley book
of knots "Look Out"!!
Koroseal Lacing
Excellent lacing material. Permanently flexible. Resists oxidation,
impervious to petroleum products. Holds tension on knots indefinitely.
Perfect for holding wire bundles, tubing, etc. Rectangular cross-section
3/32" x 5/32".
NYLON LACING TAPES
These braided nylon lacing tapes feature a crystalline wax with a high
melting point which prevents a waxy feel when using. Meets specification.
085" wide. 500 yd. rolls. MIL-T43435B, Type 1, Size 3, Finish B.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Velcro vs Ty-Wraps |
In a message dated 11/23/2005 3:01:41 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US writes:
As far as I read I didn't really see anyone mention Koroseal. I am using
both below on Europa build. If one were to in addition read on Ashley book
of knots "Look Out"!!
Koroseal Lacing
Excellent lacing material. Permanently flexible. Resists oxidation,
impervious to petroleum products. Holds tension on knots indefinitely.
Perfect for holding wire bundles, tubing, etc. Rectangular cross-section
3/32" x 5/32".
I use it and love it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Avionics Essential Buss |
Jerry,
I haven't gotten to this stage yet. However, Google Auto racing and/or
marine stores. As far as the extension. That'll depend on what the key
material is. Once in hand, it should not be to difficult to fab.
One source is
http://www.onlinemarine.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online_superstore/electri
cal/blue_seas_battery_switches.htm?L+scstore+jydj5689fffa20fa+1132790006#900
4eUL%20Listed%202%20Position%20Battery%20Switch%20with%20AFD
-----Original Message-----
I'm planning a manual battery contactor in my RV ... what source do you use
for purchase? What do you use for the extension to fit the key to?
Thanks ... Jerry Grimmonpre' RV8A
>
>
>>
>> A few things to consider:
>>
>> 1. Why do you power your essential bus through a contactor? In the event
>
> I agree. The Battery bus should come directly off the battery.
>
> And.. Why use a battery contactor at all? A manual battery switch solves
> this "problem" . One can place the swtich on the firewall and access it
> with
> a "key" on a extension through the Panel. After shutsown, remove the key.
> Hide in the plane or take it with you.
>
> Peter Laurence
> Rv9 A wings
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Essential Buss |
>
>I'm planning a manual battery contactor in my RV ... what source do you use
>for purchase? What do you use for the extension to fit the key to?
>Thanks ... Jerry Grimmonpre' RV8A
The only manual battery switches I've seen were (1) manual
high current switches located on front side of passenger seat
frame when battery was under the passenger's seat and (2)
high current battery switches fitted with bell-crank so that
pushing-pulling with a Bowden control will operate the switch.
For greatest safety, make it PULL-OFF so that a panic disconnect
action doesn't buckle the push-wire and fail to operate the switch.
Keys are a pain in the arse whether used to control battery or
ignition. If someone wants your airplane, key switches are a minor
nuisance. Go for the hardened steel chain and padlock on a prop.
See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/AC_Theft_Protection.jpg
I once brought a rental plane home after having lost the keys (The
cabin door wasn't locked). I broke the terminals loose from the backs
of both mags through the oil filler door. Hand-propped the airplane
and flew it home. Didn't need to have the battery master on.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Essential Buss |
'lectric Bob ...
Check this ... and see if any of these would fit up to an RV for use as
battery contactor + field disconnect and would it be prudent to use such a
contactor for a dual purpose like this?
http://us.binnacle.com/online/dept.asp?dept%5Fid=3040
Thanks for your help Bob ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
RV8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Latching power relays? |
>
> >How is the latching feature attractive to you? Where would
> >you use it?
>
> Bob:
> You use it for a master. It is attractive because it uses less
>power than the inefficient old heavy . . .
These look like the Tyco/Kilovac EV200. Hard telling
who exactly makes them but it appears lots of folks
are selling them. The Blue Sea data doesn't quote a weight
that I saw but the T/K-EV200 is spec'd at 0.95 pounds.
An S702-1 (White-Rogers/Stancor) weighs 0.80 pounds so it
appears that the T/K-EV200 is about 2.4 ounces HEAVIER
than the S702-1.
>metal cased relay that gets too hot to touch after a minute.
There are lots of things on the airplane that get too
hot to touch. If I never have a desire or need to touch them,
why is operating temperature a concern as long as it doesn't
significantly impact service life or load analysis?
>A "latching"(?) relay like suggested is a good alternative,
>
> http://www.bluesea.com/dept.asp?d_id=6619&l1=7958&l2=6607
>
>also as Eric suggested. I hate the idea of a little heat bomb
>wasting power.
"Wasting power" is a good thing to minimize. But let's carry
this to the ultimate exercise. Electronic controlled fuel
injection and electronic ignition will produce a much greater
improvement in system performance (BTUs burned for miles traversed).
Also, going to a water cooled engine will give you another big
boost in savings. Increasing all power carrying wires by 3 wire
gage steps will "save" more than 12w tossed off in "heavy little
heat bombs". Changing from lead-acid to ni-cad will increase charging
efficiencies and "save" lots of Joules of energy tossed off
in the higher internal impedance of a lead-acid product. One
could replace all the power silicon diodes in the alternator
with Schottky devices and "save" perhaps 30 or more watts
(0.04 H.P.).
It's not that the EV-200 style contactor isn't a good product.
It all comes down to return on investment. How many dollars and
hours is one willing to expend to achieve some design goal?
When the water meter is running, one is relatively uninhibited for
flushing the toilets and taking long showers. When the water main
is broken, then whatever is stored in the toilet tanks and hot
water heater is what's available to you for whatever purpose.
The modus-operandi is adjusted accordingly. Kansas is dotted
with home wind powered generators that are supposed to "save"
in some manner. Not one owner I've talked to has ever achieved
"break-even" on his investment and he's got numbers on bills
to prove it. The real winners were the electric coops who
buy locally generated wind power at wholesale with no
investment in plant . . . an infinite return on zero investment.
I'm having problems understanding where the return
on investment comes from by substituting the EV-200 for the older
technology . . . unless the design goals have changed. Do you
NEED hermetically sealed contacts for some reason? Is the extra
8-10 watts tossed off by the older technology likely to become
a consideration in how you operate your airplane either normally
or in an alternator out situation?
My perception is that tossing off 8 extra watts in an older
style contactor simply grates on one's sensibilities and (like
picking upholstery cloth and paint schemes) is purely a matter
of taste . . . again not a bad thing. But let us be clear as
to trade-offs, design goals and reasons for selecting one product
in favor of another. The reasons cited thus far are unconvincing.
A few more killobux invested in the water cooled engine will
produce a demonstrable improvement in operating efficiency and
if one keeps the airplane long enough, may even have a positive return
on investment. Benefits for investing $100 in an EV-200 are still not
so clear.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven DiNieri" <capsteve(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Latching power relays? |
The literature states that the unit produces 0v counter emf. This may
suggest that the quenching diodes may not be necessary. The built in "coil
economizer" stated in the lit may be sufficient isolation.
Steven dinieri
N221rv
N231rv
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 923te
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Latching power relays?
Hi George,
I like the idea of the relay you suggest. Do you know how one would hook up
diodes on it? Where is a good place to purchase it?
>
> Better than a Latching is this device:
>
> http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/datasheets/ev200.pdf
>
> 0.13 amp current to hold,
> Huge current rating,
> 20G shock,
> light wt.
>
> It does not "Latch" it is held with by electromagnetic
>
> The good part is if power is removed it opens as a safety feature. If
you have a
> latched master and can't control it with out power I could see a
possible
> scenarios where this would be bad news.
>
> George
>
>
> >From: Jon Goguen <jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu>
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Latching power relays?
> >
> >
> >
> >I'm wondering if there is any data or experience regarding the use of
> >modern latching power relays like those made by KG Technology or Gruner
> >in light aircraft. These seem to have good resistance to shock and
> >vibration.
> >
> >Jon
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter11(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Latching power relays? |
Bob,
I'm looking at saving 2 amps here and 2 amps there so I can be full IFR and
night, with John Deere PM alternator at about 35 amps.
For that reason, I want low power "big relays" and low power LED lights
whereever I can install them.
I'm not worried about heat or wasted anything - just trying to do the Apollo
13 thing - cut the total amp draw to reduce the load to fit my "not so big"
PM alternator.
I think maybe others just haven't expressed it this way. If you have a big
alternator and excess current, who cares? Unless there might be some issue
of reliability of big "standard" relays - again, we can "go theoretical" and
worry about reliability when reliability may be just fine with the old "big
iron" relays. I wont' go there - just counting amps in my own personal
case.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Latching power relays?
>
>
>
>>
>> >How is the latching feature attractive to you? Where would
>> >you use it?
>>
>> Bob:
>> You use it for a master. It is attractive because it uses less
>>power than the inefficient old heavy . . .
>
>
> These look like the Tyco/Kilovac EV200. Hard telling
> who exactly makes them but it appears lots of folks
> are selling them. The Blue Sea data doesn't quote a weight
> that I saw but the T/K-EV200 is spec'd at 0.95 pounds.
> An S702-1 (White-Rogers/Stancor) weighs 0.80 pounds so it
> appears that the T/K-EV200 is about 2.4 ounces HEAVIER
> than the S702-1.
>
>
>>metal cased relay that gets too hot to touch after a minute.
>
> There are lots of things on the airplane that get too
> hot to touch. If I never have a desire or need to touch them,
> why is operating temperature a concern as long as it doesn't
> significantly impact service life or load analysis?
>
>>A "latching"(?) relay like suggested is a good alternative,
>>
>> http://www.bluesea.com/dept.asp?d_id=6619&l1=7958&l2=6607
>>
>>also as Eric suggested. I hate the idea of a little heat bomb
>>wasting power.
>
>
> "Wasting power" is a good thing to minimize. But let's carry
> this to the ultimate exercise. Electronic controlled fuel
> injection and electronic ignition will produce a much greater
> improvement in system performance (BTUs burned for miles traversed).
> Also, going to a water cooled engine will give you another big
> boost in savings. Increasing all power carrying wires by 3 wire
> gage steps will "save" more than 12w tossed off in "heavy little
> heat bombs". Changing from lead-acid to ni-cad will increase charging
> efficiencies and "save" lots of Joules of energy tossed off
> in the higher internal impedance of a lead-acid product. One
> could replace all the power silicon diodes in the alternator
> with Schottky devices and "save" perhaps 30 or more watts
> (0.04 H.P.).
>
> It's not that the EV-200 style contactor isn't a good product.
> It all comes down to return on investment. How many dollars and
> hours is one willing to expend to achieve some design goal?
>
> When the water meter is running, one is relatively uninhibited for
> flushing the toilets and taking long showers. When the water main
> is broken, then whatever is stored in the toilet tanks and hot
> water heater is what's available to you for whatever purpose.
> The modus-operandi is adjusted accordingly. Kansas is dotted
> with home wind powered generators that are supposed to "save"
> in some manner. Not one owner I've talked to has ever achieved
> "break-even" on his investment and he's got numbers on bills
> to prove it. The real winners were the electric coops who
> buy locally generated wind power at wholesale with no
> investment in plant . . . an infinite return on zero investment.
>
> I'm having problems understanding where the return
> on investment comes from by substituting the EV-200 for the older
> technology . . . unless the design goals have changed. Do you
> NEED hermetically sealed contacts for some reason? Is the extra
> 8-10 watts tossed off by the older technology likely to become
> a consideration in how you operate your airplane either normally
> or in an alternator out situation?
>
> My perception is that tossing off 8 extra watts in an older
> style contactor simply grates on one's sensibilities and (like
> picking upholstery cloth and paint schemes) is purely a matter
> of taste . . . again not a bad thing. But let us be clear as
> to trade-offs, design goals and reasons for selecting one product
> in favor of another. The reasons cited thus far are unconvincing.
> A few more killobux invested in the water cooled engine will
> produce a demonstrable improvement in operating efficiency and
> if one keeps the airplane long enough, may even have a positive return
> on investment. Benefits for investing $100 in an EV-200 are still not
> so clear.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Essential Buss |
>
>'lectric Bob ...
>Check this ... and see if any of these would fit up to an RV for use as
>battery contactor + field disconnect and would it be prudent to use such a
>contactor for a dual purpose like this?
>
>http://us.binnacle.com/online/dept.asp?dept%5Fid=3040
>
>Thanks for your help Bob ...
What's your design goal? Where do you find the battery
control technologies installed in 200,000+ PipBeCesMo
for 60 years to be inadequate to your need?
The switches you've cited will function as described.
The question is what you're wanting to achieve by their
use and what are the weight, operational and cost of
ownership tradeoffs.
It's not whether they will "work" . . . it's a sorting
of simple ideas that suggest incorporation of this
product will satisfy a goal that the traditional
technology cannot.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Latching power relays? |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I'm looking at saving 2 amps here and 2 amps there so I can be full IFR and
>night, with John Deere PM alternator at about 35 amps.
>
>For that reason, I want low power "big relays" and low power LED lights
>whereever I can install them.
>
>I'm not worried about heat or wasted anything - just trying to do the Apollo
>13 thing - cut the total amp draw to reduce the load to fit my "not so big"
>PM alternator.
>
>I think maybe others just haven't expressed it this way. If you have a big
>alternator and excess current, who cares? Unless there might be some issue
>of reliability of big "standard" relays - again, we can "go theoretical" and
>worry about reliability when reliability may be just fine with the old "big
>iron" relays. I wont' go there - just counting amps in my own personal
>case.
>
>David
Have you accomplished the load analysis so that the decisions can
be sized for return on investment? The largest full up IFR load
I've calculated to date for a light 14v aircraft was 27 amps. If
I took out the S702-1 and put in an EV200, the load would drop to
about 26.3 amps. Where else do you expect to "save" on loads and
what is your goal?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | "HAPPY THANKSGIVING" |
0.0000(at)roxy.matronics.com, 1.0000(at)roxy.matronics.com,
-4.4912(at)roxy.matronics.com
Thanksgiving
'Twas the night of Thanksgiving ~ But I just couldn't sleep,
I tried counting backwards ~ I tried counting sheep ...
The leftovers beckoned ~ The dark meat and white,
But I fought the temptation ~ With all of my might ...
Tossing and turning with anticipation
The thought of a snack became infatuation
So, I raced to the kitchen, flung open the door
And gazed at the fridge, full of goodies galore
Gobbled up turkey and buttered potatoes
Pickles and carrots, beans and tomatoes
I felt myself swelling so plump and so round
'Til all of a sudden, I rose off the ground!
I crashed through the ceiling, Floating into the sky
With a mouthful of pudding, And a handful of pie
But I managed to yell as I soared past the trees
(In the T8F of course)
Happy eating to all! Pass the cranberries, Please!
May your stuffing be tasty, May your turkey be plump
May your potatoes' n Gravy, Have nary a lump
May your yams be delicious, May your pies take the prize
May your thanksgiving dinner stay off your thighs!
May your Thanksgiving Be Blessed!
"The BYARS FAMILY"
1949 Luscombe T8F
N2201B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912
Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Paul McAllister"
<>
11/24/2005
Hello Paul, I had an RF interference problem in my KIS TR-1 composite
airplane -- I won't bother you with the details.
My solution was so simple, basic, crude, un analytical and inexpensive that
I am almost embarassed to describe it to you. What I did is just buy a bunch
of split ferrite beads and spread them liberally aroung in various places
and the problem went away.
If you research ferrite split beads on the internet you will find that they
are a staple in the ham radio community and their construction (material)
and other characteristics can be highly technical in nature. I didn't get
too deeply involved in that.
I got my beads from Surplus Sales of Nebraska
http://www.surplussales.com/FerSplit/FerSplit-1.html. Phone: 402-346-4750.
Item number ICH-264-3164251. $2.00 each (the cheapest). I installed them
just by wrapping
them with black plastic tape.
One of these days when I get real curious I will start removing them one by
one to see if the problems come back and to get a better handle on the
source. I
suspect that the problem came from antenna radiations getting into my
systems at certain frequencies.
OC
PS: I don't have much hope for making the Navaid more resistant to RF. It is
a real sieve / sponge. I'll put in a Tru Trak or Trio control unit in some
day.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912
I have a lot of subscriptions. My Wall Street Journal costs about $175 a
year; the Seattle Times another $135 or so. Then there are the business and
professional magazines, and the science and technology and political
periodicals, and the flying related magazines such as AOPA Pilot, EAA's
Sport Aviation, Plane & Pilot, Flying, Private Pilot, GA News, Kit Planes,
Light Plane Maintenance, and a few others that I can't think of at the
moment.
The point is that I spend well over a thousand dollars a year on newspaper
and magazine subscriptions, and none of them come close to giving me the
immediately useful information and entertainment that I get from just the
few of Matt's lists that I subscribe to. AOPA Pilot doesn't tell me as much
about flying experimental airplanes as just a few of test pilot Kevin
Horton's posts to the RV list do. Kit Planes doesn't come close to telling
me as much about building an RV as Sam Buchanan's or Dan Checkoway's web
sites do, which of course I would never have known about had it not been for
Matt's RV list. But I think the most impressive service that Matt brings to
us is Bob Nuckolls on the Aeroelectric list. I am constantly amazed at the
solid knowledge and patient good will that Bob brings to us about wiring
little airplanes, and he does it for free. I have learned much more from Bob
than the aeroelectric list name would suggest.
I may not have had the fortitude to keep plugging along on the great project
had it not been for the help and inspiration I get from reading the posts
from you guys who have gone before or the many who have started after and
already passed me by.
So let Matt know that he makes your life better. Send him some money, and
sleep soundly with a clear conscience, knowing that you have done your part
to support truth, justice, and the airplane builder's way.
Terry
RV-8A #80829
Finishing?
I promise it will fly someday.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter11(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Contributions |
Well said. Here, here. (or, is it, "Hear, hear" or "Hear here"?) Me, too.
I agree!!!!
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Contributions
>
>
> I have a lot of subscriptions. My Wall Street Journal costs about $175 a
> year; the Seattle Times another $135 or so. Then there are the business
> and
> professional magazines, and the science and technology and political
> periodicals, and the flying related magazines such as AOPA Pilot, EAA's
> Sport Aviation, Plane & Pilot, Flying, Private Pilot, GA News, Kit Planes,
> Light Plane Maintenance, and a few others that I can't think of at the
> moment.
>
>
> The point is that I spend well over a thousand dollars a year on newspaper
> and magazine subscriptions, and none of them come close to giving me the
> immediately useful information and entertainment that I get from just the
> few of Matt's lists that I subscribe to. AOPA Pilot doesn't tell me as
> much
> about flying experimental airplanes as just a few of test pilot Kevin
> Horton's posts to the RV list do. Kit Planes doesn't come close to telling
> me as much about building an RV as Sam Buchanan's or Dan Checkoway's web
> sites do, which of course I would never have known about had it not been
> for
> Matt's RV list. But I think the most impressive service that Matt brings
> to
> us is Bob Nuckolls on the Aeroelectric list. I am constantly amazed at the
> solid knowledge and patient good will that Bob brings to us about wiring
> little airplanes, and he does it for free. I have learned much more from
> Bob
> than the aeroelectric list name would suggest.
>
>
> I may not have had the fortitude to keep plugging along on the great
> project
> had it not been for the help and inspiration I get from reading the posts
> from you guys who have gone before or the many who have started after and
> already passed me by.
>
>
> So let Matt know that he makes your life better. Send him some money, and
> sleep soundly with a clear conscience, knowing that you have done your
> part
> to support truth, justice, and the airplane builder's way.
>
>
> Terry
>
> RV-8A #80829
>
> Finishing?
>
>
> I promise it will fly someday.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator terminals |
>
>
>Haven't gotten any feedback from anyone yet. More investigation on my part
>has turned up some additional info -- here is an auto wiring diagram for the
>alternator.
>
>http://www.rx7.org/jes/images/altsys91.jpg
>
>I presume the "B/W" lead corresponds to the "B" lead from the Z diagrams.
>The remaining L and S remain confusing to me -- obviously I need to use one
>of them (how to tell them apart on the connector is problem for the future.)
>
>Still looking for an insightful someone to stear me in the right
>direction...
Interesting diagram. If one blows it up enough, you can
see a schematic of the voltage regulator! Aha! DATA!
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Alternators/IR_Alternator_Circa_1980.pdf
for a redrawn schematic of what you posted above.
Assuming the diagram matches the machine you have, one may deduce
that this alternator's regulator is one of those "latch on"
devices. A "tickler" current coming in through EITHER the IGN switch
and series light bulb circuit "L" or through terminal "S" on my
diagram will bring this alternator on line.
This particular regulator is very simple . . . only 10 discrete
components. Bill of materials in manufacturing volumes under
$1.00. I visited the Wells Electronics plant in Fon du Lac, WI
in 1988 and saw the same devices being manufactured on ceramic
substrates by automated machines. The guy who gave me the grand
tour said that his typical regulator had a manufacturing cost of
under $1.50. The machine that assembled them built about 1200
regulators per hour.
However, if one studies the diagram, you'll see that power to
run the regulator and energize the field comes off a separate trio
of diodes (D7-D9) separate from the diodes that rectify b-lead
output power (D1-D6). Once the alternator comes up, removing power
from either the "L" or "S" leads will have no effect . . . the
alternator will continue to provide output.
If I were going to use this alternator in any application, I would
attempt to identify the "S" lead with an ohmmeter. Depending on
the instrument, a resistance measurement from each of the two
terminals with respect to alternator case ground should produce
some evidence of continuity. In the case of the "L" terminal,
continuity will be indicated irrespective of the polarity of
the meter leads. For the "S" terminal, the included diode (D11)
will cause one of the ohmmeter connections to show infinite ohms.
I'd run the "S" terminal to the alternator control switch
KNOWING that until some other provisions are installed, the
switch only controls ONSET of alternator operation and cannot
turn it OFF later.
This is a good example of the value of having internal schematics
to any product. You need this kind of DATA to deduce things
not revealed by a manufacturer's data sheets -AND/OR-
to confirm that some supplier has adequately understood the
finer points of some product he's trying to sell you.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 11/20/05 |
Hi, I am ready to install the intercom/wiring but I don't want to buy
headphones until I am ready to fly. Can I simply use a small speaker with an
inline resister to total 150 ohms per side? Any tricks? thanks, skip simpson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: gps install under AC 20 138A |
Has anyone been successful installing a gps as a minor modification? In
particular, I want to put in a Garmin 300xl with a dedicated king 202 cdi, and
to eliminate any cdi switching relays and not use the expensive integrated
annunciator box. I plan to use Electro Mech aircraft style switches and
annunciators, as being the "functional equivalent" of the "storebought box
annunciator". For about $2500 I have the 300xl and cdi, less than $200 more and
that
should do it? Or just 2 quality mini-switches and some leds?
I guess the trick will be to get the FAA to accept the flight manual
supplement.
Any thoughts? thanks skip simpson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: gps install under AC 20 138A |
Good Evening Skip,
We did discuss a similar problem on this list last week. I am not sure just
what it is that you want to do, but there is NO requirement that any
switching relays be installed and there is no requirement for any annunciator IF
you
are using a dedicated CDI. If you are installing it in an experimental
aircraft, there is no need for any FAA approval.
If you are installing it in a normally certificated airplane, you will
probably need a local approval. It may not be considered a minor alteration,
but
the FAA folks have recently been given guidance that makes it the next thing
to a minor alteration!
For that, I do not have the interpretation currently being used, but even
the old guidance is very simple when you use a dedicated CDI.
Modifying the FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement to reflect the
actual installation is a no brainer. The procedure is spelled out completely
in the TSO guidance.
If you are planning to use the same CDI for both VHF and GPS navigation,
there will be a need for some method of telling the pilot which is in use. If
that is your plan, let me know and I will repeat what I said last week or you
could check it in the archives.
Any help at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/24/2005 11:38:39 P.M. Central Standard Time,
CardinalNSB(at)aol.com writes:
Has anyone been successful installing a gps as a minor modification? In
particular, I want to put in a Garmin 300xl with a dedicated king 202 cdi,
and
to eliminate any cdi switching relays and not use the expensive integrated
annunciator box. I plan to use Electro Mech aircraft style switches and
annunciators, as being the "functional equivalent" of the "storebought box
annunciator". For about $2500 I have the 300xl and cdi, less than $200
more and that
should do it? Or just 2 quality mini-switches and some leds?
I guess the trick will be to get the FAA to accept the flight manual
supplement.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
Hi Bob,
Here is a good one. A friend was told by garmin that the cold could permanently
damage the display on his gps. He bought a lowrance this summer and checked
into this with lowrance. After a lot of evasion and double talk it finally came
out that their display could be damaged too. I think below about 0 deg. f. How
do automobiles get away with it? Every airplane with a glass panal cant be
kept in a heated hanger . I see 25deg F below zero every year where I live. Any
thoughts?
Bob Noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | gps install under AC 20 138A |
Responding to AeroElectric-List message previously posted by:
CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
<>
11/25/2005
Hello Skip, We need to know whether this is a type certificated airplane or
an amateur built experimental. Makes a huge difference in what you do and
how you do it.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aviation headset substitute for testing |
>
>Hi, I am ready to install the intercom/wiring but I don't want to buy
>headphones until I am ready to fly. Can I simply use a small
>speaker with an
>inline resister to total 150 ohms per side? Any tricks? thanks, skip
>simpson
The problem is not "impedance" but POWER. Power to your headphones
is on the order of tens of milliwatts. Power to a speaker may be
as much as a watt to be heard over cabin noise. If you're talking
about a test environment in your shop, you MIGHT hear enough out
of a small speaker to show that the system works . . . but you'd
be better off using a pair of el-cheeso entertainment headsets
that are already configured for low-power, tight-to-the-ear
coupling. They're generally on the order of 30 ohm devices and
won't hurt your intercom. You can get a pair at RS for a few
dollars. If you wanted to make these "look" like aviation headsets,
put 100 ohms in series with each side . . . you'll need to turn
up the volume a little.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:gps install under AC 20 138A |
Thanks for the replies. I should have been clear, I am working on a
certificated aircraft. It was my understanding that experimentals did not need
FAA
approval.
I want to wire a ki202 cdi directly to a Garmin 300xl, and use either Elecro
Mech switch/lights or some generic switches and lights. The Garmin manual
says that lights and switches are required but does not specify the required
part numbers (they do list their annunciators and the Mid-Continent part
numbers as "Optional").
I read AC 20 138A as making this a minor modification.
Of course the local radio shop says all gps installs are major, that there
are no minor installs, my ap said he is willing to sign off as a minor install
but I want to be on safe ground.
Thanks, Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator single battery question |
>
>I have a dual alternator (40 amp and a 20 amp from B&C) Z-12 schematic. I
>have the OV protective voltage regulators from B&C installed. The fellow
>that I am working with would like to wire the system where the silicone
>diode is left out and there is no essential bus. There would be a on off
>switch for each alternator. My question is what would happen if both
>alternators were "on" at the same time? They would both be feeding into
>the avionics and the regular bus at the same time. Would those expensive
>voltage regulators or other part go up in smoke or would things run
>without difficulty? Thanks, George
Have your "helper" give me a call (316) 685-8617. I find it mildly
irritating that participants on this list find themselves cast
in the role of mediator between partners and hangar mates (dispensing
lots of knowledge but little understanding) and folks on this list
(who make it their business to figure these things out and share
the deductions).
You have purchased some hardware from a reputable company who's
installation instructions are pretty explicit. You've selected
one of the architectures from a book that has been undisputed
and in-print for over 10 years. Finally, you've participated on
this list and have properly identified it as a source of well
considered data and processes. Now you find yourself the victim
of another "cook" in the kitchen who wants to dink with the
recipe.
Don't let this individual cause you to loose any sleep over
his desire to insert his own originality or assuage his own
lack of understanding at your expense. I'll suggest that he
read the instructions and operating descriptions for the hardware
you purchased. He should also review chapter 17 of the 'Connection.
Finally, if his grasp of the underlying simple-ideas is incomplete,
he's most welcome to join us here and lots of folks will gladly
assist.
For your benefit, know that the B&C regulators are specifically
designed to work in concert and if set up per instructions, both
alternators are never delivering power at the same time when wired
per B&C instructions. The 20A regulator is set to 0.5
to 1.0 volts BELOW the main alternator. While both alternator
switches may be ON, the aux alternator is in automatic standby
until the main alternator shuts down and the aux alternator picks
up the slack. At this time, circuits unique to the SB-1 alternator
regulator will sense that the aux alternator has picked up ship's
electrical loads and will also monitor the b-lead current demand
from the aux alternator via the hall-sensor illustrated in . . .
http://bandc.biz/14-SB1B.pdf
If the loads are excessive (greater than 20A) the AUX ALTERNATOR
LOADED light will flash. You reduce system loads until the light
stops flashing and you're good to go for the duration of flight
having held 100% of battery capacity in reserve.
I appreciate your note on this topic . . . . it reminded me that
I need to update Z-12 to show the hall-effect current sensor.
I've updated the AutoCAD drawing at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/Z12L.dwg
Appendix Z has been updated at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11D.pdf
The updated .pdf file is at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdf/Z12L.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Temps (was gps display) |
> Here is a good one. A friend was told by garmin that the cold could
> permanently
>damage the display on his gps. He bought a lowrance this summer and checked
>into this with lowrance. After a lot of evasion and double talk it finally
>came
>out that their display could be damaged too. I think below about 0 deg. f.
>How
>do automobiles get away with it? Every airplane with a glass panal cant be
>kept in a heated hanger. I see 25deg F below zero every year where I live.
>Any
>thoughts?
Now here's a question I ponder every time I set fire to a wad of paper
stuffed into my air cleaner trying to start my Lycoming....
A friend of mine pointed out that one of my designs used an LM311 which was
not rated for military low temps. I called National Semi and they explained
that ONLY the marking and testing was changed for the LM111 and LM211 parts
(the mil spec parts). The parts were the same but they will charge
an-arm-and-a-leg to test and mark them differently. The COTS initiative
(Commercial Off The Shelf) pretty much eliminated the gold plated, ceramic
sandwich, mil-spec parts. Hi-Rad space parts are a different story.
So what changes at low temps?
Crystals,
Liquids--including liquid crystals...
Lubricants,
Plastics--including your acrylic windshield Bubela...
Metal strength--including your propeller and crankshaft
almost everything....
I am using NKK (Series TL) switches with a low temperature rating of -10 C
(14 F)! Common guys... my ex-wife's heart is colder than that!
Any ideas?
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"...Beans for supper tonight, six o'clock.
Navy beans cooked in Oklahoma ham...
Got to eat 'em with a spoon, raw onions
and cornbread; nothing else...."
--Will Rogers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:gps install under AC 20 138A |
In a message dated 11/25/2005 3:13:11 P.M. Central Standard Time,
CardinalNSB(at)aol.com writes:
I want to wire a ki202 cdi directly to a Garmin 300xl, and use either
Elecro
Mech switch/lights or some generic switches and lights. The Garmin manual
says that lights and switches are required but does not specify the
required
part numbers (they do list their annunciators and the Mid-Continent part
numbers as "Optional").
Good Evening Skip,
Are you absolutely certain that you need any annunciators or switches at all?
I have no experience with the 300XL, but I do have experience with many
other GPSs including the Garmin 430.
As long as the various functions are available within the Panel Control
Unit, and the PCU is placed within the normal view of the pilot, there is no
reason to have any external annunciators or switches. Why don't you take another
look at just exactly what Garmin is telling you. I find it difficult to
believe that the 300XL would need annunciators when the 430 does not.
If you are going to place the PCU away from the primary panel, all that is
required is that there be appropriate indicators repeating what is shown on the
face of the PCU.
I firmly believe you are making a problem where none exists!
In what part of the country are you located?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | G McNutt <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re:gps install under AC 20 138A |
Hi Skip
I used Electro Mech switch lights on my present SL-60 installation and
will do same with the Garmin 300XL install in next aircraft.
Question, does the KI 202 have an "analog resolver", in other words,
will it talk to the 300XL to input a desired track or hold radial?
Bob is correct that the 430 has all this neat stuff built right in
however it is required with the 300XL.
>
>I want to wire a ki202 cdi directly to a Garmin 300xl, and use either
>Elecro Mech switch/lights or some generic switches and lights. The Garmin manual
>says that lights and switches are required.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:gps install under AC 20 138A |
In a message dated 11/25/2005 8:15:41 P.M. Central Standard Time,
gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca writes:
Bob is correct that the 430 has all this neat stuff built right in
however it is required with the 300XL.
Thank You George,
That is good information to know. I had no idea the 300XL was that far
behind times. My 1994 Trimble has everything needed within the PDU and I knew
the
430 was OK. Goes to show I should not assume anything!.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF Radiation |
>
> Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Paul McAllister"
>
>
><having problems
>with RF getting into systems and causing problems.
>
>The first area is headsets, I couldn't get my Lightspeeds to work properly.
>Lightspeed
>acknowledged that there can be problems and offered to modify the battery
>box. That improved things, but from time to time I still have problems.
>
>The next on the list is my Navaid. Despite following Navaids suggestion of
>disabling
>the Navaid whenever the PTT is pressed I still have issues, if I transmit
>for long enough it will still swing over to a 30 degree bank which is a real
>pain if I am flying in IFR conditions.
>
>The latest trick is my intercom. Occasionally when I transmit I will get a
>stuck
>mike. I called the manufacturer and managed to speak to the design
>engineer.
>He acknowledged that is there is enough RF present then this could happen.
>The company are currently working with me to resolve the issue.
>
>So..... does anyone have any ideas. I have a GX60 as my nav / com and the
>antenna
>(which is a Bob Archer) is buried in the tail. I have a single point ground
>on the firewall.>>
Your ground system is probably not a participant in the problems you're
experiencing. Given that you have so many different systems being adversely
affected, it appears that your cockpit space may be subject to an extra-
ordinarily high RF field.
First, I would make SURE that the radiation is coming from the
normally working antenna as-installed. Can you put a temporary
dummy load on the end of the coax before it goes into the vertical
fin? If the problems go away, then it's normally radiated energy
directly from the antenna. If the problem is still there, you have
a coax joint open at a shield somewhere. When the inside of an
airplane is this 'hot', it's a strong suggester of a compromised
feed line.
If the problems go away when the antenna is disconnected, try a
belly mounted antenna with ground plane. This could reduce energy
in the cockpit by 10db or more.
The alternatives are to modify your affected systems to include
the kind of filtering we generally design into vulnerable systems
as a matter of course. I spent 7 days in Little Rock adding filters
to a 1960's product that couldn't stand the 50-100 v/m interference
present in some current production airplanes. 16 little capacitors
were added to the backshell of the connector and potted. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Filters/filter_caps.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Filters/potted_filter.jpg
This is a crummy way to run an airplane accessories business.
These SHOULD have been built into the device in the first place.
Your task is similar. Deduce which wires are vulnerable (you
need schematics of the accessories). Built test filters to
see what works. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Filters/breakout_filter_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Filters/breakout_filter_2.jpg
These are filters required in the 2-30 MHz world. Since your
problem is VHF (118-135 MHz) you might get by with ferrite beads.
But even the ferrite bead doesn't work well if there is no downstream,
shunt reactance (capacitor) to take advantage of the ferrite
bead's series inductance. Then figure out how to get the necessary
filtering either inside the victim accessory or right at the
connector outside the accessory.
In the OBAM aircraft world, you're ALLOWED to do anything you
need to to to fix a problem. In the certified world, getting
those caps installed was agonizingly difficult for non-technical
reasons. Your best first step is to see if a different antenna style and
location will work. Then go after the filters . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Cellphone-aviation Headset Interface |
Has anyone seen a schematic diagram of or taken apart a cell
phone-aviation headset interface? Specifically, what are they composed
of (active circuits, isolation resistors, transformers, etc.)? How do
they work?
Reference: http://store.yahoo.com/pilotsupport/2000s.html
or: http://www.anrheadsets.com/CellUpgrade.asp
Thanks,
Joe
Joe Dubner
523 Cedar Avenue
Lewiston, ID 83501
cell: (208) 305-2688
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | P-mag Which Bus? |
Hello,
I am setting up my electric system for P-mags and in the Z-diagrams I see
Bob has them set up on the main bus, but in other cases, the EI is set up on
the battery bus. Understanding they can power themselves, which is the best
Buss to power the P-mags?
Thanks,
Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Latching power relays? (Bob how about NO relays?) |
Bob:
You are right and good point, it does weigh .15 lbs more.
You also point out the return on investment. I was originally told
when they came out they where about $70 (2x's the price of a
typical relay). They apparently cost more like $120. I understand
you don't understand, but people just want the best, regardless of
the nickels and dimes or logical. There are many other things
people spend money on that cost 6 times more but do the same
thing, but I agree with you here. It does not seem to pay for
itself.
To be honest since it is not lighter and cost significantly more I
am re-evaluating if I will use it. Actually I may use no relays
(see below).
As far as power not every one has a large alternator and 25 amps
of avionics. My VFR/Day/Night/IFR lite is less than 10 amps and
nominal 7 amps. With a 40-amp alternator saving 8-10 watts
about 3/4 th AMP, 0.70 amps could be considered significant.
As far as heat I realize that is not a factor to anything but an
illustration of the electrical energy being wasted and turned into
heat.
NOW THE QUESTION
WHY HAVE A MASTER RELAY AT ALL?
WHY HAVE A FIREWALL STARTER RELAY AT ALL?
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/1554/norelays9sp.jpg
Run the positive battery cable direct to the starter's own solenoid,
as in a car. For the master BUSS you could now use a little
relay of say 40-80 amp capacity just for cockpit power. Since
the starter current is not going thru a Master/ BAT relay, than all
you need is a little relay. You could even use a solid state relay.
With this wiring there are no large relays/contactors/solenoids
except the one on the starter. This is like a car. That would save
1.6 lbs several large connections and about 0.80 amps. Also it
would be less expensive.
What do you think Bob? I know that people don't like the big
wire going to the starter being HOT all the time but is there any
real reason we need a MASTER relay with 500-700 AMP
intermediate capacity. You could always keep the firewall starter
relay so the big starter wire in not hot all the time..
Cheers George
>Date: Nov 23, 2005
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>Subject: Re: Latching power relays?
>>How is the latching feature attractive to you? Where
>> would you use it?
>>
>> Bob:
>> You use it for a master. It is attractive because it uses less
>>power than the inefficient old heavy . . .
>These look like the Tyco/Kilovac EV200. [snip] spec'd at
>0.95 pounds. An S702-1 (White-Rogers/Stancor) weighs 0.80
>pounds.
>>metal cased relay that gets too hot to touch after a minute.
>There are lots of things on the airplane that get too
>hot to touch. If I never have a desire or need to touch them,
>why is operating temperature a concern as long as it doesn't
>significantly impact service life or load analysis?
>>A "latching"(?) relay like suggested is a good alternative,
>>
>>http://www.bluesea.com/dept.asp?d_id=6619&l1=7958&l2=6
607
>>
>>also as Eric suggested. I hate the idea of a little heat bomb
>>wasting power.
>"Wasting power" is a good thing to minimize. But let's carry
> this to the ultimate exercise.. [snip]
>Bob . . .
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Latching power relays? (Bob how about NO relays?) |
Fixed the LINK below
Bob:
You are right and good point, it does weigh .15 lbs more.
You also point out the return on investment. I was originally told
when they came out they where about $70 (2x's the price of a
typical relay). They apparently cost more like $120. I understand
you don't understand, but people just want the best, regardless of
the nickels and dimes or logical. There are many other things
people spend money on that cost 6 times more but do the same
thing, but I agree with you here. It does not seem to pay for
itself.
To be honest since it is not lighter and cost significantly more I
am re-evaluating if I will use it. Actually I may use no relays
(see below).
As far as power not every one has a large alternator and 25 amps
of avionics. My VFR/Day/Night/IFR lite is less than 10 amps and
nominal 7 amps. With a 40-amp alternator saving 8-10 watts
about 3/4 th AMP, 0.70 amps could be considered significant.
As far as heat I realize that is not a factor to anything but an
illustration of the electrical energy being wasted and turned into heat.
NOW THE QUESTION
WHY HAVE A MASTER RELAY AT ALL?
WHY HAVE A FIREWALL STARTER RELAY AT ALL?
http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/2636/norelays4zr.jpg
Run the positive battery cable direct to the starter's own solenoid,
as in a car. For the master BUSS you could now use a little relays
of say 40-80 amp capacity just for cockpit power. Since the
starter current is not going thru a Master/ BAT relay, than all
you need is a little relay. You could even use a solid state relay.
With this wiring there are no large relays/contactors/solenoids
except the one on the starter. This is like a car. That would save
1.6 lbs several large connections and about 0.80 amps. Also it
would be less expensive.
What do you think Bob? I know that people don't like the big
wire going to the starter being HOT all the time but is there any
real reason we need a MASTER relay with 500-700 AMP
intermediate capacity. You could always keep the firewall starter
relay so the big starter wire in not hot all the time..
Cheers George
>Date: Nov 23, 2005
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>Subject: Re: Latching power relays?
>>How is the latching feature attractive to you? Where
>> would you use it?
>>
>> Bob:
>> You use it for a master. It is attractive because it uses less
>>power than the inefficient old heavy . . .
>These look like the Tyco/Kilovac EV200. [snip] spec'd at
>0.95 pounds. An S702-1 (White-Rogers/Stancor) weighs 0.80
>pounds.
>>metal cased relay that gets too hot to touch after a minute.
>There are lots of things on the airplane that get too
>hot to touch. If I never have a desire or need to touch them,
>why is operating temperature a concern as long as it doesn't
>significantly impact service life or load analysis?
>>A "latching"(?) relay like suggested is a good alternative,
>>
>>http://www.bluesea.com/dept.asp?d_id=6619&l1=7958&l2=6
607
>>
>>also as Eric suggested. I hate the idea of a little heat bomb
>>wasting power.
>"Wasting power" is a good thing to minimize. But let's carry
> this to the ultimate exercise.. [snip]
>Bob . . .
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: P-Mag Which Bus? |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Pete,
I am using the P-Mag set up also. You only need power from a
source for start up. Once the engine is running, the P-Mag does not need
any outside source of power to continue functioning. The E-Mag does need
a source. This is why I chose to do dual P-Mags. This mimics the old
fashion way of dual "Mags".
A really neat way of getting the benefits of truly independent ignition
and electronic ignition benefits in the same package.
Jim Nelson
RV9-A (finishing wiring)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Latching power relays? (Bob how about NO relays?) |
> Bob:
>You are right and good point, it does weigh .15 lbs more.
........snip
> To be honest since it is not lighter and cost significantly more I
>am re-evaluating if I will use it. Actually I may use no relays
.......snip
George,
Right on! The No Relay Solution is possible.
1) The Stancor contactor cannot be used to open the B+ line from the
alternator. It's not rated to do that. There is only one reasonable
contactor solution that is rated for the job---the Kilovac EV200 or it's
rebranded clone(s).
2) The FAA rule to disconnect the battery can be satisfied with a racecar
battery switch. Manually disconnecting the battery lead (and reconnecting
it) is easy in many aircraft.
http://www.flamingriver.com/index.cfm/page/ptype=results/Category_ID=133/home_id=76/mode=cat/cat133.htm
3) Don't use a relay where a switch will do. Many times a relay is invoked
to implement a function that a careful selection of switch would do easily.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human
advancement.
--John Stuart Mill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tammy Goff" <tngoff(at)houston.rr.com> |
| Subject: | How does one remove the IR in a Van's 40 amp Alternator? |
I have searched and found a little info on how to remove the internal regulator
on an alternator but still am uncomfortable digging into the alternator to do
it. I fear mixing up or not being able to find what is the S, what is the F
lead what is the ground from the alternator. I have a Van's 40 amp alternator
and will be using the B&C regulator for the Z-12 (dual alternator single battery)
set up. Electricity makes me a little nervous with the fear of smoking those
rather expensive voltage regulators (or anything else).
Does anyone have a "how to" on removing the IR?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "923te" <923te(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How does one remove the IR in a Van's 40 amp Alternator? |
Check out this great link on How to convert internally regulated Alternator
to external:
http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/faculty/north/alternator/reassembly.htm
Best Regards,
Ned
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tammy Goff" <tngoff(at)houston.rr.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: How does one remove the IR in a Van's 40 amp
Alternator?
>
> I have searched and found a little info on how to remove the internal
regulator on an alternator but still am uncomfortable digging into the
alternator to do it. I fear mixing up or not being able to find what is the
S, what is the F lead what is the ground from the alternator. I have a
Van's 40 amp alternator and will be using the B&C regulator for the Z-12
(dual alternator single battery) set up. Electricity makes me a little
nervous with the fear of smoking those rather expensive voltage regulators
(or anything else).
> Does anyone have a "how to" on removing the IR?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Battery Desulfators (Myth, Magic or Science?) |
Bob,
I have a fleet of trucks and I just got this ad from Peterbilt. Fact or
fiction?
<http://eflyer.pactools.net:7001/jsppages/OnlineFlyer/pb/us/qualityStories.jsp?strsection=parts&story_id=541&dc=W395&flyer_id=53455&user_id=42994&month_num=11>
If that link doesn't work because of line wrap, here it is as a tinyurl.
<http://tinyurl.com/bosv7>
Could this be true? What do you think?
Great question . . . I've pondered this several times and I've
had some informal discussions with numerous folks both battery
manufacturers and battery users.
Keep in mind that my professional battery experience has been
in certified aviation where the users of batteries have little
knowledge or decision making activities with respect to the
testing or use of their batteries. Aviation focuses narrowly
on maintenance history and service protocols shared by few
other industries.
To date, I've yet to discover any repeatable experiments wherein
the use of any of the varied battery desulfation techniques have
been shown to have positive return on investment.
The idea for some kind of "pulse charging" of batteries has
been around in many forms for many years. Variability between
all the suggested techniques and applications is strongly indicative
of most techniques having little or no value. I recall
a local ham radio operator citing phenomenal service life on
ordinary flashlight batteries achieved by recharging them with
half-wave rectified, unfiltered DC. You couldn't get them to
recover with pure DC charging like your car battery, the restoring
energy source had to be 60Hz pulsed power. This would have been
about 1970.
There are dozens of schemes for "rattling" the battery's
cage. One of the patented devices simply modulates the
charge current over a semi-sinusoidal protocol with a period
of seconds. Others claim benefit from shocking sulfate crystals
with high frequency energies centered on the frequency of
vulnerability for such crystals (Perhaps Capt. Picard got
the idea for rotating the modulation frequency of Phazers
to penetrate Borg shields by researching centuries old
patents for disrupting sulfate crystals in car batteries).
I purchased a "desulfator" several years ago just before
my father-in-law had a sudden and gross failure of a battery
in his car. He gave me the old battery and I attached the
de-sulfator along with a 14.4v constant current power supply.
After about a week, I cap-checked the battery and found it to
have about 4 a.h. of real capacity and about a 150A, 15 second
cranking ability. I put it back on the test charge. It drew a
much better recovery current than the first test. I tested it
again a week later. It produced about 6 a.h. and a 220A cranking
effort. Subsequent test cycles yielded only slightly
better results . . . certainly a long way from "recovering"
the battery back to some serviceable condition.
Questions
(1) did battery recovery "improve" because the desulfator
was present or would I have seen the same results from the
gentle charge-discharge cycling sans desulfator?
(2) was the battery beyond benefit for any effects the
desulfator could offer?
The real answers lie in crafting a repeatable experiment
that would, no doubt, take a lot of time and resources. I've
found several studies on the 'net that purport to answer
some of these questions but they're offered as college term
papers sold only by subscription. I'm not ready to pop for
them yet.
My friends at Concord have conducted similar and slightly
more extensive tests on several batteries removed from service
and could deduce no particular benefit from use of their
particular product . . . they too admit to the unscientific
nature of their investigation and are not prepared to either
support or trash the product.
Here are copies of three Google hits on the terms 'battery'
and 'desulfator' out of thousands. Most of the hits were for
products all of which claim to produce great returns on investment
for installing their device on your battery:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Battery/Desulfator
Note the directory "Patents" where I've posted some examples
on earlier work on extra-ordinary battery charging techniques
dating back to the 1930's
It would be interesting to do the work necessary to provide
definitive answers. I just don't have the time, resources
or motivation to do it right now. To make an accurate assessment
of using such devices on airplanes has a doubtful return on
investment . . . we've already deduced that the time and test
equipment necessary to wring the last watt-second of performance
from a premium battery in airplanes is not as attractive as
simply throwing a new cheap battery in at the beginning of each
flying season or every annual.
Once the OBAM airplane owner embarks on a maintenance protocol
to tend, desulfate, and periodically cap check and load check
the battery translates into $time$ better spent on maintaining
other, more important feature of the airframe. Certified airplane
owners are mandated to do some levels of periodic testing
and maintenance already so adding some technology like a desulfator
to their ground charging scheme would represent little ADDITIONAL
cost . . . but without a means for gathering with/without data,
the benefits of doing this would be impossible to deduce.
However, you as operator of a fleet of terrestrial vehicles
MIGHT benefit from an alternative maintenance protocol.
With a fleet of trucks there is opportunity to do some
scientific studies on the benefits for using some
product of choice. This would involve doing periodic maintenance
on one group of batteries that enjoyed the use of a desulfator/
maintainer and comparing the performance with a second set of
batteries that were periodically tested but operated as in the
past.
If you're interested in conducting a controlled study and
spending the time to gather data, I and others on the List
would certainly be available to craft the protocols, analyze
data and help craft some form of publication to share with
other inquiring minds.
For the moment, I can offer no personally acquired knowledge
that would help you select a technology or suggest some
value for using it. The devices are relatively cheap. They
probably do no harm. A simple scientific test would
be to fit half your fleet with some attractive device and
track battery replacement records . . . through at
least two or three change-outs per vehicle. This would take
a very long time but would produce useful data that would
begin to prove-disprove effectiveness if not return on
investment.
If you or anyone else becomes aware of published data about
tests conducted on such devices, I'd be pleased to know about
it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | high brightness LEDs |
>
>That's good advice, I do have Eric's site bookmarked for when I get to
>that stage.
>
> But I'm not trying to make position lights...
>
> Cheers
>
> Carlos
>
>Peter Laurence <PLaurence@the-beach.net> wrote: --> AeroElectric-List
>message posted by: "Peter Laurence"
I have several projects that use high-brightness leds and I've
been buying mostly from overseas suppliers off Ebay. See the
following offers as examples.
7566815107
7566048851
7367104186
Out of perhaps a dozen orders, I have only one go astray and that was
probably due to Post Office handling. Couldn't get the supplier to
replace the order but these things are so cheap that the time it would
take to raise a fuss wasn't worth the value of the order ($26). While
perhaps higher risk than walking into RS and buying a blister-pak of
two whimpy LEDs, this new group of suppliers offers bargains that offset
the risks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> 40 amp Alternator? |
| Subject: | Re: How does one remove the IR in a Van's |
40 amp Alternator?
Ned,
This web site shows how to disassemble and reassemble a newer (1990s)
larger (60 - 90 amps) ND unit. The 40 amp unit Vans sells is a much smaller
and older design. This site might help someone who has at least
disassembled an ND alternator before. It won't help the gentleman who
requested the info. I've emailed him a copy of an older CONTACT MAGAZINE
article. That article deals with the older style ND alternators.
Charlie Kuss
>
>Check out this great link on How to convert internally regulated Alternator
>to external:
>
>
>http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/faculty/north/alternator/reassembly.htm
>
>Best Regards,
>Ned
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tammy Goff" <tngoff(at)houston.rr.com>
>To:
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: How does one remove the IR in a Van's 40 amp
>Alternator?
>
>
>
> >
> > I have searched and found a little info on how to remove the internal
>regulator on an alternator but still am uncomfortable digging into the
>alternator to do it. I fear mixing up or not being able to find what is the
>S, what is the F lead what is the ground from the alternator. I have a
>Van's 40 amp alternator and will be using the B&C regulator for the Z-12
>(dual alternator single battery) set up. Electricity makes me a little
>nervous with the fear of smoking those rather expensive voltage regulators
>(or anything else).
> > Does anyone have a "how to" on removing the IR?
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Latching power relays? (Bob how about NO relays?) |
>
> Bob:
> You are right and good point, it does weigh .15 lbs more.
>
> You also point out the return on investment. I was originally told
> when they came out they where about $70 (2x's the price of a
> typical relay). They apparently cost more like $120. I understand
> you don't understand, but people just want the best, regardless of
> the nickels and dimes or logical. There are many other things
> people spend money on that cost 6 times more but do the same
> thing, but I agree with you here. It does not seem to pay for
> itself.
>
> To be honest since it is not lighter and cost significantly more I
> am re-evaluating if I will use it. Actually I may use no relays
> (see below).
>
> As far as power not every one has a large alternator and 25 amps
>of avionics. My VFR/Day/Night/IFR lite is less than 10 amps and
>nominal 7 amps. With a 40-amp alternator saving 8-10 watts
>about 3/4 th AMP, 0.70 amps could be considered significant.
>
> As far as heat I realize that is not a factor to anything but an
> illustration of the electrical energy being wasted and turned into
> heat.
>
> NOW THE QUESTION
> WHY HAVE A MASTER RELAY AT ALL?
> WHY HAVE A FIREWALL STARTER RELAY AT ALL?
>
> http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/1554/norelays9sp.jpg
>
> Run the positive battery cable direct to the starter's own solenoid,
> as in a car. For the master BUSS you could now use a little
> relay of say 40-80 amp capacity just for cockpit power. Since
> the starter current is not going thru a Master/ BAT relay, than all
> you need is a little relay. You could even use a solid state relay.
> With this wiring there are no large relays/contactors/solenoids
> except the one on the starter. This is like a car. That would save
> 1.6 lbs several large connections and about 0.80 amps. Also it
> would be less expensive.
>
> What do you think Bob? I know that people don't like the big
> wire going to the starter being HOT all the time but is there any
> real reason we need a MASTER relay with 500-700 AMP
> intermediate capacity. You could always keep the firewall starter
> relay so the big starter wire in not hot all the time..
>
> Cheers George
They are your design goals to set. I choose to apply my
talents and reasoning to fitting modern technologies into
improved architectures while retaining some past design
goals (disconnection of power sources, minimizing hot
wires for crash safety, common operability protocols and
convenience associated with certified ships, etc.).
There are hundreds of airplanes flying with purely automtoive
systems installed. No master, no extra relays for any task,
lots of always-hot wire including fat-feeders to starters.
The probability of having these design features becoming
root cause or even exacerbation of an accident
is very low compared to other reasons for bending airplanes
and breaking people.
The airplane I learned to fly in did not have a master contactor.
Only a switch in the battery lead under the passenger side
seat. Works good, lasts a long time. It didn't have starter
contactor either. There was a really fat push-button under
the pilot's seat. Also works good and lasts a long time.
If you or any other builder finds this attractive and
convenient to achieve, I sure wouldn't have any heartburn
over it. We've discussed numerous COTS products in the
marine and industrial transportation industries that might
be applicable to these efforts. If enough builders expressed
a desire to incorporate these features, I might even go to
the shop and craft a comic book on ways to achieve the
task.
Bob . . .,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag Which Bus? |
><pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
>
>Hello,
>
>I am setting up my electric system for P-mags and in the Z-diagrams I see
>Bob has them set up on the main bus, but in other cases, the EI is set up on
>the battery bus. Understanding they can power themselves, which is the best
>Buss to power the P-mags?
>
>Thanks,
Any bus you like. P-mags run independent of ship's power
once the engine is running. I would suggest that E-mags
run from the battery bus and it wouldn't hurt to run P-mags
from that source also.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How does one remove the IR in a Van's 40 amp |
Alternator?
Tammy Goff wrote:
>
>I have searched and found a little info on how to remove the internal regulator
on an alternator but still am uncomfortable digging into the alternator to do
it. I fear mixing up or not being able to find what is the S, what is the F
lead what is the ground from the alternator. I have a Van's 40 amp alternator
and will be using the B&C regulator for the Z-12 (dual alternator single battery)
set up. Electricity makes me a little nervous with the fear of smoking
those rather expensive voltage regulators (or anything else).
>Does anyone have a "how to" on removing the IR?
>
Lots of people do this type of conversion, but I think your misgivings
about tearing into the alternator to be valid.
I spent many years as an electronics tech (I have the skills), & I have
no interest in modifying perfectly good alternators if over-voltage
protection can be provided in another fashion (it can be).
I worry more about ruining bearings or causing diode/regulator failure
due to my installation errors than about the ability of the alternator
mfgr to design a reliable product.
I'll bet that if you could get reliable data, you'd find that the
failure rate of modified alternators is many times higher than that of
unmodified alternators, & attributable to errors made in the modifications.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Williams" <rw_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Bellanca starter debugging |
I=92m working on debugging weak starting on my Bellanca 14-19-2 Cruisemaster,
and am looking for some input & validation of ideas. Here=92s the setup:
Continental O-470 engine
Lamar 12V permanent magnet starter =96 bench checked by the factory as ok.
Concorde RG-35AXC battery =96 1 year old.
Cables forward of the firewall that jump to the starter are 2 ga copper,
about 1 foot in total length.
The battery and master relay are located just forward of the horizontal
stabilizer due to W&B. There is a 14=92 run of conductor to get from the
master relay to the firewall.
The starting behavior has been that when cold, I have to =93bump=94 the starter
to get it to go over, usually it takes 3-5 tries before it will finally kick
over and rotate freely. When warm, I=92m lucky to get it to turn over at all,
usually I get =BD rotation before it hangs up. It is not slippage in the
starter adapter, it is the starter motor. Fortunately my engine starts very
easy once it is actually turned.
Problem #1: The Bellanca designers were =93clever=94 and used a 3/8=94 aluminum
rod (covered in a vinyl sleeve for insulation) as the battery conductor up
to the firewall. The ends of the rod were smashed flat and a hole drilled
in them to make a terminal end. The firewall through-bolt was made of
steel.
Starting behavior has been progressively getting worse over the years, and a
few weeks ago started to cook the rubber booties on the terminal ends of the
battery conductor rod, with smell and a wisp of smoke in the cockpit. This
prompted a replacement.
Solution A: Rip and replace the aluminum rod with 0 ga aircraft wire.
Replace the steel firewall through-bolt with a copper threaded-rod conductor
and copper nuts. Cold starter turnover showed an improvement, but still not
reliable full turnover rotation. Required 1 maybe 2 bumps to get full
rotation (cold) going.
Problem #2: The jumper from the starter relay to the starter was getting
quite warm.
Solution B: Replace this cable with 2 ga wire and new terminal ends. The
jumper is no longer heating up, and is now measuring 0.06V drop while
cranking.
Problem #3: Measuring voltage drops on the system with the new cable, I=92m
seeing 9.2V at the battery while cranking (13V static) and 7.5V at the
starter. The positive side current path that I can measure with short
voltmeter leads (battery to master relay, master relay, jumpers from
firewall through bolt to starter relay, relay, starter relay to starter)
were measuring under 0.2V cumulative drop, and I=92m estimating another 0.35V
drop in the 14=92 cable based on a resistance calculation and estimated 250A
starter current, for a total of ~0.55V drop.
The remaining ~1.2V is in the ground return path. The engine to mount
ground is good with negligible voltage drop, but the airframe is apparently
high resistance and the airframe tubes (not the jumper cable) closest to the
battery gnd connection point are warm to medium-hot. I have tried two
different grounding points on the airframe, including jumpering the ground
point about 6=92 forward on the airframe, and in all cases the behavior
remains the same and the tubes are still getting hot.
For diagnosis I=92ve temporarily jumpered the battery ground directly to the
starter mounting stud on the engine with about 18=92 of 0 ga copper wire. The
starter now reliably turns over when cold, and no wire or terminal heating
is present. With the jumper in place I=92m getting 9.2V at the battery and
about 8.5V at the starter while cranking. I=92m attributing the discrepancy
in system voltage drop vs. the previous measurements and estimate as having
over-estimated the current draw of the starter. Assuming about a 200A draw
then the math works out given the known resistance of 0 ga wire.
I see three solution options: first is the battery =96 low cranking voltage.
Second is to put in a second copper wire for the ground side of the circuit,
running the battery ground right to the starter to bypass the high
resistance steel frame tubes. The third option is to look for a starter
with a lower current draw. I don=92t see that there=92s anything I can do about
high frame resistance in the tubing.
Questions:
9.2V at the battery while cranking seems low, indicating high internal
resistance. I don=92t have another RG-35AXC battery for comparison. My
battery is relatively new but has had a hard life of very hard starts and
deep discharges. Any ideas or measurements on what the battery should be
putting out?
Does anybody have experience with a geared starter for big bore continentals
such as the Sky-Tec C12ST3, which are claimed to have lower current draw and
higher torque? The lighter weight would also help offset the weight gain
from copper cable vs. the old aluminum conductor.
Any ideas and demonstrated experience for dealing with high tubing-frame
resistance? Short of trying multiple ground spots searching for the lowest
resistance, I can=92t think of any other techniques to fix this especially
in-situ.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 300xl/KI-202 |
In a message dated 11/26/2005 2:58:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
Question, does the KI 202 have an "analog resolver", in other words,
will it talk to the 300XL to input a desired track or hold radial?
_gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca_ (mailto:gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca)
The KI-202 is shown on the Garmin installation manual Diagram, along with
the KI 206, 209A, 525A, KPI 552/b 553 a/b, Collins 331A-90, Bendix 831A, Garmin
102 102A 106A Stec ST 180. Garmin Tech told me the Trinav "C" would also
work, but didn't want to talk about ARC cdi's, and an avionics tech told me
the MC-60, Collins 350 351, would work and there are some ARC (1048? I
bought a 442A and a 443B at a hangar sale cheap, how can I tell if these will
work
with the Garmin?). I was told my Narco ID824 would not work with the
Garmin. Can anyone explain what the "resolver" is? What do I look for physically
to idenitfy a resolver?
But the Garmin Installation Manual shows the signals going through the
"annunciator" first, except in the case of the KI 209A. I don't think the
annunciator adds the resolver though. But I welcome any corrections.
The Garmins 300xl and 155xl are reasonably priced as "factory remans" (fixed
duds) and used, the older GNC300 and 155 non-moving map precursors are I
believe also appropriately tso'd for ifr approaches and are less expensive on
the used market. I think the newer portables might be more accurate (waas and
all) but I don't think they are legal for IFR. It would be nice to identify
the cdi's that will work properly, there is some nice looking ARC stuff on
ebay pretty cheap, that would make an inexpensive legal ifr gps approach
system.
One issue regarding the Garmins, some say that a current "database card" is
required to be legal, and that verification that the approaches to be used
are current is not enough, based on a reading of the installation manual.
Since I'm not up and running and not IFR rated yet, that issue has been on the
back burner. Any thoughts? Thanks for all your help, Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Radio Panel Ground Buss |
Bob, at the Wicks seminar earlier this year, you mentioned that you would
have a radio/panel ground buss available on your site or from you shortly.
Do you have them available yet?
Thanks Bill S
7a Ark fuse panel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Anti-rotation rings for toggle switches ? |
I can't seem to find a source for the little anti-rotation rings that come
on a lot of toggle switches. The ones with the tab at the top and a
internal tab for the keyway on the top of most toggle switches. They
shouldn't be too hard to find since the come on most toggle switches but I
can't seem to put a hand on them. I tried Mouser and Digi-Key with no luck.
I only need about a dozen.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks Bill S
RV7a Ark fuse/panel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tammy Goff" <tngoff(at)houston.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator single battery question |
Bob, Thank you for your reply. I engaged in a little consultation (meeting on
the minds) with my helper. We have come to an understanding and will be proceeding
with things wired IAW Z-12. Thank you for the answers. George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <richardglick(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anti-rotation rings for toggle switches ? |
Bill,
B&C Specialty Products has them, they just don't list them in there online catalog.
You can either call them or order on line. If online, enter a Miscellaneous
Part with total then in the Comments Section at Checkout, add the part numbers.
I listed all three washers/nuts on the standard switch below. I just received
my order of all three types. Perfect match.
http://www.bandcspecialty.com/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?6X358218
S700LW - Internal Lockwasher
S700KW - Keyway Washer(The one with the notch and tab)
S871-5 - Hexnut for switches
Good luck
Richard Glick
Slinger, WI
RV7A/Working on Canopy/Panel
>
> From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net>
> Date: 2005/11/27 Sun AM 12:08:13 EST
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Anti-rotation rings for toggle switches ?
>
>
> I can't seem to find a source for the little anti-rotation rings that come
> on a lot of toggle switches. The ones with the tab at the top and a
> internal tab for the keyway on the top of most toggle switches. They
> shouldn't be too hard to find since the come on most toggle switches but I
> can't seem to put a hand on them. I tried Mouser and Digi-Key with no luck.
> I only need about a dozen.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks Bill S
> RV7a Ark fuse/panel
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for your comments) |
It seemed over kill to have three solenoids under the cowl:
FW Master: Has to be large to handle up to 300 amps flow thru to
the starter
FW Starter: Most modern aircraft starters (SkyTec) all have there
own solenoid
Starter: Has a big heavy duty solenoid already
If you wire the battery to the starter direct you will by pass the
firewall starter relay, which is not longer needed. Also since you
no longer have to feed the starter current thru the master you can
use a small relay to supply the "switch" master buss in the
cockpit. The mess on the fire wall has always looked terrible and
has many large connections. This alternate way will save almost
2 lbs and 1 amp of wasted current (12 watts) in wasted power to
the master contactor. Picture below:
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7674/norelays21re.jpg
I think this will work with no loss in function or safety. I suppose
you could argue that the starter engages and back-drives as a
generator. What is the chance of that? Slim or nil. Well if it is a
concern add the firewall starter relay back. I see no reason to
have a big old firewall master relay.
George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-Mag Which Bus? |
Do them per the instructions. You want them hot at all times when in operation.
Personally, I think two Pmags is overkill. I went with an EMag/PMag set up as
recommended. They are wired off the battery buss with a 5 amp breaker for the
Emag and a 5 amp switched breaker for the Pmag.
The Pmag on my set up cuts out at about 680 RPM, meaning you have to have at least
that much RPM for it to develop power. I'm not sure if the PMags can have
a matched cut off point or not, but I'm not sure I would want two Pmags with
different cut out points.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: P-Mag Which Bus? |
In a message dated 11/27/2005 9:16:32 A.M. Central Standard Time,
ktlkrn(at)cox.net writes:
but I'm not sure I would want two Pmags with different cut out points
Why not?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for your comments) |
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
The risk in this system is a shorted starter or wire to the starter. It
will attempt to blow the ANL fuse. It might. Or it might fry some wire
(resistance of 3 feet of #2 wire - about the run from the battery to the
starter - is only .0005 ohms. At 350 amps, only .175 volts are dropped
through the wire)
It seems that during service, the starter lead is an issue - drop a
wrench against it and ground and you probably fry something.
If the starter circuit fails in flight, you take out all battery power.
It seems that contactors make a lot of sense. At the least, I would put
a separate fuse between the battery and starter and a smaller one
between the battery and the hot buss as drawn in your picture. That
should be nice and light, but still safe.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: No Solenoid Wiring Scheme (diagram for your
comments)
It seemed over kill to have three solenoids under the cowl:
FW Master: Has to be large to handle up to 300 amps flow thru to
the starter
FW Starter: Most modern aircraft starters (SkyTec) all have there
own solenoid
Starter: Has a big heavy duty solenoid already
If you wire the battery to the starter direct you will by pass the
firewall starter relay, which is not longer needed. Also since you
no longer have to feed the starter current thru the master you can
use a small relay to supply the "switch" master buss in the
cockpit. The mess on the fire wall has always looked terrible and
has many large connections. This alternate way will save almost
2 lbs and 1 amp of wasted current (12 watts) in wasted power to
the master contactor. Picture below:
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7674/norelays21re.jpg
I think this will work with no loss in function or safety. I suppose
you could argue that the starter engages and back-drives as a
generator. What is the chance of that? Slim or nil. Well if it is a
concern add the firewall starter relay back. I see no reason to
have a big old firewall master relay.
George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-Mag Which Bus? |
>
>Do them per the instructions. You want them hot at all times when in
>operation. Personally, I think two Pmags is overkill. I went with an
>EMag/PMag set up as recommended. They are wired off the battery buss with
>a 5 amp breaker for the Emag and a 5 amp switched breaker for the Pmag.
If you have a switch-breaker off the battery bus, where is your battery
bus located? Are there any unprotected, long wires between the
battery and the hot side of the switch-breaker?
>The Pmag on my set up cuts out at about 680 RPM, meaning you have to have
>at least that much RPM for it to develop power. I'm not sure if the PMags
>can have a matched cut off point or not, but I'm not sure I would want two
>Pmags with different cut out points.
Why is this a concern?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin 300xl/KI-202 |
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by:
CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
<<.....skip......One issue regarding the Garmins, some say that a current
"database card" is required to be legal, and that verification that the
approaches to be used are current is not enough, based on a reading of the
installation manual. Since I'm not up and running and not IFR rated yet,
that issue has been on theback burner. Any thoughts? Thanks for all
your help, Skip>>
11/27/2005
Hello Skip, Your authority on current database requirements for IFR
operations is found in the AIM (Aeronautical Information Manual). Readily
available on the FAA web site.
Here is one place where this subject is covered.
"Paragraph 1-1-19 b. 3. (b) Database Currency (1) In many receivers, an
up-datable database is used for navigation fixes, airports, and instrument
procedures. These databases must be maintained to the current update for IFR
operation, but no such requirement exists for VFR use."
You can probably find other places as well.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator single battery question |
>
>Bob, Thank you for your reply. I engaged in a little consultation
>(meeting on the minds) with my helper. We have come to an understanding
>and will be proceeding with things wired IAW Z-12. Thank you for the
>answers. George
If your helper has nagging concerns, I'd rather assuage them
than have him proceed by overriding directive. It's much
better to move forward with confidence and understanding
than with unfounded worries. Any chance he would join us
here or at least give me a call?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: P-Mag Which Bus? |
Interesting. I have dual Pmags, and neither one will self-power reliably below
990 rpm.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Darwin N. Barrie <ktlkrn(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: P-Mag Which Bus?
Do them per the instructions. You want them hot at all times when in operation.
Personally, I think two Pmags is overkill. I went with an EMag/PMag set up as
recommended. They are wired off the battery buss with a 5 amp breaker for the
Emag and a 5 amp switched breaker for the Pmag.
The Pmag on my set up cuts out at about 680 RPM, meaning you have to have at
least that much RPM for it to develop power. I'm not sure if the PMags can have
a matched cut off point or not, but I'm not sure I would want two Pmags with
different cut out points.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio Panel Ground Buss |
>
>
>Bob, at the Wicks seminar earlier this year, you mentioned that you would
>have a radio/panel ground buss available on your site or from you shortly.
>Do you have them available yet?
I'm not ready to put them into the catalog yet. Which one
are you interested in? Vertical . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/AGB_V.jpg
Right_Angle . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/AVG_RA.jpg
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 300xl/KI-202 |
In a message dated 11/27/2005 10:37:54 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
Here is one place where this subject is covered.
"Paragraph 1-1-19 b. 3. (b) Database Currency (1) In many receivers, an
up-datable database is used for navigation fixes, airports, and instrument
procedures. These databases must be maintained to the current update for IFR
operation, but no such requirement exists for VFR use."
You can probably find other places as well.
OC
Good Morning OC,
We might also mention that there are variables in the way the individual FAA
Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplements are written. Whatever is written
in the individual supplement written for an individual installation is what
is controlling.
In the fall of 1997, Apollo managed to get FAA approval for a procedure
whereby an out of date datacard could be used if the pilot was able to verify
the
currency of the data contained therein by comparing that data to another
approved and current data source.
To my knowledge, no other manufacturer was able (maybe they didn't even
try!) to get the FAA to buy such a procedure.
Therefore, if the suggested language provided by Apollo was used, an out of
date datacard, could, under certain conditions be used for an approach. Some
local FAA inspectors balked at using that language and would not issue the
required local approvals unless the suggested wording was changed.
Every FAA approved supplement I have ever seen has had a provision that
would allow an out dated card to be used for enroute purposes via the data
comparison method, but the only ones I have seen that could use it for approaches
were the Apollo ones. That does not mean that others may have gotten such an
approval for sets other than Apollo ones.
I have no idea whether or not Garmin has elected too use the UPSAT /Apollo
checking procedure for the 480 or use what they have traditionally recommended.
One fly in that ointment has to do with using the GPS In lieu of DME and
ADF. For that use, the datacard must be current regardless of what it says in
the supplement!
Carrying all this a bit further, it would seem to me that a builder of an
experimental airplane could write his/her operating supplement so as to use the
data if it were to be checked against a current set of approved data.
How does one check to see if data is current? For the enroute phase, you
can use the NACO enroute charts and check the Latitude and Longitude on the
chart against the latitude and longitude of the waypoint.
For approach purposes, one way is to check the publication date of the
datacard against the publication date of the Jeppesen chart or the Julian date
of
the NACO charts. If the datacard currency date is newer than the Jeppesen
publication date or the NACO Julian date, the data is OK to use.
Clear as mud?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | E/Pmag reliability thoughts |
I know many are planning or have put in two of the internally alternated
Pmags.
Assuming that the question is deciding between two Pmags vs one P and one E,
here are some thoughts:
There is an assumption that having two Pmags is more reliable than having
one P and one E, but that should not be assumed. Reliability must be
considered in two parts: 1) will the engine ever stop running, and to a much
lesser concern 2) will I be stuck somewhere because one ignition fails.
Minimizing #1 above dictates that one of the mags be of the self alternating
Pmag sort, to cover a total electrical system failure in flight (assuming
only one aircraft electrical system). So, the rest of this discussion can
center on whether or not the second one is a P or an Emag. If the second
one is a Pmag, the only real advantage is that one could perhaps continue
towards home on a flight which has suffered a total electrical system
failure, and feel comfortable about running on two independent ignitions.
However, what about the additional failure modes that a Pmag must have over
an Emag? There must be some, as yet unquantifiable, additional risk of
failure with a Pmag vs an Emag, given the additional complexity. So, will
having additional complexity reduce or increase your chances of being stuck
"on the road"? What is more likely, a total electrical system failure or a
crapped out Pmag?
No one yet knows what the general reliability of these promising designs
will be, of course, so thoughts like the foregoing should be considered.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 694 hours, likely to convert from Lasar to P/Emags in the
future...
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bellanca starter debugging |
WOW.... looks like you covered about everything.
I would have guessed bad terminals and, or bad starter contactor.
I have known several cases (Cessna) that had the same troubles with not
getting enough current into the starter for proper operation. Theirs turned
out to be the contactor, even though it "seemed" to test good. I would
certainly entertain the idea of swapping it out for a test. Maybe a hanger
buddy has a spare or will loan you his known good one just to try.
Another thought... how old is the battery and how is the charge maintained?
An apparently good battery, it powers most things on the buss, etc. ok,
could have a bad cell that will not keep pace with the other cells when
trying to produce and pass 300+ amps. If I recall, a well maintained
battery should hold about 10.5+ volts when under such a heavy current load
request. If the battery has a failing cell, then, it will not be able to
contribute to the working voltage.
One simple way to check this, remove all the battery caps, have a way to
look into all the cells, wear protective face gear and look at all the cells
while someone cranks on the engine for 15 secs. The bad cell will
bubble(gas) pretty vigorously. The remainder cells should be relatively
quiet.
If you have access to electric power, I suggest you install a small battery
"maintainer". I have used one for years. After I park the plane, I clip on
the maintainer ( I have a battery jumper port). On a 12 v system, the
little maintainer should bring the battery up to about 14.1 v and then,
shuts down the "charger" section and goes into a "float" mode and or pulse
mode of operation that holds that battery at about 13.1 to 13.3 volts. Both
settings are a bit critical. My last Gill 35, I used for 7 years via this
system. I finally installed a new battery and moved the Gill to a fueler
tank set-up. I was concerned about the Gill only in that I spend a lot of
time in the back country and did not want to face a possible non-start in
the bush just because I was a penny pincher.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Williams" <rw_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bellanca starter debugging
>
>
> I=92m working on debugging weak starting on my Bellanca 14-19-2
> Cruisemaster,
> and am looking for some input & validation of ideas. Here=92s the setup:
>
>
> Continental O-470 engine
>
> Lamar 12V permanent magnet starter =96 bench checked by the factory as ok.
>
> Concorde RG-35AXC battery =96 1 year old.
>
> Cables forward of the firewall that jump to the starter are 2 ga copper,
> about 1 foot in total length.
>
> The battery and master relay are located just forward of the horizontal
> stabilizer due to W&B. There is a 14=92 run of conductor to get from the
> master relay to the firewall.
>
>
> The starting behavior has been that when cold, I have to =93bump=94 the
> starter
> to get it to go over, usually it takes 3-5 tries before it will finally
> kick
> over and rotate freely. When warm, I=92m lucky to get it to turn over at
> all,
> usually I get =BD rotation before it hangs up. It is not slippage in the
> starter adapter, it is the starter motor. Fortunately my engine starts
> very
> easy once it is actually turned.
>
>
> Problem #1: The Bellanca designers were =93clever=94 and used a 3/8=94
> aluminum
> rod (covered in a vinyl sleeve for insulation) as the battery conductor up
> to the firewall. The ends of the rod were smashed flat and a hole drilled
> in them to make a terminal end. The firewall through-bolt was made of
> steel.
>
>
> Starting behavior has been progressively getting worse over the years, and
> a
> few weeks ago started to cook the rubber booties on the terminal ends of
> the
> battery conductor rod, with smell and a wisp of smoke in the cockpit.
> This
> prompted a replacement.
>
>
> Solution A: Rip and replace the aluminum rod with 0 ga aircraft wire.
> Replace the steel firewall through-bolt with a copper threaded-rod
> conductor
> and copper nuts. Cold starter turnover showed an improvement, but still
> not
> reliable full turnover rotation. Required 1 maybe 2 bumps to get full
> rotation (cold) going.
>
>
> Problem #2: The jumper from the starter relay to the starter was getting
> quite warm.
>
> Solution B: Replace this cable with 2 ga wire and new terminal ends. The
> jumper is no longer heating up, and is now measuring 0.06V drop while
> cranking.
>
>
> Problem #3: Measuring voltage drops on the system with the new cable,
> I=92m
> seeing 9.2V at the battery while cranking (13V static) and 7.5V at the
> starter. The positive side current path that I can measure with short
> voltmeter leads (battery to master relay, master relay, jumpers from
> firewall through bolt to starter relay, relay, starter relay to starter)
> were measuring under 0.2V cumulative drop, and I=92m estimating another
> 0.35V
> drop in the 14=92 cable based on a resistance calculation and estimated
> 250A
> starter current, for a total of ~0.55V drop.
>
>
> The remaining ~1.2V is in the ground return path. The engine to mount
> ground is good with negligible voltage drop, but the airframe is
> apparently
> high resistance and the airframe tubes (not the jumper cable) closest to
> the
> battery gnd connection point are warm to medium-hot. I have tried two
> different grounding points on the airframe, including jumpering the ground
> point about 6=92 forward on the airframe, and in all cases the behavior
> remains the same and the tubes are still getting hot.
>
>
> For diagnosis I=92ve temporarily jumpered the battery ground directly to
> the
> starter mounting stud on the engine with about 18=92 of 0 ga copper wire.
> The
> starter now reliably turns over when cold, and no wire or terminal heating
> is present. With the jumper in place I=92m getting 9.2V at the battery
> and
> about 8.5V at the starter while cranking. I=92m attributing the
> discrepancy
> in system voltage drop vs. the previous measurements and estimate as
> having
> over-estimated the current draw of the starter. Assuming about a 200A
> draw
> then the math works out given the known resistance of 0 ga wire.
>
>
> I see three solution options: first is the battery =96 low cranking
> voltage.
> Second is to put in a second copper wire for the ground side of the
> circuit,
November 17, 2005 - November 27, 2005
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ez