AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fb
December 04, 2005 - December 08, 2005
>aircraft circuit to peek at the electrons so as to be able to narrow down and
>trouble shoot problems. There must be SOMEONE out there who can make
>suggestions
>where to sample (peek at) volts and amps so as to be able to trouble shoot
>the
>circuits. Disregard the constraints of money and time. If I want to install
>twelve sensors throughout my electrical system so as to be able to check
>readings and trouble shoot problems, where would you locate those sensors
>and what
>type sensor(s) would you use?
>I'm anxious to see what the run-around answer will be this time.
>Actually, I've probably PO'd Bob enough that he won't answer.
>Perhaps someone can help.
>Again, my design goal:
>---twelve sensors in electrical system (or make it 24 if that would be
>better) (uh oh, better is a relative term like acceptable ... let's see
>... just
>make it 24 sensors)
>---where to locate the sensors to permit troubleshooting
>---type of sensors to get the readings
>Anyone?
>Stan Sutterfield
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
In a message dated 12/4/2005 7:53:54 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Speedy11(at)aol.com writes:
Again, my design goal:
---twelve sensors in electrical system (or make it 24 if that would be
better) (uh oh, better is a relative term like acceptable ... let's see ...
just
make it 24 sensors)
---where to locate the sensors to permit troubleshooting
---type of sensors to get the readings
Anyone?
Stan Sutterfield
Good Evening Stan,
Please don't assume that my commenting on your question means that I know
anything at all about the subject, but I was having some problems a year or so
ago with an alternator control circuit on a certificated airplane.
I wanted to be able to check the voltages in a manner similar to what you
want to do, so this is what I did.
I got the Zeftronics trouble shooting guide and looked to see what places
Zeftronics suggested using for measuring voltages while checking the system.
I
then attached a number twenty-two wire at each of those points and led those
wires to a DB nine plug which was positioned where it could be easily
reached from the right seat. That way, I could use a Fluke Meter to make the
checks Zeftronics wanted while the airplane was airborne.
Worked just fine for me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
Based on desire for an immediate answer as to where anyone could place
sensors I will stick my toe into the pond and get the first ripple started.
"Hall effect devices sense the effects of current flowing in the
wire without actually taking energy out and wasting it."
So, I would use the 24 Hall Effect Devices to report where current is
flowing within my system. I want to know first how much the alternator is
producing. I want to know how much the landing lights are using when I turn
them on. How much the radio uses when listening and when transmitting. I
think you get the idea. Then you need a selector switch of some sort to
select which sensor you want to look in on. I guess you could program you
own mini TV and display the results of all 24 sensors. Add up all the
usages, and compare that to the alternator output to know what your loss is
in the overall system.
Indiana Larry
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
From: <Speedy11(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter?
>
> Bob,
> As usual, your answers are extremely frustrating! You talk all around the
> subject but never address the subject headon.
> " Correct. Hall effect devices sense the effects of current flowing
> in the wire without actually taking energy out and wasting it. However,
> the term 'acceptable' is not terribly relevant in the context of this
> discussion. ALL methods are acceptable to someone's design goals."
> Let's assume that my design goal is to sense current in the wire without
> out
> taking energy out of the wire. Therefore, let's accept that sensing that
> current using a HE device is "acceptable" to me.
> SNIP
> I'm anxious to see what the run-around answer will be this time.
> Actually, I've probably PO'd Bob enough that he won't answer.
> Perhaps someone can help.
> Again, my design goal:
> ---twelve sensors in electrical system (or make it 24 if that would be
> better) (uh oh, better is a relative term like acceptable ... let's see
> ... just
> make it 24 sensors)
> ---where to locate the sensors to permit troubleshooting
> ---type of sensors to get the readings
> Anyone?
> Stan Sutterfield
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
Can you achieve that without reducing the reliability of the system?
Mostly you are going to be reading voltages. With that many sense
points, you almost have to use small (22awg?) wire to the sense points
which probably means a fuse-link at the sense point to protect each
sensor wire. Now the sense wire has some protection should it short out.
However if it did short out could it cause failures in the system it is
connected to? If you use a sensor selector switch or a common connector,
could failure of that switch or connector cause multiple failures?
There is something to be said for adding monitoring circuitry if/as/when
needed. What about the other less reliable systems? Leak detectors,
vibration monitors, strain gauges?
Personally I like it when Bob tries to make us think a bit and consider
other factors rather than directly and only answering a specific
question. Hmmm - I guess I didn't provide the answer you wanted either...
Ken
>Now we're getting somewhere. Design goal is to have access to multiple
>readings of the electrical system - whether airborne or on the ground. And I'm
>willing to expend lots of $time$ now to provide said readings to save $time$ in
>the future.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
Bob,
As usual, your answers are extremely frustrating! You talk all around the
subject but never address the subject headon.
As usual?
>>My design goal is to offer tools for under $100 that
>>will let you do things on your airplane that an
>>auto mechanic can now do on your car."
>But, your product is not yet available and I want to wire my airplane now.
You don't NEED my product. The vast majority of your
troubleshooting tasks can be accomplished with a voltmeter.
What your going to need is ACCESS to test points for
making useful measurements. The product I described will
be useful to those builders who want to KNOW more things
about their airplane's system performance. Yes, it will
be useful for troubleshooting too. But for research or
troubleshooting, my DAS (and your voltmeter) are worthless
unless you can CONNECT them to stimuli of interest.
>Here's what I want. I want to know where the best locations are in an
>aircraft circuit to peek at the electrons so as to be able to narrow down and
>trouble shoot problems. There must be SOMEONE out there who can make
>suggestions
>where to sample (peek at) volts and amps so as to be able to trouble shoot
>the
>circuits. Disregard the constraints of money and time. If I want to install
>twelve sensors throughout my electrical system so as to be able to check
>readings and trouble shoot problems, where would you locate those sensors
>and what
>type sensor(s) would you use?
I thought I did but without the use of ANY sensors.
>I'm anxious to see what the run-around answer will be this time.
>Actually, I've probably PO'd Bob enough that he won't answer.
>Perhaps someone can help.
I don't think it was a runaround. Rather a suggestion of
what's inexpensive, requires zero sensors, and brings
a lot of test points (most of which you'll never need)
to a convenient point for observation . . . say from
the copilot's seat in the airplane.
>Again, my design goal:
>---twelve sensors in electrical system (or make it 24 if that would be
>better) (uh oh, better is a relative term like acceptable ... let's see
>... just
>make it 24 sensors)
>---where to locate the sensors to permit troubleshooting
>---type of sensors to get the readings
>Anyone?
In the process of troubleshooting the last dozen
or so airplanes, I've used perhaps two or three
hall-effect sensors to measure current in wires of interest
for the recalcitrant system. 99% of all measurements of
interest were simply taps onto various points so that
voltage and sometimes waveforms can be observed over long
periods of time (for recording) and particularly in
flight. If I had be prohibited from installing the
hall effect sensors, it would not have been a particularly
large roadblock to finding and fixing the problem.
The roadblocks to troubleshooting are seldom defined
by WHAT sensors or voltage taps are installed but
HOW to get them installed at all. The airplanes I work on
are extreme examples. I can't tell you how many hours
of test-preparation were expended to get a pair of wires
through a pressure bulkhead or routed to some piece of
equipment back in the tail or up in the nose so that
a 5 second measurement could be made.
Another example: When I get the 8-channel DAS
into a working configuration, I'd love to run it in
my car for some shakedown cruises. It's going to take
hours to run a wire bundle from inside the car to
various places under the hood. Yes, I'll stick a few
SENSORS on but only for the purposes of having measurable
stimulus for debugging the hardware and software for
the DAS.
I'd be hard pressed to design anything more elaborate
for you than what I've already described. You're making this
much more complicated than it needs to be. The value
in looking ahead is to install a easily accessed test
connector on wires that fan out to relatively inaccessible
places in the airplane. Now, you could add say 6 wires
in your test connector that run forward and get capped off
under the cowl. If you really wanted to add some
test point later or install a temporary hall-effect
device for an investigation, the wires are already in
place without spending further efforts to install them.
I'll confess that when you wondering about how many
and where some hall effect devices should be installed,
I did not grasp the notion that you wanted to sprinkle
a bunch of them around the airplane. I thought you were
wrestling with the age-old questions of to "ammeter or
not-to-ammeter?" and "battery-ammeter or load-ammeter?".
I can see how you could perceive my answer as a run-around.
Allow me to clarify. The most I can recommend now is to
install a system not unlike that which I've illustrated
and NO sensors. When and if a problem arises in any system
where you'd like some remote measurement abilities, then
the wires and connector will be in place. You'll need
a test jack box and a voltmeter to plug into your
cabin mounted test connector. You may even want to
add some spare wires so that hall effect or temperature
SENSORS might be added at test-time.
I've suggested the test connector and simple harness with
plenty of wires in it because it's easy and inexpensive
to install while the airplane is being built. The
existence of this connector makes future testing much
easier because you can add stuff as needed to attack
the problem at hand. Going beyond that now assumes
a lot we don't know until some problem arises. To sprinkle
lots of sensors around now is a huge waste of $time$ for
the vast majority of them would never be called upon to
give you useful information.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
>
>Good Evening Stan,
>
>Please don't assume that my commenting on your question means that I know
>anything at all about the subject, but I was having some problems a year
>or so
>ago with an alternator control circuit on a certificated airplane.
>
>I wanted to be able to check the voltages in a manner similar to what you
>want to do, so this is what I did.
>
>I got the Zeftronics trouble shooting guide and looked to see what places
>Zeftronics suggested using for measuring voltages while checking
>the system. I
>then attached a number twenty-two wire at each of those points and led those
>wires to a DB nine plug which was positioned where it could be easily
>reached from the right seat. That way, I could use a Fluke Meter to make
>the
>checks Zeftronics wanted while the airplane was airborne.
>
>Worked just fine for me!
Works just fine for most folks. This is what I
do most of the time working on the heavy-iron
too . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: OVPM Active Notification |
>
>
>The OV protection module, as designed by Bob and purchased from B&C, does
>indeed provide active notification. It's not an "idiot light" but it's the
>next best thing.
> The 5 amp pullable circuit breaker is black with the
>numeral 5 imprinted in the center of the round pull tab. When the system is
>in normal mode the black on black (my panel) sits quietly in my peripheral
>vision. When the breaker trips, the white "collar" is easily visible and
>catches my eye.
>
>If we are exercising even minimal flight discipline and doing our routine
>check lists periodically during flight, the non illuminated but easily
>visible white breaker collar informs us that the thing has tripped. I
>usually look next at the volt meter which is reading lower than when the ALT
>is on line.
>
>So far, the only time mine trips is during engine start. For this reason I
>start my engine with the master in the middle, BAT only, position and add
>the ALT after the engine lights off but before adding strobes, radios,
>etc... I watch the Volt meter needle swing up to the usual indication and am
>consoled. Not only is my OBAM aircraft's electrical system functioning
>properly BUT I actually understand what it's doing and why!!! Thank you Bob
>Nuckolls. My wife still wants to bake you a cake :o)
One could install the ov protection system and rely on a popped breaker
as some form of active notification . . . but keep in mind that alternators
will fail to produce power for lots of reasons that will not open the
breaker. Therefore, whether an ov protection system is even installed,
the active notification of low voltage would be my FIRST recommendation
for installed instrumentation in the electrical system. All other goodies
have some degree of usefulness but that light is your primary notice that
implementation of plan-B is called for to insure sweat-free termination
of the flight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Master Relay Mount |
>
>
> Maybe dissecting one would be of value to show the reason for the change.
I considered that . . . but I'll bet nothing has changed inside
the contactor. If I put my hands on a new one, I might do some
non-destructive testing (hi-pot testing) to see if insulating
the mounting feet has any merit for that cause . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Aviation intercom mod for PC computer use |
Listers,
I have a friend who wants to modify a Telex TC200 aviation portable
intercom for interface with the sound card on his home PC. The idea is to
fabricate a more realistic flight simulator experience. Any suggestions on
what would need to be done to correct the speaker impedence mismatch?
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Generator question |
>
>Bob, If your suggesting me to consider the LV/OV indicator I assume the
>generator is not a problem that needs to be shut off as with an alternator.
>I have already built your two voltage controllers but with the generator I
>guess I only need an indicator for either lo or high voltage.
>
>Thankyou
>
>Ron Triano
It's not a matter of generators being less risky than alternators.
It has to do with output current capabilities and how fast the
bus voltage might rise in a runaway event.
20A from any power source will be mitigated by a well maintained
battery such that a pilot has ample time to react to the OV
WARN light and shut the power generation device off. The presupposes
that the light is located such and has sufficient intensity that
it will never go unnoticed.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Van's ND alternator failure |
>
>In a message dated 12/03/05 2:58:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
> While I've strongly suggested an idiot light for active
> NOTIFICATION of low voltage, I'd much prefer automatic and
> active RESPONSE to over voltage thus negating the value
> of an ov warning light . . . if present in the system, it
> would be illuminated for only milliseconds.
>Bob,
>Could an OV light be "locked" on until cleared to continue its indication
>even though the OV condition has been mitigated. That way the pilot would
>have
>active indication that required acknowledgement. Then the pilot would have
>indications of both OV and LV.
That could be done. I've considered that to be a troubleshooting
data point of interest to the owner/operator after he's on
the ground and trades his pilot's hat for a mechanic's hat.
Once on the ground, it's a simple task to deduce wether the
the LV light is coming on SUBSEQUENT to an OV trip or because
of another kind of failure that simply shuts down the alternator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob rundle" <bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912
I'm trying to decide what exactly I need in terms of an ACU (Annunciation
Control Unit) for my setup.
My avionics are:
GNS430
GNC300XL
GMA340
GI106A
GTX327
Right now I only only a single GI106A. When this is connected to the G430, I
understand the G430 can select between GPS input and NAV input. i.e. it has
a built in ACU.
What about the 300XL? I too can be connected to a GI106A and display GPS
track information. But for this to occur you need to have an external ACU
to select between GPS/NAV, as well as ARM and ACTV the approach for
non-precision approaches.
So what if I only have 1 GI106A? Do I still need this ACU? The G430 will
change it without the need for an ACU. Right now I;m considering getting a
second GI106A and the ACU to hook up to the G300XL. Would this be the best
solution? As well I presume since I'll be only be doing non-precision
appracohes with the 300XL then I only need the GI102A, not the 106A
(glideslope indication as well).
Can someone clarify this for me?
Thank you
BobR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions on Z-20 and Z-16 |
>
>Questions for Bob. I bought the AeroElectric Connection and have really
>enjoyed it. What a great reference. I live here in Wichita also. I am the
>guy that bought it at your home.
>I am planning on using a Jabiru 3300 in a Zodiac with basic Night VFR.
>Nothing Fancy. I am planning on using a Low voltage monitor and a crowbar.
>I am considering both Z-16 and Z-20 as the basis for my system.
>
>On Z-20 - Why is the starter contactor required if there is already a
>starter solenoid on the starter?
It's not required. It may be desirable. Z-20 intends to convey
no requirements . . . only suggestions all of which should be
sifted for suitability to your task.
See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
>Why isn't there a contactor on the battery circuit? Are these Contactors an
>S701-1?
Z-20 was crafted when the Jabiru was being shipped with about a 10A
alternator. Is it larger now? If only 10A, the battery contactor
represents a significant portion of total output. If you have a larger
alternator, consider Z-16 instead.
>Is the OV Relay an S704-1? Why doesn't it have a Diode like on Z-16?
It should have been there. It is on Z-16.
>Odyssey batteries are described as dry batteries. Is this the same as an RC
>battery?
RG (recombinant gas)? Yes. Virtually ALL brands and part nubmers
of lead-acid batteries offered as "sealed" are the same technology
whether described as absorbed glass mat (AGM), recombinant gas (RG),
vented sealed lead-acid (VSLA), etc, etc. What the are NOT is
a 'gel cell'.
>I am also looking at Z-16 for the Jab 3300. If I were to incorporate the
>Voltage regulator from Z-20 into Z-16 is there anything that I need to be
>concerned about?
Nope.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | RE: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning) |
nuckollsr(at)cox.net
>One could install the ov protection system and rely on a popped breaker
>as some form of active notification . . . but keep in mind that
alternators
>will fail to produce power for lots of reasons that will not open the
>breaker. Therefore, whether an ov protection system is even installed,
>the active notification of low voltage would be my FIRST recommendation
>for installed instrumentation in the electrical system. All other
goodies
>have some degree of usefulness but that light is your primary notice
that
>implementation of plan-B is called for to insure sweat-free termination
>of the flight. Bob . . .
The LV warning is the primary indicator of the health of the electrical
system.
I will be adding one of these to my website soon but you can see it now.
Contact me offlist.
http://www.periheliondesign.com/LV_Annunciator%20Manual.pdf
This device has facility for dimming or adding alarms. Comments would be
appreciated.
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: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> Do I Need an Ammeter? |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical system test points was |
Do I Need an Ammeter?
At 10:19 PM 12/4/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>In a message dated 12/4/2005 7:53:54 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>Speedy11(at)aol.com writes:
>
>Again, my design goal:
>---twelve sensors in electrical system (or make it 24 if that would be
>better) (uh oh, better is a relative term like acceptable ... let's see ...
>just
>make it 24 sensors)
>---where to locate the sensors to permit troubleshooting
>---type of sensors to get the readings
>Anyone?
>Stan Sutterfield
>
>
>Good Evening Stan,
>
>Please don't assume that my commenting on your question means that I know
>anything at all about the subject, but I was having some problems a year
>or so
>ago with an alternator control circuit on a certificated airplane.
>
>I wanted to be able to check the voltages in a manner similar to what you
>want to do, so this is what I did.
>
>I got the Zeftronics trouble shooting guide and looked to see what places
>Zeftronics suggested using for measuring voltages while checking
>the system. I
>then attached a number twenty-two wire at each of those points and led those
>wires to a DB nine plug which was positioned where it could be easily
>reached from the right seat. That way, I could use a Fluke Meter to make
>the
>checks Zeftronics wanted while the airplane was airborne.
>
>Worked just fine for me!
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
Bob, Ken & Listers,
How about another way to skin this cat? Rather than add permanent weight
to our aircraft, could we make up "break out boxes! The idea is to install
a temporary connector with a third leg, from which we can connect our
meters. This could be inserted anywhere there is a splice connector in the
wiring harness. Automotive manufacturers make breakout boxes to allow
service techs (like me) to take direct measurements of engine computer
signals without hacking up the harness.
Most of you will be familiar with a similar concept. Most automotive
vendors now make a auto trailer wiring harness which installs directly into
the tail/brake light wiring of modern autos. No cutting or splicing of the
stock harness is needed. This Tee harness installs into the vehicle's
wiring at a connector point when needed. It can be easily removed when no
longer needed. Best of all, no added weight when not used and no damage to
the wiring harness. Hoppy makes these trailer wiring harnesses for many
vehicles. One example of this can be found at:
http://www.partsamerica.com/ProductDetail.aspx?mfrcode=HOP&mfrpartnumber=40125
Does Molex or Amp make this sort of a Tee connector for their products? How
about a similar device for D-Sub connectors?
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
Good Morning Bob,
I am not familiar with the CDI and annunciator numbers your are using
(nothing wrong with your numbers, I just don't have the configuration of that
many
components in my memory bank!), however, I would like to comment on your need
for instrumentation.
Why do you want two IFR approved boxes? If you are planning to use the
300XL as a back up in case of 430 failure, why not just hook it up as VFR only?
If the 430 fails during a time when you really need an IFR box, you can
always declare an emergency and be using the VFR box almost legally .
If you are only interested in using the GNC 300XL for VFR purposes, there is
no need for any external annunciators or CDI indicators.
Chances are you will fly a lifetime without ever needing the IFR legality
for that back up GPS. For monitoring purposes, the backup will work just as
well when VFR only as it would if it was maintained as an IFR unit.
As always, it is best if you mount the GNC 300XL well within your normal
line of sight, but everything you need to use it for situational awareness or to
follow a course is available within the Panel Control Unit.
Keep It Simple!
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 12/5/2005 8:45:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com writes:
So what if I only have 1 GI106A? Do I still need this ACU? The G430 will
change it without the need for an ACU. Right now I;m considering getting a
second GI106A and the ACU to hook up to the G300XL. Would this be the best
solution? As well I presume since I'll be only be doing non-precision
appracohes with the 300XL then I only need the GI102A, not the 106A
(glideslope indication as well).
Can someone clarify this for me?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
Old Bob,
As a somewhat silent observer of this group, I always enjoy reading your
posts. You are gentlemanly and knowledgeable. I mentioned your "handle" to a
friend of mine, Dennis King V35B flyer, fellow BTO member, and retired FedEx
747 driver, and he immediately knew you and was highly complimentary of your
knowledge and professionalism.
So keep sharing your wisdom with us here on this list. What you have said
that I have any experience with makes abundant sense.
Wayne Sweet
MustangII builder/flyer
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
>
>
> Good Morning Bob,
>
> I am not familiar with the CDI and annunciator numbers your are using
> (nothing wrong with your numbers, I just don't have the configuration of
> that many
> components in my memory bank!), however, I would like to comment on your
> need
> for instrumentation.
>
> Why do you want two IFR approved boxes? If you are planning to use the
> 300XL as a back up in case of 430 failure, why not just hook it up as VFR
> only?
>
> If the 430 fails during a time when you really need an IFR box, you can
> always declare an emergency and be using the VFR box almost legally .
>
> If you are only interested in using the GNC 300XL for VFR purposes, there
> is
> no need for any external annunciators or CDI indicators.
>
> Chances are you will fly a lifetime without ever needing the IFR legality
> for that back up GPS. For monitoring purposes, the backup will work just
> as
> well when VFR only as it would if it was maintained as an IFR unit.
>
> As always, it is best if you mount the GNC 300XL well within your normal
> line of sight, but everything you need to use it for situational awareness
> or to
> follow a course is available within the Panel Control Unit.
>
> Keep It Simple!
>
> 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 12/5/2005 8:45:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
> So what if I only have 1 GI106A? Do I still need this ACU? The G430
> will
> change it without the need for an ACU. Right now I;m considering getting
> a
> second GI106A and the ACU to hook up to the G300XL. Would this be the
> best
> solution? As well I presume since I'll be only be doing non-precision
> appracohes with the 300XL then I only need the GI102A, not the 106A
> (glideslope indication as well).
>
> Can someone clarify this for me?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Electrical system test points |
>
>Bob, Ken & Listers,
> How about another way to skin this cat? Rather than add permanent weight
>to our aircraft, could we make up "break out boxes! The idea is to install
>a temporary connector with a third leg, from which we can connect our
>meters. This could be inserted anywhere there is a splice connector in the
>wiring harness. Automotive manufacturers make breakout boxes to allow
>service techs (like me) to take direct measurements of engine computer
>signals without hacking up the harness.
> Most of you will be familiar with a similar concept. Most automotive
>vendors now make a auto trailer wiring harness which installs directly into
>the tail/brake light wiring of modern autos. No cutting or splicing of the
>stock harness is needed. This Tee harness installs into the vehicle's
>wiring at a connector point when needed. It can be easily removed when no
>longer needed. Best of all, no added weight when not used and no damage to
>the wiring harness. Hoppy makes these trailer wiring harnesses for many
>vehicles. One example of this can be found at:
>
>http://www.partsamerica.com/ProductDetail.aspx?mfrcode=HOP&mfrpartnumber=40125
>
>Does Molex or Amp make this sort of a Tee connector for their products? How
>about a similar device for D-Sub connectors?
What your talking about is a standard tool of the aviation industry
that's been around for a very long time (WWII or earlier). I have
a variety of breakout boxes, some fairly standard like 9, 15, 25 pin
d-sub interfaces and some more specific like this one:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/19-Pin_Application_Specific_BO_Box.jpg
This fits the ground fault detectors on a Beechjet. The problem
with these tools are several. (1) not well suited to taping into
a pair of points that don't use connectors . . . like back of
alternator. (2) test points are made available only localy
to accessory. You might want to observe the measurement
from some remote point. I've done a lot of work with breakout harnesses
like this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Universal_Breakout_Box.jpg
The breakout fixture terminates in a 37-pin d-sub. I can extend
this sample point on any length of ribbon cable see coiled
up. Ribbon cable will run out the baggage compartment door,
tape to outside of fuselage and in through gasket of entry
door so that I can attach the other end to a jack-panel (shown)
or attached to my data acquisition system . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/16_Channel_DAS.jpg
The system I've proposed is a mix of all these ideas. (1) Permanently
installed taps on items of interest. (2) Pre-installed extension of
these data points to some convenient monitoring point. (3) Easy
interface to measurement device of choice.
It's the "pre-installed" part that saves a lot of time.
Bob . . .
>Charlie Kuss
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Regulator VR (better than Ford) |
Jerry:
The down side of any Ford VR, circa 1963-1987, it they have a voltage set
point of about 14.2 or 14.3 volts or less. If you are using an Odyssey battery
(SLA or AGM), it needs at least 14.3 volts to be happy. 14.5 volts is just
right. The good news is if you wire your old Ford regulator to detect buss
voltage and wire the alternator output (b-lead) direct to the battery (as Bob
N. suggest thru a busman fuse), the battery will see just a little higher
voltage than the buss. Make sense. Since the VR is detecting voltage at the
main bus, there is no doubt a little voltage drop from the battery.
I think there are way way better voltage regulators out there. Two come to
mind a Bosch (adjustable)
http://www.transpo.de/Catalog/Images/IB301A.jpg
OR if you want deluxe Transpo makes a replacement FORD regulator for Limo,
Marine, Police Car, RV, Taxi and emergency vehicles. It has OV protect,
adjustable and a host of fault detection, control and warning/fault lights.
http://www.transpo.de/Catalog/Images/V1200.jpg
http://www.transpo.de/catalog/spec_d/V1200.gif
Voltage Set Point: 14.2 V Adjustable Voltage (13.0-16.0 Volts)
Regulation: B-Circuit
> Precise Digital Regulation
> Short Circuit Protected
> High Current Capability
> Over Voltage protection
> Ignition or Light circuit activated with High Side Regulation (B-Circuit)
> Protected Against Loss of Ground and Under Voltage
> LED'S for Easy Troubleshooting
> Fault Detection Indicators
George
From: Jerry2DT(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 02, 2005
Subject: Regulator VR
List and Bob...
The guy at NAPA AV Dept. *thinks* the regulator he sold me, Echlin VR440,
interchanges with Ford VR166 per Z-11 and Bob's note 21. Would it matter if
it isn't as long as terms are wired the same?
Jerry Cochran Wilsonville, OR
---------------------------------
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
IMHO, it seems to have an automotive type readout to trouble shoot faults,
should they ever occur, is much ado about a very small chance. It seems in
my installations of various avionics in my plans built MustangII which is
night and IFR approach approved equipped (with several versions along the
way), my troubles were few and mostly at installation time. Today modern
avionics are almost bullet proof and if standard wiring and routing
procedures are followed, it is very unlikely that in a 30 year service
period, much could "wear out" to cause faults of some kind. MILSPEC wire is
extremely robust (as anyone who has stripped that stuff well knows), so
unless poor routing allowing rubbing against structures, that wire will last
a lifetime. Connectors are altogether another story however. But again,
isolation of such failures is usually rather straight forward.
In short, trying to create a system with ease of maintenance sometimes can
complicate so much as to be counter-productive.
Again, just my $0,02.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter?
>
> Can you achieve that without reducing the reliability of the system?
> Mostly you are going to be reading voltages. With that many sense
> points, you almost have to use small (22awg?) wire to the sense points
> which probably means a fuse-link at the sense point to protect each
> sensor wire. Now the sense wire has some protection should it short out.
> However if it did short out could it cause failures in the system it is
> connected to? If you use a sensor selector switch or a common connector,
> could failure of that switch or connector cause multiple failures?
>
> There is something to be said for adding monitoring circuitry if/as/when
> needed. What about the other less reliable systems? Leak detectors,
> vibration monitors, strain gauges?
>
> Personally I like it when Bob tries to make us think a bit and consider
> other factors rather than directly and only answering a specific
> question. Hmmm - I guess I didn't provide the answer you wanted either...
>
> Ken
>
>>Now we're getting somewhere. Design goal is to have access to multiple
>>readings of the electrical system - whether airborne or on the ground.
>>And I'm
>>willing to expend lots of $time$ now to provide said readings to save
>>$time$ in
>>the future.
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 2005 List of Contributors - Thank You... |
| From: | "Marcos Della" <mdella(at)cstone.com> |
Just curious, how much bandwidth do you consume at your colocation and how much
are you paying a month? The reason I as is that I have three cabinets at my
co-lo that are half filled and I think I still have something like 3-5MB/sec (95%)
still available on the setup that I haven't used in the last 6 years. I
have something like 50-60 HP LP1000R dual P3's on my system that I play with (I
can't remember the number since I never log into them all).
In my case, everything is running some version of Solaris 8,9, or 10.
Marcos
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Matt Dralle
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 2005 List of Contributors - Thank You...
Dear Listers,
Let me say *thank you* to everyone that made a Contribution in
support of the Lists this year! It was really nice to hear all the
great comments people had regarding what the Lists mean to them and
how much they look forward to reading the new posts each day. As I
have said many times before, running these Lists and creating the
many new features is truly a labor of love. This is why your
comments of support and appreciation have particular meaning for
me. Your generosity during this time of List support only
underscores the great sentiments people have made regarding the Lists.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
As a semi-related follow up to this, is there any need for an
annunciator with a 430 and 206? I don't think so...
My tentative plan for my 9A panel as been a GRT Sport EFIS with a 300XL,
206, SL-30, and the annunciator that I would definitely need to make the
300 IFR-legal. However, I've been thinking that the WAAS approaches
that a 430 would give me would really make it worthwhile, and
cost-justifiable, and that would allow me to go with an SL-40 instead of
the 30 as well (since the 430 has built-in NAV of course). If I don't
need the annunciator with the 430 - and I'm just about sure I don't -
that saves another $800 and makes it almost a no-brainer.
>>
>>
>>Good Morning Bob,
>>
>>I am not familiar with the CDI and annunciator numbers your are using
>>(nothing wrong with your numbers, I just don't have the configuration of
>>that many
>>components in my memory bank!), however, I would like to comment on your
>>need
>>for instrumentation.
>>
>>Why do you want two IFR approved boxes? If you are planning to use the
>>300XL as a back up in case of 430 failure, why not just hook it up as VFR
>>only?
>>
>>If the 430 fails during a time when you really need an IFR box, you can
>>always declare an emergency and be using the VFR box almost legally .
>>
>>If you are only interested in using the GNC 300XL for VFR purposes, there
>>is
>>no need for any external annunciators or CDI indicators.
>>
>>Chances are you will fly a lifetime without ever needing the IFR legality
>>for that back up GPS. For monitoring purposes, the backup will work just
>>as
>>well when VFR only as it would if it was maintained as an IFR unit.
>>
>>As always, it is best if you mount the GNC 300XL well within your normal
>>line of sight, but everything you need to use it for situational awareness
>>or to
>>follow a course is available within the Panel Control Unit.
>>
>>Keep It Simple!
>>
>>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: Regulator VR (better than Ford) |
>
> The down side of any Ford VR, circa 1963-1987, it they have a voltage set
>point of about 14.2 or 14.3 volts or less. If you are using an Odyssey
>battery
>(SLA or AGM), it needs at least 14.3 volts to be happy. 14.5 volts is just
>right. The good news is if you wire your old Ford regulator to detect buss
>voltage and wire the alternator output (b-lead) direct to the battery (as Bob
>N. suggest thru a busman fuse), the battery will see just a little higher
>voltage than the buss. Make sense. Since the VR is detecting voltage at the
>main bus, there is no doubt a little voltage drop from the battery.
>
>I think there are way way better voltage regulators out there. Two come to
>mind a Bosch (adjustable)
>
>http://www.transpo.de/Catalog/Images/IB301A.jpg
>
>
>OR if you want deluxe Transpo makes a replacement FORD regulator for Limo,
>Marine, Police Car, RV, Taxi and emergency vehicles. It has OV protect,
>adjustable and a host of fault detection, control and warning/fault lights.
>
>http://www.transpo.de/Catalog/Images/V1200.jpg
>http://www.transpo.de/catalog/spec_d/V1200.gif
>
> Voltage Set Point: 14.2 V Adjustable Voltage (13.0-16.0 Volts)
>Regulation: B-Circuit
> > Precise Digital Regulation
> > Short Circuit Protected
> > High Current Capability
> > Over Voltage protection
> > Ignition or Light circuit activated with High Side Regulation (B-Circuit)
> > Protected Against Loss of Ground and Under Voltage
> > LED'S for Easy Troubleshooting
> > Fault Detection Indicators
I agree that there are many suitable options for upgrading
from the stock "Ford" configuration. Certainly, adjustability
is a strong point of consideration.
The only item I can't sign up to is an alleged preference
of the SVLA technology for some other setpoint voltage as
compared to flooded batteries of yesteryear. In my
travels about the world of batteries for RAC a few years
ago, I discovered that the overall effects of offering
preferential treatment to the various technologies are
so tiny as to be insignificant to the end user even if
some differences could be quantified in the lab.
EVERY lead-acid battery in existence will achieve 100 plus
or minus 5% charge at 13.8v at room temperature if you leave it
hooked up long enough. The only reason to exceed this voltage
is for (1) average operating temperatures lower than 20C,
(2) increased recharge rates for short term usage (like
1 hour flight) where the effects of "overcharge" are
insignificant. I had a voltage regulator in my Safari
running about 15.0 volts for several years before the
alternator crapped and it was replaced with a new one that
ran about 14.3v. I was running Wal-Mart flooded batteries and the
occasional Panasonic RG battery experimentally. Battery
life was not affected in any apparent way. Just installed
my second replacement (in 196,000 miles - bearings went
dry) and don't know what it runs and don't much care.
Choose a regulator based on any perceived improvements
in operational features but know that doing so to
favor the "needs" of any particular battery brand or
technology is a no-value-added exercise.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
You don't need the annunciator with the GNS 430
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Folbrecht
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
-->
As a semi-related follow up to this, is there any need for an
annunciator with a 430 and 206? I don't think so...
My tentative plan for my 9A panel as been a GRT Sport EFIS with a 300XL,
206, SL-30, and the annunciator that I would definitely need to make the
300 IFR-legal. However, I've been thinking that the WAAS approaches
that a 430 would give me would really make it worthwhile, and
cost-justifiable, and that would allow me to go with an SL-40 instead of
the 30 as well (since the 430 has built-in NAV of course). If I don't
need the annunciator with the 430 - and I'm just about sure I don't -
that saves another $800 and makes it almost a no-brainer.
>>
>>
>>Good Morning Bob,
>>
>>I am not familiar with the CDI and annunciator numbers your are using
>>(nothing wrong with your numbers, I just don't have the configuration
>>of that many components in my memory bank!), however, I would like
>>to comment on your need for instrumentation.
>>
>>Why do you want two IFR approved boxes? If you are planning to use
>>the 300XL as a back up in case of 430 failure, why not just hook it up
>>as VFR only?
>>
>>If the 430 fails during a time when you really need an IFR box, you
>>can always declare an emergency and be using the VFR box almost
legally .
>>
>>If you are only interested in using the GNC 300XL for VFR purposes,
>>there is no need for any external annunciators or CDI indicators.
>>
>>Chances are you will fly a lifetime without ever needing the IFR
>>legality for that back up GPS. For monitoring purposes, the backup
>>will work just as well when VFR only as it would if it was maintained
>>as an IFR unit.
>>
>>As always, it is best if you mount the GNC 300XL well within your
>>normal line of sight, but everything you need to use it for
>>situational awareness or to follow a course is available within the
>>Panel Control Unit.
>>
>>Keep It Simple!
>>
>>Happy Skies,
>>
>>Old Bob
>>AKA
>>Bob Siegfried
>>Ancient Aviator
>>Stearman N3977A
>>Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>>Downers Grove, IL 60516
>>630 985-8503
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
Unless you already have the 430, do you really want to roll the dice on how
soon a WAAS upgrade will be available?
Just a guess, but I've got the feeling that Garmin will eventually just give
up on WAAS on the 430/530 units, and allow a substantial trade-in allowance
on a GNS 480 or successor...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul
Folbrecht
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
As a semi-related follow up to this, is there any need for an
annunciator with a 430 and 206? I don't think so...
My tentative plan for my 9A panel as been a GRT Sport EFIS with a 300XL,
206, SL-30, and the annunciator that I would definitely need to make the
300 IFR-legal. However, I've been thinking that the WAAS approaches
that a 430 would give me would really make it worthwhile, and
cost-justifiable, and that would allow me to go with an SL-40 instead of
the 30 as well (since the 430 has built-in NAV of course). If I don't
need the annunciator with the 430 - and I'm just about sure I don't -
that saves another $800 and makes it almost a no-brainer.
>>
>>
>>Good Morning Bob,
>>
>>I am not familiar with the CDI and annunciator numbers your are using
>>(nothing wrong with your numbers, I just don't have the configuration of
>>that many
>>components in my memory bank!), however, I would like to comment on your
>>need
>>for instrumentation.
>>
>>Why do you want two IFR approved boxes? If you are planning to use the
>>300XL as a back up in case of 430 failure, why not just hook it up as VFR
>>only?
>>
>>If the 430 fails during a time when you really need an IFR box, you can
>>always declare an emergency and be using the VFR box almost legally .
>>
>>If you are only interested in using the GNC 300XL for VFR purposes, there
>>is
>>no need for any external annunciators or CDI indicators.
>>
>>Chances are you will fly a lifetime without ever needing the IFR legality
>>for that back up GPS. For monitoring purposes, the backup will work just
>>as
>>well when VFR only as it would if it was maintained as an IFR unit.
>>
>>As always, it is best if you mount the GNC 300XL well within your normal
>>line of sight, but everything you need to use it for situational awareness
>>or to
>>follow a course is available within the Panel Control Unit.
>>
>>Keep It Simple!
>>
>>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: Avionics, ACU, etc |
Good Morning Paul,
Please don't confuse my answer with anything you can hang your hat on, but
my take would be that whether or not you need a remote annunciator for the 430
is dependent on just where the Panel Unit is located.
If it is way over to the right side in a canted panel as is common on many
Bonanzas, it may or may not be considered as being within the pilots "normal"
view. Some FAA inspectors have judged that such a location was OK.
Others have disagreed.
If the panel unit is mounted in the center panel of a Bonanza, as it is in
some of the newer Cessna's and Pipers, I have never heard of anyone denying it
is in the normal scan.
When you are installing it in an experimental machine, I would say it is up
to you to determine normal scan, but I am sure there are many fine Federal
Officials who would disagree with me!
There has been some guidance given that considered the pilots eyeball
location and various angles therefrom, but I do not believe that has been written
into a precise regulation as yet. I may well be wrong!
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 12/5/2005 11:22:26 A.M. Central Standard Time,
pfolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com writes:
As a semi-related follow up to this, is there any need for an
annunciator with a 430 and 206? I don't think so...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
It would be in the center stack of an Affordable Panels XL panel -
certainly in normal view.
I'd forgotten about the "in normal scan" rule re: annunciators. Thx.
~Paul
~9A QB started July, quit for 5 months, starting again soon.
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
>Good Morning Paul,
>
>Please don't confuse my answer with anything you can hang your hat on, but
>my take would be that whether or not you need a remote annunciator for the 430
>is dependent on just where the Panel Unit is located.
>
>If it is way over to the right side in a canted panel as is common on many
>Bonanzas, it may or may not be considered as being within the pilots "normal"
>view. Some FAA inspectors have judged that such a location was OK.
>
>Others have disagreed.
>
>If the panel unit is mounted in the center panel of a Bonanza, as it is in
>some of the newer Cessna's and Pipers, I have never heard of anyone denying it
>is in the normal scan.
>
>When you are installing it in an experimental machine, I would say it is up
>to you to determine normal scan, but I am sure there are many fine Federal
>Officials who would disagree with me!
>
>There has been some guidance given that considered the pilots eyeball
>location and various angles therefrom, but I do not believe that has been written
>into a precise regulation as yet. I may well be wrong!
>
>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 12/5/2005 11:22:26 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>pfolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com writes:
>
>As a semi-related follow up to this, is there any need for an
>annunciator with a 430 and 206? I don't think so...
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
Eric
Is it easy to make that same device not only to indicate Low Voltage (steady
lit light) at 13.0 V, but also to indicate High Voltage at, for example
15,0 V, with the same LED but flashing ?
I would buy it right away.
Carlos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning)
>
>
> nuckollsr(at)cox.net
>
> >One could install the ov protection system and rely on a popped
> breaker
> >as some form of active notification . . . but keep in mind that
> alternators
> >will fail to produce power for lots of reasons that will not open the
> >breaker. Therefore, whether an ov protection system is even installed,
> >the active notification of low voltage would be my FIRST
> recommendation
> >for installed instrumentation in the electrical system. All other
> goodies
> >have some degree of usefulness but that light is your primary notice
> that
> >implementation of plan-B is called for to insure sweat-free
> termination
> >of the flight. Bob . . .
>
> The LV warning is the primary indicator of the health of the electrical
> system.
> I will be adding one of these to my website soon but you can see it now.
> Contact me offlist.
>
> http://www.periheliondesign.com/LV_Annunciator%20Manual.pdf
>
> This device has facility for dimming or adding alarms. Comments would be
> appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> (508) 764-2072
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Digital Ammeter - Batt meter or Load meter? |
Dear all
I already have a 50 mV shunt and a digital ammeter to hook on it, to serve as a
load ammeter or a battery ammeter.
I want to order an Hall efect sensor (Hes) to serve as the other. Questions:
Where can I find a digital ammeter (sources and part number would be very apreciated)
to receive the signal from the Hes ?
(I know that I can wire the Hes to the EFIS that I am planning to use, but I'd
prefer a separate digital ammeter)
Should I put the Shunt as a battery ammeter sensor and the Hes as a load meter
sensor or the other way round ?
Thanks
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Looking for alternator |
Hello All-
Well, I'm throwing in the towel on using my stock, internally regulated
RX-7 alternator. The design seems to make it very difficult (impossible) to
shut it down if the internal VR fails.
So, I am looking for a nice externally regulated 80-Amp alternator. I've
found a candidate at summit racing for $89. Wondering whether anyone has a
different recommendation? It's tough finding an appropriate alternator --
all the online sources want to know what car your looking to get a part for
first...
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Excuse my ignorance, but what is the advantage of having the cross feed contactor
in Z-14 ? In an all electric ship (EI, EFI) please give me the "what ifs" that
I'm missing.
Why not have the whole system on the primary(bigger) alternator and have the #2
alt kick in if the # 1 drops output below a preset? Like Bob said in the Z-14
text, the batteries will suck up the output deficit of the # 2 Alt and all I
have to know is to be on terra firma before the batts go dry.
Thanks,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
>
>
>Hello All-
>
>Well, I'm throwing in the towel on using my stock, internally regulated
>RX-7 alternator. The design seems to make it very difficult (impossible) to
>shut it down if the internal VR fails.
>
>So, I am looking for a nice externally regulated 80-Amp alternator. I've
>found a candidate at summit racing for $89. Wondering whether anyone has a
>different recommendation? It's tough finding an appropriate alternator --
>all the online sources want to know what car your looking to get a part for
>first...
Have you considered modifying the alternator you have? Unless
someone is offering you $ for it, you're not out much by attempting
the mod. If you have a digital camera, you can share the
configuration of what you find inside. I presume you've reviewed
the modification project linked several times here on the List?
http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/faculty/north/alternator/
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
Wayne-
perhaps you can help me out a bit. (And if my laptop decides to send this mail
before I'm done composing it, all I can say is, Sorry, dude; it's a Dell with
a touchpad. Even though I float my thumbs off the keyboard I sometimes manage
to hit a secret key sequence that erases half the message and sends the rest
out...)
I fly a VFR RV-6A with the Trio EZ-Pilot and a Garmin 296. I want to add altitude
hold and one day a GRT EFIS, and learn to fly IFR. In these respects, I'm
alot like the owner of GRT except he has the EFIS already ;-) Also, he went
with TruTrak (I'm getting back to that later...)
Since I have a brand loyalty to Trio, for whatever reason, I have been looking
at their Alt Hold product as the next step for me. I became concerned that GRT
didn't support Trio as of yet, except for lateral guidance. I called Trio
today to discuss this, and all they could tell me was that altitude hold devices
with any type of ILS-tracking capability were not even in the development phase,
though it was in their future planning.
I'm sure I could "get by" with the system you mention below, but having read Greg's
experiences with coupled approaches flown in his RV-6 on the GRT EFIS with
the Tru-Trak, I am really hoping to get that kind of sexy and luxurious capability
in my plane one day. Now, however, I am bringing myself up short and
asking whether I should just set my sights on your type of set-up, with Trio gear
driven by the GNS-430. Obviously, to fully exploit the intelligent frequency
nomination and TIS capabilities of the GRT EFIS, know I need to be looking
at that type of nav/comm/GPS to replace the Icom A-200 and the GPSmap 296 I'm
currently flying with.
I'm afraid that as an IFR-wanna be, I'm too ignorant to even be asking the right
questions. My gut tells me I should plan to remove and sell the Trio A/P and
plan on installing a high-end TruTrak, for the kind of coupled-approach capability
I _think_ I will want, but my wallet is screaming, "NO! Not 6k for an A/P
after what the EFIS and radios themselves will cost!" The Trio comes in at
under 4k altogether, of course.
I hope that's enough background on my situation to now ask, "So, what do you think?"
-Stormy
Snip>>BTW, a 430 coupled to a Trio Avionics Ezpilot auto pilot makes one SWEEEEEET
system. I had a Navaid Device with a S-Tec altitude hold (still do) and the
Navaid require constant monitoring as my fuel load was burning off unevenly
(wing tanks, which burn at slightly different rates). With the EzPilot, the
wing trim can be WAY OFF, and it handles it without complaint. Also,
intercept and track even for a 90 degree course change is REALLY nice. The
430 gives turn anticipation, but the old Navaid ignored it; not so with the
EzPilot.
One other item to contemplate; Trio also has a super altitude hold which
climb and descent rates, level off and of course altitude hold are included
for HALF the cost of my S-Tec (AHHGGGG!!!!). I learned about that AFTER
installing the S-Tec.
Wayne
<< snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>Excuse my ignorance, but what is the advantage of having the cross feed
>contactor in Z-14 ? In an all electric ship (EI, EFI) please give me the
>"what ifs" that I'm missing.
See page Z-4 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11D.pdf
>Why not have the whole system on the primary(bigger) alternator and have
>the #2 alt kick in if the # 1 drops output below a preset? Like Bob said
>in the Z-14 text, the batteries will suck up the output deficit of the # 2
>Alt and all I have to know is to be on terra firma before the batts go dry.
That's figure Z-12 which is described on page Z-3.
Check those sources out and get back with me if the
descriptions are unclear and/or you have additional
questions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> meter? |
| Subject: | Re: Digital Ammeter - Batt meter or Load |
meter?
>
>
>Dear all
>
>I already have a 50 mV shunt and a digital ammeter to hook on it, to serve
>as a load ammeter or a battery ammeter.
>I want to order an Hall efect sensor (Hes) to serve as the other. Questions:
>
>Where can I find a digital ammeter (sources and part number would be very
>apreciated) to receive the signal from the Hes ?
>(I know that I can wire the Hes to the EFIS that I am planning to use, but
>I'd prefer a separate digital ammeter)
>
>Should I put the Shunt as a battery ammeter sensor and the Hes as a load
>meter sensor or the other way round ?
Are you considering one of the z-figures? None of those architectures
supports the battery ammeter concept. See chapter 7 for a description
of architecture requirements to support the minus-0-plus style
battery ammeter. There are no standards for mating hall effect
sensors and there indicators . . . if you want such an instrument,
the sensor will come with the companion instrument.
If you want to run a battery ammeter with one of the z-figures,
you'll have to use a hall effect device . . . shunts should not
be wired such that they have to carry starter current while
hall-effect devices will not be damage by the short overload
transient . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
From what I have read, the Trio unit only offers an add-on Altitude Hold.
The TruTrak DigiFlight-II VSGV offers Vertical GPS Steering. Apparently, the
GRT EFIS can also take Glideslope data from a Nav radio, massage it, and
send it to the TruTrak unit as Vertical GPS data. In other words, it is
tricking the autopilot by sending it Vertical GPS data, even though the EFIS
is actually receiving Glideslope data. The EFIS also sends Vertical GPS data
to provide altitude preselect.
Note also that TruTrak also offers two high end autopilots, the DFC-200,
which will accept VOR/LOC/GS data directly from a Nav radio, and the
Sorcerer, which will also directly accept VOR/LOC/GS data and offers an
altitude preselect, with no EFIS required.
Please note that this is just from reading specs, and I don't work for any
of these guys...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
sportav8r(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
Wayne-
perhaps you can help me out a bit. (And if my laptop decides to send this
mail before I'm done composing it, all I can say is, Sorry, dude; it's a
Dell with a touchpad. Even though I float my thumbs off the keyboard I
sometimes manage to hit a secret key sequence that erases half the message
and sends the rest out...)
I fly a VFR RV-6A with the Trio EZ-Pilot and a Garmin 296. I want to add
altitude hold and one day a GRT EFIS, and learn to fly IFR. In these
respects, I'm alot like the owner of GRT except he has the EFIS already ;-)
Also, he went with TruTrak (I'm getting back to that later...)
Since I have a brand loyalty to Trio, for whatever reason, I have been
looking at their Alt Hold product as the next step for me. I became
concerned that GRT didn't support Trio as of yet, except for lateral
guidance. I called Trio today to discuss this, and all they could tell me
was that altitude hold devices with any type of ILS-tracking capability were
not even in the development phase, though it was in their future planning.
I'm sure I could "get by" with the system you mention below, but having read
Greg's experiences with coupled approaches flown in his RV-6 on the GRT EFIS
with the Tru-Trak, I am really hoping to get that kind of sexy and luxurious
capability in my plane one day. Now, however, I am bringing myself up
short and asking whether I should just set my sights on your type of set-up,
with Trio gear driven by the GNS-430. Obviously, to fully exploit the
intelligent frequency nomination and TIS capabilities of the GRT EFIS, know
I need to be looking at that type of nav/comm/GPS to replace the Icom A-200
and the GPSmap 296 I'm currently flying with.
I'm afraid that as an IFR-wanna be, I'm too ignorant to even be asking the
right questions. My gut tells me I should plan to remove and sell the Trio
A/P and plan on installing a high-end TruTrak, for the kind of
coupled-approach capability I _think_ I will want, but my wallet is
screaming, "NO! Not 6k for an A/P after what the EFIS and radios themselves
will cost!" The Trio comes in at under 4k altogether, of course.
I hope that's enough background on my situation to now ask, "So, what do you
think?"
-Stormy
Snip>>BTW, a 430 coupled to a Trio Avionics Ezpilot auto pilot makes one
SWEEEEEET
system. I had a Navaid Device with a S-Tec altitude hold (still do) and the
Navaid require constant monitoring as my fuel load was burning off unevenly
(wing tanks, which burn at slightly different rates). With the EzPilot, the
wing trim can be WAY OFF, and it handles it without complaint. Also,
intercept and track even for a 90 degree course change is REALLY nice. The
430 gives turn anticipation, but the old Navaid ignored it; not so with the
EzPilot.
One other item to contemplate; Trio also has a super altitude hold which
climb and descent rates, level off and of course altitude hold are included
for HALF the cost of my S-Tec (AHHGGGG!!!!). I learned about that AFTER
installing the S-Tec.
Wayne
<< snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
| From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
John,
Sure, I would be happy to post a follow-up message on this. I just put
the wings on this weekend, so it won't be long until I put some fuel in
one or both of them and can verify the fuel gauges are working. I don't
see how anything will change from when I first tested them though.
During my initial test, the probes were connected to the EFIS/1 high
freq inputs, fuel was poured into the open end (vent hole at inboard end
was plugged) and we observed the EFIS/1 fuel gauge registering from
empty to full. We then slowly drained the fuel out of the probe and the
gauge went back to empty. I anticipate having to do a final
calibration, but as for the basic operation, I sure do hope that nothing
changes.
Mark S.
-----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: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
Mark & D -
Here is a quote from the BMA discussion board, followed by a reply from
Bob Northrup - their tech support guy. We were told that the EI and VM
probes were virtually identical so we had to buy the Princeton modules
for
our VM probes. Using the sensor map that BMA put together, we are
putting
the output of the two princeton modules into pins 11 & 12 of Analog 2 on
the EFIS/ONE. We are using the frequency channels for fuel flow and
tachometer.
Mark - It looks like you are hooking your EI probes directly to the two
hi
freq channels (13 & 14) (Pins 9 & 10 of analog 2). I'll be interested in
seeing how it works and quite irked if we got a bad steer from BMA. And
being irked is also contingent on finding out that the EI and VM probes
are not equal electrically. This would make the tech people at EI appear
to be wandering in the swamp.
Anyway, since neither of us are flying yet, let's keep each other
informed
as to how this problem shakes out.
Cheers,
John
===================Quote =============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
Good Afternoon Bill,
You make a very good point.
Most of us learn by seeing how what we are learning connects with what we
already know and then progressing on from there.
The older Northstar Loran and GPS units were very easy for most folks to
learn to use, but they took more button pushing and knob twisting than did
several other offerings that took a bit more time to learn how to use. I would
imagine that using any of the new boxes when coming from a clean slate would be
a lot different than it is for we who have been using various pieces of
equipment for fifty years or more.
The more capable and flexible the machine, the more possible combinations
that need to be understood. I have no experience with either the 430 or the 480,
but I have been told that the operating philosophies are quite a bit
different from one to the other. Since the 430 builds on procedures that have
been
common in earlier GPS and LORAN units, it is easier for previous Garmin users
to learn, but if one is starting with a clean slate, the 480 may be just as
easy to learn as the 430!
Thanks for telling us of your experience.
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 12/5/2005 3:19:04 P.M. Central Standard Time, bden
ton(at)bdenton.com writes:
Admittedly, I'm a computer geek, and am not intimidated by this type of
equipment, but I have found the GNS 480 simulator, as well as the GNS
430/GNS 530 simulators, both intuitive and relatively easy to use...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Hi Mark -
I must have missed the point that you had tested the concept of using the
high freq inputs to EFIS/ONE. Just to re-affirm: you have EI probes in
your Legacy and will use them to get your fuel quantity from the EFIS/ONE.
If you don't have any troubles, I'll really be pissed with BMA!!! We had
to buy the Princeton modules, wire them in (at the cost of adding more
complexity to the system) and then calibrate the fuel system twice - once
for the modules and once for the EFIS.
How did you get the 5 volts to the probes? Did you have to use a voltage
divider?
Has Greg or Bob Northrup been advised? Any comments from them about the
test? The only difference between yours and mine is that we have VM probes
- which EI swears are identical to theirs. WE shall see.
Ah well, we may be able to bypass the modules and dispense with one of the
calibrations!!! :-))
Best,
John
wrote:
>
>
> John,
> Sure, I would be happy to post a follow-up message on this. I just put
> the wings on this weekend, so it won't be long until I put some fuel in
> one or both of them and can verify the fuel gauges are working. I don't
> see how anything will change from when I first tested them though.
> During my initial test, the probes were connected to the EFIS/1 high
> freq inputs, fuel was poured into the open end (vent hole at inboard end
> was plugged) and we observed the EFIS/1 fuel gauge registering from
> empty to full. We then slowly drained the fuel out of the probe and the
> gauge went back to empty. I anticipate having to do a final
> calibration, but as for the basic operation, I sure do hope that nothing
> changes.
>
> Mark S.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Schroeder
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
> Fuel Level Probes P-300C
>
>
>
> Mark & D -
>
> Here is a quote from the BMA discussion board, followed by a reply from
>
> Bob Northrup - their tech support guy. We were told that the EI and VM
> probes were virtually identical so we had to buy the Princeton modules
> for
> our VM probes. Using the sensor map that BMA put together, we are
> putting
> the output of the two princeton modules into pins 11 & 12 of Analog 2 on
>
> the EFIS/ONE. We are using the frequency channels for fuel flow and
> tachometer.
>
> Mark - It looks like you are hooking your EI probes directly to the two
> hi
> freq channels (13 & 14) (Pins 9 & 10 of analog 2). I'll be interested in
>
> seeing how it works and quite irked if we got a bad steer from BMA. And
>
> being irked is also contingent on finding out that the EI and VM probes
>
> are not equal electrically. This would make the tech people at EI appear
>
> to be wandering in the swamp.
>
> Anyway, since neither of us are flying yet, let's keep each other
> informed
> as to how this problem shakes out.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> ===================Quote =============
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
On 5 Dec 2005, at 12:43, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Good Morning Paul,
>
> Please don't confuse my answer with anything you can hang your hat
> on, but
> my take would be that whether or not you need a remote annunciator
> for the 430
> is dependent on just where the Panel Unit is located.
>
> If it is way over to the right side in a canted panel as is common
> on many
> Bonanzas, it may or may not be considered as being within the
> pilots "normal"
> view. Some FAA inspectors have judged that such a location was OK.
>
> Others have disagreed.
>
> If the panel unit is mounted in the center panel of a Bonanza, as
> it is in
> some of the newer Cessna's and Pipers, I have never heard of anyone
> denying it
> is in the normal scan.
>
> When you are installing it in an experimental machine, I would say
> it is up
> to you to determine normal scan, but I am sure there are many fine
> Federal
> Officials who would disagree with me!
>
> There has been some guidance given that considered the pilots eyeball
> location and various angles therefrom, but I do not believe that
> has been written
> into a precise regulation as yet. I may well be wrong!
>
Bob,
Way up here in Canada there was a lot of confusion and conflicting
interpretations when trying to use the guidance in AC 20-138A. AC
20-138A refers to a "center avionics stack", which may be installed
in different places in different model aircraft. We decided that
tighter criteria were needed to ensure the intent of AC 20-138A was
met, and to avoid inconsistent interpretations. We initially created
a Flight Test Working Note, then took the resulting feedback,
adjusted it, and published it as Transport Canada Aircraft
Certification Policy Letter 523-008 "Design Guidelines and Human
Factors Considerations for Installation of IFR GPS/GNSS Receivers".
It details our interpretation of the guidance in AC 20-138A. ACPL
523-008 obviously isn't applicable to US registered aircraft, and it
specifically is only applicable to type certificated light aircraft.
But it might be of interest in this discussion. I think it provides
practical guidance on when an external annunciator unit is required,
and when it isn't. See:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/certification/guidance/523/523-008.htm
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
Or to save a lot of money (Hall effect sensors are not cheap) stick *one* in
the line feeding the main bus and watch the change as you turn an individual
load off and on.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LarryRobertHelming
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter?
-->
Based on desire for an immediate answer as to where anyone could place
sensors I will stick my toe into the pond and get the first ripple started.
"Hall effect devices sense the effects of current flowing in the
wire without actually taking energy out and wasting it."
So, I would use the 24 Hall Effect Devices to report where current is
flowing within my system. I want to know first how much the alternator is
producing. I want to know how much the landing lights are using when I turn
them on. How much the radio uses when listening and when transmitting. I
think you get the idea. Then you need a selector switch of some sort to
select which sensor you want to look in on. I guess you could program you
own mini TV and display the results of all 24 sensors. Add up all the
usages, and compare that to the alternator output to know what your loss is
in the overall system.
Indiana Larry
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
From: <Speedy11(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter?
>
> Bob,
> As usual, your answers are extremely frustrating! You talk all around
> the subject but never address the subject headon.
> " Correct. Hall effect devices sense the effects of current flowing
> in the wire without actually taking energy out and wasting it. However,
> the term 'acceptable' is not terribly relevant in the context of this
> discussion. ALL methods are acceptable to someone's design goals."
> Let's assume that my design goal is to sense current in the wire
> without out taking energy out of the wire. Therefore, let's accept
> that sensing that current using a HE device is "acceptable" to me.
> SNIP
> I'm anxious to see what the run-around answer will be this time.
> Actually, I've probably PO'd Bob enough that he won't answer.
> Perhaps someone can help.
> Again, my design goal:
> ---twelve sensors in electrical system (or make it 24 if that would be
> better) (uh oh, better is a relative term like acceptable ... let's
> see ... just make it 24 sensors) ---where to locate the sensors to
> permit troubleshooting ---type of sensors to get the readings Anyone?
> Stan Sutterfield
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | RE: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning) |
Here is a stupid question - what if you are driving the LED from the same
line that is being monitored and the voltage goes to zero? No power for the
LED. It is true that in a points & coil system the engine will just stop.
But in a mag-based system the motor will keep going. If an auxiliary battery
is installed then shouldn't the LED be powered from that? Or am I worrying
too much?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M.
Jones
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning)
-->
nuckollsr(at)cox.net
>One could install the ov protection system and rely on a popped breaker
>as some form of active notification . . . but keep in mind that
alternators
>will fail to produce power for lots of reasons that will not open the
>breaker. Therefore, whether an ov protection system is even installed,
>the active notification of low voltage would be my FIRST recommendation
>for installed instrumentation in the electrical system. All other
goodies
>have some degree of usefulness but that light is your primary notice
that
>implementation of plan-B is called for to insure sweat-free termination
>of the flight. Bob . . .
The LV warning is the primary indicator of the health of the electrical
system.
I will be adding one of these to my website soon but you can see it now.
Contact me offlist.
http://www.periheliondesign.com/LV_Annunciator%20Manual.pdf
This device has facility for dimming or adding alarms. Comments would be
appreciated.
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: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
I am not familiar with TruTrak, other than the name, so I cannot comment on
it. However, being a "gadget guy" and firmly believing that the one with the
most gadgets wins, a couple AP to the ILS (my GNS430 is SO nice on ILS
approaches; does some of the frequency settings, etc) would be a fun thing
to have. Would I trust it in IMC? Would I want to "miss out" on hand flying
the ILS to minimums? Well, if I'm at the end of a 3 hour leg in solid IMC
(extremely rare for me anyway), then, yeh, I might use that couple approach
system. However at the instant of disconnecting the AP and starting to hand
fly AND at decision ht........ whew, not sure I would want to do that.
Suppose the airplane is a bit out of trim, nose and/or ailerons. You can see
my reluctance.
It seems to me to utilize the coupled ILS/AP would require more recent
experience (UH,, more currency???) then just the old fashioned hand stuff
requires. Here in Central Ca., at KSNS, we get low stratus and fog often in
the summer and ground fog in the winter. Many times IMC is not until about
1000 AGL, well inside the outer marker and where the LOC/GS cones are
getting really narrow, and ceilings at minimums. To me this is the most
difficult approach, since it's so easy to stay VMC until that ~1000' AGL
point. Now one has to get on the gauges and focus on the NAV information,
having the missed approach stuff in mind, etc., etc.,... and so on. The more
one does this, the more likely one will have the plane at speed and trimmed,
so that upon AP disconnect there are no surprises.
Holly cow, not sure I've answered any of your concerns. Sorry if that is the
case.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <sportav8r(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
>
> Wayne-
>
> perhaps you can help me out a bit. (And if my laptop decides to send this
> mail before I'm done composing it, all I can say is, Sorry, dude; it's a
> Dell with a touchpad. Even though I float my thumbs off the keyboard I
> sometimes manage to hit a secret key sequence that erases half the message
> and sends the rest out...)
>
> I fly a VFR RV-6A with the Trio EZ-Pilot and a Garmin 296. I want to add
> altitude hold and one day a GRT EFIS, and learn to fly IFR. In these
> respects, I'm alot like the owner of GRT except he has the EFIS already
> ;-) Also, he went with TruTrak (I'm getting back to that later...)
>
> Since I have a brand loyalty to Trio, for whatever reason, I have been
> looking at their Alt Hold product as the next step for me. I became
> concerned that GRT didn't support Trio as of yet, except for lateral
> guidance. I called Trio today to discuss this, and all they could tell me
> was that altitude hold devices with any type of ILS-tracking capability
> were not even in the development phase, though it was in their future
> planning.
>
> I'm sure I could "get by" with the system you mention below, but having
> read Greg's experiences with coupled approaches flown in his RV-6 on the
> GRT EFIS with the Tru-Trak, I am really hoping to get that kind of sexy
> and luxurious capability in my plane one day. Now, however, I am
> bringing myself up short and asking whether I should just set my sights on
> your type of set-up, with Trio gear driven by the GNS-430. Obviously, to
> fully exploit the intelligent frequency nomination and TIS capabilities of
> the GRT EFIS, know I need to be looking at that type of nav/comm/GPS to
> replace the Icom A-200 and the GPSmap 296 I'm currently flying with.
>
> I'm afraid that as an IFR-wanna be, I'm too ignorant to even be asking the
> right questions. My gut tells me I should plan to remove and sell the
> Trio A/P and plan on installing a high-end TruTrak, for the kind of
> coupled-approach capability I _think_ I will want, but my wallet is
> screaming, "NO! Not 6k for an A/P after what the EFIS and radios
> themselves will cost!" The Trio comes in at under 4k altogether, of
> course.
>
> I hope that's enough background on my situation to now ask, "So, what do
> you think?"
>
> -Stormy
>
>
> Snip>>BTW, a 430 coupled to a Trio Avionics Ezpilot auto pilot makes one
> SWEEEEEET
> system. I had a Navaid Device with a S-Tec altitude hold (still do) and
> the
> Navaid require constant monitoring as my fuel load was burning off
> unevenly
> (wing tanks, which burn at slightly different rates). With the EzPilot,
> the
> wing trim can be WAY OFF, and it handles it without complaint. Also,
> intercept and track even for a 90 degree course change is REALLY nice. The
> 430 gives turn anticipation, but the old Navaid ignored it; not so with
> the
> EzPilot.
> One other item to contemplate; Trio also has a super altitude hold which
> climb and descent rates, level off and of course altitude hold are
> included
> for HALF the cost of my S-Tec (AHHGGGG!!!!). I learned about that AFTER
> installing the S-Tec.
> Wayne
> << snip
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Clark <jclarkmail(at)gmail.com> |
I think Bob describes this in his documentation somewhere in the
AeroElectric Book but as a "subsciber" to Z-14 here is my take.
1. You have two *independent* electrical systems with Z-14 whose
2. Copmponents **can** be "shared" when needed such as ..
3. Use of both batteries for cranking **IF** needed or
4. Having things wired so one battery can CRANK and the other keep the EI
happy or
5. If one of the *4* sources of electricity dies, you have access to each of
the other 3 to power anything you want in your all electric system and ..
6. The ability to either leave the "crossfeed" switch always "on" or simply
throw it "on" when some part dies (in the middle of the night while IFR in a
storm, over the mountains, bkah, blah ....:-) ) and not have to worry about
much else for quite some time.
That's what I see in it and why I am using it. And quite frankly for those
who say it is heavier, I really don't care.
James
p.s. Some will see complexity in it ... I see a level of elegance and
simplicity.
On 12/5/05, John Burnaby wrote:
>
> jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but what is the advantage of having the cross feed
> contactor in Z-14 ? In an all electric ship (EI, EFI) please give me the
> "what ifs" that I'm missing.
>
> Why not have the whole system on the primary(bigger) alternator and have
> the #2 alt kick in if the # 1 drops output below a preset? Like Bob said in
> the Z-14 text, the batteries will suck up the output deficit of the # 2 Alt
> and all I have to know is to be on terra firma before the batts go dry.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
--
This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at
james(at)nextupventures.com .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
I g
-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Sweet <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
I am not familiar with TruTrak, other than the name, so I cannot comment on
it. However, being a "gadget guy" and firmly believing that the one with the
most gadgets wins, a couple AP to the ILS (my GNS430 is SO nice on ILS
approaches; does some of the frequency settings, etc) would be a fun thing
to have. Would I trust it in IMC? Would I want to "miss out" on hand flying
the ILS to minimums? Well, if I'm at the end of a 3 hour leg in solid IMC
(extremely rare for me anyway), then, yeh, I might use that couple approach
system. However at the instant of disconnecting the AP and starting to hand
fly AND at decision ht........ whew, not sure I would want to do that.
Suppose the airplane is a bit out of trim, nose and/or ailerons. You can see
my reluctance.
It seems to me to utilize the coupled ILS/AP would require more recent
experience (UH,, more currency???) then just the old fashioned hand stuff
requires. Here in Central Ca., at KSNS, we get low stratus and fog often in
the summer and ground fog in the winter. Many times IMC is not until about
1000 AGL, well inside the outer marker and where the LOC/GS cones are
getting really narrow, and ceilings at minimums. To me this is the most
difficult approach, since it's so easy to stay VMC until that ~1000' AGL
point. Now one has to get on the gauges and focus on the NAV information,
having the missed approach stuff in mind, etc., etc.,... and so on. The more
one does this, the more likely one will have the plane at speed and trimmed,
so that upon AP disconnect there are no surprises.
Holly cow, not sure I've answered any of your concerns. Sorry if that is the
case.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <sportav8r(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
>
> Wayne-
>
> perhaps you can help me out a bit. (And if my laptop decides to send this
> mail before I'm done composing it, all I can say is, Sorry, dude; it's a
> Dell with a touchpad. Even though I float my thumbs off the keyboard I
> sometimes manage to hit a secret key sequence that erases half the message
> and sends the rest out...)
>
> I fly a VFR RV-6A with the Trio EZ-Pilot and a Garmin 296. I want to add
> altitude hold and one day a GRT EFIS, and learn to fly IFR. In these
> respects, I'm alot like the owner of GRT except he has the EFIS already
> ;-) Also, he went with TruTrak (I'm getting back to that later...)
>
> Since I have a brand loyalty to Trio, for whatever reason, I have been
> looking at their Alt Hold product as the next step for me. I became
> concerned that GRT didn't support Trio as of yet, except for lateral
> guidance. I called Trio today to discuss this, and all they could tell me
> was that altitude hold devices with any type of ILS-tracking capability
> were not even in the development phase, though it was in their future
> planning.
>
> I'm sure I could "get by" with the system you mention below, but having
> read Greg's experiences with coupled approaches flown in his RV-6 on the
> GRT EFIS with the Tru-Trak, I am really hoping to get that kind of sexy
> and luxurious capability in my plane one day. Now, however, I am
> bringing myself up short and asking whether I should just set my sights on
> your type of set-up, with Trio gear driven by the GNS-430. Obviously, to
> fully exploit the intelligent frequency nomination and TIS capabilities of
> the GRT EFIS, know I need to be looking at that type of nav/comm/GPS to
> replace the Icom A-200 and the GPSmap 296 I'm currently flying with.
>
> I'm afraid that as an IFR-wanna be, I'm too ignorant to even be asking the
> right questions. My gut tells me I should plan to remove and sell the
> Trio A/P and plan on installing a high-end TruTrak, for the kind of
> coupled-approach capability I _think_ I will want, but my wallet is
> screaming, "NO! Not 6k for an A/P after what the EFIS and radios
> themselves will cost!" The Trio comes in at under 4k altogether, of
> course.
>
> I hope that's enough background on my situation to now ask, "So, what do
> you think?"
>
> -Stormy
>
>
> Snip>>BTW, a 430 coupled to a Trio Avionics Ezpilot auto pilot makes one
> SWEEEEEET
> system. I had a Navaid Device with a S-Tec altitude hold (still do) and
> the
> Navaid require constant monitoring as my fuel load was burning off
> unevenly
> (wing tanks, which burn at slightly different rates). With the EzPilot,
> the
> wing trim can be WAY OFF, and it handles it without complaint. Also,
> intercept and track even for a 90 degree course change is REALLY nice. The
> 430 gives turn anticipation, but the old Navaid ignored it; not so with
> the
> EzPilot.
> One other item to contemplate; Trio also has a super altitude hold which
> climb and descent rates, level off and of course altitude hold are
> included
> for HALF the cost of my S-Tec (AHHGGGG!!!!). I learned about that AFTER
> installing the S-Tec.
> Wayne
> << snip
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Looking for alternator |
80 amps? I'm probably ignorant but what is in your plane that requires 80
amps? I think that Bob has thrown numbers like 27 amps for a full IFR panel.
What am I missing here?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark R.
Supinski
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Looking for alternator
-->
Hello All-
Well, I'm throwing in the towel on using my stock, internally regulated
RX-7 alternator. The design seems to make it very difficult (impossible) to
shut it down if the internal VR fails.
So, I am looking for a nice externally regulated 80-Amp alternator. I've
found a candidate at summit racing for $89. Wondering whether anyone has a
different recommendation? It's tough finding an appropriate alternator --
all the online sources want to know what car your looking to get a part for
first...
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
I guess what I'd be looking for is the security that if I suffered absolute brain
disconnect while on approach in the soup, the electronics would be there to
take over for me while I slapped myself and got back in the groove. Having yet
to experience an approach and landing in IMC, either as pax or student pilot,
I may be selling myself short, but having strayed briefly into inadvertent
IMC a time or two, I do understand and respect the adrenaline surge that accompanies
the inner voice, "Now you've done it!" and how hard it is to keep wits
about you when suddenly distracted like that. I figure that fully coupled approach
capability would be such a safety net/security blanket for those times after
I get my rating when I do end up in IFR that gets a bit more dicey than forecast.
I'll talk to the gurus at GRT soon, but have this feeling that the Trio A/P is
coming out of my plane and going onto eBay in favor of the more expensive but
more capable TruTrak units. This is a sad thing. I like Trio alot for what it
does. It's been a terrific VFR addition to my flying.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Sweet <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
I am not familiar with TruTrak, other than the name, so I cannot comment on
it. However, being a "gadget guy" and firmly believing that the one with the
most gadgets wins, a couple AP to the ILS (my GNS430 is SO nice on ILS
approaches; does some of the frequency settings, etc) would be a fun thing
to have. Would I trust it in IMC? Would I want to "miss out" on hand flying
the ILS to minimums? Well, if I'm at the end of a 3 hour leg in solid IMC
(extremely rare for me anyway), then, yeh, I might use that couple approach
system. However at the instant of disconnecting the AP and starting to hand
fly AND at decision ht........ whew, not sure I would want to do that.
Suppose the airplane is a bit out of trim, nose and/or ailerons. You can see
my reluctance.
It seems to me to utilize the coupled ILS/AP would require more recent
experience (UH,, more currency???) then just the old fashioned hand stuff
requires. Here in Central Ca., at KSNS, we get low stratus and fog often in
the summer and ground fog in the winter. Many times IMC is not until about
1000 AGL, well inside the outer marker and where the LOC/GS cones are
getting really narrow, and ceilings at minimums. To me this is the most
difficult approach, since it's so easy to stay VMC until that ~1000' AGL
point. Now one has to get on the gauges and focus on the NAV information,
having the missed approach stuff in mind, etc., etc.,... and so on. The more
one does this, the more likely one will have the plane at speed and trimmed,
so that upon AP disconnect there are no surprises.
Holly cow, not sure I've answered any of your concerns. Sorry if that is the
case.
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
> I guess what I'd be looking for is the security that if I suffered
> absolute brain disconnect while on approach in the soup, the
> electronics would be there to take over for me while I slapped
> myself and got back in the groove. Having yet to experience an
> approach and landing in IMC, either as pax or student pilot, I may
> be selling myself short, but having strayed briefly into
> inadvertent IMC a time or two, I do understand and respect the
> adrenaline surge that accompanies the inner voice, "Now you've done
> it!" and how hard it is to keep wits about you when suddenly
> distracted like that. I figure that fully coupled approach
> capability would be such a safety net/security blanket for those
> times after I get my rating when I do end up in IFR that gets a bit
> more dicey than forecast.
>
Don't take this personally, but if you need the autopilot to be safe
in the soup, you shouldn't be going in the soup. Flying in IMC
requires a fair bit of currency to do safely (expect perhaps for
cloud breaks, where you are 100% certain to only be in the cloud for
a short period, and with a decent height between the bottom of the
cloud and the ground). If you can't get enough IMC time to be
reasonably proficient, you should stick to VFR operations, IMNSHO.
Fly safe.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
James -
You said it better than I: It is an elegant, flexible electrical system. I
installed it in our Lancair ES.
Cheers,
John Schroeder
LNCE Wings and things in the paint shop.
> 1. You have two *independent* electrical systems with Z-14 whose
> 2. Copmponents **can** be "shared" when needed such as ..
> 3. Use of both batteries for cranking **IF** needed or
> 4. Having things wired so one battery can CRANK and the other keep the EI
> happy or
> 5. If one of the *4* sources of electricity dies, you have access to
> each of
> the other 3 to power anything you want in your all electric system and ..
> 6. The ability to either leave the "crossfeed" switch always "on" or
> simply
> throw it "on" when some part dies (in the middle of the night while IFR
> in a
> storm, over the mountains, blah, blah ....:-) ) and not have to worry
> about
> much else for quite some time.
>
> That's what I see in it and why I am using it. And quite frankly for
> those
> who say it is heavier, I really don't care.
>
> James
> p.s. Some will see complexity in it ... I see a level of elegance and
> simplicity.
>
> On 12/5/05, John Burnaby wrote:
>>
>> Excuse my ignorance, but what is the advantage of having the cross feed
>> contactor in Z-14 ? In an all electric ship (EI, EFI) please give me the
>> "what ifs" that I'm missing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | RE: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning) |
>Here is a stupid question - what if you are driving the LED from the same
>line that is being monitored and the voltage goes to zero? No power for the
>LED. It is true that in a points & coil system the engine will just stop.
>But in a mag-based system the motor will keep going. If an auxiliary
>battery
>is installed then shouldn't the LED be powered from that? Or am I worrying
>too much?-- Craig
Craig,
This design has separate sensor and LED circuits that allow powering the LED
from some other source (like the E-bus or battery bus). If the monitor lead
is then attached to the alternator output it will detect a failing
alternator with high confidence.
See: http://www.periheliondesign.com/LV_Annunciator%20Manual.pdf
There have been questions regarding this both on and off the list--
>Is it easy to make that same device not only to indicate Low Voltage
>(steady
>lit light) at 13.0 V, but also to indicate High Voltage at, for example
>15,0 V, with the same LED but flashing ? Carlos Trigo
Carlos,
Doing both is possible. My view is that a high voltage warning demands
immediate and automatic action, and low voltage warning does not. (Some of
this depends on what you are flying). Even in a combined Hi-Lo system I
would want some sort of quick alternator shut off to occur. Once the
alternator was shut off then the lo volt warning light would immediately go
on---so the high voltage blinking light might be on for only milliseconds.
>I need a similar device but, really would like a high voltage warning
>(adjustable) alarm also. I have seen too many instances where the
>alternator runs high >due to a voltage regulator failure. By the time the
>pilot figures out his alternator is running afoul his battery has cooked
>and puked its acid base into the >battery box and other places.
From David Lloyd--
>Any suggestions to finding a unit that does both high and low voltage
>monitoring?? David
As above, one should have automatic protection against high voltage, but
then the transition from high to low is just a blink. Whether you use the
crowbar or Linear-OVM, you need some automatic OV protection.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true."
James Clerk Maxwell, discoverer of electromagnetism
"Too much of a good thing can be wonderful."
Mae West, discoverer of personal magnetism
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS INSTALLATION |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.5000 1.0000 0.0000
Responding to an email from Daniel Snow which is copied below.
11/05/2005
Hello Daniel, No need to apologize -- I welcome your questions and like your
cautious approach. Before I address your questions individually I invite
your attention to the article "Homebuilt In the Clouds" by Dick Koehler
starting on page 62 of the September 2005 issue of Sport Aviation magazine.
He gives some good insight into the fundamental problem faced by the FAA in
this regard. Simply stated in my words it is that:
1) The FAA recognizes that some amateur built experimental aircraft have
achieved the sophistication and utility level that permitting them to fly
IFR is warranted.
2) There are no published certification standards for amateur built
experimental aircraft.
3) Any attempt to create such standards, educate all of the builders and FAA
and DAR inspectors about those standards, and then create the administrative
structure to enforce those standards out in the field would be an
overwhelming task. In addition it would defeat much of what the amateur
built experimental aircraft program is all about by creating a stifling
bureaucratic blanket on the innovations that come from that community.
So the approach chosen by the FAA was to continue the administration of a
basic day VFR amateur built experimental aircraft program and create an
avenue that would allow the builder to pursue IFR capability on his own if
he adhered to certain requirements for his aircraft. That avenue is found in
the following two sentences in the 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."
"Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must
be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91.
Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft
maintenance records."
In essence the FAA or DAR inspector grants a Special Airworthiness
Certificate (which includes the Operating Limitations) for the aircraft to
fly day VFR. The aircraft must remain day VFR during its Phase I flight
testing. Upon completion of that flight testing if the builder decides that
he wants to fly IFR he must follow the requirements of his Operating
Limitations for equipping his aircraft to do so. No FAA administrative
structure exists to subsequently approve or inspect how he equips his
amateur built experimental aircraft for IFR operations.
<>
Yes, many do, but consider this: Putting together an IFR capable panel is
not a trivial activity. (You may have heard the saying "Any one can build an
airplane, it takes a real man to build the instrument panel for it." So the
reality is that the majority of IFR capable panels are probably not built by
individual builders, but instead are built by companies specializing in
building such panels. Just look at the ads by panel building companies in
the magazines that cater to our community. And the FAA specifically permits
this in paragraph 6. b. of AC 20-139.
On the other end of the spectrum there are builders out there that are so
deeply into the electron flow within their airplane that the airframe is
just an adjunct device to haul around this magnificent avionics suite that
they labored over for xxx months or years.
You wrote: "I would read the FAR's before installing, and I would use best
practices and FAA guidance to install the unit.>>
Right on, and don't forget the AIM (Aeronautical Information Manual). It has
extensive information now on both GPS hardware, software (data base currency
and use) and flight operations.
You wrote: "I'm also assuming there is no continuing certification
requirements for an IFR GPS?>>
I am not sure that I understand what your question here. There is no
periodic testing of the IFR GPS hardware per FAA directives like there is
for the transponder, encoder, and altimeter. There are navigation database
currency requirements that have been chewed over in some detail in recent
postings.
<>
Hey, I am no authority -- Just a fellow builder who tries to understand the
bureaucratic bramble bushes and pass on what I can glean. I don't mind being
questioned at all -- many times I have learned something important when
somebody doubted me and I had to dig deeper.
You could query Joe Norris at EAA. jnorris(at)eaa.org. I'll send him a copy of
this email to make it easier for you. Be sure to let us all know if he has
some wrinkle that is not apparent to us. Thanks.
OC
PS: You may find out that the initial equippage of your aircraft for GPS IFR
flight is not the biggest hurdle. Becoming IFR proficient (not just
current), maintaining that currency / proficiency (got safety pilots
handy?), getting good in flight weather information (radar, XM satellite
weather?), and paying for the up keep of a legal IFR GPS navigation data
base, are all significant things to consider.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Snow, Daniel A." <Daniel.Snow(at)wancdf.com>
Subject: IFR GPS INSTALLATION
I'm sorry to belabor this point, but I just want to make sure of what I
think you said, since you were answering a different but similar question.
I would like to have an IFR GPS, but I don't want to pay the price to have a
shop install/certify the unit. Are you saying that I, as the builder, can
install an IFR GPS in my experimental without a shop or FAA involvement, and
legally use it to fly IFR? Do you know if very many experimental builders
do this? I would read the FAR's before installing, and I would use best
practices and FAA guidance to install the unit. I'm also assuming there is
no continuing certification requirements for an IFR GPS?
Lastly, how confident are you of this interpretation? I don't mean to
question you, but just to establish the certainty of this approach.
Sorry again for prolonging the topic. Thanks.
BELOW IS A PREVIOUS POSTING WHICH TRIGGERED DANIEL'S QUERY ABOVE
12/2/2005
Hello John, Short answer first. No, your friend does not have to file any
additional IFR approval paperwork with the FAA for the installation of a
Garmin 430 GPS in his Glasair amateur built experimental airplane.
To explain:
1) Your friend did not need and did not have any specific ".....orginal
signoff for IFR in his operating limitations." He did not need, and should
not have attempted to obtain, any such subsequent FAA approved sign off.
2) His Operating Limitations, which were part of his original special
airworthiness certificate issued by either an FAA or DAR inspector, should
contain words like the following from the then current version of FAA Order
8130.2_:
"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."
"Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must
be inspected
and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft
maintenance records."
3) Those sentences are the grand sum total of IFR approval for his aircraft
equipment.
There are some other instructions in his Operating Limitations that would
apply when operating the aircraft IFR such as:
"In addition, this aircraft must be operated in accordance with applicable
air traffic and general operating rules of part 91and all additional
limitations herein prescribed under the provisions of 91.319(e)."
"When filing instrument flight rules (IFR), the experimental nature of this
aircraft must be listed in the remarks section of the flight plan."
As long as his aircraft is in compliance with his Operating Limitations and
the instructions in the current version of the AIM he is legal to fly IFR
with no further aircraft approval or paperwork from the FAA.
4) I might point out that included in the AIM for IFR GPS operations are the
requirements that the pilot comply with instructions in his AFM and AFM
supplement and pilot guides. Since your friend is in control of what is in,
or not in, his planes AFM and supplement that should present no problem.
Since the pilot guide for his Garmin GPS is published by Garmin, complying
with that guide should be no problem.
5) Common sense would require that the pilot follow some installation
guidance such as that provided in AC 20-138A and a perform a healthy dose of
VFR / VMC flight testing before attempting any IFR operations.
Please let me know if I can be of further help.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
I highly respect your "NSHO," Kevin. I'm a complete newbie when it comes to IFR.
You are the esteemed test pilot. We will forgive you in this instance for
being Canadian ;-)
I have heard smarter pilots than me comment, however, that the presence of a good
autopilot makes single-pilot IFR in an RV something a reasonable person might
actually consider, vs. lunacy. Since many think it takes an A/P to tame the
RV as a workable IFR platform, I simply plan to install the best I can get if
I'm to venture there at all. Does that make sense?
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
> I guess what I'd be looking for is the security that if I suffered
> absolute brain disconnect while on approach in the soup, the
> electronics would be there to take over for me while I slapped
> myself and got back in the groove. Having yet to experience an
> approach and landing in IMC, either as pax or student pilot, I may
> be selling myself short, but having strayed briefly into
> inadvertent IMC a time or two, I do understand and respect the
> adrenaline surge that accompanies the inner voice, "Now you've done
> it!" and how hard it is to keep wits about you when suddenly
> distracted like that. I figure that fully coupled approach
> capability would be such a safety net/security blanket for those
> times after I get my rating when I do end up in IFR that gets a bit
> more dicey than forecast.
>
Don't take this personally, but if you need the autopilot to be safe
in the soup, you shouldn't be going in the soup. Flying in IMC
requires a fair bit of currency to do safely (expect perhaps for
cloud breaks, where you are 100% certain to only be in the cloud for
a short period, and with a decent height between the bottom of the
cloud and the ground). If you can't get enough IMC time to be
reasonably proficient, you should stick to VFR operations, IMNSHO.
Fly safe.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Huft <aflyer(at)lazy8.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
version=3.0.3
Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>>I guess what I'd be looking for is the security that if I suffered
>>absolute brain disconnect while on approach in the soup, the
>>electronics would be there to take over for me while I slapped
>>myself and got back in the groove. Having yet to experience an
>>approach and landing in IMC, either as pax or student pilot, I may
>>be selling myself short, but having strayed briefly into
>>inadvertent IMC a time or two, I do understand and respect the
>>adrenaline surge that accompanies the inner voice, "Now you've done
>>it!" and how hard it is to keep wits about you when suddenly
>>distracted like that. I figure that fully coupled approach
>>capability would be such a safety net/security blanket for those
>>times after I get my rating when I do end up in IFR that gets a bit
>>more dicey than forecast.
>>
>
>
> Don't take this personally, but if you need the autopilot to be safe
> in the soup, you shouldn't be going in the soup. Flying in IMC
> requires a fair bit of currency to do safely (expect perhaps for
> cloud breaks, where you are 100% certain to only be in the cloud for
> a short period, and with a decent height between the bottom of the
> cloud and the ground). If you can't get enough IMC time to be
> reasonably proficient, you should stick to VFR operations, IMNSHO.
>
> Fly safe.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
Stormy, while what Kevin says is true, I think he missed a little hint
on your level of experience. You talk about adrenaline when you go in a
cloud, but when you have an instrument rating, and a little experience,
you know that you can handle it, and the fear/adrenaline is replace by a
sense of focus, and a quiet competence. The thing that you gain with a
capable autopilot is the ability to study a chart, or approach plate,
when solo. If ATC suddenly assigns a different approach, or the weather
at your destination goes below minimums, and you have to divert to
another airport, it is a wonderful thing to have an autopilot fly the
airplane while you go digging through your flight bag.
In the beginning, I would fly solo IFR without an autopilot, but now I
consider it indispensable.
John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
| From: | "Folbrecht, Paul" <PFolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com> |
Here is my $.02. I currently fly a 152 IFR with no autopilot. It is a lot of
work at times, I mean it is high workload flying an approach, and I don't go to
mins by choice, but it's entirely doable when one is current. However, a single-axis
AP would reduce the workload to a quite managable level - if it didn't
cost a fortune for a certified ship I'd get one.
What does this have to do with your RV? I don't know what you're building, but
I'm building a 9 and IMO they're no less "stable" or sensitive than the 152 -
not at approach speeds, anyway. The RV at 90 knots feels dang close to the 152
at 90 knots!
So, my bird will have a single-axis TruTrak, which will give me great freedom and
comfort enroute, and a lot of help with approaches, but won't break the bank.
If money were no object I'd certainly have a 2-axis AP coupled to a full GRT
EFIS setup (I plan the Sport EFIS now) but I just don't think I need it for
the handful of real approaches I seem to be flying per year (only been at the
IFR stuff a about a year). And, heck, I WANT to fly the airplane! :-}
~P
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of sportav8r(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
I highly respect your "NSHO," Kevin. I'm a complete newbie when it comes to IFR.
You are the esteemed test pilot. We will forgive you in this instance for
being Canadian ;-)
I have heard smarter pilots than me comment, however, that the presence of a good
autopilot makes single-pilot IFR in an RV something a reasonable person might
actually consider, vs. lunacy. Since many think it takes an A/P to tame the
RV as a workable IFR platform, I simply plan to install the best I can get if
I'm to venture there at all. Does that make sense?
-Stormy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>I think Bob describes this in his documentation somewhere in the
>AeroElectric Book but as a "subsciber" to Z-14 here is my take. me if I am wrong ..>
>
>1. You have two *independent* electrical systems with Z-14 whose
>2. Copmponents **can** be "shared" when needed such as ..
>3. Use of both batteries for cranking **IF** needed or
>4. Having things wired so one battery can CRANK and the other keep the EI
>happy or
>5. If one of the *4* sources of electricity dies, you have access to each of
>the other 3 to power anything you want in your all electric system and ..
>6. The ability to either leave the "crossfeed" switch always "on" or simply
>throw it "on" when some part dies (in the middle of the night while IFR in a
>storm, over the mountains, bkah, blah ....:-) ) and not have to worry about
>much else for quite some time.
>
>That's what I see in it and why I am using it. And quite frankly for those
>who say it is heavier, I really don't care.
It could be the heaviest of systems . . . unless you add a second battery
to Z-12. It doesn't need to be heavy . . . the aux battery can be a
non-cranking
battery and quite light. Your assessment is correct except for the
cross-feed contactor operation. Except for closing during cranking, normal
ops are conducted with cross-feed open. This allows a single failure of
alternator on one system to be immediately noted by low voltage warning.
Z-14 offers the multiple bus capability of any others having a main-bus
and e-bus. Z-14 is not recommended for anyone except those who perhaps
fly with dual glass and spend a lot of hours on long cross-country missions
where probability of crossing an unfriendly weather front is high.
I'd judge that perhaps 2% of the fleet can make good use of a Z-14
installation. I know that many more folks have installed it. However,
when compared with the old Prestolite starter, 24 or 32 a.h. battery
and 60A alternator found on many S.E. aircraft, there's nothing described
in the 'Connection that will approach such weights.
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
Stormy,
Sorry if I was a bit over the top. I fully agree that a good
autopilot will make for a lower workload, and a better IFR platform.
But you need to be sure to have the skills and currency to get back
on the ground if the autopilot ever fails.
I've got a Navaid wing leveler, and I'm pondering options to add
altitude hold after I get flying.
Kevin
On 5 Dec 2005, at 22:08, sportav8r(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> I highly respect your "NSHO," Kevin. I'm a complete newbie when it
> comes to IFR. You are the esteemed test pilot. We will forgive
> you in this instance for being Canadian ;-)
>
> I have heard smarter pilots than me comment, however, that the
> presence of a good autopilot makes single-pilot IFR in an RV
> something a reasonable person might actually consider, vs. lunacy.
> Since many think it takes an A/P to tame the RV as a workable IFR
> platform, I simply plan to install the best I can get if I'm to
> venture there at all. Does that make sense?
>
> -Stormy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
>
>
>
>
>> I guess what I'd be looking for is the security that if I suffered
>> absolute brain disconnect while on approach in the soup, the
>> electronics would be there to take over for me while I slapped
>> myself and got back in the groove. Having yet to experience an
>> approach and landing in IMC, either as pax or student pilot, I may
>> be selling myself short, but having strayed briefly into
>> inadvertent IMC a time or two, I do understand and respect the
>> adrenaline surge that accompanies the inner voice, "Now you've done
>> it!" and how hard it is to keep wits about you when suddenly
>> distracted like that. I figure that fully coupled approach
>> capability would be such a safety net/security blanket for those
>> times after I get my rating when I do end up in IFR that gets a bit
>> more dicey than forecast.
>>
>
> Don't take this personally, but if you need the autopilot to be safe
> in the soup, you shouldn't be going in the soup. Flying in IMC
> requires a fair bit of currency to do safely (expect perhaps for
> cloud breaks, where you are 100% certain to only be in the cloud for
> a short period, and with a decent height between the bottom of the
> cloud and the ground). If you can't get enough IMC time to be
> reasonably proficient, you should stick to VFR operations, IMNSHO.
>
> Fly safe.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Clark <jclarkmail(at)gmail.com> |
On 12/6/05, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>
>
>
> It could be the heaviest of systems . . . unless you add a second
> battery
> to Z-12. It doesn't need to be heavy . . . the aux battery can be a
> non-cranking
> battery and quite light. Your assessment is correct except for the
Yes. And for reasons of symmetry etc, I chose to use two PC680's with the
plan of rotating one out each year for example.
cross-feed contactor operation. Except for closing during cranking,
> normal
> ops are conducted with cross-feed open. This allows a single failure of
> alternator on one system to be immediately noted by low voltage
> warning.
Yes. Good point that I should have mentioned.
Z-14 offers the multiple bus capability of any others having a main-bus
> and e-bus. Z-14 is not recommended for anyone except those who perhaps
> fly with dual glass and spend a lot of hours on long cross-country
> missions
I am doing the "dual glass" routine. I do have a single AHRS though (GRT).
The good news is that I can supply voltage to it from BOTH of the
independent electrical systems and not have to worry about one of them
going away (unless of course there is some huge voltage spike on one that
causes some unkown reaction.
where probability of crossing an unfriendly weather front is high.
> I'd judge that perhaps 2% of the fleet can make good use of a Z-14
> installation. I know that many more folks have installed it. However,
> when compared with the old Prestolite starter, 24 or 32 a.h. battery
> and 60A alternator found on many S.E. aircraft, there's nothing
> described
> in the 'Connection that will approach such weights.
True. So true.
And again, there is a lot to be said for additional peace of mind.
James
Bob. . .
>
>
--
This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at
james(at)nextupventures.com .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Temperature compensation |
Hi Bob and all,
I am using several UMA Instruments 1 1/4" thermocouple indicators (Oil
temp, EGT, CHT). The indicators are calibrated at a junction temperature of
75F, so actual reading depends on junction temperature.
Is there an easy way of compensating for temperature variations?
Thanks,
Gilles Tatry
Bcker Jungmann F-PGLT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc version=3.0.3 |
Well said, John. Back when I was going through my IFR training, my wise
instructor stated that the autopilot is your primary instrument when flying
solo in IMC. I now agree.
Bret Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Huft" <aflyer(at)lazy8.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc version=3.0.3
>
>
> Kevin Horton wrote:
> >
> >>I guess what I'd be looking for is the security that if I suffered
> >>absolute brain disconnect while on approach in the soup, the
> >>electronics would be there to take over for me while I slapped
> >>myself and got back in the groove. Having yet to experience an
> >>approach and landing in IMC, either as pax or student pilot, I may
> >>be selling myself short, but having strayed briefly into
> >>inadvertent IMC a time or two, I do understand and respect the
> >>adrenaline surge that accompanies the inner voice, "Now you've done
> >>it!" and how hard it is to keep wits about you when suddenly
> >>distracted like that. I figure that fully coupled approach
> >>capability would be such a safety net/security blanket for those
> >>times after I get my rating when I do end up in IFR that gets a bit
> >>more dicey than forecast.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Don't take this personally, but if you need the autopilot to be safe
> > in the soup, you shouldn't be going in the soup. Flying in IMC
> > requires a fair bit of currency to do safely (expect perhaps for
> > cloud breaks, where you are 100% certain to only be in the cloud for
> > a short period, and with a decent height between the bottom of the
> > cloud and the ground). If you can't get enough IMC time to be
> > reasonably proficient, you should stick to VFR operations, IMNSHO.
> >
> > Fly safe.
> >
> > Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> > Ottawa, Canada
> > http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
> >
>
>
> Stormy, while what Kevin says is true, I think he missed a little hint
> on your level of experience. You talk about adrenaline when you go in a
> cloud, but when you have an instrument rating, and a little experience,
> you know that you can handle it, and the fear/adrenaline is replace by a
> sense of focus, and a quiet competence. The thing that you gain with a
> capable autopilot is the ability to study a chart, or approach plate,
> when solo. If ATC suddenly assigns a different approach, or the weather
> at your destination goes below minimums, and you have to divert to
> another airport, it is a wonderful thing to have an autopilot fly the
> airplane while you go digging through your flight bag.
>
> In the beginning, I would fly solo IFR without an autopilot, but now I
> consider it indispensable.
>
> John
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Avionics, ACU, etc |
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
I have been a CFII for 30+ years. The FAA has changed their stance over
the years.
The current position is that an autopilot, used correctly, makes flight
safer (it always did).
The pilot must be able to fly without it. But it sure reduces fatigue,
saving pilot performance capacity for the high work loads at the end of
the flight (the "safety window")
In fact, the autopilot is often a required flight item for single pilot
Part 135 operations.
So, be able to handle an autopilot failure, but use it. (Just like we
must handle an Attitude Indicator failure - but we use it...)
If you plan to do extended IFR, an autopilot is a good investment.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin
Horton
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
Stormy,
Sorry if I was a bit over the top. I fully agree that a good
autopilot will make for a lower workload, and a better IFR platform.
But you need to be sure to have the skills and currency to get back
on the ground if the autopilot ever fails.
I've got a Navaid wing leveler, and I'm pondering options to add
altitude hold after I get flying.
Kevin
On 5 Dec 2005, at 22:08, sportav8r(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> I highly respect your "NSHO," Kevin. I'm a complete newbie when it
> comes to IFR. You are the esteemed test pilot. We will forgive
> you in this instance for being Canadian ;-)
>
> I have heard smarter pilots than me comment, however, that the
> presence of a good autopilot makes single-pilot IFR in an RV
> something a reasonable person might actually consider, vs. lunacy.
> Since many think it takes an A/P to tame the RV as a workable IFR
> platform, I simply plan to install the best I can get if I'm to
> venture there at all. Does that make sense?
>
> -Stormy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
>
>
>
>
>> I guess what I'd be looking for is the security that if I suffered
>> absolute brain disconnect while on approach in the soup, the
>> electronics would be there to take over for me while I slapped
>> myself and got back in the groove. Having yet to experience an
>> approach and landing in IMC, either as pax or student pilot, I may
>> be selling myself short, but having strayed briefly into
>> inadvertent IMC a time or two, I do understand and respect the
>> adrenaline surge that accompanies the inner voice, "Now you've done
>> it!" and how hard it is to keep wits about you when suddenly
>> distracted like that. I figure that fully coupled approach
>> capability would be such a safety net/security blanket for those
>> times after I get my rating when I do end up in IFR that gets a bit
>> more dicey than forecast.
>>
>
> Don't take this personally, but if you need the autopilot to be safe
> in the soup, you shouldn't be going in the soup. Flying in IMC
> requires a fair bit of currency to do safely (expect perhaps for
> cloud breaks, where you are 100% certain to only be in the cloud for
> a short period, and with a decent height between the bottom of the
> cloud and the ground). If you can't get enough IMC time to be
> reasonably proficient, you should stick to VFR operations, IMNSHO.
>
> Fly safe.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
With input like this (see quote from Mike Stewart below), I have come to agree
with your stance, Dan. I trust my future experience with actual IFR training
will confirm it ;-) Kevin, take note...
>>" With the Trio and its very smart chipset, it will drop you on a course line
from ANY intercept with no overshoot. It is truly amazing and it is an absolute
requirement for any real IFR work in an RV."<<
Now the only question for me is the hardest kind of all: not whether to have an
A/P but which one. Already invested in Trio, but wondering if $1400 more for
the TruTrak and its enhanced capabilities isn't the better choice in the long
run.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Beadle <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
I have been a CFII for 30+ years. The FAA has changed their stance over
the years.
The current position is that an autopilot, used correctly, makes flight
safer (it always did).
The pilot must be able to fly without it. But it sure reduces fatigue,
saving pilot performance capacity for the high work loads at the end of
the flight (the "safety window")
In fact, the autopilot is often a required flight item for single pilot
Part 135 operations.
So, be able to handle an autopilot failure, but use it. (Just like we
must handle an Attitude Indicator failure - but we use it...)
If you plan to do extended IFR, an autopilot is a good investment.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin
Horton
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
Stormy,
Sorry if I was a bit over the top. I fully agree that a good
autopilot will make for a lower workload, and a better IFR platform.
But you need to be sure to have the skills and currency to get back
on the ground if the autopilot ever fails.
I've got a Navaid wing leveler, and I'm pondering options to add
altitude hold after I get flying.
Kevin
On 5 Dec 2005, at 22:08, sportav8r(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> I highly respect your "NSHO," Kevin. I'm a complete newbie when it
> comes to IFR. You are the esteemed test pilot. We will forgive
> you in this instance for being Canadian ;-)
>
> I have heard smarter pilots than me comment, however, that the
> presence of a good autopilot makes single-pilot IFR in an RV
> something a reasonable person might actually consider, vs. lunacy.
> Since many think it takes an A/P to tame the RV as a workable IFR
> platform, I simply plan to install the best I can get if I'm to
> venture there at all. Does that make sense?
>
> -Stormy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
>
>
>
>
>> I guess what I'd be looking for is the security that if I suffered
>> absolute brain disconnect while on approach in the soup, the
>> electronics would be there to take over for me while I slapped
>> myself and got back in the groove. Having yet to experience an
>> approach and landing in IMC, either as pax or student pilot, I may
>> be selling myself short, but having strayed briefly into
>> inadvertent IMC a time or two, I do understand and respect the
>> adrenaline surge that accompanies the inner voice, "Now you've done
>> it!" and how hard it is to keep wits about you when suddenly
>> distracted like that. I figure that fully coupled approach
>> capability would be such a safety net/security blanket for those
>> times after I get my rating when I do end up in IFR that gets a bit
>> more dicey than forecast.
>>
>
> Don't take this personally, but if you need the autopilot to be safe
> in the soup, you shouldn't be going in the soup. Flying in IMC
> requires a fair bit of currency to do safely (expect perhaps for
> cloud breaks, where you are 100% certain to only be in the cloud for
> a short period, and with a decent height between the bottom of the
> cloud and the ground). If you can't get enough IMC time to be
> reasonably proficient, you should stick to VFR operations, IMNSHO.
>
> Fly safe.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: OVPM Active Notification (and LV warning) |
Very slick for $40. Eric!
I wonder if a cigarette lighter plug mounted version for certified
machines would sell...
Ken
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>snip
>
>
>The LV warning is the primary indicator of the health of the electrical
>system.
>I will be adding one of these to my website soon but you can see it now.
>Contact me offlist.
>
>http://www.periheliondesign.com/LV_Annunciator%20Manual.pdf
>
>This device has facility for dimming or adding alarms. Comments would be
>appreciated.
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
>
>
>Hi Bob and all,
>
>I am using several UMA Instruments 1 1/4" thermocouple indicators (Oil
>temp, EGT, CHT). The indicators are calibrated at a junction temperature of
>75F, so actual reading depends on junction temperature.
>Is there an easy way of compensating for temperature variations?
Normally, this cold junction compensation is included in the
instrument. Does the data shipped with your instruments indicate
that they are accurate only at 75F and/or that there is no
cold-junction compensation?
This is VERY difficult to add inside an instrument after the fact.
My TC designs almost always rely on features built into TC amplifiers
like the AD597 from Analog Devices.
http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Data_Sheets/664361174AD596_597_b.pdf
This device will take your raw thermocouple signal and convert
it to a reasonably linear 10 mv/degree-C output. This signal
is then used to drive your instrumentation with compensated,
easily interpreted numbers.
If you wanted to "upgrade" an uncompensated instrument
to take advantage of this device, you'll need to craft a
black-box designed to accomplish the temperature compensation
and scale factors satisfactory the display's needs.
Not REAL hard but probably more than you want to take
on.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Z11 and Z13 |
| Subject: | Re: Con(fusing) fusible link questions? |
Z11 and Z13
>
>
>Bob, I understand that we size the fuse to the wire but I am a little
>confused about when and where one would use a fusible link. In the Z11
>figure, you show the E-Bus Alt Feed with a 7a fuse off the main battery bus
>using 16g wire through a 1-3 switch and 16g unprotected wire to the E-Bus.
>Now, in Z13, you show the same thing with a fusible link between the E-bus
>Alt Feed switch and E-Bus.
>
>Questions:
>
>In Z11, are we using the 7a fuse to protect the switch since 16g wire could
>take a 12.5 amp fuse or is it size related to the design load on the E-bus?
Keep in mind that the Z-drawings are illustrations of architecture
and minute details such as wire and fuse sizing may (probably will)
take some consideration and adjustment to meed your design goals.
In the case you cite above I have no way to predict the distance (i.e.
length of wire) between battery bus and the e-bus. While limited in
total performance by the 7A fuse (my personal upper limit for always
hot wire feeders), voltage drop and source-impedance looking back at
the battery can be reduced by making the feeder something larger than
the 7A fuse would have suggested.
>In Z11, why aren't we protecting the wire after the switch since it is hot
>when the master is on and it's a pretty long wire?
Longer than 6" (or some other extraordinarily protected length
of your choice)? Then protect it too. Perhaps a fuse slot on the
e-bus would be appropriate for protection of a long feeder between
e-bus switch and the e-bus. Alternatively, you could deduce that
this wire is all inside the cockpit, well routed, well protected from
mechanical faults to ground and decide it's okay as-shown.
>In Z13, why are we using a 20g fusible link (protects at 7 amps?) on the
>wire after the E-Bus Alt Feed switch but not in the Z11 figure?
This is an example of a design goal decision based on the
considerations above. Given the very protected environment
this wire traverses, perhaps the fusible link is satisfactory.
In fact, it probably is . . . the fusible link offers adequate
protection for the rest of the wires in a bundle if the link is
forced open . . . but it's going to be smoky in the cockpit.
Probability is very low so the fusible link saves a fuse slot
for more useful things, offers real (if not exciting) protection
from a fault that is a very low risk event.
>In the Z13 case, would it be acceptable to run the alt e-bus feed to a tab
>on the e-bus with a 7a fuse instead of using a fusible link to the bus stud?
>Assumes available tab positions.
You betcha!
>I assume that the two 16g wires connecting the D25 Diode are not fused
>because they are very short? Same for the always hot feed from the battery
>to the Main Battery Buss?
Yes.
Your questions are gratifying. You've have a willingness
to sort thought these pieces and evolve good questions that re-enforce
a demonstrated level of understanding. Good work.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
Allow me to chime in one more time. In the Monterey Bay area, we have 5
airports with approaches of some kind, from ILS to GPS only within a 10
minute flight time of one another. It's easy to get many practice approaches
in say 1 1/2 hours. When I started flying my MII, I was a part-time CFII at
the Navy Flying Club, flying 152's to B55 Barons (while it was still in the
club), I was fairly current IFR. It took around 200 hours in my MII to get
comfortable IFR, because it is so sensitive in pitch and heavy in roll (this
plane was made for an AP). At the time I had no AP. Later on a Navaid device
was installed.
Anyway, back to the practice approaches; I like to chose days that the
stratus is in on us with ceilings from MDA minimums to 800' AGL. I had just
installed a GX50 approach approved GPS and was missing the localizer
approach at WVI. I had ask for the GPS 13 to KSNS, which is only 20 miles SE
of WVI. I went miss and climbing out on the missed procedure, getting ATC
clearances and trying to setup the GPS for the next approach............
well if ANYTHING had popped up, like say alternator failure, or smoke in the
cabin, I could not have handled it. I was saturated mentally.
It was not long after that, a Navaid device was installed. It was a huge
help primarily as others have mentioned enroute to enable keeping up with
the airplane. I did not use it on approaches, other than for such situations
as above.
With my current EzPilot, that will intercept and track, it is even better.
With a 2-axis AP with altitude set and climb set, on that missed approach I
had done years before would have been a piece of cake, assuming all those
parameters were set before commencing the LOC approach to WVI.
Hope this gives you the flavor of my point; shooting approaches, IMHO, is by
hand. Doing missed approaches, after of course establishing a rate of climb,
is where they can be huge, even better perhaps than a copilot (AP's don't
yap away when ATC is calling :-)
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Folbrecht, Paul" <PFolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
>
>
> Here is my $.02. I currently fly a 152 IFR with no autopilot. It is a
> lot of work at times, I mean it is high workload flying an approach, and I
> don't go to mins by choice, but it's entirely doable when one is current.
> However, a single-axis AP would reduce the workload to a quite managable
> level - if it didn't cost a fortune for a certified ship I'd get one.
>
> What does this have to do with your RV? I don't know what you're
> building, but I'm building a 9 and IMO they're no less "stable" or
> sensitive than the 152 - not at approach speeds, anyway. The RV at 90
> knots feels dang close to the 152 at 90 knots!
>
> So, my bird will have a single-axis TruTrak, which will give me great
> freedom and comfort enroute, and a lot of help with approaches, but won't
> break the bank. If money were no object I'd certainly have a 2-axis AP
> coupled to a full GRT EFIS setup (I plan the Sport EFIS now) but I just
> don't think I need it for the handful of real approaches I seem to be
> flying per year (only been at the IFR stuff a about a year). And, heck, I
> WANT to fly the airplane! :-}
>
> ~P
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of
> sportav8r(at)aol.com
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
>
>
> I highly respect your "NSHO," Kevin. I'm a complete newbie when it comes
> to IFR. You are the esteemed test pilot. We will forgive you in this
> instance for being Canadian ;-)
>
> I have heard smarter pilots than me comment, however, that the presence of
> a good autopilot makes single-pilot IFR in an RV something a reasonable
> person might actually consider, vs. lunacy. Since many think it takes an
> A/P to tame the RV as a workable IFR platform, I simply plan to install
> the best I can get if I'm to venture there at all. Does that make sense?
>
> -Stormy
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the strobes
and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20 amps. Not
to mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you are
+50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT to load the alternator
over 50%-70% of the rated output continuously. So 70-80 amp alternators is
not unreasonable.
________________________________________________________
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2005 Subject: Looking for alternator
80 amps? I'm probably ignorant but what is in your plane that requires 80
amps? I think that Bob has thrown numbers like 27 amps for a full IFR panel.
What am I missing here?
-- Craig
---------------------------------
Let fate take it's course directly to your email.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the strobes
and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20 amps. Not to
mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you are amps
to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT to load the
alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output continuously. So 70-80 alternators
is not unreasonable.
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2005 Subject: Looking for alternator
80 amps? I'm probably ignorant but what is in your plane that requires 80
amps? I think that Bob has thrown numbers like 27 amps for a full IFR panel.
What am I missing here?
-- Craig
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
Ah I see. Being a lowly Sport Pilot trainee my plane is for day VFR only so
I forget about lights. The only thing I wouldn't agree with is that the flap
motor affects the size of the alternator. Isn't it just a transient load
that the battery has to handle?
-- Craig
-----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: Re: Looking for alternator
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the
strobes and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20
amps. Not to mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps.
So you are amps to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is
NOT to load the alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output continuously.
So 70-80 alternators is not unreasonable.
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2005 Subject: Looking for alternator
80 amps? I'm probably ignorant but what is in your plane that requires 80
amps? I think that Bob has thrown numbers like 27 amps for a full IFR panel.
What am I missing here?
-- Craig
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Regulator VR (better than Ford) |
I was just going on Odysseys recommendation for charging 14.2
to 15.0 volts.
I remember 13.85 volt was the norm in cars, but it seems the
auto industry has migrated to 14.5 volts. I remember all the
problems with the old GelCel batteries in the 80s with the
older auto voltage regulators set at 13.85 volts; it just did not
work well. (We are talking about, automotive regulators and
ostensibly auto battery technology after all, even for certified
light planes.) No doubt the flooded wet cell could live happily
with less voltage, but the SLA, AGM according to the
manufacture needs at least 14.2 volts.
To be fair the VR166 is 14.3 volts, but no doubt there is some
tolerance and you could push the 14.2-volt lower recommended
charge voltage. I have a friend that upped his charge from
approx 14.2 volts to approx 14.5 volts and noticed the battery
provide stronger starts? '
George
Date: Dec 05, 2005
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Regulator VR (better than Ford)
Choose a regulator based on any perceived improvements
in operational features but know that doing so to
favor the "needs" of any particular battery brand or
technology is a no-value-added exercise.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
| From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
John,
Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for the
EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe to
one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
calibrate.
No, I didn't discuss my solution with BMA. I didn't see a need as they
had already told me I needed the Princeton modules. Maybe BMA will let
you return the modules.
Mark
Lancair ES
-----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: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
Hi Mark -
I must have missed the point that you had tested the concept of using
the
high freq inputs to EFIS/ONE. Just to re-affirm: you have EI probes in
your Legacy and will use them to get your fuel quantity from the
EFIS/ONE.
If you don't have any troubles, I'll really be pissed with BMA!!! We had
to buy the Princeton modules, wire them in (at the cost of adding more
complexity to the system) and then calibrate the fuel system twice -
once
for the modules and once for the EFIS.
How did you get the 5 volts to the probes? Did you have to use a
voltage
divider?
Has Greg or Bob Northrup been advised? Any comments from them about the
test? The only difference between yours and mine is that we have VM
probes
- which EI swears are identical to theirs. WE shall see.
Ah well, we may be able to bypass the modules and dispense with one of
the
calibrations!!! :-))
Best,
John
wrote:
>
>
> John,
> Sure, I would be happy to post a follow-up message on this. I just
put
> the wings on this weekend, so it won't be long until I put some fuel
in
> one or both of them and can verify the fuel gauges are working. I
don't
> see how anything will change from when I first tested them though.
> During my initial test, the probes were connected to the EFIS/1 high
> freq inputs, fuel was poured into the open end (vent hole at inboard
end
> was plugged) and we observed the EFIS/1 fuel gauge registering from
> empty to full. We then slowly drained the fuel out of the probe and
the
> gauge went back to empty. I anticipate having to do a final
> calibration, but as for the basic operation, I sure do hope that
nothing
> changes.
>
> Mark S.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
John
> Schroeder
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
> Fuel Level Probes P-300C
>
>
>
> Mark & D -
>
> Here is a quote from the BMA discussion board, followed by a reply
from
>
> Bob Northrup - their tech support guy. We were told that the EI and VM
> probes were virtually identical so we had to buy the Princeton modules
> for
> our VM probes. Using the sensor map that BMA put together, we are
> putting
> the output of the two princeton modules into pins 11 & 12 of Analog 2
on
>
> the EFIS/ONE. We are using the frequency channels for fuel flow and
> tachometer.
>
> Mark - It looks like you are hooking your EI probes directly to the
two
> hi
> freq channels (13 & 14) (Pins 9 & 10 of analog 2). I'll be interested
in
>
> seeing how it works and quite irked if we got a bad steer from BMA.
And
>
> being irked is also contingent on finding out that the EI and VM
probes
>
> are not equal electrically. This would make the tech people at EI
appear
>
> to be wandering in the swamp.
>
> Anyway, since neither of us are flying yet, let's keep each other
> informed
> as to how this problem shakes out.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> ===================Quote =============
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
Hmmm.... My fully loaded IFR panel (PS7000, GNS530, GNS430, Sandel EHSI,
PN101, WX500, GTX330, Stec 55) only draws 11 amps when everything including
instrument lights are on. Of course, I have a 28v airplane. Must be some
reason I went with 28v.
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
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the
strobes
and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20 amps. Not to
mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you are
amps
to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT to load the
alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output continuously. So 70-80
alternators
is not unreasonable.
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2005 Subject: Looking for alternator
80 amps? I'm probably ignorant but what is in your plane that requires 80
amps? I think that Bob has thrown numbers like 27 amps for a full IFR panel.
What am I missing here?
-- Craig
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Right, so at 14V your panel would draw 22 amps.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
-->
Hmmm.... My fully loaded IFR panel (PS7000, GNS530, GNS430, Sandel EHSI,
PN101, WX500, GTX330, Stec 55) only draws 11 amps when everything
including instrument lights are on. Of course, I have a 28v airplane.
Must be some reason I went with 28v.
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
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for
the strobes and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over
20 amps. Not to
mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you
are amps to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT
to load the alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output continuously.
So 70-80 alternators is not unreasonable.
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2005 Subject: Looking for alternator
80 amps? I'm probably ignorant but what is in your plane that requires
80
amps? I think that Bob has thrown numbers like 27 amps for a full IFR
panel.
What am I missing here?
-- Craig
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
> Normally, this cold junction compensation is included in the
> instrument. Does the data shipped with your instruments indicate
> that they are accurate only at 75F and/or that there is no
> cold-junction compensation?
UMA's data is quite clear:
"The meter actually reads the differential voltage between the thermocouple
and the cold junctions. Each indicator is calibrated at a junction
temperature of 75F, so actual reading depends on junction temperature. If
junction temperature is higher than 75F then indicator will read one degree
lower for every degree higher and vice versa. In order to minimize this
error locate the cold junctions in a temperature stable environment"
> If you wanted to "upgrade" an uncompensated instrument
> to take advantage of this device, you'll need to craft a
> black-box designed to accomplish the temperature compensation
> and scale factors satisfactory the display's needs.
- Is it possible to have only one compensation device for all the
instruments (at the same temp)?
- I understand that AD596/597 sends out a pretty linear voltage of
10mV/degreeC. But my instruments, normally linked to TCs, must receive
something like (J) 0.05 mV/DegC or (K) 0.04 mV/DegC. How to transform the
value?
- AD 596/597 is calibrated for linearity at ovens temperatures (+60DegC). Is
it correct for use at open cockpit temperatures (typically 0 to +30 DegC)?
Thanks,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
Yep!
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 Hinde,
Frank George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
Right, so at 14V your panel would draw 22 amps.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
-->
Hmmm.... My fully loaded IFR panel (PS7000, GNS530, GNS430, Sandel EHSI,
PN101, WX500, GTX330, Stec 55) only draws 11 amps when everything
including instrument lights are on. Of course, I have a 28v airplane.
Must be some reason I went with 28v.
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
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for
the strobes and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over
20 amps. Not to
mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you
are amps to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT
to load the alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output continuously.
So 70-80 alternators is not unreasonable.
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2005 Subject: Looking for alternator
80 amps? I'm probably ignorant but what is in your plane that requires
80
amps? I think that Bob has thrown numbers like 27 amps for a full IFR
panel.
What am I missing here?
-- Craig
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Mark -
Looks like you rolled your own votage regulator(s). Could you just use one
of the LM-7805's for feeding both probes?
Do you have a schematic?
We bought the modules direct from Todd at Princeton Electronics and I
doubt if they will take them back because they have been installed and
electrically set to the zero point. I'll ask, however.
One plan that comes to mind is to keep the modules if they cannot be
returned, and use them for the 5 volts out to the probes. The signal wires
would then be pinned to the hi freq ports on the EFIS - like you did. With
this solution, assuming that it all works, we would not have to calibrate
the modules with a full tank (loaded by the quarter tank) and then
calibrate the EFIS by 2 gallon increments. Seems that we would reduce the
error potential by 50% by dispensing with the module calibrations.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
John
Lancair ES: Painting
wrote:
> Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for the
> EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
> Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe to
> one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
> calibrate.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
| From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
John,
I'm not sure if they have the capacity (no pun intended) to handle both
probes. Since they're only $.48/ea (Digi-key) I didn't even consider
it.
Mark
-----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: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
Mark -
Looks like you rolled your own votage regulator(s). Could you just use
one
of the LM-7805's for feeding both probes?
Do you have a schematic?
We bought the modules direct from Todd at Princeton Electronics and I
doubt if they will take them back because they have been installed and
electrically set to the zero point. I'll ask, however.
One plan that comes to mind is to keep the modules if they cannot be
returned, and use them for the 5 volts out to the probes. The signal
wires
would then be pinned to the hi freq ports on the EFIS - like you did.
With
this solution, assuming that it all works, we would not have to
calibrate
the modules with a full tank (loaded by the quarter tank) and then
calibrate the EFIS by 2 gallon increments. Seems that we would reduce
the
error potential by 50% by dispensing with the module calibrations.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
John
Lancair ES: Painting
wrote:
> Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for
the
> EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
> Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe
to
> one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
> calibrate.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
Good Evening George,
I agree. Conspicuity lighting has become our biggest current draw. The last
time I checked the current on three running lights for a twelve volt GA
airplane, it drew seven amps. I am sure there are units that draw more and other
units which draw less, but that is pretty good average. Add a couple of
rotating beacons along with strobes and it would be fairly easy to get the
conspicuity light current need up to twenty amps.
Somebody mentioned flaps, but flaps are an intermittent need and we do not
have to consider intermittent needs, though we certainly can if we want to.
Another fact of conspicuity lighting is a wig wag on landing lights. I have
never measured such a set up, but landing lights vary tremendously as to the
current required. If they are being used just for landing, that current need
not be considered, but if landing lights are used for conspicuity purposes,
they are no longer intermittent loads and MUST be considered.
Radios are no longer a large current draw. In most aircraft, the amount of
power needed for electronics is far less than the amount needed for
conspicuity lighting.
Right now, I would say that an airplane with heavy conspicuity lighting, a
good full performance autopilot of the S-Tec or King variety and a full panel
of IFR equipment could easily run the steady sate amperage requirement up to
forty amps with a twelve volt system.
My airplane has a twenty-eight volt system and normal night time current
draw is right at twenty amps. If I turn on the pitot heat it jumps up to
twenty-five or so.
Obviously, with solid state electronics, maybe a TruTrac autopilot and LED
conspicuity lighting, that draw could be reduced. Nevertheless, I can see the
need for a sixty amp alternator for many of our well equipped twelve volt OBAM
aircraft. Half of the need is in lighting requirements!
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 12/6/2005 2:43:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the
strobes
and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20 amps. Not to
mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you are
amps
to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT to load the
alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output continuously. So 70-80
alternators
is not unreasonable.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Mark -
Do you have a shematic for making up the voltage regulators?
Thanks,
John
wrote:
> John,
> I'm not sure if they have the capacity (no pun intended) to handle both
> probes. Since they're only $.48/ea (Digi-key) I didn't even consider
> it.
> Mark
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
At 04:46 PM 12/6/2005, you wrote:
>Obviously, with solid state electronics, maybe a TruTrac autopilot and LED
>conspicuity lighting, that draw could be reduced.
And this, my friends, is an exciting new OBAM frontier.
Dave Morris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
Interesting conversation, everyone. I concur that at 80 A I am probably
over doing it more than absolutely necessary. Although my EFI controller,
pumps & injectors suck electrons like they are going out of style, I am sure
I could live with 60A.
To bring it back to the question I was asking -- can anyone suggest where I
can source a nice externally regulated auto alternator? As I mentioned at
the top of the thread, I have found an 80 for $89 from Summit Racing.
Mark Supinski
On 12/6/05, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Good Evening George,
>
> I agree. Conspicuity lighting has become our biggest current draw. The
> last
> time I checked the current on three running lights for a twelve volt GA
> airplane, it drew seven amps. I am sure there are units that draw more
> and other
> units which draw less, but that is pretty good average. Add a couple of
> rotating beacons along with strobes and it would be fairly easy to get the
> conspicuity light current need up to twenty amps.
>
> Somebody mentioned flaps, but flaps are an intermittent need and we do not
> have to consider intermittent needs, though we certainly can if we
> want to.
> Another fact of conspicuity lighting is a wig wag on landing lights. I
> have
> never measured such a set up, but landing lights vary tremendously as to
> the
> current required. If they are being used just for landing, that current
> need
> not be considered, but if landing lights are used for conspicuity
> purposes,
> they are no longer intermittent loads and MUST be considered.
>
> Radios are no longer a large current draw. In most aircraft, the amount
> of
> power needed for electronics is far less than the amount needed for
> conspicuity lighting.
>
> Right now, I would say that an airplane with heavy conspicuity lighting, a
> good full performance autopilot of the S-Tec or King variety and a full
> panel
> of IFR equipment could easily run the steady sate amperage requirement up
> to
> forty amps with a twelve volt system.
>
> My airplane has a twenty-eight volt system and normal night time current
> draw is right at twenty amps. If I turn on the pitot heat it jumps up to
> twenty-five or so.
>
> Obviously, with solid state electronics, maybe a TruTrac autopilot and LED
> conspicuity lighting, that draw could be reduced. Nevertheless, I can see
> the
> need for a sixty amp alternator for many of our well equipped twelve volt
> OBAM
> aircraft. Half of the need is in lighting requirements!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
>
> You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for
> the strobes
>and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20 amps. Not to
>mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you are
>amps
>to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT to load the
>alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output continuously. So 70-80
>alternators
>is not unreasonable.
>
>
>From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
>Date: Dec 05, 2005 Subject: Looking for alternator
>
>
>80 amps? I'm probably ignorant but what is in your plane that requires 80
>amps? I think that Bob has thrown numbers like 27 amps for a full IFR panel.
>What am I missing here?
What you're missing is a load analysis. This is a document you
craft that takes into consideration real, continuous duty loads
imposed on your alternator for the various phases of flight. The
vast majority of alternators are picked based on "if 60A is good
for Cessna, 60A is good for me too".
You'll see lots of numbers literally tossed around which may
or may not apply to your system. I've done load analysis for
a number of clients and with rare exception (heated seats
and or electric toe warmers) a power budget of 27A x 14V or
375 watts was the max continuous load current draw. This allowed
use of 40A alternators which combined nicely with 16# SVLA batteries
and 10.5# starters to offer the lightest weight systems flying
at the time.
An example of this exercise is illustrated in the Excel
file at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/RV-9A%20amp_draw.xls
This is an excellent start accomplished by one of the List
readers some months ago. It needs some combing out. For
example, pitot heat and exterior lights are not used together.
There may be other things to shuffle around . . . but it's
a great start.
It has value only if you plug in real numbers for equipment
items you anticipate using under various flight modes. Of
course, the easy way is install and 80A machine and I can
guarantee that unless you're running some kind of electric
heat . . . you're going to have PLENTY of snort.
It just depends on your design goals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators |
>
>
>
>Never seen these mentioned before but it looks like these would be handy to
>identify a blown fuse under the panel and might have some other
>applications. Would there be any problem using these in place of regular
>ATC fuses?
>
>http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/218_062.PDF
>
>You would think if the fuse blew, the LED would go as well.
Like 99.99% of all breakers installed on airplanes, 99.99%
of all fuses installed will run the lifetime of the airplane
and never be asked to answer to an overload condition. You
have to deduce your personal return on investment model. There's
no system design reason not to use them.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators |
>
>
>These would work just like an illuminated light switch. The "lamp" is wired
>in parallel with the fuse element. When the fuse opens the lamp now sees the
>voltage. Since the lamp has much higher resistance than the load it sees
>almost the full supply voltage. Of course the LED has a dropping resistor in
>series with it to limit the current through the LED. The only thing I'm
>wondering about is this from web page: "32 volts". So they won't work in a
>(12 volt) car or plane. What 32 volt system are they designed for?
The 32v rating on automotive fuses is based on worst case fault currents
and the maximum voltage the fuse is guaranteed to break under that fault.
The leds will probably provide visible illumination over the full range
of system voltages that might call out this style fuse . . . 6-32 volts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
>
>
> > Normally, this cold junction compensation is included in the
> > instrument. Does the data shipped with your instruments indicate
> > that they are accurate only at 75F and/or that there is no
> > cold-junction compensation?
>
>UMA's data is quite clear:
>
>"The meter actually reads the differential voltage between the thermocouple
>and the cold junctions. Each indicator is calibrated at a junction
>temperature of 75F, so actual reading depends on junction temperature. If
>junction temperature is higher than 75F then indicator will read one degree
>lower for every degree higher and vice versa. In order to minimize this
>error locate the cold junctions in a temperature stable environment"
Very good. If this bothers you, you can do a variety of things
to "correct" the readings.
> > If you wanted to "upgrade" an uncompensated instrument
> > to take advantage of this device, you'll need to craft a
> > black-box designed to accomplish the temperature compensation
> > and scale factors satisfactory the display's needs.
>
>- Is it possible to have only one compensation device for all the
>instruments (at the same temp)?
>- I understand that AD596/597 sends out a pretty linear voltage of
>10mV/degreeC. But my instruments, normally linked to TCs, must receive
>something like (J) 0.05 mV/DegC or (K) 0.04 mV/DegC. How to transform the
>value?
Your instruments designed to work directly from thermocouples
are calibrated in millivolts. You'd have to place calibrating
resistors in series to re-scale them to 10mv/C.
>- AD 596/597 is calibrated for linearity at ovens temperatures (+60DegC). Is
>it correct for use at open cockpit temperatures (typically 0 to +30 DegC)?
Depends on how much you're going to worry about uncertainty of
measurements. Ordinary thermocouple wire is graded to an
accuracy of 2C. The AD597 itself has an error budget. It may
well be that without specifically calibrating each instrument
in-situ using the same thermocouple and signal conditioner
used in flight will you be able to drive the error budged down
to say plus or minus 1 degree C. What are your design goals?
After you've established requirements, you can begin to craft
the hardware needed to meet the requirements.
I can design signal conditioners that would probably get you
0.1 degree C accuracy at two points on each instrument . . .
can't vouch for in-between without characterizing each
instrument.
I can tell you that the CHT gages on decades of production
Cessnas sucked big time. They could be re-calibrated (I
designed a fixture to do it) but not one dealership in
100 ever ordered the fixture. I've not been aware of any
issues jumping up over gross inaccuracies of CHT readings
mostly because folks don't really KNOW how bad their particular
instruments might be. It's amazing what happens to the
worry-factor when you get answers to questions that few
people ever ask!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
In a message dated 12/6/2005 5:28:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
For example, pitot heat and exterior lights are not used together.
Good Evening Bob,
This statement bothers me just a bit. I have been running around for at
least ten thousand hours at night using both pitot heat and running lights.
Most of that time I also had some sort of beacon, strobes or both doing their
thing. Was I doing it all wrong?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | battery tenders again |
Hi all,
I have a tender that puts out 12.75 volts with no load and one that puts out 13.0
volts. Is either one satisfactory? Are these voltages ''better than nothing''
or is one or both worthless? Thanks in advance, bob n.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
The idea is that if you are flying in a cold cloud you need pitot heat,
but not lights (nobody could see you anyway). If you are in and out of
clouds, or flying through night VFR snow showers (is that ever a really a
good idea?), maybe you need both turned on.
Matt-
>
>
> In a message dated 12/6/2005 5:28:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
>
> For example, pitot heat and exterior lights are not used together.
>
>
> Good Evening Bob,
>
> This statement bothers me just a bit. I have been running around for
> at least ten thousand hours at night using both pitot heat and running
> lights. Most of that time I also had some sort of beacon, strobes or
> both doing their thing. Was I doing it all wrong?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
Bob ...
The only thing wrong was ... part of that 10,000 hrs were with United
instead of American. Joking of course! : )
Jerry Grimmonpre'
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
> For example, pitot heat and exterior lights are not used together.
> This statement bothers me just a bit. I have been running around for at
> least ten thousand hours at night using both pitot heat and running
> lights.
> Most of that time I also had some sort of beacon, strobes or both doing
> their
> thing. Was I doing it all wrong?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
Good Evening Matt,
I rather thought that might be the idea, but I do not think it holds water.
I have flown in many icing conditions where the visibility was such that
lighting was a good idea.
On top of that, my recollection of the requirements for running lights do
not suggest that they be turned off when in cloud.
There is a provision somewhere that allows a pilot to turn off a rotating
bacon or strobe if that light is causing difficulty for the pilot while in
cloud, but I know of no such provision which allows a pilot to not use running
lights during the hours they are required. To turn them off in cloud would
seem to me to be only legal if it were done in connection with an emergency.
Depending on the conditions, I am not sure how even turning them of in an
emergency could be comfortably supported at a hearing!
I run with running lights on between sunset and sunrise even if I don't
really have to do it that long. I also run with pitot heat on any time there
is
any moisture in the air at all. I have been in hundreds of snow showers and
light mist or rain where I wanted pitot heat, yet the visibility was well
over three miles.
I believe it is unreasonable to plan on an either/or situation between pitot
heat and running lights.
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 12/6/2005 6:43:06 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather(at)spro.net writes:
The idea is that if you are flying in a cold cloud you need pitot heat,
but not lights (nobody could see you anyway). If you are in and out of
clouds, or flying through night VFR snow showers (is that ever a really a
good idea?), maybe you need both turned on.
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry McFarland <larrymc(at)qconline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: battery tenders again |
Bob,
The battery tenders provide up to 1.25 Amps to your batteries until they
sense the battery is charged and
then they'll lay low until they need another boost. Doubt you've got a
problem but a better explanation of
their function is on this site. I use one for each of my batteries in
the plane and they stay up nicely.
http://www.superiorcarcare.net/batterytender1.html
Larry McFarland
bob noffs wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>I have a tender that puts out 12.75 volts with no load and one that puts out 13.0
volts. Is either one satisfactory? Are these voltages ''better than nothing''
or is one or both worthless? Thanks in advance, bob n.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
Some as far as I can see B&C only sells alternators rated 60 amps top. Does
this mean that they have no alternators suitable for an IFR/lighted plane?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
Good Evening George,
I agree. Conspicuity lighting has become our biggest current draw. The
last
time I checked the current on three running lights for a twelve volt GA
airplane, it drew seven amps. I am sure there are units that draw more and
other units which draw less, but that is pretty good average. Add a couple
of rotating beacons along with strobes and it would be fairly easy to get
the conspicuity light current need up to twenty amps.
Somebody mentioned flaps, but flaps are an intermittent need and we do not
have to consider intermittent needs, though we certainly can if we want to.
Another fact of conspicuity lighting is a wig wag on landing lights. I
have never measured such a set up, but landing lights vary tremendously as
to the current required. If they are being used just for landing, that
current need not be considered, but if landing lights are used for
conspicuity purposes, they are no longer intermittent loads and MUST be
considered.
Radios are no longer a large current draw. In most aircraft, the amount of
power needed for electronics is far less than the amount needed for
conspicuity lighting.
Right now, I would say that an airplane with heavy conspicuity lighting, a
good full performance autopilot of the S-Tec or King variety and a full
panel of IFR equipment could easily run the steady sate amperage
requirement up to forty amps with a twelve volt system.
My airplane has a twenty-eight volt system and normal night time current
draw is right at twenty amps. If I turn on the pitot heat it jumps up to
twenty-five or so.
Obviously, with solid state electronics, maybe a TruTrac autopilot and LED
conspicuity lighting, that draw could be reduced. Nevertheless, I can see
the need for a sixty amp alternator for many of our well equipped twelve
volt OBAM aircraft. Half of the need is in lighting requirements!
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 12/6/2005 2:43:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the
strobes and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20
amps. Not to mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric
flaps. So you are amps to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common
wisdom is NOT to load the alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output
continuously. So 70-80 alternators is not unreasonable.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
>
>
>Some as far as I can see B&C only sells alternators rated 60 amps top. Does
>this mean that they have no alternators suitable for an IFR/lighted plane?
What's the load analysis on an "IFR/lighted plane"?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
> Some as far as I can see B&C only sells alternators rated 60
> amps top. Does this mean that they have no alternators
> suitable for an IFR/lighted plane?
>
> -- Craig
What are you guys putting in those planes? In my plane with: Garmin 430,
327, 340, King Com, C2000 Autopilot, electric TC, nav lights, strobes, panel
lights, pitot heat, Lasar ignition, boost pump it only draws about 36 amps.
Turn on also the landing lights and it goes a bit over 42 amps from the 40
amp alternator. Big deal, so the battery puts out a little for
takeoff/landings (boost pump). What else do you plan to run simultaneously
during IFR flights?
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 696 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
I've got lighting and pitot heat, with a 60 amp alternator, and I've
got some capacity left over for heated seat if need be.
You don't need a nuclear power plant to feed these things. An
electrical load analysis, and a bit of discretion when choosing
electrically powered items go a long ways.
Kevin Horton
On 6 Dec 2005, at 21:40, Craig Payne wrote:
>
>
> Some as far as I can see B&C only sells alternators rated 60 amps
> top. Does
> this mean that they have no alternators suitable for an IFR/lighted
> plane?
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> BobsV35B(at)aol.com
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
>
>
> Good Evening George,
>
> I agree. Conspicuity lighting has become our biggest current
> draw. The
> last
> time I checked the current on three running lights for a twelve
> volt GA
> airplane, it drew seven amps. I am sure there are units that draw
> more and
> other units which draw less, but that is pretty good average. Add a
> couple
> of rotating beacons along with strobes and it would be fairly easy
> to get
> the conspicuity light current need up to twenty amps.
>
> Somebody mentioned flaps, but flaps are an intermittent need and we
> do not
> have to consider intermittent needs, though we certainly can if we
> want to.
>
> Another fact of conspicuity lighting is a wig wag on landing
> lights. I
> have never measured such a set up, but landing lights vary
> tremendously as
> to the current required. If they are being used just for landing,
> that
> current need not be considered, but if landing lights are used for
> conspicuity purposes, they are no longer intermittent loads and
> MUST be
> considered.
>
> Radios are no longer a large current draw. In most aircraft, the
> amount of
> power needed for electronics is far less than the amount needed for
> conspicuity lighting.
>
> Right now, I would say that an airplane with heavy conspicuity
> lighting, a
> good full performance autopilot of the S-Tec or King variety and a
> full
> panel of IFR equipment could easily run the steady sate amperage
> requirement up to forty amps with a twelve volt system.
>
> My airplane has a twenty-eight volt system and normal night time
> current
> draw is right at twenty amps. If I turn on the pitot heat it jumps
> up to
> twenty-five or so.
>
> Obviously, with solid state electronics, maybe a TruTrac autopilot
> and LED
> conspicuity lighting, that draw could be reduced. Nevertheless, I
> can see
> the need for a sixty amp alternator for many of our well equipped
> twelve
> volt OBAM aircraft. Half of the need is in lighting requirements!
>
> 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 12/6/2005 2:43:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
> You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps
> for the
> strobes and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is
> over 20
> amps. Not to mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric
> flaps. So you are amps to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well
> common
> wisdom is NOT to load the alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output
> continuously. So 70-80 alternators is not unreasonable.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | G McNutt <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: ATO/ATC Fuses 32 volt. |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> The 32v rating on automotive fuses is based on worst case fault currents
> and the maximum voltage the fuse is guaranteed to break under that fault.
> The leds will probably provide visible illumination over the full range
> of system voltages that might call out this style fuse . . . 6-32 volts.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
Interesting. I took a closer look at my 80 amp Littlefuse alternator
fuse and noticed that it is also stamped 32V in very small print.
This is at the firewall on a 60 amp B&C alternator feed line. Since it
is really protecting the wire & not the alternator it should be OK or do
I need a smaller fuse??
George in Langley BC.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
>
>
>In a message dated 12/6/2005 5:28:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
>
>For example, pitot heat and exterior lights are not used together.
>
>
>Good Evening Bob,
>
>This statement bothers me just a bit. I have been running around for at
>least ten thousand hours at night using both pitot heat and running lights.
>Most of that time I also had some sort of beacon, strobes or both doing
>their
>thing. Was I doing it all wrong?
When you've got power to burn . . . one can obviously run
everything they wish. But when you're in a cloud with pitot
heat on, lights are superfluous and perhaps even dangerous
(The A36 I used to fly was placarded against exterior
lights in clouds).
Further, if you're in icing conditions in a light aircraft,
things are really busy in the cockpit. One presumes that any
other airplane in the vicinity is in a similar modus operandi.
If one pokes into such conditions regularly I would hope it's
under positive control where other aircraft are under the same
control. Virtually every mid-air was brought to pass by two
to four pilots all having their heads down. Unless you fly IFR
with a lookout pilot, probability that exterior lighting has
any chance of averting a mid-air is a real stretch . . .
especially when its the OTHER guy who needs to have his lights on!
What's the chances of him having a lookout?
So, it's conceivable that one could power up everything needed
for flight into clouds with a rather respectable power budget.
If you have a REAL icing condition, pitot heat is only there
to help you get out of those conditions quickly. Again, exterior
lighting is no help (except perhaps to see how much ice has
stuck to the wings and windshield). My personal design goals
would not call for an extra 20A of alternator output that's
rarely needed to operate lights that have minimal probability
of being useful.
I make an extra effort to stay clear of such conditions in
airplanes not outfitted to deal with the 99th percentile
icing environment. Designing a system that allows me to
run lights and deice the pitot tube too just doesn't fit
my policy and procedure for the elegant/prudent design.
It's a trade-off. I prefer to plan to stay/get out
of places where pitot heat is needed as opposed to planning
to run pitot heat along with lots of other goodies that
MIGHT help some equally silly pilot avoid hitting me
while we cruise through the crud together.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: battery tenders again |
>
>Hi all,
>I have a tender that puts out 12.75 volts with no load and one that puts
>out 13.0 volts. Is either one satisfactory? Are these voltages ''better
>than nothing'' or is one or both worthless? Thanks in advance, bob n.
No load voltage is not necessarily the real float voltage.
Hook them up to a battery and come back 24 hours later for
the measurement. A fully charged battery will have a
terminal voltage on the order of 12.9 volts. A real battery
tender should lift it up to something above 13.0 but not
higher than 13.5 or so.
But not having a battery attached may confuse the "smarts"
in your chargers. The agile maintainer will have a recharge
curve for a discharged battery that looks like this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg
This is a Schumacher product that "tops off" a battery
at 14.9 to 15.0 volts for about an hour before relaxing
to the maintenance level of 13.1 volts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
Don't know, ain't got one. I do have a nice spreadsheet for my day VFR plane
with columns for "essential steady-state", "essential transient", "main
steady-state" and "main transient". I run on a John Deere 20 amp PM
alternator.
I may be being too subtle but I'm trying to imply that given the alternators
that B&C sells is there a real need for ratings over 60 amps? Or is there a
huge untapped market for alternators over 60 amps? What do GA fully-loaded
factory planes come with?
-- Craig
-----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: Looking for alternator
-->
>
>
>Some as far as I can see B&C only sells alternators rated 60 amps top.
>Does this mean that they have no alternators suitable for an IFR/lighted
plane?
What's the load analysis on an "IFR/lighted plane"?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
I have a B&C 40 amp alternator in my MII. IT has a full IFR panel, two
landing lights, boost pump, all the usual night stuff and two axis auto
pilots. The only time it can't keep up is night taxy with everything on. The
alternator needs 1500 engine rpm to produce a full 40 amps, so the battery
has to carry the load during night taxy, unless one wing light is turned off
along with the boost pump.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
>
>
> Some as far as I can see B&C only sells alternators rated 60 amps top.
> Does
> this mean that they have no alternators suitable for an IFR/lighted plane?
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> BobsV35B(at)aol.com
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
>
>
> Good Evening George,
>
> I agree. Conspicuity lighting has become our biggest current draw. The
> last
> time I checked the current on three running lights for a twelve volt GA
> airplane, it drew seven amps. I am sure there are units that draw more
> and
> other units which draw less, but that is pretty good average. Add a couple
> of rotating beacons along with strobes and it would be fairly easy to get
> the conspicuity light current need up to twenty amps.
>
> Somebody mentioned flaps, but flaps are an intermittent need and we do not
> have to consider intermittent needs, though we certainly can if we want
> to.
>
> Another fact of conspicuity lighting is a wig wag on landing lights. I
> have never measured such a set up, but landing lights vary tremendously
> as
> to the current required. If they are being used just for landing, that
> current need not be considered, but if landing lights are used for
> conspicuity purposes, they are no longer intermittent loads and MUST be
> considered.
>
> Radios are no longer a large current draw. In most aircraft, the amount
> of
> power needed for electronics is far less than the amount needed for
> conspicuity lighting.
>
> Right now, I would say that an airplane with heavy conspicuity lighting, a
> good full performance autopilot of the S-Tec or King variety and a full
> panel of IFR equipment could easily run the steady sate amperage
> requirement up to forty amps with a twelve volt system.
>
> My airplane has a twenty-eight volt system and normal night time current
> draw is right at twenty amps. If I turn on the pitot heat it jumps up to
> twenty-five or so.
>
> Obviously, with solid state electronics, maybe a TruTrac autopilot and LED
> conspicuity lighting, that draw could be reduced. Nevertheless, I can see
> the need for a sixty amp alternator for many of our well equipped twelve
> volt OBAM aircraft. Half of the need is in lighting requirements!
>
> 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 12/6/2005 2:43:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
> You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the
> strobes and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20
> amps. Not to mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric
> flaps. So you are amps to about 50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common
> wisdom is NOT to load the alternator over 50%-70% or the rated output
> continuously. So 70-80 alternators is not unreasonable.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
Good Evening Craig,
I think the 60 amp would be plenty for a well equipped IFR airplane. The
recommended maximum steady load is that it be no more than eighty percent of the
full output. Eighty percent of 60 is 48 Amps. The examples I gave would top
out under the worst case conditions at forty-five to fifty amps. Sounds
very doable to me. And if more modern components are used, the power
requirements are reduced, I have two rotating Grimes beacons and triple strobes
on my
airplane. That load could be reduced considerably and still provide equal
conspicuity. A TruTrac autopilot uses quite a bit less power than the ancient
S-Tec and King offerings.
My message was meant to point out that even the very heavily equipped IFR
airplanes will still have loads that can be easily carried by the ubiquitous
sixty ampere twelve volt units. If you go to twenty-four volts, thirty would be
adequate, but I would probably shoot for forty and be able to carry landing
lights without using battery power.
Fifty years ago, I was regularly flying IFR in a Bonanza that had a
twenty-five ampere generator. When I went to a thirty-five amp generator, I thought
I had died and gone to Heaven. However, we were taught to husband our
available amperage very carefully. We used landing lights sparingly and didn't
have conspicuity lighting. Some airliners used flashing lights and had ice
lights to light up the wings. We would often turn on the ice lights in high
traffic areas to help with conspicuity. Things are much better today. We have
ten times as much navigational capability and it probably use half as much
power as did our sets fifty years ago.
If I were building an OBAM heavy IFR airplane with a twelve volt system, I
would probably choose a B&C sixty amp alternator as primary and back it up
with a twenty amp standby unit. If I were using a twenty-eight volt system, I
would use a forty amp unit for primary and still go for the twenty as backup
only because there doesn't seem to be much available smaller than twenty.
Life IS good!
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 12/6/2005 8:44:26 P.M. Central Standard Time,
craig(at)craigandjean.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
Some as far as I can see B&C only sells alternators rated 60 amps top. Does
this mean that they have no alternators suitable for an IFR/lighted plane?
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
Good Evening Bob,
This is one of those points where I must respectfully disagree with your
conclusions.
There are many very safe conditions where pitot tube heat is desirable and
where lighting is required by the regulations.
I think if you will reread that A36 handbook, you will not find anything
that tells you not to operate exterior lighting during the hours that such
lighting is required by the FARs. That requirement applies to both experimental
and certificated aircraft. There have been occasional suggestions in many
operational specifications that rotating beacons and other conspicuity lighting
not be used when flying within cloud, but I do not believe you will ever find
any FAA approved operating specification that will tell you to operate with NO
exterior lighting during night time hours.
When it gets to the point of deciding whether any particular flight is being
operated safely or unsafely, I am perfectly willing to present my
operational decisions at any hearing called to evaluate my decisions.
Your personal minima may well be established at some point other than mine.
I may be more aggressive, or you may be more aggressive. I will never tell you
how you should fly your airplane, but I will suggest that you should make
every effort to stay within the letter and the intent of the applicable
regulations.
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 12/6/2005 9:52:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
I make an extra effort to stay clear of such conditions in
airplanes not outfitted to deal with the 99th percentile
icing environment. Designing a system that allows me to
run lights and deice the pitot tube too just doesn't fit
my policy and procedure for the elegant/prudent design.
It's a trade-off. I prefer to plan to stay/get out
of places where pitot heat is needed as opposed to planning
to run pitot heat along with lots of other goodies that
MIGHT help some equally silly pilot avoid hitting me
while we cruise through the crud together.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
Not with modern equipment:
strobes 3 A old aeroflash 3.1 (inrush 3.3)
LED Nav/Pos Light < 2A old aeroflash 7.4A (inrush 10.84)
HID Light 4 A old 7.7 (inrush 8.7)
And with my glascockpit I see VFR 7-8 Amps (1 Nav-Com, 1 Com,
Audiopanel, GPS, D-10A, EMS-10, uEncoder, digitrak, altrak (however AP
on standby in turbulent weather +2A), Lasar Ignition std. master relais
(0.7A), etc) so I still believe your 50A are a tad on the high side.
br Werner
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> You are forgetting 8-10 amps for landing lights, another 8 amps for the strobes
and 5 amps for the NAVS. Depending on you lights, it is over 20 amps. Not
to mention electronic ignition, cockpit lights and electric flaps. So you are
+50 amps? (granted inflated). Well common wisdom is NOT to load the alternator
over 50%-70% of the rated output continuously. So 70-80 amp alternators is
not unreasonable.
>
> ________________________________________________________
> From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
> Date: Dec 05, 2005 Subject: Looking for alternator
>
> 80 amps? I'm probably ignorant but what is in your plane that requires 80
> amps? I think that Bob has thrown numbers like 27 amps for a full IFR panel.
> What am I missing here?
>
>-- Craig
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
> Let fate take it's course directly to your email.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ATO/ATC Fuses 32 volt. |
>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > The 32v rating on automotive fuses is based on worst case fault currents
> > and the maximum voltage the fuse is guaranteed to break under that
> fault.
> > The leds will probably provide visible illumination over the full range
> > of system voltages that might call out this style fuse . . . 6-32 volts.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> >
> >
>Interesting. I took a closer look at my 80 amp Littlefuse alternator
>fuse and noticed that it is also stamped 32V in very small print.
>This is at the firewall on a 60 amp B&C alternator feed line. Since it
>is really protecting the wire & not the alternator it should be OK or do
>I need a smaller fuse??
Nope. 80A is fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
>
>
>Don't know, ain't got one. I do have a nice spreadsheet for my day VFR plane
>with columns for "essential steady-state", "essential transient", "main
>steady-state" and "main transient". I run on a John Deere 20 amp PM
>alternator.
>
>I may be being too subtle but I'm trying to imply that given the alternators
>that B&C sells is there a real need for ratings over 60 amps? Or is there a
>huge untapped market for alternators over 60 amps? What do GA fully-loaded
>factory planes come with?
We put 100 or 125A machines on the Bonanzas with
hot props and windshield patches . . . and that's
a 28v airplane. Under some conditions, all that snort
is needed to satisfy the load analysis.
Cessna went to 60A, 28v on all single engine airplanes
so that one regulator and one alternator fits all models.
The C-152 didn't come close to needing all that snort.
The load analysis does three things for you. (1) You craft the
various 'plans' for dealing with failures so that you can
(2) size the battery for desired endurance performance and
(3) size alternator for max continuous loads plus 25%
to leave headroom for charging a battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
>
>I have a B&C 40 amp alternator in my MII. IT has a full IFR panel, two
>landing lights, boost pump, all the usual night stuff and two axis auto
>pilots. The only time it can't keep up is night taxy with everything on. The
>alternator needs 1500 engine rpm to produce a full 40 amps, so the battery
>has to carry the load during night taxy, unless one wing light is turned off
>along with the boost pump.
So you may be undersized. You can't run ramp and taxi loads
and still have sufficient headroom to recharge the battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roberto Honorato" <roberto.honorato(at)williamaeronautica.com.br> |
| Subject: | Cessna Automatic 300A Question - NAV2 |
Hello!
I need to connect the deviation information of a KMD150 in a system
that uses Navomatic 300A, the Control head/computer had the PN 42660-1202
and model CA395A.
Does anybody know the number of the pins of the NAV2 inputs of the
Automatic Pilot Cessna NAVOMATIC 300A?
Thanks in advance
Robert
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
> > Normally, this cold junction compensation is included in the
> > instrument. Does the data shipped with your instruments
indicate
> > that they are accurate only at 75F and/or that there is no
> > cold-junction compensation?
>
>UMA's data is quite clear:
>
>"The meter actually reads the differential voltage between the
thermocouple
>and the cold junctions. Each indicator is calibrated at a junction
>temperature of 75F, so actual reading depends on junction
temperature. If
>junction temperature is higher than 75F then indicator will read one
degree
>lower for every degree higher and vice versa. In order to minimize
this
>error locate the cold junctions in a temperature stable environment"
Very good. If this bothers you, you can do a variety of things
to "correct" the readings.
> > If you wanted to "upgrade" an uncompensated instrument
> > to take advantage of this device, you'll need to craft a
> > black-box designed to accomplish the temperature compensation
> > and scale factors satisfactory the display's needs.
>
>- Is it possible to have only one compensation device for all the
>instruments (at the same temp)?
>- I understand that AD596/597 sends out a pretty linear voltage of
>10mV/degreeC. But my instruments, normally linked to TCs, must
receive
>something like (J) 0.05 mV/DegC or (K) 0.04 mV/DegC. How to transform
the
>value?
Your instruments designed to work directly from thermocouples
are calibrated in millivolts. You'd have to place calibrating
resistors in series to re-scale them to 10mv/C.
>- AD 596/597 is calibrated for linearity at ovens temperatures
(+60DegC). Is
>it correct for use at open cockpit temperatures (typically 0 to +30
DegC)?
Depends on how much you're going to worry about uncertainty of
measurements. Ordinary thermocouple wire is graded to an
accuracy of 2C. The AD597 itself has an error budget. It may
well be that without specifically calibrating each instrument
in-situ using the same thermocouple and signal conditioner
used in flight will you be able to drive the error budged down
to say plus or minus 1 degree C. What are your design goals?
After you've established requirements, you can begin to craft
the hardware needed to meet the requirements.
I can design signal conditioners that would probably get you
0.1 degree C accuracy at two points on each instrument . . .
can't vouch for in-between without characterizing each
instrument.
I can tell you that the CHT gages on decades of production
Cessnas sucked big time. They could be re-calibrated (I
designed a fixture to do it) but not one dealership in
100 ever ordered the fixture. I've not been aware of any
issues jumping up over gross inaccuracies of CHT readings
mostly because folks don't really KNOW how bad their particular
instruments might be. It's amazing what happens to the
worry-factor when you get answers to questions that few
people ever ask!
Bob . . .
Bob,
My first design goal is compliance with engine limitations:
- CHT max: 240 DegC
- Oil Temp: Max out to the radiator 105 DegC
Max in from the radiator: 90 DegC
With my uncompensated instruments, the hotter the day, the lower the
indicated temp, compared to reality... Rather inadequate, too easy to
inadvertently overtake limitations! (I have an old Tigre engine on my
Jungmann, and need to take care of it).
For limitation purpose, I could compensate for the worst case only: hottest
day, and temperature reaching limitation. Sufficient, but somewhat
inelegant...
I am not worried with the EGT, as I am only interested in peak detection,
for mixture setting.
My second goal deals with flight testing
- High engine temp sollicitation during climb performance flights
(limitations again)
- Testing different oil radiator installations, which needs some kind of
accuracy (2 DegC is enough, I can hardly read it on my 1 1/4" dials)
On a test climb to 14 500 ft ceiling, ambient temp will vary of about 30
DegC.
Ground temps typically vary in a 40 DegC range in the year, here in
Toulouse.
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators |
| From: | Greg Campbell <gregcampbellusa(at)gmail.com> |
I've seen the "light up" fuses before -
and here are two things to consider:
1) They only light up when the associated load is connected & "ON"...
i.e. some load is "trying" to draw current thru the fuse.
Without a connected load - the LED or light or whatever won't light up
even if the fuse is blown. So if you turn OFF whatever smoked the fuse,
you also won't have a light in the fuse panel. (The "keep-alive" current
in some radios might be enough to activate the fuse's LED.)
2) If you're probing a supposedly "dead" circuit with a sensitive voltmeter,
it won't look like a completely dead circuit due to the limited current
trickling through the LED or other light on the fuse. If you're probing,
looking for zero volts (or amps) - you will get strange readings that vary with
the
device's load.
So while they seemed like a good idea the first time I saw them,
I passed on them in the end for most applications and they sit on the shelf.
My $0.02,
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators |
>
>
>I've seen the "light up" fuses before -
>and here are two things to consider:
>
>1) They only light up when the associated load is connected & "ON"...
>i.e. some load is "trying" to draw current thru the fuse.
>Without a connected load - the LED or light or whatever won't light up
>even if the fuse is blown. So if you turn OFF whatever smoked the fuse,
>you also won't have a light in the fuse panel. (The "keep-alive" current
>in some radios might be enough to activate the fuse's LED.)
>
>2) If you're probing a supposedly "dead" circuit with a sensitive voltmeter,
>it won't look like a completely dead circuit due to the limited current
>trickling through the LED or other light on the fuse. If you're probing,
>looking for zero volts (or amps) - you will get strange readings that vary
>with the
>device's load.
>
>So while they seemed like a good idea the first time I saw them,
>I passed on them in the end for most applications and they sit on the shelf.
' Great explanation!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
>
>
> > Cessna went to 60A, 28v on all single engine airplanes
> > so that one regulator and one alternator fits all models.
> > The C-152 didn't come close to needing all that snort.
>
>Just a (probably dumb) side question but does the load on
>the engine vary with the load on the alternator?
>
>In other words, assuming 80% alternator efficiency, will
>a 60 amp 14.5v load require 1 hp from the engine, and a
>30 amp load require 0.5 hp?
The mechanical load is proportional to the electrical
load. 1 hp = 746 watts. 60A * 14.5v = 870 watts or
1.15 hp out. Divide by 0.8 for efficiency and we get
1.46 hp input. 30A load on the same setup would require
0.73 hp input from the engine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
>
>
>Good Evening Bob,
>
>This is one of those points where I must respectfully disagree with your
>conclusions.
>
>There are many very safe conditions where pitot tube heat is desirable and
>where lighting is required by the regulations.
Understand. I believe the placard referred only to the
anti collision lighting but on the few cases where I
found myself going through a layer at night, reflections
from the position lights were distracting especially as
the layer thinned and variability in reflection produced
a lot of visual "activity" in peripheral vision.
The first airplanes to fly at night carried only position
lights. It didn't take long for folks to realize that these
little critters were insufficient for giving other pilots
a heads-up on approaching traffic and they starting sticking
beacons and strobes on the airplanes. The logic that
position lights are sacrosanct with respect to see-and-avoid
after you've already been given 'permission' to shut the
big puppies off escapes me. But then, the logic behind
much of what the FAA does escapes me too.
I suppose some bureaucrat could gig me for the practice
but he wasn't sitting in my seat. Just 'cause the
regulations say that position lights are a useful thing
to do under all conditions doesn't make it so.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
>
>I've got lighting and pitot heat, with a 60 amp alternator, and I've
>got some capacity left over for heated seat if need be.
>
>You don't need a nuclear power plant to feed these things. An
>electrical load analysis, and a bit of discretion when choosing
>electrically powered items go a long ways.
Yep, love those plan-a, plan-b and even plan-c design
decisions. Load analysis is an easy (and necessary) thing to
do when crafting the best return on investment for
weight and cost of ownership.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
There's also the extra weight including heavier wiring.
Then there is the issue of overvoltage. A battery can handle a small
runaway alternator much longer which may save some expensive
electronics. Perhaps irrelevant with an OVP equipped external voltage
regulated alternator. However it might be a factor with an internal
regulated unit. At the time these were the reasons that I tossed a new
100 amp subaru unit and replaced it with a new 40 amp unit. Saved at
least 6 lbs.
Load dump excursions should also be less severe I think since the
alternator won't put out enough current to handle high inrushes or
intermittant or momentary high load demands. Transorbs could handle most
of that I suppose. Of course with the small alternator I was comfortable
with a small battery which saved even more weight but probably offset
some of what I just said about voltage excursions...
However I personally don't like large alternators coupled to small
batteries.
Ken
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>
> Did I miss something here? What's the big deal with oversizing your alternator
a bit? Other than more money, more cooling requirements, and a fraction of
a HP less I don't see what the big deal is. I'm all for putting in only what's
required but where is the big negative of putting in a 60amp compared to a
40amp that warrants this much conversation?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob rundle" <bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
If I'm not going to hook up the 300XL to a NAV indicator then I might as
well just get the GNC250XL. But I already have the 300 and got it for a
good price. Am I not just losing capability if I don't use the 300 and an
IFR unit? Just seems like I'm only using a small piece of the 300s
capability.
Other question: I have the GI106A hooked up to the G430. Is there no way
to switch the GI106A over to the 300XL?
BobR
Airplane savy, electrically stupid
>From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics, ACU, etc
>
>
>Good Morning Bob,
>
>I am not familiar with the CDI and annunciator numbers your are using
>(nothing wrong with your numbers, I just don't have the configuration of
>that
>many
>components in my memory bank!), however, I would like to comment on your
>need
>
>for instrumentation.
>
>Why do you want two IFR approved boxes? If you are planning to use the
>300XL as a back up in case of 430 failure, why not just hook it up as VFR
>only?
>
>
>If the 430 fails during a time when you really need an IFR box, you can
>always declare an emergency and be using the VFR box almost legally .
>
>If you are only interested in using the GNC 300XL for VFR purposes, there
>is
>no need for any external annunciators or CDI indicators.
>
>Chances are you will fly a lifetime without ever needing the IFR legality
>for that back up GPS. For monitoring purposes, the backup will work just
>as
>well when VFR only as it would if it was maintained as an IFR unit.
>
>As always, it is best if you mount the GNC 300XL well within your normal
>line of sight, but everything you need to use it for situational awareness
>or to
>
>follow a course is available within the Panel Control Unit.
>
>Keep It Simple!
>
>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 12/5/2005 8:45:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
>So what if I only have 1 GI106A? Do I still need this ACU? The G430 will
>change it without the need for an ACU. Right now I;m considering getting
>a
>second GI106A and the ACU to hook up to the G300XL. Would this be the
>best
>solution? As well I presume since I'll be only be doing non-precision
>appracohes with the 300XL then I only need the GI102A, not the 106A
>(glideslope indication as well).
>
>Can someone clarify this for me?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
Good Morning Bob,
When I have checked actual selling prices, I have found that the 250XL and
300XL seem to be bringing abut the same over the counter price. That may not
last!
If you have the 300XL, you still have the full approach capability via the
panel unit for emergency purposes. Just about everything you need to make it
work is located within the panel unit. Those annunciators and such are
primarily to jump through FAA regulatory hoops. Now, if you can't mount the 300XL
in a spot where it can be in your primary panel scan, using it as primary
guidance gets more difficult. That is the original reasoning behind providing
for external components.
Utilizing a switching arrangement to share an HSI or other CDI instrument
between a VHF nav unit and a GPS unit saves panel space and puts the guidance
right in the middle of your current style scan.
If it works for you for VHF nav, it will work for you for the GPS.
Were I designing a panel for an OBAM IFR platform, I would not try to stick
with the forty year old "standard" T arrangement. Adjust the radio placement
and the placement of flight instruments so that your scan will accommodate
the way you intend to use the components.
Are you familiar with the look of Navion, Stinson, Piper, Cessna and Beech
panels from the fifties? Most of them had the flight instruments scattered
around the panel to please the manufacturers convenience, the test pilots
thought of where they should be, or the purchaser's philosophy of instrument
flight, but almost all of them had a "Glove Box" radio mounted on the left side
of
the instrument panel.
That left side radio box location has proven to be an excellent location for
a modern GPS unit. The entire panel unit is right in the primary instrument
scan!
There are many much better layouts than the so called "standard" T
arrangement.
While our regulators and many of our industry friends try hard to force us
all into conformity with their ideas of how the world should be, we must
remember that standardization is the mortal enemy of innovation!
Kudos to the free thinker, but keep it legal!
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 12/7/2005 7:42:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com writes:
If I'm not going to hook up the 300XL to a NAV indicator then I might as
well just get the GNC250XL. But I already have the 300 and got it for a
good price. Am I not just losing capability if I don't use the 300 and an
IFR unit? Just seems like I'm only using a small piece of the 300s
capability.
Other question: I have the GI106A hooked up to the G430. Is there no way
to switch the GI106A over to the 300XL?
BobR
Airplane savy, electrically stupid
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
Another point...
I'm still in the "wishing and hoping and tire kicking" stage, but I hope to
get started on an eLSA sometime next year.
I've been spending quite a bit of time playing with various Panel Planning
software, and something I have been considering is the fact that most of the
aircraft I am looking at have a stick instead of a yoke, and I am
right-handed.
So, my plan is to put everything that has to be "messed with" in flight on
the left hand side of my panel, so I can work them with my left hand while
keeping my right hand on the stick. This would include GPS units, Nav/Com,
autopilot, and if there is enough room, the audio panel. I'm also planning
on putting the light switches and fuel boost pump switch on the left side.
Other electrical switches will be placed on the center console or in another
secondarily-accessible location, on the assumption that you generally only
need to access them at startup and shutdown, when the airplane is on the
ground and not moving.
Most current GPS units and Nav/Coms or Coms (with the notable exception of
the SL 40) and autopilots also allow for some types of stick-mounted
controls, such as frequency flip-flop, autopilot engage and disengage, and
similar functions. I'm planning to use Ray Allen grips and connect the
remote switches to everything I can.
Electric trim and flaps can also be done very cheaply, and with stick
mounted switches.
Which leads to the problem of having more items that can be remotely
controlled than I would have switches available for, but I have a solution
for that, too.
Depending upon what aircraft I build and how many "toys" I put in it, I may
buy an additional Ray Allen grip, and use it on a quadrant-mounted throttle
lever.
A few of the things that have gone into this design philosophy...
- The old "left hand on the throttle, right hand on the stick" paradigm.
- The military's ergonomic design for "HOTAS"; hands-on-throttle-and-stick,
with everything controlled by remote switches.
- Basic ergonomics principles of "what you need to touch and when you need
to touch it".
Hopefully, this will inspire some thinking by the rest of you guys, and
hopefully, some of the old hands will set me straight where my thinking is
foolish...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc
Good Morning Bob,
When I have checked actual selling prices, I have found that the 250XL and
300XL seem to be bringing abut the same over the counter price. That may
not
last!
If you have the 300XL, you still have the full approach capability via the
panel unit for emergency purposes. Just about everything you need to make it
work is located within the panel unit. Those annunciators and such are
primarily to jump through FAA regulatory hoops. Now, if you can't mount
the 300XL
in a spot where it can be in your primary panel scan, using it as primary
guidance gets more difficult. That is the original reasoning behind
providing
for external components.
Utilizing a switching arrangement to share an HSI or other CDI instrument
between a VHF nav unit and a GPS unit saves panel space and puts the
guidance
right in the middle of your current style scan.
If it works for you for VHF nav, it will work for you for the GPS.
Were I designing a panel for an OBAM IFR platform, I would not try to stick
with the forty year old "standard" T arrangement. Adjust the radio
placement
and the placement of flight instruments so that your scan will accommodate
the way you intend to use the components.
Are you familiar with the look of Navion, Stinson, Piper, Cessna and Beech
panels from the fifties? Most of them had the flight instruments scattered
around the panel to please the manufacturers convenience, the test pilots
thought of where they should be, or the purchaser's philosophy of instrument
flight, but almost all of them had a "Glove Box" radio mounted on the left
side of
the instrument panel.
That left side radio box location has proven to be an excellent location
for
a modern GPS unit. The entire panel unit is right in the primary instrument
scan!
There are many much better layouts than the so called "standard" T
arrangement.
While our regulators and many of our industry friends try hard to force us
all into conformity with their ideas of how the world should be, we must
remember that standardization is the mortal enemy of innovation!
Kudos to the free thinker, but keep it legal!
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 12/7/2005 7:42:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com writes:
If I'm not going to hook up the 300XL to a NAV indicator then I might as
well just get the GNC250XL. But I already have the 300 and got it for a
good price. Am I not just losing capability if I don't use the 300 and an
IFR unit? Just seems like I'm only using a small piece of the 300s
capability.
Other question: I have the GI106A hooked up to the G430. Is there no way
to switch the GI106A over to the 300XL?
BobR
Airplane savy, electrically stupid
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
| From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
John,
It is really a very simple circuit. Go to
www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/LM/LM7805.pdf and scroll down to fig. 8.
That's how I wired my system. The input (+12v) goes to the fuse panel,
the output goes to the capacitive probe circuit input (+5v), and the
other lead goes to ground. And finally, the output from the capacitive
probes goes to the high-frequency input channel on the EFIS/1. The EI
probe circuit also has a ground lead, yours probably does too. Hope
this helps.
Mark S.
-----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: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
Mark -
Do you have a shematic for making up the voltage regulators?
Thanks,
John
wrote:
> John,
> I'm not sure if they have the capacity (no pun intended) to handle
both
> probes. Since they're only $.48/ea (Digi-key) I didn't even consider
> it.
> Mark
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
In a message dated 12/7/2005 7:47:26 A.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
The first airplanes to fly at night carried only position
lights. It didn't take long for folks to realize that these
little critters were insufficient for giving other pilots
a heads-up on approaching traffic and they starting sticking
beacons and strobes on the airplanes. The logic that
position lights are sacrosanct with respect to see-and-avoid
after you've already been given 'permission' to shut the
big puppies off escapes me. But then, the logic behind
much of what the FAA does escapes me too.
Good Morning Bob,
As one who had logged several thousand hours in those days before
conspicuity lighting was formalized in the guise of rotating beacons and, later,
strobe
lights, may I add a few things to your thoughts?
Most Douglas DC-3s came from the factory with a red passing light located in
the same wing cutout which contained the left landing light. When we saw
another airplane heading our way, we would flash the passing light. It helped
us all make sure we saw other traffic.
Shortly after WWII, the powers that be decided that running lights should
alternate with white conspicuity lights which were mounted above and below the
airplane.
The running lights alternated with the white conspicuity lights. The idea
was that the flashing lights would add conspicuity, yet we would still have
running lights to guide us and help determine the proper avoidance technique to
be used. Most of us took to turning on every light we had when we were in
high traffic areas. That include the ice lights out on the sides. By the early
fifties, we were told to cease using our ice lights for that purpose
because we were confusing the directional perception that was needed to determine
which way to maneuver.
Capital airlines came up with the idea of mounting a police "Mars' light on
the top of a couple of their DC-4s. They tried both amber and red lenses. We
all found that the Capital idea helped a lot. Grimes came up with an FAA
approved version and rotating beacons were on the way. It was determined that
the flashing running lights interfered with our being able to determine
direction of travel.
Flashing, occulting or alternating running lights were declared illegal so
that we could best use them for their original purpose which was to help us
figure out which way the traffic was going.
Conspicuity was handled by the Rotating Beacon. As one who was actively
flying almost daily between Chicago and New York when rotating beacons became
common, I can assure you that we were all flabbergasted when we realized how
many airplanes were out there that we had not been seeing.
I like conspicuity lighting of all sorts, but I agree with those who feel we
still need running lights to determine direction of travel.
Many good efforts and ideas have been promulgated to avoid the glare of
running lights interfering with pilot vision. Rather than turn them off when in
cloud, I would install suitable glare prevention devices.
The difficulties we had with disorientation due to rotating beacons was
addressed by applying suitable shielding to those lights. I believe it is rare
for a current factory installed rotating beacon to cause a problem for the pilot
because most of them now have suitable shielding.
Obviously, it took a while to discover the problems so that they could be
addressed.
We still have difficulties with complaints about folks operating strobes on
the ground. Most experts assure us that a strobe last such a small length of
time that the flash cannot hurt our night vision, but you will still hear
complaints to the tower where someone is asking that a strobe light be turned
off.
Conspicuity lighting is still in development. The wig wag for landing lights
appears to be a pretty good current idea.
I believe the running lights are still needed to aid in that last split
second evaluation of which way to turn, yet I will admit that in some
thirty-eight thousand hours of flight time, I do not believe I have ever saved
the day
by making such a turn!
Nevertheless, I do believe I have initiated turns well ahead of a collision
situation by determining the projected flight path of a potentially
conflicting aircraft.
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: Looking for alternator |
Great historical data. Thanks!
>
>
>Good Morning Bob,
>As one who had logged several thousand hours in those days before
>conspicuity lighting was formalized in the guise of rotating beacons and,
>later, strobe
>lights, may I add a few things to your thoughts?
>
>Most Douglas DC-3s came from the factory with a red passing light located in
>the same wing cutout which contained the left landing light. When we saw
>another airplane heading our way, we would flash the passing light.
>It helped
>us all make sure we saw other traffic.
>We still have difficulties with complaints about folks operating strobes on
>the ground. Most experts assure us that a strobe last such a small length of
>time that the flash cannot hurt our night vision, but you will still hear
>complaints to the tower where someone is asking that a strobe light be
>turned
>off.
Yeah, I'm not sure they're "harmful" so much as "irritating" . . . When
one drives along streets you're deluged with informative,
persuasive and perhaps entertaining input from signs and lights. Yet,
there are folks driving around in cars with red and blue lights on them
that expect you to pick up on every regulatory sign posted amongst the
noise. When sitting low to the ground in a little airplane trying to
navigate one's way on an unfamiliar airport, someone's "lookit me!!"
strobes are not helpful when I'm looking for data.
>Conspicuity lighting is still in development. The wig wag for landing lights
>appears to be a pretty good current idea.
Very much so. Had occasion to fly in Oregon where VFR is nearly
always marginal. Wig-wags really make the other guy stand out.
>I believe the running lights are still needed to aid in that last split
>second evaluation of which way to turn, yet I will admit that in some
>thirty-eight thousand hours of flight time, I do not believe I have ever
>saved the day
>by making such a turn!
Agree . . . in every close passing I've had with other airplanes,
most situations were such that it would have made no difference
if was running standard lighting protocols. One event would
most certainly have been mitigated by wig-wags . . . he came
at me out of the haze and passed blow with probably less than 100'
of separation. That was in controlled airspace talking to approach
who never mentioned the other airplane.
>Nevertheless, I do believe I have initiated turns well ahead of a collision
>situation by determining the projected flight path of a potentially
>conflicting aircraft.
So have I . . . all of which supposes that at least one of the
two of us is looking and sees. Funny thing about boring holes
in clouds. I don't perceive much value in looking out the windows
when there are really busy things to attend to inside. I'll
be other pilots are similarly disposed.
Should we come together in a cloud and the folks who make a living
sifting through the wreckage find that my position lights
were not ON, they'll no doubt make note of it . . . but I'll
bet it wouldn't have made a difference.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Bob R
How is the GNS430 hooked up to the GI106A? I believe that it is via analog
lines which means a bunch of wires. If the 300 has the same analog output,
it is possible to switch the 106 between the 430 and the 300 with a relay
of some kind. If you research the archives, there was a good discussion
about how to do this (roll your own) back about 2 years ago. I have a
picture of the prototype that Bob Nuckolls made, as well as a .pdf file of
the circuit board, relay, etc. It has a Dsub25 input and a Dsub37 output.
Let me know off line if you want copies of these files.
Bob Nuckolls: Do you still make these for sale?
Cheers,
John Schroeder
wrote:
> Other question: I have the GI106A hooked up to the G430. Is there no
> way
> to switch the GI106A over to the 300XL?
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Mark -
Sure does. Thanks, John
wrote:
>
>
> John,
> It is really a very simple circuit. Go to
> www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/LM/LM7805.pdf and scroll down to fig. 8.
> That's how I wired my system. The input (+12v) goes to the fuse panel,
> the output goes to the capacitive probe circuit input (+5v), and the
> other lead goes to ground. And finally, the output from the capacitive
> probes goes to the high-frequency input channel on the EFIS/1. The EI
> probe circuit also has a ground lead, yours probably does too. Hope
> this helps.
>
> Mark S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
>
>
>Bob R
>
>How is the GNS430 hooked up to the GI106A? I believe that it is via analog
>lines which means a bunch of wires. If the 300 has the same analog output,
>it is possible to switch the 106 between the 430 and the 300 with a relay
>of some kind. If you research the archives, there was a good discussion
>about how to do this (roll your own) back about 2 years ago. I have a
>picture of the prototype that Bob Nuckolls made, as well as a .pdf file of
>the circuit board, relay, etc. It has a Dsub25 input and a Dsub37 output.
>
>Let me know off line if you want copies of these files.
>
>Bob Nuckolls: Do you still make these for sale?
Never did. I considered it but I belive Eric Jones jumped in
to do it. I decided not to compete on a low-volume product.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
In a message dated 12/7/2005 11:41:11 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch writes:
Wow, Mr. Siegfried, that's amazing. I don't think I've
ever heard of anyone with that many hours. I'm awestruck!
Good Morning Mickey,
It's not hard to do, you just have to live a long time!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator (true lies and exaggeration's) |
First I never said 60 amps is not enough. Who cares what B&C sales.
I agree 60 amps should be enough, but folks are putting in more and more crap
into the planes not needed (like heated pitots in VFR planes). BTW my pet peeve
is 8 amp pitot's on a VFR plane, which I can't understand. (Note: If the air
temp is not at freezing or less and you are NOT in VISABLE moisture you will
not get icing. Period, end of story. What is a VFR pilot doing in a cloud. Also
IFR in freezing conditions in a RV is illegal, but at least you could justify
pitot heat more if you do plan on IMC. Stay out of clouds you will NOT get
airframe ice. (Please no freezing rain, drizzle stories, it is visible moisture
below freezing, and freezing precipitation is NOT a place for a VFR pilot).
Stop the madness, no heated pitot on VFR planes.
Just for the record I basically have a day / night IFR RV-7 and a 40 AMP alternator
(aka 45 amp at engine RPM's over 2000 rpm). My total (MAX) draw is 32
amps, transient and continuous, which is not a real typical condition. My realistic
max is about 26.5 amps, but typical day / night cruise draw, is 9.25 / 21.5
amps.
So the wise remarks about 60amps......
As far as lights, my exterior lights total 21 amps:
Landing lights 4 amps x 2,
Aeroflash (double flash) strobe pak, each wing, 3 amps x 2,
Tail strobe pak is 2 amps.
Each wing Nav 2 amps x 2,
Tail Nav 1 amp
That adds up to 21 amps! Add a 8 amp pitot and the 20 amp panel that was proposed
you have 49 amps. That could tax a 60 amp alternator. How you get a 21 amp
panel I don't know but assumed for the sake of argument you can.
BTW I also have over 10,000 hours, with 4 pitot heats and one TAT probe heat
on, strobes and nav on (even in the day time) and landing lights on below 10,000
feet. :-)
George
---------------------------------
Let fate take it's course directly to your email.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
Runaway alternators boy they can be fickle!!
Small or large current units if in full runaway can exceed 75, maybe 100
volts and cause complete panel failure chaos. The damage can be total to
wiring, electric units and avionics, plus throw in the fire, smoke and
sparks blasting every where problem.
Best prevention is to use a really good, heavy duty regulator that can 100%
shut down the field instantly if something causes it to go into a high
voltage mode.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
>
> There's also the extra weight including heavier wiring.
>
> Then there is the issue of overvoltage. A battery can handle a small
> runaway alternator much longer which may save some expensive
> electronics. Perhaps irrelevant with an OVP equipped external voltage
> regulated alternator. However it might be a factor with an internal
> regulated unit. At the time these were the reasons that I tossed a new
> 100 amp subaru unit and replaced it with a new 40 amp unit. Saved at
> least 6 lbs.
>
> Load dump excursions should also be less severe I think since the
> alternator won't put out enough current to handle high inrushes or
> intermittant or momentary high load demands. Transorbs could handle most
> of that I suppose. Of course with the small alternator I was comfortable
> with a small battery which saved even more weight but probably offset
> some of what I just said about voltage excursions...
>
> However I personally don't like large alternators coupled to small
> batteries.
>
> Ken
>
> RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Did I miss something here? What's the big deal with oversizing your
>> alternator a bit? Other than more money, more cooling requirements, and
>> a fraction of a HP less I don't see what the big deal is. I'm all for
>> putting in only what's required but where is the big negative of putting
>> in a 60amp compared to a 40amp that warrants this much conversation?
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Hooper" <phil(at)hdmnet.com> |
| Subject: | very dumb question about crimping |
This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert the
connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from behind
or from the front.
I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Spare Fuses vs. Fumble Factor - and Crossbow NAV425 |
AHRS failures...
| From: | Greg Campbell <gregcampbellusa(at)gmail.com> |
I have a glass panel in my Lancair ES. It's wired with dual electric buses and
an E-Bus.
The Sierra Sport EFIS gets attitude & heading data from a Crossbow NAV425 "AHRS"
system.
www.xbow.com/Products/productsdetails.aspx?sid104
My original design figured the AHRS was about as essential as you could get,
so it was fused directly (with no switch) to the E-Bus.
Since the E-Bus was powered automatically from Bus1 or Bus2,
I figured this was a safe, reasonable, trouble-free & very simple solution.
With a MTBF estimated in the tens of thousands of hours,
I naively though my AHRS installation was complete.
During Phase 1 testing, my Crossbow NAV425 starting having erratic startups
which would require a reset of the AHRS on the ground, and later in-flight.
The MTBF's for my unit were working out more in the tens of hours, not thousands
of hours.
So... Mod #1 was to put in an ON-(OFF) "momentary reset" switch so I could briefly
power the AHRS off and force it to reset if it developed a goofy attitude on the
ground or in-flight.
It got a pretty regular workout - and the AHRS continued to get flakier and flakier
over the summer.
Mod #2 By August, it got to the point where the AHRS would rarely reset to a usable
condition.
I decided to change the momentary ON-(OFF) to a permanent (and less distracting)
ON-OFF switch.
(The AHRS didn't know it was sending bad data, so the EFIS kept showing bad data,
unusual attitudes, etc..
This is my electrical equivalent of putting a Post-It note over a faulty $25K Attitude
Indicator.)
With power removed from the AHRS, the EFIS dutifully reports the loss of AHRS data
and operates in a
degraded, but far less distracting mode with the attitude information removed.
Prior to this, after using
the momentary (OFF) AHRS reset switch, the bad attitude data would go away for
a minute
until the AHRS came back online with more faulty and distracting data.
Mod #3 Recently I decided to go one step further. Since I had already dedicated
panel space
to the AHRS power switch, aka "Reset" feature, I decided to give myself a "built-in"
backup power source.
By using a readily available SPDT ON-OFF-ON switch (you could also do it with
a progressive transfer switch),
I was able to feed the AHRS from either of two separate fuses:
+ the "normal" fuse is on the E-Bus, which is automatically fed from Bus 1 or Bus
2.
+ the "backup fuse" could be on Bus#1 (to avoid the diode drop of the E-Bus), or
Bus 2, or the Battery Bus.
By putting the "normal" position at one end of the toggle switch throw, I'm able
to use a guarded switch
with a cover that can be safetied in the closed position. So when Crossbow finally
gets the NAV425 working correctly
( see: www.xbow.com/Support/Support_pdf_files/Service_Letter_NAV425.pdf )
I can wire the guard shut using soft copper safety wire. Until then, the guard
remains open - and the "OFF" position gets used frequently.
Previously I had considered that I could swap a blown fuse in-flight. But I believe
I underestimated
the "fumble factor" involved in doing so. Earlier this year I had the opportunity
to swap the landing gear indicator bulbs
on my twin. After extending the gear on downwind - the nose gear indicator failed
to light up. The POH says to swap the bulbs.
I got the (bad?) nose bulb out and then took out one of the "good bulbs" and promptly
dropped it.
(Did I mention that it was single pilot, no Autopilot, snowing, cold, and getting
dark around sunset - in the snowy mountains near Tonopah NV ? ;-)
I finally got the remaining "good" bulb out and swapped it - and sure enough -
landed with one green light - (the nose).
After that little adventure - I decided that fumbling around for spare fuses was
more fun than I wanted to consider.
So if you already have a power switch - you could always change it into a SPDT
power switch with a "Spare fuse" built in.
It will give you that "second shot" that the circuit breaker guys have - without
having to fumble around for fuses.
Mod #4 Having two power sources available, it now begged the question of whether
I really wanted the AHRS to reset
if the power is momentarily interrupted. There are more reasons why I wouldn't
want this to happen - so I began
thinking about "make before break" and override, switches, etc.. But that introduces
complexities - and I finally decided to simply
try a capacitor on the AHRS power line. A 1000 or 2000 microfarad capacitor from
Radio Shack allows the AHRS
(which draws less than 350 mA) to reliably "ride through" a brief interruption
of power.
+ So if you want the AHRS to run on the backup fuse and bus, then quickly switch
from Normal ON to Backup ON
and the AHRS never misses a beat and doesn't initiate an awkward and unpredictable
in-flight reset of the AHRS.
+ If you simply want to reset the AHRS, then turn it OFF, count to 10, then turn
it back ON. The capacitor will bleed down
and the AHRS will power OFF and reset when power is restored. You have to hold
the plane fairly straight & level while this happens.
So hopefully you have the autopilot available, or backup instruments. (All the
more reason NOT to use the GPS signal from the NAV425's built in GPS as a primary
GPS signal, since the TruTrak AP is aided by a GPS input signal.)
+ If you just want the AHRS data to go away and stay away - then leave the power
switch in the OFF position.
Anyway - this little AHRS aggravation caused me to put way more thought into this
lowly little circuit
than I ever imagined at the beginning of the project. But I like the ever evolving
solution that
it has spawned. Physically - it only added one switch to the panel. That switch
is located
away from the "everyday" switches. It only needs to be touched if things go awry.
(It also exposed some weaknesses in the design assumption of the EFIS - namely
that the EFIS shouldn't
rely on the subsystems (like the AHRS, EIS, etc.) to reliably report when they
are generating bad data.
Until it can - it's important to be able to pull the plug on sub-systems sending
bad data so you aren't distracted
(It also pointed out that you don't want to rely on the GPS built into the NAV425
- because if you pull
the plug on the AHRS, you would also lose your GPS source as well. Adding a basic
GPS sensor like the
Garmin 18-5Hz is an excellent backup GPS signal - for under $200.)
My friends in the airline industry tell me that if a circuit breaker pops on a
non-essential item,
than they don't even reset it once in-flight. If it's for an essential piece of
equipment, they can try and
reset it once. If it pops again - then it's considered Tango Uniform (Inop) for
the remainder of the flight.
So this switch & fuse & capacitor arrangement gives you "two shots" just like a
circuit breaker, plus the option
of resetting the device, or letting it stay up, or permanently powering it off.
(With my faulty AHRS,
the bad data just kept coming back - which was very distracting.)
So while it may be stating the obvious - don't underestimate the usefulness of
having a spare fuse
already wired into your more critical circuits. It can aid in load shedding, load
balancing, and avoiding
the dreaded fumble factor when it's miserable & getting dark! You're already carrying
the spare fuse (hopefully),
so it only adds the weight of a second piece of wire and a bigger fuse panel.
All in all - I'm very glad I went with fuses.
The only two circuit breakers in my plane are for the voltage regulators.
(And it only took me two tries to get those right! But that's another story...
;-)
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: very dumb question about crimping |
>
>This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
>fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert the
>connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from behind
>or from the front.
>
>
>I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
>little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
>crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
Your narrative doesn't offer much of an image as to
an answer to your question. What AMP part number is it?
Did you buy it new? Have you checked the AMP website
for instructions?
Do you have a digital camera? Can you send me close-ups
of both sides of the tool? Send to nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Before you take the pictures, take a look at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
This comic book describes every crimp tool's task for
achieving acceptable results. With the jaws fully closed,
looking into the terminal cavity, if one side is larger than
the other (with AMP this is LIKELY), then the larger side is
where the WIRE goes in.
For example: See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/CLEVELAND60A.jpg
These die openings are larger than . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/CLEVELAND61A.jpg
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roberto Honorato" <roberto.honorato(at)williamaeronautica.com.br> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
Bob Wrote:
"Other question: I have the GI106A hooked up to the G430. Is there no way
to switch the GI106A over to the 300XL?"
Yes, you can connect! I have a diagram using 300xl, GI106A and MD-41.
You can use MD-41 or a buildhome switch box, for experimental uses.
I can send you if you want.
Att,
Robert
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators |
| From: | Greg Campbell <gregcampbellusa(at)gmail.com> |
My personal theory of the 32v rating for the ATO/ATC blade fuses
is that it's based more on the maximum voltage you would feel comfortable
grabbing with bare fingers!
The fuses are designed with exposed metal test points - so you can easily use
a fuse tester by probing the exposed metal contacts. These metal test points
are on the top surface of the fuse, and would easily be contacted by bare fingers
trying to insert or replace a fuse in the panel.
Just looking at the internal configuration of the fuses, I speculate that they
would reliably
interrupt 100 or even 300 volts. I don't believe the arcing distance is a factor
at all.
Rather, I think it's a personnel issue. Who would you get to change a fuse
in a 100v or 300v system without benefit of some additional insulation or special
tools?
I've been known to fearlessly put a finger into a 12v lighter socket and feign
getting a shock.
(Usually to the utter and very real annoyance of my wife.)
But I think I'd be hesitant about poking around with bare hands in a system much
above 50vdc.
(Thomas Edison thought DC to be much safer, wanting to call AC electrocution being
"Westinghoused".)
I could ask my friend who was working with phone wires once.
He abruptly discovered that the nominal 48vdc phone signal is replaced by
a 90vac "ring signal" when the phone company wants to ring your bell.
As I recall - he was stripping wires with his teeth at the time, and the tender
skin of his
inner forearm was resting securely on a cast iron sewer pipe. Of course, I think
his head hurt the worst
after the phone rang - he jerked it up and banged it on a floor joist. I think
his personal
voltage threshold probably around 32v ;-) I was too busy laughing to remember
all the details.
But 32vdc sounds like a pretty good "bare fingers" compromise voltage.
If your hands are sweaty, you probably shouldn't be in the fuse box anyway.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ATO/ATC Fuses with LED indicators |
>
>
>My personal theory of the 32v rating for the ATO/ATC blade fuses
>is that it's based more on the maximum voltage you would feel comfortable
>grabbing with bare fingers!
>
>The fuses are designed with exposed metal test points - so you can easily use
>a fuse tester by probing the exposed metal contacts. These metal test points
>are on the top surface of the fuse, and would easily be contacted by bare
>fingers
>trying to insert or replace a fuse in the panel.
>
>Just looking at the internal configuration of the fuses, I speculate that
>they would reliably
>interrupt 100 or even 300 volts. I don't believe the arcing distance is a
>factor at all.
>
>Rather, I think it's a personnel issue. Who would you get to change a fuse
>in a 100v or 300v system without benefit of some additional insulation or
>special tools?
>
>I've been known to fearlessly put a finger into a 12v lighter socket and
>feign getting a shock.
>(Usually to the utter and very real annoyance of my wife.)
>But I think I'd be hesitant about poking around with bare hands in a
>system much above 50vdc.
>(Thomas Edison thought DC to be much safer, wanting to call AC
>electrocution being "Westinghoused".)
>
>I could ask my friend who was working with phone wires once.
>He abruptly discovered that the nominal 48vdc phone signal is replaced by
>a 90vac "ring signal" when the phone company wants to ring your bell.
>As I recall - he was stripping wires with his teeth at the time, and the
>tender skin of his
>inner forearm was resting securely on a cast iron sewer pipe. Of course,
>I think his head hurt the worst
>after the phone rang - he jerked it up and banged it on a floor joist. I
>think his personal
>voltage threshold probably around 32v ;-) I was too busy laughing to
>remember all the details.
>
>But 32vdc sounds like a pretty good "bare fingers" compromise voltage.
>If your hands are sweaty, you probably shouldn't be in the fuse box anyway.
Actually, there is a specific thought process behind the
32v rating on these fuses. Take a peek at:
http://www.bussmann.com/library/bifs/2009.PDF
The data sheet for the ATC plastic fuse states that it's
rated for 32 volts or less on a bus capable of delivering
up to 1000A of fault current.
This means the mechanical clearances and melting
characteristics are designed to clear a fault having
an instantaneous power potential of up to 32,000 watts.
That's a LOT of heat dumped into the widening gap
at melt-through. The design has to demonstrate an
ability to reliably open this kind of circuit while
containing all ugly stuff within the fuse's enclosure.
The purpose of such circuit protection is to stand
off the effects of some predictable hazard. A mis-applied
protection device can BECOME a hazard.
Obviously, very few users will have a reason ever to
approach these levels. It's not a directly linear
function but intuitively, if max fault current were limited
to say 100A, then one could bet on adequate performance
at a higher voltage . . . not 320 but something certainly
higher than 32 volts.
32 volts is a handy upper end to design to. When
the electrical industry was young, 32 volts was the voltage
of choice for wind charger systems on farms, dc lighting
systems on boats, lighting systems in railroad cars,
etc. You can browse some of historical applications
of 32v at these websites and others.
http://www.trainweb.org/gyra/electric.htm
http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1970_November_December/Power_
http://www.pilothouseonline.com/hatteras72fcm.htm
http://cap.estevan.sk.ca/community/history/celebration/chapter18.html
32V was probably selected as the highest voltage one could
reliably open with switches, breakers and fuses of the time.
I'm hearing some rumblings about the proposed 42v systems for
automobiles. Seems there are some bigger hurdles to jump with
respect to switching and arc prevention issues than originally
anticipated.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
>
>Runaway alternators boy they can be fickle!!
>Small or large current units if in full runaway can exceed 75, maybe 100
>volts and cause complete panel failure chaos. The damage can be total to
>wiring, electric units and avionics, plus throw in the fire, smoke and
>sparks blasting every where problem.
A functional battery will readily place itself between
your runaway alternator and any fragile electrics. A 60A
machine in runaway pushing say 70A into a 17 a.h. battery will
be forced to a limited rate of rise and held well under
20v long enough for ov protection to sense and react.
I'm hoping to do some tests at up to 125A on some
17 a.h. batteries in the not too distant future.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
I believe that the permanent magnet alternators like my John Deere always
present the same mechanical load no mater what the electrical load is. I do
know that with the alternator lying on my desk it is hard to turn and will
not free-wheel.
-- Craig
-----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: Looking for alternator
-->
>
>
> > Cessna went to 60A, 28v on all single engine airplanes
> > so that one regulator and one alternator fits all models.
> > The C-152 didn't come close to needing all that snort.
>
>Just a (probably dumb) side question but does the load on the engine
>vary with the load on the alternator?
>
>In other words, assuming 80% alternator efficiency, will a 60 amp 14.5v
>load require 1 hp from the engine, and a 30 amp load require 0.5 hp?
The mechanical load is proportional to the electrical
load. 1 hp = 746 watts. 60A * 14.5v = 870 watts or
1.15 hp out. Divide by 0.8 for efficiency and we get
1.46 hp input. 30A load on the same setup would require
0.73 hp input from the engine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
As to load-dump spikes Eric Jones (who graces this list with his presence)
sells this as Perihelion Design:
http://periheliondesign.com/suppressors/Whackjack%20Manual.pdf
I have one and can assure you that while it has been lying on my desk no
vampires have attacked me.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for alternator
There's also the extra weight including heavier wiring.
Then there is the issue of overvoltage. A battery can handle a small runaway
alternator much longer which may save some expensive electronics. Perhaps
irrelevant with an OVP equipped external voltage regulated alternator.
However it might be a factor with an internal regulated unit. At the time
these were the reasons that I tossed a new 100 amp subaru unit and replaced
it with a new 40 amp unit. Saved at least 6 lbs.
Load dump excursions should also be less severe I think since the alternator
won't put out enough current to handle high inrushes or intermittant or
momentary high load demands. Transorbs could handle most of that I suppose.
Of course with the small alternator I was comfortable with a small battery
which saved even more weight but probably offset some of what I just said
about voltage excursions...
However I personally don't like large alternators coupled to small
batteries.
Ken
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>-->
>
> Did I miss something here? What's the big deal with oversizing your
alternator a bit? Other than more money, more cooling requirements, and a
fraction of a HP less I don't see what the big deal is. I'm all for putting
in only what's required but where is the big negative of putting in a 60amp
compared to a 40amp that warrants this much conversation?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
Right here:
http://periheliondesign.com/18polerelays.htm
-- Craig
-----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: Avionics, ACU, etc
-->
>
>
>Bob R
>
>How is the GNS430 hooked up to the GI106A? I believe that it is via
>analog lines which means a bunch of wires. If the 300 has the same
>analog output, it is possible to switch the 106 between the 430 and the
>300 with a relay of some kind. If you research the archives, there was
>a good discussion about how to do this (roll your own) back about 2
>years ago. I have a picture of the prototype that Bob Nuckolls made, as
>well as a .pdf file of the circuit board, relay, etc. It has a Dsub25 input
and a Dsub37 output.
>
>Let me know off line if you want copies of these files.
>
>Bob Nuckolls: Do you still make these for sale?
Never did. I considered it but I belive Eric Jones jumped in
to do it. I decided not to compete on a low-volume product.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: PM alternator requlators |
>
>
>I believe that the permanent magnet alternators like my John Deere always
>present the same mechanical load no mater what the electrical load is. I do
>know that with the alternator lying on my desk it is hard to turn and will
>not free-wheel.
The earliest regulators for PM alternators were the "shunt"
variety that simply loaded the alternator hard enough to keep
the bus voltage constant. Yes, these are constant load
systems where things can run pretty hot.
For the past 25 years or more, folks are using series pass
regulators that load the alternator only as electrical system
demands dictate. Much cooler and more efficient.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu> |
| Subject: | very dumb question about crimping |
Phil,
For an Amp Pro Crimper III held in the right hand, with the jaws opening
to the left, the wire end of the terminal will be towards you. The end
of the terminal should be flush with the dies on the side facing you.
I'm using actual Tyco/AMP terminals and have had 100% success. Good
luck.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert
the connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from
behind or from the front.
I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Hooper" <phil(at)hdmnet.com> |
| Subject: | very dumb question about crimping |
Bill,
That's what I've been doing, thanks. But I'm pretty quizzical then why I
have had some crimps not be effective, although I can't say I've always kept
the end of the terminal facing me flush with the die-that would be the
"insert the wire here" part. I sent some photos to Bob the master and I
await his input as well. With appreciation.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Slaughter
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
Phil,
For an Amp Pro Crimper III held in the right hand, with the jaws opening
to the left, the wire end of the terminal will be towards you. The end
of the terminal should be flush with the dies on the side facing you.
I'm using actual Tyco/AMP terminals and have had 100% success. Good
luck.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert
the connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from
behind or from the front.
I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | very dumb question about crimping |
Phil, newbie to newbie, I just had the same experience and noted that if you
put the wire-in side of the terminal next to the side of the die with the
dot on it, it will do much better. The opposite orientation would easily
pull out. The ring side or fast-on side should be on the side without the
dot. At least, it makes a difference in mine.
Bill S
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert the
connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from behind
or from the front.
I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Re: very dumb question about crimping |
Robert, I'm sure this has been asked several times...but what crimp tool do you
recommend?
Dan
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
>This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
>fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert the
>connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from behind
>or from the front.
>
>
>I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
>little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
>crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
Your narrative doesn't offer much of an image as to
an answer to your question. What AMP part number is it?
Did you buy it new? Have you checked the AMP website
for instructions?
Do you have a digital camera? Can you send me close-ups
of both sides of the tool? Send to nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Before you take the pictures, take a look at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
This comic book describes every crimp tool's task for
achieving acceptable results. With the jaws fully closed,
looking into the terminal cavity, if one side is larger than
the other (with AMP this is LIKELY), then the larger side is
where the WIRE goes in.
For example: See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/CLEVELAND60A.jpg
These die openings are larger than . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/CLEVELAND61A.jpg
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | very dumb question about crimping |
Where did you two buy the AMP crimping tool and for how much? At the link
below Bob compares the performance of the crimper that B&C sells for about
$40 and his old and expensive AMP crimper. He says that the current cost of
the AMP crimper is about $600.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
Bill,
That's what I've been doing, thanks. But I'm pretty quizzical then why I
have had some crimps not be effective, although I can't say I've always kept
the end of the terminal facing me flush with the die-that would be the
"insert the wire here" part. I sent some photos to Bob the master and I
await his input as well. With appreciation.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Slaughter
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
Phil,
For an Amp Pro Crimper III held in the right hand, with the jaws opening to
the left, the wire end of the terminal will be towards you. The end of the
terminal should be flush with the dies on the side facing you.
I'm using actual Tyco/AMP terminals and have had 100% success. Good luck.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert the
connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from behind
or from the front.
I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu> |
| Subject: | very dumb question about crimping |
I bought mine (Pro-Crimp III)from Digi-Key in a kit with a box and some
terminals for just over $100 dollars. AMP makes a lot of different
crimpers, and the larger production rated ones do cost hundreds or even
thousands of dollars.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
-->
Where did you two buy the AMP crimping tool and for how much? At the
link below Bob compares the performance of the crimper that B&C sells
for about $40 and his old and expensive AMP crimper. He says that the
current cost of the AMP crimper is about $600.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
Bill,
That's what I've been doing, thanks. But I'm pretty quizzical then why
I have had some crimps not be effective, although I can't say I've
always kept the end of the terminal facing me flush with the die-that
would be the "insert the wire here" part. I sent some photos to Bob the
master and I await his input as well. With appreciation.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
William Slaughter
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
Phil,
For an Amp Pro Crimper III held in the right hand, with the jaws opening
to the left, the wire end of the terminal will be towards you. The end
of the terminal should be flush with the dies on the side facing you.
I'm using actual Tyco/AMP terminals and have had 100% success. Good
luck.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert
the connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from
behind or from the front.
I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for alternator |
Good Evening Mike,
Somewhere in the far reaches of my feeble gray matter, I seem to recall
something about a requirement that the pitot heater be hot enough to assure that
the water is taken above the boiling point almost immediately. It's kinda like
hot wings. If they aren't hot enough to evaporate the moisture, it just
warms it up enough to get run back!
Am I way off base in that memory?
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 12/7/2005 7:55:53 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rvbuilder(at)sausen.net writes:
Yep, Warren Gretz is now selling his GA-1000 pitot that has a thermostat and
supposedly kicks in and maintains the pitot at a cozy temp (I think it
brings it to 100F and then cycles off if I remember correctly) when it sense the
temp is getting near freezing. I have one and it is very nice but I can't
attest to the functionality for a while yet. Also Eric has built his own based
on the same principals
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | very dumb question about crimping |
I bought mine from B&C and have been extremely pleased with it, compared to
any others I've used.
Dave Morris
At 07:47 PM 12/7/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>Where did you two buy the AMP crimping tool and for how much? At the link
>below Bob compares the performance of the crimper that B&C sells for about
>$40 and his old and expensive AMP crimper. He says that the current cost of
>the AMP crimper is about $600.
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
>
>-- Craig
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
>Hooper
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
>
>
>Bill,
>
>That's what I've been doing, thanks. But I'm pretty quizzical then why I
>have had some crimps not be effective, although I can't say I've always kept
>the end of the terminal facing me flush with the die-that would be the
>"insert the wire here" part. I sent some photos to Bob the master and I
>await his input as well. With appreciation.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
>Slaughter
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
>
>
>
>Phil,
>For an Amp Pro Crimper III held in the right hand, with the jaws opening to
>the left, the wire end of the terminal will be towards you. The end of the
>terminal should be flush with the dies on the side facing you.
>I'm using actual Tyco/AMP terminals and have had 100% success. Good luck.
>
>William Slaughter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
>Hooper
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
>
>
>This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
>fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert the
>connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from behind
>or from the front.
>
>
>I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
>little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
>crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Question about crimping |
>
>Bill,
>
>That's what I've been doing, thanks. But I'm pretty quizzical then why I
>have had some crimps not be effective, although I can't say I've always kept
>the end of the terminal facing me flush with the die-that would be the
>"insert the wire here" part. I sent some photos to Bob the master and I
>await his input as well. With appreciation.
Phil, I've posted your photos so that others can see what we're
talking about:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_Tool_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_Tool_2.jpg
Here Phil shows a properly oriented terminal in the tool. The "diamond"
dies are for the wire grip . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_Tool_3.jpg
This one is pretty easy. Note the diamond shape on one side of the dia
and the smaller cross-section, rectangular shape on the other. This
tool is intended for the pre-insulated, diamond-grip (PIDG) terminals and
probably produces adequate crimps on the Plastigrip hardware store
terminals too.
Here's another tool that shares characteristics with the AMP tool above:
The view below shows the sculptured dies intended to close the wire
support barrel down on the insulation.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P255.jpg
The wire grip dies are smaller in area and less 'sculptured'
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P256.jpg
Low cost tools can have some 'problems'. View below shows two
tools, one of which has too much space between wire and insulation
grips. It did not produce good crimps.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P257.jpg
The narrower spacing centers the grips in each half of the PIDG
terminal's insulation barrel.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P258.jpg
In some cases, the dies are the same shape on both sides in which
case it doesn't matter which way the terminal goes in the tool.
This is the case with the crimp tool I used to sell . . . and I
believe B&C still does.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P259.jpg
As a review on terminal application technologies and wiring
practices, I'll recommend the following:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
As to "testing" a finished crimp, you can install a red terminal
on a 22AWG wire and hang a gallon jug of water on the wire while
holding the terminal in a pliers. Blue terminals terminals crimped
onto a 16AWG wire should lift two jugs. Yellow terminals on a 12AWG
wire is good for three jugs.
Alternatively, you can cut through the terminal's wire grip and
see if the joint is gas tight like:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/GL.jpg
Tools come in all flavors and ranges of prices. Not ALL tools do
a good job on ALL terminals. You're looking for tools that do
an adequate installation on PIDG style terminals and unless
purchased from a name like AMP, doing the tests described above
is a good thing to do.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bryan Hooks" <bryanhooks(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Dual Battery Single Alternator Justification |
For those of you more versed at this than I - I am considering a single
alternator / dual battery system based on specific design goals, but
would appreciate the benefit of your opinions.
A friend and I are both building IFR RV7A's, and for the most part share
common electrical system design goals. Neither of us are planning
electrically dependent engines.
With alternator failure in mind, we can identify three groups of
equipment:
(1) stuff we just don't need if the alternator fails (eg - second
radio, external lights)
(2) minimum stuff we'd LIKE to keep after alternator failure (VERY
basic IFR stuff - aviate, navigate, communicate - but no redundancy and
no need to request any sort of help or priority from ATC)
(3) stuff required to continue within our fuel capacity after
alternator failure (attitude, altitude, hdg, xpndr, etc)
The loads required by number three can be supported just fine by a
single, reasonably sized battery. However, the items in number two,
which includes pitot heat, etc (remember here - IFR) exceed the capacity
of a reasonably sized battery. In fact, it may exceed the capability of
the SD8. The end result is that we are looking into the 20amp
vacuum-pad mounted alternator and accompanying $$$. We'd like to not
spend the extra dollars.
Aside from cost, this would give us two additional benefits. We both
will have glass EFIS screens, etc - which we would like to power from an
isolated battery source during engine cranking. I understand that this
should not be required per the manufacturers' claims - but it makes me
feel a lot better based on the money tied up in those screens.
Additionally, it allows us to follow the yearly battery swap-out /
replacement scheme.
I've looked through the archives, and haven't found sufficient answer,
so thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Bryan Hooks
RV7A - slow build
Knoxville, TN
Finish Kit
bryanhooks(at)comcast.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: very dumb question about crimping |
>
>
>Robert, I'm sure this has been asked several times...but what crimp tool
>do you recommend?
It was easy to recommend the tool I used to sell because I'd
checked it for proper closure of PIDG terminals onto MIL-W-22759/16
wire.
Beyond that, I have no recommendations other than to (1) buy
a tool specific to the terminals and wire you're going to use
from a company that knows what they're talking about (AMP,
Waldom, etc). (2) Otherwise, do the investigation described in
my other post to make sure your tool of choice is doing the job.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim and Lucy <jpollard(at)ciaccess.com> |
| Subject: | modern alternators |
I was talking with a friend that was until recently in the alternator
rebuild business. I had an old 1969 ford dump truck alternator regulator
get stuck on and fry a few things.(radio and ignition points)
He said lots of present day autos are external regulator type. The cars
computer controls the output with pulse width modulation. They often
put external regulators on them when the computer will not do it or
the wiring harness is bad somewhere and it is hard to find. Another
thing he mentioned is these new ones are less susceptible to overvoltage
because of something called avalanche (sp?) diodes. I think he was saying they
back flow if the voltage is to high and this sacrifices a little bit of
their material or ability to be diodes until they fail. Not quite sure
I understood this.
I guess the main point is that there is allot of externally regulated
alternators to choose from. They may be heavier than the NDs. I got
a ND alternator from a 1981 subaru NOS to use because it is the same
brackets as the newer ones that are on my subaru conversion.
Jim Pollard
Merlin ont
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | very dumb question about crimping |
>
>
>Where did you two buy the AMP crimping tool and for how much? At the link
>below Bob compares the performance of the crimper that B&C sells for about
>$40 and his old and expensive AMP crimper. He says that the current cost of
>the AMP crimper is about $600.
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
There are "AMP" tools and then there are "AMP" tools. AMP
and others offer a wide range of tools with equally wide
ranges of prices. The tool Phil has
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_Tool_3.jpg
is in the $100 range. To be sure, T-head AMP tool is the Cadillac
of PIDG/Plastigrip installation tools:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_T-Head_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_T-Head_2.jpg
and this tool is not cheap. New it's about $600. I've seen them
in the wild (surplus tool stores, ebay, etc.) for $100 to $200.
At one time, AMP sold some hardware-store/automotive tools for
installing PIDG/Plastigrip terminals. These sold for under $10.
Just a heads-up that the term "AMP" crimp tool can mean about
anything. Don't jump on it just 'cause it says made for "AMP".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot tube design and functionality |
>
>
>Good Evening Mike,
>
>Somewhere in the far reaches of my feeble gray matter, I seem to recall
>something about a requirement that the pitot heater be hot enough to
>assure that
>the water is taken above the boiling point almost immediately. It's kinda
>like
> hot wings. If they aren't hot enough to evaporate the moisture, it just
>warms it up enough to get run back!
>
>Am I way off base in that memory?
I've been watching developments in experimental pitot-heaters
with some concerns. I was involved in several investigations
into pitot-tube freezing at altitude with the heat on! Admittedly,
these occurred in flight conditions never experienced by our
propeller driven beer cans.
I do know that to get a heated pitot tube qualified is not a
simple task . . . nor is it cheap. There are few icing tunnels in the
world that can come close to simulating icing conditions that
mother nature can throw at an airplane.
I can only advise caution with deciding to purchase "new"
technology especially if the offerer hasn't done the research
to understand the real task. Here's a sample of some data I
took on a biz-jet pitot tube on a flight to 41K feet.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/FirstFlt.pdf
At altitude temperatures and high airspeeds the
snoot of this tube runs over 90C most of the time. This
seems like it would be "plenty" hot but this particular
tube was marginal in the ice tunnel. Proof of the pudding
comes when super-cooled drops of water hit the tube and
provides an instantaneous cooling effect as if the
water were already frozen . . .
Yeah, we need a heated pitot to be "legal" but I know
I can fly an airplane without an airspeed indicator. Flying
the thing with 400 pounds of ice on it is another matter.
So perhaps the experimental offerings are good to the
95th percentile icing condition and will be just fine
if you're planning to get out of icing conditions ASAP.
Once you're out of ice, about any heat that brings tube
surface to some healthy value above 0C will eventually
clear the tube and restore IAS functionality.
I wish I knew more about the detailed physics involved
so that I could offer more than simple cautions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 Noise levels |
>
>I wonder if the single-phase PM alternators (without big cap) meet the mil
>standard (if there is one) for suppliers of electrical energy. If you
>have one of these alternators and expect to power any avionics with it, it
>only makes sense to install whatever is necessary (in terms of filters) to
>meet the DO/mil standard. If you're just going to run some strobes and
>nav lights, it probably doen't make any difference.
>
>Do you have any scope shots of the output of one of these devices?
Yup. Sorry to take so long to get these posted. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/SD-8_Noise_Data.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Hooper" <phil(at)hdmnet.com> |
| Subject: | very dumb question about crimping |
I think at Newark In One for about $110, (over)-pricey little devil.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
Where did you two buy the AMP crimping tool and for how much? At the link
below Bob compares the performance of the crimper that B&C sells for about
$40 and his old and expensive AMP crimper. He says that the current cost of
the AMP crimper is about $600.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
Bill,
That's what I've been doing, thanks. But I'm pretty quizzical then why I
have had some crimps not be effective, although I can't say I've always kept
the end of the terminal facing me flush with the die-that would be the
"insert the wire here" part. I sent some photos to Bob the master and I
await his input as well. With appreciation.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Slaughter
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
Phil,
For an Amp Pro Crimper III held in the right hand, with the jaws opening to
the left, the wire end of the terminal will be towards you. The end of the
terminal should be flush with the dies on the side facing you.
I'm using actual Tyco/AMP terminals and have had 100% success. Good luck.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Hooper
Subject: AeroElectric-List: very dumb question about crimping
This is really dumb and I'm a newbie. I've got the $100 AMP crimper for
fast-on connector. When the jaws are pointed to the left, do you insert the
connector in the die so the wire is inserted into the connector from behind
or from the front.
I'm crimping 22 AWG and I've had a couple where the wire pulls out with
little force. My conclusion is that I'm inserting the connector in the
crimper with the wrong orientation. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Hooper" <phil(at)hdmnet.com> |
| Subject: | very dumb question about crimping |
Bob, since you posted my photo--I'm flattered--is the orientation correct,
or do I need to reverse the connector in the die? It looks correct to me.
So I'm still stumped as to why some 22 AWG could be pulled out. Kindly
comment. Thanks.
-----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: very dumb question about crimping
>
>
>Where did you two buy the AMP crimping tool and for how much? At the link
>below Bob compares the performance of the crimper that B&C sells for about
>$40 and his old and expensive AMP crimper. He says that the current cost of
>the AMP crimper is about $600.
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
There are "AMP" tools and then there are "AMP" tools. AMP
and others offer a wide range of tools with equally wide
ranges of prices. The tool Phil has
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_Tool_3.jpg
is in the $100 range. To be sure, T-head AMP tool is the Cadillac
of PIDG/Plastigrip installation tools:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_T-Head_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_T-Head_2.jpg
and this tool is not cheap. New it's about $600. I've seen them
in the wild (surplus tool stores, ebay, etc.) for $100 to $200.
At one time, AMP sold some hardware-store/automotive tools for
installing PIDG/Plastigrip terminals. These sold for under $10.
Just a heads-up that the term "AMP" crimp tool can mean about
anything. Don't jump on it just 'cause it says made for "AMP".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | G McNutt <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Single Alternator Justification |
Bryan Hooks wrote:
>For those of you more versed at this than I - I am considering a single
>alternator / dual battery system based on specific design goals, but
>would appreciate the benefit of your opinions.
>snip----------
>
>With alternator failure in mind, we can identify three groups of equipment:
>snip -------------------
>(2) minimum stuff we'd LIKE to keep after alternator failure (VERY basic IFR
stuff - aviate, navigate, communicate - but no redundancy and no need to request
any sort of help or priority from ATC)
>snip--------------------- However, the items in number two,which includes pitot
heat, etc (remember here - IFR) exceed the capacity of a reasonably sized battery.
In fact, it may exceed the capability of
>the SD8. The end result is that we are looking into the 20amp
>vacuum-pad mounted alternator and accompanying $$$. We'd like to not
>spend the extra dollars.
>
>
>
>
Hi Bryan
There are my thoughts which are worth exactly what you paid for them.
Unless you religiously trade out one battery every year as Bob N
suggests (and I presume many forget to do) is there really any
advantages to having a complex two battery system over a single large
battery?
Re pitot heat after alternator failure - I would not cater for that item
for the following reasons. Some seem to be planning RV systems as if the
RV was certified for known icing conditions. Trying to cater for
simultaneous multiple problems such as alternator failure, IFR with no
VFR close by, and long term ice will require building an RV-23 (my
sources tell me that it will look like a King Air).
Consider your planned operations, hard winter IFR at night, get the
RV-23 or mostly low altitude summer IFR, on-top with approaches.
Realistically about 5-20% of your total flying time IFR, probably!
Then you will not be flight planning into forecast icing conditions but
may encounter some icing from which you should climb/descend or 180 out,
so maybe 5 minutes in icing? During those 5 minutes what are the chances
of the alternator being off-line? And what is the worst case senario
with pitot ice, useing GPS groundspeed?
Also when you loose your (single) alternator during IFR you should
notify ATC and probably divert to the nearest suitable airport, the
alternator going off-line may be the first indication of a larger problem.
George in Langley BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
> > > Normally, this cold junction compensation is included in the
> > > instrument. Does the data shipped with your instruments
> indicate
> > > that they are accurate only at 75F and/or that there is no
> > > cold-junction compensation?
> >
> >UMA's data is quite clear:
> >
> >"The meter actually reads the differential voltage between the
> thermocouple
> >and the cold junctions. Each indicator is calibrated at a junction
> >temperature of 75F, so actual reading depends on junction
> temperature. If
> >junction temperature is higher than 75F then indicator will read one
> degree
> >lower for every degree higher and vice versa. In order to minimize
> this
> >error locate the cold junctions in a temperature stable environment"
>
> Very good. If this bothers you, you can do a variety of things
> to "correct" the readings.
>
> > > If you wanted to "upgrade" an uncompensated instrument
> > > to take advantage of this device, you'll need to craft a
> > > black-box designed to accomplish the temperature compensation
> > > and scale factors satisfactory the display's needs.
> >
> >- Is it possible to have only one compensation device for all the
> >instruments (at the same temp)?
> >- I understand that AD596/597 sends out a pretty linear voltage of
> >10mV/degreeC. But my instruments, normally linked to TCs, must
> receive
> >something like (J) 0.05 mV/DegC or (K) 0.04 mV/DegC. How to
> transform
> the
> >value?
>
> Your instruments designed to work directly from thermocouples
> are calibrated in millivolts. You'd have to place calibrating
> resistors in series to re-scale them to 10mv/C.
>
> >- AD 596/597 is calibrated for linearity at ovens temperatures
> (+60DegC). Is
> >it correct for use at open cockpit temperatures (typically 0 to +30
> DegC)?
>
> Depends on how much you're going to worry about uncertainty of
> measurements. Ordinary thermocouple wire is graded to an
> accuracy of 2C. The AD597 itself has an error budget. It may
> well be that without specifically calibrating each instrument
> in-situ using the same thermocouple and signal conditioner
> used in flight will you be able to drive the error budged down
> to say plus or minus 1 degree C. What are your design goals?
> After you've established requirements, you can begin to craft
> the hardware needed to meet the requirements.
>
> I can design signal conditioners that would probably get you
> 0.1 degree C accuracy at two points on each instrument . . .
> can't vouch for in-between without characterizing each
> instrument.
>
> I can tell you that the CHT gages on decades of production
> Cessnas sucked big time. They could be re-calibrated (I
> designed a fixture to do it) but not one dealership in
> 100 ever ordered the fixture. I've not been aware of any
> issues jumping up over gross inaccuracies of CHT readings
> mostly because folks don't really KNOW how bad their particular
> instruments might be. It's amazing what happens to the
> worry-factor when you get answers to questions that few
> people ever ask!
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
My first design goal is compliance with engine limitations:
- CHT max: 240 DegC
- Oil Temp: Max out to the radiator 105 DegC
Max in from the radiator: 90 DegC
With my uncompensated instruments, the hotter the day, the lower the
indicated temp, compared to reality... Rather inadequate, too easy to
inadvertently overtake limitations! (I have an old Tigre engine on my
Jungmann, and need to take care of it).
For limitation purpose, I could compensate for the worst case only: hottest
day, and temperature reaching limitation. Sufficient, but somewhat
inelegant...
I am not worried with the EGT, as I am only interested in peak detection,
for mixture setting.
My second goal deals with flight testing
- High engine temp sollicitation during climb performance flights
(limitations again)
- Testing different oil radiator installations, which needs some kind of
accuracy (2 DegC is enough, I can hardly read it on my 1 1/4" dials)
On a test climb to 14 500 ft ceiling, ambient temp will vary of about 30
DegC.
Ground temps typically vary in a 40 DegC range in the year, here in
Toulouse.
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Niles" <bniles(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 Noise levels |
Nice pictures. But, I don't understand the relevance by just looking at the
graphs. I'll be running an SD20 as a backup and would like to power my
backup BMA G3 with it. Could you put things in perspective. Thanks. BCN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: SD-8 Noise levels
>
>
>
>>
>>I wonder if the single-phase PM alternators (without big cap) meet the mil
>>standard (if there is one) for suppliers of electrical energy. If you
>>have one of these alternators and expect to power any avionics with it, it
>>only makes sense to install whatever is necessary (in terms of filters) to
>>meet the DO/mil standard. If you're just going to run some strobes and
>>nav lights, it probably doen't make any difference.
>>
>>Do you have any scope shots of the output of one of these devices?
>
> Yup. Sorry to take so long to get these posted. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/SD-8_Noise_Data.pdf
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | very dumb question about crimping |
>
>Bob, since you posted my photo--I'm flattered--is the orientation correct,
>or do I need to reverse the connector in the die? It looks correct to me.
>So I'm still stumped as to why some 22 AWG could be pulled out. Kindly
>comment. Thanks.
In the paragraph above the third picture I offered:
"Here Phil shows a properly oriented terminal in the tool. The "diamond"
dies are for the wire grip . . ."
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_Tool_3.jpg
Hmmmm . . . I did not pick up on earlier assertions that you're
not getting consistent crimps on 22AWG wire. I think I'd like to look
at your tool. Can you mail it to me?
Bob Nuckolls
6936 Bainbridge Rd.
Wichita, KS 67226
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Clark <jclarkmail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery Single Alternator Justification |
I am sure there are many different views but for me ...
I am installing dual PC680 batteries along with dual alternators (Z-14). I
have two batteries, either of which can crank the engine (unless on last
leg) and additional capacity to keep electrons flowing if the alternators
quit. There is flexibility in mounting as well if you use the PC680's.
My second alternator is an SD20. Overkill? Maybe. A little heavier? Yes.
Cost over the SD8? A few hundred dollars. Peace of mind for me? Priceless.
The few hundred dollars more is not going to be remembered when the plane is
done but if you don't put in what YOU feel is adequate, there will be a
question every time you head out into less that VFR weather.
Personally, I see the Z-14 as being quite elegant and simple (maybe I should
say straightforward) though some view it as complex.
On 12/7/05, Bryan Hooks wrote:
>
> bryanhooks(at)comcast.net>
>
> For those of you more versed at this than I - I am considering a single
> alternator / dual battery system based on specific design goals, but
> would appreciate the benefit of your opinions.
>
> A friend and I are both building IFR RV7A's, and for the most part share
> common electrical system design goals. Neither of us are planning
> electrically dependent engines.
>
> With alternator failure in mind, we can identify three groups of
> equipment:
> (1) stuff we just don't need if the alternator fails (eg - second
> radio, external lights)
> (2) minimum stuff we'd LIKE to keep after alternator failure (VERY
> basic IFR stuff - aviate, navigate, communicate - but no redundancy and
> no need to request any sort of help or priority from ATC)
> (3) stuff required to continue within our fuel capacity after
> alternator failure (attitude, altitude, hdg, xpndr, etc)
>
> The loads required by number three can be supported just fine by a
> single, reasonably sized battery. However, the items in number two,
> which includes pitot heat, etc (remember here - IFR) exceed the capacity
> of a reasonably sized battery. In fact, it may exceed the capability of
> the SD8. The end result is that we are looking into the 20amp
> vacuum-pad mounted alternator and accompanying $$$. We'd like to not
> spend the extra dollars.
>
> Aside from cost, this would give us two additional benefits. We both
> will have glass EFIS screens, etc - which we would like to power from an
> isolated battery source during engine cranking. I understand that this
> should not be required per the manufacturers' claims - but it makes me
> feel a lot better based on the money tied up in those screens.
> Additionally, it allows us to follow the yearly battery swap-out /
> replacement scheme.
>
> I've looked through the archives, and haven't found sufficient answer,
> so thanks in advance for your thoughts.
>
> Bryan Hooks
> RV7A - slow build
> Knoxville, TN
> Finish Kit
> bryanhooks(at)comcast.net
>
>
--
This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at
james(at)nextupventures.com .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 Noise levels |
>Nice pictures. But, I don't understand the relevance by just looking at the
>graphs. I'll be running an SD20 as a backup and would like to power my
>backup BMA G3 with it. Could you put things in perspective. Thanks. BCN
On or about the time the question about SD-8 noise was
posted, we were discussing industry/military standards
for max allowable noise output from power generating sources.
Mil-Std-704 suggest the following spectrum limits:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/MSTD704_28V_Noise.jpg
This says maximum tolerable noise on 28v system is
1 volt RMS over range of 1000 to 5000 Hz. This is
about 3v peak-to-peak. For a 14v system we cut this
in half for 1.5v peak-to-peak.
The data I gathered on the SD-8 under various loads
and filter combinations showed that we don't go over
0.5 volts pk-pk at any frequency. Ergo, the SD-8 would
comply with Mil-Std-704 requirements.
The SD-20 is a 3-phase, wound field machine like
the vast majority of alternators in vehicles and will
also be fine in the Mil-Std-704 world. The SD-8 is
a single-phase, PM alternator with a potential for
unusual noise characteristics. This little trip to
the work bench answered the question.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Battery OV event testing / OVERVOLTAGE / VR analys |
/ Attn: Bob
I have been in contact with the engineering department of a manufacture of voltage
regulators (of all kinds but NipponDenso internal units in particular).
They have offered to test and analyzed any VR for me to determine the failure
mode. Failure mode not just *it's broke*.
They not only have typical digonostic test equipment, they have X-ray and other
tools, and they will go as far as DE-CAPPING, removing the pot compound and
dissecting the discrete component.
ANY ONE WANT TO SEND ME A FAILED REGULATOR, EXPECIALLY THIS ONE BOB?
PLEASE CONTACT MY EMAIL: gmcjetpilot (at) yahoo.com
I will be glad to pay for shipping. Thanks. I would love to know what went wrong
with this unit.
George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | I'm Baaaaacccckkk! |
Some years ago there was a new kid on the block out in
Colorado who set out to build the next greatest thing
in lead-acid technology batteries. The Bolder TMF cells
held a lot of promise but for a variety of financial
and technical reasons, the program in Colorado flopped.
I'd had some communication with Bolder folks back then
and those letters were still in someone's files where
the new owners in Singapore found it and dropped me a note
this morning. The Phoenix it seems is rising from the
ashes. Check out other pages on boldertmf.com but in
particular . . .
http://www.boldertmf.com/Product%20Brochure-Single%20Cell.pdf
I'll renew my dialog with these folks and see if there
are any opportunities for the OBAM aircraft community.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "\"Robert L. Nuckolls, III\" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> OVERVOLTAGE / VR analys |
/ Attn": nuckollsr(at)cox.net
| Subject: | Re: RE: Battery OV event testing / |
OVERVOLTAGE / VR analys / Attn: Bob
>
> I have been in contact with the engineering department of a manufacture
> of voltage regulators (of all kinds but NipponDenso internal units in
> particular).
>
> They have offered to test and analyzed any VR for me to determine the
> failure mode. Failure mode not just *it's broke*.
>
> They not only have typical digonostic test equipment, they have X-ray
> and other tools, and they will go as far as DE-CAPPING, removing the pot
> compound and dissecting the discrete component.
>
> ANY ONE WANT TO SEND ME A FAILED REGULATOR, EXPECIALLY THIS ONE BOB?
As I mentioned before, many days had passed between the repair of
the failed alternator and onset of dialog about the event. Probability
of retrieving the original failed regulator was nil.
You're correct that accurate diagnosis of the failure mode
in modern components requires more than the wet finger,
sensitive nose and a voltmeter.
On several occasions we've opened integrated circuits and
custom hybrids for detailed analysis. My only caution
for opening an off-the-street part is that while one may
indeed find a shell-crater on the die, without access to
the mask data that made the die, there's risk for
mis-interpreting observations . . . or no interpretation
at all.
If I can put my hands on a failed part, I'll send it to
you.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Hooper" <phil(at)hdmnet.com> |
| Subject: | very dumb question about crimping |
Yes I will do that. Thanks.
-----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: very dumb question about crimping
>
>Bob, since you posted my photo--I'm flattered--is the orientation correct,
>or do I need to reverse the connector in the die? It looks correct to me.
>So I'm still stumped as to why some 22 AWG could be pulled out. Kindly
>comment. Thanks.
In the paragraph above the third picture I offered:
"Here Phil shows a properly oriented terminal in the tool. The "diamond"
dies are for the wire grip . . ."
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_Tool_3.jpg
Hmmmm . . . I did not pick up on earlier assertions that you're
not getting consistent crimps on 22AWG wire. I think I'd like to look
at your tool. Can you mail it to me?
Bob Nuckolls
6936 Bainbridge Rd.
Wichita, KS 67226
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Regarding: DC power contactors for master and starting application
I'm a pilot beginning an experimental aircraft build project. I'd
appreciate you opinion on power contactors for master and starting. There
is a new line of contactors from Tyco that may be more reliable than the
contactors we currently use in aircraft. Here's a web link to the datasheet.
http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/datasheets/ev200.pdf
I think they're developed for electric vehicles and other industrial
applications. Notice the coil voltage is 9 to 36 volts and holding current
is only 0.07 A at 24 volts. One drawback: the unit price is around $140.
I've had a starter contactor fail on my Cessna 185 recently and am worried
about the master....although it's still OK.
What's you opinion on this new contactor and do you think the contactors we
presently use on aircraft are unreliable?
Thanks for your great web page
The parts you've described are indeed a first class product.
The task before you is to determine return on investment for
substituting the upgraded part. You used the word "reliable".
May I suggest that concentration on probability of failure
of any single part does not necessarily translate into lower
risk.
We know that all parts will fail at some point in time. One
user may perceive the failure as a manifestation of poor
reliability while someone else calls it an end-of-service-life
event. To the airborne pilot, putting labels on the failure
is not a helpful exercise.
Your particular study is made more difficult for a
type certificated airplane. No matter what your
personal conclusions are, you are limited by regulatory
decree for choices.
You've had a failure of a contactor. How old (not
necessarily in terms of flight hours) are your contactors?
Perhaps it's time to simply replace all contactors as
a preventative measure. If they're the low-dollar contactors
like Cessna was fond of, then cost of replacement is relatively
low and a whole new suite of contactors offers a zero-time
beginning for future operations.
Further, with a TC'd airplane, it's most inconvenient to
install simple changes that drive toward failure tolerant
designs being crafted in owner built and maintained (OBAM)
aircraft community.
In the ideal world, I can offer ways to manage maintenance
in your airplane with very economical parts and changes
to architecture that make the reliability/service-life
of those parts immaterial to your SYSTEM reliability.
If you're considering the Tyco relays for your 185, then
it follows that your ready to joust with the dragons
at the FAA. If so, then consider also doing little
changes to the ship's architecture (like an e-bus)
that make failures of the existing contactors a
non-event.
For your experimental project the job is easier. You
need to decide what $time$ your willing to invest in
a classier product and does that investment
promise a lower overall cost of ownership? In
terms of SYSTEM reliability, we can help you craft
an architecture where the selection of contactors has
no effect on overall reliability.
May I suggest you join us on the AeroElectric-List
for further discussions with myself and others who
may add some clarity of thought and mission to your
task?
See: http://aeroelectric.com/consulting.html
Regards,
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I'm Baaaaacccckkk! |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III a crit :
> Check out other pages on boldertmf.com but in
>particular . . .
>
>http://www.boldertmf.com/Product%20Brochure-Single%20Cell.pdf
>
>I'll renew my dialog with these folks and see if there
>are any opportunities for the OBAM aircraft community.
>
>
>
>
Hi Bob,
Amazing indeed. Thank you for the link.
I would be very interested in any further information about those
promising thin film batteries.
The French aerodynamicist Michel Colomban, of Cri-Cri and BanBi fame
(and MCR 4S too) is developing a new super light single seater, and
asked me about batteries. I think this new technology might suit his
needs for lightness, *if* it performs as advertised.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Huft <aflyer(at)lazy8.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I'm Baaaaacccckkk! |
version=3.0.3
During my consulting days in Boulder, I visited this company, and tried
to work with them for a client.
They had an impressive technology, thin film plates wound in a cylinder
like a capacitor, similar to that used with thicker layers by Gates (now
Optima). They were focused on C-cell flashlight battery sized cells, and
aiming primarily at rechargeable apps like drills and screwdrivers. The
internal impedance was lower than any battery on the market today, and
you could recharge them very quickly.
Unfortunately, they thought that the customer should be the one to
solder terminals onto the end of the coil of the very thin plates. I
told them that this was the hardest part of the manufacturing process,
and the one most influential on reliability. They would not listen,
maybe because they hadn't figured out how to do it, or maybe because
they were out of money and just trying to sell what they had.
After a few arguments with them, we gave up. Later, they did run out of
money, I guess, and disappeared.
Good luck with them. Maybe they have some new money, and can afford to
do the whole job. It would make a great battery.
John
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> Some years ago there was a new kid on the block out in
> Colorado who set out to build the next greatest thing
> in lead-acid technology batteries. The Bolder TMF cells
> held a lot of promise but for a variety of financial
> and technical reasons, the program in Colorado flopped.
>
> I'd had some communication with Bolder folks back then
> and those letters were still in someone's files where
> the new owners in Singapore found it and dropped me a note
> this morning. The Phoenix it seems is rising from the
> ashes. Check out other pages on boldertmf.com but in
> particular . . .
>
> http://www.boldertmf.com/Product%20Brochure-Single%20Cell.pdf
>
> I'll renew my dialog with these folks and see if there
> are any opportunities for the OBAM aircraft community.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 Noise levels |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Thanks!
Matt-
>
>
>
>>
>>I wonder if the single-phase PM alternators (without big cap) meet the
>> mil standard (if there is one) for suppliers of electrical energy. If
>> you have one of these alternators and expect to power any avionics with
>> it, it only makes sense to install whatever is necessary (in terms of
>> filters) to meet the DO/mil standard. If you're just going to run some
>> strobes and nav lights, it probably doen't make any difference.
>>
>>Do you have any scope shots of the output of one of these devices?
>
> Yup. Sorry to take so long to get these posted. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/SD-8_Noise_Data.pdf
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I'm Baaaaacccckkk! version=3.0.3 |
>
>
>After a few arguments with them, we gave up. Later, they did run out of
>money, I guess, and disappeared.
>
>Good luck with them. Maybe they have some new money, and can afford to
>do the whole job. It would make a great battery.
>
>John
Agreed. We had samples of a 12v battery array at B&C a long
time ago. Early tests indicated a great ability to dump
contained energy. I think the array of 6 c-size cells
tests at over 700A.
Bill put the thing on a charger-maintainer. He demo'd
the thing several times for folks but after a period
of time . . . less than a year as I recall. The critters
had died without ever having been in-service.
Several folks at OSH showed up with Start-Sticks and
other products using the Bolder TMF technology. Again,
amazing demonstrations but un-demonstrated service
life.
Skip Koss talked about these batteries in on of
my forums at OSH and opined that these would be the
wave of the future . . . carry just enough stored energy
to get an engine going . . .
That reminds me, I need to drop a note to Skip in
case he's not aware of the resurrection.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: modern alternators |
>
>I was talking with a friend that was until recently in the alternator
>rebuild business. I had an old 1969 ford dump truck alternator regulator
>get stuck on and fry a few things.(radio and ignition points)
>He said lots of present day autos are external regulator type. The cars
>computer controls the output with pulse width modulation. They often
>put external regulators on them when the computer will not do it or
>the wiring harness is bad somewhere and it is hard to find. Another
>thing he mentioned is these new ones are less susceptible to overvoltage
>because of something called avalanche (sp?) diodes. I think he was saying they
>back flow if the voltage is to high and this sacrifices a little bit of
>their material or ability to be diodes until they fail. Not quite sure
>I understood this.
>
>I guess the main point is that there is allot of externally regulated
>alternators to choose from. They may be heavier than the NDs. I got
>a ND alternator from a 1981 subaru NOS to use because it is the same
>brackets as the newer ones that are on my subaru conversion.
>
>
>Jim Pollard
>Merlin ont
Jim,
Chrysler is using this design. They have bundled not only the voltage
regulator into the ECM (engine computer), but electrical control of the air
conditioning compressor as well. I have a customer (1995 Dodge Van) who is
mad as hell that his A/C won't work till he buys a remanufactured ECM for
$350! This is what your friend is referring to, regarding installing a
stand alone VR on this type of vehicle. It's cheaper to install a stand
alone external VR, than to replace the ECM.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob rundle" <bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
Can the 300XL perform approaches without the GI102A indicator? Will the
guidance just be viewed off of the 300XL faceplate?
It is in an area where I can observe it easily.
Thanks for all the wisdom,
BobR
>
>From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics, ACU, etc
>
>
>Good Morning Bob,
>
>When I have checked actual selling prices, I have found that the 250XL and
>300XL seem to be bringing abut the same over the counter price. That may
>not
>
>last!
>
>If you have the 300XL, you still have the full approach capability via the
>panel unit for emergency purposes. Just about everything you need to make
>it
>work is located within the panel unit. Those annunciators and such are
>primarily to jump through FAA regulatory hoops. Now, if you can't mount
>the 300XL
>
>in a spot where it can be in your primary panel scan, using it as primary
>guidance gets more difficult. That is the original reasoning behind
>providing
>
>for external components.
>
>Utilizing a switching arrangement to share an HSI or other CDI instrument
>between a VHF nav unit and a GPS unit saves panel space and puts the
>guidance
>
>right in the middle of your current style scan.
>
>If it works for you for VHF nav, it will work for you for the GPS.
>
>Were I designing a panel for an OBAM IFR platform, I would not try to stick
>with the forty year old "standard" T arrangement. Adjust the radio
>placement
>
>and the placement of flight instruments so that your scan will accommodate
>the way you intend to use the components.
>
>Are you familiar with the look of Navion, Stinson, Piper, Cessna and
>Beech
>panels from the fifties? Most of them had the flight instruments scattered
>around the panel to please the manufacturers convenience, the test pilots
>thought of where they should be, or the purchaser's philosophy of
>instrument
>flight, but almost all of them had a "Glove Box" radio mounted on the left
>side
>of
>the instrument panel.
>
>That left side radio box location has proven to be an excellent location
>for
>a modern GPS unit. The entire panel unit is right in the primary instrument
>scan!
>
>There are many much better layouts than the so called "standard" T
>arrangement.
>
>While our regulators and many of our industry friends try hard to force us
>all into conformity with their ideas of how the world should be, we must
>remember that standardization is the mortal enemy of innovation!
>
>Kudos to the free thinker, but keep it legal!
>
>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 12/7/2005 7:42:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
>If I'm not going to hook up the 300XL to a NAV indicator then I might as
>well just get the GNC250XL. But I already have the 300 and got it for a
>good price. Am I not just losing capability if I don't use the 300 and an
>IFR unit? Just seems like I'm only using a small piece of the 300s
>capability.
>
>Other question: I have the GI106A hooked up to the G430. Is there no way
>to switch the GI106A over to the 300XL?
>
>BobR
>Airplane savy, electrically stupid
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: modern alternators |
>
>
>
> >
> >I was talking with a friend that was until recently in the alternator
> >rebuild business. I had an old 1969 ford dump truck alternator regulator
> >get stuck on and fry a few things.(radio and ignition points)
> >He said lots of present day autos are external regulator type.
>Jim,
> Chrysler is using this design. They have bundled not only the voltage
>regulator into the ECM (engine computer), but electrical control of the air
>conditioning compressor as well. I have a customer (1995 Dodge Van) who is
>mad as hell that his A/C won't work till he buys a remanufactured ECM for
>$350! This is what your friend is referring to, regarding installing a
>stand alone VR on this type of vehicle. It's cheaper to install a stand
>alone external VR, than to replace the ECM.
>Charlie Kuss
Interesting. 1995?? Ten years worth of market life translates
into lots of after-market product flow and inventory. Anyone
know of a part number we can check on? It's going to be
some time before I can visit any of my usual data-sources
to find out more.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TMF cells (was...I'm Baaaaacccckkk!) |
nuckollsr(at)cox.net
http://www.boldertmf.com/Product%20Brochure-Single%20Cell.pdf
>I'll renew my dialog with these folks and see if there
>are any opportunities for the OBAM aircraft community.
>Bob . . .
Bob,
Now if I read this datasheet right---
The cells come (initially) in one expensive form (judged by the
construction). They are spiral construction. But let's look at numbers.
Nominal Voltage 2V Okay, so let's build a battery with a string of six
of these--
Min Capacity 1.0 Ah/1 hour (this is a somewhat unusual way of specifying
the capacity).
So if we series connect six of these we have a 12V (nominal) battery of 1
Ah. It would weigh 6X 88.5 g or 531 g. If we wanted an 18 Ah battery we
would have to parallel 18 of these strings =9558 g (without connection
hardware weight). More than 21 pounds.
Hmmmmm...................
So what are these best for? They have high power density, but not high
energy density; which means that a smaller battery of these can crank a
larger engine. They would be expensive (I'll bet you dollars to donuts).
See these guys for good info...... http://www.dcbattery.com/faq.html#1
I'm still looking at the Optima D-51 Yellowtop. (Spiral construction)
41 Ah (c/20) 26 pounds. And I'll change it when the Xantrex XBM battery
meter tells me to.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as
it is, infinite.
--William Blake
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TMF cells (was...I'm Baaaaacccckkk!) |
There are interesting possibilities.
One could hang a 1.2 lb battery on the starter. No hot high amperage
cable and no external starter contactor since the battery will go dead
pretty quick if the starter sticks on anyway. After all a modern EFI
engine starts first time ;)
For an installation with two alternators there might be little need to
carry a conventional battery heavy enough to crank the engine or supply
an emer bus.
Ken
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
>nuckollsr(at)cox.net
>
>http://www.boldertmf.com/Product%20Brochure-Single%20Cell.pdf
>
>
>
>>I'll renew my dialog with these folks and see if there
>>are any opportunities for the OBAM aircraft community.
>>Bob . . .
>>
>>
>
>Bob,
>
>Now if I read this datasheet right---
>
>The cells come (initially) in one expensive form (judged by the
>construction). They are spiral construction. But let's look at numbers.
>
>Nominal Voltage 2V Okay, so let's build a battery with a string of six
>of these--
>
>Min Capacity 1.0 Ah/1 hour (this is a somewhat unusual way of specifying
>the capacity).
>
>So if we series connect six of these we have a 12V (nominal) battery of 1
>Ah. It would weigh 6X 88.5 g or 531 g. If we wanted an 18 Ah battery we
>would have to parallel 18 of these strings =9558 g (without connection
>hardware weight). More than 21 pounds.
>
>Hmmmmm...................
>
>So what are these best for? They have high power density, but not high
>energy density; which means that a smaller battery of these can crank a
>larger engine. They would be expensive (I'll bet you dollars to donuts).
>
>See these guys for good info...... http://www.dcbattery.com/faq.html#1
>
>I'm still looking at the Optima D-51 Yellowtop. (Spiral construction)
>41 Ah (c/20) 26 pounds. And I'll change it when the Xantrex XBM battery
>meter tells me to.
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge MA 01550-2705
>(508) 764-2072
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Will digest the alternate systems, Bob.
James thanks for illuminating the fine points. Much help in figuring out what's
best for me.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
>
> Bob,
>
> My first design goal is compliance with engine limitations:
> - CHT max: 240 DegC
> - Oil Temp: Max out to the radiator 105 DegC
> Max in from the radiator: 90 DegC
> With my uncompensated instruments, the hotter the day, the lower the
> indicated temp, compared to reality... Rather inadequate, too easy to
> inadvertently overtake limitations! (I have an old Tigre engine on my
> Jungmann, and need to take care of it).
Okay, to what degree of uncertainty will your operating rules
tolerate in knowing the real value of these temperatures?
Plus/Minus 5C . . . 10C . . . 1C?
> For limitation purpose, I could compensate for the worst case only: hottest
> day, and temperature reaching limitation. Sufficient, but somewhat
> inelegant...
> I am not worried with the EGT, as I am only interested in peak detection,
> for mixture setting.
Understand. You need to first put your arms around your
error budget.
> My second goal deals with flight testing
> - High engine temp sollicitation during climb performance flights
> (limitations again)
> - Testing different oil radiator installations, which needs some kind of
> accuracy (2 DegC is enough, I can hardly read it on my 1 1/4" dials)
> On a test climb to 14 500 ft ceiling, ambient temp will vary of about 30
> DegC.
> Ground temps typically vary in a 40 DegC range in the year, here in
> Toulouse.
For flight tests, would you consider a stand-alone, data acquisition
system that's removed later for routine flight?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
Good Afternoon Bob,
That is my understanding.
Just to be sure we are on the same page, I believe you could get all of the
approach information, observe all annunciations and follow the course line on
the panel unit instead of the external devices, but that would not be legal
to do under IFR conditions except if you had declared an emergency or managed
to get a local approval covering that operation. Highly unlikely such an
approval would be forthcoming!
Unfortunately, Garmin does not provide a downloadable simulator such as they
do for the 480 and others.
I have downloaded the owners manual and, as I read it, all of the required
information should be presented on the panel unit. I am planning on using a
300XL in that same manner myself.
I have a friend who has one installed as a strictly VFR unit and I hope to
be able to run through it before I place the order. I probably will not get
that done in less than a week.
The one thing that worries me is whether or not there will be any need for
the use of a resolver. I have operated the 530 simulator and it can be used
without the resolver. The set will ask you to set a bearing, but if you
disregard that command, it goes ahead and does what it is supposed to do anyway.
I know that sounds a bit erratic and, possibly, complicated, but it all
traces back to a mistake Garmin made ten years ago in their original certification
for IFR purposes!
How soon do you need to make your decision?
I THINK it will work just fine, but haven't actually checked the box.
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 12/8/2005 12:24:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com writes:
Can the 300XL perform approaches without the GI102A indicator? Will the
guidance just be viewed off of the 300XL faceplate?
It is in an area where I can observe it easily.
Thanks for all the wisdom,
BobR
December 04, 2005 - December 08, 2005
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fb