AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fc
December 08, 2005 - December 12, 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> alternators was modern alternators |
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage regulator |
alternators was modern alternators
At 12:35 PM 12/8/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >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 . . .
Bob,
A quick call to my local parts supplier shows 3 possible alternators for
this vehicle. The first two are a 75 amp and a 90 amp unit. The parts man
says that his replacement book shows a single unit for replacement. The
largest alternator is a 120 amp unit. All 3 alternators are Nippon Denso
units. His book calls out a # 13245 for the smaller units. This is in
SunCoast brand. I asked for a Lester number, but his catalog didn't show
it. He suspects that it's the same as the SunCoast number.
A quick Google search has led me to Transpo's web site. I was able to
search for 1995 Dodge B Series Van w/ 4.9 L 6 cylinder engine. They show
separate part numbers for both the 75 amp and the 90 amp units. (I suspect
that Sun Coast substitutes the 90 amp unit for the 75 amp models in their
catalog) The OE part number is 1210003460 The Transpo rectifier part
number is INR729. They have a photo & drawing of the rectifier pack below
http://195.125.241.148/Catalog/Car_Fr.htm
Plug in the vehicle info listed above to view the information mentioned.
They do no allow linking to individual pages. :-(
SunCoast has a web site, but there is no tech info on it, only contact
info. See
http://www.suncoastproducts.com/
Hope this helps
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: modern alternators |
At 12:35 PM 12/8/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >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 . . .
Bob,
I see a LOT of ECM failures on Dodge full size vans for the past 20
years. They insist on mounting the ECM on the firewall (engine compartment
side) My experience as a mechanic is that in autos and trucks, mounting the
ECM under the hood increases the failure rate by two orders of magnitude.
This is not manufacturer dependant. All installations of ECMs under the
hood prove to be problematic. Heat and vibration kill them.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg@itmack" <greg(at)itmack.com> |
| Subject: | Z19 main & engine battery bus |
The main and engine battery bus in Z19 are meant to be 6 inches from the
battery contactors. I know that 6" is not exactly written in stone but if I
wanted to bring the bus into the cabin would a fuseable link be acceptable?
Thanks
Greg RV8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
Why would it not be legal?
-----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 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lee Logan <leeloganster(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 60 Msgs - 12/07/05 |
Don't mean to sound dense, but I have little civil flying experience and am
not sure of the "fuss" about heated pitot tubes. Am I wrong in assuming you
could reasonably fly your airplane with no reference to airspeed, even in
IFR conditions or do you lose all pitot-static reference instruments
(altimeter and ROC also)? I lost airspeed once in heavy weather very early
in my military flying career and though it definitely caught my attention,
the fix was intuitive and immediate (forgot to turn pitot heat on, of
course!). I did not see an effect on the altimiter or ROC, but the aircraft
I was flying had multiple static ports and a CADC. Different situation, I
suppose. If you leave it off until you actually lose A/S, does it work
reasonably quickly to restore pitot/static performance or are you stuck
without for awhile? I plan to put one in my F1, but they are expensive and
I suspect would not be used often if ever. Is this something I really need
from either a practical or regulatory standpoint. I didnt' see a
requirement for it in the "Circular".
Thanks and, regards,
Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
In a message dated 12/8/2005 4:04:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bdenton(at)bdenton.com writes:
Why would it not be legal?
Good Afternoon Bill,
Are we discussing an experimental or a normal category airplane?
If you are installing an IFR approvable GPS in a normal category airplane,
the installation must ether get a local approval or be in total compliance
with an available STC.
To my knowledge, Garmin does not have any STCs for the GNC 300XL.
They have an approval which they received at the factory for one specific
airplane and they provide a copy of that paperwork to use as data when you apply
for your own FAA Approved IFR GPS Navigation Installation.
If the only things you change are small details concerning where things are
located, a "Follow On" approval is easy to get. The more you change, the
more problematical is the approval. Eliminating an external CDI and resolver is
a pretty big change!
If you are making the installation in an experimental airplane, you would
have to ask somebody other than me for a positive answer, but, as I see it, as
long as you have complied with the intent of AC 20-138 and are willing to
defend your interpretation at a hearing, if it ever becomes necessary, I would
say you are good to go.
If a GPS installation in an experimental airplane uses all of the
annunciators and remote switches and CDI's that the manufacturer listed in his
original
certification, I would say that the hearing would be a no brainer. However,
if you have made major changes in equipment being used and the placement of
components from what the manufacturer suggests, I think you would have a lot
more to explain at that hearing.
Make any sense at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lincoln Probst <elprobst(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | ATO/ATC Circuit Breakers |
So after looking at the LED ATO fuses from a previous post, I ended up also seeing
these fuse/circuit breakers-- ie, normal ATO/ATC fuse dimensions, but manually
reseting circuit breakers.
I saw them here: http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/218_069.PDF
(About 1/2 way down on the right, stock number 46791 for a 5 amp version).
They are a little sparse on details other than "Conforms to SAE spec J553 and
J1284." and they are for up to 28V DC operation.
I searched the list but didn't find anything... anyone think about these or know
of
reasons not to use them?
"CIRCUIT BREAKER 10 AMP LOW PROFILE BLADE MOUNT
Category: Circuit Breakers
Sub Category: Fuse Style-ATO/ATC
Price: $2.28 each"
Pluses:
1) Easy to reset
2) Easy to identify blown circuit
Minuses:
1) Tempting to reset in-flight. Violates one main point of fuses in the first
place-- the circuit blew for a reason, no sense having a fire.
2) $2.28each instead of $0.0867 each
3) Fewer amperage ratings they come in 5,6,7.5,10,15,20,25,30amps only -- so you
can't have a 1,2,3,4 amp circuit protection.
4) Not tried-n-true which is the other great advantage of the simple fuse
I guess I don't need to make a decision now... I already have the fuses and fuse
blocks etc. I'm just curious about it. It is funny. I really WANT to do this
and
put them right on the panel!!! Sometimes I'm just crazy.
Building a 601XL, Corvair powered.
Lincoln Probst
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
> Okay, to what degree of uncertainty will your operating rules
> tolerate in knowing the real value of these temperatures?
> Plus/Minus 5C . . . 10C . . . 1C?
+/- 5C should be acceptable
> For flight tests, would you consider a stand-alone, data acquisition
> system that's removed later for routine flight?
My purpose is not scientific, but just getting better knowledge of my
aircraft.
I intend to use only the instruments panel gauges to record parameters
evolution and , just using them the most accurately I can: anyway, my dials
do not allow me to read less than 2C.
I got the following answer from UMA. The trouble is that my cockpit is an
open one, not air-conditionned:
"We do not, nor do I know of anyone who offers junction compensation. I
am sure for the right price it can be obtained. Someone got a little
wordy with an our explanation of the thermocouple operating principle.
What it amounts to is the cold junction is designed to be on the gauge
in a heated cockpit. If there is an extension used, that junction should
be in the same environment as the gauge for the guage to read correctly.
A worst case scenerio is for the "splice" to be in the engine
compartment in a cooling airstream, flying in Alaska. If you were using
this as scientific instrumentation, then the absolute accuracy depends
on the relative junction temperatures. If our installation instructions
are followed, the error is within 3%, well within the accuracy needed to
monitor engine operating temperature trends."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 60 Msgs - 12/07/05 |
Good Evening Lee,
Some pitot tubes incorporate the static ports, but most do not. I do not
know what you flew in the military, but some sophisticated airplanes take all
of the data, feed it through various computers and then feed it to us aviators.
If that is the case, I would never attempt to say what might happen.
However, for the simple systems used in most GA aircraft, there is no direct
connection between the pitot tube and any other instrument unless something breaks.
The airspeed will sometimes stay where it is when it freezes. Other times,
it will increase or decrease depending on how tight the system is and whether
the airplane is climbing or descending.
I agree that losing an airspeed indicator under normal conditions should be
a no brainer for any competent instrument pilot, but it may take a while to
realize what has failed and why.
If the pitot tube does freeze shut and the heat is then turned on, all
indications generally return to normal. Very little time is needed
Rate of climb, altimetry and other functions that rely on static air should
not be affected unless the static vents also freeze.
Personally, I like having a heated pitot tube and I use it any time I am
flying in any visible moisture regardless of the temperature. I was convinced by
my previous employer that doing so saves maintenance costs so I do it on my
own airplane.
Would I be willing to fly an airplane IFR that did not have heated pitot
capability?
Absolutely!
However, I prefer that it be heated.
One of those ubiquitous individual decisions I guess.
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 4:07:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
leeloganster(at)gmail.com writes:
Don't mean to sound dense, but I have little civil flying experience and am
not sure of the "fuss" about heated pitot tubes. Am I wrong in assuming you
could reasonably fly your airplane with no reference to airspeed, even in
IFR conditions or do you lose all pitot-static reference instruments
(altimeter and ROC also)? I lost airspeed once in heavy weather very early
in my military flying career and though it definitely caught my attention,
the fix was intuitive and immediate (forgot to turn pitot heat on, of
course!). I did not see an effect on the altimeter or ROC, but the aircraft
I was flying had multiple static ports and a CADC. Different situation, I
suppose. If you leave it off until you actually lose A/S, does it work
reasonably quickly to restore pitot/static performance or are you stuck
without for awhile? I plan to put one in my F1, but they are expensive and
I suspect would not be used often if ever. Is this something I really need
from either a practical or regulatory standpoint. I didn't' see a
requirement for it in the "Circular".
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
My question was prompted by the necessity of an external HSI/CDI.
I think I read somewhere that it is not required if the GPS unit itself
provides an acceptable "on screen" CDI, but I'm not sure.
However, I referred to the GNS 480 and the external HSI/CDI is required for
IFR approval in a certified aircraft.
Perhaps someone else has read something similar?
-----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
In a message dated 12/8/2005 4:04:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bdenton(at)bdenton.com writes:
Why would it not be legal?
Good Afternoon Bill,
Are we discussing an experimental or a normal category airplane?
If you are installing an IFR approvable GPS in a normal category airplane,
the installation must ether get a local approval or be in total compliance
with an available STC.
To my knowledge, Garmin does not have any STCs for the GNC 300XL.
They have an approval which they received at the factory for one specific
airplane and they provide a copy of that paperwork to use as data when you
apply
for your own FAA Approved IFR GPS Navigation Installation.
If the only things you change are small details concerning where things are
located, a "Follow On" approval is easy to get. The more you change, the
more problematical is the approval. Eliminating an external CDI and
resolver is
a pretty big change!
If you are making the installation in an experimental airplane, you would
have to ask somebody other than me for a positive answer, but, as I see it,
as
long as you have complied with the intent of AC 20-138 and are willing to
defend your interpretation at a hearing, if it ever becomes necessary, I
would
say you are good to go.
If a GPS installation in an experimental airplane uses all of the
annunciators and remote switches and CDI's that the manufacturer listed in
his original
certification, I would say that the hearing would be a no brainer.
However,
if you have made major changes in equipment being used and the placement of
components from what the manufacturer suggests, I think you would have a
lot
more to explain at that hearing.
Make any sense at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 60 Msgs - 12/07/05 |
-----Original Message-----
Is this something I really need
from either a practical or regulatory standpoint. I didnt' see a
requirement for it in the "Circular".
Thanks and, regards,
Lee
Lee,
The following is an excerpt from Part 91.205
Paragraph (b) pertains to VFR day.
No requirement for a heated pitot.
Peter
RV9-A wings
d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and
equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section,
and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c)
of this section.
(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.
(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:
(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight
attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with
the instrument requirements prescribed in Sec. 121.305(j) of this chapter;
and
(ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through
flight attitudes of 80 degrees of pitch and 120 degrees of roll and
installed in accordance with Sec. 29.1303(g) of this chapter.
(4) Slip-skid indicator.
(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.
(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second
pointer or digital presentation.
(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.
(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).
(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bryan Hooks" <bryanhooks(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Dual Battery Single Alternator Justification |
>>I may be messing up this 'snip' deal - but I'll give it a shot ...
G McNutt wrote:
Re pitot heat after alternator failure - I would not cater for that item
for the following reasons.
Consider your planned operations, hard winter IFR at night,
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?
>>Great point I had overlooked! I don't plan to be in icing conditions
any longer than required to get out.
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.
>>Also a good point - honestly, I don't know if I'm REQUIRED to tell ATC
about the loss of an alternator or not - especially if I don't need it
to power all my minimum required equipment. That's one I'll have to
look into.
>>As far as the dual batteries go - remember that being able to swap the
batteries was only one of the advantages - not the driving factor.
Having both batteries allows me to power my fancy ($$$) screens during
start without worry of damage to them. I know I could simply turn them
off during start, but I personally don't want to.
George in Langley BC
>>Thank you VERY much for taking the time to respond. Especially
regarding the pitot heat and known icing bit. Can't believe I
overlooked that.
>> Bryan Hooks
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pitot tube question |
I purchased a homebuilt with a heated pitot tube. It has a two pin
connector, which looks like it's made from a white ceramic material,
that is broken. Anyone have any suggestions for where I can find a
replacement connector. I don't know what brand it is.
Thanks,
Bob W.
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris & Kellie Hand" <ckhand(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lorance Air map 2000c connector plug |
Thanks Jim.
Replying here to put answer to my question in the archives as Lowrance does
not put this in the product manual and their web page for the 2000C is no
help either. Have to do extensive cross referencing on the rest of their
web site of pinouts with older products.
Cable needed to connect the Lowrance Airmap 2000C gps to an autopilot (Trio
in my case) is identified in Lowrance's answer pasted below:
Thank you for your inquiry. The correct part is the NDC-2, #101-36. This
can be ordered by contacting LEI at the number shown below.
Thank you for choosing Lowrance.
Lowrance Customer Service
12000 E. Skelly Dr.
Tulsa, OK 74128
Customer Service: 1-800-324-1356
Lowrance website: <http://www.lowrance.com/>
LEI: Parts & Accessories 1-800-324-0045
online at <http://www.lei-extras.com/>
Chris Hand
RV-6A, finishing stages
----- Original Message -----
From: "James H Nelson" <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Lorance Air map 2000c connector plug
>
> Chris,
> I had the same problem with Lorance. The end of the discussion
> was to use their computer hook up from the GPS (with the 12 volt auto
> power plug). I am using the Air map 500 and I have to pull out the #2
> (signal) pin and the #5 (gnd). That way I can use it to drive my Digi
> Trak... They are beginning to realize they need to put on their web site
> how to use their GPS to drive something like an auto pilot.
>
> Jim Nelson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Pitot tube question |
Can you post a picture of the tube and the connector somewhere? (the e-mail
list software throws away any attachments you try to send directly to the
members of the list).
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob White
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
I purchased a homebuilt with a heated pitot tube. It has a two pin
connector, which looks like it's made from a white ceramic material, that is
broken. Anyone have any suggestions for where I can find a replacement
connector. I don't know what brand it is.
Thanks,
Bob W.
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pitot tube question |
Sure after my next trip to the airport. Probably tomorrow.
Bob W.
"Craig Payne" wrote:
>
> Can you post a picture of the tube and the connector somewhere? (the e-mail
> list software throws away any attachments you try to send directly to the
> members of the list).
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob White
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
>
> I purchased a homebuilt with a heated pitot tube. It has a two pin
> connector, which looks like it's made from a white ceramic material, that is
> broken. Anyone have any suggestions for where I can find a replacement
> connector. I don't know what brand it is.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob W.
>
> --
> http://www.bob-white.com
> N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
> Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
> http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Huft <aflyer(at)lazy8.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TMF cells (was...I'm Baaaaacccckkk!) |
version=3.0.3
The Optima and the Bolder batteries share the same spiral construction,
but where the Optima has (just guessing here) layers that are .1" thick,
the Bolders are .005 thick. The layers are paper thin to the eye.
This gives the Bolder batteries an internal impedance that is way lower
than the Optima. Sorry I can't remember numbers, but that was about 1994
or so. So, they can deliver bursts of Amps (power) way more than other
batteries, and take a re-charge equally fast.
They demonstrated starting their Toyota pick up with a string of 6 C-cells.
As lead-acid batteries, they would have been much better in portable
tools than the ni-cads of the day.
So, I guess they would have their applications.
John
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
>
> If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as
> it is, infinite.
> --William Blake
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics, ACU, etc |
Good Evening Bill,
The original language (there was a revision in the fall of 2003 and I have
not read it thoroughly. Things may have changed) in AC 20-138 said the CDI in
the Panel Control Unit was not likely to meet the requirements of being in the
line of sight, but did not say it could not be used.
It is my contention that the CDI in the PCU could be used if someone wanted
to press the point. To my knowledge, no one has attempted such an approval.
In any case, nothing is legal for IFR flight unless some sort of approval
has been obtained.
My knowledge of the experimental certification process is even skinnier than
my knowledge of the certificated world. I would say a very good case could
be made for using the CDI in the panel, but I wouldn't submit it without doing
some careful research and writing my reasoning in a supporting document.
It certainly appears to me that the person building an experimental airplane
is the person responsible for writing and approving the Airplane Flight
Manual Supplement. If that supplement says you can use the PCU's CDI, I think
that would suffice, but if anything happened, you would want data available to
use when explaining your position at the hearing!
If you copied a manufacturers suggested supplement, there should be no
question at all, but if you deviate from their suggestions?
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 5:32:35 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bdenton(at)bdenton.com writes:
However, I referred to the GNS 480 and the external HSI/CDI is required for
IFR approval in a certified aircraft.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z19 main & engine battery bus |
>
>The main and engine battery bus in Z19 are meant to be 6 inches from the
>battery contactors. I know that 6" is not exactly written in stone but if I
>wanted to bring the bus into the cabin would a fuseable link be acceptable?
Depends on who's doing the "accepting." Industry practices and
regulations would vigirously discourage it . . . but
it's your airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 43 Msgs - 12/08/05 |
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>Bob,
> I see a LOT of ECM failures on Dodge full size vans for the past 20
>years. They insist on mounting the ECM on the firewall (engine compartment
>side) My experience as a mechanic is that in autos and trucks, mounting the
>ECM under the hood increases the failure rate by two orders of magnitude.
>This is not manufacturer dependant. All installations of ECMs under the
>hood prove to be problematic. Heat and vibration kill them.
>Charlie
>
>
I can vouch for that, Charlie. I have a Dodge Dakota. The ECM is on
the inside of the right front wheel well. It started acting up and when
it did the engine would just die cold. It would crank and run perfectly
fine after it cooled down. While waiting for the dealership to get
around to replacing it, I found that I could get to where I was going if
I carried a bottle of water. A couple of times I had access to dry
ice. The ECM was designed and temp rated for a Jeep Cherokee. They
just slapped it into the Dakota without doing a heat analysis.
From that experience, my rule of thumb now is that all essential
electronics should either be hardened components or share the same
environmental protections that the passengers enjoy.
--
,|"|"|, |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z19 main & engine battery bus |
On 12/8/05, Greg@itmack wrote:
>
>
> The main and engine battery bus in Z19 are meant to be 6 inches from the
> battery contactors. I know that 6" is not exactly written in stone but if
> I
> wanted to bring the bus into the cabin would a fuseable link be
> acceptable?
>
> Thanks
> Greg RV8
About a month ago I was asking the exact same Z19 question. I wanted all
the fuse blocks located together in the cabin & it was a bummer to think of
having two of them on the engine side of the firewall.
I got over it & moved them. Having done so, I have no regrets. They are
right next to the contactors and the batteries. Instead of having to run
fat wires to them in the cabin, I'm running small wires to the various
components served by them.
So.. my opinion is that best-practices are best-practices. They got that
way because somebody(s) learned a lesson somewhere.
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
and the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z19 main & engine battery bus |
Now see, I did the opposite, and put the battery in the (much cooler) cabin
along with the contactor and fuse blocks. The penalty of a pair of fat
wires running a few feet is worth it in my opinion in battery temperature
exposure and ease of fuse and battery access.
Dave Morris
At 09:36 AM 12/9/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>About a month ago I was asking the exact same Z19 question. I wanted all
>the fuse blocks located together in the cabin & it was a bummer to think of
>having two of them on the engine side of the firewall.
>
>I got over it & moved them. Having done so, I have no regrets. They are
>right next to the contactors and the batteries. Instead of having to run
>fat wires to them in the cabin, I'm running small wires to the various
>components served by them.
>
>So.. my opinion is that best-practices are best-practices. They got that
>way because somebody(s) learned a lesson somewhere.
>
>Mark
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lee Logan <leeloganster(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 60 Msgs - 12/07/05 |
Thanks a lot "Old Bob" and Peter. Just the answer I was looking for on the
heated pitot question. I feel sure I will have sufficient "load budget"
for it, but the discussion has been useful in illuminating this interesting
issue. Around here, at least, it will not be on very often!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ATO/ATC Circuit Breakers |
>
>So after looking at the LED ATO fuses from a previous post, I ended up
>also seeing
>these fuse/circuit breakers-- ie, normal ATO/ATC fuse dimensions, but manually
>reseting circuit breakers.
>
>I saw them here: http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/218_069.PDF
>(About 1/2 way down on the right, stock number 46791 for a 5 amp version).
>
>They are a little sparse on details other than "Conforms to SAE spec J553 and
>J1284." and they are for up to 28V DC operation.
>
>I searched the list but didn't find anything... anyone think about these
>or know of
>reasons not to use them?
If 99.99% of all fuses and breakers installed in
all vehicles run the lifetime of the vehicle and
never trip, what's the return on investment FOR
using them?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
Let me take a contrary stand from the opinions I'm sure you're going to
receive.
Why is the glass panel SR-22 40 percent more expensive to insure than the
equivalent new steam gage C-182? Do the insurance companies know something
we don't?
Glass panels are fantastic, hypnotic, and unless done right, deadly. We've
come to be very familiar with the failure modes of our steam gage basic 6
pack. It's has evolved into a very sophisticated instrument group that
brings the information we need to safely fly IFR to the front of our eyes.
It does this from several disparate sources of data, vacuum/electric gyros,
static pitot sources, all presented in a manner such that if there is a
failure in any system, it's readily noted.
The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and others)
have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange failure
modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a few
of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because of
some strange software errors.
There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
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 Valovich,
Paul
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
and the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
Good Morning Bruce,
Mind If I use your message to make a pitch for my thoughts on OBAM IFR
flight?
I think the glass cockpit fed from solid state attitude sensors is the wave
of the future and it is what I hope to have in my airplane. I even have hope
that there will eventually be some sort of glass solid state attitude based
turn indicator that will be as reliable and economical as my favorite IFR
instrument, the old fashioned Turn and Bank. By that I DO NOT mean a Turn
Coordinator!
If anyone wants to go modern and have an all glass cockpit, I would urge
that they first spend the time and money it takes to learn how to fly IFR the
way it was done before attitude instruments took over. While attitude
instruments have been available from almost the same time as T&Bs were invented,
they
were not ubiquitous until WWII. Prior to that time, IFR pilots learned to
fly using Needle Ball and Airspeed.
We have all heard about the rules of primacy in flight training. Why not go
back to starting IFR students out on Needle Ball and Airspeed, then
transition the student to glass?
The needle turn indicator is the most reliable mechanical instrument we
have. It will not tumble, it is light and, it is relatively inexpensive.
A very simple basic "save the day" IFR panel can consist of left to right,
one airspeed indicator, one T&B and one altimeter.
Given those three instruments placed close together and in the pilots normal
range of view, a properly trained pilot can get any airplane from a Boeing
747 to a Piper Cub safely under control after the failure of any other sort of
instrument presentation.
It takes about twenty hours of concentrated training to really get good
using Needle Ball and Airspeed, but once it is learned and thoroughly practiced
,
the skill is never lost.
My vote is to build that OBAM airplane with all the gee whiz stuff anyone
could want, but stick to that little lifeboat three gauge panel for the time
when all else fails.
The T&B is much more reliable than any except electronic instruments and
vastly cheaper than any attitude indicator ever built!
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 12/9/2005 11:34:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
Bruce
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
I have to chime in on this one point... That being the glass of the SR22
being more expensive to insure than a new C182. That couldn't be more
wrong. I should know, I have a new C182. In fact, the Glass version of the
C182 (G1000 version, which I own), is NO more expensive to insure than the
Steam gauge version of the C182 (which I doubt they are even making many
off).
The issue with the SR22 has nothing to do with the Glass and everything to
do with the "little handle above the center console" - That being the
Ballistic Recovery Parachute. It's just too easy to pull the handle instead
of trying to Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. And if you do, it just cost you
a $500K airplane as they haven't had much success repairing them after chute
pulls.
Sorry for the off topic content, but I'm a huge fan of Glass in the cockpit,
I believe it provides a much safer environment than not having it. There
have been three huge advancements in Aviation in my lifetime (yep, I'll date
my self - on the young side). GPS, GLASS and Semi-Realtime In cockpit
weather. All of the above is exactly why the Lancair Legacy that I'm
building will have a Chelton EFIS and XM weather.
But then again, this is just my nickel. If you like, AOPA did a safety
study of exactly this topic and it discussed the SR22 phenomena as well as
the expected costs. Bottom line the reason insurance in the NEW Glass (or
Steam) C182 is more expensive.... It's the $300K hull value
Alan
-----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: Glass Cockpit Options
-->
Let me take a contrary stand from the opinions I'm sure you're going to
receive.
Why is the glass panel SR-22 40 percent more expensive to insure than the
equivalent new steam gage C-182? Do the insurance companies know something
we don't?
Glass panels are fantastic, hypnotic, and unless done right, deadly. We've
come to be very familiar with the failure modes of our steam gage basic 6
pack. It's has evolved into a very sophisticated instrument group that
brings the information we need to safely fly IFR to the front of our eyes.
It does this from several disparate sources of data, vacuum/electric gyros,
static pitot sources, all presented in a manner such that if there is a
failure in any system, it's readily noted.
The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and others)
have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange failure
modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a few
of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because of
some strange software errors.
There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
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 Valovich,
Paul
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so if
for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the driver.
And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine Monitor
display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I will also have
a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A and
the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA, TruTrak
ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard altimeter, airspeed
and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may have
very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small screen
Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about "their"
product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
You can get the T&B information from a GPS and a cheap $25 slip indicator
from Wicks, and you can get the AS and ALT information from a Rocky
Mountain MicroEncoder. I'm building a cheap "glass cockpit" by feeding
those three instruments into a computer and then displaying the information
on an LCD display. If the computer craps out, I can always look at the
source instruments.
http://www.MyGlassCockpit.com
However, I do not intend to use this for IFR flight, so my requirements are
much lower.
Regards,
Dave Morris
At 12:01 PM 12/9/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>Good Morning Bruce,
>
>Mind If I use your message to make a pitch for my thoughts on OBAM IFR
>flight?
>
>I think the glass cockpit fed from solid state attitude sensors is the wave
>of the future and it is what I hope to have in my airplane. I even
>have hope
>that there will eventually be some sort of glass solid state attitude based
>turn indicator that will be as reliable and economical as my favorite IFR
>instrument, the old fashioned Turn and Bank. By that I DO NOT mean a Turn
>Coordinator!
>
>If anyone wants to go modern and have an all glass cockpit, I would urge
>that they first spend the time and money it takes to learn how to fly IFR
>the
>way it was done before attitude instruments took over. While attitude
>instruments have been available from almost the same time as T&Bs
>were invented, they
>were not ubiquitous until WWII. Prior to that time, IFR pilots learned to
>fly using Needle Ball and Airspeed.
>
>We have all heard about the rules of primacy in flight training. Why not go
>back to starting IFR students out on Needle Ball and Airspeed, then
>transition the student to glass?
>
>The needle turn indicator is the most reliable mechanical instrument we
>have. It will not tumble, it is light and, it is relatively inexpensive.
>
>A very simple basic "save the day" IFR panel can consist of left to right,
>one airspeed indicator, one T&B and one altimeter.
>
>Given those three instruments placed close together and in the pilots normal
>range of view, a properly trained pilot can get any airplane from a Boeing
>747 to a Piper Cub safely under control after the failure of any
>other sort of
>instrument presentation.
>
>It takes about twenty hours of concentrated training to really get good
>using Needle Ball and Airspeed, but once it is learned and thoroughly
>practiced ,
>the skill is never lost.
>
>My vote is to build that OBAM airplane with all the gee whiz stuff anyone
>could want, but stick to that little lifeboat three gauge panel for the time
>when all else fails.
>
>The T&B is much more reliable than any except electronic instruments and
>vastly cheaper than any attitude indicator ever built!
>
>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 12/9/2005 11:34:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
>
>So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
>certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
>glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
>hang my life on.
>
>Bruce
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
>The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
>reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and others)
>have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
>for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange failure
>
>
You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
for me for some time now. They also take safety very seriously and have
some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their stuff,
including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much stock in FAA
certification?)
Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most use.
Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system) and
mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can keep
wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that if the
EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap and
effective backup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
:-} Agreed?
>modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a few
>of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
>malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
>AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because of
>some strange software errors.
>
>There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
>required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
>flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
>
>So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
>certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
>glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
>hang my life on.
>
>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 Valovich,
>Paul
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
>
>
>
>After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
>regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
>considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
>if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
>7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
>a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
>driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
>
>
>Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
>Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
>will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
>
>
>The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
>and the SL30.
>
>
>I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
>TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
>altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
>
>
>So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
>have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
>- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
>screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
>"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul Valovich
>
>Booger
>
>Ridgecrest, CA
>
>661-400-3640
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu> |
| Subject: | Odyssey in engine cmptmt |
Any strong views on having the battery the engine side of the firewall. It must
get quite hot. Clearly the advantage of short cable runs is considerable.
Comments? Steve.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hi Old Bob,
Having only recently done much IFR training, I'd like to add support to
what you are saying. In practicing partial panel (vacuum failure - no AI,
no DG), I find that I actually control the airplane at least as precisely.
That's probably an indication that my use of the AI and DG is not as good
as it could be. When the vacuum failure is 'fixed' I find the
now-functioning instruments to be slightly distracting..
I also can think of two enhancements which would improve the safety of
glass panels. The first is something which cross-checks the data coming
from the AHRS from that of a(n independent) turn and bank system.
Digitizing the T&B should be cheap. If the T&B says the ball is centered,
and that the plane isn't turning, while the AHRS says you're banked, the
EFIS should disable the AI output. The hard part of partial panel is
figuring out which instrument is lying to you. If the AI information is
taken away from you when it becomes unreliable, the situation is easy to
fly.
And the other item (which has been discussed at length in the past) is the
use of the T&B to drive a wing leveler. Then the only remaining problem
is to avoid CFIT.
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK, C182 N4838D
>
>
> Good Morning Bruce,
>
> Mind If I use your message to make a pitch for my thoughts on OBAM IFR
> flight?
>
> I think the glass cockpit fed from solid state attitude sensors is the
> wave of the future and it is what I hope to have in my airplane. I
> even have hope that there will eventually be some sort of glass solid
> state attitude based turn indicator that will be as reliable and
> economical as my favorite IFR instrument, the old fashioned Turn and
> Bank. By that I DO NOT mean a Turn Coordinator!
>
> If anyone wants to go modern and have an all glass cockpit, I would urge
> that they first spend the time and money it takes to learn how to fly
> IFR the way it was done before attitude instruments took over. While
> attitude instruments have been available from almost the same time as
> T&Bs were invented, they were not ubiquitous until WWII. Prior to
> that time, IFR pilots learned to fly using Needle Ball and Airspeed.
>
> We have all heard about the rules of primacy in flight training. Why
> not go back to starting IFR students out on Needle Ball and Airspeed,
> then transition the student to glass?
>
> The needle turn indicator is the most reliable mechanical instrument we
> have. It will not tumble, it is light and, it is relatively
> inexpensive.
>
> A very simple basic "save the day" IFR panel can consist of left to
> right, one airspeed indicator, one T&B and one altimeter.
>
> Given those three instruments placed close together and in the pilots
> normal range of view, a properly trained pilot can get any airplane
> from a Boeing 747 to a Piper Cub safely under control after the
> failure of any other sort of instrument presentation.
>
> It takes about twenty hours of concentrated training to really get good
> using Needle Ball and Airspeed, but once it is learned and thoroughly
> practiced , the skill is never lost.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
Good Afternoon Dave,
Are you sure you can get true and full T&B information from a GPS device?
Do you have a particular model GPS to which you are referring?
All that I am aware of merely advise you that you have a ground track that
is turning in the horizontal plane. It would be my opinion that such
information is not as good as the information provided by a T&B if you are trying
to
recover from a grave yard spiral.
I do hope that new electronic instrumentation is developed that will give us
the back up we can get from a mechanical turn needle, but I have not yet
seen such a device.
Don't get me wrong. I have practiced under the hood using both the Garmin
196 and the 296. It is better than nothing, but still a lot more expensive
than a T&B. I also find the T&B much easier to use, but then again, I have a
lot of experience flying partial panel!
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 12/9/2005 12:47:10 P.M. Central Standard Time,
BigD(at)DaveMorris.com writes:
You can get the T&B information from a GPS and a cheap $25 slip indicator
from Wicks, and you can get the AS and ALT information from a Rocky
Mountain MicroEncoder. I'm building a cheap "glass cockpit" by feeding
those three instruments into a computer and then displaying the information
on an LCD display. If the computer craps out, I can always look at the
source instruments.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
It's not the dark glass panel failure that's going to kill you, it's going
to be that little software bug that testing didn't find that tells you
you're nose high on the GS after passing the OM. So you drop your nose and
'THUD'. What you going to do when your gee wiz panel tells you you're in a
left turn and your T&B says, nope we're in a right turn. Which one is right?
Sorry, until they get dual redundant, self crosschecking circuitry the
industry isn't there yet, for me anyway.
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 Paul
Folbrecht
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
>reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and
others)
>have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
>for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange
failure
>
>
You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
for me for some time now. They also take safety very seriously and have
some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their stuff,
including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much stock in FAA
certification?)
Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most use.
Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system) and
mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can keep
wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that if the
EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap and
effective backup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
:-} Agreed?
>modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a
few
>of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
>malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
>AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because
of
>some strange software errors.
>
>There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
>required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
>flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
>
>So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
>certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
>glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
>hang my life on.
>
>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
Valovich,
>Paul
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
>
>
>
>After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
>regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
>considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
>if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
>7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
>a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
>driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
>
>
>Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
>Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
>will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
>
>
>The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
>and the SL30.
>
>
>I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
>TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
>altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
>
>
>So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
>have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
>- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
>screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
>"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul Valovich
>
>Booger
>
>Ridgecrest, CA
>
>661-400-3640
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
i think the grt ahrs might even be the one used by chelton in one of their 'certified'
systems?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com>
>
>
>
> >The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
> >reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and others)
> >have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
> >for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange failure
> >
> >
>
> You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
> nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
> not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
> for me for some time now. They also take safety very seriously and have
> some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their stuff,
> including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much stock in FAA
> certification?)
>
> Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
> for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
> not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
> backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
> MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most use.
>
> Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system) and
> mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can keep
> wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that if the
> EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap and
> effective backup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
> instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
> :-} Agreed?
>
>
> >modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a few
> >of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
> >malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
> >AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because of
> >some strange software errors.
> >
> >There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
> >required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
> >flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
> >
> >So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
> >certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
> >glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
> >hang my life on.
> >
> >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 Valovich,
> >Paul
> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
> >regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
> >considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
> >if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
> >7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
> >a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
> >driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
> >
> >
> >Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
> >Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
> >will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
> >
> >
> >The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
> >and the SL30.
> >
> >
> >I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
> >TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
> >altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
> >
> >
> >So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
> >have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
> >- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
> >screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
> >"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Paul Valovich
> >
> >Booger
> >
> >Ridgecrest, CA
> >
> >661-400-3640
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
i think the grt ahrs might even be the one used by chelton in one of their 'certified'
systems?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Paul Folbrecht pfolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and others)
have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange failure
You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
for me for some time now.
They also take safety very seriously and have
some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their stuff,
including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much stock in FAA
certification?)
Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most use.
Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system) and
mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can keep
wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that if the
EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap and
effective bac
kup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
:-} Agreed?
modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a few
of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because of
some strange software errors.
There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only a
irplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
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 Valovich,
Paul
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
if for some rea
son I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
and the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing th
at some of you may
have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
tive Gifts provided
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
Both Chelton and GRT use the Crossbow AHRS that was prohibited from IFR use
until a fix could be found it's sporadic errors.
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 lucky
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
i think the grt ahrs might even be the one used by chelton in one of their
'certified' systems?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com>
>
>
>
> >The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
> >reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and
others)
> >have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS
signal
> >for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange
failure
> >
> >
>
> You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
> nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
> not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
> for me for some time now. They also take safety very seriously and have
> some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their stuff,
> including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much stock in FAA
> certification?)
>
> Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
> for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
> not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
> backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
> MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most
use.
>
> Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system) and
> mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can keep
> wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that if the
> EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap and
> effective backup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
> instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
> :-} Agreed?
>
>
> >modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a
few
> >of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
> >malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The
Crossbow
> >AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because
of
> >some strange software errors.
> >
> >There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
> >required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
> >flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
> >
> >So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
> >certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away
from
> >glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
> >hang my life on.
> >
> >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
Valovich,
> >Paul
> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
> >regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
> >considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
> >if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
> >7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
> >a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
> >driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
> >
> >
> >Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
> >Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
> >will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
> >
> >
> >The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
> >and the SL30.
> >
> >
> >I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
> >TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
> >altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
> >
> >
> >So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
> >have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
> >- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
> >screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
> >"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Paul Valovich
> >
> >Booger
> >
> >Ridgecrest, CA
> >
> >661-400-3640
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
i think the grt ahrs might even be the one used by chelton in one of their
'certified' systems?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Paul Folbrecht pfolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and
others)
have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange
failure
You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
for me for some time now.
They also take safety very seriously and have
some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their stuff,
including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much stock in FAA
certification?)
Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most use.
Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system) and
mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can keep
wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that if the
EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap and
effective bac
kup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
:-} Agreed?
modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a
few
of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because
of
some strange software errors.
There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only a
irplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
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
Valovich,
Paul
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
if for some rea
son I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
and the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing th
at some of you may
have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
tive Gifts provided
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z19 main & engine battery bus |
On 12/9/05, Dave Morris BigD wrote:
>
> BigD(at)DaveMorris.com>
>
> Now see, I did the opposite, and put the battery in the (much cooler)
> cabin
> along with the contactor and fuse blocks. The penalty of a pair of fat
> wires running a few feet is worth it in my opinion in battery temperature
> exposure and ease of fuse and battery access.
>
> Dave Morris
In my case, I was able to locate the batteries on the "cool" side of the
engine. Since I have a water-cooled rotary, I have the luxury of a
firewall-forward side which does not get cooked equally by the engine -- the
port side gets cooked, the starboard side does not. Better still, the
cooling design on mine brings ram-air independently to the radiators below
the engine, the VAM muffler, and directly to the batteries to keep them
well-chilled.
So, your point above is well taken -- my install is not typical wrt the heat
from a more-typical air cooled aviation engine install.
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
I realized after my last post that I'd largely failed to respond to your
main point (that it's erroneous data, not outright failure, that'll kill
ya). Sorry bout that. :-} That's why there's an electric AI - for a
cross-check. Then again, you really do need 3 sources, one for a
tie-breaker. I'll keep thinking about that. But, at the least, if
something looks seriously whacked on approach I can go missed and climb
out on the guages.
Bruce Gray wrote:
>
>It's not the dark glass panel failure that's going to kill you, it's going
>to be that little software bug that testing didn't find that tells you
>you're nose high on the GS after passing the OM. So you drop your nose and
>'THUD'. What you going to do when your gee wiz panel tells you you're in a
>left turn and your T&B says, nope we're in a right turn. Which one is right?
>
>Sorry, until they get dual redundant, self crosschecking circuitry the
>industry isn't there yet, for me anyway.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AI Nut <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
Paul, do you have any interest in 'rolling your own?'
David M.
Valovich, Paul wrote:
>
>After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
>regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
>considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
>if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
>7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
>a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
>driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
>
>
>Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
>Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
>will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
>
>
>The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
>and the SL30.
>
>
>I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
>TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
>altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
>
>
>So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
>have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
>- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
>screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
>"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul Valovich
>
>Booger
>
>Ridgecrest, CA
>
>661-400-3640
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt |
The largest supplier of airplanes in the world is now Vans Aircraft. For
their current models they suggest mounting the battery on the engine side of
the FW. They have thousands flying. But not all are mounted FWF due mostly
to W&B considerations.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 76 hours
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
>
>
> Any strong views on having the battery the engine side of the firewall. It
> must get quite hot. Clearly the advantage of short cable runs is
> considerable.
>
> Comments? Steve.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
In a message dated 12/9/2005 2:02:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
It's not the dark glass panel failure that's going to kill you, it's going
to be that little software bug that testing didn't find that tells you
you're nose high on the GS after passing the OM. So you drop your nose and
'THUD'. What you going to do when your gee wiz panel tells you you're in a
left turn and your T&B says, nope we're in a right turn. Which one is right?
Sorry, until they get dual redundant, self crosschecking circuitry the
industry isn't there yet, for me anyway.
Good Afternoon Bruce,
Personally, I have two T&B instruments ( NOT Turn Coordinators!) each from a
separate power source. That is my redundancy. If those two agree and
everything else disagrees, I go with the T&Bs. If one of those fails, it is easy
to spot. Ninety nine and forty-four one hundredths of a percent of the tome,
a T&B will fail so that the needle just fails to wiggle. If you tap a
rudder, and the needle swings right or left, the instrument is working and can
be
trusted. Then rate may not be perfect, but even that won't keep you from
using it. The same thing goes for another possible discrepancy. Occasionally,
as an instrument ages, it may develop a small error such that the needle is
not perfectly centered even though no yaw is present. Nevertheless, If you keep
the needle centered , you will still stay out of that dreaded graveyard
spiral. You might be in a very slight turn, but you will be alive!
If you have an attitude gyro for a back up, it mat be giving you the wrong
information. A common mode of failure is for an attitude gyro to get the
"leans" if you have two attitude gyros and one is failing, they will both respond
to roll inputs, but opine or the other will be way off. You then have to
"vote" to see which one is correct, The current method of resolving that dilemma
in air carrier aircraft is to look at the third attitude gyro. The other way
to do it is to revert to rate flying techniques, but if you have not
maintained a sensitivity to rate instrument flying, the vote becomes more difficult.
As some of you may already know, I am not a fan of Turn Coordinators. It is
my opinion that they do lead folks to think too much about where the wings
are and not enough about whether or not the airplane is turning. However, even
a turn coordinator is a more reliable back up than a back up attitude gyro
and it is a lot cheaper.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
As a follow-up to this, how safe are most of us flying IFR now on the
vacuum steam guages, which is what almost all of us are using? Survival
rate in low IMC with vacuum failure is not good!! I think it's
difficult to argue that a good, non-certified AHRS with a reliable
track-record puts us worse-off. With a vacuum, it's not if the thing
will break, it's when. I've had one already in under 400 hours. (VMC
with foggles on and I figured it out without doing anything crazy.
Speaking of which it's been 3+ months since I've done any partial-panel
practice and that's not good...)
Also, for cross-check, for bank, GPS track is a cross-check of attitude
data. It can replace the DG of the traditional 6-pack for this
purpose. That's the tie-breaker when the EFIS and the backup AI are
each begging you to trust them.
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
>I realized after my last post that I'd largely failed to respond to your
>main point (that it's erroneous data, not outright failure, that'll kill
>ya). Sorry bout that. :-} That's why there's an electric AI - for a
>cross-check. Then again, you really do need 3 sources, one for a
>tie-breaker. I'll keep thinking about that. But, at the least, if
>something looks seriously whacked on approach I can go missed and climb
>out on the guages.
>
>
>Bruce Gray wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>It's not the dark glass panel failure that's going to kill you, it's going
>>to be that little software bug that testing didn't find that tells you
>>you're nose high on the GS after passing the OM. So you drop your nose and
>>'THUD'. What you going to do when your gee wiz panel tells you you're in a
>>left turn and your T&B says, nope we're in a right turn. Which one is right?
>>
>>Sorry, until they get dual redundant, self crosschecking circuitry the
>>industry isn't there yet, for me anyway.
>>
>>Bruce
>>www.glasair.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
Where does this stuff come from?
Chelton uses the only certified AHRS in existence, ok, well, the second one,
as Garmin rolled their own and it's certified. The Chelton sport uses a non
certified version, both from Xbow. The Certified one, to the best of my
knowledge has no problem, but then again, they want 20K for it. The
non-certified version found a problem recently that has already been
addressed and was noted for VFR use until the fix is made available. I
think that happened to my King 89B approach certified GPS a few years ago as
well.
GRT does not use a Xbow AHRS, they rolled their own.
BTW, the Chelton Sport unit and AHRS is tested to the same certification
standards as the certified version, but neither GRT nor BMA can make that
claim.
I just wanted to make sure that people going with GRT didn't think they were
getting an AHRS from Xbow, and one that has *way* more testing and
certification support than either GRT's or BMA's... Course the Chelton
Sport is about 7X more expensive too and we wont even talk about the
500AHRS, it's 2X the sport price
Alan
-----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: Glass Cockpit Options
-->
Both Chelton and GRT use the Crossbow AHRS that was prohibited from IFR use
until a fix could be found it's sporadic errors.
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 lucky
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
i think the grt ahrs might even be the one used by chelton in one of their
'certified' systems?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com>
>
>
>
> >The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude
> >heading reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT,
> >Dynon and
others)
> >have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS
signal
> >for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange
failure
> >
> >
>
> You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
> nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
> not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
> for me for some time now. They also take safety very seriously and
> have some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their
> stuff, including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much
> stock in FAA
> certification?)
>
> Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
> for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
> not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
> backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
> MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most
use.
>
> Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system)
> and mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can
> keep wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that
> if the EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap
> and effective backup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
> instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
> :-} Agreed?
>
>
> >modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to
> >say, a
few
> >of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with
> >a malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The
Crossbow
> >AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only
> >because
of
> >some strange software errors.
> >
> >There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels
> >are required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic
> >comparator that flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude
instrument.
> >
> >So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
> >certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away
from
> >glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for
> >me to
> >hang my life on.
> >
> >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
Valovich,
> >Paul
> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard
> >decisions regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the
> >factors to be considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the
> >capability to do so if for some reason I end up there - or decide
> >it's a good idea. I'm a
> >7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience
> >7000+ isn't
> >a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
> >driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
> >
> >
> >Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
> >Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
> >will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
> >
> >
> >The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
> >and the SL30.
> >
> >
> >I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
> >TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
> >altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
> >
> >
> >So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
> >have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and
> >bad
> >- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
> >screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
> >"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Paul Valovich
> >
> >Booger
> >
> >Ridgecrest, CA
> >
> >661-400-3640
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
i think the grt ahrs might even be the one used by chelton in one of their
'certified' systems?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Paul Folbrecht pfolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and
others)
have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange
failure
You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
for me for some time now.
They also take safety very seriously and have
some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their stuff,
including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much stock in FAA
certification?)
Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most use.
Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system) and
mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can keep
wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that if the
EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap and
effective bac
kup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
:-} Agreed?
modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a
few
of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because
of
some strange software errors.
There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only a
irplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
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
Valovich,
Paul
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
if for some rea
son I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
and the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing th
at some of you may
have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
tive Gifts provided
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
In a message dated 12/9/2005 5:09:31 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rvbuilder(at)sausen.net writes:
You absolutely correct. GPS T&B (such as the Garmin series of handhelds)
is derived from the GPS data and not from any aircraft attitude. Great for
emergencies but not for everyday use.
Good Evening Michael,
On top of that, Garmin provides a picture of a Turn Coordinator to show that
ground path yaw.
That is just adding one error to another. There is no way for the Garmin
GPS to show any indication of roll at all. A mechanical Turn Coordinator shows
both roll and yaw. That is why it makes such a good low cost sensor for an
autopilot and why it is so bad to use as an instrument for a pilot to fly. I
think the Garmin would be better if they used a picture of a T&B instead of a
Turn Coordinator. At least, that way, it would be telling something closer
to the truth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Recently there have been several AeroElectric postings on LEDs, and I have
not made any comments because there was just too much to say. Here is a
summary of LED technology, which should be especially useful for builders
who are a year or more from completion--
Light sources can be typified by the amount of visible light (lumens) per
electrical power (watts). This efficiency is important because it determines
the energy costs in the long run. Expected lifetime is also important
because replacing lamps is expensive too.
The excitement with LED technology is based on one particularly amazing
fact--The efficiency of major light sources has topped out, but the
efficiency of LEDs is on a rocket ride to 200 lumens per watt or more. Lamps
have known degradation physics, but LED degradation is very slow compared to
other light sources, and they are getting better almost faster than the
tests can be run.
For illustration, here are some typical efficiency figures in lumens/watt.
Incandescent (very small) 2
Incandescent flashlight bulbs 6 Short lamp life
Incandescent night light (7w) 6
Early LEDs 8 Originally only
red-very long lifetime.
Incandescent (100W) 15 Short lifetimes--No further
improvement
Incandescent (halogen type) 20 Long lifetime--No further
improvement
LED's circa 2000 25 All colors and white
available
White LED circa 2004 25
Xenon arc 25-40
Compact fluorescent 48-60
F40T12 cool white fluorescent 60-65 Ballasts
32 watt T8 fluorescent 85-95 Ballasts--No further
improvement
2005 LEDs 45
2006 LEDs 80
2007 LEDs 125 Headlamps in luxury cars
introduced.
2008 LEDs 140
Metal Halide HID 50-110 Complicated Ballast, many gas
mixes
Low Pressure Sodium 130-190 Sodium color--No further improvement
2009-2015 LEDs 150-200 Mature technology (?)
So if these numbers mystify you, just remember that in 2010, you will be
able to buy a landing light for your airplane that will be brighter than a
100W halogen, will be three times as efficient as a fluorescent lamp, will
cost $35, and will last essentially forever (>100,000 hours).
So why would we use them in our aircraft? I could give you the arguments but
they will simply replace all the lights in every place in every thing. LEDs
were only used as indicators right up to the time they became efficient
enough to surpass halogen lamps in general illumination. Now organic OLEDs
will do most of the display and indicator work. LEDs will chase HID metal
halides in some uses for a while, but in the end almost every light source
in the world, --tanning beds, street lamps, and even landing lights will go
the way of the tube amplifier, the Monroe calculator, telegrams and the
slide rule. The solid-state revolution.not too bad!
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes
less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe.
For example, there are no solids in the universe. There's
not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute con-
tinuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
Good Evening Matt,
This is probably getting into a matter of semantics!
I would hesitate to use the word emergency because that implies that we may
need extraordinary skills to save the day.
Back when I received my instrument rating, we were not allowed to use any
gyroscopic instrument during the flight test other than the turn and bank. It
wasn't until several years later that the FAA changed it's mind. They then
started to require that all aircraft flying IFR have an attitude indicator and
a
directional gyro.
My first two Bonanzas were equipped with a directional gyro, but no
artificial horizon. That was the case of most Bonanzas and many other light
airplanes.
The "Full Panel" was the exception rather than the rule.
While I prefer having the full panel and I no longer plan on flying IFR
without all of the currently required equipment being available, I do not feel
that the IFR flying we did back in those days should be referred to as being
emergencies!
And I will absolutely guarantee that we were no better aviators than are the
pilots of today. We just learned to fly with what was available and
required at the time.
There is no doubt that flying needle ball and airspeed while trying to load
a complicated route into a GPS would be much more demanding than just
listening to a four course radio range.
Instead of saying the loss of an attitude gyro constitutes an emergency,
couldn't we say that it might be a good idea if the aviator asked for special
handling due to demanding conditions?
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 12/9/2005 5:58:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather(at)spro.net writes:
Maybe this is a fine point of distinction (amplification?), but I would
say that an AI failure is an emergency, even if you still have a normally
functioning turn indicator. Having to use the handheld is being in a
position of last resort.
Regards,
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt |
Hi Steve,
A cooling enclosure with a blast tube could resolve most of your concerns
about heat inside the cowls. with the cooling box in place with the battery
mounted a bit below the centre line hot soaks should be survivable.
Keeping in mind the positioning of the batteries under the hood of the
average ground bound vehicles, the whole question is likely moot.
In light of the somewhat different battery technology the question is worth
the asking.
Jim in Kelowna- The paint is done and the RV is at long last at the airport
today.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt
>
>
> Any strong views on having the battery the engine side of the firewall. It
> must get quite hot. Clearly the advantage of short cable runs is
> considerable.
>
> Comments? Steve.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
Old Bob,
I believe the AIM says to get special handling you
must declare an emergency.
Bob Sultzbach
--- BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>
>
> Good Evening Matt,
>
> This is probably getting into a matter of semantics!
>
> I would hesitate to use the word emergency because
> that implies that we may
> need extraordinary skills to save the day.
>
> Back when I received my instrument rating, we were
> not allowed to use any
> gyroscopic instrument during the flight test other
> than the turn and bank. It
> wasn't until several years later that the FAA
> changed it's mind. They then
> started to require that all aircraft flying IFR have
> an attitude indicator and a
> directional gyro.
>
> My first two Bonanzas were equipped with a
> directional gyro, but no
> artificial horizon. That was the case of most
> Bonanzas and many other light
> airplanes.
>
> The "Full Panel" was the exception rather than the
> rule.
>
> While I prefer having the full panel and I no longer
> plan on flying IFR
> without all of the currently required equipment
> being available, I do not feel
> that the IFR flying we did back in those days should
> be referred to as being
> emergencies!
>
> And I will absolutely guarantee that we were no
> better aviators than are the
> pilots of today. We just learned to fly with what
> was available and
> required at the time.
>
> There is no doubt that flying needle ball and
> airspeed while trying to load
> a complicated route into a GPS would be much more
> demanding than just
> listening to a four course radio range.
>
> Instead of saying the loss of an attitude gyro
> constitutes an emergency,
> couldn't we say that it might be a good idea if the
> aviator asked for special
> handling due to demanding conditions?
>
> 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 12/9/2005 5:58:27 P.M. Central
> Standard Time,
> mprather(at)spro.net writes:
>
> Maybe this is a fine point of distinction
> (amplification?), but I would
> say that an AI failure is an emergency, even if you
> still have a normally
> functioning turn indicator. Having to use the
> handheld is being in a
> position of last resort.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>
>
> Click on
> about
> provided
> www.buildersbooks.com,
> Admin.
> _->
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
You probably aren't interested in it but I like the MGL Ultra Horizon XL.
The best thing about it (aside from price) is that it has a large
*monochrome* display. As I have said before don't buy any instrument with an
LCD until you have personally seen it in direct sunlight.
http://www.mglavionics.co.za/ultraHXL.html
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich,
Paul
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
-->
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so if
for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the driver.
And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine Monitor
display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I will also have
a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A and
the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA, TruTrak
ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard altimeter, airspeed
and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may have
very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small screen
Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about "their"
product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
Hi Bob,
Two days ago, in a message timed 11:37:30 discussing how to crimp terminals, you
said:
"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."
In your cartoon discussion of crimping, at http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html, you say:
"As a general rule, tools with unsymmetrical dies will have a smaller, closed-die
cross section on the wire grip side."
Is this a contradiction or am I confused with the lingo?
Thanks,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy #257, starting wiring next month, Z-13/8.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
Good Evening Bob
They don't say you can't ask!
If you don't get what you want, just tell them to standby. That won't
require a declaration of an emergency!
As I said in the start, what we have here is a failure to communicate.
I see no sense of urgency or distress involved. Asking for a bit more time
is not something I think requires an emergency to be declared.
That doesn't mean I would have any reluctance to do so, but I do not agree
that you cannot make a request to have your flight handled differently than the
controller was expecting without declaring an emergency.
If you disagree with my interpretation, could you point out where such a
restriction is written?
It is a matter of semantics.
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 12/9/2005 7:59:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,
endspeed(at)yahoo.com writes:
I believe the AIM says to get special handling you
must declare an emergency.
Bob Sultzbach
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
FWIW the Cirrus has three mechanical backup gauges below the glass panel:
ASI, altimeter and horizon.
-- 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: Glass Cockpit Options
Good Morning Bruce,
Mind If I use your message to make a pitch for my thoughts on OBAM IFR
flight?
I think the glass cockpit fed from solid state attitude sensors is the wave
of the future and it is what I hope to have in my airplane. I even have
hope that there will eventually be some sort of glass solid state attitude
based turn indicator that will be as reliable and economical as my favorite
IFR instrument, the old fashioned Turn and Bank. By that I DO NOT mean a
Turn Coordinator!
If anyone wants to go modern and have an all glass cockpit, I would urge
that they first spend the time and money it takes to learn how to fly IFR
the way it was done before attitude instruments took over. While attitude
instruments have been available from almost the same time as T&Bs were
invented, they were not ubiquitous until WWII. Prior to that time, IFR
pilots learned to fly using Needle Ball and Airspeed.
We have all heard about the rules of primacy in flight training. Why not
go back to starting IFR students out on Needle Ball and Airspeed, then
transition the student to glass?
The needle turn indicator is the most reliable mechanical instrument we
have. It will not tumble, it is light and, it is relatively inexpensive.
A very simple basic "save the day" IFR panel can consist of left to right,
one airspeed indicator, one T&B and one altimeter.
Given those three instruments placed close together and in the pilots
normal range of view, a properly trained pilot can get any airplane from a
Boeing
747 to a Piper Cub safely under control after the failure of any other sort
of instrument presentation.
It takes about twenty hours of concentrated training to really get good
using Needle Ball and Airspeed, but once it is learned and thoroughly
practiced , the skill is never lost.
My vote is to build that OBAM airplane with all the gee whiz stuff anyone
could want, but stick to that little lifeboat three gauge panel for the time
when all else fails.
The T&B is much more reliable than any except electronic instruments and
vastly cheaper than any attitude indicator ever built!
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 12/9/2005 11:34:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
Bruce
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
Bob, you would know this; doesn't the regs or at least the AIM say that if
any of the 6 basic flight instruments fail, ATC must be informed???
As an aside, when I worked as a lowly CFI/parttime charter pilot, I picked
up a old Cessna 206 on Long Island. After climbing out in IMC on a IFR
flight plan, I (FINALLY MAYBE???) notice near zero oil pressure. informed
ATC and asked for the VOR approach to I believe New Haven. After the
controller jerked me around with vectors, I told him I wanted direct FAF or
I would declare an emergency. He then issue a vector direct to the FAF.
Never did declare an emergency,since it seemed there still was a couple of
pounds of oil pressure. Turned out the oil bypass was stuck open and for
some reason, Continental put the oil pressure sense line so it apparently
measured pressure at the filter. Don't know that for sure.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
>
> Good Evening Bob
>
>
> They don't say you can't ask!
>
> If you don't get what you want, just tell them to standby. That won't
> require a declaration of an emergency!
>
> As I said in the start, what we have here is a failure to communicate.
>
> I see no sense of urgency or distress involved. Asking for a bit more time
> is not something I think requires an emergency to be declared.
>
> That doesn't mean I would have any reluctance to do so, but I do not agree
> that you cannot make a request to have your flight handled differently
> than the
> controller was expecting without declaring an emergency.
>
> If you disagree with my interpretation, could you point out where such a
> restriction is written?
>
> It is a matter of semantics.
>
> 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 12/9/2005 7:59:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> endspeed(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
> I believe the AIM says to get special handling you
> must declare an emergency.
>
> Bob Sultzbach
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Too many Bobs.. :)
Informing ATC of "minimum fuel" will sometimes get you special handling
without you declaring an emergency.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Old Bob,
>
> I believe the AIM says to get special handling you
> must declare an emergency.
>
> Bob Sultzbach
>
>
> --- BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>> BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>>
>>
>> Good Evening Matt,
>>
>> This is probably getting into a matter of semantics!
>>
>> I would hesitate to use the word emergency because
>> that implies that we may
>> need extraordinary skills to save the day.
>>
>> Back when I received my instrument rating, we were
>> not allowed to use any
>> gyroscopic instrument during the flight test other
>> than the turn and bank. It
>> wasn't until several years later that the FAA
>> changed it's mind. They then
>> started to require that all aircraft flying IFR have
>> an attitude indicator and a
>> directional gyro.
>>
>> My first two Bonanzas were equipped with a
>> directional gyro, but no
>> artificial horizon. That was the case of most
>> Bonanzas and many other light
>> airplanes.
>>
>> The "Full Panel" was the exception rather than the
>> rule.
>>
>> While I prefer having the full panel and I no longer
>> plan on flying IFR
>> without all of the currently required equipment
>> being available, I do not feel
>> that the IFR flying we did back in those days should
>> be referred to as being
>> emergencies!
>>
>> And I will absolutely guarantee that we were no
>> better aviators than are the
>> pilots of today. We just learned to fly with what
>> was available and
>> required at the time.
>>
>> There is no doubt that flying needle ball and
>> airspeed while trying to load
>> a complicated route into a GPS would be much more
>> demanding than just
>> listening to a four course radio range.
>>
>> Instead of saying the loss of an attitude gyro
>> constitutes an emergency,
>> couldn't we say that it might be a good idea if the
>> aviator asked for special
>> handling due to demanding conditions?
>>
>> 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 12/9/2005 5:58:27 P.M. Central
>> Standard Time,
>> mprather(at)spro.net writes:
>>
>> Maybe this is a fine point of distinction
>> (amplification?), but I would
>> say that an AI failure is an emergency, even if you
>> still have a normally
>> functioning turn indicator. Having to use the
>> handheld is being in a
>> position of last resort.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Matt-
>>
>>
>>
>> Click on
>> about
>> provided
>> www.buildersbooks.com,
>> Admin.
>> _->
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
Here's the deal in simple terms. A good crimper should have a dual cavity
die with two different shapes them. One side should be "half moon" or
somewhat elliptical in shape. The other side (the side the wire gets
squished in) for lack of a better explanation is "Bow Tie" shaped.
When buying crimpers there is no reason to spend hundreds of dollars on the
AMP crimpers for the number of terminals that the average homebuilder is
likely to crimp. There are several cheaper crimpers with interchangeable
dies that work just fine....just don't use the plain type with the oval
shaped cavities on both sides, never use the yellow handeled "plier type"
everything in one tools, etc... That being said, most of our harness
production now gets done on automated crimpers and machines of the like, but
we still use most all of the tools we sell in day to day operation. B&C as
well sells a decent set of crimpers that do a very good job without breaking
the bank, as do several others.
In our shop we have everthing from really reasonably priced ratcheting
crimpers to the high end AMP stuff, but find the cheaper ones are just as
good if they have the proper dies.
Like I said, no reason to spend hundreds of bucks on crimper when there are
equally good substitutes to be had for under $50.00.
Just my 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein.
P.S., if you really want to get picky, the super good dies (in manual and
automatic machines) will have a tiny "dimple" in the cavity for visual
inspection of the crimps and ensuring the proper crimp has been placed.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dennis
Johnson
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
Hi Bob,
Two days ago, in a message timed 11:37:30 discussing how to crimp terminals,
you said:
"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."
In your cartoon discussion of crimping, at
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html, you say:
"As a general rule, tools with unsymmetrical dies will have a smaller,
closed-die cross section on the wire grip side."
Is this a contradiction or am I confused with the lingo?
Thanks,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy #257, starting wiring next month, Z-13/8.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:03:22 P.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet(at)comcast.net writes:
Bob, you would know this; doesn't the regs or at least the AIM say that if
any of the 6 basic flight instruments fail, ATC must be informed???
Good Evening Wayne,
I am not sure, but I do know you are supposed to tell them if a navigational
device fails. That rule started after the TWA/UAL crash near Staten Island.
I think if a primary instrument failed, it would be good idea to let them
know.
Still no requirement to declare an emergency though. The idea of declaring
an emergency is that you feel you may become in distress or have an urgency.
You want to get an immediate approach or something like that. Just because
everything in the airplane is not working as it was does not mean any distress
or urgency is affecting your flight. Once again, there is no reason not to
declare an emergency if you think it is wise to do so.
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:03:22 P.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet(at)comcast.net writes:
Bob, you would know this; doesn't the regs or at least the AIM say that if
any of the 6 basic flight instruments fail, ATC must be informed???
One more thing Wayne,
What are the six basic flight instruments?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
The point I'm trying to make is that one set of backups is not enough. You
need a tie-breaker. The insidious failure modes of glass panels are not yet
understood. They don't call it the 'bleeding edge of technology' for no
reason.
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 Craig
Payne
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
FWIW the Cirrus has three mechanical backup gauges below the glass panel:
ASI, altimeter and horizon.
-- 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: Glass Cockpit Options
Good Morning Bruce,
Mind If I use your message to make a pitch for my thoughts on OBAM IFR
flight?
I think the glass cockpit fed from solid state attitude sensors is the wave
of the future and it is what I hope to have in my airplane. I even have
hope that there will eventually be some sort of glass solid state attitude
based turn indicator that will be as reliable and economical as my favorite
IFR instrument, the old fashioned Turn and Bank. By that I DO NOT mean a
Turn Coordinator!
If anyone wants to go modern and have an all glass cockpit, I would urge
that they first spend the time and money it takes to learn how to fly IFR
the way it was done before attitude instruments took over. While attitude
instruments have been available from almost the same time as T&Bs were
invented, they were not ubiquitous until WWII. Prior to that time, IFR
pilots learned to fly using Needle Ball and Airspeed.
We have all heard about the rules of primacy in flight training. Why not
go back to starting IFR students out on Needle Ball and Airspeed, then
transition the student to glass?
The needle turn indicator is the most reliable mechanical instrument we
have. It will not tumble, it is light and, it is relatively inexpensive.
A very simple basic "save the day" IFR panel can consist of left to right,
one airspeed indicator, one T&B and one altimeter.
Given those three instruments placed close together and in the pilots
normal range of view, a properly trained pilot can get any airplane from a
Boeing
747 to a Piper Cub safely under control after the failure of any other sort
of instrument presentation.
It takes about twenty hours of concentrated training to really get good
using Needle Ball and Airspeed, but once it is learned and thoroughly
practiced , the skill is never lost.
My vote is to build that OBAM airplane with all the gee whiz stuff anyone
could want, but stick to that little lifeboat three gauge panel for the time
when all else fails.
The T&B is much more reliable than any except electronic instruments and
vastly cheaper than any attitude indicator ever built!
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 12/9/2005 11:34:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
Bruce
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:09:21 P.M. Central Standard Time,
craig(at)craigandjean.com writes:
FWIW the Cirrus has three mechanical backup gauges below the glass panel:
ASI, altimeter and horizon.
Good Evening Craig,
I am aware of that. If it were my choice, I would replace the Attitude
Indicator with a T&B. Cheaper and more reliable. Unfortunately, the FAA does
not
agree with me. Doesn't mean I couldn't add one if I ever decided I wanted a
powered sometime parachute!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
What's wrong with declaring an emergency. Unless you bend the airplane or
break an FAR, you don't even have to file a report.
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 Matt
Prather
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
Too many Bobs.. :)
Informing ATC of "minimum fuel" will sometimes get you special handling
without you declaring an emergency.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Old Bob,
>
> I believe the AIM says to get special handling you
> must declare an emergency.
>
> Bob Sultzbach
>
>
> --- BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>> BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>>
>>
>> Good Evening Matt,
>>
>> This is probably getting into a matter of semantics!
>>
>> I would hesitate to use the word emergency because
>> that implies that we may
>> need extraordinary skills to save the day.
>>
>> Back when I received my instrument rating, we were
>> not allowed to use any
>> gyroscopic instrument during the flight test other
>> than the turn and bank. It
>> wasn't until several years later that the FAA
>> changed it's mind. They then
>> started to require that all aircraft flying IFR have
>> an attitude indicator and a
>> directional gyro.
>>
>> My first two Bonanzas were equipped with a
>> directional gyro, but no
>> artificial horizon. That was the case of most
>> Bonanzas and many other light
>> airplanes.
>>
>> The "Full Panel" was the exception rather than the
>> rule.
>>
>> While I prefer having the full panel and I no longer
>> plan on flying IFR
>> without all of the currently required equipment
>> being available, I do not feel
>> that the IFR flying we did back in those days should
>> be referred to as being
>> emergencies!
>>
>> And I will absolutely guarantee that we were no
>> better aviators than are the
>> pilots of today. We just learned to fly with what
>> was available and
>> required at the time.
>>
>> There is no doubt that flying needle ball and
>> airspeed while trying to load
>> a complicated route into a GPS would be much more
>> demanding than just
>> listening to a four course radio range.
>>
>> Instead of saying the loss of an attitude gyro
>> constitutes an emergency,
>> couldn't we say that it might be a good idea if the
>> aviator asked for special
>> handling due to demanding conditions?
>>
>> 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 12/9/2005 5:58:27 P.M. Central
>> Standard Time,
>> mprather(at)spro.net writes:
>>
>> Maybe this is a fine point of distinction
>> (amplification?), but I would
>> say that an AI failure is an emergency, even if you
>> still have a normally
>> functioning turn indicator. Having to use the
>> handheld is being in a
>> position of last resort.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Matt-
>>
>>
>>
>> Click on
>> about
>> provided
>> www.buildersbooks.com,
>> Admin.
>> _->
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
1. Wet finger stuck in the air
2. Eyes (1 ok, 2 optional)
3. Seat o' the pants
4. Inner ear (combined with #2 for redundancy)
5. $60,000 worth of sensors and more computing power than existed in the
entire world 50 years ago.
6. Damn, I don't remember...
-- 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: Glass Cockpit Options
In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:03:22 P.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet(at)comcast.net writes:
Bob, you would know this; doesn't the regs or at least the AIM say that if
any of the 6 basic flight instruments fail, ATC must be informed???
One more thing Wayne,
What are the six basic flight instruments?
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:47:31 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
What's wrong with declaring an emergency. Unless you bend the airplane or
break an FAR, you don't even have to file a report.
Bruce
Good Evening Bruce,
Nothing wrong with declaring an emergency if you think the situation
warrants it. However, I don't think most system failures give any individual
the
right to ask for preferential handling that delays or inconveniences other
traffic. It is kinda like calling wolf when there is no wolf around!
Strictly a judgement call. What may be an emergency for one pilot may not be
an emergency for another.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
The basic T-configuration (ASI, AI, Altimeter, and DG) with the two support
instruments N&B or TC and VSI. At least that is what we called them a couple
of decades ago.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
>
> In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:03:22 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> w_sweet(at)comcast.net writes:
>
> Bob, you would know this; doesn't the regs or at least the AIM say that
> if
> any of the 6 basic flight instruments fail, ATC must be informed???
>
>
> One more thing Wayne,
>
> What are the six basic flight instruments?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
You are confused.
The wire goes in at the larger opening end, but is crimped at the other,
smaller end.
I.e. shove the wire into the open end of the terminal to be crimped,
which is opposite the actual ring, faston, etc. end of the terminal.
The end the wire goes in is where the insulation gets crimped (the
larger die opening) and the end nearest the ring, faston, etc. is where
the wire gets crimped (the smaller end).
Dick Tasker
Dennis Johnson wrote:
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Two days ago, in a message timed 11:37:30 discussing how to crimp terminals, you
said:
>
>"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."
>
>In your cartoon discussion of crimping, at http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html, you say:
>
>"As a general rule, tools with unsymmetrical dies will have a smaller, closed-die
cross section on the wire grip side."
>
>Is this a contradiction or am I confused with the lingo?
>
>Thanks,
>Dennis Johnson
>Lancair Legacy #257, starting wiring next month, Z-13/8.
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> regulator alternators #2 was modern |
alternators
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage |
regulator alternators #2 was modern alternators
>snipped
> > >
> > > >
> > > >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 . . .
>
>
>Bob,
> A quick call to my local parts supplier shows 3 possible alternators for
>this vehicle. The first two are a 75 amp and a 90 amp unit. The parts man
>says that his replacement book shows a single unit for replacement. The
>largest alternator is a 120 amp unit. All 3 alternators are Nippon Denso
>units. His book calls out a # 13245 for the smaller units. This is in
>SunCoast brand. I asked for a Lester number, but his catalog didn't show
>it. He suspects that it's the same as the SunCoast number.
> A quick Google search has led me to Transpo's web site. I was able to
>search for 1995 Dodge B Series Van w/ 4.9 L 6 cylinder engine. They show
>separate part numbers for both the 75 amp and the 90 amp units. (I suspect
>that Sun Coast substitutes the 90 amp unit for the 75 amp models in their
>catalog) The OE part number is 1210003460 The Transpo rectifier part
>number is INR729. They have a photo & drawing of the rectifier pack below
>
>http://195.125.241.148/Catalog/Car_Fr.htm
>
>Plug in the vehicle info listed above to view the information mentioned.
>They do no allow linking to individual pages. :-(
>
>SunCoast has a web site, but there is no tech info on it, only contact
>info. See
>
>http://www.suncoastproducts.com/
>
>Hope this helps
>
>Charlie Kuss
Bob,
I had a bit more time to research this tonight. That SunCoast part number
is the same as the Lester number. I found this info with photos and
applications. All show external voltage regulator.
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90201.htm
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90202.htm
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90204.htm
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90206.htm
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90207.htm
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90205.htm
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90203.htm
Does anyone know of a newer, externally regulated ND alternator application
of less than 70 amps output? Are their any late model Hondas that have the
VR in the ECM or other external location?
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
Back in my young, brash days when I thought I was indestructible, I did some
VERY foolhardy, dumb things. Looking back on it now, I just shudder. Luck
not skill saw me through. I've been dumb enough to shoot
'needle/ball/airspeed' approaches down to 200 and 1/2 in C-310 rather than
divert 200 miles to VFR. Flown D-18's on night check delivery runs through
thunderstorm alley in Kansas. I have some hair raising stories from that
period of my life. What has all this taught me? I just don't go there
anymore. If it can break, it will - at the most inopportune time. NEVER
trust your life to one piece of equipment, NEVER. Always have an out, a plan
B. Don't be afraid to declare an emergency. I have, several times. It sure
wakes up the ATC folks at 4AM.
And last but not least. Don't trust a pilot who regales you with his war
stories about how his skill got him out of all of his precarious situations.
What he's not saying is that his dumb decisions got him into the pickle to
start with.
Be careful out there.
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
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:03:22 P.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet(at)comcast.net writes:
Bob, you would know this; doesn't the regs or at least the AIM say that if
any of the 6 basic flight instruments fail, ATC must be informed???
Good Evening Wayne,
I am not sure, but I do know you are supposed to tell them if a
navigational
device fails. That rule started after the TWA/UAL crash near Staten
Island.
I think if a primary instrument failed, it would be good idea to let them
know.
Still no requirement to declare an emergency though. The idea of declaring
an emergency is that you feel you may become in distress or have an
urgency.
You want to get an immediate approach or something like that. Just because
everything in the airplane is not working as it was does not mean any
distress
or urgency is affecting your flight. Once again, there is no reason not to
declare an emergency if you think it is wise to do so.
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
In a message dated 12/9/2005 10:07:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet(at)comcast.net writes:
The basic T-configuration (ASI, AI, Altimeter, and DG) with the two support
instruments N&B or TC and VSI. At least that is what we called them a couple
of decades ago.
Wayne
Sounds reasonable, but the VSI is not even a required instrument for IFR
flight!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg@itmack" <greg(at)itmack.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z19 main & engine battery bus |
Mark could you tell me more about your installation off list. I'm putting a
rotary into an RV8. Some pics if you have them.
Greg
>
>
> In my case, I was able to locate the batteries on the "cool" side of the
> engine. Since I have a water-cooled rotary, I have the luxury of a
> firewall-forward side which does not get cooked equally by the engine --
the
> port side gets cooked, the starboard side does not. Better still, the
> cooling design on mine brings ram-air independently to the radiators below
> the engine, the VAM muffler, and directly to the batteries to keep them
> well-chilled.
>
> So, your point above is well taken -- my install is not typical wrt the
heat
> from a more-typical air cooled aviation engine install.
>
> Mark
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt |
Larry - yes, I have built a -9A and am building a -4. I have never thought
VANS' strong point is electrics and that is why I asked. I was hoping
someone would say they knew what temps the battery was enduring since it
ought to be a problem and appears not to be.
Steve.
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt
>
>
> The largest supplier of airplanes in the world is now Vans Aircraft. For
> their current models they suggest mounting the battery on the engine side
> of
> the FW. They have thousands flying. But not all are mounted FWF due
> mostly
> to W&B considerations.
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 76 hours
>
> "Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility,
> and
> at your own risk."
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>>
>>
>> Any strong views on having the battery the engine side of the firewall.
>> It
>> must get quite hot. Clearly the advantage of short cable runs is
>> considerable.
>>
>> Comments? Steve.
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System
> on behalf of the London Business School community.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> --
> 09/12/2005
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage (Charlie Kuss) |
>Does anyone know of a newer, externally regulated ND alternator
>application of less than 70 amps output? Are their any late model
>Hondas that have the VR in the ECM or other external location?
>Charlie Kuss
NO, Charlie I am very familiar with all models of ND alternators and the
smallest ones with internal fans and external regulator is 117 amps. If
you change the pulley and can fit it, go for it. ND does make smaller
alternators with external VR's, but they are OLD circa 1980 external
fan units form 35-60 amps. They are not real big or are they small or
light. I would not go with these since technology is much better in the
late 80's alternators, which are still the basis of new alternators made
to day. Internal dual fans are much better and they have better
windings and made for high speed rotation, which improves efficiency.
(weight for power output has been getting better and better)
In a word done that been there. However for those who need the
power and can fit the alternator in the cowl (RV cowls are a little tight),
than it could be a good choice. Since they are found on 2000 model
Dodge vans and a few Chrysler Jeep products, you can find them new
or newer. Sadly they are big honking units. To be honest I have not
held on in my hand but the dimension of the mount lugs is out about
an inch from other units.
If you don't need 117-120 amps and weight I would stick with a smaller
35-55 amp unit. If you need a little more than the 60-80 amp units are
a good choice but they are all GASP! Internal regulated. That is the
way folks do it today. I understand the fear and trepidation of using
a GASP! Internal VR alternator, but may be you may consider it in the
future. Despite the guy who flew with his head in the clouds while he
cooked his battery, I would still suggest you consider using an I-VR
alternator, but that is your choice. Why not just write a check to B&C
and buy one of their 60 amp external units, or that other company that
makes (modifiys) ND alternators for external VR use. Well I think I
know the answer, cost.
I have also talked to Van about the BRAND of rebuild they have in
service. I discussed getting all new units and may be helping them buy
new alternators vs. rebuilds. For the record Van has about 1000 Van's
/ Nippondenso 55 amp alternators flying and only a few have crap-ed
out. Most if not all the returns they have seen have been from pilot
monkey business and playing Captain switch thrower. I am sure there
are many Van's Aircraft has not been told about, however I do think
new is better than rebuilds.
Would you be interested in a NEW ND alternator?
When I say NEW, I mean new made from aftermarket parts.
Nippondesno does not make NEW alternators for units say 5 years
or more out of production. Since most NEW ND alternators are BIG
now a days you are stuck with rebuilds usually. Well a new market is
emerging of 100% NEW out of production alternators made by the
aftermarket companies. It is kind of like what Superior and ECI are
doing with Lycoming engines, "CLONES".
If you want REAL Nippondenso, new and small you are stuck with 45
amp industrial applications that are still being made by ND. If you
want a 55-60 amp unit it is going to be used / rebuilt or aftermarket.
I am getting samples of NEW aftermarket units and evaluating them
for aircraft use. If you want one let me know. I will be getting 45 amp
units and 55 amp units.
George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | 24V starter on 12V system |
Ladies and Gents,
I posted a photo share several weeks ago looking for help with my system
schematic:
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/marknlisa@hometel.com.11.08.2005/index.h
tml
I was hoping someone would have a better idea of how to proceed than me.
Here's the deal. The link is to a DWG file of my main power distribution
system schematic. I started with Z-11 and added a subsystem that Bob
developed for me to allow two batteries to run in parallel during normal ops
and in series for start (this allows the use of a 24V starter in a 12V
system). My plan for this system is to use 1 Alternator with 2 Batteries for
system redundancy (instead of 2 Alternators and 1 Battery since I have to
use 2 Batteries anyway).
My understanding of procedures in the event of an alternator failure (with
Z-11) is to switch off the DC master and switch on the E-bus alternate feed.
If I follow this procedure with the system depicted in the attached
schematic I'll only get power from the main battery during E-bus alternate
feed operation (with the DC master off, the second battery is disconnected
from the system).
Assuming I choose to retain this system architecture, how do I change this
schematic to allow both batteries to power the E-bus during alternate feed
ops?
Alternatively, since I plan to replace batteries every two years and, if
IFR, to land immediately in the event of an alternater failure (Bob, I know
you advocate continuing to destination assuming battery reserves and power
usage are known, but that's just beyond my comfort level for IFR flight),
should I just scrap the E-bus architecture altogether and load shed
manually? Is there another benefit to the e-bus architecture besides
convient load shedding?
Thanks in advance!
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
GRT's display gets even brighter and easier to see in direct sunlight, not that
it's hard to see otherwise.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
>
> You probably aren't interested in it but I like the MGL Ultra Horizon XL.
> The best thing about it (aside from price) is that it has a large
> *monochrome* display. As I have said before don't buy any instrument with an
> LCD until you have personally seen it in direct sunlight.
>
> http://www.mglavionics.co.za/ultraHXL.html
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich,
> Paul
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
> -->
>
> After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
> regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
> considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so if
> for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
> 7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
> a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the driver.
> And I plan to wire it myself.
>
>
> Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine Monitor
> display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I will also have
> a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
>
>
> The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A and
> the SL30.
>
>
> I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA, TruTrak
> ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard altimeter, airspeed
> and VSI backup gages.
>
>
> So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may have
> very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
> - of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small screen
> Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about "their"
> product, what do you like? What would you change?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Valovich
>
> Booger
>
> Ridgecrest, CA
>
> 661-400-3640
>
>
>
>
>
>
GRT's display gets even brighter and easier to see in direct sunlight, not that
it's hard to see otherwise.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Craig Payne" craig(at)craigandjean.com
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
You probably aren't interested in it but I like the MGL Ultra Horizon XL.
The best thing about it (aside from price) is that it has a large
*monochrome* display. As I have said before don't buy any instrument with an
LCD until you have personally seen it in direct sunlight.
http://www.mglavionics.co.za/ultraHXL.html
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich,
Paul
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cock
pit Options
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
--
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so if
for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the driver.
And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine Monitor
display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I will also have
a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A and the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA, TruTrak
ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard altimeter, airspeed
and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may have
very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small screen
Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about "their"
product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
ifts!)
much more:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
>
>
>You are confused.
>
>The wire goes in at the larger opening end, but is crimped at the other,
>smaller end.
>
>I.e. shove the wire into the open end of the terminal to be crimped,
>which is opposite the actual ring, faston, etc. end of the terminal.
>The end the wire goes in is where the insulation gets crimped (the
>larger die opening) and the end nearest the ring, faston, etc. is where
>the wire gets crimped (the smaller end).
>
>Dick Tasker
Correct. The confusion arises mostly because folks don't make
a distinction between the two tasks for closing a terminal
onto a "wire" when the wire is made up of two parts: conductor
and insulation. I've been writing about a 'wire grip' and 'insulation
grip' but unless the reader picks up on the difference between
'wire' as a product or 'wire' as a component of that product. The
explanation is unclear. I'll modify my writing accordingly.
We've had discussions on the list about various tools offered
to the building commuinity for application of terminals. Here's
one:
-------------------------------------
Snipits from thread of November 2004
-------------------------------------
Hmmm . . . I noted that in my evaluation of the tool a couple
of weeks ago. I sent the tool back to B&C and copied them
on the note suggesting that the dies were installed into the
tool backwards (you can remove them and re-install the
other direction).
However, I noted further that the tool put the crimps
too far apart on a PIDG terminal. Further, the insulation
grip did not close a red terminal down on 22AWG Tefzel. See
the following photos. I cannot recommend that tool. See
following pictures on my website.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P255.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P256.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P257.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P258.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P259.jpg
>Are any of the interchangeable dies for crimping coax cable?
Yes . . . but die-sets were more than half
cost of tool and taking time to change them out
was a bit of a pain. All my tools are dedicated to
a single task.
There was another thread concerning a Cleveland tool someone
purchased Sept 2004
>
>I sent the WTC380 to you on Monday via priority mail Bob. I tried to tell
>you by replying to the sender but the mail was returned undeliverable. I
>sent crimp examples to Buzz at Cleveland who was also very interested in
>knowing if there was a problem with their product.
Got it today. Short story is that failure to grip a 22AWG wire
at all was because terminal was in tool backwards. Unlike the
tools B&C sells with symmetrical dies, this tool is placement
specific as to insertion of terminals. But even after you get the
terminal in the right way, there's a bit of a problem. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND60A.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND61A.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND65A.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND66A.jpg
Bottom line is that this tool was designed for use with
PVC wire having larger outside diameter than Tefzel and
in spite of its very nicely formed die set, just doesn't
close the insulation grip adequately on a PIDG terminal.
I'd appreciate it if you would forward a copy of this
message to Buzz. Your tool is on the way back . . .
-----------
Paul is correct in that you cannot rely on the statements
of tool and terminal manufacturers to insure compatibility
of products - ESPECIALLY when the tool manufacturer and
terminal manufacturer are different folks. These pictures
illustrate one example of what might be called a fairly
universal tool.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/67A.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/678.jpg
These pictures are the business end of a t-head AMP tool
I bought almost exactly 40 years ago. It features an adjustable
insulation grip die set. Most of my AMP tools have adjustable
insulation grip dies although the t-head has the widest range.
Lot cost tools like the one that started this thread
never have adjustable insulation grip dies . . . so one
needs to be more selective.
When I offered the low cost tool for the first time about
6 years ago, I tested the tool with AMP PIDG terminals
on tefzel wire and found the combination adequate. About
a year ago, I got some samples of terminals from JST in
Japan. These are mil-qualified but when tested with the
tool I sold, produced results I didn't want to sell.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/JST_Samples_2.jpg
The upper terminal was a JST, the lower is AMP PIDG.
I was disappointed because the JST terminals were about
half the cost of PIDG . . .
The idea behind the shop notes at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
was to reinforce the simple ideas about successful
terminal installation. Unless you're using tools mated
to terminal by the same manufacturer, it's a good idea to
be treat the combination with suspicion until you confirm
that the terminals, tool and wire are suited for the
task. It's not difficult if you take time to understand
what's needed.
--------------- End of Past Threads --------------------------
Okay down to the question at hand: Phil sent me his AMP tool
for evaluation. This picture illustrates the features of the
die-set for this tool along with proper insertion of terminals for
installation.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_1.jpg
I found that this tool produces consistent and adequate grips
on the CONDUCTORS of all sizes of wire that are covered by the
red/blue/yellow PIDG terminals. I cannot explain why Phil was
not getting consistent grips on his 22AWG applications except that
the terminals must not have been inserted and centered in the
dies as shown in this photo set.
Now the down side: This tool does not close the INSULATION grip
sufficiently to grab the smaller Tefzel wires. This was a
problem noted with one of the tools above in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND65A.jpg
This tool would be just fine for 99.9% of all commercial work
where fatter PVC insulation was used on the wires.
This investigation reenforces words I've offered about
matching the tool/terminal/wire combinations you plan to
use. Even when (as in this case) terminals and tool
are both by AMP . . . the combination does not produce adequate
installations for Phil's airplane wherein the wire of
choice is 22759/16 Tefzel.
Now, if I were working a job in the field and this was
the only terminal/tool combo available for the task. One
could consider putting 1/2" hunks of heatshrink on the
ends of the stripped wires before installing a terminal.
This would "fatten" up the insulation sufficiently to
achieve a good insulation grip with PIDG terminals in
this tool. However, I wouldn't want to wire a whole
airplane with this technique.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage |
>
> >Does anyone know of a newer, externally regulated ND alternator
> >application of less than 70 amps output? Are their any late model
> >Hondas that have the VR in the ECM or other external location?
> >Charlie Kuss
>
>
>NO, Charlie I am very familiar with all models of ND alternators and the
>smallest ones with internal fans and external regulator is 117 amps . . . .
>If you don't need 117-120 amps and weight I would stick with a smaller
> 35-55 amp unit. If you need a little more than the 60-80 amp units are
> a good choice but they are all GASP! Internal regulated. That is the
> way folks do it today. I understand the fear and trepidation of using
> a GASP! Internal VR alternator, but may be you may consider it in the
> future. Despite the guy who flew with his head in the clouds while he
> cooked his battery, I would still suggest you consider using an I-VR
> alternator, but that is your choice. Why not just write a check to B&C
>and buy one of their 60 amp external units, or that other company that
> makes (modifiys) ND alternators for external VR use. Well I think I
> know the answer, cost.
George, you're digressing from informative dissertation to
unkind rhetoric and propaganda. Nobody has EVER argued with
you over the demonstrated reliability of the modern alternators.
As I've stated many times, I have clients who embrace certain
traditional design goals which tend to be reenforced by data
we get on real field failures of the IR alternators. You may
personally brush these incidents aside in your personal design
decisions. I must object to your backhanded references to
folks who have suffered these failures and have brought their
stories forward (warts and all) to help raise our level of
understanding. This atmosphere chases folks away.
I've oft suggested that it's just as important for builders
to share their failures as it is to share their successes. Knowing
what DOES NOT work is as valuable as knowing what DOES work.
It keeps us from re-inventing the same mistakes over and over
again. But folks at risk for being targets of derisive comments
and unkind behaviors will not be inclined to be forthcoming.
With this case in particular, you've had no conversation with
the individual and have know knowledge of details of the event
or the investigations that have been launched because of his
willingness to share.
May I suggest that whacking at anyone like this is counter-productive
and perhaps even mean spirited? Please offer your data and
logic with the goal of advancing our understanding and refrain
from such personal attacks when you know so very little
about them. There's a big difference between noting some level
of ignorance as a matter of fact and hurling a label of ignorance
at someone just because they disagree with you.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt |
Great question!!!! Is there anyone out there with a willingness
to go find out? This thread could go on for weeks with lots of
opinions and anecdotes stirred into the stew but with no conclusive
data generated.
I've often suggested that the 40-hour flyoff should include
the kinds of investigations we do on production aircraft. Our
#1 and #2 flight test articles are covered with various sensors
and data recording systems which are used to confirm our design
results.
If someone has a firewall mounted RG battery in an RV and
would be willing to go get some flight test data next summer,
I'll provide the data acquisition system and sensors to get the
numbers. It will take some time and effort. It won't be cheap
as it involves installation flight testing of several hours
and removal.
But with such data in hand, we can co-author an article that
will answer the questions that will make future threads on
this topic little more than snippets referring the questioner
to real data.
Bob . . .
>
>
>Larry - yes, I have built a -9A and am building a -4. I have never thought
>VANS' strong point is electrics and that is why I asked. I was hoping
>someone would say they knew what temps the battery was enduring since it
>ought to be a problem and appears not to be.
>
>Steve.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
>To:
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt
>
>
> >
> >
> > The largest supplier of airplanes in the world is now Vans Aircraft. For
> > their current models they suggest mounting the battery on the engine side
> > of
> > the FW. They have thousands flying. But not all are mounted FWF due
> > mostly
> > to W&B considerations.
> >
> > Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 76 hours
> >
> > "Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility,
> > and
> > at your own risk."
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Any strong views on having the battery the engine side of the firewall.
> >> It
> >> must get quite hot. Clearly the advantage of short cable runs is
> >> considerable.
> >>
> >> Comments? Steve.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage |
At 05:16 AM 12/10/2005, you wrote:
>
> >Does anyone know of a newer, externally regulated ND alternator
> >application of less than 70 amps output? Are their any late model
> >Hondas that have the VR in the ECM or other external location?
> >Charlie Kuss
>
>
>NO, Charlie I am very familiar with all models of ND alternators and the
>smallest ones with internal fans and external regulator is 117 amps. If
>you change the pulley and can fit it, go for it. ND does make smaller
>alternators with external VR's, but they are OLD circa 1980 external
>fan units form 35-60 amps. They are not real big or are they small or
>light. I would not go with these since technology is much better in the
> late 80's alternators, which are still the basis of new alternators made
> to day. Internal dual fans are much better and they have better
> windings and made for high speed rotation, which improves efficiency.
> (weight for power output has been getting better and better)
>snipped
>
> If you want REAL Nippondenso, new and small you are stuck with 45
> amp industrial applications that are still being made by ND. If you
> want a 55-60 amp unit it is going to be used / rebuilt or aftermarket.
>
> I am getting samples of NEW aftermarket units and evaluating them
> for aircraft use. If you want one let me know. I will be getting 45 amp
> units and 55 amp units.
>
> George
George,
Actually, I have a NAPA rebuilt 70 amp ND alternator off of a 1991 Toyota
Camry. Lester #13277 See
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd70206.htm
This also comes as an 80 amp unit Lester # 13331 See
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd80205.htm
I am capable of converting this unit to external regulator if I decide to
go that way. I have a spare "core" alternator to practice on. I asked about
Honda units simply because the internal fans spin in the correct direction
for use on a Lycoming. Bob & others have commented before that fan
direction is not that critical for our purposes.
Last night I searched through various Mopar and Honda wiring schematics
on my automotive ALLDATA software. I didn't find any externally regulated
Honda units newer than 1983. I'm not wild about using an alternator off of
a 20+ year old car model. They are readily available now. The problem comes
5 to 10 years down the road. These cars are all headed for (or already in)
the junk yard. The supply of cores and the demand for on the shelf rebuilt
units will be long gone in 2011 or 2016. I'm planning on heated seats or
heated clothing for my RV-8A project. That is one reason why I want a unit
with 60+ amp capacity. The other reason is I, like you, believe that an
alternator's life expectancy is directly related to how hard (percentage of
rated output) it is used.
Next time I have one of the newer Mopar externally regulated alternators
out of a vehicle, I'll compare it to my current unit. I'll check weight and
physical dimensions. For the benefit of the other listers, it should be
noted that most alternators used since the mid 1980s, have serpentine style
pulleys. These can be swapped out for the older 2.5" diameter V type
pulleys used on the earlier models. The early 1980s model units and the
later 1990s internally regulated units all use 15mm diameter rotor shafts.
Because of this, you can simply swap out the pulleys. I'm going to use a 4"
diameter aluminum aftermarket pulley.
One more question George. In my ALLDATA software, it calls the ND
alternators (Chrysler also uses Bosch units) "Corporate Units". Can I infer
from this that these alternators are actually made by Chrysler (or a
subsidiary) under license from ND? Or is there another explanation?
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pitot tube question |
I've posted some photos of the pitot tube and connector at:
http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-tube-a.jpg
http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-side.jpg and
http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-end.jpg
Sorry, the connector photos are a little blurry.
I also found the following on the side of the connector:
"Part No. 39A3638 Assem No. 39A3637" and on the other side, the same
assembly no. and "Part No. 29A3639"
Thanks,
Bob W.
"Craig Payne" wrote:
>
> Can you post a picture of the tube and the connector somewhere? (the e-mail
> list software throws away any attachments you try to send directly to the
> members of the list).
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob White
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
>
> I purchased a homebuilt with a heated pitot tube. It has a two pin
> connector, which looks like it's made from a white ceramic material, that is
> broken. Anyone have any suggestions for where I can find a replacement
> connector. I don't know what brand it is.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob W.
>
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gert <gert.v(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage (Charlie Kuss) |
Hi George
here is a question for you. Do you know of replacement brush holders
which would replace an existing brushholder and regulator, to an
externally regulated brush holder. The idea is on the following web page
http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/faculty/north/alternator/index.htm
I have the brush holder mentioned on this page and looking at the ND
alternator unit I have from the suzuki samurai, it appears to be off
only a few degrees in the mounting hole region, I can't but wonder if
there exists a lester part# for my ND alternator bursh holder which
would bring the contacts out rather than to the internal regulator.
do u know where such info might be found to determine what different
brush holders fit a particular ND alternator???
Thanks
Gert
>NO, Charlie I am very familiar with all models of ND alternators
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Markey <markeypilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Requesting Special Handling |
Old Bob wrote:" ... but I do not agree that you cannot make a request to have
your flight handled differently than the controller was expecting without declaring
an emergency."
I agree, Bob. You can always ask. Never mind a failure, I will ask for special
requests even if it is just a trivial thing like flying into a busy airport
for the first time, when I'm using a new instrument, especially the fancy gps,
and when I'm flying a rental or the CAP plane into complex airspace.I'll
tell Approach that I am a "rookie" to their airspace. After broadcasting this
tidbit, I've never been rebuked. I often offer to circle until they can handle
a "rookie". I did this on a FAA flight review and totally surprised the inspector
- but make a favorable mark with him.
The most important time to request special handling is a "first flight". I first
flew my "used" Glasair at St. Pete in Florida [that mythical land south of
Chicago with 70' sunny skies in January... sigh ...]. The controller even contacted
Tampa and gave me a flying altitude block in the pattern, since he figured
I'd bust the Class C ceiling - right up against Tampa's Class B floor
- learning to fly the GII, which climbed like a wild bird uncaged for the first
time in years. I did break the Class C-B boundary a few times just sorting
through things while making approaches with the "option". When I finally departed
St. Pete, Tampa picked me up, turned me south and then asked me how I
liked the "new" plane. It seems they too were interested in the "first flight",
having known the original builder/owner [a great guy and a fine builder -
won Grand Champ with this plane, he did]. They were glad to help me out with
the "special request".
Ask for it is my advice, if it's just a few of the gyros running away, or if
things just are too new or too filled with local visual ground marker points
of reference from the local tower guys! - e.g., "fly the I-394 corridor to the
East-West Freeway" is just great if you know what and where the heck I-395
is from 2500 agl without the Rand-McNally atlas on your lap!
John Markey
Glasair IIS with a 6-pack, a gps and a g-meter
[to measure my crummy landings !!! ]
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Pitot tube question |
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pdf/catalog/Cat06363.pdf
Upper right, phenolic connector.
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 Bob White
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
I've posted some photos of the pitot tube and connector at:
http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-tube-a.jpg
http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-side.jpg and
http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-end.jpg
Sorry, the connector photos are a little blurry.
I also found the following on the side of the connector:
"Part No. 39A3638 Assem No. 39A3637" and on the other side, the same
assembly no. and "Part No. 29A3639"
Thanks,
Bob W.
"Craig Payne" wrote:
>
> Can you post a picture of the tube and the connector somewhere? (the
e-mail
> list software throws away any attachments you try to send directly to the
> members of the list).
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
White
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
>
> I purchased a homebuilt with a heated pitot tube. It has a two pin
> connector, which looks like it's made from a white ceramic material, that
is
> broken. Anyone have any suggestions for where I can find a replacement
> connector. I don't know what brand it is.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob W.
>
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tyco Contactors . . . |
Thanks for your reply, Bob, about my question on contactors. Conceptually,
I understand you point about system design to minimize the effect of any one
component failure. I've ordered your book to learn what you recommend about
system design in new all electric (no vacuum) airplanes. And I'll check in
with AeroElectric-list.
As a final though on this thread, I'm thinking of an aircraft electrical
system with a single 24 volt battery and single alternator. (I certainly
plan an essential bus) With an alternator failure, the bus voltage will
begin to drop dependent on the load. I think I can select most if not all
the essential components to operate down to about 10 volts. As you know,
new electrical components (radios, EFIS, gyros, gauges, panel lighting, and
more) operate from about 30 volts down to about 10 volts. They increase
their current draw to maintain fixed power consumption. With a 24 volt
battery draining down to 10 Volts, more of the battery capacity can be used
down to the 10 V cutoff than when using a 12 volt battery down to a 10 V
cutoff. One hitch is the contactor that connects the battery to the
essential bus.
When a 12v battery gets down to 10v, it's 99% gone. When a 24v battery
gets down to 20v it's 99% gone. There is no value in attempting to
keep things alive below these levels.
This new Tyco contactor operates down to 9 volts but also works fine at 28
volts. (plus it draws less current than standard contactors) Standard 28
volt contactors may not pull-in this low thus defeating the benefit of
keeping the system operating all the way down to 10 V.
The old Stancore (S701-1) contactor stays closed down to 3 or 4 volts
but it's not a very useful trait.
Maybe this is simplistic and I should just plan a smaller back-up
alternator. However, even with a smaller back-up alternator, I would
probably want to repair the main alternator upon landing (flight duration of
up to one tank of gas). This wouldn't be much of a different safe flight
duration than that offered when draining down a 24 volt battery to 10 volts.
Have you considered this essential bus back-up power scenario and do you see
that I'm overlooking something?
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/DO-160_DC_Voltage_Input.gif
Yes, ENERGY management numbers. Items qualified to work in certified
aircraft need only show specified performance down to 22/11 volts
and marginal functionality down to 18/9 knowing that if the thing
is still useful in any way at 18/9, it will have sucked every watt-second
available from the battery.
The point of failure tolerant design is to KNOW that you have
sufficient watt-seconds of energy on board to do any conceivable
task irrespective of any single failure.
You need to start with a load-analysis of all the goodies you
plan to carry and sort the pile of accessories in light of
how you plan to use the airplane. Only then are you ready to
select an architecture and the parts needed to implement it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
>
> In a message dated 12/9/2005 10:07:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> w_sweet(at)comcast.net writes:
>
> The basic T-configuration (ASI, AI, Altimeter, and DG) with the two
> support
> instruments N&B or TC and VSI. At least that is what we called them a
> couple
> of decades ago.
> Wayne
>
>
> Sounds reasonable, but the VSI is not even a required instrument for IFR
> flight!
>
I didn't know that. I assumed it was since every "store" bought airplane I
have flown or seen has one. I would not like to fly IFR without one. I use
it to hold altitude (when not on A/P) vice the altimeter, since it will tell
immediately a deviation is happening before the altitmeter announces I've
screwed up.
Wayne
> 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: 24V starter on 12V system |
>
>Ladies and Gents,
>
>I posted a photo share several weeks ago looking for help with my system
>schematic:
>
>http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/marknlisa@hometel.com.11.08.2005/index.h
>tml
>
>I was hoping someone would have a better idea of how to proceed than me.
>
>Here's the deal. The link is to a DWG file of my main power distribution
>system schematic. I started with Z-11 and added a subsystem that Bob
>developed for me to allow two batteries to run in parallel during normal ops
>and in series for start (this allows the use of a 24V starter in a 12V
>system). My plan for this system is to use 1 Alternator with 2 Batteries for
>system redundancy (instead of 2 Alternators and 1 Battery since I have to
>use 2 Batteries anyway).
>
>My understanding of procedures in the event of an alternator failure (with
>Z-11) is to switch off the DC master and switch on the E-bus alternate feed.
>If I follow this procedure with the system depicted in the attached
>schematic I'll only get power from the main battery during E-bus alternate
>feed operation (with the DC master off, the second battery is disconnected
>from the system).
>
>Assuming I choose to retain this system architecture, how do I change this
>schematic to allow both batteries to power the E-bus during alternate feed
>ops?
I'm sorry. I thought I'd posted a link to this last July. The drawing
was put up on the website back then at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Starter/24V_Starter_14V_System.pdf
>Alternatively, since I plan to replace batteries every two years and, if
>IFR, to land immediately in the event of an alternater failure (Bob, I know
>you advocate continuing to destination assuming battery reserves and power
>usage are known, but that's just beyond my comfort level for IFR flight),
>should I just scrap the E-bus architecture altogether and load shed
>manually? Is there another benefit to the e-bus architecture besides
>convient load shedding?
Getting rid of battery contactor loads. If you use a pair of 17 a.h.
batteries you'll have 34 a.h. capacity on board. If you can't comfortably
launch into IFR with that much energy in the bucket, you need
to reconsider your equipment. Did somebody will a suite of Cessna
500 series radios willed to you?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND externaly regulated alternators |
>
>Bob,
> I had a bit more time to research this tonight. That SunCoast part number
>is the same as the Lester number. I found this info with photos and
>applications. All show external voltage regulator.
>
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90201.htm
>
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90202.htm
>
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90204.htm
>
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90206.htm
>
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90207.htm
>
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90205.htm
>
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90203.htm
>
>Does anyone know of a newer, externally regulated ND alternator application
>of less than 70 amps output? Are their any late model Hondas that have the
>VR in the ECM or other external location?'
Great data Charlie, thanks!
One of the attendees at my seminar in Oregon last spring
was situated pretty high up in the Bosh marketing and
distribution system. He told us that Bosh doesn't make
anything smaller than 100A machines except when they're
doing alternators-to-print for ND and then 70A is
the smallest. Seems the automotive world is ramping
up their anticipated electrical loads. It may well
be that the "modern" externally or internally regulated
alternators will not be available in sizes smaller than
those already noted.
This may mean that individuals wanting to take advantage
of the popular lilliputian ND machines around today
will have to content themselves with after-market
clones and rebuilds. Not necessarily a bad thing,
just a portent of a shrinking market . . . but not
a problem in the foreseeable future.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pitot tube question |
Thanks Bruce,
Pricey little thing isn't it.
Bob W.
"Bruce Gray" wrote:
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pdf/catalog/Cat06363.pdf
>
> Upper right, phenolic connector.
>
> 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 Bob White
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
>
>
>
> I've posted some photos of the pitot tube and connector at:
> http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-tube-a.jpg
> http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-side.jpg and
> http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-end.jpg
> Sorry, the connector photos are a little blurry.
>
> I also found the following on the side of the connector:
> "Part No. 39A3638 Assem No. 39A3637" and on the other side, the same
> assembly no. and "Part No. 29A3639"
>
> Thanks,
> Bob W.
>
> "Craig Payne" wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Can you post a picture of the tube and the connector somewhere? (the
> e-mail
> > list software throws away any attachments you try to send directly to the
> > members of the list).
> >
> > -- Craig
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> White
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
> >
> >
> > I purchased a homebuilt with a heated pitot tube. It has a two pin
> > connector, which looks like it's made from a white ceramic material, that
> is
> > broken. Anyone have any suggestions for where I can find a replacement
> > connector. I don't know what brand it is.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bob W.
> >
>
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Pitot tube question |
>
>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pdf/catalog/Cat06363.pdf
>
>Upper right, phenolic connector.
>
>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 Bob White
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
>
>I've posted some photos of the pitot tube and connector at:
>http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-tube-a.jpg
>http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-side.jpg and
>http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-end.jpg
>Sorry, the connector photos are a little blurry.
>
>I also found the following on the side of the connector:
>"Part No. 39A3638 Assem No. 39A3637" and on the other side, the same
>assembly no. and "Part No. 29A3639"
Do you have a 14 or 28 volt system? And if a 14v system,
are you sure this isn't a 28 volt pitot tube? Pitot
tubes with ceramic masts are very old devices. It may
be salvaged off an old airplane. The part numbers
you've cited remind me of drawing numbers for the
Mistubishi Diamond which we purchased in late 70's
and made it into the Beechjet.
The connector Bruce cited will probably fit your
tube. I'm not aware of any different sized connectors
for this task. The tube's appearance and part numbers
suggest that you may want to investigate whether or
not you have a tube that is truly compatible with
your system. The numbering system may be purely
coincidental but I'd sure check the tube's current
draw at 14v.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
>
>
> > Okay, to what degree of uncertainty will your operating rules
> > tolerate in knowing the real value of these temperatures?
> > Plus/Minus 5C . . . 10C . . . 1C?
>
> +/- 5C should be acceptable
>
>
> > For flight tests, would you consider a stand-alone, data acquisition
> > system that's removed later for routine flight?
>
>My purpose is not scientific, but just getting better knowledge of my
>aircraft.
>I intend to use only the instruments panel gauges to record parameters
>evolution and , just using them the most accurately I can: anyway, my dials
>do not allow me to read less than 2C.
>
>I got the following answer from UMA. The trouble is that my cockpit is an
>open one, not air-conditionned:
>
>"We do not, nor do I know of anyone who offers junction compensation. I
>am sure for the right price it can be obtained. Someone got a little
>wordy with an our explanation of the thermocouple operating principle.
>What it amounts to is the cold junction is designed to be on the gauge
>in a heated cockpit. If there is an extension used, that junction should
>be in the same environment as the gauge for the guage to read correctly.
>A worst case scenerio is for the "splice" to be in the engine
>compartment in a cooling airstream, flying in Alaska. If you were using
>this as scientific instrumentation, then the absolute accuracy depends
>on the relative junction temperatures. If our installation instructions
>are followed, the error is within 3%, well within the accuracy needed to
>monitor engine operating temperature trends."
Interesting. I'm not sure all the folks in the conversation
are on the same page. Let's back track a bit.
I understand that your primary goal is to use the ship's
panel mounted instruments for all temperature studies and that
your concerns are for instrument calibration accuracy over
the anticipated range of cockpit environments.
I looked over UMA's website hoping to see engineering data
for installing and operating their products but no such luck.
Question: What style of instruments are they? 270 degree, air-coil
devices or 90 degree, pivot and jewel? I think I deduced from earlier
notes that these do not require external power and derive pointer
motion current directly from the thermocouple?
Can you scan and e-mail me copies of the instruction sheets that
came with your instruments?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Busses, here we go again |
So let's see if I can keep this simple.
A dual Alt/dual batt high performance airplane (ala Z14) I believe I've
followed the 6" rule where appropriate, and the 2AWG equal strap rule, but
I'm not sure about the long runs between the battery contactors and the alts
or the avionics area. So figured I'd ask the experts. What problems might
exist with the below setup?
- Both Alts on the engine, with no room for batteries on the firewall
- Batteries will be behind the front seats (it's a 2 seater)
- The main battery will have a contactor right at the battery, but will
require a run from that contactor to the starter relay which will be on the
firewall. This starter relay module will also have the fuseable link and
connection for the main alt
- the aux battery will have a contactor right at the battery, and a fuseable
link right after the contactor. Then a run of wire from the link to the aux
alternator (I'm not including the shunts on purpose for simplicity)
- each battery may have a battery buss, but living with the 6" rule is no
problem
- there will also be a crosstie contactor between the two batteries and in
this case, it will be strap tied into the battery contactors
Unless I missed something, this will mean that I'll have runs of wires from
the batteries to the firewall and to the avionics areas.
Long runs (4' ish to the firewall)
- Main Batt contactor to starter relay module (at the moment, this does not
include any protection, but could. It's a feed that goes to the starter
relay (on the firewall) directly, and off the input side of the starter
relay, it includes a fuseable link for the Main alt)
- Aux Batt contactor to Aux Alt is protected right at the Aux battery and
contactor with a fuseable link
- Ground
Medium runs (3' ish to the avionics area)
- Avionics master (feed from a contactor right at the Main battery Contactor
and includes a fuseable link right after the contractor, but before the run
of wire)
- Main Power Distribution Bus (p.bus - fuseable link protection right at the
main battery after the batt contactor)
- Aux Power Distribution Bus (e.bus - fuseable link protection right at the
aux battery after the batt contactor)
Short runs (6" rules)
- Main batt buss
- Aux batt buss
I've tried to follow the basic rules I believe, with the exception of that
one run from Main Batt to the starter relay, which isn't protected. What
other "beginner" mistakes have I created for myself?
Thanks in advance for the look :)
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gilles Tatry" <gilles.tatry(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
Bob,
You are right.
I realize, too late (I have got all the instruments), that they are not
ice-bath compensated, as I expected.
They are designed to be used in an air-conditionned cockpit, supposed at
75DegF. Mine is open, at ambient temp.
My only purpose is to be able to read directly the mesured temp, without
systematic mental calculations to deduce the mesured value from the
indicated one and the static temp. This correction could be done for flight
test recordings once on ground, but it seems unrealistic to survey temp
limitations with such mental procedure in flight.
I hope an accuracy close to the instrument's one when properly installed.
My first idea (probably dumb, seems too easy!) was to add another TC close
to the instrument to get ambient temp and wire both TCs to send to the
instrument a voltage corresponding to [T(mesured) + T(ambient) - 75DegF]. As
the instrument reads T(sent) - [T(ambient) - 75DegF], indicated value should
be T(mesured), as required. Can you see some solution that way?
My instruments are UMA 1 1/4" Air Core, 270 degrees (very nice, indeed) and
do need external power:
EGT N12117K1K7F000
CHT N12116U150C000
Oil Temp N12113U150C000
I send you copy of the instruction sheets:
One (Oil Temp) only says: "To be installed in an internal section of the
aircraft"
The other one (EGT, CHT) says: "Calibrated at a cold junction temperature of
75 DegF, so actual reading depends...etc..)
For your information, UMA's answer to a question about TC extension:
"You can use regular wire but you must use some type of connector. The
thermo wire should be crimped to its connector, the extension can be
soldered to its."
Any comment?
Thanks a lot for your precious help to all of us,
Gilles
>I got the following answer from UMA. The trouble is that my cockpit is an
>open one, not air-conditionned:
>
>"We do not, nor do I know of anyone who offers junction compensation. I
>am sure for the right price it can be obtained. Someone got a little
>wordy with an our explanation of the thermocouple operating principle.
>What it amounts to is the cold junction is designed to be on the gauge
>in a heated cockpit. If there is an extension used, that junction should
>be in the same environment as the gauge for the guage to read correctly.
>A worst case scenerio is for the "splice" to be in the engine
>compartment in a cooling airstream, flying in Alaska. If you were using
>this as scientific instrumentation, then the absolute accuracy depends
>on the relative junction temperatures. If our installation instructions
>are followed, the error is within 3%, well within the accuracy needed to
>monitor engine operating temperature trends."
Interesting. I'm not sure all the folks in the conversation
are on the same page. Let's back track a bit.
I understand that your primary goal is to use the ship's
panel mounted instruments for all temperature studies and that
your concerns are for instrument calibration accuracy over
the anticipated range of cockpit environments.
I looked over UMA's website hoping to see engineering data
for installing and operating their products but no such luck.
Question: What style of instruments are they? 270 degree, air-coil
devices or 90 degree, pivot and jewel? I think I deduced from earlier
notes that these do not require external power and derive pointer
motion current directly from the thermocouple?
Can you scan and e-mail me copies of the instruction sheets that
came with your instruments?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Busses, here we go again |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Terry -
We have about 12' runs from the bulkhead aft of the baggage compartment of
a Lancair ES for our Z-14 batteries. They go to thru studs on the
firewall. WE have the crossfeed contactor back with the battery
contactors. No fuseable links on the #2 AWG's at all. My understanding
from the book and the schematics is that you do not need them.
John
wrote:
> Unless I missed something, this will mean that I'll have runs of wires
> from
> the batteries to the firewall and to the avionics areas.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Temperature compensation |
>
>
>
>Bob,
>
>You are right.
>I realize, too late (I have got all the instruments), that they are not
>ice-bath compensated, as I expected.
>They are designed to be used in an air-conditionned cockpit, supposed at
>75DegF. Mine is open, at ambient temp.
>
>My only purpose is to be able to read directly the mesured temp, without
>systematic mental calculations to deduce the mesured value from the
>indicated one and the static temp. This correction could be done for flight
>test recordings once on ground, but it seems unrealistic to survey temp
>limitations with such mental procedure in flight.
>I hope an accuracy close to the instrument's one when properly installed.
>
>My first idea (probably dumb, seems too easy!) was to add another TC close
>to the instrument to get ambient temp and wire both TCs to send to the
>instrument a voltage corresponding to [T(mesured) + T(ambient) - 75DegF]. As
>the instrument reads T(sent) - [T(ambient) - 75DegF], indicated value should
>be T(mesured), as required. Can you see some solution that way?
>
>My instruments are UMA 1 1/4" Air Core, 270 degrees (very nice, indeed) and
>do need external power:
>EGT N12117K1K7F000
>CHT N12116U150C000
>Oil Temp N12113U150C000
This is a bit mystifying. Aircore meter movements require
externally powered electronics to convert an analog signal
into ratiometric, sine-cosine currents to drive the
meter movement. As long as one goes to the trouble to add
electronics, the idea of not going the final step to include
a cold-junction compensated TC amplifier chip is pretty
strange. The air-core driver doesn't have enough gain so
some kind of stable, DC pre-amp is needed too . . . they're
not saving much money by not taking advantage of the TC
specific amplifiers.
>I send you copy of the instruction sheets:
>One (Oil Temp) only says: "To be installed in an internal section of the
>aircraft"
>The other one (EGT, CHT) says: "Calibrated at a cold junction temperature of
>75 DegF, so actual reading depends...etc..)'
This really SOUNDS like they built in some kind of simple
gain to amplify the thermocouple signals and simply tweaked
the offset to make them read right at room temp. Sad.
Okay, what you COULD do is build an external signal conditioner
using the Analog Devices AD596/597 to provide the cold-junction
compensation and treat the instrument like a millivolt input
linear instrument.
See
http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/Data_Sheets/664361174AD596_597_b.pdf
I keep pretty good quantities of this chip on hand. I use
them several times a year on various investigations.
There are some low cost, fast-turn etched circuit board
houses that supply free artwork layout programs. My personal
favorite is at http://expresspcb.com
I use these folks a LOT for one-of instrumentation and
low volume production projects at RAC and for my clients.
>For your information, UMA's answer to a question about TC extension:
>"You can use regular wire but you must use some type of connector. The
>thermo wire should be crimped to its connector, the extension can be
>soldered to its."
Nothing out of the ordinary here. For decades I was under
the illusion that TC wire could ONLY be soldered with
silver-solder and I speak to that process in the 'Connection.
In recent years, I've discovered that good (active) flux
tin-lead will solder them too. Takes a high temp (700 degree
iron) and some care to observe that tinning is actually
taking place. Once the tips are "tinned" you can solder them
into solder-cup connectors with ordinary techniques.
Of course, where ever you change from TC to copper conductors
establishes the cold junction. At Cessna in the 60's this
junction happened in a Thermos bottle filled with finely
crush distilled water and distilled-water ice.
I could sketch the circuit for you but I'll need to know
the input impedance of the instrument. If you have some
resistors, a variable bench supply and a digital voltmeter,
we can craft an experiment to characterize the instrument's
input.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Version 9.0 of CD is posted. |
Version 9.0 to our Data CD has been posted at:
http://aeroelectric.com/CD
It's about twice the size of V8.0
Folks with high speed connections are certainly welcome
to download and distribute this work to locals as they
are able and see fit.
A test load from my cable modem took about 13 minutes
to get the whole thing.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pitot tube question |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
>
> >
> >http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pdf/catalog/Cat06363.pdf
> >
> >Upper right, phenolic connector.
> >
> >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 Bob White
> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >I've posted some photos of the pitot tube and connector at:
> >http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-tube-a.jpg
> >http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-side.jpg and
> >http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-end.jpg
> >Sorry, the connector photos are a little blurry.
> >
> >I also found the following on the side of the connector:
> >"Part No. 39A3638 Assem No. 39A3637" and on the other side, the same
> >assembly no. and "Part No. 29A3639"
>
> Do you have a 14 or 28 volt system? And if a 14v system,
> are you sure this isn't a 28 volt pitot tube? Pitot
> tubes with ceramic masts are very old devices. It may
> be salvaged off an old airplane. The part numbers
> you've cited remind me of drawing numbers for the
> Mistubishi Diamond which we purchased in late 70's
> and made it into the Beechjet.
>
> The connector Bruce cited will probably fit your
> tube. I'm not aware of any different sized connectors
> for this task. The tube's appearance and part numbers
> suggest that you may want to investigate whether or
> not you have a tube that is truly compatible with
> your system. The numbering system may be purely
> coincidental but I'd sure check the tube's current
> draw at 14v.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Thanks Bob,
It is a 14 volt system, and the plane has been flying since 1979. I
think before I plunk down $88 for a new connector, I will try a high
temp epoxy repair on this one. It would be nice to know I have the
correct voltage though.
What current draw should I expect putting 12 V on a 24 V unit? I'm a
little suspicious of the current ratings shown on the Spruce catalog
page. The 12 V one is shown pulling 10A and the 24V one 15A. OTOH, the
Falcon Pitot tubes on the same page are shown pulling 7A and 3.5A for
12V and 24V respectively and is said to be AN5812 compliant.
Bob W.
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
In a message dated 12/10/2005 10:40:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet(at)comcast.net writes:
I didn't know that. I assumed it was since every "store" bought airplane I
have flown or seen has one. I would not like to fly IFR without one. I use
it to hold altitude (when not on A/P) vice the altimeter, since it will tell
immediately a deviation is happening before the altimeter announces I've
screwed up.
Good Evening Wayne,
Same here, I just wanted to point out that the regulations are not always
what intuition tells us they could or should be!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
Excuse me Wayne, I goofed!
I should have added a historical comment. The units you have been using are
almost certain to be IVSIs.
That stands for Instantaneous Vertical Speed Indicators.
The IVSI was an invention generally credited to an American Airlines Captain
whose name escapes me. He came up with the idea in the early fifties. The
VSI's we used before that time had so much lag that we were always told to be
sure and establish a steady state climb or descent before we evaluated the
rate! Maybe that has some bearing as to why the FAA doesn't have them listed
as
a piece of required equipment.
Instrumentation is a constantly evolving thing. That is one of the reasons
that I don't like it when the FAA, or anybody else, tries to force us into
standardizing what we need or how we use what we have. I agree that the
airlines and military have a need to use standardization. They are constantly
mixing
crews and flying different airplanes with different crews. However, I see
absolutely no reason why American Airlines needs to have the same instrument
panel layout that is used by Delta Airlines.
Diversity is good!
If one layout proves better than another considering the way things are
being used by any individual dual operator, we all gain new knowledge.
As I have said before: Standardization is the mortal enemy of innovation!
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 12/10/2005 10:40:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet(at)comcast.net writes:
I didn't know that. I assumed it was since every "store" bought airplane I
have flown or seen has one. I would not like to fly IFR without one. I use
it to hold altitude (when not on A/P) vice the altimeter, since it will tell
immediately a deviation is happening before the altimeter announces I've
screwed up.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
FWIW and not to be argumentative . . . the altimeter in "immediate" . . .
the VSI has a delay . . . having said that, I've got a BMA "Lite" and I'm
also installing a VSI.
Good Luck,
Bob Christensen
On 12/10/05, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Excuse me Wayne, I goofed!
>
>
> I should have added a historical comment. The units you have been using
> are
> almost certain to be IVSIs.
>
> That stands for Instantaneous Vertical Speed Indicators.
>
> The IVSI was an invention generally credited to an American
> Airlines Captain
> whose name escapes me. He came up with the idea in the early fifties. The
> VSI's we used before that time had so much lag that we were always told
> to be
> sure and establish a steady state climb or descent before we evaluated the
> rate! Maybe that has some bearing as to why the FAA doesn't have
> them listed as
> a piece of required equipment.
>
> Instrumentation is a constantly evolving thing. That is one of the reasons
> that I don't like it when the FAA, or anybody else, tries to force us into
> standardizing what we need or how we use what we have. I agree that the
> airlines and military have a need to use standardization. They are
> constantly mixing
> crews and flying different airplanes with different crews. However, I
> see
> absolutely no reason why American Airlines needs to have the
> same instrument
> panel layout that is used by Delta Airlines.
>
> Diversity is good!
>
> If one layout proves better than another considering the way things are
> being used by any individual dual operator, we all gain new knowledge.
>
> As I have said before: Standardization is the mortal enemy
> of innovation!
>
> 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 12/10/2005 10:40:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> w_sweet(at)comcast.net writes:
>
> I didn't know that. I assumed it was since every "store" bought airplane
> I
> have flown or seen has one. I would not like to fly IFR without one. I
> use
> it to hold altitude (when not on A/P) vice the altimeter, since it will
> tell
>
> immediately a deviation is happening before the altimeter announces I've
> screwed up.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
I meant "is immediate" . . . sorry for the typo.
On 12/10/05, Bob C. wrote:
>
> FWIW and not to be argumentative . . . the altimeter in "immediate" . . .
> the VSI has a delay . . . having said that, I've got a BMA "Lite" and I'm
> also installing a VSI.
>
> Good Luck,
> Bob Christensen
>
>
> On 12/10/05, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Excuse me Wayne, I goofed!
> >
> >
> > I should have added a historical comment. The units you have been
> > using are
> > almost certain to be IVSIs.
> >
> > That stands for Instantaneous Vertical Speed Indicators.
> >
> > The IVSI was an invention generally credited to an American
> > Airlines Captain
> > whose name escapes me. He came up with the idea in the early
> > fifties. The
> > VSI's we used before that time had so much lag that we were always told
> > to be
> > sure and establish a steady state climb or descent before we evaluated
> > the
> > rate! Maybe that has some bearing as to why the FAA doesn't have
> > them listed as
> > a piece of required equipment.
> >
> > Instrumentation is a constantly evolving thing. That is one of the
> > reasons
> > that I don't like it when the FAA, or anybody else, tries to force us
> > into
> > standardizing what we need or how we use what we have. I agree that the
> > airlines and military have a need to use standardization. They are
> > constantly mixing
> > crews and flying different airplanes with different crews. However, I
> > see
> > absolutely no reason why American Airlines needs to have the
> > same instrument
> > panel layout that is used by Delta Airlines.
> >
> > Diversity is good!
> >
> > If one layout proves better than another considering the way things are
> > being used by any individual dual operator, we all gain new knowledge.
> >
> > As I have said before: Standardization is the mortal enemy
> > of innovation!
> >
> > 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 12/10/2005 10:40:07 A.M . Central Standard Time,
> > w_sweet(at)comcast.net writes:
> >
> > I didn't know that. I assumed it was since every "store" bought
> > airplane I
> > have flown or seen has one. I would not like to fly IFR without one. I
> > use
> > it to hold altitude (when not on A/P) vice the altimeter, since it will
> > tell
> >
> > immediately a deviation is happening before the altimeter announces I've
> > screwed up.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tammy Goff" <tngoff(at)houston.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit OptionsGlass Cockpit Options |
The VSI is not a required instrument. Nice to have but not required. George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt |
I have temperature data in the firewall forward vicinity that might be
useful in a general sense for this discussion. My battery is
immediately aft of the seats but I installed 18 temperature sensors
during construction to assess what was happening in the vicinity of my
tightly cowled Lycoming 180 HP engine.
I have continued to collect data sporadically well beyond the initial 40
hours. With about 300 operating hours to date I have seen about all the
operating conditions that are probably to be encountered in the weather
conditions of the eastern half of the country where ambient temperatures
seldom reach much above the mid 90's.
The highest in-flight temperature behind the upper portion of the engine
accessory case has been 126F. This sensor is in the air space about half
way between the engine and the firewall. It is exposed to both the air
movement past it as well as the radiated heat from the engine. Near it
is my SD-8 PM alternator mounted on the vacuum pad drive. Its
temperature has never exceeded 196F as measured by a shielded, surface
contact sensor attached to the location on the alternator suggested by
B&C. This data was reported to B&C and they considered it to be well
within reason.
Another data point that indicates what the free air flow temperatures
are behind the engine shows a maximum of 184F in the exit air from the cowl.
There are higher temperatures in the forward engine areas such as at the
starter with a maximum of 198F due probably to the proximity of a
cross-over exhaust and heat muff assembly ahead of the oil sump.
Were a battery to be installed on the firewall, I would expect it to
never see any temperature higher than maybe 150F in similar
installations during normal operation. There is a rise in under-cowl
temperatures after shut down, but the mass of a battery should prevent
it from responding significantly before the under-cowl temperature drops
back to something lower than the in-flight levels.
I suspect that batteries see much more severe conditions in many
non-aircraft installations, and firewall mounted certified installations
operated in the southwest in the summer seem to survive under ambient
conditions well above 100F before even starting the engine.
Although this data can not represent all possible installations, I think
it may be useful as a ballpark indication of what can be expected as the
environment around a firewall mounted battery.
Jim
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> Great question!!!! Is there anyone out there with a willingness
> to go find out? This thread could go on for weeks with lots of
> opinions and anecdotes stirred into the stew but with no conclusive
> data generated.
>
> I've often suggested that the 40-hour flyoff should include
> the kinds of investigations we do on production aircraft. Our
> #1 and #2 flight test articles are covered with various sensors
> and data recording systems which are used to confirm our design
> results.
>
> If someone has a firewall mounted RG battery in an RV and
> would be willing to go get some flight test data next summer,
> I'll provide the data acquisition system and sensors to get the
> numbers. It will take some time and effort. It won't be cheap
> as it involves installation flight testing of several hours
> and removal.
>
> But with such data in hand, we can co-author an article that
> will answer the questions that will make future threads on
> this topic little more than snippets referring the questioner
> to real data.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Larry - yes, I have built a -9A and am building a -4. I have never thought
>>VANS' strong point is electrics and that is why I asked. I was hoping
>>someone would say they knew what temps the battery was enduring since it
>>ought to be a problem and appears not to be.
>>
>>Steve.
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
>>To:
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The largest supplier of airplanes in the world is now Vans Aircraft. For
>>>their current models they suggest mounting the battery on the engine side
>>>of
>>>the FW. They have thousands flying. But not all are mounted FWF due
>>>mostly
>>>to W&B considerations.
>>>
>>>Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 76 hours
>>>
>>>"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility,
>>>and
>>>at your own risk."
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Any strong views on having the battery the engine side of the firewall.
>>>>It
>>>>must get quite hot. Clearly the advantage of short cable runs is
>>>>considerable.
>>>>
>>>>Comments? Steve.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt |
> Well and good, but we hear 90% from the naysayers and precious little from
> all others. Let's simplify the whole deal by taking a poll amongst all
> listers:
> anyone with a firewall mounted RG battery in an RV who has used it through
> a
> summer and had a problem or no problem with it, please indicate here:
I'm among "all others."
Van's RV-7
Odyssey PC680 on the firewall as per Van's FWF
720 hours on the hobbs
2 summers in the southwest, lots of heat abuse
No problems with the battery.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt |
Jim - interesting data. You did not say what type of aircraft? Steve.
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt
>
>
> I have temperature data in the firewall forward vicinity that might be
> useful in a general sense for this discussion. My battery is
> immediately aft of the seats but I installed 18 temperature sensors
> during construction to assess what was happening in the vicinity of my
> tightly cowled Lycoming 180 HP engine.
>
> I have continued to collect data sporadically well beyond the initial 40
> hours. With about 300 operating hours to date I have seen about all the
> operating conditions that are probably to be encountered in the weather
> conditions of the eastern half of the country where ambient temperatures
> seldom reach much above the mid 90's.
>
> The highest in-flight temperature behind the upper portion of the engine
> accessory case has been 126F. This sensor is in the air space about half
> way between the engine and the firewall. It is exposed to both the air
> movement past it as well as the radiated heat from the engine. Near it
> is my SD-8 PM alternator mounted on the vacuum pad drive. Its
> temperature has never exceeded 196F as measured by a shielded, surface
> contact sensor attached to the location on the alternator suggested by
> B&C. This data was reported to B&C and they considered it to be well
> within reason.
>
> Another data point that indicates what the free air flow temperatures
> are behind the engine shows a maximum of 184F in the exit air from the
> cowl.
>
> There are higher temperatures in the forward engine areas such as at the
> starter with a maximum of 198F due probably to the proximity of a
> cross-over exhaust and heat muff assembly ahead of the oil sump.
>
> Were a battery to be installed on the firewall, I would expect it to
> never see any temperature higher than maybe 150F in similar
> installations during normal operation. There is a rise in under-cowl
> temperatures after shut down, but the mass of a battery should prevent
> it from responding significantly before the under-cowl temperature drops
> back to something lower than the in-flight levels.
>
> I suspect that batteries see much more severe conditions in many
> non-aircraft installations, and firewall mounted certified installations
> operated in the southwest in the summer seem to survive under ambient
> conditions well above 100F before even starting the engine.
>
> Although this data can not represent all possible installations, I think
> it may be useful as a ballpark indication of what can be expected as the
> environment around a firewall mounted battery.
>
> Jim
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Great question!!!! Is there anyone out there with a willingness
>> to go find out? This thread could go on for weeks with lots of
>> opinions and anecdotes stirred into the stew but with no conclusive
>> data generated.
>>
>> I've often suggested that the 40-hour flyoff should include
>> the kinds of investigations we do on production aircraft. Our
>> #1 and #2 flight test articles are covered with various sensors
>> and data recording systems which are used to confirm our design
>> results.
>>
>> If someone has a firewall mounted RG battery in an RV and
>> would be willing to go get some flight test data next summer,
>> I'll provide the data acquisition system and sensors to get the
>> numbers. It will take some time and effort. It won't be cheap
>> as it involves installation flight testing of several hours
>> and removal.
>>
>> But with such data in hand, we can co-author an article that
>> will answer the questions that will make future threads on
>> this topic little more than snippets referring the questioner
>> to real data.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Larry - yes, I have built a -9A and am building a -4. I have never
>>>thought
>>>VANS' strong point is electrics and that is why I asked. I was hoping
>>>someone would say they knew what temps the battery was enduring since it
>>>ought to be a problem and appears not to be.
>>>
>>>Steve.
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
>>>To:
>>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The largest supplier of airplanes in the world is now Vans Aircraft.
>>>>For
>>>>their current models they suggest mounting the battery on the engine
>>>>side
>>>>of
>>>>the FW. They have thousands flying. But not all are mounted FWF due
>>>>mostly
>>>>to W&B considerations.
>>>>
>>>>Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 76 hours
>>>>
>>>>"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility,
>>>>and
>>>>at your own risk."
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Any strong views on having the battery the engine side of the firewall.
>>>>>It
>>>>>must get quite hot. Clearly the advantage of short cable runs is
>>>>>considerable.
>>>>>
>>>>>Comments? Steve.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System
> on behalf of the London Business School community.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> --
> 09/12/2005
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
In a message dated 12/11/2005 12:38:48 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com writes:
Mark Phillips - 380 hrs PIC and a student until I die... do not archive
Good Morning Mark,
Very well said.
A day we learn nothing is a day wasted may be an old platitude, but it works
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: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
Sorry . . . I didn't read the whole thread and should have kept my mouth
shut . . . I didn't read the IVSI part . . . I'm just a poor hairy legged
boy from Iowa and have no experience with IVSIs . . . Sorry for the
interruption . . . .
Bob
On 12/11/05, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 12/11/2005 12:38:48 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> Fiveonepw(at)aol.com writes:
>
> Mark Phillips - 380 hrs PIC and a student until I die... do not archive
>
>
> Good Morning Mark,
>
> Very well said.
>
> A day we learn nothing is a day wasted may be an old platitude, but
> it works
> 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: | "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | RE: 24V starter on 14V system |
>
>
> I'm sorry. I thought I'd posted a link to this last July. The drawing
> was put up on the website back then at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Starter/24V_Starter_14V_System.pdf
>
Bob,
Thanks again for the above starter system schematic. I think I've
miscommunicated. I've already incorporated this starter sub-system into a
Z-11 architecture the way I think it should (see the link to the my .DWG
file). My problem is I'm not sure I did that correctly. As I see it
(reference the schematic I uploaded), if I switch off the main DC pwr and
switch on the e-bus alt feed (the procedure in the event of alternator
failure, and the only way to get rid of contactor loads) then the electrical
system receives power from the main battery only. Am I reading it wrong?
Here's the link to my DWG file.
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/marknlisa@hometel.com.11.08.2005/Main_Po
wer_Dist.dwg
I'd like to figure out a way to access both batteries when utilizing the
e-bus.
Thanks again for your help.
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot tube question |
>
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pdf/catalog/Cat06363.pdf
> > >
> > >Upper right, phenolic connector.
> > >
> > >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 Bob
> White
> > >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >I've posted some photos of the pitot tube and connector at:
> > >http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-tube-a.jpg
> > >http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-side.jpg and
> > >http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-end.jpg
> > >Sorry, the connector photos are a little blurry.
> > >
> > >I also found the following on the side of the connector:
> > >"Part No. 39A3638 Assem No. 39A3637" and on the other side, the same
> > >assembly no. and "Part No. 29A3639"
> >
> > Do you have a 14 or 28 volt system? And if a 14v system,
> > are you sure this isn't a 28 volt pitot tube? Pitot
> > tubes with ceramic masts are very old devices. It may
> > be salvaged off an old airplane. The part numbers
> > you've cited remind me of drawing numbers for the
> > Mistubishi Diamond which we purchased in late 70's
> > and made it into the Beechjet.
> >
> > The connector Bruce cited will probably fit your
> > tube. I'm not aware of any different sized connectors
> > for this task. The tube's appearance and part numbers
> > suggest that you may want to investigate whether or
> > not you have a tube that is truly compatible with
> > your system. The numbering system may be purely
> > coincidental but I'd sure check the tube's current
> > draw at 14v.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>Thanks Bob,
>
>It is a 14 volt system, and the plane has been flying since 1979. I
>think before I plunk down $88 for a new connector, I will try a high
>temp epoxy repair on this one. It would be nice to know I have the
>correct voltage though.
>
>What current draw should I expect putting 12 V on a 24 V unit? I'm a
>little suspicious of the current ratings shown on the Spruce catalog
>page. The 12 V one is shown pulling 10A and the 24V one 15A. OTOH, the
>Falcon Pitot tubes on the same page are shown pulling 7A and 3.5A for
>12V and 24V respectively and is said to be AN5812 compliant.
>
>Bob W.
Deducing pitot heater characteristics on the bench is
not difficult but it involves a bit more than simply hooking
it up to a battery and measuring the current. Pitot heaters
have a strikingly positive temperature coefficient. They also
have widely variable abilities to move heat from the heater
element to the surface of the tube where ice needs to be
shed.
I did an article last winter on techniques I've used to
peer into the inner workings of a pitot tube from the outside.
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Pitot_Heater/Gauging_Pitot_Heater_Performance.pdf
For your investigation, I'd recommend you prepare a small
coffee can with a mixture of water and crushed ice. Hook the
tube up to a battery and measure both voltage and current
through the tube while you stir the tube in the ice-bath.
Measure voltage right at the tube's heater terminals.
The tube should draw something on the order of 200 - 250
watts. If you have a 28v tube, running it on 14 volts will
not produce nearly so high a number.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt |
Aircraft is a Wittman Tailwind.
Jim
Steve Sampson wrote:
>
> Jim - interesting data. You did not say what type of aircraft? Steve.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>I have temperature data in the firewall forward vicinity that might be
>>useful in a general sense for this discussion. My battery is
>>immediately aft of the seats but I installed 18 temperature sensors
>>during construction to assess what was happening in the vicinity of my
>>tightly cowled Lycoming 180 HP engine.
>>
>>I have continued to collect data sporadically well beyond the initial 40
>>hours. With about 300 operating hours to date I have seen about all the
>>operating conditions that are probably to be encountered in the weather
>>conditions of the eastern half of the country where ambient temperatures
>> seldom reach much above the mid 90's.
>>
>>The highest in-flight temperature behind the upper portion of the engine
>>accessory case has been 126F. This sensor is in the air space about half
>>way between the engine and the firewall. It is exposed to both the air
>>movement past it as well as the radiated heat from the engine. Near it
>>is my SD-8 PM alternator mounted on the vacuum pad drive. Its
>>temperature has never exceeded 196F as measured by a shielded, surface
>>contact sensor attached to the location on the alternator suggested by
>>B&C. This data was reported to B&C and they considered it to be well
>>within reason.
>>
>>Another data point that indicates what the free air flow temperatures
>>are behind the engine shows a maximum of 184F in the exit air from the
>>cowl.
>>
>>There are higher temperatures in the forward engine areas such as at the
>>starter with a maximum of 198F due probably to the proximity of a
>>cross-over exhaust and heat muff assembly ahead of the oil sump.
>>
>>Were a battery to be installed on the firewall, I would expect it to
>>never see any temperature higher than maybe 150F in similar
>>installations during normal operation. There is a rise in under-cowl
>>temperatures after shut down, but the mass of a battery should prevent
>>it from responding significantly before the under-cowl temperature drops
>>back to something lower than the in-flight levels.
>>
>>I suspect that batteries see much more severe conditions in many
>>non-aircraft installations, and firewall mounted certified installations
>>operated in the southwest in the summer seem to survive under ambient
>>conditions well above 100F before even starting the engine.
>>
>>Although this data can not represent all possible installations, I think
>>it may be useful as a ballpark indication of what can be expected as the
>>environment around a firewall mounted battery.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Great question!!!! Is there anyone out there with a willingness
>>>to go find out? This thread could go on for weeks with lots of
>>>opinions and anecdotes stirred into the stew but with no conclusive
>>>data generated.
>>>
>>>I've often suggested that the 40-hour flyoff should include
>>>the kinds of investigations we do on production aircraft. Our
>>>#1 and #2 flight test articles are covered with various sensors
>>>and data recording systems which are used to confirm our design
>>>results.
>>>
>>>If someone has a firewall mounted RG battery in an RV and
>>>would be willing to go get some flight test data next summer,
>>>I'll provide the data acquisition system and sensors to get the
>>>numbers. It will take some time and effort. It won't be cheap
>>>as it involves installation flight testing of several hours
>>>and removal.
>>>
>>>But with such data in hand, we can co-author an article that
>>>will answer the questions that will make future threads on
>>>this topic little more than snippets referring the questioner
>>>to real data.
>>>
>>>Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Larry - yes, I have built a -9A and am building a -4. I have never
>>>>thought
>>>>VANS' strong point is electrics and that is why I asked. I was hoping
>>>>someone would say they knew what temps the battery was enduring since it
>>>>ought to be a problem and appears not to be.
>>>>
>>>>Steve.
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
>>>>To:
>>>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The largest supplier of airplanes in the world is now Vans Aircraft.
>>>>>For
>>>>>their current models they suggest mounting the battery on the engine
>>>>>side
>>>>>of
>>>>>the FW. They have thousands flying. But not all are mounted FWF due
>>>>>mostly
>>>>>to W&B considerations.
>>>>>
>>>>>Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 76 hours
>>>>>
>>>>>"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility,
>>>>>and
>>>>>at your own risk."
>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Any strong views on having the battery the engine side of the firewall.
>>>>>>It
>>>>>>must get quite hot. Clearly the advantage of short cable runs is
>>>>>>considerable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Comments? Steve.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System
>>on behalf of the London Business School community.
>>For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>>______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>--
>>09/12/2005
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lee Logan <leeloganster(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 12/10/05 |
As a neophyte, I have greatly benefitted from the on-going discussions on
the aeroelectric list--thanks for the useful inputs from all involved. As a
"new guy" though, I missed the opening discussion on a topic that now seems
relatively "mature". I need to go back to first principles----what is the
basic objection to internally regulated alternators for OBAM applications?
Are there any other "first principles" widely held by the aeroelectric list
(and reasons why) that someone would be willing to summarize? I'm NOT
trying to start an electronic flame war, just trying to catch up on the
"received" wisdom of this Forum. A review once in awhile might be useful,
especially if done by one of more of the guys who've been on the Forum from
the beginning.
Thanks and regards, Lee...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 12/10/05 |
Lee are you sure you don't just want somebody to be a lightening rod....
;)
With an external voltage regulator you can shutoff power to the field
(manually or automatically with overvoltage protection circuitry) and
shutdown the alternator 99.9999999% guaranteed.
Some internal regulated alternator can also be shutdown by disconnecting
the small Ignition wire. But that doesn't work with all alternators and
some of us feel that there is no guarantee that this would still work
anyway if the regulator has failed and the alternator is producing
maximum output. Some folks feel that doesn't matter as they claim there
is almost no chance that a modern internally regulated alternator will
fail in such a manner that it is producing maximun output. They may be
right but nevertheless some folks who don't subscribe to that theory
(they may have serious $$ in avionics or an electrically dependant
engine) like to add a large contactor that will disconnect the output
from the alternator in the event of an overvoltage event. This leads to
two issues. 1. choosing a contactor that is up to the task and 2. If
someone switches off this contactor inadvertantly while the alternator
is producing power - it has in some cases damaged the alternator.
Standby for more from Bob's research as he is the only one that has
offered any actual test data or concrete numbers as far as I can recall.
Ken
Lee Logan wrote:
>
>As a neophyte, I have greatly benefitted from the on-going discussions on
>the aeroelectric list--thanks for the useful inputs from all involved. As a
>"new guy" though, I missed the opening discussion on a topic that now seems
>relatively "mature". I need to go back to first principles----what is the
>basic objection to internally regulated alternators for OBAM applications?
>
>Are there any other "first principles" widely held by the aeroelectric list
>(and reasons why) that someone would be willing to summarize? I'm NOT
>trying to start an electronic flame war, just trying to catch up on the
>"received" wisdom of this Forum. A review once in awhile might be useful,
>especially if done by one of more of the guys who've been on the Forum from
>the beginning.
>
>Thanks and regards, Lee...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 24V starter on 14V system |
>
>Thanks again for the above starter system schematic. I think I've
>miscommunicated. I've already incorporated this starter sub-system into a
>Z-11 architecture the way I think it should (see the link to the my .DWG
>file). My problem is I'm not sure I did that correctly. As I see it
>(reference the schematic I uploaded), if I switch off the main DC pwr and
>switch on the e-bus alt feed (the procedure in the event of alternator
>failure, and the only way to get rid of contactor loads) then the electrical
>system receives power from the main battery only. Am I reading it wrong?
>Here's the link to my DWG file.
>
>http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/marknlisa@hometel.com.11.08.2005/Main_Po
>wer_Dist.dwg
the photoshare feature on matronics didn't handle the .dwg file
well. My computer didn't know how to open it properly. Can you
email it directly to me as an attachment?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Understanding Alternators |
>
>As a neophyte, I have greatly benefitted from the on-going discussions on
>the aeroelectric list--thanks for the useful inputs from all involved. As a
>"new guy" though, I missed the opening discussion on a topic that now seems
>relatively "mature". I need to go back to first principles----what is the
>basic objection to internally regulated alternators for OBAM applications?
>
>Are there any other "first principles" widely held by the aeroelectric list
>(and reasons why) that someone would be willing to summarize? I'm NOT
>trying to start an electronic flame war, just trying to catch up on the
>"received" wisdom of this Forum. A review once in awhile might be useful,
>especially if done by one of more of the guys who've been on the Forum from
>the beginning.
See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Alternator_Failures.pdf
and watch for an expansion of the documents started at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/alternators/UA/Alternators_1.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 24V starter on 14V system |
Mine really didn't handle it properly either (a screen full of letters
and numbers, etc.), but all I did was save the email and it saved a
perfectly fine copy of the drawing file. With Mozilla all you do is
right click and choose "save page as". You do have to reconstruct the
link if it wrapped...
YMMV
Dick Tasker
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Thanks again for the above starter system schematic. I think I've
>>miscommunicated. I've already incorporated this starter sub-system into a
>>Z-11 architecture the way I think it should (see the link to the my .DWG
>>file). My problem is I'm not sure I did that correctly. As I see it
>>(reference the schematic I uploaded), if I switch off the main DC pwr and
>>switch on the e-bus alt feed (the procedure in the event of alternator
>>failure, and the only way to get rid of contactor loads) then the electrical
>>system receives power from the main battery only. Am I reading it wrong?
>>Here's the link to my DWG file.
>>
>>http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/marknlisa@hometel.com.11.08.2005/Main_Po
>>wer_Dist.dwg
>>
>>
>
>
> the photoshare feature on matronics didn't handle the .dwg file
> well. My computer didn't know how to open it properly. Can you
> email it directly to me as an attachment?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
So after reading all this I *think* that in Bob's opinion there is no known
source or make & model of a reliable and below $200 crimper. True or not?
-- 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: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
-->
>
>
>You are confused.
>
>The wire goes in at the larger opening end, but is crimped at the
>other, smaller end.
>
>I.e. shove the wire into the open end of the terminal to be crimped,
>which is opposite the actual ring, faston, etc. end of the terminal.
>The end the wire goes in is where the insulation gets crimped (the
>larger die opening) and the end nearest the ring, faston, etc. is where
>the wire gets crimped (the smaller end).
>
>Dick Tasker
Correct. The confusion arises mostly because folks don't make
a distinction between the two tasks for closing a terminal
onto a "wire" when the wire is made up of two parts: conductor
and insulation. I've been writing about a 'wire grip' and 'insulation
grip' but unless the reader picks up on the difference between
'wire' as a product or 'wire' as a component of that product. The
explanation is unclear. I'll modify my writing accordingly.
We've had discussions on the list about various tools offered
to the building commuinity for application of terminals. Here's
one:
-------------------------------------
Snipits from thread of November 2004
-------------------------------------
Hmmm . . . I noted that in my evaluation of the tool a couple
of weeks ago. I sent the tool back to B&C and copied them
on the note suggesting that the dies were installed into the
tool backwards (you can remove them and re-install the
other direction).
However, I noted further that the tool put the crimps
too far apart on a PIDG terminal. Further, the insulation
grip did not close a red terminal down on 22AWG Tefzel. See
the following photos. I cannot recommend that tool. See
following pictures on my website.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P255.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P256.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P257.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P258.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P259.jpg
>Are any of the interchangeable dies for crimping coax cable?
Yes . . . but die-sets were more than half
cost of tool and taking time to change them out
was a bit of a pain. All my tools are dedicated to
a single task.
There was another thread concerning a Cleveland tool someone purchased Sept
2004
>
>I sent the WTC380 to you on Monday via priority mail Bob. I tried to
>tell you by replying to the sender but the mail was returned
>undeliverable. I sent crimp examples to Buzz at Cleveland who was also
>very interested in knowing if there was a problem with their product.
Got it today. Short story is that failure to grip a 22AWG wire
at all was because terminal was in tool backwards. Unlike the
tools B&C sells with symmetrical dies, this tool is placement
specific as to insertion of terminals. But even after you get the
terminal in the right way, there's a bit of a problem. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND60A.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND61A.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND65A.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND66A.jpg
Bottom line is that this tool was designed for use with
PVC wire having larger outside diameter than Tefzel and
in spite of its very nicely formed die set, just doesn't
close the insulation grip adequately on a PIDG terminal.
I'd appreciate it if you would forward a copy of this
message to Buzz. Your tool is on the way back . . .
-----------
Paul is correct in that you cannot rely on the statements of tool and
terminal manufacturers to insure compatibility of products - ESPECIALLY when
the tool manufacturer and terminal manufacturer are different folks. These
pictures illustrate one example of what might be called a fairly universal
tool.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/67A.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/678.jpg
These pictures are the business end of a t-head AMP tool I bought almost
exactly 40 years ago. It features an adjustable insulation grip die set.
Most of my AMP tools have adjustable insulation grip dies although the
t-head has the widest range.
Lot cost tools like the one that started this thread never have adjustable
insulation grip dies . . . so one needs to be more selective.
When I offered the low cost tool for the first time about
6 years ago, I tested the tool with AMP PIDG terminals on tefzel wire and
found the combination adequate. About a year ago, I got some samples of
terminals from JST in Japan. These are mil-qualified but when tested with
the tool I sold, produced results I didn't want to sell.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/JST_Samples_2.jpg
The upper terminal was a JST, the lower is AMP PIDG.
I was disappointed because the JST terminals were about half the cost of
PIDG . . .
The idea behind the shop notes at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
was to reinforce the simple ideas about successful terminal installation.
Unless you're using tools mated to terminal by the same manufacturer, it's a
good idea to be treat the combination with suspicion until you confirm that
the terminals, tool and wire are suited for the task. It's not difficult if
you take time to understand what's needed.
--------------- End of Past Threads --------------------------
Okay down to the question at hand: Phil sent me his AMP tool for
evaluation. This picture illustrates the features of the die-set for this
tool along with proper insertion of terminals for installation.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_1.jpg
I found that this tool produces consistent and adequate grips on the
CONDUCTORS of all sizes of wire that are covered by the red/blue/yellow PIDG
terminals. I cannot explain why Phil was not getting consistent grips on his
22AWG applications except that the terminals must not have been inserted and
centered in the dies as shown in this photo set.
Now the down side: This tool does not close the INSULATION grip sufficiently
to grab the smaller Tefzel wires. This was a problem noted with one of the
tools above in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND65A.jpg
This tool would be just fine for 99.9% of all commercial work where fatter
PVC insulation was used on the wires.
This investigation reenforces words I've offered about matching the
tool/terminal/wire combinations you plan to use. Even when (as in this case)
terminals and tool are both by AMP . . . the combination does not produce
adequate installations for Phil's airplane wherein the wire of choice is
22759/16 Tefzel.
Now, if I were working a job in the field and this was the only
terminal/tool combo available for the task. One could consider putting 1/2"
hunks of heatshrink on the ends of the stripped wires before installing a
terminal.
This would "fatten" up the insulation sufficiently to achieve a good
insulation grip with PIDG terminals in this tool. However, I wouldn't want
to wire a whole airplane with this technique.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 24V starter on 14V system |
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks again for the above starter system schematic. I think I've
>miscommunicated. I've already incorporated this starter sub-system into a
>Z-11 architecture the way I think it should (see the link to the my .DWG
>file). My problem is I'm not sure I did that correctly. As I see it
>(reference the schematic I uploaded), if I switch off the main DC pwr and
>switch on the e-bus alt feed (the procedure in the event of alternator
>failure, and the only way to get rid of contactor loads) then the electrical
>system receives power from the main battery only. Am I reading it wrong?
>Here's the link to my DWG file.
>
>http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/marknlisa@hometel.com.11.08.2005/Main_Po
>wer_Dist.dwg
>
>I'd like to figure out a way to access both batteries when utilizing the
>e-bus.
>
>Thanks again for your help.
Thanks to Mr. Tasker, I was prompted to try a different browser
that would let me "save" the link as opposed to attempting to
"open" it.
First, I note that you've left off the ANL limiters called out
in the original drawing. It's important that these be present
so that no combination of stuck contactors can cause a battery
to see a hard fault. Worked an MU-2 in-flight fire accident that
began with just such an incident. They series two 24v batteries
for a 48v starter and stuck contactors very nearly cost passengers
and crew their lives.
What size batteries are you planning? If a pair of 17 a.h. then
may I suggest that getting both batteries to drive the e-bus
adds complexity you'll probably never need? Get the e-bus loads
down to a minimum . . . when and if main battery looks like it
won't make it (I should if you've done your e-bus operations
homework) then re-close normal ops battery contactors to bring
the aux battery back to finish up the job . . . and in any case,
close the normal ops contactors once the airport is in sight
so that you have every watt-second on board available for
approach to landing.
I'd recommend staying with the 2-10 battery/alternator switch
so that there's always a battery on line to stabilize the
alternator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Pitot tube question |
>> phenolic
I thought his connector was ceramic. How hot does the pitot tube get at the
wing and will a phenolic-one hold up? Yes, I see that they are using it on
newer heated pitots. Just a little concerned.
-- Craig
-----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: Pitot tube question
-->
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pdf/catalog/Cat06363.pdf
Upper right, phenolic connector.
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 Bob White
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
I've posted some photos of the pitot tube and connector at:
http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-tube-a.jpg
http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-side.jpg and
http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-end.jpg
Sorry, the connector photos are a little blurry.
I also found the following on the side of the connector:
"Part No. 39A3638 Assem No. 39A3637" and on the other side, the same
assembly no. and "Part No. 29A3639"
Thanks,
Bob W.
"Craig Payne" wrote:
>
> Can you post a picture of the tube and the connector somewhere? (the
e-mail
> list software throws away any attachments you try to send directly to
> the members of the list).
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
White
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
>
> I purchased a homebuilt with a heated pitot tube. It has a two pin
> connector, which looks like it's made from a white ceramic material,
> that
is
> broken. Anyone have any suggestions for where I can find a
> replacement connector. I don't know what brand it is.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob W.
>
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
Based on the Sport Pilot oral exam I took today (and sorta passed) I can say
that neither a VSI or a turn coordinator are required for *VFR* flight.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
Sweet
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
-->
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
>
> In a message dated 12/9/2005 10:07:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> w_sweet(at)comcast.net writes:
>
> The basic T-configuration (ASI, AI, Altimeter, and DG) with the two
> support
> instruments N&B or TC and VSI. At least that is what we called them a
> couple
> of decades ago.
> Wayne
>
>
> Sounds reasonable, but the VSI is not even a required instrument for IFR
> flight!
>
I didn't know that. I assumed it was since every "store" bought airplane I
have flown or seen has one. I would not like to fly IFR without one. I use
it to hold altitude (when not on A/P) vice the altimeter, since it will tell
immediately a deviation is happening before the altitmeter announces I've
screwed up.
Wayne
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pitot tube question |
Hi Craig,
It looks like ceramic to me, but the previous owner had repaired it by
securing the top and bottom broken pieces with nylon tiewraps so I
don't think it gets hot enough that phenolic would be a problem. In
fact, I could make one out of phenolic pretty easily. If I don't have
any luck with epoxy, I might try that.
Bob W.
"Craig Payne" wrote:
>
> >> phenolic
>
> I thought his connector was ceramic. How hot does the pitot tube get at the
> wing and will a phenolic-one hold up? Yes, I see that they are using it on
> newer heated pitots. Just a little concerned.
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
> Gray
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
> -->
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pdf/catalog/Cat06363.pdf
>
> Upper right, phenolic connector.
>
> 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 Bob White
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
>
>
>
> I've posted some photos of the pitot tube and connector at:
> http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-tube-a.jpg
> http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-side.jpg and
> http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-end.jpg
> Sorry, the connector photos are a little blurry.
>
> I also found the following on the side of the connector:
> "Part No. 39A3638 Assem No. 39A3637" and on the other side, the same
> assembly no. and "Part No. 29A3639"
>
> Thanks,
> Bob W.
>
> "Craig Payne" wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Can you post a picture of the tube and the connector somewhere? (the
> e-mail
> > list software throws away any attachments you try to send directly to
> > the members of the list).
> >
> > -- Craig
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> White
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
> >
> >
> > I purchased a homebuilt with a heated pitot tube. It has a two pin
> > connector, which looks like it's made from a white ceramic material,
> > that
> is
> > broken. Anyone have any suggestions for where I can find a
> > replacement connector. I don't know what brand it is.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bob W.
> >
>
> --
> http://www.bob-white.com
> N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
> Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
> http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
>
>
>So after reading all this I *think* that in Bob's opinion there is no known
>source or make & model of a reliable and below $200 crimper. True or not?
>
>-- Craig
Gee . . . I hope my words didn't seem to imply that at all.
There are LOTS of terminal/tool/wire combinations that will
produce satisfactory terminations for your airplane. The "trick"
is do deduce the combination . . . and for most of you, to get
the right combination without having to research all the "Tinker-
Toys" in the box.
If B&C is selling the same tool I sold them some years go and
you use AMP PIDG terminals from B&C or anyone else, that combination
WILL provide satisfactory terminal installations on Tefzel wire.
This is EXACTLY the thrust of the article at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
The notion delivered here was that the $40 tool illustrated
was a satisfactory substitute for the $600 tool also
illustrated.
To save the research time, buy a tool from somebody like
Steinair or B&C where there's a good chance that they've
done the research for you. Even so, it's a good thing to buy
some extra terminals, crimp them on various pieces of wire
and do the pull tests and physical examinations described in
the articles. If the tool doesn't do what you need, both
of these folks are intently interested in knowing about it
and making it right with you.
Our friend Phil purchased a perfectly good AMP tool that will
NOT properly install PIDG terminals on Tefzel wire. It's
all in the dies - not all dies install all terminals as
I showed in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/JST_Samples_2.jpg
where perfectly qualifiable, PIDG style terminals from another
manufacturer looked like crap when installed with the $40
tool.
All these exercises suggest there is no substitute
for understanding what the tool is supposed to accomplish
and having the curiosity to determine if your purchase
fulfills those goals.
I can put perfectly good crimps on a PIDG terminal with
a $10 hardware store tool -OR- my $600 t-head tool.
You only need to understand how each tool performs and
take the time to learn how it is used - or as cited in
Phil's case above above, how it cannot be used.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot tube question |
FWIW my used single engine cessna pitot quickly stabilized at about 7
amps in free room temperature air on a 12 volt battery. I can't remember
whether the heater was marked 12 volts but 7 amps sounded reasonble to
me. I'm assuming a low speed aircraft without other ice protection
simply doesn't need 200+ watts to operate in snow or an occasional cloud
breaking procedure. It was interesting to note that the unit actually
has a small water drain hole incorporated at the point where the air
passage turns up vertical.
Ken
>>It is a 14 volt system, and the plane has been flying since 1979. I
>>think before I plunk down $88 for a new connector, I will try a high
>>temp epoxy repair on this one. It would be nice to know I have the
>>correct voltage though.
>>
>>What current draw should I expect putting 12 V on a 24 V unit? I'm a
>>little suspicious of the current ratings shown on the Spruce catalog
>>page. The 12 V one is shown pulling 10A and the 24V one 15A. OTOH, the
>>Falcon Pitot tubes on the same page are shown pulling 7A and 3.5A for
>>12V and 24V respectively and is said to be AN5812 compliant.
>>
>>Bob W.
>>
>>
>
> Deducing pitot heater characteristics on the bench is
> not difficult but it involves a bit more than simply hooking
> it up to a battery and measuring the current. Pitot heaters
> have a strikingly positive temperature coefficient. They also
> have widely variable abilities to move heat from the heater
> element to the surface of the tube where ice needs to be
> shed.
>
> I did an article last winter on techniques I've used to
> peer into the inner workings of a pitot tube from the outside.
> See:
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Pitot_Heater/Gauging_Pitot_Heater_Performance.pdf
>
> For your investigation, I'd recommend you prepare a small
> coffee can with a mixture of water and crushed ice. Hook the
> tube up to a battery and measure both voltage and current
> through the tube while you stir the tube in the ice-bath.
>
> Measure voltage right at the tube's heater terminals.
>
> The tube should draw something on the order of 200 - 250
> watts. If you have a 28v tube, running it on 14 volts will
> not produce nearly so high a number.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
OK, I am away from home but will take a close look when I get home. I
actually have two crimping tools: one from B&C and another from Stein Air.
From a superficial glance they appear to be the same tool.
-- 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: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
-->
>
>
>So after reading all this I *think* that in Bob's opinion there is no
>known source or make & model of a reliable and below $200 crimper. True or
not?
>
>-- Craig
Gee . . . I hope my words didn't seem to imply that at all.
There are LOTS of terminal/tool/wire combinations that will
produce satisfactory terminations for your airplane. The "trick"
is do deduce the combination . . . and for most of you, to get
the right combination without having to research all the "Tinker-
Toys" in the box.
If B&C is selling the same tool I sold them some years go and
you use AMP PIDG terminals from B&C or anyone else, that combination
WILL provide satisfactory terminal installations on Tefzel wire.
This is EXACTLY the thrust of the article at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
The notion delivered here was that the $40 tool illustrated
was a satisfactory substitute for the $600 tool also
illustrated.
To save the research time, buy a tool from somebody like
Steinair or B&C where there's a good chance that they've
done the research for you. Even so, it's a good thing to buy
some extra terminals, crimp them on various pieces of wire
and do the pull tests and physical examinations described in
the articles. If the tool doesn't do what you need, both
of these folks are intently interested in knowing about it
and making it right with you.
Our friend Phil purchased a perfectly good AMP tool that will
NOT properly install PIDG terminals on Tefzel wire. It's
all in the dies - not all dies install all terminals as
I showed in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/JST_Samples_2.jpg
where perfectly qualifiable, PIDG style terminals from another
manufacturer looked like crap when installed with the $40
tool.
All these exercises suggest there is no substitute
for understanding what the tool is supposed to accomplish
and having the curiosity to determine if your purchase
fulfills those goals.
I can put perfectly good crimps on a PIDG terminal with
a $10 hardware store tool -OR- my $600 t-head tool.
You only need to understand how each tool performs and
take the time to learn how it is used - or as cited in
Phil's case above above, how it cannot be used.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
>
>
>OK, I am away from home but will take a close look when I get home. I
>actually have two crimping tools: one from B&C and another from Stein Air.
> From a superficial glance they appear to be the same tool.
>
>-- Craig
I suspect they are. That particular tool has a huge
following in the wild . . . it's made by at least 4
different manufacturers I know of . . . all of them
in Taiwan. I'd tried to locate a source closer to the
manufacturer to see if I could bring these tools to
the OBAM market at a better price.
The answer was, you betcha! All I had to do was pop
for 10-20 thousand tools and I could get them really
cheap!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
Gee . . . I hope my words didn't seem to imply that at all.
There are LOTS of terminal/tool/wire combinations that will
produce satisfactory terminations for your airplane. The "trick"
is do deduce the combination . . . and for most of you, to get
the right combination without having to research all the "Tinker-
Toys" in the box.
If B&C is selling the same tool I sold them some years go and
you use AMP PIDG terminals from B&C or anyone else, that combination
WILL provide satisfactory terminal installations on Tefzel wire.
This is EXACTLY the thrust of the article at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
I guess what is confusing is reconciling the quote from 2004 below with the
analysis in the article at the above link:
Hmmm . . . I noted that in my evaluation of the tool a couple
of weeks ago. I sent the tool back to B&C and copied them
on the note suggesting that the dies were installed into the
tool backwards (you can remove them and re-install the
other direction).
However, I noted further that the tool put the crimps
too far apart on a PIDG terminal. Further, the insulation
grip did not close a red terminal down on 22AWG Tefzel. See
the following photos. I cannot recommend that tool. See
following pictures on my website.
I read this as saying that the was *some* tool from B&C that you decided you
couldn't recommend. But the linked article describes a tool (possibly from
B&C) that was acceptable. Again I am away from home and can't examine the
crimp tools I have.
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Internally Regulated Alternator Update? |
>Bob,
>
>Any recent updates on the "internally regulated alternator"?
>
>I know that you were not recommending it's use on an "all electric
>airplane with dual electronic ignition", which is the configuration of the
>plane I am building.
Not at all. The modern internally regulated alternator
is a great piece of hardware that offers excellent value
over most 60's certified alternators flying today. Your
choice of alternators has nothing to do with whether or
not you have electronic ignition, EFIS, or any other
modern feature.
Depending on WHICH IR alternator you choose, you may not
have 100%, absolute control over it's output which
does not satisfy traditional design goals.
Further, depending on WHICH IR alternator you choose,
you may not be able to add a convenient form of
OV protection which is also a traditional design
goal.
Finally, depending on WHICH IR alternator you choose,
the act of turning it on and OFF at inopportune times
may damage the alternator's regulator.
Having offered this, there are thousands of OBAM
aircraft flying wherein the builder has not included
these points in satisfaction of his own design goals
either because he has considered them insignificant
or doesn't understand them well enough to make a
well considered decision. None-the-less, a vast
majority of these aircraft ARE flying trouble free.
However, from time to time, we're made aware of
installations where the builder wishes he had
considered and adopted the traditional design
goals. It's a small percentage to be sure . . .
but then catastrophic runaway failures in the
certified ships also constitutes a small percentage
of all failures.
Bottom line is that we will be able to offer a means
by which any internally regulated alternator can
be integrated into your airplane under the traditional
design goals. In the mean time, drive on with whatever
installation instructions come with your alternator
of choice knowing that modifying the system will be
easy and inexpensive at a later time. I've been trying
to get the next few pages of "Understanding Alternators"
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/alternators/UA/Alternators_1.html
published but things are really busy around here this
time of year.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
>
>
>I guess what is confusing is reconciling the quote from 2004 below with the
>analysis in the article at the above link:
>
>
> Hmmm . . . I noted that in my evaluation of the tool a couple
> of weeks ago. I sent the tool back to B&C and copied them
> on the note suggesting that the dies were installed into the
> tool backwards (you can remove them and re-install the
> other direction).
>
> However, I noted further that the tool put the crimps
> too far apart on a PIDG terminal. Further, the insulation
> grip did not close a red terminal down on 22AWG Tefzel. See
> the following photos. I cannot recommend that tool. See
> following pictures on my website.
>
>
>I read this as saying that the was *some* tool from B&C that you decided you
>couldn't recommend. But the linked article describes a tool (possibly from
>B&C) that was acceptable. Again I am away from home and can't examine the
>crimp tools I have.
B&C tried another tool supplier some time back and
it did stir up a bit of a kerfuffle because folks
noted that it didn't seem to put the PIDG terminals on
right. I got a sample tool from B&C and confirmed the
problem which was written up in the thread you cited.
B&C has long since corrected the deficiency.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
not true.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 77 hours
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
>
>
> So after reading all this I *think* that in Bob's opinion there is no
> known
> source or make & model of a reliable and below $200 crimper. True or not?
>
> -- 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
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
>
> -->
>
>
>>
>>
>>You are confused.
>>
>>The wire goes in at the larger opening end, but is crimped at the
>>other, smaller end.
>>
>>I.e. shove the wire into the open end of the terminal to be crimped,
>>which is opposite the actual ring, faston, etc. end of the terminal.
>>The end the wire goes in is where the insulation gets crimped (the
>>larger die opening) and the end nearest the ring, faston, etc. is where
>>the wire gets crimped (the smaller end).
>>
>>Dick Tasker
>
> Correct. The confusion arises mostly because folks don't make
> a distinction between the two tasks for closing a terminal
> onto a "wire" when the wire is made up of two parts: conductor
> and insulation. I've been writing about a 'wire grip' and 'insulation
> grip' but unless the reader picks up on the difference between
> 'wire' as a product or 'wire' as a component of that product. The
> explanation is unclear. I'll modify my writing accordingly.
>
> We've had discussions on the list about various tools offered
> to the building commuinity for application of terminals. Here's
> one:
> -------------------------------------
> Snipits from thread of November 2004
> -------------------------------------
> Hmmm . . . I noted that in my evaluation of the tool a couple
> of weeks ago. I sent the tool back to B&C and copied them
> on the note suggesting that the dies were installed into the
> tool backwards (you can remove them and re-install the
> other direction).
>
> However, I noted further that the tool put the crimps
> too far apart on a PIDG terminal. Further, the insulation
> grip did not close a red terminal down on 22AWG Tefzel. See
> the following photos. I cannot recommend that tool. See
> following pictures on my website.
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P255.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P256.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P257.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P258.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P259.jpg
>
>
>>Are any of the interchangeable dies for crimping coax cable?
>
>
> Yes . . . but die-sets were more than half
> cost of tool and taking time to change them out
> was a bit of a pain. All my tools are dedicated to
> a single task.
> There was another thread concerning a Cleveland tool someone purchased
> Sept
> 2004
>
>>
>>I sent the WTC380 to you on Monday via priority mail Bob. I tried to
>>tell you by replying to the sender but the mail was returned
>>undeliverable. I sent crimp examples to Buzz at Cleveland who was also
>>very interested in knowing if there was a problem with their product.
>
> Got it today. Short story is that failure to grip a 22AWG wire
> at all was because terminal was in tool backwards. Unlike the
> tools B&C sells with symmetrical dies, this tool is placement
> specific as to insertion of terminals. But even after you get the
> terminal in the right way, there's a bit of a problem. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND60A.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND61A.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND65A.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND66A.jpg
>
> Bottom line is that this tool was designed for use with
> PVC wire having larger outside diameter than Tefzel and
> in spite of its very nicely formed die set, just doesn't
> close the insulation grip adequately on a PIDG terminal.
>
> I'd appreciate it if you would forward a copy of this
> message to Buzz. Your tool is on the way back . . .
>
> -----------
>
> Paul is correct in that you cannot rely on the statements of tool and
> terminal manufacturers to insure compatibility of products - ESPECIALLY
> when
> the tool manufacturer and terminal manufacturer are different folks. These
> pictures illustrate one example of what might be called a fairly universal
> tool.
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/67A.jpg
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/678.jpg
>
> These pictures are the business end of a t-head AMP tool I bought almost
> exactly 40 years ago. It features an adjustable insulation grip die set.
> Most of my AMP tools have adjustable insulation grip dies although the
> t-head has the widest range.
>
> Lot cost tools like the one that started this thread never have adjustable
> insulation grip dies . . . so one needs to be more selective.
>
> When I offered the low cost tool for the first time about
> 6 years ago, I tested the tool with AMP PIDG terminals on tefzel wire and
> found the combination adequate. About a year ago, I got some samples of
> terminals from JST in Japan. These are mil-qualified but when tested with
> the tool I sold, produced results I didn't want to sell.
> See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/JST_Samples_2.jpg
>
>
> The upper terminal was a JST, the lower is AMP PIDG.
> I was disappointed because the JST terminals were about half the cost of
> PIDG . . .
>
> The idea behind the shop notes at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
>
> was to reinforce the simple ideas about successful terminal installation.
> Unless you're using tools mated to terminal by the same manufacturer, it's
> a
> good idea to be treat the combination with suspicion until you confirm
> that
> the terminals, tool and wire are suited for the task. It's not difficult
> if
> you take time to understand what's needed.
> --------------- End of Past Threads --------------------------
>
> Okay down to the question at hand: Phil sent me his AMP tool for
> evaluation. This picture illustrates the features of the die-set for this
> tool along with proper insertion of terminals for installation.
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_1.jpg
>
> I found that this tool produces consistent and adequate grips on the
> CONDUCTORS of all sizes of wire that are covered by the red/blue/yellow
> PIDG
> terminals. I cannot explain why Phil was not getting consistent grips on
> his
> 22AWG applications except that the terminals must not have been inserted
> and
> centered in the dies as shown in this photo set.
>
> Now the down side: This tool does not close the INSULATION grip
> sufficiently
> to grab the smaller Tefzel wires. This was a problem noted with one of the
> tools above in:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND65A.jpg
>
> This tool would be just fine for 99.9% of all commercial work where fatter
> PVC insulation was used on the wires.
>
> This investigation reenforces words I've offered about matching the
> tool/terminal/wire combinations you plan to use. Even when (as in this
> case)
> terminals and tool are both by AMP . . . the combination does not produce
> adequate installations for Phil's airplane wherein the wire of choice is
> 22759/16 Tefzel.
>
> Now, if I were working a job in the field and this was the only
> terminal/tool combo available for the task. One could consider putting
> 1/2"
> hunks of heatshrink on the ends of the stripped wires before installing a
> terminal.
> This would "fatten" up the insulation sufficiently to achieve a good
> insulation grip with PIDG terminals in this tool. However, I wouldn't want
> to wire a whole airplane with this technique.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
What sorts of longevity are folks getting out of the Odyssey PC680
batteries? Mine is two years old and after sitting overnight (with only the
aircraft's clock draining it) the voltage is only 12.4 volts, corresponding
to about a 65% charge. The hobbs time for that two years is about 325
hours. The charging voltage during operation is consistently 14.2 volts.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot tube question |
>
>FWIW my used single engine cessna pitot quickly stabilized at about 7
>amps in free room temperature air on a 12 volt battery. I can't remember
>whether the heater was marked 12 volts but 7 amps sounded reasonble to
>me. I'm assuming a low speed aircraft without other ice protection
>simply doesn't need 200+ watts to operate in snow or an occasional cloud
>breaking procedure. It was interesting to note that the unit actually
>has a small water drain hole incorporated at the point where the air
>passage turns up vertical.
>Ken
Actually, the free air bench test is at one extreme end
of the tube's operating curve. On page 2 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Pitot_Heater/Gauging_Pitot_Heater_Performance.pdf
we note that the free air bench test for the
AN5814-1 settles out at about 9A for a power dissipation
of 117 watts. However, the tube never operates there.
On your airplane, there's always ambient slip stream which
takes heat out of the tube and lowers it's resistance.
Therefore, except while sitting on the ground, you'll never
see running currents below 9A with this particular tube.
Further down the curve we see an ice-bath current draw of
16A for a total of 208 Watts. This is the other extreme for
operation which you'll never see . . . for very long. If
your airplane is picking up ice fast enough to drive the
pitot tube down to this resistance level, you have only
minutes to stay airborne anyhow and de-icing the pitot
tube is the last of your concerns.
Some data I gathered on a batch of 28V pitot tubes shows
a similar loading in an ice-bath. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Pitot_Heat_R_Raw_Data.pdf
and averaged at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Pitot_Heater_R_Plot.pdf
Here all 5 samples were close to 250 watts in the ice bath
and they too dropped to the 100 watt neighborhood in free air.
These data were the foundation for my suggestion that the
pitot tube in question should draw something in the 200w
range in stirred ice when operated at its rated voltage.
Virtually all the pitot tubes I've worked with have on or more
drain holes. In fact, location of the drain holes can be critical
to tube performance in the icing test tunnel.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
| From: | "Folbrecht, Paul" <PFolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com> |
Congrats on sorta passing. Can you legally sorta fly an LSA now?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Craig Payne
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
Based on the Sport Pilot oral exam I took today (and sorta passed) I can say
that neither a VSI or a turn coordinator are required for *VFR* flight.
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
Hopefully I will drop the "sorta" from the oral part on Tuesday and do well
on the check-ride that same day. After that (and after I finishing mating my
Zenith 601XL with its Corvair engine) I can really start learning how to
fly.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Folbrecht, Paul
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
-->
Congrats on sorta passing. Can you legally sorta fly an LSA now?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Craig Payne
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
-->
Based on the Sport Pilot oral exam I took today (and sorta passed) I can say
that neither a VSI or a turn coordinator are required for *VFR* flight.
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture |
Bob,
I have a couple questions on the Z13 setup. If I run a battery buss with:
two P-mags, my primary EFIS, one nav/com, the transponder and the audio
panel
is there any benefit to having an E-buss? Except for the audio panel the
entire collection is independently switched. Everything else in the
electrical system is on the "main" buss. Is this a robust system or am I
missing something? Operation would be , alt fails and low voltage light
comes on, switch alt and battery off (one 799-2-10 switch), continue for the
exact same duration as with an E-buss??. I might also add an SD8 witch will
extend the duration. Please help me understand what is wrong with this
design if it is not a smart or feasible plan. Thanks in advance. Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>What sorts of longevity are folks getting out of the Odyssey PC680
>batteries? Mine is two years old and after sitting overnight (with only the
>aircraft's clock draining it) the voltage is only 12.4 volts, corresponding
>to about a 65% charge. The hobbs time for that two years is about 325
>hours. The charging voltage during operation is consistently 14.2 volts.
Do you have a means for cap-checking the battery?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
Bob,
Thanks for your response.
The original post did reference using an ammeter but the thread got diverted
along the way.
So, it appears that I accomplish the most with the least by simply inserting
22AWG wires in with my wire bundles and access them as needed to take
necessary readings. That makes perfect sense to me and it is the approach I will
take.
Thanks for the advice.
Stan Sutterfield
In a message dated 12/06/05 3:00:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
Alex, how did you determine that 12.4 V equates to 65% charge? How many volts
was it putting out new? I don't ever recall seeing over 13V on mine. The mid
12s is where mine stays at now and I keep a battery tender on it at the hangar
pretty much all the time.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
>
>
> What sorts of longevity are folks getting out of the Odyssey PC680
> batteries? Mine is two years old and after sitting overnight (with only the
> aircraft's clock draining it) the voltage is only 12.4 volts, corresponding
> to about a 65% charge. The hobbs time for that two years is about 325
> hours. The charging voltage during operation is consistently 14.2 volts.
>
> Alex Peterson
>
> RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
>
> Maple Grove, MN
>
>
>
>
>
>
Alex, how did you determine that 12.4 V equates to 65% charge? How many volts was
it putting out new? I don't ever recall seeing over 13V on mine.The mid 12s
is where mine stays at now and I keep a battery tender on it at the hangar pretty
much all the time.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Alex Peterson" alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
What sorts of longevity are folks getting out of the Odyssey PC680
batteries? Mine is two years old and after sitting overnight (with only the
aircraft's clock draining it) the voltage is only 12.4 volts, corresponding
to about a 65% charge. The hobbs time for that two years is about 325
hours. The charging voltage during operation is consistently 14.2 volts.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
Maple Grove, MN
FAQ,
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Master Relay Mount Part 2 |
| From: | sjhdcl(at)kingston.net |
I recently ordered a replacement master relay. My old one (2 months old)
has the hard black pastic boots on it as discussed a few weeks ago. The
orginal one came from B&C Specialty. The replacement from Aircraft Spruce
is exactly the same.
Just for info. I tried removing the platic boots and it was nearly
impossible without a grinder. Heated them up and they seemed fine. Torqued
bolts and it also torqued properly. While I am interested in the reasons
for the design change it now seems to be distributed from many vendors and
I suspect the change is simply cosmetic. I still would prefer the metal
tabs.
Steve
RV7A #2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
>
> Do you have a means for cap-checking the battery?
>
> Bob . . .
No... is this applying some load and monitoring voltage vs time?
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
>
> Alex, how did you determine that 12.4 V equates to 65%
> charge? How many volts was it putting out new? I don't ever
> recall seeing over 13V on mine. The mid 12s is where mine
> stays at now and I keep a battery tender on it at the hangar
> pretty much all the time.
>
> lucky
Lucky, from their website. I can't paste the chart in here, but draw a
straight line between:
10% charge = 11.7v
100% charge = 12.8v
and you'll closely have the curve.
There is a very thorough pdf describing these batteries at (including the
charge vs voltage):
http://www.odysseybatteries.com/files.htm and click technical manual, I
believe.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>
> >
> > Do you have a means for cap-checking the battery?
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>No... is this applying some load and monitoring voltage vs time?
Exactly. Exemplar tools include this product by West Mountain Radio
http://westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
It lets you put a load on your battery equal to your
e-bus loads and measure exactly how long it will run
the goodies.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>
> >
> > Alex, how did you determine that 12.4 V equates to 65%
> > charge? How many volts was it putting out new? I don't ever
> > recall seeing over 13V on mine. The mid 12s is where mine
> > stays at now and I keep a battery tender on it at the hangar
> > pretty much all the time.
> >
> > lucky
>
>Lucky, from their website. I can't paste the chart in here, but draw a
>straight line between:
>
>10% charge = 11.7v
>100% charge = 12.8v
>
>and you'll closely have the curve.
>
>There is a very thorough pdf describing these batteries at (including the
>charge vs voltage):
>
>http://www.odysseybatteries.com/files.htm and click technical manual, I
>believe.
I need to ask the question again of folks in the know about
batteries but I think those voltages are based on a battery
that still got most of its capacity left. As the capacity droops,
the shape of that voltage vs. percentage of charge changes
too. I can't remember who said it . . . I've talked with too
many battery peddlers to keep it all straight.
Bottom line is that you're never wrong to suck all the juice
out and measure it. This is especially important when your
e-bus loads are greater than the 20-hour discharge rate
on the battery. A battery's apparent capacity goes down as
the load goes up.
E.g., you get 17 a.h. out at 0.85 amps load and perhaps
only 14 a.h. out with a 3 amp load. The capacity check needs
to be run as close as practical to your e-bus loads to
be a true measure of the battery's ability.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William" <wschertz(at)ispwest.com> |
I strongly believe that the 12.4V does not represent 65% of the Battery
CAPACITY. The open circuit voltage has a very poor correlation to the actual
capacity of the battery and is decidedly non-linear. Think of it this way:
The capacity of a battery is proportional to how *much* unreacted battery
couple material is left on the electrodes, and how *well* the material can
be accessed at a given load being drawn from the battery. A fully charged
battery has all the battery-couple material available, and initially it is
very easily accessed because it is at or relatively near the surface of the
electrode. As the battery discharges, some of the 'spent' material is in the
way of accessing the remaining unreacted material, so the ability to sustain
the current under load is degraded, and the voltage output of the battery
(under load) drops off -- the higher the load, the faster it drops.
Now lets consider the open circuit (or very low load with only the clock
load) condition. Now the voltage is set by whether there is *any* accessible
unreacted battery couple materials available. As long as some exists, you
will have an open-circuit voltage of about 12.4 volts, even if you have very
little capacity remaining in the battery. If the battery is truly
discharged, imposing a very small load will cause a rapid decline in
voltage, i.e. it cannot support a current withdrawal.
The voltage readings above 12.4 volts are usually due to small amounts of
other electrochemically acitive materials in the battery that don't
contribute much to actual capacity. I believe that there may be a semantic
difference between battery capacity and 'state of charge' that Odessy is
describing on page 17 of their manual, but to determine the real capacity
left, you will need to do a discharge at constant current, and measure the
time as shown in the tables on page 10.
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser # 4045
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: PC680 Life
>
>
>
>>
>> Alex, how did you determine that 12.4 V equates to 65%
>> charge? How many volts was it putting out new? I don't ever
>> recall seeing over 13V on mine. The mid 12s is where mine
>> stays at now and I keep a battery tender on it at the hangar
>> pretty much all the time.
>>
>> lucky
>
> Lucky, from their website. I can't paste the chart in here, but draw a
> straight line between:
>
> 10% charge = 11.7v
> 100% charge = 12.8v
>
> and you'll closely have the curve.
>
> There is a very thorough pdf describing these batteries at (including the
> charge vs voltage):
>
> http://www.odysseybatteries.com/files.htm and click technical manual, I
> believe.
>
> Alex Peterson
> RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
> Maple Grove, MN
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
> >
> >No... is this applying some load and monitoring voltage vs time?
>
> Exactly. Exemplar tools include this product by West Mountain Radio
>
>http://westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
>
> It lets you put a load on your battery equal to your
> e-bus loads and measure exactly how long it will run
> the goodies.
Forgot to mention. This can also be used in the
zero-load mode to check the performance of battery
chargers. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg
Here's some data I gathered with it to compare
performance of various 9v batteries. (you need to
save these files to disk and then print them . .
they don't show up much detail on the screen).
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/9vBatteryTests.jpg
A really nice tool. I'm about to order another one
for use out at RAC.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Master Relay Mount Part 2 |
>
>
> I've been giving this some thought and I wonder if they have received
> some reports of units not working because of inconsistent grounding where
> people try to ground it through the case contact rather than the
> terminal. Might be simply a way to force people to ground the relay
> properly to get consistent operation. Just a SWAG on my part.
None of the versions I'm aware of depend on
case ground for operation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Huft <aflyer(at)lazy8.net> |
version=3.0.3
>
> Bottom line is that you're never wrong to suck all the juice
> out and measure it. This is especially important when your
> e-bus loads are greater than the 20-hour discharge rate
> on the battery. A battery's apparent capacity goes down as
> the load goes up.
>
What is the reduction of the life of the battery when you run it flat? I
imagine it depends on the construction of the battery...cranking type?
Deep cycle?
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | main battery contactor, hidden security issue |
Dear all,
I was discussing recently with a guy which has NO main battery contactor
(CB setup) about his setup and he did ask me something which I could not
answer light heartily.
The main battery contactor which is supposed to switch off the big juice
in case of an emergency landing is switched through a cable going to
ground. Now imagine your setup in a metal airplane and you crash, is
there not a certain danger, that you break the cable going to the
contactor and short it to ground, this switching on the main battery
contactor and voila you have a bomb named battery in your crashing plane
able to deliver several 100 Amps.
This argument let me think and I would appreciate the insight of you
folks on the list about that scenario?
Kind regards
Werner (Glastar with main battery contactor behind my seat)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage (Dear Bob, stop it |
)
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING
ABOUT BOB
Bob, I offered someone advise on ND alternators designed for
external voltage regulators. They come in two flavors, OLD and BIG.
The old ones have poor cooling and bearing design (Van's 35amp is an
old ND). The new ones (1992-2001) are BIG and come in 70 to 120
amp plus range. They are all big and heavy. The 70 amp units have
mounts widely offset from the case. The 117/120 amp units are more
common and some have more compact mounts, some not.
AT NO TIME DID I SAY DON'T DO IT, YOU CAN'T DO IT, YOU
SHOULD NOT DO IT. I than offered to get him a new alternator at
COST, about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the part store he talked about. How terrible of me.
Helping people, what was I thinking? You don't support or care about I-VR
alternators Bob, but some do. I get notes of thanks for my help and info, which
you are unable or unwilling to post or allow to be posted with out all this
consternation.
YOU HAVE SOME BIG BRASS ONES. YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM
TELLING PEOPLE WHAT YOU THINK, OR THEIR FAULTS OR FAULTS
OF A PRODUCT, BUT GOSH DARN IT DON'T CRITICIZE BOB.
MY RESPECT FOR YOU IS DIMINISHED WITH
EVERY HYPOCRITICAL THING YOU SAY, AND I DON'T CARE WHAT
YOU THINK, SO SHUT UP.
MY REPLY TO CHARLIE WAS NOT ABOUT YOU, TO YOU, FOR YOU
or FOR YOUR BENEFIT. IT WAS FOR CHARLIE'S BENEFIT. THE
WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND YOU BOB.
IF SOMEONE AS A PROBLEM WITH ME OFFERING THEM AN
ALTERNATORS FOR 1/2 PRICE THAN THEY CAN WRITE ME OR
COMPLAIN TO MATRONICS.
AS FAR AS THE SIZE OF THE LARGE ND's, IT IS MY OPINION THEY
ARE TOO LARGE TO FIT, AT LEAST IN RV's, WHICH I HAVE BUILT
TWO AND WORKING ON A THIRD. IF THAT IS NEGATIVE SO BE IT.
I WAS TRYING TO HELP BOB, SO DEAL WITH IT.
YOU ARE CLEARLY OFFENDED BY MY TONGUE IN CHEEK "GASP"
COMMENT?
I WROTE: "60-80 amp units are a good choice but they are all GASP! Internal
regulated."
YOU WROTE:
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>Subject: Re: Modern ND external voltage
>George, you're digressing from informative dissertation to
>unkind rhetoric and propaganda. Nobody has EVER argued with
>you over the demonstrated reliability of the modern alternators.
>As I've stated many times, I have clients who embrace certain
>traditional design goals which tend to be reinforced by data
>we get on real field failures of the IR alternators. You may
>personally brush these incidents aside in your personal design
>decisions. I must object to your backhanded references to
>folks who have suffered these failures and have brought their
>stories forward (warts and all) to help raise our level of
>understanding. This atmosphere chases folks away.
If anyone searches the archives about internal VR alternators, it is
indeed like a Liberal Democrat being interviewed on Fox News. It just is a
shout down with you Bob. You think you are "Fair and Balanced" but you a
steeped in some serious dogma and opinions. It was common "wisdom" on this
list you run that I-VR's had not OV protection are recent as this year. A typical
subtle comment from you sound like this: "The so called (ND) OV protection"
You don't know squat about it so shut-up, and your theory of why an OV
could happen is wrong and never prove to ever have happened, ever.
By the way, if you don't think ND alternators or I-VR alternators in
general have been vilified and miss information spread on this forum,
read the archives. It was just a year ago people said ND alternators
don't have OV protection with out dispute. Here is a typical statement
YOU made:
>"(6) While the probability of regulator failure in cars is exceedingly
>low, it is not zero. We have heard of ANECDOTAL stories of unhappy,
>high-dollar events taking place in airplanes after failure of internally
>regulated alternators."
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Crowbar_OV_Protection/Crowbar_C.pdf
WHAT EVENT , WHAT HAPPENED? If someone made a comment
like that about ANECDOTAL stories against your "paradigm" on this
forum you would have a S%#t hemorrhage.
What a hypocrite, don't ask people for data unless you have some Bob. I used
the word anecdotal on this forum once, you chewed me a new one and called
me names. What a tool.
YOU chase people away. In just the last year you have chased away
at least 3 people. You have taken pot shots at others and companies that don't
even post. Here is a short list:
SkyTec,
Ex-buss,
Jim Weir RST Engineering
Greg Ritcher Blue Mountain Avionics,
Van's Aircraft (specifically Richard VanGrunsven),
SDS (simple digital systems)
Niagara Air-parts (alternator kit)
The latter one, Niagara, you picked on their installation instructions that state
low RPM and high loads puts a strain on the alternator. YOU
WENT ON AN ON about what is strain? "This does not help
understanding by using words like strain!" However you are happy to
throw out words like Paradigm with nothing else? You fool no one Bob,
you are faking it 1/2 the time. You say anything to cast dispersions.
I suggest if you don't understand what overloading an alternator at low
RPMS and the word STRAIN means you read my write up on how alternator
basics work so you understand this strain concept, posted on this list on
Nov 8, 2005: "Alternators Basics: Regulators & OV"
That thing you did with Greg Richter, of Blue Mountain Avionics is a
darn shame. You wrote a manifesto on how ignorant Greg Richter of
Blue Mountain Avionics is and posted a DANGER warning on your web
site like a Terror Alert. You got some BIG brass ONES. Bob you are the
king of calling people ignorant. Bob I would work on your own tacit. I
mean you go BOTH barrels when you are after someone you don't like.
That is OK; You made it a habit of attacking me, so the feeling is mutual.
I just think you are jealous. You could not make an EFIS/Autopilot
system if your life depended on it. Not to mention your attack on
SkyTec starters; you had NO CLUE of what you where talking about.
When you got called on it, a Gentleman would have apologized; but you
just talked in circles and make more excuses like you always do, like
when a crow-bar or a B&C regulator breaks or malfunctions.
Talk about rude and negative and just bombastic lambasting, you are
the king. I find it ironic people who develop complex products like VHF
radios, EFIS and autopilots and full digital fuel / ignition controls, several
1000 times more complex than the B&C voltage regulator, are criticized by
you. You have no problem attacking and being critical of others, while
you can't take any yourself. You are a small jealous person.
You are a true hypocrite. You "constantly interrupt informative
dissertations" to take snide, condescending, backstabbing pot shots at
people, including me, but I usually let it go. You drop little wise
comments about me and others embedded in post weeks later. What a
little chicken thing to do. I read them and ignored them. It's a petty
"paradigm" you live in. Give it a break.
You call people ignorant outright or (dangerous) idiots in so many
(many) words. So please shut up with the lecture dear Sir, you are the
most abrasive argumentative person on the web, in my humble opinion.
The problem you seem to have is people expressing their opinion, and if
it's different than yours, like suggesting using an I-VR alternator, you are
offended and make personal attacks. This is your modus-operandi.
People just get sick of you. GET OVER IT. STICK WITH FACTS. You
can't because you don't have any, just your old tired ideas and opinions.
Get something new to say. WE GOT IT External VR's period, done OK.
>I've oft suggested that it's just as important for builders
>to share their failures as it is to share their successes. Knowing
>what DOES NOT work is as valuable as knowing what DOES.
>It keeps us from re-inventing the same mistakes over and over
>again. But folks at risk for being targets of derisive comments
>and unkind behaviors will not be inclined to be forthcoming.
>With this case in particular, you've had no conversation with
>the individual and have know knowledge of details of the event
>or the investigations that have been launched because of his
>willingness to share.
You are such a ...... The guy from SDS had a forced landing in his RV-
6A from an honest mistake and shared his mistake on his web site. You
where tipped off and read it, and you wrote a self righteous, smug
pompous editorial, tearing him a new one with a bunch of "EXPERT"
opinion. How much do you fly? How many truly innovative things
have you done? A voltage regulator and crow bar are not sophisticated
or original. You are such a double talking hypocrite. Well SDS heard
and read what you wrote. You should have read his reply about you
on his web site, after he got wind of your uninformed petty little
analysis. He WAS PISSED and rightly so. Again you gave your typical
know it all high and mighty armchair expert crud. Don't you dare accuse
me of anything you hypocrite. You don't like me because I call your bull.
Anyone who wants to see how to conceive, execute and flight test
ideas should check SDS's web site out:
http://www.sdsefi.com/air9.html
You are correct I did not talk to this individual (RV-4 guy). You also did
not try to find out what went wrong with the regulator. YOU HAVE NO
INTEREST IN understanding and promoting I-VR's, despite you claim of
impartiality.
I have offered to obtain manufactures assistance in evaluating failed regulators
thru, X-ray, test equipment and even component by component analysis to
anyone who is interested. Bob is not interested, he just wants to sell some more
crow bars. What do you make Bob, about $20-$30 apiece?
New custom ND regulators are coming that will meet the "paradigm" of design
Bob claims to know or poses (fake).
You miss lead people and promote your own agenda, while saying you
are so open minded. I got into a pissing match with you on another
email where I suggested people wire and use the alternators WARNING
light, and remote voltage sense (with facts to back-up my opinion). The
ND alternator does have Hi/Lo voltage warning on many models. You
made some snide comments and listed guesses why it may not work in a reply
about the warning light. I am tired of YOU, but not tired of promoting my
opinion in a positive productive way despite your personal attacks.
THE RECENT EVENT OF THE RV-4 GUY WHO BLEW HIS BATTERY
UP (MOSTLY HIS FAULT BY THE WAY), had more detail and
credibility than I have heard before. No doubt it happened, but some
how we let the VR just get thrown in the trash? If it was a B&C regulator
would you just thrown it in the trash? NO. If you tell me it is unlikely
your B&C regulator could not fail or allow an OV, ever, you will be
telling a big fat fib.
Again show a total lack of commitment in improving the understanding
the use of internal VR's in airplanes. You just don't care, but that is
fine. BUTT OUT please, some of the rest of us care and want to know
what really happened. I guess it is too late to get the VR from this event. By
the
way as a +10,000 ATP pilot, 3 jet type ratings, my sense of smell is not the
most important one sense as a pilot, but lets blame the alternator or battery.
You have no plan or desire to develop I-VR use in planes. THAT's FINE
BUT STOP interfering with those who are improving the understanding.
I don't want an aeroelectric certificate of achievement on my wall, I have
enough diplomas and certificates already.
The RV-4 Gentleman went cruising around the countryside for
an undetermined amount of time, with the voltmeter pegged, despite the
smell of something acidic, for an additional undetermined amount of
time, kept flying, until he saw the voltmeter. This is NOT an alternator
problem. If he had followed "golden rules" he would have had NO
problem.
HERE IS A NEWS FLASH:
ND alternators have OV protection set to 17 volts (varies by model).
There was some serious electrolyte-boiling going on at 17 VOLTS, BUT
ON HE FLEW, ON AND ON AND ON, with ACIDIC SMELL AND ALL.
The pilot was contributory and really the prime reason to blowing up the
battery. If the alternator warning light was wired in (as I recommend) he
would not have had a problem, in my opinion of course. I am sure you
disagree, since I wrote about the warning light. Your reply was a three-
page reason why it would not work and a dig at me. Fact is you don't
know daddy, yet you open your mouth with opinions, no facts, again.
Folks the warning light is designed to work with any reasonable expect
regulator failure.
*************************************************************
IF I CAN MAKE ONE POINT AND GET ACROSS TO YOU - Fact ND
alternators do have a warning lights that will give them immediate
indication Low of OV. Also ND alternators have OV protection, e.g. 17
volts. HOWEVER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE YOU MUST WIRE AND
OPERATE THE ALTERNATOR AS IT WAS INTENDED. OK
*************************************************************
>May I suggest that whacking at anyone like this is counter-
>and perhaps even mean spirited? Please offer your data and
>logic with the goal of advancing our understanding and refrain
>from such personal attacks when you know so very little
>about them. There's a big difference between noting some level
>of ignorance as a matter of fact and hurling a label of ignorance
>at someone just because they disagree with you.
>Bob.
May I suggest you shut up please.
I find that you and the above comment to be ridiculous and offensive. You are
very vindictive and hostel, so for you to point at anyone is ridiculous. Once you
got someone's NUMBER, you will attack, nag, nit-pick and bugger them until
they leave the list. You do it over and over and over. The difference with me is
I don't care what you think about me. My mission is tp help people, who want to
use the ND alternator to it's best advantage and reliability.
There you go with the "Please offer your data and logic". No Bob you
offer data and logic, with out the word paradigm please. Most of the time
you make it up or make excuses. I have lots of data. You don't know
me. I have talked to several engineers from manufactures and auto
electronics makers and suppliers. Since I am an engineer I can
understand and discuss the details of how these devices work. I would
love to share them with you, but NO DOUBT you will write some
SNIPPY little comments and remarks. YOU are just not interested in
anyone's opinion but your own, so why bother.
The folks that want to know more write me. Together we are coming up
with our own "Paradigm". This forum is not suitable for new ideas
because of one person, YOU. Why not just butt out and leave the
internal regulator stuff to others. You don't understand them, you don't
want to understand them and you make negative comments all the time. YOU
Sir are the one that needs to shut up and let us who have the intent of helping
and learning do that, with out your hindrance.
"whacking at anyone like this is counter-productive"
MY point, BOB, STOP IT WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS? You are
confused with yourself ?
"hurling a label of ignorance at someone"
Bob you are being stupid now. STOP IT. I NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED
ANYONE WAS IGNORANT, but it is clearly your cup of tea BOB. YOU
CALL EVERY ONE IGNORANT (who disagrees). If someone tells you you
are great an brilliant, you are like a little school girl, weeeeeee. Grow up.
Well let me use your words: You are an ignorant hypocrite. You
called Richard VanGrunsven ignorant. WHY? He disagrees with you. He does
not what you to "TEACH" his staff your brilliant ideas. The man has the most
popular designs and a worldwide business. Trust me he is smart enough to
grasp the concepts of DC circuits. Van by the way has an engineering degree,
and last time I mentioned I also had an engineering degree, you and a few of
you little buddies spouted off.
Apparently engineers are stupid or in competent and the "trade
school" technicians are superior, is what I got out of it. Whatever,
Jealousy? Although I don't work as an engineer any more as an airline
pilot, when I did practice engineering, my consulting fees earned
me well over 100 grand a year. So say what you want about engineers.
BOB THE HYPOCRITE
Bob is loose and fast with the facts. He lets others make outrageous,
unsupported negative claims and statements as long as it supports his opinion;
but if someone makes a counter-point or opinion he demands facts, data and
test. That is hypocrisy.
He makes a claim ND alternators have a weak point or single failure
point ( the field driver transistor). However in the RV-4 case and others it has
never been shown to be the cause? In fact it is obvious the RV-4
alternator still was functioning and was not a GASP! :-0 a Runway! Oh
NO! Once a guy had a problem much more benign with no battery
puff or avionics damage. Bob implied it was a RUNAWY. Hardly it peaked
at 16 volts and would drop with load. The reason was the pilot messing
with turning the IGN lead ON/OFF under load. Again pilot induced failure.
Yes there was an issue with the RV-4, it did happen, but not like you
will no doubt portray it in the future to sell your wares. Your cover and
fake act of your so called impartial nature is blown.
The RV-4 regulator was just tossed in the trash. However I feel the regulator
did what it needed to do, it went into OV protection and stayed there until the
pilot finally woke up and turned it off, with the IGN wire of all things?
Hummmmm Again missed opportunity in understanding of the how, why and
what makes an internal VR work. A real engineer would have looked into this
further.
Instead of making this a Forum to understand I-VR's for those who
use them, it is a beat down anti-ND internal VR forum. I mean if Bob
would just butt out on the subject we would be better off. He has no
motivation to support internal regulators. In the future custom VR's for
homebuilts will be developed and will be definitively better than any external
regulator/crowbar set up. It is coming whether Bob likes it or not.
Even http://plane-power.com/ has an internal VR with an add on OV module all
self contained. Would it not be nice to take a new $100-$150 ND and make a
little conversion, still using the I-VR and add another layer of OV protection
for those who want it? It can be done obviously. I might even offer kits or
whole alternators? If not I will be sure to share my research to help others at
no
cost.
There has NEVER been an OV with a ND alternator per the theory that
December 08, 2005 - December 12, 2005
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fc