AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fq
April 19, 2006 - May 16, 2006
CH-3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland
E-Mail: ykibuess(at)bluewin.ch
Europa XS #097, Monowheel, Foam shortwing, Rotax 912S, Airmaster 332 CS
(still sanding....)
-----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Im Auftrag von Mark E
Navratil
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. April 2006 05:07
An: rv-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Betreff: AeroElectric-List: Helmet & Headset ponderings
-->
Guys,
I've been enjoying my trusty helmet but as the wx turns warmer I'm thinking
I'll probably break down and get a good ANR headset. The head bucket is
just too hot to wear when it gets into the upper 80's and beyond. The other
thing I've noticed is that the Oregon Aero earseals in my helmet get
extremely soft with higher temps and don't seem to seal as well as they do
in wintertime....they're very comfortable (as advertised) but the ANR has a
hard time keeping up with the noise level and I find it bothersome after
several hours in the air. FWIW I have the Headsets Inc ANR in my helmet
earcups and I imagine there are better systems available from the likes of
Bose and Lightspeed.
So...I've been looking at ANR headsets and figure if I'm gonna spend some
dough, might as well get a good one and only cry once. I'm sure Bose is the
best but I can't quite believe the cost/benefit tradeoff is worth the $1K
price tag. So I'm looking at Lightspeed's top-of-the-line Thirty 3G
instead. It is cheap by comparison at about half the price of the Bose X
(iPilot.com has the Thirty 3G for $559 with free shipping).
Couple questions: does anybody know if Lightspeed might have a better deal
available at Oshkosh? If they have really good show specials it might be
worth waiting...
Also, any pireps on the Thirty 3G series or similar high-end Lightspeed
model would be appreciated. In general I've heard that Lightspeed headsets
are comfortable and work well, sometimes break but have good factory support
to replace parts. One of my hangarmates has a pair of well-used Lightspeeds
that have the thin covering pealing away from the foam earseals and head
cushions. Still works but looks like crap...
Thanks as always for the input,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D flying 25.0 hours now, first oil change just completed...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
The archives show strobe noise isn't unique and I have some too. It's pretty low
level and sometimes even seems to go away in my front seat headsets when I
have my intercom turned off (but not always). However, when the intercom is turned
on the strobe sound is amplified to the point where I won't take a passenger.
Oly the strobe noise causes such a problem. Everything seems to fine with
the strobes off.
So the rear seat headset jacks/wire are bringing the noise into the radio which
is made worse when the intercom is powered on or the strobes needed to be grounded
differently to begin with, or both, or something else!
I have an RV8, the battery is in the back and grounded on a nearby longeron. The
two strobe power supplies are at the wing tips and grounded locally. I could
extend the strobe grounds to bring it all the way back into the fuse but then
left with multiple choices on where to ground as I am using Van's electrical
system "kit".
Ground the strobes to the battery, to the comm radio post, put in RF caps and leave
the rest alone, and how to troubleshoot for root cause the Rear Seat jacks
which might actually be the problem? Any ideas? It's tough to work on the
plane when the weather is so NICE for flying!
The archives show strobe noise isn't unique and I have some too. It's pretty low
level and sometimes even seems to go away in my front seat headsets when I have
my intercom turned off (but not always). However, when the intercom is turned
on the strobe sound is amplified to the point where I won't take a passenger.
Oly the strobe noise causes such a problem. Everything seems to fine with
the strobes off.
So the rear seat headset jacks/wire are bringing the noise into the radio which
is made worse when the intercom is powered on or the strobes needed to be grounded
differently to begin with, or both, or something else!
I have an RV8, the battery is in the back and grounded on a nearby longeron. The
two strobe power supplies are at the wing tips and grounded locally. I could
extend the strobe grounds to bring it all the way back into the fuse but then
left with multiple choices on where to ground as I am using Van's electrical
system "kit".
Ground the strobes to the battery, to the comm radio post, put in RF caps and leave
the rest alone, and how to troubleshoot for root cause the Rear Seat jacks
which might actually be the problem? Any ideas? It's tough to work on the plane
when the weather is so NICE for flying!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Helmet & Headset ponderings |
If you want to support an USA made headset, investigate Sigtronics. I
was told that the overseas made units actually cost ~$15 so making
repairs at low cost doesn't affect the profit margin. The Sigtronics
mike is designed for the frequencies used in aircraft and mask the wind
noise etc. A none ANR version worked fine in a Mustang II and my ANR
version works great in a Lancair. Earl [just my opinion]
Gerry Holland wrote:
>
> Mark Hi!
>
>
>> One of my hangarmates has a pair of
>> well-used Lightspeeds that have the thin covering pealing away from the
>> foam earseals and head cushions. Still works but looks like crap...
>>
>
> I had till recently the same raggy but happy Lightspeed Headset (the
> Original 15K from 1998) and contacted Lightspeed. Their response was as
> follows:
>
> The ear seals are $20 for the pair, $10 for the head pad and the mic muff is
> $3. And just to update you on the K series, we still do repairs on these
> headsets at no charge but since we haven't produced them since 1999 we are
> running out of some parts and there are repairs that we can no longer do.
> You may want to consider a trade at some point. You can trade your 15K for
> any of the new ANR headsets and get $100 off.
>
> I thought that a fair deal but for now replaced the pads, a 2 minute job if
> that. I did purchase an additional and latest low end model, the 15XL and am
> very pleased with performance and fit. Good value at $375.00.
>
> Service and response are very good from Lightspeed.
>
> Regards
>
> Gerry in UK
> Europa XS Trigear - G-FIZY
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Helmet & Headset ponderings |
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>> So...I've been looking at ANR headsets and figure if I'm gonna spend some
>> dough, might as well get a good one and only cry once. I'm sure Bose is
>> the best but I can't quite believe the cost/benefit tradeoff is worth the
>> $1K price tag. ...
I have had a pair of Lightspeed 25XL headsets for some time now -- one
pair since they first came out and the second less than a year later.
They have been the most unreliable headsets I have ever owned. I have
had to replace mechanical parts several times and electronics a couple
of times. I have also had to send each of them back to the factory, one
once and the other twice. Support has been extremely good and they have
never charged me for any service or support.
Now the have the peeling black covering on the ear muffs. The ANR no
longer seems to work properly on either one so they are, once again,
going back to the factory. I don't think that my next ANR headset will
come from Lightspeed.
And just so you don't think I am completely down on Lightspeed, I want
you to know that I now use their low-cost non-ANR headset, the QNR. I
got this headset to have for passengers but found that it has the best
passive noise reduction of any headset I have used and it also has the
best overall sound quality -- real high fidelity.
I have one of just about every manufacturer's non-ANR headset kicking
around, e.g. David Clark, Flightcom, Sigtronics, Peltor, Softcomm, and
Telex. I have a pretty good feel for how they all work. (For durability
and overall comfort it is hard to beat the David Clarks with the Oregon
Aero Softtop and Ear Seals.) I also have an HGU-33 helmet with the
Flight Suits earspeakers and the Oregon Aero fit-kit. I love it. Good
passive noise reduction. I don't think I will opt for ANR.
The best ANR headset I have used, bar none, is the Telex digital ANR.
The ANR in that headset is *breathtaking*! You turn it on and you
immediately get ANR like all the other headsets. Then about 10-15
seconds later the rest of the low-freq noise just goes away, like
someone has turn down the noise control. The cancellation is so complete
it is mind boggling. Evidently the DSP in the headset learns the exact
frequencies of the noise and cancels them exactly. The result is
astonishing. And Telex knows how to build a headset mechanically so it
stays together. It is a bit more massive than the Lightspeed but with
proper cushions there is no reason it won't be comfortable all day long.
And after all that I want to add that I am shying away from ANR. ANR
only protects against low-frequency noise. That is fine but hearing loss
comes from mid- and high-frequency noise. Therefore it is the passive
noise reduction of the headset or helmet that protects your hearing. It
seems to me that the manufacturers of ANR headsets focus on the noise
reduction of the ANR at the expense of the overall passive noise
reduction. As a long-time pilot, shooter, and musician I have developed
mild tinnitus (ringing in the ears) even tho' I have tried to protect my
hearing. (I guess I wasn't so careful when I was young and
invulnerable.) Now I am doing everything I can to keep it from getting
worse. Good Passive noise reduction is the first thing I look for in a
headset. The active stuff is just icing on the cake.
Comfort is another big issue for me. I tend to wear headsets for long
periods. Two or three times a year I fly from California to the Virgin
Islands and back, six days and 45-50 flight hours for the round trip. I
can't handle a headset that isn't comfortable to wear for 8 hours. A
standard David Clark type passive headset with the Oregon Aero Softtop
and Ear Seals makes for a very comfortable headset with good passive
noise reduction. Something to think about.
And there is one other thing that I have never seen anyone talk about
with headsets -- the quality of the microphone. If you fly a noisy
airplane like a CJ6A, Yak-52, RV-4, etc., you need a *really* good
noise-canceling microphone. Most mics that come with headsets are not
particularly good. Sigtronics has a good electret mic specially designed
for high-noise environments that you can retrofit to almost any headset
that has the wire-frame type mic boom. I have one on my helmet. It works
pretty well even in the CJ6A or Yak-52.
The best mic I have used that came on a production headset came from
Softcomm. The one I have is no longer made but their C-40-20 "Silver
Fox" seems to be its equivalent.
This is probably more information than you wanted but it may help
someone else too.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Helmet & Headset ponderings |
>
>
>Brian Lloyd wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > And there is one other thing that I have never seen anyone talk about
> > with headsets -- the quality of the microphone. ...
>
>I've often thought about this, but have not found an easy way
>to test it. The normal "radio check" request from a tower
>or ATC usually doesn't get too deep into the quality of the
>sound. Any suggestions?
There's nothing like "listening to your own radio" to assess
your transmitted quality. Have someone sit in your airplane
while you go across the field (100 yds +) and talk to him
on a handheld . . . it's especially useful to plug a headset
into the hand held.
There are far too many airplanes with lousy audio wherein
other pilots and particularly ATC personell won't gig them
on it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dsvs(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Helmet & Headset ponderings |
(snip)
> And after all that I want to add that I am shying away from ANR. ANR
> only protects against low-frequency noise. That is fine but hearing loss
> comes from mid- and high-frequency noise. .
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>Brian,
Are you sure about the ANR sets do not work at higher freq? The ANR process does
work equally at any and all frequencies. Why would the manufacturers choose
only the low freq? I believe that Bose sets may have a more balanced spectrum
and offer protection at the normal speedch level freqs. I will test mine tonight.
Don
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Helmet & Headset ponderings |
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>> And there is one other thing that I have never seen anyone talk about
>> with headsets -- the quality of the microphone. ...
>
> I've often thought about this, but have not found an easy way
> to test it. The normal "radio check" request from a tower
> or ATC usually doesn't get too deep into the quality of the
> sound. Any suggestions?
There aren't many objective ones. I find my results to be subjective
based on three things:
1. how well I can understand someone else in the airplane over the intercom;
2. how much I have to change the squelch on the intercom during flight;
3. how well ATC understands my transmissions.
Having ATC ask you to "say again" every other transmission is a bad sign
as is having to turn the intercom squelch up so high you have to yell to
break the squelch.
Brian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Helmet & Headset ponderings |
dsvs(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
> (snip)
>> And after all that I want to add that I am shying away from ANR. ANR
>> only protects against low-frequency noise. That is fine but hearing loss
>> comes from mid- and high-frequency noise. .
>>
>> --
>> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
>> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
>> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>>
>> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
>> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>>
>> Brian,
> Are you sure about the ANR sets do not work at higher freq?
Yes.
> The ANR process does work equally at any and all frequencies.
Not really. As you go up in frequency the wavelengths get shorter. There
is more of a phase shift between the noise-cancellation pickup (mic in
the earcup) and the noise cancellation transducer. It makes it more and
more difficult to maintain the 180 degree phase cancellation.
> Why would the manufacturers choose only the low freq?
The cancellation gets less as the frequency goes up because the phase
shift away from 180 degrees increases. It is just physics. In addition,
if you don't cut off the signal below the point where phase shift
reaches 90 degrees, the system can become unstable and start to "ring"
and eventuall oscillate (feed back).
>I believe that Bose sets may have a more balanced spectrum and offer protection
at the normal speedch level freqs. I will test mine tonight.
It is possible to make it better but it requires more work and better
design. It is $easier$ to get the attenuation passively at the higher
frequencies so that is what most manufacturers do. That may well be the
real reason that the Bose headsets cost $1,000 instead of $350.
Brian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Helmet & Headset ponderings |
dsvs(at)comcast.net wrote:
> Are you sure about the ANR sets do not work at higher freq?
Another reason that many ANR headsets cut off the ANR at about 300Hz is
that they are completely autonomous modules and would attenuate speech
frequencies above that. A good design needs to take into account the
audio signal being fed to the earspeakers from the intercom and audio
panel and *not* attenuate that signal. That requires more $design$
$effort$ also. Cutting off the ANR at 300Hz avoids that problem and
allows the designer to build a cheaper module.
Brian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dsvs(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Helmet & Headset ponderings |
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
>
> dsvs(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
> > Are you sure about the ANR sets do not work at higher freq?
>
> Another reason that many ANR headsets cut off the ANR at about 300Hz is
> that they are completely autonomous modules and would attenuate speech
> frequencies above that. A good design needs to take into account the
> audio signal being fed to the earspeakers from the intercom and audio
> panel and *not* attenuate that signal. That requires more $design$
> $effort$ also. Cutting off the ANR at 300Hz avoids that problem and
> allows the designer to build a cheaper module.
>
> Brian
>
>
Brian,
Thanks for the info. I think you hit it on the head, that is the reason that the
Bose set is much more expensive. I will check my Bose set tonight if I have
the time. I will check the reading inside the earcup at variopus freqs with
the ANR on and off. I will let you know what I find. Don
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | 20 slot fuse block |
Listers ...
Can someone please post the length and width of B & C's 20 slot fuse block?
It's not in their catalog and they don't answer mail for simple questions.
Thanks ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 20 slot fuse block |
>
>Listers ...
>Can someone please post the length and width of B & C's 20 slot fuse block?
>It's not in their catalog and they don't answer mail for simple questions.
>Thanks ...
>Jerry Grimmonpre'
See page 10 of
http://www.sacramentoelectronics.com/images/bussmann/specialty_catalogs/BUSS_Auto-OEM.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Allison <stevea(at)svpal.org> |
| Subject: | Re: 20 slot fuse block |
Jerry,
rummaging through the electrical parts stock on the floor:
6.875 (L) x 3.375 (W) inches
The slots are on 5/8" spacing, so you can scale down the length for the
smaller sizes
Steve
Jerry Grimmonpre wrote:
> Listers ...
> Can someone please post the length and width of B & C's 20 slot fuse block?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 20 slot fuse block (CORRECTION) |
>
>Listers ...
>Can someone please post the length and width of B & C's 20 slot fuse block?
>It's not in their catalog and they don't answer mail for simple questions.
>Thanks ...
>Jerry Grimmonpre'
Seems the .pdf page isn't the same as the print page. Let's
try something else. I've captured some good Bussmann data
and posted at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman
Go there and you'll find the 15600 fuseblock dimensions and
other useful stuff on Bussmann.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Nathan Ulrich" <nulrich(at)technq.com> |
| Subject: | Music wiring and switching |
I'm installing a Garmin 347 audio panel, their new one. I also have a Garmin
396, and I'd like to wire the XM radio audio from the 396 to the music
inputs on the 347. I was planning to also wire in external music input jacks
for both the crew and the passengers. I thought I'd install two switches,
one for the pax and one for the crew, that switched between XM audio and
external audio.
Unfortunately, from what the installation manual says, the 347 audio panel
has two music inputs, one for the crew and one for the passengers, and there
is no way to have the pax hear the crew audio (or vice versa). This is
different from the GMA 340 from what I understand. I'm assuming I can't wire
the XM audio output from the 396 to both music inputs through a switch, as
the volume would be reduced if both crew and pax were listening to the XM
audio as opposed to just crew or just pax.
Anyone have ideas about how to make this work? I'd really like for both the
crew and passengers to be able to listen to the XM audio at times, but at
other times I'm sure the passengers and crew will want to listen to
different audio sources.
Thanks,
Nathan Ulrich
nulrich(at)technq.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Music wiring and switching |
Oh, shucks, I'm not going to be a bunch of help, altho I saw this documented
when I was websurfing a few months ago. Go google for the 340 and the PSE
audio panels. In fact, maybe its on the PSE website in a tech note. This
is actually pretty similar to the 340 and the PSE audio inputs... I just
can't remember where I saw the information.... Dang it... When all else
fails
Also as a fall back, here is the 340 installation manual, you could compare
notes to make sure it's the same. I believe it is.
http://www.highrf.com/Rockets/Legacy/GMA340AudioPanel_InstallationManual.pdf
Sorry,
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nathan
Ulrich
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 7:42 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Music wiring and switching
-->
I'm installing a Garmin 347 audio panel, their new one. I also have a Garmin
396, and I'd like to wire the XM radio audio from the 396 to the music
inputs on the 347. I was planning to also wire in external music input jacks
for both the crew and the passengers. I thought I'd install two switches,
one for the pax and one for the crew, that switched between XM audio and
external audio.
Unfortunately, from what the installation manual says, the 347 audio panel
has two music inputs, one for the crew and one for the passengers, and there
is no way to have the pax hear the crew audio (or vice versa). This is
different from the GMA 340 from what I understand. I'm assuming I can't wire
the XM audio output from the 396 to both music inputs through a switch, as
the volume would be reduced if both crew and pax were listening to the XM
audio as opposed to just crew or just pax.
Anyone have ideas about how to make this work? I'd really like for both the
crew and passengers to be able to listen to the XM audio at times, but at
other times I'm sure the passengers and crew will want to listen to
different audio sources.
Thanks,
Nathan Ulrich
nulrich(at)technq.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "SteinAir, Inc." <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Music wiring and switching |
Actually, I don't think it's mcuh of a problem because both the PMA and -347
allow you to configure the music inputs (especially "music 1") which can be
selected in the "all" position where everyone hears the input, or just the
pax, etc.. right from the Audio Panel itself. The PSE is a bit stronger in
the distribution capabilities than the GMA, but both have quite a few
options on them.
Another way that is the easiest and quickest way around this issue with both
the -347 and the PMA8000x's is to just use one of the unused "switched"
inputs on the audio panel itself and forget about the actual music inputs.
Not many are actually using the ADF or DME inputs, and although they are not
a soft mute, they are switchable right from the panel and anther good input
option for audio (those of you needing a Chelton Audio Mute this is a good
option). Just simply use the ADF, or DME, etc.. input for the XM music.
Hope that helps a little. Both manuals (PSE and GMA) will tell you how you
can configure the music inputs to do virually anything you want them to.
Cheers,
Stein.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Nathan
>Ulrich
>Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 6:42 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Music wiring and switching
>
>
>
>
>I'm installing a Garmin 347 audio panel, their new one. I also
>have a Garmin
>396, and I'd like to wire the XM radio audio from the 396 to the music
>inputs on the 347. I was planning to also wire in external music
>input jacks
>for both the crew and the passengers. I thought I'd install two switches,
>one for the pax and one for the crew, that switched between XM audio and
>external audio.
>
>Unfortunately, from what the installation manual says, the 347 audio panel
>has two music inputs, one for the crew and one for the passengers,
>and there
>is no way to have the pax hear the crew audio (or vice versa). This is
>different from the GMA 340 from what I understand. I'm assuming I
>can't wire
>the XM audio output from the 396 to both music inputs through a switch, as
>the volume would be reduced if both crew and pax were listening to the XM
>audio as opposed to just crew or just pax.
>
>Anyone have ideas about how to make this work? I'd really like for both the
>crew and passengers to be able to listen to the XM audio at times, but at
>other times I'm sure the passengers and crew will want to listen to
>different audio sources.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Nathan Ulrich
>nulrich(at)technq.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Music wiring and switching |
But, but but... While I've not wired my audio panel yet, isn't the ADF or
DME inputs MONO only? I didn't think they provided for Stereo?
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of SteinAir,
Inc.
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 9:44 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Music wiring and switching
-->
Actually, I don't think it's mcuh of a problem because both the PMA and -347
allow you to configure the music inputs (especially "music 1") which can be
selected in the "all" position where everyone hears the input, or just the
pax, etc.. right from the Audio Panel itself. The PSE is a bit stronger in
the distribution capabilities than the GMA, but both have quite a few
options on them.
Another way that is the easiest and quickest way around this issue with both
the -347 and the PMA8000x's is to just use one of the unused "switched"
inputs on the audio panel itself and forget about the actual music inputs.
Not many are actually using the ADF or DME inputs, and although they are not
a soft mute, they are switchable right from the panel and anther good input
option for audio (those of you needing a Chelton Audio Mute this is a good
option). Just simply use the ADF, or DME, etc.. input for the XM music.
Hope that helps a little. Both manuals (PSE and GMA) will tell you how you
can configure the music inputs to do virually anything you want them to.
Cheers,
Stein.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>Nathan Ulrich
>Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 6:42 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Music wiring and switching
>
>
>
>
>I'm installing a Garmin 347 audio panel, their new one. I also have a
>Garmin 396, and I'd like to wire the XM radio audio from the 396 to the
>music inputs on the 347. I was planning to also wire in external music
>input jacks for both the crew and the passengers. I thought I'd install
>two switches, one for the pax and one for the crew, that switched
>between XM audio and external audio.
>
>Unfortunately, from what the installation manual says, the 347 audio
>panel has two music inputs, one for the crew and one for the
>passengers, and there is no way to have the pax hear the crew audio (or
>vice versa). This is different from the GMA 340 from what I understand.
>I'm assuming I can't wire the XM audio output from the 396 to both
>music inputs through a switch, as the volume would be reduced if both
>crew and pax were listening to the XM audio as opposed to just crew or
>just pax.
>
>Anyone have ideas about how to make this work? I'd really like for both
>the crew and passengers to be able to listen to the XM audio at times,
>but at other times I'm sure the passengers and crew will want to listen
>to different audio sources.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Nathan Ulrich
>nulrich(at)technq.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Helmet & Headset ponderings |
Your first answer was correct, but this is plain wrong. The audio
signal comes in from an entirely separate source than the noise
cancellation signal. There is no reason whatsoever that the cutoff
frequency has anything to do with the desired audio response. If you
have found this to be true with any design then the engineer doing the
design didn't know what he was doing. Forty years ago, I couldn't even
spell ingeneir, now I is one :-) .
Now, if you are talking about hearing someone talking to you NOT over
the intercom or airwaves, then, yes, attenuating (noise canceling)
frequencies in the voice band would make it more difficult to hear
them. But definitely NOT so for signals piped in through the phone cord.
Dick Tasker
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>dsvs(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>
>>Are you sure about the ANR sets do not work at higher freq?
>>
>>
>
>Another reason that many ANR headsets cut off the ANR at about 300Hz is
>that they are completely autonomous modules and would attenuate speech
>frequencies above that. A good design needs to take into account the
>audio signal being fed to the earspeakers from the intercom and audio
>panel and *not* attenuate that signal. That requires more $design$
>$effort$ also. Cutting off the ANR at 300Hz avoids that problem and
>allows the designer to build a cheaper module.
>
>Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
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: | "Nathan Ulrich" <nulrich(at)technq.com> |
Thanks for the thoughts, but I'm afraid the GMA 347 is different from the
GMA 340. There is no documented way to configure the unit so that both crew
and pax hear the same music input. From the installation manual:
"Only the pilot and copilot hear MUSIC 1. MUSIC 2 is a non-muted input heard
only by the passengers. MUSIC 1 and MUSIC 2 characteristics are not affected
by the active intercom mode."
There's nothing in the configuration instructions that shows how to change
this. And, yes, the ADF and DME inputs are useful, especially since I'm not
using either, and I'm using one for traffic alert. But they are mono.
So, back to my original question. Any way to "split" the audio from the 396
so it can feed both MUSIC 1 and MUSIC 2 without changing volume depending on
whether one or both is active?
Thanks,
Nathan
But, but but... While I've not wired my audio panel yet, isn't the ADF or
DME inputs MONO only? I didn't think they provided for Stereo?
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of SteinAir,
Inc.
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 9:44 PM
Subject: RE: Music wiring and switching
-->
Actually, I don't think it's mcuh of a problem because both the PMA and -347
allow you to configure the music inputs (especially "music 1") which can be
selected in the "all" position where everyone hears the input, or just the
pax, etc.. right from the Audio Panel itself. The PSE is a bit stronger in
the distribution capabilities than the GMA, but both have quite a few
options on them.
Another way that is the easiest and quickest way around this issue with both
the -347 and the PMA8000x's is to just use one of the unused "switched"
inputs on the audio panel itself and forget about the actual music inputs.
Not many are actually using the ADF or DME inputs, and although they are not
a soft mute, they are switchable right from the panel and anther good input
option for audio (those of you needing a Chelton Audio Mute this is a good
option). Just simply use the ADF, or DME, etc.. input for the XM music.
Hope that helps a little. Both manuals (PSE and GMA) will tell you how you
can configure the music inputs to do virually anything you want them to.
Cheers,
Stein.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>Nathan Ulrich
>Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 6:42 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Music wiring and switching
>
>
>
>
>I'm installing a Garmin 347 audio panel, their new one. I also have a
>Garmin 396, and I'd like to wire the XM radio audio from the 396 to the
>music inputs on the 347. I was planning to also wire in external music
>input jacks for both the crew and the passengers. I thought I'd install
>two switches, one for the pax and one for the crew, that switched
>between XM audio and external audio.
>
>Unfortunately, from what the installation manual says, the 347 audio
>panel has two music inputs, one for the crew and one for the
>passengers, and there is no way to have the pax hear the crew audio (or
>vice versa). This is different from the GMA 340 from what I understand.
>I'm assuming I can't wire the XM audio output from the 396 to both
>music inputs through a switch, as the volume would be reduced if both
>crew and pax were listening to the XM audio as opposed to just crew or
>just pax.
>
>Anyone have ideas about how to make this work? I'd really like for both
>the crew and passengers to be able to listen to the XM audio at times,
>but at other times I'm sure the passengers and crew will want to listen
>to different audio sources.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Nathan Ulrich
>nulrich(at)technq.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Music wiring and switching |
SteinAir, Inc. wrote:
> Another way that is the easiest and quickest way around this issue with both
> the -347 and the PMA8000x's is to just use one of the unused "switched"
> inputs on the audio panel itself and forget about the actual music inputs.
> Not many are actually using the ADF or DME inputs,
They aren't stereo and not suitable for music.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Helmet & Headset ponderings |
Richard E. Tasker wrote:
>
> Your first answer was correct, but this is plain wrong. The audio
> signal comes in from an entirely separate source than the noise
> cancellation signal. There is no reason whatsoever that the cutoff
> frequency has anything to do with the desired audio response. If you
> have found this to be true with any design then the engineer doing the
> design didn't know what he was doing.
Uh, perhaps. Sometimes you can get a lot of consistency and stability by
limiting the bandwidth of your servo.
> Now, if you are talking about hearing someone talking to you NOT over
> the intercom or airwaves, then, yes, attenuating (noise canceling)
> frequencies in the voice band would make it more difficult to hear
> them. But definitely NOT so for signals piped in through the phone cord.
You can drive the main transducer from the audio input but the
microphone in the ANR is still going to generate an out-of-phase signal
for that too. The electronics needs to also cancel the desired audio
signal coming in from the sensing microphone. It is not an easy problem
and it is made much simpler by just separating the audio bands.
When I was a kid about 10-years-old, I discovered the noise cancellation
property when I had a microphone, an audio amp, and a headset. If I
placed the microphone near the earcup of the headset everything got
deadly silent. It was a cool phenomenon but I didn't quite grasp its
significance.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Nathan Ulrich wrote:
> So, back to my original question. Any way to "split" the audio from the 396
> so it can feed both MUSIC 1 and MUSIC 2 without changing volume depending on
> whether one or both is active?
Here is what I did with my PMA-7000 which has the same set of dual music
inputs, i.e. "front office" and pax.
I installed separate jacks for the two inputs. I added a DPST switch to
bridge the two inputs together. Switch on and both hear the same source.
Switch off and I can put in different sources.
Don't worry about the level going down when you tie the two inputs
together. Their input impedance is pretty high compared to any signal
source you will plug in. I doubt you will hear any level difference at
all with them tied together.
You can use a pair of DPDT switches to allow you to select between XM
audio and external audio for each input. Imagine you have J1 and J2
(input jacks), and S1 and S2 (switches). J1 is the input for pilot and
J2 is input for pax. S1 is selector for pilot and S2 is selector for pax.
XM audio feeds one set of terminals for S1. J1 feeds other set of
terminals for S1. Center terminals for S1 feeds pilot input to audio panel.
J2 feeds one set of terminals for S2. Center terminals from S2 feeds pax
input on audio panel. The remaining terminals for S2 connect back to the
center terminals on S1.
(I should make a schematic for this.)
Here is your logic list:
S1 position 1 -- pilot hears XM radio
S1 position 2 -- pilot hears source from J1
S2 position 1 -- pax hear source from J2
S2 position 2 -- pax hear what pilot hears.
Place J2 and S2 in the back seat. Now your pax can plug in their own
source (walkman, diskman, iPod, etc.) and switch S2 and not bother the
pilot. Good for kids who prefer Marky Mark to Frank Sinatra, or, worse
still, pilot who is practicing scat solos. (I sing in a jazz ensemble
and often practice while on long cross country flights. My kids
definitely know what the "pilot isolate" switch does on the audio panel.)
Hopefully this will solve your problem.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McMahon" <blackoaks(at)gmail.com> |
Two Virgins Make Dull Company!
True / Variation / Magnetic / Deviation / Compass heading
How 'bout the one for resistor color stripes?????
On 4/14/06, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> I kinda remember something about virgins in there too! I believe it
> referred to the letter V.
>
>
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glong2" <glong2(at)netzero.net> |
John:
Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly
Black Brown Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet Gray White
Eugene Long
Lancair Super ES
glong2(at)netzero.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
McMahon
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Old Stuff
Two Virgins Make Dull Company!
True / Variation / Magnetic / Deviation / Compass heading
How 'bout the one for resistor color stripes?????
On 4/14/06, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> I kinda remember something about virgins in there too! I believe it
> referred to the letter V.
>
>
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
Are you asking, or just commenting on the fact that is rather off color
:-) .
Dick Tasker
John McMahon wrote:
>How 'bout the one for resistor color stripes?????
>
--
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: | MikeEasley(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Garmin XM Receivers Aviation vs. Marine |
Garmin sells an XM weather receiver, GDL 69A, that will hook up to my MX20
for about $5,800 list. Garmin also makes an XM weather receiver for the
marine market, GDL 30A, that has a street price of around $600. Any chance that
a
resourceful experimental pilot could get the marine unit to work with an
MX20?
Mike Easley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MikeEasley(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Com Setting Off ELT |
My friend with a Glasair IIFT has an interesting problem. The ELT goes off
when he transmits on his com radio, sometimes. It's very intermittent. We
talked to the guys at ACK and they recommended moving the ELT farther from the
com antenna cable (RG58). It's seems to be far enough away from the com
antenna, about 5 feet. We took the ELT out of its mounting bracket and moved
it
closer to the antenna wire, nothing; closer to the panel, nothing; closer to
the antenna, nothing. We got it to go off with the remote wiring to the
panel disconnected and the antenna disconnected, once, just the ELT box in my
hand. We must be getting some leakage from the com that's activating some
small electronic device in the ELT. Or could it be some buildup of static. The
light that's on the panel that flashes when the ELT is activated flickers
sometimes when the com is transmitting, sometimes.
Any ideas?
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Setting Off ELT |
>
>My friend with a Glasair IIFT has an interesting problem. The ELT goes off
>when he transmits on his com radio, sometimes. It's very intermittent. We
>talked to the guys at ACK and they recommended moving the ELT farther
>from the
>com antenna cable (RG58). It's seems to be far enough away from the com
>antenna, about 5 feet. We took the ELT out of its mounting bracket and
>moved it
>closer to the antenna wire, nothing; closer to the panel, nothing; closer to
>the antenna, nothing. We got it to go off with the remote wiring to the
>panel disconnected and the antenna disconnected, once, just the ELT box
>in my
>hand. We must be getting some leakage from the com that's activating some
>small electronic device in the ELT. Or could it be some buildup of
>static. The
>light that's on the panel that flashes when the ELT is activated flickers
>sometimes when the com is transmitting, sometimes.
>
>Any ideas?
Yeah . . . but you're not going to like them.
We've discussed DO-160 testing criteria that most manufacturers
subscribe to when building products for aircraft. When ACK
brought their product onto the market, it's almost a sure bet
that all powers-that-be recommended and subscribed to some
level of radiated susceptibility that would be appropriate to
installation in an all metal airplane where antennas are
(obviously) on the outside.
They no doubt conducted the tests and found the product
acceptable for that environment.
Now comes the OBAM aircraft owner with an RF transparent
structure where it's almost a sure bet that the ship's
VHF comm transmitter is radiating the ELT with more
RF than the ELT was tested to.
Just for grins, leave the ELT hooked up to it's antenna.
Disconnect the control lead. Wrap the ELT in aluminum foil
such that the foil comes up over the top and wraps as tightly
around the antenna connector shell as you can make it. I'd
cut a fat rubber band and use the rubber strip to put lots
of tensioned turns around the connector shell to press the
foil against it.
Now you have an RF tight enclosure with only the antenna
coming to the outside. It's a reasonably safe bet that
you'll not be able to duplicate the trips.
Did somebody stub their toe here? No. The product was
probably subject to a good faith examination of performance
for the target market which at the time, did not include
plastic airplanes. Could they fix it? You betcha. The problem
is that any changes to design would force a complete
re-qualification effort in most FAA jurisdictions. This
is a prime example of how FAA ignorance of engineering
and science drives the cost of products up and stifles
incremental evolutionary improvements. Hence, the cost
of our computers continue to go down while performance
improves. Costs of airplane parts goes up while the
engineers can only dream of what it would be like to
really have command and control of their destinies.
Bob . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marty" <martorious(at)earthlink.net> |
The way this is set up if the crew were listening to input from j1, the pax
would not be able to listen to the xm input, a better solution would be to
jumper the xm signal to imput terminals of both switches instead of carrying
the output of one switch to the input of the second switch.
Marty
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
Nathan Ulrich wrote:
> So, back to my original question. Any way to "split" the audio from the
396
> so it can feed both MUSIC 1 and MUSIC 2 without changing volume depending
on
> whether one or both is active?
Here is what I did with my PMA-7000 which has the same set of dual music
inputs, i.e. "front office" and pax.
I installed separate jacks for the two inputs. I added a DPST switch to
bridge the two inputs together. Switch on and both hear the same source.
Switch off and I can put in different sources.
Don't worry about the level going down when you tie the two inputs
together. Their input impedance is pretty high compared to any signal
source you will plug in. I doubt you will hear any level difference at
all with them tied together.
You can use a pair of DPDT switches to allow you to select between XM
audio and external audio for each input. Imagine you have J1 and J2
(input jacks), and S1 and S2 (switches). J1 is the input for pilot and
J2 is input for pax. S1 is selector for pilot and S2 is selector for pax.
XM audio feeds one set of terminals for S1. J1 feeds other set of
terminals for S1. Center terminals for S1 feeds pilot input to audio panel.
J2 feeds one set of terminals for S2. Center terminals from S2 feeds pax
input on audio panel. The remaining terminals for S2 connect back to the
center terminals on S1.
(I should make a schematic for this.)
Here is your logic list:
S1 position 1 -- pilot hears XM radio
S1 position 2 -- pilot hears source from J1
S2 position 1 -- pax hear source from J2
S2 position 2 -- pax hear what pilot hears.
Place J2 and S2 in the back seat. Now your pax can plug in their own
source (walkman, diskman, iPod, etc.) and switch S2 and not bother the
pilot. Good for kids who prefer Marky Mark to Frank Sinatra, or, worse
still, pilot who is practicing scat solos. (I sing in a jazz ensemble
and often practice while on long cross country flights. My kids
definitely know what the "pilot isolate" switch does on the audio panel.)
Hopefully this will solve your problem.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Garmin XM Receivers Aviation vs. Marine |
Mike, first, I think you'd have a plumbing problem. Is the 30 the one that
a small round hockey puck and goes with the 396? If so, then it's a usb
device that uses a proprietary command interface. :(
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
MikeEasley(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 7:53 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin XM Receivers Aviation vs. Marine
Garmin sells an XM weather receiver, GDL 69A, that will hook up to my MX20
for about $5,800 list. Garmin also makes an XM weather receiver for the
marine market, GDL 30A, that has a street price of around $600. Any chance
that a
resourceful experimental pilot could get the marine unit to work with an
MX20?
Mike Easley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Setting Off ELT |
MikeEasley(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> My friend with a Glasair IIFT has an interesting problem. The ELT goes off
> when he transmits on his com radio, sometimes. It's very intermittent.
> ...
>
> Any ideas?
It is likely to be RF getting into the remote control interface that is
the problem although I am surprised that it goes off with the remote
disconnected. I would wind the remote control cable through toroid cores
at both ends (remote and ELT) to see if that helps.
But given that this is not a common complaint I would also consider that
it might be a problem with the ELT itself.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Marty wrote:
>
>
> The way this is set up if the crew were listening to input from j1, the pax
> would not be able to listen to the xm input, a better solution would be to
> jumper the xm signal to imput terminals of both switches instead of carrying
> the output of one switch to the input of the second switch.
There are many things you can do and much complexity you can add. My
thinking, based on experience with several combinations in different
aircraft, was that most of the time everyone is going to want to listen
to the same source and I am only going to want to plug it in one place.
What you have suggested precludes plugging the iPod into the pilot's
jack and then having that audio available to the pax.
If you want complete control for the pax you can put in a DPTT switch to
select XM, J1 (pilot input), or J2 (pax input). I don't want just one
external music source as I can assure you from experience that there is
almost nothing my kids listen to in the back seat that I want to listen
to for more than about three minutes.
But flexibility is good. Let's see if we can't come up with the optimum
combination. We will almost certainly need to add a remote control for
the XM radio. Then don't forget the remote control for the iPod. Don't
forget the graphic equalizer so the pax can tailor their audio to their
taste. And of course you would want a pitch-corrector and harmonizer
(vocoder) for the pilot's audio so his singing would be on-key even if
it is off-key. We can probably add a good MIDI keyboard for
accompaniment. Oh shoot, how stupid of me. I forgot the espresso
machine! How can one listen to music without a good two-shot, low-fat,
mochachino latte?!? What was I THINKING!
Has anybody seen my cup-warmer around here anywhere?
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Com Setting Off ELT |
I have discovered this exact same problem on a Mooney M20C that I fly.
Doesn't happen all the time, but will occasionally. What we found was that
the coax connector for the Comm antenna at the antenna, which happens to be
back in the same area of the ELT, was bad. It might be the coax itself as
well. Anyway, stray RF traveling thur the "ground system" will likely cause
this. We swapped out the coax and connectors and the problem went away.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Com Setting Off ELT
-->
MikeEasley(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> My friend with a Glasair IIFT has an interesting problem. The ELT
> goes off when he transmits on his com radio, sometimes. It's very
intermittent.
> ...
>
> Any ideas?
It is likely to be RF getting into the remote control interface that is the
problem although I am surprised that it goes off with the remote
disconnected. I would wind the remote control cable through toroid cores at
both ends (remote and ELT) to see if that helps.
But given that this is not a common complaint I would also consider that it
might be a problem with the ELT itself.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marty" <martorious(at)earthlink.net> |
Gee, Brian, didn't mean to push any buttons, just presenting an alternative.
If you want full control, just put another dpdt between j1 and j2 set it up
so it would either tie the two jacks together or isolate them from each
other depending on switch position.
And don't forget the placard stating "Hot beverages are served VERY hot."
Just to c.y.a., you don't want any frivolous lawsuits from a scalded
passenger.
Marty
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
Marty wrote:
>
>
> The way this is set up if the crew were listening to input from j1, the
pax
> would not be able to listen to the xm input, a better solution would be to
> jumper the xm signal to imput terminals of both switches instead of
carrying
> the output of one switch to the input of the second switch.
There are many things you can do and much complexity you can add. My
thinking, based on experience with several combinations in different
aircraft, was that most of the time everyone is going to want to listen
to the same source and I am only going to want to plug it in one place.
What you have suggested precludes plugging the iPod into the pilot's
jack and then having that audio available to the pax.
If you want complete control for the pax you can put in a DPTT switch to
select XM, J1 (pilot input), or J2 (pax input). I don't want just one
external music source as I can assure you from experience that there is
almost nothing my kids listen to in the back seat that I want to listen
to for more than about three minutes.
But flexibility is good. Let's see if we can't come up with the optimum
combination. We will almost certainly need to add a remote control for
the XM radio. Then don't forget the remote control for the iPod. Don't
forget the graphic equalizer so the pax can tailor their audio to their
taste. And of course you would want a pitch-corrector and harmonizer
(vocoder) for the pilot's audio so his singing would be on-key even if
it is off-key. We can probably add a good MIDI keyboard for
accompaniment. Oh shoot, how stupid of me. I forgot the espresso
machine! How can one listen to music without a good two-shot, low-fat,
mochachino latte?!? What was I THINKING!
Has anybody seen my cup-warmer around here anywhere?
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> Brian Lloyd wrote:
>> Has anybody seen my cup-warmer around here anywhere?
>>
>>
>
> It is just behind that large fan, but you might want to use a
> spill-proof cup! *wink*
Oh, you mean the two-door oven? Yeah, right after landing you can pop
that sucker open and put a foil-wrapped hot lunch in there to cook.
Works like a charm!
Brian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Marty wrote:
>
> Gee, Brian, didn't mean to push any buttons, just presenting an alternative.
Oh, I know. I should have added a smiley in there somewhere in the first
part.
> If you want full control, just put another dpdt between j1 and j2 set it up
> so it would either tie the two jacks together or isolate them from each
> other depending on switch position.
DPST, but yes, that would work just fine.
> And don't forget the placard stating "Hot beverages are served VERY hot."
> Just to c.y.a., you don't want any frivolous lawsuits from a scalded
> passenger.
Good point. I can't believe I forgot that part.
Brian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Reginald E. DeLoach" <redeloach(at)fedex.com> |
OR...you could wrap your meal in foil, wire (safety, of course) it to the
exhaust manifold, and it'd be ready to eat upon arrival...
:}
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> Dj Merrill wrote:
> >
> > Brian Lloyd wrote:
> >> Has anybody seen my cup-warmer around here anywhere?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > It is just behind that large fan, but you might want to use a
> > spill-proof cup! *wink*
>
> Oh, you mean the two-door oven? Yeah, right after landing you can pop
> that sucker open and put a foil-wrapped hot lunch in there to cook.
> Works like a charm!
>
> Brian
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZPO <geekdownrange(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Setting Off ELT |
Mike,
Have you tried a choke balun at the antenna end of the comm radio
coax? If you have available cable slack you could try 6-10 turns
around something roughly the diameter of a clenched fist (remove the
form after winding). Alternatively, you could cut the antenna end
connector off the coax, install about 50 ferrite beads over the end of
the cable (FB73-2401 might a a good choice), and then sleeve the beads
with heat shrink.
Since coax is an unbalanced transmission line, connecting to a
balanced antenna can readily put common mode RF currents on the
feedline. As an experiment, you could gather up a number of the
ferrite split-beads like are often delivered with computer monitors or
other electronic devices. While not a good permanent solution, it may
lower the level of common-mode signals enough to help indicate if you
are on the right track.
--Brian
On 4/21/06, MikeEasley(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> My friend with a Glasair IIFT has an interesting problem. The ELT goes off
> when he transmits on his com radio, sometimes. It's very intermittent. We
> talked to the guys at ACK and they recommended moving the ELT farther from the
> com antenna cable (RG58). It's seems to be far enough away from the com
> antenna, about 5 feet. We took the ELT out of its mounting bracket and moved
it
> closer to the antenna wire, nothing; closer to the panel, nothing; closer to
> the antenna, nothing. We got it to go off with the remote wiring to the
> panel disconnected and the antenna disconnected, once, just the ELT box in my
> hand. We must be getting some leakage from the com that's activating some
> small electronic device in the ELT. Or could it be some buildup of static.
The
> light that's on the panel that flashes when the ELT is activated flickers
> sometimes when the com is transmitting, sometimes.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Mike Easley
> Colorado Springs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Baleshta" <dbaleshta(at)tru.ca> |
I have a King KY 196 from another project (28v) and was hoping to use
it in my 12 volt project. Is it at all possible to convert this w/o an
inverter, 2 batteries etc? Searched the list and couldn't find
anything. Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks
Doug
Lancair 360 - 50%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | guy fulton <truecolor32bit(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | ic-List:Remote switchs ky97 radio |
With a little help, I wired the radio, and it appears
to function properly. However I am faced with the task
of wiring remote switches. Instructions indicate the 3
remote switches 1 for scrolling through the
frequencies, 1 for flip/flop and 1 push to talk. Push
to talk, power, light were simple, being common
connections, but instructions for wiring the remote
frequency change switches were somewhat inadequate.
Any information or instruction would be greatly
appreciated.
thanks
guy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KY 196 voltage |
Doug:
Sorry no answer but went down that road, and my conclusion
was a 28volt KY 196 (amps I think 10 amps) could not be
economically or simply be used with a 12 volt plane.
The KY196's ARE cheap on the used market and that was my
motivation. However I don't really need 16 watts transmit power
in a little plane either. It came down to a DC-DC step-up converter.
It was just cheaper and less weight to buy a 12 volt radio.
If the radio had a 5 amp or less draw, fine a single converter
would be tolerable, but 10 amps, that's a lot of juice! Check
the spec, it's not low. It has over 2 times the transmit power
of Coms that suck 6 amps, so I don't think I am off much.
My post will no doubt raise a bunch of experts to prove me
wrong. lol, I hope they do because I would buy a KY196
on the cheap. An inverter is not cheap or light weight.
IMHO, sell it and buy a 12 volt and be done with it.
Cheers George
>From: "Doug Baleshta" <dbaleshta(at)tru.ca>
>
>--> posted by: "Doug Baleshta"
>
>I have a King KY 196 from another project (28v) and was hoping to use
>it in my 12 volt project. Is it at all possible to convert this w/o an
>inverter, 2 batteries etc? Searched the list and couldn't find
>anything. Any suggestions are appreciated.
>
>Thanks
>Doug
>Lancair 360 - 50%
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>Can someone point me in the right direction for wiring a GPU plug on my
>RV10, Piper type?
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
Figure Z-31B of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11F.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Garmin 296 power/battery |
>
>
>I am up grading my RV-6A from a Garmin 295 to a 296 and have a question for
>you battery knowledgeable types.
>I plan to hard wire the power/data cord into the airplane just as I did the
>295. The 295 uses AA alkaline batteries. They are only used when the unit is
>turned on without the master being on. -like loading a flight route. - and
>are backup if needed.
>
>The 296 uses a Lithium-ion re-chargeable battery which will be recharged
>each time the master is on and will be used very a little as described
>above. Will this constant charging and little use destroy a lithium-ion
>battery? Do I need to remove the unit and cycle the batteries occasionally?
>Any suggestions?
>Dale Ensing
This is entirely under control of the circuit designers.
It's a reasonable assumption that unless the instructions
for the device caution you against having external power
applied for long periods of time, then it's okay to do
it. I can't imagine any creative designer doing it any other
way. We have three laptops in the family that use L-I batteries
for portable use and ALL are used as many hours or more with
external power plugged in. None of the instruction manuals
suggest that this is a 'bad' thing to do.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 PM Alternator |
>
>
>Bob N,et al,
>
>There has been periodic discussion on this list in the past about the
>SD-8(& maybe other permanent magnet alternators)not being capable of
>coming on line if the battery or other power source to the buss fails or
>is not otherwise available to activate the SD-8.
>
>I have experimented with a simple idea that solves this situation and
>want to share the info to solicit comments on the suitability or any
>downside features anyone may offer.
>
>The circuit consists of tapping into the SD-8 regulator output and
>feeding that through a diode to the positive side of an electrolytic
>capacitor, grounding the negative lead of the capacitor and connecting a
>spring loaded,normally-open push-button switch across the diode.
>
>After engine start-up and during the subsequent pre-flight system check
>of the SD-8, it charges the capacitor and the diode prevents loss of
>this charge thereafter even if the SD-8 is not left switched on. If
>total loss of electrical power to the buss occurs during flight, the
>SD-8 will come on line by momentarily activating the push button switch
>while also closing the SD-8 switch to the buss.
>
>Through both ground and flight testing, I found no situation where
>it failed to work. An unexpected finding is that the SD-8 will activate
>with as low as 1.0 volt charge on the capacitor! Another bonus is that
>the capacitor leakage rate is so low that from an initial charge of only
>12.5 volts, it requires 2 hours short of 3 full days to leak down to
>10.5 volts! (average of 0.0286 volts per hour). Of course, this rate is
>progressively less as the charge voltage drops further, so if someone
>left the Master on and killed the battery and then wanted to prop the
>engine many days later(more than 2 weeks!)the SD-8 could then be brought
>on line!! BTW,I'm using a 56kmf,16V(20Vsurge)capacitor from Digi-Key,
>P/N P6878-ND, at less than $8. Less capacity should also work
>adequately,but the already small size, weight and cost doesn't
>contribute enough to cause concern.
>
>What puzzles me is how the SD-8 and its regulator can respond to a
>voltage as low as 1.0. Can someone explain this?
First, let me commend you for the time and effort to perceive
some design goals, craft and experiment and publish the results.
Your efforts and questions have prompted me to consider the
self-excitation deficiencies in SD-8 alternator regulators.
Someone sent me a schematic of a Kubota regulator some years
ago. This regulator includes a warning light function and I
believe is typical of most PM regulators including the Ducati
regulators supplied with Rotax engines. I've published the
schematic at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/PM_Regulator/Kubota_Schematic.jpg
If one deletes the features associated with the warning circuit, you get
this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/PM_Regulator/Kubota_v-reg.jpg
If you focus just on hte warning circuit, here's the details.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/PM_Regulator/Kubota_Alt-Warn.jpg
You'll note that the warning circuit turns out the light if
the alternator is generating voltage and is not disconnected
from the regulator. This is typical of MOST built-in 'idiot'
lights on alternator regulator systems (and generators) since
day-one. These lights are not definitive annunciations of alternator
performance. There are failure modes that do not light the
light. Hence my long standing recommendation for ACTIVE NOTIFICATION
OF LOW VOLTAGE independent of the alternator's built in features
as being the definitive annunciation for loss-of-alternator.
Your experiments have shown that the regulator will come alive
with a very low voltage available at the 'b-lead'. A study
of the schematic for the Kubota regulator leads one to
conclude that once you have just enough voltage to forward
bias some junctions (The b-e junction of Q3 through R3
and D6) there is a potential for triggering the SCRs and
having the system wake up. I suspect the B&C regulator
is similar.
The system you've crafted has demonstrated some utility
for overcoming the SD-8 regulator's inability to self-excite.
After some thought on the design goal, I thought of another
approach to suggest. Since you're set up for and
have the mind-set to conduct the necessary experiments,
please consider . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/PM_Regulator/Self_Excitation_Experiment.jpg
What we'd like to do is not let the b-lead voltage out
of the regulator be 100% dependent upon triggered SCRs in
the regulator. Suppose you added a couple of diodes
from the alternator winding along with a resistor to
ground to build a very inefficient keep-alive rectifier.
The two diodes parallel the SCRs but with a conduction
impedance too high for the system to deliver significant
power. We then need some small, fixed 'load' across the
output filter capacitor to prevent the unloaded alternator
voltage (as high as 40v) from charging the capacitor
to a level dangerous to the cap and system equipment
in case the alternator control relay is closed while the
capacitor is charged up.
I've shown a pair of 1K resistors. Use mechanically
hefty resistors . . . the 2W isn't need for electrical
reasons, just mechanical. Adjust the size of the series
resistor at the diodes to achieve a couple of volts or
more (but not greater than 14) across the capacitor
at max engine rpm with the alternator system OFF.
I suspect this resistor might be as high as 3 to 10K
and still make the system sleep with one eye open.
The pilot-operated push-button is not an unreasonable
solution too. At Cessna many moons ago, we crafted
two systems for the same purpose. One used an array
of d-cells, a diode and a push button to provide
the pilot with a means of kick-starting a stalled
alternator that did not have access to the ship's
battery. On the military versions of the 337, we
had tach generators (3-phase PM devices) that were
fitted with rectifiers and push-buttons to do the
same thing and eliminate the need for batteries.
Here, we have an opportunity to go a step further
and modify the regulator's performance such that
it never quite goes to sleep and eliminate the
need for pilot intervention to kick-start the
system. If you can assist in conduction of this
experiment, we can prove/disprove my hypothesis
and perhaps generate an article that will help
others slay this dragon too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KY 196 voltage |
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> My post will no doubt raise a bunch of experts to prove me
> wrong. lol, I hope they do because I would buy a KY196
> on the cheap. An inverter is not cheap or light weight.
I will rise to your bait George.
Given that all comm radios transmit AM and all of them use about the
same technology, their power draw from the bus will be about the same
for a given power output regardless of bus voltage. Most AM transmitters
draw far less from the bus than the fuse-size specification calls for. I
don't know of a single 6-8W transmitter that draws 6A from the 14V bus.
Most require about 20W (I figure about 40% efficiency for an AM
transmitter) and therefore will draw about 1.5A extra when transmitting
(14V). (The radio circuitry burns something like 0.5A just idling.) So
the total draw will be about 2A from the 14V bus at full transmit output.
A 16W radio is going to then need about 40W from the bus. Given that
your DC-DC converter is going to be about 90% efficient, you are going
to need about 45W from the bus at full output. That translates into a
little over 3A at 14V. Throw in something to power the rest of the
circuitry and then something for the wife and kids and your KY196 is
going to really need about 4A from the 14V bus even after adding in for
the converter.
And as for the mass of DC-DC converters, they are all switch-mode
devices these days. They don't weight much at all and their 90%
efficiency means they run pretty cool. Sure Power makes a 10A 14V-to-28V
converter. That should solve the problem and you can probably get it for
about $150. So if you can get a KY196 for $150 less than a KY197 you
break even (except for the effort to install the extra box).
OTOH, once you install the converter you can think about using other 28V
devices.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net> |
On Comant's spec sheets for DME/Transponder antennae, what is the
significance of "Power RF?"
Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>On Comant's spec sheets for DME/Transponder antennae, what is the
>significance of "Power RF?"
For antennas, it's the maxiumum rated po
>
>
>Rob
>
>
>--
>
>
Bob . . .
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | B&C L-60 Alternator for sale |
I have a B&C L-60 (60-amp alternator) that was mounted to an engine once but
was never used. It's too big to clear the cowl and it needs a good home.
Docs and mounts (boss mount) are included.
It'll be going on ebay shortly, but I wanted to see if there is any interest
in it here first. I wish I could have saved a few bucks on a virtually new
unit when I was buying parts. ;-) Now's your chance to save $100.
$500 and it's yours.
Let me know.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | firewall penetrations |
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
Listers:
Lots of wire hanging around my RV-7A right now, waiting to be tamed. Im
following the Z-13/8 architecture and using a GRT EFIS/EIS. I labeled
items on the Z-13 figure as being either aft or forward of the firewall,
then sorted through the various EFIS/EIS wire call-outs to make a list of
all the wires needing to go through the firewall so I could plan wire paths
a little better:
1 battery bus to battery contactor
2 battery contactor to the S704-1 relay for the backup alternator
3 battery contactor to main bus
4 master switch to battery contactor
5 push to start switch to starter contactor
6 regulator for back-up alternator to backup alternator (two wires)
7 regulator for main alternator to main alternator
8 left ignition switch to p-mag (two wires)
9 right ignition switch to p-mag (two wires)
10 Groundpower switch to groundpower contactor
11 EIS to CHT(8 wires)
12 EIS to EGT wires (8 wires)
13 EIS to Hall effect current sensor (two wires)
14 Tach (EIS to P-mag)
15 EIS to OAT sensor (not sure where to put OAT sensor yet)
16 EIS to VDO oil pressure sensor
18 EIS to oil temp sensor
19 EIS to fuel pressure sensor (two wires)
I would like to minimize the number of firewall penetrations. Are any of
the above wires likely to cause problems with any others when bundeled
together? Did I overlook any wires?
For practical reasons only, Im considering two penetrations for the wires,
one for the various contactor wires near the left side of the firewall, and
the other for everything else, near the center or slightly to the left.
Any thoughts from those that have been there before would be appreciated
thanks guys
Erich Weaver
Erich Weaver
URS Corporation
130 Robin Hill Rd
Santa Barbara CA 93117
805-964-6010
FAX 805-9640259
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you receive this
message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain,
distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy
the e-mail and any attachments or copies.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
--- "Robert G. Wright"
wrote:
> Wright"
>
> On Comant's spec sheets for DME/Transponder
> antennae, what is the
> significance of "Power RF?"
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
--- "Robert G. Wright"
wrote:
> Wright"
>
> On Comant's spec sheets for DME/Transponder
> antennae, what is the
> significance of "Power RF?"
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: firewall penetrations |
Hi Eric
Except for not having magnetos, I have that and more all going through a
single firewall opening. More than a hundred wires for dual efi and
ignition etc. I preferred two openings but space was tight and one
opening turned out to be easier for me. Most low voltage efi sensors are
shielded. Power and ground wires such as fuel injector wires or
contactor coil feeds are twisted/braided pairs where convenient in
accordance with good aeroelectric book wiring practice. All ground wires
(except the two firewall to engine ground straps) go through that
opening which I think is a good thing. FWIW just this week I
investigated the signals with a scope and could find no evidence of
crosstalk or problems due to routing everything through the same
opening. I had expected to find some magnetic coupling but did not. I
even temporarilly rerouted the normally noisy ignition coil feeds (high
current pulses with 100 volt or so spikes) but it made no difference to
anything that I scoped.
Separate subject but the 1994 subaru DIS ignition coils (4 cylinder) are
physically one unit with a minor effort to isolate the iron cores a bit.
I believe I did see evidence of secondary coupling evidenced by short
duration high voltage spikes in the high voltage circuit when the
alternate coil fires. Could of been just crosstalk in the spark plug
wires but I suspect magnetic coupling at the coils.
Ken
Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com wrote:
>
>
>Listers:
>
>Lots of wire hanging around my RV-7A right now, waiting to be tamed. Im
>following the Z-13/8 architecture and using a GRT EFIS/EIS. I labeled
>items on the Z-13 figure as being either aft or forward of the firewall,
>then sorted through the various EFIS/EIS wire call-outs to make a list of
>all the wires needing to go through the firewall so I could plan wire paths
>a little better:
>
>1 battery bus to battery contactor
>2 battery contactor to the S704-1 relay for the backup alternator
>3 battery contactor to main bus
>4 master switch to battery contactor
>5 push to start switch to starter contactor
>6 regulator for back-up alternator to backup alternator (two wires)
>7 regulator for main alternator to main alternator
>8 left ignition switch to p-mag (two wires)
>9 right ignition switch to p-mag (two wires)
>10 Groundpower switch to groundpower contactor
>11 EIS to CHT(8 wires)
>12 EIS to EGT wires (8 wires)
>13 EIS to Hall effect current sensor (two wires)
>14 Tach (EIS to P-mag)
>15 EIS to OAT sensor (not sure where to put OAT sensor yet)
>16 EIS to VDO oil pressure sensor
>18 EIS to oil temp sensor
>19 EIS to fuel pressure sensor (two wires)
>
>I would like to minimize the number of firewall penetrations. Are any of
>the above wires likely to cause problems with any others when bundeled
>together? Did I overlook any wires?
>
>For practical reasons only, Im considering two penetrations for the wires,
>one for the various contactor wires near the left side of the firewall, and
>the other for everything else, near the center or slightly to the left.
>
>Any thoughts from those that have been there before would be appreciated
>
>thanks guys
>
>Erich Weaver
>
>
>Erich Weaver
>URS Corporation
>130 Robin Hill Rd
>Santa Barbara CA 93117
>805-964-6010
>FAX 805-9640259
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: firewall penetrations |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Many times we copy successful methods long after new and better ways of doing things
are available. The idiom of firewall penetration devices using leather washers
and two crescent-shaped stainless parts came from the days of metal-cowled
airplanes and "A petrol-proof flexible tubing at last: an invention of the
greatest importance to aviation NACA TM-48 October 1921". The FAA firewall-penetration
flame test was designed for metal airplanes and engines where burning
was a common hazard.
My hunch is that too much attention is paid to this relatively minor task. What
might make more sense?--Armored fuel lines, fuel shutoffs, Purple-K; and a flame
detector under the cowl.
My Glastar instructions include a stainless steel firewall--but it looks like extreme
overkill to me. 3M Dot Paper will pass the FAA test and weighs a tiny fraction
of stainless steel sheet.
Consider fire safety as a complete system. Those towel bar holders and firestop
should not be depended upon as the whole solution.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=30164#30164
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>On Comant's spec sheets for DME/Transponder antennae, what is the
>significance of "Power RF?"
>
>
>Rob
Hmmm . . . seems my reply was truncated. For antennas, there's
a design limit for the maximum power you can expect it to
handle. For example, a simple DME/Transponder antenna for
mounting to the bottom of an airplane could be severely
taxed at say 10,000 watts. It could be a current issue
where some part of the antenna might be overheating and
be damaged (not a problem with DME/Transponder antennas
because while PEAK power is perhaps 100-200 watts, the average
power is measured in milliwatts. If it's a voltage issue
(gaps in construction or capacitors arc over) then peak
power is a significant concern irrespective of
average power.
In any case, a DME/Transponder antenna you purchase for
use on an aircraft isn't going to be at-risk for damage
by any radio installed for that purpose at the power levels
commonly supplied. A 50-ohm antenna accepting 250 watts
of power sees peak currents on the order of 2.5 amps
and peak voltages on the order of 110 volts. Generally
not a big thing in the aviation antenna world.
The same company may well make antennas rated in the
killowatts where such things are a design challenge.
They may have a data sheet format that says
"tho shalt put a power rating on thy product"
so even the lowly DME/Transponder antenna gets a power
rating.
This gives rise to the neophyte's dilemma, "Gee, there's
a power rating stated for this product I might want to
buy for my airplane . . . how and why would I consider
this as significant for my buy-decision?" The answer
in this case is, "No big deal."
Bob . . .
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Robert G. Wright wrote:
>
> On Comant's spec sheets for DME/Transponder antennae, what is the
> significance of "Power RF?"
Transmitting antennas are usually rated for how much transmitter output
power they can handle. Remember that transponders and DMEs have
transmitters and transmit with peak power levels on the order of 200-300
watts. They transmit in short bursts so that the average power is low
but still, the peak voltages and currents are those of the 300W level.
This can cause arcing internally to the antenna if it isn't rated for
this power level.
But if the antenna says it is for a DME or transponder, you are pretty
safe using it for that function.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net> |
Bob, you're so quick on replies, you even beat me to labeling myself the
neophyte that I am! I'm just trying to wrap myself around all the info out
there on airframe and panel wiring that Revision 11 just can't hold. I'm
weighing the desire to do all my own wiring (time and learning) against
farming the panel out to $omeone el$e just to have it correct. Too bad
there're no avionics seminars around my area for the next foreseeable
future....
Rob
>
>On Comant's spec sheets for DME/Transponder antennae, what is the
>significance of "Power RF?"
>
>
>Rob
Hmmm . . . seems my reply was truncated. For antennas, there's
a design limit for the maximum power you can expect it to
handle. For example, a simple DME/Transponder antenna for
mounting to the bottom of an airplane could be severely
taxed at say 10,000 watts. It could be a current issue
where some part of the antenna might be overheating and
be damaged (not a problem with DME/Transponder antennas
because while PEAK power is perhaps 100-200 watts, the average
power is measured in milliwatts. If it's a voltage issue
(gaps in construction or capacitors arc over) then peak
power is a significant concern irrespective of
average power.
In any case, a DME/Transponder antenna you purchase for
use on an aircraft isn't going to be at-risk for damage
by any radio installed for that purpose at the power levels
commonly supplied. A 50-ohm antenna accepting 250 watts
of power sees peak currents on the order of 2.5 amps
and peak voltages on the order of 110 volts. Generally
not a big thing in the aviation antenna world.
The same company may well make antennas rated in the
killowatts where such things are a design challenge.
They may have a data sheet format that says
"tho shalt put a power rating on thy product"
so even the lowly DME/Transponder antenna gets a power
rating.
This gives rise to the neophyte's dilemma, "Gee, there's
a power rating stated for this product I might want to
buy for my airplane . . . how and why would I consider
this as significant for my buy-decision?" The answer
in this case is, "No big deal."
Bob . . .
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | simon miles <simon.miles(at)skynet.be> |
I'm intrigued. Why does a transponder or DME draw such high power? My
radio only draws about 5 watts and that seems to work perfectly well -
or is the peak draw actually much higher?
Simon Miles.
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
>
> Robert G. Wright wrote:
>>
>> On Comant's spec sheets for DME/Transponder antennae, what is the
>> significance of "Power RF?"
>
> Transmitting antennas are usually rated for how much transmitter output
> power they can handle. Remember that transponders and DMEs have
> transmitters and transmit with peak power levels on the order of 200-300
> watts. They transmit in short bursts so that the average power is low
> but still, the peak voltages and currents are those of the 300W level.
> This can cause arcing internally to the antenna if it isn't rated for
> this power level.
>
> But if the antenna says it is for a DME or transponder, you are pretty
> safe using it for that function.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
simon miles wrote:
>
> I'm intrigued. Why does a transponder or DME draw such high power? My
> radio only draws about 5 watts and that seems to work perfectly well -
> or is the peak draw actually much higher?
It doesn't draw high power. It is just that it transmits very short
bursts of high power so while the peak power is high, the average power
(which is what your power bus has to deliver to the radio) is very low.
Think of it this way. It might transmit with 100W for 1/100th of a
second every second. The peak power is 100W but the average power is 1W.
The durations and rates are different than that in real life but it
gives you the idea how it works.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Bob, you're so quick on replies, you even beat me to labeling myself the
>neophyte that I am! I'm just trying to wrap myself around all the info out
>there on airframe and panel wiring that Revision 11 just can't hold. I'm
>weighing the desire to do all my own wiring (time and learning) against
>farming the panel out to $omeone el$e just to have it correct. Too bad
>there're no avionics seminars around my area for the next foreseeable
>future....
We are ALL neophytes at many things. I presume your presence
here on the List is search out useful things to apply to your
decision making and/or to enhance your abilities to take on
new tasks. It's my pleasure and that of many others to share
what we've learned toward your goals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>simon miles wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm intrigued. Why does a transponder or DME draw such high power? My
> > radio only draws about 5 watts and that seems to work perfectly well -
> > or is the peak draw actually much higher?
>
>It doesn't draw high power. It is just that it transmits very short
>bursts of high power so while the peak power is high, the average power
>(which is what your power bus has to deliver to the radio) is very low.
>
>Think of it this way. It might transmit with 100W for 1/100th of a
>second every second. The peak power is 100W but the average power is 1W.
>The durations and rates are different than that in real life but it
>gives you the idea how it works.
Brian nails it. Consider that power is a rate thing and does not
consider duration. For example, cruising down the road may require
40-50 horsepower from your engine . . . but how does that translate
to energy? To speak of energy, you must consider duration. Driving
500 miles might take ten hours . . . so while the power was 50 h.p.,
the energy was 500 horsepower-hours.
You can have a 100 watt lightbulb on the ceiling that you
turn on for one second out of each hour. Peak power is 100
watts, energy is 100/3600 watt-hours or 1/36th of a watt-hour.
Your transponder puts out a stream of 0.45 microsecond wide
pulses at 100W, or what ever the "power rating" of your transponder
is.
See http://www.airsport-corp.com/modec.htm
The strings happen over a span of 21 uS and repeats several times
each time the REPLY light on your transponder lights up. One might
say that the AVERAGE power for a reply of all "1" in the bit stream
approaches 50 watts . . . but this is still very periodic and even when
your're being painted by several radar sites, the average power over
say 10 seconds is less than 1 watt which accounts for about 100 millampers
of the input power to your transponder . . . the rest being lost
in running associated circuitry and losses in the transmitter's high
power output stage.
Tying this back to the antenna power rating question, knowing that
peak power is as much as 200W, the designer might have some voltage
issues to
consider but from an average power handling perspective, current
stresses to the antenna are trivial.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mauri Morin" <maurv8(at)bresnan.net> |
How 'bout the one for resistor color stripes?????
Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly
Black Brown Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet Gray White
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9
Mauri Morin
Polson, MT
RV-8 N808M (reserved)
C180 N2125Z Flying
SEMPER FI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Questions? |
>
>Good Afternoon All,
>
>This site was recently brought to my attention.
>
>Would any of you battery experts care to comment on it's accuracy and
>usefulness?
>
>_www.batteryfaq.org_ (http://www.batteryfaq.org)
Hmmmm . . . pretty comprehensive pile of stuff. Not
sure I can even being to approach your question. It's
sorta like linking to http://m-w.com (online dictionary)
with a question as to its completeness and accuracy.
If you have specific questions about something you
discover there I'd be pleased to attempt an answer
or find someone who can . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Plane power Alternator pictures |
Here are some closeups of the new Plane Power Alternator
http://www.vansairforce.net/delete_eventually/PlanePower/IMG_1058.JPG
http://www.vansairforce.net/delete_eventually/PlanePower/IMG_1059.JPG
http://www.vansairforce.net/delete_eventually/PlanePower/IMG_1060.JPG
http://www.vansairforce.net/delete_eventually/PlanePower/IMG_1061.JPG
http://www.vansairforce.net/delete_eventually/PlanePower/IMG_1062.JPG
http://www.vansairforce.net/delete_eventually/PlanePower/IMG_1063.JPG
Looks good, here is their site
www.Plane-Power.com
You can get a discount thru Van's aircraft. G
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Plane power Alternator pictures |
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Here are some closeups of the new Plane Power Alternator
>
> http://www.vansairforce.net/delete_eventually/PlanePower/IMG_1058.JPG
> http://www.vansairforce.net/delete_eventually/PlanePower/IMG_1059.JPG
> http://www.vansairforce.net/delete_eventually/PlanePower/IMG_1060.JPG
> http://www.vansairforce.net/delete_eventually/PlanePower/IMG_1061.JPG
> http://www.vansairforce.net/delete_eventually/PlanePower/IMG_1062.JPG
> http://www.vansairforce.net/delete_eventually/PlanePower/IMG_1063.JPG
>
>
> Looks good, here is their site
>
> www.Plane-Power.com
>
> You can get a discount thru Van's aircraft. G
Interesting. The site is a bit weak on details though. I presume that
the experimental unit is internally regulated. I don't see how they
provide a means of removing field excitation to disable the alternator
in the case of a problem but that is probably just a matter of
insufficient information on the web site.
As for the versions for certified aircraft, there isn't a lot
information there either. I guess they are just bolt-on replacement for
existing alternators. Their point about superior output is a non-issue
for me. I have never seen a load on any of my alternators that exceeded
about 50% of rated capacity. Heck, on my Aztec I only hit 50% if one
alternator is off line. The rest of the time I can barely see the 60A
loadmeters (one per alternator) move.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | B & C Grounding Kts and Grounding Procedure |
Listers ...
I'm about to order a grounding kit ... what have most ordered for an IFR
platform with the usual glass panel goodies, engine management system plus
GPS/COM There are several ground systems listed at B & C and I only want to
order once.
This is their list:
24-Tab Ground Block
24/24-Tab Firewall Ground Kit
24/48-Tab Firewall Ground Kit
48-Tab Ground Block
Are there additional ground tabs required to accomodate avionics and inst
panel ground tabs or do the above listed include those?
Should the avionics and panel grounds be collected on local tabs and then
those wired directly to the firewall forest of tabs as well?
Many thanks to the list ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "'Peter Braswell'" <pbraswell(at)alterthought.com> |
| Subject: | B & C Grounding Kts and Grounding Procedure |
Jerry,
I can speak to how I addressed this. I'm a few weeks from flying, but I
generally feel good about the wiring/grounding at this point. I've had
absolutely no problems whatsoever.
I used the 24/48 block. 48 are on the cabin side, 24 on the engine side.
My ground cable runs from the - side of the battery to a point on the cage
(I'm in a Glastar), from the cage to the back-side of the ground tab block.
On the engine side of the firewall, I have a ground strap from the 24 tab
side to the engine block.
In terms of all the deivices in the airplane, everything gets its own ground
so every switch, device, etc that needs a ground, gets its own ground on the
ground tab. Same is true on the engine side of the firewall. I figured
that each device getting its own ground would eliminate multiple devices
failing because of a fault ground in the event that grounds were
daisy-chained or ganged together.
I don't know if this is in line with what Bob suggests, but in my mind it
seemed reasonable. :-)
-peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
Grimmonpre
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:47 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: B & C Grounding Kts and Grounding Procedure
-->
Listers ...
I'm about to order a grounding kit ... what have most ordered for an IFR
platform with the usual glass panel goodies, engine management system plus
GPS/COM There are several ground systems listed at B & C and I only want to
order once.
This is their list:
24-Tab Ground Block
24/24-Tab Firewall Ground Kit
24/48-Tab Firewall Ground Kit
48-Tab Ground Block
Are there additional ground tabs required to accomodate avionics and inst
panel ground tabs or do the above listed include those?
Should the avionics and panel grounds be collected on local tabs and then
those wired directly to the firewall forest of tabs as well?
Many thanks to the list ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | B & C Grounding Kts and Grounding Procedure |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
I made my own grounding system. If you can find a sheet of brass you can
buy the tabs from Steinair for next to nothing.
I made a 60 tab block for the backside and a 12 (I think) for the front
side.
Yes I have a number of spare tabs but not excessive.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
Grimmonpre
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:47 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: B & C Grounding Kts and Grounding Procedure
-->
Listers ...
I'm about to order a grounding kit ... what have most ordered for an IFR
platform with the usual glass panel goodies, engine management system
plus GPS/COM There are several ground systems listed at B & C and I
only want to order once.
This is their list:
24-Tab Ground Block
24/24-Tab Firewall Ground Kit
24/48-Tab Firewall Ground Kit
48-Tab Ground Block
Are there additional ground tabs required to accomodate avionics and
inst panel ground tabs or do the above listed include those?
Should the avionics and panel grounds be collected on local tabs and
then those wired directly to the firewall forest of tabs as well?
Many thanks to the list ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B & C Grounding Kts and Grounding Procedure |
You can't go wrong with the 24/48 firewall kit. I did not need 24 on the
engine side of the firewall but you will need a few and you need lots on the
aft side. I used 48 and then started doubling up a few. No problem doing
that just more work. Larry
----- Original Message -----
>
> Listers ...
> I'm about to order a grounding kit ... what have most ordered for an IFR
> platform with the usual glass panel goodies, engine management system plus
> GPS/COM There are several ground systems listed at B & C and I only want
> to
> order once.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Procedure |
| Subject: | B & C Grounding Kts and Grounding Procedure |
>
>
>Jerry,
>I can speak to how I addressed this. I'm a few weeks from flying, but I
>generally feel good about the wiring/grounding at this point. I've had
>absolutely no problems whatsoever.
>
>I used the 24/48 block. 48 are on the cabin side, 24 on the engine side.
>My ground cable runs from the - side of the battery to a point on the cage
>(I'm in a Glastar), from the cage to the back-side of the ground tab block.
>On the engine side of the firewall, I have a ground strap from the 24 tab
>side to the engine block.
>
>In terms of all the deivices in the airplane, everything gets its own ground
>so every switch, device, etc that needs a ground, gets its own ground on the
>ground tab. Same is true on the engine side of the firewall. I figured
>that each device getting its own ground would eliminate multiple devices
>failing because of a fault ground in the event that grounds were
>daisy-chained or ganged together.
>
>I don't know if this is in line with what Bob suggests, but in my mind it
>seemed reasonable. :-)
Dead on . . .
Can't have a ground loop when there are no loops.
Can't have a poor quality ground do to lack of surface
preparation and/or loss of threaded fastener tension.
Can't have a single fastener drop the grounds for multiple
systems.
>Are there additional ground tabs required to accomodate avionics and inst
>panel ground tabs or do the above listed include those?
>
>Should the avionics and panel grounds be collected on local tabs and then
>those wired directly to the firewall forest of tabs as well?
check out the revision 11 additions to system ground diagrams
in Z-15 and the discussion about an avionics/panel ground in
Chapter 18. See photos on fabricating your own panel ground
bus in the photos file at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding
Note, panel/avionics grounds should be used only for instrument
panel mounted stuff . . . don't ground any other airframe systems
to this bus. Extend this bus to the firewall ground by either one
"chubby" wire (10AWG or so) or multiple 20AWG wires as suggested
in the Z-figures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B & C Grounding Kts and Grounding Procedure |
This is exactly what I did also. I got the brass from McMter Carr
(www.mcmaster.com). Hobby shops also probably also carry it, but be
sure to get a heavy gauge thickness - not thin shim stock.
Dick Tasker
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
>I made my own grounding system. If you can find a sheet of brass you can
>buy the tabs from Steinair for next to nothing.
>
>I made a 60 tab block for the backside and a 12 (I think) for the front
>side.
>
>Yes I have a number of spare tabs but not excessive.
>
>Frank
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
>Grimmonpre
>Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:47 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: B & C Grounding Kts and Grounding Procedure
>
>-->
>
>Listers ...
>I'm about to order a grounding kit ... what have most ordered for an IFR
>platform with the usual glass panel goodies, engine management system
>plus GPS/COM There are several ground systems listed at B & C and I
>only want to order once.
>This is their list:
>
>24-Tab Ground Block
>24/24-Tab Firewall Ground Kit
>24/48-Tab Firewall Ground Kit
>48-Tab Ground Block
>
>Are there additional ground tabs required to accomodate avionics and
>inst panel ground tabs or do the above listed include those?
>
>Should the avionics and panel grounds be collected on local tabs and
>then those wired directly to the firewall forest of tabs as well?
>
>Many thanks to the list ...
>Jerry Grimmonpre'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Garmin 296 power/battery |
>
>
>Thanks Bob, you said
>"We have three laptops in the family that use L-I batteries
> for portable use and ALL are used as many hours or more with
> external power plugged in. None of the instruction manuals
> suggest that this is a 'bad' thing to do."
>
>Bob,
>The laptop experience is one of the reasons I asked the question. My wife
>gave me her laptop when she needed to upgrade for her business. She had
>always used the laptop with external power. When I tried to use the battery
>I found it now has a very short endurance. Maybe 10 minutes. I know NiCads
>develope a memory...do L-I also do that? Have tried cycling the L-I but no
>luck.
There are a lot of ingredients in the recipe for success
not the least of which is how 'smart' the laptop's charger
is. I had a laptop years ago that ate batteries but for the
most part, we've had good success for probably 3 or 4 dual-use
laptops where they're plugged into AC mains most of the time.
The easiest way to kill a perfectly good battery is to
overcharge it. I suspect this as a strong hypothesis for
your own experience. None of the laptops I've owned ever
cautioned against extended operation under AC mains power.
I suspect this is because the designers believed that their
particular battery maintenance protocols were optimized for
this kind of service.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wes <wesisberg(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | avcomm AC-6PA diagram? |
I have an Aviation Communications AC-6PA intercom, but
the harness is now mostly spaghetti so I need to
rewire it (for an experimental). Does anyone have a
wiring diagram for this or a similar model, or a link
to how to test/guess without harming anything? (I
found the 170B diagram on aeroelectric.com quite
helpful.)
Thanks in advance-
Wes
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Plane power Alternator pictures |
| From: | "Jekyll" <rcitjh(at)aol.com> |
I emailed several questions to Plane Power and was suprised to recieve a call from
Steve the next morning. He cared enough to spend 30 minutes talking with an
electrically challenged builder discussing the salient charachteristics of his
alternators. He seemed very willing to go into any level of detail I cared
to pursue. I informed him in my initial email I would buy through Vans at a substantial
discount if I decided on his product so he knew his profit from the
call would not be great.
He is confident in the internal VR set up in the experimental versions and spent
quite a bit of time explaining it to me. He also touts the dual cooling fans
and higher output at lower RPM. No load-dump issues.
As far as self excitation, well, I'm not savy enough to discuss that though I've
heard it can lead to difficulty seeing at night.
I suggest one of you more knowledgeable on these issues give him a call as I've
reached my level of alternator competence. Your knowledge would lead to a better
investigation of the attributes. My layman-level research however, has convinced
me that this is a great product at a fair price.
In summation, I was impressed with his responsivness and candor and have decided
to alter my plans from a B&C alternator and VR (total of $637) to the PP alternator
for $375. This is a big savings!
Ultimately, PP's greatest contribution may be to offer a high quality, cost point
comparison that will bring down B&C's prices. Isn't competition great?
Jekyll
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=30869#30869
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Charging system failure |
I was flying along, 7.8 hours total so far, minding my own business, =
getting ready to do some climb testing when a blinking red light alerted =
me to low voltage. I switched the master off and the essential bus feed =
on ( wrong order by the way) & was relieved to see the system voltage =
perk up to 12.4v. I returned to Manassas without further incident but =
am now looking for a way to make the charging system more reliable. =
Here's what I found on the ground:
The alternator field coil main fuse, 7.5amp, was blown. This feeds a 5 =
amp circuit breaker which did not trip. Hypothesis: the overvoltage =
crowbar shorted the field coil circuit to ground. To test this I =
replaced the fuse, pulled the breaker, started the engine & set to =
1,000rpm, and then watched the voltmeter as I reset the breaker. =
Voltage gradually increased from the 11.7volts battery voltage to =
14.3volts that I am used to seeing in about 10 seconds. So, the VR166 =
external voltage regulator and Vans 35 amp alternator were working =
again.
Now I'm back home looking at my Z12 wiring diagram & I'm realizing a =
couple of things. I used 18awg wire to feed the circuit breaker so I =
can increase that feedline fuse to 10amps. Hopefully, this will let the =
circuit breaker trip before the fuse blows. That would make an =
overvoltage event a lot more tolerable as I could try a reset in the =
air. I see that Z-23 uses a 22awg fuse link instead of a fuse to feed =
the field coil circuit. Would that be even less likely to blow than a =
10 amp buss fuse?
Second, my engine monitor is connected to the essential bus so it =
routinely shows about a 1/2 volt difference between voltage when the =
master is on and feeding it through the isolation diodes and voltage =
when the essential bus feed is on. That means my charging voltage is =
probably 14.8volts. Do you think that is high? Should I be thinking of =
replacing the VR166 voltage regulator with one I can set lower? Might =
reduce overvoltage event frequency & put less stress on the Panasonic =
LC-RD1217P battery? I'll take the voltmeter and measure the actual =
charging voltage next time out.
Lastly, I wonder if I need to change the crowbar module. I've heard a =
lot about nusiance trips. The unit I have came pre-assembled from B&C & =
encased in black shrink tubing. It was purchased 2-21-2003. Is it =
likely to be one of the questionable ones I have heard about? What's =
the likely voltage required to trip? I seem to remember 16volts. Not =
far above 14.8volts.
Anyway, I'll increase the fuse size, measure actual charging voltage, & =
wait for any clarification Bob or others on the list can provide =
relative to the other questions.
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Charging system failure |
Dave,
I'm sure you will get some help here with your situation from other much
more qualified than I. I am trying to follow your description and are
wondering what the use of = is. Maybe I'm missing something here but what
does = mean?
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DAVID
REEL
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:47 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Charging system failure
I was flying along, 7.8 hours total so far, minding my own business, =
getting ready to do some climb testing when a blinking red light alerted =
me to low voltage. I switched the master off and the essential bus feed =
on ( wrong order by the way) & was relieved to see the system voltage = perk
up to 12.4v. I returned to Manassas without further incident but = am now
looking for a way to make the charging system more reliable. = Here's what
I found on the ground:
The alternator field coil main fuse, 7.5amp, was blown. This feeds a 5 =
amp circuit breaker which did not trip. Hypothesis: the overvoltage =
crowbar shorted the field coil circuit to ground. To test this I = replaced
the fuse, pulled the breaker, started the engine & set to = 1,000rpm, and
then watched the voltmeter as I reset the breaker. = Voltage gradually
increased from the 11.7volts battery voltage to = 14.3volts that I am used
to seeing in about 10 seconds. So, the VR166 = external voltage regulator
and Vans 35 amp alternator were working = again.
Now I'm back home looking at my Z12 wiring diagram & I'm realizing a =
couple of things. I used 18awg wire to feed the circuit breaker so I = can
increase that feedline fuse to 10amps. Hopefully, this will let the =
circuit breaker trip before the fuse blows. That would make an =
overvoltage event a lot more tolerable as I could try a reset in the = air.
I see that Z-23 uses a 22awg fuse link instead of a fuse to feed = the field
coil circuit. Would that be even less likely to blow than a = 10 amp buss
fuse?
Second, my engine monitor is connected to the essential bus so it =
routinely shows about a 1/2 volt difference between voltage when the =
master is on and feeding it through the isolation diodes and voltage = when
the essential bus feed is on. That means my charging voltage is = probably
14.8volts. Do you think that is high? Should I be thinking of = replacing
the VR166 voltage regulator with one I can set lower? Might = reduce
overvoltage event frequency & put less stress on the Panasonic = LC-RD1217P
battery? I'll take the voltmeter and measure the actual = charging voltage
next time out.
Lastly, I wonder if I need to change the crowbar module. I've heard a = lot
about nusiance trips. The unit I have came pre-assembled from B&C & =
encased in black shrink tubing. It was purchased 2-21-2003. Is it = likely
to be one of the questionable ones I have heard about? What's = the likely
voltage required to trip? I seem to remember 16volts. Not = far above
14.8volts.
Anyway, I'll increase the fuse size, measure actual charging voltage, & =
wait for any clarification Bob or others on the list can provide = relative
to the other questions.
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Plane power Alternator pictures |
>posted by: Brian Lloyd
>Interesting. The site is a bit weak on details though. I presume that
>the experimental unit is internally regulated. I don't see how they
>provide a means of removing field excitation to disable the alternator
>in the case of a problem but that is probably just a matter of
>insufficient information on the web site.
I suspect that little module on the back sense OV with a solid state
chip and somehow opens the FIELD or all the power from the I-VR.
They are indeed internally regulated.
The little module may have a solid state relay or the I-V regulator is
modified with a relay, which is activated by that OV sense module,
to open the field.
However I have no details either. I have a call into Plane Power
and I'll see what I can learn.
>As for the versions for certified aircraft, there isn't a lot
>information there either. I guess they are just bolt-on replacement for
>existing alternators. Their point about superior output is a non-issue
>for me. I have never seen a load on any of my alternators that exceeded
>about 50% of rated capacity. Heck, on my Aztec I only hit 50% if one
>alternator is off line. The rest of the time I can barely see the 60A
>loadmeters (one per alternator) move.
The certified ones I do know are externally regulated and are bolt in.
I think there load diagram really is just to show they are stronger than
the stock one. Like you side it probably does not make a differnce.
As far as load I flew freight in Navajos and other twins, with the
hot windshield and props. I did see a little more load than you see.
With hot stuff and lights the load was high, but don't recall the exact #.
I also owned a 1958 Apache with generators (I think 23-30 amps)
and they where plenty. It all depends on your needs. In a single
engine plane w/ known ice (hot prop/windshield like a C210), with
lots of electronics, the extra power may be of use. However I don't
think 70 amps is enough. I suspect he could use the large frame
ND's to make a 130 amp unit for the high demand applications.
George
---------------------------------
at 1¢/min.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging system failure |
On Apr 26, 2006, at 12:46 PM, DAVID REEL wrote:
>
> The alternator field coil main fuse, 7.5amp, was blown. This feeds
> a 5 =
> amp circuit breaker which did not trip.
Well, of course the fuse blew first. Why do you have a fuse and a
breaker? You don't need the fuse. But if you want redundant
protection then the fusible link is the right answer.
So, lose the fuse, install a fusible link, and go fly again.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | ANL Current :imiter |
Does anyone on the list happen to know the thread size on the ANL current
limiter base that B&C sells. Mine is at my hangar and I want to order some
all metal lock nuts to use with it. Thanks. Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | john(at)ballofshame.com |
| Subject: | Re: Charging system failure |
Okay, I'll bite. My experience with fuses vs. circuit breakers is that in general
it's a race
to see which one will blow first....in the case of a short anyhow (i.e. crowbar
tripping in
this case). I agree the fuse is unnescessary (or the CB...either one), but what
am I
missing that would make it likely for the fuse to blow first?
-John Coloccia
www.ballofshame.com
On 26 Apr 2006 at 21:27, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> Well, of course the fuse blew first. Why do you have a fuse and a
> breaker? You don't need the fuse. But if you want redundant
> protection then the fusible link is the right answer.
>
> So, lose the fuse, install a fusible link, and go fly again.
>
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ANL Current :imiter |
>
>Does anyone on the list happen to know the thread size on the ANL current
>limiter base that B&C sells. Mine is at my hangar and I want to order some
>all metal lock nuts to use with it. Thanks. Don
5/16-24 UNF2A
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging system failure |
On Apr 26, 2006, at 11:03 PM, john(at)ballofshame.com wrote:
>
> Okay, I'll bite. My experience with fuses vs. circuit breakers is
> that in general it's a race
> to see which one will blow first....in the case of a short anyhow
> (i.e. crowbar tripping in
> this case). I agree the fuse is unnescessary (or the CB...either
> one), but what am I
> missing that would make it likely for the fuse to blow first?
It depends on the kind of breaker. Magnetic breakers are almost as
fast as fuses but thermal breakers like the ones we have in our
airplanes are *much* slower. The thermal mass of the fusible link in
the fuse is a lot less than the thermal mass in the circuit breaker
so it will reach its melting point much more quickly.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging system failure |
Agreed. The 14.8 V regulation setpoint is a bit
high too. How long has this system been in place?
The design deficiency for nuisance tripping issues
with B&C OVM were resolved years ago.
Know too that with an external regulator that shares
field supply wire with the voltage sense wire, there
is a potential for regulation instability. This is why
modern regulator philosophies use a separate remote
voltage sense lead (like the B&C regulators).
The VR-166 style regulator isn't inherently evil
because of the common power/sense lead but it does
offer another avenue of investigation as to why
your system behaved as it did.
The fuse needs to come out and the fusible link
needs to go in. Also, tell us where your regulator
is mounted and what size wires run the pathway between
bus and the regulator's "A" and "S" terminals.
Bob . . .
>Well, of course the fuse blew first. Why do you have a fuse and a
>breaker? You don't need the fuse. But if you want redundant
>protection then the fusible link is the right answer.
>
>So, lose the fuse, install a fusible link, and go fly again.
>
>
>Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
>brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
>+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
>I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Plane power Alternator pictures |
| From: | "Jekyll" <rcitjh(at)aol.com> |
[quote="gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com"
I suspect that little module on the back sense OV with a solid state
chip and somehow opens the FIELD or all the power from the I-VR.
They are indeed internally regulated.
The little module may have a solid state relay or the I-V regulator is
modified with a relay, which is activated by that OV sense module,
to open the field. [/quote]
I forgot to mention that Steve (PP) stated his internal VR is solid state and includes
a crowbar.
Jekyll
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=31120#31120
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Canopy Latched Sensor |
I'm looking for a better way to implement the canopy unlatched warning
system on a Long-EZ. The standard method is to use a small microswitch
that responds to "canopy latched". (This is not the same as "canopy
closed", which would be easy enough to implement but I want a "latched"
indication.)
Here's an illustration of the standard system:
http://users.lewiston.com/hth/jd/CanopyLockMicroswitch.jpg
When the canopy locking handle is pushed forward (left in the image) far
enough to latch the canopy locking mechanism, the head of the screw on
the handle (at the right in the image) fits in the hole on the latch and
actives the microswitch through its (specially bent) lever.
I'm not happy with the microswitch as it doesn't hold up well under use
and wonder if any Aeroelectric Connection readers can come up with a
better idea. I've searched for optical interrupters but can't find one
with a gap large enough for the head of the relatively large #10 screw.
I'm not familiar with any specific reflective-type optical sensors but
I'm guessing that would be the way to go.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Joe
Long-EZ 821RP
Lewiston, ID
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Latched Sensor |
Any two pieces of metal touching constitutes a switch. You don't
have to add a microswitch to the contraption to make it work. When
the screw on the handle touches the metal strip, you've got contact.
Dave Morris
At 11:21 AM 4/27/2006, you wrote:
>
>I'm looking for a better way to implement the canopy unlatched warning
>system on a Long-EZ. The standard method is to use a small microswitch
>that responds to "canopy latched". (This is not the same as "canopy
>closed", which would be easy enough to implement but I want a "latched"
>indication.)
>
>Here's an illustration of the standard system:
>http://users.lewiston.com/hth/jd/CanopyLockMicroswitch.jpg
>
>When the canopy locking handle is pushed forward (left in the image) far
>enough to latch the canopy locking mechanism, the head of the screw on
>the handle (at the right in the image) fits in the hole on the latch and
>actives the microswitch through its (specially bent) lever.
>
>I'm not happy with the microswitch as it doesn't hold up well under use
>and wonder if any Aeroelectric Connection readers can come up with a
>better idea. I've searched for optical interrupters but can't find one
>with a gap large enough for the head of the relatively large #10 screw.
> I'm not familiar with any specific reflective-type optical sensors but
>I'm guessing that would be the way to go.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>Thanks,
>Joe
>Long-EZ 821RP
>Lewiston, ID
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Latched Sensor |
On Apr 27, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Joe Dubner wrote:
>
>
> I'm looking for a better way to implement the canopy unlatched warning
> system on a Long-EZ.
What about a small magnet and a magnetic reed switch. You can get
them as window and door sensors from your local burglar alarm
company. They probably have them at Radio Shack too.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Latched Sensor |
Thanks, Dave but the metal-to-metal contact isn't reliable. The screw
head fits loosely inside the hole in the latch and the screw's grip
doesn't necessarily make solid contact with the edge of the .020" SS
latch. And there's no pressure on the "contacts".
Still looking for an optical solution ...
--
Joe
On 27-Apr-06 11:21 Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
>
> Any two pieces of metal touching constitutes a switch. You don't
> have to add a microswitch to the contraption to make it work. When
> the screw on the handle touches the metal strip, you've got contact.
>
> Dave Morris
>
>
> At 11:21 AM 4/27/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>I'm looking for a better way to implement the canopy unlatched warning
>>system on a Long-EZ. The standard method is to use a small microswitch
>>that responds to "canopy latched". (This is not the same as "canopy
>>closed", which would be easy enough to implement but I want a "latched"
>>indication.)
>>
>>Here's an illustration of the standard system:
>>http://users.lewiston.com/hth/jd/CanopyLockMicroswitch.jpg
>>
>>When the canopy locking handle is pushed forward (left in the image) far
>>enough to latch the canopy locking mechanism, the head of the screw on
>>the handle (at the right in the image) fits in the hole on the latch and
>>actives the microswitch through its (specially bent) lever.
>>
>>I'm not happy with the microswitch as it doesn't hold up well under use
>>and wonder if any Aeroelectric Connection readers can come up with a
>>better idea. I've searched for optical interrupters but can't find one
>>with a gap large enough for the head of the relatively large #10 screw.
>> I'm not familiar with any specific reflective-type optical sensors but
>>I'm guessing that would be the way to go.
>>
>>Any ideas?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Joe
>>Long-EZ 821RP
>>Lewiston, ID
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Malcolm Thomson" <mthomson(at)showmeproductions.com> |
I am trying to help out a friend of mine with an old Waco RNF that has
unshielded mags on 125 Warner. The Becker COM Radio is picking up =
ignition
noise. Is there anything I can do to eliminate the noise.
=20
Thanks.
--=20
=20
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | john(at)ballofshame.com |
| Subject: | Re: Charging system failure |
Yes, good point. I was definitely thinking along the lines of magnetic
breakers.
-john
On 27 Apr 2006 at 7:32, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> On Apr 26, 2006, at 11:03 PM, john(at)ballofshame.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Okay, I'll bite. My experience with fuses vs. circuit breakers is
> > that in general it's a race
> > to see which one will blow first....in the case of a short anyhow
> > (i.e. crowbar tripping in
> > this case). I agree the fuse is unnescessary (or the CB...either
> > one), but what am I
> > missing that would make it likely for the fuse to blow first?
>
> It depends on the kind of breaker. Magnetic breakers are almost as
> fast as fuses but thermal breakers like the ones we have in our
> airplanes are *much* slower. The thermal mass of the fusible link in
> the fuse is a lot less than the thermal mass in the circuit breaker
> so it will reach its melting point much more quickly.
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging system failure |
I'm back from the airport & have some further info about this problem.
With a digital voltmeter across the battery, I read charging voltage of 15.3
volts. It was very unstable, jittering around a lot by about +/- a half a
volt. Replaced the VR166 with a NAPA VR428 and now the charging voltage is
pretty stable at 14.8. Jitters are gone. The Panasonic battery spec sheet
calls for charging voltages from 14.5 to 14.9. I'm working on a fusible
link replacement for the fuse but I'm still curious whether a 10 amp buss
fuse is likely to blow before a 5 amp circuit breaker. Comparing meter
readings, the drop through the isolation diode amounts to 1 volt, not the .5
volts I previously thought as the engine monitor now reads 13.8v.
To answer other questions that came up, the wire size is 18awg from main bus
to circuit breaker, 20awg everywhere else. The system worked for 7.8 engine
hours til it tripped the crowbar which I now think worked properly. The
regulator is mounted on the upper right side of the firewall in the engine
compartment & depends on the firewall for it's ground return path.
Dave Reel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | john(at)ballofshame.com |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Latched Sensor |
An optical solution for this is difficult because the screw head won't
protrude out enough. I could probably rig something up but I don't
think it would be very reliable at all.
A Hall effect sensor might work. You'd have to find a way to get the
magnet into the screw head somehow. There are other ways to do it.
Once again, though, with vibration I don't think this would be very
reliable. It would take some work, anyhow, but this is better than
rigging something up with LED's and photodiodes I think. One thing
that might work is the put the magnet on the lever part and the sensor
near the edge of the latch. Since the whole latch moves up when it
latches (i.e. they're a little closer to each other when the screw's in the
hole than when it's not) you may be able to tune it reliably like this. I
dunno.
Honestly, I would just use a switch. That microswitch setup looks
pretty flaky. Personally I would make a leaf switch out of two thin
pieces of metal seperated by a small plastic washer. They're bent
towards each other slightly. Bolt goes in, leafs touch, and presto.
Simple, light and reliable. In 5 or 10 years when some surface
corrosion (or whatever) makes the switch not work anymore, replace it
with another $ 0.10 worth of metal (or do it every annual if you like).
just my $.02
-John Coloccia
On 27 Apr 2006 at 9:21, Joe Dubner wrote:
>
> I'm looking for a better way to implement the canopy unlatched warning
> system on a Long-EZ. The standard method is to use a small microswitch
> that responds to "canopy latched". (This is not the same as "canopy
> closed", which would be easy enough to implement but I want a "latched"
> indication.)
>
> Here's an illustration of the standard system:
> http://users.lewiston.com/hth/jd/CanopyLockMicroswitch.jpg
>
> When the canopy locking handle is pushed forward (left in the image) far
> enough to latch the canopy locking mechanism, the head of the screw on
> the handle (at the right in the image) fits in the hole on the latch and
> actives the microswitch through its (specially bent) lever.
>
> I'm not happy with the microswitch as it doesn't hold up well under use
> and wonder if any Aeroelectric Connection readers can come up with a
> better idea. I've searched for optical interrupters but can't find one
> with a gap large enough for the head of the relatively large #10 screw.
> I'm not familiar with any specific reflective-type optical sensors but
> I'm guessing that would be the way to go.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
> Long-EZ 821RP
> Lewiston, ID
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jlundberg(at)cox.net> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging system failure |
DAVID REEL wrote:
>
>I'm back from the airport & have some further info about this problem.
>
>With a digital voltmeter across the battery, I read charging voltage of 15.3
>volts. It was very unstable, jittering around a lot by about +/- a half a
>volt. Replaced the VR166 with a NAPA VR428 and now the charging voltage is
>pretty stable at 14.8. Jitters are gone. The Panasonic battery spec sheet
>calls for charging voltages from 14.5 to 14.9. I'm working on a fusible
>link replacement for the fuse but I'm still curious whether a 10 amp buss
>fuse is likely to blow before a 5 amp circuit breaker.
>
Yes Dave. I'd suspect even a 20 amp fuse would likely blow before the
breaker. These C/B's are much much slower than these fuses even though
there might be way over 20 amps flowing.
I got away with a 10 amp fuse feeding a 2.5 (two point five) amp breaker
with an internal VR alternator but that won't work for your situation.
Especially at cool temperatures, I'd consider 14.8 volts to be normal.
And I agree with your diagnosis that the OVM probably worked properly.
My OVM are set to trip at 16.3 volts.
Ken
> Comparing meter
>readings, the drop through the isolation diode amounts to 1 volt, not the .5
>volts I previously thought as the engine monitor now reads 13.8v.
>
>To answer other questions that came up, the wire size is 18awg from main bus
>to circuit breaker, 20awg everywhere else. The system worked for 7.8 engine
>hours til it tripped the crowbar which I now think worked properly. The
>regulator is mounted on the upper right side of the firewall in the engine
>compartment & depends on the firewall for it's ground return path.
>
>Dave Reel
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/27/06 |
Cc: jdubner(at)yahoo.com
| From: | Terry Lamp <tlamp(at)genesishcs.org> |
Joe here is a picture of my install.
http://home.columbus.rr.com/tlamp/mvc-398f.jpg
and my entire construction page of the Long EZ at:
http://home.columbus.rr.com/tlamp/planpics.htm
I'm sure you have seen this type before, it has the typical microswitch
located behind the latch.
I think it would be better if I also had a magnetic switch inline to also
verify that the canopy is shut, as the latch can be locked and the canopy
not captured. It is pretty obvious if that happens, but it would be a safer
installation.
Terry Lamp
Long EZ N977JT
Ohio
________________________________ Message 5
_____________________________________
From: Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Canopy Latched Sensor
I'm looking for a better way to implement the canopy unlatched warning
system on a Long-EZ. The standard method is to use a small microswitch
that responds to "canopy latched". (This is not the same as "canopy
closed", which would be easy enough to implement but I want a "latched"
indication.)
Here's an illustration of the standard system:
http://users.lewiston.com/hth/jd/CanopyLockMicroswitch.jpg
When the canopy locking handle is pushed forward (left in the image) far
enough to latch the canopy locking mechanism, the head of the screw on
the handle (at the right in the image) fits in the hole on the latch and
actives the microswitch through its (specially bent) lever.
I'm not happy with the microswitch as it doesn't hold up well under use
and wonder if any Aeroelectric Connection readers can come up with a
better idea. I've searched for optical interrupters but can't find one
with a gap large enough for the head of the relatively large #10 screw.
I'm not familiar with any specific reflective-type optical sensors but
I'm guessing that would be the way to go.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Joe
Long-EZ 821RP
Lewiston, ID
*************************************************************************
*****************Confidentiality Notice:******************************
*************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail message, including any
attachments, is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named above (addressee). This e-mail may contain information
that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, copying or other use of the communication or its
substance is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please reply to this e-mail indicating you are not the intended
recipient and immediately destroy all copies of this e-mail. Receipt
by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any
privileged information.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Canopy Latched Sensor |
| From: | "George Neal E Capt HQ AU/XPRR" <Neal.George(at)maxwell.af.mil> |
Joe -
Twist the end of the stainless strap 90-degrees and mount the optical
sensor around the end.
The screw head will push it out of the gate to break the optical path.
Neal
334-953-4137
RV-7 N8ZG wiring Z13-8
Still looking for an optical solution ...
--
Joe
>>
>>I'm looking for a better way to implement the canopy unlatched warning
>>system on a Long-EZ. The standard method is to use a small
>>microswitch that responds to "canopy latched". (This is not the same
>>as "canopy closed", which would be easy enough to implement but I want
a "latched"
>>indication.)
>>
>>Here's an illustration of the standard system:
>>http://users.lewiston.com/hth/jd/CanopyLockMicroswitch.jpg
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/27/06 |
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
>
>
>From: Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Canopy Latched Sensor
>
>
>Thanks, Dave but the metal-to-metal contact isn't reliable. The screw
>head fits loosely inside the hole in the latch and the screw's grip
>doesn't necessarily make solid contact with the edge of the .020" SS
>latch. And there's no pressure on the "contacts".
>
>Still looking for an optical solution ...
>
>
>
Make a "washer" from the .020" SS, one that has a long tab coming out
one side. Put the tab under the screwhead and arrange it so that the
tab interrupts the optical sensor.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/27/06 |
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
>
>
>From: Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Canopy Latched Sensor
>
>
>Thanks, Dave but the metal-to-metal contact isn't reliable. The screw
>head fits loosely inside the hole in the latch and the screw's grip
>doesn't necessarily make solid contact with the edge of the .020" SS
>latch. And there's no pressure on the "contacts".
>
>Still looking for an optical solution ...
>
>
>
Make a "washer" from the .020" SS, one that has a long tab coming out
one side. Put the tab under the screwhead and arrange it so that the
tab interrupts the optical sensor.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Plane power Alternator pictures |
>From: "Jekyll" <rcitjh(at)aol.com>
>
>I forgot to mention that Steve (PP) stated his internal VR is solid
>state and includes a crowbar. Jekyll
Thanks Jekyll, I just got off the phone and you are correct. They
sourced the power for the field brushes only thru the external
power lead, not the output. The OV module is a crow bar and
pops the 5 amp CB. He also said there is OV protection on the
chip but this is additional protection incase the chip shorts.
Sounds good to me. Light, simple and easy to install.
http://www.plane-power.com/images/AL12_EI60%20Installation.pdf
They also have custom fans (made from their tooling) that run CCW.
George
---------------------------------
at 1¢/min.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Plane power Alternator pictures |
| From: | "N777TY" <microsmurfer(at)yahoo.com> |
Can that 60 Amp breaker be replaced with ANL from B & C?
This looks like an attractive option to the B $$$ C setup..
--------
RV-7A
N777TY (res)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=31463#31463
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/27/06 |
> Make a "washer" from the .020" SS, one that has a long tab coming out
> one side. Put the tab under the screwhead and arrange it so that the
> tab interrupts the optical sensor.
There isn't enough clearance for a tab, long or short, coming out one
side as the head of the screw is nearly in contact with the latching
mechanism. When latched, the head actually passes through the hole in
the latch but "enroute" to latching, it drags across the surface of the
latch mechanism until it "drops into" the hole. The latching mechanism
is "springy" SS (.020").
I've received some good ideas but what I really want is an optical
solution, with no metal-to-metal contact.
Apparently an optical interrupter approach is out because of the
clearance involved (the gap is far too tiny for the head of the #10
screw).
But what about a reflective optical sensor? It would mount on the
inside of the hinged door (which is open in the photo) and see nothing
under unlatched conditions. When the canopy is latched, the head of the
screw would reflect light and activate the sensor.
Has anyone done this? I see lots of datasheets for reflective optical
sensors but I don't know specifically which ones are readily available,
inexpensive, long focal length, useful and stable output level, etc.
Does anyone have real-world experience with one and can recommend a
specific part number?
Thanks,
Joe
http://users.lewiston.com/hth/jd/CanopyLockMicroswitch.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/27/06 |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I found that digikey has a large variety of slot type optical switches for
reasonable prices. So far, it seems that all of them would require just a
tiny bit of glue logic to make them work.
Mechanically, instead of configuring the switch so that the screw head
interrupts the LED beam, design a lever arrangement which causes a flag to
be actuated when the screw head is in position.
Attempt at a picture which might be worth a few hundred words:
http://www.webpak.net/~mprather/Share/switch.jpg
When the screw head is in the latched position, the flag is moved such
that light passing between trasmitter and receiver are interrupted. Drawn
in the unlatched position.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>>
>
>> Make a "washer" from the .020" SS, one that has a long tab coming out
>> one side. Put the tab under the screwhead and arrange it so that the
>> tab interrupts the optical sensor.
>
> There isn't enough clearance for a tab, long or short, coming out one
> side as the head of the screw is nearly in contact with the latching
> mechanism. When latched, the head actually passes through the hole in
> the latch but "enroute" to latching, it drags across the surface of the
> latch mechanism until it "drops into" the hole. The latching mechanism
> is "springy" SS (.020").
>
> I've received some good ideas but what I really want is an optical
> solution, with no metal-to-metal contact.
>
> Apparently an optical interrupter approach is out because of the
> clearance involved (the gap is far too tiny for the head of the #10
> screw).
>
> But what about a reflective optical sensor? It would mount on the
> inside of the hinged door (which is open in the photo) and see nothing
> under unlatched conditions. When the canopy is latched, the head of the
> screw would reflect light and activate the sensor.
>
> Has anyone done this? I see lots of datasheets for reflective optical
> sensors but I don't know specifically which ones are readily available,
> inexpensive, long focal length, useful and stable output level, etc.
> Does anyone have real-world experience with one and can recommend a
> specific part number?
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
> http://users.lewiston.com/hth/jd/CanopyLockMicroswitch.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Plane power Alternator pictures |
YES, but the 5 amp CB is a must. I agree it is an attractive option.
Not even Bob can argue with it? (kidding)
>posted by: "N777TY"
>
>Can that 60 Amp breaker be replaced with ANL from B & C?
>This looks like an attractive option to the B $$$ C setup..
>RV-7A
>N777TY (res)
---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2/min with
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Flightcom 403 Aux inputs |
I am wiring the aux inputs to my FC 403 intercom (stereo) I have garmin 396
(st), Trafficscope VRX (st), ipod(st), GRT EIS 4000(Mono). I have them each
isolated with a 150 Ohm R and a 10 uF cap. 396 and ipod will not be used at
the same time. It all works pretty well except when the Trafficscope is
hooked up, I get a low level tone - not really the classic ground loop hum.
The voices are clear when the traffic alerts kick in, but the low level tone
is always there. My next step is the iso amp, but I thought I would try to
make this passive network work first.
One other question - could an unused mic input be used for the mono EIS
warning tone.
Thanks,
Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nancy Ghertner <nghertner(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/27/06 |
On 4/28/06 7:25 AM, "Terry Lamp" wrote:
>
>
>
> Joe here is a picture of my install.
>
> http://home.columbus.rr.com/tlamp/mvc-398f.jpg
>
> and my entire construction page of the Long EZ at:
>
> http://home.columbus.rr.com/tlamp/planpics.htm
>
> I'm sure you have seen this type before, it has the typical microswitch
> located behind the latch.
>
> I think it would be better if I also had a magnetic switch inline to also
> verify that the canopy is shut, as the latch can be locked and the canopy
> not captured. It is pretty obvious if that happens, but it would be a safer
> installation.
>
> Terry Lamp
> Long EZ N977JT
> Ohio
>
> ________________________________ Message 5
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Canopy Latched Sensor
>
>
> I'm looking for a better way to implement the canopy unlatched warning
> system on a Long-EZ. The standard method is to use a small microswitch
> that responds to "canopy latched". (This is not the same as "canopy
> closed", which would be easy enough to implement but I want a "latched"
> indication.)
>
> Here's an illustration of the standard system:
> http://users.lewiston.com/hth/jd/CanopyLockMicroswitch.jpg
>
> When the canopy locking handle is pushed forward (left in the image) far
> enough to latch the canopy locking mechanism, the head of the screw on
> the handle (at the right in the image) fits in the hole on the latch and
> actives the microswitch through its (specially bent) lever.
>
> I'm not happy with the microswitch as it doesn't hold up well under use
> and wonder if any Aeroelectric Connection readers can come up with a
> better idea. I've searched for optical interrupters but can't find one
> with a gap large enough for the head of the relatively large #10 screw.
> I'm not familiar with any specific reflective-type optical sensors but
> I'm guessing that would be the way to go.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
> Long-EZ 821RP
> Lewiston, ID
>
>
> *************************************************************************
> *****************Confidentiality Notice:******************************
> *************************************************************************
> The information contained in this e-mail message, including any
> attachments, is intended only for use of the individual or entity
> named above (addressee). This e-mail may contain information
> that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise exempt from
> disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is
> not the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination,
> distribution, copying or other use of the communication or its
> substance is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> please reply to this e-mail indicating you are not the intended
> recipient and immediately destroy all copies of this e-mail. Receipt
> by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any
> privileged information.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marya,
We are going to the opening, flying down , coming home on Thursday.
She is not there everyday, but would of course meet you.
Love, Nancy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Flightcom 403 Aux inputs |
>
> I am wiring the aux inputs to my FC 403 intercom (stereo) I have garmin 396
> (st), Trafficscope VRX (st), ipod(st), GRT EIS 4000(Mono). I have them each
> isolated with a 150 Ohm R and a 10 uF cap. 396 and ipod will not be used at
> the same time. It all works pretty well except when the Trafficscope is
> hooked up, I get a low level tone ...
>
> One other question - could an unused mic input be used for the mono EIS
> warning tone.
I hope so - that's what I'm planning to do. I was going to pop the
question about how to do it when I got a bit closer, but now that
you've brought it up...
What needs to be done to have mono warning tones like the EIS 4000
or AOA indicator going into an unused mic input?
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flightcom 403 Aux inputs |
The EIS 4000 outputs a 12 volt square wave for a tone so it will drive
pretty much anything. I needed a 470k (half meg) resistor to reduce the
volume and connect mine to a different model intercom.
Ken
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>I am wiring the aux inputs to my FC 403 intercom (stereo) I have garmin 396
>>(st), Trafficscope VRX (st), ipod(st), GRT EIS 4000(Mono). I have them each
>>isolated with a 150 Ohm R and a 10 uF cap. 396 and ipod will not be used at
>>the same time. It all works pretty well except when the Trafficscope is
>>hooked up, I get a low level tone ...
>>
>>One other question - could an unused mic input be used for the mono EIS
>>warning tone.
>>
>>
>
>I hope so - that's what I'm planning to do. I was going to pop the
>question about how to do it when I got a bit closer, but now that
>you've brought it up...
>
>What needs to be done to have mono warning tones like the EIS 4000
>or AOA indicator going into an unused mic input?
>
>Thanks,
>Mickey
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flightcom 403 Aux inputs |
On May 1, 2006, at 12:31 AM, Mickey Coggins wrote:
>>
>> One other question - could an unused mic input be used for the
>> mono EIS
>> warning tone.
>
> I hope so - that's what I'm planning to do. I was going to pop the
> question about how to do it when I got a bit closer, but now that
> you've brought it up...
>
> What needs to be done to have mono warning tones like the EIS 4000
> or AOA indicator going into an unused mic input?
There are a couple of things to think about when wiring up alert
inputs. Remember that a passenger mic input may be silenced/muted by
pressing the PTT or by throwing the "pilot isolate" or "crew isolate"
switch on the intercom. Frankly, you don't want to be able to mute
your warning audio by accident.
Some audio panels have an always-on input for alert audio. If not
then you want to pipe the audio into your intercom in such a way that
it cannot be muted. In that case you want to mix your alert audio
with audio from your audio panel at the input to your intercom. Since
most (all?) intercoms have a fail-safe routing for audio to the
pilot, that is probably the best thing to do.
It is probably best to look at all your sources of audio in the
cockpit and ask yourself what you want to do with each and then work
from there to ensure you get what you want.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Z-Figures Update |
Revision G to Appendix Z added note 24 against Figure Z-19.
Interested individuals are invited to download the new data
at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11G.pdf
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging system failure |
There are all kinds of fuses and circuit breakers. Each has a different
time delay. Some are designed to open very quickly at just above the
rated current, others will delay for a very long time before opening.
There are slow blow style fuses and breakers. There are fast blow fuses
and circuit breakers.
Fuses are not precision devices. The fuse holder plays a significant
role too. If you load a fuse continuously for much more than about 70%
its rating, it may well open.
The 15.3 volts is quite high. Your electronics can be damaged at
this high voltage. The battery won't much care for continuous operation
at this voltage either.
Bill Dube'
Ken wrote:
>
>DAVID REEL wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>I'm back from the airport & have some further info about this problem.
>>
>>With a digital voltmeter across the battery, I read charging voltage of 15.3
>>volts. It was very unstable, jittering around a lot by about +/- a half a
>>volt. Replaced the VR166 with a NAPA VR428 and now the charging voltage is
>>pretty stable at 14.8. Jitters are gone. The Panasonic battery spec sheet
>>calls for charging voltages from 14.5 to 14.9. I'm working on a fusible
>>link replacement for the fuse but I'm still curious whether a 10 amp buss
>>fuse is likely to blow before a 5 amp circuit breaker.
>>
>>
>>
>Yes Dave. I'd suspect even a 20 amp fuse would likely blow before the
>breaker. These C/B's are much much slower than these fuses even though
>there might be way over 20 amps flowing.
>
>I got away with a 10 amp fuse feeding a 2.5 (two point five) amp breaker
>with an internal VR alternator but that won't work for your situation.
> Especially at cool temperatures, I'd consider 14.8 volts to be normal.
>And I agree with your diagnosis that the OVM probably worked properly.
>My OVM are set to trip at 16.3 volts.
>
>Ken
>
>
>
>> Comparing meter
>>readings, the drop through the isolation diode amounts to 1 volt, not the .5
>>volts I previously thought as the engine monitor now reads 13.8v.
>>
>>To answer other questions that came up, the wire size is 18awg from main bus
>>to circuit breaker, 20awg everywhere else. The system worked for 7.8 engine
>>hours til it tripped the crowbar which I now think worked properly. The
>>regulator is mounted on the upper right side of the firewall in the engine
>>compartment & depends on the firewall for it's ground return path.
>>
>>Dave Reel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wes <wesisberg(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | avcomm AC-6PA intercom wiring diagram |
Cc: Weston Thomas Isberg
I'm rewiring an Aviation Communications AC-6PA
intercom and need a diagram. (The old install had
wires directly soldered in at various points and
jumpers in the molex connections which broke, and it
wasn't clearly working correctly.) Does anyone on the
list have a diagram or know how to guess correctly?
Thanks -
Wes
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wes <wesisberg(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: avcomm AC-6PA intercom wiring diagram |
Sorry for the duplicate; I just found my original
April 25 post.
Wes
--- Wes wrote:
>
>
> I'm rewiring an Aviation Communications AC-6PA
> intercom and need a diagram. (The old install had
> wires directly soldered in at various points and
> jumpers in the molex connections which broke, and it
> wasn't clearly working correctly.) Does anyone on
> the
> list have a diagram or know how to guess correctly?
>
> Thanks -
> Wes
>
> __________________________________________________
> protection around
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
I'm building an RV-9A and planning to install 2 comm antennas, one for the
panel radio (ICOM A-200) and the other for an handheld backup radio.
If I put both on the tail cone, one on the upper side and the other on the
bottom side of the fuselage, thus on the same vertical plan and some 3 ft
apart, are there any location associated problems?
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Flightcom 403 Aux inputs |
Pete
I have the same problem(s) to solve, therefore I'm looking forward to see
the answers to your questions.
Meanwhile, please explain to an electronics ignorant like me what do you
mean by "... I have them each isolated with a 150 Ohm R and a 10 uF cap."?
Did you connect each wire from each source through a resistance and a
capacitor (in series) all to the aux input (pin 18 or pin 19?) of the
intercom?
Carlos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Howell" <pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 5:57 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Flightcom 403 Aux inputs
> <pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
>
> I am wiring the aux inputs to my FC 403 intercom (stereo) I have garmin
> 396
> (st), Trafficscope VRX (st), ipod(st), GRT EIS 4000(Mono). I have them
> each
> isolated with a 150 Ohm R and a 10 uF cap. 396 and ipod will not be used
> at
> the same time. It all works pretty well except when the Trafficscope is
> hooked up, I get a low level tone - not really the classic ground loop
> hum.
> The voices are clear when the traffic alerts kick in, but the low level
> tone
> is always there. My next step is the iso amp, but I thought I would try
> to
> make this passive network work first.
>
> One other question - could an unused mic input be used for the mono EIS
> warning tone.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm Antennas |
Carlos:
To answer you question, yes that would be fine, but.....
Do you plan on using them at the same time. On near same freq
you could have an issue. Most dual panel mount radio setups
have an interconnect between dual COMs. It protects the
radio when the other one is transmitting.
Do you really need two radios? The handheld can just use
the attached portable antenna for say getting ATIS. If you
need to use it as the main radio in a pinch, like the ICOM dies,
I have a suggestion below.
Instead of two external antenna put just one bent whip antenna
on the belly forward of the main spare off to the pilot side. You
will have short coax run. ALSO if you need to, you can reach
down disconnect the coax from the antenna mounted in the floor
under the pilots leg and attach the coax to the handheld in an
emergency. The coax is out of the way just forward of the spar,
but it is still accessible. You could put a coax break anywhere.
They make commercial antenna switches to attach a portable
to the same antenna.
99% or the RV's put the antenna on the belly fwd of the spar.
Also most RV's use just one external COM antenna. Each
antenna is about 1/3 to 1/2 mph lost off of top speed. Also with
the long coax runs you will add extra weight. The area under
the belly is fine. You may worry about the gear leg blocking
the signal but this has prove to be a non issue.
The tail cone is fine but ugly in my opinion.
I assume you will have the audio out from the handheld going
into one of the ICOM aux inputs.
Cheers George
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
I'm building an RV-9A and planning to install 2 comm antennas,
one for the panel radio (ICOM A-200) and the other for an handheld
backup radio. If I put both on the tail cone, one on the upper side
and the other on the bottom side of the fuselage, thus on the same
vertical plan and some 3 ft apart, are there any location associated
problems?
Carlos
---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger
with Voice.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flightcom 403 Aux inputs |
After some experientation (and good advice from some EE buddies -
thanks Vern) here is what worked pretty well. Each of the inputs
have a 1000 Ohm resistor and a 10uF cap in series with the input.
The exception to this is the EIS tone that just has a 150 Ohm and the
10uF cap. I tried without success to get the warning tone piped into
pin 21 of the FC403 to make it unmuted. In the end, I was happy with
this as it allows me to silence the music and warnings with one flip
of the isolate switch. The EIS also has a warning light to alert
me of engine issues. This setup provides minimal Background noise
and the radios, trafficscope, and EIS each have sufficient volume.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Comm Antennas |
Regarding Carlos' question below, it seems to me that his antennae could be
mounted close together IF only one antenna were used at a time. Correct?
Stan Sutterfield
I'm building an RV-9A and planning to install 2 comm antennas, one for the
panel radio (ICOM A-200) and the other for an handheld backup radio.
If I put both on the tail cone, one on the upper side and the other on the
bottom side of the fuselage, thus on the same vertical plan and some 3 ft
apart, are there any location associated problems?
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm Antennas |
>
>Regarding Carlos' question below, it seems to me that his antennae could be
>mounted close together IF only one antenna were used at a time. Correct?
>Stan Sutterfield
"Close together" isn't very quantified. Certainly while
one antenna is being used to transmit, power intercepted
by the other one is likely to overload the receiver on the
other system . . . some receivers may take seconds to recover
from overloads. I'd like to see a couple of feet separation or
top/bottom mounted as Carlos suggested. You can TRY anything
else. There's little risk to hardware.
>I'm building an RV-9A and planning to install 2 comm antennas, one for the
>panel radio (ICOM A-200) and the other for an handheld backup radio.
>If I put both on the tail cone, one on the upper side and the other on the
>bottom side of the fuselage, thus on the same vertical plan and some 3 ft
>apart, are there any location associated problems?
When mounted on upper and lower surfaces, they are
well isolated. It's when mounted on the same surface that
we like to see some horizontal separation.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm Antennas |
Vertical separation is much better than horizontal separation. You
may still overload your receiver unless you have a switch to
disconnect it when the other one is transmitting.
Dave Morris
At 02:19 PM 5/1/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>I'm building an RV-9A and planning to install 2 comm antennas, one for the
>panel radio (ICOM A-200) and the other for an handheld backup radio.
>If I put both on the tail cone, one on the upper side and the other on the
>bottom side of the fuselage, thus on the same vertical plan and some 3 ft
>apart, are there any location associated problems?
>
>Carlos
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
Good Morning All,
This is from an electronics illiterate, but when I have been involved with
radio installations, I have always been told that any metal device that is
parallel and close to any vertical antenna will sap some of the strength from
the signal and drastically affects the reception pattern by absorbing and/or
reflecting the signal.
Two VHF comm antennas closer together than two or three feet will be very
directional. The same problem occurs when an antenna is within a couple of
feet of a fixed landing gear leg or the vertical fin containing a metal leading
edge.
Any truth to all that or is it just another Old Wives Tale?
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 5/3/2006 9:29:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
BigD(at)DaveMorris.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
Vertical separation is much better than horizontal separation. You
may still overload your receiver unless you have a switch to
disconnect it when the other one is transmitting.
Dave Morris
At 02:19 PM 5/1/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>I'm building an RV-9A and planning to install 2 comm antennas, one for the
>panel radio (ICOM A-200) and the other for an handheld backup radio.
>If I put both on the tail cone, one on the upper side and the other on the
>bottom side of the fuselage, thus on the same vertical plan and some 3 ft
>apart, are there any location associated problems?
>
>Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm Antennas |
A quarter wavelength on the aircraft band is about 23 inches. Keep
the antennas farther apart than that, and they won't interfere very
much with each other. I don't think you'll notice any directivity
created from landing gear legs or vertical fins, but the larger the
metal mass and the closer it is to the antenna, the more the antenna
will be influenced by the foreign metal object and create problems
especially in transmitting.
In order to create directivity, you have to put the antennas a
particular distance apart, generally 15-25% of a wavelength, and then
either feed them both in a particular phase relationship, or make
them a particular length shorter or longer (about 10-20%) than each
other. Otherwise, you just have random interference.
Dave Morris
At 09:37 AM 5/3/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>Good Morning All,
>
>This is from an electronics illiterate, but when I have been involved with
>radio installations, I have always been told that any metal device that is
>parallel and close to any vertical antenna will sap some of the
>strength from
>the signal and drastically affects the reception pattern by absorbing and/or
>reflecting the signal.
>
>Two VHF comm antennas closer together than two or three feet will be very
>directional. The same problem occurs when an antenna is within a couple of
>feet of a fixed landing gear leg or the vertical fin containing a
>metal leading
>edge.
>
>Any truth to all that or is it just another Old Wives Tale?
>
>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 5/3/2006 9:29:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>BigD(at)DaveMorris.com writes:
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
>
>
>Vertical separation is much better than horizontal separation. You
>may still overload your receiver unless you have a switch to
>disconnect it when the other one is transmitting.
>
>Dave Morris
>
>At 02:19 PM 5/1/2006, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >I'm building an RV-9A and planning to install 2 comm antennas, one for the
> >panel radio (ICOM A-200) and the other for an handheld backup radio.
> >If I put both on the tail cone, one on the upper side and the other on the
> >bottom side of the fuselage, thus on the same vertical plan and some 3 ft
> >apart, are there any location associated problems?
> >
> >Carlos
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm Antennas |
>
>
>Good Morning All,
>
>This is from an electronics illiterate, but when I have been involved with
>radio installations, I have always been told that any metal device that is
>parallel and close to any vertical antenna will sap some of the strength
>from
>the signal and drastically affects the reception pattern by absorbing and/or
>reflecting the signal.
Metallic conductors in the near field (less than 1 wavelength) of
an antenna will produce measurable distortions of antennas
pattern compared to it's free space situation.
Here's an exemplar horizontal radiation pattern for a highly
distorted, otherwise omni directional antenna:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Antenna_Pattern.gif
Note that as one marches around the horizon talking to this
installation, there are directions of communication that
suffer 40+ dB of attenuation (1/10,000th the max power).
However, in actual practice, this seemingly terrible antenna
may never come to the attention of a pilot. Signal margins for
air to ground communications are generally large. Further,
likelihood that any given attempt to communicate will fall
into the center of one of those deep notches is small.
>
>Two VHF comm antennas closer together than two or three feet will be very
>directional. The same problem occurs when an antenna is within a couple of
>feet of a fixed landing gear leg or the vertical fin containing a metal
>leading
>edge.
>
>Any truth to all that or is it just another Old Wives Tale?
Lots of truth, the task is to assign significance. We installed
tens of thousands of dual comm antennas on the cabin tops of
Cessnas for decades and they were only about 24" apart as I
recall. Testing on Gordon Wood's mini-antenna range at Cessna's
Pawnee Plant (single engine group) showed measurable but
insignificant effects.
I wouldn't agonize over it. Install for most convenience but
be aware of the POTENTIAL for noticeable effects. If at some time
you find that a particular station you've been talking too
"disappeared" . . . change heading 30 degrees and see if they
come back. If so, return to original heading and see if they
disappear again. This is a good way to demonstrate a significant
condition. Another way is to get some unicom station 20+ miles
away to give you a 3-minute count while you conduct a 360 degree
flat turn. See if they drop out at any time in the turn.
I'm betting that the vast majority of "questionable" installations
are adequate performers in real life.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | departure from Z-13/8 |
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
Howdy
The Z-13/8 architecture includes a wire leading from the battery contactor
to the S704-1 relay for the back-up alternator. Im proposing to move the
starting point of this wire from the battery contactor to the main terminal
of the battery bus. This will mean one less wire through the firewall for
me, not that that would kill me. I will keep the fusible link (which
will now be at the battery bus), and the battery will still get charged
when using the backup alternator since there is already an existing
separate wire from the battery bus to the battery contactor to the
battery. Anyone see any downside to this? Always makes me nervous to
depart from a plan...
regards,
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Comm Antennas |
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
writes
> I'm betting that the vast majority of "questionable" installations
> are adequate performers in real life.
Look. If I can build an antenna from a section of stainless (correct length, of
course), silver solder that to a BNC bulkhead connector, screw it to the floor
pan of my Kolb UL, and then power that with a KLX100 to over 30 miles,
you'd have to really work at making a bad antenna.......not saying it can't be
done. I'm proof of the "questionable installation".
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Converting IFR GPS to Terminal |
I have a Tommorrow (UPS AT) GX-65 GPS/COM. This unit can be used for
En-route IFR operations and has a TSO-C129a Class A2 certification. This is
basically the same unit as the GX-60 which is also certified for IFR
terminal and approach operations. My question is this, I'm guessing that
the only difference between the GX60 and 65 is the operational software
load. It may even be as simple as a change to a software configuration
table that activates additional features to enable the terminal and approach
capabilities. So.....is there any ex-UPS Aviation Technologies employees
lurking on this list that can tell me if my hypothesis is correct? And if
it is, would they be willing to help me get this software load configured so
I can do approach and terminal ops with the GX65? Since the GX series is no
longer sold (now that Garmin has taken over UPS AT) I can't get my GX-65
upgraded to a GX-60 by sending it back to the factory. I'm not too keen on
buying a Garmin 430 at this point (every time I think I'm done spending
money on this airplane something else comes along) so I'm looking for some
compromise here that won't break the bank.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Finishing panel and wiring, ya hoo!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal |
On May 3, 2006, at 10:28 PM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
> I have a Tommorrow (UPS AT) GX-65 GPS/COM. This unit can be used for
> En-route IFR operations and has a TSO-C129a Class A2
> certification. This is
> basically the same unit as the GX-60 which is also certified for IFR
> terminal and approach operations. My question is this, I'm
> guessing that
> the only difference between the GX60 and 65 is the operational
> software
> load. It may even be as simple as a change to a software
> configuration
> table that activates additional features to enable the terminal and
> approach
> capabilities. So.....is there any ex-UPS Aviation Technologies
> employees
> lurking on this list that can tell me if my hypothesis is correct?
> And if
> it is, would they be willing to help me get this software load
> configured so
> I can do approach and terminal ops with the GX65? Since the GX
> series is no
> longer sold (now that Garmin has taken over UPS AT) I can't get my
> GX-65
> upgraded to a GX-60 by sending it back to the factory. I'm not too
> keen on
> buying a Garmin 430 at this point (every time I think I'm done
> spending
> money on this airplane something else comes along) so I'm looking
> for some
> compromise here that won't break the bank.
Unfortunately there is no way short of the factory of getting your
GX65 to become a GX60. You are making the mistake of thinking that if
it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims in your pond that
it must be a duck. This is not true from the point of view of the
FAA. The sticker on the back says it is a GX65 so therefore it is a
GX65 no matter what you do to it. Only the manufacturer can change
that with the blessing of the FAA. (Yeah, I know; if it walked like a
GX60, quacked like a GX60, and swam an approach like a GX60 I might
be tempted to call it a GX60 too ... until the ramp check. But the
inspector probably wouldn't know enough to figure out what to look
for so even then you would probably get away with it.)
OTOH, have you actually called Garmin to ask them if it is possible
to trade your GX65 and some money for a GX60? (Lovely radio by the
way. I have one in my Aztec.) They are still supporting that radio
with repairs and spare parts. I am sure they have a couple of units
on the shelf for swap-out. Perhaps you can get a GX60 that way.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Converting IFR GPS to Terminal |
I suspect there is more than just a software load. IIRC my upgrade cost ~$1=
000 & came back with a new front panel at least so I hope there was more to=
it than the name change. RAIM probably has a hardware component. Also had =
all new manuals which were required for a certified install. Have you actua=
lly checked with Garmin? They still repair them and have a stockpile of par=
ts. Alternatively, you could probably sell your GX-65 and buy a GX-60 for a=
$500-1000 difference. Or get a Garmin 396 for the approaches. The 396 blow=
s away the GX-60 and I fly with both GX-60 in my Navion.
Greg Young
From: DEAN PSIROPOULOS
Sent: Thu 5/4/2006 12:28 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal
os(at)verizon.net>
I have a Tommorrow (UPS AT) GX-65 GPS/COM. This unit can be used for
En-route IFR operations and has a TSO-C129a Class A2 certification. This i=
s
basically the same unit as the GX-60 which is also certified for IFR
terminal and approach operations. My question is this, I'm guessing that
the only difference between the GX60 and 65 is the operational software
load. It may even be as simple as a change to a software configuration
table that activates additional features to enable the terminal and approac=
h
capabilities. So.....is there any ex-UPS Aviation Technologies employees
lurking on this list that can tell me if my hypothesis is correct? And if
it is, would they be willing to help me get this software load configured s=
o
I can do approach and terminal ops with the GX65? Since the GX series is no
longer sold (now that Garmin has taken over UPS AT) I can't get my GX-65
upgraded to a GX-60 by sending it back to the factory. I'm not too keen on
buying a Garmin 430 at this point (every time I think I'm done spending
money on this airplane something else comes along) so I'm looking for some
compromise here that won't break the bank.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Finishing panel and wiring, ya hoo!!!=20
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal |
Good Morning Dean,
Do you really need the approach capability?
Your current set has enroute and terminal capability provided that it has
been installed correctly for those functions.
That capability is adequate for the set to be used in lieu of ADF and DME
anywhere within the US National Airspace System.
While having approach capability is very handy at those airports that have
only GPS approaches available, having the "In Lieu Of provision" is very
helpful at those airports where many approaches are listed as requiring an ADF
or
the use of DME.
Any time those restrictions are in the approach name or listed as a
requirement for the approach, the GPS may be used in lieu of the ADF or DME. The
only
occasion when your GPS cannot be used in lieu of an ADF is when your are
executing an NDB approach. It can be used for ALL DME purposes.
That unit of your's is a very good addition to any IFR airplane.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
On May 3, 2006, at 10:28 PM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
> I have a Tommorrow (UPS AT) GX-65 GPS/COM. This unit can be used for
> En-route IFR operations and has a TSO-C129a Class A2
> certification. This is
> basically the same unit as the GX-60 which is also certified for IFR
> terminal and approach operations. My question is this, I'm
> guessing that
> the only difference between the GX60 and 65 is the operational
> software
> load. It may even be as simple as a change to a software
> configuration
> table that activates additional features to enable the terminal and
> approach
> capabilities. So.....is there any ex-UPS Aviation Technologies
> employees
> lurking on this list that can tell me if my hypothesis is correct?
> And if
> it is, would they be willing to help me get this software load
> configured so
> I can do approach and terminal ops with the GX65? Since the GX
> series is no
> longer sold (now that Garmin has taken over UPS AT) I can't get my
> GX-65
> upgraded to a GX-60 by sending it back to the factory. I'm not too
> keen on
> buying a Garmin 430 at this point (every time I think I'm done
> spending
> money on this airplane something else comes along) so I'm looking
> for some
> compromise here that won't break the bank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal |
Good Morning Greg,
Just to be clear, let's not forget to mention that the 396 is NOT approved
for any IFR function and especially not for approaches.
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 5/4/2006 9:35:00 A.M. Central Standard Time,
gyoung@cs-sol.com writes:
Or get a Garmin 396 for the approaches.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Converting IFR GPS to Terminal |
One BIG NOTE on the 396 for approaches.... Well actually 2, but I'll assume
everyone knows it *also* is not approach certified.
Ok, to the point, while it does have a Jeppesen database in it and it *does*
have approaches in it..... I'm pretty sure that the approaches in the 396
are *ONLY* from the FAF inbound. They full approaches are not there. In
other words if you were assigned the full GPS-xx approach, you wouldn't have
the IAF as the first waypoint. Not a problem when on radar vectors, but a
major problem if you aren't.
Just my .02
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg
Young
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal
I suspect there is more than just a software load. IIRC my upgrade cost ~$1=
000 & came back with a new front panel at least so I hope there was more to=
it than the name change. RAIM probably has a hardware component. Also had =
all new manuals which were required for a certified install. Have you actua=
lly checked with Garmin? They still repair them and have a stockpile of par=
ts. Alternatively, you could probably sell your GX-65 and buy a GX-60 for a=
$500-1000 difference. Or get a Garmin 396 for the approaches. The 396 blow=
s away the GX-60 and I fly with both GX-60 in my Navion.
Greg Young
From: DEAN PSIROPOULOS
Sent: Thu 5/4/2006 12:28 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal
-->
I have a Tommorrow (UPS AT) GX-65 GPS/COM. This unit can be used for
En-route IFR operations and has a TSO-C129a Class A2 certification. This i=
s basically the same unit as the GX-60 which is also certified for IFR
terminal and approach operations. My question is this, I'm guessing that
the only difference between the GX60 and 65 is the operational software
load. It may even be as simple as a change to a software configuration
table that activates additional features to enable the terminal and approac=
h capabilities. So.....is there any ex-UPS Aviation Technologies employees
lurking on this list that can tell me if my hypothesis is correct? And if
it is, would they be willing to help me get this software load configured s=
o I can do approach and terminal ops with the GX65? Since the GX series is
no longer sold (now that Garmin has taken over UPS AT) I can't get my GX-65
upgraded to a GX-60 by sending it back to the factory. I'm not too keen on
buying a Garmin 430 at this point (every time I think I'm done spending
money on this airplane something else comes along) so I'm looking for some
compromise here that won't break the bank.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Finishing panel and wiring, ya hoo!!!=20
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mitchell Faatz <mitch(at)skybound.com> |
| Subject: | Audio Isolation Amplifier |
Hey Bob & everybody -
I've got a Garmin 430, 330, and my own "box" (moving map & stereo music
for our discussion here). I also have audio from an RST Marker Beacon,
maybe a warning tone or two, and in the future perhaps from a Nav 122D.
I have no audio panel, and a NAT stereo intercom. The NAT has balance
controls so I can have COM more in the left ear, and intercom more in
the right ear.
Should I just build the iso amp project as a mono board and use it to
combine NAV and warning tones and pipe that into that NATs "aux" audio
input? And then run my box's output to NAT's music in, and COM direct
to the NAT?
Thanks for any help on this -
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to |
Terminal
Nor would his modified GX-65 be approved for anything (even VFR) after
the mod. That's his choice. For me, I fly with an approach certified
GX-60 and SL-30 in my Navion and will have the same in my RV-6. But the
396 is a damn fine backup.
Regards,
Greg
>
>
>
> Good Morning Greg,
>
> Just to be clear, let's not forget to mention that the 396 is
> NOT approved for any IFR function and especially not for approaches.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Audio Isolation Amplifier |
Mitchell Faatz wrote:
> Should I just build the iso amp project as a mono board and use it to
> combine NAV and warning tones and pipe that into that NATs "aux" audio
> input? And then run my box's output to NAT's music in, and COM direct
> to the NAT?
>
> Thanks for any help on this -
Well, first you need to think about what you want to do. How many audio
sources do you have? Which ones do you want to be able to switch on and
off? (To be honest, you will probably want to be able to switch all your
audio sources.) Which ones are stereo and which are mono? Which ones do
you want to have precedence? Some audio panels will drop the volume or
mute some source when others become active, e.g. music will mute when
you receive something on the comm.
What about integrating a handheld or a cell phone? Every audio system I
do in the future will have provision to patch in a cell phone so I can
make a call while using the standard aircraft headsets as I often end up
sitting at the end of a runway waiting for an IFR release over the phone
from FSS.
Then you need to think about how you are going to handle transmitters.
Do you have two comms? Do you want to be able to use them separately,
i.e. with the left seat talking on comm one while the right seat is
talking on comm two?
Lay out your logic for what goes where then we can tackle how to do it.
Brian Lloyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal |
Good Afternoon Greg,
Not to belabor the point, but, if he has the set modified and/or upgraded by
Garmin, I think it is reasonable that it would be approvable for approach
purposes.
As the set is right now, before any change or modification, it is approvable
to be used for the vast majority of operations conducted by most IFR pilots.
It can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items.
My comments were meant to encourage the use of the set 'as is' for legal,
not emergency purposes. In an emergency, anything that is helpful could and
should be used.
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 5/4/2006 12:52:08 P.M. Central Standard Time,
gyoung@cs-sol.com writes:
Nor would his modified GX-65 be approved for anything (even VFR) after
the mod. That's his choice. For me, I fly with an approach certified
GX-60 and SL-30 in my Navion and will have the same in my RV-6. But the
396 is a damn fine backup.
Regards,
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging system failure |
To continue the saga, 45 minutes into my first flight with the new voltage
regulator, I got another overvoltage crowbar event. A 10 amp fuse blew
before the 5 amp circuit breaker that protects the alternator field circuit.
Back on the ground I replaced the fuse with a 22awg 5" long fuselink made up
from one of Bob's kits. Then I ran the engine to see what the voltage
regulator was doing. The starting battery voltage was 12.6. After a few
minutes idling the buss voltage settled to 14.3 volts. Pretty steady. Then
I turned on some loads, my only significant one being the Whelen strobe
lights. The voltage became unstable, jumping up to 14.6 and back down to
14.3. I'm thinking this relates to Bob's remark about the unstability of
regulators that use the field circuit to sense bus voltage. I wonder if
anyone can explain the mechanism for this instability. In particular, I'm
wondering if, as the battery gets a full charge & stops providing a large
proportion of the load, a varying load such as the strobes could cause it to
burp up to 16 volts or more occasionally? This regulator seemed to settle
on 14.8 volts when the battery was fully charged.
I've just recieved Van's variable voltage regulator & will be installing
this. Think I'll set it low, maybe 13.8v, to try and eliminate these
crowbar events. Certainly, 14.8 volts seems to start overcharging the
battery almost immediately & is way overkill. Have others used lower
charging voltages successfully?
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FW: Alternator Voltage Spikes |
| From: | "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers(at)fdic.gov> |
Do you think the assertion below is true(that there are 200 volt spikes
when starting)?
-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary Engine [mailto:rotaryeng(at)earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 5:44 PM
Subject: Alternator Voltage Spikes
Subject: Alternator Voltage Spikes
I have been noticing all the comments about voltage spikes during
starting/shutdown. One poster mentioned that a battery couldn't put out
200
volts, so I thought I would toss my 2 cents in. I worked for several
years
as an IC design manager at Texas Instruments in the automotive group
where
we designed ICs for automotive regulators. I will assure you that
charging
systems for cars (and airplanes) do indeed put out spikes well over 200
volts when the alternator is rotating very slowly. This voltage can
easily
cause oxide failure, known as 'punch-through', which shorts VCC and
Ground
inside the IC. Once that happens, heavy current flows through the IC
causing
the smoke stored in the IC to escape. ICs don't work once you let the
smoke
out! :-) To understand how a 12 volt battery/alternator can put out a
high
voltage, you have to understand that in an inductor (i.e. the windings
of
the alternator), the voltage across the inductor is equal to L*di/dt, or
the
Inductance of the winding times the rate of change of the current
through
the inductor. If you attempt to instantly stop or start the current
through
an inductor, di/dt will become very large, and the voltage will increase
to
whatever level necessary to collapse or create the magnetic field around
the
inductor. When an alternator is turned very slowly, there are points
where
the windings are open circuited (or routed through high resistance
paths)
which causes voltages to rise to the level that breaks down the primary
protection - around 200 volts. In an automobile, there is a highly
reliable
circuit that disconnects the radio bus from the charging bus during
start
and shut-down to protect equipment from these spikes. This is what
Cessna
attempted to do with some aircraft, but the circuit they used is
somewhat
crude and potentially unreliable, so people disconnected its output that
was
supposed to control the avionics power relay, and rewired this relay to
be
controlled by a simple switch on the panel.
Marc Wiese
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Alternator set poiint, Was: Charging system failure |
Good Afternoon Dave,
I have set one for 14.2. That was on the advice of the Concorde battery
folks and the manufacturer of the solid state regulator used on the airplane.
It seems to have worked very well for the last two hundred hours or so that
have been put on the airplane since the installation was made.
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 5/4/2006 4:53:00 P.M. Central Standard Time,
dreel(at)cox.net writes:
I've just received Van's variable voltage regulator & will be installing
this. Think I'll set it low, maybe 13.8v, to try and eliminate these
crowbar events. Certainly, 14.8 volts seems to start overcharging the
battery almost immediately & is way overkill. Have others used lower
charging voltages successfully?
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to |
Terminal
FYI...
Someone may want to further investigate/verify this but I believe the
following comment (from below) is not 100% legally correct.
"It [GPS] can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items."
I believe the correct comment is:
The GPS can be used for the ADF and/or DME on "most" (not "any") approach
that requires those.
The nuance is where/why the NDB and/or DME is required for the approach....
If the requirement is in the title (name) of the approach, then the NDB
and/or DME facility is necessary for the final leg (FAF -> Runway) and
CANNOT be substituted with the GPS unless GPS is also in the title (it
frequently is for many NDB approaches, but not "all").
That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled "NDB or GPS"
and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
approach.
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/aid_ndb_or_gps_rwy_30.pdf
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/anq_ndb_rwy_05.pdf
If you page though an approach plate book you'll find similar examples.
However, if the required NDB and/or DME facility is for another part of the
approach, such as the missed procedure or an approach with a single IAF,
then it will appear on the plan view as text such as "DME Required". The
GPS CAN be used as a substitute for these (i.e. the DME is not required - a
bit counter-intuitive)
For example reference the [Akron] AKR LOC rwy25 approach (where the NDB is
the only IAF):
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/akr_loc_rwy_25.pdf
If the NDB and/or DME is used for another aspect of the approach or an
optional IAF or alternate DME minimum then it will not be noted as required
and the GPS CAN also be substituted.
The GPS can also be substituted for IFR enroute fixes (assuming the aircraft
is also equipped with "ground based navigational instruments appropriate to
the flight"). I understand that to mean that you must have some appropriate
ground based equipment on board and functional (i.e. a VOR).
I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references.
Rick Titsworth
C172 w/Bendix King KN94 IFR Cert GPS (enroute and approach)
-----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
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:36 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to
Terminal
Good Afternoon Greg,
Not to belabor the point, but, if he has the set modified and/or upgraded
by
Garmin, I think it is reasonable that it would be approvable for approach
purposes.
As the set is right now, before any change or modification, it is
approvable
to be used for the vast majority of operations conducted by most IFR
pilots.
It can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items.
My comments were meant to encourage the use of the set 'as is' for legal,
not emergency purposes. In an emergency, anything that is helpful could and
should be used.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to |
Terminal
Rick...
I *think*, and can't find the info right now.... But...
When the FAA first issued the directive of GPS use in place of DME, NDB, it
was as you stated. However it was later refined to remove those
exclusions... (with the standard exceptions of alternates and no use of GPS
approach if the *only* approach)
I'd have to go dig and it isn't really of interest, but either on the EAA or
the AOPA site, the last refinement was posted.
YMMV and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night,
Don't matter for me anyway, the Dual Chelton will pass TSO-146a (FMS spec
for WAAS), and with the freeflight GPS, it will also satisfy TSO-145a (WAAS
GPS spec). Only internal displayed GPS in my panel will be a 396 in a
GizmoDoc for backup :)...
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of richard
titsworth
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS
to Terminal
-->
FYI...
Someone may want to further investigate/verify this but I believe the
following comment (from below) is not 100% legally correct.
"It [GPS] can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items."
I believe the correct comment is:
The GPS can be used for the ADF and/or DME on "most" (not "any") approach
that requires those.
The nuance is where/why the NDB and/or DME is required for the approach....
If the requirement is in the title (name) of the approach, then the NDB
and/or DME facility is necessary for the final leg (FAF -> Runway) and
CANNOT be substituted with the GPS unless GPS is also in the title (it
frequently is for many NDB approaches, but not "all").
That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled "NDB or GPS"
and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
approach.
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/aid_ndb_or_gps_rwy_30.pdf
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/anq_ndb_rwy_05.pdf
If you page though an approach plate book you'll find similar examples.
However, if the required NDB and/or DME facility is for another part of the
approach, such as the missed procedure or an approach with a single IAF,
then it will appear on the plan view as text such as "DME Required". The
GPS CAN be used as a substitute for these (i.e. the DME is not required - a
bit counter-intuitive)
For example reference the [Akron] AKR LOC rwy25 approach (where the NDB is
the only IAF):
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/akr_loc_rwy_25.pdf
If the NDB and/or DME is used for another aspect of the approach or an
optional IAF or alternate DME minimum then it will not be noted as required
and the GPS CAN also be substituted.
The GPS can also be substituted for IFR enroute fixes (assuming the aircraft
is also equipped with "ground based navigational instruments appropriate to
the flight"). I understand that to mean that you must have some appropriate
ground based equipment on board and functional (i.e. a VOR).
I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references.
Rick Titsworth
C172 w/Bendix King KN94 IFR Cert GPS (enroute and approach)
-----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
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:36 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to
Terminal
Good Afternoon Greg,
Not to belabor the point, but, if he has the set modified and/or upgraded by
Garmin, I think it is reasonable that it would be approvable for approach
purposes.
As the set is right now, before any change or modification, it is approvable
to be used for the vast majority of operations conducted by most IFR pilots.
It can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items.
My comments were meant to encourage the use of the set 'as is' for legal,
not emergency purposes. In an emergency, anything that is helpful could and
should be used.
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: | Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was: Converting |
IFR GPS to Terminal
Good Evening Richard,
Your sleuthing is done in a reasonable manner, but that isn't quite the way
it works.
What I stated is correct.
A GPS that has at least an IFR approval for enroute and terminal use can be
used for any ADF or DME use other than what I specified. If the DME is
included in the name of the approach or if it is listed a in a note on the
approach page, the approach can be executed by using the GPS in the manner described
in the AIM section 1-1-19, f.
The GPS cannot be substituted for the ADF when executing an NDB approach.
You must name an alternate that does not need a GPS or any other equipment you
do not have on board and you must have a current data card in the set. All
points of navigation must be contained in the database and cannot be self
loaded by the operator.
However, there is one very unusual case where you may use another point
along the same course to determine a waypoint via the GPS distance from another
waypoint along that course.
For all practical purposes within the US National Air space System, the GPS
can be used in lieu of ADF and DME.. If you find any FAA inspector who tells
you otherwise, please send me his name and station within the FAA. I will
contact Oklahoma City and see to it that the person gets the proper information.
You state: "That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled
"NDB or GPS"
and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
approach."
As I said earlier, you cannot use the GPS as a substitute for the ADF on any
NDB approach. When the Title says "NDB or GPS", that means that the
approach has been approved for use by GPS under the old, no longer used, overlay
program. All of the points within the approach are in the database and the
approach is executed strictly as a GPS approach. When you execute that approach,
you are NOT substituting the GPS for the ADF, you are shooting a GPS approach
that has the same courses and uses the same minima as the NDB approach.
If it is an ILS and DME is in the title or if DME is listed as being
required on a note in the approach, the GPS may be used in lieu of the DME. You
are
not shooting a GPS approach you are using the DME to determine the distance
from the location of the DME transceiver.
However, if an approach is titled just as an NDB approach, you cannot
substitute the GPS for the ADF.
You further state:
"I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references:
This is one of the very few cases where I can call myself an expert! I was
one of the very early proponents of such use. The fine folks at AOPA joined
in on my side and we got the job done!
I was even asked by the FAA to aid in writing the provisions to allow that
use.
By the time the interpretations had been written, some of the language got
pretty convoluted. Without getting a lawyer to cover everything I have said
about it, I will not claim one hundred percent accuracy in my description, but
the simple answer is that the GPS can be used in lieu of ADF or DME on any
approach in the manner I have described. You are reading too much into it. Read
the AIM and you will see the intent!
Unfortunately, the fellows that did write that language have either retired
or moved on to bigger an better things. That is why I ask that if anyone in
the FAA tells you different, please let me know and I will chase it down for
the proper answer.
I would be happy to discuss the specifics of any individual approach or
application that you would like to have explained.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 5/4/2006 5:09:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth"
FYI...
Someone may want to further investigate/verify this but I believe the
following comment (from below) is not 100% legally correct.
"It [GPS] can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items."
I believe the correct comment is:
The GPS can be used for the ADF and/or DME on "most" (not "any") approach
that requires those.
The nuance is where/why the NDB and/or DME is required for the approach....
If the requirement is in the title (name) of the approach, then the NDB
and/or DME facility is necessary for the final leg (FAF -> Runway) and
CANNOT be substituted with the GPS unless GPS is also in the title (it
frequently is for many NDB approaches, but not "all").
That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled "NDB or GPS"
and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
approach.
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/aid_ndb_or_gps_rwy_30.pdf
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/anq_ndb_rwy_05.pdf
If you page though an approach plate book you'll find similar examples.
However, if the required NDB and/or DME facility is for another part of the
approach, such as the missed procedure or an approach with a single IAF,
then it will appear on the plan view as text such as "DME Required". The
GPS CAN be used as a substitute for these (i.e. the DME is not required - a
bit counter-intuitive)
For example reference the [Akron] AKR LOC rwy25 approach (where the NDB is
the only IAF):
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/akr_loc_rwy_25.pdf
If the NDB and/or DME is used for another aspect of the approach or an
optional IAF or alternate DME minimum then it will not be noted as required
and the GPS CAN also be substituted.
The GPS can also be substituted for IFR enroute fixes (assuming the aircraft
is also equipped with "ground based navigational instruments appropriate to
the flight"). I understand that to mean that you must have some appropriate
ground based equipment on board and functional (i.e. a VOR).
I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references.
Rick Titsworth
C172 w/Bendix King KN94 IFR Cert GPS (enroute and approach)
-----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
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:36 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to
Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Good Afternoon Greg,
Not to belabor the point, but, if he has the set modified and/or upgraded
by
Garmin, I think it is reasonable that it would be approvable for approach
purposes.
As the set is right now, before any change or modification, it is
approvable
to be used for the vast majority of operations conducted by most IFR
pilots.
It can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items.
My comments were meant to encourage the use of the set 'as is' for legal,
not emergency purposes. In an emergency, anything that is helpful could and
should be used.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was: Converting |
IFR GPS to Terminal
Bob, I think the only thing that is added is that you have to verify
that the DME location is in the database, especially where it is a
loc/dme approach where it presumably is at the far end of the runway, at
the Loc antenna. I don't know that all of those are in a non-approach
GPS data base. Otherwise I agree with everything else you are presenting.
Bo
bsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Good Evening Richard,
>
> Your sleuthing is done in a reasonable manner, but that isn't quite the way
> it works.
>
> What I stated is correct.
>
> A GPS that has at least an IFR approval for enroute and terminal use can be
> used for any ADF or DME use other than what I specified. If the DME is
> included in the name of the approach or if it is listed a in a note on the
> approach page, the approach can be executed by using the GPS in the manner described
> in the AIM section 1-1-19, f.
>
> The GPS cannot be substituted for the ADF when executing an NDB approach.
> You must name an alternate that does not need a GPS or any other equipment you
> do not have on board and you must have a current data card in the set. All
> points of navigation must be contained in the database and cannot be self
> loaded by the operator.
>
> However, there is one very unusual case where you may use another point
> along the same course to determine a waypoint via the GPS distance from another
> waypoint along that course.
>
> For all practical purposes within the US National Air space System, the GPS
> can be used in lieu of ADF and DME.. If you find any FAA inspector who tells
> you otherwise, please send me his name and station within the FAA. I will
> contact Oklahoma City and see to it that the person gets the proper information.
>
> You state: "That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled
> "NDB or GPS"
> and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
> be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
> AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
> approach."
>
> As I said earlier, you cannot use the GPS as a substitute for the ADF on any
> NDB approach. When the Title says "NDB or GPS", that means that the
> approach has been approved for use by GPS under the old, no longer used, overlay
> program. All of the points within the approach are in the database and the
> approach is executed strictly as a GPS approach. When you execute that approach,
> you are NOT substituting the GPS for the ADF, you are shooting a GPS approach
> that has the same courses and uses the same minima as the NDB approach.
>
> If it is an ILS and DME is in the title or if DME is listed as being
> required on a note in the approach, the GPS may be used in lieu of the DME. You
are
> not shooting a GPS approach you are using the DME to determine the distance
> from the location of the DME transceiver.
>
> However, if an approach is titled just as an NDB approach, you cannot
> substitute the GPS for the ADF.
>
> You further state:
>
> "I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
> The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
> appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references:
>
> This is one of the very few cases where I can call myself an expert! I was
> one of the very early proponents of such use. The fine folks at AOPA joined
> in on my side and we got the job done!
>
> I was even asked by the FAA to aid in writing the provisions to allow that
> use.
>
> By the time the interpretations had been written, some of the language got
> pretty convoluted. Without getting a lawyer to cover everything I have said
> about it, I will not claim one hundred percent accuracy in my description, but
> the simple answer is that the GPS can be used in lieu of ADF or DME on any
> approach in the manner I have described. You are reading too much into it. Read
> the AIM and you will see the intent!
>
> Unfortunately, the fellows that did write that language have either retired
> or moved on to bigger an better things. That is why I ask that if anyone in
> the FAA tells you different, please let me know and I will chase it down for
> the proper answer.
>
> I would be happy to discuss the specifics of any individual approach or
> application that you would like to have explained.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 5/4/2006 5:09:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com writes:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth"
>
>
> FYI...
>
> Someone may want to further investigate/verify this but I believe the
> following comment (from below) is not 100% legally correct.
>
> "It [GPS] can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
> substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items."
>
> I believe the correct comment is:
>
> The GPS can be used for the ADF and/or DME on "most" (not "any") approach
> that requires those.
>
> The nuance is where/why the NDB and/or DME is required for the approach....
>
> If the requirement is in the title (name) of the approach, then the NDB
> and/or DME facility is necessary for the final leg (FAF -> Runway) and
> CANNOT be substituted with the GPS unless GPS is also in the title (it
> frequently is for many NDB approaches, but not "all").
>
> That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled "NDB or GPS"
> and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
> be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
> AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
> approach.
>
> http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/aid_ndb_or_gps_rwy_30.pdf
> http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/anq_ndb_rwy_05.pdf
>
> If you page though an approach plate book you'll find similar examples.
>
> However, if the required NDB and/or DME facility is for another part of the
> approach, such as the missed procedure or an approach with a single IAF,
> then it will appear on the plan view as text such as "DME Required". The
> GPS CAN be used as a substitute for these (i.e. the DME is not required - a
> bit counter-intuitive)
>
> For example reference the [Akron] AKR LOC rwy25 approach (where the NDB is
> the only IAF):
>
> http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/akr_loc_rwy_25.pdf
>
> If the NDB and/or DME is used for another aspect of the approach or an
> optional IAF or alternate DME minimum then it will not be noted as required
> and the GPS CAN also be substituted.
>
> The GPS can also be substituted for IFR enroute fixes (assuming the aircraft
> is also equipped with "ground based navigational instruments appropriate to
> the flight"). I understand that to mean that you must have some appropriate
> ground based equipment on board and functional (i.e. a VOR).
>
> I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
> The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
> appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references.
>
> Rick Titsworth
> C172 w/Bendix King KN94 IFR Cert GPS (enroute and approach)
>
>
> -----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
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:36 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to
> Terminal
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>
>
> Good Afternoon Greg,
>
> Not to belabor the point, but, if he has the set modified and/or upgraded
> by
> Garmin, I think it is reasonable that it would be approvable for approach
> purposes.
>
> As the set is right now, before any change or modification, it is
> approvable
> to be used for the vast majority of operations conducted by most IFR
> pilots.
> It can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
> substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items.
>
> My comments were meant to encourage the use of the set 'as is' for legal,
> not emergency purposes. In an emergency, anything that is helpful could and
>
> should be used.
>
> 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: Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was: Converting |
IF...
Good Evening Kelly,
That is a basically true statement. There is a provision in the AIM that
tells of a method to use the distance from a point that is on the primary course
to get the required distances that would otherwise be determined by a
distance from the location of the DME Transceiver.
Check it out in the note following paragraph: AIM, 1-1-19, f, (c), (1), [c]
It is complicated procedure and, in the AIM, is described as being a
temporary fix until such time as all DME sites are in the database.
All Garmin, Apollo, and King databases have the Localizer associated DME
Transceiver sites in their current databases. For the Apollo units, there is a
separate page. The others have them listed on the Waypoint page and use the
same identifier as the localizer. As an example, at Rockford, Illinois, where
one localizer identifier is IRFD, the location of the associated DME
transceiver will be listed as IRFD.
We Trimble users are still stuck with the "temporary" expediency!
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 5/4/2006 10:19:21 P.M. Central Standard Time,
kellym(at)aviating.com writes:
Bob, I think the only thing that is added is that you have to verify
that the DME location is in the database, especially where it is a
loc/dme approach where it presumably is at the far end of the runway, at
the Loc antenna. I don't know that all of those are in a non-approach
GPS data base. Otherwise I agree with everything else you are presenting.
Bo
bsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was: Converting |
IFR GPS to Terminal
Thanks. Good info. :-)
Now that I've found an expert I have three nuance questions...
#1 If someone has a GX-65 (enroute only) do they still file as /G?
Does that create any confusion with ATC if they are asked/vectored for a GPS
approach?
#2 Lets say my IFR GPS database is out of date (most recent updates not yet
applied).
I understand that I can still use the GPS for enroute navigation (i.e. file
and accept "direct") as long as I verify that the relevant data points are
still accurate.
I understand that I cannot use it for IFR GPS approaches (until updated).
Would I file /G?
Do you know of the AC/FAR/Aim reference to this scenario?
#3 Continuation of scenario #2... If I am flying a VOR/DME or LOC/DME or an
ILS with a required ADF (for the missed) with a traditional and valid
NAV/CDI, can I legally use the out-of date GPS to substitute the DME or ADF
if I have verified the accuracy of the relevant GPS data? Do you know of
the AC/FAR/Aim reference to this scenario?
Thanks Again.
-----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
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 10:33 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was:
Converting IFR GPS to Terminal
Good Evening Richard,
Your sleuthing is done in a reasonable manner, but that isn't quite the way
it works.
What I stated is correct.
A GPS that has at least an IFR approval for enroute and terminal use can be
used for any ADF or DME use other than what I specified. If the DME is
included in the name of the approach or if it is listed a in a note on the
approach page, the approach can be executed by using the GPS in the manner
described
in the AIM section 1-1-19, f.
The GPS cannot be substituted for the ADF when executing an NDB approach.
You must name an alternate that does not need a GPS or any other equipment
you
do not have on board and you must have a current data card in the set. All
points of navigation must be contained in the database and cannot be self
loaded by the operator.
However, there is one very unusual case where you may use another point
along the same course to determine a waypoint via the GPS distance from
another
waypoint along that course.
For all practical purposes within the US National Air space System, the GPS
can be used in lieu of ADF and DME.. If you find any FAA inspector who
tells
you otherwise, please send me his name and station within the FAA. I will
contact Oklahoma City and see to it that the person gets the proper
information.
You state: "That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled
"NDB or GPS"
and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
approach."
As I said earlier, you cannot use the GPS as a substitute for the ADF on
any
NDB approach. When the Title says "NDB or GPS", that means that the
approach has been approved for use by GPS under the old, no longer used,
overlay
program. All of the points within the approach are in the database and the
approach is executed strictly as a GPS approach. When you execute that
approach,
you are NOT substituting the GPS for the ADF, you are shooting a GPS
approach
that has the same courses and uses the same minima as the NDB approach.
If it is an ILS and DME is in the title or if DME is listed as being
required on a note in the approach, the GPS may be used in lieu of the DME.
You are
not shooting a GPS approach you are using the DME to determine the distance
from the location of the DME transceiver.
However, if an approach is titled just as an NDB approach, you cannot
substitute the GPS for the ADF.
You further state:
"I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references:
This is one of the very few cases where I can call myself an expert! I was
one of the very early proponents of such use. The fine folks at AOPA
joined
in on my side and we got the job done!
I was even asked by the FAA to aid in writing the provisions to allow that
use.
By the time the interpretations had been written, some of the language got
pretty convoluted. Without getting a lawyer to cover everything I have
said
about it, I will not claim one hundred percent accuracy in my description,
but
the simple answer is that the GPS can be used in lieu of ADF or DME on any
approach in the manner I have described. You are reading too much into it.
Read
the AIM and you will see the intent!
Unfortunately, the fellows that did write that language have either retired
or moved on to bigger an better things. That is why I ask that if anyone in
the FAA tells you different, please let me know and I will chase it down
for
the proper answer.
I would be happy to discuss the specifics of any individual approach or
application that you would like to have explained.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 5/4/2006 5:09:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth"
FYI...
Someone may want to further investigate/verify this but I believe the
following comment (from below) is not 100% legally correct.
"It [GPS] can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items."
I believe the correct comment is:
The GPS can be used for the ADF and/or DME on "most" (not "any") approach
that requires those.
The nuance is where/why the NDB and/or DME is required for the approach....
If the requirement is in the title (name) of the approach, then the NDB
and/or DME facility is necessary for the final leg (FAF -> Runway) and
CANNOT be substituted with the GPS unless GPS is also in the title (it
frequently is for many NDB approaches, but not "all").
That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled "NDB or GPS"
and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
approach.
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/aid_ndb_or_gps_rwy_30.pdf
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/anq_ndb_rwy_05.pdf
If you page though an approach plate book you'll find similar examples.
However, if the required NDB and/or DME facility is for another part of the
approach, such as the missed procedure or an approach with a single IAF,
then it will appear on the plan view as text such as "DME Required". The
GPS CAN be used as a substitute for these (i.e. the DME is not required - a
bit counter-intuitive)
For example reference the [Akron] AKR LOC rwy25 approach (where the NDB is
the only IAF):
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/akr_loc_rwy_25.pdf
If the NDB and/or DME is used for another aspect of the approach or an
optional IAF or alternate DME minimum then it will not be noted as required
and the GPS CAN also be substituted.
The GPS can also be substituted for IFR enroute fixes (assuming the
aircraft
is also equipped with "ground based navigational instruments appropriate to
the flight"). I understand that to mean that you must have some
appropriate
ground based equipment on board and functional (i.e. a VOR).
I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references.
Rick Titsworth
C172 w/Bendix King KN94 IFR Cert GPS (enroute and approach)
-----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
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:36 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to
Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Good Afternoon Greg,
Not to belabor the point, but, if he has the set modified and/or upgraded
by
Garmin, I think it is reasonable that it would be approvable for approach
purposes.
As the set is right now, before any change or modification, it is
approvable
to be used for the vast majority of operations conducted by most IFR
pilots.
It can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items.
My comments were meant to encourage the use of the set 'as is' for legal,
not emergency purposes. In an emergency, anything that is helpful could and
should be used.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Alternator Voltage Spikes |
On May 4, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Rogers, Bob J. wrote:
>
>
> Do you think the assertion below is true(that there are 200 volt
> spikes
> when starting)?
No.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was: Converting |
IFR...
Good Morning Richard,
Glad to have been of some assistance!
You stated: "Now that I've found an expert I have three nuance questions..."
I do consider myself an expert on the "In Lieu Of" provisions. For the
rest, merely an interested and experienced user.
I am happy to provide my current interpretations for the following questions.
"#1 If someone has a GX-65 (enroute only) do they still file as /G?
Does that create any confusion with ATC if they are asked/vectored for a GPS
approach?"
That may result in some confusion, but only because the powers that be have
changed the rules so often. When /G was first implemented, you had to have
full and current approach capability to use it. A few years later, they changed
the rules and the AIM now tells us we can file /G if we have enroute and
terminal capability. See AIM figure 5-1-2. I believe the GX-65 is approvable
for both enroute and terminal operations. Is yours not so approved?
Your individual FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement could further
confuse the issue. More later!
"#2 Lets say my IFR GPS database is out of date (most recent updates not yet
applied).
(a) I understand that I can still use the GPS for enroute navigation (i.e.
file
and accept "direct") as long as I verify that the relevant data points are
still accurate."
That is quite likely to be a true statement. AC 20-138 is the document that
provides guidance for the approvals. There have been revisions to that
document. Consequently, one factor that could apply might be the time frame during
which the manufacturer of your set obtained the original approval as well as
when your supplement was written.
The original guidance was that such language could be used in the approved
supplement.
Another, and more obtuse complication, is due to the nature of the approval
process used.
Until very recently, each and every individual installation was done under
the FAA inspector's right to do what are called local approvals via a 337.
In the fall of 1997, (August I think) the folks at UPSAT received approval
of wording such that approaches could be conducted with an "out of date" data
card if an adequate verification procedure was used.
>From that time on, the "sample" approval that was included with every new
UPSAT unit contained that liberalized language.
Some folks within the FAA felt that such language should not be allowed and
they refused to use it for installations that were performed in their area.
A very few individual installers used the UPSAT language in approval
applications for sets other than UPSAT ones.
The result of all this is that how you use your set is very dependent on the
language that is in your individual Flight Manual Supplement and how it is
interpreted. Interpretations do vary among various experts in the field and
some FAA personnel.
"#2(b) I understand that I cannot use it for IFR GPS approaches (until
updated)."
Possibly true. As stated previously, that is dependent on the language in
your supplement and the method that you may use to assure currency of the data
on your card.
#2 (c) "Would I file /G?"
As long as you are legal for enroute and terminal operations according to
your individual FAA Approved Flight Manual Supplement, you should file /G.
#2(d) "Do you know of the AC/FAR/Aim reference to this scenario?"
For the /G question, AIM figure 5-1-2. For the rest, the guidance is in the
FAA inspectors interpretations manual and I am not expert in that at all!
"#3 Continuation of scenario #2... If I am flying a VOR/DME or LOC/DME or an
ILS with a required ADF (for the missed) with a traditional and valid
NAV/CDI, can I legally use the out-of date GPS to substitute the DME or ADF
if I have verified the accuracy of the relevant GPS data? Do you know of
the AC/FAR/Aim reference to this scenario?"
Unfortunately, you cannot. That was a slip up in the acceptance of the "In
Lieu Of" interpretation process and I am partially responsible for that bad
move. It is another long story, but you must have a current data card to use
the "In lieu Of " provisions.
Check AIM 1-1-19, f, 1, (b), (3) Middle of the paragraph where it says: "The
database must be current."
On more comment. I have a whole stack of revisions that I have not yet gone
through. If something has changed in the AIM in the last couple of months, the
references I have given could be in error.
Hope this helps!
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 5/5/2006 12:21:40 A.M. Central Standard Time,
rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com writes:
Now that I've found an expert I have three nuance questions...
#1 If someone has a GX-65 (enroute only) do they still file as /G?
Does that create any confusion with ATC if they are asked/vectored for a GPS
approach?
#2 Lets say my IFR GPS database is out of date (most recent updates not yet
applied).
I understand that I can still use the GPS for enroute navigation (i.e. file
and accept "direct") as long as I verify that the relevant data points are
still accurate.
I understand that I cannot use it for IFR GPS approaches (until updated).
Would I file /G?
Do you know of the AC/FAR/Aim reference to this scenario?
#3 Continuation of scenario #2... If I am flying a VOR/DME or LOC/DME or an
ILS with a required ADF (for the missed) with a traditional and valid
NAV/CDI, can I legally use the out-of date GPS to substitute the DME or ADF
if I have verified the accuracy of the relevant GPS data? Do you know of
the AC/FAR/Aim reference to this scenario?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Voltage Spikes |
Do you think the assertion below is true (that there are 200 volt spikes
when starting)?
-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary Engine [mailto:rotaryeng(at)earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 5:44 PM
Subject: Alternator Voltage Spikes
Subject: Alternator Voltage Spikes
I have been noticing all the comments about voltage spikes during
starting/shutdown. One poster mentioned that a battery couldn't put out
200 volts, so I thought I would toss my 2 cents in. I worked for several
years as an IC design manager at Texas Instruments in the automotive group
where we designed ICs for automotive regulators. I will assure you that
charging systems for cars (and airplanes) do indeed put out spikes well
over 200
volts when the alternator is rotating very slowly.
This voltage can easily cause oxide failure, known as 'punch-through', which
shorts VCC and Ground inside the IC. Once that happens, heavy current flows
through the IC causing the smoke stored in the IC to escape. ICs don't work
once you let the smoke out! :-) To understand how a 12 volt battery/alternator
can put out a high voltage, you have to understand that in an inductor
(i.e. the windings
of the alternator), the voltage across the inductor is equal to L*di/dt, or
the Inductance of the winding times the rate of change of the current
through the inductor. If you attempt to instantly stop or start the current
through an inductor, di/dt will become very large, and the voltage will
increase
to whatever level necessary to collapse or create the magnetic field around
the inductor.
BN: The "explanation" is not conducive to understanding. Yes, inductors
suddenly cut loose from their energizing sources will indeed present
voltages at the open terminals that can be many times higher than the
voltage that produced the excitation in the first place. The voltage
induced in the inductor is a function of magnetic field collapse only,
and the fact that he cites the voltage spike as being a first order
causation of creating or collapsing a magnetic field suggests that
he is simply parroting stuff he's heard or been told by someone else.
When an alternator is turned very slowly, there are points
where the windings are open circuited (or routed through high resistance
paths) which causes voltages to rise to the level that breaks down the primary
protection - around 200 volts.
BN: I cannot imagine what is being suggested here. First, "very slowly" is
non quantified. If you turn an alternator at speeds below minimum speed
for regulation (puts out 12 volts but zero current) the the rectifier
diodes are non-conducting, there's no current flowing in the windings
to "charge" the inductance, hence no stored energy to be concerned with
even if it MIGHT be hazardous. Minimum speed for regulation is on the
order of 1000 rpm. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Alternators/Rotax_Aux_Alternator.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Alternators/Rotax_PM_Alternator_1.gif
and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/80A_OutCurve.gif
Note that alternator output goes to zero current at about 1000 rpm
in all cases. This means that it's ability to deliver energy at
system voltage is zero, hence zero current in stator windings.
1000 RPM doesn't strike me as being "very slowly".
In an automobile, there is a highly reliable circuit that disconnects
the radio bus from the charging bus during start and shut-down to
protect equipment from these spikes.
BN: Hmmm . . . yes, it's called the ACCESSORY terminal on the starter
switch . . . and it's primary purpose is to uload the battery of
all things not essential to getting an engine started. This includes
radios, blowers, wipers, etc, etc. and has nothing to do with
protecting these devices from evil spikes. However, maybe this
gives us a calibration on "very slowly" . . . engine cranking
is the interval which the alternator sees the most sustained
rotation at low RPM and I would expect this to be on the order
of perhaps 200 RPM . . . if this is the condition under which
the writer expects an alternator to be lying in wait for an
unsuspecting integrated circuit to come by . . . well.
This is what Cessna attempted to do with some aircraft, but the circuit
they used is
somewhat crude and potentially unreliable, so people disconnected its
output that
was supposed to control the avionics power relay, and rewired this relay to
be controlled by a simple switch on the panel.
BN: I'd like to see what he was talking about here. He doesn't
mention which aircraft. I'll have to call my spies and see if
they have any idea what's being discussed. Sure, Cessnas
have had avionics master switches since the late 60's but
to the best of my knowledge, they've always been manually
operated just like they are today in our entire fleet
of production airplanes.
I've been on that "snipe hunt" for decades. I've made serious
attempts to catch the elusive start-up spike, identify it's
source impedance, magnitude and duration but alas, I have yet
to even see one much less quantify it. But I keep looking.
Every time I have my 'scope attached to the bus of an airplane,
I set up to capture one of the crafty buggers just in case one
comes buy . . . but no joy.
I'm not saying that transients on the bus do not exist. I am
saying that I've never been able to capture a radio-killing
spike of any magnitude or source and in particular, transients
generated by alternators/starters. We qualify electronics for
aviation base on protocols outlined in DO-160 . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Whats_all_this_DO160_Stuff_Anyhow.pdf
The aviation industry designs to withstand certain QUANTIFIED excursions
of bus voltage. The levels were selected by individuals I don't
know and many moons ago. I'd love to interview the writers of DO-160
to discover the rationale behind their selection of test criteria
but that's not practical. Having embraced the stress levels
cited in DO-160 as good things to observe, my own design career
and that of thousands of others has progressed risk-free of
any transistor-killing events in the wild.
So in general, these old hangar tales about un-quantified,
un-qualified, non-demonstrable events should be considered
with skepticism no matter what the source. Even in the
"enlightened" sector of the industry, data sheets and
papers abound wherein authors allude to the existence
of killer spikes (mostly written by those selling transient
suppression devices). None, I repeat NONE have cited
the repeatable experiment by which their assertions are
supported. They cite the "potential" for individual components
(like window lock solenoids) to store and dump certain energies
and then proceed to convince you that it's wise to protect a
system from these potentials. This philosophy pre-supposes that
anyone who incorporates potential antagonist components in their
design are not taking a responsible place in the community and
limiting their product's ability to wreak havoc on the rest
of the system. The practice sells parts but it's not good science
or good engineering.
The author of the piece that prompted this thread may indeed
have experience as an IC designer but he does not demonstrate
an understanding of the systems or design guides for the
use of his products in those systems. He tossed in some
accurate tid-bits but failed to connect them into a coherent
explanation. It's like asserting that the sun is 93,000,000
miles away and the speed of light is 299,000,000 meters/second
and therefore, one should be careful of UV exposure on the
beach. As Charles Kettering observed, "You can know a great
deal about a topic and yet understand nothing."
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator set point |
>
>
>Good Afternoon Dave,
>
>I have set one for 14.2. That was on the advice of the Concorde battery
>folks and the manufacturer of the solid state regulator used on the airplane.
>
>It seems to have worked very well for the last two hundred hours or so that
>have been put on the airplane since the installation was made.
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
Good point. When one considers the physics, practical applications
and variables that affect service life of batteries, the set-points
selected for aviation charging systems of 14.25/28.5 volts has
stood us well for decades. Yes, there are data sheets for EVERY
battery where EVERY designer/manufacturer has offered his/her
recommendations for squeezing the most life from their particular
product. Bottom line is that there are service stresses with far
greater influence on the battery's service life than the fine
tuning of bus voltage. 14.2 has been used with lead-acid technology
batteries since day-one and while setting one to run at 14.6 or higher
is recommended by some and not-recommended by others, in the final
analysis, it doesn't make a noticeable difference in most cases.
I think I wrote some years ago about discovering that the alternator
on my GMC Safari was running 15.2 volts! It had been at that voltage
for a very long time and I left it alone as an experiment. I was running
a 33 a.h. Panasonic RG battery at the time. I still got about three years
service from the battery . . . so I have a single data point experiment
that suggests that a startlingly high bus voltage did not portend
imminent doom for the battery.
Higher than 14.2 will RECHARGE a battery faster after start up
but is unnecessarily high for bringing a lead-acid battery
up to 100% capacity. ALL lead-acid technology batteries will
achieve 100% of charge at room temperature at 13.8 volts
charging potential. 14.2 is a compromise between long life at
float and rate of recharge after the engine starts. Higher than
14.2 pre-biases any form of ov protection device closer to it's
trip point and increases the possibility of nuisance trips.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging system failure |
On May 4, 2006, at 2:44 PM, DAVID REEL wrote:
> ...
> I turned on some loads, my only significant one being the Whelen =20
> strobe
> lights. The voltage became unstable, jumping up to 14.6 and back =20
> down to
> 14.3. I'm thinking this relates to Bob's remark about the =20
> unstability of
> regulators that use the field circuit to sense bus voltage. I =20
> wonder if
> anyone can explain the mechanism for this instability. In =20
> particular, I'm
> wondering if, as the battery gets a full charge & stops providing a =20=
> large
> proportion of the load, a varying load such as the strobes could =20
> cause it to
> burp up to 16 volts or more occasionally? This regulator seemed to =20=
> settle
> on 14.8 volts when the battery was fully charged.
>
> I've just recieved Van's variable voltage regulator & will be =20
> installing
> this. Think I'll set it low, maybe 13.8v, to try and eliminate these
> crowbar events. Certainly, 14.8 volts seems to start overcharging the
> battery almost immediately & is way overkill. Have others used lower
> charging voltages successfully?
Dave, I hate to say this but I think you are approaching the problem =20
the wrong way. Frankly, getting a variable VR and putting it in is a =20
band-aid and not a real fix. Of course, this is assuming that your =20
original VR is working properly -- you need to test it.
Frankly, there is no reason for the voltage to wander around much =20
even as you change loads. The fact that you see a relatively high =20
buss voltage of 14.8V worries me too. Can these two symptoms be =20
related? I think so. They can if the VR is not really sensing bus =20
voltage but rather bus voltage after a drop.
Let me address your question about instability and sensing the field =20
current. First, the VR works by increasing alternator field current =20
when it senses a reduction in bus voltage. The logic is simple; if =20
the voltage goes down it is probably because something is drawing =20
more current and therefore we need more output from the alternator. =20
The problem arises because the designers of most VRs figured that, =20
since the VR needed power from the bus in order to drive the field =20
and they needed a wire to the bus to sense the voltage, they could =20
save time, effort, and money by using the same wire to perform both =20
functions. Good idea -- NOT!
The problem is, every wire and connection is a resistor. When you put =20=
more current through it the voltage across it increases too (ohms =20
law). This "voltage drop" makes the voltage at the end of the wire =20
lower than at the beginning of the wire. Now lets think about our =20
alternator system. The VR senses the voltage between the ground and =20
input (bus) terminals on the VR. It does NOT sense bus voltage but =20
rather the voltage AFTER it has traversed the wiring from bus through =20=
the fuse through the breaker and through several intervening =20
connections. Now we put the field current through that wire, =20
typically up to about 3A at high output. That means that the voltage =20
at the input (bus) terminal of the VR is LOWER than the voltage on =20
the bus. The VR doesn't care. It turns on the alternator harder until =20=
the voltage comes up to what it wants to see. This increases field =20
current which increases drop which makes the VR sense a lower voltage =20=
which increases field current which increases drop which makes the VR =20=
sense a lower voltage which increases field current which increases =20
drop which makes the VR sense a lower voltage ...
Do you get the picture? This is the instability Bob was referring to. =20=
This is called positive feedback and can cause the alternator system =20
to eventually break into oscillation (up and down and up and down and =20=
up and down and ...).
Now in a properly designed VR there is a separate wire that senses =20
the voltage. This gets connected to the bus and has little or no =20
current flowing through it as it doesn't have all that field current. =20=
It can proper sense the bus voltage without any drop and therefore =20
does a MUCH better job of keeping the voltage stable. OK, that is the =20=
better way to do it.
Now let's work with what you have and see if we can make it good =20
enough. The first thing to do is to eliminate as many drops as =20
possible. That means you need to get rid of any extra and extraneous =20
connections and devices that drop too much voltage.
Step 1: LOSE THE FRICKING FUSE
That fuse and fuse holder are a serious source of voltage drop when =20
current flows through them. The fuse is a resistor designed to drop =20
current and get hot enough to melt. (So is the breaker but you have =20
to have the breaker.) Add to that the extra connections and the poor =20
connections in the fuse holder to the fuse and you have a serious =20
source of voltage drop. Bad. Bad bad. Bad bad bad. No flight for you!
So, task one is to lose the fuse and use an unbroken piece of 18AWG =20
wire from your bus to your field breaker and then an unbroken piece =20
of 18AWG wire from breaker to the input of your VR. That will =20
minimize any "movement" (voltage change) of the VR input terminal =20
when the VR decides to change the field current.
OK, so you want some protection for your 18AWG wire between the bus =20
and the breaker. If you must have this (frankly, I wouldn't put it =20
in) use a fusible link that is properly soldered and protected.
And you want this lead as close to the positive terminal of the =20
battery as possible. You don't want any more voltage drops to occur =20
between the battery's positive terminal and the input to the VR. This =20=
means you want to move the VR input wire as close to the battery's =20
positive terminal as is humanly possible. This probably means putting =20=
it right at the battery contactor if possible. (I am trying to =20
eliminate as many drops as possible here folks.) You know that point =20
on the battery contactor where the alternator 'B' lead connects and =20
where your bus distribution wire connects? Yeah, right there.
Now you have minimized any drop between the battery and the VR.
But there is also another source of change in the voltage sensed by =20
the VR. That is the ground wiring to the VR. Remember that the VR =20
senses the voltage between its input terminal and ground terminal? =20
Well, if your ground terminal can move around (electrically speaking) =20=
the VR will change the field current to compensate. If the voltage =20
change sensed by the VR is the result of any voltage drops associated =20=
with the ground circuit, you end up with yet another source of =20
instability. This is where the whole single-point-ground concept =20
comes in. We need to make sure that the ground terminal of the VR is =20
electrically as close as it can be to the negative terminal of the =20
battery. Now since you can't actually connect it to the negative =20
terminal of the battery (it would be just too inconvenient), it needs =20=
to connect to where the negative terminal of the battery connects to =20
the aircraft ground system. You are using a single point ground, =20
right? If not (more bad on you), you need to connect it to the same =20
bolt where you connect your battery's negative terminal to the airframe.
Once you do these things to improve sensing we will know that the VR =20
*can* do its job properly. Put your voltmeter right on the battery =20
terminals. Start the engine and turn on some big loads, e.g. landing =20
light, pitot heat, vacuum tube radios, etc., and run the engine at =20
the lowest RPM that will bring the bus voltage up to normal. (At low =20
RPM the field current is greatest.) Switch the big loads on and off =20
at the same time while watching the voltmeter. It should be at the =20
same voltage whether the loads are on or off. That voltage should be =20
somewhere around 14.2 volts. (Frankly I like an analog expanded-scale =20=
meter or oscilloscope for this. If it is, you have solved your =20
problem. If it is not then NOW you can suspect the VR.
BTW, it is normal for the meter to twitch right at the moment you =20
switch the loads as the alternator system takes a fraction of a =20
second to respond. Regardless, it should settle right back on the =20
same voltage.
So, time to do some homework. Make sure that this part of things are =20
right and then let us know what happens.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
=97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Use of GPS......... |
5/5/2006
Responding to a previous posting by Bo, copied below.
Hello Listers, I want to express my appreciation for all who posted on this
subject. It has been an exemplary exchange of reasonable and useful opinions
and facts. I'd like to throw in some tidbits that may have some value:
1) From NACO one may purchase a CD-ROM that contains a digital navaid file.
http://naco.faa.gov/ecomp/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=DAICD
This CD-ROM provides the lat long location of navaids, including localizers.
Be careful when using this data though because the format may be slightly
different than that contained in your GPS box.
2) An examination of localizer installations shows that the DME antenna and
the localizer antenna are not precisely co located. The DME antenna is
usually mounted on the electronic shelter that is a short distance away from
the localizer antenna array.
3) When flying an approach, regardless of which kind of approach, keep
clearly in mind what distance you are reading on your GPS display.
A) Is it to the next fix on the approach sequence as is typical in a
published RNAV (GPS) approach? (The runway end itself is usually the final
fix in this sequence).
B) Is it the "DME" distance to the geographical location of the localizer /
DME antennas on a published ILS or localizer approach? In which case the
runway end "distance to" reading should appear printed on the approach
plate.
C) Is it the distance to some navaid such as an ADF, VOR, VORTAC, or compass
locater?
D) Is it the distance to some named five letter fix located on the field?
F) Is it the distance to some named five letter missed approach point?
G) Is it the distance to a five letter named fix at the end of the runway?
H) Is it the distance to the lat long printed for the field on the approach
plate that you have entered into your GPS?
You get the idea -- pay close attention to what the distance to number
represents.
4) My tendency when flying ILS approaches is to fly the approach using my
SL-30 as the primary navigation device feeding my external CDI and use my
Garmin GNS 430 as a "big picture" aid and set up the GPS "navigating to"
point as desired. This GPS navigating to point is usually either the
localizer or the runway end depending upon the approach information
available. I feel that this gives me the best combination of precision and
big picture.
OC
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was:
Converting
IFR GPS to Terminal
Bob, I think the only thing that is added is that you have to verify
that the DME location is in the database, especially where it is a
loc/dme approach where it presumably is at the far end of the runway, at
the Loc antenna. I don't know that all of those are in a non-approach
GPS data base. Otherwise I agree with everything else you are presenting.
Bo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Use of GPS......... |
In a message dated 5/5/2006 11:41:13 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
2) An examination of localizer installations shows that the DME antenna and
the localizer antenna are not precisely co located. The DME antenna is
usually mounted on the electronic shelter that is a short distance away from
the localizer antenna array.
3) When flying an approach, regardless of which kind of approach, keep
clearly in mind what distance you are reading on your GPS display.
Good Afternoon Jim,
That is a very good point. The location of the DME transceiver is shown on
the Jepp charts, but I know of no way to determine it's location on a NACO
chart other than to do a bit of sleuthing involving various distances listed on
the charts.
In Minneapolis, the DME transceiver for the approaches to the opposite ends
of runways 12R and 30L is located at the glide path intercept point for Rwy
30L. The localizers for both runways are on the same frequency. Obviously, both
are not transmitting at the same time!
When 12R is in use, the identifier for the localizer and the DME location is
listed as IHKZ. When 30L is in use, it is identified as IMSP. In any case,
the transceiver does not move! All of the mileages posted on the chart are
referenced to that same point.
If you have a Garmin or King IFR approved receiver with a current database,
you can enter either IHKZ or IMSP and you will get the proper location and
distance from the pertinent DME transceiver site.
The boss says I have to get on to other things, but I will try to get back
with more comments later if anyone is interested.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "'Peter Braswell'" <pbraswell(at)alterthought.com> |
| Subject: | Strobe Fuse Blow?? |
All,
I've wired my A/C electrical system almost to the Nuckol's letter in that
I've choosen to use fuses instead of breakers.
When I turn on my strobes, turn them off and then quickly (one-count,
two-count) turn them back on, the fuse blows. If I turn them off, then wait
a few minutes (2-5 minutes unscientifically) the fuse does not blow.
Operationally this is probably not a huge deal as I'm not sure I'd ever
intentially turn on, off, and then on the strobes in a quick fashion but it
is a curious problem.
Any thoughts? Is there such thing as a slow-blow fuse available for the B&C
fuse blocks? Would this solve the problem? Am I missing something?
-peter
_______________________________________
Peter J. Braswell
CTO/CIO Canal Capital LLC
804.934.0300 ext 21
_______________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Fuse Blow?? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Interesting.
What's the wire size, and fuse size? Do you have any current measurements
for the strobes (or published current specs)?
Maybe the fuse is on the edge of being too small, and so consequently runs
fairly hot. When you cycle the power back on without allowing the fuse
time to cool, the brief turn-on transient current required to charge the
caps in the strobe power supply causes the fuse to get hot enough to
blow..
If the wiring is big enough to support the next larger fuse size, you
could safely make a substitution there, and probably cure the problem.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> All,
> I've wired my A/C electrical system almost to the Nuckol's letter in
> that I've choosen to use fuses instead of breakers.
>
> When I turn on my strobes, turn them off and then quickly (one-count,
> two-count) turn them back on, the fuse blows. If I turn them off, then
> wait a few minutes (2-5 minutes unscientifically) the fuse does not
> blow.
>
> Operationally this is probably not a huge deal as I'm not sure I'd ever
> intentially turn on, off, and then on the strobes in a quick fashion but
> it is a curious problem.
>
> Any thoughts? Is there such thing as a slow-blow fuse available for the
> B&C fuse blocks? Would this solve the problem? Am I missing something?
>
> -peter
>
>
> _______________________________________
>
> Peter J. Braswell
> CTO/CIO Canal Capital LLC
>
> 804.934.0300 ext 21
>
> _______________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SAE documentation question |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Usually your local librarian can get SAE docs and DO-160 docs and all sort of amazing
stuff (the'll even do business by email. Your tax dollars at work. Your
local copy shop will be happy to make a copy for you. Don't forget to point out
to them that this is a copyright violation. Ahem...
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=33123#33123
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Christopher Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | wiring diagram-sperry |
Hello all...
I am hoping that someone might have or know where I might find a pinout diagram
for a Sperry IN-381A converter indicator head (GS/LOC/VOR).
I have struckout with the major avioncs sellers.
Thanks,
Chris Stone
Newberg, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 PM Alternator |
'Lectric Bob,
On 4/22/06, you responded to my earlier report of a way to assure
bringing the SD-8 PM alternator on line without benefit of a battery
source of excitation. My finding that as little as one volt charge on a
capacitor was adequate to awaken the SD-8 apparently suggested to you
that there might be an even simpler way to modify the SD-8 regulator to
accomplish independence of the PM alternator from a battery source of
start-up voltage. Your proposed design was as follows:
(SNIP)Your experiments have shown that the regulator will come alive
> with a very low voltage available at the 'b-lead'. A study
> of the schematic for the Kubota regulator leads one to
> conclude that once you have just enough voltage to forward
> bias some junctions (The b-e junction of Q3 through R3
> and D6) there is a potential for triggering the SCRs and
> having the system wake up. I suspect the B&C regulator
> is similar.
>
I thought of another approach to suggest. Since you're set up for
and have the mind-set to conduct the necessary experiments,please
consider . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/PM_Regulator/Self_Excitation_Experiment.jpg
>
> What we'd like to do is not let the b-lead voltage out
> of the regulator be 100% dependent upon triggered SCRs in
> the regulator. Suppose you added a couple of diodes
> from the alternator winding along with a resistor to
> ground to build a very inefficient keep-alive rectifier.
> The two diodes parallel the SCRs but with a conduction
> impedance too high for the system to deliver significant
> power. We then need some small, fixed 'load' across the
> output filter capacitor to prevent the unloaded alternator
> voltage (as high as 40v) from charging the capacitor
> to a level dangerous to the cap and system equipment
> in case the alternator control relay is closed while the
> capacitor is charged up.
>
> I've shown a pair of 1K resistors. Use mechanically
> hefty resistors . . . the 2W isn't need for electrical
> reasons, just mechanical. Adjust the size of the series
> resistor at the diodes to achieve a couple of volts or
> more (but not greater than 14) across the capacitor
> at max engine rpm with the alternator system OFF.
> I suspect this resistor might be as high as 3 to 10K
> and still make the system sleep with one eye open.
> Here, we have an opportunity to go a step further
> and modify the regulator's performance such that
> it never quite goes to sleep and eliminate the
> need for pilot intervention to kick-start the
> system. If you can assist in conduction of this
> experiment, we can prove/disprove my hypothesis
> and perhaps generate an article that will help
> others slay this dragon too.
> Bob . . . (SNIP)
I am happy to report that I implemented your concept and conducted
successful ground testing today of the SD-8 installation on my Lycoming
180 HP Tailwind.
In order to achieve the desired range of voltage across the capacitor
when BOTH the alternator is OFF LINE and the MASTER switch is OFF, I
found it necessary to increase the suggested 10k ohm resistor from
ground to the pair of diodes to a value of 15k, and to increase the 1k
ohm resistor across the capacitor to 3k ohm.
In this configuration, the voltage across the capacitor slowly rises to
0.6 volts within a 3 minute period after engine start while warming up
at 1100 Engine RPM (1430 alternator RPM). This is insufficient to bring
the alternator on line if the Alternator switch is then turned on.
However, as the engine RPM is advanced to the range of 1700-1800 for mag
check, the alternator is now at 2210-2340 RPM with capacitor voltage
slightly above 0.6 v and if the alternator switch is now turned on the
alternator comes alive to produce an unloaded buss voltage of slightly
over 12 V. This unloaded buss voltage continues to rise with RPM to a
maximum of 14.42 V at engine rated 2700 RPM (alternator at 3510 RPM). As
buss load is added, the regulator maintains 14.29 V until enough load is
added to begin dropping the voltage in keeping with the alternator
design current limits. With the Master switch still OFF, the buss
voltage responds to the electrical load versus RPM in a predictable
manner. Even if the RPM/load combination is carried to an extreme that
produces buss voltage down to as little as 5 V, the alternator stays
activated and comes back up in voltage to no higher than 14.42 if the
load/RPM combination is re-adjusted.
I suspect the system would respond differently with a smaller capacitor
than the 56K mf unit that I adapted from my previous set-up, but I did
not observe any undesirable features, and at this preliminary stage I
believe the overall concept produces a fully automatic solution to
eliminate the fear that a PM alternator could fail to come on line in
the absence of a voltage source such as the ship's battery.
Please recognize that the above data during operation of the SD-8 just
after engine start-up is not the condition of interest in normal
operation. The engine (and alternator) would more likely be at higher
RPM during cruise flight when the buss voltage might be lost while the
SD-8 is not on line. In this situation,the alternator RPM and available
voltage across the capacitor would already be high enough to immediately
bring the alternator on line by simply turning the alternator switch on.
I will soon verify this on an upcoming flight.
Jim McCulley
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Shannon <rshannon(at)cruzcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 PM Alternator |
Jim,
Thanks for the report on your excellent work! Am looking forward to
further chapters in this story, as your time permits.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 PM Alternator |
>
>
>'Lectric Bob,
>
>On 4/22/06, you responded to my earlier report of a way to assure
>bringing the SD-8 PM alternator on line without benefit of a battery
>source of excitation. My finding that as little as one volt charge on a
>capacitor was adequate to awaken the SD-8 apparently suggested to you
>that there might be an even simpler way to modify the SD-8 regulator to
>accomplish independence of the PM alternator from a battery source of
>start-up voltage. Your proposed design was as follows:
>
>
>
>I am happy to report that I implemented your concept and conducted
>successful ground testing today of the SD-8 installation on my Lycoming
>180 HP Tailwind.
>
>In order to achieve the desired range of voltage across the capacitor
>when BOTH the alternator is OFF LINE and the MASTER switch is OFF, I
>found it necessary to increase the suggested 10k ohm resistor from
>ground to the pair of diodes to a value of 15k, and to increase the 1k
>ohm resistor across the capacitor to 3k ohm.
What was the voltage with the pair of 1K resistors? I would expect
it to be on the order of 2-6 volts at 2000 rpm with the alternator
switch off.
>In this configuration, the voltage across the capacitor slowly rises to
>0.6 volts within a 3 minute period after engine start while warming up
>at 1100 Engine RPM (1430 alternator RPM). This is insufficient to bring
>the alternator on line if the Alternator switch is then turned on.
Hmmm . . . we would expect that. The target voltage would be much
higher and I would adjust the paralleling resistor upward from 1K
to adjust for desired value.
>However, as the engine RPM is advanced to the range of 1700-1800 for mag
>check, the alternator is now at 2210-2340 RPM with capacitor voltage
>slightly above 0.6 v and if the alternator switch is now turned on the
>alternator comes alive to produce an unloaded buss voltage of slightly
>over 12 V.
Yeah, this would represent the minimum speed for regulation (actually
a tad low 'cause it's still not up to the regulator setpoint) but
insufficient rpm to deliver significant energy. The fact that it
'came alive' is the significant point.
> This unloaded buss voltage continues to rise with RPM to a
>maximum of 14.42 V at engine rated 2700 RPM (alternator at 3510 RPM). As
>buss load is added, the regulator maintains 14.29 V until enough load is
>added to begin dropping the voltage in keeping with the alternator
>design current limits. With the Master switch still OFF, the buss
>voltage responds to the electrical load versus RPM in a predictable
>manner. Even if the RPM/load combination is carried to an extreme that
>produces buss voltage down to as little as 5 V, the alternator stays
>activated and comes back up in voltage to no higher than 14.42 if the
>load/RPM combination is re-adjusted.
Yup, as long as the output is kept above the wake-up voltage,
I would not expect it to go back to sleep. We're getting close
to a solution here. Find a value for the resistor in parallel
with the capacitor that gives us a wake-up voltage of 2-3 volts
at 2200 rpm.
The only time you would NEED the system to come up is in flight
and at 2200 rpm or higher. What we're looking for is the right value
for parallel R that gives us the 2-3 volts at 2200.
>I suspect the system would respond differently with a smaller capacitor
>than the 56K mf unit that I adapted from my previous set-up, but I did
>not observe any undesirable features, and at this preliminary stage I
>believe the overall concept produces a fully automatic solution to
>eliminate the fear that a PM alternator could fail to come on line in
>the absence of a voltage source such as the ship's battery.
Yes. The fat electrolytic will take a few seconds to come up
to a static value but in this came, time is not critical.
>Please recognize that the above data during operation of the SD-8 just
>after engine start-up is not the condition of interest in normal
>operation. The engine (and alternator) would more likely be at higher
>RPM during cruise flight when the buss voltage might be lost while the
>SD-8 is not on line. In this situation,the alternator RPM and available
>voltage across the capacitor would already be high enough to immediately
>bring the alternator on line by simply turning the alternator switch on.
>I will soon verify this on an upcoming flight.
Okay. What you could do is bring a wire into the cockpit
off the filter capacitor. Put a fuse in series with it at
the capacitor end. You can fiddle with the load resistor
value and monitor voltage on the lead from the operator's
seat.
I appreciate your time and interest in helping us craft
and conduct the experiment.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mitchell Faatz <mitch(at)skybound.com> |
| Subject: | Iso Amp - digikey substitutions |
Just in case this helps somebody some day...
I'm building the Audio Iso Amp from Bob's plans (Thanks Bob!) and
Digikey no longer carries any of the capacitor call-outs, so here are
what I think are valid substitutions with in-stock part numbers:
399-1429 becomes 399-3529-ND
399-1395 becomes 399-3586-ND
399-2127 becomes P4923-ND
399-1403 becomes 399-3563-ND
Also, an adjustable trim pot for 103-107 (Note 6) might use part number
490-2694-ND (Trimpot 1K 1 turn top adj).
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mitchell Faatz <mitch(at)skybound.com> |
| Subject: | Controlling three things with a 2-10 switch |
I'm using a 2-10 to control both Nav lights (middle position) and Nav +
Strobes (up position) like figure 11-18 in Bob's book. I also want to
turn on the cockpit/map lights when the Nav lights are on. Is there
anyway (using relays or something) to do both?
I'm not sure I have room for an identical 4-10 (four pole) switch. The
Nav circuit is 10 amp, while the Cabin/Map light circuit is 5 amp.
Thanks
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling three things with a 2-10 switch |
>
>I'm using a 2-10 to control both Nav lights (middle position) and Nav +
>Strobes (up position) like figure 11-18 in Bob's book. I also want to
>turn on the cockpit/map lights when the Nav lights are on. Is there
>anyway (using relays or something) to do both?
>I'm not sure I have room for an identical 4-10 (four pole) switch. The
>Nav circuit is 10 amp, while the Cabin/Map light circuit is 5 amp.
May I suggest that you leave these lights run all the time?
Just dim them to minimum when not in use? Lamps will last
just about forever at a voltage just above that required
for just-visible light output.
This simplifies your system and avoids having a blown nav-light
fuse put your cockpit in the dark also. Further, some minimal
panel lighting should run from the e-bus . . . or perhaps from
their own batteries. I've seen some nifty LED panel floods that
run from internally L-Ion batteries good for hundreds of hours
of run time.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging system failure |
After Bob and Brian put me on to the stability issue, I replaced the fuse in
the alternator field supply circuit with a fuse link and replaced the
regulator with an adjustable Vans regulator. Then I set the bus voltage to
13.8 with the engine at 1000rpm and no loads but battery charging & the
master contactor. Next I added the Whelen strobes & got instability of +2
tenths of a volt. As I was seeing +3 tenths with the fuse, I believe
replacing the fuse eliminated one third of the resistance in the circuit
outside the regulator. Then I added nav lights. The bus voltage went up to
13.95. Then I added my landing light & the bus went up further to 14.06.
In both cases, the strobe variation appeared to greatly decrease or
disappear. Since my nav load is 8.5 amps and my landing light load is 4.6
amps, it appears that my bus to regulator input resistance is now in the
neighborhood of .018 to .02 ohms. Now here come the big questions for Bob
or Brian or anyone else:
Is .02 ohms small enough for reasonable stability? How much typically comes
from a circuit breaker?
At cruise rpm where field circuit amperage will presumably be less, will
stability increase due to decreased voltage drop? Or will stability
decrease because the smaller current requires more precise manipulation?
What happens to voltage in the millisecond range which I'd need an
oscilloscope to see? Will it be much less stable than what I'm seeing on my
digital voltmeter?
I should be able to fly again Tuesday & I guess, should I continue to get OV
trips, I could always fly with nav lights on & see if that solved the
problem. Ugh!
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
OK. I give up. I know what this means in terms of unsolicited transmission of
data (as in Mode S). Anyone know its origin or is this an amalgam of two or
more words.....
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net> |
Bob et.al.,
Regarding http://aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf, did you write this
article based off of RG-400? What size dies will I need for RG-58 and -400?
I've got a multi-size die from eclipse that has .324, .255, .213, .100, and
.068 cavities.
Rob Wright
RV-10 #392
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 PM Alternator |
Bob,
Hope the following responses to your questions will be helpful. My
apologies for not having more detailed test data. A well controlled
bench test would be far better than my preliminary ground run-up testing
on the engine installation! That is a difficult environment.
(SNIP)In order to achieve the desired range of voltage across the
capacitor when BOTH the alternator is OFF LINE and the MASTER
switch is OFF, I found it necessary to increase the suggested 10k
ohm resistor from ground to the pair of diodes to a value of 15k,
and to increase the 1k resistor across the capacitor to 3K. (SNIP)
| What was the voltage with the pair of 1K resistors? I would expect
| it to be on the order of 2-6 volts at 2000 rpm with the alternator
| switch off.
I don't have that answer. Your schematic showed a 1k resistor at both
the diodes to ground as well as across the capacitor, but you commented
that you suspected the series resistor might be as large as 3k to 10k
and still make the system sleep with one eye open. I thought it best to
start with the higher 10k value and work downward if necessary. For this
reason I never tried less than 10k, because the initial run with 10k
produced a rise toward 15 volts while still below 2200 alternator RPM.
So I shut down and arbitrarily chose to increase the series value to 15k
and the paralleling 1K to 3k, expecting this to probably be excessive
and I could then fine tune with values in between.
(SNIP)In this configuration, the voltage across the capacitor slowly
rises to 0.6 volts within a 3 minute period after engine start
while warming up at 1100 engine RPM (1430 alternator RPM). This
is insufficient to bring the alternator on line if the Alternator
switch is then turned on. (SNIP)
| Hmmm . . . we would expect that. The target voltage would be much
| higher and I would adjust the paralleling resistor upward from 1K
| to adjust for desired value.
Since my previous arrangement with the normally open push button switch
activated the alternator at 1V (I didn't try it lower) why wouldn't it
probably also respond at 1V in this current configuration, rather than
needing 2-3V ? Just curious.
(SNIP)However, as the engine RPM is advanced to the range of 1700-1800
for mag check, the alternator is now at 2210-2340 RPM with
capacitor voltage slightly above 0.6 v and if the alternator
switch is now turned on, the alternator comes alive to produce an
unloaded buss voltage of slightly over 12 V. (SNIP)
| Yeah, this would represent the minimum speed for regulation
| (actually a tad low 'cause it's still not up to the regulator
| setpoint) but insufficient rpm to deliver significant energy. The
| fact that it 'came alive' is the significant point.
Yes, I was initially concerned that the 0.6V meant I had badly
over-corrected the resistors, but when the voltage rose rapidly as
alternator speed rose beyond about 2200 RPM, I continued slowly to its
maximum 3510 RPM without exceeding 14.42 V, still with the alternator
off line. I then reduced RPM, waited for the capacitor voltage to
stabilize around 0.6V and then increased speed slowly while periodically
turning on the alternator switch, with no results until reaching close
to 2100 alternator RPM, at which point the buss became alive with about
12V. Further speed increase raised the buss to a maximum of 14.42, which
was the maximum all the way to 3510 limit RPM. I assumed the energy
level at 0.6V was just too low to trigger the regulator but since it
finally triggered at an RPM that is well below a reasonable in-flight
value, maybe this is desirable and possibly avoids any tendency to
exceed the upper 14V level while still providing the desired end result.
(SNIP)This unloaded buss voltage continues to rise with RPM to a maximum
of 14.42 V at engine rated 2700 RPM (alternator at 3510 RPM). As
buss load is added, the regulator maintains 14.29 V until enough
load is added to begin dropping the voltage in keeping with the
alternator design current limits. With the Master switch still
OFF, the buss voltage responds to the electrical load versus RPM
in a predictable manner. Even if the RPM/load combination is
carried to an extreme that produces buss voltage down to as little
as 5 V, the alternator stays activated and comes back up in
voltage to no higher than 14.42 if the load/RPM combination is
re-adjusted. (SNIP)
| Yup, as long as the output is kept above the wake-up voltage,
| I would not expect it to go back to sleep. We're getting close
| to a solution here. Find a value for the resistor in parallel
| with the capacitor that gives us a wake-up voltage of 2-3 volts
| at 2200 rpm.
The voltage does rise rather rapidly as alternator RPM increases from
the 1430 level toward the 2200 level where the alternator responded to
being switched on. I didn't record the exact correlation and it might
require a pretty slow engine power increase to allow for the
larger-than-necessary capacitor to rise in voltage. I will attempt to
get better data, but doing so in a ground run has some inherent
operational hazards. The ideal method would be on a bench set-up.
| The only time you would NEED the system to come up is in flight
| and at 2200 rpm or higher. What we're looking for is the right
| value for parallel R that gives us the 2-3 volts at 2200.
I'm reasonably sure the voltage at 2200 RPM was several volts above 2-3.
Is it desirable to not exceed 2-3 even though we're not now going above
14.42V maximum at 3510 RPM when off line?
(SNIP)I suspect the system would respond differently with a smaller
capacitor than the 56K mf unit that I adapted from my previous
set-up, but I did not observe any undesirable features, and at
this preliminary stage I believe the overall concept produces a
fully automatic solution to eliminate the fear that a PM
alternator could fail to come on line in the absence of a voltage
source such as the ship's battery. (SNIP)
| Yes. The fat electrolytic will take a few seconds to come up
| to a static value but in this came, time is not critical.
(SNIP)Please recognize that the above data during operation of the SD-8
just after engine start-up is not the condition of interest in
normal operation. The engine (and alternator) would more likely be
at higher RPM during cruise flight when the buss voltage might be
lost while the SD-8 is not on line. In this situation,the
alternator RPM and available voltage across the capacitor would
already be high enough to immediately bring the alternator on line
by simply turning the alternator switch on. I will soon verify
this on an upcoming flight. (SNIP)
| Okay. What you could do is bring a wire into the cockpit
| off the filter capacitor. Put a fuse in series with it at
| the capacitor end. You can fiddle with the load resistor
| value and monitor voltage on the lead from the operator's
| seat.
The capacitor, paralleling resistor and quality digital test meter are
all inside the cockpit, so this is not a problem. Do you recommend any
change to the resistor between the diodes and ground from the 15k I now
have in place?
| I appreciate your time and interest in helping us craft
| and conduct the experiment. Bob . . .
I'm pleased to have your excellent guidance. Thanks for your time.
Jim McCulley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charging system failure |
On May 7, 2006, at 4:12 PM, DAVID REEL wrote:
>
> Is .02 ohms small enough for reasonable stability? How much
> typically comes
> from a circuit breaker?
To be honest, I don't know. The answer is probably, "try it and see."
The numbers you are now bandying about seem pretty reasonable to me.
Remember, an alternator is NOT a precision bench supply with .001%
regulation. I doubt a couple tenths of a volt will make a lot of
difference.
> At cruise rpm where field circuit amperage will presumably be less,
> will
> stability increase due to decreased voltage drop?
I would expect it to.
> Or will stability
> decrease because the smaller current requires more precise
> manipulation?
No.
> What happens to voltage in the millisecond range which I'd need an
> oscilloscope to see? Will it be much less stable than what I'm
> seeing on my
> digital voltmeter?
Well, I wasn't thinking of too much in the millisecond range but if
you want to see how long it takes your alternator charging system to
settle down after a big load change you aren't going to see it on a
digital meter and an analog meter may be too slow also. That is where
a cheap 'scope will help. You can set it to capture a single event at
something like 100 ms per division and then see what happens. I think
Bob has posted some of these traces but we are talking about YOUR
system.
> I should be able to fly again Tuesday & I guess, should I continue
> to get OV
> trips, I could always fly with nav lights on & see if that solved the
> problem. Ugh!
You just keep working at it, fixing one possibility after another
until everything works right.
If you don't mind hacking the guts of your regulator you might be
able to pull the sense wire out separately. After all, this is
EXPERIMENTAL aviation. Just a thought.
Good luck!
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Setser <setser(at)rcn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Squitter.... |
A lot of Mode S development work was done in Britain, so someone
appropriated the Old English word "squitter" - which roughly translates
as "to squirt" - for the unsolicited transponder replies sent by a Mode
S box. Sorta makes sense, I guess.
Dave Setser
RV-7 Wings
Arlington, MA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Bob et.al.,
>
>
>Regarding http://aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf, did you write this
>article based off of RG-400? What size dies will I need for RG-58 and -400?
>I've got a multi-size die from eclipse that has .324, .255, .213, .100, and
>.068 cavities.
yup . . . that's my name at the top of the article. I need to update
the piece to include automatic stripper recommendations. My personal
favorite is a device offered by Gilchrist Electric on Ebay. See
item #9720665045
You use .213 and .068 dies for RG58 or RG400 and the coax connectors
sold by B&C have been tested for compatibility with these tools.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Incidently Radio Shack sells a ceapo crimper for RG58 that works great.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: crimp dies
-->
>
>
>Bob et.al.,
>
>
>Regarding http://aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf, did you write
>this article based off of RG-400? What size dies will I need for RG-58
and -400?
>I've got a multi-size die from eclipse that has .324, .255, .213, .100,
>and
>.068 cavities.
yup . . . that's my name at the top of the article. I need to update
the piece to include automatic stripper recommendations. My personal
favorite is a device offered by Gilchrist Electric on Ebay. See
item #9720665045
You use .213 and .068 dies for RG58 or RG400 and the coax connectors
sold by B&C have been tested for compatibility with these tools.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | LED Repeaters... |
| From: | Greg Campbell <gregcampbellusa(at)gmail.com> |
I have a little alarm control panel with a red LED that indicates
when the system is "Active". The problem is I need to "see" that
information in places other than where the built in LED is.
I'm hoping someone could help me build a circuit that would let me
add additional LED status indicators in 3 or 4 locations. I figure there
are at least two ways to approach the problem:
1) keep my wires "outside" the alarm box by putting a photo-transistor or
something
over the master "status LED" and have it drive the other LED's to follow
suit.
Clunky - but it avoids voiding their warranty or intruding on their
circuitry.
2) go ahead and pop open their box and directly tap into the circuit that
feeds their LED,
as well as swipe some of the 12vdc to power my "LED repeaters". I'm
thinking this
could also be done with a transistor, or worst case, with a transistor and
small Bosch relay.
I suspect that their status LED lights up with a forward voltage around a
volt at 20 or 30mA,
so I can't just tap a 5v or 12v relay coil into it. I might be able to
figure out how to do this on my own,
but I'm betting that there is some expert out there that will find this a
piece of cake.
Any takers out there?
Thanks in advance,
Greg Campbell
Lancair ES - flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LED Repeaters... |
Hi Greg,
If you decide to open the box, look for the series resistor that drives
the LED. You may be able to use that signal to drive a relay
directly. LED's usually run about 2V forward voltage, so you can find
out how much current the LED is pulling by dividing the voltage driving
that resistor minus 2 by the resistance. It may not be as high as 30
mA. You can get reed relays that will switch .5 A and need about 10 mA
at 5 or 12 V to operate for a couple of bucks. Even better might be a
solid state relay such as the Claire CP1030N that will turn on with a
current of 2 mA. You'll need your own series resistor to drive it.
Bob W.
Greg Campbell wrote:
>
> I have a little alarm control panel with a red LED that indicates
> when the system is "Active". The problem is I need to "see" that
> information in places other than where the built in LED is.
>
> I'm hoping someone could help me build a circuit that would let me
> add additional LED status indicators in 3 or 4 locations. I figure there
> are at least two ways to approach the problem:
>
> 1) keep my wires "outside" the alarm box by putting a photo-transistor or
> something
> over the master "status LED" and have it drive the other LED's to follow
> suit.
> Clunky - but it avoids voiding their warranty or intruding on their
> circuitry.
>
> 2) go ahead and pop open their box and directly tap into the circuit that
> feeds their LED,
> as well as swipe some of the 12vdc to power my "LED repeaters". I'm
> thinking this
> could also be done with a transistor, or worst case, with a transistor and
> small Bosch relay.
>
> I suspect that their status LED lights up with a forward voltage around a
> volt at 20 or 30mA,
> so I can't just tap a 5v or 12v relay coil into it. I might be able to
> figure out how to do this on my own,
> but I'm betting that there is some expert out there that will find this a
> piece of cake.
>
> Any takers out there?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Greg Campbell
> Lancair ES - flying
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (first engine start 1/7/06)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LED Repeaters... |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Hello Greg
Perhaps you could drive multiple fiber optic indicators with 1 LED?
Perhaps you could talk to an engineer and see how many mAs their circuit
will drive, and use a fair powerful LED??
My take is you are not having as much fun as you can if you still have a
valid warrenty!
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LED Repeaters... |
I've not had success with that method. It works but too dim to be
useful. Might work with a lens at the LED end but I didn't have a lens.
I just ran the wires out and moved the LED for my situation.
Ken
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US wrote:
>
>Hello Greg
>
>Perhaps you could drive multiple fiber optic indicators with 1 LED?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Richard Dudley ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Richard Dudley
Lists: AeroElectric-List,RV3-List,RV4-List,RV6-List,RV7-List,RV8-List,RV9-List,RV10-List,RV-List
Subject: Groundpower jack
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/rhdudley1@bellsouth.net.05.08.2006/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
----------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net> |
Sorry for the confusion, of course I knew you wrote the article. Another
(better?) way of stating my question would have been:
Bob, when writing ...crimp.pdf... did you base your crimp die selection from
RG-400...
*Sigh* I never could get anything but mediocre B's in English. Thanks for
your answer.
Rob Wright
-----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
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: crimp dies
>
>
>Bob et.al.,
>
>
>Regarding http://aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf, did you write this
>article based off of RG-400? What size dies will I need for RG-58 and
-400?
>I've got a multi-size die from eclipse that has .324, .255, .213, .100, and
>.068 cavities.
yup . . . that's my name at the top of the article. I need to update
the piece to include automatic stripper recommendations. My personal
favorite is a device offered by Gilchrist Electric on Ebay. See
item #9720665045
You use .213 and .068 dies for RG58 or RG400 and the coax connectors
sold by B&C have been tested for compatibility with these tools.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Sorry for the confusion, of course I knew you wrote the article. Another
>(better?) way of stating my question would have been:
>
>Bob, when writing ...crimp.pdf... did you base your crimp die selection from
>RG-400...
The dies are the same for both RG-400 and RG-58.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | How to wire switch |
I need to attach multiple wires to a rotary switch so as to make an engine
monitor display indications from three inputs. As I look at the switch, I'm not
sure how to connect the wires to the tiny connections on the back of the
switch. I know which places to make connections, just not how to mechanically
connect.
I'm wondering if there are fast-ons that are that small or if I'm supposed to
simply solder the wires to the little connections?
A photo of the switch is at http://www.rv-8a.net/electrical.htm.
Help anyone?
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to wire switch |
The connectors have holes in them...I pass the wire through the hole, twist it
back around itself and solder....
The twisting back is optional - holds it in place while I solder........
-----Original Message-----
>From: Speedy11(at)aol.com
>Sent: May 10, 2006 1:14 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: How to wire switch
>
>
>I need to attach multiple wires to a rotary switch so as to make an engine
>monitor display indications from three inputs. As I look at the switch, I'm not
>sure how to connect the wires to the tiny connections on the back of the
>switch. I know which places to make connections, just not how to mechanically
>connect.
>I'm wondering if there are fast-ons that are that small or if I'm supposed to
>simply solder the wires to the little connections?
>A photo of the switch is at http://www.rv-8a.net/electrical.htm.
>Help anyone?
>Stan Sutterfield
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to wire switch |
I would also throw a chunk of clear heatshrink tubing on it after.......
-----Original Message-----
>From: Speedy11(at)aol.com
>Sent: May 10, 2006 1:14 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: How to wire switch
>
>
>I need to attach multiple wires to a rotary switch so as to make an engine
>monitor display indications from three inputs. As I look at the switch, I'm not
>sure how to connect the wires to the tiny connections on the back of the
>switch. I know which places to make connections, just not how to mechanically
>connect.
>I'm wondering if there are fast-ons that are that small or if I'm supposed to
>simply solder the wires to the little connections?
>A photo of the switch is at http://www.rv-8a.net/electrical.htm.
>Help anyone?
>Stan Sutterfield
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How to wire switch |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Yes just solder those Stan. Remember to "tin" the wires first and then
solder together....Using a short piece of heatshrink over the joint
would be perfect.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph
E. Capen
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How to wire switch
-->
I would also throw a chunk of clear heatshrink tubing on it after.......
-----Original Message-----
>From: Speedy11(at)aol.com
>Sent: May 10, 2006 1:14 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: How to wire switch
>
>
>I need to attach multiple wires to a rotary switch so as to make an
>engine monitor display indications from three inputs. As I look at the
>switch, I'm not sure how to connect the wires to the tiny connections
>on the back of the switch. I know which places to make connections,
>just not how to mechanically connect.
>I'm wondering if there are fast-ons that are that small or if I'm
>supposed to simply solder the wires to the little connections?
>A photo of the switch is at http://www.rv-8a.net/electrical.htm.
>Help anyone?
>Stan Sutterfield
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to wire switch |
Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> I need to attach multiple wires to a rotary switch so as to make an engine
> monitor display indications from three inputs. As I look at the switch, I'm
not
> sure how to connect the wires to the tiny connections on the back of the
> switch. I know which places to make connections, just not how to mechanically
> connect.
Ah, the evil wafer switch. Nasty things those. We hates them forever.
(As a kid I built my own ham and test equipment and would end up wiring
up switches like that with as many as five wafers! It taught me patience
and to take extra care to get things just right the first time. The
first time you have to remove and rewire a wafer switch makes a real
believer out of you.)
Wire and solder is the short answer but there are some other
considerations. If you only have to attach one wire per terminal it
isn't too bad. Two is a pain. Three is impossible. If you have to attach
as many as three wires to a terminal you might want to consider bringing
your connections out to a connector and attaching the rest of your
harness there. A small circuit board is a possibility as well.
Attach all the wires to the switch and then use some kind of connector
or knife splices (on second though, forget the knife splices) to connect
the switch to the rest of your harness. It will just make things a lot
easier to work on later when you need to remove the wafer switch to
clean it or replace it.
Also, my experience is that the terminals on the switch are almost
always oxidized and won't take solder very well. Find some way to clean
and burnish the terminals before putting your wires on there. Failure to
do is it asking for a poor solder joint and failure later. Clean and tin
the terminals then use a solder-sucker to pull off the excess solder.
That will leave a good tinned terminal that will let the solder fully
wet the joint.
Good luck and have fun.
Brian Lloyd
brian HYPHEN yak AT lloyd DOT com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How to wire switch |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Stan,
Those are solder tabs. My process steps would be:
1) slide a piece of shrink tube on the wire (and push a good couple of
inches away from the end)
2) strip the end about 3/8" to 1/2"
3) bend a hook in the bare wires, and hook it in the hole on the tab on
the switch
4) squeeze the wires flat against the tab
5) solder
6) slide the shrink tube over the tab
Bob probably has pictures on how to do this somewhere on his website...
Dennis Glaeser
I need to attach multiple wires to a rotary switch so as to make an
engine monitor display indications from three inputs. As I look at the
switch, I'm not sure how to connect the wires to the tiny connections on
the back of the switch. I know which places to make connections, just
not how to mechanically connect. I'm wondering if there are fast-ons
that are that small or if I'm supposed to simply solder the wires to the
little connections? A photo of the switch is at
http://www.rv-8a.net/electrical.htm. Help anyone?
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LED Repeaters... |
| From: | Greg Campbell <gregcampbellusa(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Bob White,
The solid state relay seems like a perfect fit.
DigiKey sells the Clare LCA110 for about $2.30 each.
Here's the Spec Sheet and catalog links:
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T062/1557.pdf
http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Clare%20Web%20Data/LCA110.pdf
http://rocky.digikey.com/scripts/ProductInfo.dll?Site=US
<http://rocky.digikey.com/scripts/ProductInfo.dll?Site=US&V=212&M=LCA110>
&V=212&M=LCA110
I'm guessing they call it an "Opto Relay" because it uses
an internal LED to activate another circuit that acts as the relay contacts.
So naturally the "coil" side of the relay is driven by LED input levels.
This stirs vague memories of "Opto Isolators" and position sensors.
The output is rated up to 350vAC or DC and up to 0.12A
- more than enough for my little job! (12vdc @ .08A)
The fiber optic solution was creative, but not practical for the
distances & involved - some LED's are 30' away and need to be bright.
Note that this relay manufacturer is spelled Clare, not Clair.
Apparently Omron and others sell the same gizmo.
That slowed my Google search down by a few nano-seconds.
I'm heading over to the local electronics monger to see what he has.
Thanks again Bob for pointing me to the solution!
Greg Campbell
Lancair ES - flying in primer
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flightcom 403 Aux inputs |
Pete or anyone,
I have a 403 MC with one aux input into it. I will be putting the audio out
from my Dynon
D10-A, Music input, and the GRT EIS tone into this input. I bought the
components
recommended by Pete below. I'm figuring that these components will isolate
each input
from the other but could someone explain the math and reasoning for doing
this. I would also
like to see the best way of incorporating these components in the
installation, maybe just soldered together and wrapped in heatshrink at the input
to
the intercom, or should these be mounted on a separate board? Thanks for the
help.
Brian Unruh
Long Island
Zenith 701 85%
After some experientation (and good advice from some EE buddies -
thanks Vern) here is what worked pretty well. Each of the inputs
have a 1000 Ohm resistor and a 10uF cap in series with the input.
The exception to this is the EIS tone that just has a 150 Ohm and the
10uF cap. I tried without success to get the warning tone piped into
pin 21 of the FC403 to make it unmuted. In the end, I was happy with
this as it allows me to silence the music and warnings with one flip
of the isolate switch. The EIS also has a warning light to alert
me of engine issues. This setup provides minimal Background noise
and the radios, trafficscope, and EIS each have sufficient volume.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to wire switch |
>
>
>Stan,
>
>Those are solder tabs. My process steps would be:
>1) slide a piece of shrink tube on the wire (and push a good couple of
>inches away from the end)
>2) strip the end about 3/8" to 1/2"
>3) bend a hook in the bare wires, and hook it in the hole on the tab on
>the switch
>4) squeeze the wires flat against the tab
>5) solder
>6) slide the shrink tube over the tab
>
>Bob probably has pictures on how to do this somewhere on his website...
>
>Dennis Glaeser
Didn't have one . . . but it's a good idea. Went to the junkbox
and dug up a switch . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Rotary_Soldering_2.jpg
I used to "hook" the wires through terminal holes but after a lot
of years of working with solder-assembled hardware . . . particularly
surface mounted stuff, I found it just as reliable to tack solder
as shown. Use 63/37 electronic grade solder. I strip the wires 1/8",
tin both surfaces at the joint and tack-solder the wire to the
terminal. It's not difficult to get as much or more solder cross-section
in the joint as wires which yields plenty of mechanical strength
and reduces probability of damaging the switch with any attempts
to get a mechanically secure joint before soldering.
The REALLY nice thing about tack-soldering is when it's time to
replace a worn switch (or move a mis-installed wire) you can slit
the heatshrink with a sharp xacto knife and just hit the joint
with a hot iron to detach the wire with a minimum of stress on
the relatively fragile switch terminals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Brian,
I can't help you with the math behind the components, but I do have
one way to do the packaging. I used a 15 pin-sub connector as the
base for the device. I soldered one lead of the resistor and cap
togecther and then bent it into a "U" shape and crimped sockets on
each end. Then I covered each resistor/cap pair (isolator) in heat
shrink and put it in the connector. When all the isolators were in
place, more heat shrink over the entire thing. Incoming and
outgoing wire comes into the mating connector and get d-sub pins.
Drop me an e-mail and I will send some pics.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Ebay #9723825338 |
Bob ...
Is this Gilchrist coax stripper suitable for RG-400? It has three blades
but does not list RG-400. Gilchrist will not respond to questions.
Thanks ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ebay #9723825338 |
>
>Bob ...
>Is this Gilchrist coax stripper suitable for RG-400? It has three blades
>but does not list RG-400. Gilchrist will not respond to questions.
>Thanks ...
>Jerry Grimmonpre'
Yes, that's the one I give away at the seminars. It's
ADJUSTABLE. It will probably work for RG-400 as received
but you can check the results of the cuts carefully and
adjust as needed for optimization.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Di-Electric Grease; where used |
My other toy is a motorcycle, which has electronic everything. Some =
riders strongly advocate to apply dielectric grease the connectors for =
corrosion protection. But a dielectric is a non-conductor; seem =
counter-productive. What am I missing here?
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Prather <mprather(at)spro.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Di-Electric Grease; where used |
Hi Wayne,
Here's my understanding:
Properly designed electrical connectors make gas-tight connections
between the conductors. This means that as well as squishing all of the
air out of the interface, closing the connection will also squish out
any other liquid/grease in the joint, including dielectric grease.
Applying dielectric grease to a properly designed connector will not
interfere with the conductive properties of the joint because the grease
will get squished out of the places where the joint is gas-tigth.
However, applying dielectric grease may stave off corrosion at the
margins of the joint. At the margins (edge) of a connection, there may
exist narrow (microscopic) crevices/voids, which can be the perfect
environment for corrosion of the materials used to make the connection.
Regards,
Matt-
Wayne Sweet wrote:
>
>My other toy is a motorcycle, which has electronic everything. Some =
>riders strongly advocate to apply dielectric grease the connectors for =
>corrosion protection. But a dielectric is a non-conductor; seem =
>counter-productive. What am I missing here?
>Wayne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Di-Electric Grease; where used |
>
>My other toy is a motorcycle, which has electronic everything. Some =
>riders strongly advocate to apply dielectric grease the connectors for =
>corrosion protection. But a dielectric is a non-conductor; seem =
>counter-productive. What am I missing here?
>Wayne
Dow-Corning DC-4 and similar silicone greases are
excellent prophylactic treatments for exclusion of
moisture and other contaminants into connectors.
Waaaayyyy back when, we commonly filled the mating
spaces of coax connectors up on towers with DC-4 before
putting the connector together. Use sparingly. You don't
want it to ooze out and get the exterior all messy. The
stuff is VERY hard to get off and in the case of coax
connections, made it difficult to wrap with tape for
exterior water-barrier.
A coating the top insulator and terminal of a spark
plug before installing the spark plug wire would be
an assist for keeping moisture out of a potentially
vulnerable joint in the system. Same thing would be
good for coil end of wire.
Silicone greases migrate with time. Put a pea-sized
dab on a flat surface and come back a few months later.
You'll find a large silicone-grease wetted area around the
dab that continues to grow with time.
It's a neat stuff but I would use it reservedly with
respect to amount and location and only in areas where
a connection is likely to be exposed to extra-ordinarily
corrosive influences.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Latched Sensor |
> I'm not familiar with any specific reflective-type optical sensors
> but I'm guessing that would be the way to go.
Following up on my original post here ...
After a couple of weeks of scratching my head, I found the IR HOA0149
Reflective Sensor ($3.36 ea. at DigiKey, see
http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Honeywell%20Sensing%20%26%20Control/Web%20Data/HOA0149.pdf).
I breadboarded a circuit and found that it worked pretty well as long as:
1) The LED was heavily biased (30 or 40 ma. but not 10 or 20).
2) The reflective object was a flat surface (unlike the domed head of
the screw I wanted to use). Even the Phillips slots in the head
diffused the reflective light considerably and reduced the sensitivity.
3) The reflective object was fairly close to the optimum position as
specified in the data sheet. There wasn't a lot of in/out, left/right,
or up/down tolerance on positioning the latch handle relative to the
Reflective Sensor.
In order to turn ON a warning light when the latch handle was out of
position (not latched) an inverter was required so I added a resistor
and transistor. The Reflective Sensor has a poor current transfer ratio
and there is less than one milliampere available to bias the transistor,
sometimes much less depending on position. In order to reliably control
the #382 light bulb in my Canopy Unlatched indicator I decided I needed
a Darlington-connected configuration.
This is where I pulled the plug. I decided it was too complicated and
"touchy" for my real-world application and I'd rather be flying.
Soooooo, I went back to a Cherry microswitch . Maybe I'll look
at this again in my *next* airplane when I have more freedom in the
mechanical design.
--
Joe
Joe Dubner
Long-EZ 821RP
Lewiston, ID
On 27-Apr-06 09:21 Joe Dubner wrote:
> I'm looking for a better way to implement the canopy unlatched warning
> system on a Long-EZ. The standard method is to use a small microswitch
> that responds to "canopy latched". (This is not the same as "canopy
> closed", which would be easy enough to implement but I want a "latched"
> indication.)
>
> Here's an illustration of the standard system:
> http://users.lewiston.com/hth/jd/CanopyLockMicroswitch.jpg
>
> When the canopy locking handle is pushed forward (left in the image) far
> enough to latch the canopy locking mechanism, the head of the screw on
> the handle (at the right in the image) fits in the hole on the latch and
> actives the microswitch through its (specially bent) lever.
>
> I'm not happy with the microswitch as it doesn't hold up well under use
> and wonder if any Aeroelectric Connection readers can come up with a
> better idea. I've searched for optical interrupters but can't find one
> with a gap large enough for the head of the relatively large #10 screw.
> I'm not familiar with any specific reflective-type optical sensors but
> I'm guessing that would be the way to go.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
> Long-EZ 821RP
> Lewiston, ID
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Latched Sensor |
On May 14, 2006, at 3:00 PM, Joe Dubner wrote:
>
> This is where I pulled the plug. I decided it was too complicated and
> "touchy" for my real-world application and I'd rather be flying.
> Soooooo, I went back to a Cherry microswitch . Maybe I'll look
> at this again in my *next* airplane when I have more freedom in the
> mechanical design.
Sometimes a checklist item is the best solution.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Glass connectors |
http://www.l-com.com/home.aspx
Various items like DIN connectors for keyboards (both front and rear panel
mount), USB connectors, extensions, etc.
Plus lots of others.
Add to your bookmarks,
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <vicster(at)netvigator.com> |
| Subject: | RPM sensor wires |
Hello,
I am installing an RPM sensor that screws into one of the vent ports on my Bendix
Magneto unit. Does the RPM sensor wires have to be shielded all the way to
the engine analyzer? If so, I will be installing a 17 pin circular connector at
the firewall that will connect all the wires for the various engine sensors
(ie. oil temp, oil press, fuel flow..) including the RPM sensor. Do you lose the
shielding effect if you run the shielded RPM wires through a circular connector?
Thank you
Vic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | RPM sensor wires |
You have to carry the shield through the connector on it's own pin.
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
vicster(at)netvigator.com
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 7:59 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RPM sensor wires
Hello,
I am installing an RPM sensor that screws into one of the vent ports on my
Bendix Magneto unit. Does the RPM sensor wires have to be shielded all the
way to the engine analyzer? If so, I will be installing a 17 pin circular
connector at the firewall that will connect all the wires for the various
engine sensors (ie. oil temp, oil press, fuel flow..) including the RPM
sensor. Do you lose the shielding effect if you run the shielded RPM wires
through a circular connector?
Thank you
Vic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Ebay #9723825338 |
I just ordered one of these from Gilchrist. Since all of their summer help
has left college already, they're having a hard time keeping up with
returning calls. It took them 3-4 days to get back with me, even after I
left them emails and voicemails. So you'll have to be patient, but Marian
(sp?) did call me and we finished up. This was just on Friday so it'll be a
few days before it gets delivered from MT to AL. I did, however, get all of
my payment and package shipped notices by COB Friday, complete with tracking
numbers.
Rob Wright
RV-10 #392
-----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
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ebay #9723825338
>
>Bob ...
>Is this Gilchrist coax stripper suitable for RG-400? It has three blades
>but does not list RG-400. Gilchrist will not respond to questions.
>Thanks ...
>Jerry Grimmonpre'
Yes, that's the one I give away at the seminars. It's
ADJUSTABLE. It will probably work for RG-400 as received
but you can check the results of the cuts carefully and
adjust as needed for optimization.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <vicster(at)netvigator.com> |
| Subject: | RPM sensor wires |
Thanks Bruce for the reply.
Unfortunately the connector that I have already mounted has no spare pin for the
shielding. Could I simply connect the shielding to one of the mounting screws
on the circular connector and carry it through by connecting the shielding to
the nut on the other side of the mounting screw?
More importanly though is there a real requirement for the RPM sensor wires to
be shielded?
Thank you in advance
Vic
you have to carry the shield through the connector on it's own pin.
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
vicster(at)netvigator.com
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 7:59 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RPM sensor wires
Hello,
I am installing an RPM sensor that screws into one of the vent ports on my
Bendix Magneto unit. Does the RPM sensor wires have to be shielded all the
way to the engine analyzer? If so, I will be installing a 17 pin circular
connector at the firewall that will connect all the wires for the various
engine sensors (ie. oil temp, oil press, fuel flow..) including the RPM
sensor. Do you lose the shielding effect if you run the shielded RPM wires
through a circular connector?
Thank you
Vic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | RPM sensor wires |
You need a pin for each wire shield, so that means that if you have 4
shieled wires, you'll need a connector with 8 pins. 4 for the shields and 4
for the center conductors.
Talk to the engine monitor manufacturer about the need to shield the rpm
sensor. I don't know.
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
vicster(at)netvigator.com
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 11:22 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RPM sensor wires
Thanks Bruce for the reply.
Unfortunately the connector that I have already mounted has no spare pin for
the shielding. Could I simply connect the shielding to one of the mounting
screws on the circular connector and carry it through by connecting the
shielding to the nut on the other side of the mounting screw?
More importanly though is there a real requirement for the RPM sensor wires
to be shielded?
Thank you in advance
Vic
you have to carry the shield through the connector on it's own pin.
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
vicster(at)netvigator.com
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 7:59 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RPM sensor wires
Hello,
I am installing an RPM sensor that screws into one of the vent ports on my
Bendix Magneto unit. Does the RPM sensor wires have to be shielded all the
way to the engine analyzer? If so, I will be installing a 17 pin circular
connector at the firewall that will connect all the wires for the various
engine sensors (ie. oil temp, oil press, fuel flow..) including the RPM
sensor. Do you lose the shielding effect if you run the shielded RPM wires
through a circular connector?
Thank you
Vic
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Carb temp sensor |
Hi all,
A buddy is asking, what is the standard type of sensor for carburetor
temperature on Lycomings ? Thermocouple or resistance ?
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI |
Can anyone tell me the difference between the
GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI/LOC/GS ?
I have looked at the Garmin description on both and they seem to have the
same features.
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Carb temp sensor |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi all,
>
>A buddy is asking, what is the standard type of sensor for carburetor
>temperature on Lycomings ? Thermocouple or resistance ?
>
>Thanks in advance,
I've seen them in all flavors. It's a matter of choice for
the manufacturer of the instrument.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Carb temp sensor |
> I've seen them in all flavors. It's a matter of choice for
> the manufacturer of the instrument.
>
>
Bob,
Thank you for your quick reply.
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Carb temp sensor |
On May 15, 2006, at 11:58 AM, Gilles Thesee wrote:
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Hi all,
>
> A buddy is asking, what is the standard type of sensor for carburetor
> temperature on Lycomings ? Thermocouple or resistance ?
Thermistor (resistance).
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
April 19, 2006 - May 16, 2006
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fq