AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fx
July 24, 2006 - August 03, 2006
threaded into this hole. The purpose of this screw is to provide for a
grounding contact to the magneto case.
Accepted procedure is to comb out a length of shielding from the magneto end
of the shielded P lead, twist the shield wires together, and crimp a ring
terminal of the appropriate size on the end of the combed out and twisted
together shield wires. The shield ring terminal is then fastened to the
magneto case by the aforementioned GND screw.
The center lead of the P lead wire also gets a ring terminal crimped on to
it and this ring terminal is fastened to the P lead stud such that it does
not contact the magneto case in any way.
On the cockpit end of the P lead the shield and the center wire are
connected to the terminals of a switch such that when the switch is in the
OFF position the shield and the center wire are connected together. This
grounds out the magneto back to its case and prevents it from sparking the
spark plugs. When the ignition switch is in the ON position the shield wire
and the center wire of the P lead are separated from each other and the
magneto can spark the plugs when properly rotated.
The term P lead is a bit of a misnomer because the lead does not connect
directly to the primary coil of the magneto. Instead the P lead connects to
a stud coming out of a capacitor (sometimes called a condenser in the older
manuals) in the primary coil circuitry. Also in the primary coil circuitry
are the magneto points. The capacitor in this circuit serves to suppress
arcing between the points when they are being opened. The stud on the end of
the capacitor also serves as a convenient point to ground out the primary
coil output via the P lead connection back to a switch as described above
when one does not want the magneto to be firing the spark plugs.
Looking forward to your next question.
OC
<>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Heated pitot tube connections |
Barry;
I may be mistaken, but I believe this advice on grounding is totally
contrary to what has been taught on this list for the past several
years. My understanding of Lectric Bob's advice and lessons on
grounding, are, that local grounds are OK for such things as pitot heat,
position lights etc. but that running a ground wire to a wingtip for an
accessory, as you suggest, and then grounding it there as well is a
no-no as this is likely to create a ground loop. Grounds should be local
OR run to the "forest of tabs" ground point on the firewall. They should
not be both for any single item. (and local grounds are only used for
certain specific items as described in "The Connection".)
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 6:27 PM
>
> In a message dated 7/24/06 5:55:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> will(at)willcrook.com writes:
>
> > The terminals are sinply two straight rods extending from the pitot
tube
> > chassis, and I think I could craft some female spade fittings to
slip on,
> and
> > securing it with some RTV. Obviously, it would be a sad day if
these two
> > leads were to short, but all of these $88.50's keep adding up.
Sometimes,
> > when the widget looks very straightfoward, I tend to try and get
cheap ;-)
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
=========================
=========
> Will:
>
> I like the way you think. You will have to do a little hunting but
there are
> round slip on connectors just like the spade design but only one half
and
> larger in size to handle the current. The ceramic type is exactly
that but with
> a ceramic case.
> As for them shorting or causing a problem ... Distance is always a
great
> insulator and you could also make one from a small piece of Teflon ...
If you go
> this way you will need something that can handle the heat.
>
> Will, you said something that caught my eye ... Ground leads ... Do
not use
> the planes ground as your return line. Run a separate wire so that
you have B+
> and Neg wires going out there. THEN if you wish ground the Negative
out at
> the wing tip. This will greatly help with other wiring such as your
Strobe and
> Nav Lights. Most problems over time are related to a poor ground.
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
> "Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the
third
> time."
> Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Heated pitot tube connections |
>Barry;
>
>I may be mistaken, but I believe this advice on grounding is totally
>contrary to what has been taught on this list for the past several
>years. My understanding of Lectric Bob's advice and lessons on grounding,
>are, that local grounds are OK for such things as pitot heat, position
>lights etc. but that running a ground wire to a wingtip for an accessory,
>as you suggest, and then grounding it there as well is a no-no as this is
>likely to create a ground loop. Grounds should be local OR run to the
>"forest of tabs" ground point on the firewall. They should not be both for
>any single item. (and local grounds are only used for certain specific
>items as described in "The Connection".)
>
>Bob McC
This needs some clarification. "Ground Loops" ALWAYS exist when
multiple accessories ground to DIFFERENT parts of the airplane.
Ground loops are not always evil. The problems arise when
potential victims (radios, audio systems, instrumentation,
etc) SHARE the airframe (or distributed ground system in a
composite) with potential antagonists like alternators. Alternators
do not become antagonists until they're asked to supply substantial
currents for the purpose of running high power accessories like landing
lights and pitot heaters. Discharged batteries are also "high power"
loads while being replenished. I had a builder complain about alternator
noise in a system that went away after a few minutes of flight . . .
his battery was the major antagonistic contributor to ground loop
noise that went away when the battery assumed recharge.
Now, one may ground all the antagonists you wish to the
airframe or distributed ground 'cause all they can do is
yell at each other and as long as they a deaf . . .
ist macht nicht.
The things that are vulnerable are immune from any yelling
going on elsewhere as long as their respective and collective
grounds DO NOT participate in the noisy ground loop. Best yet,
if all potential victims share a single point (or slightly
distributed single point as shown in the audio systems
chapter) then there will be order in the world.
Hence the suggestion about local grounds. Notice that all the
devices called out are not potential victims and they participate
only in the generation of noise because they're high power
loads for the noisiest device in the airplane, the alternator.
So you may ground them at any convenient location for good
bonding without regard to potential noise issues.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | VHF antenna mounting |
Hello All,
I'm mounting two VHF bent whip antennas on the belly of an RV-7. Where
can I find information pertaining to doubler requirement? Also, a cork
gasket/seal is installed between the Comant antenna base and the
fuselage skin - is the antenna base grounded to the fuselage via the
mounting screws since the cork seal insulates the antenna base? Thanks.
Bill Gill
RV-7 wiring
Lee's Summit, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Heated pitot tube connections |
>I have a standard heated pitot tube. The instructions call for an AN-3115
>connector to terminate the power and ground leads. Alas (I love using
>that word...), I don't have this little gem. Looking on the B&C site, I
>don't see anything resembling what I need. AS&S has the phenolic
>connector, but it is really pricey at $88.50. The terminals are sinply
>two straight rods extending from the pitot tube chassis, and I think I
>could craft some female spade fittings to slip on, and securing it with
>some RTV. Obviously, it would be a sad day if these two leads were to
>short, but all of these $88.50's keep adding up. Sometimes, when the
>widget looks very straightfoward, I tend to try and get cheap ;-)
>
>Thoughts?
I have a client who asked me to look into alternative sources
for the AN3115 connector. I've studied some of the connection
science issues and looked at the processes available. Problem
is that the connection at the pitot tube is subject to elevated
operating temperatures + extended 3x inrush currents. Building
a really GOOD AN3115 is not a trivial task.
Problem is that this is such a low volume part that by the time
we tool up to build a decent part, the non-recurring costs
are breathtaking.
If it were my airplane (and if I were supplying pitot tubes) I
would silver solder 12", 14AWG Teflon pigtails onto the pitot
tube pins. Cover the joint in Teflon heat shrink and then make
connections to the airplane at the ends of the pigtails with
some attractive, robust splice. PIDG knife splices covered with
heat shrink tickle my fancy.
Very straightforward, very cheap.
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: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
Subject: | Heated pitot tube connections |
What about soldering wire female leads to the terminals.
Bevan
RV7A finish kit
_____
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Crook
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:44 PM
I have a standard heated pitot tube. The instructions call for an AN-3115
connector to terminate the power and ground leads. Alas (I love using that
word...), I don't have this little gem. Looking on the B&C site, I don't
see anything resembling what I need. AS&S has the phenolic connector, but
it is really pricey at $88.50. The terminals are sinply two straight rods
extending from the pitot tube chassis, and I think I could craft some female
spade fittings to slip on, and securing it with some RTV. Obviously, it
would be a sad day if these two leads were to short, but all of these
$88.50's keep adding up. Sometimes, when the widget looks very
straightfoward, I tend to try and get cheap ;-)
Thoughts?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jeff Moreau <jmoreau2(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: VHF antenna mounting |
What position are you mounting them in. I am getting ready for bent
whips on the belly of my RV8A. I was wondering how close together
you are mounting them.
Are they side=by side, or in line with the centerline of the
fuselage. Any info would be appreciated.
Jeff Moreau
Virginia Beach, VA
On Jul 24, 2006, at 10:15 PM, William Gill wrote:
> Hello All,
>
>
> I=92m mounting two VHF bent whip antennas on the belly of an RV-7.
> Where can I find information pertaining to doubler requirement?
> Also, a cork gasket/seal is installed between the Comant antenna
> base and the fuselage skin ' is the antenna base grounded to the
> fuselage via the mounting screws since the cork seal insulates the
> antenna base? Thanks.
>
>
> Bill Gill
>
> RV-7 wiring
>
> Lee=92s Summit, MO
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | VHF antenna mounting |
Hello Jeff,
I'm mounting them side by side.they are about 32" apart.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Moreau
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 9:56 PM
What position are you mounting them in. I am getting ready for bent
whips on the belly of my RV8A. I was wondering how close together you
are mounting them.
Are they side=by side, or in line with the centerline of the fuselage.
Any info would be appreciated.
Jeff Moreau
Virginia Beach, VA
On Jul 24, 2006, at 10:15 PM, William Gill wrote:
Hello All,
I'm mounting two VHF bent whip antennas on the belly of an RV-7. Where
can I find information pertaining to doubler requirement? Also, a cork
gasket/seal is installed between the Comant antenna base and the
fuselage skin - is the antenna base grounded to the fuselage via the
mounting screws since the cork seal insulates the antenna base? Thanks.
Bill Gill
RV-7 wiring
Lee's Summit, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Heated pitot tube connections |
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:28 PM
snip
would silver solder 12", 14AWG Teflon pigtails onto the pitot
tube pins. Cover the joint in Teflon heat shrink and then make
connections to the airplane at the ends of the pigtails with
some attractive, robust splice. PIDG knife splices covered with
heat shrink tickle my fancy.
Very straightforward, very cheap.
Bob . . .
Bob,
Is the silver solder just for heat resistance? If I am not mistaken silver
solder is not as good a conductor as tin/lead, or is that an old wives tale?
Don
---------------------------------------------------------
< 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: | Heated pitot tube connections |
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
>L. Nuckolls, III
>Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:28 PM
>
>
>snip
> would silver solder 12", 14AWG Teflon pigtails onto the pitot
> tube pins. Cover the joint in Teflon heat shrink and then make
> connections to the airplane at the ends of the pigtails with
> some attractive, robust splice. PIDG knife splices covered with
> heat shrink tickle my fancy.
>
> Very straightforward, very cheap.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>Bob,
>Is the silver solder just for heat resistance? If I am not mistaken silver
>solder is not as good a conductor as tin/lead, or is that an old wives tale?
>Don
Dunno . . . but solder as an electrical conductor is seldom
a performance issue irrespective of how much resistance it may
have . . . there's so little solder in the electrical path that
wide variability of conductance in various solders is insignificant.
63/37 tin/lead melts at sufficiently low temperature to be
at risk of coming loose on SOME pitot tube installations.
The tube manufacturers often recommend that pins supplied
with the AN3115 connector be connected to wires with "high
temperature solder". Silver solder is certainly not at-risk
for softening and it alloys better with the corrosion
resistant pins on the pitot tube.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Heated pitot tube connections |
In a message dated 7/24/06 10:55:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net writes:
> What about soldering wire female leads to the terminals.
>
> Bevan
> RV7A finish kit
=====================
Brevan:
Soldering in 99% of the cases is a NO-NO. Even though we are experimental we
still have to follow good building procedures and AC 43-13 A&B. Soldering
creates HARD POINTS that are subject to vibration failure. Do I solder? In
some cases YES ;-) But not in this case. Use crimp-ons.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: VHF antenna mounting |
In a message dated 7/24/06 10:23:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wgill10(at)comcast.net writes:
> Hello All,
>
> I'm mounting two VHF bent whip antennas on the belly of an RV-7. Where
> can I find information pertaining to doubler requirement? Also, a cork
> gasket/seal is installed between the Comant antenna base and the
> fuselage skin - is the antenna base grounded to the fuselage via the
> mounting screws since the cork seal insulates the antenna base? Thanks.
>
> Bill Gill
> RV-7 wiring
> Lee's Summit, MO
=================================
Bill:
It is just good practice to reinforce an antenna mounting with a doubler. In
most if not all antenna packages a doubler is supplied.
Considering the design of an antenna you have a lot of unsupported material
just dangling out in the breeze, better to support it than to take the chance
of metal fatigue due to concentrated vibration points.
As for the electrical grounding ... YES ... You are correct, the grounding is
accomplished through the screws. So you can imagine that a doubler installed
against the unpainted aluminum, followed up with good screws and lock washers
will do much to improve everything associated with the ground and function of
the antenna.
One small trick with the cork seal, put a light smear of RTV on both sides of
the cork. This is not a major trick but it will keep out moisture and
improve the seal.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Heated pitot tube connections |
In a message dated 7/25/06 12:03:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dsvs(at)comcast.net writes:
> Bob,
> Is the silver solder just for heat resistance? If I am not mistaken silver
> solder is not as good a conductor as tin/lead, or is that an old wives
tale?
> Don
>
====================
Don:
There are many Old Wife's Tails out there and the Internet does a tremendous
job at propagating them and producing even more. But, SILVER is a Much, Much
better conductor than tin or lead. Just look at the Periodic Table of
Elements. Silver has more free electrons than the other two. Or just look up the
conductivity of silver. While you are at it check out GOLD, PLATINUM, COPPER and
especially ALUMINUM.
And then consider how good your electrical system is.
Silver solder is around for other reasons other than conductivity. STRENGTH
is its major consideration. It is quite a bit stronger than electrical
solder. Silver solder is broken down into two classifications:
Silver bearing (NO! Not like ball bearings) and Percentage Silver. Unless
you request a particular percentage you will get silver bearing and that is only
3% Silver MAX.
BTW ... If you have purchased solder in the past few years, especially if
you purchased it through Radio Shack you did NOT get Tin/Lead solder ... The
LEAD has been removed. Too many environmentalist chewing on circuit boards.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: VHF antenna mounting |
In a message dated 7/24/06 11:01:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jmoreau2(at)cox.net writes:
> What position are you mounting them in. I am getting ready for bent
> whips on the belly of my RV8A. I was wondering how close together
> you are mounting them.
> Are they side=by side, or in line with the centerline of the
> fuselage. Any info would be appreciated.
> Jeff Moreau
> Virginia Beach, VA
============================
Jeff:
By definition bent whips are belly mounted.
Keeping antennas as far apart as possible is always a good thing. If I
recall the minimum distance recommended is 36" . Yet that is very hard to
maintain. I have two mounted on the belly under the leg area of an RV-6 only about
20" apart. I do not have any front end overload or directivity to the pattern.
If I was building the plane and had access to the tail easier I would install
them in line on the center line (rivets permitting) and the recommended 36+"
apart.
You might also want to take note that COM #2 is usually mounted on top of the
plane. This is to aid in better ground communication while on the ground.
While Com #1 is used in the air. Once airborne Com 1 & 2 do work very well in
the air.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | William Crook <will(at)willcrook.com> |
Subject: | Pitot heat suggestions |
Bob & Barry,
Thanks for your suggestions. I'm at the very beginning of the wiring phase, so
the savings of Bob's suggestion covers the cost of a decent solder gun. Will
Radio Shack sell the silver solder?
As to the ground, I plan on running all my grounds back into the fuselage to a
common ground. The Glastar is a neat bird, but the metal wings (that fold) comming
back to a powder coated steel tube cage and composite fuselage seems to me
to be a good case for keeping all the grounds together.
Will Crook
Waynesville, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: VHF antenna mounting |
Bill,
I riveted 2 short pieces of leftover stiffener material from the fuselage
across between the seat ribs that the antenna screws go up through (for one
antenna). The antenna feels pretty solid with very little weight gain.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 7/24/2006 10:23:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
wgill10(at)comcast.net writes:
Hello All,
I=99m mounting two VHF bent whip antennas on the belly of an RV-7. Wh
ere can I
find information pertaining to doubler requirement? Also, a cork gasket/sea
l
is installed between the Comant antenna base and the fuselage skin
=93 is the
antenna base grounded to the fuselage via the mounting screws since the cor
k
seal insulates the antenna base? Thanks.
Bill Gill
RV-7 wiring
Lee=99s Summit, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Pitot heat suggestions |
In a message dated 7/25/06 7:40:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
will(at)willcrook.com writes:
> Will Radio Shack sell the silver solder?
>
> As to the ground, I plan on running all my grounds back into the fuselage
to
> a common ground. The Glastar is a neat bird, but the metal wings (that
fold)
> comming back to a powder coated steel tube cage and composite fuselage
seems
> to me to be a good case for keeping all the grounds together.
>
> Will Crook
> Waynesville, NC
=================================
Will:
Call a couple of Air Conditioning Supply Shops (HVAC), see if they have 6%
Silver Solder or better. I would not use just the soldering, a good round crimp
terminal followed by silver solder should do the job. BUT! Remember,
maintenance down the road will be a bit more difficult if you solder.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: VHF antenna mounting |
Bill:
Yes the ground is thru the screws so make sure there is no
primer and the nut plates are grounded to the airframe,
assuming you will use nut plates which is highly recommend.
The primary load is air drag load, which is very small. You
can go crazy and make very large structural doubler's. Back
in the old days with huge ADF and VOR flying wing antenna's
structural doubler's where important. Your light weight bent
com antenna is tiny compared to those lead sails.
The belly on the RV is very thick. If you are in the area fwd of
the main spar, not much doubling is needed. You do want local
stability to keep it from flexing.
Old FAA best practices AC 43 12-2A (chap 1)
structures, shows antenna doubler's.
Here are some ideas from the FAA AC source:
If you place the antenna near a stiffener or rib, a good idea,
you can bend an angle into the doubler to joggle or butt
against the rib or angle and rivet to that. It's standard. to
fill the whole BAY from stiffener to stiffener laterally wide. Your
doubler will be square/rectangle from stiffener to stiffener and
the width, fwd/aft, will be long enough to extend past the
antenna foot print by 1.5" min on each end or to a frame.
The above is ideal an very strong but not needed for a
small COM antenna on a thick skin belly. If you put the
antenna near a stiffiner the doubler may not be needed,
at least on the RV forward belly.
A traditional doubler, lets say just plop it right in the middle
of a skin bay, has the same foot print but twice as large and
one gage up from the basic material.
So with a COM antenna you would have a tear drop airfoil
shape about 8.5" long x 5.25 wide (approx give or take). Min
edge width or edge margin should be 1.5" from edge of
antenna foot print. You don't necessarily need to attach to
a nearby stiffener or frame but depends on the skin thickness
and size of antenna.
What some do is make a local doubler with the nut plates
and than attach the doubler to the skin with just a few rivets.
That way you are not putting a bunch of small 3/32 rivets
for the nut plates into the structural skin. Just make sure
the screws have a ground path to the airframe with bare
metal or ground straps.
I suggest you put the COM antenna on the pilot side, just
forward of the spar. You can make access to the coax while
fairly well protected and out of the way. If you ever want to
attach a portable radio to it you just reach down and
remove the coax and attach a coax jumper from the antenna
to the handheld radio (emergency only). Just a suggestion or
idea. You can get fancy with panel splitters and so on but
this is simple and works. Just don't TX with the main radio
if the antenna is not connected of course.
Bottom line you want the whip part of the antenna to
bend or brake before wrinkling the skin.
Cheers George M, RV-4, RV-7
>From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
>I'm mounting two VHF bent whip antennas on the belly of an
>RV-7. Where can I find information pertaining to doubler
>requirement? Also, a cork gasket/seal is installed between the
>Comant antenna base and the fuselage skin - is the antenna
>base grounded to the fuselage via themounting screws since
>the cork seal insulates the antenna base? Thanks.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Pitot heat suggestions |
>
>In a message dated 7/25/06 7:40:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>will(at)willcrook.com writes:
>
> > Will Radio Shack sell the silver solder?
> >
> > As to the ground, I plan on running all my grounds back into the fuselage
>to
> > a common ground. The Glastar is a neat bird, but the metal wings (that
>fold)
> > comming back to a powder coated steel tube cage and composite fuselage
>seems
> > to me to be a good case for keeping all the grounds together.
> >
> > Will Crook
> > Waynesville, NC
>=================================
>Will:
>
>Call a couple of Air Conditioning Supply Shops (HVAC), see if they have 6%
>Silver Solder or better. I would not use just the soldering, a good round
>crimp
>terminal followed by silver solder should do the job. BUT! Remember,
>maintenance down the road will be a bit more difficult if you solder.
How so? The pitot tube is supplied with pins that mate
with an expensive, hard to find connector. The suggested
modification allows use of inexpensive connector technology
located remotely from the hostile environment located at
the base of the pitot tube.
I don't see that future maintenance is affected in any
adverse way.
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: Pitot heat suggestions |
>Bob & Barry,
>
>Thanks for your suggestions. I'm at the very beginning of the wiring
>phase, so the savings of Bob's suggestion covers the cost of a decent
>solder gun. Will Radio Shack sell the silver solder?
You're looking for "hard" silver solder. Electronic tin/lead
solder that bears some silver (2 - 4%) is not suitable Further, the
suggested solder melts at orange temperatures. Conventional
electronic soldering tools will not produce the necessary heat.
My favorite shop tool for applying the necessary heat is
a $10 torch from Bernzomatic. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Soldering/ST100T_Microtorch_small.jpg
You get these at Lowe's, Home Depot, etc.
You can get a kit of solder and flux off ebay
at item 250006585548 or item 4463571008
Practice with the tools and materials on sticking
things together. Use some coat-hangar wire to emulate
your pitot tube pin. Attach some pieces of Teflon
14AWG to hangar wire until you're familar with the
techniques.
>
>As to the ground, I plan on running all my grounds back into the fuselage
>to a common ground. The Glastar is a neat bird, but the metal wings (that
>fold) comming back to a powder coated steel tube cage and composite
>fuselage seems to me to be a good case for keeping all the grounds together.
You got it. Local grounding is useful ONLY in metal
airplanes assembled with lots of rivets. One you
ad joints (moving or adhesive), all electrical bets
are off.
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: Heated pitot tube connections |
>
>In a message dated 7/24/06 10:55:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net writes:
>
> > What about soldering wire female leads to the terminals.
> >
> > Bevan
> > RV7A finish kit
>=====================
>Brevan:
>
>Soldering in 99% of the cases is a NO-NO. Even though we are experimental we
>still have to follow good building procedures and AC 43-13 A&B. Soldering
>creates HARD POINTS that are subject to vibration failure. Do I solder? In
>some cases YES ;-) But not in this case. Use crimp-ons.
No so. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html
Solder and crimp are of equal reliability and, for the
most part, interchangeable wire joining technologies.
Obviously they require different tools and skills but
aside from matters of convenience or personal preference,
there is no reason to pick one technology over the other.
The prejudices against solder are largely fabricated of
misunderstanding of the science and techniques.
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: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Pitot heat suggestions |
>Will:
>
>Call a couple of Air Conditioning Supply Shops (HVAC), see if they have 6%
>Silver Solder or better. I would not use just the soldering, a good round
>crimp terminal followed by silver solder should do the job. BUT! Remember,
>maintenance down the road will be a bit more difficult if you solder.
How so? The pitot tube is supplied with pins that mate
with an expensive, hard to find connector. The suggested
modification allows use of inexpensive connector technology
located remotely from the hostile environment located at
the base of the pitot tube.
I don't see that future maintenance is affected in any
adverse way.
Bob . . .
====================================
Bob:
It is not a big deal if the connections are soldered in addition to push on
connections. But, think of it this way; which would be easier for you to do
inspect and do maintenance on ... A circuit board or component or wires that
MUST be unsoldered from a circuit board to work on, or an entire circuit board
or
component or wires that can be moved to the workbench to be worked on, or in
this case moved out of the way?
It is purely one's preference, the plane will not fall out of the sky.
I did say a "bit more difficult", not impossible. Been there, done that,
doing it now.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jeff Moreau <jmoreau2(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: VHF antenna mounting |
Thanks Bill
On Jul 24, 2006, at 11:11 PM, William Gill wrote:
> Hello Jeff,
>
>
> I=92m mounting them side by side=85they are about 32=94 apart.
>
>
> Bill
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Moreau
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 9:56 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: VHF antenna mounting
>
>
> What position are you mounting them in. I am getting ready for
> bent whips on the belly of my RV8A. I was wondering how close
> together you are mounting them.
>
> Are they side=by side, or in line with the centerline of the
> fuselage. Any info would be appreciated.
>
> Jeff Moreau
>
> Virginia Beach, VA
>
> On Jul 24, 2006, at 10:15 PM, William Gill wrote:
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
> I=92m mounting two VHF bent whip antennas on the belly of an RV-7.
> Where can I find information pertaining to doubler requirement?
> Also, a cork gasket/seal is installed between the Comant antenna
> base and the fuselage skin ' is the antenna base grounded to the
> fuselage via the mounting screws since the cork seal insulates the
> antenna base? Thanks.
>
>
> Bill Gill
>
> RV-7 wiring
>
> Lee=92s Summit, MO
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Weismann" <pw(at)weismannassociates.com> |
Subject: | Workbench layout for avionics/electronics? |
Does anyone have good ideas or fundamental principles for building an electronics
workbench?
I have heard use carpet on the worksurface, make sure to have outlets obviously,
parts bins etc.
Anyone have pics of their favorite layouts?
look forward to seeing what people are using to work on.
PW
--------
Rotorway JetExec
Baron B58
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=49796#49796
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: VHF antenna mounting |
On Jul 25, 2006, at 9:15 AM, Hopperdhh(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I riveted 2 short pieces of leftover stiffener material from the
> fuselage across between the seat ribs that the antenna screws go up
> through (for one antenna). The antenna feels pretty solid with
> very little weight gain.
Good. When I worked at a radio shop many, many years ago I was taught
how to install antennas. The long and short of it was:
1. Always put in a doubler. Make it at least 4" (10cm) square if
possible but bigger is better. Rivet it in and liberally use zinc
chromate. (Remember, this was back in the early 1970's and we weren't
using two-part epoxy primers then.)
2. Don't use the cork gasket that comes with the antenna. They never
really seal well but they do a good job of keeping the moisture in
once it gets in and this tends to corrode things. Use a good sealant
instead. If the bushings are long enough that it creates a
significant gap use an aluminum spacer.
3. Where the antenna's mounting bushings contact the aircraft skin,
make sure the paint is removed to ensure a good electrical contact.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: Workbench layout for avionics/electronics? |
On Jul 25, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Paul Weismann wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone have good ideas or fundamental principles for building
> an electronics workbench?
>
> I have heard use carpet on the worksurface, make sure to have
> outlets obviously, parts bins etc.
>
> Anyone have pics of their favorite layouts?
It all depends on what you are doing. One thing I have done in many
of my benches in the past and still like to do is to put a 1' deep
shelf about 18" above the bench. It should slope forward (part
nearest you lower than the back) but have a cleat on the leading edge
to keep stuff from sliding off the shelf onto your work area. This is
where you put your test gear so it doesn't steal any of your work
space and is at eye level.
One other thing I prefer is a workbench that is high enough to use
comfortably when standing. If I want to sit I use a high stool/chair.
It is amazing how much work you will want to do when standing.
A plug strip along the leading edge of your shelf works well as it is
then easy to reach the plugs.
I tend to keep my parts bins away from the bench itself but that is
probably because my shelf space over the bench (within easy reach) is
already taken.
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: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Workbench layout for avionics/electronics? |
In a message dated 7/25/06 4:30:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
pw(at)weismannassociates.com writes:
>
>
> Does anyone have good ideas or fundamental principles for building an
> electronics workbench?
>
> I have heard use carpet on the worksurface, make sure to have outlets
> obviously, parts bins etc.
>
> Anyone have pics of their favorite layouts?
>
> look forward to seeing what people are using to work on.
>
> PW
===========================================
Paul:
There are a couple of ideas for you:
1 - I prefer a smooth hard top as apposed to a carpet.
2 - I like the top white in color - Makes things easier to find.
3 - Making things easier to find is also why I do not like the carpet. On a
hard top you can hear things that drop.
4 - Electrical outlets are a must and they should be UNDER the table and set
back about 6". Why? So the power cords are out of the way. Away from the
knees and so you do go dragging them across the top.
5 - You will also need a good Filtered, Stable Power Supply, at least 15 to
50 Amps in this case MORE is better. Add up all the current draws from all
your avionics and use that as a reference. Note: If you have two Coms and each
draws 10 amps Max ... Remember you will only be transmitting on ONE Com at a
time. So use the Receive amperage of the higher of the two units when adding up
all the items.
6 - Table Top Edging - Around the edge of the workbench install a RAISED -
ROUND molding, it is known as 3/4 Round. This will make keeping parts on the
table easier and the power cords slide easier.
7 - A shelf the full length of the workbench. This is where you secure the
solder station UP and Away from fingers. Also a good place for other meters
and lights
8 - Lights - Overhead lighting is a must. As well as a GOOSE NECK / BOOM
light. And if you want to go fancy a florescent Ring Light with a Magnifying
lens in the center ... Got BUCK$ ?
9 - Since you are building an electronic workbench I assume you will be doing
some soldering. Get a REAL GOOD solder station. One that has a linear heat
control.
The solder station should have a few requirements:
a> Silicon - Heat resistant cords, both for the power and the pencil. So you
don't burn them.
b> Long Cords - Long enough cords so you can reach either end of the
workbench OR means to move the station from one end to the other.
c> Means of SECURING the solder station so if you pull on the cord the
station does NOT fall on the bench (avionics).
d> A WET sponge - This is a cellulose sponge that is particular to a good
solder station.
e> SILVER PLATED small chisel solder tip. MUST BE PLATED! It will last
forever.
f> Solder 63/37 Eutectic size: 0.063" Get a Pound, it also will last forever.
10 - VICES - Yes, I have a few, but you might want one or two. The vices are
mounted at the ends of the bench so you can hole two connectors and solder
Plug A Pin 1 to Plug B Pin 1 makes it easier in keeping connectors straight
11 - There are also a few tricks using a dowel (COMB BOARD) board to keep
wires straight.
OK, enough, now I'm getting into techniques and all you asked was about a
workbench.
Best of luck,
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Workbench layout for |
>
>
>On Jul 25, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Paul Weismann wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Does anyone have good ideas or fundamental principles for building
>>an electronics workbench?
>>
>>I have heard use carpet on the worksurface, make sure to have
>>outlets obviously, parts bins etc.
>>
>>Anyone have pics of their favorite layouts?
>
>It all depends on what you are doing. One thing I have done in many
>of my benches in the past and still like to do is to put a 1' deep
>shelf about 18" above the bench. It should slope forward (part
>nearest you lower than the back) but have a cleat on the leading edge
>to keep stuff from sliding off the shelf onto your work area. This is
>where you put your test gear so it doesn't steal any of your work
>space and is at eye level.
>
>One other thing I prefer is a workbench that is high enough to use
>comfortably when standing. If I want to sit I use a high stool/chair.
>It is amazing how much work you will want to do when standing.
>
>A plug strip along the leading edge of your shelf works well as it is
>then easy to reach the plugs.
>
>I tend to keep my parts bins away from the bench itself but that is
>probably because my shelf space over the bench (within easy reach) is
>already taken.
Only thing I would add is that I like to cover the upper
surface of the bench with tempered Masonite. It gets
beat up after a few years but is easy and cheap to
replace. Here's one of my benches only a month after
the last clean off!
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Shop.jpg
Lights under shelf help at the bench level. Plug
strips under shelf supply stuff on the bench and
the occasional 2" hole in shelf brings equipment
cords down through to the plug strip underneath.
Tool outlets are seen under the surface lip. Oh
yeah, the surface lip overhangs the structure about
6". This keeps tool cords out of the way and gives
you a place to clamp various vices, magnifying
lamp, etc.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | VHF antenna mounting |
Thank you ALL for the great info. Maybe I'll have a com radio going by
this weekend.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:18 PM
On Jul 25, 2006, at 9:15 AM, Hopperdhh(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I riveted 2 short pieces of leftover stiffener material from the
> fuselage across between the seat ribs that the antenna screws go up
> through (for one antenna). The antenna feels pretty solid with
> very little weight gain.
Good. When I worked at a radio shop many, many years ago I was taught
how to install antennas. The long and short of it was:
1. Always put in a doubler. Make it at least 4" (10cm) square if
possible but bigger is better. Rivet it in and liberally use zinc
chromate. (Remember, this was back in the early 1970's and we weren't
using two-part epoxy primers then.)
2. Don't use the cork gasket that comes with the antenna. They never
really seal well but they do a good job of keeping the moisture in
once it gets in and this tends to corrode things. Use a good sealant
instead. If the bushings are long enough that it creates a
significant gap use an aluminum spacer.
3. Where the antenna's mounting bushings contact the aircraft skin,
make sure the paint is removed to ensure a good electrical contact.
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: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Re: Workbench layout for avionics/electronics? |
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Paul Weismann wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone have good ideas or fundamental principles for building
>> an electronics workbench?
>>
>> I have heard use carpet on the worksurface, make sure to have
>> outlets obviously, parts bins etc.
>>
>> Anyone have pics of their favorite layouts?
>
>
> It all depends on what you are doing. One thing I have done in many
> of my benches in the past and still like to do is to put a 1' deep
> shelf about 18" above the bench. It should slope forward (part
> nearest you lower than the back) but have a cleat on the leading edge
> to keep stuff from sliding off the shelf onto your work area. This is
> where you put your test gear so it doesn't steal any of your work
> space and is at eye level.
>
> One other thing I prefer is a workbench that is high enough to use
> comfortably when standing. If I want to sit I use a high stool/chair.
> It is amazing how much work you will want to do when standing.
>
> A plug strip along the leading edge of your shelf works well as it is
> then easy to reach the plugs.
>
> I tend to keep my parts bins away from the bench itself but that is
> probably because my shelf space over the bench (within easy reach) is
> already taken.
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
When I did consumer electronics repair in another life, I found that a
smooth surface (tempered masonite, formica, etc) & a rectangular carpet
sample worked well. I was working on items that weighed between 5 & 100
lbs, & the loose carpet sample made moving the 'patient' around easy
while protecting it from scratches & dents when I needed to roll it over
or stand it on its side. I agree with Brian about test gear location.
Remote parts location minimizes the number of parts you knock off the
bench & lose.
All the above might not be an issue if you're just fabricating small
items, but the slick bench top & loose carpet are a lot easier to clean
than fixed carpet.
Bench height is very much personal preference. My business partner
always worked standing or on a high stool; my brain stops functioning if
I stand in one place for more than 30 seconds.
Oh yeah, a work bench is like the deck behind your house: you always
wish you had built it just a little bigger......
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | VHF antenna mounting |
>
>Thank you ALL for the great info. Maybe I'll have a com radio going by
>this weekend.
>
>Bill
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
>Lloyd
>Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:18 PM
>
>
>
>On Jul 25, 2006, at 9:15 AM, Hopperdhh(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > I riveted 2 short pieces of leftover stiffener material from the
> > fuselage across between the seat ribs that the antenna screws go up
> > through (for one antenna). The antenna feels pretty solid with
> > very little weight gain.
>
>Good. When I worked at a radio shop many, many years ago I was taught
>how to install antennas. The long and short of it was:
>
>1. Always put in a doubler. Make it at least 4" (10cm) square if
>possible but bigger is better. Rivet it in and liberally use zinc
>chromate. (Remember, this was back in the early 1970's and we weren't
>using two-part epoxy primers then.)
>
>2. Don't use the cork gasket that comes with the antenna. They never
>really seal well but they do a good job of keeping the moisture in
>once it gets in and this tends to corrode things. Use a good sealant
>instead. If the bushings are long enough that it creates a
>significant gap use an aluminum spacer.
>
>3. Where the antenna's mounting bushings contact the aircraft skin,
>make sure the paint is removed to ensure a good electrical contact.
I published a mate-up sketch to the website a few months ago:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Antenna_Installation.gif
The emphasis for "grounding" the base of the antenna to structure
needs to concentrate on the areas around fasteners where mate-up
pressures assure the "gas tight" condition. Removal of paint or
material surface protection any place else is a waste of time and
only exposes those surfaces to the ravages of atmosphere. All the
magic happens right around the screws and no place else.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Heated pitot tube connections |
>
>In a message dated 7/25/06 12:03:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>dsvs(at)comcast.net writes:
>
> > Bob,
> > Is the silver solder just for heat resistance? If I am not mistaken
> silver
> > solder is not as good a conductor as tin/lead, or is that an old wives
>tale?
> > Don
> >
>====================
>Don:
>
>There are many Old Wife's Tails out there and the Internet does a tremendous
>job at propagating them and producing even more. But, SILVER is a Much, Much
>better conductor than tin or lead. Just look at the Periodic Table of
>Elements. Silver has more free electrons than the other two. Or just look
>up the
>conductivity of silver. While you are at it check out GOLD, PLATINUM,
>COPPER and
>especially ALUMINUM.
>And then consider how good your electrical system is.
Let's consider simple ideas that do not ride on anyone's tales . . .
The amount of solder in series with the electron flow through
any joint is small compared to the total circuit resistance. Yes,
lead has 13x the resistance of copper but consider that when you
twist two wires together, the joint is as good as it will ever get
right at that moment. Adding solder serves to immobilize and encapsulate
the joint to prevent future degradation due to corrosion and loss of
pressure.
In low current, hi impedance circuits (like surface mounted integrated
circuits) the higher resistance of solder compared to the conductors
being joined does not add significant resistance to the system.
>Silver solder is around for other reasons other than conductivity. STRENGTH
>is its major consideration. It is quite a bit stronger than electrical
>solder. Silver solder is broken down into two classifications:
>Silver bearing (NO! Not like ball bearings) and Percentage Silver. Unless
>you request a particular percentage you will get silver bearing and that
>is only
>3% Silver MAX.
> BTW ... If you have purchased solder in the past few years, especially if
>you purchased it through Radio Shack you did NOT get Tin/Lead solder ... The
>LEAD has been removed. Too many environmentalist chewing on circuit boards.
To amplify on this, "silver solder" is a term that can apply to
MANY alloys for different purposes. Silver bearing solder is low
temp stuff used in specialized electronics where silver plated
parts are being assembled and you don't want the solder to dissolve
silver from the base metal. An example is seen here:
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber3-584
Note the very low melting point of this material. Ordinary soldering
irons do fine.
Hard solders melt at much higher temperatures. Here's an example:
http://www.jewelrysupply.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=16_25_260&products_id=8243
This pretty cool product combines the flux and powdered silver solder
in a dispensing syringe. Ideal for making the pitot tube pin-to-wire
joints being considered in this thread. Note the higher melting point.
This takes a gas flame.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: SD-8 ALTERNATOR MOD FOR SELF EXCITATION |
>
>Is it possible that B&C would be interested and better equipped to verify
>the optimum component values and physical layout via motorized bench
>testing wherein the conditions can be better stabilized and controlled
>than is the case during either engine ground runs or in-flight testing as
>I did? For instance, I noted an apparent variable in results that I
>suspect was related to changing component temperatures over time. This may
>not be a significant variable but did make repeatability of data somewhat
>less than ideal.
Absolutely! That's why I've forwarded the data to Tim at B&C.
I presently have no working relationship with B&C so this
activity is being offered to them as advisory data as opposed
to a directed development effort.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
Subject: | VHF antenna mounting |
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Robert L. Nuckolls, III; Date: 10:36 PM
________________________________________________________________
----other inserts snipped-----
I published a mate-up sketch to the website a few months ago:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Antenna_Installation.gif
The emphasis for "grounding" the base of the antenna to structure
needs to concentrate on the areas around fasteners where mate-up
pressures assure the "gas tight" condition. Removal of paint or
material surface protection any place else is a waste of time and
only exposes those surfaces to the ravages of atmosphere. All the
magic happens right around the screws and no place else.
Bob . . .
----------------------------
Bob,
Speaking of the magic (grounding the base) - looking at the
Antenna_Installation.gif ,
I have seen toothed lock washers used between the doubler plate and skin.
This was on a Cessna. The doubler plate was not riveted to the skin (it
came with with the antenna replacement kit). The lock washer assured better
el contact (grounding). They used externally toothed lock washers, as per
attached. Maybe a better idea would be to use the external-internal toothed
type washers (also attached). Opinions?
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | VHF antenna mounting |
>_____________________Original message __________________________
> (received from Robert L. Nuckolls, III; Date: 10:36 PM
>________________________________________________________________
>
>----other inserts snipped-----
>
> I published a mate-up sketch to the website a few months ago:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Antenna_Installation.gif
>
> The emphasis for "grounding" the base of the antenna to structure
> needs to concentrate on the areas around fasteners where mate-up
> pressures assure the "gas tight" condition. Removal of paint or
> material surface protection any place else is a waste of time and
> only exposes those surfaces to the ravages of atmosphere. All the
> magic happens right around the screws and no place else.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>----------------------------
>
>Bob,
>Speaking of the magic (grounding the base) - looking at the
>Antenna_Installation.gif ,
>I have seen toothed lock washers used between the doubler plate and skin.
>This was on a Cessna. The doubler plate was not riveted to the skin (it
>came with with the antenna replacement kit). The lock washer assured better
>el contact (grounding). They used externally toothed lock washers, as per
>attached. Maybe a better idea would be to use the external-internal toothed
>type washers (also attached). Opinions?
We're really slice'n and dice'n mouse hairs here. Obviously
the goal is to get a low ohms connection between the antenna
base and the skin that is as good 10 years from now as it is
the day we bolt it on. This comes down to a few simple-ideas:
(1) pressure high enough to bring two clean surfaces into intimate
gas tight contact with each other and (2) exclusion of environmental
effects that include (a) contaminants and (b) loosening that work
against condition (1).
Some designers embrace the idea that the toothed lockwashers
provide a multitude of very high pressure points . . . even to
the point of upsetting metal at the points of contact to achieve
(1). My concerns are that a toothed washer is a spacer between
the two surfaces that may contribute to initial joint quality (1)
but leaves the gap "open" for ingress of (a).
In all of our bonding specs at RAC, the use of lockwashers is
never suggested. Self locking all metal nuts are the preferred
anti-loosening technology. In the sketch I published, 99% of the
magic needs to happen in the area just around the screw hole and
between skin and antenna base. All other "prepared" areas add
only marginally to the quality of the joint.
Obviously, the "99% conductivity area" is of very small gap and
the only thing one might add is sealant or anti-moisture guckum (Like
silocone grease) to fill the tiny void around the periphery
of the 99% area to prevent entry of oxidizing agents. Beyond
that, maintainance of pressure over time is enhanced by use
of largest practical hardware torqued to upper limits and
secured with some form of locking technology . . . all metal
locknuts being the technology of choice.
When we were selling contactors with treaded studs for fat wires,
the split-ring, steel washers supplied were discarded and replaced with
internal tooth, phosphor bronze lockwashers. The supplied steel
nuts were replaced with brass. Again, the lion's share of conductive
magic happens were the terminal comes down against the bottom nut.
The lockwasher and nut on top contributes to conductivity but
only a tiny fraction of the total.
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: VHF antenna mounting |
In a message dated 7/26/06 8:48:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rd2(at)evenlink.com
writes:
> I have seen toothed lock washers used between the doubler plate and skin.
> This was on a Cessna. The doubler plate was not riveted to the skin (it
> came with with the antenna replacement kit). The lock washer assured better
> el contact (grounding). They used externally toothed lock washers, as per
> attached. Maybe a better idea would be to use the external-internal toothed
> type washers (also attached). Opinions?
>
> Rumen
====================
Rumen:
By putting washers between the skin and the doubler you do not create a
doubler, the would-be doubler now becomes a spring and you also create individual
stress points at each screw. Their may also be some crazy RF issues; better to
do it like the book/manufactur says.
The idea of improving the ground contact is good but that can be done with a
clean surface, snug screw holes and star washers under the nuts.
The type of star washer you suggest is perfectly acceptable. Just not
between the skin and doubler.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Subject: | Antennas general |
On my Vans kit they provided a wingtip NAV antenna which is just a
strip of copper foil. Do not suggest how one is supposed to ground it to
the airframe.
I assume one has to ground the coax braid to the wing somehow??
Also I intend to run my marker beacon antenna (40" lentgh of stripped
coax) in the bottom of my cowl. Assuming this will work do I need to
bond that coax to the firewall or similar?
Thanks
Frank
Rv 7a...Finishing..No really I am finishing..:)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Antennas general |
Frank,
For the wingtip NAV, IIRC the coax shield is to be grounded with the shield approx
where it ends and the foil begins.
For my marker beacon, I am using bulkhead fittings to penetrate the firewall so
I am considering mine grounded to the SSFirewall.
I'm gonna use the 40" stripped coax on the bottom of my cowl too - along with another
stripped length (gotta figure out the math) for my AM/FM/MP3 player.
When you're really finished and flying - come visit N06 Laurel, DE....
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
>Sent: Jul 26, 2006 12:58 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Antennas general
>
>
> On my Vans kit they provided a wingtip NAV antenna which is just a
>strip of copper foil. Do not suggest how one is supposed to ground it to
>the airframe.
>
>I assume one has to ground the coax braid to the wing somehow??
>
>Also I intend to run my marker beacon antenna (40" lentgh of stripped
>coax) in the bottom of my cowl. Assuming this will work do I need to
>bond that coax to the firewall or similar?
>
>Thanks
>
>Frank
>
>Rv 7a...Finishing..No really I am finishing..:)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Subject: | Antennas general |
Now there is an idea...I just passed my RG56 thru a grommet in the
firewall but a bulkhead fitting would take care of the grounding...I
have not fire sealed it yet so I might do the same thing...assuming
Radio Shack sells the fittings of course.
Thanks Ralph
Frank
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph
E. Capen
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:16 AM
-->
Frank,
For the wingtip NAV, IIRC the coax shield is to be grounded with the
shield approx where it ends and the foil begins.
For my marker beacon, I am using bulkhead fittings to penetrate the
firewall so I am considering mine grounded to the SSFirewall.
I'm gonna use the 40" stripped coax on the bottom of my cowl too - along
with another stripped length (gotta figure out the math) for my
AM/FM/MP3 player.
When you're really finished and flying - come visit N06 Laurel, DE....
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
>Sent: Jul 26, 2006 12:58 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Antennas general
>
>--> (Corvallis)"
>
> On my Vans kit they provided a wingtip NAV antenna which is just a
>strip of copper foil. Do not suggest how one is supposed to ground it
>to the airframe.
>
>I assume one has to ground the coax braid to the wing somehow??
>
>Also I intend to run my marker beacon antenna (40" lentgh of stripped
>coax) in the bottom of my cowl. Assuming this will work do I need to
>bond that coax to the firewall or similar?
>
>Thanks
>
>Frank
>
>Rv 7a...Finishing..No really I am finishing..:)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: Antennas general |
On Jul 26, 2006, at 12:58 PM, Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
> (Corvallis)"
>
> On my Vans kit they provided a wingtip NAV antenna which is just a
> strip of copper foil. Do not suggest how one is supposed to ground
> it to
> the airframe.
>
> I assume one has to ground the coax braid to the wing somehow??
>
> Also I intend to run my marker beacon antenna (40" lentgh of stripped
> coax) in the bottom of my cowl. Assuming this will work do I need to
> bond that coax to the firewall or similar?
Not really. A 50W transmitter shooting its signal at you using a
directional antenna when you are less than 2000' away does not
require much from the receiver and its antenna. The signal level is
so high that making a perfect antenna is not necessary.
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: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Antennas general |
They might - but digi-key does for sure.......
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
>Sent: Jul 26, 2006 2:55 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Antennas general
>
>
>Now there is an idea...I just passed my RG56 thru a grommet in the
>firewall but a bulkhead fitting would take care of the grounding...I
>have not fire sealed it yet so I might do the same thing...assuming
>Radio Shack sells the fittings of course.
>
>Thanks Ralph
>
>Frank
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph
>E. Capen
>Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:16 AM
>
>-->
>
>Frank,
>
>For the wingtip NAV, IIRC the coax shield is to be grounded with the
>shield approx where it ends and the foil begins.
>
>For my marker beacon, I am using bulkhead fittings to penetrate the
>firewall so I am considering mine grounded to the SSFirewall.
>
>I'm gonna use the 40" stripped coax on the bottom of my cowl too - along
>with another stripped length (gotta figure out the math) for my
>AM/FM/MP3 player.
>
>When you're really finished and flying - come visit N06 Laurel, DE....
>
>Ralph
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
>>Sent: Jul 26, 2006 12:58 PM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Antennas general
>>
>>--> (Corvallis)"
>>
>> On my Vans kit they provided a wingtip NAV antenna which is just a
>>strip of copper foil. Do not suggest how one is supposed to ground it
>>to the airframe.
>>
>>I assume one has to ground the coax braid to the wing somehow??
>>
>>Also I intend to run my marker beacon antenna (40" lentgh of stripped
>>coax) in the bottom of my cowl. Assuming this will work do I need to
>>bond that coax to the firewall or similar?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>Rv 7a...Finishing..No really I am finishing..:)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Antennas general |
brian wrote:
> A 50W transmitter shooting its signal at you using a directional antenna when
you are less than 2000' away does not require much from the receiver and its
antenna.
I believe theyre as little as 2.5W, though as highly directional, the moral equivalent
of higher power relative to like a COM. Perhaps you are referring to
that.
Also, the sensitivity of the receiver isnt good, maybe 200 times less sensitive
than a COM. So, the antenna has to be reasonably good. I wonder if we could
use wire or copper tape to fake an equivalent of a sled antenna. One end to
shield, center wire about 10 down or wherever, but we need a ramp tester to tune
it. Or rig it up in the car, and find a marker shed we can drive up close
to. A coax monopole w/o ground plane as proposed will probably be OK.
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=50033#50033
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Antennas general |
>
>
>
>brian wrote:
> > A 50W transmitter shooting its signal at you using a directional
> antenna when you are less than 2000' away does not require much from the
> receiver and its antenna.
>
>I believe theyre as little as 2.5W, though as highly directional, the
>moral equivalent of higher power relative to like a COM. Perhaps you are
>referring to that.
>
>Also, the sensitivity of the receiver isnt good, maybe 200 times less
>sensitive than a COM. So, the antenna has to be reasonably good. I
>wonder if we could use wire or copper tape to fake an equivalent of a sled
>antenna. One end to shield, center wire about 10 down or wherever, but
>we need a ramp tester to tune it. Or rig it up in the car, and find a
>marker shed we can drive up close to. A coax monopole w/o ground plane as
>proposed will probably be OK.
>
>Fred F.
Lets put some rough orders of magnitude numbers to
this discussion. Assuming 2.5 W transmitter driving
a corner reflector (lets assume 3db gain) for an
ERP of 5 watts, let's plug into:
http://www.megalithia.com/elect/fieldstr.html
With an ERP of .005 Kw and distance of .2 KM.
Leave the channel defaulted at CH44.
This calculator is for UHF frequencies the the
performance at 75 MHz would be only slightly different
due to tiny differences in path losses.
The calculator says we can expect a field strength
on the order of 80 dBuV at .2 Km above this marker
site.
Go to:
http://www.radioing.com/eengineer/rfcalc.html
and enter 80 (dBuV) before punching the box in the lower
right column for DbUv -> Volts conversion and we get:
0.01 volts, or 10,000 microvolts.
Marker beacon receiver sensitivity is on the order of
1500 uV in the LO SENS position and 200 uV in the
HI SENS position. So barring errors in data or logic
it seems that there's a LOT of head-roon for loss of
antenna efficiency.
I've had a number of builders in glass/epoxy airplanes
simply lay a 40" piece of wire out in the tailcone
and run a coax to the marker receiver report excellent
results.
But the bottom line is that what ever one installs that
departs from the installation instructions (hence departures
from the manufacturer's expectations) the installation should
be flight checked by overflying a marker beacon facility
at various altitudes. Returning to
http://www.megalithia.com/elect/fieldstr.html
Enter 1.5 KM into the distance box (5x higher than anything
we would expect to do in a real approach) and we get
62 dBuV field strength. Which converts to a potential
signal level of 1200 uV to a receiver in an IDEAL installation.
Hmmmm . . . one would probably not expect even the best of
installations to function at 5,000 AGL in LO sensitivity but
it should come back alive when you select the HI sensitivity.
A little bit of flight testing is all it takes to see how much
headroom your installation possesses. Data-in-hand trumps
un-quantified supposition every time. The above exercise suggests
that considerable degradation of gross antenna performance is
tolerable and worthy of further exploration.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Antennas general |
While we're discussing dB's, I note that the installation instructions for m
y Garmin GMA 340 audio panel mention several times a feature provinding "10
times gain (20 dB)" for the entertainment channel input. I have labored all
my life under the impression that 10dB was 10x gain, and 20 dB was 100x gai
n. It seems unlikely that the people who design this stuff professionally k
now more about decibels and power gain than a radio hobbyist does, so it's s
afe to assume I'm the one who is missing something. What gives?
Sorry to hijack an antenna thread for this, Bob. But I've just got to get t
his straight before I go nuts ;-)
-Bill B
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 8:52 AM
r(at)cox.net>
mcast.net>
>
>
>brian wrote:
> > A 50W transmitter shooting its signal at you using a directional > anten
na when you are less than 2000' away does not require much from the > receiv
er and its antenna.
>
>I believe they=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2re as little as 2.5W, though as highl
y directional, the >moral equivalent of higher power relative to like a COM.
Perhaps you are >referring to that.
>
>Also, the sensitivity of the receiver isn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t good, ma
ybe 200 times less >sensitive than a COM. So, the antenna has to be reasonab
ly good. I >wonder if we could use wire or copper tape to fake an equivalent
of a sled >antenna. One end to shield, center wire about 10=C3=A2=82=AC
=C2=9D down or wherever, but >we need a ramp tester to tune it. Or rig it up
in the car, and find a >marker shed we can drive up close to. A coax monopo
le w/o ground plane as >proposed will probably be OK.
>
>Fred F.
Lets put some rough orders of magnitude numbers to
this discussion. Assuming 2.5 W transmitter driving
a corner reflector (lets assume 3db gain) for an
ERP of 5 watts, let's plug into:
http://www.megalithia.com/elect/fieldstr.html
With an ERP of .005 Kw and distance of .2 KM.
Leave the channel defaulted at CH44.
This calculator is for UHF frequencies the the
performance at 75 MHz would be only slightly different
due to tiny differences in path losses.
The calculator says we can expect a field strength
on the order of 80 dBuV at .2 Km above this marker
site.
Go to:
http://www.radioing.com/eengineer/rfcalc.html
and enter 80 (dBuV) before punching the box in the lower
right column for DbUv -> Volts conversion and we get:
0.01 volts, or 10,000 microvolts.
Marker beacon receiver sensitivity is on the order of
1500 uV in the LO SENS position and 200 uV in the
HI SENS position. So barring errors in data or logic
it seems that there's a LOT of head-roon for loss of
antenna efficiency.
I've had a number of builders in glass/epoxy airplanes
simply lay a 40" piece of wire out in the tailcone
and run a coax to the marker receiver report excellent
results.
But the bottom line is that what ever one installs that
departs from the installation instructions (hence departures
from the manufacturer's expectations) the installation should
be flight checked by overflying a marker beacon facility
at various altitudes. Returning to
http://www.megalithia.com/elect/fieldstr.html
Enter 1.5 KM into the distance box (5x higher than anything
we would expect to do in a real approach) and we get
62 dBuV field strength. Which converts to a potential
signal level of 1200 uV to a receiver in an IDEAL installation.
Hmmmm . . . one would probably not expect even the best of
installations to function at 5,000 AGL in LO sensitivity but
it should come back alive when you select the HI sensitivity.
A little bit of flight testing is all it takes to see how much
headroom your installation possesses. Data-in-hand trumps
un-quantified supposition every time. The above exercise suggests
that considerable degradation of gross antenna performance is
tolerable and worthy of further exploration.
Bob . . .
=========================
===========
=========================
===========
=========================
===========
=========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Antennas general |
In a message dated 7/27/2006 9:39:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
sportav8r(at)aol.com writes:
While we're discussing dB's, I note that the installation instructions for
my Garmin GMA 340 audio panel mention several times a feature provinding "10
times gain (20 dB)" for the entertainment channel input. I have labored all
my life under the impression that 10dB was 10x gain, and 20 dB was 100x gain.
It seems unlikely that the people who design this stuff professionally know
more about decibels and power gain than a radio hobbyist does, so it's safe
to assume I'm the one who is missing something. What gives?
Sorry to hijack an antenna thread for this, Bob. But I've just got to get
this straight before I go nuts ;-)
-Bill B
Bill,
You are correct for POWER gain. For VOLTAGE gain Garmin is right.
Db=10 log (P1/P2)
Db log (V1/V2)
Dan Hopper
K9WEK
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: VHF antenna mounting (more hair splitting) |
Rumen:
Excellent point, that is why this list is great, input from everyone
and splitting hairs or not that is a GREAT IDEA. I have just made
note of this and put it into my RV-7 builders instructions. Thanks
Another hair to split, not that anyone on the list would ever do
that, is not to use stainless steel screws? Why? The base of
the antenna is aluminum alloy. Aluminum and SS is far apart
on the galvanic corrosion chart. Boeing uses passivated/cadmium
plated fasteners not stainless steel. I think the engineers at
Boeing and Cessna might have a clue. Dang engineers what
do they know. :-) All those years in school wasted.
Cheers George M., MSME, ATP/CFII-MEI
>From: rd2(at)evenlink.com
>Bob,
>Speaking of the magic (grounding the base) - looking at the
>Antenna_Installation.gif , I have seen toothed lock washers used
>between the doubler plate and skin.
>
>This was on a Cessna. The doubler plate was not riveted to the
>skin (it came with with the antenna replacement kit). The lock
>washer assured better el contact (grounding). They used externally
>toothed lock washers, as per attached. Maybe a better idea would
>be to use the external-internal toothed type washers (also attached).
>Opinions?
>
>Rumen
---------------------------------
See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com. Check it out.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Antennas general |
>
>
> On my Vans kit they provided a wingtip NAV antenna which is just a
>strip of copper foil. Do not suggest how one is supposed to ground it to
>the airframe.
>
>I assume one has to ground the coax braid to the wing somehow??
How is the foil installed? Does it begin right at the edge of
the tip fairing such that transition from coax to antenna is
closely located to metallic portions of the wing? If so, ground
the coax shield to the nearest practical wing-metal.
>Also I intend to run my marker beacon antenna (40" lentgh of stripped
>coax) in the bottom of my cowl. Assuming this will work do I need to
>bond that coax to the firewall or similar?
Here's where having access to a piece of test equipment is
a real help! An MFJ-259 antenna analyzer (See:
http://www.mfjenterprises.com/products.php?prodid=MFJ-259B )
would allow you to run say 10" of straight wire, coil 20"
or so around a piece of plastic or wooden dowel, then extend
the remainder out straight for an overall length of 20"
or so. Then use the antenna analyzer to look at the characteristics
of this shortened antenna. You'll find that it resonates lower
than 75 Mhz. Trim the 10" extension beyond the coil to bring
the antenna up to 75 Mhz then glass over what remains.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Todd Richmond" <trichmond(at)obermeyer.com> |
Subject: | Antenna Coax Routing |
Folks,
This might be a newbie question but I'm giving it a shot none the less. I
have an RV-7A (or part of one at this point) in which I am planning on
mounting my VOR and marker beacon antennas in the wingtips (one in each
tip). Can I route my antenna coax in the same conduit with the nav,
landing, and strobe lights or should I do a separate run some distance away
to avoid any potential interference. The current set up has one transformer
for the strobes mounted in the fuselage and a shielded wire running to the
wing tips (the strobes ground back at the transformer). The nav, landing
and taxi lights are grounded locally on the wingtips.
My other concern is that at some point I would like to upgrade to a HID
system for the landing/taxi lights which would require a local power
transformer by the light. Has anybody had any experience with interference
caused by these next to an antenna?
Thanks for any input.
Todd R. Richmond
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Subject: | Antenna Coax Routing |
Todd Just a thought but....
If you mount a comm in one wingtip, Nav in the other and marker bacon in
the bottom of the cowl you'll have no com attenna sticking out in the
breeze (at least one less if you have more than one com) and you'll
reduce the amount of coazxyou have to run out to the wings.
Frank
________________________________
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Todd
Richmond
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:42 AM
Folks,
This might be a newbie question but I'm giving it a shot none the less.
I have an RV-7A (or part of one at this point) in which I am planning on
mounting my VOR and marker beacon antennas in the wingtips (one in each
tip). Can I route my antenna coax in the same conduit with the nav,
landing, and strobe lights or should I do a separate run some distance
away to avoid any potential interference. The current set up has one
transformer for the strobes mounted in the fuselage and a shielded wire
running to the wing tips (the strobes ground back at the transformer).
The nav, landing and taxi lights are grounded locally on the wingtips.
My other concern is that at some point I would like to upgrade to a HID
system for the landing/taxi lights which would require a local power
transformer by the light. Has anybody had any experience with
interference caused by these next to an antenna?
Thanks for any input.
Todd R. Richmond
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Antennas general |
Ah, the old P=E^2*R ploy. I see now. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 9:46 AM
In a message dated 7/27/2006 9:39:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sportav8r(at)aol.com
writes:
While we're discussing dB's, I note that the installation instructions for my Garmin
GMA 340 audio panel mention several times a feature provinding "10 times
gain (20 dB)" for the entertainment channel input. I have labored all my life
under the impression that 10dB was 10x gain, and 20 dB was 100x gain. It seems
unlikely that the people who design this stuff professionally know more about
decibels and power gain than a radio hobbyist does, so it's safe to assume
I'm the one who is missing something. What gives?
Sorry to hijack an antenna thread for this, Bob. But I've just got to get this
straight before I go nuts ;-)
-Bill B
Bill,
You are correct for POWER gain. For VOLTAGE gain Garmin is right.
Db=10 log (P1/P2)
Db log (V1/V2)
Dan Hopper
K9WEK
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Antennas general |
Aw, shoot! Make that P=E^2/R. I knew better than that. Hit "send" too quickly.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 9:46 AM
In a message dated 7/27/2006 9:39:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sportav8r(at)aol.com
writes:
While we're discussing dB's, I note that the installation instructions for my Garmin
GMA 340 audio panel mention several times a feature provinding "10 times
gain (20 dB)" for the entertainment channel input. I have labored all my life
under the impression that 10dB was 10x gain, and 20 dB was 100x gain. It seems
unlikely that the people who design this stuff professionally know more about
decibels and power gain than a radio hobbyist does, so it's safe to assume
I'm the one who is missing something. What gives?
Sorry to hijack an antenna thread for this, Bob. But I've just got to get this
straight before I go nuts ;-)
-Bill B
Bill,
You are correct for POWER gain. For VOLTAGE gain Garmin is right.
Db=10 log (P1/P2)
Db log (V1/V2)
Dan Hopper
K9WEK
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Antennas general |
Are you sure it is not E=mc2 ;<)
Aw, shoot! Make that P=E^2/R. I knew better than that. Hit "send"
too quickly.
-Stormy
DO NOT ARCHIEVE
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Off line for a few days |
Dr. Dee and I are loading the van up with aunt Sally and uncle
George tomorrow morning to go poke around in the mountains for
a few days. Got tickets for a steam-powered narrow-gage ride
on Saturday. After that we'll probably go explore New Mexico
ghost towns . . . or something equally un-stressful.
We'll be back Wednesday, August 2.
By the way, Eclipse got their provisional type
certificate issued at OSH a few days ago. As far as I know,
that's the first instance of networked, multiple smart
actuators being used on flap system of any GA aircraft.
Yours truly had a role in the architecture and development
of that system . . . I'm still hopeful of getting this
technology onto Premier before I retire. It's about half the cost,
20 pounds lighter and best yet - works as advertised
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: Antennas general |
On Jul 27, 2006, at 9:28 AM, sportav8r(at)aol.com wrote:
> While we're discussing dB's, I note that the installation
> instructions for my Garmin GMA 340 audio panel mention several
> times a feature provinding "10 times gain (20 dB)" for the
> entertainment channel input. I have labored all my life under the
> impression that 10dB was 10x gain, and 20 dB was 100x gain. It
> seems unlikely that the people who design this stuff professionally
> know more about decibels and power gain than a radio hobbyist does,
> so it's safe to assume I'm the one who is missing something. What
> gives?
10dB is a ten-fold increase in *power*.
Since power is V^2/R if you increase voltage by a factor of 10 you
increase power by a factor of 100 (10x10). A 100-fold increase in
power is 20dB.
A gain of 10 (voltage increased ten times) results in a power gain of
20dB.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: Antenna Coax Routing |
On Jul 27, 2006, at 12:42 PM, Todd Richmond wrote:
> This might be a newbie question but Im giving it a shot none the
> less. I have an RV-7A (or part of one at this point) in which I am
> planning on mounting my VOR and marker beacon antennas in the
> wingtips (one in each tip).
If you plan to use the VOR antenna for general VOR navigation, it
might not work all that well as it is not going to receive well in
all directions. If you plan to use it for flying an ILS where the
transmitter is likely to be right in front of you, it will probably
work pretty well.
A blade type antenna on the VS is still the best way to go but a
catwhisker antenna on the top of the VS or bottom of the fuselage is
pretty good.
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> |
>
>
>I have always been leery of the ground to the firewall on RVs. I think
>the real ground is on the inside to the aluminum angle. For this reason I
>used a cad plated washer and nut instead of the platenut there. I don't
>think that an all metal locknut is necessary.
???? Really. You don't buy into the concept of high,
sustained force in the fastener for the purposes of
maintaining pressure in the joint over the lifetime of
the airplane? If concerns for loosening of a nut
anywhere else in the airplane is worthy of anti-rotation
technology like lock-nuts, how is it that a firewall
ground fastener is relieved of such constraints? How
does a nutplate (generally an all-metal locking
technology) become inferior to a nut and cad-plated
washer to the achievement of permanent joining short
of welding or riveting?
> The threads will contact to the metal part of the nut just fine. I
> don't know of any problem of conduction through the platenut. I just
> prefer the nut and washer. YMMV
Threads of a fastener have almost nothing to do with
conductivity of the joint. 99% happens at the surface
of a terminal held in contact with the surface opposite
the nut. To attach a wire to a surface of the airplane,
you'd be just fine with CERAMIC fasteners as long as
the goal of bringing the two critical surfaces togehter
has been achieved.
For the most part, firewalls should not be depended upon
for anything but the most benign of grounds . . . like
perhaps the grounding of a starter contactor coil through
the base of the contactor . . . or grounding the (-) sense
of a "ford" regulator by virtue of it's bolting to the
sheet metal.
The whole intent and purpose of the single point ground
suggested in chapter 15 was to eliminate all uncertainties
both for initial and aged performance of this important
but poorly understood portion of the ship's electrical
system.
One may argue the virtues or evils of various materials
platings and assembly processes at length but in the
final analysis, sustained pressure (for gas tight) and
exclusion of antagonists (by means of platings, silicone
grease, paint, etc.) are the keys to longevity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Z-diagrams moved?? |
Can't find 'em online anymore... link broken?
I'm trying to have a discussion about PM starter run-on with another fellow, and
it's hard if I can't cite my sources ;-)
Thanks for any pointers to the reference docs.
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Subject: | Re: Z-diagrams moved?? |
There's a link on this page:
http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html
This one:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
Regards,
Matt-
> Can't find 'em online anymore... link broken?
>
> I'm trying to have a discussion about PM starter run-on with another
> fellow, and it's hard if I can't cite my sources ;-)
>
> Thanks for any pointers to the reference docs.
>
> -Bill B
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Kenneth Melvin" <melvinke(at)coho.net> |
Subject: | FW: Rosenfeld Diabetes Fund |
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 4:53 PM
Looking forward to Monday - see you about 10:30!
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:02 PM
Monday would be fine, but any of those days can be made to suit. How about
1030 hrs on Monday? Take Sunset to exit 57 (North Plains); left over the
overpass (South) on Glencoe 2.4 miles then right on Wren Rd 0.5 mile; left
on Leisy 0.5 mile; right on Bagley ( a row of 15 homes along an airstrip).
We are 33636 NW Bagley, with a white rail fence and carport out front. Ph
503-693-3645 if lost.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:29 AM
Sounds great. I could come out next week - MON, THURS or FRI. Which day
would work best for you?
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 11:09 AM
I would enjoy that! How about joining us for coffee one morning out here in
the country? I can be pretty flexible about dates -- you say when. Beth
Morris has a map showing the way to our home, that we used for the Residents
when we held the annual barbecues here.
Yours,
Kenneth
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:58 AM
Hi Dr. Melvin -
Any chance we could get together sometime soon to chat about the Rosenfeld
Diabetes Fund, and perhaps a few other things too about which I'd appreciate
your thoughts? Sandy Miller with diabetes education has been talking with
me recently about some curriculum needs they have, and I'd appreciate your
input as to whether or not these needs might be appropriate for the fund.
We should probably catch up on the Appearance Center as well. I could meet
you someplace for lunch or coffee - whatever would be convenient... thanks!
DISCLAIMER:
This message is intended for the sole use of the addressee, and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If you are not the addressee you are hereby notified
that you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute to anyone the message or
any information contained in the message. If you have received this message
in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete
this message.
DISCLAIMER:
This message is intended for the sole use of the addressee, and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If you are not the addressee you are hereby notified
that you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute to anyone the message or
any information contained in the message. If you have received this message
in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete
this message.
DISCLAIMER:
This message is intended for the sole use of the addressee, and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If you are not the addressee you are hereby notified
that you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute to anyone the message or
any information contained in the message. If you have received this message
in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete
this message.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
Db=10 log (P1/P2)
Db log (V1/V2)
Hopper -
....... couldn`t have put it better! or shorter! dB or not dB.
Ferg Kyle
Europa A064 914 Classic
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
Subject: | What upgrades are possible on a certified plane? |
I am buying a 1960 Mooney M20A with a Lycoming O-360-A1A engine which
of course includes a vacuum pump and the usual vacuum
instruments. The familiar T-arrangement on the instrument panel had
not been conceived of yet in 1960.
My last 13 years have been spent in the experimental world doing
pretty much whatever I pleased, so I'm new to the whole certified
world of 337s and PMAs and STCs and the like.
I would dearly love to hire an A&P mechanic to pull out the vacuum
pump and vacuum instruments, put a B&C backup alternator on the
vacuum pad, mount a Flight Cheetah with XM Weather and solid state
Artificial Horizon at the center of a high-tech T-arrangement, re-do
the instrument panel so the instruments are more logically laid out,
put the critical engine monitoring instruments on the left side where
I can see them, etc.
What latitudes does one have to do that sort of thing? Can you put a
B&C backup alternator on any airplane?
For reference, here's the "shotgun" instrument panel of the 60's:
Left side: http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Mooney%20N6030X/IMG_1639.jpg
Right side: http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Mooney%20N6030X/IMG_1641.jpg
This is the coolest breakthrough in glass: Flight Cheetah:
http://www.aviationsafety.com/products.htm
By the way, this is a shot of one of the brand new engines going into
a Mooney Ovation about to roll off the production line (I believe
it's a Continental IO-540 or 550). You can't see it in the photo, but
it sports a B&C backup alternator because of the Garmin G1000 glass
cockpit and lack of need for vacuum instruments:
http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Mooney%20Factory%20Tour/IMG_1611.jpg
Dave Morris
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a certified |
I doubt you want to go through the process of getting field approval 337
on an aircraft that is becoming increasingly rare. Much easier way to
get a backup is leave the vacuum pump alone to power DG and AH. Get one
of Sporty's attitude indicators that are electric powered and can
replace a turn coordinator directly per FAA Advisory circular. That
gives you a backup attitude indicator if the vacuum quits.
Dave N6030X wrote:
>
>
> I am buying a 1960 Mooney M20A with a Lycoming O-360-A1A engine which of
> course includes a vacuum pump and the usual vacuum instruments. The
> familiar T-arrangement on the instrument panel had not been conceived of
> yet in 1960.
>
> My last 13 years have been spent in the experimental world doing pretty
> much whatever I pleased, so I'm new to the whole certified world of 337s
> and PMAs and STCs and the like.
>
> I would dearly love to hire an A&P mechanic to pull out the vacuum pump
> and vacuum instruments, put a B&C backup alternator on the vacuum pad,
> mount a Flight Cheetah with XM Weather and solid state Artificial
> Horizon at the center of a high-tech T-arrangement, re-do the instrument
> panel so the instruments are more logically laid out, put the critical
> engine monitoring instruments on the left side where I can see them, etc.
>
> What latitudes does one have to do that sort of thing? Can you put a
> B&C backup alternator on any airplane?
>
> For reference, here's the "shotgun" instrument panel of the 60's:
> Left side: http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Mooney%20N6030X/IMG_1639.jpg
> Right side: http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Mooney%20N6030X/IMG_1641.jpg
>
> This is the coolest breakthrough in glass: Flight Cheetah:
> http://www.aviationsafety.com/products.htm
>
> By the way, this is a shot of one of the brand new engines going into a
> Mooney Ovation about to roll off the production line (I believe it's a
> Continental IO-540 or 550). You can't see it in the photo, but it sports
> a B&C backup alternator because of the Garmin G1000 glass cockpit and
> lack of need for vacuum instruments:
> http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Mooney%20Factory%20Tour/IMG_1611.jpg
>
> Dave Morris
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst(at)taroom.qld.gov.au> |
Subject: | Crowbar with Dynamos Z-16 |
Bob,
I understand how there is no external control over a dynamo like there
is with an externally regulated alternator.
However, on studying the Z16 diagram (Rotax), I am wondering if there is
any reason why the common and NO contacts of the S704-1 Alternator OV
disconnect relay cannot be placed in series with one of the yellow
output wires of the dynamo.
I know you have been there before but on the Ducati regulator, the
following words are cast "with motor running never detach battery
cables"
Because I don't understand things well enough, I feel somewhat uneasy
going against the recommendation of the manufacturer and after having
another look at the circuit today, I couldn't help but wonder why we
cannot take the dynamo off line by breaking one of its leads.
I realise that in the event of a REAL OV event, the regulator is stuffed
anyway but in the case of a nuisance trip of the crowbar . . . .
Your comments would be most appreciated please, I'm to the point where I
now HAVE to make a decision.
Kingsley in Oz
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a certified plane? |
On Jul 29, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Dave N6030X wrote:
> I would dearly love to hire an A&P mechanic to pull out the vacuum
> pump and vacuum instruments, put a B&C backup alternator on the
> vacuum pad, mount a Flight Cheetah with XM Weather and solid state
> Artificial Horizon at the center of a high-tech T-arrangement, re-
> do the instrument panel so the instruments are more logically laid
> out, put the critical engine monitoring instruments on the left
> side where I can see them, etc.
>
> What latitudes does one have to do that sort of thing? Can you put
> a B&C backup alternator on any airplane?
I have done some of this with certified aircraft in the past but not
as completely as you are suggesting. I have done it for a Piper
Comanche and a Piper Clipper.
What you are after is a one-time STC on a form 337 for alternations.
Fabricating a new panel and rearranging the locations of instruments
does not require a 337 so long as the it does not require
modification of any load-bearing structure. In my Comanche the panels
are on vibration isolators and are not structural. I was able to move
instruments to construct a "modern" 6-pack layout and center stack
for my radios without any problem.
In my Comanche I also constructed an e-bus out of what was the
avionics bus and added a second battery charged by the main battery
through a diode. The second battery could be directly switched to the
e-bus to power selected radios and TC. That did require a 337 but it
did not seem to give the FSDO heartburn. The only problem is, I did
that in 1985 and they seem to have been more flexible then than they
are now.
As for adding a B&C dynamo, you can probably forget it. The FAA tried
to put Bill Bainbridge out of business on the basis that he was
intentionally selling his stuff to people for their certified
aircraft (it was another Bob Hoover deal). They eventually backed
down under pressure from the community but it had to go all the way
up to the Administrator before it got fixed.
I also kept the vacuum instruments and added a Precise Flight standby
vacuum system. It requires me to reduce throttle to generate vacuum
in the intake manifold but it works just fine and will get you back
on the ground.
It would make so much sense to build an all-electric panel but the
FAA is risk-averse and probably won't buy into that idea. I am going
to try to talk the FSDO into signing off on adding a Dynon to the
panel without removing any of the existing instruments. If all the
certified stuff remains they shouldn't have a problem. The only worry
I have is that I will have to tap into the pitot-static system and
that may bother them. We'll see.
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: | "mchamberlain(at)runbox.com" <mchamberlain(at)runbox.com> |
Subject: | Dynon FlightDeck 180 and Capacitive Fuel Senders |
Hi Folks,
Just got back from Oshkosh and after speaking with one of the Dynon reps it looks
like they have no solution (yet) for hooking the FlightDeck (or any of their
EMS's) up to the Van's capacitive fuel senders. As I have most of the wiring
already done for the 180 I really don't want to change that out now so I am wondering
if any of you folks have run in to this issue or have any thoughts on
how to make this work?
Thanks in advance for any help,
Mark - RV-7 (234C Res)
--------
Rv-7 (234C Res)
Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=50706#50706
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a certified |
The Sporty's or other electric AI gives him an all electric backup to
the vacuum gyros without worrying about all the other stuff. Better than
the SVS system as no power setting changes needed, and FAA has already
blessed using electric AI to replace electric T&B or TC with an advisory
circular.
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> On Jul 29, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Dave N6030X wrote:
>
>> I would dearly love to hire an A&P mechanic to pull out the vacuum
>> pump and vacuum instruments, put a B&C backup alternator on the vacuum
>> pad, mount a Flight Cheetah with XM Weather and solid state Artificial
>> Horizon at the center of a high-tech T-arrangement, re-do the
>> instrument panel so the instruments are more logically laid out, put
>> the critical engine monitoring instruments on the left side where I
>> can see them, etc.
>>
>> What latitudes does one have to do that sort of thing? Can you put a
>> B&C backup alternator on any airplane?
>
> I have done some of this with certified aircraft in the past but not as
> completely as you are suggesting. I have done it for a Piper Comanche
> and a Piper Clipper.
>
> What you are after is a one-time STC on a form 337 for alternations.
> Fabricating a new panel and rearranging the locations of instruments
> does not require a 337 so long as the it does not require modification
> of any load-bearing structure. In my Comanche the panels are on
> vibration isolators and are not structural. I was able to move
> instruments to construct a "modern" 6-pack layout and center stack for
> my radios without any problem.
>
> In my Comanche I also constructed an e-bus out of what was the avionics
> bus and added a second battery charged by the main battery through a
> diode. The second battery could be directly switched to the e-bus to
> power selected radios and TC. That did require a 337 but it did not seem
> to give the FSDO heartburn. The only problem is, I did that in 1985 and
> they seem to have been more flexible then than they are now.
>
> As for adding a B&C dynamo, you can probably forget it. The FAA tried to
> put Bill Bainbridge out of business on the basis that he was
> intentionally selling his stuff to people for their certified aircraft
> (it was another Bob Hoover deal). They eventually backed down under
> pressure from the community but it had to go all the way up to the
> Administrator before it got fixed.
>
> I also kept the vacuum instruments and added a Precise Flight standby
> vacuum system. It requires me to reduce throttle to generate vacuum in
> the intake manifold but it works just fine and will get you back on the
> ground.
>
> It would make so much sense to build an all-electric panel but the FAA
> is risk-averse and probably won't buy into that idea. I am going to try
> to talk the FSDO into signing off on adding a Dynon to the panel without
> removing any of the existing instruments. If all the certified stuff
> remains they shouldn't have a problem. The only worry I have is that I
> will have to tap into the pitot-static system and that may bother them.
> We'll see.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a |
Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a
Sporty's electric AI as long as I'm never attempting to use the plane for IFR?
Dave
At 09:45 AM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>
>The Sporty's or other electric AI gives him an
>all electric backup to the vacuum gyros without
>worrying about all the other stuff. Better than
>the SVS system as no power setting changes
>needed, and FAA has already blessed using
>electric AI to replace electric T&B or TC with an advisory circular.
>
>Brian Lloyd wrote:
>>On Jul 29, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Dave N6030X wrote:
>>
>>>I would dearly love to hire an A&P mechanic to
>>>pull out the vacuum pump and vacuum
>>>instruments, put a B&C backup alternator on
>>>the vacuum pad, mount a Flight Cheetah with XM
>>>Weather and solid state Artificial Horizon at
>>>the center of a high-tech T-arrangement, re-do
>>>the instrument panel so the instruments are
>>>more logically laid out, put the critical
>>>engine monitoring instruments on the left side where I can see them, etc.
>>>
>>>What latitudes does one have to do that sort
>>>of thing? Can you put a B&C backup alternator on any airplane?
>>I have done some of this with certified
>>aircraft in the past but not as completely as
>>you are suggesting. I have done it for a Piper Comanche and a Piper Clipper.
>>What you are after is a one-time STC on a form
>>337 for alternations. Fabricating a new panel
>>and rearranging the locations of instruments
>>does not require a 337 so long as the it does
>>not require modification of any load-bearing
>>structure. In my Comanche the panels are on
>>vibration isolators and are not structural. I
>>was able to move instruments to construct a
>>"modern" 6-pack layout and center stack for my radios without any problem.
>>In my Comanche I also constructed an e-bus out
>>of what was the avionics bus and added a second
>>battery charged by the main battery through a
>>diode. The second battery could be directly
>>switched to the e-bus to power selected radios
>>and TC. That did require a 337 but it did not
>>seem to give the FSDO heartburn. The only
>>problem is, I did that in 1985 and they seem to
>>have been more flexible then than they are now.
>>As for adding a B&C dynamo, you can probably
>>forget it. The FAA tried to put Bill Bainbridge
>>out of business on the basis that he was
>>intentionally selling his stuff to people for
>>their certified aircraft (it was another Bob
>>Hoover deal). They eventually backed down under
>>pressure from the community but it had to go
>>all the way up to the Administrator before it got fixed.
>>I also kept the vacuum instruments and added a
>>Precise Flight standby vacuum system. It
>>requires me to reduce throttle to generate
>>vacuum in the intake manifold but it works just
>>fine and will get you back on the ground.
>>It would make so much sense to build an
>>all-electric panel but the FAA is risk-averse
>>and probably won't buy into that idea. I am
>>going to try to talk the FSDO into signing off
>>on adding a Dynon to the panel without removing
>>any of the existing instruments. If all the
>>certified stuff remains they shouldn't have a
>>problem. The only worry I have is that I will
>>have to tap into the pitot-static system and that may bother them. We'll see.
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a |
If this is a type-certificated aircraft, and you remove a component
(e.g. the vacuum AI), then the aircraft no longer conforms to the
type design, and the airworthiness certificate is no longer valid.
Kevin Horton
On 30 Jul 2006, at 15:14, Dave N6030X wrote:
>
>
> Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a Sporty's electric AI
> as long as I'm never attempting to use the plane for IFR?
>
> Dave
>
>
> At 09:45 AM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Sporty's or other electric AI gives him an all electric backup
>> to the vacuum gyros without worrying about all the other stuff.
>> Better than the SVS system as no power setting changes needed, and
>> FAA has already blessed using electric AI to replace electric T&B
>> or TC with an advisory circular.
>>
>> Brian Lloyd wrote:
>>> yak(at)lloyd.com>
>>> On Jul 29, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Dave N6030X wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would dearly love to hire an A&P mechanic to pull out the
>>>> vacuum pump and vacuum instruments, put a B&C backup alternator
>>>> on the vacuum pad, mount a Flight Cheetah with XM Weather and
>>>> solid state Artificial Horizon at the center of a high-tech T-
>>>> arrangement, re-do the instrument panel so the instruments are
>>>> more logically laid out, put the critical engine monitoring
>>>> instruments on the left side where I can see them, etc.
>>>>
>>>> What latitudes does one have to do that sort of thing? Can you
>>>> put a B&C backup alternator on any airplane?
>>> I have done some of this with certified aircraft in the past but
>>> not as completely as you are suggesting. I have done it for a
>>> Piper Comanche and a Piper Clipper.
>>> What you are after is a one-time STC on a form 337 for
>>> alternations. Fabricating a new panel and rearranging the
>>> locations of instruments does not require a 337 so long as the it
>>> does not require modification of any load-bearing structure. In
>>> my Comanche the panels are on vibration isolators and are not
>>> structural. I was able to move instruments to construct a
>>> "modern" 6-pack layout and center stack for my radios without any
>>> problem.
>>> In my Comanche I also constructed an e-bus out of what was the
>>> avionics bus and added a second battery charged by the main
>>> battery through a diode. The second battery could be directly
>>> switched to the e-bus to power selected radios and TC. That did
>>> require a 337 but it did not seem to give the FSDO heartburn. The
>>> only problem is, I did that in 1985 and they seem to have been
>>> more flexible then than they are now.
>>> As for adding a B&C dynamo, you can probably forget it. The FAA
>>> tried to put Bill Bainbridge out of business on the basis that he
>>> was intentionally selling his stuff to people for their certified
>>> aircraft (it was another Bob Hoover deal). They eventually backed
>>> down under pressure from the community but it had to go all the
>>> way up to the Administrator before it got fixed.
>>> I also kept the vacuum instruments and added a Precise Flight
>>> standby vacuum system. It requires me to reduce throttle to
>>> generate vacuum in the intake manifold but it works just fine and
>>> will get you back on the ground.
>>> It would make so much sense to build an all-electric panel but
>>> the FAA is risk-averse and probably won't buy into that idea. I
>>> am going to try to talk the FSDO into signing off on adding a
>>> Dynon to the panel without removing any of the existing
>>> instruments. If all the certified stuff remains they shouldn't
>>> have a problem. The only worry I have is that I will have to tap
>>> into the pitot-static system and that may bother them. We'll see.
>>> Good luck!
>>>
>>> Brian Lloyd
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a |
In a message dated 7/30/06 3:23:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com writes:
> Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a
> Sporty's electric AI as long as I'm never attempting to use the plane for
> IFR?
>
> Dave
====================
Dave:
Prove it! Prove that you will never attempt or never enter an IFR condition.
The FAA does not care whether you attempt it or not ... You are talking about
a GA aircraft that has been certified with an equipment list. If you wish to
change to something that is not on the equipment list you must start with a
337. In this case and especially if you plan on keeping the vacuum driven
system and adding the electrical AI the FAA will let you go with their blessing.
After all the Electronic AI is only a backup for the Vacuum AI. BUT, what
happens if you loose electrical power and the ONLY AI is electrical? No problem
... You think...You will just include in your scan the T&B ... Whoops ... The
T&B is also electrical. Now you have NO BACKUP! Sorry Charlie - Dave ... FAA
does not like that scenario they want a back up ... Got an Electrical backup
system w/Buss?
NOW< if you want to make the Electrical AI your primary by putting it into
your 'T' scan area, that is OK. You are still using the vacuum AI as your
back-up.
See very easy ... Just think BELTS & SUSPENDERS and don't forget to button
your pants too.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a certified |
The best answer is come up with a game plane and go talk to your
local friendly FAA. What every I say or anyone says on this forum
does not matter. But this is my opinion on the subject as both
a owner of a few factory planes and builder and pilot of experimentals.
I also worked in certification for a large plane maker, that starts
with B.
You are correct modification of experimentals are pretty open. However
when it gets to EFIS / NAV for IFR flight in experimentals there is
some controversy. Do you need STC approved equip? That is another
story, but there are some parallels to your situatuin.
You are focused on Panel/avionics/electrical mods. I would divide
that up into two or three categories. We'll forget engine/airframe mods:
-flight/nav inst,
-engine/syst
-backup electrical power.
I did a lot of certification work on large transport categories and the
FAA works very happily on precedent's and no impact. This mean
if you do something that has been done and approved before or has
no effect on the aircraft if it works or does not work, for example a
back-up alternator, great, get it through easier. This is especially
true if it's been approved on your engine/airframe before. Some
companies may have a STC approved mod for a backup alternator.
Check B&C out for example.
Now flight instruments are another issue. They are more critical. I
don't think a FL190 is going to cut it, but if you want a Chelton
for $40,000 to $60,000, I think you could pull that off. If you pay
for the labor it could be very expensive MOD. I don't want to get
into owner maintenance but you can work on a certified plane, but
you may need direct supervision of an A&P for some things. Do
you have any A&P friend? In the end however the FAA needs to
approve the modification. Again early communcation with the FAA
is critical.
You could imagine a whole glass cockpit, bring it in and let them
design, install and approve it could cost well over $100,000. That
is penuts for a $30 mil jet, but a a single engine piston a bit steep.
Of course you can drop $8,000-$14,000 on a Garmin panel
mount GPS/NAV/COM. That's a no brainer. Again to pay to
have it installed you are looking to take a dent out of up to
$20,000. But why can't you use a Blue Mountain EFIS with
GPS nav or Grand Rapids EFIS/GPS? I don't know ask the
FAA. My guess is the answer is they are not STC'ed.
Don't quote me I know one guy was allowed the Dynon EFIS
while he retained his Vac instruments. Again it goes under the
FAA's no work, no harm, no foul rule. Keep the original and use
the glass as a back-up only, much like they way they treat a
handheld GPS. A handheld GPS is there as a refrence but it's
not hard mounted, so the FAA doesn't care, see no evil hear no evil.
You could install some portable EFIS using PDA's? I know that
is not what you want, but you could do that today. Heck the
FL190 EFIS could go in as long as you keep the Vac and
don't hard mount it. There are several other portable EFIS
and Engine monitoring systems you might be able to install
with no approvals, but that is not what you want I guess, since
it would require you keep all the old inst's/gauges.
Back up alternator, pretty benign modification. You should
be able to get a back-up Gen approved some how. There may
be existing STC's out there or you may be apple to get a
one off field approval. B&C can help you there since they
have some Cessna or Beech STC's and experience with the
FAA.
There are some STC approved engine monitors out there now from
JPI and EI. Of course you will pay the price of an experimental unit,
just like a EFIS. I think the price in around $5,000
I know some "experimental" engine monitors have been allowed to
be installed, as long as they kept the old original analog gauges; again
they are looking at a fail passive or non critical installation. Put it in, as
long as it does not affect the planes airworthiness, working or not.
Can I put experimental stuff into my certified plane?
Ans: Not easily but depends on the FAA branch you are talking
to. I think they are getting better being more consistent across
regions.
Look you can do anything. Heck you could in theory turn you Mooney
into an experimental. It has been done before, but it's not likely they
will allow you to do that to get an experimental panel you want.
Look at old DC-8's and 727's, they get new engine or glass cockpits.
It is about documentation and the equipment you are installing. There
is no reason you can't put a business jet glass cockpit in, but I
don't think you want to put that kind of money into a Mooney. Those
Vac insts and analog gauges are looking better all the time$$.
Really I call it inertia. Don't get caught into the shinny object, got
to have the best, latest. What is your Mooney going to do better
with a glass cockpit? You already have the analog gauges and
they work. In fact your panel looks pretty cool to me. Retro yes
but that has a charm. I know the latest RV or Lancair panel
at the airshow might give you panel envy, but I say so what.
It can be done but takes time, money, paperwork and may be a DER
sign off (designated engineering representative).
My advice is research as much as you can to find any STC's already
issued for your Mooney, whether a one OFF STC for an individual,
or one from a company that has blanket approval for a particular
piece of equip or mod.
Ask the FAA first. Have your paper work and research and present
it to them face to face. Do that before even thinking about doing it.
Call the companies whose equip you think you want and ask them.
If there is FAA precedence, previous approvals, they grease the wheels
and make your life easier. Do your research before you start
pulling stuff out. OLD does not mean bad. I know guys who have
done some pretty big mods, and others who could not get a
electronic tachometer into there Cessna. Look for products that
have been STC'ed already.
You did not mention airframe mods but there are tons of Mooney
Mod companies, LoPresti. In theory you could copy a LoPresti
cowl and say you want to flight test it and get a flight test approval,
essentially turning your plane into an experimental for the purpose
of testing the cowl. You could collect data and present it to the
FAA and say it still meets the FAR's. They then would approve
you cowl. In theory you could produce that cowl and sell it with
a STC, if the FAA gave you that approval. Not sure there are one
off approvals and ones with broad coverage. All approved mods
have to go through the process. You can do it our buy something
where the work was already done. In the case of the panel you
buy a STC approve EIFS, Engine Monitor, Back up Gen you are
good to go, or at least good to try for approval in you application.
I think you can get your panel layout better by cutting and
rearranging and that the FAA may not even care about.
Good Luck Geroge RV-4/RV-7
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
plane?
I am buying a 1960 Mooney M20A with a Lycoming O-360-A1A engine which
of course includes a vacuum pump and the usual vacuum
instruments. The familiar T-arrangement on the instrument panel had
not been conceived of yet in 1960.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a |
In a slightly different direction...
How about if I want to change the very rudimentary engine instruments
I have now to one of the all-in-one non-TSO'd glass engine
packages? Can that be done on a 337 form?
At 01:00 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 7/30/06 3:23:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com writes:
>
> > Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a
> > Sporty's electric AI as long as I'm never attempting to use the plane for
> > IFR?
> >
> > Dave
>====================
>Dave:
>
>Prove it! Prove that you will never attempt or never enter an IFR condition.
>
>The FAA does not care whether you attempt it or not ... You are talking about
>a GA aircraft that has been certified with an equipment list. If you wish to
>change to something that is not on the equipment list you must start with a
>337. In this case and especially if you plan on keeping the vacuum driven
>system and adding the electrical AI the FAA will let you go with
>their blessing.
>After all the Electronic AI is only a backup for the Vacuum AI. BUT, what
>happens if you loose electrical power and the ONLY AI is
>electrical? No problem
>... You think...You will just include in your scan the T&B ... Whoops ... The
>T&B is also electrical. Now you have NO BACKUP! Sorry Charlie -
>Dave ... FAA
>does not like that scenario they want a back up ... Got an Electrical backup
>system w/Buss?
>
>NOW< if you want to make the Electrical AI your primary by putting it into
>your 'T' scan area, that is OK. You are still using the vacuum AI as your
>back-up.
>
>See very easy ... Just think BELTS & SUSPENDERS and don't forget to button
>your pants too.
>
>
>Barry
>"Chop'd Liver"
>
>
>--
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a |
Well, of course I can't prove it, but if I fly into IFR conditions by
accident in an aircraft that is not equipped for IFR, then I don't
have a glide slope either.
By the way, looking at the M20A type certificate, it does not list
any instruments at all. It says the vacuum pump is OPTIONAL for
VFR. Is there some other place the required instruments would be listed?
Looking over the maintenance logs, the vacuum pump has had to be
replaced so many times, it's not funny. It currently needs replacing
again. That does not sound like a very reliable or safe system,
compared to the electrical system.
I'm one of those people who looks at idiotic things and drives
authorities crazy by incessantly asking "why". I'm also a software
engineer and electronic tinkerer. I don't know anything about
vacuum, but I know a lot about electronics. I programmed my own EFIS
with moving map display and flight instruments on a CRT before the
term EFIS existed.
I understand the perverse logic of requiring an unreliable and unsafe
design to be perpetuated in order to be able to retreat behind the
semblance of security and safety that lies in massive amounts of
paperwork. But surely there must be ways of increasing safety and
reliability in spite of the bureaucrats. Maybe I'll just stick the
old vacuum instruments off on the right side of the panel and use
velcro to attach my "portable" equipment in front of me.
I guess what I really need to do is go introduce myself at the FSDO
and have a chat.
Dave Morris
At 03:00 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 7/30/06 3:23:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com writes:
>
> > Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a
> > Sporty's electric AI as long as I'm never attempting to use the plane for
> > IFR?
> >
> > Dave
>====================
>Dave:
>
>Prove it! Prove that you will never attempt or never enter an IFR condition.
>
>The FAA does not care whether you attempt it or not ... You are talking about
>a GA aircraft that has been certified with an equipment list. If you wish to
>change to something that is not on the equipment list you must start with a
>337. In this case and especially if you plan on keeping the vacuum driven
>system and adding the electrical AI the FAA will let you go with
>their blessing.
>After all the Electronic AI is only a backup for the Vacuum AI. BUT, what
>happens if you loose electrical power and the ONLY AI is
>electrical? No problem
>... You think...You will just include in your scan the T&B ... Whoops ... The
>T&B is also electrical. Now you have NO BACKUP! Sorry Charlie -
>Dave ... FAA
>does not like that scenario they want a back up ... Got an Electrical backup
>system w/Buss?
>
>NOW< if you want to make the Electrical AI your primary by putting it into
>your 'T' scan area, that is OK. You are still using the vacuum AI as your
>back-up.
>
>See very easy ... Just think BELTS & SUSPENDERS and don't forget to button
>your pants too.
>
>
>Barry
>"Chop'd Liver"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a |
On Jul 30, 2006, at 4:40 PM, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>
> In a slightly different direction...
>
> How about if I want to change the very rudimentary engine
> instruments I have now to one of the all-in-one non-TSO'd glass
> engine packages? Can that be done on a 337 form?
You are in for a more difficult time as you are asking to remove and
replace the instruments with which the aircraft was certified and is
part of the original certification paperwork. Some outfits have STCs
to replace the standard gauges with their new electronic gauges but
you have to ask if they have an STC for your aircraft.
OTOH, if you are just adding something in and you leave the existing
gauges with which the aircraft was certified, you should have very
little 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-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
Subject: | [ John Swartout ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: John Swartout
Lists: AeroElectric-List
Subject: Swartout Z-CH-801 Electrical System Schematic, one page.
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/jgswartout@earthlink.net.07.30.2006/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: | Michael Burson <n821x(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Crowbar with Dynamos Z-16 |
I am also interested in the reply to this question. I have a Rotax 912 with
Ducati regulator with over 200 hours on it. It is wired per figure Z-7 which was
the latest
schematic for Rotax installations back in 1998.
The latest figure Z-16 Does have one of the Yellow wires from the Generator
wired in series with the Common and N.O. terminals of the relay?
Mike , Yuba City,CA
Kingsley Hurst wrote:
Bob,
I understand how there is no external control over a dynamo like there
is with an externally regulated alternator.
However, on studying the Z16 diagram (Rotax), I am wondering if there is
any reason why the common and NO contacts of the S704-1 Alternator OV
disconnect relay cannot be placed in series with one of the yellow
output wires of the dynamo.
I know you have been there before but on the Ducati regulator, the
following words are cast "with motor running never detach battery
cables"
Because I don't understand things well enough, I feel somewhat uneasy
going against the recommendation of the manufacturer and after having
another look at the circuit today, I couldn't help but wonder why we
cannot take the dynamo off line by breaking one of its leads.
I realise that in the event of a REAL OV event, the regulator is stuffed
anyway but in the case of a nuisance trip of the crowbar . . . .
Your comments would be most appreciated please, I'm to the point where I
now HAVE to make a decision.
Kingsley in Oz
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
Subject: | What upgrades are possible on a |
JFTR, the Sporty's, and most of the other "backup" AIs include a battery
backup...
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:01 PM
In a message dated 7/30/06 3:23:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com writes:
> Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a
> Sporty's electric AI as long as I'm never attempting to use the plane for
> IFR?
>
> Dave
====================
Dave:
Prove it! Prove that you will never attempt or never enter an IFR
condition.
The FAA does not care whether you attempt it or not ... You are talking
about
a GA aircraft that has been certified with an equipment list. If you wish
to
change to something that is not on the equipment list you must start with a
337. In this case and especially if you plan on keeping the vacuum driven
system and adding the electrical AI the FAA will let you go with their
blessing.
After all the Electronic AI is only a backup for the Vacuum AI. BUT, what
happens if you loose electrical power and the ONLY AI is electrical? No
problem
... You think...You will just include in your scan the T&B ... Whoops ...
The
T&B is also electrical. Now you have NO BACKUP! Sorry Charlie - Dave ...
FAA
does not like that scenario they want a back up ... Got an Electrical backup
system w/Buss?
NOW< if you want to make the Electrical AI your primary by putting it into
your 'T' scan area, that is OK. You are still using the vacuum AI as your
back-up.
See very easy ... Just think BELTS & SUSPENDERS and don't forget to button
your pants too.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
Subject: | Re: Crowbar with Dynamos Z-16 |
Hi Kingsley
FWIW I have done that with a 40 amp OV relay in series with the output
of a 20 amp John Deere dynamo (permanent magnet alternator). I reasoned
that a false trip was less likely to damage anything that way and also
that it provided a way of disconnecting the current to the regulator in
the event of a regulater problem/overheat. I did have some trips with
the old version of the homemade OVP circuit during starts with no harm
done. However with the latest version of the homemade OVP circuit I
haven't had a trip in ground testing or 25 flight hours.
Ken
Kingsley Hurst wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>I understand how there is no external control over a dynamo like there
>is with an externally regulated alternator.
>
>However, on studying the Z16 diagram (Rotax), I am wondering if there is
>any reason why the common and NO contacts of the S704-1 Alternator OV
>disconnect relay cannot be placed in series with one of the yellow
>output wires of the dynamo.
>
>I know you have been there before but on the Ducati regulator, the
>following words are cast "with motor running never detach battery
>cables"
>
>Because I don't understand things well enough, I feel somewhat uneasy
>going against the recommendation of the manufacturer and after having
>another look at the circuit today, I couldn't help but wonder why we
>cannot take the dynamo off line by breaking one of its leads.
>
>I realise that in the event of a REAL OV event, the regulator is stuffed
>anyway but in the case of a nuisance trip of the crowbar . . . .
>
>Your comments would be most appreciated please, I'm to the point where I
>now HAVE to make a decision.
>
>Kingsley in Oz
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a |
If your vacuum pumps are failing in less than 500 hours regularly, there
is something wrong with the install, the garlock seal, the hoses or
filters. Get it fixed right, and a vacuum pump is a very reliable
system. There are companies selling them with over 1000hr warranties
today. I've seen a LOT more electrical failures than vacuum in 30 years
of flying. You need to consult with a patient IA on what is required on
your plane. You need the factory original equipment list, that came in
the FAA approved flight manual...the one with your tail number on it and
signed by the FAA. If you don't have it, contact Mooney. They have the
records AFAIK and will help. Mooney doesn't have on the type certificate
items other than engine/electrical, prop etc that affect W&B. Since it
was factory certified for IFR flight, I would expect those items to be
on the equipment list. AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for
early Mooneys. The only place to put one would be on the vacuum pump
pad. Unless one has been STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a fortune
getting it approved.
Dave N6030X wrote:
>
>
> Well, of course I can't prove it, but if I fly into IFR conditions by
> accident in an aircraft that is not equipped for IFR, then I don't have
> a glide slope either.
>
> By the way, looking at the M20A type certificate, it does not list any
> instruments at all. It says the vacuum pump is OPTIONAL for VFR. Is
> there some other place the required instruments would be listed?
>
> Looking over the maintenance logs, the vacuum pump has had to be
> replaced so many times, it's not funny. It currently needs replacing
> again. That does not sound like a very reliable or safe system,
> compared to the electrical system.
>
> I'm one of those people who looks at idiotic things and drives
> authorities crazy by incessantly asking "why". I'm also a software
> engineer and electronic tinkerer. I don't know anything about vacuum,
> but I know a lot about electronics. I programmed my own EFIS with
> moving map display and flight instruments on a CRT before the term EFIS
> existed.
>
> I understand the perverse logic of requiring an unreliable and unsafe
> design to be perpetuated in order to be able to retreat behind the
> semblance of security and safety that lies in massive amounts of
> paperwork. But surely there must be ways of increasing safety and
> reliability in spite of the bureaucrats. Maybe I'll just stick the old
> vacuum instruments off on the right side of the panel and use velcro to
> attach my "portable" equipment in front of me.
>
> I guess what I really need to do is go introduce myself at the FSDO and
> have a chat.
>
> Dave Morris
>
>
> At 03:00 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>>
>> In a message dated 7/30/06 3:23:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com writes:
>>
>> > Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a
>> > Sporty's electric AI as long as I'm never attempting to use the
>> plane for
>> > IFR?
>> >
>> > Dave
>> ====================
>> Dave:
>>
>> Prove it! Prove that you will never attempt or never enter an IFR
>> condition.
>>
>> The FAA does not care whether you attempt it or not ... You are
>> talking about
>> a GA aircraft that has been certified with an equipment list. If you
>> wish to
>> change to something that is not on the equipment list you must start
>> with a
>> 337. In this case and especially if you plan on keeping the vacuum
>> driven
>> system and adding the electrical AI the FAA will let you go with their
>> blessing.
>> After all the Electronic AI is only a backup for the Vacuum AI. BUT,
>> what
>> happens if you loose electrical power and the ONLY AI is electrical?
>> No problem
>> ... You think...You will just include in your scan the T&B ... Whoops
>> ... The
>> T&B is also electrical. Now you have NO BACKUP! Sorry Charlie - Dave
>> ... FAA
>> does not like that scenario they want a back up ... Got an Electrical
>> backup
>> system w/Buss?
>>
>> NOW< if you want to make the Electrical AI your primary by putting it
>> into
>> your 'T' scan area, that is OK. You are still using the vacuum AI as
>> your
>> back-up.
>>
>> See very easy ... Just think BELTS & SUSPENDERS and don't forget to
>> button
>> your pants too.
>>
>>
>>
>> Barry
>> "Chop'd Liver"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a |
On Jul 30, 2006, at 4:58 PM, Dave N6030X wrote:
>
>
> Well, of course I can't prove it, but if I fly into IFR conditions
> by accident in an aircraft that is not equipped for IFR, then I
> don't have a glide slope either.
You don't need GS to fly IFR. It just means you are limited to non-
precision approaches.
> By the way, looking at the M20A type certificate, it does not list
> any instruments at all. It says the vacuum pump is OPTIONAL for
> VFR. Is there some other place the required instruments would be
> listed?
>
> Looking over the maintenance logs, the vacuum pump has had to be
> replaced so many times, it's not funny. It currently needs
> replacing again. That does not sound like a very reliable or safe
> system, compared to the electrical system.
Nope, it's not. It is horribly unreliable. But the FAA approves it.
It is a regulatory thing, not a safety or sanity thing.
> I'm one of those people who looks at idiotic things and drives
> authorities crazy by incessantly asking "why".
Ah, you are evil then. ;-)
> I'm also a software engineer and electronic tinkerer. I don't know
> anything about vacuum, but I know a lot about electronics. I
> programmed my own EFIS with moving map display and flight
> instruments on a CRT before the term EFIS existed.
You are not the first.
>
> I understand the perverse logic of requiring an unreliable and
> unsafe design to be perpetuated in order to be able to retreat
> behind the semblance of security and safety that lies in massive
> amounts of paperwork. But surely there must be ways of increasing
> safety and reliability in spite of the bureaucrats. Maybe I'll
> just stick the old vacuum instruments off on the right side of the
> panel and use velcro to attach my "portable" equipment in front of me.
>
> I guess what I really need to do is go introduce myself at the FSDO
> and have a chat.
That seems most sensible. Talk to them about what you want to do and
then get their blessing up-front.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a |
On Jul 30, 2006, at 10:48 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> If your vacuum pumps are failing in less than 500 hours regularly,
> there is something wrong with the install, the garlock seal, the
> hoses or filters. Get it fixed right, and a vacuum pump is a very
> reliable system.
A *wet* vaccum pump is a reliable system. Dry vacuum pumps fail with
some regularity. If you get 500 hrs out of a dry pump you are doing
well.
> There are companies selling them with over 1000hr warranties today.
Wet pumps, yes. I have not seen a dry pump with a warranty that long.
> I've seen a LOT more electrical failures than vacuum in 30 years of
> flying.
Well, my experience is different. I have had more vacuum pumps fail
than alternators by a wide margin and when the alternator fails I
still have the battery.
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: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a |
Rapco and Tempest both offer that warranty on dry pumps. I wouldn't
touch a wet pump, I don't want an oil soaked belly and I don't have room
for a triple stage separator. I'm over 500 hours on my current Rapco
pump now..and on my plane it drives a retractable step, and wing leveler
system as well as the gyros.
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2006, at 10:48 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> If your vacuum pumps are failing in less than 500 hours regularly,
>> there is something wrong with the install, the garlock seal, the hoses
>> or filters. Get it fixed right, and a vacuum pump is a very reliable
>> system.
>
> A *wet* vaccum pump is a reliable system. Dry vacuum pumps fail with
> some regularity. If you get 500 hrs out of a dry pump you are doing well.
>
>> There are companies selling them with over 1000hr warranties today.
>
> Wet pumps, yes. I have not seen a dry pump with a warranty that long.
>
>> I've seen a LOT more electrical failures than vacuum in 30 years of
>> flying.
>
> Well, my experience is different. I have had more vacuum pumps fail than
> alternators by a wide margin and when the alternator fails I still have
> the battery.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Electrical system for review and critique |
Bob and list:
My planned electrical system for my Zenith STOL CH-801 is now posted at:
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/jgswartout@earthlink.net.07.30.2006/
for your review and critique. A description accompanies the schematic.
Comments
pro and con are solicited and welcome.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst(at)taroom.qld.gov.au> |
Subject: | Crowbar with Dynamos Z-16 |
Ken,
> I reasoned that a false trip was less likely to damage anything
Exactly what I was thinking too.
> I did have some trips with the old version of the homemade OVP circuit
during starts with no harm done.
Also exactly what I was hoping to hear.
Your response much appreciated thanks mate.
Kingsley
Taroom Qld Aust
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Vacuum pumps and gyros (was: What upgrades are possible |
on a)
On Jul 31, 2006, at 12:12 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> Rapco and Tempest both offer that warranty on dry pumps. I wouldn't
> touch a wet pump, I don't want an oil soaked belly and I don't have
> room for a triple stage separator.
There are worse things than oil on the belly ... like vacuum pump
failure. But then again, you probably have not lived with a radial
engine (otherwise known as the automatic airframe lubrication
system). I guess I accept a well-lubricated airframe as more or less
normal. Just remember, an oil-soaked airframe is less likely to
corrode. ;-)
> I'm over 500 hours on my current Rapco pump now..and on my plane it
> drives a retractable step, and wing leveler system as well as the
> gyros.
You know, that claim is actually funny. You are touting the
reliability of a system that has passed 500 hours. If you had
alternators that were failing every 500 hours you would probably be
really annoyed with their poor quality. And if the alternator fails
you still have the battery to proved backup. There is no inherent
backup with a vacuum system.
Engines that go to TBO rarely fail catastrophically. They have
problems but they keep working. Surprisingly most gyros fail
gradually too. Vacuum pumps fail, jam, shear their couplings, and
become inert hunks of junk with no warning. (I know, someone is going
to point out that dry pumps may produce more graphite at the output
before they fail but hey, who looks at that and can really tell if it
is more or less.) Now consider the consequences for many pilots when
two of their three gyros stop working in IFR conditions. I wonder
which is more likely to be survivable under IFR conditions: engine
failure or gyro failure? (And we can argue about that too but the
fact that it is arguable says something, don't you think?)
If I were starting from scratch on an airplane there is no way I
would include a vacuum system. Where I would have a vacuum pump I can
have a second source of electrical power. I can use that power not
only for my gyros but also for lights, radios, etc. So I end up with
a backup power source that can be used with all my devices. Also,
wire is smaller, lighter, and easier to route than a vacuum hose. I'm
sorry but to argue the merits of air-powered gyros strikes me as just
plain silly. The only reason to keep air powered gyros is because the
FAA won't let you change. (And that is telling also.)
I know, someone is going to jump in here and tell me that air-powered
gyros are less expensive. I know they are. But if you are going to
fly IFR your life depends more on the health of your gyros than on
just about anything else. If you are worried about the cost then get
a cheaper GPS or nav-com. Don't skimp on your gyros.
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: | "DJones" <pilotx2(at)zianet.com> |
Subject: | Antenna Connections |
I would like to know what is the best way to connect the marker beacon antenna
coax to the audio panel. I also have an old Narco Nav 12 which uses some very
small coax type cable, is this just shielded wire?
I remember seeing something about putting a BNC connector on small shielded cable
on Bob's site, but I can't find it now.
Thanks
Don
--------
Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=50996#50996
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Antenna Connections |
In a message dated 7/31/06 10:06:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
pilotx2(at)zianet.com writes:
> I would like to know what is the best way to connect the marker beacon
> antenna coax to the audio panel. I also have an old Narco Nav 12 which
uses
> some very small coax type cable, is this just shielded wire?
> I remember seeing something about putting a BNC connector on small
shielded
> cable on Bob's site, but I can't find it now.
> Thanks
> Don
==============================
Don:
What audio panel do you have? Is the marker beacon receiver part of the
audio panel or is there a separate box? Since you have a NARCO NAV 12 I'm
guessing that you have a NARCO Audio Panel. Some of them did have separate marker
beacon receiver boxes.
Now, as for connecting the NAV 12. Some of them did have a separate BNC
connector and even if it did not there is a location for the connector. It can
be
paralleled up with the lousy coax connection on the edge card connector. O!
Nope ... it is NOT just a shield it is a small diameter 50 ohm coax. Probably
RG-117.
I don't know if it was on Bob's site that you read about the BNC connector
but I know I posted a few notes/articles on coax and the BNC connector.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "DJones" <pilotx2(at)zianet.com> |
Subject: | Re: Antenna Connections |
FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/31/06 10:06:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> pilotx2(at)zianet.com writes:
>
>
> > I would like to know what is the best way to connect the marker beacon
> > antenna coax to the audio panel. I also have an old Narco Nav 12 which
> > uses
> >
>
>
> > some very small coax type cable, is this just shielded wire?
> > I remember seeing something about putting a BNC connector on small
> > shielded
> >
>
>
> > cable on Bob's site, but I can't find it now.
> > Thanks
> > Don
> >
> > ==============================
> >
>
> Don:
>
> What audio panel do you have? Is the marker beacon receiver part of the
> audio panel or is there a separate box? Since you have a NARCO NAV 12 I'm
> guessing that you have a NARCO Audio Panel. Some of them did have separate marker
> beacon receiver boxes.
>
> Now, as for connecting the NAV 12. Some of them did have a separate BNC
> connector and even if it did not there is a location for the connector. It can
be
> paralleled up with the lousy coax connection on the edge card connector. O!
> Nope ... it is NOT just a shield it is a small diameter 50 ohm coax. Probably
> RG-117.
>
> I don't know if it was on Bob's site that you read about the BNC connector
> but I know I posted a few notes/articles on coax and the BNC connector.
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
> "Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
> time."
> Yamashiada
Sorry, all the info would help huh, It is a Garmin GMA340 audio panel. I wasn't
sure how to connect RG-58 directly to the panel since the pins are too small.
I thought about connecting a wire to the shield just like every other shielded
wire, but wondered if there was a better way.
I saw the small antenna lead on the old Nav 12 and wondered if that was coax or
just shielded wire. It sure would work nice if it is available.
Thanks
Don
--------
Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=51039#51039
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Subject: | Re: Vacuum pumps and gyros (was: What upgrades |
I've seen a fair number of alternator failures in a lot less than 500
hours, and/or regulator failures, over voltage failures, noise filter
failures.
If you fly a radial you expect oil. If you fly a flat four or six, you
don't. While wet pumps are reliable, they do waste oil, require
sizeable oil separators and are very costly compared to dry pumps. I
can easily buy 4-5 dry pumps for what a wet pump and oil separator
install costs. Vacuum pumps failing from sheared quill and unexpected
causes are relatively rare, and mean someone screwed up the install
and didn't clean the lines/replace the old cracked lines or otherwise
contaminated the suction side. If you do a proper install, failures
are rather rare. I really wasn't defending the use of a vacuum system
per se. I was pointing out that the most cost effective backup is
replacing T&B/TC with electric AI, or if you have space, just putting
in electric AI. Gives you true dual system, with only minor loss of
heading information if vacuum fails.
Quoting Brian Lloyd :
>
> On Jul 31, 2006, at 12:12 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>> You know, that claim is actually funny. You are touting the reliability
> of a system that has passed 500 hours. If you had alternators that were
> failing every 500 hours you would probably be really annoyed with their
> poor quality. And if the alternator fails you still have the battery to
> proved backup. There is no inherent backup with a vacuum system.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Using character map |
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
> Using Character Map
> You can use Character Map to copy and paste special characters into
>your documents, such as the trademark symbol, special mathematical
>characters, or a character from the character set of another language.
>
> Open Character Map.
>
> Notes
>
> a.. To open Character Map, click Start, point to All Programs,
>point to Accessories, point to System Tools, and then click Character
>Map.
> b.. For information about using Character Map, click Help in
>Character Map.
>
> Copied the above from Start, Help, character map in search field.
> David Carter
>
>
That only works on a Windows machine, and only for the font which the
author is using at the moment. What Character Map actually does is load
an ASCII code. The font files have little pictures (called glyphs) that
correspond to each code. A different character set may have different
glyphs or none at all. Scroll through the fonts with Character Map, and
see how many are missing various characters (usually replaced with a
dash, if I remember correctly.)
Putting exotic ASCII codes in a public message that can only be
interpreted by a subset of the audience could be considered
anti-social. Many people use text mail readers, different fonts, or
even foreign character mappings. For instance, I use Thunderbird on
Linux, and what I got from your example was "Degrees (X=B0) is 0176 and
(X=B3) is 0179." Not exactly useful. Wouldn't it actually be less
difficult to just type degF or degC? (I can only assume that's what you
meant to represent.) There's less to remember, and you actually get
your message across to everyone.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: Antenna Connections |
On Jul 31, 2006, at 12:03 PM, DJones wrote:
> Sorry, all the info would help huh, It is a Garmin GMA340 audio
> panel. I wasn't sure how to connect RG-58 directly to the panel
> since the pins are too small. I thought about connecting a wire to
> the shield just like every other shielded wire, but wondered if
> there was a better way.
If they did not provide an obvious antenna connector, such as a BNC,
you will need to connect your coax to the edge connectors. What you
suggest, connecting a smaller-gauge wire to the coax braid, is the
correct way to do this. I usually strip back plenty of jacket and
braid so I have a couple of inches of center conductor. I get some
smaller-gauge tefzel wire, strip it, wrap it around the shortened
braid, solder, and then apply heat shrink over it. Now you just have
two leads to solder to the pins of your edge connector.
Now, some distance away where it is convenient to get to later you
should terminate the coax in a crimp-on in-line female BNC connector.
This will let you easily disconnect the antenna for testing or
trouble shooting.
Given how little it matters, and at the risk of horrifying some of
you, you might want to just twist some wire together and solder to a
bulkhead BNC connector right at the audio panel. (Or just use a
couple of inches of your shielded audio cable.) 75MHz is low enough
in frequency and the signal is so strong, that the little impedance
bump caused by a couple of inches of non-50-ohm coax is not going to
cause any problem.
> I saw the small antenna lead on the old Nav 12 and wondered if
> that was coax or just shielded wire. It sure would work nice if it
> is available.
Did the Nav 12 have a built-in MB receiver? It has been years and
years since I have used the Nav-12 (like 30+). I like the old Nav-122
as it was a complete ILS system in a box, receiver, indicators,
everything. It even had the lights for the MB receiver there but I
don't think the Nav-122 had the MB receiver built in. Hmm, it may
have as I think there were some with three antenna connectors. Two
would have been VOR/LOC and GS so the third could only have been MB.
As for smaller coax, there is RG-141 which is 50-ohm coax with an OD
of a little more than 1/8". There is a version using a teflon
insulator which is RG-187 if I recall properly. You can find 50 and
75 ohm coax in all kinds of ODs. Smaller diameter coax will have
greater loss but may be easier to handle in a wiring bundle. For the
frequencies we use, up to GPS, a couple of feet of small-diameter
coax is not going to have a discernible effect on the performance of
your systems.
The only places you should not use really small diameter coax is for
the transponder and DME antennas. These are both transmitters with
high peak power levels and the smaller coax will not have as good a
voltage handling rating as larger coax.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: Vacuum pumps and gyros (was: What upgrades |
On Jul 31, 2006, at 12:11 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> I've seen a fair number of alternator failures in a lot less than
> 500 hours, and/or regulator failures, over voltage failures, noise
> filter failures.
Sure they fail. I have seen engine failures at much less than TBO too
but, in general, alternators last longer than vacuum pumps by a wide
margin. And the rest of what I said, that there is an intrinsic
backup from the battery that doesn't exist with a vacuum pump, is
also true.
> If you fly a radial you expect oil.
Surprisingly, this is not necessarily true. I have seen dry radials.
(I used to own one.) When they are flinging oil everywhere it usually
means something needs to be tightened. Of course, flying
> If you fly a flat four or six, you don't. While wet pumps are
> reliable, they do waste oil,
Well, no, not really. Sure some oil goes out the pump exhaust but it
is not a lot of oil. Let me put it this way -- I could not discern
the difference in oil consumption between wet and dry vacuum pumps.
The engine uses so much more than the vacuum pump does that you just
can't tell.
> require sizeable oil separators
It depends on your point of view. *I* don't think it requires an oil
separator but a lot of other people seem to think so.
> and are very costly compared to dry pumps. I can easily buy 4-5 dry
> pumps for what a wet pump and oil separator install costs.
An overhauled wet pump is not all that expensive. It is certainly
worth considering if you have a vacuum system and your dry pump has
failed.
> Vacuum pumps failing from sheared quill and unexpected causes are
> relatively rare,
> and mean someone screwed up the install and didn't clean the lines/
> replace the old cracked lines or otherwise contaminated the suction
> side. If you do a proper install, failures are rather rare.
You should check with your local repair station if you think that is
true.
The truth of the matter is simple:
1. A wet vacuum pump is more reliable than a dry vacuum pump.
2. An electrical system, almost ANY electrical system, is more
reliable than a vacuum system for powering gyros. The electrical
systems proposed by Electric Bob are so far more reliable than vacuum
pumps that they aren't even in the same universe.
> I really wasn't defending the use of a vacuum system per se. I was
> pointing out that the most cost effective backup is replacing T&B/
> TC with electric AI, or if you have space, just putting in electric
> AI. Gives you true dual system, with only minor loss of heading
> information if vacuum fails.
Or go to an all electric panel and have your no-single-point-of-
failure electrical system provide reliable power to your gyros too.
Fortunately OBAM aircraft owners have that option. Most of the new
aircraft are going to all-electric panels. They aren't going to the
trouble of getting them certified with the hidebound FAA just for
chuckles.
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: | OldBob Siegfried <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com> |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a |
Good Afternoon Barry,
Been away at Oshkosh for a while so may have missed
many important portions of this thread, but you seem
to be saying that if something came on the airplane
from the factory and it is listed in the equipment
list, that it would take a 337 to get it off.
If that is your assertion, I do not believe it is
correct.
There are many optional items added to many aircraft
at the factory. If it is listed as optional in the
TCDSs, all it takes is a logbook entry to legally
remove that component. Likewise, if it is listed as a
piece of optional equipment in the TCDSs, it can be
added with nothing more than an entry in the ship's
papers by an appropriately rated maintenance
technician.
In any airplane that was type certificated until very
recently, there is NO requirement for any instrument
power redundancy. You can have all electric or all
pneumatic. There is no particular source specified.
The instruments that are required for IFR flight are
as listed in the pertinent FARs. Once again, no
redundancy required.
The only things that MUST be on the airplane are those
things listed as required equipment and/or those
devices listed as required by the FARs for the
operation to be conducted.
Does that statement sound correct to you? It does to
me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
--- FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
> FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
>
> In a message dated 7/30/06 3:23:05 PM Eastern
> Daylight Time,
> N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com writes:
>
> > Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a
> > Sporty's electric AI as long as I'm never
> attempting to use the plane for
> > IFR?
> >
> > Dave
> ====================
> Dave:
>
> Prove it! Prove that you will never attempt or
> never enter an IFR condition.
>
> The FAA does not care whether you attempt it or not
> ... You are talking about
> a GA aircraft that has been certified with an
> equipment list. If you wish to
> change to something that is not on the equipment
> list you must start with a
> 337. In this case and especially if you plan on
> keeping the vacuum driven
> system and adding the electrical AI the FAA will let
> you go with their blessing.
> After all the Electronic AI is only a backup for the
> Vacuum AI. BUT, what
> happens if you loose electrical power and the ONLY
> AI is electrical? No problem
> ... You think...You will just include in your scan
> the T&B ... Whoops ... The
> T&B is also electrical. Now you have NO BACKUP!
> Sorry Charlie - Dave ... FAA
> does not like that scenario they want a back up ...
> Got an Electrical backup
> system w/Buss?
>
> NOW< if you want to make the Electrical AI your
> primary by putting it into
> your 'T' scan area, that is OK. You are still using
> the vacuum AI as your
> back-up.
>
> See very easy ... Just think BELTS & SUSPENDERS and
> don't forget to button
> your pants too.
>
>
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a Mooney |
What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom would I be paying
money to, and for what?
Dave Morris
At 09:48 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>
>AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for early Mooneys. The
>only place to put one would be on the vacuum pump pad. Unless one
>has been STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a fortune getting it approved.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | OldBob Siegfried <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com> |
Subject: | Re: What upgrades are possible on a |
Good Afternoon Kevin,
I think you will find that very few airplanes list in
their Type Certificate Data Sheets specifically what
instrumentation is required for IFR flight. Such data
is found in the FARs regulating IFR operations.
In addition, only the most recently certificated
aircraft have any requirement for redundancy of power
sources.
For the vast majority of the GA fleet, any certified
electric gyro can be used in lieu of any pneumatically
powered one.
Nothing more than an entry in the ship's papers by an
appropriately certificated technician is required.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
--- Kevin Horton wrote:
> Horton
>
> If this is a type-certificated aircraft, and you
> remove a component
> (e.g. the vacuum AI), then the aircraft no longer
> conforms to the
> type design, and the airworthiness certificate is no
> longer valid.
>
> Kevin Horton
>
>
>
> On 30 Jul 2006, at 15:14, Dave N6030X wrote:
>
> N6030X
> >
> >
> > Can I replace the vacuum AH completely with a
> Sporty's electric AI
> > as long as I'm never attempting to use the plane
> for IFR?
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > At 09:45 AM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
> McMullen
> >>
> >>
> >> The Sporty's or other electric AI gives him an
> all electric backup
> >> to the vacuum gyros without worrying about all
> the other stuff.
> >> Better than the SVS system as no power setting
> changes needed, and
> >> FAA has already blessed using electric AI to
> replace electric T&B
> >> or TC with an advisory circular.
> >>
> >> Brian Lloyd wrote:
> Lloyd >>> yak(at)lloyd.com>
> >>> On Jul 29, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Dave N6030X wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I would dearly love to hire an A&P mechanic to
> pull out the
> >>>> vacuum pump and vacuum instruments, put a B&C
> backup alternator
> >>>> on the vacuum pad, mount a Flight Cheetah with
> XM Weather and
> >>>> solid state Artificial Horizon at the center of
> a high-tech T-
> >>>> arrangement, re-do the instrument panel so the
> instruments are
> >>>> more logically laid out, put the critical
> engine monitoring
> >>>> instruments on the left side where I can see
> them, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> What latitudes does one have to do that sort of
> thing? Can you
> >>>> put a B&C backup alternator on any airplane?
> >>> I have done some of this with certified aircraft
> in the past but
> >>> not as completely as you are suggesting. I have
> done it for a
> >>> Piper Comanche and a Piper Clipper.
> >>> What you are after is a one-time STC on a form
> 337 for
> >>> alternations. Fabricating a new panel and
> rearranging the
> >>> locations of instruments does not require a 337
> so long as the it
> >>> does not require modification of any
> load-bearing structure. In
> >>> my Comanche the panels are on vibration
> isolators and are not
> >>> structural. I was able to move instruments to
> construct a
> >>> "modern" 6-pack layout and center stack for my
> radios without any
> >>> problem.
> >>> In my Comanche I also constructed an e-bus out
> of what was the
> >>> avionics bus and added a second battery charged
> by the main
> >>> battery through a diode. The second battery
> could be directly
> >>> switched to the e-bus to power selected radios
> and TC. That did
> >>> require a 337 but it did not seem to give the
> FSDO heartburn. The
> >>> only problem is, I did that in 1985 and they
> seem to have been
> >>> more flexible then than they are now.
> >>> As for adding a B&C dynamo, you can probably
> forget it. The FAA
> >>> tried to put Bill Bainbridge out of business on
> the basis that he
> >>> was intentionally selling his stuff to people
> for their certified
> >>> aircraft (it was another Bob Hoover deal). They
> eventually backed
> >>> down under pressure from the community but it
> had to go all the
> >>> way up to the Administrator before it got fixed.
> >>> I also kept the vacuum instruments and added a
> Precise Flight
> >>> standby vacuum system. It requires me to reduce
> throttle to
> >>> generate vacuum in the intake manifold but it
> works just fine and
> >>> will get you back on the ground.
> >>> It would make so much sense to build an
> all-electric panel but
> >>> the FAA is risk-averse and probably won't buy
> into that idea. I
> >>> am going to try to talk the FSDO into signing
> off on adding a
> >>> Dynon to the panel without removing any of the
> existing
> >>> instruments. If all the certified stuff remains
> they shouldn't
> >>> have a problem. The only worry I have is that I
> will have to tap
> >>> into the pitot-static system and that may bother
> them. We'll see.
> >>> Good luck!
> >>>
> >>> Brian Lloyd
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a Mooney |
On Jul 31, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Dave N6030X wrote:
>
>
> What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom would I be paying
> money to, and for what?
I think that Kelly was referring to getting a full general STC rather
than a one-time STC. The former may require flight testing and a lot
of paperwork to the FAA, as well as a fairly long lead time. Time and
aircraft time cost money. I agree with him if that is what he was
thinking.
As for a one-time STC, that is easier (and cheaper) to get. Still,
you are going to probably end up making several trips to the FSDO and
you are probably going to have to submit drawings and descriptions to
the engineering folks. That may not cost a lot but will certainly eat
up some time.
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: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
Subject: | electrical system for review and critique |
hey John
Im no expert so everything I say is suspect... but through Bobs
AeroElectric Connection and this list I have managed to wire my RV-7A more
or less according to Z-13/8 and hey - everything on the panel now lights up
when I tell it to.
A couple minor points: I think the ANL- 40 current limiter is probably
fine instead of the -60 if you only have the 40 amp alternator
On your load analysis, note that the battery contactor is shut off in the
event of main alternator failure and switching over to the SD-8, so you
actually have another 1 amp to play with on your endurance buss under this
condition
Im not very familiar with your modifications to the Z-13 alternator
regulator wiring that I guess you "borrowed" Z-14. Remind me - what are
you accomplishing with all those diodes?
Similarly, although there has been some discussion of this on the list, I
still dont get what the benefit is for the SD-8 self-excitation. What is
the scenario where I would wish I had this? (others welcome to jump in
here as you see fit!)
regards,
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Subject: | Matronics Email List Web Server Upgrade Tonight... |
Dear Listers,
This evening I will be upgrading the Matronics Web Server hardware to a new Quad-processor
2.8Ghz Xeon system (yes, 4-physical CPUs!) with an Ultra 320 SCSI
Raid 5 disk system and 5GB of DDR2 RAM.
As with the older system, the new system will be running the latest version of
Redhat Linux. Most of the software configuration work is already done for the
migration, but I still have to sync all of the archive and forum data from the
old system to the new system. I am anticipating about 2 to 3 hours of downtime
for me to fully make the transition, although it could be considerable less
if everything goes according to plan.
The Matronics Webserver will be *UNavailable* from the Internet during the work,
and you will receive a time-out if you try to connect during the upgrade.
Email List Distribution will be *available* during the upgrade of the Web Server,
and List message distribution will function as normal.
This represents a significant performance upgrade for the Matronics Web Server
and you should notice nicely improved searching and surfing performance following
the upgrade!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | electrical system for review and critique |
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 6:08 PM
hey John
Im no expert so everything I say is suspect... but through Bobs
AeroElectric Connection and this list I have managed to wire my RV-7A more
or less according to Z-13/8 and hey - everything on the panel now lights up
when I tell it to.
Erich I welcome your comments, expert or not. The vetting process
happens when hard questions have to be answered--no matter who asks
them.
A couple minor points: I think the ANL- 40 current limiter is probably
fine instead of the -60 if you only have the 40 amp alternator
In a May 9,2005 reply to jerry(at)mc.net, Bob N. said to use a MAX60
ANL current limiter for a 40A alternator, or a MAX80 for a 60A
alternator.
On your load analysis, note that the battery contactor is shut off in the
event of main alternator failure and switching over to the SD-8, so you
actually have another 1 amp to play with on your endurance buss under this
condition
Aha! You are correct. I repeated the error I saw on someone else's
load analysis offered on this list. I believe one would indeed switch off
the DC Power Master Switch after switching on the E-bus Alternate Feed
Switch, which would shut off the battery contactor. Good point.
(Maybe, if one could drive the endurance load low enough, one of those
shake-up LCD flashlights could be modified to supply the power,
provided one had a free hand for shaking it.(;p)
Im not very familiar with your modifications to the Z-13 alternator
regulator wiring that I guess you "borrowed" Z-14. Remind me - what are
you accomplishing with all those diodes?
The pure Fig. Z-13/8 drawing shows a "Ford" type generic voltage
regulator, which I am not using, so I spliced in the appropriate
section of Fig. Z-14 which shows a B&C LR-3 Alternator Controller,
which I am using. It appears, however that I left out the overvoltage
warning light. I don't remember why (most of this I did about 12
months ago), but it may be that since I will be using the Grand Rapids
Technologies Model 4000 EIS for low-voltage warning, I may have been
intending to use it for overvoltage warning as well. It comes with a
blinding indicator light which comes on when any user-set parameter is
violated. I'd like Bob to comment on this, as I'm finished drilling
holes in the panel and plan to paint it in a few days. Now would be a good
time to drill one more if necessary.
"All those diodes" are bridge rectifiers, Radio Shack No. 276-1185,
as specified by Bob in multiple posts, many of them recently. One is for
the self-excitation feature for the SD-8 (Fig. Z-25) (upper right
corner of my schematic), and the other is part of the circuit for the PM
starter to prevent damage from run-on. All I know about diodes is that
they are like cowboys herding electrons in the proper direction.
Similarly, although there has been some discussion of this on the list, I
still dont get what the benefit is for the SD-8 self-excitation. What is
the scenario where I would wish I had this? (others welcome to jump in
here as you see fit!)
Touche'! Granted--the likelihood of the main alternator dying and
the battery giving up the ghost on one fateful day is, to borrow a
simile from Bob, on a par with prop bolt failure. I guess, for the price
and weight of a bridge rectifier and a resistor, it seems silly not to
have that one improbable base covered.
regards,
Erich Weaver
Thanks again for your views, Erich.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
Subject: | Re: electrical system for review and critique |
Hi John
I believe that the EIS is fine as a hi voltage warning.
If you have functioning overvoltage protection, it will never illuminate
anyway. Its low voltage warning will then be important though.
Ken
>It appears, however that I left out the overvoltage
>warning light. I don't remember why (most of this I did about 12
>months ago), but it may be that since I will be using the Grand Rapids
>Technologies Model 4000 EIS for low-voltage warning, I may have been
>intending to use it for overvoltage warning as well. It comes with a
>blinding indicator light which comes on when any user-set parameter is
>violated. I'd like Bob to comment on this, as I'm finished drilling
>holes in the panel and plan to paint it in a few days. Now would be a good
>time to drill one more if necessary.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Keith Hallsten" <KeithHallsten(at)quiknet.com> |
Subject: | Starter switch for LASAR ignition |
Does anyone know whether there would be a problem using a separate starter
push button with a LASAR electronic ignition? All of Unison Industries'
documentation shows the classic "OFF - LEFT - RIGHT - BOTH - START"
keyswitch, but I would rather have the option to get the engine turning
before firing up the ignition. I don't know if the LASAR will be happy
starting on only one ignition, or coming alive when the engine is already
moving. I bought a starter pushbutton form B&C a few years ago, before I
was committed to the LASAR ignition, and I'd still like to use it.
Keith Hallsten
Velocity XLFG, N585V (reserved)
Roseville, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bob Verwey " <bonanza(at)vodamail.co.za> |
Subject: | Radio noise/interference |
Good day listers.
I normally lurk on the Beech list but this query is far more suited to this
forum!
I fly a 1949 A35 Bonanza with an IO 470 engine and two Becker radios. I have
had endless problems with interference.
There is a loud "ticking" noise about 3 times per second when I hear someone
else transmit. I have had the alternator overhauled,(suspected diode
problem) the regulator changed, relocated the alternator wires inside the
cockpit together with the relevant circuit breakers to the far left of the
panel (radios on RHS), wired the radio power wire direct to the battery,
rerouted the antenna wires and fitted a suppressor to the B terminal. There
is also a wining noise audible as soon as the Alt Field is switched on,
usually at low RPM. This corresponds with the flicking of the Ampmeter
needle as the regulator cuts in and out.
Any suggestions appreciated!
Regards
Bob Verwey
A35 ZU-DLW
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John McMahon" <blackoaks(at)gmail.com> |
Subject: | Installation Location of LR3C regulator |
Have any of you put the B & C regulator on the back side of the firewall as
suggested on the installation sheet? Lancair mounted mine on the front
side. They seem to operate just fine no matter where they are. How
important to longevity is the location? Comments Bob??? or anyone! Thanks
in advance...
--
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, N9637M
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Installation Location of LR3C regulator |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Antenna Connections |
In a message dated 7/31/06 12:09:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
pilotx2(at)zianet.com writes:
> Sorry, all the info would help huh, It is a Garmin GMA340 audio panel. I
> wasn't sure how to connect RG-58 directly to the panel since the pins are
too
> small. I thought about connecting a wire to the shield just like every
other
> shielded wire, but wondered if there was a better way.
> I saw the small antenna lead on the old Nav 12 and wondered if that was
> coax or just shielded wire. It sure would work nice if it is available.
> Thanks
> Don
===============================================
Don:
I could not find the pin out of the Garmin GMA 340. If you have it you will
find the edge connector pins that are used for the antenna input.
Just parallel up a short piece of coax to those pins and you will in
business.
Yes, you could use braided wire for flexibility but coax would also work.
Just after you solder onto the edge connector secure the coax (or any wire) to
the bundle. Don. I'm using the term edge connector but I'm not sure what type
of connector is being used on the GMA 340.
Oh, if you wish you can install an inline female BNC for easy removal and
testing.
As for the NAV 12, that is coax.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Starter switch for LASAR ignition |
Starter switch for LASAR ignitionKeith,
To my knowledge the LASAR will operate (start the engine) if the engine
is already in motion before the ign. is turned on. However, if you try
to start on only one mag the LASAR will go into backup mode and will not
go to automatic mode for 30 seconds. In backup mode the LASAR mags have
no provision for providing for boosted spark energy. So, unless you have
one of the newer systems with one impulse mag (my 1999 vintage system
does not) the LASAR must be windmilled to over 500 RPM to start in the
backup mode. That is how in-flight restarts are accomplished. And when
you do a mag check the system will remain in back up mode for 30 seconds
before returning to the automatic mode. Also, I hope you have the
optional system with the cockpit enunciator light. I like to know the
system is working properly. It helps for the piece of mind.
Dale Ensing
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Hallsten
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:59 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Starter switch for LASAR ignition
Does anyone know whether there would be a problem using a separate
starter push button with a LASAR electronic ignition? All of Unison
Industries' documentation shows the classic "OFF - LEFT - RIGHT - BOTH -
START" keyswitch, but I would rather have the option to get the engine
turning before firing up the ignition. I don't know if the LASAR will
be happy starting on only one ignition, or coming alive when the engine
is already moving. I bought a starter pushbutton form B&C a few years
ago, before I was committed to the LASAR ignition, and I'd still like to
use it.
Keith Hallsten
Velocity XLFG, N585V (reserved)
Roseville, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dennis Haverlah <clouduster(at)austin.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: Installation Location of LR3C regulator |
I am planning on mounting my Ford voltage regulator on the engine side
of the firewall next to the battery. The regulator is temperature
compensating so I felt it should be at the same temperature as the
battery. I'm I incorrect?
Dennis H.
Ralph E. Capen wrote:
> I put both my primary and secondary regulators on the 'back' side of
> the firewall. I added a second rudder pedal support and built a shelf
> across the two to mount both of them.
>
> It minimizes the length of the wiring runs.
> It minimizes through firewall wiring penetrations (to one wire for
> each regulator).
> It places them further aft for CG purposes.
> It allows for inspection/replacement without removing the cowl.
>
> Pictures if you want them - contact me directly,
> Ralph Capen
> RV6AQB N822AR @ N06 Getting ready to close up fwd topskin.....
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John McMahon
> Sent: Aug 1, 2006 7:53 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Installation Location of LR3C regulator
>
>
> Have any of you put the B & C regulator on the back side of the
> firewall as suggested on the installation sheet? Lancair mounted
> mine on the front side. They seem to operate just fine no matter
> where they are. How important to longevity is the location?
> Comments Bob??? or anyone! Thanks in advance...
>
>
> --
> John McMahon
> Lancair Super ES, N9637M
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
Subject: | electrical system for review and critique |
Hey again John
I checked the archives regarding your reference on the 60 amp fuse - I
dont think you are interpreting this quite right. The original post was
not really about Z-13, but a modified starter set-up that had been
suggested. Also, the MAX 60 fuse is something different than an ANL
current limiter - check out the link posted in Bob's reply from the
archives:
http://www.bussmann.com/shared/library/catalogs/Buss_Auto-Fuse_Cat.pdf
I cant provide a direct reference - probably something from the
AeroElectric FAQ files - but I still think that the ANL40 is pretty robust
fuse and is fine with the 40 amp alternator. Somebody please correct me if
Im full of it.
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Installation Location of LR3C regulator |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: Installation Location of LR3C regulator |
On Aug 1, 2006, at 12:23 PM, Dennis Haverlah wrote:
> I am planning on mounting my Ford voltage regulator on the engine
> side of the firewall next to the battery. The regulator is
> temperature compensating so I felt it should be at the same
> temperature as the battery. I'm I incorrect?
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: Radio noise/interference |
On Aug 1, 2006, at 6:36 AM, Bob Verwey wrote:
> There is a loud ticking noise about 3 times per second when I
> hear someone else transmit.
It is hard to troubleshoot things we can't hear for ourselves. Here
are some additional questions:
1. Does the ticking change with changes in the engine speed?
2. Does the ticking correspond to the flickering of your ammeter?
The whine may mean that you have one or more diodes out in the
alternator but I suspect something else.
Do you have an intercom? When you unplug all your mics do the noises
get less or disappear?
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: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Installation Location of LR3C regulator |
In a message dated 08/01/2006 11:30:33 AM Central Daylight Time,
clouduster(at)austin.rr.com writes:
I am planning on mounting my Ford voltage regulator on the engine side of
the firewall next to the battery. The regulator is temperature compensating so
I felt it should be at the same temperature as the battery. I'm I incorrect?
>>>
Pretty much what I did- original $10 unit from Advance Auto Parts has
performed well here for 340 hrs & 2.5 yrs. See:
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=7264
Click on foto for larger view. "Battery box" is .063 angles attached to
firewall, .040 side plates and front cover strap which is attached to side plates
with hinges. Regulator is bolted to front cover with ground wire to firewall.
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | electrical system for review and critique |
Hi Erich,
I see your point, but I think the archived post is applicable, because if
you read the thread that comes up if you type "MAX60" into the archive
search window, it is all about using Z-22, which is one of the modifications
I have made to Z-13/8. You're right, the MAXI fuses are not the same as ANL
current limiters; I haven't been able to find anything other than the post
cited to indicate the proper size for the protection device, whether MAXI or
ANL. I think the point of using a MAXI fuse & holder was that they're
cheaper than an ANL current limiter. I've already bought the ANL so that's
of no consequence to me. Z-22 just says the device should be "sized to the
alternator." Usually circuit protection devices are sized to protect the
wire they're attached to, unless the wire is unusually large for the gadget
attached, so I'm lost here. However, this excerpt from a January 11, 2002
post from Bob might give a clue:
The alternator is NOT the source of current that opens
this fuse . . . Alternators are physically incapable of
putting out much more than their design limit with respect
to current (not so for voltage . . . you can get 100V+
from a runaway alternator).
The current source that might antagonize the alternator
b-lead is the BATTERY . . . good for 700-1500 amps
in a fault condition through fat wires. Hence, the
alternator b-lead protection goes at the end of the
wire opposite the alternator connection.
Incidentally, I haven't ruled out buying a B&C series-wound starter, but I
will wait until well into the test flight phase before deciding. My A&P
says a Sky-Tec Fly Weight is a perfectly good starter; but to avoid possible
problems with the electronic ignitions at start-up, the B&C option might be
appealing.
Thanks again.
John
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 12:35 PM
Hey again John
I checked the archives regarding your reference on the 60 amp fuse - I
dont think you are interpreting this quite right. The original post was
not really about Z-13, but a modified starter set-up that had been
suggested. Also, the MAX 60 fuse is something different than an ANL
current limiter - check out the link posted in Bob's reply from the
archives:
http://www.bussmann.com/shared/library/catalogs/Buss_Auto-Fuse_Cat.pdf
I cant provide a direct reference - probably something from the
AeroElectric FAQ files - but I still think that the ANL40 is pretty robust
fuse and is fine with the 40 amp alternator. Somebody please correct me if
Im full of it.
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | PeterHunt1(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Starter Switch for LASAR ignition |
Keith,
LASAR comes with an on/off switch (and warning light which illuminates when
it is off). Lycoming claims better starting with LASAR and that has been my
experience. I have LASAR ignition and a push button start switch (no
off-left-right-both switch). My start-up procedure involves turning the LASAR
on,
turning mags "on" (which disconnects the mag grounds), setting carb heat,
throttle, prop, and mixture and then pressing the start button. While my engine
is running I can turn my LASAR on and off without the engine even missing a
beat. I have even been taking off with my LASAR off to help a CHT overheating
problem. (Lycoming has admitted to me that their LASAR causes higher CHTs
on climb out and suggested turning it off during that period.)
Pete in Clearwater
RV-6, Reserve Grand Champion Sun n' Fun 2006
All electric panel
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
Subject: | Re: electrical system for review and critique |
Actually you are on the right track. ANL fuses are slow acting and a 40
amp alternator is quite unlikely to ever blow a ANL40 as I see it. So
that would be sufficient and would be my first choice if ordering a new
part. I'd also be happy with a ANL60 as long as the wire is at least
AWG8. You want the ANL or fuse to open before the wire gets dangerously
hot in the rare event of a short at or in the alternator. Even AWG8
might warm up a fair bit before the battery opened an ANL60 but I
wouldn't expect it to be much of a real risk.. I can see that some
folks might be more comfortable with AWG6 wire on an ANL60.
I have a MAX50 and AWG8 wire on my 40 amp alternator but a MAX60 would
also be a good choice IMO as these are fast acting fuses.
Ken
John Swartout wrote:
>
>Hi Erich,
>
>I see your point, but I think the archived post is applicable, because if
>you read the thread that comes up if you type "MAX60" into the archive
>search window, it is all about using Z-22, which is one of the modifications
>I have made to Z-13/8. You're right, the MAXI fuses are not the same as ANL
>current limiters; I haven't been able to find anything other than the post
>cited to indicate the proper size for the protection device, whether MAXI or
>ANL. I think the point of using a MAXI fuse & holder was that they're
>cheaper than an ANL current limiter. I've already bought the ANL so that's
>of no consequence to me. Z-22 just says the device should be "sized to the
>alternator." Usually circuit protection devices are sized to protect the
>wire they're attached to, unless the wire is unusually large for the gadget
>attached, so I'm lost here. However, this excerpt from a January 11, 2002
>post from Bob might give a clue:
>
> The alternator is NOT the source of current that opens
> this fuse . . . Alternators are physically incapable of
> putting out much more than their design limit with respect
> to current (not so for voltage . . . you can get 100V+
> from a runaway alternator).
>
> The current source that might antagonize the alternator
> b-lead is the BATTERY . . . good for 700-1500 amps
> in a fault condition through fat wires. Hence, the
> alternator b-lead protection goes at the end of the
> wire opposite the alternator connection.
>
>Incidentally, I haven't ruled out buying a B&C series-wound starter, but I
>will wait until well into the test flight phase before deciding. My A&P
>says a Sky-Tec Fly Weight is a perfectly good starter; but to avoid possible
>problems with the electronic ignitions at start-up, the B&C option might be
>appealing.
>Thanks again.
>John
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: electrical system for review and critique |
I have a new 55 amp ND alternator and its rated for a max of 70 amps at 13.0
V output.
Not sure about a 40 amp alternator but as you can see 70 amps is more than
25% greater than the "so called" 55 amp rating.
I would never consider a fuse rated at less than 70 amps for my 55 amp rated
alternator.
70 amps for vary long may overheat the alternator but that is another issue.
55 amps is the rated continuous output (with proper cooling); 70 amps is the
max output with an output and field voltage of 13.0 v. Its not specified
what the max output is where the output voltage drops below 14.3V
(internally regulated).
Paul
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 6:46 PM
>
> Actually you are on the right track. ANL fuses are slow acting and a 40
> amp alternator is quite unlikely to ever blow a ANL40 as I see it. So that
> would be sufficient and would be my first choice if ordering a new part.
> I'd also be happy with a ANL60 as long as the wire is at least AWG8. You
> want the ANL or fuse to open before the wire gets dangerously hot in the
> rare event of a short at or in the alternator. Even AWG8 might warm up a
> fair bit before the battery opened an ANL60 but I wouldn't expect it to be
> much of a real risk.. I can see that some folks might be more comfortable
> with AWG6 wire on an ANL60.
>
> I have a MAX50 and AWG8 wire on my 40 amp alternator but a MAX60 would
> also be a good choice IMO as these are fast acting fuses.
>
> Ken
>
> John Swartout wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Hi Erich,
>>
>>I see your point, but I think the archived post is applicable, because if
>>you read the thread that comes up if you type "MAX60" into the archive
>>search window, it is all about using Z-22, which is one of the
>>modifications
>>I have made to Z-13/8. You're right, the MAXI fuses are not the same as
>>ANL
>>current limiters; I haven't been able to find anything other than the post
>>cited to indicate the proper size for the protection device, whether MAXI
>>or
>>ANL. I think the point of using a MAXI fuse & holder was that they're
>>cheaper than an ANL current limiter. I've already bought the ANL so
>>that's
>>of no consequence to me. Z-22 just says the device should be "sized to
>>the
>>alternator." Usually circuit protection devices are sized to protect the
>>wire they're attached to, unless the wire is unusually large for the
>>gadget
>>attached, so I'm lost here. However, this excerpt from a January 11, 2002
>>post from Bob might give a clue:
>>
>> The alternator is NOT the source of current that opens
>> this fuse . . . Alternators are physically incapable of
>> putting out much more than their design limit with respect
>> to current (not so for voltage . . . you can get 100V+
>> from a runaway alternator).
>>
>> The current source that might antagonize the alternator
>> b-lead is the BATTERY . . . good for 700-1500 amps
>> in a fault condition through fat wires. Hence, the
>> alternator b-lead protection goes at the end of the
>> wire opposite the alternator connection.
>>
>>Incidentally, I haven't ruled out buying a B&C series-wound starter, but I
>>will wait until well into the test flight phase before deciding. My A&P
>>says a Sky-Tec Fly Weight is a perfectly good starter; but to avoid
>>possible
>>problems with the electronic ignitions at start-up, the B&C option might
>>be
>>appealing. Thanks again.
>>John
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | electrical system for review and critique |
I'm showing that ANL current limiter on 4 ga. Welding cable, substituting
that for 4 AWG in Fig. Z-13/8. That should be plenty big for the maximum
continuous load contemplated (25 amps). Battery will be on the firewall so
all fat wire runs will be pretty short.
John
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 9:47 PM
Actually you are on the right track. ANL fuses are slow acting and a 40
amp alternator is quite unlikely to ever blow a ANL40 as I see it. So
that would be sufficient and would be my first choice if ordering a new
part. I'd also be happy with a ANL60 as long as the wire is at least
AWG8. You want the ANL or fuse to open before the wire gets dangerously
hot in the rare event of a short at or in the alternator. Even AWG8
might warm up a fair bit before the battery opened an ANL60 but I
wouldn't expect it to be much of a real risk.. I can see that some
folks might be more comfortable with AWG6 wire on an ANL60.
I have a MAX50 and AWG8 wire on my 40 amp alternator but a MAX60 would
also be a good choice IMO as these are fast acting fuses.
Ken
John Swartout wrote:
>
>Hi Erich,
>
>I see your point, but I think the archived post is applicable, because if
>you read the thread that comes up if you type "MAX60" into the archive
>search window, it is all about using Z-22, which is one of the
modifications
>I have made to Z-13/8. You're right, the MAXI fuses are not the same as
ANL
>current limiters; I haven't been able to find anything other than the post
>cited to indicate the proper size for the protection device, whether MAXI
or
>ANL. I think the point of using a MAXI fuse & holder was that they're
>cheaper than an ANL current limiter. I've already bought the ANL so that's
>of no consequence to me. Z-22 just says the device should be "sized to the
>alternator." Usually circuit protection devices are sized to protect the
>wire they're attached to, unless the wire is unusually large for the gadget
>attached, so I'm lost here. However, this excerpt from a January 11, 2002
>post from Bob might give a clue:
>
> The alternator is NOT the source of current that opens
> this fuse . . . Alternators are physically incapable of
> putting out much more than their design limit with respect
> to current (not so for voltage . . . you can get 100V+
> from a runaway alternator).
>
> The current source that might antagonize the alternator
> b-lead is the BATTERY . . . good for 700-1500 amps
> in a fault condition through fat wires. Hence, the
> alternator b-lead protection goes at the end of the
> wire opposite the alternator connection.
>
>Incidentally, I haven't ruled out buying a B&C series-wound starter, but I
>will wait until well into the test flight phase before deciding. My A&P
>says a Sky-Tec Fly Weight is a perfectly good starter; but to avoid
possible
>problems with the electronic ignitions at start-up, the B&C option might be
>appealing.
>Thanks again.
>John
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Installation Location of LR3C regulator |
>Have any of you put the B & C regulator on the back side of the firewall
>as suggested on the installation sheet? Lancair mounted mine on the
>front side. They seem to operate just fine no matter where they are. How
>important to longevity is the location? Comments Bob??? or
>anyone! Thanks in advance...
EVERY manufacturer would like to have you place THEIR product
in the most benign environment possible. But the bottom line is
that short of bolting the LR3 to an engine or exhaust part,
it will be fine on the forward side of the firewall also.
Of the gazillions of automotive regulators mounted under
the hoods of cars in some of the most stressful environments,
how many manufacturers would stay in business very long if
their particular electro-whizzie was ill-suited to compete?
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: STC for standby generator on a |
Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd aircraft to get the
SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft. I'm certain that by
now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system on older airplanes
under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or perhaps the limited
applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the first to ask,
then go to Mooney Type Clubs.
Bob . . .
>
>What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom would I be paying money
>to, and for what?
>
>Dave Morris
>
>At 09:48 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for early Mooneys. The only
>>place to put one would be on the vacuum pump pad. Unless one has been
>>STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a fortune getting it approved.
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- 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 >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Is this solder okay? |
I'm wondering if common auto parts store solder is acceptable to use for
connecting airplane wires. Yes, I know about using fastons. The soldering I need
to do is on small rotary switches and using fastons is not feasible.
So, is Rosin Flux Core 3/32" 40/60 tin-lead acceptable?
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
Subject: | Re: Installation Location of LR3C regulator |
hi tom,
several months back i asked the same question and got about the same
answer. logic on that one was to keep the capicator forward of the metal
firewall and close to the regulator. atleast they are consistant.
bob n.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 11:44 PM
>
>
>
>
>>Have any of you put the B & C regulator on the back side of the firewall
>>as suggested on the installation sheet? Lancair mounted mine on the
>>front side. They seem to operate just fine no matter where they are. How
>>important to longevity is the location? Comments Bob??? or anyone!
>>Thanks in advance...
>
> EVERY manufacturer would like to have you place THEIR product
> in the most benign environment possible. But the bottom line is
> that short of bolting the LR3 to an engine or exhaust part,
> it will be fine on the forward side of the firewall also.
>
> Of the gazillions of automotive regulators mounted under
> the hoods of cars in some of the most stressful environments,
> how many manufacturers would stay in business very long if
> their particular electro-whizzie was ill-suited to compete?
>
>
> 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 >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: Is this solder okay? |
On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:22 AM, Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote:
> I'm wondering if common auto parts store solder is acceptable to
> use for connecting airplane wires. Yes, I know about using
> fastons. The soldering I need to do is on small rotary switches
> and using fastons is not feasible.
> So, is Rosin Flux Core 3/32" 40/60 tin-lead acceptable?
Normally the tin content is listed first and the stuff you want is
very close to 60% tin and 40% lead. This is known as 60/40 solder. If
what you are looking at is 40/60 you definitely don't want it.
The ideal solder for electrical connections is actually 63% tin 37%
lead (63/37). This is also known as eutectic solder. It has the
characteristic that, as it cools, it goes directly from liquid to
solid without passing through a pasty "plastic" phase. I also just
found out that it has the highest tensile strength of all the tin/
lead solder alloys.
http://www.efunda.com/materials/solders/tin_lead.cfm
The top solder manufacturers used to be Kester and Ersin. Kester
still seems to be around but I can't find a link to Ersin.
http://www.kester.com
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: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8 years. No mention of
anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I recall, on anything but
the late model planes as a replacement for the standby vacuum pump on
late models. The earlier models would require approval for removal of
the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric system.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd aircraft to get the
> SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft. I'm certain that by
> now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system on older airplanes
> under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or perhaps the limited
> applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the first to ask,
> then go to Mooney Type Clubs.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>>
>>
>> What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom would I be paying
>> money to, and for what?
>>
>> Dave Morris
>>
>> At 09:48 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for early Mooneys. The
>>> only place to put one would be on the vacuum pump pad. Unless one has
>>> been STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a fortune getting it approved.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 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 >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | OldBob Siegfried <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
Good Morning Kelly,
Are you sure about having to get "approval" to remove
that vacuum pump? I agree that you need approval to
add the standby alternator, (Though B&C may already
have it STC'd) but on the Bonanza, all that is
required is a log book entry that the pump and
associated plumbing was removed.
You might check the Mooney TCDSs to see if the pump is
listed as required or as optional equipment. If it is
not listed as required, get rid of it!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
--- Kelly McMullen wrote:
> McMullen
>
> I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8
> years. No mention of
> anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I
> recall, on anything but
> the late model planes as a replacement for the
> standby vacuum pump on
> late models. The earlier models would require
> approval for removal of
> the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric
> system.
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> L. Nuckolls, III"
> >
> >
> > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd
> aircraft to get the
> > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft.
> I'm certain that by
> > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system
> on older airplanes
> > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or
> perhaps the limited
> > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the
> first to ask,
> > then go to Mooney Type Clubs.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> N6030X
> >>
> >>
> >> What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom
> would I be paying
> >> money to, and for what?
> >>
> >> Dave Morris
> >>
> >> At 09:48 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
> McMullen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for
> early Mooneys. The
> >>> only place to put one would be on the vacuum
> pump pad. Unless one has
> >>> been STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a
> fortune getting it approved.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 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 >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> > http://wiki.matronics.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Comments/Questions: Bob, I have an uninformed question: What is the Wig
Wag flasher system? I have looked at all the details of it from the B & C
site, and the only thing missing is, What does it do? I am looking for a
strobe light system that does not cost megabucks. Is the Wig Wag system
supposed to replace a strobe system? Thanks.
No, "wig-wag" is the street name for Alternating Forward Looking Aircraft
Recognition System. It needs two lights, typically landing lights or
landing/taxi
lights that are operated like railroad crossing "wig-wag" lights.
This can greatly enhance the aircraft's visibility while viewing from
the front in reduced visibility conditions.
I have your Rotax 912 wiring system installed now for 100 hours completely
trouble free. What a delight!
I'm pleased that it's working well for you.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Z-diagrams moved?? |
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
>There's a link on this page:
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html
>
>This one:
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
>
> > Can't find 'em online anymore... link broken?
> >
> > I'm trying to have a discussion about PM starter run-on with another
> > fellow, and it's hard if I can't cite my sources ;-)
> >
> > Thanks for any pointers to the reference docs.
> >
> > -Bill B
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- 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 >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Is this solder okay? |
> I'm wondering if common auto parts store solder is acceptable to
> use for connecting airplane wires. Yes, I know about using
> fastons. The soldering I need to do is on small rotary switches
> and using fastons is not feasible.
> So, is Rosin Flux Core 3/32" 40/60 tin-lead acceptable?
=================================================================
Stan:
40/60 NO! But, I think you have the numbers mixed up, it is probably 60/40.
If it is 60/40 that is acceptable but not the best. See if you can find
63/37 it is know as Eutectic Solder.
It does a great job especially at low soldering temperatures. No need to
burn the wire or damage the components.
The solder thickness is OK but again not the best, see if you can find .063"
For electronic work thin solder is better since it requires less heat and
time duration to melt. Also it fits into many a small solder pin connector.
As for the Flux ... Does it say anything such as NA or RMA or RA? Here is
where longevity of the connection is concerned.
The abbreviations stand for: NA = Non-Activated, RMA = Rosin Mildly Activated
and RA = Rosin Activated. The ACTIVATED part is ACID or how corrosive the
flux is. Most Rosin is of the RMA type and works quite well. As with ALL
solder joints make sure you finish by cleaning the joint with isopropyl alcohol,
use a soft toothbrush. Failure to do so will bring about corrosion.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Is this solder okay? |
Hi Brian;
----- Original Message -----
- snip-
> The ideal solder for electrical connections is actually 63% tin 37%
> lead (63/37). This is also known as eutectic solder. It has the
> characteristic that, as it cools, it goes directly from liquid to
> solid without passing through a pasty "plastic" phase. I also just
> found out that it has the highest tensile strength of all the tin/
> lead solder alloys.
-snip-
> The top solder manufacturers used to be Kester and Ersin. Kester
> still seems to be around but I can't find a link to Ersin.
Ersin is now Multicore (a former Ersin trademark) and are now a part of the
Henkel / Loctite group of companies.
http://www.multicore.com/
Bob McC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>In a message dated 7/28/2006 9:31:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
> > The threads will contact to the metal part of the nut just fine. I
> > don't know of any problem of conduction through the platenut. I just
> > prefer the nut and washer. YMMV
>
> Threads of a fastener have almost nothing to do with
> conductivity of the joint. 99% happens at the surface
> of a terminal held in contact with the surface opposite
> the nut. To attach a wire to a surface of the airplane,
> you'd be just fine with CERAMIC fasteners as long as
> the goal of bringing the two critical surfaces togehter
> has been achieved.
>
>Bob,
>
>I see your point, but it would be pretty hard to prove where the electrons
>actually go.
Not at all difficult. Let's noodle this out a bit. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/Bolted_Joint_Resistances.gif
the goal is to herd electrons from terminal to the surface of
some other conductor . . . like a fire wall surface or perhaps
a contactor stud . . . what ever.
The resistance in terminal/post joint "B" is where we
concentrate on quality by means of pressure for gas-tightness
and longevity by keeping contaminants out. This is resistance Rb
on the diagram and the majority current flow path.
There's an alternate path that runs through Ra (stud/thread)
+ Re (nut/thread) + Rd (nut/washer) + Rc (washer/terminal) all in
series. I think it's obvious that depending on the alternate conduction
path to become the majority path because of poor preparation or
maintenance of path Rb is exceedingly risky.
>Lets say that the relatively large surface area of the terminal and the
>stainless firewall caused the pressure to be too small to punch through
>the oxide coating of the stainless steel. Then the path would have to be
>from the terminal, through the bolt, to the threads, to the nut (self
>locking by the way), to the washer and finally to the aluminum.
This is a surface preparation issue. If the Rb joint isn't
ready to be bolted up and the proper pressures applied from the get-go,
then the ship has left the dock an we weren't on it. You will note that
when the single-point ground system philosophy as described in
the 'Connection is implemented with hardware equal to that supplied
by B&C then there are no electrical joints (other than the few low-risk
items cited earlier) made to stainless. Engine mounts and fire walls
have specific tasks in the design of airplanes that do not include
being major current paths for electrical systems.
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: Z-diagrams moved?? |
Too fast on the keyboard . . . got 'sent' before I was finished.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here's an earlier post on the subject of PM starter "run-on"
--------------------------------------------------------------
>I have a problem I need advice on. My electrical system is from an older
>version of Bob's drawings but fits the current Z-11 drawing pretty closely
>with a Z-22 substitution for the way I wire the starter run on relay. I
>need to replace the S704-1 relay which has gone bad. Can I use a standard
>starter contactor in place of the smaller lighter relay? It seems that
>the wiring logic should be the same regardless of whether the smaller or
>larger relay is used.
>Thanks in advance.
Looking over Z-22, I see that I've stubbed my toe. In the
article on spike catcher diodes:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
I alluded to the first issue of an AD against the ACS510
genere' of off-l-r-both-start key switches wherein the
FAA took note of EXTRAORDINARY energy dump from modern
light weight replacement starter solenoid/contactors.
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
Seems the coil de-energizing spike was eating up starter
control contacts in the switches (just like it did in
cars! . . . funny thing about that physics stuff . . .
same rules apply everywhere).
The first issue of the AD put a spike catcher diode in
the wrong place . . . but was modified some time later
to correct the error.
Then came along a new characteristic in modern, light-weight
replacement starters. Efforts to reduce starter push
button wear with an add-on starter contactor (a la Z-11
and B&C recommendations), we noted that the back-emf generated
during spin-down of a PM starter would cause a delayed retraction
of the starter's pinon gear when the push button was released.
We STILL didn't want to run full contactor coil current
through the panel control so a heavy-duty (30A) relay
was suggested and described in Z-22. However, making
the relay a "heavy duty" device did NOT alleviate the
need for spike suppression at the contacts. The heavy
duty relay was just as vulnerable to damage from
stored energy as the off-l-r-both-start key switch.
However, while concentrating on the run-on issue, I
overlooked the need for a spike catcher.
I've updated Z-22 and published it in the Page-Per-System
drawings at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Starter/PM_Starter_w_RunOn_Relay.pdf
Here's a good example of how the diode bridge rectifier
assembly can be used to good electrical and mechanical
advantage. I show two of the four didoes used to suppress
the spike out of the starter contactor -AND- the
relay coil. Further, the mechanical characteristics of
this part give us good places to bring pairs of wires
into the same terminal as tie points.
You COULD replace the S704 with a HEAVIER duty still
device like a starter contactor, but it's not necessary.
Try the NEW Z-22 and see what it does for you.
Bob . . .
>>There's a link on this page:
>>
>>http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html
>>
>>This one:
>>
>>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Matt-
>>
>> > Can't find 'em online anymore... link broken?
>> >
>> > I'm trying to have a discussion about PM starter run-on with another
>> > fellow, and it's hard if I can't cite my sources ;-)
>> >
>> > Thanks for any pointers to the reference docs.
>> >
>> > -Bill B
>> > ________________________________________________________________________
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>
>>-- 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 >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- 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 >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
I've been planning on a garmin SL-30 nav/comm for a future panel upgrade, but
Garmin tech support today just confirmed a fear of mine: they have no plans to
make either the SL-30 or SL-40 compatible with the new tighter spacing.
I suppose one option is to plan on upgrading comm2 to 8.33kHz when needed and leaving
the SL-30 as-is.
Anyone know when the new channelization is going to become mandatory in the US?
I hear it's coming, someday. What are some good options for current production
nav-comms that offer this feature already? I don't need a gps/nav/comm unit
since I plan to run GRT's gps as a stand-alone IFR unit, so the 430, 530, 480
are all too much radio for my needs.
Thanks.
-Bill B.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
Subject: | avionics ordering tip |
Here is a small tip for those of you considering ordering a GRT EFIS along
with Garmin avionics from Stark Avionics.
For a small fee, Stark provided the wiring harnesses for my SL-40 comm,
GTX-327 transponder, and PS Engineering intercom with lead lengths I
specified. They did a nice neat job and I was glad I did it. However,
what I didnt realize at the time was that the EFIS and SL-40 can talk to
each other using serial input and output so that multiple airport
frequencies can be automatically loaded into the comm for easy access. To
do this, you will need to specifically request from Stark that the harness
for the comm include the serial input and output pins. Otherwise, if you
want to make use of this feature, you will have to undo Starks nice neat
job and add the wire leads in yourself.
Similarly, as desired, the EFIS can automatically switch the transponder
from standby to on when it determines your flight has begun, but this
requires an additional serial input lead to the transponder, which also
must be specifically requested to be included in the harness.
You can obviously do this all yourself after the fact, but if you are
having Stark do the harnesses anyway, why mess up his nice neat job and
re-do it?
The above probably also applies to other EFIS brands, and possibly other
avionics vendors, but I have no experience with those.
regards,
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Don Honabach" <don.honabach(at)pcperfect.com> |
Subject: | Is this solder okay? |
For larger diameter solder and switch work, you probably won't need
this, but it's helpful if you are working with small diameter solder
(which has limited amounts of flux) or doing any sort of PCB re-work. I
keep a small bottle of Flux at my bench and will add a small amount to
the joint/connection in some cases - mostly when doing de-soldering or
if I need to 're-wet' a joint to remove or add a component. The only
catch is that you absolutely must clean up the joint with a cleaner
afterwards to get rid of the acid left over. However, it does seem to
really help in those cases where the solder doesn't have enough flux or
you need to de-solder/re-solder a joint.
Regards,
Don
________________________________
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 7:17 AM
> I'm wondering if common auto parts store solder is acceptable to
> use for connecting airplane wires. Yes, I know about using
> fastons. The soldering I need to do is on small rotary switches
> and using fastons is not feasible.
> So, is Rosin Flux Core 3/32" 40/60 tin-lead acceptable?
=========================
=========================
===============
Stan:
40/60 NO! But, I think you have the numbers mixed up, it is probably
60/40.
If it is 60/40 that is acceptable but not the best. See if you can find
63/37 it is know as Eutectic Solder.
It does a great job especially at low soldering temperatures. No need
to burn the wire or damage the components.
The solder thickness is OK but again not the best, see if you can find
.063" For electronic work thin solder is better since it requires less
heat and time duration to melt. Also it fits into many a small solder
pin connector.
As for the Flux ... Does it say anything such as NA or RMA or RA? Here
is where longevity of the connection is concerned.
The abbreviations stand for: NA = Non-Activated, RMA = Rosin Mildly
Activated and RA = Rosin Activated. The ACTIVATED part is ACID or how
corrosive the flux is. Most Rosin is of the RMA type and works quite
well. As with ALL solder joints make sure you finish by cleaning the
joint with isopropyl alcohol, use a soft toothbrush. Failure to do so
will bring about corrosion.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
Bob, I couldn't tell you about the pre-1965 models, but on the '65-75
models it was required to operate the wing leveler, which was
standard, not optional, equipment. I suspect that it would be
questionable on the later 4-cyl Lycoming models because they were all
sold as IFR certified, with standard IFR equipment.
AFAIK, the Porsche powered model was the 1st Mooney to be all
electric, and probably the only model until the GX series with G1000
panels came out.
I still think it is a whole lot simpler to install an electric AI like
Sporty's, either as additional instrument, or as replacement for T&B,
than to screw with changing whole systems in a certified plane. Both
easier and cheaper.
Quoting OldBob Siegfried :
>
>
> Good Morning Kelly,
>
> Are you sure about having to get "approval" to remove
> that vacuum pump? I agree that you need approval to
> add the standby alternator, (Though B&C may already
> have it STC'd) but on the Bonanza, all that is
> required is a log book entry that the pump and
> associated plumbing was removed.
>
> You might check the Mooney TCDSs to see if the pump is
> listed as required or as optional equipment. If it is
> not listed as required, get rid of it!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Stearman N3977A
>
> --- Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>> McMullen
>>
>> I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8
>> years. No mention of
>> anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I
>> recall, on anything but
>> the late model planes as a replacement for the
>> standby vacuum pump on
>> late models. The earlier models would require
>> approval for removal of
>> the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric
>> system.
>>
>> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> L. Nuckolls, III"
>> >
>> >
>> > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd
>> aircraft to get the
>> > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft.
>> I'm certain that by
>> > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system
>> on older airplanes
>> > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or
>> perhaps the limited
>> > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the
>> first to ask,
>> > then go to Mooney Type Clubs.
>> >
>> > Bob . . .
>> >
>> >
>> N6030X
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom
>> would I be paying
>> >> money to, and for what?
>> >>
>> >> Dave Morris
>> >>
>> >> At 09:48 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>> McMullen
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for
>> early Mooneys. The
>> >>> only place to put one would be on the vacuum
>> pump pad. Unless one has
>> >>> been STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a
>> fortune getting it approved.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -- 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 >
>> >
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> > http://wiki.matronics.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>
>>
>> Admin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and leave the
vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything?
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 1:49 PM
Bob, I couldn't tell you about the pre-1965 models, but on the '65-75
models it was required to operate the wing leveler, which was
standard, not optional, equipment. I suspect that it would be
questionable on the later 4-cyl Lycoming models because they were all
sold as IFR certified, with standard IFR equipment.
AFAIK, the Porsche powered model was the 1st Mooney to be all
electric, and probably the only model until the GX series with G1000
panels came out.
I still think it is a whole lot simpler to install an electric AI like
Sporty's, either as additional instrument, or as replacement for T&B,
than to screw with changing whole systems in a certified plane. Both
easier and cheaper.
Quoting OldBob Siegfried :
>
>
> Good Morning Kelly,
>
> Are you sure about having to get "approval" to remove
> that vacuum pump? I agree that you need approval to
> add the standby alternator, (Though B&C may already
> have it STC'd) but on the Bonanza, all that is
> required is a log book entry that the pump and
> associated plumbing was removed.
>
> You might check the Mooney TCDSs to see if the pump is
> listed as required or as optional equipment. If it is
> not listed as required, get rid of it!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Stearman N3977A
>
> --- Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>> McMullen
>>
>> I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8
>> years. No mention of
>> anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I
>> recall, on anything but
>> the late model planes as a replacement for the
>> standby vacuum pump on
>> late models. The earlier models would require
>> approval for removal of
>> the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric
>> system.
>>
>> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> L. Nuckolls, III"
>> >
>> >
>> > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd
>> aircraft to get the
>> > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft.
>> I'm certain that by
>> > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system
>> on older airplanes
>> > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or
>> perhaps the limited
>> > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the
>> first to ask,
>> > then go to Mooney Type Clubs.
>> >
>> > Bob . . .
>> >
>> >
>> N6030X
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom
>> would I be paying
>> >> money to, and for what?
>> >>
>> >> Dave Morris
>> >>
>> >> At 09:48 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
>> McMullen
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for
>> early Mooneys. The
>> >>> only place to put one would be on the vacuum
>> pump pad. Unless one has
>> >>> been STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a
>> fortune getting it approved.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -- 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 >
>> >
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> > http://wiki.matronics.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>
>>
>> Admin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
The downside to that is that you've got an all-electric airplane
then, with no vacuum backup, and only the battery to save you in the
event of an alternator failure. That's what I was hoping the backup
alternator would solve. Although maybe a second battery would be
easier to manage.
Dave Morris
At 02:13 PM 8/2/2006, you wrote:
>
>Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and leave the
>vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kelly
>McMullen
>Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 1:49 PM
>
>
>
>
>Bob, I couldn't tell you about the pre-1965 models, but on the '65-75
>models it was required to operate the wing leveler, which was
>standard, not optional, equipment. I suspect that it would be
>questionable on the later 4-cyl Lycoming models because they were all
>sold as IFR certified, with standard IFR equipment.
>AFAIK, the Porsche powered model was the 1st Mooney to be all
>electric, and probably the only model until the GX series with G1000
>panels came out.
>I still think it is a whole lot simpler to install an electric AI like
>Sporty's, either as additional instrument, or as replacement for T&B,
>than to screw with changing whole systems in a certified plane. Both
>easier and cheaper.
>
>Quoting OldBob Siegfried :
>
> >
> >
> > Good Morning Kelly,
> >
> > Are you sure about having to get "approval" to remove
> > that vacuum pump? I agree that you need approval to
> > add the standby alternator, (Though B&C may already
> > have it STC'd) but on the Bonanza, all that is
> > required is a log book entry that the pump and
> > associated plumbing was removed.
> >
> > You might check the Mooney TCDSs to see if the pump is
> > listed as required or as optional equipment. If it is
> > not listed as required, get rid of it!
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
> > AKA
> > Bob Siegfried
> > Stearman N3977A
> >
> > --- Kelly McMullen wrote:
> >
> >> McMullen
> >>
> >> I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8
> >> years. No mention of
> >> anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I
> >> recall, on anything but
> >> the late model planes as a replacement for the
> >> standby vacuum pump on
> >> late models. The earlier models would require
> >> approval for removal of
> >> the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric
> >> system.
> >>
> >> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >> L. Nuckolls, III"
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd
> >> aircraft to get the
> >> > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft.
> >> I'm certain that by
> >> > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system
> >> on older airplanes
> >> > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or
> >> perhaps the limited
> >> > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the
> >> first to ask,
> >> > then go to Mooney Type Clubs.
> >> >
> >> > Bob . . .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> N6030X
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom
> >> would I be paying
> >> >> money to, and for what?
> >> >>
> >> >> Dave Morris
> >> >>
> >> >> At 09:48 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
> >> McMullen
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for
> >> early Mooneys. The
> >> >>> only place to put one would be on the vacuum
> >> pump pad. Unless one has
> >> >>> been STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a
> >> fortune getting it approved.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> -- 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 >
> >> >
> >>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >> > http://wiki.matronics.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> browse
> >> Subscriptions page,
> >> FAQ,
> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >>
> >>
> >> Admin.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
Subject: | MPJA speed control |
I read of the MPJA DC motor speed controller kit being used as a light
dimmer, so I ordered me one. Had it together in an afternoon and
breadboarded up some LEDs to give it a test. I have access to a scope
to check what it's doing, but haven't had time to go by Mark's shop
yet. So far, I find the light flickers visibly, and there is only a
very small change in the brightness as the adjustment knob is turned.
Has anyone else attempted to use this device to control the brightness
of LEDs, and if so, how successful were you?
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
Subject: | Re: OT-accident over lake MI |
On 2 Aug 2006, at 11:31, rd2(at)evenlink.com wrote:
>
> Anybody knew these guys? - apparently they were on their way back
> from OSH
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/north/
> chi-0607310170jul31,1,7303150
> .story?coll=chi-newslocalnorth-hed
The FAA accident list:
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/
has a bit more info:
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/
events01/media/01_848LC.txt
It was an American Legend AL11, which is a Piper Cub "clone".
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Buckaroo Banzai <ornerycuss2001(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
Here's a link to the FAA's site for Type Certificate Data Sheets if anyone wants
to do the research:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGMAKEMODEL.NSF/MAINFRAMENETSCAPE4X?OpenFrameSet
Greg
The downside to that is that you've got an all-electric airplane
then, with no vacuum backup, and only the battery to save you in the
event of an alternator failure. That's what I was hoping the backup
alternator would solve. Although maybe a second battery would be
easier to manage.
Dave Morris
At 02:13 PM 8/2/2006, you wrote:
>
>Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and leave the
>vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kelly
>McMullen
>Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 1:49 PM
>
>
>Bob, I couldn't tell you about the pre-1965 models, but on the '65-75
>models it was required to operate the wing leveler, which was
>standard, not optional, equipment. I suspect that it would be
>questionable on the later 4-cyl Lycoming models because they were all
>sold as IFR certified, with standard IFR equipment.
>AFAIK, the Porsche powered model was the 1st Mooney to be all
>electric, and probably the only model until the GX series with G1000
>panels came out.
>I still think it is a whole lot simpler to install an electric AI like
>Sporty's, either as additional instrument, or as replacement for T&B,
>than to screw with changing whole systems in a certified plane. Both
>easier and cheaper.
>
>Quoting OldBob Siegfried :
>
> >
> >
> > Good Morning Kelly,
> >
> > Are you sure about having to get "approval" to remove
> > that vacuum pump? I agree that you need approval to
> > add the standby alternator, (Though B&C may already
> > have it STC'd) but on the Bonanza, all that is
> > required is a log book entry that the pump and
> > associated plumbing was removed.
> >
> > You might check the Mooney TCDSs to see if the pump is
> > listed as required or as optional equipment. If it is
> > not listed as required, get rid of it!
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
> > AKA
> > Bob Siegfried
> > Stearman N3977A
> >
> > --- Kelly McMullen wrote:
> >
> >> McMullen
> >>
> >> I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8
> >> years. No mention of
> >> anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I
> >> recall, on anything but
> >> the late model planes as a replacement for the
> >> standby vacuum pump on
> >> late models. The earlier models would require
> >> approval for removal of
> >> the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric
> >> system.
> >>
> >> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >> L. Nuckolls, III"
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd
> >> aircraft to get the
> >> > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft.
> >> I'm certain that by
> >> > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system
> >> on older airplanes
> >> > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or
> >> perhaps the limited
> >> > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the
> >> first to ask,
> >> > then go to Mooney Type Clubs.
> >> >
> >> > Bob . . .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> N6030X
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom
> >> would I be paying
> >> >> money to, and for what?
> >> >>
> >> >> Dave Morris
> >> >>
> >> >> At 09:48 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote:
> >> McMullen
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for
> >> early Mooneys. The
> >> >>> only place to put one would be on the vacuum
> >> pump pad. Unless one has
> >> >>> been STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a
> >> fortune getting it approved.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> -- 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 >
> >> >
> >>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >> > http://wiki.matronics.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> browse
> >> Subscriptions page,
> >> FAQ,
> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >>
> >>
> >> Admin.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
---------------------------------
See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com. Check it out.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
Subject: | avionics ordering tip |
I have the understanding that the SL30 is remote tuneable but not the Sl40.
Can you confirm that you are using the GRT Efis to tune the SL40.
Thanks
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 10:53 AM
Here is a small tip for those of you considering ordering a GRT EFIS along
with Garmin avionics from Stark Avionics.
For a small fee, Stark provided the wiring harnesses for my SL-40 comm,
GTX-327 transponder, and PS Engineering intercom with lead lengths I
specified. They did a nice neat job and I was glad I did it. However, what
I didnt realize at the time was that the EFIS and SL-40 can talk to each
other using serial input and output so that multiple airport frequencies can
be automatically loaded into the comm for easy access. To do this, you will
need to specifically request from Stark that the harness for the comm
include the serial input and output pins. Otherwise, if you want to make
use of this feature, you will have to undo Starks nice neat job and add the
wire leads in yourself.
Similarly, as desired, the EFIS can automatically switch the transponder
from standby to on when it determines your flight has begun, but this
requires an additional serial input lead to the transponder, which also must
be specifically requested to be included in the harness.
You can obviously do this all yourself after the fact, but if you are having
Stark do the harnesses anyway, why mess up his nice neat job and re-do it?
The above probably also applies to other EFIS brands, and possibly other
avionics vendors, but I have no experience with those.
regards,
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: Is this solder okay? |
On Aug 2, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Don Honabach wrote:
> For larger diameter solder and switch work, you probably wont need
> this, but its helpful if you are working with small diameter
> solder (which has limited amounts of flux) or doing any sort of PCB
> re-work. I keep a small bottle of Flux at my bench and will add a
> small amount to the joint/connection in some cases mostly when
> doing de-soldering or if I need to re-wet a joint to remove or
> add a component. The only catch is that you absolutely must clean
> up the joint with a cleaner afterwards to get rid of the acid left
> over. However, it does seem to really help in those cases where the
> solder doesnt have enough flux or you need to de-solder/re-solder
> a joint.
Rosin flux is all you should ever use on electrical connections. It
is not acid. While not particularly pretty, it will do no damage to
your circuitry if you leave it on there.
If you are using acid flux, stop.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Dave N6030X wrote:
>
>
> The downside to that is that you've got an all-electric airplane
> then, with no vacuum backup, and only the battery to save you in
> the event of an alternator failure. That's what I was hoping the
> backup alternator would solve. Although maybe a second battery
> would be easier to manage.
The problem with vacuum power is that, if you lose your vacuum
source, all your vacuum-driven devices go away. Providing backup
power for your vacuum devices is a challenge. Also, your vacuum
system has several single-points of failure, among them:
1. vacuum pump,
2. vacuum lines,
3. vacuum regulator.
If any of those fail you lose your vacuum system.
If you have a properly designed electrical system you will have no
single point of failure for electrical power. If the alternator fails
your battery will continue to power your instruments. If you are
worried about that, install a dynamo or alternator on the vacuum pump
pad and now you have three power sources for your gyro instruments,
i.e. alternator, backup alternator, and then battery if both
alternators fail. And not only will that power your gyros but it will
provide backup power for other electrical devices, like navigational
instruments and radios.
And as for wiring, if your vacuum hose to one gyro fails you will
lose the vacuum to the other gyro(s). If the wire fails to one gyro,
the others run just fine.
We could go on and on here but there is just no way to make a system
that uses vacuum-powered gyros as reliable as a system that uses
electrically-powered gyros.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
>
>
> Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and
> leave the
> vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything?
We can talk about the details but let's look at the spirit of the
thing. The FAA wants to see that there are two power sources for the
gyros so that no single failure will cause all the gyros to stop
working at once.
Since it is a type certified airplane, you are going to want FAA buy-
in. They are going to want to see the following:
1. no single point of failure;
2. a second source of power (battery probably OK, second alternator
better);
3. justification for a claim that a failure to one gyro will not
affect the others.
Keep that in mind when crafting a system to put in your TC aircraft.
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: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
I was thinking more of staying in compliance with the Type Certificate...
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:35 PM
On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
>
>
> Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and
> leave the
> vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything?
We can talk about the details but let's look at the spirit of the
thing. The FAA wants to see that there are two power sources for the
gyros so that no single failure will cause all the gyros to stop
working at once.
Since it is a type certified airplane, you are going to want FAA buy-
in. They are going to want to see the following:
1. no single point of failure;
2. a second source of power (battery probably OK, second alternator
better);
3. justification for a claim that a failure to one gyro will not
affect the others.
Keep that in mind when crafting a system to put in your TC aircraft.
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: | OldBob Siegfried <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
Good Evening Bill, Brian and All,
I note that Brian has stated that the FAA would like
us to have redundancy of power for our instruments
used for inflight reference.
It is true that they are requiring redundancy for
newly certificated flying machines and for anyone who
wants to replace a turn coordinator or turn and bank
with an attitude gyro, but the basic FARs do NOT
require that we have any redundancy at all for our
older certificated flying machines.
It is up to us to decide just how much risk we wish to
take.
We can still fly with only one engine, one alternator,
one radio, one pilot and one power source for our
instruments!
The choice of redundant systems is up to us.
I think that is the way it should be and I do not feel
that the FAA's recent foray into mandating redundancy
has improved safety at all.
Once they designate what we must have for redundancy
of flight instruments, how much longer will it be
before they try to tell us under what conditions we
can fly single pilot? How long will it take them to
require an autopilot? When will they decide we need
two engines at night or over water?
All of those ideas have merit, but statistics do not
support the need.
Back to the FAA ideas of redundancy.
By the time they decide something meets their
interpretation of redundancy, there are many forms of
redundancy available that are far superior to the
devices finally approved by the FEDs. The beauty of
the way it was is that we had almost as much
flexibility to evaluate risk for our certificated
airplanes as do those folks who build and fly OBAM
aircraft.
Lets not add difficulties beyond those that the FAA
has already foisted upon us.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Stearman N3977A
--- Bill Denton wrote:
> Denton"
>
> I was thinking more of staying in compliance with
> the Type Certificate...
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On
> Behalf Of Brian
> Lloyd
> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:35 PM
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
>
> Denton"
> >
> >
> > Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI
> and DG, and
> > leave the
> > vacuum system in place, but not connected to
> anything?
>
> We can talk about the details but let's look at the
> spirit of the
> thing. The FAA wants to see that there are two power
> sources for the
> gyros so that no single failure will cause all the
> gyros to stop
> working at once.
>
> Since it is a type certified airplane, you are going
> to want FAA buy-
> in. They are going to want to see the following:
>
> 1. no single point of failure;
> 2. a second source of power (battery probably OK,
> second alternator
> better);
> 3. justification for a claim that a failure to one
> gyro will not
> affect the others.
>
> Keep that in mind when crafting a system to put in
> your TC aircraft.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
Subject: | RE: avionics ordering tip |
Bevan:
I have not actually used the frequency-loading feature on the SL-40 myself
yet as I am not yet flying, but I have wired it for this purpose and have
had conversations with the tech guys at both GRT and Stark Avionics on
this, so Im confident its true. The EFIS manual also refers to it, but
admittedly does a poor job of distinguishing between the SL40 and SL-30
capabilities in the text, and may be missing the key pin number call-outs
in their tables. Obviously the EFIS / SL30 combo goes beyond this by
including NAV interactions, but I decided I could do without that.
You should be able to easily confirm what Im saying on your own if it is
influencing a purchase decision
regards
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
Thanks to all of you who have commented, some
also privately. I'm just a rebel who spends most of his time outside the box.
Dave Morris
At 04:35 PM 8/2/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and
>>leave the
>>vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything?
>
>We can talk about the details but let's look at the spirit of the
>thing. The FAA wants to see that there are two power sources for the
>gyros so that no single failure will cause all the gyros to stop
>working at once.
>
>Since it is a type certified airplane, you are
>going to want FAA buy- in. They are going to want to see the following:
>
>1. no single point of failure;
>2. a second source of power (battery probably OK, second alternator
>better);
>3. justification for a claim that a failure to one gyro will not
>affect the others.
>
>Keep that in mind when crafting a system to put in your TC aircraft.
>
>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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
On Aug 2, 2006, at 5:52 PM, Bill Denton wrote:
>
>
> I was thinking more of staying in compliance with the Type
> Certificate...
Old Bob made a good point. Many of these aircraft were certified
without gyro instruments and the regs covering IFR instrumentation
are pretty loose. You should be able to drop in an electric AI.
But the points I made were correct. The FAA (and you if you aren't
stupid) want to see that there is no way that all your gyros can fail
at the same time. They want to not have to bother with yet more
"wrecked airplane, dead pilot, dead passengers, new lawsuit" paperwork.
So rather than argue the number of angels needed to keep your vacuum
pump running, talk to the FSDO and get started on a 337 for a well-
designed electrical source for your all-electric gyros. There are
still some not-stupids at the FAA who will help you do what you want.
So just remember, the goal is a system that is more reliable and will
be less likely to fail when you need it most. And if it does fail, it
fails softly, i.e. without the wholesale loss of big chunks of your
gyro panel.
So don't argue, think. This is not rocket science. This is common
sense. If you can really show the FAA guys (the smart ones - work on
finding the smart ones) that you have a better way, they will
probably go along with you and grant their blessings.
And a Mooney that has the old vacuum-powered wing leveler will
probably have to keep that vacuum-powered wing leveler as it was
specifically part of the TC. But that doesn't preclude making things
better for everything else.
Heck, my 1960 Comanche has an e-bus with a second battery. There were
no hassles getting that approved. Work on it.
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: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
You ASSUME two totally separate electrical systems available to each
gyro, which is a physical impossiblity, and that the battery will be
available if that fails. Each master switch you have is a single point
of failure, as well as the relay it operates. Any place one system
interconnects with the other is also a single point of failure that
can take out both systems. Smoke from the electrical system will have
you killing all electrics. Now where are you??? Turn system back on
and risk cockpit fire? I don't think so. Truly independent...AI on one
system, DG and TC on the other? You still lose pitch if that side fails.
Vacuum regulators fail about 0.5 times in the life of an airframe.
About the most reliable mechanical device on the airframe. Hoses, if
they are replaced with the pump never fail. Pumps are your only real
point of failure. If you equip the aircraft with one vacuum and one
electric AI you will have far better redundancy and reliability than
all electric.
Quoting Brian Lloyd :
> We could go on and on here but there is just no way to make a system
> that uses vacuum-powered gyros as reliable as a system that uses
> electrically-powered gyros.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
Again allow me to point out that the Sporty's and the Mid-Continent "backup" attitude
indicators have an internal battery backup; they can operate without any
ship's power whatsoever.
And while they were originally designed for backup purposes, couldn't they also
be used in place of the primary attitude indicators in cases where an electric
unit is permitted?
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 5:58 PM
You ASSUME two totally separate electrical systems available to each
gyro, which is a physical impossiblity, and that the battery will be
available if that fails. Each master switch you have is a single point
of failure, as well as the relay it operates. Any place one system
interconnects with the other is also a single point of failure that
can take out both systems. Smoke from the electrical system will have
you killing all electrics. Now where are you??? Turn system back on
and risk cockpit fire? I don't think so. Truly independent...AI on one
system, DG and TC on the other? You still lose pitch if that side fails.
Vacuum regulators fail about 0.5 times in the life of an airframe.
About the most reliable mechanical device on the airframe. Hoses, if
they are replaced with the pump never fail. Pumps are your only real
point of failure. If you equip the aircraft with one vacuum and one
electric AI you will have far better redundancy and reliability than
all electric.
Quoting Brian Lloyd :
> We could go on and on here but there is just no way to make a system
> that uses vacuum-powered gyros as reliable as a system that uses
> electrically-powered gyros.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: RE: avionics ordering tip |
On Aug 2, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com wrote:
>
>
> Bevan:
>
> I have not actually used the frequency-loading feature on the SL-40
> myself
> yet as I am not yet flying, but I have wired it for this purpose
> and have
> had conversations with the tech guys at both GRT and Stark Avionics on
> this, so Im confident its true. The EFIS manual also refers to it,
> but
> admittedly does a poor job of distinguishing between the SL40 and
> SL-30
> capabilities in the text, and may be missing the key pin number
> call-outs
> in their tables. Obviously the EFIS / SL30 combo goes beyond this by
> including NAV interactions, but I decided I could do without that.
The comm section of the SL-30 and SL-40 are identical. If you open up
an SL-40 you will find it half empty -- the half that would otherwise
hold the nav section of the SL-30 or the GPS section of the SL-60.
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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: STC for standby generator on a |
On Aug 2, 2006, at 6:58 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> You ASSUME two totally separate electrical systems available to
> each gyro, which is a physical impossiblity, and that the battery
> will be available if that fails. Each master switch you have is a
> single point of failure, as well as the relay it operates. Any
> place one system interconnects with the other is also a single
> point of failure that can take out both systems. Smoke from the
> electrical system will have you killing all electrics. Now where
> are you??? Turn system back on and risk cockpit fire? I don't think
> so. Truly independent...AI on one system, DG and TC on the other?
> You still lose pitch if that side fails.
> Vacuum regulators fail about 0.5 times in the life of an airframe.
> About the most reliable mechanical device on the airframe. Hoses,
> if they are replaced with the pump never fail. Pumps are your only
> real point of failure. If you equip the aircraft with one vacuum
> and one electric AI you will have far better redundancy and
> reliability than all electric.
> Quoting Brian Lloyd :
>
>> We could go on and on here but there is just no way to make a system
>> that uses vacuum-powered gyros as reliable as a system that uses
>> electrically-powered gyros.
I see we have reached an impasse. Clearly you have not worked with
electrical systems nor have you read Bob's book.
But I will address your point about switches. Yes if the battery
master switch fails and/or the battery contactor fails, you lose the
main bus. That is why there is a second path from the battery to your
e-bus which drives your gyros. You can feed the e-bus from either the
main bus or the battery directly. You would now need a chain of
failures to cause your gyros to go away.
The e-bus is simplicity itself. In my Comanche it started out as an
avionics bus but became the e-bus by virtue of adding a second
battery, a separate charging path from primary battery to backup
battery, a separate path from backup battery to e-bus, and separate
circuits from e-bus to each load, each with its own current limiter.
It even has a backup switch to connect to the e-bus to the main bus
should the main switch fail. (I didn't want to add that but the FAA
wanted it and it was cheaper and faster to add it than to argue.
What's the cost of one switch and two wires.) A failure of a single
circuit causes that current limiter to open and protect the wiring
for that circuit without taking out everything else. The only common
point is the e-bus itself and that was just a piece of bus bar. I
trust a piece of bus bar a lot more than I trust a vacuum pump.
As a suggestion, perhaps you ought to look at the current crop of
airlines plying our skies. I think that, no matter how hard you look,
you won't find a single vacuum pump or air-driven gyro in the lot.
That might suggest something to you.
But you are sold on having a vacuum pump. More power to you. I have
owned many, many airplanes and my experience is that the vacuum pump
and its related components were less reliable than electrical
systems. That is my experience. When I finish restoring my Nanchang
CJ6A there will be no air-powered gyros in it. When I build my F1
Rocket there will be no vacuum pumps and no air-powered gyros. I am
willing to bet my life on an all-electric panel in hard IFR. You
should do what makes you most comfortable.
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: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
I am using circuit breakers in my electrical system.
I had planned to use copper bars to provide power to the "line" side of the
CBs.
However, it seems that would make maintenance more difficult if I needed to
remove only one CB.
SO, what do you think about using jumper wires from CB to CB to provide power
to the CBs? Maybe use #12 AWG to carry the load.
Has anyone done that? Any issues?
Stan Sutterfield
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Carl Morgan" <zk-vii(at)rvproject.gen.nz> |
Hi,
Although the inners may be identical (I don't know), I'm fairly sure there
were some protocol differences between the SL-30 and SL-40. The SL-40 is
now a specific option on the GRT EFIS and AFAIK it provides functional
control the same as SL-30.
I think the SL-30/SL-40 differences information was via the GRT yahoo group
Carl
--
ZK-VII - RV 7A QB - finishing? - New Zealand
http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/
> -----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, 3 August 2006 11:24 a.m.
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: avionics ordering tip
>
>
> On Aug 2, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Bevan:
> >
> > I have not actually used the frequency-loading feature on the SL-40
> > myself
> > yet as I am not yet flying, but I have wired it for this purpose
> > and have
> > had conversations with the tech guys at both GRT and Stark Avionics on
> > this, so Im confident its true. The EFIS manual also refers to it,
> > but
> > admittedly does a poor job of distinguishing between the SL40 and
> > SL-30
> > capabilities in the text, and may be missing the key pin number
> > call-outs
> > in their tables. Obviously the EFIS / SL30 combo goes beyond this by
> > including NAV interactions, but I decided I could do without that.
>
> The comm section of the SL-30 and SL-40 are identical. If you open up
> an SL-40 you will find it half empty -- the half that would otherwise
> hold the nav section of the SL-30 or the GPS section of the SL-60.
>
> 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: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: RE: GRT/ SL-40 |
On Aug 2, 2006, at 8:13 PM, Carl Morgan wrote:
> Although the inners may be identical (I don't know), I'm fairly
> sure there
> were some protocol differences between the SL-30 and SL-40.
Different firmware revs. The early SL-30 was not remotely channelable
either. All it could get was a set of 10 most likely frequencies from
the GX-60. You still had to control the SL-30 from its own front panel.
> The SL-40 is
> now a specific option on the GRT EFIS and AFAIK it provides functional
> control the same as SL-30.
>
> I think the SL-30/SL-40 differences information was via the GRT
> yahoo group
The comm section of the two radios are identical as far as I have
been able to discern. The functional differences seem to be a
function of the firmware loaded into the microprocessor that controls
the radio. Now Garmin may be limiting the functionality of the
firmware in the SL-40 but that doesn't mean it isn't capable. (Well,
yeah it does because that is what you get from Garmin and I don't
know anyone who has hacked the firmware ... yet.)
I am really hoping that, when I get to doing the panel in the CJ6A, I
will be able to fully control the function of the SL30 remotely from
a display in the back seat. OTOH, by then it will probably be a
different product that makes the most sense. I sure as heck will not
be buying any avionics until I am down to the very final assembly of
the panel. The functionality of the boxes just changes too much with
time to go out and buy anything before you really need it.
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: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: CB Power Source |
In a message dated 8/2/06 8:09:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Speedy11(at)aol.com
writes:
> I am using circuit breakers in my electrical system.
> I had planned to use copper bars to provide power to the "line" side of
the
> CBs.
> However, it seems that would make maintenance more difficult if I needed
to
> remove only one CB.
> SO, what do you think about using jumper wires from CB to CB to provide
> power
> to the CBs? Maybe use #12 AWG to carry the load.
> Has anyone done that? Any issues?
> Stan Sutterfield
============================
Stan:
There is nothing wrong with that, the procedure works very well.
A little trick is to use one continuous length of wire, no cuts, no splices.
Leave enough bare wire between each CB to form a nice loop and so that you
can fold it back on itself and insert it into a ring lug. Low resistance, solid
mechanical connection, looks good and as you said, easy to maintain.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: CB Power Source |
>I am using circuit breakers in my electrical system.
>I had planned to use copper bars to provide power to the "line" side of
>the CBs.
Suggest brass strip available from hobby shops. MUCH easier
to work with than copper.
>However, it seems that would make maintenance more difficult if I needed
>to remove only one CB.
>SO, what do you think about using jumper wires from CB to CB to provide
>power to the CBs? Maybe use #12 AWG to carry the load.
>Has anyone done that?
Yup . . .
> Any issues?
Yup . . . the definition of a "bus" is a conductor with multiple
taps for power distribution that are totally independent of each
other. Loss of one tap has no effect on the remainder of the system.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Bus_Bar_Not_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Bus_Bar_Not_3.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Bus_Bar_Not_2.jpg
Here's an example of a non-bussed assembly taken from an
old Piper. Note the 3-piece "bus bar" . . . if a screw
loosens at one of these joints, you loose not only the
breaker fed with the loose screw but every thing downstream
as well.
A "real" bus is a contiguous conductor with holes for each
tap that feeds and affects one and only one breaker.
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: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Subject: | Alternator failure quits engine |
Do not arcive
Here is a story from Europa Newsgroup figured may be of interest.
Ron Parigoris
Full Headers: Display Headers
Attachments: Part 1 noname (TEXT/PLAIN quoted-printable 4648 bytes) Hide
Part 2 noname (TEXT/HTML quoted-printable 5759 bytes) View
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our recently rebuilt Europa G-BWCV is again in pieces after we put only 30
more
flying hrs on this engine to add to the 50hrs it had done in the hands of
the
previous owner.
We had just received the new full permit to fly when recently, heading for
Lundy
Island just South of Bristol Docks , the cockpit filled with smoke as if a
smoke
bomb had gone off and the engine stopped! I could not discern whether the
smoke
was electrical in origin but assumed as the engine had stopped it had to
be.
The cause and subsequent sequence of events has now been established.
Alternator bearing seizure initiated dual rubber v-belt slip at the
crankshaft
pulley.
In 2-3 seconds 50 cruise hp turned both rubber belts into smoke and
vulcanised
them instead of driving the now freewheeling prop (no flywheel effect to
snap
belts).
The alternator was switched off immediately but to no benefit since its
load was
not the issue.
So instead of the crankshaft pulley driving the alternator, the alternator
now
seized was now driving the engine to a stop! A relatively minor accessory
failure
had initiated a cascade of events equivalent or even worse than a major
engine
failure.
Ofcourse this should not happen should it?
Little did I know I had become an involuntary test pilot!!!!!!!with an
observer!!!!!
The idea of a re-start attempt was not surprisingly quickly rejected.
However, as
I now know it would obviously have been a futile exercise, the engine
stopped
from 50hp running so the starter did not have a chance.
Two other aspects of this incident made for an extremely high workload.
1. I had to switch off all electrics to prevent any further risk of smoke
(if
only to be able to see out for a forced landing) or worse still fire. This
meant
I lost the electric trim.
This may appear a small thing but believe me, this meant the constant use
of one
hand flying the stick without feel and as a consequence one eye glued to
the ASI.
A workload I did not need at this time. Mechanical trim would have helped
enormously.
Try your practice forced landings in cruise trim to see what I mean. "It
could be
you."
2. The other aspect which is a little more difficult to practice was the
free
wheeling prop. All practice forced landings to date had been with the
engine at
idle as is usual. In this condition increasing speed, by diving, increases
engine
rpm so the sprag clutch is effectively connecting engine and propeller
like any
other engine.
When the engine stopped, I was quickly aware of an abnormally high rate of
descent. The prop ran away like a wind generator in hurricane, the feel of
the
stick was abnormal due to the out of trim load and I think also the
braking
effect on the airflow over the tail.of the prop now in drag parachute
mode.
The location was far from ideal for a forced landing and with the high
rate of
descent meaning short time for descent we could easily have come off far
worse
especially since the area was well populated with power lines of different
sizes
forcing a late rejection of the primary field selection.
Having taken the diagonal in anticipation of the limited field size We hit
the
far hedge in a 290 meter 30+ Celcius almost max gross with wind light and
variable as the sea breeze was backing up the Severn valley. The near
hedge
incidentally was a 6 foot steep bank from a wide drainage canal. This,
coupled
with the unusual deck angle in the glide which only got worse of course
when I
put the coupled gear and flap down on the Mono, requiring an unusually
long
duration flare as if landing up hill, put our aiming point considerably
before
the actual touch down point so we were going to hit the hedge. The last
trick I
had up my sleeve from my cross country gliding days was to drop the gear
in order
to minimise the ground roll. This in retrospect, although it did no such
thing,
probably stopped us flipping upside down. I never considered applying the
brake
but the wheel just keeps turning judging by our grass marks.Which
fortunately I
was able to pace out having vacated the aircraft.
I am giving a talk to Gloucester strut about the Europa rebuild and now
have a
new chapter.
It is in the Aeros flying club building next Tuesday at 07.30 pm and would
welcome anyone especially Subaru owners to come along.
I still like the Subaru engine and would be happy to fly it again once
this
single point failure has been addressed. If the Europa flies again it will
be
called hedgehog!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: MPJA speed control |
In a message dated 08/02/2006 3:34:49 PM Central Daylight Time,
echristley(at)nc.rr.com writes:
Has anyone else attempted to use this device to control the brightness
of LEDs, and if so, how successful were you?
>>>
I'm using one to drive over 60 red superbrights plus the incandescents on my
Van's fuel gauges. Works well with the exception of an occasional random
flicker which I suspect is a AMP connector that needs some attention. I removed
the variable resistor from the board and remote-located a 100Kohm, 2 watt from
Digikey (# RV4N104C-ND) to the panel alongside the other lighting switches.
Very linear control of all LEDs and fuel gauge bulbs, from full bright to
almost completely off. Schematic on ACAD if interested...
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Alternator failure quits engine |
Reading the fine print; this is an NSI engine.
Subaru, dual alternator belts, prop clutch, Europa, etc something unique to
the NSI EA81.
I had (last year) an identical alternator failure on my Excavator. In my
case there was only a single belt and it slipped. The diesel engine only
running at 2,000 rpm and the belt simply slipped, screamed smoked and the
engine kept running. Hard to think the small ball bearing bearing could lock
that hard but it did.
The alternator bearing opposite the pulley end had frozen solid. Really
solid! 2,200 hours since new. (PM "alternator" so no brushes)
The NSI setup with matched dual belts has a lot of drive friction and the
NSI supplied is the very common ND 55amp alternator.
Something to consider as NSI alternators were rebuilt ones. Rebuilders do
NOT always replace bearings if they pass the noise test or look ok.
Failed at 80 hours TT, not much considering.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 10:21 PM
>
> Do not arcive
>
> Here is a story from Europa Newsgroup figured may be of interest.
>
> Ron Parigoris
>
> Reply-To: europa-list(at)matronics.com
> Full Headers: Display Headers
> Attachments: Part 1 noname (TEXT/PLAIN quoted-printable 4648 bytes) Hide
> Part 2 noname (TEXT/HTML quoted-printable 5759 bytes) View
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Our recently rebuilt Europa G-BWCV is again in pieces after we put only 30
> more
> flying hrs on this engine to add to the 50hrs it had done in the hands of
> the
> previous owner.
>
> We had just received the new full permit to fly when recently, heading for
> Lundy
> Island just South of Bristol Docks , the cockpit filled with smoke as if a
> smoke
> bomb had gone off and the engine stopped! I could not discern whether the
> smoke
> was electrical in origin but assumed as the engine had stopped it had to
> be.
>
> The cause and subsequent sequence of events has now been established.
>
> Alternator bearing seizure initiated dual rubber v-belt slip at the
> crankshaft
> pulley.
> In 2-3 seconds 50 cruise hp turned both rubber belts into smoke and
> vulcanised
> them instead of driving the now freewheeling prop (no flywheel effect to
> snap
> belts).
>
> The alternator was switched off immediately but to no benefit since its
> load was
> not the issue.
>
> So instead of the crankshaft pulley driving the alternator, the alternator
> now
> seized was now driving the engine to a stop! A relatively minor accessory
> failure
> had initiated a cascade of events equivalent or even worse than a major
> engine
> failure.
>
> Ofcourse this should not happen should it?
>
> Little did I know I had become an involuntary test pilot!!!!!!!with an
> observer!!!!!
>
> The idea of a re-start attempt was not surprisingly quickly rejected.
> However, as
> I now know it would obviously have been a futile exercise, the engine
> stopped
> from 50hp running so the starter did not have a chance.
>
> Two other aspects of this incident made for an extremely high workload.
>
> 1. I had to switch off all electrics to prevent any further risk of smoke
> (if
> only to be able to see out for a forced landing) or worse still fire. This
> meant
> I lost the electric trim.
>
> This may appear a small thing but believe me, this meant the constant use
> of one
> hand flying the stick without feel and as a consequence one eye glued to
> the ASI.
> A workload I did not need at this time. Mechanical trim would have helped
> enormously.
>
> Try your practice forced landings in cruise trim to see what I mean. "It
> could be
> you."
>
> 2. The other aspect which is a little more difficult to practice was the
> free
> wheeling prop. All practice forced landings to date had been with the
> engine at
> idle as is usual. In this condition increasing speed, by diving, increases
> engine
> rpm so the sprag clutch is effectively connecting engine and propeller
> like any
> other engine.
> When the engine stopped, I was quickly aware of an abnormally high rate of
> descent. The prop ran away like a wind generator in hurricane, the feel of
> the
> stick was abnormal due to the out of trim load and I think also the
> braking
> effect on the airflow over the tail.of the prop now in drag parachute
> mode.
>
> The location was far from ideal for a forced landing and with the high
> rate of
> descent meaning short time for descent we could easily have come off far
> worse
> especially since the area was well populated with power lines of different
> sizes
> forcing a late rejection of the primary field selection.
>
> Having taken the diagonal in anticipation of the limited field size We hit
> the
> far hedge in a 290 meter 30+ Celcius almost max gross with wind light and
> variable as the sea breeze was backing up the Severn valley. The near
> hedge
> incidentally was a 6 foot steep bank from a wide drainage canal. This,
> coupled
> with the unusual deck angle in the glide which only got worse of course
> when I
> put the coupled gear and flap down on the Mono, requiring an unusually
> long
> duration flare as if landing up hill, put our aiming point considerably
> before
> the actual touch down point so we were going to hit the hedge. The last
> trick I
> had up my sleeve from my cross country gliding days was to drop the gear
> in order
> to minimise the ground roll. This in retrospect, although it did no such
> thing,
> probably stopped us flipping upside down. I never considered applying the
> brake
> but the wheel just keeps turning judging by our grass marks.Which
> fortunately I
> was able to pace out having vacated the aircraft.
>
> I am giving a talk to Gloucester strut about the Europa rebuild and now
> have a
> new chapter.
>
> It is in the Aeros flying club building next Tuesday at 07.30 pm and would
> welcome anyone especially Subaru owners to come along.
>
> I still like the Subaru engine and would be happy to fly it again once
> this
> single point failure has been addressed. If the Europa flies again it will
> be
> called hedgehog!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net> |
Subject: | Re: MPJA speed control |
Where do I purchase one of these, and what is ACAD?
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 08/02/2006 3:34:49 PM Central Daylight Time,
> echristley(at)nc.rr.com writes:
>
> Has anyone else attempted to use this device to control the
> brightness
> of LEDs, and if so, how successful were you?
>
> >>>
>
> I'm using one to drive over 60 red superbrights plus the incandescents
> on my Van's fuel gauges. Works well with the exception of an
> occasional random flicker which I suspect is a AMP connector that
> needs some attention. I removed the variable resistor from the board
> and remote-located a 100Kohm, 2 watt from Digikey (# RV4N104C-ND) to
> the panel alongside the other lighting switches. Very linear control
> of all LEDs and fuel gauge bulbs, from full bright to almost
> completely off. Schematic on ACAD if interested...
>
> Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <jmoreau2(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Ground Block On Firewall |
I wish to install one of the multi tab type ground blocks to the stainless steel
firewall on my RV8-A. This will have a block of tabs on both sides of the firewall.
Do I need to anything special to the stainless steel to prepare the surface?
Since I will be grounding many items in the aircraft to these gounds, I want to
insure that this is a really good ground.
Also is it necessary to have the mounting bolt go into one of the aluminum angles
behind the firewall or is it enought just to have the bolt go through the stainless?
Any help or comments are most welcome.
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
Subject: | MPJA speed control |
Hi Ernest,
Yes, I'm using the MPJA pwm speed controller for dimming LED's. In the
attached jpg. you can see the string of led's across the top of my panel
which are controlled by a single MPJA speed controller. I too
repositioned the potentiometer with a remote unit of higher quality. All
of my circuits were configured from the manufacturer to operate on 12v
as the MPJA pwm speed controller is designed to operate a 12v motor.
Works great with no noticeable flicker.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Ernest Christley
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:28 PM
I read of the MPJA DC motor speed controller kit being used as a light
dimmer, so I ordered me one. Had it together in an afternoon and
breadboarded up some LEDs to give it a test. I have access to a scope
to check what it's doing, but haven't had time to go by Mark's shop
yet. So far, I find the light flickers visibly, and there is only a
very small change in the brightness as the adjustment knob is turned.
Has anyone else attempted to use this device to control the brightness
of LEDs, and if so, how successful were you?
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Subject: | Re: Ground Block on Firewall |
The firewall is just a place to hang the ground block. It doesn't
participate electrically in any significant matter - that's why
everything is connected to the ground block. Since you will have ground
blocks on both sides of the firewall, you need to be sure they are
connected well electrically - like with a nice brass bolt (available
from the Aviation/Plumbing aisle at Lowes or Home Depot). B&C has a
grounding block kit you can either get, or emulate.
I don't think it is necessary to mount it to one of the angles, but if
it is convenient, it wouldn't hurt. I haven't mounted mine yet, but if
it feels flimsy just mounted to the firewall, I'll put in a backing
plate (probably .040 aluminum).
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A - Finishing Kit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Subject: Ground Block On Firewall
From: jmoreau2(at)cox.net
I wish to install one of the multi tab type ground blocks to the
stainless steel
firewall on my RV8-A. This will have a block of tabs on both sides of
the firewall.
Do I need to anything special to the stainless steel to prepare the
surface?
Since I will be grounding many items in the aircraft to these gounds, I
want to
insure that this is a really good ground.
Also is it necessary to have the mounting bolt go into one of the
aluminum angles
behind the firewall or is it enought just to have the bolt go through
the stainless?
Any help or comments are most welcome.
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
Subject: | Re: Ground Block on Firewall |
But what about stuff that's grounded locally on the wing such as pitot
heat, landing lights, etc.? That stuff's ground has to make it's way to
the forest of tabs on the firewall and back to the battery through the
stainless firewall. If the firewall is as poor a conductor as has been
recently said, doesn't that raise the possibility of ground loops as the
pitot heat, lights, etc. try to return and wind up finding an easier
route such as through the chassis of a radio?
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
The firewall is just a place to hang the ground block. It doesn't
participate electrically in any significant matter - that's why
everything is connected to the ground block. Since you will have ground
blocks on both sides of the firewall, you need to be sure they are
connected well electrically - like with a nice brass bolt (available
from the Aviation/Plumbing aisle at Lowes or Home Depot). B&C has a
grounding block kit you can either get, or emulate.
I don't think it is necessary to mount it to one of the angles, but if
it is convenient, it wouldn't hurt. I haven't mounted mine yet, but if
it feels flimsy just mounted to the firewall, I'll put in a backing
plate (probably .040 aluminum).
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A - Finishing Kit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Subject: Ground Block On Firewall
From: jmoreau2(at)cox.net
I wish to install one of the multi tab type ground blocks to the
stainless steel
firewall on my RV8-A. This will have a block of tabs on both sides of
the firewall.
Do I need to anything special to the stainless steel to prepare the
surface?
Since I will be grounding many items in the aircraft to these gounds, I
want to
insure that this is a really good ground.
Also is it necessary to have the mounting bolt go into one of the
aluminum angles
behind the firewall or is it enought just to have the bolt go through
the stainless?
Any help or comments are most welcome.
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Steve James" <stevesrv7(at)gmail.com> |
Subject: | Mag switches-what size? |
I want to use smaller size switches in place of the normal rotary type mag
switch. What is minimum current rating/volt rating for such a switch when
used with regular mags? Since these ground the mags, it's not clear to me
how to size them... any input is appreciated. Thx, Steve.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
Subject: | Re: Ground Block on Firewall |
Don't just leave the FOT on each side of the firewall trying to find
their grounds through the firewall metal somehow. Hook up a big fat
ground wire directly from the bolt to the battery. The bolt a ground
wire from the wing to the battery (or FOT) as well.
Dave Morris
At 02:29 PM 8/3/2006, you wrote:
>
>But what about stuff that's grounded locally on the wing such as pitot
>heat, landing lights, etc.? That stuff's ground has to make it's way to
>the forest of tabs on the firewall and back to the battery through the
>stainless firewall. If the firewall is as poor a conductor as has been
>recently said, doesn't that raise the possibility of ground loops as the
>pitot heat, lights, etc. try to return and wind up finding an easier
>route such as through the chassis of a radio?
>
>Pax,
>
>Ed Holyoke
>
>
>
>
>The firewall is just a place to hang the ground block. It doesn't
>participate electrically in any significant matter - that's why
>everything is connected to the ground block. Since you will have ground
>blocks on both sides of the firewall, you need to be sure they are
>connected well electrically - like with a nice brass bolt (available
>from the Aviation/Plumbing aisle at Lowes or Home Depot). B&C has a
>grounding block kit you can either get, or emulate.
>
>I don't think it is necessary to mount it to one of the angles, but if
>it is convenient, it wouldn't hurt. I haven't mounted mine yet, but if
>it feels flimsy just mounted to the firewall, I'll put in a backing
>plate (probably .040 aluminum).
>
>Dennis Glaeser
>RV7A - Finishing Kit
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------------------
>
>Subject: Ground Block On Firewall
>From: jmoreau2(at)cox.net
>
>I wish to install one of the multi tab type ground blocks to the
>stainless steel
>firewall on my RV8-A. This will have a block of tabs on both sides of
>the firewall.
>Do I need to anything special to the stainless steel to prepare the
>surface?
>Since I will be grounding many items in the aircraft to these gounds, I
>want to
>insure that this is a really good ground.
>Also is it necessary to have the mounting bolt go into one of the
>aluminum angles
>behind the firewall or is it enought just to have the bolt go through
>the stainless?
>Any help or comments are most welcome.
>Jeff
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Mag switches-what size? |
In a message dated 8/3/2006 3:53:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
stevesrv7(at)gmail.com writes:
I want to use smaller size switches in place of the normal rotary type mag
switch. What is minimum current rating/volt rating for such a switch when used
with regular mags? Since these ground the mags, it's not clear to me how to
size them... any input is appreciated. Thx, Steve.
=============================
Steve:
I guess you are considering TWO Single Pole Single Throw (SPST) switches.
Well, all that the switch is doing is supplying a Path to Ground for the 'P'
Lead.
What is important is NOT the voltage or current rating but the Mechanical
Construction and Reliability.
What I used was two (2) standard SPST 15 Amp switches. Nice solid switches
that can handle the abuse you will be giving them. They will not fail because
of voltage or current, but they can fail because of abuse.
I would NOT use mini or micro sized switches. Get a switch that has a nice
strong SNAP when opened or closed.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
Subject: | Re: Ground Block on Firewall |
On Aug 3, 2006, at 3:29 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote:
>
>
> But what about stuff that's grounded locally on the wing such as pitot
> heat, landing lights, etc.? That stuff's ground has to make it's
> way to
> the forest of tabs on the firewall and back to the battery through the
> stainless firewall. If the firewall is as poor a conductor as has been
> recently said, doesn't that raise the possibility of ground loops
> as the
> pitot heat, lights, etc. try to return and wind up finding an easier
> route such as through the chassis of a radio?
The firewall is not a poor conductor. A big slab of stainless steel,
while less conductive than an equivalent copper plate, is still a
very good conductor.
As for ground loops, we really don't have ground loops, just multiple
paths. The current from your pitot heat and landing light is going to
return to the battery negative through the airframe to the firewall.
This is not going to be a problem.
The real advantage of the single-point ground is to reduce the number
of multiple path returns, especially for more sensitive equipment
like avionics.
What you propose, grounding your pitot heat, positions lights, and
landing light(s) to the airframe will work just fine and will not
cause any problems.
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: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
Subject: | Re: Alternator failure quits engine |
Thank for sharing this story. Seems we were recently discussing bearing
failures.
I've never believed in dual belts for most applications unless the load
was clearly way too high for one belt. It tends to increase bearing
loads (especially if they are not well matched) and if one belt fails it
may take out the other anyway. I've never had a belt fail although I do
replace them about every 4 years or 60k miles (100k km.) on my cars and
check the tension occasionally. I did use separate belts for each of my
alternators, make sure that the pulleys were aligned, and use solid
alternator mounts, but I don't consider a single belt to be a
reliability concern. I have even accepted a very small risk that a
failed belt (for whatever reason) could foul my EJ22 camshaft belt.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
Subject: | Re: Alternator failure quits engine |
The original application of the NSI dual belts was to lower the side load on
the water pump as well as belt slippage. The result was the ability to use
much lower belt tension which is a good thing. Doubles the friction and
permits lower tension with no slippage.
The NSI supplied belts are matched. Replacement belts may not be matched. I
agree mismatched belts can be a problem as well as excessive tension.
To me the issue is the widespread use of rebuilt alternators which often
have well used and or the lowest cost bearings available as rebuilders are
cost driven.
Both Vans and NSI have used rebuilt alternators. And as I have found out
rebuilt alternators is a false term in my opinion as they are only repaired
to "used auto standards" not rebuilt to "like new" standards. There is a
huge range of bearing quality for example. If the bearing is not excessively
noisy its not replaced.
The flag I see is not dual belts but the quality of rebuilt alternators
which in my opinion have no place in an aircraft.
Buy a new internal reg ND or buy a new external B and C. This incident
should be reason enough.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:40 PM
>
> Thank for sharing this story. Seems we were recently discussing bearing
> failures.
> I've never believed in dual belts for most applications unless the load
> was clearly way too high for one belt. It tends to increase bearing loads
> (especially if they are not well matched) and if one belt fails it may
> take out the other anyway. I've never had a belt fail although I do
> replace them about every 4 years or 60k miles (100k km.) on my cars and
> check the tension occasionally. I did use separate belts for each of my
> alternators, make sure that the pulleys were aligned, and use solid
> alternator mounts, but I don't consider a single belt to be a reliability
> concern. I have even accepted a very small risk that a failed belt (for
> whatever reason) could foul my EJ22 camshaft belt.
> Ken
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: MPJA speed control |
Get 'em here:
http://mpja.com/productview.asp?product=4057+MD
Very simple kit that is a great brush-up or introduction on electronic
assembly. Here is my installation:
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=5003
Dimmer is lower left corner of tray- fwd/rev switch is removed and small
brace is installed to help support heat sink. ACAD is short for AutoCAD. Being
a
semi-geekly electrical kind of guy, I did all my electrical diagrams (Z-11
variant) using ACAD. Handy stuff for those so inclined...
Mark Phillips
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
But a digital radio is more likely here but I would bet in either case
you would almost wear out your radio by the time it takes effect
Mike L..
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
sportav8r(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 9:29 AM
I've been planning on a garmin SL-30 nav/comm for a future panel
upgrade, but Garmin tech support today just confirmed a fear of mine:
they have no plans to make either the SL-30 or SL-40 compatible with the
new tighter spacing.
I suppose one option is to plan on upgrading comm2 to 8.33kHz when
needed and leaving the SL-30 as-is.
Anyone know when the new channelization is going to become mandatory in
the US? I hear it's coming, someday. What are some good options for
current production nav-comms that offer this feature already? I don't
need a gps/nav/comm unit since I plan to run GRT's gps as a stand-alone
IFR unit, so the 430, 530, 480 are all too much radio for my needs.
Thanks.
-Bill B.
_____
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Ground Block On Firewall |
>
>I wish to install one of the multi tab type ground blocks to the stainless
>steel firewall on my RV8-A. This will have a block of tabs on both sides
>of the firewall.
>Do I need to anything special to the stainless steel to prepare the surface?
>Since I will be grounding many items in the aircraft to these gounds, I
>want to insure that this is a really good ground.
>Also is it necessary to have the mounting bolt go into one of the aluminum
>angles behind the firewall or is it enought just to have the bolt go
>through the stainless?
>Any help or comments are most welcome.
The whole purpose of the ground block is to take the firewall sheet
out of the equation irrespective of what ever material it is made
of. When you use the single point ground block that is THE ground.
The airplane (if it happens to be metal) becomes grounded to it,
not the other way around. If the airplane happens to be plastic,
then obviously, the airplane doesn't get 'grounded'.
So your concerns about the ground-block to airplane interface
are not well founded. If your airframe local grounds are limited
to the items oft suggested (wing mounted lights, pitot heaters,
strobe supplies) then simply bolting a clean ground block to stainless
firewall with hardware supplied is quite sufficient. I'd torque
the fasteners to max rated for the materials and call it good.
Even if you remote mount the battery with local grounding
(See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Battery_Grounds/Battery_Grounds.html )
the technique described above is quite sufficient. The key words
are "clean" and "pressure."
The "fat" bolt and nuts are 5/16" brass (typically 1/2 yield strength of
steel so 50 in-lb torque) . The smaller holes in the ground
blocks should be bolted to the firewall with 10-32 steel screws
and metal lock nuts (25 in-lb + "drag torque"). See section 7
of AC43-13.
If the parts go together clean, then sustained pressure will keep
the contact areas clean for the lifetime of the airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Ground Block on Firewall |
>
>But what about stuff that's grounded locally on the wing such as pitot
>heat, landing lights, etc.? That stuff's ground has to make it's way to
>the forest of tabs on the firewall and back to the battery through the
>stainless firewall. If the firewall is as poor a conductor as has been
>recently said,
it's not necessarily a "poor" conductor, just harder to achieve
and sustain good electrical connection . . . clean and pressure.
> doesn't that raise the possibility of ground loops as the
>pitot heat, lights, etc. try to return and wind up finding an easier
>route such as through the chassis of a radio?
not if you get clean and apply pressure . . . and since all radios
and other potential victims for noise are NOT grounded to the airframe
but to grounding features described in Figure Z15, then ground
loop possibilities are eliminated no mater what else is going on
in the system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Mag switches-what size? |
>I want to use smaller size switches in place of the normal rotary type mag
>switch. What is minimum current rating/volt rating for such a switch when
>used with regular mags? Since these ground the mags, it's not clear to me
>how to size them... any input is appreciated. Thx, Steve.
Plain vanilla toggle switches are fine. See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/s700dwg.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/switch2.jpg
Magnetos are not especially "stressful" to their
controlling switches. The standard toggle has been
the ignition switch of choice called out in the z-figures
since day-one irrespective of the ignition system technology.
Bob . . .
July 24, 2006 - August 03, 2006
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fx