AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-gd
September 14, 2006 - September 23, 2006
I usually tack solder the shield pigtails to the side of the
cup after the main wire is installed inside the cup.
For crimped pins, I'd probably include the airframe ground wires
into the inner-most cluster of the daisy chain so that shields
and ground wire all come together at the end of the shielded wire.
Then, the pigtail for the shields can do double duty and crimp
into the d-sub pin.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z13/8 .... relays |
Bob and all you electric heads
I am wiring my aircraft (RV7A) according to Z 13/8.
It dawned on me that maybe I may have either the wrong "Z" or just not
thinking straight or both!
The panel I envision and am working towards will have the Dynon 100 EFIS/ D
150 EMS, Garmin centric Nav/Com/transponder/announciator panel, Trio EZ
pilot and altitude hold, rocky mountian u encoder. The panel will be backed
up by a hand held nav/com and garmin 396 or PDA of some sort.
Now the questions. Is the endurance bus really necessary, in my case,
considering alot of the panel devices will have their own internal power
source (Dynon's, 396, u encoder, hand held)? Wouldn't it be simpler to have
a main power bus and an avionics bus. In the event of one or both
alternators going south just shut down the main bus leave on the avionics
bus. Allow the internally regulated devices to do their thing. Shut off
unessential devices at their source. And if worst came to worst shut down
the avioncs bus and use the hand held and the PDA? I am old school and still
would like to beable to turn the avionics bus on at the panel.
ON the other hand I do like Z 13/8 with all it brings to the wiring table in
terms of few switches to change in the event of an alterntor melt down.
Question 2? What function do relays give to the process of wiring up the
stick with trim/flap/ppt/etc/etc/........I can wire them up....monkey see
monkey do.....But would like to kown why these relays (switches) are
necessary and what purpose they serve. My notion is to have each of the
functions on the stick as well as right side panel.
Thanks in advance for your comments and please pass the towel I notice I am
dripping from behind the ears.
Frank @ SGU and SLC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Gear Indicator lights |
I need some help finding suitable gear indicator lights for a certified ai
rcraft, my Navion. I'm doing some cleanup and want to cut a new panel with
the gear lights repositioned. The current lights would work except they are
circa 1959 and the lenses are disintegrating. They are press-to-test with
a sort of mushroom shaped lense. I've gotten a couple replacement lenses fr
om my avionics shop junk drawer but would rather source new lights (or lens
es if they are still made) rather than depend on the "luck of the drawer" w
hen they break again. Anything with Mil, PMA or mfg blessing would make it
a logbook entry per my IA but I'm not adverse to doing a 337 to get LED's o
r something more modern and aestetically pleasing than MS25041 (ugly and ex
pensive). Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Greg Young
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What I learned today |
Absolutely agree. This has even changed thread names. My fingure
got so tired of delete I finally had to say something but was informed I was
confused about the word banned. Banned is banned ! Yep I am dazed and
confused and getting more delirious. Let's talk plane lectric's. I somehow
wish George was here he would get us lined out. lol
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Ghertner" <nghertner(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: What I learned today
>
>
> Bob, put a stop to this banter; you guys are driving me nuts.
>
> Lory Ghertner
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter11(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What I learned today |
Eric, I'm sorry I read your pseudo-nice knife-in-the-ribs babble before I
remembered to hit "delete". This is really getting old. Why don't you guys
who don't like Bob's ways go somewhere else with your pseudo-morality and
leave us normal folks alone?
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 9:32 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: What I learned today
>
>
> The Final Solution:
>
> (Apologies to Rev. Martin Niemoeller)
>
> First they banned the discourteous,
> And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
> Then they banned the insubordinate,
> And I didn't speak up because I was easily cowed by authority.
> Then they came for the passionately contentious,
> And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
> Then they came for the independent technological thinkers,
> And I didn't speak up because I wasn't an independent thinker.
> Then they came for me, And by that time no one was left to speak up.
>
> The REAL issue Bob, is that people who disagree are a thousand times more
> valuable than those who merely follow--albeit the discussion could be more
> civil--and we seek not to confuse the beginner too much. But you and I are
> not above being jerks. None of your foils started their interchanges with
> you in an intemperate tone. They react to what they consider your
> intransigence and arrogance. And it makes them go bonkers.
>
> When I see that you are prepared to fight seemingly innocuous points like
> my recent disagreement that "copper is a very active metal" (chapter 8), I
> am nonplussed. You obviosly fight to defend territory. Hell, I just
> thought I would do you a favor. Fool me once....
>
> Bob, you are obviously a man of exceptional talents and a lot of people,
> including me, and I would guess your difficult list characters, depend on
> you and respect you.
>
> But don't look for obedience...some of us just can't do it.
>
> "What the West really has to offer is honesty. Somehow, in the midst of
> their horrid history, the best among the Gaijin learned a wonderful
> lesson. They learned to distrust themselves, to doubt even what they were
> taught to believe or what their egos make them yearn to see. To know that
> even truth must be scrutinized, it was a great discovery...."
> -- David Brin, "Dr. Pak's Preschool"
>
> --------
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge, MA 01550
> (508) 764-2072
> emjones(at)charter.net
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=61584#61584
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | djones(at)northboone.net |
| Subject: | Re: Radio shields |
For crimped pins with the ground wires as the inermost wouldn't the
pigtail and
ground wire ends come together and then crimp into the d-sub pin.
Dennis
Quoting "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" :
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks Bob
>>
>> If one solders the wire to the cup, would the pig tail solder
>> literally onto the
>> side of the cup or in the cup and would you join the wires first? If
>> I splice
>> the wires using the pin pocket what would be the best way to splice
>> the wires
>> together prior to installing into the pocket, i.e. wrapped, soldered?
>
> The cups are obviously too small to accept a pair of wires.
> I usually tack solder the shield pigtails to the side of the
> cup after the main wire is installed inside the cup.
>
> For crimped pins, I'd probably include the airframe ground wires
> into the inner-most cluster of the daisy chain so that shields
> and ground wire all come together at the end of the shielded wire.
> Then, the pigtail for the shields can do double duty and crimp
> into the d-sub pin.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Warning alarms into Flightcom403 |
>
>I would like to pipe the warning tones from my EIS4000, my transponder
>and my GPS into my intercom (FC403D). I have an IPOD jack set up to go
>through the auxiliary audio input and thought I would simply use one of
>the unused mic inputs for the warning tones. I realize that this may not
>be ideal if the pilot isolate switch is on ... I can live with that. The
>mic has two wires into the intercom but the warning outputs just have
>single wires out of the devices. How would I go about wiring up the
>mike jack in this configuration? Thanks for the advice.
Using the microphone jack for anything other than aircraft
style mic input is a bit iffy. Suggest you consider some form
of audio isolation amplifier (mixing amp) to combine one
of the intercom headset outputs like shown on page 1.10 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700J.pdf
This data package describes the parts and wiring for crafting
an amplifier from scratch . . . you can buy a bare board if you
wish at:
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
artwork for the board is at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-301-1.pcb
should you choose to order your own boards from
http://expresspcb.com
This will 'cleaner' and offer very predictable results.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mic plug / PTT wiring |
CH products
http://www.chproducts.com/retail/aircraft.html
Deems
Bill Denton wrote:
>
>What brand of control stick are you using?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Deems
>Davis
>Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:46 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mic plug / PTT wiring
>
>
>I think I understand the need to isolate the mic plug with the
>insulating washers. My question which remains is does the PTT switch
>need to be wired directly to the common terminal (as depicted on the web
>site example) on the mic plug? In my case this will be difficult as I
>plan to use a switch on a control stick which already is wired with a
>common ground. I'm 'assuming' that I can wire the control grip switch to
>the mic plug 'key' terminal, and the common/ground will be through the
>common/ground in the control grip wiring. (?)
>
> Deems Davis RV10 # 406
>Panel/wiring
>http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>John Morgensen wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Hope I can contribute here. I encountered an FBO Cessna that was not
>>grounded properly. The symptoms were PTT produced a side-tone with old
>>cheap headsets but no side-tone with brand new ANR headsets.
>>
>>John Morgensen RV-9A QB
>>
>>Deems Davis wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The example on Bob's web site shows that the PTT switch is wired to
>>>the Ground/common on the Mic plug recepticle (in addition to the
>>>key/terminal) is there any reason why the PTT switch (in my case on a
>>>control stick/grip) can't be wired to a common ground for the
>>>control/ grip rather than to the mic plug common?
>>>
>>>Deems Davis RV-10 # 406
>>>Panel/wiring
>>>http://deemsrv10.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio shields |
>
>For crimped pins with the ground wires as the inermost wouldn't the
>pigtail and
>ground wire ends come together and then crimp into the d-sub pin.
>
>Dennis
Shielded ground wires? Don't know why anyone would do that.
Grounded wires are, by definition, immune to the effects
of electrostatic noise coupling.
Two classes of wiring benefit from the addition of shielding
(which is grounded at least at one end).
(1) wires that carry strong potentially antagonistic
signals (high voltage, fast risetime waveforms).
Magneto p-leads are always worth shielding unless
you're building a day vfr machine with no radios.
(2) wires that carry small, potentially victim signals
(low voltages that carry intelligence in the form
of voice, data or display signals). These will be
circuits like microphones and small signal lines
between various black boxes of a system.
Wires that are used for grounding do no fall into
either of these categories.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Switches and Wiring |
>Listers,
>
>I've read Bob's book and searched the archives but still can't seem to
>find answers to confirm that my desired approach on magneto and starter
>wiring will work (or maybe there is a simpler way).
>
>I have two traditional magnetos for an IO-360. I would like to have a
>toggle switch for each mag, and a momentary toggle for the starter (with a
>toggle guard for added protection of inadvertent activation).
>
>I don't fully understand the "impulse" aspect of the magneto. Could
>someone help explain such and outline the correct wiring for this setup?
This is discussed in an article I published at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Shower-of-Sparks/ShowerOfSparks.pdf
That article needs to be updated to talk about the
new, solid-state implementation of "SOS" technology
that can be added to an impulse coupled mag. This
impulse coupler provides the delayed opening of the
points so that a two-point mag is needed to implement
the energy augmentation offered by the "Slick Start".
See:
http://aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/slickstart.php
Check out the drawing:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Ignition/TogMagSw.pdf
Here I show the use of toggle switches in combination
with a push button for starting -and- a way you can use
spring loaded toggle switches to combine starter control
into the ignition switches thereby eliminating one
panel control.
A common feature of both drawings is interlocking
of starter control through the two switches so that
the starter can be activated only with left mag (impulse
coupled) ON and right mag OFF. This requirement for
specific positioning of the switches makes inadvertent
starter activation exceedingly unlikely and reduces
the need for any kind of separate guarding of the
starter switch.
Bob. . .
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jeff
>
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>-- 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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z13/8 .... relays |
>
>
>Bob and all you electric heads
>
>I am wiring my aircraft (RV7A) according to Z 13/8.
>
>It dawned on me that maybe I may have either the wrong "Z" or just not
>thinking straight or both!
>
>The panel I envision and am working towards will have the Dynon 100 EFIS/
>D 150 EMS, Garmin centric Nav/Com/transponder/announciator panel, Trio EZ
>pilot and altitude hold, rocky mountian u encoder. The panel will be
>backed up by a hand held nav/com and garmin 396 or PDA of some sort.
>
>Now the questions. Is the endurance bus really necessary, in my case,
>considering alot of the panel devices will have their own internal power
>source (Dynon's, 396, u encoder, hand held)? Wouldn't it be simpler to
>have a main power bus and an avionics bus.
Does "simpler" translate to "more desirable". The various architectures
suggested in Appendix Z were crafted to deal with perceived shortcomings
of contemporary type certificated systems as describe in the chapter
on system reliability. If you don's subscribe to any of those philosophies
then you're certainly free to adopt any alternatives you find more
attractive.
> In the event of one or both alternators going south just shut down the
> main bus leave on the avionics bus. Allow the internally regulated
> devices to do their thing. Shut off unessential devices at their source.
> And if worst came to worst shut down the avioncs bus and use the hand
> held and the PDA? I am old school and still would like to beable to turn
> the avionics bus on at the panel.
You're not going to loose two alternators on any one tank full
of gas. It sounds like you're comfortable with your understanding
of how the type certificated machine is configured. What
we can help you with here is to discuss features that depart
from the traditional to see if they make sense for your
project.
>ON the other hand I do like Z 13/8 with all it brings to the wiring table
>in terms of few switches to change in the event of an alterntor melt down.
So how can we help you? It's not our mission to persuade you
to do anything - only to share our understanding of the
operational trade-offs of one philosophy over another.
The modern alternator combined with a well maintained
RG battery stuck into a C-172 elevates reliability of
that system by a factor of 10 or more over what it
left the factory with. If you're perfectly willing to
launch into the gray in a TC aircraft, then if you wired
your OBAM aircraft the same way but with modern alternator
and battery . . . you have a combination that offers
great comfort.
If you're agonizing over things you seen in Appendix Z
as compared to the way a C-172 is wired, then the most
we can do is to help you ponder/elaborate on the explanations
in Chapter 17 as an aid to your decision making process.
But nobody here should hold forth that anything is NECESSARY
or REQUIRED . . . only that some features are more attractive
and then explain the reasoning behind the assertion.
What's your mission for this aircraft. How does a C-172
system fall short of your design goals? Which features,
if any, in the Z-figures add any degree of assistance
to achieving your goals? Here's where we can help you
sort the pieces.
>Question 2? What function do relays give to the process of wiring up the
>stick with trim/flap/ppt/etc/etc/........I can wire them up....monkey see
>monkey do.....But would like to kown why these relays (switches) are
>necessary and what purpose they serve. My notion is to have each of the
>functions on the stick as well as right side panel.
A part that is not installed in your airplane is not
a part that will need fixing later. Again, compare what
you can rent from the local FBO and gage that against
your design goals for improving upon what you can rent.
Earlier you alluded to the value in having things
"simpler" . . . but in this paragraph it seems like
you may have stirred in considerable complexity. Aside
from the whizz factor for having lots of switches
and buttons, how will these features help you fly the
airplane better at a lower cost of ownership and greater
reliability?
>Thanks in advance for your comments and please pass the towel I notice I
>am dripping from behind the ears.
Understand . . . and we all hope that your experience
here will be useful in the "drying out" process. Part
of that process requires asking the right questions
but those need to drive toward what YOU want this
airplane to do for you, not what any of us THINKS
it should do for you.
You need to list some objectives. What features
do you find lacking in the local FBO's rentals
that you'd like to have in your airplane? How will
this feature reduce work load, increase reliability,
reduce cost of ownership, increase/decrease weight,
etc. Many folks here on the List will have suggestions
but the final decisions need to be uniquely yours.
Let's talk about it!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde,
Frank George (Corvallis)"
Frank wrote: "......skip......Of course if the risk so high (like 400 people
on a DC10) then there
might be 3 independent hydraulic systems.....skip......"
9/15/2006
Hello Frank, This response is not intended to be a criticism of, or
substantive contribution to the switch issue that you were addressing, but
merely a comment on the perfidy or irony that can lurk in aviation designs,
incidents, or accidents.
Incident One: The famous DC-10 Souix City crash of United Flight 232 flown
by Capt. Al Haynes when a disintegrating engine disabled all three hydraulic
systems.
Incident Two: The double, and almost triple, engine failure incident on a
three engined airline transport airplane when a mechanic replaced all three
engine oil sump plugs without first installing an O ring on each plug. The
plane eventually successfully landed with only one engine operating.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | OldBob Siegfried <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Good Morning OC,
And don't forget the DC-10 out of Miami that
encountered a hydraulic problem shortly after takeoff.
This incident happened within the first couple of
months after the DC-10 was placed in service.
The Captain was one of the sharpest tacks in the box,
took immediate action, and got the airplane back on
the ground rapidly.
It was found that the back up hydraulic systems had
all failed due to vibration of the hydraulic lines.
They were "hard" lines. All such lines were
immediately replaced with flexible lines.
Had he had it in the air another couple of minutes,
all control would have been lost.
A major save by an exceptional aviator.
I am sure the Douglas designers had checked the
operation of their design thoroughly on the ground and
in mockups. Unfortunately, the conditions encountered
in the actual failure never showed up in any of the
design flight testing.
There is considerable advantage to sticking with the
tried and true. When departing from that norm, it pays
to test every back up system with a true time failure.
Sometimes, it is extremely difficult to simulate the
actual conditions that will occur following a failure.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, IL
LL22
--- bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>
> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message
> previously posted by: "Hinde,
> Frank George (Corvallis)"
>
> Frank wrote: "......skip......Of course if the risk
> so high (like 400 people
> on a DC10) then there
> might be 3 independent hydraulic
> systems.....skip......"
>
> 9/15/2006
>
> Hello Frank, This response is not intended to be a
> criticism of, or
> substantive contribution to the switch issue that
> you were addressing, but
> merely a comment on the perfidy or irony that can
> lurk in aviation designs,
> incidents, or accidents.
>
> Incident One: The famous DC-10 Souix City crash of
> United Flight 232 flown
> by Capt. Al Haynes when a disintegrating engine
> disabled all three hydraulic
> systems.
>
> Incident Two: The double, and almost triple, engine
> failure incident on a
> three engined airline transport airplane when a
> mechanic replaced all three
> engine oil sump plugs without first installing an O
> ring on each plug. The
> plane eventually successfully landed with only one
> engine operating.
>
> OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in
> gathering knowledge.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Campbell" <gregcampbellusa(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TranspondersTranspondersTransponders |
Another reason to have two transponders...
1) if you have a Mode S transponder and you want the TIS info when in those
areas
and
2) you have a spare Mode C transponder that doesn't always broadcast your
ID...
You could call it a backup, or a convenience, or selectable anonymity ;-)
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Kevin previously wrote:
"If you don't do the test then, someday you may
stumble across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the
system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the system
does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
"For example, what is the engine restart procedure after you have shut
one tank down, and were slow opening the other fuel valve, resulting
in engine stoppage? When would you rather try out your planned
restart procedure for the first time? Overhead a long runway at
5,000 ft when you were mentally prepared for problems? Or over rough
country with no fields or runways in sight when a stoppage would be a
complete surprise?
Good points, but what "assumptions" do you have in mind that should
be tested? The one you mention about restarting the engine was
confirmed twice - once on each tank, with predictable results. The
engine started just as it normally does after fuel flow resumes. I
also verified on the ground that if a high vacuum is pulled on the
system nothing leaks or collapses in a way that would block fuel
flow when the fuel was turned back on. Are there others you had in
mind? A similar question might go to those who use conventional fuel
selectors - has anyone checked the width of the "dead band" between
tanks to see what happened if the valve isn't turned all the way? I
doubt that one in a hundred people would check that during the flight
test phase - I don't think I would have. Finally, there was a
discussion about using dual wing root pumps in a plane using an EFI
system. I was going that way for a while and after analyzing the
alternatives came to the same conclusion. And what are the odds that
one will inadvertently run a tank dry and then discover the other
pump doesn't work? The pilot is probably not that reliable and he
might do it one in a thousand or even one in a hundred (I'll admit
doing it once in 1500 hours of flying) times. However, what are the
odds that the pump won't run after having previously run DURING THE
SAME FLIGHT? I suggest it is more like one in 100,000. However,
there is a problem with using automotive roller vane or Gerotor pumps
- they are not very tolerant of contamination. I think a nylon inlet
"sock" just as used in automotive applications is necessary to
protect the pump. The coarse screens typically used in aircraft
aren't adequate for that purpose.
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Sounds like the single point of failure was the mechanic...Hmm guess
there is way round that one...:)
Actually the United 232 incident was the one I was thinking of when I
wrote that, in a way the complex 3 hydraulic systems still had a single
point of failure...i.e when the #2 engine blew up!
Mind you in a single engine plane I guee we are preapred for at least
some risk right...:)
Frank
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde,
Frank George (Corvallis)"
Frank wrote: "......skip......Of course if the risk so high (like 400
people on a DC10) then there might be 3 independent hydraulic
systems.....skip......"
9/15/2006
Hello Frank, This response is not intended to be a criticism of, or
substantive contribution to the switch issue that you were addressing,
but merely a comment on the perfidy or irony that can lurk in aviation
designs, incidents, or accidents.
Incident One: The famous DC-10 Souix City crash of United Flight 232
flown by Capt. Al Haynes when a disintegrating engine disabled all three
hydraulic systems.
Incident Two: The double, and almost triple, engine failure incident on
a three engined airline transport airplane when a mechanic replaced all
three engine oil sump plugs without first installing an O ring on each
plug. The plane eventually successfully landed with only one engine
operating.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Gary,
As I understand it, the coarse screens at the tank pickups are meant to
stop the big chunks without stopping up with an accumulation of small
stuff. I've always thought the reasoning was that the fuel screens in
the tank get checked rarely if ever, but the finer gascolator and finer
yet carb screens are to be inspected regularly. If finding accumulations
there, it's a real good reason to make the extra effort to check the
tanks.
If there were fine screens in the tank, they could stop up without the
warning afforded by seeing small accretions at more easily inspected
locations. You probably didn't slosh your tanks and that's a good thing,
but the possibility of contamination being introduced into your tanks is
not zero and unless you were to inspect those nylon socks regularly, you
probably wouldn't know until they plugged up.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
>However,
there is a problem with using automotive roller vane or Gerotor pumps
- they are not very tolerant of contamination. I think a nylon inlet
"sock" just as used in automotive applications is necessary to
protect the pump. The coarse screens typically used in aircraft
aren't adequate for that purpose.
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Correct,
The airflow performance pump in the Standard airplane setup has a very
fine mesh filter in front of it.
I assume the is a bypass around the pump should this plug?
On the wingroot pump method I have a fine filter at the inlet of each
pump...Should one plug there is the other one.
At the first oil change (10 hours?) I will junk these cheap paper
filters and change to the sintered bronze deal on each pump.
There is debate that one should not use paper as a filter because it
could swell if it encountered water...Not sure I believe that would be a
problem in real life but hey, if you got the choice might as well do the
right thing.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
Holyoke
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:46 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
-->
Gary,
As I understand it, the coarse screens at the tank pickups are meant to
stop the big chunks without stopping up with an accumulation of small
stuff. I've always thought the reasoning was that the fuel screens in
the tank get checked rarely if ever, but the finer gascolator and finer
yet carb screens are to be inspected regularly. If finding accumulations
there, it's a real good reason to make the extra effort to check the
tanks.
If there were fine screens in the tank, they could stop up without the
warning afforded by seeing small accretions at more easily inspected
locations. You probably didn't slosh your tanks and that's a good thing,
but the possibility of contamination being introduced into your tanks is
not zero and unless you were to inspect those nylon socks regularly, you
probably wouldn't know until they plugged up.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
>However,
there is a problem with using automotive roller vane or Gerotor pumps
- they are not very tolerant of contamination. I think a nylon inlet
"sock" just as used in automotive applications is necessary to protect
the pump. The coarse screens typically used in aircraft aren't adequate
for that purpose.
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | djones(at)northboone.net |
| Subject: | Re: Radio shields |
Bob
I was refering to the schematic for the Terra radios where the phone and mic
jack shielded wires come into the radio and the shield of those wires are tied
into the ground wire going into the radio using the daisy chain system and the
pig tail attaches to the ground.
Dennis
Quoting "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" :
>
>
>
>>
>> For crimped pins with the ground wires as the inermost wouldn't the
>> pigtail and
>> ground wire ends come together and then crimp into the d-sub pin.
>>
>> Dennis
>
> Shielded ground wires? Don't know why anyone would do that.
> Grounded wires are, by definition, immune to the effects
> of electrostatic noise coupling.
>
> Two classes of wiring benefit from the addition of shielding
> (which is grounded at least at one end).
>
> (1) wires that carry strong potentially antagonistic
> signals (high voltage, fast risetime waveforms).
> Magneto p-leads are always worth shielding unless
> you're building a day vfr machine with no radios.
>
> (2) wires that carry small, potentially victim signals
> (low voltages that carry intelligence in the form
> of voice, data or display signals). These will be
> circuits like microphones and small signal lines
> between various black boxes of a system.
>
> Wires that are used for grounding do no fall into
> either of these categories.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | OldBob Siegfried <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Good Afternoon Frank,
Just as a point of conversation, you might be
interested in Steve Wittmans's personal philosophy of
fuel filtering.
He told me once that the majority of his engine
failures had been due to crud or water in the fuel. It
would clog up those little filters on the gascolators
that were so ubiquitous on Cubs, T-Crafts, and the
like.
Therefore, Steve eliminated all of the filters down
stream of the fuel tank. None in the gascolator and
none in the carburetor.
He made a tent in the bottom of his fuel tank out of
the same material as the little filters in the
gascolator were made from. For a two foot long round
fuel tank (the type favored by Steve) he ended up with
a section of screen approximately two feet long and
four inches wide. The tent walls were each about two
inches high.
In addition to that, he made a tubular unit out of the
same screen material that would fit down into the
fueling port. It was about six inches long and was of
a diameter that would easily fit in the opening. There
was a section of screen soldered to the bottom of the
tube and a suitable collar soldered around the top
such that the tube would not fall into the tank.
Steve would always fuel his airplane through that tube
while he watched carefully for any water or other crud
in the filling tube.
Whatever managed to get by that setup was, hopefully,
blocked out of the system by the large area screen in
the bottom of the tank. The fuel pick up was inside
the "tent".
Obviously, our fuel is a lot cleaner than it was forty
or fifty years ago when Steve was having problems, but
it was, nevertheless, a neat solution to the problems
he had encountered.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, Illinois
LL22
--- "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
wrote:
> Frank George (Corvallis)"
>
> Correct,
>
> The airflow performance pump in the Standard
> airplane setup has a very
> fine mesh filter in front of it.
>
> I assume the is a bypass around the pump should this
> plug?
>
> On the wingroot pump method I have a fine filter at
> the inlet of each
> pump...Should one plug there is the other one.
>
> At the first oil change (10 hours?) I will junk
> these cheap paper
> filters and change to the sintered bronze deal on
> each pump.
>
> There is debate that one should not use paper as a
> filter because it
> could swell if it encountered water...Not sure I
> believe that would be a
> problem in real life but hey, if you got the choice
> might as well do the
> right thing.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Ed
> Holyoke
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:46 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>
> Holyoke"
> -->
>
> Gary,
>
> As I understand it, the coarse screens at the tank
> pickups are meant to
> stop the big chunks without stopping up with an
> accumulation of small
> stuff. I've always thought the reasoning was that
> the fuel screens in
> the tank get checked rarely if ever, but the finer
> gascolator and finer
> yet carb screens are to be inspected regularly. If
> finding accumulations
> there, it's a real good reason to make the extra
> effort to check the
> tanks.
>
> If there were fine screens in the tank, they could
> stop up without the
> warning afforded by seeing small accretions at more
> easily inspected
> locations. You probably didn't slosh your tanks and
> that's a good thing,
> but the possibility of contamination being
> introduced into your tanks is
> not zero and unless you were to inspect those nylon
> socks regularly, you
> probably wouldn't know until they plugged up.
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
>
> >However,
> there is a problem with using automotive roller vane
> or Gerotor pumps
> - they are not very tolerant of contamination. I
> think a nylon inlet
> "sock" just as used in automotive applications is
> necessary to protect
> the pump. The coarse screens typically used in
> aircraft aren't adequate
> for that purpose.
>
> Gary Casey
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Wow that's quite a solution...:)
I went the "large as I could get filters" method but even those would
not prevent a catastrophic contamination event. Filtering the fuel on
the way in is a pain but it looks like Staev has a workable solution
there.
Thanks for the tip Bob
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
OldBob Siegfried
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:21 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
-->
Good Afternoon Frank,
Just as a point of conversation, you might be interested in Steve
Wittmans's personal philosophy of fuel filtering.
He told me once that the majority of his engine failures had been due to
crud or water in the fuel. It would clog up those little filters on the
gascolators that were so ubiquitous on Cubs, T-Crafts, and the like.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Filtering it going into the tank is great, but I'm not sure how he
would clean the "tent" filter.
How about those nice huge high-flow Fram HPG-1 filters? I'll bet it
would take a real mess to clog one of those puppies. They are also
pretty heavy.
Dave Morris
At 01:20 PM 9/15/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>Good Afternoon Frank,
>
>Just as a point of conversation, you might be
>interested in Steve Wittmans's personal philosophy of
>fuel filtering.
>
>He told me once that the majority of his engine
>failures had been due to crud or water in the fuel. It
>would clog up those little filters on the gascolators
>that were so ubiquitous on Cubs, T-Crafts, and the
>like.
>
>Therefore, Steve eliminated all of the filters down
>stream of the fuel tank. None in the gascolator and
>none in the carburetor.
>
>He made a tent in the bottom of his fuel tank out of
>the same material as the little filters in the
>gascolator were made from. For a two foot long round
>fuel tank (the type favored by Steve) he ended up with
>a section of screen approximately two feet long and
>four inches wide. The tent walls were each about two
>inches high.
>
>In addition to that, he made a tubular unit out of the
>same screen material that would fit down into the
>fueling port. It was about six inches long and was of
>a diameter that would easily fit in the opening. There
>was a section of screen soldered to the bottom of the
>tube and a suitable collar soldered around the top
>such that the tube would not fall into the tank.
>
>Steve would always fuel his airplane through that tube
>while he watched carefully for any water or other crud
>in the filling tube.
>
>Whatever managed to get by that setup was, hopefully,
>blocked out of the system by the large area screen in
>the bottom of the tank. The fuel pick up was inside
>the "tent".
>
>Obviously, our fuel is a lot cleaner than it was forty
>or fifty years ago when Steve was having problems, but
>it was, nevertheless, a neat solution to the problems
>he had encountered.
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>Stearman N3977A
>Downers Grove, Illinois
>LL22
>
>--- "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
> wrote:
>
> > Frank George (Corvallis)"
> >
> > Correct,
> >
> > The airflow performance pump in the Standard
> > airplane setup has a very
> > fine mesh filter in front of it.
> >
> > I assume the is a bypass around the pump should this
> > plug?
> >
> > On the wingroot pump method I have a fine filter at
> > the inlet of each
> > pump...Should one plug there is the other one.
> >
> > At the first oil change (10 hours?) I will junk
> > these cheap paper
> > filters and change to the sintered bronze deal on
> > each pump.
> >
> > There is debate that one should not use paper as a
> > filter because it
> > could swell if it encountered water...Not sure I
> > believe that would be a
> > problem in real life but hey, if you got the choice
> > might as well do the
> > right thing.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> >
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> > On Behalf Of Ed
> > Holyoke
> > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:46 AM
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
> >
> > Holyoke"
> > -->
> >
> > Gary,
> >
> > As I understand it, the coarse screens at the tank
> > pickups are meant to
> > stop the big chunks without stopping up with an
> > accumulation of small
> > stuff. I've always thought the reasoning was that
> > the fuel screens in
> > the tank get checked rarely if ever, but the finer
> > gascolator and finer
> > yet carb screens are to be inspected regularly. If
> > finding accumulations
> > there, it's a real good reason to make the extra
> > effort to check the
> > tanks.
> >
> > If there were fine screens in the tank, they could
> > stop up without the
> > warning afforded by seeing small accretions at more
> > easily inspected
> > locations. You probably didn't slosh your tanks and
> > that's a good thing,
> > but the possibility of contamination being
> > introduced into your tanks is
> > not zero and unless you were to inspect those nylon
> > socks regularly, you
> > probably wouldn't know until they plugged up.
> >
> > Pax,
> >
> > Ed Holyoke
> >
> >
> > >However,
> > there is a problem with using automotive roller vane
> > or Gerotor pumps
> > - they are not very tolerant of contamination. I
> > think a nylon inlet
> > "sock" just as used in automotive applications is
> > necessary to protect
> > the pump. The coarse screens typically used in
> > aircraft aren't adequate
> > for that purpose.
> >
> > Gary Casey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >
> > Web Forums!
> >
> >
> > Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | segregation of wires . . . |
>Comments/Questions: Bob, Via Matronics, your class and your book; I've
>picked up that ALL antennas can be routed together and power lines can be
>routed together. I plan to do so in my RV8, with separate audio routing
>(ICM, etc). Does the antenna rule include FM for radio? I couldn't find
>this anywhere, but assume this is the case - any notable exceptions to
>other antennas?
>Also, on Matronics site, I found a discussion on ground loop from CD
>players, etc (I will have DVD/CD and FM radio), both checked out per
>Matronics info to have case grounding. Isolating the FM is not too bad,
>but the DVD/CD could be another matter. Would like your thoughts on how
>much work I should put into this now vs. seeing if I have a problem - but
>more difficult to do later.
These radios typically ground to the instrument panel.
Bring their outputs out on wires with shields grounded
at the source end only and I think they'll be fine . . .
Is there some experience with ground loop induced
noise that was mitigated by insulating the radio
chassis? I'd like to have a link to that discussion
if you can provide it.
I've never seen value added by providing separate
wiring paths for systems EXCEPT where at least two
of those systems were poorly designed such that one
becomes an antagonist to the other.
It takes two to tango, it takes two to have a noise
problem. In terms of installation techniques, ground
loops are the strongest potential couplers with
vulnerability to radio frequency running a close
tie with susceptibility to bus noises for second
place.
If systems performing to the industry standard
practices, there is no value in segregating any
wires into groups.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harold Kovac" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What I learned today |
Why do we have to go on about who's more right than the other. Please start
your own list and let Bob help the electrically challenged (me ) on his.
No need to keep crowing that my way is better, or I'm smarter or my degree
is better than yours....enough already. I don't care about that. What I'm
looking for is info to glean thru, maybe ask a question. I need all the help
I can getto try and determine the correct corse of action is difficult
enough without havin to sort thru a dicussion about who's way is better. Let
the readers on each list decide for themselves.
Thank You,
Harold Kovac
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:32 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: What I learned today
>
>
> The Final Solution:
>
> (Apologies to Rev. Martin Niemoeller)
>
> First they banned the discourteous,
> And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
> Then they banned the insubordinate,
> And I didn't speak up because I was easily cowed by authority.
> Then they came for the passionately contentious,
> And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
> Then they came for the independent technological thinkers,
> And I didn't speak up because I wasn't an independent thinker.
> Then they came for me, And by that time no one was left to speak up.
>
> The REAL issue Bob, is that people who disagree are a thousand times more
> valuable than those who merely follow--albeit the discussion could be more
> civil--and we seek not to confuse the beginner too much. But you and I are
> not above being jerks. None of your foils started their interchanges with
> you in an intemperate tone. They react to what they consider your
> intransigence and arrogance. And it makes them go bonkers.
>
> When I see that you are prepared to fight seemingly innocuous points like
> my recent disagreement that "copper is a very active metal" (chapter 8), I
> am nonplussed. You obviosly fight to defend territory. Hell, I just
> thought I would do you a favor. Fool me once....
>
> Bob, you are obviously a man of exceptional talents and a lot of people,
> including me, and I would guess your difficult list characters, depend on
> you and respect you.
>
> But don't look for obedience...some of us just can't do it.
>
> "What the West really has to offer is honesty. Somehow, in the midst of
> their horrid history, the best among the Gaijin learned a wonderful
> lesson. They learned to distrust themselves, to doubt even what they were
> taught to believe or what their egos make them yearn to see. To know that
> even truth must be scrutinized, it was a great discovery...."
> -- David Brin, "Dr. Pak's Preschool"
>
> --------
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge, MA 01550
> (508) 764-2072
> emjones(at)charter.net
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=61584#61584
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
| Subject: | Temperature calibration..... |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
Anyone have any unique ways to accomplish a calibration of a
CHT sender/gauge at, say, 400F. I know about Tempilsticks and
Tempilaq and others of that ilk, plus the NIST certified
multimeteres (IR and contact) but wondered if there was
something else out there I might have missed....read that as
cheap. Tho, Tempil is about as cheap as you can get.....
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Temperature calibration..... |
>
>Anyone have any unique ways to accomplish a calibration of a
>CHT sender/gauge at, say, 400F. I know about Tempilsticks and
>Tempilaq and others of that ilk, plus the NIST certified
>multimeteres (IR and contact) but wondered if there was
>something else out there I might have missed....read that as
>cheap. Tho, Tempil is about as cheap as you can get.....
>
>Jim Baker
>580.788.2779
>Elmore City, OK
Last time I did one was about 30 years ago. Bought
a nice fat 250W soldering iron used for copper roofing
work. Machined a replacement 'tip' that instead of a
chisel shape for soldering, it was cut off square, drilled
and tapped for a cht sensor. Drilled and tapped another
hole for attaching a thermocouple to the tip.
Used a variac to set the soldering iron's temperature.
This tool was quite handy for checking calibration of
a system right on the airplane.
You don't need a heater this big, the soldering iron
was available and accepted solid copper, 7/8" tips so
it was really easy to machine an adapter fitting out
of aluminum rod stock. As I recall, the variac ran at
about 50 volts to get 400F test temperatures.
A quick and dirty substitute for this technique might
be implemented by drilling and tapping an aluminum block
say 1 x 1 x 2 inches to accept the CHT sensor. Fit a thermocouple
to the block along with a ground wire to replace the
ground that is "lost" when the sensor is removed from
the cylinder head.
When the sensor is fitted, electrically grounded and
the thermocouple attached, use a small torch to heat
the block until the thermocouple reads 500F or so, then
wrap the whole assembly up in thick blanket of fiberglas
insulation. The cooling rate in this "padded" environment
will be very slow so that temperature of the sensor
will be closely matched to that of the thermocouple. Just track
the ship's CHT indicator trend against the thermocouple
readout as it cools.
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: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Temperature calibration..... |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
> You don't need a heater this big, the soldering iron
> was available and accepted solid copper, 7/8" tips
With that much copper, I'm in danger of being knocked off for
drug money......
> A quick and dirty substitute for this technique might
> be implemented by drilling and tapping an aluminum block
> say 1 x 1 x 2 inches to accept the CHT sensor. Fit a thermocouple
> to the block along with a ground wire to replace the
> ground that is "lost" when the sensor is removed from
> the cylinder head.
I can hack that....got a nice big chunk of round Al stock just sittin'
there awaiting the lathe. Thanks!
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Morgan <wmorgan31(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 55 Msgs - 09/14/06 |
Greg,
Allied Electronics http://www.alliedelec.com/ has new Mil-Spec
MS25041 series, press-to-test, dimming panel lights.
Look on page 1542 on-line or search for allied p/n 511-0254.
They also have the press-to-test non-dimming type on the same page
Scott
>From: Greg Young <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Gear Indicator lights
>
> I need some help finding suitable gear indicator lights for a certified ai
>rcraft, my Navion. I'm doing some cleanup and want to cut a new panel with
>the gear lights repositioned. The current lights would work except they are
> circa 1959 and the lenses are disintegrating. They are press-to-test with
>a sort of mushroom shaped lense. I've gotten a couple replacement lenses fr
>om my avionics shop junk drawer but would rather source new lights (or lens
>es if they are still made) rather than depend on the "luck of the drawer" w
>hen they break again. Anything with Mil, PMA or mfg blessing would make it
>a logbook entry per my IA but I'm not adverse to doing a 337 to get LED's o
>r something more modern and aestetically pleasing than MS25041 (ugly and ex
>pensive). Any help would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>Greg Young
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote:
>
>
> Kevin previously wrote:
>> "If you don't do the test then, someday you may
>> stumble across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the
>> system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the system
>> does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
>
> Good points, but what "assumptions" do you have in mind that should
> be tested?
I'm not familiar enough with the assumptions that your fuel system
design was based on, so I can't make any specific recommendations.
If I understand properly, you looked at the conventional design fuel
system, but were not satisfied with some aspects of its operation, in
normal or abnormal conditions. E.g., "In situation A, if event B
occurs, the conventional design fuel system will not operate
adequately". Then you designed a fuel system that you believe should
work better in each of those situations. If your fuel system
actually functions as expected in each of those situations, then you
it should prove satisfactory in service. But, if it turns out that
it in fact performs differently than you assume it will, then maybe
there could be an accident or incident.
If you want to identify any potential problems during the test
program, find a way to create all the "situation A" + "event B" from
above. You have also considered all the conceivable normal and
abnormal operation scenarios, and determined that your fuel system
design should work properly. This should be validated by test.
Obviously, the tests must be conducted so that there will be a safe
outcome, even if the fuel system proves to not function as expected.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Milbar Pliers Repair |
9/16/2006
Hello Fellow Builders, I have a 6" Milbar Tiger Wave reversible safety wire
pliers that has quit working long before I think it should have been worn
out.
Is any one aware of a repair service for this pliers? Thanks.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Heads-up on a test equipment opportunity |
Of dozens of spam messages I filter through each day,
I did receive a welcomed piece from the folks at:
http://www.saelig.com
One item in their advertisement that caught my eye was
this oscilloscope:
http://www.saelig.com/miva/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=PSSA002&Category_Code=PSSA
I've written to the company to see if I can acquire an
instruction manual. What I'm hoping to discover is that one
may address many if not all of the 'scope's control features
through what is cited as a USB1.1 interconnect feature. I'm
hoping this includes a means by which the user captures screen
images not unlike those I often publish:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/ContactSaver_1.jpg
At first glance, this bargain basement instrument is almost a
clone of my Tektronix TDS210 which sold new for about 4x the
special price of $299 for the clone. Even used TDS210's sell
for twice the price of the clone.
I'll try to make an assessment of this instrument's capabilities
and report to the List before the special price offer is over
(October 31). If it's 3/4 the 'scope I think it is, I'm going
to recommend that several of my students at RACU pick one of
these up. I may add one to my bench as well.
If anyone on the List decides to jump in on this deal, I'd
appreciate some cooperative communication to educate me on
the finer details of this product. Thanks!
Watch this space.
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: | "John F. Herminghaus" <catignano(at)tele2.it> |
| Subject: | 2-70 Toggle switch |
Does anyone know of a source for a 2-70 toggle switch ((on)-on-(on))?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MikeEasley(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 2-70 Toggle switch |
John,
I've bought hard to find switches from _www.alliedelec.com_
(http://www.alliedelec.com) several times. Try...
_http://www.alliedelec.com/Search/SearchResults.asp?N=0&Ntk=Primary&Ntt=toggle
+%28on%29-on-%28on%29&sid=450C900033E2617F_
(http://www.alliedelec.com/Search/SearchResults.asp?N=0&Ntk=Primary&Ntt=toggle+(on)-on-(on)&sid=450C900033E2617F
)
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Systems Testing (was Fuel Pump Switch(es)) |
Try writing down a list of things your fuel system must do. Write simple
statements and start with the basics - transfer fuel from the tank to
the carb/injector fuel inlet at xx pressure. Write only one 'feature'
per statement. Think about what you want to happen in unusual situations
or when components fail. Try not to think about your design. You are
creating a set of "Requirements". Include details - must be able to get
at fuel filter easily for servicing - as well as whole system issues -
system must only need servicing yearly. Define words like 'easily'.
There are now two parallel paths to follow. 1) Look at your design to
ensure you have met all of the requirements - be critical (not always
easy). If the design does not meet the requirements then change the
design.
2) Develop a verification or test for each requirement. If a ground test
is too difficult you will now understand any risks you are taking - for
example you may decide to trust the pressure gauge manufacturer's
calibration (most people do). Minimize flight testing, its risky and
getting good data is more difficult than you think. The best way is to
get someone other than the designer to write the tests (your wife may
be?), but that's not always possible.
Be honest with yourself when testing. A second pair of eyes often helps.
Try to keep it all simple.
Yours, Pete
-----Original Message-----
On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote:
>
>
> Kevin previously wrote:
>> "If you don't do the test then, someday you may
>> stumble across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the
>> system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the system
>> does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
>
> Good points, but what "assumptions" do you have in mind that should
> be tested?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Systems Testing |
On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote:
>
>
> Kevin previously wrote:
>> "If you don't do the test then, someday you may
>> stumble across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the
>> system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the system
>> does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
>
> Good points, but what "assumptions" do you have in mind that should
> be tested?
>
>
>Try writing down a list of things your fuel system must do. Write simple
>statements and start with the basics - transfer fuel from the tank to
>the carb/injector fuel inlet at xx pressure. Write only one 'feature'
>per statement. Think about what you want to happen in unusual situations
>or when components fail. Try not to think about your design. You are
>creating a set of "Requirements". Include details - must be able to get
>at fuel filter easily for servicing - as well as whole system issues -
>system must only need servicing yearly. Define words like 'easily'.
>
>There are now two parallel paths to follow. 1) Look at your design to
>ensure you have met all of the requirements - be critical (not always
>easy). If the design does not meet the requirements then change the
>design.
>
>2) Develop a verification or test for each requirement. If a ground test
>is too difficult you will now understand any risks you are taking - for
>example you may decide to trust the pressure gauge manufacturer's
>calibration (most people do). Minimize flight testing, its risky and
>getting good data is more difficult than you think. The best way is to
>get someone other than the designer to write the tests (your wife may
>be?), but that's not always possible.
>
>Be honest with yourself when testing. A second pair of eyes often helps.
>Try to keep it all simple.
>
>Yours, Pete
Pete, thanks for posting this. An excellent illumination
of the thought processes behind setting requirements,
evaluating performance against those requirements, and
conducting a failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) from
which one (1) revises requirements and/or (2) deduces
Plan-B for each necessary item that fails to perform under
Plan-A.
With respect to development of requirements, design, testing
and failure mitigation, I would encourage Listers to publish
their thoughts here on the List. No doubt some folks will be
inclined to evaluate your words with too much emphasis on their
assessment of your lack of skill and knowledge. Expect it to happen
and know that these postings should be summarily ignored.
However, others are willing and able to assist with step/by/step
analysis of simple-ideas with the supporting logic needed for
achieving your design goals. In this manner, we elevate the
skills and knowledge of all who choose to participate.
The OBAM aviation Skunkwerks ranks amongst the largest
and most capable given the huge diversity individuals who
decide to build airplanes. They bring a wealth of knowledge
with them and there's no better place for that resource to
be cultivated and shared than right here on the List.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gear Indicator Lights |
>>From: Greg Young <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Gear Indicator lights
>>
>> I need some help finding suitable gear indicator lights for a certified ai
>>rcraft, my Navion. I'm doing some cleanup and want to cut a new panel with
>>the gear lights repositioned. The current lights would work except they are
>> circa 1959 and the lenses are disintegrating. They are press-to-test with
>>a sort of mushroom shaped lense. I've gotten a couple replacement lenses fr
>>om my avionics shop junk drawer but would rather source new lights (or lens
>>es if they are still made) rather than depend on the "luck of the drawer" w
>>hen they break again. Anything with Mil, PMA or mfg blessing would make it
>>a logbook entry per my IA but I'm not adverse to doing a 337 to get LED's o
>>r something more modern and aestetically pleasing than MS25041 (ugly and ex
>>pensive). Any help would be appreciated.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Greg Young
Greg. How many and what colors? How are they labeled. I'm
sure that by now, your adventures into the catalogs have
shown that the choices are limited and getting more expensive
all the time. Incandescent lamp fixtures rugged enough to
meet most folks design goals are becoming more rare and
the prices are not attractive.
Consider fabricating a landing gear indicator assembly
using LEDs. Let's talk about your design requirements
and then sort through some ideas. Obviously, you can
replace the existing lamps with brand new, similar
fixtures . . . but perhaps there's a way to use a collection
of much less expensive hardware to produce a new approach
with LEDs . . .
Of course, you may wind up spending more $time$ in
design and fabrication than the simple replacement of
existing fixtures would cost . . . but perhaps you
have an interest in advancing the best-we-know-how-to-do.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Systems Testing |
I don't see anything wrong with the designer "writing the test", I see good things
about that in the OBAM world. I'd add though to make the requirements & test
plan/test procedures public so they can be "peer reviewed".
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>
>
> On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Kevin previously wrote:
> >> "If you don't do the test then, someday you may
> >> stumble across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the
> >> system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the system
> >> does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
> >
> > Good points, but what "assumptions" do you have in mind that should
> > be tested?
>
> >
> >
> >Try writing down a list of things your fuel system must do. Write simple
> >statements and start with the basics - transfer fuel from the tank to
> >the carb/injector fuel inlet at xx pressure. Write only one 'feature'
> >per statement. Think about what you want to happen in unusual situations
> >or when components fail. Try not to think about your design. You are
> >creating a set of "Requirements". Include details - must be able to get
> >at fuel filter easily for servicing - as well as whole system issues -
> >system must only need servicing yearly. Define words like 'easily'.
> >
> >There are now two parallel paths to follow. 1) Look at your design to
> >ensure you have met all of the requirements - be critical (not always
> >easy). If the design does not meet the requirements then change the
> >design.
> >
> >2) Develop a verification or test for each requirement. If a ground test
> >is too difficult you will now understand any risks you are taking - for
> >example you may decide to trust the pressure gauge manufacturer's
> >calibration (most people do). Minimize flight testing, its risky and
> >getting good data is more difficult than you think. The best way is to
> >get someone other than the designer to write the tests (your wife may
> >be?), but that's not always possible.
> >
> >Be honest with yourself when testing. A second pair of eyes often helps.
> >Try to keep it all simple.
> >
> >Yours, Pete
>
> Pete, thanks for posting this. An excellent illumination
> of the thought processes behind setting requirements,
> evaluating performance against those requirements, and
> conducting a failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) from
> which one (1) revises requirements and/or (2) deduces
> Plan-B for each necessary item that fails to perform under
> Plan-A.
>
> With respect to development of requirements, design, testing
> and failure mitigation, I would encourage Listers to publish
> their thoughts here on the List. No doubt some folks will be
> inclined to evaluate your words with too much emphasis on their
> assessment of your lack of skill and knowledge. Expect it to happen
> and know that these postings should be summarily ignored.
>
> However, others are willing and able to assist with step/by/step
> analysis of simple-ideas with the supporting logic needed for
> achieving your design goals. In this manner, we elevate the
> skills and knowledge of all who choose to participate.
>
> The OBAM aviation Skunkwerks ranks amongst the largest
> and most capable given the huge diversity individuals who
> decide to build airplanes. They bring a wealth of knowledge
> with them and there's no better place for that resource to
> be cultivated and shared than right here on the List.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
I don't see anything wrong with the designer "writing the test", I see good
things about that in the OBAM world. I'd add though to make the requirements
& test plan/test procedures public so they can be "peer
reviewed".
Lucky
> --> AeroElectric-List
message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
> On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote:
>
> >
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Casey
> >
>
>
> > Kevin previously wrote:
> >>
"If you don't do the test then, someday you may
> >> stumble
across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the
> >>
system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the system
> >>
does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
> >
>
> Good points, but what "assumptions" do you have in mind that should
>
> be tested?
>
> >--> Ae
roElec
tric-List message posted by: "Peter Pengilly"
> >
> >
> >Try writing down a list of things your fuel system
must do. Write simple
> >statements and start with the basics -
transfer fuel from the tank to
> >the carb/injector fuel inlet at xx
pressure. Write only one 'feature'
> >per statement. Think about what
you want to happen in unusual situations
> >or when components fail.
Try not to think about your design. You are
> >creating a set of
"Requirements". Include details - must be able to get
> >at fuel filter
easily for servicing - as well as whole system issues -
> >system
must only need servicing yearly. Define words like 'easily'.
> >
> >There are now two parallel paths to follow. 1) Look at your design
to
> >ensure you have met all of the requirements - be critical (not
always
> >easy). If the design does not
meet
the requirements then change the
> >design.
> >
> >2)
Develop a verification or test for each requirement. If a ground test
>
>is too difficult you will now understand any risks you are taking -
for
> >example you may decide to trust the pressure gauge manufacturer's
> >calibration (most people do). Minimize flight testing, its risky
and
> >getting good data is more difficult than you think. The
best way is to
> >get someone other than the designer to write the tests
(your wife may
> >be?), but that's not always possible.
>
>
> >Be honest with yourself when testing. A second pair of eyes
often helps.
> >Try to keep it all simple.
> >
>
>Yours, Pete
>
> Pete, thanks for posting this. An excellent
illumination
> of the thought processes behind setting requirements,
>
evaluating performance against those requireme
nts, a
nd
> conducting a failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) from
> which
one (1) revises requirements and/or (2) deduces
> Plan-B for each necessary
item that fails to perform under
> Plan-A.
>
> With
respect to development of requirements, design, testing
> and failure
mitigation, I would encourage Listers to publish
> their thoughts here
on the List. No doubt some folks will be
> inclined to evaluate your
words with too much emphasis on their
> assessment of your lack of skill
and knowledge. Expect it to happen
> and know that these postings should
be summarily ignored.
>
> However, others are willing and able
to assist with step/by/step
> analysis of simple-ideas with the supporting
logic needed for
> achieving your design goals. In this manner,
we elevate the
> skills and knowledge of all who choose to participate.
>
> The OBAM aviation Skunkwerks ranks
among
.matro
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Systems Testing |
There's pretty compelling evidence from industry that strongly suggests
that test plans written by the designers are biased to 'prove' the
design. More often then not this is not a conscious but an unconscious
bias. Someone, who is *equally* expert on the subject who is not
invested in the design writing a test plan will uncover more errors and
uncover them earlier. Mike Fagan @ IBM did some compelling research on
this subject and developed his 'inspection' process for software based
partly upon this principle. Other Quality guru's have done similarly on
manufacturing and other processes.
Deems Davis # 406
Panel/wiring
http://deemsrv10.com/
lucky wrote:
> I don't see anything wrong with the designer "writing the test", I see
> good things about that in the OBAM world. I'd add though to make the
> requirements & test plan/test procedures public so they can be "peer
> reviewed".
>
> Lucky
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>
> >
> >
> > On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Kevin previously wrote:
> > >> "If you don't do the test then, someday you may
> > >> stumble across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the
> > >> system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the
> system
> > >> does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
> > >
> > > Good points, but what "assumptions" do you have in mind that
> should
> > > be tested?
> >
> > >--> Ae roElec tric-List message posted by: "Peter Pengilly"
> > >
> > >
> > >Try writing down a list of things your fuel system must do.
> Write simple
> > >statements and start with the basics - transfer fuel from the
> tank to
> > >the carb/injector fuel inlet at xx pressure. Write only one
> 'feature'
> > >per statement. Think about what you want to happen in unusual
> situations
> > >or when components fail. Try not to think about your design.
> You are
> > >creating a set of "Requirements". Include details - must be
> able to get
> > >at fuel filter easily for servicing - as well as whole system
> issues -
> > >system must only need servicing yearly. Define words like
> 'easily'.
> > >
> > >There are now two parallel paths to follow. 1) Look at your
> design to
> > >ensure you have met all of the requirements - be critical (not
> always
> > >easy). If the design does not meet the requirements then change
> the
> > >design.
> > >
> > >2) Develop a verification or test for each requirement. If a
> ground test
> > >is too difficult you will now understand any risks you are
> taking - for
> > >example you may decide to trust the pressure gauge manufacturer's
> > >calibration (most people do). Minimize flight testing, its
> risky and
> > >getting good data is more difficult than you think. The best
> way is to
> > >get someone other than the designer to write the tests (your
> wife may
> > >be?), but that's not always possible.
> > >
> > >Be honest with yourself when testing. A second pair of eyes
> often helps.
> > >Try to keep it all simple.
> > >
> > >Yours, Pete
> >
> > Pete, thanks for posting this. An excellent illumination
> > of the thought processes behind setting requirements,
> > evaluating performance against those requireme nts, a nd
> > conducting a failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) from
> > which one (1) revises requirements and/or (2) deduces
> > Plan-B for each necessary item that fails to perform under
> > Plan-A.
> >
> > With respect to development of requirements, design, testing
> > and failure mitigation, I would encourage Listers to publish
> > their thoughts here on the List. No doubt some folks will be
> > inclined to evaluate your words with too much emphasis on their
> > assessment of your lack of skill and knowledge. Expect it to happen
> > and know that these postings should be summarily ignored.
> >
> > However, others are willing and able to assist with step/by/step
> > analysis of simple-ideas with the supporting logic needed for
> > achieving your design goals. In this manner, we elevate the
> > skills and knowledge of all who choose to participate.
> >
> > The OBAM aviation Skunkwerks ranks among .matro
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Systems Testing |
Hence the peer review process. Remember, we're not talking big software program
where our promotions/pay raises are based on how well we are perceived to be
doing. We're talking OBAM with next to no one writing code or making fuel pumps
from scratch. Writing your own draft test plan/test procedure is another chance
to learn something about yourself and your design. Allows you to think
about what you've actually done and find mistakes first. That can be a very satisfying
party of this airplane experience. Peer Reviewing your "drafts" will
add the sanity check. For us OBAM'ers, it's mostly developing system designs
to use off the shelf components and succesfully physically installing them and
ensuring they play well with other components.
Just my two cents and I do this for a living too.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
>
> There's pretty compelling evidence from industry that strongly suggests
> that test plans written by the designers are biased to 'prove' the
> design. More often then not this is not a conscious but an unconscious
> bias. Someone, who is *equally* expert on the subject who is not
> invested in the design writing a test plan will uncover more errors and
> uncover them earlier. Mike Fagan @ IBM did some compelling research on
> this subject and developed his 'inspection' process for software based
> partly upon this principle. Other Quality guru's have done similarly on
> manufacturing and other processes.
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Panel/wiring
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
>
> lucky wrote:
>
> > I don't see anything wrong with the designer "writing the test", I see
> > good things about that in the OBAM world. I'd add though to make the
> > requirements & test plan/test procedures public so they can be "peer
> > reviewed".
> >
> > Lucky
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kevin previously wrote:
> > > >> "If you don't do the test then, someday you may
> > > >> stumble across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the
> > > >> system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the
> > system
> > > >> does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > Good points, but what "assumptions" do you have in mind that
> > should
> > > > be tested?
> > >
> > > >--> Ae roElec tric-List message posted by: "Peter Pengilly"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Try writing down a list of things your fuel system must do.
> > Write simple
> > > >statements and start with the basics - transfer fuel from the
> > tank to
> > > >the carb/injector fuel inlet at xx pressure. Write only one
> > 'feature'
> > > >per statement. Think about what you want to happen in unusual
> > situations
> > > >or when components fail. Try not to think about your design.
> > You are
> > > >creating a set of "Requirements". Include details - must be
> > able to get
> > > >at fuel filter easily for servicing - as well as whole system
> > issues -
> > > >system must only need servicing yearly. Define words like
> > 'easily'.
> > > >
> > > >There are now two parallel paths to follow. 1) Look at your
> > design to
> > > >ensure you have met all of the requirements - be critical (not
> > always
> > > >easy). If the design does not meet the requirements then change
> > the
> > > >design.
> > > >
> > > >2) Develop a verification or test for each requirement. If a
> > ground test
> > > >is too difficult you will now understand any risks you are
> > taking - for
> > > >example you may decide to trust the pressure gauge manufacturer's
> > > >calibration (most people do). Minimize flight testing, its
> > risky and
> > > >getting good data is more difficult than you think. The best
> > way is to
> > > >get someone other than the designer to write the tests (your
> > wife may
> > > >be?), but that's not always possible.
> > > >
> > > >Be honest with yourself when testing. A second pair of eyes
> > often helps.
> > > >Try to keep it all simple.
> > > >
> > > >Yours, Pete
> > >
> > > Pete, thanks for posting this. An excellent illumination
> > > of the thought processes behind setting requirements,
> > > evaluating performance against those requireme nts, a nd
> > > conducting a failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) from
> > > which one (1) revises requirements and/or (2) deduces
> > > Plan-B for each necessary item that fails to perform under
> > > Plan-A.
> > >
> > > With respect to development of requirements, design, testing
> > > and failure mitigation, I would encourage Listers to publish
> > > their thoughts here on the List. No doubt some folks will be
> > > inclined to evaluate your words with too much emphasis on their
> > > assessment of your lack of skill and knowledge. Expect it to happen
> > > and know that these postings should be summarily ignored.
> > >
> > > However, others are willing and able to assist with step/by/step
> > > analysis of simple-ideas with the supporting logic needed for
> > > achieving your design goals. In this manner, we elevate the
> > > skills and knowledge of all who choose to participate.
> > >
> > > The OBAM aviation Skunkwerks ranks among .matro
> >
> >*
> >
> >
> >*
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Hence the peer review process. Remember, we're not talking big software
program where our promotions/pay raises are based on how well we are perceived
to be doing. We're talking OBAM with next to no one writing code or
making fuel pumps from scratch. Writing your own draft test plan/test
procedure is another chance to learn something about yourself and your design. Allows
you to think about what you've actually done and find mistakes
first. That can be a very satisfying party of this airplane
experience. Peer Reviewing your "drafts" will add the sanity check.
For us OBAM'ers, it's mostly developing system designs to use off the shelf
components and succesfully physically installing them and ensuring they play
well with other components.
Just my two cents and I do this for a living too.
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted
by: Deems Davis
>
> There's pretty compelling
evidence from industry that strongly suggests
> that test plans written
by the designers are biased to 'prove' the
> design. More often then
not this is not a conscious but an unconscious
> bias. Someone, who
is *equally* expert on the subject who is not
> invested in the design
writing a test plan will uncover more errors and
> uncover them earlier.
Mike Fagan @ IBM did some compelling research on
> this subject and developed
his 'inspection' process for software based
> partly upon this
principle. Other Quality guru's have done similarly on
> manufacturing
and other processes.
>
> Deems Davis #
406 <
BR>> Panel/wiring <BR>> http://deemsrv10.com/ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> lucky wrote: <BR>> <BR>> > I don't see anything wrong with the designer "writing the test", I see <BR>> > good things about that in the OBAM world. I'd add though to make the <BR>> > requirements & test plan/test procedures public so they can be "peer <BR>> > reviewed". <BR>> > <BR>> > Lucky <BR>> > <BR>> > -------------- Original message -------------- <BR>> > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <NUCKOLLSR@COX.NET><BR>> > <BR>> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote: <BR>> > > <BR>> > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Casey <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Kevin previously wrote: <BR>> > > >>
"If yo
u don't do the test then, someday you may
> > > >> stumble across
that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the
> > > >>
system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the
> >
system
> > > >> does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > Good points, but what
"assumptions" do you have in mind that
> > should
> > >
> be tested?
> > >
> > > >--> Ae roElec tric-List
message posted by: "Peter Pengilly"
> > > >
>
> > >
> > > >Try writing down a list of things your fuel
system must do.
> > Write simple
> > > >statements
and start with the basics - transfer fuel from the
> > tank to
>
> > >the carb/injector fuel inlet at xx pressure. Write only one
> > 'feature'
> > > >per
state
ment. Think about what you want to happen in unusual
> > situations
>
> > >or when components fail. Try not to think about your design.
> > You are
> > > >creating a set of "Requirements".
Include details - must be
> > able to get
> > > >at
fuel filter easily for servicing - as well as whole system
> >
issues -
> > > >system must only need servicing yearly. Define
words like
> > 'easily'.
> > > >
> > >
>There are now two parallel paths to follow. 1) Look at your
> >
design to
> > > >ensure you have met all of the requirements
- be critical (not
> > always
> > > >easy). If the
design does not meet the requirements then change
> > the
> >
> >design.
> > > >
> > > >2) Develop
a verification or test for each requirement. If a >
> ground test
> > > >is too difficult you will now understand
any risks you are
> > taking - for
> > > >example
you may decide to trust the pressure gauge manufacturer's
> > >
>calibration (most people do). Minimize flight testing, its
> > risky
and
> > > >getting good data is more difficult than you think.
The best
> > way is to
> > > >get someone other
than the designer to write the tests (your
> > wife may
> >
> >be?), but that's not always possible.
> > > >
>
> > >Be honest with yourself when testing. A second pair of eyes
> > often helps.
> > > >Try to keep it all simple.
> > > >
> > > >Yours, Pete
> > >
> > > Pete, thanks for posting this. An excellent illumination
>
> > of the thought processes behind set
ting r
equirements,
> > > evaluating performance against those requireme
nts, a nd
> > > conducting a failure mode effects analysis (FMEA)
from
> > > which one (1) revises requirements and/or (2) deduces
> > > Plan-B for each necessary item that fails to perform under
> > > Plan-A.
> > >
> > > With respect
to development of requirements, design, testing
> > > and failure
mitigation, I would encourage Listers to publish
> > > their thoughts
here on the List. No doubt some folks will be
> > > inclined
to evaluate your words with too much emphasis on their
> > > assessment
of your lack of skill and knowledge. Expect it to happen
> >
> and know that these postings should be summarily ignored.
> >
>
> > > However, others are willing and able to assist with
step/by/step
> > > analysis of simple-id
eas wi
the W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Morgan <wmorgan31(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 09/16/06 |
John,
Allied Electric: page 830
Allied p/n Eaton p/n Mil # Type
826-1522 8501K19 MS-27407-6 (On)-On-(On)
Scott
At 01:55 AM 9/17/2006, you wrote:
>From: "John F. Herminghaus" <catignano(at)tele2.it>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: 2-70 Toggle switch
>
>
>
>Does anyone know of a source for a 2-70 toggle switch ((on)-on-(on))?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Morgan <wmorgan31(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 09/16/06 |
John,
Rechecked my notes,
Allied Elect page 853, Honeywell, same switch and about half the
price, there are 2 of them on this page, 1 is mil-spec and the other is not
Scott
At 12:09 PM 9/17/2006, William Morgan wrote:
>John,
>
>Allied Electric: page 830
>Allied p/n Eaton p/n Mil # Type
>826-1522 8501K19 MS-27407-6 (On)-On-(On)
>
>Scott
>
>
>At 01:55 AM 9/17/2006, you wrote:
>>From: "John F. Herminghaus" <catignano(at)tele2.it>
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: 2-70 Toggle switch
>>
>>
>>
>>Does anyone know of a source for a 2-70 toggle switch ((on)-on-(on))?
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Systems Testing |
>Hence the peer review process. Remember, we're not talking big software
>program where our promotions/pay raises are based on how well we are
>perceived to be doing. We're talking OBAM with next to no one writing
>code or making fuel pumps from scratch. Writing your own draft test
>plan/test procedure is another chance to learn something about yourself
>and your design. Allows you to think about what you've actually done and
>find mistakes first. That can be a very satisfying party of this airplane
>experience. Peer Reviewing your "drafts" will add the sanity check. For
>us OBAM'ers, it's mostly developing system designs to use off the shelf
>components and succesfully physically installing them and ensuring they
>play well with other components.
>
>Just my two cents and I do this for a living too.
Exactly. Many moons ago, I dreaded being at the front of
the room to present meat for the grinder in a Critical
Design Review.
Years later, I began to look forward to them. It was
a chance to validate the work by fielding the most
probing questions. It became 'fun' when I realized
that irrespective of the outcome of the review, one
of two things would happen: (1) I was able to field
all the questions with solid incorporation of simple-ideas
into an invention the customer wanted and my peers
approved or (2) a bad idea was prevented from going
to production. Win-win all the way around.
It's kinda like biennial flight reviews with a new
instructor. You don't know what they might ask you
to do (my last one was under totally the hood until
200' AGL on final approach). The goal is NOT to demonstrate
repeating all the things you've done before but being
able to do something different while operating within
personal and airframe limits.
That's the real advantage of OBAM aviation. Suggest
anything you want to try with free CDR support.
This atmosphere encourages you to work the problem
from conception to installation knowing that any
biases against the "not invented here syndrome" are
likely to be spotted and avoided.
In TC aviation, we compartmentalize tasks from design
to production so tightly that nobody understands the
whole system. Better to do it all and field the
cabbages and tomatoes than have something slip by
for lack of communication.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mic plug / PTT wiring |
>
>The example on Bob's web site shows that the PTT switch is wired to the
>Ground/common on the Mic plug recepticle (in addition to the key/terminal)
>is there any reason why the PTT switch (in my case on a control
>stick/grip) can't be wired to a common ground for the control/ grip rather
>than to the mic plug common?
The push-to-talk circuit is not a potential ingress
point for noise to a radio. It's probably a safe bet
to combine PTT ground with other grounds in the stick
grip.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
| From: | "Jeff Moreau" <jmoreau2(at)cox.net> |
Does anyone on the list have any experience using the stick on mounting blocks
for cable ties? I am wondering in particular if the adhesive holds up after time
and if there is any need to worry about corrosion when sticking these to metal
surfaces? They sure seem convenient but I dont want to use them if they
don't hold up or will cause corrosion problems down the road.
Thanks!
--------
Jeff Moreau
RV8A
Virginia Beach, VA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62148#62148
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McMahon" <blackoaks(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
Jeff, I was thinking of using them, but one fellow I know used them on
his Lancair ES and said they started to let go after only a year or so....
I din't want to take the chance so used screws with washers, imbedded in the
prepreg with micro. As they say "Your mileage may vary!" FWIW
On 9/17/06, Jeff Moreau wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone on the list have any experience using the stick on mounting
> blocks for cable ties? I am wondering in particular if the adhesive holds
> up after time and if there is any need to worry about corrosion when
> sticking these to metal surfaces? They sure seem convenient but I dont want
> to use them if they don't hold up or will cause corrosion problems down the
> road.
> Thanks!
>
> --------
> Jeff Moreau
> RV8A
> Virginia Beach, VA
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62148#62148
>
>
--
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, N9637M
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
Are you guys talking about the ones Bob Nuckolls sells that he
recommends attaching with E-6000, or something else?
Dave Morris
At 06:07 PM 9/17/2006, you wrote:
>Jeff, I was thinking of using them, but one fellow I know used
>them on his Lancair ES and said they started to let go after only a
>year or so.... I din't want to take the chance so used screws with
>washers, imbedded in the prepreg with micro. As they say "Your
>mileage may vary!" FWIW
>
>
>On 9/17/06, Jeff Moreau <jmoreau2(at)cox.net> wrote:
><jmoreau2(at)cox.net>
>
>Does anyone on the list have any experience using the stick on
>mounting blocks for cable ties? I am wondering in particular if the
>adhesive holds up after time and if there is any need to worry about
>corrosion when sticking these to metal surfaces? They sure seem
>convenient but I dont want to use them if they don't hold up or will
>cause corrosion problems down the road.
>--
>John McMahon
>Lancair Super ES, N9637M
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | OldBob Siegfried <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
Good Evening All,
Just as a data point. I used several of the common
stick-on type when I did a major upgrade to our
Bonanza's radio package sixteen years ago. They have
all worked just great and I have not noted any that
have failed. They were all attached to aluminum
however. I wonder if fiberglass might not gas a little
and cause them to lose their adhesiveness.
I know one data point doesn't mean much, but my
experience has been good!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, IL
LL22
--- Dave N6030X wrote:
>
>
> Are you guys talking about the ones Bob Nuckolls
> sells that he
> recommends attaching with E-6000, or something else?
>
> Dave Morris
>
> At 06:07 PM 9/17/2006, you wrote:
> >Jeff, I was thinking of using them, but one
> fellow I know used
> >them on his Lancair ES and said they started to let
> go after only a
> >year or so.... I din't want to take the chance so
> used screws with
> >washers, imbedded in the prepreg with micro. As
> they say "Your
> >mileage may vary!" FWIW
> >
> >
> >
> >On 9/17/06, Jeff Moreau
> <jmoreau2(at)cox.net> wrote:
> Moreau"
> ><jmoreau2(at)cox.net>
> >
> >Does anyone on the list have any experience using
> the stick on
> >mounting blocks for cable ties? I am wondering in
> particular if the
> >adhesive holds up after time and if there is any
> need to worry about
> >corrosion when sticking these to metal surfaces?
> They sure seem
> >convenient but I dont want to use them if they
> don't hold up or will
> >cause corrosion problems down the road.
> >--
> >John McMahon
> >Lancair Super ES, N9637M
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A DeMarzo" <planepubs(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
I use these in my occupation and as with everything else, prep is the
key. make sure the area is clean and dry. Bare aluminum? Clean the
immediate area with MEK. Painted? Clean with isopropyl alcohol before
applying the patch.
On 09/17/2006 6:45:28 PM, OldBob Siegfried (oldbob(at)beechowners.com)
wrote:
>
>
> Good Evening All,
>
> Just as a data point. I used several of the common
> stick-on type when I did a major upgrade to our
> Bonanza's radio package sixteen years ago. They have
> all worked just great and I have not noted any that
> have failed. They were all attached to aluminum
> however. I wonder if fiberglass might not gas a little
> and cause them to lose their adhesiveness.
>
> I know one data point doesn't
> mean much, but my
> experience has been good!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> Stearman N3977A
> Downers Grove, IL
> LL22
>
> --- Dave N6030X wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Are you guys talking about the ones Bob Nuckolls
> > sells that he
> > recommends attaching with E-6000, or something else?
> >
> > Dave Morris
> >
> > At 06:07 PM 9/17/2006, you wrote:
> > >Jeff, I was thinking of using them, but one
> > fellow I know used
> > >them on his Lancair ES and said they started to let
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
I'll add one more comment to this thread. I used quite a few of the
stick on mounting blocks. The ones I used also have two holes for
mounting. After sticking them down, I drilled out most of them and
secured them with 1/8" pop rivets. I don't expect to experience any
failures. :)
Bob W.
"Jeff Moreau" wrote:
>
> Does anyone on the list have any experience using the stick on mounting blocks
for cable ties? I am wondering in particular if the adhesive holds up after
time and if there is any need to worry about corrosion when sticking these to
metal surfaces? They sure seem convenient but I dont want to use them if they
don't hold up or will cause corrosion problems down the road.
> Thanks!
>
> --------
> Jeff Moreau
> RV8A
> Virginia Beach, VA
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62148#62148
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (first engine start 1/7/06)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
I took a different tack, probably overkill, but easy , and I think very
reliable. I cut multiple ~1" squares of 2-3 ply glass and screwed the blocks to
them from the back. Then I applied the roughened squares to the fiberglass with
structural Epoxy. They aren't going anywhere. LRE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
Jeff;
The long term reliability of these anchors depends, as with most things,
on which ones you buy. The type that are secured with epoxy of some
sort, are reasonably long term reliable, as are the ones noted by Bob
White, if you add the rivets as he suggests. The ones however which are
secured with adhesive foam tape are prone to rapid deterioration and
bond failure if exposed to elevated temperature or petroleum product
contamination or simply excessive age. Even within this foam tape group
there are large variations in quality, largely based on brand. So you
see, the answer to your question is really, "it depends". There are many
products sold which fit the description you provided, and some work much
better than others. I have not come across an issue with corrosion with
any of these products, but, as mentioned by others, preparation is
important, as is the specific adhesive used by the brand you choose to
buy. All are not created equal.
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Moreau" <jmoreau2(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 6:28 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks
>
> Does anyone on the list have any experience using the stick on
mounting blocks for cable ties? I am wondering in particular if the
adhesive holds up after time and if there is any need to worry about
corrosion when sticking these to metal surfaces? They sure seem
convenient but I dont want to use them if they don't hold up or will
cause corrosion problems down the road.
> Thanks!
>
> --------
> Jeff Moreau
> RV8A
> Virginia Beach, VA
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62148#62148
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harold Kovac" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
Q uestion, if you have these mounts less the tape, would Bob's goop
work.
I've used it to glue stuff to a shower wall & it was a bear to remove
Harold, RV9A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Hello Jeff
"Does anyone on the list have any experience using the stick on mounting
blocks for cable ties?"
I would not trust them.
My favorite way to deal with getting cable blocks or similar hose blocks
stuck, is to remove sticky back and very aggressive sand with 60 grit the
mounting face, and where it is getting stuck to, if on a composite I use
80 grit. With aluminium go as course as you dare. I get stuck with 4
minute JB Weld (Epoxy), then try and get at least 2 sides covered with 1
ply BID (BiDirectional cloth, Spruce sells it under Rutan Supplies), I
like using Redux 420, very expensive and a bit hard to find. T-88 would
probably work OK and Spruce sells it. After JB is cured, scuff sand
plastic and what you want to attach to, wet out, and fill transition with
your epoxy and with flox mixed in. Easy way to apply BID is to mark a
piece of Vis-queen the size you want, flip it over, clean off Slip with
alcohol (slip is talc that is on plastic sheeting that prevents it from
sticking together) lay on a piece of BID, and use a old credit card,
playing card, or rubber squeegee to wet out BID and remove excess. Now cut
on line, the lines will become visible once wet out, and apply with the
plastic still on. The plastic will give the BID dimensional stability.
Then once in place push it down, could use a acid brush or china bristle
brush and remove plastic.
I just did 6 fuel line pads tonight.
Sand 6 pads and target area / a few minutes
Mix JB / a few minutes
Butter 6 pads and install / a few minutes
By the time the JB cured I had the Redux mixed and 12 plies of BID wet out
and cut
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Temperature calibration..... |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Boiling water is dead accurate at 220F if your within 1000ft of sea
level.
All of my Dynon probes were within a degree or 2.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Baker
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:06 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Temperature calibration.....
Anyone have any unique ways to accomplish a calibration of a CHT
sender/gauge at, say, 400F. I know about Tempilsticks and Tempilaq and
others of that ilk, plus the NIST certified multimeteres (IR and
contact) but wondered if there was something else out there I might have
missed....read that as cheap. Tho, Tempil is about as cheap as you can
get.....
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Jones" <djones(at)northboone.net> |
I must have upset Bob N. with one of my questions of a question. So here
goes again. During the daisy chain from the shields of the mic wires to the
ground wire (all on the radio end of the wires) what is the best way to tie
the pig tail into the ground wire coming from the aircraft ground? No I'm
not using a ground wire with a shield. The diagram shows the shields
attaching to the ground wire from the aircraft ground pin. I'm using d-subs.
Thanks
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Temperature calibration..... |
Uh- - - don't you mean 212 degrees F ???????
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:16 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Temperature calibration.....
>
> Boiling water is dead accurate at 220F if your within 1000ft of sea
> level.
>
> All of my Dynon probes were within a degree or 2.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
> Baker
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:06 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Temperature calibration.....
>
>
> Anyone have any unique ways to accomplish a calibration of a CHT
> sender/gauge at, say, 400F. I know about Tempilsticks and Tempilaq and
> others of that ilk, plus the NIST certified multimeteres (IR and
> contact) but wondered if there was something else out there I might have
> missed....read that as cheap. Tho, Tempil is about as cheap as you can
> get.....
>
> Jim Baker
> 580.788.2779
> Elmore City, OK
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gear Indicator Lights |
> >>From: Greg Young <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
> >>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Gear Indicator lights
> >>
> >> I need some help finding suitable gear indicator lights for a
> >>certified ai rcraft, my Navion. I'm doing some cleanup and
> want to cut
> >>a new panel with the gear lights repositioned. The current lights
> >>would work except they are
> >> circa 1959 and the lenses are disintegrating. They are
> press-to-test
> >>with a sort of mushroom shaped lens. I've gotten a couple
> replacement
> >>lenses from my avionics shop junk drawer but would rather
> source new
> >>lights (or lenses if they are still made) rather than
> depend on the
> >>"luck of the drawer" when they break again. Anything with
> Mil, PMA or
> >>mfg blessing would make it a logbook entry per my IA but I'm not
> >>adverse to doing a 337 to get LED's or something more modern and
> >>aesthetically pleasing than MS25041 (ugly and expensive).
> Any help would be appreciated.
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Greg Young
>
>
> Greg. How many and what colors? How are they labeled. I'm
> sure that by now, your adventures into the catalogs have
> shown that the choices are limited and getting more expensive
> all the time. Incandescent lamp fixtures rugged enough to
> meet most folks design goals are becoming more rare and
> the prices are not attractive.
>
> Consider fabricating a landing gear indicator assembly
> using LEDs. Let's talk about your design requirements
> and then sort through some ideas. Obviously, you can
> replace the existing lamps with brand new, similar
> fixtures . . . but perhaps there's a way to use a collection
> of much less expensive hardware to produce a new approach
> with LEDs . . .
>
> Of course, you may wind up spending more $time$ in
> design and fabrication than the simple replacement of
> existing fixtures would cost . . . but perhaps you
> have an interest in advancing the best-we-know-how-to-do.
>
> Bob . . .
>
Of course, there's a concern of spending more time than I really should but
I do like to make incremental improvements when I can. I view them as an
investment and it's also rewarding. But then it doesn't take much to feel
good on a 55 year old aircraft. I just replaced about 10 feet of lamp cord -
yup, 2-wire molded lamp cord - that had been spliced into my tip tank
senders. Sigh...
The gear indicators are 3 greens for the gear down and safe and a single
amber unsafe light. The current system also has a toggle switch with a wire
wound resistor across it for dimming. The lamp holders are all a
press-to-test type and my IA tells me I'll need to have a test feature if
the individual lights don't have it. I like the idea of the simple
bright/dim toggle. It's hard to mis-position it by accident. I seldom dim it
now because the lights are waaaay out of my scan (far right subpanel) but I
plan to move them front and center. While I'm at it I've also got a single
red Hydraulic System On light that I'll move too and match its style with
the gear lights.
I've been experimenting with LEDs for a disappearing annunciator panel for
my RV so I've got some limited experience with them. I'm still
electron-challenged so any circuit I work up for test and dimming will be
less than elegant. My bigger concern is sifting through the hundreds of LEDs
offered. Mentally I've been viewing this as a one-for-one light replacement
and haven't really focused on alternatives like annunciators with dynamic
colors and legends. I'm not sure how far I can push the FSDO on something
like the gear system but I'm going to get a pre-approval on the 337 before I
do anything so there's no harm in asking. I'm open to suggestions.
Regards,
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>I must have upset Bob N. with one of my questions of a question. So here
>goes again. During the daisy chain from the shields of the mic wires to
>the ground wire (all on the radio end of the wires) what is the best way
>to tie the pig tail into the ground wire coming from the aircraft ground?
>No I m not using a ground wire with a shield. The diagram shows the
>shields attaching to the ground wire from the aircraft ground pin. I m
>using d-subs.
Why would you think that I'm upset? I have x-hours a day
to devote to various activities. When I open the List postings,
I start at the most recent and work backwards. I almost never
pick up all the slack . . . there's not enough time. However,
if I attempted to pick up where I left off in the postings
and move forward, I'd never catch up. About once a month, I
discard incoming e-mails I didn't have time to address. They
number in the hundreds.
If you'll recall, I wrote a few days ago:
"Okay, got the scans. Great."
"I guess I'm not sure what the question is. The schematic shows
two aircraft ground (A/C Ground) connections to pins 4 and 15.
Wires that the manufacturer recommends be shielded have their
shield grounds returned to specific pins. They also show how
the shield can double as a ground return for mic, headphone,
speaker leads, etc. Further, their wiring suggests exactly
the same daisy-chaining technique I described in:"
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
At some point you wrote:
"I'm wiring the harness for a Terra TX-760D radio. My question is the
interconnect diagram shows the shield for the mic. audio, mic. key and the
headphone attach to the ground. I plan on using the daisy chain system
shown by Bob, however I'm confused about the shields connecting into the
ground wire itself or do they connect to the shield of the ground wire?"
Whereupon I was having trouble developing a
common mental image with you and wrote:
"OOPS! I just re-read your question and I think missed
something the first time. You talk about a "shield of
the ground wire".
Here's where I stumbled over your syntax and
interpreted your words to paint an image of
the ground wire as being shielded also where
I attempted to elaborate . . .
"The drawings show single strands of wire from pins 4 and
15 to ground. Your pigtails would either solder onto the
shared solder cups or splice into the ground wires immediately
adjacent to where they drop into the crimped on pin pocket.
The ground wires are not shielded."
So where are we with respect to achieving understanding?
Your pigtails must make electrical connection with
the single strand ground wires depicted in your drawings.
You have few choices . . . The solder cups and crimp-on
pins won't take two wires. So, you either splice your
pigtails into a ground wire (Strip back 1/4" of insulation
without cutting the wire. Wrap pigtail around ground wire,
solder and cover with heat shrink) or tack solder the
pigtail to the side of the ground wire solder cup.
Understand that few things "upset" me . . . the best
way is to inject yourself between me and one of my
customers by sowing the seeds of discontent and
misunderstanding and preventing me from carrying
out my duties as an honorable supplier of goods
and services. A past poster on the List claims to
have done just that . . . for THAT, there were
no words I could write on these pages to describe
my degree of upset. Aside from overtly dishonorable
behavior, you're not going to yank my chain and
certainly not over a discussion on shield pigtails!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gear Indicator Lights |
> > Greg. How many and what colors? How are they labeled. I'm
> > sure that by now, your adventures into the catalogs have
> > shown that the choices are limited and getting more expensive
> > all the time. Incandescent lamp fixtures rugged enough to
> > meet most folks design goals are becoming more rare and
> > the prices are not attractive.
> >
> > Consider fabricating a landing gear indicator assembly
> > using LEDs. Let's talk about your design requirements
> > and then sort through some ideas. Obviously, you can
> > replace the existing lamps with brand new, similar
> > fixtures . . . but perhaps there's a way to use a collection
> > of much less expensive hardware to produce a new approach
> > with LEDs . . .
> >
> > Of course, you may wind up spending more $time$ in
> > design and fabrication than the simple replacement of
> > existing fixtures would cost . . . but perhaps you
> > have an interest in advancing the best-we-know-how-to-do.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
>
>Of course, there's a concern of spending more time than I really should but
>I do like to make incremental improvements when I can. I view them as an
>investment and it's also rewarding. But then it doesn't take much to feel
>good on a 55 year old aircraft. I just replaced about 10 feet of lamp cord -
>yup, 2-wire molded lamp cord - that had been spliced into my tip tank
>senders. Sigh...
>
>The gear indicators are 3 greens for the gear down and safe and a single
>amber unsafe light. The current system also has a toggle switch with a wire
>wound resistor across it for dimming. The lamp holders are all a
>press-to-test type and my IA tells me I'll need to have a test feature if
>the individual lights don't have it. I like the idea of the simple
>bright/dim toggle. It's hard to mis-position it by accident. I seldom dim it
>now because the lights are waaaay out of my scan (far right subpanel) but I
>plan to move them front and center. While I'm at it I've also got a single
>red Hydraulic System On light that I'll move too and match its style with
>the gear lights.
>
>I've been experimenting with LEDs for a disappearing annunciator panel for
>my RV so I've got some limited experience with them. I'm still
>electron-challenged so any circuit I work up for test and dimming will be
>less than elegant. My bigger concern is sifting through the hundreds of LEDs
>offered. Mentally I've been viewing this as a one-for-one light replacement
>and haven't really focused on alternatives like annunciators with dynamic
>colors and legends. I'm not sure how far I can push the FSDO on something
>like the gear system but I'm going to get a pre-approval on the 337 before I
>do anything so there's no harm in asking. I'm open to suggestions.
I'm aware of no really "handy" replacements for incandescent
lamps with LEDs. The lamp fixtures are designed to be serviced
with new bulbs. Make a 'replacement' from an LED and you now
have excess parts that keep costs up and reliability down.
I've been working with some LED mounts, an office laminator,
AutoCAD and Photoshop to craft some fabrication techniques
for LED indicators/annunicators. One reasonably attractive
technique is illustrated at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/Annunciator_1.jpg
The lamps are high intensity devices I buy in bags off
Ebay. I can get red, green and amber lamps. The placard
is drawn in autocad, ported to photoshop for contrast
control and printed on a laserjet. The paper graphic
is hot laminated and then stuck to the panel with double
sided adhesive.
I don't include PTT functions with LEDs . . . it made
sense for incandescent lamps when back in WWII, one
NEEDED to know if a lamp was not lit because it wasn't
getting power or because it was burned out. LEDs have
the same or greater longevity as prop bolts so the
PTT feature purely for the sake of testing a lamp is
no longer a useful feature.
With respect to your OBAM project, your horizons are
not blocked. With respect to your TC project, you're
sitting in the bottom of a barrel with numerous people
holding out their hands for your $time$ to induce them
to give you permission to upgrade your aircraft.
In this case, I'd recommend you purchase the outrageously
priced PTT lamp fixtures and truck on. The satisfaction
of a "victory" in the battle to make your TC airplane better
will be short lived.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Temperature calibration..... |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Yup...My bad...A professional engineer as well...My my what is the world
coming to?.....:)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
McCallum
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Temperature calibration.....
-->
Uh- - - don't you mean 212 degrees F ???????
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 11:16 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Temperature calibration.....
(Corvallis)"
>
> Boiling water is dead accurate at 220F if your within 1000ft of sea
> level.
>
> All of my Dynon probes were within a degree or 2.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
> Baker
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:06 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Temperature calibration.....
>
>
> Anyone have any unique ways to accomplish a calibration of a CHT
> sender/gauge at, say, 400F. I know about Tempilsticks and Tempilaq and
> others of that ilk, plus the NIST certified multimeteres (IR and
> contact) but wondered if there was something else out there I might
have
> missed....read that as cheap. Tho, Tempil is about as cheap as you can
> get.....
>
> Jim Baker
> 580.788.2779
> Elmore City, OK
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
> The solder cups and crimp-on
> pins won't take two wires.
Well, they will....but it ain't pretty. My Mitchell CIII autopilot
(Bless their little hearts!) had no less than three pairs of doubled
up wires into the back of a Centronics 24 solder cups. When one
of the contact tabs internal to the male connector folded over I
had to replace the Centronics connector and build up a service
loop pigtail to mate it all back together again. So, I'd probably
make this plea.....if you don't ever think that you'll have to
replace a specific connector, you will.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Reginald E. DeLoach" <redeloach(at)fedex.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Systems Testing |
One of the more daunting tasks in problem solving is identifying
the problem. All too often, what we see is the result of the
problem and we immediately fixate on the result and formulate a
plan to "fix" it.
1. Identify and clarify the problem
2. Gather information
3. Evaluate the evidence
4. Consider Alternatives and Implications
5. Choose and Implement the Best Alternatives
There is a great difference between reasoning and rationalizing.
We need to ensure we are using reasoning and not just
rationalizing (justifying) our actions or action plans.
red :}
lucky wrote:
> Hence the peer review process. Remember, we're not talking
> big software program where our promotions/pay raises are based
> on how well we are perceived to be doing. We're talking OBAM
> with next to no one writing code or making fuel pumps from
> scratch. Writing your own draft test plan/test procedure is
> another chance to learn something about yourself and your
> design. Allows you to think about what you've actually done
> and find mistakes first. That can be a very satisfying party
> of this airplane experience. Peer Reviewing your "drafts" will
> add the sanity check. For us OBAM'ers, it's mostly developing
> system designs to use off the shelf components and succesfully
> physically installing them and ensuring they play well with
> other components. Just my two cents and I do this for a living
> too.
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
>
> Davis
> >
> > There's pretty compelling evidence from industry
> that strongly suggests
> > that test plans written by the designers are biased
> to 'prove' the
> > design. More often then not this is not a conscious
> but an unconscious
> > bias. Someone, who is *equally* expert on the
> subject who is not
> > invested in the design writing a test plan will
> uncover more errors and
> > uncover them earlier. Mike Fagan @ IBM did some
> compelling research on
> > this subject and developed his 'inspection' process
> for software based
> > partly upon this principle. Other Quality guru's
> have done similarly on
> > manufacturing and other processes.
> >
> > Deems Davis # 406 < BR>> Panel/wiring
> > http://deemsrv10.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > lucky wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see anything wrong with the designer
> "writing the test", I see
> > > good things about that in the OBAM world. I'd add
> though to make the
> > > requirements & test plan/test procedures public
> so they can be "peer
> > > reviewed".
> > >
> > > Lucky
> > >
> > > -------------- Original message --------------
> > > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> > >
> "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 15 Sep 2006, at 10:18, Gary Casey wrote:
> > > >
> Casey
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Kevin previously wrote:
> > > > >> "If yo u don't do the test then, someday you
> may
> > > > >> stumble across that condition when you
> hadn't planned it. If the
> > > > >> system works as expected, then everything is
> OK. But if the
> > > system
> > > > >> does not perform, then you may lose the
> aircraft.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good points, but what "assumptions" do you
> have in mind that
> > > should
> > > > > be tested?
> > > >
> > > > >--> Ae roElec tric-List message posted by:
> "Peter Pengilly"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Try writing down a list of things your fuel
> system must do.
> > > Write simple
> > > > >statements and start with the basics -
> transfer fuel from the
> > > tank to
> > > > >the carb/injector fuel inlet at xx pressure.
> Write only one
> > > 'feature'
> > > > >per state ment. Think about what you want to
> happen in unusual
> > > situations
> > > > >or when components fail. Try not to think
> about your design.
> > > You are
> > > > >creating a set of "Requirements". Include
> details - must be
> > > able to get
> > > > >at fuel filter easily for servicing - as well
> as whole system
> > > issues -
> > > > >system must only need servicing yearly. Define
> words like
> > > 'easily'.
> > > > >
> > > > >There are now two parallel paths to follow. 1)
> Look at your
> > > design to
> > > > >ensure you have met all of the requirements -
> be critical (not
> > > always
> > > > >easy). If the design does not meet the
> requirements then change
> > > the
> > > > >design.
> > > > >
> > > > >2) Develop a verification or test for each
> requirement. If a > > ground test
> > > > >is too difficult you will now understand any
> risks you are
> > > taking - for
> > > > >example you may decide to trust the pressure
> gauge manufacturer's
> > > > >calibration (most people do). Minimize flight
> testing, its
> > > risky and
> > > > >getting good data is more difficult than you
> think. The best
> > > way is to
> > > > >get someone other than the designer to write
> the tests (your
> > > wife may
> > > > >be?), but that's not always possible.
> > > > >
> > > > >Be honest with yourself when testing. A second
> pair of eyes
> > > often helps.
> > > > >Try to keep it all simple.
> > > > >
> > > > >Yours, Pete
> > > >
> > > > Pete, thanks for posting this. An excellent
> illumination
> > > > of the thought processes behind set ting r
> equirements,
> > > > evaluating performance against those requireme
> nts, a nd
> > > > conducting a failure mode effects analysis
> (FMEA) from
> > > > which one (1) revises requirements and/or (2)
> deduces
> > > > Plan-B for each necessary item that fails to
> perform under
> > > > Plan-A.
> > > >
> > > > With respect to development of requirements,
> design, testing
> > > > and failure mitigation, I would encourage
> Listers to publish
> > > > their thoughts here on the List. No doubt some
> folks will be
> > > > inclined to evaluate your words with too much
> emphasis on their
> > > > assessment of your lack of skill and knowledge.
> Expect it to happen
> > > > and know that these postings should be
> summarily ignored.
> > > >
> > > > However, others are willing and able to assist
> with step/by/step
> > > > analysis of simple-id eas wi the W
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
> > The solder cups and crimp-on
> > pins won't take two wires.
>
>Well, they will....but it ain't pretty. My Mitchell CIII autopilot
>(Bless their little hearts!) had no less than three pairs of doubled
>up wires into the back of a Centronics 24 solder cups. When one
>of the contact tabs internal to the male connector folded over I
>had to replace the Centronics connector and build up a service
>loop pigtail to mate it all back together again. So, I'd probably
>make this plea.....if you don't ever think that you'll have to
>replace a specific connector, you will.
If it wasn't pretty, then the technology was being
abused. If you need to bring multiple wires into
a connector of either the solder or crimp variety do a
soldered, heat-shrink covered splice of the gaggle of
wires and bring out a single lead to drop into the
connector pin.
The connector manufacturer guarantees stated performance
when the product is use within limits. I've see techs
peel out half the strands of two wires so as to crimp both
conductors into a single pin . . . you're right, it ain't pretty.
Splicing external to the connector pin is the way to go.
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: | "Dennis Jones" <djones(at)northboone.net> |
Bob
Thanks Bob for the answer. I just became confused about the connection prior
to the pin from one of your previous notes. Let me assure you that I and (I
would bet 99.9 percent) of all the individuals on this list appreciate every
thing you have done. I for one would not have even attempted this part of
the project if it was not for you. Also I have had my work so far checked by
those that are educated in this profession and they can't believe the nice
work I have done so far. It is your work here on the matronics site and your
manual that enabled me to succeed. Bob we love you. Keep up the great work.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Upsetting Bob |
>Bob
>
>
>Thanks Bob for the answer. I just became confused about the connection
>prior to the pin from one of your previous notes. Let me assure you that I
>and (I would bet 99.9 percent) of all the individuals on this list
>appreciate every thing you have done. I for one would not have even
>attempted this part of the project if it was not for you. Also I have had
>my work so far checked by those that are educated in this profession and
>they can t believe the nice work I have done so far. It is your work here
>on the matronics site and your manual that enabled me to succeed. Bob we
>love you. Keep up the great work.
>
>
No problem my friend. I'm just wanting folks to
understand that I am a teacher first. It's my
duty as a teacher to get a handle on someone's
understanding before I can adequately address it.
I'm getting a REAL challenge in that regard right
now . . . I've got some Saturday morning classes
at WSU for employees of RAC from 8-10 and for their
kids from 10-12. Irrespective of the age or background,
I understand that we need to achieve some connection
via language and perhaps some pictures.
I'll NEVER get bent over a miscommunication if there's
a realistic hope for closing the gap. So in no way
was I admonishing you . . . just trying to keep
impediments to progress from jumping up and getting
in the way.
In fact, our conversation has suggested some expansion
of the comic book at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
My camera is out at RAC right now but I think I'll
shoot some pictures this evening and add them to
that posting.
Holler if I can help.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McMahon" <blackoaks(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gear Indicator Lights |
On 9/18/06, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>
>
> I've been working with some LED mounts, an office laminator,
> AutoCAD and Photoshop to craft some fabrication techniques
> for LED indicators/annunicators. One reasonably attractive
> technique is illustrated at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/Annunciator_1.jpg
Bob, Many times you post links to great pictures, in many cases they seem to
be part of another article, is there a simple way to get from the picture to
the related article?
Thanks for all your teaching efforts, I know they are a great help to many
of us.
--
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, N9637M
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
hi all, i think the epoxy is the way to go. jb weld is handy but the
epoxy holds much better. as i am building a plane held together by glue.
i have , out of curiosity tested t-88 against jb weld for holding metal
to wood. hanging increasing weight till failure, the t-88 held about
12 times more wt. than the jb weld. just something to think about to
help put things in perspective. bob noffs----- Original Message -----
From: LRE2(at)aol.c
om
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks
I took a different tack, probably overkill, but easy , and I think
very reliable. I cut multiple ~1" squares of 2-3 ply glass and screwed
the blocks to them from the back. Then I applied the roughened squares
to the fiberglass with structural Epoxy. They aren't going anywhere.
LRE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Pleasants" <jpleasants(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable Tie Mounting Blocks |
FWIW:
I glued four of the cheap cable tie mounting blocks to the bottom of
a coffee can after removing the foam backing from the blocks and
cleaning both the plastic and the metal on the can.
Four glues were used:
Shoe goo
Marine 5200
Liquid Nails-- for solids, high temperature
two-part epoxy.
The bottom of the can was painted dark to absorb heat (much as an
airplane setting on a ramp in the summertime). I placed this can, with
lid, on the dashboard of my truck for several days while the truck was
parked in the sun.
The epoxy failed after about a week of this. All the others are
still very secure.
Not scientific, but I'm happy with the results. YMMV.
Jim Pleasants
pile of aluminum and stuff, hoping to transform it into an RV-7A.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "r falstad" <bobair8(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | BNC "Blindmate" Coax Connector |
I'm installing a Garmin transponder in my "OBAM". The installation
calls for the coax (RG-400) to go into a BNC "Blindmate" connector. The
instructions call for the exposed braid to be pushed into the connector
shell and solder melted in to attach it (in addition to soldering the
center conductor on the inside of the connector). This doesn't look
like a very mechanically strong connection. Especially since some of
the braid bunched up when I pushed it into the connector. I also had
trouble getting enough heat on the connector to flow solder without
barbequing the connector.
Any suggestions, tips or tricks to get a sound electrical and mechanical
connection? How close to the connector do you need to have your first
mechanical support for the coax?
Bob
GlaStar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gianni Zuliani" <gz(at)comgz.com> |
| Subject: | Battery kill switch operation. |
Good morning all,
I'm considering the use of a manual battery kill, like this one:
http://www.flamingriver.com/index.cfm/page/ptype=product/product_id=60/category_id=133/home_id=76/mode=prod/prd60.htm
This is because my battery is located under passenger's seat in my Stag-Ezr
and it would easy pilot's reach in electrical emergency.
This would replace my present battery contactor, mounted in the usual
position.
My question is: is there any reason to use the manual battery kill switch on
the negative battery post (ground) like I'm told is used on racing cars,
rather than on positive post, like the usual relay battery contactor?
Myself, I don't see any difference, unless someone enlighten me.
Thanks.
Gianni Zuliani.
http://www.comgz.com/stag-ez.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: BNC "Blindmate" Coax Connector |
In a message dated 9/19/2006 12:43:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
bobair8(at)msn.com writes:
I'm installing a Garmin transponder in my "OBAM". The installation calls for
the coax (RG-400) to go into a BNC "Blindmate" connector. The instructions
call for the exposed braid to be pushed into the connector shell and solder
melted in to attach it (in addition to soldering the center conductor on the
inside of the connector). This doesn't look like a very mechanically strong
connection. Especially since some of the braid bunched up when I pushed it into
the connector. I also had trouble getting enough heat on the connector to flow
solder without barbequing the connector.
Any suggestions, tips or tricks to get a sound electrical and mechanical
connection? How close to the connector do you need to have your first mechanical
support for the coax?
Bob
GlaStar
----------------------------------------------------------
Here we go again!
Bob:
I am not familiar with 'Blindmate", never heard of it ... Not that it does
not exist, just never heard of it. Anyway ...
Just get a good quality SOLDER TYPE - BNC connector from a good electronics
store, NOT Radio Shack. It will have the solder type center connector and a
rubber type 'O' ring/gasket for the braid. A good set of assembly instructions
can be found probably at the store or in the library ... Look for them in the
ARRL Handbook or ARRL Antenna Book. You may even find instructions over the
Internet.
The screw on back of the BNC connector makes a very good mechanical
connection as well as an electrical connection. Make sure the screw on back is
the
proper size for the coax diameter you are using.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"I would rather be Screwed than crimped."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery kill switch operation. |
>
>Good morning all,
>I'm considering the use of a manual battery kill, like this one:
>http://www.flamingriver.com/index.cfm/page/ptype=product/product_id=60/category_id=133/home_id=76/mode=prod/prd60.htm
>This is because my battery is located under passenger's seat in my Stag-Ezr
>and it would easy pilot's reach in electrical emergency.
>This would replace my present battery contactor, mounted in the usual
>position.
>My question is: is there any reason to use the manual battery kill switch on
>the negative battery post (ground) like I'm told is used on racing cars,
>rather than on positive post, like the usual relay battery contactor?
>Myself, I don't see any difference, unless someone enlighten me.
>Thanks.
>Gianni Zuliani.
No difference.
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: | "Collin Campbell" <collinc(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | charging system problems |
Hi,
I am new to this list, but I am seeking some help with a charging system
problem on my "Bearhawk".
Let me try to describe the problem as best I can. I am using a Van's 35
amp alt. a VR-371 voltage/over-voltage protector, and a Electronics
International (VA-1) guage installed in the alt lead. Also using a
Odyssey 680 battery.
The problem is this: Everything seems to work just fine until maybe
10-15 minutes into the flight when the discharge light on the VA-1 comes
on. I can reset the system by recyling the field breaker and everything
goes back to normal--charging again. This will last maybe another 10-15
minutes and the whole process repeats itself. I have checked all my
conections, replaced the battery, and now am beginning to suspect the
alternator or even the regulator. But I need some advice before I go
replacing stuff that doesn't need replacing. (been there done that
before!)
Any advice would be appreciated,
Collin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: charging system problems |
>Hi,
>
>I am new to this list, but I am seeking some help with a charging system
>problem on my "Bearhawk".
>Let me try to describe the problem as best I can. I am using a Van's 35
>amp alt. a VR-371 voltage/over-voltage protector, and a Electronics
>International (VA-1) guage installed in the alt lead. Also using a Odyssey
>680 battery.
>
>The problem is this: Everything seems to work just fine until maybe 10-15
>minutes into the flight when the discharge light on the VA-1 comes on. I
>can reset the system by recyling the field breaker and everything goes
>back to normal--charging again. This will last maybe another 10-15
>minutes and the whole process repeats itself. I have checked all my
>conections, replaced the battery, and now am beginning to suspect the
>alternator or even the regulator. But I need some advice before I go
>replacing stuff that doesn't need replacing. (been there done that before!)
If your system needs "reset", then the symptoms suggest
that the OV protection system in your voltage regulator
is being tripped. This becomes a problem of deducing whether
a real OV condition existed -or- the circuit is being nuisance
tripped.
It's a rational component of troubleshooting to suspect
any component. But it's much better to do measurements
to determine the physics behind the difficulty before embarking
on a swaptronics excursion where one can only hope to pick
the right component . . . with the attendant risk that NONE
of the components replaced will fix the problem.
What are your bus voltages when the system is operating
normally? I'm curious as to how you integrated the VR-371
voltage regulator with a Van's alterantor. I was under the
impression that Van's sold only internally regulated machines.
Let's do the detective work before you pull out any hardware.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BNC "Blindmate" Coax Connector |
I don't know what a "Blindmate" connector is, but if it is the same as
or similar to the right angle one used on the back of the SL-70 the
method is basically the same. However, on the SL-70 connector the braid
is slid onto the outside of the connector. Are you sure yours says to
slide it into the connector?
As far as getting enough heat, you will need a good 50-60 watt soldering
iron with a large tip and be patient. I used my Weller temperature
controlled iron and it works fine - just take a bit longer than a normal
solder joint. A larger iron would work better or if you have a
heat-shrink hot air gun, you can preheat the assembly to speed things
up. The RG-400 coax and the connector use only metal and teflon, so
there is little problem with harming either unless you go way overboard
with higher temperature than any reasonable soldering iron.
As far as mechanical strength, this is as strong as you are going to get
if you have a good solder joint.
Dick Tasker
r falstad wrote:
> I'm installing a Garmin transponder in my "OBAM". The installation
> calls for the coax (RG-400) to go into a BNC "Blindmate" connector.
> The instructions call for the exposed braid to be pushed into the
> connector shell and solder melted in to attach it (in addition to
> soldering the center conductor on the inside of the connector). This
> doesn't look like a very mechanically strong connection. Especially
> since some of the braid bunched up when I pushed it into the
> connector. I also had trouble getting enough heat on the connector to
> flow solder without barbequing the connector.
>
> Any suggestions, tips or tricks to get a sound electrical and
> mechanical connection? How close to the connector do you need to have
> your first mechanical support for the coax?
>
> Bob
> GlaStar
>
>*
>*
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: charging system problems |
In a message dated 9/19/06 8:26:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
collinc(at)alltel.net writes:
> Hi,
>
> I am new to this list, but I am seeking some help with a charging system
> problem on my "Bearhawk".
> Let me try to describe the problem as best I can. I am using a Van's 35
amp
> alt. a VR-371 voltage/over-voltage protector, and a Electronics
> International (VA-1) guage installed in the alt lead. Also using a Odyssey
> 680 battery.
>
> The problem is this: Everything seems to work just fine until maybe 10-15
> minutes into the flight when the discharge light on the VA-1 comes on. I
can
> reset the system by recyling the field breaker and everything goes back to
> normal--charging again. This will last maybe another 10-15 minutes and the
> whole process repeats itself. I have checked all my conections, replaced
the
> battery, and now am beginning to suspect the alternator or even the
regulator.
> But I need some advice before I go replacing stuff that doesn't need
> replacing. (been there done that before!)
>
> Any advice would be appreciated,
>
> Collin
========================
Collin:
Keeping things simple ... You did not mention what plane the alternator is in?
But, from your explanation since TIME is function of failure I would also
surmise that TEMPERATURE is a function of failure.
Do you have a cooling tube blowing on the alternator? I have found on two
RV-6's with the SAME alternator that COOLING is a MUST! I installed a smooth
flowing cooling tube and have NOT seen the tripping problem in years. Also, a
bit of cool air blowing on the front bearing goes a long way to longevity of
the alternator.
Now, after you cool things off, then start electron chasing.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BNC "Blindmate" Coax Connector |
My old 140 watt Weller solder gun also works fine on these Bob. Those
(or an imported knockoff) are pretty cheap and they heat up quickly
for occasional use.
http://www.lashen.com/vendors/CooperTools/Weller_soldering_guns.asp
Ken L.
Richard Tasker wrote:
>
>
> I don't know what a "Blindmate" connector is, but if it is the same as
> or similar to the right angle one used on the back of the SL-70 the
> method is basically the same. However, on the SL-70 connector the
> braid is slid onto the outside of the connector. Are you sure yours
> says to slide it into the connector?
>
> As far as getting enough heat, you will need a good 50-60 watt
> soldering iron with a large tip and be patient. I used my Weller
> temperature controlled iron and it works fine - just take a bit longer
> than a normal solder joint. A larger iron would work better or if you
> have a heat-shrink hot air gun, you can preheat the assembly to speed
> things up. The RG-400 coax and the connector use only metal and
> teflon, so there is little problem with harming either unless you go
> way overboard with higher temperature than any reasonable soldering iron.
>
> As far as mechanical strength, this is as strong as you are going to
> get if you have a good solder joint.
>
> Dick Tasker
>
> r falstad wrote:
>
>> I'm installing a Garmin transponder in my "OBAM". The installation
>> calls for the coax (RG-400) to go into a BNC "Blindmate" connector.
>> The instructions call for the exposed braid to be pushed into the
>> connector shell and solder melted in to attach it (in addition to
>> soldering the center conductor on the inside of the connector). This
>> doesn't look like a very mechanically strong connection. Especially
>> since some of the braid bunched up when I pushed it into the
>> connector. I also had trouble getting enough heat on the connector
>> to flow solder without barbequing the connector.
>> Any suggestions, tips or tricks to get a sound electrical and
>> mechanical connection? How close to the connector do you need to
>> have your first mechanical support for the coax?
>>
>> Bob
>> GlaStar
>> *
>> *
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: charging system problems |
| From: | "collin" <collinc(at)alltel.net> |
The Van's 35 amp alt requires a regulator. (at least according to their website:
ES 14184 W/O FAN: A small lightweight alternator that develops a maximum of 35
amperes (12 volt DC) and is usually enough for most RV's. This unit requires the
use of an external voltage regulator.
I don't know what the amp load is on the bus bar. I will try to check on my next
flight. I am still in the test phase of a new aircraft and there are a lot
ot things to pay attention to.
Collin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62576#62576
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: charging system problems |
>Hi,
>
>I am new to this list, but I am seeking some help with a charging system
>problem on my "Bearhawk".
>Let me try to describe the problem as best I can. I am using a Van's 35
>amp alt. a VR-371 voltage/over-voltage protector, and a Electronics
>International (VA-1) guage installed in the alt lead. Also using a Odyssey
>680 battery.
>
>The problem is this: Everything seems to work just fine until maybe 10-15
>minutes into the flight when the discharge light on the VA-1 comes on. I
>can reset the system by recyling the field breaker and everything goes
>back to normal--charging again. This will last maybe another 10-15
>minutes and the whole process repeats itself. I have checked all my
>conections, replaced the battery, and now am beginning to suspect the
>alternator or even the regulator. But I need some advice before I go
>replacing stuff that doesn't need replacing. (been there done that before!)
>
>Any advice would be appreciated,
Okay. Understand that the alternator you have is
externally regulated. I wasn't aware that Van's
was offering one. I acquired the envelope and spec
drawing for the voltage regulator. You can get a
copy at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Electrosystems/VR371.pdf
I'm disappointed that the data sheet doesn't tell
us anything useful about the OV protection features.
They've cited DO-160C, Section 16, Category B
which makes no sense at all. DO-160 does not apply
to the generation and control of DC power systems.
Mil-STD-704 does.
So we can deduce nothing about the trip dynamics
of their OV protection system from the data supplied.
I'm tracking down an acceptance test procedure from
an overhaul shop to see if there's more to be learned.
In the mean time, since you DO have access to the
alternator's field voltage, there's a troubleshooting
guide in Note 8 of:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
Getting some numbers about system performance
as described in the procedure will help us help
you figure out where the electrons fell into
the mud.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Jones" <djones(at)northboone.net> |
What is a strobe output/input for a transponder/encoder?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62691#62691
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Z-19 based block diagrams |
I am working on the wiring for my Eggenfellner Subaru based RV-7A. I had
made up a wiring diagram, but then it was suggested that I redo it and
simplify it. The original is a modified version of Z-19, with a couple more
circuits off each engine bus, and the substitution of Schottky power diodes
for the bridge diodes.
See the 2 block diagrams here:
http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep06.htm#sep15
The first one is the one I was going to go with, and the second one is a
proposed redesign. As the picture caption states, I already have the 4PDT
locking switches, but I haven't bought the Schottky diodes yet.
The second one looks simpler, but is it perhaps too simple? In the first
one, I can manually control which busses are "ON" with the 2 4PDT switches.
Normally, they'd both be on. In case of loss of the single alternator, the
voltage will drop and the aux contactor will open (in either diagram). Once
the 2 batteries are not tied together through the aux contactor, they will
have different voltages depending on load. I can run the engine off one
battery it until it gets too low, then switch to using the other battery
(while looking for a place to land, of course).
With the second diagram, there is just one engine bus, instead of two, and
each battery feeds the bus through the 2 Schottky diodes. But what if the
batteries are at different voltages? How does the Schottky react in a case
like that? Does the engine bus simply "see" the higher of the 2 voltages
passing through the 2 schottky diodes?
Any feedback or advice on these specific questions or on any general
observations about either block diagram will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
brian
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BNC "Blindmate" Coax Connector |
The "Blindmate" connectors are a product of Palco Connectors division of
Phoenix
Co of Chicago. You can access the products catalog for these devices at:
http://www.phoenixofchicago.com/palco.htm
It's unfortunate that they didn't craft a series
of these connectors that crimp on like a D-Sub connector.
Nevertheless, as Richard has noted, you're unlikely to injure
these connectors or RG-400 coax with soldering temperatures.
The goal will be to get sufficient heat to the joint to get-on,
get-off with reasonable dispatch which also means there's
sufficient temperature rise to get good solder flow into
the joint.
Here's another link to info on this product:
http://www.bfioptilas.es/Blindmate_Coax-l6049.htm
Bob . . .
>
>
>I don't know what a "Blindmate" connector is, but if it is the same as or
>similar to the right angle one used on the back of the SL-70 the method is
>basically the same. However, on the SL-70 connector the braid is slid
>onto the outside of the connector. Are you sure yours says to slide it
>into the connector?
>
>As far as getting enough heat, you will need a good 50-60 watt soldering
>iron with a large tip and be patient. I used my Weller temperature
>controlled iron and it works fine - just take a bit longer than a normal
>solder joint. A larger iron would work better or if you have a
>heat-shrink hot air gun, you can preheat the assembly to speed things
>up. The RG-400 coax and the connector use only metal and teflon, so there
>is little problem with harming either unless you go way overboard with
>higher temperature than any reasonable soldering iron.
>
>As far as mechanical strength, this is as strong as you are going to get
>if you have a good solder joint.
>
>Dick Tasker
>
>r falstad wrote:
>
>>I'm installing a Garmin transponder in my "OBAM". The installation calls
>>for the coax (RG-400) to go into a BNC "Blindmate" connector.
>>The instructions call for the exposed braid to be pushed into the
>>connector shell and solder melted in to attach it (in addition to
>>soldering the center conductor on the inside of the connector). This
>>doesn't look like a very mechanically strong connection. Especially
>>since some of the braid bunched up when I pushed it into the
>>connector. I also had trouble getting enough heat on the connector to
>>flow solder without barbequing the connector. Any suggestions, tips or
>>tricks to get a sound electrical and mechanical connection? How close to
>>the connector do you need to have your first mechanical support for the coax?
>>
>>Bob
>>GlaStar
>>
>>*
>>*
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- 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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>What is a strobe output/input for a transponder/encoder?
"Strobe" or "blanking" pins are included in some
systems that transmit and/or receive high-power
pulses on adjacent frequencies. For example, transponders
and DME on airplanes use these signal lines to
put temporary earplugs in the ears of another system
while it's "shouting" to the ground station.
I wish my neighbor's dog came with a strobe signal
that would shut off my ears for the duration of each
bark.
This courtesy signal traded between potentially
antagonist/victim systems allows them to co-exist
on the same airplane while minimizing degraded
performance from receiver overload when one of
the transmitters "shouts".
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: Gear Indicator Lights |
>On 9/18/06, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
><nuckollsr(at)cox.net> wrote:
>><nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>>
>>
>> I've been working with some LED mounts, an office laminator,
>> AutoCAD and Photoshop to craft some fabrication techniques
>> for LED indicators/annunicators. One reasonably attractive
>> technique is illustrated at:
>>
>><http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/Annunciator_1.jpg>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/Annunciator_1.jpg
>
>
>Bob, Many times you post links to great pictures, in many cases they seem
>to be part of another article, is there a simple way to get from the
>picture to the related article?
>
>Thanks for all your teaching efforts, I know they are a great help to many
>of us.
Any complete articles are posted to my website. However,
some photos may be excerpts from work done for clients
or even tid-bits of useful visuals I've encountered in
my travels. If you have a question about any specific
photo, please ask. The one I posted above is an exemplar
arrangement for a new product that's been prototyped and
being beta-tested right now. It will show up on my
website catalog shortly.
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-19 based block diagrams |
>
>
>I am working on the wiring for my Eggenfellner Subaru based RV-7A. I had
>made up a wiring diagram, but then it was suggested that I redo it and
>simplify it. The original is a modified version of Z-19, with a couple more
>circuits off each engine bus, and the substitution of Schottky power diodes
>for the bridge diodes.
>
>See the 2 block diagrams here:
>
>http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep06.htm#sep15
>
>The first one is the one I was going to go with, and the second one is a
>proposed redesign. As the picture caption states, I already have the 4PDT
>locking switches, but I haven't bought the Schottky diodes yet.
>
>The second one looks simpler, but is it perhaps too simple? In the first
>one, I can manually control which busses are "ON" with the 2 4PDT switches.
>Normally, they'd both be on. In case of loss of the single alternator, the
>voltage will drop and the aux contactor will open (in either diagram). Once
>the 2 batteries are not tied together through the aux contactor, they will
>have different voltages depending on load. I can run the engine off one
>battery it until it gets too low, then switch to using the other battery
>(while looking for a place to land, of course).
Why would your battery "get too low"? I presume you subscribe to
the notion that careful load analysis, preventative maintenance of
the batteries and operational testing is the best way to PREDICT and
then MAINTAIN system performance to your DESIGN GOALS.
>With the second diagram, there is just one engine bus, instead of two, and
>each battery feeds the bus through the 2 Schottky diodes. But what if the
>batteries are at different voltages? How does the Schottky react in a case
>like that? Does the engine bus simply "see" the higher of the 2 voltages
>passing through the 2 schottky diodes?
>
>Any feedback or advice on these specific questions or on any general
>observations about either block diagram will be greatly appreciated.
Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a process whereby you
step through all discernable failures including poor design
goals but NOT failure for due diligence in maintenance. Figure
out a Plan-B for any failure of a component that might ruin
your day and re-design the system for failure to meet design
goals.
First, I what way did you find Z-19 deficient? An admonishment
to "make it simpler" is insufficient. You need to set design
goals, operating limits for duration, then craft to those goals
using only the parts necessary to comply. "Simplicity" becomes
an automatic feature of the finished system because you didn't
put a part in that wasn't necessary to the task.
So, if Z-19 was attractive as a basis for the beginnings of
you deliberations, what feature(s) fail to meet your design
goals. Your first diagram appears to be Z-19 with a second
fuel pump added. Perhaps all you need beyond Z-19 is a single
switch that powers the aux pump (probably never used) from the
engine battery bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 based block diagrams |
Brian, your second design is almost exactly what I am doing (as you know
I am also using the Egg Subaru). It allows control over both system
buses and makes sure that there is always power to the engine bus. Yes,
the engine bus will always "see" and draw power from whichever battery
voltage is higher (less the Schottky drop). I did add one "last resort"
switch between the main battery and the engine bus. While the Schottky
diodes I am using are as bulletproof as you can get (175A continuous
rating), I decided to set it up so I can connect directly to the main
battery just in case.
I agree that your first design is too complicated.
All that said, I am not yet flying.
Dick Tasker
Brian Meyette wrote:
>
>I am working on the wiring for my Eggenfellner Subaru based RV-7A. I had
>made up a wiring diagram, but then it was suggested that I redo it and
>simplify it. The original is a modified version of Z-19, with a couple more
>circuits off each engine bus, and the substitution of Schottky power diodes
>for the bridge diodes.
>
>See the 2 block diagrams here:
>
>http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep06.htm#sep15
>
>The first one is the one I was going to go with, and the second one is a
>proposed redesign. As the picture caption states, I already have the 4PDT
>locking switches, but I haven't bought the Schottky diodes yet.
>
>The second one looks simpler, but is it perhaps too simple? In the first
>one, I can manually control which busses are "ON" with the 2 4PDT switches.
>Normally, they'd both be on. In case of loss of the single alternator, the
>voltage will drop and the aux contactor will open (in either diagram). Once
>the 2 batteries are not tied together through the aux contactor, they will
>have different voltages depending on load. I can run the engine off one
>battery it until it gets too low, then switch to using the other battery
>(while looking for a place to land, of course).
>
>With the second diagram, there is just one engine bus, instead of two, and
>each battery feeds the bus through the 2 Schottky diodes. But what if the
>batteries are at different voltages? How does the Schottky react in a case
>like that? Does the engine bus simply "see" the higher of the 2 voltages
>passing through the 2 schottky diodes?
>
>Any feedback or advice on these specific questions or on any general
>observations about either block diagram will be greatly appreciated.
>Thanks,
>brian
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Jones" <djones(at)northboone.net> |
The transponder schematic shows a suppression OUT pin 1 and a EXT. DME suppression
IN pin 6. Because I do not have a DME I understand that both of these pins
would be empty. Would this be what the encoder schematic is showing as the
strobe input? If so then this pin would not be used and would be pigtailed to
the ground pin.[/list]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62770#62770
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 based block diagrams |
Hello Brian
I'm not really a proponent of running all the engine supplies through a
diode. Redundancy is good but reducing the reliability of the primary
system is a tradefoff worthy of careful consideration. I used a slightly
different scheme that runs each fuel pump off a different battery with
no diodes. If both pumps are running then no further action is required
regardless of pump failure, diode failure, fuse blowing, etc. I have the
option of running both pumps simultaneously at any time such as when
landing or taking off. My first action in the event of an engine problem
is to make sure all switches in my engine control row of switches are
on. That insures both pumps are on. If I had only one ecm, I'd really
REALLY like the fuel pumps wired such that there is no way that a
problem with one pump or its wiring could take out the ecm. For example,
could a short take out a diode (or two?) before a fuse blows? Diodes
have a tendancy to blow faster than fuses in my experience although
perhaps you are planning very large diodes.
I must admit to not understanding why you'd need 4 pole switches in your
first proposal. I can see the attraction of diodes for the ecm supply in
your second proposal but I'd probably consider only routing the aux
supply through a diode. Granted a short on the main system that did not
isolate itself by blowing fuses could then disable your aux supply but
I'm having trouble imagining that as a significant risk.
Regarding your diode question. It doesn't matter at all if the batteries
are different voltages. Whichever is higher will supply the loads. As
the voltage drops during discharge, the second battery will gradually
share the load. From then on the battery voltages will be approximately
equal. The key point is that the good battery will not transfer energy
into a discharged battery regardless of whether a diode is present.
Ken L.
Brian Meyette wrote:
>
>I am working on the wiring for my Eggenfellner Subaru based RV-7A. I had
>made up a wiring diagram, but then it was suggested that I redo it and
>simplify it. The original is a modified version of Z-19, with a couple more
>circuits off each engine bus, and the substitution of Schottky power diodes
>for the bridge diodes.
>
>See the 2 block diagrams here:
>
>http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep06.htm#sep15
>
>The first one is the one I was going to go with, and the second one is a
>proposed redesign. As the picture caption states, I already have the 4PDT
>locking switches, but I haven't bought the Schottky diodes yet.
>
>The second one looks simpler, but is it perhaps too simple? In the first
>one, I can manually control which busses are "ON" with the 2 4PDT switches.
>Normally, they'd both be on. In case of loss of the single alternator, the
>voltage will drop and the aux contactor will open (in either diagram). Once
>the 2 batteries are not tied together through the aux contactor, they will
>have different voltages depending on load. I can run the engine off one
>battery it until it gets too low, then switch to using the other battery
>(while looking for a place to land, of course).
>
>With the second diagram, there is just one engine bus, instead of two, and
>each battery feeds the bus through the 2 Schottky diodes. But what if the
>batteries are at different voltages? How does the Schottky react in a case
>like that? Does the engine bus simply "see" the higher of the 2 voltages
>passing through the 2 schottky diodes?
>
>Any feedback or advice on these specific questions or on any general
>observations about either block diagram will be greatly appreciated.
>Thanks,
>brian
>
>--
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Jones" <djones(at)northboone.net> |
For the encoder I plan on using a seperate fuse to the POWER IN pin (8)supplied
from the a/c power to reduce warm up time and then use pin (14) SWITCHED POWER
IN as indicated by the schematic for the switched power back to the transponder.
Now for the question. The transponder schematic shows two pins together (8,20)
used for SWITCHED POWER OUT. Do both of these get wired to the switched
pin number 14 or because I'm powering the encoder pin 8 with its own power is
one of these pins left empty?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62775#62775
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net> |
Can someone with a Garmin stack give me an idea on how much space I need
to allow between units, 340, 430, sl30 ect? I'm thinging maybe the racks
can go metel to metal.
Thanks,
Sam Marlow
RV10 Avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Can someone share experience tuning static port? |
I have a Europa XS Monowheel, it has the static port under the wing, it is
a tube with a closed nylon bullet at the tip, and 2 holes in it a bit aft
of the lead edge of the bullet, 1 vertical and 1 horizontal.
I heard a while back you can tune this static port by installing a O-Ring,
think start point was an inch or so behind the holes in the bullet??
Can someone share experience tuning static port?
How did you determine when it was correct?
What distance was neutral point for O-Ring?
Does moving O-Ring forward from neutral increase static pressure?
What size O-Ring did you use, did size make much a difference, what was
O-Ring made out of and how did you permanent bond in place?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
(I posted to Europa group, no replies)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | tuning static port? |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Hi Ron
I had a mono wheel also but I put my pitot and static above the
tail. In effect, what you have below the wing was above the rudder on my
bird.. Why are you considering the issue of tuning the static? The
factory provided unit works great. It is only if you have problems that
you need to consider "tuning". The O-Ring provides a different boundary
layer to obtain the static pressure change. It is rarely needed. Any
o-ring will do and IF and when you need to go that route, you can use
any epoxy or even super glue to keep it in position. I would then paint
the o-ring so it would not deteriate. Rubber will be effected by ozone.
Jim Nelson
(PS. I had 4 holes, one in each quadrant- 3-6-9-12 o'clock. that way
it always had the best static in case one got plugged)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <ed(at)muellerartcover.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Hi Frank,
I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the
fuel system. Just a couple of questions.
I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a
mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric pumps?
Normal Operation:
Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch).
One or the other electric pump on to select tank used.
Tanks switched with the pumps.
Takeoff and landing.
Same as above but both electric pumps on.
Failures.
Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel
is needed.
Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be
checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off).
All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the
electrical system or an electric pump failure.
I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light
twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right
engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back
to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I
wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same
plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that
it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the
valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the
handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily
the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve
to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane?
No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I
liked it immediately.
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
> Exactly!
>
> And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank
> ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks
> (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think.
>
> The other advantages are...
>
>
> No selector valves to switch.
> Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel
> SIMPLE
> No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and
> battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup)
> Plug a fuel filter...Who cares?
>
> Downsides
>
> Uses more electrical power.
> Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure
> mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a
> radio, tansponder and one fuel pump
> Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit.
>
> Frank
> RV7a 4 hours
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
> N6030X
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>
> -->
>
> I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out
> there.
>
> In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a
> NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a
> software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled
> everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload
> part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and
> bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there
> was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded
> with every new complexity: the pilot (me).
>
> Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of
> the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel
> Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing
> how much fuel is in the tank,
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <ed(at)muellerartcover.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Hi Frank,
I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the
fuel system. Just a couple of questions.
I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a
mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric pumps?
Normal Operation:
Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch).
One or the other electric pump on to select tank used.
Tanks switched with the pumps.
Takeoff and landing.
Same as above but both electric pumps on.
Failures.
Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel
is needed.
Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be
checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off).
All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the
electrical system or an electric pump failure.
I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light
twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right
engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back
to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I
wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same
plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that
it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the
valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the
handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily
the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve
to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane?
No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I
liked it immediately.
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
> Exactly!
>
> And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank
> ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks
> (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think.
>
> The other advantages are...
>
>
> No selector valves to switch.
> Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel
> SIMPLE
> No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and
> battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup)
> Plug a fuel filter...Who cares?
>
> Downsides
>
> Uses more electrical power.
> Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure
> mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a
> radio, tansponder and one fuel pump
> Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit.
>
> Frank
> RV7a 4 hours
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
> N6030X
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>
> -->
>
> I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out
> there.
>
> In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a
> NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a
> software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled
> everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload
> part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and
> bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there
> was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded
> with every new complexity: the pilot (me).
>
> Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of
> the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel
> Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing
> how much fuel is in the tank,
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <ed(at)muellerartcover.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Hi Frank,
I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the
fuel system. Just a couple of questions.
I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a
mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric pumps?
Normal Operation:
Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch).
One or the other electric pump on to select tank used.
Tanks switched with the pumps.
Takeoff and landing.
Same as above but both electric pumps on.
Failures.
Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel
is needed.
Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be
checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off).
All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the
electrical system or an electric pump failure.
I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light
twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right
engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back
to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I
wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same
plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that
it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the
valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the
handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily
the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve
to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane?
No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I
liked it immediately.
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
> Exactly!
>
> And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank
> ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks
> (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think.
>
> The other advantages are...
>
>
> No selector valves to switch.
> Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel
> SIMPLE
> No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and
> battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup)
> Plug a fuel filter...Who cares?
>
> Downsides
>
> Uses more electrical power.
> Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure
> mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a
> radio, tansponder and one fuel pump
> Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit.
>
> Frank
> RV7a 4 hours
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
> N6030X
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>
> -->
>
> I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out
> there.
>
> In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a
> NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a
> software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled
> everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload
> part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and
> bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there
> was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded
> with every new complexity: the pilot (me).
>
> Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of
> the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel
> Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing
> how much fuel is in the tank,
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <ed(at)muellerartcover.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Hi Frank,
I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the
fuel system. Just a couple of questions.
I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a
mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric pumps?
Normal Operation:
Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch).
One or the other electric pump on to select tank used.
Tanks switched with the pumps.
Takeoff and landing.
Same as above but both electric pumps on.
Failures.
Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel
is needed.
Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be
checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off).
All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the
electrical system or an electric pump failure.
I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light
twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right
engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back
to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I
wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same
plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that
it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the
valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the
handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily
the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve
to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane?
No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I
liked it immediately.
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
> Exactly!
>
> And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank
> ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks
> (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think.
>
> The other advantages are...
>
>
> No selector valves to switch.
> Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel
> SIMPLE
> No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and
> battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup)
> Plug a fuel filter...Who cares?
>
> Downsides
>
> Uses more electrical power.
> Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure
> mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a
> radio, tansponder and one fuel pump
> Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit.
>
> Frank
> RV7a 4 hours
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
> N6030X
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>
> -->
>
> I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out
> there.
>
> In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a
> NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a
> software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled
> everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload
> part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and
> bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there
> was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded
> with every new complexity: the pilot (me).
>
> Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of
> the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel
> Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing
> how much fuel is in the tank,
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <ed(at)muellerartcover.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Hi Frank,
I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the
fuel system. Just a couple of questions.
I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a
mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric pumps?
Normal Operation:
Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch).
One or the other electric pump on to select tank used.
Tanks switched with the pumps.
Takeoff and landing.
Same as above but both electric pumps on.
Failures.
Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel
is needed.
Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be
checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off).
All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the
electrical system or an electric pump failure.
I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light
twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right
engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back
to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I
wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same
plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that
it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the
valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the
handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily
the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve
to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane?
No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I
liked it immediately.
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
> Exactly!
>
> And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank
> ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks
> (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think.
>
> The other advantages are...
>
>
> No selector valves to switch.
> Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel
> SIMPLE
> No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and
> battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup)
> Plug a fuel filter...Who cares?
>
> Downsides
>
> Uses more electrical power.
> Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure
> mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a
> radio, tansponder and one fuel pump
> Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit.
>
> Frank
> RV7a 4 hours
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
> N6030X
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>
> -->
>
> I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out
> there.
>
> In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a
> NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a
> software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled
> everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload
> part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and
> bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there
> was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded
> with every new complexity: the pilot (me).
>
> Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of
> the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel
> Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing
> how much fuel is in the tank,
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <ed(at)muellerartcover.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Hi Frank,
I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the
fuel system. Just a couple of questions.
I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a
mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric pumps?
Normal Operation:
Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch).
One or the other electric pump on to select tank used.
Tanks switched with the pumps.
Takeoff and landing.
Same as above but both electric pumps on.
Failures.
Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel
is needed.
Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be
checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off).
All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the
electrical system or an electric pump failure.
I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light
twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right
engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back
to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I
wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same
plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that
it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the
valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the
handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily
the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve
to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane?
No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I
liked it immediately.
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
> Exactly!
>
> And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank
> ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks
> (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think.
>
> The other advantages are...
>
>
> No selector valves to switch.
> Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel
> SIMPLE
> No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and
> battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup)
> Plug a fuel filter...Who cares?
>
> Downsides
>
> Uses more electrical power.
> Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure
> mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a
> radio, tansponder and one fuel pump
> Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit.
>
> Frank
> RV7a 4 hours
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
> N6030X
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>
> -->
>
> I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out
> there.
>
> In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a
> NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a
> software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled
> everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload
> part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and
> bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there
> was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded
> with every new complexity: the pilot (me).
>
> Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of
> the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel
> Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing
> how much fuel is in the tank,
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <ed(at)muellerartcover.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Hi Frank,
I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the
fuel system. Just a couple of questions.
I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a
mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric pumps?
Normal Operation:
Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch).
One or the other electric pump on to select tank used.
Tanks switched with the pumps.
Takeoff and landing.
Same as above but both electric pumps on.
Failures.
Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel
is needed.
Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be
checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off).
All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the
electrical system or an electric pump failure.
I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light
twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right
engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back
to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I
wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same
plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that
it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the
valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the
handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily
the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve
to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane?
No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I
liked it immediately.
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
> Exactly!
>
> And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank
> ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks
> (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think.
>
> The other advantages are...
>
>
> No selector valves to switch.
> Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel
> SIMPLE
> No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and
> battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup)
> Plug a fuel filter...Who cares?
>
> Downsides
>
> Uses more electrical power.
> Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure
> mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a
> radio, tansponder and one fuel pump
> Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit.
>
> Frank
> RV7a 4 hours
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
> N6030X
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>
> -->
>
> I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out
> there.
>
> In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a
> NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a
> software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled
> everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload
> part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and
> bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there
> was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded
> with every new complexity: the pilot (me).
>
> Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of
> the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel
> Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing
> how much fuel is in the tank,
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | tuning static port? |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Hi Ron,
How far along are you on your build? I took 5.5 years of spare
time to build mine. I flew it for two years and sold it to get a bigger
plane. I really enjoyed the bird. It was fast, full throttle with two
guys on board would do 140K. (170# and 190#) I think I will miss the
cheep gas to go flying with. My new bird will req. 100LL. :-(((
Please take no offense to my reply on the tunning of the static. It is
one of those problems that occur in "netherland". In other words forget
about it being a problem - doesn't exist in the Europa.
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Garmin SL40/GMA 340 - how to control mic volume when |
TX
| From: | Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com> |
I have a Garmin SL40 COM and a GM340 audio panel installed in
my RV-9. Got all the wiring finished this past weekend and
wheeled her out onto the ramp for a radio check.
When I keyed the Mic (actually I grounded the PTT wire - no
stick installed yet) and called out to my local airport's
pattern for a radio check, the sound of my own voice in the
headset was deafening. Folks in the pattern called out "loud
and clear" so I'm not worried about the functioning of the
radio per se. All other volumes in the headset -
intercom/chatter on the frequency - are just fine - its only
when I TX that I get deafened.
Is there an adjustment somewhere, or have I goofed up my wiring
somewhere ?
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
----------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 based block diagrams |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Brian,
My E-Sube architecture is shown here:
http://www.wideopenwest.com/~glaesers/RV7A/RV7A_Electrical.htm
I've put my batteries behind the baggage bulkhead, so the physical
layout is different than the diagram shows, but the architecture is the
same.
I have a hot bus for each battery, instead of an engine bus, but
electrically pretty similar to your second diagram.
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A - finishing kit
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transmitter Sidetone Adjustment |
>
>
>I have a Garmin SL40 COM and a GM340 audio panel installed in
>my RV-9. Got all the wiring finished this past weekend and
>wheeled her out onto the ramp for a radio check.
>
>When I keyed the Mic (actually I grounded the PTT wire - no
>stick installed yet) and called out to my local airport's
>pattern for a radio check, the sound of my own voice in the
>headset was deafening. Folks in the pattern called out "loud
>and clear" so I'm not worried about the functioning of the
>radio per se. All other volumes in the headset -
>intercom/chatter on the frequency - are just fine - its only
>when I TX that I get deafened.
>
>Is there an adjustment somewhere, or have I goofed up my wiring
>somewhere ?
Back in WWII, radios were vacuum tube technology, and
not terribly robust. It was useful for many voice
communications situations for the talker to hear their
own voice in the headphones. This served two
purposes: (1) a ready check of transmitter operation
and (2) folks tend to enunciate more accurately when
they could hear themselves speak . . . difficult to
do in high noise environments like the cockpit of an
airplane. Transmitters were all amplitude modulation
and it was common practice to install a "crystal receiver"
on the antenna circuit. Detected audio was applied
to the intercom system for presentation at the speaker's
ears. If you can't hear yourself in the headphones,
you KNOW that nobody else is hearing you.
Nowadays, the "sidetone" audio is no longer sampled
from the transmitter's output signal and instead comes
from some point in a transmitter's audio system. As
such, the modern sidetone is useful only for purpose
(2) above . . . this means that there are cases where
you can hear yourself when in fact your transmitter is
not functioning properly.
Radios that offer the sidetone feature will also have
a sidetone level adjust potentiometer. The Microair
radios I used to sell had a plastic sticker over a
small hole that offered access to the adjustment
potentiometer. Someplace in the installation instructions
for your equipment you should be able to find
instructions for setting up sidetone levels.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Hello Ed,
With a carb you have the advantage that you don't have to mess with the
pressure relief valve and tank return...not that you mess with it in
flight but is more work to install. You also have a few seconds of
reserve fuel in the float bowl plus if somehow you pumped air to the
floatbowl it does'nt care because the air gets vented thru the floatbowl
harmlessly. Pretty good setup.
Yes you can use a Facet solid state pump in your wingroots and I believe
these are rated to 30GPH each.
There two failure modes that I am not sure of in your suggested
setup...I bet it is perfectly OK but I don't know for sure.
1) What happens if the mechanical pump rutures a diaphram...where does
the fuel go?
2) Are there any other failure modes that would stop the Facet pump from
pumping thru the dead mechanical pump?
3) can you suck thru two dead facet pumps with your mecahnical pump?...I
think you can and the point is a little moot anyway. As long as you wire
the pumps independantly the chances of loosing both pumps is very
unlikely..In a way you triple redundancy.
I personally would avoid a selector valve with left and right only
selections...One day you will get it wrong and have the wrong pump on
with the wrong tank...Simply replace it with an on/off valve, join the
outputs of the pumps together with a Tee fitting and make sure there is
a check valve in each line...This will stop cross feeding to the no used
tank.
Ahh...I just seen the issue with this...If you have an on/off valve with
a mechanical pump and both facets are offline you will likely suck air
to your floatbowl...That wouldn't be good...But should still suck thru
the pump you turned off.
Hmm seems to me the meachanical pump is not a good idea with this system
and will require a selector valve which adds complexity and the very
single point of failure you had trouble with before.
I wouldn't use this system but it should work. Personally I don't see
the advantage over the standard mechanical/electric pump with selector
valve...Unless you intend to use Mogas of course.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
Hi Frank,
I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the
fuel system. Just a couple of questions.
I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a
mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric
pumps?
Normal Operation:
Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch).
One or the other electric pump on to select tank used.
Tanks switched with the pumps.
Takeoff and landing.
Same as above but both electric pumps on.
Failures.
Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel
is needed.
Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be
checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off).
All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the
electrical system or an electric pump failure.
I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light
twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right
engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back
to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I
wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same
plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that
it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the
valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the
handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily
the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve
to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane?
No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I
liked it immediately.
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
(Corvallis)"
>
> Exactly!
>
> And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank
> ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks
> (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think.
>
> The other advantages are...
>
>
> No selector valves to switch.
> Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel
> SIMPLE
> No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and
> battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup)
> Plug a fuel filter...Who cares?
>
> Downsides
>
> Uses more electrical power.
> Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure
> mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a
> radio, tansponder and one fuel pump
> Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit.
>
> Frank
> RV7a 4 hours
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Dave
> N6030X
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>
> -->
>
> I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw
out
> there.
>
> In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a
> NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a
> software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled
> everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit
workload
> part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and
> bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that
there
> was a single point of failure that was getting more and more
overloaded
> with every new complexity: the pilot (me).
>
> Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures
of
> the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel
> Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing
> how much fuel is in the tank,
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | tuning static port? |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
My new bird will req. 100LL. :-(((
Why?...Is it certified?.....Turbocharged? High CR?...If you can get your
CHT's under 350F in normal cruise and a CR of 8.5:1 or lower I can't see
it would require 100LL?
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
H Nelson
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:28 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: tuning static port?
-->
Hi Ron,
How far along are you on your build? I took 5.5 years of spare
time to build mine. I flew it for two years and sold it to get a bigger
plane. I really enjoyed the bird. It was fast, full throttle with two
guys on board would do 140K. (170# and 190#) I think I will miss the
cheep gas to go flying with. My new bird will req. 100LL. :-(((
Please take no offense to my reply on the tunning of the static. It is
one of those problems that occur in "netherland". In other words forget
about it being a problem - doesn't exist in the Europa.
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin Stack |
Sam, I can't remember the exact dimensions, but Garmin has a requirement
for minimum spacing between radios on the stack. HOWEVER, If you use
their mounting racks (can't think of why you wouldn't want to) they have
'dimples' on the top/bottom that guarantee the mins, so that you can go
metal to metal. (I taped all of my racks together to get the final
dimensions for cutting the opening in the panel faceplate).
Deems Davis # 406
Panel/Fuse/Finishing
http://deemsrv10.com/
Sam Marlow wrote:
> Can someone with a Garmin stack give me an idea on how much space I
> need to allow between units, 340, 430, sl30 ect? I'm thinging maybe
> the racks can go metel to metal.
> Thanks,
> Sam Marlow
> RV10 Avionics
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | tuning static port? |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Hi Frank,
Its a Lycosorus (SP) not a Rotax. I hope to be able to blend 92
mogas with the regular 100LL after I have around 75 hours or so.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tuning static port? |
I quess 8.70:1 in a fuel injected engine is pushing the limits
then.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 1:59 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: tuning static port?
>
>
> My new bird will req. 100LL. :-(((
>
> Why?...Is it certified?.....Turbocharged? High CR?...If you can get your
> CHT's under 350F in normal cruise and a CR of 8.5:1 or lower I can't see
> it would require 100LL?
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
> H Nelson
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:28 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: tuning static port?
>
> -->
>
>
> Hi Ron,
> How far along are you on your build? I took 5.5 years of spare
> time to build mine. I flew it for two years and sold it to get a bigger
> plane. I really enjoyed the bird. It was fast, full throttle with two
> guys on board would do 140K. (170# and 190#) I think I will miss the
> cheep gas to go flying with. My new bird will req. 100LL. :-(((
> Please take no offense to my reply on the tunning of the static. It is
> one of those problems that occur in "netherland". In other words forget
> about it being a problem - doesn't exist in the Europa.
>
>
> Jim Nelson
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transmitter Sidetone Adjustment |
| From: | Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com> |
RTFM ... found it ... thx Bob :)
g
>
> III"
>
>
> >
> >
> >I have a Garmin SL40 COM and a GM340 audio panel installed in
> >my RV-9. Got all the wiring finished this past weekend and
> >wheeled her out onto the ramp for a radio check.
> >
> >When I keyed the Mic (actually I grounded the PTT wire - no
> >stick installed yet) and called out to my local airport's
> >pattern for a radio check, the sound of my own voice in the
> >headset was deafening. Folks in the pattern called out "loud
> >and clear" so I'm not worried about the functioning of the
> >radio per se. All other volumes in the headset -
> >intercom/chatter on the frequency - are just fine - its only
> >when I TX that I get deafened.
> >
> >Is there an adjustment somewhere, or have I goofed up my wiring
> >somewhere ?
>
>
> Back in WWII, radios were vacuum tube technology, and
> not terribly robust. It was useful for many voice
> communications situations for the talker to hear their
> own voice in the headphones. This served two
> purposes: (1) a ready check of transmitter operation
> and (2) folks tend to enunciate more accurately when
> they could hear themselves speak . . . difficult to
> do in high noise environments like the cockpit of an
> airplane. Transmitters were all amplitude modulation
> and it was common practice to install a "crystal receiver"
> on the antenna circuit. Detected audio was applied
> to the intercom system for presentation at the speaker's
> ears. If you can't hear yourself in the headphones,
> you KNOW that nobody else is hearing you.
>
> Nowadays, the "sidetone" audio is no longer sampled
> from the transmitter's output signal and instead comes
> from some point in a transmitter's audio system. As
> such, the modern sidetone is useful only for purpose
> (2) above . . . this means that there are cases where
> you can hear yourself when in fact your transmitter is
> not functioning properly.
>
> Radios that offer the sidetone feature will also have
> a sidetone level adjust potentiometer. The Microair
> radios I used to sell had a plastic sticker over a
> small hole that offered access to the adjustment
> potentiometer. Someplace in the installation instructions
> for your equipment you should be able to find
> instructions for setting up sidetone levels.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
----------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | tuning static port? |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
It should be happy on pure 92 oct Mogas. According to GAMI they
recommend 25 to 50F LOP or 150ROP up to 75% power and CHTs of 350F or
lower.
On my 7a I am still above the required CHT but only have 12 hours on it,
so I'm hopeful.
Apparently all Lycs (within the last 20 years) have the hardened ex
valve seats required to withstand unleaded gas.
According to Superior, mogas just "wasn't an issue" on the test
stand...i would still like to find what regime they ran to say
that...I.e what mixtures they ran at what CHT/
Cheers
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
H Nelson
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:30 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: tuning static port?
-->
Hi Frank,
Its a Lycosorus (SP) not a Rotax. I hope to be able to blend 92
mogas with the regular 100LL after I have around 75 hours or so.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | tuning static port? |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Depends...Its a combination of CHT, octane, CR, ignition timing and
mixture.
If you can get your CHT's down a bit further or run a bit richer then
8.7 will be OK...The question is ...How much richer and how much lower
the CHT's need to be?
My guess is not much, and maybe you want to stick to 25 deg max advance
but the truth is I don't know for sure.
FI actually helps, you can balance your individual fuel flows to each
cylinder much more accuratly, this allows LOP operations which is a
significant fuel saving over a carbed motor which generally cannot be
run LOP due to poor fuel distribution.
I tried LOP the other evening for the first time...sure, speed dropped
but oh my the fule flow fell off the edge.
I was doing 180kts Indicated at 100F ROP, 12.3 GPH...pulled back the mix
to average 50F LOP and speed dropped to 137kts but fule flow dropped to
like 6.7GPH...Pretty impressive!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 6440
Auto Parts
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: tuning static port?
-->
I quess 8.70:1 in a fuel injected engine is pushing the limits
then.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 1:59 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: tuning static port?
(Corvallis)"
>
>
> My new bird will req. 100LL. :-(((
>
> Why?...Is it certified?.....Turbocharged? High CR?...If you can get
your
> CHT's under 350F in normal cruise and a CR of 8.5:1 or lower I can't
see
> it would require 100LL?
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
James
> H Nelson
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:28 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: tuning static port?
>
> -->
>
>
> Hi Ron,
> How far along are you on your build? I took 5.5 years of
spare
> time to build mine. I flew it for two years and sold it to get a
bigger
> plane. I really enjoyed the bird. It was fast, full throttle with
two
> guys on board would do 140K. (170# and 190#) I think I will miss
the
> cheep gas to go flying with. My new bird will req. 100LL. :-(((
> Please take no offense to my reply on the tunning of the static. It
is
> one of those problems that occur in "netherland". In other words
forget
> about it being a problem - doesn't exist in the Europa.
>
>
> Jim Nelson
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2(at)starband.net> |
It's 0.040" and the dimples will give you that. However, keep in mind that
Garmin has not updated the UPS line to match their original products, so if
your mix includes a former UPS product such as SL30, the dimples won't line
up, and you won't have the proper clearance. Simple fix is to super-glue
a 1" square of 0.040" sheet onto the SL30 tray where the other trays contact
it.
http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsFeb06.htm#feb6
Another tip I learned in doing mine is that it's the outside lip of the
bottom of the tray that is supposed to be flush, so the rest of the tray is
actually a bit behind the panel.
http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsFeb06.htm
brian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Deems
Davis
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin Stack
Sam, I can't remember the exact dimensions, but Garmin has a requirement
for minimum spacing between radios on the stack. HOWEVER, If you use
their mounting racks (can't think of why you wouldn't want to) they have
'dimples' on the top/bottom that guarantee the mins, so that you can go
metal to metal. (I taped all of my racks together to get the final
dimensions for cutting the opening in the panel faceplate).
Deems Davis # 406
Panel/Fuse/Finishing
http://deemsrv10.com/
Sam Marlow wrote:
> Can someone with a Garmin stack give me an idea on how much space I
> need to allow between units, 340, 430, sl30 ect? I'm thinging maybe
> the racks can go metel to metal.
> Thanks,
> Sam Marlow
> RV10 Avionics
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Z-19 based block diagrams |
About the battery voltage, I was referring to the case where the alternator
has died and I'm just trying to get to an airport on battery power.
I didn't find Z-19 deficient. Yes, my first diagram is Z-19 with another
pump added, 4PDT switches instead of 2PDT, and Schottky diodes replacing the
rectifier bridges. It was just suggested to me that I rethink it. I
didn't at first, but then I had an epiphany a month or so later, and came up
with the second block diagram.
In looking at the first diagram again, it does appear that, with the pumps
switched with dedicated locking SPST switches, I probably don't need the
4PDT for the pumps circuits, as that just puts 2 switches in series. So
that really leaves me with a SPST switch for each of; primary & secondary
fule pump and ECM.
So that leaves the question of "should I have 2 busses with diode bridges on
the output, or better to go with one engine bus with the diode bridge on the
input?"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-19 based block diagrams
Why would your battery "get too low"? I presume you subscribe to
the notion that careful load analysis, preventative maintenance of
the batteries and operational testing is the best way to PREDICT and
then MAINTAIN system performance to your DESIGN GOALS.
First, I what way did you find Z-19 deficient? An admonishment
to "make it simpler" is insufficient. You need to set design
goals, operating limits for duration, then craft to those goals
using only the parts necessary to comply. "Simplicity" becomes
an automatic feature of the finished system because you didn't
put a part in that wasn't necessary to the task.
So, if Z-19 was attractive as a basis for the beginnings of
you deliberations, what feature(s) fail to meet your design
goals. Your first diagram appears to be Z-19 with a second
fuel pump added. Perhaps all you need beyond Z-19 is a single
switch that powers the aux pump (probably never used) from the
engine battery bus.
Bob . . .
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 based block diagrams |
A question for you, Dennis - where did you physically locate your Alt-B
current limiter and Hall Effect sensor? I am a bit concerned about running
that #8 Alt-B wire all the way back from the alternator, through the
firewall and subpanel to the switches panel before it gets a current limiter
or breaker. Is your current limiter mounted fwd or aft of the firewall?
Right now, I have more length of the Alt-B wire unprotected than protected,
and I don't like that. I suppose I could put a breaker or limiter in the
wire right after it comes off the alternator, then fasten the
breaker/limiter to the top of the intake manifold. How did you do it?
My plan calls for a 60a breaker in the Alt-B line at the switches panel.
Is the current limiter better for some reason?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Glaeser,
Dennis A
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:33 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-19 based block diagrams
Brian,
My E-Sube architecture is shown here:
http://www.wideopenwest.com/~glaesers/RV7A/RV7A_Electrical.htm
I've put my batteries behind the baggage bulkhead, so the physical
layout is different than the diagram shows, but the architecture is the
same.
I have a hot bus for each battery, instead of an engine bus, but
electrically pretty similar to your second diagram.
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A - finishing kit
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <ed(at)muellerartcover.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
> Hello Ed,
>
> With a carb you have the advantage that you don't have to mess with the
> pressure relief valve and tank return...not that you mess with it in
> flight but is more work to install. You also have a few seconds of
> reserve fuel in the float bowl plus if somehow you pumped air to the
> floatbowl it does'nt care because the air gets vented thru the floatbowl
> harmlessly. Pretty good setup.
>
> Yes you can use a Facet solid state pump in your wingroots and I believe
> these are rated to 30GPH each.
>
> There two failure modes that I am not sure of in your suggested
> setup...I bet it is perfectly OK but I don't know for sure.
>
> 1) What happens if the mechanical pump rutures a diaphram...where does the fuel
go?
>
I thought the electric pump was a backup for the mechanical pump on cert
airplanes. Isn't it designed so the electric can pump if the mechanical
fails?
> 2) Are there any other failure modes that would stop the Facet pump from
> pumping thru the dead mechanical pump?
>
Same as above?
> 3) can you suck thru two dead facet pumps with your mecahnical pump?...I
> think you can and the point is a little moot anyway. As long as you wire
> the pumps independantly the chances of loosing both pumps is very
> unlikely..In a way you triple redundancy.
>
I wasn't sure about this other than it works this way on my cert
airplane when the electric is off. Unless a dead pump would be different?
>
> I personally would avoid a selector valve with left and right only
> selections...One day you will get it wrong and have the wrong pump on
> with the wrong tank...Simply replace it with an on/off valve, join the
> outputs of the pumps together with a Tee fitting and make sure there is
> a check valve in each line...This will stop cross feeding to the no used
> tank.
>
Under normal operations you would not move the selector valve. You
would use the pumps for tank selection. Remember, this would be an
off-left-right-both valve (ACS ANDAIR FUEL VALVE FS20X4M). The
advantage of this valve would be in the event of an electrical pump
failure, the system would operate much like a cert system so that you
could get fuel out of the dead pump tank..
> Ahh...I just seen the issue with this...If you have an on/off valve with
> a mechanical pump and both facets are offline you will likely suck air
> to your floatbowl...That wouldn't be good...But should still suck thru
> the pump you turned off.
>
If one tank had fuel and the mechanical pump is working, putting the
fuel selector on that tank should give fuel.
> Hmm seems to me the meachanical pump is not a good idea with this system
> and will require a selector valve which adds complexity and the very
> single point of failure you had trouble with before.
>
The mechanical pump becomes the backup. The selector valve is only used
in the event of electric pump failure.
> I wouldn't use this system but it should work. Personally I don't see
> the advantage over the standard mechanical/electric pump with selector
> valve...Unless you intend to use Mogas of course.
>
I don't understand this comment. The advantages would seem to be:
Both tanks feeding for critical flight phases such as takeoff and landing.
No need to use the selector valve except in an emergency.
Could use auto gas if desired.
The whole system would be almost identical to the systems in cert
planes. You would be adding one extra electric fuel pump and gaining
the advantages.
Ed
> Frank
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:30 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the
> fuel system. Just a couple of questions.
>
> I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a
> mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric
> pumps?
>
> Normal Operation:
> Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch).
> One or the other electric pump on to select tank used.
> Tanks switched with the pumps.
>
> Takeoff and landing.
> Same as above but both electric pumps on.
>
> Failures.
> Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel
> is needed.
> Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be
> checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off).
>
> All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the
> electrical system or an electric pump failure.
>
>
> I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light
> twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right
> engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back
> to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I
> wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same
> plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that
> it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the
>
> valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the
> handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily
> the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve
>
> to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane?
> No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I
> liked it immediately.
>
>
> Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
>>
> (Corvallis)"
>
>> Exactly!
>>
>> And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank
>> ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks
>> (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think.
>>
>> The other advantages are...
>>
>>
>> No selector valves to switch.
>> Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel
>> SIMPLE
>> No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and
>> battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup)
>> Plug a fuel filter...Who cares?
>>
>> Downsides
>>
>> Uses more electrical power.
>> Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure
>> mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a
>> radio, tansponder and one fuel pump
>> Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit.
>>
>> Frank
>> RV7a 4 hours
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>
> Dave
>
>> N6030X
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>>
>> -->
>>
>> I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw
>>
> out
>
>> there.
>>
>> In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a
>> NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a
>> software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled
>> everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit
>>
> workload
>
>> part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and
>> bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that
>>
> there
>
>> was a single point of failure that was getting more and more
>>
> overloaded
>
>> with every new complexity: the pilot (me).
>>
>> Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures
>>
> of
>
>> the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel
>> Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing
>> how much fuel is in the tank,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin(at)valkyrie.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin Stack |
Mine are metal to metal and no problems.
Tom in
Ohio (RV6-A)
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Marlow
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:16 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin Stack
Can someone with a Garmin stack give me an idea on how much space I
need to allow between units, 340, 430, sl30 ect? I'm thinging maybe the
racks can go metel to metal.
Thanks,
Sam Marlow
RV10 Avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Re: Z-19 based block diagrams |
Well, I haven't done it yet - don't get my engine until December...
My plan is to put both the current limiter and Hall effect sensor in the
engine compartment. Since the alternator is on the firewall side of the
engine, I'll probably run the alternator B lead to a firewall mounted
current limiter, and then to the starter (of course, this may change once I
get the engine :-) The H sensor will probably be near the current limiter.
The only fat wire through the firewall is the starter wire (6AWG). I am
going to splice an 8AWG wire on the 6AWG wire between the firewall and the
IP subpanel and that will feed the primary bus.
Dennis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
A question for you, Dennis - where did you physically locate your Alt-B
current limiter and Hall Effect sensor? I am a bit concerned about running
that #8 Alt-B wire all the way back from the alternator, through the
firewall and subpanel to the switches panel before it gets a current limiter
or breaker. Is your current limiter mounted fwd or aft of the firewall?
Right now, I have more length of the Alt-B wire unprotected than protected,
and I don't like that. I suppose I could put a breaker or limiter in the
wire right after it comes off the alternator, then fasten the
breaker/limiter to the top of the intake manifold. How did you do it?
My plan calls for a 60a breaker in the Alt-B line at the switches panel.
Is the current limiter better for some reason?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <ed(at)muellerartcover.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
> Hello Ed,
>
> With a carb you have the advantage that you don't have to mess with the
> pressure relief valve and tank return...not that you mess with it in
> flight but is more work to install. You also have a few seconds of
> reserve fuel in the float bowl plus if somehow you pumped air to the
> floatbowl it does'nt care because the air gets vented thru the floatbowl
> harmlessly. Pretty good setup.
>
> Yes you can use a Facet solid state pump in your wingroots and I believe
> these are rated to 30GPH each.
>
> There two failure modes that I am not sure of in your suggested
> setup...I bet it is perfectly OK but I don't know for sure.
>
> 1) What happens if the mechanical pump rutures a diaphram...where does the fuel
go?
>
I thought the electric pump was a backup for the mechanical pump on cert
airplanes. Isn't it designed so the electric can pump if the mechanical
fails?
> 2) Are there any other failure modes that would stop the Facet pump from
> pumping thru the dead mechanical pump?
>
Same as above?
> 3) can you suck thru two dead facet pumps with your mecahnical pump?...I
> think you can and the point is a little moot anyway. As long as you wire
> the pumps independantly the chances of loosing both pumps is very
> unlikely..In a way you triple redundancy.
>
I wasn't sure about this other than it works this way on my cert
airplane when the electric is off. Unless a dead pump would be different?
>
> I personally would avoid a selector valve with left and right only
> selections...One day you will get it wrong and have the wrong pump on
> with the wrong tank...Simply replace it with an on/off valve, join the
> outputs of the pumps together with a Tee fitting and make sure there is
> a check valve in each line...This will stop cross feeding to the no used
> tank.
>
Under normal operations you would not move the selector valve. You
would use the pumps for tank selection. Remember, this would be an
off-left-right-both valve (ACS ANDAIR FUEL VALVE FS20X4M). The
advantage of this valve would be in the event of an electrical pump
failure, the system would operate much like a cert system so that you
could get fuel out of the dead pump tank..
> Ahh...I just seen the issue with this...If you have an on/off valve with
> a mechanical pump and both facets are offline you will likely suck air
> to your floatbowl...That wouldn't be good...But should still suck thru
> the pump you turned off.
>
If one tank had fuel and the mechanical pump is working, putting the
fuel selector on that tank should give fuel.
> Hmm seems to me the meachanical pump is not a good idea with this system
> and will require a selector valve which adds complexity and the very
> single point of failure you had trouble with before.
>
The mechanical pump becomes the backup. The selector valve is only used
in the event of electric pump failure.
> I wouldn't use this system but it should work. Personally I don't see
> the advantage over the standard mechanical/electric pump with selector
> valve...Unless you intend to use Mogas of course.
>
I don't understand this comment. The advantages would seem to be:
Both tanks feeding for critical flight phases such as takeoff and landing.
No need to use the selector valve except in an emergency.
Could use auto gas if desired.
The whole system would be almost identical to the systems in cert
planes. You would be adding one extra electric fuel pump and gaining
the advantages.
Ed
> Frank
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:30 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the
> fuel system. Just a couple of questions.
>
> I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a
> mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric
> pumps?
>
> Normal Operation:
> Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch).
> One or the other electric pump on to select tank used.
> Tanks switched with the pumps.
>
> Takeoff and landing.
> Same as above but both electric pumps on.
>
> Failures.
> Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel
> is needed.
> Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be
> checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off).
>
> All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the
> electrical system or an electric pump failure.
>
>
> I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light
> twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right
> engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back
> to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I
> wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same
> plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that
> it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the
>
> valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the
> handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily
> the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve
>
> to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane?
> No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I
> liked it immediately.
>
>
> Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
>>
> (Corvallis)"
>
>> Exactly!
>>
>> And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank
>> ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks
>> (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think.
>>
>> The other advantages are...
>>
>>
>> No selector valves to switch.
>> Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel
>> SIMPLE
>> No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and
>> battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup)
>> Plug a fuel filter...Who cares?
>>
>> Downsides
>>
>> Uses more electrical power.
>> Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure
>> mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a
>> radio, tansponder and one fuel pump
>> Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit.
>>
>> Frank
>> RV7a 4 hours
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>
> Dave
>
>> N6030X
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>>
>> -->
>>
>> I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw
>>
> out
>
>> there.
>>
>> In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a
>> NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a
>> software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled
>> everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit
>>
> workload
>
>> part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and
>> bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that
>>
> there
>
>> was a single point of failure that was getting more and more
>>
> overloaded
>
>> with every new complexity: the pilot (me).
>>
>> Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures
>>
> of
>
>> the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel
>> Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing
>> how much fuel is in the tank,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can someone share experience tuning static port? |
On 20 Sep 2006, at 12:22, wrote:
>
> I have a Europa XS Monowheel, it has the static port under the
> wing, it is
> a tube with a closed nylon bullet at the tip, and 2 holes in it a
> bit aft
> of the lead edge of the bullet, 1 vertical and 1 horizontal.
>
> I heard a while back you can tune this static port by installing a
> O-Ring,
> think start point was an inch or so behind the holes in the bullet??
>
> Can someone share experience tuning static port?
>
> How did you determine when it was correct?
>
> What distance was neutral point for O-Ring?
>
> Does moving O-Ring forward from neutral increase static pressure?
>
> What size O-Ring did you use, did size make much a difference, what
> was
> O-Ring made out of and how did you permanent bond in place?
The first step is to do some very careful ground and flight testing
to determine what the current static system errors are, with the
static port as it is now. Then we can figure out whether the static
port is reading too high, or too low, and go through an iterative
process to hopefully improve things. Expect to invest several
flights to gather data for each different configuration tested.
First, you would need to do ground testing to determine the
instrument error in your ASI. You could have an instrument shop do
it, or you could make a water manometer. You also need to do careful
leak checks in the pitot and static systems.
Then, you need to do a bunch of flight tests to determine the error
in the airspeed system. A conventional pitot tube, aligned within
about 15 degrees of the airflow, clear of the boundary layer, clear
of the prop wash, and not in the wake of any obstruction should be
very accurate. Any airspeed error has to be either ASI instrument
error, or due to static system errors. You use the ground test data
to correct for ASI instrument error, and then we can figure out what
the static system error is.
I've got a lot more details on how to do the above ground and flight
testing on my web site. I am also prepared to work with you to help
you analyse the flight test results.
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/phplinks/out.php?&ID=31
An O - ring a bit ahead of the static port should decrease the
pressure sensed at the static port. An O-ring close behind the port
should increase the pressure sensed at the port.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Z-19 based block diagrams |
>
>
>About the battery voltage, I was referring to the case where the alternator
>has died and I'm just trying to get to an airport on battery power.
Okay. I think you'll find it useful to put bounds on "get to the airport".
Too many of our brethren view the situation you've hypothesized as
something that doesn't happen often (it doesn't) but is an emergency
when it does (doesn't have to be) but is almost never covered by a
Plan-B that is both calculated, designed and maintained so that the
event is handled solely as a maintenance issue and not something likely
to upset the wife and kids. They KNEW you were building death trap
when you started the project, let's not prove them right.
>I didn't find Z-19 deficient. Yes, my first diagram is Z-19 with another
>pump added, 4PDT switches instead of 2PDT, and Schottky diodes replacing the
>rectifier bridges. It was just suggested to me that I rethink it. I
>didn't at first, but then I had an epiphany a month or so later, and came up
>with the second block diagram.
>
>In looking at the first diagram again, it does appear that, with the pumps
>switched with dedicated locking SPST switches, I probably don't need the
>4PDT for the pumps circuits, as that just puts 2 switches in series. So
>that really leaves me with a SPST switch for each of; primary & secondary
>fule pump and ECM.
>
>So that leaves the question of "should I have 2 busses with diode bridges on
>the output, or better to go with one engine bus with the diode bridge on the
>input?"
Diodes are more dependable than switches. The idea behind Z-19 as-drawn
was to provide a plan-b for failure of either switch. Going from 2-pole
to 4-pole devices is there wrong direction on the reliability curve.
If I understand your system, you have Z-19 as shown plus an extra pump.
If it were my airplane, I'd simply add a single-pole AUX PUMP switch
to power the rarely (if ever) needed pump. Run it from either battery bus.
You don't need a dual power path for this pump unless you're going for
Part 25 certification where probability and statistical studies are
required to analyze dual failures.
Now, how about pre-flight. Is it harmful to power up the AUX PUMP and
see that it develops pressure before you start the engine? If not,
pre-flight is easy.
This maintains the maximum separation of power paths for necessary
systems by having them come together at the diodes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "r falstad" <bobair8(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | BNC "Blindmate" Coax Connector: More Information |
Folks,
I neglected to include some information in my original post on this.
The "blindmate" connector that Garmin provides for its transponder calls
for a 50 ohm match bushing which goes inside the connector after the
coax cable is soldered up. That is why I can't use a regular BNC
connector.
I also took another look at the instructions. While not absolutely
explicit, I believe the instructions do call for the braid to go inside,
not outside, the connector and for the connector to be heated up to flow
solder between the inside of the connector and the braided shield.
You can read the installation instructions by going to Garmin's web
site, then to "Support", then drilling down to the GTX 320A transponder
and clicking on Installation Manual "Download". The instructions for
the blindmate connector are on document pages/pdf pages 7/11 and 8/12.
Does this additional information trigger any other suggestions? I think
I'll just have to keep applying heat until I "git 'er done".
Best regards,
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Sam, I didn't see it in the 430 manual but on page 5 of the SL40
Installation Manual, it specifically says "for typical installations, the
SL40 requires no external cooling BUT leave a 1/8 to 1/4 inch clearance
between avionics". I would assume that the SL30 puts out more heat and
would be subject to the same clearances. Others mount them metal to metal
and seem to have no problems. Your call ;-)
Bill S
7a Ark
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Marlow
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:16 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin Stack
Can someone with a Garmin stack give me an idea on how much space I need to
allow between units, 340, 430, sl30 ect? I'm thinging maybe the racks can go
metel to metal.
Thanks,
Sam Marlow
RV10 Avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BNC "Blindmate" Coax Connector: More Information |
r falstad wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I neglected to include some information in my original post on this.
> The "blindmate" connector that Garmin provides for its transponder
> calls for a 50 ohm match bushing which goes inside the connector after
> the coax cable is soldered up. That is why I can't use a regular BNC
> connector.
>
> I also took another look at the instructions. While not absolutely
> explicit, I believe the instructions do call for the braid to go
> inside, not outside, the connector and for the connector to be heated
> up to flow solder between the inside of the connector and the braided
> shield.
>
> You can read the installation instructions by going to Garmin's web
> site, then to "Support", then drilling down to the GTX 320A
> transponder and clicking on Installation Manual "Download". The
> instructions for the blindmate connector are on document pages/pdf
> pages 7/11 and 8/12.
>
> Does this additional information trigger any other suggestions? I
> think I'll just have to keep applying heat until I "git 'er done".
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob
Okay, I took a look and the GTX-320A directions are similar to the UPS
SL-70 installation. Again, I don't know the exact dimensions of your
connector but the directions for the SL-70 says to spread the outer
braid and push the coax (center conductor, insulator and inner shield
braid) into the recess with the outer brain formed around the outside of
the entrance, then solder the braid to the connector after soldering the
center conductor to the post. My connector also includes the ferrule
and the matching chunk of metal. The pictures look almost identical
except mine does not mention the ferrule.
Dick Tasker
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary G Brock" <kf4hbd(at)intrstar.net> |
| Subject: | kx 155 remote com and nav |
I am using the approach system fast stack in my rv9a. I have a kx 155 and
like to know how to wire the remote nav and com leads to my yoke that has a
left and right buttom. I have all the wiring from the yoke wired to a
terminal block. Does the leads have to have power to them. The remote will
alllow me to flip/flop the nav and com from the yoke. New to the list.
Thanks Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder "Strobe" Signal |
>
>
>The transponder schematic shows a suppression OUT pin 1 and a EXT. DME
>suppression IN pin 6. Because I do not have a DME I understand that both
>of these pins would be empty. Would this be what the encoder schematic is
>showing as the strobe input? If so then this pin would not be used and
>would be pigtailed to the ground pin.
STROBE input to the encoder is not the same as
blanking or suppression signals exchanged between
Transponders, DME, TCAS, etc.
The strobe input to an encoder is a remnant of
the older transponder technology that requested
altitude data periodically by means of the "strobe"
signal to an encoder. I've not seen this signal used
in along time. I belive you use this pin hanging open
on the encoder if it's not needed. The encoder installation
manual should tell you what to do with the un-needed
signal.
I found a copy of an Ameri-King AK-350 that I used
to sell on Ameri-King's wegsite at:
http://www.ameri-king.com/pdf/9.1.23.pdf
Note that on page 24 of the manual it speaks to
an pulling up on the encoder's strobe signal to
make it active and pulling it down to disable
the encoder. It's probably fitted with an internal
pull-up resistor such that leaving the pin open
makes the encoder active all the time.
Other pages speak to wiring this pin to certain
transponders (all out of production).
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tuning static port? |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Hello Jim
Thx. for the info on static tube. Why did you put your pitot / static on
top of rudder instead of below wing?
I think the reason there are 4 holes on bullet is to net out to static
pressure if not going direct into wind. If lets say slipping to left, the
9 would be high and the 3 would be low, netting to static. Same goes for
climbing.
"How far along are you on your build?"
Started build 06-2003. Getting close to bonding on top, wings complete
except top skins not bonded on, undercarriage in. Panel is populated but
not wired, figure a few more years to go, not including build of long
wings.
Spent better part of a year setting straight unacceptable supplied
components.
N4211W XS Mono/914/Airmaster
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin Stack |
In a message dated 9/20/06 12:21:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net writes:
> Can someone with a Garmin stack give me an idea on how much space I need
> to allow between units, 340, 430, sl30 ect? I'm thinging maybe the racks
> can go metel to metal.
> Thanks,
> Sam Marlow
> RV10 Avionics
========================
Sam:
Nothing is metel to metal, as long as trays are used; you can stack as close
at the trays will allow. For cooling the 340 has a fitting for the cooling
fan hose to connect to. I suspect the other Garmin units do also.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Bob, no laptops in OBAMs? |
Is The Burning Battery Problem Solved?
Never Fear... PRBA Is On The Case
The Portable Rechargeable Battery Association, or PRBA -- did you even know
there was such an organization? -- says all the problems with burning batteries
of late... in their words... most likely relates to aircraft charging systems.
They describe the risk of using batteries -- even those recalled but not yet
returned -- is low, and can be further mitigated by either using the
electronic device on battery power alone, or plugging the device into the aircraft
power system without the battery installed.
Apparently, PRBA told the FAA about the danger of charging batteries inflight
using an aircraft's electrical system almost 10 years ago. In a 1997 letter
sent to the airlines and the FAA, the association highlighted the need for
stable voltage and an instantaneous cut-off system in the event of an over-heat
or
over-charge condition.
Most electronic equipment with rechargeable batteries already employ a
cut-off system, but they might not work if the user replaces the original battery
with one not supplied by the manufacturer... so onboard electrical systems
should have a redundant cut-off capability. They don't.
PRBA stresses that even if a battery does catch fire, UK Civil Aviation
Authority testing has conclusively proven that standard aviation fire extinquishers
can douse the flames.
FMI: http://www.prba.org/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave <dave(at)abrahamson.net> |
My AK350 would not provide data to my GTX330 until I grounded the pin
the AK350 instructions say to ground for a non-strobed transponder.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: tuning static port? |
In a message dated 9/20/06 3:04:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
frank.hinde(at)hp.com writes:
> Why?...Is it certified?.....Turbocharged? High CR?...If you can get your
> CHT's under 350F in normal cruise and a CR of 8.5:1 or lower I can't see
> it would require 100LL?
Why is correct ... They do make 93 & 94 octane MoGas and that works well in
the HC range.
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: Garmin Stack |
In a message dated 9/20/06 12:21:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net writes:
> Can someone with a Garmin stack give me an idea on how much space I need
> to allow between units, 340, 430, sl30 ect? I'm thinging maybe the racks
> can go metel to metal.
> Thanks,
> Sam Marlow
> RV10 Avionics
========================
Sam:
Nothing is metel to metal, as long as trays are used; you can stack as close
as the trays will allow. For cooling the 340 has a fitting for the cooling
fan hose to connect to. I suspect the other Garmin units do also.
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> |
>
>My AK350 would not provide data to my GTX330 until I grounded the pin the
>AK350 instructions say to ground for a non-strobed transponder.
Thank you for jumping in here Dave! It's been a long
time since I've built a T2000/AK350 harness so when
I went to the instruction manual last night I just
searched the .pdf for "strobe" and the program jumped
to page 24 where I read:
------------------
"The Altitude Reporter AK-350 is remote mounted equipment
that is fully automatic in operation. The companion
ATC transponder normally controls the operation of hte
Altitude Reporter by automatically enabling or disabling
its operation.
This is done by pulling-up to logic LOW (to enable)
or pulling-down to logic HIGH (to disable) the STROBE
(pin 6) line of the Altitude Reporter."
------------------
Hmmm . . . NORMALLY in electro-speak, one pulls a line
DOWN for logic LO and pulls UP for logic HI. I stumbled
over the words in the paragraph and then recalled that
in some interface wiring, inverting buffers are used
between internal electronics and outside world wiring.
Outside the box, logic LO is in fact a higher voltage
than logic HI which is ground.
So, I sailed around what appeared to be a rational
condition. Now, as Dave has suggested, the WIRING
DIAGRAMS earlier in the manual are quite specific for
treatment of the STROBE line when the companion
transponder doesn't need it: the line is firmly attached
to ground.
I do recall now that when I was selling the T2000
MicroAir and associated harness to mate with the AK350,
the pink wire in the harness was paired with the
ground wire to the transponder.
It's always helpful to have more than one head pondering
meanings to at least raise valid questions if not
point out blatant errors. Had I reached past the search
engine and reviewed the wiring diagrams, the error of
my earlier understanding would have been obvious.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is a micro-example of
a good critical design review. Understanding of words,
and ordinary errors can be impediments to progress.
Dave gets the "Atta Boy" nod for the day.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bob, no laptops in OBAMs? |
>
>Is The Burning Battery Problem Solved?
>
>
>Never Fear... PRBA Is On The Case
>
>
>The Portable Rechargeable Battery Association, or PRBA -- did you even
>know there was such an organization? -- says all the problems with burning
>batteries of late... in their words... most likely relates to aircraft
>charging systems.
Except that batteries have caught fire sitting on tables
at electronic products expos. I've heard of one case (but
haven't located a learned narrative) of a computer "burning"
in the overhead compartment of a passenger transport aircraft.
Now, this might have been another kind of failure that caused
the battery to supply energy to smoke other components in the
computer. Given that the world's attention is focused on
battery failures, every instance of smoke from a computer is
likely to be attributed to "battery failure" . . .
>They describe the risk of using batteries -- even those recalled but not
>yet returned -- is low, and can be further mitigated by either using the
>electronic device on battery power alone, or plugging the device into the
>aircraft power system without the battery installed.
Correct. Documented catastrophic failures of batteries I've read
said the batteries were on-charge at the time.
>Apparently, PRBA told the FAA about the danger of charging batteries
>inflight using an aircraft's electrical system almost 10 years ago. In a
>1997 letter sent to the airlines and the FAA, the association highlighted
>the need for stable voltage and an instantaneous cut-off system in the
>event of an over-heat or over-charge condition.
This pre-supposes that the aircraft energy source for battery
charging (typically 19v DC) is somehow different than the
AC Mains charging source . . .
>Most electronic equipment with rechargeable batteries already employ a
>cut-off system, but they might not work if the user replaces the original
>battery with one not supplied by the manufacturer... so onboard electrical
>systems should have a redundant cut-off capability. They don't.
Not sure what this would be. The AC Mains power supplies for laptops
are little switchmode power supplies that produce some lower level
DC, typically 16-20 volts at a couple of amps. The wires comiing out
of the power supplies on every computer I've owned was a simple (+) and
(-) DC power . . . no third wire to exchange any sort or intelligence
between computer mounted battery and the external power supply.
It's true that most if not all new products are fitted with "smart
batteries" . . . they have a microcontroller in the battery to
track incoming and outgoing power and convert the data to state
of charge information for the computer's on-board power supply and
charging circuits. Hence one will observe that battery packs for
their modern portables have multi-pin conntectors for the purpose
of exchanging both DC power and intelligence about battery management.
>PRBA stresses that even if a battery does catch fire, UK Civil Aviation
>Authority testing has conclusively proven that standard aviation fire
>extinquishers can douse the flames.
That's a comfort. Does anyone carry a "standard aviation fire
extinguisher" in their airplane?
The risks are quite low. The infamous failed batteries are of a unique
Li-Ion technology particularly vulnerable to the failure mode
being examined. I'm working with Concorde and others to evaluate
the potential future of Li-Ion batteries in aircraft. I've proposed
a battery test program (in my van with a 24/7 DAS recording
temperature, input/output current and voltage) to see how hard
it is to 'beat up' a small array of Li-Ion cells.
In the mean time, I'll suggest that use of a lap-top aboard
passenger transport aircraft offers a unique hazard: When
the passenger in front of you reclines the seat, you're
in danger of injury to the diaphragm if not asphyxiation
by crushing. My lap-tops stay in the overhead and I do my
writing with a theme-book and pencil.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: kx 155 remote com and nav |
>
>I am using the approach system fast stack in my rv9a. I have a kx 155 and
>like to know how to wire the remote nav and com leads to my yoke that has a
>left and right buttom. I have all the wiring from the yoke wired to a
>terminal block. Does the leads have to have power to them. The remote will
>alllow me to flip/flop the nav and com from the yoke. New to the list.
The wiring diagrams for your radios will define how remote switches
are configured. They're generally a momentary grounding signal (push-
button) used to toggle the frequency in use. The MicroAir 760VHF
would step through a memory array of about 10 frequencies in response
to momentary closures of the push button.
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: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Looking for a switch |
I'm looking for a locking type switch to be used to control 2 positions on a
fuel pump (low boost and high boost). I need the configuration to support
the down position to be off, the middle to be low boost on, and the top
position to be high boost on, with a lockout between low and high boost.
I've done a bit of searching, but so far, haven't been able to find what I
need. Hoping someone here might have seen what I've described. I had
originally thot of using an S700-2-50 as I thought I only needed high boost
for prime. However, in talking with other pilots, it now has come to my
attention that High boost needs to be switchable in the event of engine
driven fuel pump failure and can't simply be momentary. The reason I can't
use a 3 position without lockout, is that low boost is normally switched on
at or above 10K and if you accidentally switched to high boost, you'd drown
the engine.
Any help would be appreciated.... In the morass of switches that exist, even
a good source of a manufacturer and I'll do the leg work would be helpful.
Thanks in advance,
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | OldBob Siegfried <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a switch |
Good Morning Alan,
Once again, I am probably venturing where my knowledge
is insufficient, but here goes any way!
What engine are you running?
We often have high and low boost pump positions on our
fuel injected Continental engines. It is true that
high boost will kill an engine being operated at low
power, but if the throttle is wide open and the RPM
good and high, high boost may not even be noticed!
The fuel pressures are not additive. The boost pump
only puts out a bit more pressure than the engine pump
does at high power. In some cases, it is even a bit
less, though still adequate to operate the engine at
full power in the case of an engine driven pump
failure. If you are operating at normal cruise powers
and the high boost is selected, the engine may get a
bit rough, but the power loss will be minimal and the
roughness will get your attention in plenty of time to
take corrective action. Personally, on the Continental
fuel injection system, I see no problem with
nonlocking switches for the boost pump.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, IL
LL22
--- "Alan K. Adamson" wrote:
> Adamson"
>
> I'm looking for a locking type switch to be used to
> control 2 positions on a
> fuel pump (low boost and high boost). I need the
> configuration to support
> the down position to be off, the middle to be low
> boost on, and the top
> position to be high boost on, with a lockout between
> low and high boost.
>
> I've done a bit of searching, but so far, haven't
> been able to find what I
> need. Hoping someone here might have seen what I've
> described. I had
> originally thot of using an S700-2-50 as I thought I
> only needed high boost
> for prime. However, in talking with other pilots,
> it now has come to my
> attention that High boost needs to be switchable in
> the event of engine
> driven fuel pump failure and can't simply be
> momentary. The reason I can't
> use a 3 position without lockout, is that low boost
> is normally switched on
> at or above 10K and if you accidentally switched to
> high boost, you'd drown
> the engine.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.... In the morass of
> switches that exist, even
> a good source of a manufacturer and I'll do the leg
> work would be helpful.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Looking for a switch |
In doing some more research, it looks like EATON may have what I need...
Anyone know of a EATON reseller? They make the MilSpec version and a
regular version. The Milspec is an MS27408-4M - the M is the designator for
the right type of lockout. Or the regular version looks like an 8537k14m.
As a reference, here are their switches.
http://aerospace.eaton.com/pdfs/power/Switch_Catalog_With_Cover.pdf
If anyone has any further info, it would be helpful.
Thanks,
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan K.
Adamson
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:40 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Looking for a switch
-->
I'm looking for a locking type switch to be used to control 2 positions on a
fuel pump (low boost and high boost). I need the configuration to support
the down position to be off, the middle to be low boost on, and the top
position to be high boost on, with a lockout between low and high boost.
I've done a bit of searching, but so far, haven't been able to find what I
need. Hoping someone here might have seen what I've described. I had
originally thot of using an S700-2-50 as I thought I only needed high boost
for prime. However, in talking with other pilots, it now has come to my
attention that High boost needs to be switchable in the event of engine
driven fuel pump failure and can't simply be momentary. The reason I can't
use a 3 position without lockout, is that low boost is normally switched on
at or above 10K and if you accidentally switched to high boost, you'd drown
the engine.
Any help would be appreciated.... In the morass of switches that exist, even
a good source of a manufacturer and I'll do the leg work would be helpful.
Thanks in advance,
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a switch |
How about a 5 position rotary that you have to "accidentally" twist
past 2 unused positions to get to high?
Dave
At 09:40 AM 9/21/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>I'm looking for a locking type switch to be used to control 2 positions on a
>fuel pump (low boost and high boost). I need the configuration to support
>the down position to be off, the middle to be low boost on, and the top
>position to be high boost on, with a lockout between low and high boost.
>
>I've done a bit of searching, but so far, haven't been able to find what I
>need. Hoping someone here might have seen what I've described. I had
>originally thot of using an S700-2-50 as I thought I only needed high boost
>for prime. However, in talking with other pilots, it now has come to my
>attention that High boost needs to be switchable in the event of engine
>driven fuel pump failure and can't simply be momentary. The reason I can't
>use a 3 position without lockout, is that low boost is normally switched on
>at or above 10K and if you accidentally switched to high boost, you'd drown
>the engine.
>
>Any help would be appreciated.... In the morass of switches that exist, even
>a good source of a manufacturer and I'll do the leg work would be helpful.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Alan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a switch |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
The ON-ON-ON type of switch is the toughest to get without $pecial order
- except for the S-10 from B&C which doesn't have locking.
The most reasonably priced (~$12) locking switches I've found are the
NKK S series - available from Digikey and Mouser.
It's not what you want, but if you can live with an On-Off-On locking
switch (S3AL), Digikey has some in stock:
http://www.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?Ref=162095&Row
136164&Site=US
NKK Datasheet:
http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/NKK%20Switches/Web%20Data/SSeriesToggles
MedCap.pdf
I've looked into locking switches a fair amount, and suspect to get
exactly what you want will probably cost north of $40 (probably over
50), and require a few months on a special order. The good news is that
you'd be able to order locking to do what I think you want (no lock from
Off to On - lock from On to Hi).
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A - Finishing kit
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a switch |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
> Personally, on the Continental
> fuel injection system, I see no problem with
> nonlocking switches for the boost pump.
I know my Bellanca Viking doesn't have a locking switch and,
personally, wouldn't want one. Momentary inattention, and then
the sputter of fuel exhaustion, prompts a quick stab at the low
boost switch after switching tanks.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
| Subject: | Odd advertisement.... |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
An e-mail advertisement received from Acft Spruce.....
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"First-Class Travel for Your Plane"
If youre going to fly - look good doing it!
Now, finally available for your personal plane - the same
specialty paint used by major airlines, the Patriot Missile project,
the Space Shuttle Challenger project, the RAM Missile, and the
Stealth Bomber.
Unsurpassed beauty, protection and performance are available
for your plane.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let's see.....anyone care what paint is used on a missle and just
how long will one have to admire it? The Challenger shuttle?
Duh! And I wonder just how much of that paint was used on the
B-2...either you can't get the exterior "paint" or it's used internally
where you can't see it.
Copy-writers....gotta wonder sometimes.....
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Looking for a switch |
I did a lot of looking at switches when I was doing my wiring layout (see
prev emails about Z-19). I found a good selection of Honeywell and Eaton
switches at Allied. http://alliedelec.com I saved the PDF catalogs for
both brands & will send them to you
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Alan K.
Adamson
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Looking for a switch
In doing some more research, it looks like EATON may have what I need...
Anyone know of a EATON reseller? They make the MilSpec version and a
regular version. The Milspec is an MS27408-4M - the M is the designator for
the right type of lockout. Or the regular version looks like an 8537k14m.
As a reference, here are their switches.
http://aerospace.eaton.com/pdfs/power/Switch_Catalog_With_Cover.pdf
If anyone has any further info, it would be helpful.
Thanks,
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan K.
Adamson
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:40 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Looking for a switch
-->
I'm looking for a locking type switch to be used to control 2 positions on a
fuel pump (low boost and high boost). I need the configuration to support
the down position to be off, the middle to be low boost on, and the top
position to be high boost on, with a lockout between low and high boost.
I've done a bit of searching, but so far, haven't been able to find what I
need. Hoping someone here might have seen what I've described. I had
originally thot of using an S700-2-50 as I thought I only needed high boost
for prime. However, in talking with other pilots, it now has come to my
attention that High boost needs to be switchable in the event of engine
driven fuel pump failure and can't simply be momentary. The reason I can't
use a 3 position without lockout, is that low boost is normally switched on
at or above 10K and if you accidentally switched to high boost, you'd drown
the engine.
Any help would be appreciated.... In the morass of switches that exist, even
a good source of a manufacturer and I'll do the leg work would be helpful.
Thanks in advance,
Alan
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Looking for a switch |
You might also consider a separate switch for the high boost
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Alan K.
Adamson
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:40 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Looking for a switch
I'm looking for a locking type switch to be used to control 2 positions on a
fuel pump (low boost and high boost). I need the configuration to support
the down position to be off, the middle to be low boost on, and the top
position to be high boost on, with a lockout between low and high boost.
I've done a bit of searching, but so far, haven't been able to find what I
need. Hoping someone here might have seen what I've described. I had
originally thot of using an S700-2-50 as I thought I only needed high boost
for prime. However, in talking with other pilots, it now has come to my
attention that High boost needs to be switchable in the event of engine
driven fuel pump failure and can't simply be momentary. The reason I can't
use a 3 position without lockout, is that low boost is normally switched on
at or above 10K and if you accidentally switched to high boost, you'd drown
the engine.
Any help would be appreciated.... In the morass of switches that exist, even
a good source of a manufacturer and I'll do the leg work would be helpful.
Thanks in advance,
Alan
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a switch |
Whenever I find myself looking for some kind of rare device, or
putting something into the aircraft that nobody else seems to be
putting in theirs, or looking for a very pricey component, I stop and
ask myself, is this really necessary, or have I just designed
something that is totally overkill? Is there a reason why nobody
else is doing it this way? Am I really this far on the leading edge
or have I made a booboo?
Dave Morris
At 10:50 AM 9/21/2006, you wrote:
>The ON-ON-ON type of switch is the toughest to get without $pecial
>order - except for the S-10 from B&C which doesn't have locking.
>
>The most reasonably priced (~$12) locking switches I've found are
>the NKK S series - available from Digikey and Mouser.
>
>It's not what you want, but if you can live with an On-Off-On
>locking switch (S3AL), Digikey has some in stock:
><http://www.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?Ref=162095&Row=136164&Site=US>http://www.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?Ref=162095&Row=136164&Site=US
>
>
>NKK Datasheet:
><http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/NKK%20Switches/Web%20Data/SSeriesTogglesMedCap.pdf>http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/NKK%20Switches/Web%20Data/SSeriesTogglesMedCap.pdf
>
>
>I've looked into locking switches a fair amount, and suspect to get
>exactly what you want will probably cost north of $40 (probably over
>50), and require a few months on a special order. The good news is
>that you'd be able to order locking to do what I think you want (no
>lock from Off to On - lock from On to Hi).
>
>Dennis Glaeser
>RV7A - Finishing kit
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a switch |
Alan,
The functionality you're asking for is provided by a
Microswitch 2TL1-10N or 2TL-10L (either locking option
will work, you just need to re-wire). These translate to
MS27408-4N and MS27408-4L.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/tl_series.pdf
Having said that, I agree with Bob's suggestion that you
investigate the real risks for inadvertent positioning
of the boost pump switch. I've flown a number of aircraft
with OFF-LO-HI boost switches . . . none of them offered
any sort of "lockout" provisions.
These switches will not be easy to find . . . they're not
a common catalog item.
Bob . . .
>
>
>Good Morning Alan,
>
>Once again, I am probably venturing where my knowledge
>is insufficient, but here goes any way!
>
>What engine are you running?
>
>We often have high and low boost pump positions on our
>fuel injected Continental engines. It is true that
>high boost will kill an engine being operated at low
>power, but if the throttle is wide open and the RPM
>good and high, high boost may not even be noticed!
>
>The fuel pressures are not additive. The boost pump
>only puts out a bit more pressure than the engine pump
>does at high power. In some cases, it is even a bit
>less, though still adequate to operate the engine at
>full power in the case of an engine driven pump
>failure. If you are operating at normal cruise powers
>and the high boost is selected, the engine may get a
>bit rough, but the power loss will be minimal and the
>roughness will get your attention in plenty of time to
>take corrective action. Personally, on the Continental
>fuel injection system, I see no problem with
>nonlocking switches for the boost pump.
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>AKA
>Bob Siegfried
>Stearman N3977A
>Downers Grove, IL
>LL22
>
>--- "Alan K. Adamson" wrote:
>
> > Adamson"
> >
> > I'm looking for a locking type switch to be used to
> > control 2 positions on a
> > fuel pump (low boost and high boost). I need the
> > configuration to support
> > the down position to be off, the middle to be low
> > boost on, and the top
> > position to be high boost on, with a lockout between
> > low and high boost.
> >
> > I've done a bit of searching, but so far, haven't
> > been able to find what I
> > need. Hoping someone here might have seen what I've
> > described. I had
> > originally thot of using an S700-2-50 as I thought I
> > only needed high boost
> > for prime. However, in talking with other pilots,
> > it now has come to my
> > attention that High boost needs to be switchable in
> > the event of engine
> > driven fuel pump failure and can't simply be
> > momentary. The reason I can't
> > use a 3 position without lockout, is that low boost
> > is normally switched on
> > at or above 10K and if you accidentally switched to
> > high boost, you'd drown
> > the engine.
> >
> > Any help would be appreciated.... In the morass of
> > switches that exist, even
> > a good source of a manufacturer and I'll do the leg
> > work would be helpful.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >
> > Web Forums!
> >
> >
> > Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- 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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bob, no laptops in OBAMs? |
>
>Is The Burning Battery Problem Solved?
>
>
>Never Fear... PRBA Is On The Case
>
>
>The Portable Rechargeable Battery Association, or PRBA -- did you even
>know there was such an organization? -- says all the problems with burning
>batteries of late... in their words... most likely relates to aircraft
>charging systems.
Except that batteries have caught fire sitting on tables
at electronic products expos. I've heard of one case (but
haven't located a learned narrative) of a computer "burning"
in the overhead compartment of a passenger transport aircraft.
Now, this might have been another kind of failure that caused
the battery to supply energy to smoke other components in the
computer. Given that the world's attention is focused on
battery failures, every instance of smoke from a computer is
likely to be attributed to "battery failure" . . .
>They describe the risk of using batteries -- even those recalled but not
>yet returned -- is low, and can be further mitigated by either using the
>electronic device on battery power alone, or plugging the device into the
>aircraft power system without the battery installed.
Correct. Documented catastrophic failures of batteries I've read
said the batteries were on-charge at the time.
>Apparently, PRBA told the FAA about the danger of charging batteries
>inflight using an aircraft's electrical system almost 10 years ago. In a
>1997 letter sent to the airlines and the FAA, the association highlighted
>the need for stable voltage and an instantaneous cut-off system in the
>event of an over-heat or over-charge condition.
This pre-supposes that the aircraft energy source for battery
charging (typically 19v DC) is somehow different than the
AC Mains charging source . . .
>Most electronic equipment with rechargeable batteries already employ a
>cut-off system, but they might not work if the user replaces the original
>battery with one not supplied by the manufacturer... so onboard electrical
>systems should have a redundant cut-off capability. They don't.
Not sure what this would be. The AC Mains power supplies for laptops
are little switchmode power supplies that produce some lower level
DC, typically 16-20 volts at a couple of amps. The wires comiing out
of the power supplies on every computer I've owned was a simple (+) and
(-) DC power . . . no third wire to exchange any sort or intelligence
between computer mounted battery and the external power supply.
It's true that most if not all new products are fitted with "smart
batteries" . . . they have a microcontroller in the battery to
track incoming and outgoing power and convert the data to state
of charge information for the computer's on-board power supply and
charging circuits. Hence one will observe that battery packs for
their modern portables have multi-pin conntectors for the purpose
of exchanging both DC power and intelligence about battery management.
>PRBA stresses that even if a battery does catch fire, UK Civil Aviation
>Authority testing has conclusively proven that standard aviation fire
>extinquishers can douse the flames.
That's a comfort. Does anyone carry a "standard aviation fire
extinguisher" in their airplane?
The risks are quite low. The infamous failed batteries are of a unique
Li-Ion technology particularly vulnerable to the failure mode
being examined. I'm working with Concorde and others to evaluate
the potential future of Li-Ion batteries in aircraft. I've proposed
a battery test program (in my van with a 24/7 DAS recording
temperature, input/output current and voltage) to see how hard
it is to 'beat up' a small array of Li-Ion cells.
In the mean time, I'll suggest that use of a lap-top aboard
passenger transport aircraft offers a unique hazard: When
the passenger in front of you reclines the seat, you're
in danger of injury to the diaphragm if not asphyxiation
by crushing. My lap-tops stay in the overhead and I do my
writing with a theme-book and pencil.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>My AK350 would not provide data to my GTX330 until I grounded the pin the
>AK350 instructions say to ground for a non-strobed transponder.
Thank you for jumping in here Dave! It's been a long
time since I've built a T2000/AK350 harness so when
I went to the instruction manual last night I just
searched the .pdf for "strobe" and the program jumped
to page 24 where I read:
------------------
"The Altitude Reporter AK-350 is remote mounted equipment
that is fully automatic in operation. The companion
ATC transponder normally controls the operation of hte
Altitude Reporter by automatically enabling or disabling
its operation.
This is done by pulling-up to logic LOW (to enable)
or pulling-down to logic HIGH (to disable) the STROBE
(pin 6) line of the Altitude Reporter."
------------------
Hmmm . . . NORMALLY in electro-speak, one pulls a line
DOWN for logic LO and pulls UP for logic HI. I stumbled
over the words in the paragraph and then recalled that
in some interface wiring, inverting buffers are used
between internal electronics and outside world wiring.
Outside the box, logic LO is in fact a higher voltage
than logic HI which is ground.
So, I sailed around what appeared to be a rational
condition. Now, as Dave has suggested, the WIRING
DIAGRAMS earlier in the manual are quite specific for
treatment of the STROBE line when the companion
transponder doesn't need it: the line is firmly attached
to ground.
I do recall now that when I was selling the T2000
MicroAir and associated harness to mate with the AK350,
the pink wire in the harness was paired with the
ground wire to the transponder.
It's always helpful to have more than one head pondering
meanings to at least raise valid questions if not
point out blatant errors. Had I reached past the search
engine and reviewed the wiring diagrams, the error of
my earlier understanding would have been obvious.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is a micro-example of
a good critical design review. Understanding of words,
and ordinary errors can be impediments to progress.
Dave gets the "Atta Boy" nod for the day.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: kx 155 remote com and nav |
>
>I am using the approach system fast stack in my rv9a. I have a kx 155 and
>like to know how to wire the remote nav and com leads to my yoke that has a
>left and right buttom. I have all the wiring from the yoke wired to a
>terminal block. Does the leads have to have power to them. The remote will
>alllow me to flip/flop the nav and com from the yoke. New to the list.
The wiring diagrams for your radios will define how remote switches
are configured. They're generally a momentary grounding signal (push-
button) used to toggle the frequency in use. The MicroAir 760VHF
would step through a memory array of about 10 frequencies in response
to momentary closures of the push button.
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: kx 155 remote com and nav |
>
>I am using the approach system fast stack in my rv9a. I have a kx 155 and
>like to know how to wire the remote nav and com leads to my yoke that has a
>left and right buttom. I have all the wiring from the yoke wired to a
>terminal block. Does the leads have to have power to them. The remote will
>alllow me to flip/flop the nav and com from the yoke. New to the list.
>Thanks Gary
I see that my earlier reply was incomplete. When you're dealing
with pre-fab harnesses, what you see is what you get. The
instructions for the Approach System j-box should tell you if
they bring remote switch options out to a connector dedicated
to that purpose.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator drive stand is coming home . . . |
Unless the present owner determines that the motor supplied
on the drive stand cannot be wired for 208-3ph power, he'll
be loading the ol' beast on a trailer to drop off in my
driveway this coming weekend.
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: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Looking for a switch |
Thanks Bob, Glad we think alike... I may have described it slightly wrong,
but you were in the ball park.
I'd need either a 2TL1-10M or 2TL1-10P which translate to the MS27408-4M or
-4P.
I actually found one and they are pretty pricy at $65 ea!. However, before
I go there, I'm gonna just try an ON-ON-ON from B&C and see if I can live
with "brain power" lockout. If I have a problem, I'll get the "expensive"
switch.
As to the "why am I doing this this way" question. Most wire two switches,
but in asking around, I could find no other reason for High Boost than
prime, so I was going to go with the ON-ON-(ON). This is on a Cont IO-550
and some suggest that going to high boost on accident will flood out the
engine. But then again, other suggest it wont.
Either way, I went with one switch position instead of two thinking I was
smarter than most and saving the panel space. Perhaps, that bit me in the
bottom....
Oh, well, thanks all for the links, help and suggestions. I believe I've
got a handle on this now.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Looking for a switch
-->
Alan,
The functionality you're asking for is provided by a Microswitch 2TL1-10N or
2TL-10L (either locking option will work, you just need to re-wire). These
translate to MS27408-4N and MS27408-4L.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/tl_series.pdf
Having said that, I agree with Bob's suggestion that you investigate the
real risks for inadvertent positioning of the boost pump switch. I've flown
a number of aircraft with OFF-LO-HI boost switches . . . none of them
offered any sort of "lockout" provisions.
These switches will not be easy to find . . . they're not a common catalog
item.
Bob . . .
>
>
>Good Morning Alan,
>
>Once again, I am probably venturing where my knowledge is insufficient,
>but here goes any way!
>
>What engine are you running?
>
>We often have high and low boost pump positions on our fuel injected
>Continental engines. It is true that high boost will kill an engine
>being operated at low power, but if the throttle is wide open and the
>RPM good and high, high boost may not even be noticed!
>
>The fuel pressures are not additive. The boost pump only puts out a bit
>more pressure than the engine pump does at high power. In some cases,
>it is even a bit less, though still adequate to operate the engine at
>full power in the case of an engine driven pump failure. If you are
>operating at normal cruise powers and the high boost is selected, the
>engine may get a bit rough, but the power loss will be minimal and the
>roughness will get your attention in plenty of time to take corrective
>action. Personally, on the Continental fuel injection system, I see no
>problem with nonlocking switches for the boost pump.
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>AKA
>Bob Siegfried
>Stearman N3977A
>Downers Grove, IL
>LL22
>
>--- "Alan K. Adamson" wrote:
>
> > Adamson"
> >
> > I'm looking for a locking type switch to be used to control 2
> > positions on a fuel pump (low boost and high boost). I need the
> > configuration to support the down position to be off, the middle to
> > be low boost on, and the top position to be high boost on, with a
> > lockout between low and high boost.
> >
> > I've done a bit of searching, but so far, haven't been able to find
> > what I need. Hoping someone here might have seen what I've
> > described. I had originally thot of using an S700-2-50 as I thought
> > I only needed high boost for prime. However, in talking with other
> > pilots, it now has come to my attention that High boost needs to be
> > switchable in the event of engine driven fuel pump failure and can't
> > simply be momentary. The reason I can't use a 3 position without
> > lockout, is that low boost is normally switched on at or above 10K
> > and if you accidentally switched to high boost, you'd drown the
> > engine.
> >
> > Any help would be appreciated.... In the morass of switches that
> > exist, even a good source of a manufacturer and I'll do the leg work
> > would be helpful.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >
> > Web Forums!
> >
> >
> > Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- 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: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL |
9/21/2006
Hello Fellow Builders, The aeroelectric list digest for 9/20/2006 contained
several postings on the subject of using mogas versus 100 LL.
Most of these messages just focused on the effect the two different fuels
would have on the engine performance.
I suggest that builders keep in mind the possible effects, some very
adverse, that mogas and unknown chemicals mixed into mogas, not just
ethanol, may have on their aircraft's entire fuel system. Seals, hoses,
tanks and elastomers may suffer.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McMahon" <blackoaks(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a switch |
Or maybe a 1/2" length of a small brass hinge above the switch that must be
lifted to allow you to select the Hi boost position.... Not elecgant but
not $65 either..... My .02
>
> If anyone has any further info, it would be helpful.
>
> Thanks,
> Alan
>
>
--
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, N9637M
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McMahon" <blackoaks(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a switch |
Neither is my spelling!
On 9/21/06, John McMahon wrote:
>
> Or maybe a 1/2" length of a small brass hinge above the switch that must
> be lifted to allow you to select the Hi boost position.... Not elegant but
> not $65 either..... My .02
>
>
> >
> > If anyone has any further info, it would be helpful.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> John McMahon
> Lancair Super ES, N9637M
--
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, N9637M
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Octane rating is not the only thing one needs to be concerned with when it
comes to fuel. I don't know the technocrat term for it, but the speed at
which the fuel burns is a definite concern. On huge displacement engines
turning low RPMs, if you were to use a racing fuel designed for high RPM
engines of the same octane you would most like run into problems. From
what the locals at the airport say, high octane mogas should not be used
in a O-540s because it burns too fast, and since the cylinders are the
same as a O-360??
On the other hand, using 100LL that is a slow burning fuel used in a 73CC
22HP (well over 11K) Yamaha YZ 80 engine that is in my self retrieving
balloon kills performance and probably raises EGT to disheartening levels.
On Rotax 4 strokes you can use 100LL, but it does raise the EGTs because
it burns slower than high octane mogas, and some of that burn makes its
way into the exhaust.
A old timer said on old auto engines that didn't use aluminium pistons,
used to loosen the distributor, and run up the engine and begin retarding
the ignition, he said he would get the exhaust glowing, hence carbon would
be burned off. Slow burning fuel does the same in a engine designed for
fast burning fuel.
Using a fast burning fuel in a engine designed for a slow burning fuel can
cause detonation. Detonation raises temperatures, let it go and God forbid
pre-ignition begins to occur.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PWilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can someone share experience tuning static port? |
My fluids book uses a static probe for wind tunnel testing that has
multiple holes. This allows the pitot/static unit to operate with
better accuracy at various angles to the wind stream. Like 10 holes.
The book also specifies the diameter. No suggestion for o-ring to be accurate.
Regards. Paul
===============
At 10:22 AM 9/20/2006, you wrote:
>
>I have a Europa XS Monowheel, it has the static port under the wing, it is
>a tube with a closed nylon bullet at the tip, and 2 holes in it a bit aft
>of the lead edge of the bullet, 1 vertical and 1 horizontal.
>
>I heard a while back you can tune this static port by installing a O-Ring,
>think start point was an inch or so behind the holes in the bullet??
>
>Can someone share experience tuning static port?
>
>How did you determine when it was correct?
>
>What distance was neutral point for O-Ring?
>
>Does moving O-Ring forward from neutral increase static pressure?
>
>What size O-Ring did you use, did size make much a difference, what was
>O-Ring made out of and how did you permanent bond in place?
>
>Thx.
>Ron Parigoris
>
>(I posted to Europa group, no replies)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL |
I was riding across the Arizona desert on I-10 one night some years back
and pulled up alongside a guy riding an old BSA single who's exhaust
pipe was glowing red. I pointed and gestured until he pulled over
whereupon he told me not to worry - he was just running kerosene in it
'cos it was cheaper. He had a small tank with gas in it that he used for
starting and acceleration. I don't know if he messed with the timing to
make it run, but run it did. I decided not to try it in my Z1.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
A old timer said on old auto engines that didn't use aluminium pistons,
used to loosen the distributor, and run up the engine and begin
retarding
the ignition, he said he would get the exhaust glowing, hence carbon
would
be burned off. Slow burning fuel does the same in a engine designed for
fast burning fuel.
Using a fast burning fuel in a engine designed for a slow burning fuel
can
cause detonation. Detonation raises temperatures, let it go and God
forbid
pre-ignition begins to occur.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can someone share experience tuning static port? |
If the static port was installed well away from the airframe, so it
was actually sensing the free stream static pressure, if probably
would be quite accurate. But, the original poster is putting the
static port near the wing. Wings by design cause an increase in
pressure below them, and a decrease in pressure above them. It is
very difficult to find a location near a wing where a static port
will read correctly over the whole range of airspeeds and flap
angles. Thus the desire to tune the static port with O-rings.
Kevin Horton
On 21 Sep 2006, at 23:59, PWilson wrote:
>
> My fluids book uses a static probe for wind tunnel testing that has
> multiple holes. This allows the pitot/static unit to operate with
> better accuracy at various angles to the wind stream. Like 10
> holes. The book also specifies the diameter. No suggestion for o-
> ring to be accurate.
> Regards. Paul
> ===============
>
> At 10:22 AM 9/20/2006, you wrote:
>>
>> I have a Europa XS Monowheel, it has the static port under the
>> wing, it is
>> a tube with a closed nylon bullet at the tip, and 2 holes in it a
>> bit aft
>> of the lead edge of the bullet, 1 vertical and 1 horizontal.
>>
>> I heard a while back you can tune this static port by installing a
>> O-Ring,
>> think start point was an inch or so behind the holes in the bullet??
>>
>> Can someone share experience tuning static port?
>>
>> How did you determine when it was correct?
>>
>> What distance was neutral point for O-Ring?
>>
>> Does moving O-Ring forward from neutral increase static pressure?
>>
>> What size O-Ring did you use, did size make much a difference,
>> what was
>> O-Ring made out of and how did you permanent bond in place?
>>
>> Thx.
>> Ron Parigoris
>>
>> (I posted to Europa group, no replies)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave <dave(at)abrahamson.net> |
Glad my one cent was useful to someone. Just to highlight the fact
that this great list includes the illuminati of electronics as well
as the cretini of homebuilding (me) -- and for TGIF comic relief, it
may be worth detailing my thought process regarding the strobe wiring
in a few sentences. Not knowing, and continually forgetting to ask
whether the GTX330 is a strobe/non-strobe type xponder, I went with
the seems-reasonable-to-me approach and picked the AK350 wiring
diagram (p.8A) that left pin 6 (strobe) unconnected. Later, seeing
that no altitude was being reported, and after checking that all the
A, B, and C wires were connected correctly, I figured the last
possible step was to connect the strobe wire to ground, as indicated
in the non-strobe version of p.8A's diagram. I figured it would
either work, or a puff of acrid smoke would emanate from the box and
I'd be out $150, which compared to the total cost of the airplane
would be an acceptable loss. So, that's how the mind of this
OBAM-building monkey worked in this case and no, this anecdote is not
indicative of my aeronautical decision making.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL |
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
Ron:
STOP talking to those "locals at the airport". They don't know what they are
talking about and you are propagating a HUGE misconception.
"I don't know the technocrat term for it, but the speed at which the fuel
burns is a definite concern." That elusive term you don't know is called
OCTANE! And we are not talking about "Racing Fuels" ... Which some ARE ALCOHOL.
And from watching your Tach you should realize that the Lycoming and
Continental engines are NOT high RPM engines. They Red Line around 2700 RPM.
And to correct the other huge misconception you are spouting, " high octane
MoGas should not be used in a O-540s because it burns too fast" ... BULL DINKY!
The Higher the Octane the SLOWER the gas burns. I think that was covered in
primary flight training and I know it is covered in the 'P' training of A&P.
SO! Ron, and readers of Ron, do your homework. "Do not believe anything you
see and only half of what you read". Better yet, don't even believe me ... Do
Your Homework!
I HATE THE INTERNET
And hate is not a strong enough word. At the speed of an electron BS can be
spread all around the world. And remember BS is a fertilizer, some times it
does good but MOST of the time over the Internet it does bad.
There is a saying that goes: "If you say it long enough and loud enough even
a lie becomes true."
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
=======================================
In a message dated 9/21/06 11:27:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US writes:
> Octane rating is not the only thing one needs to be concerned with when it
> comes to fuel. I don't know the technocrat term for it, but the speed at
> which the fuel burns is a definite concern. On huge displacement engines
> turning low RPMs, if you were to use a racing fuel designed for high RPM
> engines of the same octane you would most like run into problems. From
> what the locals at the airport say, high octane mogas should not be used
> in a O-540s because it burns too fast, and since the cylinders are the
> same as a O-360??
>
> On the other hand, using 100LL that is a slow burning fuel used in a 73CC
> 22HP (well over 11K) Yamaha YZ 80 engine that is in my self retrieving
> balloon kills performance and probably raises EGT to disheartening levels.
>
> On Rotax 4 strokes you can use 100LL, but it does raise the EGTs because
> it burns slower than high octane mogas, and some of that burn makes its
> way into the exhaust.
[Barry] DUH Ron ... 100 LL, IS High Octane Gas ... What do you think the 100
Stands for!
>
> A old timer said on old auto engines that didn't use aluminium pistons,
> used to loosen the distributor, and run up the engine and begin retarding
> the ignition, he said he would get the exhaust glowing, hence carbon would
> be burned off. Slow burning fuel does the same in a engine designed for
> fast burning fuel.
>
> Using a fast burning fuel in a engine designed for a slow burning fuel can
> cause detonation. Detonation raises temperatures, let it go and God forbid
> pre-ignition begins to occur.
[Barry] This was a question on the primary flight training ... Do you know
the difference between Detonation and Pre-Ignition? I don't think so, you have
been talking to "locals at the airport"!
>
> Ron Parigoris
=================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
I'm building my panel, and have it to the point where I'm checking
things out on the bench (outside the a/c). Yesterday when checking the
audio/Com/Nav functions I noticed noise coming through both the pilot &
co-pilot headsets. I believe that the source/s of the noise
(antagonist?) are the cooling fans that are internal to the EFIS/MFD
systems that I have installed, as the noise is only present when these
systems are powered on, and the noise changes , i.e. becomes additive
when both systems are powered on. (It reminds me of flying the Baron
with the props unsync'd). I'd appreciate any insight on how to trouble
shoot this one. The Audio panel is a Garmin 340, all connections/wiring
is with shielded wires w/shields grounded to the back of the rack per
Garmins instructions.
Deems Davis # 406
Panel/Finishing
http://deemsrv10.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>Glad my one cent was useful to someone. Just to highlight the fact that
>this great list includes the illuminati of electronics as well as the
>cretini of homebuilding (me) -- and for TGIF comic relief, it may be worth
>detailing my thought process regarding the strobe wiring in a few
>sentences. Not knowing, and continually forgetting to ask whether the
>GTX330 is a strobe/non-strobe type xponder, I went with the
>seems-reasonable-to-me approach and picked the AK350 wiring diagram (p.8A)
>that left pin 6 (strobe) unconnected. Later, seeing that no altitude was
>being reported, and after checking that all the A, B, and C wires were
>connected correctly, I figured the last possible step was to connect the
>strobe wire to ground, as indicated in the non-strobe version of p.8A's
>diagram. I figured it would either work, or a puff of acrid smoke would
>emanate from the box and I'd be out $150, which compared to the total cost
>of the airplane would be an acceptable loss. So, that's how the mind of
>this OBAM-building monkey worked in this case and no, this anecdote is not
>indicative of my aeronautical decision making.
I've stumbled a bit on AmeriKing's wiring digarams too. I
THINK the only error in the manual is the syntax of logic
hi versus lo on page 24. Note that every time you see a
un-connected pin labeled STROBE, its the TRANSPONDER pin,
not the encoder pin.
Every wiring diagram (and chart) shows the ENCODER STROBE
pin 6 hooked somewhere whether to some pin on the transponder
or ground. This conversation has been useful. I doubt that
I'll forget it again. Thanks!
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: | PWilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can someone share experience tuning static |
port?
True. Just look at any spam can that has a pitot/static. They stick
out ahead of the leading edge. Not to far. Correct location is a no brainer.
Paul
=============
At 03:55 AM 9/22/2006, you wrote:
>
>If the static port was installed well away from the airframe, so it
>was actually sensing the free stream static pressure, if probably
>would be quite accurate. But, the original poster is putting the
>static port near the wing. Wings by design cause an increase in
>pressure below them, and a decrease in pressure above them. It is
>very difficult to find a location near a wing where a static port
>will read correctly over the whole range of airspeeds and flap
>angles. Thus the desire to tune the static port with O-rings.
>
>Kevin Horton
>
>
>On 21 Sep 2006, at 23:59, PWilson wrote:
>
>>
>>My fluids book uses a static probe for wind tunnel testing that has
>>multiple holes. This allows the pitot/static unit to operate with
>>better accuracy at various angles to the wind stream. Like 10
>>holes. The book also specifies the diameter. No suggestion for o-
>>ring to be accurate.
>>Regards. Paul
>>===============
>>
>>At 10:22 AM 9/20/2006, you wrote:
>>>
>>>I have a Europa XS Monowheel, it has the static port under the
>>>wing, it is
>>>a tube with a closed nylon bullet at the tip, and 2 holes in it a
>>>bit aft
>>>of the lead edge of the bullet, 1 vertical and 1 horizontal.
>>>
>>>I heard a while back you can tune this static port by installing a
>>>O-Ring,
>>>think start point was an inch or so behind the holes in the bullet??
>>>
>>>Can someone share experience tuning static port?
>>>
>>>How did you determine when it was correct?
>>>
>>>What distance was neutral point for O-Ring?
>>>
>>>Does moving O-Ring forward from neutral increase static pressure?
>>>
>>>What size O-Ring did you use, did size make much a difference,
>>>what was
>>>O-Ring made out of and how did you permanent bond in place?
>>>
>>>Thx.
>>>Ron Parigoris
>>>
>>>(I posted to Europa group, no replies)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL |
Yup, quite right Barry.....except, there are far more errors concerning
mixture and overheating and detonation on the P part of the A&P test
than most anywhere outside the internet. It contains all the OWTs of the
'50s and '60s as right answers. I had to unlearn a lot of stuff, to
ensure I knew the FAA's correct anwer, regardless of scientific facts.
KM
A&P/IA
FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> HERE WE GO AGAIN!
>
> Ron:
>
> STOP talking to those "locals at the airport". They don't know what they are
> talking about and you are propagating a HUGE misconception.
>
> "I don't know the technocrat term for it, but the speed at which the fuel
> burns is a definite concern." That elusive term you don't know is called
> OCTANE! And we are not talking about "Racing Fuels" ... Which some ARE ALCOHOL.
> And from watching your Tach you should realize that the Lycoming and
> Continental engines are NOT high RPM engines. They Red Line around 2700 RPM.
> And to correct the other huge misconception you are spouting, " high octane
> MoGas should not be used in a O-540s because it burns too fast" ... BULL DINKY!
> The Higher the Octane the SLOWER the gas burns. I think that was covered in
> primary flight training and I know it is covered in the 'P' training of A&P.
>
> SO! Ron, and readers of Ron, do your homework. "Do not believe anything you
> see and only half of what you read". Better yet, don't even believe me ... Do
> Your Homework!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can someone share experience tuning static |
port?
Not necessarily. Here's one on a Mooney quite a bit back from the
leading edge of the wing.
http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Mooney%20N6030X/Wing%20-%20Left%20Bottom.jpg
The static ports on this airplane are on the left and right rear
fuselage sides, tied together.
Dave Morris
At 08:36 AM 9/22/2006, you wrote:
>
>True. Just look at any spam can that has a pitot/static. They stick
>out ahead of the leading edge. Not to far. Correct location is a no brainer.
>Paul
>=============
>At 03:55 AM 9/22/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>If the static port was installed well away from the airframe, so it
>>was actually sensing the free stream static pressure, if probably
>>would be quite accurate. But, the original poster is putting the
>>static port near the wing. Wings by design cause an increase in
>>pressure below them, and a decrease in pressure above them. It is
>>very difficult to find a location near a wing where a static port
>>will read correctly over the whole range of airspeeds and flap
>>angles. Thus the desire to tune the static port with O-rings.
>>
>>Kevin Horton
>>
>>
>>On 21 Sep 2006, at 23:59, PWilson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>My fluids book uses a static probe for wind tunnel testing that has
>>>multiple holes. This allows the pitot/static unit to operate with
>>>better accuracy at various angles to the wind stream. Like 10
>>>holes. The book also specifies the diameter. No suggestion for o-
>>>ring to be accurate.
>>>Regards. Paul
>>>===============
>>>
>>>At 10:22 AM 9/20/2006, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I have a Europa XS Monowheel, it has the static port under the
>>>>wing, it is
>>>>a tube with a closed nylon bullet at the tip, and 2 holes in it a
>>>>bit aft
>>>>of the lead edge of the bullet, 1 vertical and 1 horizontal.
>>>>
>>>>I heard a while back you can tune this static port by installing a
>>>>O-Ring,
>>>>think start point was an inch or so behind the holes in the bullet??
>>>>
>>>>Can someone share experience tuning static port?
>>>>
>>>>How did you determine when it was correct?
>>>>
>>>>What distance was neutral point for O-Ring?
>>>>
>>>>Does moving O-Ring forward from neutral increase static pressure?
>>>>
>>>>What size O-Ring did you use, did size make much a difference,
>>>>what was
>>>>O-Ring made out of and how did you permanent bond in place?
>>>>
>>>>Thx.
>>>>Ron Parigoris
>>>>
>>>>(I posted to Europa group, no replies)
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nancy Ghertner <nghertner(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL |
On 9/21/06 11:22 PM, "rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US"
wrote:
>
> Octane rating is not the only thing one needs to be concerned with when it
> comes to fuel. I don't know the technocrat term for it, but the speed at
> which the fuel burns is a definite concern. On huge displacement engines
> turning low RPMs, if you were to use a racing fuel designed for high RPM
> engines of the same octane you would most like run into problems. From
> what the locals at the airport say, high octane mogas should not be used
> in a O-540s because it burns too fast, and since the cylinders are the
> same as a O-360??
>
> On the other hand, using 100LL that is a slow burning fuel used in a 73CC
> 22HP (well over 11K) Yamaha YZ 80 engine that is in my self retrieving
> balloon kills performance and probably raises EGT to disheartening levels.
>
> On Rotax 4 strokes you can use 100LL, but it does raise the EGTs because
> it burns slower than high octane mogas, and some of that burn makes its
> way into the exhaust.
>
> A old timer said on old auto engines that didn't use aluminium pistons,
> used to loosen the distributor, and run up the engine and begin retarding
> the ignition, he said he would get the exhaust glowing, hence carbon would
> be burned off. Slow burning fuel does the same in a engine designed for
> fast burning fuel.
>
> Using a fast burning fuel in a engine designed for a slow burning fuel can
> cause detonation. Detonation raises temperatures, let it go and God forbid
> pre-ignition begins to occur.
>
> Ron Parigoris
>
> hey Ron, is that why my old lawn mower is running better with some "dirty"
avgas I have at home?
Lory Ghertner
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Hello Barry
"HERE WE GO AGAIN!"
I think an education on one or both of our parts is in order.
"Show me the first time, correct me the second time on the following":
Detonation is not anywhere near the show stopper that Pre-Ignition is.
Detonation is the faster, not orderly burning of a fuel mixture.
Combustion pressures are higher and combustion temperatures are higher
during detonation operations. Ping is detonation. The octane rating of
fuel is the ability of fuel to burn in a orderly manor, in other words not
detonate. The higher the octane rating, the higher the temperature and
pressure that can be reached before detonation occurs. I am not positive
on this, but am pretty certain on Mainland USA, the pump octane rating is
not figured the same as Aviation fuel is, I forget if Avgas is higher or
lower. Anyway for a short time detonation probably will not cause any real
harm. Now if you let it go on for long periods of time, things will begin
to heat up, detonation will become more pronounced. The burning of fuel
mixture during Detonation begins with a spark at the plug. Preignition is
the real show stopper. This is where for some reason the mixture ignites
way too far advanced. Could be a glowing piece of carbon, or leaving the
helicoil tab stick a bit too much into the cylinder, or just plain too
high a temperature. Piston moving up and fighting pressure now.
OK comments here??
OK so if we are straight that octane rating is the ability for a fuel to
not detonate, I don't think that is absolute takes into consideration the
speed at which the flame front will burn in an orderly fashion. Different
brews can have the same octane rating, but can burn at different speeds.
I read an article in some aviation Magazine a while back that alluded to
this. I have not conducted any tests myself to prove or disprove this.
I think you misconstrued my example of large displacement slow turning
motors and small displacement fast turning motors. Fair compression slow
speed huge displacement engines need a specific octane rating, yes, but if
the brew burns in an orderly fashion, but a bit too fast, you can get
excessive pressures and heat build up in the combustion chamber. In other
words if we took a O-540 tuned with the same compression ratio as a stock
engine to develop max HP at 7500rpm, 100LL would not be as effective as a
fuel with the same octane rating yet having a faster orderly burn.
Do you know of O-540s and or O-360s that have gone to TBO using mogas?? (I
am not sure there is a STC??)
My example of my 73cc screamer was an example on the other side of things,
it requires high test gasoline, yet when using 100LL, 100LL does not burn
fast enough to keep up with what is necessary. 100LL is probably higher
octane than mogas octane rating of 93, it unquestionably burns slower, and
not fast enough for the screamer. I tried it to deal with moGas going
stale.
O-300s have a Mogas STC, they were initial designed for 80 octane.
Listening to hangar talk, using MoGas in a O-300 actual lowers EGTs. This
is because it was said to burn a little faster. It is also said that it
will tend to detonate a bit easier, and going a little richer on the
mixture with MoGas (larger main jet) gives a bit more leeway and long term
success can be expected.
Comments here, I am only repeating what I heard on the O-300.
Sincerely
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can someone share experience tuning static |
port?
If you put it one or more wing chord widths ahead of the leading
edge, it would probably be OK. But that implies a fairly long pitot
boom, which would be easily damaged, and fairly heavy. Not a common
choice now days.
If you have the skills to select a good location that is closer to
the leading edge, you could make a lot of money consulting. It is
not easy to predict a location close to the wing that will be
accurate. I've watched two different aircraft design teams try to
find good locations for static sources. Both teams had problems, and
spent a lot of hours doing trial and error flight testing, despite
the expenditure of many engineering man hours. One team also
invested in computational flow dynamics analysis, all for naught.
Kevin Horton
On 22 Sep 2006, at 09:36, PWilson wrote:
>
> True. Just look at any spam can that has a pitot/static. They stick
> out ahead of the leading edge. Not to far. Correct location is a no
> brainer.
> Paul
> =============
> At 03:55 AM 9/22/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> If the static port was installed well away from the airframe, so it
>> was actually sensing the free stream static pressure, if probably
>> would be quite accurate. But, the original poster is putting the
>> static port near the wing. Wings by design cause an increase in
>> pressure below them, and a decrease in pressure above them. It is
>> very difficult to find a location near a wing where a static port
>> will read correctly over the whole range of airspeeds and flap
>> angles. Thus the desire to tune the static port with O-rings.
>>
>> Kevin Horton
>>
>>
>> On 21 Sep 2006, at 23:59, PWilson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My fluids book uses a static probe for wind tunnel testing that has
>>> multiple holes. This allows the pitot/static unit to operate with
>>> better accuracy at various angles to the wind stream. Like 10
>>> holes. The book also specifies the diameter. No suggestion for o-
>>> ring to be accurate.
>>> Regards. Paul
>>> ===============
>>>
>>> At 10:22 AM 9/20/2006, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have a Europa XS Monowheel, it has the static port under the
>>>> wing, it is
>>>> a tube with a closed nylon bullet at the tip, and 2 holes in it a
>>>> bit aft
>>>> of the lead edge of the bullet, 1 vertical and 1 horizontal.
>>>>
>>>> I heard a while back you can tune this static port by installing a
>>>> O-Ring,
>>>> think start point was an inch or so behind the holes in the
>>>> bullet??
>>>>
>>>> Can someone share experience tuning static port?
>>>>
>>>> How did you determine when it was correct?
>>>>
>>>> What distance was neutral point for O-Ring?
>>>>
>>>> Does moving O-Ring forward from neutral increase static pressure?
>>>>
>>>> What size O-Ring did you use, did size make much a difference,
>>>> what was
>>>> O-Ring made out of and how did you permanent bond in place?
>>>>
>>>> Thx.
>>>> Ron Parigoris
>>>>
>>>> (I posted to Europa group, no replies)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Eeeeek! Another fear and question. |
Bob, your 9/13/06 post regarding LEDs says in part:
Finally, relays are rated amongst the least reliable of
components. It behooves us to limit their use where ever practical.
Okay. That brings up a question. I'm planning Z13/8 with Z32. Z32
Heavy
Duty E-Bus Feed shows the use of a relay to energize the alternate feed
path. But Z13/8 also relies on a relay to supply the SD-8's output to
the
E-Bus. That's two relays that must work for E-Bus operations
independent of
battery power. Is there a practical way to avoid the built-in weakness
of
two relays in the E-Bus circuit?
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Eeeeek! Another fear and question. |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
A couple of thoughts...
- Relays in some applications are less reliable than some solid state
equivalents in that application. Saying hard/fast that relays are less
reliable is probably not completely accurate.
- When relays fail, often it's by degraded performance.. You'll notice
that once in a while a relay will fail to snap in, or disconnect. You
exercise the controlling switch a time or two, and it starts to function.
You make the mental note "Hmmm, that xyz relay is getting flakey; better
check it out when I get back to the hangar." And you go on with your
flight.
- The chances of a having a particular, properly installed/applied relay
failing on any flight might be 1/10,000. The chances of having two
different similar relays fail on the same flight might be 1/10,000 *
1/10,000. A very unlikely possibility.
Regards,
Matt-
> Bob, your 9/13/06 post regarding LEDs says in part:
>
>
> Finally, relays are rated amongst the least reliable of
>
> components. It behooves us to limit their use where ever practical.
>
>
> Okay. That brings up a question. I'm planning Z13/8 with Z32. Z32 Heavy
> Duty E-Bus Feed shows the use of a relay to energize the alternate feed
> path. But Z13/8 also relies on a relay to supply the SD-8's output to the
> E-Bus. That's two relays that must work for E-Bus operations independent
> of
> battery power. Is there a practical way to avoid the built-in weakness of
> two relays in the E-Bus circuit?
>
>
> John
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Eeeeek! Another fear and question. |
I *assume* that while relays may be the "least reliable" of components, they
are still "pretty" reliable, else they would not appear in the Z-drawings.
But my point is that when you combine Z13/8 and Z32, the chances of the
E-bus not working in a main-alternator-failure situation are not your
hypothetical 1/10,000 * 1/10,000, rather they are increased to 1/5,000
because BOTH relays have to work, and if either one fails (1/10,000 * 2) you
are flying on the battery only, even though the SD-8 is fine. Usually Bob
endeavors to minimize the opportunities for a single component failure to
cause an emergency, and I wonder if he considers this daisy chain of "least
reliable components" in the Z13/8 + Z32 to pass muster.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Eeeeek! Another fear and question.
A couple of thoughts...
- Relays in some applications are less reliable than some solid state
equivalents in that application. Saying hard/fast that relays are less
reliable is probably not completely accurate.
- When relays fail, often it's by degraded performance.. You'll notice
that once in a while a relay will fail to snap in, or disconnect. You
exercise the controlling switch a time or two, and it starts to function.
You make the mental note "Hmmm, that xyz relay is getting flakey; better
check it out when I get back to the hangar." And you go on with your
flight.
- The chances of a having a particular, properly installed/applied relay
failing on any flight might be 1/10,000. The chances of having two
different similar relays fail on the same flight might be 1/10,000 *
1/10,000. A very unlikely possibility.
Regards,
Matt-
> Bob, your 9/13/06 post regarding LEDs says in part:
>
>
> Finally, relays are rated amongst the least reliable of
>
> components. It behooves us to limit their use where ever practical.
>
>
> Okay. That brings up a question. I'm planning Z13/8 with Z32. Z32 Heavy
> Duty E-Bus Feed shows the use of a relay to energize the alternate feed
> path. But Z13/8 also relies on a relay to supply the SD-8's output to the
> E-Bus. That's two relays that must work for E-Bus operations independent
> of
> battery power. Is there a practical way to avoid the built-in weakness of
> two relays in the E-Bus circuit?
>
>
> John
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Patterson <scc_ron(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | strange electrical failure in flight |
Hope someone has some ideas on how to troubleshoot an eletrical failure that I
don't understand. I have Bob's Essential Bus and Main Bus setup, one battery,
new plane (50 hours). In flight today I had an indication that I had a problem
when my main bus connected items shut down. I turned on the Essential bus, turned
off the Cessna type Master/Battery switch and continued on, landing uneventfully
as planned with Bob's system.
Then I pulled the cowl to troubleshoot the problem. the master powered up the
Main bus as if nothing happened. I started the engine and got 13.5 volts from
the ND Alternator regardless of RPM. When I switched on the E Bus, the charge
rate / output from the alternator jumped to 14.3. If I switched it off, the number
again drops back to 13.5 volts. No blown fuses.
Anybody have an idea of what happened and what I might want to do? Thanks in
advance.
Ron
RV-4 N8ZD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Eeeeek! Another fear and question. |
I think that's why it's called the Endurance Bus. So what if both
relays fail. If you've designed the system correctly, you have
sufficient battery to get to your destination, and you don't even
break a sweat.
Dave Morris
At 10:15 PM 9/22/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>I *assume* that while relays may be the "least reliable" of components, they
>are still "pretty" reliable, else they would not appear in the Z-drawings.
>But my point is that when you combine Z13/8 and Z32, the chances of the
>E-bus not working in a main-alternator-failure situation are not your
>hypothetical 1/10,000 * 1/10,000, rather they are increased to 1/5,000
>because BOTH relays have to work, and if either one fails (1/10,000 * 2) you
>are flying on the battery only, even though the SD-8 is fine. Usually Bob
>endeavors to minimize the opportunities for a single component failure to
>cause an emergency, and I wonder if he considers this daisy chain of "least
>reliable components" in the Z13/8 + Z32 to pass muster.
>
>John
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
>Prather
>Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 7:30 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Eeeeek! Another fear and question.
>
>
>A couple of thoughts...
>
September 14, 2006 - September 23, 2006
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-gd