AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-gu
March 13, 2007 - April 02, 2007
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: re: wiring diagram benefits |
Erich,
I can see both sides of this issue and they are both right. Roll your
own. I am going the simplified route myself. I like the Z-11 as a basic
and I have added a few extras.
I am amazed though at the detail some folks put into their wire diagrams
and web sites. You people are absolutely gifted. Where do you find the
time to do all of that and build an airplane?
I don't think I will ever sell my airplane but if I did it seems these
planes sell themselves.
Mike Ice
RV-9 (yep! Little wheel in the back)
Electrical done, canopy in progress (on and off the fuselage a zillion
times)
----- Original Message -----
From: Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:04 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: re: wiring diagram benefits
Thanks for the input on this guys. I remain open to what you are
saying, but indulge my hard headedness for a minute longer. I readily
admit that I will quickly forget details of my electrical system in the
near future. However.....
It seems to me that the wiring diagrams chief benefit is for mulling
things over from the convenience of your own living room. If I start
messing with my electrical system its likely to be because something
isnt working, and this will require me to gain access to the various
components of the electrical system. The hidden components of my
electrical system (AHRS box , fuseholders, wig-wag flasher, voltage
regulator, etc) are relatively easily accessible and if any of these are
not easily identified by looks alone, they are labeled. Every wire
coming from such components is labeled with respect to exactly where it
is coming from and where it is going to. Therefore, I will be able to
check that the electrical connections are sound at both ends of every
wire segment. I will also be able to check that the wires go to the
right connection point on each component by comparing my connections
with what is presented in the manufacturer's documentation, which I have
carefully cataloged in my building binders. I can further check that
components are actually connected as labeled with a continuity tester.
In short, it seems to me that most of the truly valuable information
on my electrical system can be gained from the schematic and when
necessary for repairs, visual inspection/testing of the individual
components and at their electrical connection points. The actual route
the wires take between components seems almost irrelevant to me.
I am not terribly persuaded by arguments of some perceived future
value to future buyers of my plane. First, Im not sure I buy the
argument that my plane will be worth less. The phrase "Comprehensive
wiring diagrams available" doesnt seem to show up much in adds for
experimentals. And for those buyers that have the desire/need to know my
electrical system, I still think the schematic and good labelling
practices I have adhered to, along with manufacturers' documentation
provide a solid basis for diagnosing and resolving problems.
Okay, I can already see the aero-electric masses collectively shaking
their heads back and forth at me. Nomex flame suit donned. Fire away.
Concrete examples of how your wiring diagrams saved the day, and
conversely, how my annotated Z-13/8 schematic and comprehensive
component and wire labeling are woefully inadequate will be
enthusiastically received.
Just between us girls, I'll bet there are more than a few out there
with virtually no electrical documentation combined with complete
ignorance of their system. They may even be conspiring to sell these
planes to others! : )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from EFIS |
| From: | "N777TY" <microsmurfer(at)yahoo.com> |
Bob,
It may be hard to describe the noise, so I figured a video may help :) Here's
a 1-minute video of my sniffing around with a handheld scanner (squelch turned
down completely):
http://www.vitez.net/noise.wmv
You'll notice a few spots where there's no noise and you just hear regular radio
static.. Maybe ignore that weird noise when scanner is under the panel, as
I don't hear it like that in my panel radio.
The radio is Garmin SL-40. Not sure what you mean by positioning of controls..
Also, the radio (well, both SL-40 and handheld) does a great job of "killing" the
noise when it receives even a semi-decent transmission.. so this noise doesn't
actually affect reception, except for very, very weak ones (where the noise
can just about barely be heard in the background). However, it sounds horrible
(and loud) when there's no transmission and squelch is pulled. Again, it
never breaks the squelch... So, push the squelch and you'll probably never hear
it (or barely ever notice it's there).. but I'm looking for "perfection" here
:)
The radio has this mode where it shows the signal level, and for RF level it shows
around 18 when screens are off.. then jumps to about 40 when screens are turned
on.... Not sure what these numbers exactly mean or what units those are..
but there's definitely a difference. (this is with no transmissions being received).
Not sure if I mentioned this -- all these units are grounded on the firewall at
a common grounding block. Tried grounding locally on the panel (both radio and
screens as well as screens alone) and that didn't make any difference.
One thing I haven't tried yet is transmitting -- not sure if there's any affect
on clarity or strength of outgoing transmissions..
Any ideas are appreciated. Or am I getting worked up about nothing?
Thanks!
Radomir
--------
RV-7A
N777TY (res)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=100373#100373
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: re: wiring diagram benefits |
I drew a wiring diagram first because I wouldn't know how to wire it if
I didn't (basically a Z-11). Every signal has a name, every wire is
labeled. As one who has successfully used automotive wiring diagrams
(and other schematics), I'm sure the diagram will save trouble shooting
time down the road. It will influence a future buyer IF the guy is like
me. A lot of us builders are nerd-geek-techies who think this stuff is
important.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, in the act of wiring, no less.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex" <alex157(at)pwhome.com> |
| Subject: | Comments please on this solid state contactor....... |
I have been testing my electrical system on my all- electric Velocity- with
no load, only the coils energized for about 30 minutes my battery contactors
were both quite hot- too hot to hold for more than say 5 seconds- comments
from other builders agree that this is rather normal- someone suggested the
"Czonka III" solid state unit- uses no appreciable power- good for tens of
thousands of cycles at 200 amps- please see attached PDF- is there any
foreseen drawback other than cost?
Alex
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Comments please on this solid state contactor....... |
>I have been testing my electrical system on my all- electric Velocity- with
>no load, only the coils energized for about 30 minutes my battery contactors
>were both quite hot- too hot to hold for more than say 5 seconds- comments
>from other builders agree that this is rather normal- someone suggested the
>"Czonka III" solid state unit- uses no appreciable power- good for tens of
>thousands of cycles at 200 amps- please see attached PDF- is there any
>foreseen drawback other than cost?
None . . . but keep in mind that the "too hot to touch" contactors
have been used for about 70 years with good return on investment.
The "solid state" units have circuitry that drops coil current from
an initial, full power pull-in current to some nominal holding
current after a second or so. Problem with some devices is that
the duty-cycle power controller generates noise in some systems.
Further, it's unknown whether the circuitry as-supplied would
live happily in known (DO-160) world of stresses. I'm not suggesting
that it won't . . . just don't know.
The continuous duty contactor dissipates about 10 watts. Sufficient
power to raise the surface temperature to about 170F in a room
temperature environment. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/Battery_Contactor_Temps_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/Battery_Contactor_Temps_2.jpg
This 'seems' hot but all of the materials used to fabricate
the contactor are rated at 150C or better. It's no big deal
in the grand scheme of things and it's hard to beat the price.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: wiring diagram benefits? |
In a message dated 03/13/2007 11:36:15 AM Central Daylight Time,
Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com writes:
"never did it, never needed it"
...until you do and didn't! If you did a good job on the design & install,
you likely never will need it, but 5 years from now, wouldn't it be handy to
know what ya got when you go to upgrade to that spiffy new holographic cockpit?
Mark- RV-6A N51PW "Mojo", former industrial 'lectrician, confirmed
Nuckollhead, and pretty anal when it comes to wiring diagrams, but YMMV, natcherly!
_http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=7604_
(http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=7604) fer
example
**************************************
AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Vertical power - Beta tester blog |
I've started a Blog of my testing activities around the Vertical Power
VP-200 Duo going into my Lancair Legacy.
Feel free to check in from time to time. If you have an RSS reader, there
is both an RSS and an ATOM version of the blog.
http://legacyair.blogspot.com
Short version
- Dual buss
- Dual Alt
- 24V
- EFIS panel
- VP-200 Duo
- MVP-50 Engine monitor
- utilizing the 4 channels of Overrides on the VP-200
- plus all the normal amazing features
- going into a Lancair Legacy FG with IO-550
Also includes a few "requested features" - being a real beta tester :)
- Automatic canopy seal
- Remote based, electronic Canopy lock
- Mac servo actuated RamAir
Enjoy and let me know what you think as I progress along. Wiring should
start in earnest next week.
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from EFIS |
| From: | "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net> |
Rodney,
You are correct, Bob did not name any particular personality in his comment..
> Which suggests a profound lack of knowledge
However, in context it can be presumed to be aimed at either me or Blue Mountain
(aka Greg). Given history I presumed it was aimed at Greg.
In either case the words "suggests a profound lack of knowledge" are an eloquent
way of saying you are stupid.
This I take as an insult. There are many ways in which Bob could have structured
his response to make his point, such as, "my experience suggests that a better
way to approach this problem would be to....." but he chose terms that I find
insulting no matter who they are aimed at.
You and others may find my language offensive but if you are going to insult someone
I see no need to hidei t with eloquence.
As far as my going away Bob can take care of that ith the push of a button. Short
of that you will have to suffer my occassional presence as there are many others
on this list whose valuable contributions I find useful.
--------
Milt
N395V
F1 Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=100438#100438
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from EFIS |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Eloquence coutns. Even when slapped in the face, I much prefer it with
a velvet glove!!
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of N395V
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:08 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: RF noise from EFIS
Rodney,
You are correct, Bob did not name any particular personality in his
comment..
> Which suggests a profound lack of knowledge
However, in context it can be presumed to be aimed at either me or Blue
Mountain (aka Greg). Given history I presumed it was aimed at Greg.
In either case the words "suggests a profound lack of knowledge" are an
eloquent way of saying you are stupid.
This I take as an insult. There are many ways in which Bob could have
structured his response to make his point, such as, "my experience
suggests that a better way to approach this problem would be to....."
but he chose terms that I find insulting no matter who they are aimed
at.
You and others may find my language offensive but if you are going to
insult someone I see no need to hidei t with eloquence.
As far as my going away Bob can take care of that ith the push of a
button. Short of that you will have to suffer my occassional presence as
there are many others on this list whose valuable contributions I find
useful.
--------
Milt
N395V
F1 Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=100438#100438
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from EFIS |
>
>
> > Which suggests a profound lack of knowledge as
> > to how noises should be kept inside the product
>
>
>You just can't resist a dig at Greg can you?
I can't resist a dig at poor science and equally
poor teaching. Read my most earnest attempts to
engage Greg in lucid, useful dialog at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/richter.html
This exchange took place AFTER he took a whack at
the AeroElectric Connection when he said, "I've
seen so much truly atrocious work, much of it per
Bob's book". But when asked to point out any
writing in the 'Connection so poorly written as
to induce one to do atrocious work, he was silent.
>Now I know why so many others think you are an asshole.
This isn't about me and Greg, it's about doing the
best we know how to do for a price that a customer
is happy to have paid. Products offered from the
BMA website fall demonstrably short of those goals.
I kept my assessments to myself for years but Greg
chose to open the door with no prompting from me.
He then demonstrated a lack of ability and/or
willingness to engage in good critical review.
I can't help what people think when they're offering
opinions based upon a lack of knowledge and understanding.
I'll invite you to hang around the list for awhile
and gather enough data about me and what the List is
about toward the goal of formulating your own, informed
opinion.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: re: wiring diagram benefits |
Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com wrote:
> I am not terribly persuaded by arguments of some perceived future
> value to future buyers of my plane. First, Im not sure I buy the
> argument that my plane will be worth less. The phrase "Comprehensive
> wiring diagrams available" doesnt seem to show up much in adds for
> experimentals. And for those buyers that have the desire/need to know
> my electrical system, I still think the schematic and good labelling
> practices I have adhered to, along with manufacturers' documentation
> provide a solid basis for diagnosing and resolving problems.
>
> Okay, I can already see the aero-electric masses collectively shaking
> their heads back and forth at me. Nomex flame suit donned. Fire away.
> Concrete examples of how your wiring diagrams saved the day, and
> conversely, how my annotated Z-13/8 schematic and comprehensive
> component and wire labeling are woefully inadequate will be
> enthusiastically received.
>
No need for flamesuits, Erich. If your documentation does it for you,
more power to you. I seriously doubt most buyers would want to see a
wiring diagram any more than they'd want to see the plans the plane was
built from. The diagram is just a tool, not a holy document. But just
as I can drive a screw with a hammer, it 'nice' to have a screwdriver
for the job.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from EFIS |
Went back a few postings and found this . . .
>Trying to figure out a problem I'm running into where an EFIS screen seems
>to be putting RF noise into my radio.
>The noise seems "small" -- as in it can't be heard if there's a strong
>signal being received, but can be heard if there's no transmission or as
>background while receiving poor signal. It never breaks the squelch on
>the radio at all, so it can only be heard if I pull the squelch button on
>my SL-40.
When you say "small" . . . do you think it likely that you'll
notice it in flight with wind and engine noises? I know this
is a VERY subjective assessment. But I've worked with dozens of
builders and airplane owners who struggled with noises heard
in the quiet of the shop that would have been unnoticed in the air.
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't endeavor to know how
the noise is happening and perhaps develop an approach to making
it go away . . . but noise management is a give/take proposition
and you MIGHT be spending a lot of $time$ on something that doesn't
need fixing.
>noise goes away if antenna is disconnected, in which case all I can hear
>is normal radio static.
Good data . . . it's radiated noise coming in through the antenna.
>noise can be heard if rubber ducky antenna is connected instead of the
>Comant antenna (so I'm not sure it's my real antenna installation at issue
>here, but could be?) Due to the setup I have, I can hook this antenna
>right behind the radio, or at the end of the coax run.. didn't notice any
>difference between the two.
Do you have a hand-held? Hand held radios with a rubber-duck
or even short "probe" antennas of a couple inches long are helpful
"sniffers". In the lab, I have access to a spectrum analyzer. It's
a receiver that plots an amplitude vs. frequency display on a 'scope
screen. I can attach a small probe to the end of a coax and poke
around the noisy electro-whizzy to find where the noise is coming
out.
>Tried Radio Shack ferrite choke at various locations and it didn't seem to
>do anything.
The snap-on ferrites are never useful for conducted noise
and only effective starting at about 100 MHz and going up.
I've never seed a problem at comm frequencies fixed with
a snap-on ferrite. I have seen useful applications of ferrites
at UHF frequencies . . . but in every case, these situations
would have been better addressed INSIDE the electro-whizzy
as part of the original design.
>Tried some RS in-line choke (in-line with radio +, as well as EFIS + and
>ground) which also didn't do anything either.
>coax doesn't run close to the EFIS screen, and for the most part, it's not
>close to other wires.
>I have a 2-screen setup and both (and either) produce this noise...
Okay, you need to "sniff". Take a coax from the back of
your comm radio (or a handheld) and terminate the loose
end with one of these:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Sniffer_Probes.jpg
Poke around the openings and cables of the offending
device to see if you can deduce the exit point for the
noise. If you can't hear the noise with the suggested
probes try larger ones.
>Re AeroElectric-List RF noise.ems
>have not tried transmitting, so no idea what kind of impact it'd have (if
>any) on outgoing transmissions.. focused on reception at this point.
It's exceedingly remote that radiated noises get into
transmitted signals.
>again, since it doesn't break the squelch, it's not a big big issue, but
>it's annoying and would love to see it go away :)
Sure . . . let's do the sniffing and see if you can identify
the egress point. But let's not ignore the possibility that
this noise may not be worth running to ground.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from EFIS |
>
>This I take as an insult. There are many ways in which Bob could have
>structured his response to make his point, such as, "my experience
>suggests that a better way to approach this problem would be to....."
>but he chose terms that I find insulting no matter who they are aimed
>at.
Being insulted is a choice. When assessing words about me,
they can be sorted into two pots: (1) the words illustrate
facts which call for considered integration into my future
actions or (2) they're meaningless. In neither case are they
worthy of an emotional investment. I can be insulted only if
I allow it.
In the instance before us, there were no words about you
only about poor science, lack of understanding and poor
teaching based on those shortcomings. We all suffer from
lack of understanding to some degree on every topic. It's
incumbent upon good teachers to remedy the former before
attempting to do the later.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
Any experience in the group with the products (Pro G Hub) supplied by
Approach Fast Stack http://www.approachfaststack.com . At first glance it
looks like a real elegant way to interconnect the insturments in the panel.
Some of the questions I have include: 1. How is the company to work with? Is
the install as easy as they say! Any maintence issues?
Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month.
Intro*Terms
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from EFIS |
>Rodney,
>
>You are correct, Bob did not name any particular personality in his
>comment..
>
>
> > Which suggests a profound lack of knowledge
>
>
>However, in context it can be presumed to be aimed at either me or Blue
>Mountain (aka Greg). Given history I presumed it was aimed at Greg.
>
>In either case the words "suggests a profound lack of knowledge" are an
>eloquent way of saying you are stupid.
No, ignorant. Ignorance can be remedied by the civilized
discourse between capable teachers and willing students.
In this instance, Greg has yet to demonstrate a membership
in either group.
>As far as my going away Bob can take care of that with the push of a
>button. Short of that you will have to suffer my occassional presence as
>there are many others on this list whose valuable contributions I find
>useful.
I'm sorry that you don't find value in my offerings.
This IS disheartening for a teacher to hear. If you
perceive shortcomings in either the science or practice
I have to offer, I'd be pleased to address those concerns.
Nobody wants you to go away. Everybody wants our $time$
spent here on the List to yield a good return on the
investment.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <frank.phyllis(at)mindspring.com> |
Bob,
The CB popped when I released the starter contactor (switch with key).
Master was on BAT & ALT. I tried starting with just BAT & it did not
pop. It did not pop when I switched to Alt after starting with Bat
only.
I noticed this time I'm not getting a charge from Alt (verified master
switch on Alt) at 2400RPM.
I overlooked the diode on the starter contactor so, no, I do not have
one. Maybe that's the problem???
Thanks
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Popped CB
>
>I started my 912ULS for the first time. Ran like a charm. However, at
>both starts the alt cb popped. I used the Z16 diagram. Obviously I
>have "crossed wires" some place--any ideas?
When did the breaker pop? As soon as you pushed the starter button?
When you released the starter button? Do you have a diode across the
coil of your starter contactor? Did you have the alternator
turned ON while cranking or did you turn it on after the engine was
running?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from EFIS |
I totally agree with Bob. My experience with BMA and the folks there
have been the worst for me as compared to ALL of the other companies I
deal with (to many to list). Let's summarize, BMA produces products
that at face value looks cool and if it worked as advertised would be a
good product. But when you dig into the finer points of BMA products
such as: stability, installation, customer service, ergonomics, builder
philosophy, function, and price they all fall short as compared to
almost ALL the others.
I work in the field with builders of experimental homebuilt airplanes.
I spent seven years in an avionics shop, three years on a military R&D
project, and 30 years total aircraft maintenance. I am not very
polished in my delivery of words when it comes to basic avionics. I
express my experience and you take it for what its worth.
Here in Arizona we have a large group of builders who are actively
building. We do not have any real profession support for avionics
available here, so we get by with the local knowledge and experience of
all the engineers and techs. here and of course Lectric Bob. So far
we've had many successes and few failures.
Of the 35+ airplanes under construction (not flying yet) that I have
worked on in the past 365 days (this past year). I have seen my share
of BMA products (including my own). After dealing with BMA too many
times with problems I don't even call them any more. I can say that I
have over 12 saves this past year regarding folks purchasing BMA stuff.
Those of you who have purchased BMA and managed to get it to work to an
acceptable level that's great. I would just like to say there are a
whole host of products out there that perform much better.
Mike Larkin
-----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, March 14, 2007 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RF noise from EFIS
>
>
> > Which suggests a profound lack of knowledge as
> > to how noises should be kept inside the product
>
>
>You just can't resist a dig at Greg can you?
I can't resist a dig at poor science and equally
poor teaching. Read my most earnest attempts to
engage Greg in lucid, useful dialog at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/richter.html
This exchange took place AFTER he took a whack at
the AeroElectric Connection when he said, "I've
seen so much truly atrocious work, much of it per
Bob's book". But when asked to point out any
writing in the 'Connection so poorly written as
to induce one to do atrocious work, he was silent.
>Now I know why so many others think you are an asshole.
This isn't about me and Greg, it's about doing the
best we know how to do for a price that a customer
is happy to have paid. Products offered from the
BMA website fall demonstrably short of those goals.
I kept my assessments to myself for years but Greg
chose to open the door with no prompting from me.
He then demonstrated a lack of ability and/or
willingness to engage in good critical review.
I can't help what people think when they're offering
opinions based upon a lack of knowledge and understanding.
I'll invite you to hang around the list for awhile
and gather enough data about me and what the List is
about toward the goal of formulating your own, informed
opinion.
Bob . . .
--
2/8/2007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob,
>The CB popped when I released the starter contactor (switch with key).
>Master was on BAT & ALT. I tried starting with just BAT & it did not
>pop. It did not pop when I switched to Alt after starting with Bat
>only.
>
>I noticed this time I'm not getting a charge from Alt (verified master
>switch on Alt) at 2400RPM.
Hmmm . . . this needs troubleshooting. Has it worked
in the past?
>I overlooked the diode on the starter contactor so, no, I do not have
>one. Maybe that's the problem???
I'll bet on it. But in any case, starting with the alternator
off is a reasonable procedure too. However, your starter
switch will appreciate having the diode added.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
I looked at this too, and talked to a local avionics shop. I liked the idea
of pre-made cables (not just harnesses) just plug them in and easy to
upgrade in the future (assuming they stay in business) but the down side is,
more weight, more cost and more connections to fail. I have come to
conclude that wiring harnesses are not too difficult to install (I may even
make my own) cost less, weigh less and just not going to save me enough time
on the electrical install. There is still a lot of wiring to do and one will
have to get competent at it and have the tools anyway.
Bevan
RV7A
Finish kit
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Frank
Stringham
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Pro G Hub by
http://www.approachfaststack.com/
-->
Any experience in the group with the products (Pro G Hub) supplied by
Approach Fast Stack http://www.approachfaststack.com . At first glance it
looks like a real elegant way to interconnect the insturments in the panel.
Some of the questions I have include: 1. How is the company to work with? Is
the install as easy as they say! Any maintence issues?
Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month.
Intro*Terms
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search
=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brett Ferrell <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
I've installed the Pro G, and I love it. The company was great to work with,
and the documentation was good, and it has performed as expected in my
pre-flight testing. I should get in the air this spring, but so far I've got
no complaints, and I'm happy that I didn't have to make my harnesses (the
standard stuff plus transponder to EFIS, GPS to ELT, EFIS to Radios, etc.)
Brett
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Frank
> Stringham
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:07 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Pro G Hub by
> http://www.approachfaststack.com/
>
> -->
>
> Any experience in the group with the products (Pro G Hub) supplied by
> Approach Fast Stack http://www.approachfaststack.com . At first glance it
> looks like a real elegant way to interconnect the insturments in the panel.
>
> Some of the questions I have include: 1. How is the company to work with? Is
> the install as easy as they say! Any maintence issues?
>
> Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month.
> Intro*Terms
> https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search
> =mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
Brett
What are the various instruments in your panel.....and why did you choose
them? Plus as I contemplate my decision to go with the fast satck are their
any install gotchas' I should be aware of?
TIA
Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
>From: Brett Ferrell <bferrell(at)123mail.net>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Pro G Hub by
> http://www.approachfaststack.com/
>Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:53:35 -0700
>
>
>
>I've installed the Pro G, and I love it. The company was great to work
>with,
>and the documentation was good, and it has performed as expected in my
>pre-flight testing. I should get in the air this spring, but so far I've
>got
>no complaints, and I'm happy that I didn't have to make my harnesses (the
>standard stuff plus transponder to EFIS, GPS to ELT, EFIS to Radios, etc.)
>
>Brett
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Frank
> > Stringham
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:07 AM
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Pro G Hub by
> > http://www.approachfaststack.com/
> >
> > -->
> >
> > Any experience in the group with the products (Pro G Hub) supplied by
> > Approach Fast Stack http://www.approachfaststack.com . At first glance
>it
> > looks like a real elegant way to interconnect the insturments in the
>panel.
> >
> > Some of the questions I have include: 1. How is the company to work
>with? Is
> > the install as easy as they say! Any maintence issues?
> >
> > Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a
>month.
> > Intro*Terms
> >
>https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search
> > =mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
Brett,
Did you get documentation with the HUB so that cables could be made from
scratch in the future, or do you always have to use their cables?
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brett
Ferrell
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:54 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Pro G Hub by
http://www.approachfaststack.com/
-->
I've installed the Pro G, and I love it. The company was great to work
with, and the documentation was good, and it has performed as expected in my
pre-flight testing. I should get in the air this spring, but so far I've
got no complaints, and I'm happy that I didn't have to make my harnesses
(the standard stuff plus transponder to EFIS, GPS to ELT, EFIS to Radios,
etc.)
Brett
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Frank Stringham
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:07 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Pro G Hub by
> http://www.approachfaststack.com/
>
> -->
>
> Any experience in the group with the products (Pro G Hub) supplied by
> Approach Fast Stack http://www.approachfaststack.com . At first
> glance it looks like a real elegant way to interconnect the insturments in
the panel.
>
> Some of the questions I have include: 1. How is the company to work
> with? Is the install as easy as they say! Any maintence issues?
>
> Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a
month.
> Intro*Terms
> https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&
> search
> =mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brett Ferrell <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
Frank
My equipment list is below. THe only gotcha I had was that I intended to
install a cell phone interface, and that is really a third comm to the Pro G
Hub, so I had to return the unit for a minor retrofit. They were the only ones
I knew of doing this kind of work when I got mine, and I'd decided that I'd had
enough fun running my power wiring and EFIS engine probe leads, that I didn't
need the experience of hooking up all of the avionics. Plus, they're so
expensive, I didn't want to risk damaging them. It's nice because I can
display the SL30 and 430 guidance data on the EFIS, my EFIS encoder goes to my
transponder, my cell and entertainment inputs go to my intercomm, my GPS feeds
my ELT, etc.
1) Blue Mountain EFIS/One - SL30 sends VOR CDI/GS info to E/1 for display
2) Blue Mountain EFIS/Sport (planned) - same SL30 interconnect
3) Garmin GTX-327 - Transonder gets gray code altitude data from E/1
4) Artex G406 - 3 mode ELT with GPS position broadcast, accepts data from
Garmin, GPS nav interface board not yet purchased
5) Garmin 430 - GPS nav/comm
6) SL30 - Nav/comm
7) Blue Mountain 2-axis autopilot
8) Sirius radio into to intercomm
9) PMA7000B - w/record function & playback
10) DVD/CD entertainment for back seats, w/intercomm interconnect and isolate
11) Aux entertainment (MP3/iPod) input
Brett
Quoting Frank Stringham :
>
>
> Brett
>
> What are the various instruments in your panel.....and why did you choose
> them? Plus as I contemplate my decision to go with the fast satck are their
> any install gotchas' I should be aware of?
>
> TIA
>
> Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
>
>
> >From: Brett Ferrell <bferrell(at)123mail.net>
> >Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Pro G Hub by
> > http://www.approachfaststack.com/
> >Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:53:35 -0700
> >
> >
> >
> >I've installed the Pro G, and I love it. The company was great to work
> >with,
> >and the documentation was good, and it has performed as expected in my
> >pre-flight testing. I should get in the air this spring, but so far I've
> >got
> >no complaints, and I'm happy that I didn't have to make my harnesses (the
> >standard stuff plus transponder to EFIS, GPS to ELT, EFIS to Radios, etc.)
> >
> >Brett
> >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Frank
> > > Stringham
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:07 AM
> > > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Pro G Hub by
> > > http://www.approachfaststack.com/
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > > Any experience in the group with the products (Pro G Hub) supplied by
> > > Approach Fast Stack http://www.approachfaststack.com . At first glance
> >it
> > > looks like a real elegant way to interconnect the insturments in the
> >panel.
> > >
> > > Some of the questions I have include: 1. How is the company to work
> >with? Is
> > > the install as easy as they say! Any maintence issues?
> > >
> > > Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a
> >month.
> > > Intro*Terms
> > >
> >https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search
> > > =mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brett Ferrell <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
Bevan,
Well, I have the documentation from the component manufacturers, so I could
always make the cables myself in the future. But the misconception is that
their supplied Hub system is "just a harness". It's not, the hub's board
handles cross-connecting multiple components to the same device, and there's a
great deal of flexibility there. However, I found the docs from Fast STack to
be quite complete and direct, and I found them easy to work with on the phone.
Brett
Quoting B Tomm :
>
> Brett,
>
> Did you get documentation with the HUB so that cables could be made from
> scratch in the future, or do you always have to use their cables?
>
> Bevan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brett
> Ferrell
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:54 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Pro G Hub by
> http://www.approachfaststack.com/
>
> -->
>
> I've installed the Pro G, and I love it. The company was great to work
> with, and the documentation was good, and it has performed as expected in my
> pre-flight testing. I should get in the air this spring, but so far I've
> got no complaints, and I'm happy that I didn't have to make my harnesses
> (the standard stuff plus transponder to EFIS, GPS to ELT, EFIS to Radios,
> etc.)
>
> Brett
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > Frank Stringham
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:07 AM
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Pro G Hub by
> > http://www.approachfaststack.com/
> >
> > -->
> >
> > Any experience in the group with the products (Pro G Hub) supplied by
> > Approach Fast Stack http://www.approachfaststack.com . At first
> > glance it looks like a real elegant way to interconnect the insturments in
> the panel.
> >
> > Some of the questions I have include: 1. How is the company to work
> > with? Is the install as easy as they say! Any maintence issues?
> >
> > Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a
> month.
> > Intro*Terms
> > https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&
> > search
> > =mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Hi Frank,
I have the Approach Pro G Hub in my "9". There is one thing you
need to do if considering using them for wiring. It simplifies the wires
but you must give them exactly what you are using and the options you
will be using. Brand name of wing levelers, EFIS (if you are using them
and what extras you will use from them) comm radios, Intercom and model
and if its stereo / monoral, transponders and any interfacing required
(such as mode "S", and if the altitude encoding is to be serial input or
gray code.) All these things are necessary to get a good cable interface
with their system. I'm not flying yet but I will be doing soon. So far
the checks seem to be ok.
Place you hub is a position behind your panel so you can get to
it and remove the plug in 's You have to be able to twist the locking
screws on the "D" sub B ends. It gets real busy so plan for the
transition of the cables thru the bulkheads and around to the units
desired. I cut several 2" holes to get the wiring where it needed to go.
Jim Nelson
www.websites.expercraft.com/jimn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
Jim, Brett and the rest of you good folks
I am running with this thread on the Vansairforce forum and some over there
seem to think that if the panel is simple VFR the hub is fine, but the more
complex the panel the less capable the hub would be. At first blush I
believe these are well meaning opinoins not based on facts. So are they
talking fact or opinion.
TIA
Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
>From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pro G Hub by http://www.approachfaststack.com/
>Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:08:10 -0400
>
>
>Hi Frank,
> I have the Approach Pro G Hub in my "9". There is one thing you
>need to do if considering using them for wiring. It simplifies the wires
>but you must give them exactly what you are using and the options you
>will be using. Brand name of wing levelers, EFIS (if you are using them
>and what extras you will use from them) comm radios, Intercom and model
>and if its stereo / monoral, transponders and any interfacing required
>(such as mode "S", and if the altitude encoding is to be serial input or
>gray code.) All these things are necessary to get a good cable interface
>with their system. I'm not flying yet but I will be doing soon. So far
>the checks seem to be ok.
> Place you hub is a position behind your panel so you can get to
>it and remove the plug in 's You have to be able to twist the locking
>screws on the "D" sub B ends. It gets real busy so plan for the
>transition of the cables thru the bulkheads and around to the units
>desired. I cut several 2" holes to get the wiring where it needed to go.
>
>
>Jim Nelson
>www.websites.expercraft.com/jimn
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find what you need at prices youll love. Compare products and save at MSN
Shopping.
http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net> |
Frank,
I considered faststack when I wired my panel but I enjoy doing the wiring myself
so I did not go that route and have no first hand knowledge relative to the
product. Below however are links to some discussions by others who have.
Fast Stack 1 (http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/talk/showthread.php?t=1121&highlight=Fast+Stack+Hub)
Fast Stach 2 (http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/talk/showthread.php?t=1252&highlight=Fast+Stack+Hub)
Fast Stack 3 (http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/talk/showthread.php?t=1261&highlight=Fast+Stack+Hub)
--------
Milt
N395V
F1 Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=100542#100542
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brett Ferrell <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
Frank,
Well, I consider my panel a fairly complex IFR system, so I would disagree, even
though I'm not flying. I haven't found something I wanted or needed that it
couldn't do, so I'm not sure where that opinion would come from to be honest.
Brett
Quoting Frank Stringham :
>
>
> Jim, Brett and the rest of you good folks
>
> I am running with this thread on the Vansairforce forum and some over there
> seem to think that if the panel is simple VFR the hub is fine, but the more
> complex the panel the less capable the hub would be. At first blush I
> believe these are well meaning opinoins not based on facts. So are they
> talking fact or opinion.
>
> TIA
>
> Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
>
>
> >From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
> >Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pro G Hub by http://www.approachfaststack.com/
> >Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:08:10 -0400
> >
> >
> >Hi Frank,
> > I have the Approach Pro G Hub in my "9". There is one thing you
> >need to do if considering using them for wiring. It simplifies the wires
> >but you must give them exactly what you are using and the options you
> >will be using. Brand name of wing levelers, EFIS (if you are using them
> >and what extras you will use from them) comm radios, Intercom and model
> >and if its stereo / monoral, transponders and any interfacing required
> >(such as mode "S", and if the altitude encoding is to be serial input or
> >gray code.) All these things are necessary to get a good cable interface
> >with their system. I'm not flying yet but I will be doing soon. So far
> >the checks seem to be ok.
> > Place you hub is a position behind your panel so you can get to
> >it and remove the plug in 's You have to be able to twist the locking
> >screws on the "D" sub B ends. It gets real busy so plan for the
> >transition of the cables thru the bulkheads and around to the units
> >desired. I cut several 2" holes to get the wiring where it needed to go.
> >
> >
> >Jim Nelson
> >www.websites.expercraft.com/jimn
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find what you need at prices youll love. Compare products and save at MSN
> Shopping.
>
http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mitchell Faatz <mitch(at)skybound.com> |
I purchased the Pro-G Hub, and I must say the company has been EXCELLENT
to work with. I've emailed them quite a few times with questions about
wiring and interconnections and they have almost always returned my
email by the next day. I have a fairly complex panel (430, 330, STEC-30
autopilot, GPSS, Serial blind encoder, custom moving map, etc) and
having them as a resource for wiring questions was worth the additional
price I believe.
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA
Frank Stringham wrote:
>
>
> Any experience in the group with the products (Pro G Hub) supplied by
> Approach Fast Stack http://www.approachfaststack.com . At first
> glance it looks like a real elegant way to interconnect the
> insturments in the panel.
>
> Some of the questions I have include: 1. How is the company to work
> with? Is the install as easy as they say! Any maintence issues?
>
> Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a
> month. Intro*Terms
> https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Has anyone actually gone through the process of changing/upgrading radios
that are installed with one of these systems? The website says they
support that, but I didn't see any details on how it's done, and how much
it costs to do so..
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> I purchased the Pro-G Hub, and I must say the company has been EXCELLENT
> to work with. I've emailed them quite a few times with questions about
> wiring and interconnections and they have almost always returned my
> email by the next day. I have a fairly complex panel (430, 330, STEC-30
> autopilot, GPSS, Serial blind encoder, custom moving map, etc) and
> having them as a resource for wiring questions was worth the additional
> price I believe.
>
> Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA
>
>
> Frank Stringham wrote:
>>
>>
>> Any experience in the group with the products (Pro G Hub) supplied by
>> Approach Fast Stack http://www.approachfaststack.com . At first
>> glance it looks like a real elegant way to interconnect the
>> insturments in the panel.
>>
>> Some of the questions I have include: 1. How is the company to work
>> with? Is the install as easy as they say! Any maintence issues?
>>
>> Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a
>> month. Intro*Terms
>> https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michel Creek" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from EFIS |
Mike,
Thanks, that is good info. Would you be willing to comment on Advanced
Flight Systems, Dynon, and Grand Rapids? I'll be making panel decisions in
May so your experience could help me out a lot and I suspect I'm not alone.
I'll be mostly day and night VFR but want the option to do light IFR in the
future.
Thanks,
Mike Creek
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 7:25 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: RF noise from EFIS
I totally agree with Bob. My experience with BMA and the folks there
have been the worst for me as compared to ALL of the other companies I
deal with (to many to list). Let's summarize, BMA produces products
that at face value looks cool and if it worked as advertised would be a
good product. But when you dig into the finer points of BMA products
such as: stability, installation, customer service, ergonomics, builder
philosophy, function, and price they all fall short as compared to
almost ALL the others.
I work in the field with builders of experimental homebuilt airplanes.
I spent seven years in an avionics shop, three years on a military R&D
project, and 30 years total aircraft maintenance. I am not very
polished in my delivery of words when it comes to basic avionics. I
express my experience and you take it for what its worth.
Here in Arizona we have a large group of builders who are actively
building. We do not have any real profession support for avionics
available here, so we get by with the local knowledge and experience of
all the engineers and techs. here and of course Lectric Bob. So far
we've had many successes and few failures.
Of the 35+ airplanes under construction (not flying yet) that I have
worked on in the past 365 days (this past year). I have seen my share
of BMA products (including my own). After dealing with BMA too many
times with problems I don't even call them any more. I can say that I
have over 12 saves this past year regarding folks purchasing BMA stuff.
Those of you who have purchased BMA and managed to get it to work to an
acceptable level that's great. I would just like to say there are a
whole host of products out there that perform much better.
Mike Larkin
-----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, March 14, 2007 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RF noise from EFIS
>
>
> > Which suggests a profound lack of knowledge as
> > to how noises should be kept inside the product
>
>
>You just can't resist a dig at Greg can you?
I can't resist a dig at poor science and equally
poor teaching. Read my most earnest attempts to
engage Greg in lucid, useful dialog at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/richter.html
This exchange took place AFTER he took a whack at
the AeroElectric Connection when he said, "I've
seen so much truly atrocious work, much of it per
Bob's book". But when asked to point out any
writing in the 'Connection so poorly written as
to induce one to do atrocious work, he was silent.
>Now I know why so many others think you are an asshole.
This isn't about me and Greg, it's about doing the
best we know how to do for a price that a customer
is happy to have paid. Products offered from the
BMA website fall demonstrably short of those goals.
I kept my assessments to myself for years but Greg
chose to open the door with no prompting from me.
He then demonstrated a lack of ability and/or
willingness to engage in good critical review.
I can't help what people think when they're offering
opinions based upon a lack of knowledge and understanding.
I'll invite you to hang around the list for awhile
and gather enough data about me and what the List is
about toward the goal of formulating your own, informed
opinion.
Bob . . .
--
2/8/2007
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from EFIS |
I've got a similar problem on my Zenith 701.
I wired the loudspeaker to the ICOM A200 as per its drawings mounted on the
front
of the passenger seat. With my Dynon D10A on full bright I hear no buzzing
noise...but when I dim
the Dynon using its built in dimming feature in the menu system, the buzz
gets louder and at a different
frequency. The more I dim the worse it is. I'm using single point ground.
No buzzing in headsets though, maybe the noise is going directly into the
A200 to speaker and not into the
403MC intercom to headsets. Whatever is used to dim your EFIS might be
making the noise. Something to play with...
Brian Unruh
Long Island, NY
_www.701Builder.com_ (http://www.701Builder.com)
**************************************
AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <frank.phyllis(at)mindspring.com> |
I'll add the diode.
Re the alternator not charging. This is a new engine with first starts
so there's no history--hasn't worked from the beginning.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Popped CB
>
>Bob,
>The CB popped when I released the starter contactor (switch with key).
>Master was on BAT & ALT. I tried starting with just BAT & it did not
>pop. It did not pop when I switched to Alt after starting with Bat
>only.
>
>I noticed this time I'm not getting a charge from Alt (verified master
>switch on Alt) at 2400RPM.
Hmmm . . . this needs troubleshooting. Has it worked
in the past?
>I overlooked the diode on the starter contactor so, no, I do not have
>one. Maybe that's the problem???
I'll bet on it. But in any case, starting with the alternator
off is a reasonable procedure too. However, your starter
switch will appreciate having the diode added.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Reeves <mattreeves(at)yahoo.com> |
I have the Pro G hub in my Lancair and have changed out radios a couple of times
and now have a nice Garmin stack with indicators, etc. My brother has the same
set up. The company has been sold a couple of years ago and the new company
has been just as awesome as the old company. The cables are top notch and
well labelled and easy to install - only taking a few seconds. You will have
some stragglers for power, etc, but they are well marked. No power goes through
the hub so you don't have to worry about FAA paperwork, etc.
I swear by it. My avionics guy inspected the cables and set up and said they
use the best quality connectors, wire, labels, etc. He was very impressed.
THE main reason I bought it is so I can change avionics whenever I want and not
have to rewire a whole panel.
My vote - LOVE it.
Matt Reeves
Rochester, NY
Matt Prather wrote:
Has anyone actually gone through the process of changing/upgrading radios
that are installed with one of these systems? The website says they
support that, but I didn't see any details on how it's done, and how much
it costs to do so..
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> I purchased the Pro-G Hub, and I must say the company has been EXCELLENT
> to work with. I've emailed them quite a few times with questions about
> wiring and interconnections and they have almost always returned my
> email by the next day. I have a fairly complex panel (430, 330, STEC-30
> autopilot, GPSS, Serial blind encoder, custom moving map, etc) and
> having them as a resource for wiring questions was worth the additional
> price I believe.
>
> Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA
>
>
> Frank Stringham wrote:
>>
>>
>> Any experience in the group with the products (Pro G Hub) supplied by
>> Approach Fast Stack http://www.approachfaststack.com . At first
>> glance it looks like a real elegant way to interconnect the
>> insturments in the panel.
>>
>> Some of the questions I have include: 1. How is the company to work
>> with? Is the install as easy as they say! Any maintence issues?
>>
>> Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a
>> month. Intro*Terms
>> https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from EFIS |
Mike,
I have worked with all of the companies you have listed. I will try and
keep this brief. A quick note, I find that the best way to figure out
what you need it to start with the systems that have the functions you
want and then start sorting out the weaker ones. Do a pro / con list.
Advanced Flight Systems, they make very good products. I have only
worked with their AF-2002/AF-2500 engine monitor. It's a great product,
very stable, and most importantly the people are great to work with.
For example, one system we were installing had a power problem and the
AFS folks worked with us until we figured it out. They were ready to
send a new unit if that's what it took. Every time I speak with them
it's a great experience. I have seen their EFIS unit and chatted with
them about it but have not installed or flown behind one yet. If it is
like their other products it should be great.
Dynon, I was one of their first customers back in the D-10 days. The
company was small and the product very new. I had some minor problems
and they were very quick to fix address them. Since that time I have
worked on some installations with the newer units and find the product
much improved from version one. The people there are easy to work with
and know their product well. I have only experienced one failure and
that was a new unit that would not boot properly and Dynon repaired it
in record time.
Grand Rapids Technology, I have two GRT EIS systems myself and have
installed many of their ADC units on the crossbow Chelton EFIS systems.
Their stuff isn't the most glamorous, but it works very well and I have
not seen one fail yet. I have chatted with them many time at various
shows and for tech support and they are always very knowledgeable and
helpful. As far as the EFIS system goes, I have only flown behind one.
I have not personal installed one.
If you have more questions, email me at mlas(at)cox.net. I will be away
until March 18th.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
Mike,
Thanks, that is good info. Would you be willing to comment on Advanced
Flight Systems, Dynon, and Grand Rapids? I'll be making panel decisions
in
May so your experience could help me out a lot and I suspect I'm not
alone.
I'll be mostly day and night VFR but want the option to do light IFR in
the
future.
Thanks,
Mike Creek
--
2/8/2007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: wiring diagram benefits? |
Just do it, you'll be happy you did, and may hate yourself if not I will do
my first flight next week, and so far there have been 3 issues regarding
electrical stuff which were a piece of cake to track down and fix because I took
the trouble to do a 6 page diagram with Z11 as a base.
Here's the deal... I wired it last year, and if you think you'll remember all
those pathways about 2 years after first flight, you have a lot better memory
than myself.It was a mystery to me until I pulled out my handy-dandy
wirebook... Voila!!! No problema!!!
HTH,
Jerry Cochran
Subject: AeroElectric-List: wiring diagram benefits?
From: Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com
I may be asking for a beating here, but exactly why should I create
detailed wiring diagrams? I wired my RV-7A myself following the Z-13/8
**************************************
AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List:Batteries |
Hi Bob, It's Tom Saccio here. I need some advice. I'm at the point where I
need to by some Batteries for the Seawind. I was thinking of two Odyssey
batteries. As you know I have an all electric System. Two alternators two
regulators. My panel has the Chelton sport system the MX200 and the Garmin 480.
If
you could give me some suggestions as to the type and size of the batteries I
would need, it would be greatly appreciated. There are two separate busses so
that if one alternator goes out, I can switch over to the other.
At some point if you could give me your travel itinerary we could make
arrangements to meet up.
Thanks,
Tom Saccio
_tsaccio(at)aol.com_ (mailto:tsaccio(at)aol.com)
**************************************
AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
As typical of many discussions people throw out comments without
specific experience with the product. After reviewing many of the posts
here are my comments. First, the company was sold a while back and is in
the hands of some great people in Minnesota. I purchased mine from the
previous owners. I was working on an issue and contacted the new owner
(Tim) and he was 100% helpful. The previous people were great too.
Everything worked as it should from the first time the power was
applied. There were a couple of minor issues encountered that are
discussed below.
Someone mentioned the weight difference. I think in the overall scheme
it may add a little but so does failing to go to the bathroom before
flying!!!
It will handle ANY system. As far as upgrading, it is as simple as
adding the appropriate cable. There may be a chance you would have to
send in the hub, but not sure. How many people change out their panel
anyway. If you needed to can the who thing, this would be the cheapest
thing to replace anyway.
You get the complete wiring diagram and specific "pin outs" for each
cable. Not being familiar with this aspect of building, I found the
diagrams and pinouts easy to read.
I mounted the Hub just behind the panel (tip up) on the right side. It
is 100% accessible and looks very neat with the cables tied together and
running to the avionics. All of the cables have the computer look with
sealed connectors at each end. (except the audio panel at the avionics
end)
I figure I added about $400 to the overall cost of the wiring with the
system. The $400 was well worth the reduction of the BS factor on the
install. The install is quite simple with biggest issue being the audio
panel with lots of loose wires to find their homes.
I have the Pro G hub with the following equipment integrated with the
hub.
Garmin 340 audio panel
Garmin 430 GPS Nav/Comm
Garmin SL40
Garmin 330 Mode S transponder
Garmin 106A CDI
Trutrak Digiflight II VSGV auto pilot
ACK encoder
The only issues I had with the purchase was not know what the full
capabilities of the avionics I selected. As an example, I did not know
that I needed 4 unswitched audios for various components. The old
Approach Systems apparently did not either and didn't wire for these.
With the guidance of Approach Systems I was able to pin out a few more
wires. Also the Garmin 330 Mode S transponder has Density Altitude
capability if wired for a temperature probe. I did not know this. Again
I wired a couple of wires and it was done.
I spoke with the new owners about this. I recommended that they
conference with customers as to their equipment and the capabilities so
everything is wired as desired and the full capabilities are
experienced. Tim related they would do that. I should also point out
that their knowledge of individual pieces of avionics is exceptional.
Since they are an avionics shop the knowledge base is excellent.
In summary, if you are concerned about your ability to wire your panel,
simple or complex, do not hesitate use the Approach Systems product.
Despite the nominal extra cost you will reduce your wiring time 10 fold
with a system that works as it is supposed to.
Sorry for the length but I wanted to clear up some of the misconceptions
reported.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
RV7 N717EE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
Darwin
Thanks for the info....especially knowing it is real world stuff.
I think I could wire up the various cables....but why......at least for me
this is one area where i will error on the side of an expert.
I talked with Tim yesterday and he is a stand up guy. I will proceed with
the hub / cable system they provide and thank you and the others that have
shed some light on my lack of knowledge.
Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
>From: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pro G hub
>Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:59:32 -0700
>
>As typical of many discussions people throw out comments without specific
>experience with the product. After reviewing many of the posts here are my
>comments. First, the company was sold a while back and is in the hands of
>some great people in Minnesota. I purchased mine from the previous owners.
>I was working on an issue and contacted the new owner (Tim) and he was 100%
>helpful. The previous people were great too. Everything worked as it should
>from the first time the power was applied. There were a couple of minor
>issues encountered that are discussed below.
>
>Someone mentioned the weight difference. I think in the overall scheme it
>may add a little but so does failing to go to the bathroom before flying!!!
>
>It will handle ANY system. As far as upgrading, it is as simple as adding
>the appropriate cable. There may be a chance you would have to send in the
>hub, but not sure. How many people change out their panel anyway. If you
>needed to can the who thing, this would be the cheapest thing to replace
>anyway.
>
>You get the complete wiring diagram and specific "pin outs" for each cable.
>Not being familiar with this aspect of building, I found the diagrams and
>pinouts easy to read.
>
>I mounted the Hub just behind the panel (tip up) on the right side. It is
>100% accessible and looks very neat with the cables tied together and
>running to the avionics. All of the cables have the computer look with
>sealed connectors at each end. (except the audio panel at the avionics end)
>
>I figure I added about $400 to the overall cost of the wiring with the
>system. The $400 was well worth the reduction of the BS factor on the
>install. The install is quite simple with biggest issue being the audio
>panel with lots of loose wires to find their homes.
>
>I have the Pro G hub with the following equipment integrated with the hub.
>
>Garmin 340 audio panel
>Garmin 430 GPS Nav/Comm
>Garmin SL40
>Garmin 330 Mode S transponder
>Garmin 106A CDI
>Trutrak Digiflight II VSGV auto pilot
>ACK encoder
>
>The only issues I had with the purchase was not know what the full
>capabilities of the avionics I selected. As an example, I did not know that
>I needed 4 unswitched audios for various components. The old Approach
>Systems apparently did not either and didn't wire for these. With the
>guidance of Approach Systems I was able to pin out a few more wires. Also
>the Garmin 330 Mode S transponder has Density Altitude capability if wired
>for a temperature probe. I did not know this. Again I wired a couple of
>wires and it was done.
>
>I spoke with the new owners about this. I recommended that they conference
>with customers as to their equipment and the capabilities so everything is
>wired as desired and the full capabilities are experienced. Tim related
>they would do that. I should also point out that their knowledge of
>individual pieces of avionics is exceptional. Since they are an avionics
>shop the knowledge base is excellent.
>
>In summary, if you are concerned about your ability to wire your panel,
>simple or complex, do not hesitate use the Approach Systems product.
>Despite the nominal extra cost you will reduce your wiring time 10 fold
>with a system that works as it is supposed to.
>
>Sorry for the length but I wanted to clear up some of the misconceptions
>reported.
>
>Darwin N. Barrie
>Chandler AZ
>RV7 N717EE
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Molex connector sexual orientation |
| From: | "bmeyette" <brianpublic2(at)starband.net> |
I was putting together some Molex connectors for the first time. The plastic parts
have a male and a female half. The terminals also are either male or female.
However, I am a bit unclear as to how to mate these parts. Intuition would tell
me that the male terminals go into the male plastic part. Yet, I have a feeling
it's actually the other way around.
Is a male metal terminal supposed to go into the male plastic housing, or the female
plastic housing, or doesn't it matter?
thanks,
brian
--------
Brian Meyette, Cornish, NH
RV-7A QB tipup, Eggenfellner supercharged STi engine, MT CS prop, all glass day/night/IFR
panel, being built with solar and wind power
N432MM reserved
http://brian76.mystarband.net/RV-7Ahome.htm
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=100754#100754
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Bradburry <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com> |
I bought a partially completed Lancair kit and the Pro-G Hub and several
cables came with the kit. I have since decided not to use it. It has
never been installed. I can make someone a great deal if they are
interested.
E-mail me off list and I will give you the details of which cables I
have, etc.
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> |
| Subject: | ANR Headset Power without batteries |
I have a Telex Stratus 50D that I ordered with a "Lemo" connector (to use
ship's power) and battery pack as an accessory. This battery pack uses 6
each AA batteries.
My dilemma is that I own 2 aircraft (both tandem seating) and several
headsets (all ANR) and need to eliminate all battery packs. I have a strong
dislike of things flopping around in the cockpit. This dilemma seems to be
exasperated by the lack of a standard power voltage and connector to drive
the ANR in all headsets.
My questions are:
1) What voltage does my 50D headset ANR run on ?? The
specs in the Telex website differ from my actual unit in that my unit is
using 6 ea AA batteries. The website says this unit runs on 4 each AA
batteries. If it is running on 9 volts it will help my situation. I've
contacted Telex about this and am waiting for an answer.
2) One of my other ANR Headsets is a helmet with Headsets
Inc. ANR system that runs on 9vdc. I spoke with Headsets Inc. and he didn't
know what connector he is using for the power - would anyone here know ??
3) Does anyone have a sense of a "standard" connector
configuration emerging ??
4) I believe the connector configuration I will be choosing
will be:
a. Standard microphone connector
b. Standard headset connector
c. Similar style but different sized plug for ANR power - powered at 9
vdc.
This would allow each headset with this configuration to be used in any of
my aircraft; or any other aircraft with either no ANR or an auxiliary
battery pack to power the ANR. Would you please give me feedback on this
plan ?? Is it optimal ??
5) What power connector would anyone here recommend ??
6) Is there any other source for this magic Power Supply to
supply good 9 vdc ??
7) My wife has the Bose headset - I'm guessing it runs off
a different voltage given it uses 2 each AA batteries. What can I do to
make it fit into my scheme ??
My design goals are:
A) Inter-compatibility (or as much as possible) between my
headsets and my aircraft.
B) No battery packs in my 2 aircraft
C) Ability to allow anyone else with standard headsets to
plug into my aircraft (with or without their own ANR).
D) Ability to use my headsets in other aircraft not
equipped with my ANR Power plugs - using an auxiliary battery pack of my
own.
E) Keep all of my headset cords short with connectors
located near my shoulders (I have done this before and it works very well).
If this is of interest to anyone else I would be happy to post whatever
findings I come up with.
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA
Super Decathlon
Rocket (fuselage / systems)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Molex connector sexual orientation |
Brian
Here is the molex web site. You should be able to find your answer here.
Regards
Ron Raby
http://www.molex.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "bmeyette" <brianpublic2(at)starband.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Molex connector sexual orientation
>
>
> I was putting together some Molex connectors for the first time. The
> plastic parts have a male and a female half. The terminals also are
> either male or female.
>
> However, I am a bit unclear as to how to mate these parts. Intuition
> would tell me that the male terminals go into the male plastic part. Yet,
> I have a feeling it's actually the other way around.
>
> Is a male metal terminal supposed to go into the male plastic housing, or
> the female plastic housing, or doesn't it matter?
>
> thanks,
> brian
>
> --------
> Brian Meyette, Cornish, NH
>
> RV-7A QB tipup, Eggenfellner supercharged STi engine, MT CS prop, all
> glass day/night/IFR panel, being built with solar and wind power
>
> N432MM reserved
>
> http://brian76.mystarband.net/RV-7Ahome.htm
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=100754#100754
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Molex connector sexual orientation |
Brian,
I believe that you can think of the male pins being protected by what
you call the "female" shell. The female receptacle pins are protected by
being internal in the "male" shell. So both are mechanically shielded by
their shells.
Hope this helps.
Richard Dudley
RV-6A flying
bmeyette wrote:
>
>I was putting together some Molex connectors for the first time. The plastic
parts have a male and a female half. The terminals also are either male or female.
>
>However, I am a bit unclear as to how to mate these parts. Intuition would tell
me that the male terminals go into the male plastic part. Yet, I have a feeling
it's actually the other way around.
>
>Is a male metal terminal supposed to go into the male plastic housing, or the
female plastic housing, or doesn't it matter?
>
>thanks,
>brian
>
>--------
>Brian Meyette, Cornish, NH
>
>RV-7A QB tipup, Eggenfellner supercharged STi engine, MT CS prop, all glass day/night/IFR
panel, being built with solar and wind power
>
>N432MM reserved
>
>http://brian76.mystarband.net/RV-7Ahome.htm
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=100754#100754
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Molex connector sexual orientation |
The male pins go in the female connector. Such is life!
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bmeyette
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:40 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Molex connector sexual orientation
I was putting together some Molex connectors for the first time. The
plastic parts have a male and a female half. The terminals also are either
male or female.
However, I am a bit unclear as to how to mate these parts. Intuition would
tell me that the male terminals go into the male plastic part. Yet, I have
a feeling it's actually the other way around.
Is a male metal terminal supposed to go into the male plastic housing, or
the female plastic housing, or doesn't it matter?
thanks,
brian
--------
Brian Meyette, Cornish, NH
RV-7A QB tipup, Eggenfellner supercharged STi engine, MT CS prop, all glass
day/night/IFR panel, being built with solar and wind power
N432MM reserved
http://brian76.mystarband.net/RV-7Ahome.htm
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=100754#100754
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Molex connector sexual orientation |
bmeyette wrote:
>
>I was putting together some Molex connectors for the first time. The plastic
parts have a male and a female half. The terminals also are either male or female.
>
>However, I am a bit unclear as to how to mate these parts. Intuition would tell
me that the male terminals go into the male plastic part. Yet, I have a feeling
it's actually the other way around.
>
>Is a male metal terminal supposed to go into the male plastic housing, or the
female plastic housing, or doesn't it matter?
>
>
>
While technically it will work either way, the convention is that boys
go with girls. Your intuition is correct in this case.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ANR Headset Power without batteries |
I have Telex headsets, and they use a miniDIN connector into their
battery pack. I made up small connector panels for each of the headset
positions, placed them close to the shoulders as you described, and ran
a twisted pair to each. The twisted pairs all come back to an LM317
based power regulator set to provide 9V. Any headsets I purchase will be
9V compatible. I can add the miniDIN connector if it isn't there already.
4 AAs will be 6V I believe, and 2 AAs will be 3V. 1.5V for each cell.
But they may be wired in parallel within the battery pack, instead of in
series. Series configuration multiplies the voltage. Parallel
configuration multiplies the (capability to supply) current. It's not
save to assume. It would be relatively easy to set up the LM317 to
switch between regulating resistors, but you stand a STRONG chance of
ruining a very expensive piece of headset gear. If you must have varied
types of headsets, the real solution is to have construct a regulator
for each, put it in a tiny box that stays attached to the ANR power cord
and will then interface with ships power. You can set each headset to
what it expects.
Larry James wrote:
> My design goals are:
>
> A) Inter-compatibility (or as much as possible) between my headsets
> and my aircraft.
>
> B) No battery packs in my 2 aircraft
>
> C) Ability to allow anyone else with standard headsets to plug into my
> aircraft (with or without their own ANR).
>
> D) Ability to use my headsets in other aircraft not equipped with my
> ANR Power plugs using an auxiliary battery pack of my own.
>
> E) Keep all of my headset cords short with connectors located near my
> shoulders (I have done this before and it works very well).
>
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | ANR Headset Power without batteries |
| From: | David Chalmers <david(at)ChalmersFamily.com> |
In my Quickie Q200 I installed Bose connectors and paralleled them up with
standard headphone/microphone jacks to allow use of either Bose powered
headsets or regular headsets. Works great but you need a battery pack for
other ANR headsets. If I did it again I would just install Bose connectors
and make up some short pigtails with a Bose male on one end and standard
headphone sockets on the other. You could add a power connector to the
pigtail for other ANR headsets. To deal with the stereo/mono issue I used
stereo headphone jacks with a few hundred ohm resistor in series with left
and right to allow use of mono or stereo headphones. IIRC this was suggested
by the intercom manufacturer.
David Chalmers
Redmond,WA
Tri-Q200 N4016G
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry
James
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:52 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ANR Headset Power without batteries
I have a Telex Stratus 50D that I ordered with a "Lemo" connector (to use
ship's power) and battery pack as an accessory. This battery pack uses 6
each AA batteries.
My dilemma is that I own 2 aircraft (both tandem seating) and several
headsets (all ANR) and need to eliminate all battery packs. I have a strong
dislike of things flopping around in the cockpit. This dilemma seems to be
exasperated by the lack of a standard power voltage and connector to drive
the ANR in all headsets.
My questions are:
1) What voltage does my 50D headset ANR run on ?? The
specs in the Telex website differ from my actual unit in that my unit is
using 6 ea AA batteries. The website says this unit runs on 4 each AA
batteries. If it is running on 9 volts it will help my situation. I've
contacted Telex about this and am waiting for an answer.
2) One of my other ANR Headsets is a helmet with Headsets
Inc. ANR system that runs on 9vdc. I spoke with Headsets Inc. and he didn't
know what connector he is using for the power - would anyone here know ??
3) Does anyone have a sense of a "standard" connector
configuration emerging ??
4) I believe the connector configuration I will be choosing
will be:
a. Standard microphone connector
b. Standard headset connector
c. Similar style but different sized plug for ANR power - powered at 9
vdc.
This would allow each headset with this configuration to be used in any of
my aircraft; or any other aircraft with either no ANR or an auxiliary
battery pack to power the ANR. Would you please give me feedback on this
plan ?? Is it optimal ??
5) What power connector would anyone here recommend ??
6) Is there any other source for this magic Power Supply to
supply good 9 vdc ??
7) My wife has the Bose headset - I'm guessing it runs off
a different voltage given it uses 2 each AA batteries. What can I do to
make it fit into my scheme ??
My design goals are:
A) Inter-compatibility (or as much as possible) between my
headsets and my aircraft.
B) No battery packs in my 2 aircraft
C) Ability to allow anyone else with standard headsets to
plug into my aircraft (with or without their own ANR).
D) Ability to use my headsets in other aircraft not
equipped with my ANR Power plugs - using an auxiliary battery pack of my
own.
E) Keep all of my headset cords short with connectors
located near my shoulders (I have done this before and it works very well).
If this is of interest to anyone else I would be happy to post whatever
findings I come up with.
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA
Super Decathlon
Rocket (fuselage / systems)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Molex connector sexual orientation |
Yes that is what I do.
In addition though I always arrange that the male shell (plastic
surrounds each female pin) is wired to the side that is hot (hardwired
to aircraft power). That insures that two pins can't be pushed together
and short out the power source. These are low cost connectors and that
can happen even sometimes while trying to connect the two halves.
Ken
Murphy Rebel, subaru ej22, built with cheap grid power in a shop heated
by wood grown with solar power... ;)
Richard Dudley wrote:
>
>
> Brian,
> I believe that you can think of the male pins being protected by what
> you call the "female" shell. The female receptacle pins are protected
> by being internal in the "male" shell. So both are mechanically
> shielded by their shells.
> Hope this helps.
> Richard Dudley
> RV-6A flying
>
> bmeyette wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I was putting together some Molex connectors for the first time. The
>> plastic parts have a male and a female half. The terminals also are
>> either male or female.
>>
>> However, I am a bit unclear as to how to mate these parts.
>> Intuition would tell me that the male terminals go into the male
>> plastic part. Yet, I have a feeling it's actually the other way around.
>>
>> Is a male metal terminal supposed to go into the male plastic
>> housing, or the female plastic housing, or doesn't it matter?
>>
>> thanks,
>> brian
>>
>> --------
>> Brian Meyette, Cornish, NH
>>
>> RV-7A QB tipup, Eggenfellner supercharged STi engine, MT CS prop, all
>> glass day/night/IFR panel, being built with solar and wind power
>>
>> N432MM reserved
>>
>> http://brian76.mystarband.net/RV-7Ahome.htm
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | ANR Headset Power without batteries |
Larry,
I just received Jacks for my Headsets Inc. install from Mouser. If you wish to
isolate the ground you will also need .312 I.D. Shoulder washers. I didn't order
any and had to machine a pair!!
www.mouser.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ORDERED STOCK NUMBER SHIPPED PRICE EXTENDED
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2 502-L722A 2 4.290 8.58
Switchcraft L722A DC Jacks
PWR JCK LNG BSHG
"2) One of my other ANR Headsets is a helmet with Headsets Inc. ANR
system that runs on 9vdc. I spoke with Headsets Inc. and he didnt know
what connector he is using for the power would anyone here know ??"
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | ANR Headset Power without batteries |
Carl,
The jury is still out,I have not flown with the ANR conversion yet.
When I first turned them on in the shop the fan the was running
disappeared. It seems like they will work just fine. Headsets Inc
recommends there power adaptor, I believe I will brew my own although I
am planning on using a switching regulator. The converter they supply is
ground isolated and that is what I plan on replicating. The converter I
selected is on backorder until the end of April :( . The audio and dc
power share grounds so there is a chance of introducing noise into the
system using a LM317 locally at the jacks. I may try the LM317, it sure
is a lot simpler and cheaper (LM317's) live in my junk box!
The actual installation of the ANR modules was straightforward, the
hardware is well done. I replaced the cable with the optional cable that
they offer as I don't like the idea of the power cable zip tied to the
audio cable.
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Morgan" <zk-vii(at)rvproject.gen.nz> |
| Subject: | ANR Headset Power without batteries |
Can you provide some details of the ground isolated converter that you are
looking at - I'm just starting on the learning curve for the PCB type
stuff - would be good to see / try and understand how it could be done. $50
per 9V regulated supply seems a bit steep to me.....
Likewise I would go with a single cord - otherwise looks a bit 'amateurish',
and going DC Mono H10-13.4 to stereo ANR is attractive.
Cheers,
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Hoover [mailto:hooverra(at)verizon.net]
> Sent: Friday, 16 March 2007 3:39 p.m.
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: ANR Headset Power without batteries
>
>
>
>
> Carl,
> The jury is still out,I have not flown with the ANR conversion yet.
> When I first turned them on in the shop the fan the was running
> disappeared. It seems like they will work just fine. Headsets Inc
> recommends there power adaptor, I believe I will brew my own although I
> am planning on using a switching regulator. The converter they supply is
> ground isolated and that is what I plan on replicating. The converter I
> selected is on backorder until the end of April :( . The audio and dc
> power share grounds so there is a chance of introducing noise into the
> system using a LM317 locally at the jacks. I may try the LM317, it sure
> is a lot simpler and cheaper (LM317's) live in my junk box!
> The actual installation of the ANR modules was straightforward, the
> hardware is well done. I replaced the cable with the optional cable that
> they offer as I don't like the idea of the power cable zip tied to the
> audio cable.
>
> --
> Ralph C. Hoover
> RV7A
> hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Single radio, two frequencies |
Does anyone know of a COM radio that can monitor the standby
frequency at the same time as the primary frequency, as the XCOM 760
does? I'm looking for one in a standard thin radio stack form factor
as opposed to a round instrument package.
Basically I'm looking for a way to eliminate one of my two COM radios
but maintain the ability to listen to ATIS/AWOS without leaving the
primary frequency I'm on.
Dave Morris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Single radio, two frequencies |
Dave,
You mentioned a COM radio. The SL-30 NAV/COM has the capability of
monitoring a standby frequency while being tuned to a primary one. It
also has a very thin vertical profile with standard width.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
RV-6A flying
Dave N6030X wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone know of a COM radio that can monitor the standby frequency
> at the same time as the primary frequency, as the XCOM 760 does? I'm
> looking for one in a standard thin radio stack form factor as opposed
> to a round instrument package.
>
> Basically I'm looking for a way to eliminate one of my two COM radios
> but maintain the ability to listen to ATIS/AWOS without leaving the
> primary frequency I'm on.
>
> Dave Morris
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Single radio, two frequencies |
Good Morning Dave,
The Garmin SL 30 and SL 40 both have that capability.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 3/16/2007 8:48:36 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
Does anyone know of a COM radio that can monitor the standby
frequency at the same time as the primary frequency, as the XCOM 760
does? I'm looking for one in a standard thin radio stack form factor
as opposed to a round instrument package.
Basically I'm looking for a way to eliminate one of my two COM radios
but maintain the ability to listen to ATIS/AWOS without leaving the
primary frequency I'm on.
Dave Morris
************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone.
Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Single radio, two frequencies |
| From: | john(at)ballofshame.com |
How much do you want to spend? The Garmin SL40 is a very nice radio with
standby frequency monitoring.
-John
www.ballofshame.com
>
>
> Does anyone know of a COM radio that can monitor the standby
> frequency at the same time as the primary frequency, as the XCOM 760
> does? I'm looking for one in a standard thin radio stack form factor
> as opposed to a round instrument package.
>
> Basically I'm looking for a way to eliminate one of my two COM radios
> but maintain the ability to listen to ATIS/AWOS without leaving the
> primary frequency I'm on.
>
> Dave Morris
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Single radio, two frequencies |
Garmin SL40 Com only
Garmin SL30 Nav/Com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dave
N6030X
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:43 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Single radio, two frequencies
Does anyone know of a COM radio that can monitor the standby
frequency at the same time as the primary frequency, as the XCOM 760
does? I'm looking for one in a standard thin radio stack form factor
as opposed to a round instrument package.
Basically I'm looking for a way to eliminate one of my two COM radios
but maintain the ability to listen to ATIS/AWOS without leaving the
primary frequency I'm on.
Dave Morris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Prue Motorgliders <pruemotorgliders(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Single radio, two frequencies |
Dave
King made a 2 channel frequency selection tied into one transmit
section. I have one stored and am not sure of the model number but
think it is similar in form to a KX-170. Its old technology and
probably does not meet current frequency requirements. I assume more
info is available from the experienced people. I can dig it out if
there is any interest
Jerry
N414PM Reserved
On Mar 16, 2007, at 6:43, Dave N6030X wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone know of a COM radio that can monitor the standby frequency
> at the same time as the primary frequency, as the XCOM 760 does? I'm
> looking for one in a standard thin radio stack form factor as opposed
> to a round instrument package.
>
> Basically I'm looking for a way to eliminate one of my two COM radios
> but maintain the ability to listen to ATIS/AWOS without leaving the
> primary frequency I'm on.
>
> Dave Morris
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Single radio, two frequencies |
I had forgotten about the SL-40. I'm trying to come up with an
alternative to spending $10,000 on a 430.
Thanks for all the suggestions, guys.
Dave
At 09:04 AM 3/16/2007, you wrote:
>
>Garmin SL40 Com only
>
>Garmin SL30 Nav/Com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dave
>N6030X
>Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:43 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Single radio, two frequencies
>
>
>Does anyone know of a COM radio that can monitor the standby
>frequency at the same time as the primary frequency, as the XCOM 760
>does? I'm looking for one in a standard thin radio stack form factor
>as opposed to a round instrument package.
>
>Basically I'm looking for a way to eliminate one of my two COM radios
>but maintain the ability to listen to ATIS/AWOS without leaving the
>primary frequency I'm on.
>
>Dave Morris
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: ANR Headset Power without batteries |
Larry
I'm not answering to your questions, which are partially also mine.
I will appreciate if you share the conclusions you arrived at.
TIA
Carlos
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry James
To: AeroElectric-List(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:52 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ANR Headset Power without batteries
I have a Telex Stratus 50D that I ordered with a "Lemo" connector (to
use ship's power) and battery pack as an accessory. This battery pack
uses 6 each AA batteries.
My dilemma is that I own 2 aircraft (both tandem seating) and several
headsets (all ANR) and need to eliminate all battery packs. I have a
strong dislike of things flopping around in the cockpit. This dilemma
seems to be exasperated by the lack of a standard power voltage and
connector to drive the ANR in all headsets.
My questions are:
1) What voltage does my 50D headset ANR run on ??
The specs in the Telex website differ from my actual unit in that my
unit is using 6 ea AA batteries. The website says this unit runs on 4
each AA batteries. If it is running on 9 volts it will help my
situation. I've contacted Telex about this and am waiting for an
answer.
2) One of my other ANR Headsets is a helmet with
Headsets Inc. ANR system that runs on 9vdc. I spoke with Headsets Inc.
and he didn't know what connector he is using for the power - would
anyone here know ??
3) Does anyone have a sense of a "standard" connector
configuration emerging ??
4) I believe the connector configuration I will be
choosing will be:
a. Standard microphone connector
b. Standard headset connector
c. Similar style but different sized plug for ANR power -
powered at 9 vdc.
This would allow each headset with this configuration to be used in
any of my aircraft; or any other aircraft with either no ANR or an
auxiliary battery pack to power the ANR. Would you please give me
feedback on this plan ?? Is it optimal ??
5) What power connector would anyone here recommend
??
6) Is there any other source for this magic Power
Supply to supply good 9 vdc ??
7) My wife has the Bose headset - I'm guessing it
runs off a different voltage given it uses 2 each AA batteries. What
can I do to make it fit into my scheme ??
My design goals are:
A) Inter-compatibility (or as much as possible)
between my headsets and my aircraft.
B) No battery packs in my 2 aircraft
C) Ability to allow anyone else with standard
headsets to plug into my aircraft (with or without their own ANR).
D) Ability to use my headsets in other aircraft not
equipped with my ANR Power plugs - using an auxiliary battery pack of my
own.
E) Keep all of my headset cords short with connectors
located near my shoulders (I have done this before and it works very
well).
If this is of interest to anyone else I would be happy to post
whatever findings I come up with.
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA
Super Decathlon
Rocket (fuselage / systems)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 8AWG Wire to Fast-On Connection |
| From: | "ryan42" <falcobuilder(at)gmail.com> |
Out of curiosity Bob, would you then mainly advocate z-14 for new designs with
a 20A alternator. In the past it seems you have suggested z-14 over z-12 for
people in the planning stages (correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe a z-14 that uses
the second bus as a smaller main alt. out e-bus, not used for starting...smaller
battery...
In what instance would you use z-12 over z-14 with a 20A alternator? Save a little
$ and #?
-Ryan (In the pondering stage)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=101129#101129
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Molex connector sexual orientation |
Brian,
It doesn't matter at all!
When the two halves are mated together, there is no chance of a short
between the pins and you ALWAYS disconnect the BAT ground before fooling
with ANYTHING elctrical, don't you???
I use these goodies a lot and I seldom put all of one "sex" on one end. I
mix them up so that I can't accidentally connect two connectors that don't
belong together. For instance, on my Blue Sea fuse block I twisted pairs and
assigned the "1" fuse to the "1" pin on my "molex" connector. The
corresponding ground (built in to the Blue Sea fuse block) went to the "2"
pin and so on. Grounds are male and +12V are female. There are 6 fuses on
one side numbered odd 1 through 11 and 6 on the other side numbered even 2
through 12. So... on the even side, the "1" pin is ground (male) and the "2"
pin is +12V (female) and so on... Both shells are female so I cannot
accidentally connect the two together. Besides, if the BAT ground is
disconnected, it wouldn't hurt to do so anyway! Each wire or bundle is
clearly labeled at the connector.
I just make each one unigue and there is a good mix of 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 12
pin connectors. No two are the same so it isn't possible to connect anything
wrong. If it fits, it right! Always read the label. And ALWAYS disconnect
BAT ground before working on your plane! Simple.
Rodney in Tennessee
_________________________________________________________________
i'm making a difference.Make every IM count for the cause of your choice.
Join Now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Richardson" <jrichard(at)ccser.com> |
| Subject: | Comments please on this solid state contactor....... |
Hello Alex
I have installed the EV200 contactor in my Lancair Legacy as the master
contactor after some investigation. I posted a similar question on the list
about a year ago and Bob answered me back (thanks again Bob). He said it
looked good from the data sheet, but very expensive when compared to the
normal contactors from B&C.
I think the current switching and carrying capability is a little over-kill
for our applications in light airplanes. However, in an all electric
system, I think this is not all bad. There's no weight or size penalty.
It's reassuring to note the device has a mechanical life cycle spec and a
cycles under load spec. As a master contactor, most of the load is removed
during the switching event. Load carrying is speced at 200 A continuous and
500 A for 10 sec. However, as a starter contactor, load switching is an
issue but that's where this thing really shines. Because of cost, I ended
up using a regular contactor for the starter.
The coil energizing circuit is unique. It draws about 3 A during coil pull
in then drops back to 0.07 A (24V) to hold. I talked to the design engineer
to learn this low holding current is achieved by a pulsing circuit that
applies the 3 amps at a very low duty cycle. A possible down side of the
pulsing is radio frequency interference. I did a rough test with my
handheld placing the antenna all around the device and the coil leads and
found no interference across the nav and com bands. I'm not flying yet, so
I'm still waiting to conduct the real test. In comparison, a continuous
duty standard contactor I have has coil resistance of about 70 ohms for 24
volt operation. At 28 volts that will draw about 0.4 A and dissipate about
11 watts. Not that much in the big picture. Obviously, the EV200 does not
get hot at all due to coil current. Finally, it's reassuring to note the
coil circuit operates over the range of 9 to 36 volts and will hold in (stay
closed) down to 7.5 volts. In a 24 volt system, this is more than adequate
margin to operate under low bus voltage, even when starting. I think it's
about the same as a 12 v contactor too.
It is definitely a quality component and I'm banking on it keeping my two
Odyssey PC 625 batteries connected to the panel.
Regards,
John Richardson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:36 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Comments please on this solid state
contactor.......
I have been testing my electrical system on my all- electric Velocity- with
no load, only the coils energized for about 30 minutes my battery contactors
were both quite hot- too hot to hold for more than say 5 seconds- comments
from other builders agree that this is rather normal- someone suggested the
"Czonka III" solid state unit- uses no appreciable power- good for tens of
thousands of cycles at 200 amps- please see attached PDF- is there any
foreseen drawback other than cost?
Alex
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How reliable is reliable |
>
>Out of curiosity Bob, would you then mainly advocate z-14 for new designs
>with a 20A alternator. In the past it seems you have suggested z-14 over
>z-12 for people in the planning stages (correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe a
>z-14 that uses the second bus as a smaller main alt. out e-bus, not used
>for starting...smaller battery...
>
>In what instance would you use z-12 over z-14 with a 20A alternator? Save
>a little $ and #?
>
>-Ryan (In the pondering stage)
To my way of thinking, perhaps 1-2% of all OBAM aircraft
under construction will be used in ways that justify a
Z-14 installation. Here's a post I made in 2005 to a similar
question:
------------------------
>Thank you for your thoughtful reply. The 2 batt/2 alt setup (Z11) did get me
>excited but the type of flying (very occasional dusk VFR, no IFR, over water
>at times) plus a common sensical KISS principle to govern decisions may
>dampen my enthusiasm for Z11.
Let's try to put some things into perspective. There are tons
of dark-n-stormy night stories wherein alternators and batteries
are star performers in the role of villain. Given the proven
reliability of modern automotive alternators . . . in particular
the converted Nipon Denso products from B&C . . . probability
of alternator failure is a small fraction of what we've come to
expect from certified iron. Combine this with the very robust,
sealed lead-acid batteries -AND- a truly meaningful preventative
maintenance plan and we've beat the worst worries into submission.
If one simply installs Van's a-la C-172 wiring with a modern
alternator and well maintained RG battery, probability of
having to take a staring role in a dark-n-stormy night play
due to electrical systems issues is very low.
By taking advantage of variations on a theme described in the
z-figures, one can push those probabilities still lower. In
10+ years of suggesting builders consider the e-bus, I've
had only one reader write and tell me the e-bus turned an
alternator failure into a ho-hum event. However, I've had
perhaps a half dozen people write and thank me for the OVM-14
crowbar ov module. Far more folks have experienced an ov
condition that forced alternator shutdown than simple
alternator failure. I don't recall the numbers of ov
experiences that benefited from an e-bus installation after
the alternator was shut off. Even if the builder did not
have an e-bus, keeping a well maintained RG battery on
board goes a long way to saving the day.
>In the final analysis, I think it all boils down to whether I want full
>electronic ignition, partial, or all mags.
If you go electronic ignition, consider at least one p-mag
which does not depend on electrical system for operation.
>I am finishing the wings which means that I have a long way to go - you'll
>see my posts as the situation evolves.
I have a client with enough funds to strive for the
"ultimate" system which may include dual efis, dual
electronic ignition, dual autopilots . . . For the
moment, I'm still trying to justify ruling out
a Figure Z-13/8 installation thus saving about a 23
pound penalty for going with Z-14.
Reliability doesn't have to be heavy or expensive . . .
just well considered. Since the e-mag/p-mag guys
came along, reliability is getting easier, lighter
and less expensive all the time.
------------------ end of quotation -------------------------
If I owned a certified machine, I would endeavor to
(1) add ACTIVE NOTIFICATION OF LOW VOLTAGE. (2)
install and MAINTAIN an RG battery. (3) Modify
the architecture to turn the avionics bus into an
E-BUS. (4) When an if the stock alternator craps,
I'd get a modern automotive adaptation in place.
These simple changes alone would elevate the spam
can's SYSTEM reliability by a quantum jump. Implementation
of an e-bus/bat-maintenance protocol makes the vast
majority of demonstrated concerns go away. Virtually
every dark-n-stormy night story I've read that concerned
electrical systems would never had been written had
the owner-operators of the subject airplanes availed
themselves of the knowledge and understanding offered
to you here on this List.
Now, if you don't plan to have a vacuum system then
the vacuum pump pad is open and you'll be many watt-hours
ahead in planning for alternator failure by adding the
SD-8 and perhaps even downsizing the battery for a wash
in weight.
Z-13/8 is an exceedingly robust system that should
handle everything you or I would want to do at
reliability levels that far exceed those of the
certified ships that we're ALREADY using do do the
same kinds of flights.
Now, Z-12 and Z-14 have some appeal but I'd recommend
Z-12 only as an upgrade to an existing Z-11 or spam-can
clone and Z-14 for ships like a Lancair IVP with full-up
dual IFR panels.
Obviously, if you have the $time$ and don't mind the
weight, you can pile on as many backups to backups that
suits your worry levels . . . but I'll suggest that
Z-13/8 is the value leader in return for reliability
with the lowest investment in $time$ and loss of
payload.
It would cost more dollars and talented manpower than
you or I are willing to expend to put numbers on the
relative reliability of Z-13/8 vs Z-14 for the various
operating scenarios. But it's my considered judgement
that Z-14 is overkill for most of the OBAM aircraft
under construction.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wiring diagram benefits? |
>Just do it, you'll be happy you did, and may hate yourself if not I will
>do my first flight next week, and so far there have been 3 issues
>regarding electrical stuff which were a piece of cake to track down and
>fix because I took the trouble to do a 6 page diagram with Z11 as a base.
>
>Here's the deal... I wired it last year, and if you think you'll remember
>all those pathways about 2 years after first flight, you have a lot better
>memory than myself.It was a mystery to me until I pulled out my
>handy-dandy wirebook... Voila!!! No problema!!!
This doesn't have to be time consuming or expensive.
Do page per system drawings in pencil and keep a
Pink Pearl eraser handy for corrections. You can
do the drawings in a 3-ring notebook. When the
airplane is done, "fog" the penciled pages with
clear Krylon finish to "set" the pencil for longevity
that rivals ink.
Total time added to your task will be trivial in
the grand scheme of things. Further, as others have
suggested you'll be glad you did it a few years
hence. The wirebook can also cite component part numbers
to make spares procurement easier as well.
Another thing I've been doing for about the last
7 years or so is ordering parts and supplies as
much as possible over the 'net. When an order has
be submitted, you almost always get a screen dump
of the order that includes where you got the parts,
what the numbers are, how much they cost, etc. I
print these screens (or e-mail confirmations) to
pdf files using Adobe Acrobat (other pdf generators
may work as well). Name the file with a date-supplier
protocol like 70320B01_Digikey. This decodes to
Bob's first purchase on March 20, 2007 and placed with
Digikey.
When all these files get dumped into a purchasing
directory, I have a complete history of orders that
sort in date order and can be searched. It takes
seconds to record the order to a common data folder
and a few seconds longer to search later and find
where I purchased an MS21919 clamp or a DPX5050
pressure transducer.
When your airplane is done, you can print out these
files to paper, punch them and put them in the back
of your wirebook too. Takes mere minutes to collect
the information and offers fast access to tons of
maintenance data.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "go-fly-away(at)juno.com" <go-fly-away(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Rheostat Diagrams |
Hi Bob,
I have your book but am looking for proper use of a rheostat to dim the
annuciators on a KLN 90-B. I have ground plus the annunciator light wir
es. I am having a brain dump on this one. Any suggestions??
Thanks, Mark
Hi Bob,
I have your book but am looking for proper use of a rheostat to dim t
he annuciators on a KLN 90-B. I have ground plus the annunciator l
ight wires. I am having a brain dump on this one. Any sugges
tions??
Thanks, Mark