AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-he
September 02, 2007 - September 25, 2007
Now, start the engine and turn the alternator on. Note the bus
voltage. We would LIKE to see 14.2 to 14.6 volts but 13.8 or 13.9
would still charge the battery.
After the alternator comes on, if you see a rise in bus voltage,
then the alternator IS working to some degree. Its set point may
be too low . . . but it is working. Now the ammeter should show
a decided (+) reading - energy is being stuffed back into the
battery. Turn all the accessories off and observe the ammeter
which should begin to move back toward zero indicating that the
battery is topped off.
For the moment, nothing you've written suggests that the system
is seriously malfunctioning. It may need adjustment of voltage.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermoelectric Generators |
Neither do I... Don't know what happened - operator error I guess ;-) .
Here it is: http://www.hi-z.com/
Dick
jetboy wrote:
>
>Dick,, i dont see the link?
>
>--------
>Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis(at)msm.umr.edu> |
| Subject: | 60A Buss fuse attached to baffling? |
I'm considering protecting my alternator wiring with a Buss 60 Amp
current limiter (B&C, C903-1 base with C905-60 fuse). Does anybody know
if those devices can take the heat/vibration associated with being
mounted on the baffling, right near the alternator? That location would
provide fuse protection to almost the entire length of alternator
wiring, but is in a high heat/vibration environment.
Thanks,
Tim Lewis
--
Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
RV-6A N47TD -- 900 hrs
RV-10 #40059 under construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: 60A Buss fuse attached to baffling? |
Tim;
The source of energy which puts the alternator "B" lead at risk is the
battery. Therefore this fuse goes at the battery end of the wire not the
alternator end. The alternator is not capable of delivering much greater
than it's rated current, whereas if the alternator shorts the battery can
deliver several hundred amps into the fault.
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Lewis" <Tim_Lewis(at)msm.umr.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 60A Buss fuse attached to baffling?
>
> I'm considering protecting my alternator wiring with a Buss 60 Amp
> current limiter (B&C, C903-1 base with C905-60 fuse). Does anybody know
> if those devices can take the heat/vibration associated with being
> mounted on the baffling, right near the alternator? That location would
> provide fuse protection to almost the entire length of alternator
> wiring, but is in a high heat/vibration environment.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim Lewis
>
> --
> Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
> RV-6A N47TD -- 900 hrs
> RV-10 #40059 under construction
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
As one who works for one of those big suppliers of electronic equipment to
DOD I can tell you that there certainly have been problems with lead free
soldering of components. The biggest one is called "tin whiskers". Over
time the large amount of tin used in the lead-free process tends to migrate
from place to place on the circuit boards (in microscopic traces, hence the
whisker notation) and shorts out electronic components, not a good thing!!!
I really wouldn't care if the Europeans wanted to further trash their
societies with all this "sky is falling" hysteria on every little so-called
pollutant, or their ridiculous affinity for political correctness and
socialism, if they weren't always trying to shove it down America's throat
as well.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Tampa Bay area
-----Original Message-----
From: "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchronousdesign.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Lead-free soldering?
As such, defense contractors have qualified lead-free finishes and soldering
and are making military equipment with no lead. There has been a learning
curve,
Simon Ramirez, Aerocanard Builder
LEZ N-44LZ
Oviedo, FL 32765 USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Turk" <matronics(at)rtist.nl> |
Dont want to get into a political discussion, and as a European citizen I
agree that many of these regulations are way over the edge, but I must
object to your "shove it down America's throat" comment.
Europeans and other people around the world are experiencing America's
self-centered rules and regulations every day, from invasions on our privacy
(database searches through our private bank information by the CIA), stupid
security measures at our domestic airports because of US regulations,
privacy invasions with background searches for each flight, and ridiculous
impact on our businesses (Sarbanes-Oxley, DMCA). So when Americans are asked
to comply with world-wide regulations this has nothing to do with 'shoving
through your throat'. Besides, if it was such a big deal, the US would have
ignored the RoHS guidelines alltogether (Kyoto anyone?!?)
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 8:50 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Rohs
>
>
> As one who works for one of those big suppliers of electronic equipment to
> DOD I can tell you that there certainly have been problems with lead free
> soldering of components. The biggest one is called "tin whiskers". Over
> time the large amount of tin used in the lead-free process tends to
> migrate
> from place to place on the circuit boards (in microscopic traces, hence
> the
> whisker notation) and shorts out electronic components, not a good
> thing!!!
> I really wouldn't care if the Europeans wanted to further trash their
> societies with all this "sky is falling" hysteria on every little
> so-called
> pollutant, or their ridiculous affinity for political correctness and
> socialism, if they weren't always trying to shove it down America's throat
> as well.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Tampa Bay area
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 60A Buss fuse attached to baffling? No |
Tim:
I think you have it backwards, you are trying to protect the battery.
I would not put it on the shaking rattling Lycoming. It may take it
but your do add fatigue to anything vibrating, although based in
the above, its a moot point, protect the battery and put the 60 amp
fuse on the firewall. George
>From: Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis(at)msm.umr.edu>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: 60A Buss fuse attached to baffling?
>
>Does anybody know
>if those devices can take the heat/vibration associated with being
>mounted on the baffling, right near the alternator? That location
>would
>provide fuse protection to almost the entire length of alternator
>wiring, but is in a high heat/vibration environment.
>
>Thanks, Tim Lewis
---------------------------------
Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder
tool.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>As one who works for one of those big suppliers of electronic equipment to
>DOD I can tell you that there certainly have been problems with lead free
>soldering of components. The biggest one is called "tin whiskers". Over
>time the large amount of tin used in the lead-free process tends to migrate
>from place to place on the circuit boards (in microscopic traces, hence the
>whisker notation) and shorts out electronic components, not a good thing!!!
>I really wouldn't care if the Europeans wanted to further trash their
>societies with all this "sky is falling" hysteria on every little so-called
>pollutant, or their ridiculous affinity for political correctness and
>socialism, if they weren't always trying to shove it down America's throat
>as well.
Political issues aside, the biggest problems we're looking at
with respect to RoHS compliance are the 100F higher flow temps
of present lead-free offerings. In days of yore, one was advised
to hold the lead wires of a solid state device with a pair of needle
nose pliers while soldering the joints . . . so as to preclude
damage to the fragile "chip" . . . nowadays, we run boards
chips and all through big ovens designed to flow little pads
of solder paste upon which each component sits. 63/37 PbSn
is the lowest temp product to date. The 100F jump in flow temps
for the new solders presents some big reliability issues
for components "cooked" at higher temperatures.
The lead free solders are not as resistant to cracking under
vibration and yes, there's the tin-whiskers. For the moment,
aviation is exempt from the lead-free push in Europe but it's
probably inevitable. It's been suggested that all future
devices assembled with 63/37 PbSn be fitted with warning
labels and return postage guaranteed back to the point of
origin. The idea is that when the device is ready for the
scrap heap, one simply drops it in the nearest mailbox and
the "problem child" is whisked back to its parents!
It would be interesting to bury a bunch of old TV sets
and come back in 20 years to do soil samples and see
just how far the problem material has migrated into
the soil. Even if we DID find noteworthy elevations of
lead, what is the significance of the finding? It's
not like this is a new thing. Aspen CO went through a
long ordeal with the EPA a few years ago. See:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xo2k0_are-we-scaring-ourselves-to-death-3_news
Folks in this part of the world decided to mount the great
battle through environmental regulation (not laws mind
you but requirements drafted by folks with no real
knowledge, understanding or accountability). In other
parts of the world, they've crafted restrictions against
commerce but the same quality of administrators are
tasked with the job of making us all "safe".
Whatever the outcomes, it's not going to be cheap,
the lives saved will be un-quantified, and the folks
writing/enforcing the regulations today will be retired
at 75% of base pay patting themselves on the back for
having "done a good job".
For me at least, I never miss a chance to stock
up on my favorite forms of 63/37 . . . and I'm not
planning to change over soon. The risk and expense
for not doing it are incalculable while the risks
for jumping on the band-wagon are real and
demonstrable.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to check and alternator?? |
>Hi Bob !!
>
>
>Thanks for the help and suggestions !! I really appreciate you and all I
>learn from you.
>
>So, I did exactly as you said, and you are 100% correct. I left on a
>bunch of stuff for about 10 minutes, then started the plane and
>immediately noticed the ammeter was slightly on the negative side, maybe
>reading about 4 negative amps. The voltage read just under 15 volts -
>say 14.7 the whole time and stays there but within about 3 minutes, the
>ammeter came back up to zero and stayed there.
>
>I wired the ammeter and external shunt as per Van's Aircraft instructions
>and my brother Danny (which you've all heard from many times) says there
>are 2 other ways (according to Dynon) to wire the ammeter which I might do.
>
>I'm not sure of the best or correct way to wire the ammeter but at least
>now I know my alternator is working perfectly and THAT makes me happy.
>
>Maybe I should leave it alone since I now know exactly what it's reading.
>
>Thanks for your input and suggestions.
Sounds like your ammeter is a bit big for the job and
it may be wired backwards too. Normally, one expects to see
a STRONG + reading while the battery is being replenished,
a near ZERO reading while the alternator is carrying ships
loads and the battery is charged, and a STRONG - reading
when the alternator is off and everything thing is turned
on. Your "slightly negative" observation while charging the
battery tells me it is too small and wired backwards.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermoelectric Generators |
>
>
>I don't know how many your "hand-full of watts" are but here is a source
>of thermoelectric generators in the 2.5 to 19 watt range. Certainly
>wouldn't run an all electric airplane, but might keep your radios
>running. They also offer a DC-DC converter to provide a regulated 12V output.
Yeah, compared to the 1.5KW peak power demand on the
cable TV power supply, these are a hand-full of watts.
These are still a lot better than Seebeck effect devices
but one is still challenged to maximize temperature
differentials between hot and cold surfaces. The kerosene
lantern devices worked better if one sat next to it
and fanned the outside surface to provide forced air
cooling!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carl Peters <say.ahh1(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | how long for extra wiring to reach panel from wing? |
I'm currently wiring my RV-9A wings, and want to leave enough wire at
the root to reach the panel uninterrupted, as opposed to putting in a
plug or butt splice. What is an estimated length to be safe? Thanks.
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | how long for extra wiring to reach panel from wing? |
If it were me I would wait until the fuse is mostly together and the wings
are on for fitting. If you have the instruments etc installed it is easy to
feed the wires down to the fuse sides and coil them up until the wings go on
for good. It is easy to slide the wires through a conduit in the wings
rather than try to feed them up into the panel area. Hope this helps.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Carl
Peters
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 7:48 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: how long for extra wiring to reach panel
from wing?
I'm currently wiring my RV-9A wings, and want to leave enough wire at
the root to reach the panel uninterrupted, as opposed to putting in a
plug or butt splice. What is an estimated length to be safe? Thanks.
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | 60A Buss fuse attached to baffling? |
9/4/2007
Hello George, You wrote: "I think you have it backwards, you are trying to
protect the battery."
I was under the impression that fuses and circuit breakers were primarily
intended to protect the wiring between some source of electrical supply and
a recipient device on that circuit.
The idea being that a short somewhere along that wiring could generate heat,
smoke, and possibly fire. The protective device (usually heat activated)
would open up in the case of excess electron flow because of the short and
prevent the generation of a dangerous amount of heat and the resultant smoke
and potential fire.
It has been written earlier that the huge amount of unwanted amps that could
flow in the alternator B lead in case of a short would be coming from the
battery and not the alternator. So in that sense maybe one is trying to
protect the battery from depleting itself as well as protecting the B lead
wiring in order to avoid smoke and fire.
Perhaps it is a semantic thing -- Bob Nuckolls would you care to comment?
Thanks.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
PS: One may also speculate on just what wiring constitutes the B lead. Let's
say that you have an adequate sized wire that goes from the B lead terminal
on the back of the alternator through an appropriately large fuse to the
input terminal of the starter contactor or relay. Also connected to that
starter contactor input terminal is a very large sized unfused wire, say AWG
2, going to the battery plus terminal some distance away.
What portion of the total enroute wiring connection between the alternator B
terminal and the battery plus terminal is considered the B lead?
----------------- RESPONDING TO -------------
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 60A Buss fuse attached to baffling? No
Tim:
I think you have it backwards, you are trying to protect the battery.
I would not put it on the shaking rattling Lycoming. It may take it
but your do add fatigue to anything vibrating, although based in
the above, its a moot point, protect the battery and put the 60 amp
fuse on the firewall. George
>From: Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis(at)msm.umr.edu>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: 60A Buss fuse attached to baffling?
>
>Does anybody know
>if those devices can take the heat/vibration associated with being
>mounted on the baffling, right near the alternator? That location
>would
>provide fuse protection to almost the entire length of alternator
>wiring, but is in a high heat/vibration environment.
>
>Thanks, Tim Lewis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Transponder constantly replies |
Hello,
I have an older transponder that seems to constantly generate replies
while airborne(solid light almost all the time). ATC reports it is
working great, but I think it is causing issues with a traffic scope
I have installled. Others report their transponder reacts the same
way, but more tell me they only get a reply on a sweep. I am
wondering if a bad antenna cable or connector could cause this?
Other thoughts welcome.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder constantly replies |
Mine (Garmin 320A) does that whenever the left Pmag is on ship's battery
power but not when it's in self-powered mode. Took me forever to figure out
what the deal was. I usually get normal function reports from ATC. I'll be
interested to see the consensus as to the likely cause of this behavior.
-Bill B
On 9/4/07, Pete Howell <pete.howell@gecko-group.com> wrote:
>
> pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I have an older transponder that seems to constantly generate replies
> while airborne(solid light almost all the time). ATC reports it is
> working great, but I think it is causing issues with a traffic scope
> I have installled. Others report their transponder reacts the same
> way, but more tell me they only get a reply on a sweep. I am
> wondering if a bad antenna cable or connector could cause this?
> Other thoughts welcome.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <William.P.Dube(at)noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | KillaCycle on Dish Net Tonight |
I haven't posted in quite a while because I have been uber-busy with my
electric drag bike (instead of building my RV-7).
For those that are interested in the latest battery technology, you
might enjoy watching "Green Wheels" on VOOM HD (also Equator HD) on the
*
Here is a link to the teaser clip:
http://voom.tv/equatorhd/greenwheels/
Click on the "Watch Video" tab
Bill Dube'
billdube(at)killacycle.com
(I'm also the guy that did the original LED position light kits. Still
doing them, actually)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Coolie Hat Switch |
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCPower.com> |
Does anyone know where I can purchase the Coolie Hat switch used for
aileron & Elevator trim? I'm also looking for the relay deck required to
interface it with the trim servos.
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A
RV-7A
Hi Carl,
I have them in my 6A. They have worked well so far, I like the
feel, and
were fairly easy to wire. They have them set up for pilot and
passenger
sticks, make sure you get the correct one. I have one of each. I
have it set
up :- trigger - ppt; front - flip flop ( you need to watch this
one, have
changed channel without realizing it) - coolie hat Elev & Ail trim
and Top
two - auto pilot engage & disengage.
Regards,
Dave Burnham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neal George" <n8zg(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Coolie Hat Switch |
Fred -
Try http://www.rayallencompany.com/
Neal George
RV-7 N8ZG - Cutting Canopy
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Coolie Hat Switch
Does anyone know where I can purchase the Coolie Hat switch used for aileron
& Elevator trim? I'm also looking for the relay deck required to interface
it with the trim servos.
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Coolie Hat Switch |
| From: | "Jonathan B. Cook" <jonathan.cook(at)symech.com> |
You can purchase the Coolie Hat and switch from infinity aerospace www.infinityaerospace.com/infgrip.htm
Extra/Replacement 4-way switches and specs $ 15.00
Credit Card Price (MasterCard or Visa ONLY) $ 15.60
http://www.infinityaerospace.com/4-way-pic-and-specs.jpg
Extra/Replacement China Hats $ 1.00
Credit Card Price (MasterCard or Visa ONLY) $ 1.05
http://www.infinityaerospace.com/China_Hat.gif
________________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 7:27 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Coolie Hat Switch
Does anyone know where I can purchase the Coolie Hat switch used for aileron &
Elevator trim? I'm also looking for the relay deck required to interface it with
the trim servos.
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A
RV-7A
Hi Carl,
I have them in my 6A. They have worked well so far, I like the feel, and
were fairly easy to wire. They have them set up for pilot and passenger
sticks, make sure you get the correct one. I have one of each. I have it set
up :- trigger - ppt; front - flip flop ( you need to watch this one, have
changed channel without realizing it) - coolie hat Elev & Ail trim and Top
two - auto pilot engage & disengage.
Regards,
Dave Burnham
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | KillaCycle on Dish Net Tonight |
Very kool, this stuff "will" fly airplanes one day. Why not now? I
understand Boeing has an electric bird in development now.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Dube
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:58 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: KillaCycle on Dish Net Tonight
I haven't posted in quite a while because I have been uber-busy
with my electric drag bike (instead of building my RV-7).
For those that are interested in the latest battery technology,
you might enjoy watching "Green Wheels" on VOOM HD (also Equator HD) on
Here is a link to the teaser clip:
http://voom.tv/equatorhd/greenwheels/
Click on the "Watch Video" tab
Bill Dube'
billdube(at)killacycle.com
(I'm also the guy that did the original LED position light
kits. Still doing them, actually)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <William.P.Dube(at)noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | A123 Systems Nano-phosphate technology and aircraft |
(was: KillaCycle on Dish Net Tonight)
You can do a fantastic electric motor glider, but nothing long range.
Imagine if gasoline weighed about 100 lbs per gallon and you will
understand the range issue.
These "Nano-Phosphate" type cells will make a big dent in the weight of
airplanes soon. As you can see, they put out a huge amount of power for
their weight, so they will be perfect starting batteries for airplanes.
This specific type of battery has none of the safety issues that other
high-power batteries have.
If you are interested in a good technical discussion about this new
high-power battery technologies, in comparision with other types of
cells, here is a link:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/5490
Bill Dube'
longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
> Very kool, this stuff "will" fly airplanes one day. Why not now? I
> understand Boeing has an electric bird in development now.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Bill Dube
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:58 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: KillaCycle on Dish Net Tonight
>
> I haven't posted in quite a while because I have been uber-busy
> with my electric drag bike (instead of building my RV-7).
>
> For those that are interested in the latest battery technology,
> you might enjoy watching "Green Wheels" on VOOM HD (also Equator
>
> *
> Here is a link to the teaser clip:
> http://voom.tv/equatorhd/greenwheels/
>
> Click on the "Watch Video" tab
>
> Bill Dube'
> billdube(at)killacycle.com
>
> (I'm also the guy that did the original LED position light kits.
> Still doing them, actually)
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A123 Systems Nano-phosphate technology and |
aircraft (was: KillaCycle on Dish Net Tonight)
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
For range/payload performance, it seems that it's tough to beat power
plants which directly convert chemical potential (fuel) to mechanical
kinetic (driving a propeller). Especially since you only have to bring
part of the reactants with you - there's already an oxidizer in the air.
Converting chemical potential to electrical (discharging a battery) and
thence to mechanical seems to me incurs an extra step, and extra steps are
always lossy. Having to carry both reactants with you is a steep penalty
as well (a battery). Fuel cells can use air as a reactant, but their
reaction rate densities have been so low as to make them impractical for a
flying vehicle.
Regards,
Matt-
> You can do a fantastic electric motor glider, but nothing long range.
> Imagine if gasoline weighed about 100 lbs per gallon and you will
> understand the range issue.
>
> These "Nano-Phosphate" type cells will make a big dent in the weight of
> airplanes soon. As you can see, they put out a huge amount of power for
> their weight, so they will be perfect starting batteries for airplanes.
> This specific type of battery has none of the safety issues that other
> high-power batteries have.
>
> If you are interested in a good technical discussion about this new
> high-power battery technologies, in comparision with other types of
> cells, here is a link:
> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/5490
>
> Bill Dube'
> longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
>
>> Very kool, this stuff "will" fly airplanes one day. Why not now? I
>> understand Boeing has an electric bird in development now.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf
>> Of *Bill Dube
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:58 PM
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: KillaCycle on Dish Net Tonight
>>
>> I haven't posted in quite a while because I have been uber-busy
>> with my electric drag bike (instead of building my RV-7).
>>
>> For those that are interested in the latest battery technology,
>> you might enjoy watching "Green Wheels" on VOOM HD (also Equator
>>
>> *
>> Here is a link to the teaser clip:
>> http://voom.tv/equatorhd/greenwheels/
>>
>> Click on the "Watch Video" tab
>>
>> Bill Dube'
>> billdube(at)killacycle.com
>>
>> (I'm also the guy that did the original LED position light kits.
>> Still doing them, actually)
>>
>>*
>>
>>
>>*
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A123 Systems Nano-phosphate technology and aircraft |
(was:
Great stuff!
There was a battery powered trike at OSHKOSH this year. If I remember
correctly, it had a 90 minute flight time. Also, Monnett is developing an
electric power plant for a Sonex. Google ELECTRAFLY for the Trike.
Wally Hunt
RV-4 Finishng Kit
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | A123 Systems Nano-phosphate technology and aircraft |
(was:
Well at least it wont have a chronic sticking Aeorcarb !
Peter
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
RV4WGH(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2007 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A123 Systems Nano-phosphate technology and
aircraft (was:
Great stuff!
There was a battery powered trike at OSHKOSH this year. If I remember
correctly, it had a 90 minute flight time. Also, Monnett is developing an
electric power plant for a Sonex. Google ELECTRAFLY for the Trike.
Wally Hunt
RV-4 Finishng Kit
_____
<http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A123 Systems Nano-phosphate technology and aircraft |
(was:
Right!
There was an accident near here that badly damaged a Sonex. He had made 2
or 3 changes as suggested by Sonex. Problem with it sticking. Stuck closed!
Carb has been totally redesigned or replaced as I understand it now. Plane
rebuilt.
Wally Hunt
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 60A Buss fuse attached to baffling? |
>
>9/4/2007
>
>Hello George, You wrote: "I think you have it backwards, you are trying to
>protect the battery."
>
>I was under the impression that fuses and circuit breakers were primarily
>intended to protect the wiring between some source of electrical supply
>and a recipient device on that circuit.
>
>The idea being that a short somewhere along that wiring could generate
>heat, smoke, and possibly fire. The protective device (usually heat
>activated) would open up in the case of excess electron flow because of
>the short and prevent the generation of a dangerous amount of heat and the
>resultant smoke and potential fire.
>
>It has been written earlier that the huge amount of unwanted amps that
>could flow in the alternator B lead in case of a short would be coming
>from the battery and not the alternator. So in that sense maybe one is
>trying to protect the battery from depleting itself as well as protecting
>the B lead wiring in order to avoid smoke and fire.
>
>Perhaps it is a semantic thing -- Bob Nuckolls would you care to comment?
>Thanks.
The thing being protected is mostly the alternator itself. The fault
that opens the b-lead fuse is (1) shorted b-lead (rare) or (2) shorted
diodes in alternator (also rare but more probable than shorted wire).
The energy that will cause damage is going to come from the battery
in terms of many hundreds of amps . . . hence, there's a notion that the
b-lead fuse should be located as close as possible to the battery. I
suggest right next to the starter contactor and b-lead shunt (if used).
If not fused and the diodes short, it will take out stator wires
causing much smoke and a much higher repair bill. Also, if the battery
is soggy [of course, nobody who reads this list goes flying with a
soggy battery], then a hard short could take the battery down too
and make the whole panel go dark. Under the best scenario, a well
maintained battery supplies 1000+ amps for milliseconds necessary
to open the fuse and repairs are a relatively simple maintenance
event.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder constantly replies |
><pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
>
>
>Hello,
>
>I have an older transponder that seems to constantly generate replies
>while airborne(solid light almost all the time). ATC reports it is
>working great, but I think it is causing issues with a traffic scope
>I have installled. Others report their transponder reacts the same
>way, but more tell me they only get a reply on a sweep. I am
>wondering if a bad antenna cable or connector could cause this?
>Other thoughts welcome.
I used to test transponders for reply codes by laying
a noisy drill motor under the aircraft with a rubber
band holding the trigger-switch ON. This would cause
the transponder to dump a continuous stream of replies
when there was no radar interrogation present.
It MIGHT be that your transponder is seeing some
kind of noise source that produces a similar response.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A123 Systems Nano-phosphate technology and aircraft |
(was: KillaCycle on Dish Net Tonight)
>You can do a fantastic electric motor glider, but nothing long range.
>Imagine if gasoline weighed about 100 lbs per gallon and you will
>understand the range issue.
>
>These "Nano-Phosphate" type cells will make a big dent in the weight of
>airplanes soon. As you can see, they put out a huge amount of power for
>their weight, so they will be perfect starting batteries for airplanes.
>This specific type of battery has none of the safety issues that other
>high-power batteries have.
One of my principles is working with the A123
products with an eye toward a certified replacement
of SVLA/NiCAD batteries on T/C aircraft. So far,
they've reporting nothing that suggests that the
the task is impractical but successful integration
of Li-Ion technology into aircraft WILL require
a battery-friendly charging system (read new smart
regulator for existing aircraft) or a drop-in form-fit-
function device that includes battery management
capabilities. The Li-Ion's are not drop-in replacments
for SVLA . . . they won't take the "abuse".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <William.P.Dube(at)noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: A123 Systems Nano-phosphate technology and aircraft |
(was: KillaCycle on Dish Net Tonight)
Whomever is designing the electronics doesn't have real experience with
A123 Systems cells. They think they are dealing with conventional Li-Ion
cells, and they are wrong.
A123 Systems nano-phosphate cells are quite different than other
Li-Ion cells. They will take a LOT of abuse. About the same amount as an
AGM. It is straightforward to make a drop-in replacement for a 12 volt
(or 24 volt) lead-acid battery using A123 Systems cells. The existing
charging system will work just fine. (It must have the voltage set
somewhere between 13.5 and 14.8 volts.)
In an airplane, you would want a warning that alerted the pilot that
the system was going over 14.8 volts and would make noise if the system
was going over 15 volts. It would also be useful to know if the battery
temperature was going over 80 Celsius. (You can go up to about 100 C
without damage, but no higher or you risk venting the cells and damaging
the plastic separator.)
>>> Case study <<<<
I have had a 3.5 lb A123 Systems battery running in my completely
unmodified GMC van for the past 7 months. It snaps the engine over much
better than the original 35 lb lead-acid battery.
Let's talk about abuse. My wife left my van door unlocked and
someone rifled my glove box and left it open with the light on. This
killed the battery and it sat at ZERO VOLTS for over a week. I thought,
"So much for THAT battery." I then decided to do what the typical
consumer would do and I connected up the 3.5 lb completely dead battery
to a fully-charged car battery with jumper cables. Hundreds of amps
flowed and slightly warmed the cables. I waited a couple of minutes for
the 3.5 lb battery voltage to come up, disconnected the jumper cables
(the worst thing you could do) and cranked up the van. It started
instantly. The alternator then gave the 3.5 lb battery ~100 amps until
it came up to 13.4 volts and then tapered off. The BMS showed that all
the cells were still in balance!
This was five months ago. I haven't capacity-tested the battery, but
I can't tell the difference in cranking performance. It was just as if
nothing had happened. I even left it parked for 5 weeks while I was out
of town and it cranked right up without a problem.
If you were to torture a conventional Li-Ion battery like this, it
would have burst into flames, or at least it would have just burst. I
tell this story to folks with years of experience with conventional
Li-Ion cells and they cringe when I get to the part about the jumper
cables. :-)
The A123 Systems cells will, indeed, "take the abuse". I have a very
simplistic charge-balancing electronics (BMS) on my GMC van battery.
Nothing fancy is needed.
If you overcharge them grossly, they will vent a small amount of
flammable vapor (like paint thinner.) If there is an ignition source,
this vapor could catch fire. The cells can also burst if overcharged
severely. That is the extent of the hazard this technology presents.
Bill Dube'
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> You can do a fantastic electric motor glider, but nothing long range.
>> Imagine if gasoline weighed about 100 lbs per gallon and you will
>> understand the range issue.
>>
>> These "Nano-Phosphate" type cells will make a big dent in the weight
>> of airplanes soon. As you can see, they put out a huge amount of
>> power for their weight, so they will be perfect starting batteries
>> for airplanes. This specific type of battery has none of the safety
>> issues that other high-power batteries have.
>
>
> One of my principles is working with the A123
> products with an eye toward a certified replacement
> of SVLA/NiCAD batteries on T/C aircraft. So far,
> they've reporting nothing that suggests that the
> the task is impractical but successful integration
> of Li-Ion technology into aircraft WILL require
> a battery-friendly charging system (read new smart
> regulator for existing aircraft) or a drop-in form-fit-
> function device that includes battery management
> capabilities. The Li-Ion's are not drop-in replacments
> for SVLA . . . they won't take the "abuse".
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | A123 Systems Nano-phosphate technology and aircraft |
(was:
Wally I think not redesigned. I attempted to get cooperation from Aerocarb
CEO 6 months ago to redesign. The slide is pushed off centre by the cable
and jams. In return I got personal abuse and was barred from the Jabiru
engines list which he moderates. The principle is blame the installation
there is nothing wrong with the product. When I requested a refund I was
told to sell it on Ebay.
Peter
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
RV4WGH(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, 7 September 2007 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A123 Systems Nano-phosphate technology and
aircraft (was:
Right!
There was an accident near here that badly damaged a Sonex. He had made 2
or 3 changes as suggested by Sonex. Problem with it sticking. Stuck
closed! Carb has been totally redesigned or replaced as I understand it
now. Plane rebuilt.
Wally Hunt
_____
<http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Reeves <mattreeves(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to check an alternator?? |
Okay, I wired my ammeter backwards and here's what happens.
I start the plane and the ammeter is on the positive side slightly.
I turn on NAV lights, strobe lights, landing lights and the ammeter goes MORE
positive and stays there and the voltage goes from 15 to right around 14. Turn
off everything, the voltage goes to just under 15 and ammeter goes to zero.
So I don't think my ammeter was wired backwards.
It appears my alternator is charging normally but I think my ammeter needs to
see a therapist.
Matt
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>Hi Bob !!
>
>
>Thanks for the help and suggestions !! I really appreciate you and all I
>learn from you.
>
>So, I did exactly as you said, and you are 100% correct. I left on a
>bunch of stuff for about 10 minutes, then started the plane and
>immediately noticed the ammeter was slightly on the negative side, maybe
>reading about 4 negative amps. The voltage read just under 15 volts -
>say 14.7 the whole time and stays there but within about 3 minutes, the
>ammeter came back up to zero and stayed there.
>
>I wired the ammeter and external shunt as per Van's Aircraft instructions
>and my brother Danny (which you've all heard from many times) says there
>are 2 other ways (according to Dynon) to wire the ammeter which I might do.
>
>I'm not sure of the best or correct way to wire the ammeter but at least
>now I know my alternator is working perfectly and THAT makes me happy.
>
>Maybe I should leave it alone since I now know exactly what it's reading.
>
>Thanks for your input and suggestions.
Sounds like your ammeter is a bit big for the job and
it may be wired backwards too. Normally, one expects to see
a STRONG + reading while the battery is being replenished,
a near ZERO reading while the alternator is carrying ships
loads and the battery is charged, and a STRONG - reading
when the alternator is off and everything thing is turned
on. Your "slightly negative" observation while charging the
battery tells me it is too small and wired backwards.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder constantly replies |
| From: | "Thermos" <setser(at)rcn.com> |
Transponders reply to a pair of interrogation pulses spaced 8 microseconds apart.
Anything that can generate that RF pulses with that spacing, like Bob's drill
or a piece of computer equipment, could theoretically trigger a reply. It
seems unlikely that a loose connection could do that consistently enough to keep
your reply light on, but stranger things have happened.
It may be that your transponder is just receiving a lot of interrogations - ATC
radars, military radars, TCAS - especially if you're flying in/around a busy
terminal area. If you can check with someone else flying close by at the same
time and altitude, their transponder should be doing the same thing as yours
if both boxes are working correctly.
Hope this helps...
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=133380#133380
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to check an alternator?? |
>Okay, I wired my ammeter backwards and here's what happens.
>
>I start the plane and the ammeter is on the positive side slightly.
>
>I turn on NAV lights, strobe lights, landing lights and the ammeter goes
>MORE positive and stays there and the voltage goes from 15 to right around
>14. Turn off everything, the voltage goes to just under 15 and ammeter
>goes to zero.
>
>So I don't think my ammeter was wired backwards.
>
>It appears my alternator is charging normally but I think my ammeter needs
>to see a therapist.
>
>Matt
We need to see the schematic as to how your ammeter is wired.
The classic battery ammeter is wired between the bus and the
battery and all loads run from the bus side, all power is fed
to the battery (via alternator) from the bus side. Hence, the
minus-zero-plus ammeter is a indicator of rate of discharge/charge
for the battery. Alternator off and all things on, the ammeter
should show not slightly, but significant discharge left of
zero. Alternator on after starting and then recharging a
taxed battery, the ammeter should show a significant charge
of the battery that subsides with time.
You've consistently used "slightly" to describe ammeter
movement and you've yet to give us words that suggest that
the ammeter is in a position to properly sense and display
the charge/discharge conditions cited above.
This gives rise to two, possibly concurrent conditions:
(1) the ammeter is the wrong size . . . expects to see
much larger currents than your system experiences such
that all indications are "slight" versus "significant".
(2) the ammeter may not be properly positioned in the
system. You need to acquire specifications for the
ammeter and deduce whether or not it is wired per the
instructions that came with it.
Is the ammeter "calibrated"? I.e., does it have the
word AMPS on the front? What is the full scale value
on the face? -30 to +30? -60 to +60? Does this device
have a shunt or just two fat wires that carry all the
current to be monitored?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | New Realtime Spell Checker Added To Matronics Forums! |
Dear Listers,
Today 9/8/2007 I have added a new real-time spell checker function to all of the
BBS Forums at Matronics. When you reply or create a new message on the Forums,
you will notice that misspelled words will be high-lighted in yellow. If
you left-click on the word, you will be prompted with a drop-down list of suggested
spellings.
http://forums.matronics.com
Enjoy!
Matt Dralle
Matornics Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | How to check an alternator?? |
Matt MORE positive under more load = ammeter is wired backwards.
Peter
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Reeves
Sent: Saturday, 8 September 2007 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How to check an alternator??
Okay, I wired my ammeter backwards and here's what happens.
I start the plane and the ammeter is on the positive side slightly.
I turn on NAV lights, strobe lights, landing lights and the ammeter goes
MORE positive and stays there and the voltage goes from 15 to right around
14. Turn off everything, the voltage goes to just under 15 and ammeter
goes to zero.
So I don't think my ammeter was wired backwards.
It appears my alternator is charging normally but I think my ammeter needs
to see a therapist.
Matt
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>Hi Bob !!
>
>
>Thanks for the help and suggestions !! I really appreciate you and all I
>learn from you.
>
>So, I did exactly as you said, and you are 100% correct. I left on a
>bunch of stuff for about 10 minutes, then started the plane and
>immediately noticed the ammeter was slightly on the negative side, maybe
>reading about 4 negative amps. The voltage read just under 15 volts -
>say 14.7 the whole time and stays there but within about 3 minutes, the
>ammeter came back up to zero and stayed there.
>
>I wired the ammeter and external shunt as per Van's Aircraft instructions
>and my brother Danny (which you've all heard from many times) says there
>are 2 other ways (according to Dynon) to wire the ammeter which I might do.
>
>I'm not sure of the best or correct way to wire the ammeter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McDevitt <mcdevitt(at)sympatico.ca> |
I have a question for Bob and the list in general.
Zeftronics, a large supplier of voltage regulators makes over a dozen
different numbered units, all designated for use with different aircraft
and aero engines. How different are these units from one another (other
than the obvious 14v and 28v units)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A123 Systems Nano-phosphate technology |
>
>Whomever is designing the electronics doesn't have real experience with
>A123 Systems cells. They think they are dealing with conventional Li-Ion
>cells, and they are wrong.
>
> A123 Systems nano-phosphate cells are quite different than other
> Li-Ion cells. They will take a LOT of abuse. About the same amount as an
> AGM. It is straightforward to make a drop-in replacement for a 12 volt
> (or 24 volt) lead-acid battery using A123 Systems cells. The existing
> charging system will work just fine. (It must have the voltage set
> somewhere between 13.5 and 14.8 volts.)
Agreed, they are quite rugged compared to other devices
of this class . . . but as you've just noted one "must"
place some constraints on other features in the system
that do not already exist to support the legacy
battery technologies.
> In an airplane, you would want a warning that alerted the pilot that
> the system was going over 14.8 volts and would make noise if the system
> was going over 15 volts. It would also be useful to know if the battery
> temperature was going over 80 Celsius. (You can go up to about 100 C
> without damage, but no higher or you risk venting the cells and damaging
> the plastic separator.)
>
>
> If you overcharge them grossly, they will vent a small amount of
> flammable vapor (like paint thinner.) If there is an ignition source,
> this vapor could catch fire. The cells can also burst if overcharged
> severely. That is the extent of the hazard this technology presents.
>
>Bill Dube'
To be sure, these cells are one of the bright stars on
the horizon . . . but they come with a legacy of unhappy
stories, myths and concerns. There is a great deal of work
to be accomplished before the FAA is going to "feel" comfortable
with putting this product on a TC aircraft. Since the FAA's
general level of expertise is less than stellar, the task
of the competent system integrator has as much to do with
the politics of assuaging feelings as with the development
of the science and good practice.
Believe me, by the time my principal (and the Navy's battery
labs in Crane, IN) get done with these cells, far more will
be known about them than what's presently published. Further,
it's almost a given that the successful, TC'd replacement
batteries in Li-Ion technologies will not be simple
substitutes of SVLA or NiCad cells.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Transponder constantly replies |
I found the cause for the runaway transponder. This summer, I switched the
top plugs in my O-320 RV-9A with electronic ignition from std BR8ES auto
plugs to the iridium style auto plug. I received an off list message
telling to look at the ignition system - sure enough the plug change matched
up with the tpx issue time frame.
Put in new plugs all around last night and things appear to be back to
normal.
Cheers,
Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: spade lug failure. |
I didn't get any responses to this, but I found an explanation for it
that I thought I should post. After carefully examining the bad female
lug, I noticed that it was of a different design than all the others.
It had had the same plastic insulating shrowd on it, but the metal
connector itself was different. I could not find one like it in all my
parts bins. I was also unable to duplicate the problem by crimping a
dozen test connectors trying to make every mistake I could think of.
So, I'm concluding that it was one of a different design that the
manufacturer or seller (Allied Electronics) got into the wrong parts bag
by mistake. It is probably designed for a different crimping tool and
the one I have crimped it differently and caused bad results. I have
yet to check all the connectors in the plane to verify that there were
no others like it that got installed. But I think my crimper is OK and
my connectors are OK too. Testing of the electrical system is going well.
sarg314 wrote:
>
> Using a dremel tool, I removed the plastic covering and part of the
> crimp. A little bit of the insulation extended into the part of the
> barrel that crimps the copper wire. Apparently what happened was that
> the act of crimping it cut thru the wire, but NOT thru the
> insulation. The connector was held on by the insulation. That tefzel
> is pretty tough stuff.
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, electrical system
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
I had to change the e-mail address dedicated to this
list-server. I have been getting a modicum of spam for
years but in the past few days, it turned into a torrent.
Note that messages directly to me should now be directed to
the address in the header of this message.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Schematic drawing software |
Bob
Do you have a suggestion for inexpensive software to draw/modify/print
electrical wiring diagrams for our planes?
Thanks
Bevan
-----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: Sunday, September 09, 2007 7:14 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: test
-->
I had to change the e-mail address dedicated to this list-server. I have
been getting a modicum of spam for years but in the past few days, it turned
into a torrent.
Note that messages directly to me should now be directed to the address in
the header of this message.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Low voltage indicator |
Anybody know of a DIY kit similar to what Bob shows in his data base?
Bob doesn't show his kit available now.
Thanks, Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematic drawing software |
>
>Bob
>
>Do you have a suggestion for inexpensive software to draw/modify/print
>electrical wiring diagrams for our planes?
TurboCAD 7 or higher will open, edit, print and save the drawing
files posted on my website at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/
You can get TurboCAD off ebay for under $20. Your wiring diagrams
are 90% done on the website. Just grab the pages closest to what
you want and suck them into your own wirebook.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator |
>
>Anybody know of a DIY kit similar to what Bob shows in his data base?
>Bob doesn't show his kit available now.
I've sold out of the older board. The short-kit is coming
back but this time it will include an enclosure like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Products/Enclosures/A15_Package.jpg
You'll get the board and enclosure with a pre-punched hole
in the lid. I've been fussing with it for some time but my
consulting task that started out as a 20hr/wk commitment
has exploded into a 40+ effort . . . but hopefully for a short
time until they hire some more folks and we get our organization
here in Wichita put together.
The new board layout is done, I just need to update the assembly
instructions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematic drawing software |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> TurboCAD 7 or higher will open, edit, print and save the drawing
> files posted on my website at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/
>
> You can get TurboCAD off ebay for under $20. Your wiring diagrams
> are 90% done on the website. Just grab the pages closest to what
> you want and suck them into your own wirebook.
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
I'm really appreciative of all the work you've done with the Z drawings,
and educating us all. It is all worth the cost even at twice the price,
but I'd like to make a suggestion for an improvement.
You publish the documents electronically in DWG format. DWG is a format
that is proprietary to AutoCAD. The complete specification is not
public, and AutoCAD has unilaterally made some changes to the format in
the past. There are several implications to this fact.
One is that you risk loosing months of work if the supporting company
goes away. I've had this to happen to me. ProDesktop was a 3D package
that was made available for free, and I invested months learning it and
drawing my Dyke Delta. Then ProEngineer decided to pull the product.
They allowed you to keep the unlocking key you had for 5 years, but my
hard drive crashed and I lost the key. I didn't want to spend the
thousands that the professional package cost, so that left me with a lot
of digital flotsam. I doubt AutoCAD is going anywhere as a company, but
they do play the game that Microsoft created of trying to use file
formats to keep users on an upgrade treadmill.
Another problem is that AutoCAD is only available on the Windows
operating system. There's no good reason to use Windows, other than
having been corralled by closed file formats. Well, let me qualify
that. There's no good reason for *me* to use Windows, other than closed
file formats.
Fortunately, there are some very easy solutions that will make everyone
happy (or at least me). The most difficult is to switch authoring
programs. KiCAD (http://kicad.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page)
is an open source package for designing circuit boards. It has an
excellent tutorial that will take you through building a simple board.
After you do a couple, you will be amazed at the way the program makes
laying out a circuit board so simple. Better yet, the file format is
XML. It's somewhat tedious, but you can edit the circuit using nothing
but a text editor. The package is designed more for laying out a
circuit, vs an entire system, but I suggest anyone interested in
creating circuit boards give it a try. The coolest part is laying out
your circuit board, and then looking at the 3D view of it.
The simplest solution is to just publish the Z drawing in DXF format.
DWG is closed, and it's benefit is that it provides primitives for
composing 3D drawings. DXF is a well documented, open format with
published specifications. We're not doing anything in 3D, so DWG offers
nothing. There are no open source DWG libraries, but nearly all the
packages support DXF. There are converters that go from DWG to DXF, but
they did nothing but create an unruly mess of the drawings when I
tried. I even tried running the CAD programs you include on the CD
using WINE, but again, all I got were trashed files. AutoCAD should be
able to save as DXF, so this fix is nearly painless.
Again, thank you for being an excellent educator, and I hope this
suggestion is taken in a charitable light. There are good reasons to
use closed source programs and proprietary formats. It just seems
reasonable to me that those reasons do no apply to our exchange of
information, and using them is not the best we know how to do is the result.
Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematic drawing software |
>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>> TurboCAD 7 or higher will open, edit, print and save the drawing
>> files posted on my website at:
>>
>>http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/
>>
>> You can get TurboCAD off ebay for under $20. Your wiring diagrams
>> are 90% done on the website. Just grab the pages closest to what
>> you want and suck them into your own wirebook.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>Bob,
>
>I'm really appreciative of all the work you've done with the Z drawings,
>and educating us all. It is all worth the cost even at twice the price,
>but I'd like to make a suggestion for an improvement.
>
>You publish the documents electronically in DWG format. DWG is a format
>that is proprietary to AutoCAD. The complete specification is not public,
>and AutoCAD has unilaterally made some changes to the format in the
>past. There are several implications to this fact.
I have $thousands$ tied up in AutoCAD software and thousands of
hours of $time$ invested in being proficient with it. All of my
customers can open, edit, print, and save my drawings under either
AutoCAD or the format of their choice. Public access issues
aside, AutoCAD is the logical choice for me to produce drawings
and illustrations to support my career.
I didn't plan to publish editable drawings because of the
difficulty some folks might have acquiring suitable software
to manage the drawings. At the time I first published the .dwg
formats, AutoCADLT was available through university bookstores
for about $125. Taking an engineering student to lunch would
offer a means by which folks could get into a "real" autocad
environment. In the mean time, folks told me about more than
one application that would open, edit, print and save the
.dwg format . . . not the least of which is TurboCAD v10 which
I bought off Ebay for $10.
While .dwg is AutoCAD's offspring, a number of companies
have seen fit to offer applications that import the format
at exceedingly reasonable prices. The DXF format is problematic
and I've had more problems with transporting data between applications
with dxf than I've had with a third-party application where
the software guys took the .dwg format head-on.
The short answer is that stuff on the aeroelectric.com website is
a hobby that makes a little money and I cannot justify a great
shuffling of the applications I use for my business just to
expand the hobby. That doesn't preclude efforts to maximize
access to the .dwg work product . . . and for the moment, my
best suggestion is TurboCAD v7.0 or higher.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter!
Your assertions are quite accurate but I'll suggest that for
me, the TurboCAD work-around is a useful solution.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: spade lug failure. |
>
>I have been wiring my plane using some high quality (well, at least
>they're expensive - $0.65 each) T&B insulated fast-on type connectors and
>an Ideal crimping tool (not expensive as crimpers go - about $50).
>A couple days ago I found a #22 ground wire that simply didn't conduct.
>I removed it from the plane and sliced away insulation near each end to
>expose the wire just before the connectors and determined which one
>wasn't conducting. It looked fine. The wires were just visible sticking
>out of the spade lug end and I could touch them directly with my
>continuity tester, but they weren't connected to the rest of the wire.
>Using a dremel tool, I removed the plastic covering and part of the
>crimp. A little bit of the insulation extended into the part of the
>barrel that crimps the copper wire. Apparently what happened was that the
>act of crimping it cut thru the wire, but NOT thru the insulation.
>The connector was held on by the insulation. That tefzel is pretty tough
>stuff.
>
>I made a new wire and got things working, but I have to wonder if more of
>my wires aren't in the same or nearly the same condition. Am I doing
>something wrong here or was this probably just a 1 in a 1000 fluke? Do I
>need to check the connections that seem to be working? If so, how?
Good question. What you're experiencing is a demonstration
of the fact that there is a menage a trois to be
crafted between wires, terminals and tools that apply them.
Some time ago I crafted some articles on terminal and tool
performance. I'll suggest you review:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
Your reported experience does raise some questions. I'd
do a pull-test on a terminal crimped to a wire. When
it fails, there should be a clean break between the loose
strands and where the closed barrel turns them into
a solid mass. You should not pull any strands out of
the crimp.
I did some tests on AMP tools putting AMP terminals
on 22AWG Tefzel a few years ago and found that you could
put a terminal on an UNSTRIPPED wire. When you think
about the pressure (tens of thousands of PSI) it takes
to bring the copper barrel into intimate contact with
the copper strands, there's no way some layer of plastic
is going to figure in a discontinuity. The plastic
extrudes out of the joint like toothpaste.
Having offered all this, I'll have to confess that
what you've stated does give rise to some concerns.
If one terminal was found to be insufficiently installed
by ACCIDENT, what might you find if other terminals
were investigated deliberately. I wish I could give
you some warm fuzzies about this . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Schematic drawing software |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >>
> >> TurboCAD 7 or higher will open, edit, print and save the drawing
> >> files posted on my website at:
> >>
> >>http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/
> >>
> >> You can get TurboCAD off ebay for under $20. Your wiring diagrams
> >> are 90% done on the website. Just grab the pages closest to what
> >> you want and suck them into your own wirebook.
> >>
> >> Bob . . .
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >I'm really appreciative of all the work you've done with the Z drawings,
> >and educating us all. It is all worth the cost even at twice the price,
> >but I'd like to make a suggestion for an improvement.
> >
> >You publish the documents electronically in DWG format. DWG is a format
> >that is proprietary to AutoCAD. The complete specification is not public,
> >and AutoCAD has unilaterally made some changes to the format in the
> >past. There are several implications to this fact.
>
>
>
>
> I have $thousands$ tied up in AutoCAD software and thousands of
> hours of $time$ invested in being proficient with it. All of my
> customers can open, edit, print, and save my drawings under either
> AutoCAD or the format of their choice. Public access issues
> aside, AutoCAD is the logical choice for me to produce drawings
> and illustrations to support my career.
>
> I didn't plan to publish editable drawings because of the
> difficulty some folks might have acquiring suitable software
> to manage the drawings. At the time I first published the .dwg
> formats, AutoCADLT was available through university bookstores
> for about $125. Taking an engineering student to lunch would
> offer a means by which folks could get into a "real" autocad
> environment. In the mean time, folks told me about more than
> one application that would open, edit, print and save the
> .dwg format . . . not the least of which is TurboCAD v10 which
> I bought off Ebay for $10.
>
> While .dwg is AutoCAD's offspring, a number of companies
> have seen fit to offer applications that import the format
> at exceedingly reasonable prices. The DXF format is problematic
> and I've had more problems with transporting data between applications
> with dxf than I've had with a third-party application where
> the software guys took the .dwg format head-on.
>
> The short answer is that stuff on the aeroelectric.com website is
> a hobby that makes a little money and I cannot justify a great
> shuffling of the applications I use for my business just to
> expand the hobby. That doesn't preclude efforts to maximize
> access to the .dwg work product . . . and for the moment, my
> best suggestion is TurboCAD v7.0 or higher.
>
> Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter!
> Your assertions are quite accurate but I'll suggest that for
> me, the TurboCAD work-around is a useful solution.
>
> Bob . . .
>
I use VariCAD on Linux and it opens the AeroElectric .dwg files just
fine. VariCAD also comes in a Windows version. It used to be
reasonably priced at around $300, but is now $690 or $830 with one year
of support. Not so reasonable any more, and I'll probably never upgrade
again. Although compared to the $4000 for Autocad, maybe not so bad.
For cross application use, save the file in an earlier format rather
than the latest one. It usually takes a while for the third party
applications to catch up.
Bob W.
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <William.P.Dube(at)noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: A123 Systems Nano-phosphate technology |
>
> To be sure, these cells are one of the bright stars on
> the horizon . . . but they come with a legacy of unhappy
> stories, myths and concerns.
These nano-phosphate A123 Systems cells use an Iron-phosphate paste
instead of the traditional cobalt-based paste. They are an entirely
different creature becasue of this. Too bad that they are lumped in with
the "flame-thrower" style cobalt cells.
Bill Dube'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Petersen" <mpetersen(at)repsol.com.au> |
G'day Bob and List Members,
I have come across a number of equipment manufacturers that specify a 1
amp fuse for their equipment (eg Ray Allen trim systems) and I am using
a mini blade type fuse block in my aircraft. The smallest fuse I can
find is 2 amps, which leads me towards the following alternatives;
1. Stick to the philosophy of selecting the fuse to suit the wire
(22awg in this case) and ignoring the manufacturer's requirement.
2. Use the 2 amp blade fuse, being the closest available.
3. Incorporating some other type of 1 amp circuit protection, for
example a small circuit board being supplied via the main bus/fuse block
that provides several 1 amp circuits protected by a PTC type fuse.
My question is, is there a recognized 'correct' way of dealing with this
issue, or what is the preferred solution?
Bob, I have read your critique of Greg Richter's "Aircraft Wiring for
Smart People", in which you very briefly mention that PTC fuses are not
suitable for use in aircraft. Could you please elaborate on your
research and findings? By the way, I am half way through reading your
book and would like to thank you for the effort you put into helping
people like me understand these issues! Keep up the good work!
Thanks,
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)GMAIL.COM> |
Michael, Stein Air has 1 amp blade fuses, PN SA-201, $.30 ea.
Rick
On 9/11/07, Michael Petersen wrote:
>
> G'day Bob and List Members,
>
>
> I have come across a number of equipment manufacturers that specify a 1
> amp fuse for their equipment (eg Ray Allen trim systems) and I am using a
> mini blade type fuse block in my aircraft. The smallest fuse I can find is 2
> amps, which leads me towards the following alternatives;
>
>
> 1. Stick to the philosophy of selecting the fuse to suit the wire
> (22awg in this case) and ignoring the manufacturer's requirement.
> 2. Use the 2 amp blade fuse, being the closest available.
> 3. Incorporating some other type of 1 amp circuit protection, for
> example a small circuit board being supplied via the main bus/fuse block
> that provides several 1 amp circuits protected by a PTC type fuse.
>
>
> My question is, is there a recognized 'correct' way of dealing with this
> issue, or what is the preferred solution?
>
>
> Bob, I have read your critique of Greg Richter's "Aircraft Wiring for
> Smart People", in which you very briefly mention that PTC fuses are not
> suitable for use in aircraft. Could you please elaborate on your research
> and findings? By the way, I am half way through reading your book and would
> like to thank you for the effort you put into helping people like me
> understand these issues! Keep up the good work!
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Michael
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
Michael,
Tech-Tips
PTC's vs. Fuses
PTC's act as a type of circuit breaker; the resistance increases as the PTC
threshold temperature is exceeded due to the load current passing through the
device. This causes high resistance which opens the circuit protecting the
device in the event of an over current condition. Unlike fuses, ambient temperature
plays a role in how long it will be before a PTC reacts to over current.
For this reason, careful consideration should be given to when PTC's are used
for equipment protection.
A PTC is appropriate for battery protection as most battery shorts are heavy
shorts quickly tripping the PTC. The PTC is best for devices that can tolerate
high current for a substantial amount of time, such as batteries.
Because PTC's are slow acting and have a less accurate trip threshold, the
PTC may not protect the cameras as reliably as a fast acting fuse. Because PTC's
need to cool down to reset and will not do so if the over current condition
is not corrected, a service call will probably be needed to address the failure.
A one amp PTC may never blow at 2 amps and may require more than 30 seconds
to blow at 5 amps. A one-amp fuse should blow at 1.25 amps in about 1 second,
regardless of conditions. It is much more economical for the dealer/customer
to replace a simple fuse rather than an expensive piece of electronics.
This came off of the: www.pthree.com/techtips.aspx
Doesn't seem like the PTC is a good idea.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Petersen
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:00 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 1 Amp Fuses
G'day Bob and List Members,
I have come across a number of equipment manufacturers that specify a 1 amp fuse
for their equipment (eg Ray Allen trim systems) and I am using a mini blade
type fuse block in my aircraft. The smallest fuse I can find is 2 amps, which
leads me towards the following alternatives;
1.. Stick to the philosophy of selecting the fuse to suit the wire (22awg in
this case) and ignoring the manufacturer's requirement.
2.. Use the 2 amp blade fuse, being the closest available.
3.. Incorporating some other type of 1 amp circuit protection, for example
a small circuit board being supplied via the main bus/fuse block that provides
several 1 amp circuits protected by a PTC type fuse.
My question is, is there a recognized 'correct' way of dealing with this issue,
or what is the preferred solution?
Bob, I have read your critique of Greg Richter's "Aircraft Wiring for Smart People",
in which you very briefly mention that PTC fuses are not suitable for
use in aircraft. Could you please elaborate on your research and findings? By
the way, I am half way through reading your book and would like to thank you for
the effort you put into helping people like me understand these issues! Keep
up the good work!
Thanks,
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
>Michael, Stein Air has 1 amp blade fuses, PN SA-201, $.30 ea.
>
>Rick
B&C stocks them too.
If you do a google search on "ATC-1" and "fuse" you'll
find lots of other folks have them too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> Michael, Stein Air has 1 amp blade fuses, PN SA-201, $.30 ea.
>>
>> Rick
>
> B&C stocks them too.
>
> If you do a google search on "ATC-1" and "fuse" you'll
> find lots of other folks have them too.
I thought the original post stated that the fuse box was for miniature
(i.e. ATM) fuses. I've had problems finding anything less that 2 amp also.
Dennis
--
Dennis Golden
Golden Consulting Services, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Miles" <terrence_miles(at)hotmail.com> |
Just to toss a little more in the mix about fuses. I bought a box of fuses
from Harbor Freight about a year ago and went back today for another box.
Their ATC (ATO?) sized (the middle size ones that most of us use) have been
recalled. Nobody knew any of the circumstances around this decision. I
thought everyone ought to know.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis
Golden
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 1 Amp Fuses
<dgolden@golden-consulting.com>
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> Michael, Stein Air has 1 amp blade fuses, PN SA-201, $.30 ea.
>>
>> Rick
>
> B&C stocks them too.
>
> If you do a google search on "ATC-1" and "fuse" you'll
> find lots of other folks have them too.
I thought the original post stated that the fuse box was for miniature
(i.e. ATM) fuses. I've had problems finding anything less that 2 amp also.
Dennis
--
Dennis Golden
Golden Consulting Services, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
><dgolden@golden-consulting.com>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Michael, Stein Air has 1 amp blade fuses, PN SA-201, $.30 ea.
> >>
> >> Rick
> >
> > B&C stocks them too.
> >
> > If you do a google search on "ATC-1" and "fuse" you'll
> > find lots of other folks have them too.
>
>I thought the original post stated that the fuse box was for miniature
>(i.e. ATM) fuses. I've had problems finding anything less that 2 amp also.
Opps. My bad. Yes, the ATM spec sheet
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ATM_Specs.pdf
says 2A is as small as they go in that form-factor unlike
the ATC sheet
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ATC_Specs.pdf
which takes us down to 1A. I didn't go back to the original
post. Sooooo . . .
G'day Bob and List Members,
I have come across a number of equipment manufacturers that specify
a 1 amp fuse for their equipment (eg Ray Allen trim systems) and
I am using a mini blade type fuse block in my aircraft. The smallest
fuse I can find is 2 amps, which leads me towards the following
alternatives;
Stick to the philosophy of selecting the fuse to suit the wire
(22awg in this case) and ignoring the manufacturer's requirement.
Use the 2 amp blade fuse, being the closest available.
This would probably be just fine. I've always had a bit
of heartburn about manufacturer's "suggestions" that
their device would benefit from some degree of protection
by installation . . . which the installer is expected to
supply. Having said that - I HAVE designed systems using
appliances with very light draw (under 1A) where
their 22AWG feeders were protected with small fuses. This
is pretty easy when the system is wired with the ATC
fuseblocks. Harder as you've noted in alternative
fuseblock products.
Incorporating some other type of 1 amp circuit protection, for
example a small circuit board being supplied via the main bus/fuse
block that provides several 1 amp circuits protected by a PTC type fuse.
The 2A fuse will be fine. As you've already noted, the
PTC is not easily integrated into a system. The small,
solid wire lead components are designed to be integrated
inside a device and demand some appliance design,
fabrication and installation (i.e., super-whippy power
distribution assembly boards).
My question is, is there a recognized 'correct' way of dealing with
this issue, or what is the preferred solution? Bob, I have read your
critique of Greg Richter's "Aircraft Wiring for Smart People",
in which you very briefly mention that PTC fuses are not suitable
for use in aircraft. Could you please elaborate on your research
and findings?
I'm not sure I've ever used the words "not suitable" but
there have been many a discussion between myself an individuals
who were touting products that incorporated the PTC (aka polyswitch,
and polyfuse). A few documents in addition to the Richter discussion
include:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List/AeroElectric-List_FAQ.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/expbusthd.html
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/expbusad.html
The polyswitch was first presented to me about 1982 by my
very good friend Jim West who at the time was a Raychem
rep with Thunderbird aviation. I had the electrical/
avionics group on the GP-180 and Jim thought perhaps
this nifty device would find useful applications in
the airframe arena.
First, let me be quite clear that incorporation of
the polyswitch NEVER raised questions with respect to
safety. It was never pushed aside for failure to do the
tasks that fuses, breakers and other FIRE PROTECTION devices
have accomplished for over a century.
The questions about PTC circuit protection have to
do with (1) $value$ of the trade-off and (2) integration
into the overall system design philosophy.
PTC's are loose components intended to solder to an
etched circuit board. This means that unlike a collection
of fuses or breakers (which are easily integrated into
a wide variety of designs as individual components)
an array of PTC devices becomes an appliance - an
assembly that in the TC aircraft world requires
qualification. Those qualification test would most
certainly include vibration and operation over temperature
extremes.
In the OBAM aircraft world, the appliance grows features
like pre-assembled switch panels, avionics bus noise
filters and power management, voltage regulators, etc.
The more features that are added, the less adaptable
becomes the appliance. What you see is what you get . . .
take it or leave it. And whether or not you want or
need all those features, the cost is not insignificant.
In the TC world, I participated in three explorations
with others. Once at Learjet and twice at Beech to
see if the PTC offered any features attractive to
our program managers and customers . . . and the FAA.
Had more than one FAA type objecting to the "self re-setting
feature of PTCs . . . when a hazardous fault operates
the circuit protection, present conventions call for
the system to open and stay open pending repairs.
Many have read my writings about the various products
that feature PTCs and have mis-interpreted the down-side
observations to be an attack on PTCs as protective
devices. Again, they do the job they were designed to
do in the manner described in their sales literature.
The BIG picture speaks to poor $value$ and loss of some
operational and architecture control when appliances
(perhaps combined with other components) are used to
replace loose breakers or inexpensive fuseblocks.
By the way, I am half way through reading your book and would like
to thank you for the effort you put into helping people like me
understand these issues! Keep up the good work!
You HAVE already thanked me by purchasing the work. I'm
pleased that you're finding it useful.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Just to toss a little more in the mix about fuses. I bought a box of fuses
>from Harbor Freight about a year ago and went back today for another box.
>Their ATC (ATO?) sized (the middle size ones that most of us use) have been
>recalled. Nobody knew any of the circumstances around this decision. I
>thought everyone ought to know.
>Terry
A number of wanna-be's in the fuse business have attempted to
clone the ATC and similar products only to find that the
simple little fuse was more complex than molding some handy
metal stamping inside a plastic housing. Folks like Cooper-
Bussman and Littlefuse have been in this business for a
very long time and have optimized the recipe for success
in the creation of a product that performs as advertised.
You're never treading at the edge by purchasing devices
with these brands on them.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
Littlefuse lists 1A minimum in the 257 series ATO fuses and 2A minimum
in the 297 mini series.
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
The Chinese are building the old style fuse boxes with the screw in
fuses. They were having trouble making the screw in fuses that fit in
the fuse box. Every resourceful, they decided to supply each fuse
socket with a penny on a string. This is considered an upgrade since
the screw in fuse would only carry 5 amps but the penny...much more.
Distributed by Mattel. :-)
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nav/com 'acoustic feedback' |
| From: | "Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk> |
Feedback for the list
This problem was due to the poor intercom on a Bendix/King 155 picking
up radio interference and was solved by adding an external intercom
(I've included the correspondence as it contains useful info)
- Frank
1. The radio is a Bendix/King KX155
2. It is approximately 1 year old. Don't know the model # but could find
out
3. It definately has an internal intercom but i've no links to describe
it
4. I didn't check whether the sound varied depending on where your
head/headset is sitting, or by
bending the wires around on the headset, or the wires to the jack but it
occurred with 3 separate headsets and on both pilot and co-pilot
outputs. Pretty sure its not a headset problem as same headsets work
fine in other planes
5. The noise gets worse with higher engine RPM but is very obvious even
at 1000 RPM. The character doesn't change - just its loudness
Many thanks
Frank
Interesting.. I wasn't aware that any KX155 has intercom. Okay. I see
the manual says it has 500ohm aux inputs, but don't see any reference to
intercom. We're talking about a Bendix/King KX-155, right? Do you have
a
link to a file which describes the feature?
Does the sound vary depending on where your head/headset is sitting, or
by
bending the wires around on the headset, or the wires to the jack?
Is the frequency of the whine/feedback dependent on the engine RPM? Or
is
it just a steady tone?
I agree with item 3 (assuming an intercom).
Regards,
Matt-
> Matt
> 1. When i cover the mic with my hand (muff off) the character of the
> feedback alters significantly but is not overall reduced. If i move
the
> boom away from my mouth and around to the back of my head then the
> feedback reduces but doesn't disappear. Its worse (louder) the closer
the
> boom to my mouth. These symptoms occur on both left and right hand
> headsets
> 2. My KX155 has an internal intercom. I haven't tried to disconnect
it.
> 3. Plugging in the mic jack should activate the intercom and the
transmit
> on the radio (when PTT pressed)
> 4. Remember the problem only occurs when the engine is running.
> 5. Does anyone know how to adjust the mic gain (intercom volume
control)
> on the KX155? Couldn't find this info in the installation manual.
> Kind regards
> Frank
>
>
>
>
> Does it help if you cover the mic with your hand (both sides - pull
the
> muff off)?
>
> I suspect that the input stage of your intercom is being overdriven by
the
> acoustic noise of the engine.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>> Thanks for your comments Ernest.
>> I've double-checked all the grounds i could find. Even took the whole
>> harness out (which was new) and had it double-checked. Nothing found.
>> If its the intercom in the radio why does it not cause the same
problem
>> when the engine is off?
>> It only causes the problem when the engine is running
>> Kind regards
>> Frank
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of
Ernest
>> Christley
>> Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 15:04
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Miskelly, Francis G wrote:
>>> The KX155 nav/com in my Glastar has 2 problems which may be related.
>>>
>>> 1. Inserting the headphone jack i have near perfect reception.
>>> However, when i insert the microphone jack there is a loud whine
>>> suggestive of 'acoustic feedback'. Moving the boom away from my
mouth
>>> reduces the whine. With a different headset it appears as lots of
>>> static noise which again changes with position of the boom. I've
>>> changed the aerial, power supply and checked all the earths. It
occurs
>>> with either mag and when the generator is disconnected. It only
>>> happens when the engine is running. The radio's been bench tested
and
>>> passed as good.
>>>
>>> 2. Radio reception is good with just the headphone jack inserted.
>>> However, insert the microphone jack and reception becomes very poor
or
>>> disappears completely. I suspect the 'acoustic feedback' is raising
>>> the automatic squelch which is cutting off the radio station
>>>
>>> Can anyone suggest an explanation and a solution!
>>> Many thanks
>>> Frank
>> Since there is a problem with multiple headset, I would check the
jack
>> first. The symptoms seem to imply some feedback from the mic to the
>> audio. Look for a short or a broken ground. Beyond that, it would
seem
>> circuitry withing the intercom is fritzed, and it gets much more
>> complicated.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
>all correspondence to the list should not use a acronym the first time a
>item is used.. What is a PTC???
Positive Temperature Coefficient. The discussion was
about the trade-offs for incorporating Polyswitches
or their direct cousins . . .
http://www.circuitprotection.com/polyswitch.asp
. . .into the power distribution of light aircraft.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Design Questions |
| From: | "MTBehnke" <mtbehnke2(at)msn.com> |
I have a few questions as I'm trying to work through my electrical design. I've
looked through the Aeroelectric book and other sources, but can't seem to find
answers to the following:
1. Is there some design guidelines for minimum fuse sizes to avoid nuisance trips?
I've seen a couple of people mention keeping current below 80% of the fuse
size. I also saw one recommendation on keeping below 50% for radios based
on transmitting current draw.
2. I have the Creativair strobe power supply. I noticed that the strobe kit came
with 22 ga. shielded wire to go from the power supply to the strobes. The
installation instructions give Joules per flash, but nothing about voltage, current,
etc. I don't have any way to validate whether 22 ga. is okay, especially
as it's round trip distances. Should I just assume it's fine?
3. This may be overly nit-picky, but do you generally use 12 or 14 volts when
calculating loads? For example, I have the Duckworks 100W landing light. Using
12V gives 8.3A versus 7.2A using 14V. On top of that, a 5% drop of 12V is
0.6V compared to 0.7V for 14V. I'm not sure if this would result in any different
wire or fuse sizes.
Thanks,
--------
Mike Behnke
RV-9A Fuselage
Andover, MN
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=134314#134314
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <psiegel(at)fuse.net> |
| Subject: | D-Sub Pin Extraction |
I need to reverse the direction of my autopilot roll servo. This involves swapping
two wires that go into the servo D-Sub connector.
I have extractred pins from D-Sub connectors before, but I always had a free end
of the wire attached to the pin to thread through the groove in the extraction
tool.
This may be a stupid question, but how do I get the extraction tool around the
wire when I don't have a free end to the wire? This would be easy if I had a
free end to thread into the extraction tool groove, but a free end isn't available
unless I cut the wire!?
I sure don't want to cut the two wires, swap and then solder working in the belly
of my fuselage!
Am I missing something here?
HELP!
Paul Siegel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Newton" <enewton57(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: D-Sub Pin Extraction |
The extraction tool that I have has a slot in it. See picture:
The wire goes in the slot.
Got it from B&C
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?9X358218#DSE-1
Eric Newton - Long Beach, MS
BH #682- Mississippi Mudbug
BEARHAWK BUILDER'S MANUALS
http://mybearhawk.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <psiegel(at)fuse.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:50 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: D-Sub Pin Extraction
>
> I need to reverse the direction of my autopilot roll servo. This involves
> swapping two wires that go into the servo D-Sub connector.
>
> I have extractred pins from D-Sub connectors before, but I always had a
> free end of the wire attached to the pin to thread through the groove in
> the extraction tool.
>
> This may be a stupid question, but how do I get the extraction tool around
> the wire when I don't have a free end to the wire? This would be easy if
> I had a free end to thread into the extraction tool groove, but a free end
> isn't available unless I cut the wire!?
>
> I sure don't want to cut the two wires, swap and then solder working in
> the belly of my fuselage!
>
> Am I missing something here?
>
> HELP!
>
> Paul Siegel
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> |
| Subject: | Bill Dube Doing OK? |
I hope Bill is ok?
<http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/14/0024236&from=rss>
-Sean
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | D-Sub Pin Extraction |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
If you are using the plastic removal tool, it should have a slit in the
side to wrap around the wire allowing you to push the tool into the back
side of the connector, then a slight tug on the installed wire and the
pin is free.
I have the metal one and it is very easy to use and you do not have to
worry about the plastic breaking as easy, also per another builders
recommendation I got a wiring spoon, it is used for adding and taking
out wires in a bundle, very good tool to have when changing any wire
bundles. I purchased all of the colors of extraction, insertion tools,
and the spoon from Stein and am very happy with how they work.
http://www.steinair.com/tools.htm
Dan
N289DT RV10E
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
psiegel(at)fuse.net
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:50 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: D-Sub Pin Extraction
I need to reverse the direction of my autopilot roll servo. This
involves swapping two wires that go into the servo D-Sub connector.
I have extractred pins from D-Sub connectors before, but I always had a
free end of the wire attached to the pin to thread through the groove in
the extraction tool.
This may be a stupid question, but how do I get the extraction tool
around the wire when I don't have a free end to the wire? This would be
easy if I had a free end to thread into the extraction tool groove, but
a free end isn't available unless I cut the wire!?
I sure don't want to cut the two wires, swap and then solder working in
the belly of my fuselage!
Am I missing something here?
HELP!
Paul Siegel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Bill Dube Doing OK? |
| From: | "George, Neal E Capt MIL USAF 605TES/TSI" <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil> |
Being stuck behind a completely irrational firewall, I can't see any of
these reports. What's the story?
neal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: D-Sub Pin Extraction |
>
>I need to reverse the direction of my autopilot roll servo. This involves
>swapping two wires that go into the servo D-Sub connector.
>
>I have extractred pins from D-Sub connectors before, but I always had a
>free end of the wire attached to the pin to thread through the groove in
>the extraction tool.
>
>This may be a stupid question, but how do I get the extraction tool around
>the wire when I don't have a free end to the wire? This would be easy if
>I had a free end to thread into the extraction tool groove, but a free end
>isn't available unless I cut the wire!?
>
>I sure don't want to cut the two wires, swap and then solder working in
>the belly of my fuselage!
>
>Am I missing something here?
See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/D-Sub_Pin/Pin-Extraction.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: D-Sub Pin Extraction |
Ditto to replies - I got one at Radio Shack! Also, check your autopilot
software - some allow you to switch directions with the software and you
don't have to do a wire change. At least my trio does
bobf
On 9/14/07, Eric Newton wrote:
>
> The extraction tool that I have has a slot in it. See picture:
>
> The wire goes in the slot.
>
> Got it from B&C
> http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?9X358218#DSE-1
>
> Eric Newton - Long Beach, MS
> BH #682- Mississippi Mudbug
> BEARHAWK BUILDER'S MANUALS
> http://mybearhawk.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <psiegel(at)fuse.net>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:50 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: D-Sub Pin Extraction
>
>
> >
> > I need to reverse the direction of my autopilot roll servo. This
> involves
> > swapping two wires that go into the servo D-Sub connector.
> >
> > I have extractred pins from D-Sub connectors before, but I always had a
> > free end of the wire attached to the pin to thread through the groove in
> > the extraction tool.
> >
> > This may be a stupid question, but how do I get the extraction tool
> around
> > the wire when I don't have a free end to the wire? This would be easy
> if
> > I had a free end to thread into the extraction tool groove, but a free
> end
> > isn't available unless I cut the wire!?
> >
> > I sure don't want to cut the two wires, swap and then solder working in
> > the belly of my fuselage!
> >
> > Am I missing something here?
> >
> > HELP!
> >
> > Paul Siegel
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | XPDR trouble, what to look for ? |
Hi Bob and all,
Two buddies are reporting a recent XPDR trouble with their Microair
T2000SFL transponder with an ACK A30 encoder, installed with the
supplied harness and antenna.
After 50 trouble-free hours, the controller reported not receiving all
infos from their transponder, then shortly after she told them she got
no response at all.
I made a quick inspection of their coaxial connections, but did not find
anything. The XPDR does not display any warning or error.
I would appreciate any advice as to where to further investigate, and
whether a XPDR fault is probable.
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
--
Gilles Thesee
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: XPDR trouble, what to look for ? |
Doug,
Thank you for responding.
> test the co-ax lead for good continuity on core and shield,
Did not do yet, we were on a distant airfield.
> check power and
> connections at the connector, plus the connector security.
>
Done. The transponder displays as usual.
> If you still have a problem, get up early one morning and telephone
> Microair for their recommendation. I'd be surprised if you had a poor
> response.
>
Thank you for your input.
BTW, are you the Doug Gray of "3 GPS legs" method fame ?
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: XPDR trouble, what to look for ? |
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Gilles,
Yes, I'm the culprit on the method.
Regarding the transponders, if there a latent defect in the product
the manufacturer should own the problem.
Regards,
Doug
>
> Doug,
>
> Thank you for responding.
>
> > test the co-ax lead for good continuity on core and shield,
>
> Did not do yet, we were on a distant airfield.
>
> > check power and
> > connections at the connector, plus the connector security.
> >
>
> Done. The transponder displays as usual.
>
> > If you still have a problem, get up early one morning and telephone
> > Microair for their recommendation. I'd be surprised if you had a poor
> > response.
> >
> Thank you for your input.
> BTW, are you the Doug Gray of "3 GPS legs" method fame ?
>
> Best regards,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Fisher" <sonex76(at)velocity.net> |
| Subject: | Re: XPDR trouble, what to look for ? |
You problems maybe Mode S related. Check out the Microair website.
All of these transponders need to be updated to Revision 7 which is
fairly pricey. I was quoted $445.00 US + shipping from Erie Aviation,
an authorized repair shop.
Dick Fisher
sonex76(at)velocity.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 3:45 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: XPDR trouble, what to look for ?
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Hi Bob and all,
>
> Two buddies are reporting a recent XPDR trouble with their Microair
> T2000SFL transponder with an ACK A30 encoder, installed with the supplied
> harness and antenna.
>
> After 50 trouble-free hours, the controller reported not receiving all
> infos from their transponder, then shortly after she told them she got no
> response at all.
> I made a quick inspection of their coaxial connections, but did not find
> anything. The XPDR does not display any warning or error.
> I would appreciate any advice as to where to further investigate, and
> whether a XPDR fault is probable.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Regards,
> --
> Gilles Thesee
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
> --
> 269.13.19/1008 - Release Date: 9/14/2007 8:59 AM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: XPDR trouble, what to look for ? |
Dick Fisher a crit :
>
> Check out the Microair website.
> All of these transponders need to be updated to Revision 7 which is
> fairly pricey. I was quoted $445.00 US + shipping from Erie Aviation,
> an authorized repair shop.
Dick, Doug and all,
Of course I'll make the necessary coax verifications, then contact the
dealer where they got their transponder.
Just checked the Microair website. I'm a bit concerned for my buddies.
I'm not aware of any Mode S ground installation in the Lyon area
(France) where they have been having their problem, but who knows.
What surprises me is that Microair talks about charging the client for a
simple software update to correct a built-in defect.
The software update should be free once you produce your XPDR S/N, or
performed under warranty by the dealers.
Will keep you posted,
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: XPDR trouble, what to look for ? |
Gilles Thesee a crit :
> What surprises me is that Microair talks about charging the client for
> a simple software update to correct a built-in defect.
Well, reading more carefully, there is also a hardware mod.
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Design Questions |
MTBehnke wrote:
>
>I have a few questions as I'm trying to work through my electrical design. I've
looked through the Aeroelectric book and other sources, but can't seem to find
answers to the following:
>
>1. Is there some design guidelines for minimum fuse sizes to avoid nuisance trips?
I've seen a couple of people mention keeping current below 80% of the fuse
size. I also saw one recommendation on keeping below 50% for radios based
on transmitting current draw.
>
>
Rule one is to size the fuse to protect the wire. ie an 18awg wire gets
a 10 amp fuse, 22 awg gets 5 amps etc. Or use the manufacturers
recommendation. Some things like landing lights draw momentary high
current while the filament is heating up which can be a consideration
but in practice refer to rule one and all should be fine. Some motors
and solenoids may draw considerable extra current while starting but
again you fuse to protect the wire from overheating in case the motor
shorts or seizes. In extreme cases you'd use a circuit breaker or slow
blow fuse but I think that is rare for us here. I guess I do have a few
fuses smaller than rule one would suggest but only because awg22 wire is
the smallest that I purchased or because the wire was oversized to keep
the voltage drop low. Since wire and fuses only come in fixed sizes you
generally will have adequate margin without any conscious effort. A
single failed fuse or circuit should not be any cause for great concern
anyway with a good design.
>2. I have the Creativair strobe power supply. I noticed that the strobe kit
came with 22 ga. shielded wire to go from the power supply to the strobes. The
installation instructions give Joules per flash, but nothing about voltage,
current, etc. I don't have any way to validate whether 22 ga. is okay, especially
as it's round trip distances. Should I just assume it's fine?
>
>
I'd assume it is fine. Strobes run on several hundred volts and short
bursts of current so it is intermittant duty (the wire does not
continuously conduct current).
>3. This may be overly nit-picky, but do you generally use 12 or 14 volts when
calculating loads? For example, I have the Duckworks 100W landing light. Using
12V gives 8.3A versus 7.2A using 14V. On top of that, a 5% drop of 12V is
0.6V compared to 0.7V for 14V. I'm not sure if this would result in any different
wire or fuse sizes.
>
I use 14 volts but if it is close enough to make a difference I would
just upsize the wire anyway in most cases.
Ken
>
>Thanks,
>
>--------
>Mike Behnke
>RV-9A Fuselage
>Andover, MN
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=134314#134314
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Design Questions |
>
>I have a few questions as I'm trying to work through my electrical
>design. I've looked through the Aeroelectric book and other sources, but
>can't seem to find answers to the following:
>
>1. Is there some design guidelines for minimum fuse sizes to avoid
>nuisance trips? I've seen a couple of people mention keeping current
>below 80% of the fuse size. I also saw one recommendation on keeping
>below 50% for radios based on transmitting current draw.
Ken has already offered some good response to this. I
would only add that any advise you get for de-rating fuses is not
based on any real science. Every fuse is designed to carry
100% of it's rated value indefinitely. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ATC_Specs.pdf
In some cases (for VERY robust fuses called current
limiters) they'll carry twice their rated current.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ANL_Specs.pdf
You see, the manufacturer has already de-rated the
product.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | switch suitability? |
| From: | "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston(at)popsound.com> |
hey all -
i've spent the morning perusing the archives about switch electrical
ratings, and have read the PDF by Bob on switch ratings, but i'm feeling
like i'm not getting any hard and fast rules about this stuff. in most
of the posts about electrical ratings, someone invariably says "don't
loose any sleep over switch ratings". i'm losing sleep over my switch
ratings. :) i'm considering using some super neato (and also very high
quality) switches, but the ratings are:
30 volts DC or 125 volts AC, 2.0A res., 0.5A ind.
that's the only info given about them. are these switches appropriate
(safe) for use for all the things you'd find in a "technically advanced"
aircraft? i'm talking things like pitot heat, trim motors, flap motors,
exterior lighting etc?
also, what about in the place of tying electrical busses together? i'm
considering having an alternate battery feed to the E-buss, and i
suspect that with a fairly heavily loaded E-buss such as the one i'm
considering, these switches would be inadequate? for reference, the
E-buss on my ship has the EFIS, AHRS, one NAV, one COM, autopilot, trim,
and flaps. i'd hate to put a relay in this spot (up the parts count,
etc) that is so critical.
i'm not (yet) asking a public critique of my electrical design, which
i'm comfortable with, just worrying about the switches i'm thinking of
going with. any help would be greatly appreciated!
thanks
cj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | switch suitability? |
>hey all -
>
>i've spent the morning perusing the archives about switch electrical
>ratings, and have read the PDF by Bob on switch ratings, but i'm feeling
>like i'm not getting any hard and fast rules about this stuff. in most of
>the posts about electrical ratings, someone invariably says "don't loose
>any sleep over switch ratings". i'm losing sleep over my switch
>ratings. :) i'm considering using some super neato (and also very high
>quality) switches, but the ratings are:
>
>30 volts DC or 125 volts AC, 2.0A res., 0.5A ind.
These are generally too small for anything practical
in the DC power distribution system. These will require
relays to boost the capability of the higher current draw
applications.
Switches best suited to the task will be rated at 7A or
better. They will also be easy to acquire from more than
one source.
>that's the only info given about them. are these switches appropriate
>(safe) for use for all the things you'd find in a "technically advanced"
>aircraft? i'm talking things like pitot heat, trim motors, flap motors,
>exterior lighting etc?
>
>also, what about in the place of tying electrical busses together? i'm
>considering having an alternate battery feed to the E-buss, and i suspect
>that with a fairly heavily loaded E-buss such as the one i'm considering,
>these switches would be inadequate? for reference, the E-buss on my ship
>has the EFIS, AHRS, one NAV, one COM, autopilot, trim, and flaps. i'd
>hate to put a relay in this spot (up the parts count, etc) that is so critical.
Suggest you begin with one of the architectures published
and then define what failure mode is not being addressed by
the diagram as published. Read the chapter on System Reliability.
You have too many and the wrong things on the e-bus.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: switch suitability? |
Just in case it helps Chris -the ratings you quote are 2 amps resistive
load (steady current with no turn on surges) or 0.5 amp inductive
(higher momentary turn on surges of current) so these are small switches.
Other issues are connections to switches and how many diferent types you
wish to use. 1/4" wide tab connections for push on AMP PIDG connectors
are very convenient. Solder connections will drive you crazy. Screw
terminals are somewhere in between ;)
Ken
Chris Johnston wrote:
>hey all -
>
>i've spent the morning perusing the archives about switch electrical ratings,
and have read the PDF by Bob on switch ratings, but i'm feeling like i'm not getting
any hard and fast rules about this stuff. in most of the posts about electrical
ratings, someone invariably says "don't loose any sleep over switch
ratings". i'm losing sleep over my switch ratings. :) i'm considering using
some super neato (and also very high quality) switches, but the ratings are:
>
>30 volts DC or 125 volts AC, 2.0A res., 0.5A ind.
>
>that's the only info given about them. are these switches appropriate (safe) for
use for all the things you'd find in a "technically advanced" aircraft? i'm
talking things like pitot heat, trim motors, flap motors, exterior lighting
etc?
>
>also, what about in the place of tying electrical busses together? i'm considering
having an alternate battery feed to the E-buss, and i suspect that with
a fairly heavily loaded E-buss such as the one i'm considering, these switches
would be inadequate? for reference, the E-buss on my ship has the EFIS, AHRS,
one NAV, one COM, autopilot, trim, and flaps. i'd hate to put a relay in this
spot (up the parts count, etc) that is so critical.
>
>i'm not (yet) asking a public critique of my electrical design, which i'm comfortable
with, just worrying about the switches i'm thinking of going with. any
help would be greatly appreciated!
>
>thanks
>cj
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | switch suitability? |
| From: | "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston(at)popsound.com> |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sat 9/15/2007 11:15 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: switch suitability?
>hey all -
>
>i've spent the morning perusing the archives about switch electrical
>ratings, and have read the PDF by Bob on switch ratings, but i'm
feeling
>like i'm not getting any hard and fast rules about this stuff. in most
of
>the posts about electrical ratings, someone invariably says "don't
loose
>any sleep over switch ratings". i'm losing sleep over my switch
>ratings. :) i'm considering using some super neato (and also very
high
>quality) switches, but the ratings are:
>
>30 volts DC or 125 volts AC, 2.0A res., 0.5A ind.
These are generally too small for anything practical
in the DC power distribution system. These will require
relays to boost the capability of the higher current draw
applications.
Switches best suited to the task will be rated at 7A or
better. They will also be easy to acquire from more than
one source.
>that's the only info given about them. are these switches appropriate
>(safe) for use for all the things you'd find in a "technically
advanced"
>aircraft? i'm talking things like pitot heat, trim motors, flap
motors,
>exterior lighting etc?
>
>also, what about in the place of tying electrical busses together? i'm
>considering having an alternate battery feed to the E-buss, and i
suspect
>that with a fairly heavily loaded E-buss such as the one i'm
considering,
>these switches would be inadequate? for reference, the E-buss on my
ship
>has the EFIS, AHRS, one NAV, one COM, autopilot, trim, and flaps. i'd
>hate to put a relay in this spot (up the parts count, etc) that is so
critical.
Suggest you begin with one of the architectures published
and then define what failure mode is not being addressed by
the diagram as published. Read the chapter on System Reliability.
You have too many and the wrong things on the e-bus.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax electrical switches |
>I am building my Zenith 701/Rotax 912 electrical system following
>Aeroelectric s Z16 diagram because I trust that Bob Nuckolls knows a hell
>of a lot more about aircraft electrical systems than I do. I don t even
>know enough to fully understand the use of the two switches in the
>diagram. I would appreciate if Bob or someone who understands this diagram
>can tell me how to use switch S1 (the double poll double throw switch) and
>the switch attached to the endurance buss. I also need to understand what
>type of switch this second one is. It looks like a single poll on-off type
>but I m not certain because it has a ^ symbol in it.
That's an error in the symbol. The mid positioned ^ symbol
says theres a center-off position. Not so in this case. The
e-bus alternate feed switch is an S700-1-3. SPDT ON-ON or
equal. I've updated the diagram at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z16M.pdf
S1 does have three positions. It mimics the functionality of
the famous "split-rocker" master switch widely used on single
engine TC aircraft for decades. It's a DP3P, ON-ON-ON device.
A double pole, progressive transfer switch. Bottom is ALL OFF.
Moving up to the mid position adds the BATTERY only. Top
position is BATTERY+ALTERNATOR.
This is called out as the S700-2-10 switch or equal.
The e-bus alternate feed switch is used to power e-bus
loads only in case of alternator failure. Turn e-bus alternate
feed switch ON. Turn master switch OFF. Continue battery-only
until airport in sight whereupon you can turn the master
switch back up to BATTERY only if there are things on the main
bus useful for approach to landing.
See chapter 17 for more detailed explanation of the endurance
bus architecture and operating philosophy.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | switch suitability? |
| From: | "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston(at)popsound.com> |
Thanks for the reply Bob, and i really appreciate the insight from
someone who knows more about this stuff than me. i've been studying the
connection for awhile now, and with my proposed architecture i don't
mean to pretend i'm more knowledgable than i am. i am learning new
stuff daily, so be patient! your reply that i have too many and the
wrong things is curious to me. the aircraft has no "conventional"
instruments, so the EFIS and AHRS are essential. In my application, the
AHARS includes a GPS receiver, (GADAHARS) so i've got the GPS without
the draw of a big panel mounted Garmin style unit. the NAV/COM (SL30)
isn't too spendy in terms of power (as long as i don't feel the need to
transmit in a long winded fashion!) and gets me quite a bit in terms of
navigational ability. The autopilot is possibly excessive, but as you
say in the chapter on electrical system reliability, it's got an off
switch, and if i don't need it, it can be turned off. The flaps and
trim could be considered excessive, but my my thinking, they're only as
"electrically spendy" as you want them to be (use sparingly), and in a
fast slippery aircraft, my personal opinion is that these items are
essential. with my proposed 28Ah main battery and the 17Ah aux battery,
the E-bus should keep the electrons flowing for quite awhile right?
The reason i'm trying to sort out an alternate feed to the E-bus from a
second battery is that from what i understand, there is an issue with
the EFIS screens rebooting while you're cranking to start the engine.
as i type this, i'm thinking that it's possible that this is a mythical
problem that i just took for granted to be real. i'll have to
investigate that one... but the before start procedure would be to turn
on the EFIS, then do the pre-flight, and by the time i'm ready to hop in
and start the engine, the EFIS is booted up and ready to go. also, this
way i have the engine gauges during engine start. the last piece of the
puzzle has to do with starter kickback caused by the lightspeed ignition
if the voltage it's getting drops too low during engine cranking. this
was a motivator for having a second battery in the aircraft, and an
alternate feed to the ignition. the ignition, by the way, would be on
the always hot aux battery, or the always hot main battery (switchable)
for the reasons that you state in the connection.
just to be clear, i'm not one of these guys who has tons of flight
experience. i'm a new pilot with an instrument rating, and for my
mission, it is important to me that i have every advantage if i have an
emergency in the cockpit. in the event of a charging malfunction, i'd
be landing as soon as it was reasonably safe to do so, even if i had the
electrical endurance to continue much farther. i'm not talking about
shouting "MAYDAY!" and setting it down in a field, but i would choose to
land at the first airport that i saw. i'm kinda funny that way.
thanks for all your help and insight... please set me straight if
necessary!
cj
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sat 9/15/2007 11:15 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: switch suitability?
>hey all -
>
>i've spent the morning perusing the archives about switch electrical
>ratings, and have read the PDF by Bob on switch ratings, but i'm
feeling
>like i'm not getting any hard and fast rules about this stuff. in most
of
>the posts about electrical ratings, someone invariably says "don't
loose
>any sleep over switch ratings". i'm losing sleep over my switch
>ratings. :) i'm considering using some super neato (and also very
high
>quality) switches, but the ratings are:
>
>30 volts DC or 125 volts AC, 2.0A res., 0.5A ind.
These are generally too small for anything practical
in the DC power distribution system. These will require
relays to boost the capability of the higher current draw
applications.
Switches best suited to the task will be rated at 7A or
better. They will also be easy to acquire from more than
one source.
>that's the only info given about them. are these switches appropriate
>(safe) for use for all the things you'd find in a "technically
advanced"
>aircraft? i'm talking things like pitot heat, trim motors, flap
motors,
>exterior lighting etc?
>
>also, what about in the place of tying electrical busses together? i'm
>considering having an alternate battery feed to the E-buss, and i
suspect
>that with a fairly heavily loaded E-buss such as the one i'm
considering,
>these switches would be inadequate? for reference, the E-buss on my
ship
>has the EFIS, AHRS, one NAV, one COM, autopilot, trim, and flaps. i'd
>hate to put a relay in this spot (up the parts count, etc) that is so
critical.
Suggest you begin with one of the architectures published
and then define what failure mode is not being addressed by
the diagram as published. Read the chapter on System Reliability.
You have too many and the wrong things on the e-bus.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <ssamps(at)GMAIL.COM> |
| Subject: | Starter cct. and temp rise. |
*"On the other hand, an RV with the battery right behind the Firewall can
tolerate 4AWG cranking circuits because the *
*round trip is only 4 or 5 feet long."* Ref article :*Wire Size Selection / Bob
Nuckolls*
**
**
*I have been thinking of wiring up the starter cct on an O-320 with #4 since
the run is very short, but it leads me to a couple of questions:*
**
*1) Anyone know the temp rise on the wire for 250 amps for say 5 secs? (I
never crank this long normally.)*
*2) Anyone know what the starter current drops to, once the starter is up to
speed?*
**
*Thanks!*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | "Fat wire" termination on Z19/RB and Subaru engine |
All the pictures of battery contactor hot side terminations seem to be at
the starter contactor on either side of the firewall. And then usually
connected to Main Bus from there via smaller wire per drawing.
On the Eggenfellner Subaru H6 firewall forward package the starter contactor
on the starter.
I can't seem to visualize what the common fat wire coming forward from the
rear mounted battery contactors (Z-19/RB architecture) will attach to?
Will it need to pass through the firewall and continue straight to the
starter solenoid (contactor) before coming back with smaller size wire to
the main bus?
Or should I have an insulated bus bar on cockpit side of firewall that fat
wire attaches to on its way to the starter contactor on the starter? (The
stud on ATC fuse panels seems too small to attach fat wire terminator to?)
This would keep feed to main bus out of the engine compartment which seems
like a good idea.
Or any other suggestions? Pictures.
Thanks,
Allen Fulmer
RV7 QB Fuselage/Finish kit
Alexander City, AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Donald Harker" <dpharker(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Magneto Installation |
Am wiring up a Slick 4375 on a 7A. I am finally straightened out on the
wiring per Bob's diagram Z-13. My question is should I see infinite
resistance across the P-Lead and ground when the switch is open or am I
going to see zero ohms because of the points in the magneto? Any input
would be appreciated.
Thanks
Don Harker
N767DH
7A Finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Fat wire" termination on Z19/RB and Subaru engine |
Allan,
You asked: "Will it need to pass through the firewall and continue straight
to the
starter solenoid (contactor) before coming back with smaller size wire to
the main bus?"
That's exactly what I did on my H6. I then ran an 8AWG wire from the
solenoid to a Current Limiter, and then to the Alternator.
I took my feed for the primary bus by splicing an 8AWG wire on to the 'fat'
6AWG wire before it goes through the firewall, so that I only have only the
6AWG wire going through the firewall.
Dennis Glaeser
RV-7A - H6 installed, Fuselage painted and at the airport, painting the tail
feathers now, wings next. Waiting for my prop and cowl ducts.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Forrest from the Trees |
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
Bob,
I have spent an awful lot of time designing the electrical system for my
RV-8A based on your Z-13/8 diagram. I'm satisfied I have the major
points covered - but again a reminder that the devil is in the details.
So a couple basic questions (I tried the archives but couldn't find
exact answers):
Toggle Switches: What is the best alternative to the tabbed washer on
toggle switches? Will a lock washer or some other device eliminate the
need for tab holes?
Wing Root Disconnect - handling strobe wire shielding. I understand your
position on wing root disconnects, but for logistics purposes and
ability to work on wing tips, I need 'em. I have a source for the
disconnect plugs used by the rec vehicle folks. However, I'm confused
about how to handle the strobe wire shielding. Is it handled just like a
normal wire?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Cox" <flyboyron(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference??? |
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: switch suitability?
> From: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston(at)popsound.com>
>
...
> your reply that i have too many and the
> wrong things is curious to me. the aircraft has no "conventional"
> instruments, so the EFIS and AHRS are essential.
Chris,
This statement indicates to me that you may harbor a certain naivete about
the current state of development and reliability of EFIS/AHRS systems. As a
new pilot with an instrument rating, it's natural to want to have the
greatest thing that comes along. I just bought a really cool EFIS add-on
system for my Glasair project and I use it in my Cessna now, but it's not
the only way to fly the airplane. I like it alot, but I don't count on it
to keep my body parts within their casing. IT will be the backup in case of
failure of my primary (traditional) instruments.
But if you are working on a plane you intend to fly in real IFR, and do
indeed have NO backup instruments, I'm afraid your electrical distribution
system is far from the weakest point in your airplane. If you plan to fly
only VFR, then the systems are even less "essential", and again, they don't
need to be on the "E-bus".
There are currently NO EFIS systems out there for the market most of us are
looking at (i.e. non-military, non-$100K) that have the kind of proven
reliability and lack of single-point failure possibilities that even the old
vacuum gyro systems should be configured to give you.
In other words, if you do have, say an internal power supply failure, or
complete display failure in your EFIS system, what is your plan? Your E-bus
may be powered, and if you follow Bob's advice, it almost surely will be,
but how are you going to control the airplane????
Bob's advice to look again at your system is good advice (as it usuallyall
is.) He always reminds us to look at the possible failure points in a
design, and decide which are not problems, which are, and to figure out how
to assure that those which are problems are prevented to the greatest extent
possible.
I strongly suggest you do some additional research before trusting your life
to what's really generation 1.5 of general aviation EFIS systems. They're
great, when they work, and they usually do, but it's nothing short of
criminally negligent to put ALL your eggs in that kind of basket. There
isn't anywhere near enough industry-wide experience with these systems yet
to even KNOW what their real in-service failure rate is, let alone determine
whether it's low enough or not.
Do a little Googling on EFIS systems, no matter which brand, and you'll find
a legion of folks who love them, but don't trust them, and they'll tell you
perfectly good reasons why. EVERY system I've looked into has its share of
"boy am I glad I had a backup" stories.
What GA airplane do you see out there that has only an EFIS and no backups?
There's a reason for that.
Ron Cox
(Old pilot with an instrument rating, and one who has well over 10,000 hours
flying behind fantastically expensive commercial EFIS systems, but we have
backups!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference??? |
| From: | "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston(at)popsound.com> |
Sorry, I didn't intend to imply that I have no backups, but that the
backups are indeed electric. In the event of an alternator failure,
only the primary electric instruments are on the E-bus. The Backup
instrumentation has an internal battery that will keep it powered for
over an hour when power is removed. I definitely appreciate the
watchful eye that the more experienced pilots on the list have on us
young pups though!
cj
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Cox
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:48 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: switch suitability?
> From: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston(at)popsound.com>
>
...
> your reply that i have too many and the
> wrong things is curious to me. the aircraft has no "conventional"
> instruments, so the EFIS and AHRS are essential.
Chris,
This statement indicates to me that you may harbor a certain naivete
about
the current state of development and reliability of EFIS/AHRS systems.
As a
new pilot with an instrument rating, it's natural to want to have the
greatest thing that comes along. I just bought a really cool EFIS
add-on
system for my Glasair project and I use it in my Cessna now, but it's
not
the only way to fly the airplane. I like it alot, but I don't count on
it
to keep my body parts within their casing. IT will be the backup in
case of
failure of my primary (traditional) instruments.
But if you are working on a plane you intend to fly in real IFR, and do
indeed have NO backup instruments, I'm afraid your electrical
distribution
system is far from the weakest point in your airplane. If you plan to
fly
only VFR, then the systems are even less "essential", and again, they
don't
need to be on the "E-bus".
There are currently NO EFIS systems out there for the market most of us
are
looking at (i.e. non-military, non-$100K) that have the kind of proven
reliability and lack of single-point failure possibilities that even the
old
vacuum gyro systems should be configured to give you.
In other words, if you do have, say an internal power supply failure, or
complete display failure in your EFIS system, what is your plan? Your
E-bus
may be powered, and if you follow Bob's advice, it almost surely will
be,
but how are you going to control the airplane????
Bob's advice to look again at your system is good advice (as it
usuallyall
is.) He always reminds us to look at the possible failure points in a
design, and decide which are not problems, which are, and to figure out
how
to assure that those which are problems are prevented to the greatest
extent
possible.
I strongly suggest you do some additional research before trusting your
life
to what's really generation 1.5 of general aviation EFIS systems.
They're
great, when they work, and they usually do, but it's nothing short of
criminally negligent to put ALL your eggs in that kind of basket. There
isn't anywhere near enough industry-wide experience with these systems
yet
to even KNOW what their real in-service failure rate is, let alone
determine
whether it's low enough or not.
Do a little Googling on EFIS systems, no matter which brand, and you'll
find
a legion of folks who love them, but don't trust them, and they'll tell
you
perfectly good reasons why. EVERY system I've looked into has its share
of
"boy am I glad I had a backup" stories.
What GA airplane do you see out there that has only an EFIS and no
backups?
There's a reason for that.
Ron Cox
(Old pilot with an instrument rating, and one who has well over 10,000
hours
flying behind fantastically expensive commercial EFIS systems, but we
have
backups!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | I'm OK, just scrapes and cuts. (was: Bill Dube |
Doing OK?)
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Dang!
I'm sure glad your OK Bill....Say do you know a flight instructor guy
called Jack Loflin...He seems to know you...And not just by
reputation....:)
Hope the bike is up and running soon.
Frank
Rv7 Oregon.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Dube
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 12:14 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: I'm OK, just scrapes and cuts. (was: Bill
Dube Doing OK?)
-->
I'm OK.
You can read the basics here:
http://www.killacycle.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS as only reference??? |
Bruce Gray wrote:
>
> I can see you flying along, solid IMC with a happy smile on you face when
> all of a sudden you sniff that odor that all of us fear - smoke. The pungent
> smell of burning insulation hits your nose. What's the first thing you do?
> Hit the master switch and turn all electrical off, Woops, gota fly the
> airplane, but with what? Turn all electrical whizzies off, switch or pull
> breakers and turn the master back on. Bring up the first EFIS and hope you
> don't smell anything. But wait, it takes 2 minutes to boot, not good. Still
> have to fly the airplane. Hope it's not bumpy or you have a high ceiling to
> recover before the splat.
>
> Give me a vacuum backup AI gyro and all you'll have left is a dark and
> stormy night story.
>
> Bruce
> www.Glasair.org
>
Bruce, I've installed a vacuum powered T&B, and I have a steam powered
ASI and altimeter, so I'm on board with you about the steam backups to
the Dynon I'm planning.
But...2 minutes to reboot? I thought the Grand Rapids was ridiculously
long at 30 seconds or so (don't remember exactly). The Dynon comes up
and orients itself fast enough not to matter.
The argument is sound, let's just keep it real on the details 8*)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS as only reference??? |
Good Afternoon Bruce,
A standard needle and ball Turn and Bank instrument is more reliable,
lighter, and cheaper than any attitude gyro.
Even the crummy Turn Coordinator is cheaper, lighter, and more reliable than
the Attitude Gyro, but not quite as reliable as the T&B.
While I certainly expect someone to design a more modern rate of turn
instrument, the T&B is still the best safety instrument you can have on the
airplane.
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 9/17/2007 2:25:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
Give me a vacuum backup AI gyro and all you'll have left is a dark and
stormy night story.
Bruce
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference??? |
Ron,
I can name many airplanes that have EFIS only and are certified under
part 25. The newer Airbus A318, 319, 320, 321, 330, 340, 380 and the
Boeing 777 just to name a few. Take a close at the newest stuff, the
backup is now an EFIS display.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Cox
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:48 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: switch suitability?
> From: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston(at)popsound.com>
>
...
> your reply that i have too many and the
> wrong things is curious to me. the aircraft has no "conventional"
> instruments, so the EFIS and AHRS are essential.
Chris,
This statement indicates to me that you may harbor a certain naivete
about
the current state of development and reliability of EFIS/AHRS systems.
As a
new pilot with an instrument rating, it's natural to want to have the
greatest thing that comes along. I just bought a really cool EFIS
add-on
system for my Glasair project and I use it in my Cessna now, but it's
not
the only way to fly the airplane. I like it alot, but I don't count on
it
to keep my body parts within their casing. IT will be the backup in
case of
failure of my primary (traditional) instruments.
But if you are working on a plane you intend to fly in real IFR, and do
indeed have NO backup instruments, I'm afraid your electrical
distribution
system is far from the weakest point in your airplane. If you plan to
fly
only VFR, then the systems are even less "essential", and again, they
don't
need to be on the "E-bus".
There are currently NO EFIS systems out there for the market most of us
are
looking at (i.e. non-military, non-$100K) that have the kind of proven
reliability and lack of single-point failure possibilities that even the
old
vacuum gyro systems should be configured to give you.
In other words, if you do have, say an internal power supply failure, or
complete display failure in your EFIS system, what is your plan? Your
E-bus
may be powered, and if you follow Bob's advice, it almost surely will
be,
but how are you going to control the airplane????
Bob's advice to look again at your system is good advice (as it
usuallyall
is.) He always reminds us to look at the possible failure points in a
design, and decide which are not problems, which are, and to figure out
how
to assure that those which are problems are prevented to the greatest
extent
possible.
I strongly suggest you do some additional research before trusting your
life
to what's really generation 1.5 of general aviation EFIS systems.
They're
great, when they work, and they usually do, but it's nothing short of
criminally negligent to put ALL your eggs in that kind of basket. There
isn't anywhere near enough industry-wide experience with these systems
yet
to even KNOW what their real in-service failure rate is, let alone
determine
whether it's low enough or not.
Do a little Googling on EFIS systems, no matter which brand, and you'll
find
a legion of folks who love them, but don't trust them, and they'll tell
you
perfectly good reasons why. EVERY system I've looked into has its share
of
"boy am I glad I had a backup" stories.
What GA airplane do you see out there that has only an EFIS and no
backups?
There's a reason for that.
Ron Cox
(Old pilot with an instrument rating, and one who has well over 10,000
hours
flying behind fantastically expensive commercial EFIS systems, but we
have
backups!)
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Forrest from the Trees |
>Bob,
>
>I have spent an awful lot of time designing the electrical system for my
>RV-8A based on your Z-13/8 diagram. I m satisfied I have the major points
>covered but again a reminder that the devil is in the details. So a couple
>basic questions (I tried the archives but couldn t find exact answers):
>
>
>Toggle Switches: What is the best alternative to the tabbed washer on
>toggle switches? Will a lock washer or some other device eliminate the
>need for tab holes?
Many folks have assembled without the tabbed washers. What's
the big downside? I put the washers on the back side and
cover the tab-holes with the switch panel overlay. Easy
to lay out, fabricate, assemble and the holes disappear
behind the overlays.
>
>
>Wing Root Disconnect handling strobe wire shielding. I understand your
>position on wing root disconnects, but for logistics purposes and ability
>to work on wing tips, I need em. I have a source for the disconnect plugs
>used by the rec vehicle folks. However, I m confused about how to handle
>the strobe wire shielding. Is it handled just like a normal wire?
Shields are handled on their own pin like the other
wires.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | November Seminar Posted |
Plans are finalized for a Nov 10/11 weekend seminar in
Ray, Michigan . . . about 35 miles north of Detroit
just off I-94. Details are posted at:
http://aeroelectric.com/seminars/Ray.html
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Installation |
>
>
>Am wiring up a Slick 4375 on a 7A. I am finally straightened out on the
>wiring per Bob's diagram Z-13. My question is should I see infinite
>resistance across the P-Lead and ground when the switch is open or am I
>going to see zero ohms because of the points in the magneto? Any input
>would be appreciated.
The DC resistance looking into the p-lead of a magneto
is VERY LOW whether or not the points are open. This is
why you need the electro-mechanical or more modern electronic
"buzz" box to sense the AC resistance of the magneto.
Short answer is that for most meters, the input to the
magneto p-lead port looks like a dead short all the time.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter cct. and temp rise. |
>
>
>"On the other hand, an RV with the battery right behind the Firewall can
>tolerate 4AWG cranking circuits because the
>round trip is only 4 or 5 feet long." Ref article :Wire Size Selection /
>Bob Nuckolls
>
>
>I have been thinking of wiring up the starter cct on an O-320 with #4
>since the run is very short, but it leads me to a couple of questions:
>
>1) Anyone know the temp rise on the wire for 250 amps for say 5 secs? (I
>never crank this long normally.)
Don't worry about it. The whole airplane's fat wires
can be 4AWG except for LONG runs where we go to 2AWG
to minimize wire drop.
>2) Anyone know what the starter current drops to, once the starter is up
>to speed?
About 200A depending on temperature and starter style.
But 4AWG is going to be fine.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Kuffels <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS as only reference??? |
Bruce,
<< I've had electrical fires in flight, at night, in IMC. Believe
me, your rational mind won't help you. You think fire and your
hand reaches for the master switch. I don't know how you plan to
wire your airplane but I stand with my earlier assessment. You
need a backup AI powered by a different system. It's so much
easier to hit one switch (the master) and then go through your
rational trouble shooting procedure or better yet, wait to do it
on the ground. >>
Don't disagree about needing backup but don't think we need all
the extra stuff you imply. Am comfortable with the setup I'm
putting on my GlaStar Sportsman:
One alternator, one battery (well technically, 3 batteries), one
manual (guarded) switch for the essential bus source, one Dynon
EFIS/EMS, one hand held (panel mount) Garmin, one Trio autopilot
with auto pitch trim control.
Come a failure of Dynon, Garmin or Trio I declare a precautionary
emergency and head to nearest VFR weather or nearest approach.
Come the smell of smoke I rationally hit the master switch. My
Dynon and Garmin switch to and continue to run on their fully
charged internal batteries. This process is tested every time I
shut down so I know it will work. I have 30 seconds to press any
button on each unit for them to continue on internal batteries.
Now there is over an hour to: fly the airplane, gather my wits
about me, turn off all electrical including all avionics at their
boxes, switch the essential bus to direct battery connection, if
needed turn on the instrument/cockpit lighting (about 100 ma),
then turn on one at a time the autopilot head, avionics master
(sorry Bob) and essential avionics (usually only the Icom Comm
but also perhaps the ILS receiver for the shortest time possible)
declare a real emergency and head to nearest VFR weather or
nearest approach. Anytime smoke/smell reappears in the above
process the offending power sink is turned back off.
The only steam gauges on the panel are airspeed and altitude.
But they are not IFR backup, I need those numbers for safe VFR
flight and landing.
Tom Kuffel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference??? |
Mike,
You're missing the point. The hardware & software of EFIS in part 25
aircraft, and their back-ups, are designed, built and tested to standards
far in excess of anything that we can afford to put in our airplanes. They
are not comparable.
Regards, Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: 17 September 2007 23:41
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
Ron,
I can name many airplanes that have EFIS only and are certified under
part 25. The newer Airbus A318, 319, 320, 321, 330, 340, 380 and the
Boeing 777 just to name a few. Take a close at the newest stuff, the
backup is now an EFIS display.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Cox
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:48 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: switch suitability?
> From: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston(at)popsound.com>
>
...
> your reply that i have too many and the
> wrong things is curious to me. the aircraft has no "conventional"
> instruments, so the EFIS and AHRS are essential.
Chris,
This statement indicates to me that you may harbor a certain naivete
about
the current state of development and reliability of EFIS/AHRS systems.
As a
new pilot with an instrument rating, it's natural to want to have the
greatest thing that comes along. I just bought a really cool EFIS
add-on
system for my Glasair project and I use it in my Cessna now, but it's
not
the only way to fly the airplane. I like it alot, but I don't count on
it
to keep my body parts within their casing. IT will be the backup in
case of
failure of my primary (traditional) instruments.
But if you are working on a plane you intend to fly in real IFR, and do
indeed have NO backup instruments, I'm afraid your electrical
distribution
system is far from the weakest point in your airplane. If you plan to
fly
only VFR, then the systems are even less "essential", and again, they
don't
need to be on the "E-bus".
There are currently NO EFIS systems out there for the market most of us
are
looking at (i.e. non-military, non-$100K) that have the kind of proven
reliability and lack of single-point failure possibilities that even the
old
vacuum gyro systems should be configured to give you.
In other words, if you do have, say an internal power supply failure, or
complete display failure in your EFIS system, what is your plan? Your
E-bus
may be powered, and if you follow Bob's advice, it almost surely will
be,
but how are you going to control the airplane????
Bob's advice to look again at your system is good advice (as it
usuallyall
is.) He always reminds us to look at the possible failure points in a
design, and decide which are not problems, which are, and to figure out
how
to assure that those which are problems are prevented to the greatest
extent
possible.
I strongly suggest you do some additional research before trusting your
life
to what's really generation 1.5 of general aviation EFIS systems.
They're
great, when they work, and they usually do, but it's nothing short of
criminally negligent to put ALL your eggs in that kind of basket. There
isn't anywhere near enough industry-wide experience with these systems
yet
to even KNOW what their real in-service failure rate is, let alone
determine
whether it's low enough or not.
Do a little Googling on EFIS systems, no matter which brand, and you'll
find
a legion of folks who love them, but don't trust them, and they'll tell
you
perfectly good reasons why. EVERY system I've looked into has its share
of
"boy am I glad I had a backup" stories.
What GA airplane do you see out there that has only an EFIS and no
backups?
There's a reason for that.
Ron Cox
(Old pilot with an instrument rating, and one who has well over 10,000
hours
flying behind fantastically expensive commercial EFIS systems, but we
have
backups!)
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference??? |
Ron is a Line Captain flying B7XX for UAL. I'm sure that standby EFIS of
which you talk is higher priced than my entire panel.
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 Peter
Pengilly
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 2:38 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
Mike,
You're missing the point. The hardware & software of EFIS in part 25
aircraft, and their back-ups, are designed, built and tested to standards
far in excess of anything that we can afford to put in our airplanes. They
are not comparable.
Regards, Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: 17 September 2007 23:41
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
Ron,
I can name many airplanes that have EFIS only and are certified under
part 25. The newer Airbus A318, 319, 320, 321, 330, 340, 380 and the
Boeing 777 just to name a few. Take a close at the newest stuff, the
backup is now an EFIS display.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Cox
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:48 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: switch suitability?
> From: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston(at)popsound.com>
>
...
> your reply that i have too many and the
> wrong things is curious to me. the aircraft has no "conventional"
> instruments, so the EFIS and AHRS are essential.
Chris,
This statement indicates to me that you may harbor a certain naivete
about
the current state of development and reliability of EFIS/AHRS systems.
As a
new pilot with an instrument rating, it's natural to want to have the
greatest thing that comes along. I just bought a really cool EFIS
add-on
system for my Glasair project and I use it in my Cessna now, but it's
not
the only way to fly the airplane. I like it alot, but I don't count on
it
to keep my body parts within their casing. IT will be the backup in
case of
failure of my primary (traditional) instruments.
But if you are working on a plane you intend to fly in real IFR, and do
indeed have NO backup instruments, I'm afraid your electrical
distribution
system is far from the weakest point in your airplane. If you plan to
fly
only VFR, then the systems are even less "essential", and again, they
don't
need to be on the "E-bus".
There are currently NO EFIS systems out there for the market most of us
are
looking at (i.e. non-military, non-$100K) that have the kind of proven
reliability and lack of single-point failure possibilities that even the
old
vacuum gyro systems should be configured to give you.
In other words, if you do have, say an internal power supply failure, or
complete display failure in your EFIS system, what is your plan? Your
E-bus
may be powered, and if you follow Bob's advice, it almost surely will
be,
but how are you going to control the airplane????
Bob's advice to look again at your system is good advice (as it
usuallyall
is.) He always reminds us to look at the possible failure points in a
design, and decide which are not problems, which are, and to figure out
how
to assure that those which are problems are prevented to the greatest
extent
possible.
I strongly suggest you do some additional research before trusting your
life
to what's really generation 1.5 of general aviation EFIS systems.
They're
great, when they work, and they usually do, but it's nothing short of
criminally negligent to put ALL your eggs in that kind of basket. There
isn't anywhere near enough industry-wide experience with these systems
yet
to even KNOW what their real in-service failure rate is, let alone
determine
whether it's low enough or not.
Do a little Googling on EFIS systems, no matter which brand, and you'll
find
a legion of folks who love them, but don't trust them, and they'll tell
you
perfectly good reasons why. EVERY system I've looked into has its share
of
"boy am I glad I had a backup" stories.
What GA airplane do you see out there that has only an EFIS and no
backups?
There's a reason for that.
Ron Cox
(Old pilot with an instrument rating, and one who has well over 10,000
hours
flying behind fantastically expensive commercial EFIS systems, but we
have
backups!)
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi Guys
I'm considering buying some 'Eaton/Honeywell' switches, however for (as an
example) a simple flap switch they can offer 'centre off' or 'centre none' -
what is the difference between OFF and NONE
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS as only reference??? |
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> Ernest Christley wrote:
>
>> But...2 minutes to reboot? I thought the Grand Rapids was
>> ridiculously long at 30 seconds or so (don't remember exactly). The
>> Dynon comes up and orients itself fast enough not to matter.
>>
>
> Hi Ernest,
> Actually, some of the EFIS units do take 2 minutes to calibrate
> (time from power up until they are useful).
>
WOW!
I haven't seen one of those, but...WOW!
I'm sure that is useful for someone, but I still think 30sec was way to
long for an EFIS aimed at GA aircraft.
--
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in
a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine in
the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
--Unknown
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 02:55 9/18/2007, you wrote:
>Hi Guys
>
>I'm considering buying some 'Eaton/Honeywell' switches, however for
>(as an example) a simple flap switch they can offer 'centre off' or
>'centre none' - what is the difference between OFF and NONE
>
>John
OFF is a three position switch, one side, center, the other side.
NONE is a two position switch, one side, no center, the other side.
Some OFF switches do maintain electrical continuity with selected
contacts, check the switch diagram.
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | RE: EFIS as only reference??? |
Cheers,
The subject title may be a misnomer since most of us have other
indicators installed independent of the EFIS.
My support falls to Old Bob, with a small corollary. We learned
"Needle, Ball and Airspeed" - simple instruments which in a pinch can be
used to save a life (or two). This has been hashed out before. A PDA can
replace the EFIS screen or an AoA gauge can replace the airspeed.
So my lifetime of flying corresponds with his and says:
Needle, ball and airspeed/AoA now.
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference??? |
Peter,
How do you know! I'm sure all that part 25 stuff has nice stamps on the
paperwork but it is still put together by people. How do you know the
stuff that we buy won't make the standard? Having to meet FAA standards
cost money, don't you believe that a product could meet a standard
without the government? For example, the autopilots out there certified
for use in small planes are in my 28 years of experience less or equal
to the Truetrak product. Also the Chelton system is certified to part
25 standards by TSO and is under $100,000.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Pengilly
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:38 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
Mike,
You're missing the point. The hardware & software of EFIS in part 25
aircraft, and their back-ups, are designed, built and tested to
standards
far in excess of anything that we can afford to put in our airplanes.
They
are not comparable.
Regards, Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: 17 September 2007 23:41
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
Ron,
I can name many airplanes that have EFIS only and are certified under
part 25. The newer Airbus A318, 319, 320, 321, 330, 340, 380 and the
Boeing 777 just to name a few. Take a close at the newest stuff, the
backup is now an EFIS display.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Cox
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:48 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: switch suitability?
> From: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston(at)popsound.com>
>
...
> your reply that i have too many and the
> wrong things is curious to me. the aircraft has no "conventional"
> instruments, so the EFIS and AHRS are essential.
Chris,
This statement indicates to me that you may harbor a certain naivete
about
the current state of development and reliability of EFIS/AHRS systems.
As a
new pilot with an instrument rating, it's natural to want to have the
greatest thing that comes along. I just bought a really cool EFIS
add-on
system for my Glasair project and I use it in my Cessna now, but it's
not
the only way to fly the airplane. I like it alot, but I don't count on
it
to keep my body parts within their casing. IT will be the backup in
case of
failure of my primary (traditional) instruments.
But if you are working on a plane you intend to fly in real IFR, and do
indeed have NO backup instruments, I'm afraid your electrical
distribution
system is far from the weakest point in your airplane. If you plan to
fly
only VFR, then the systems are even less "essential", and again, they
don't
need to be on the "E-bus".
There are currently NO EFIS systems out there for the market most of us
are
looking at (i.e. non-military, non-$100K) that have the kind of proven
reliability and lack of single-point failure possibilities that even the
old
vacuum gyro systems should be configured to give you.
In other words, if you do have, say an internal power supply failure, or
complete display failure in your EFIS system, what is your plan? Your
E-bus
may be powered, and if you follow Bob's advice, it almost surely will
be,
but how are you going to control the airplane????
Bob's advice to look again at your system is good advice (as it
usuallyall
is.) He always reminds us to look at the possible failure points in a
design, and decide which are not problems, which are, and to figure out
how
to assure that those which are problems are prevented to the greatest
extent
possible.
I strongly suggest you do some additional research before trusting your
life
to what's really generation 1.5 of general aviation EFIS systems.
They're
great, when they work, and they usually do, but it's nothing short of
criminally negligent to put ALL your eggs in that kind of basket. There
isn't anywhere near enough industry-wide experience with these systems
yet
to even KNOW what their real in-service failure rate is, let alone
determine
whether it's low enough or not.
Do a little Googling on EFIS systems, no matter which brand, and you'll
find
a legion of folks who love them, but don't trust them, and they'll tell
you
perfectly good reasons why. EVERY system I've looked into has its share
of
"boy am I glad I had a backup" stories.
What GA airplane do you see out there that has only an EFIS and no
backups?
There's a reason for that.
Ron Cox
(Old pilot with an instrument rating, and one who has well over 10,000
hours
flying behind fantastically expensive commercial EFIS systems, but we
have
backups!)
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference??? |
Bruce,
I address the statement " Do a little Googling on EFIS systems, no
matter which brand, and you'll
find
a legion of folks who love them, but don't trust them, and they'll tell
you
perfectly good reasons why. EVERY system I've looked into has its share
of
"boy am I glad I had a backup" stories."
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 12:30 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
Ron is a Line Captain flying B7XX for UAL. I'm sure that standby EFIS of
which you talk is higher priced than my entire panel.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <ssamps(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter cct. and temp rise. |
Bob, thanks for the help. Steve.
On 18/09/2007, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>
>
> >
> >
> >"On the other hand, an RV with the battery right behind the Firewall can
> >tolerate 4AWG cranking circuits because the
> >round trip is only 4 or 5 feet long." Ref article :Wire Size Selection /
> >Bob Nuckolls
> >
> >
> >I have been thinking of wiring up the starter cct on an O-320 with #4
> >since the run is very short, but it leads me to a couple of questions:
> >
> >1) Anyone know the temp rise on the wire for 250 amps for say 5 secs? (I
> >never crank this long normally.)
>
> Don't worry about it. The whole airplane's fat wires
> can be 4AWG except for LONG runs where we go to 2AWG
> to minimize wire drop.
>
> >2) Anyone know what the starter current drops to, once the starter is up
> >to speed?
>
> About 200A depending on temperature and starter style.
> But 4AWG is going to be fine.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------
> ( "Problems are the price of progress. )
> ( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
> ( Good news weakens me." )
> ( -Charles F. Kettering- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike humphrey" <mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net> |
| Subject: | Cessna Split Switch |
Left side is Alt and Right side is Battery. The confusion is that on
the left side(Alt) in the middle is a single terminal and at the
Bottom(off position) is a double pronged terminal. On the right
side(Battery) in the middle is a double pronged terminal and at the
bottom(OFF) there is a single terminal marked with 'N'. The problem is
that it looks nothing closely related to the Z-13 diagram for an alt/bat
switch where there are two terminals on the battery side and 4 terminals
on the alt side. Ohm testing does not answer the question as to what do
the terminals respectfully get connected to. There are no other
markings on the switch except 'made in mexico'. Thanks in advance Mike
H 9A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 09/18/07 |
| From: | Ron Cox <flyboyron(at)gmail.com> |
Ron,
I can name many airplanes that have EFIS only and are certified under
part 25. The newer Airbus A318, 319, 320, 321, 330, 340, 380 and the
Boeing 777 just to name a few. Take a close at the newest stuff, the
backup is now an EFIS display.
Mike Larkin
-------------------------
Mike,
Not one of those airplanes has ONLY a single EFIS and no backups.
I fly the 777 and it definitely has multiple backups. I think an OBAM
airplane with only electronic instruments could be engineered to be safe
enough to fly IFR,
But none of the systems out there aee reliable enough to make me feel safe
with NO backup of any kind.
And if I made a mistaken assumption that there was only one system, and
that's not correct, then part of my message (i.e. "no backup") would not
apply. But all of Bruce's points still do if the backups are all EFIS.
I'm sorry, but as good as Bob's architecture suggestions are (and I'm usin
them on my Glasair), they can't replace a failed device.
I'd still feel better on the 777 with some sort of non-EFIS backup, but I'm
satisfied that no reasonable person would argue that any GA EFIS (nor power
distribution system) even approaches the reliability of what I fly behind,
and I've seen 2 system failures on those in my time watching them.
Fortunately, I had something to revert to. That was my point.
Ron Cox
...... Original Message .......
wrote:
>Ron,
>
>I can name many airplanes that have EFIS only and are certified under
>part 25. The newer Airbus A318, 319, 320, 321, 330, 340, 380 and the
>Boeing 777 just to name a few. Take a close at the newest stuff, the
>backup is now an EFIS display.
>
>Mike Larkin
>
>
(via Treo e-mail)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
Hello,
I have been reading the efis thread and saw the comments about the E/P mags.
Since this thread seems to have taken a different direction and you are now
referencing P/E mags I would like to make a comment.
The following comments are my opinions.
The wiring diagrams in Bob's Z figures don't agree with the way the P/E mag
folks say to wire their products.
I think it is likely that some of the problems experienced with P/E mags is
because they were wired wrong.
I suggest that if your going to use P/E mags wire them like Emagair says and
follow their directions.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EFIS as only reference??? |
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
I'm at the wiring stage of my RV-8A project:
* Z-13/8 with either dual Lightspeeds or one Lightspeed/one P-mag
(anyone used the latter configuration?)
* AFS-3500,
* TruTrak ADI Pilot II
* Garmin 496
* Heated pitot
* Back up airspeed, altimeter and VSI
The underlying design philosophy: The EFIS is going to fail during this
flight; and if in the goo, what are you going to do?
1. EFIS fails; electrical system ok - use the ADI and 496.
2. Primary electrical system failure - Switch to essential bus;
know battery status
3. Total electrical system failure / or simultaneous EFIS / ADI
failure - Rely on EFIS battery and 496 battery to land asap.
4. Total electrical system failure and total EFIS failure (no
battery backup) - use battery-powered 496 instruments display; know
where the ground is and get VFR asap.
5. Total electrical failure, and both EFIS and 496 battery backups
fail - One of the reasons God invented life insurance - sometimes it
just ain't your day.
The point is - in our experimental world it's all about probabilities of
failure and risk management. Risk cannot be eliminated, only understood
and managed.
Just my biased opinions.
Paul Valovich
N192NM Reserved (again)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cessna Split Switch |
>Left side is Alt and Right side is Battery. The confusion is that on the
>left side(Alt) in the middle is a single terminal and at the Bottom(off
>position) is a double pronged terminal. On the right side(Battery) in the
>middle is a double pronged terminal and at the bottom(OFF) there is a
>single terminal marked with 'N'. The problem is that it looks nothing
>closely related to the Z-13 diagram for an alt/bat switch where there are
>two terminals on the battery side and 4 terminals on the alt side. Ohm
>testing does not answer the question as to what do the terminals
>respectfully get connected to. There are no other markings on the switch
>except 'made in mexico'. Thanks in advance Mike H 9A
The Cessna split rocker is a custom part by Carling made first
for Cessna and I think picked up by the rest of the world. If
you have not yet cut a hole, consider switching to a DPDT-ON-ON-ON
switch like that depicted in the Z-figures and offered by B&C
as their S700-2-10. This offers the same functionality as
the split rocker but mounts in a single round hole and looks
like the rest of the switches. It's probably less expensive
too.
Your "right" and "left" references on the rocker switch may
not be relevant if the switch can be turned over in the hole.
I.e., "up" can be either direction. The way to tell how to
hook it up is test which position of both rockers opens both
switches. This is the DOWN position of the switch. One of the
rockers can be independently placed in the ON position without
disturbing the other - this is the BATTERY switch. The other
rocker will be the alternator side.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | of line until Friday |
Hopping on the big iron bird in a couple of hours to go support
a client. Will be back on line Friday.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference??? |
Paul is one of the brightest people on this site. He is able to see the
forest through the trees.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Valovich, Paul
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
I=92m at the wiring stage of my RV-8A project:
* Z-13/8 with either dual Lightspeeds or one Lightspeed/one P-mag
(anyone used the latter configuration?)
* AFS-3500,
* TruTrak ADI Pilot II
* Garmin 496
* Heated pitot
* Back up airspeed, altimeter and VSI
The underlying design philosophy: The EFIS is going to fail during this
flight; and if in the goo, what are you going to do?
1. EFIS fails; electrical system ok ' use the ADI and 496.
2. Primary electrical system failure ' Switch to essential bus;
know battery status
3. Total electrical system failure / or simultaneous EFIS / ADI
failure ' Rely on EFIS battery and 496 battery to land asap.
4. Total electrical system failure and total EFIS failure (no
battery backup) ' use battery-powered 496 instruments display; know
where the ground is and get VFR asap.
5. Total electrical failure, and both EFIS and 496 battery backups
fail ' One of the reasons God invented life insurance - sometimes it
just ain=92t your day.
The point is ' in our experimental world it=92s all about
probabilities of
failure and risk management. Risk cannot be eliminated, only understood
and managed.
Just my biased opinions.
Paul Valovich
N192NM Reserved (again)
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference??? |
Options,
I will be using the new Aspen Avionics PFD (now) and MFD when
released. The advanced MFD provides the backup instruments when #1 dies.
Both have built in battery backup which is charged by the system when
things are working normally (assume most days).
My engine is a Subaru which is equally dependent on juice and
arguably more important than a few gauges if I can actually see out the
window. My MFD will be slaved to the backup system per Z19. Per crash
landing instruction, nose goes towards the ground and you land as tail
low as possible to save your neck. I have never yet stalled an aircraft
with the nose pointing down - not to say it has not been done. Bottom
line - if I am satisfied that z-19 is providing reasonable redundant
protection to my engine, I need to have the same security with my efis.
To help my lights and engine out situation Aspen has included a
backup GPS inside their PFD and backup MFD. So, lights out, engine out -
headed for the trees tail low at least I can push the nearest button to
see where I could have gone.
One thing only Paul has mentioned is probability. Remember that from
statistics class? Yup, that's what the insurance companies use to figure
out your life expectancy, when you will crash etc. I have no sample data
from the nay-sayers of e-Panel only flight indicating more than 50 hours
a year and specific exposure to the even the slightest risk (night, wx,
snow, almost ice, etc). I do most of my flying at night because I like
it - less traffic, tower has time to talk to me, no sun in my eyes etc.
Is it risky? Absolutely, but I am always fascinated on my return by the
absolute barren stillness at my airport (200 planes are sleeping). Where
is all the risk? sleeping in the hangar? You can't eliminate risk, only
mitigate it. If your exposure is incredibly low and you have done
everything in your power to control your environment - you have nothing
to mitigate against.
To the earlier statement about cost, big iron and whatever the Aspen
system is certified for most aircraft and will certainly be found in
much bigger carbon fibre than mine. On top of that it cost about the
same as a good set (mid-continent or similar) of six pack gauges. Their
system is certified without the use of backup steam gauges. Does that
mean it's perfect? 'course not, but nothing else is either. We make our
decisions and move forward with them.
P.S. As far as an independent backup gauge is concerned, I have an
independent AOA meter which if used properly can be used to control
speed and angle when crash landing in clear weather. Where I live (PHL)
you probably won't like your landing choices anyway, but at least your
glide angle will be really nice.
By the way it was a wonderful but sad week at Reno. If you didn't hear
families lost three pilots to various forces. The first incident
occurred Tuesday right after take-off in absolutely perfect weather.
Engine stopped, plane stalled, pilot killed. The plane stopped 30 yards
from the runway. That's probability. At this point I am not overly
perplexed about the security of what Aspen has spent 20 million dollars
developing. In a year or two we'll all be using those crazy new
lithium-nano batteries to run the entire airplane.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Valovich, Paul
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:26 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
I'm at the wiring stage of my RV-8A project:
* Z-13/8 with either dual Lightspeeds or one
Lightspeed/one P-mag (anyone used the latter configuration?)
* AFS-3500,
* TruTrak ADI Pilot II
* Garmin 496
* Heated pitot
* Back up airspeed, altimeter and VSI
The underlying design philosophy: The EFIS is going to fail
during this flight; and if in the goo, what are you going to do?
1. EFIS fails; electrical system ok - use the ADI and 496.
2. Primary electrical system failure - Switch to essential
bus; know battery status
3. Total electrical system failure / or simultaneous EFIS /
ADI failure - Rely on EFIS battery and 496 battery to land asap.
4. Total electrical system failure and total EFIS failure
(no battery backup) - use battery-powered 496 instruments display; know
where the ground is and get VFR asap.
5. Total electrical failure, and both EFIS and 496 battery
backups fail - One of the reasons God invented life insurance -
sometimes it just ain't your day.
The point is - in our experimental world it's all about
probabilities of failure and risk management. Risk cannot be eliminated,
only understood and managed.
Just my biased opinions.
Paul Valovich
N192NM Reserved (again)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS as only reference??? |
Bruce:
What lighting protection does your little EFIS system installation have?
May be the box it self has DO specs, but the installation does not.
One lightning strke *could* take it ALL OUT. George
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
>
>I don't think that is correct. The heavy iron EFIS systems are designed
>to the same standards as our little airplane systems. Those are DO 160
>(electrical protection) and DO 178 (Software coding and testing). There
>aresome under 100k systems that meet those standards.
>
>Bruce
---------------------------------
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference??? |
My airplane is plastic and I stay away from lightning as far as
possible.
Another reason to have a vacuum ADI.
Bruce
<http://www.Glasair.org> www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
Bruce:
What lighting protection does your little EFIS system installation have?
May be the box it self has DO specs, but the installation does not.
One lightning strke *could* take it ALL OUT. George
>From: "Bruce Gray" <
<http://us.f431.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Bruce@glasair.org&YY=129
95&y5be
ta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0>
Bruce(at)glasair.org>
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
>
>I don't think that is correct. The heavy iron EFIS systems are designed
>to the same standards as our little airplane systems. Those are DO 160
>(electrical protection) and DO 178 (Software coding and testing). There
>aresome under 100k systems that meet those standards.
>
>Bruce
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference??? |
I=92ve been struck by lighting 3 time in my flying career. If you are
in
a little airplane and get struck, the least of your worries will be
worrying if the EFIS continues to work. And that goes double for the
E-glass guys.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
Bruce:
What lighting protection does your little EFIS system installation have?
May be the box it self has DO specs, but the installation does not.
One lightning strke *could* take it ALL OUT. George
>From: "Bruce Gray" <HYPERLINK
"http://us.f431.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Bruce@glasair.org&YY=129
95&
y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0"Bruce@glasair.
org>
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
>
>I don't think that is correct. The heavy iron EFIS systems are designed
>to the same standards as our little airplane systems. Those are DO 160
>(electrical protection) and DO 178 (Software coding and testing). There
>aresome under 100k systems that meet those standards.
>
>Bruce
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference??? |
I know because most of it runs on a Windows based operating system, and
has not been designed from the start to comply with the relevant
standards (if it had Windows would not have been used). There is no way
that Windows anything will ever be compatible with a real time safety
critical system (because it wasn't designed from the outset for that
task). That's not to say it wont work just about all of the time, but do
you want to risk your life on it?
But that's not the point. The point is that you are taking a risk by
using 2 non certified systems to back each other up. Its difficult to
quantify that risk without in depth knowledge of how each system was
designed & built, and that information is difficult to come by. The fact
that Cheltons are so expensive illustrates the issue, very few people on
this list could afford one - come to that I suspect not many could
afford a Garmin G900!
I know that Trutrak makes very good equipment, there are also many other
companies that make rather poor stuff and its difficult to tell by
looking at the outside. Its not about meeting govt standards, industry
standards are just as strict. If it were easy to make a robust system
cheaply I suspect Garmin would be offering one, that their cheapest is
around $50K (I think) might be a hint as to the scale of the problem.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: 18 September 2007 18:01
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
Peter,
How do you know! I'm sure all that part 25 stuff has nice stamps on the
paperwork but it is still put together by people. How do you know the
stuff that we buy won't make the standard? Having to meet FAA standards
cost money, don't you believe that a product could meet a standard
without the government? For example, the autopilots out there certified
for use in small planes are in my 28 years of experience less or equal
to the Truetrak product. Also the Chelton system is certified to part
25 standards by TSO and is under $100,000.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Pengilly
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:38 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
Mike,
You're missing the point. The hardware & software of EFIS in part 25
aircraft, and their back-ups, are designed, built and tested to
standards
far in excess of anything that we can afford to put in our airplanes.
They
are not comparable.
Regards, Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: 17 September 2007 23:41
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
Ron,
I can name many airplanes that have EFIS only and are certified under
part 25. The newer Airbus A318, 319, 320, 321, 330, 340, 380 and the
Boeing 777 just to name a few. Take a close at the newest stuff, the
backup is now an EFIS display.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Cox
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:48 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: switch suitability?
> From: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston(at)popsound.com>
>
...
> your reply that i have too many and the
> wrong things is curious to me. the aircraft has no "conventional"
> instruments, so the EFIS and AHRS are essential.
Chris,
This statement indicates to me that you may harbor a certain naivete
about
the current state of development and reliability of EFIS/AHRS systems.
As a
new pilot with an instrument rating, it's natural to want to have the
greatest thing that comes along. I just bought a really cool EFIS
add-on
system for my Glasair project and I use it in my Cessna now, but it's
not
the only way to fly the airplane. I like it alot, but I don't count on
it
to keep my body parts within their casing. IT will be the backup in
case of
failure of my primary (traditional) instruments.
But if you are working on a plane you intend to fly in real IFR, and do
indeed have NO backup instruments, I'm afraid your electrical
distribution
system is far from the weakest point in your airplane. If you plan to
fly
only VFR, then the systems are even less "essential", and again, they
don't
need to be on the "E-bus".
There are currently NO EFIS systems out there for the market most of us
are
looking at (i.e. non-military, non-$100K) that have the kind of proven
reliability and lack of single-point failure possibilities that even the
old
vacuum gyro systems should be configured to give you.
In other words, if you do have, say an internal power supply failure, or
complete display failure in your EFIS system, what is your plan? Your
E-bus
may be powered, and if you follow Bob's advice, it almost surely will
be,
but how are you going to control the airplane????
Bob's advice to look again at your system is good advice (as it
usuallyall
is.) He always reminds us to look at the possible failure points in a
design, and decide which are not problems, which are, and to figure out
how
to assure that those which are problems are prevented to the greatest
extent
possible.
I strongly suggest you do some additional research before trusting your
life
to what's really generation 1.5 of general aviation EFIS systems.
They're
great, when they work, and they usually do, but it's nothing short of
criminally negligent to put ALL your eggs in that kind of basket. There
isn't anywhere near enough industry-wide experience with these systems
yet
to even KNOW what their real in-service failure rate is, let alone
determine
whether it's low enough or not.
Do a little Googling on EFIS systems, no matter which brand, and you'll
find
a legion of folks who love them, but don't trust them, and they'll tell
you
perfectly good reasons why. EVERY system I've looked into has its share
of
"boy am I glad I had a backup" stories.
What GA airplane do you see out there that has only an EFIS and no
backups?
There's a reason for that.
Ron Cox
(Old pilot with an instrument rating, and one who has well over 10,000
hours
flying behind fantastically expensive commercial EFIS systems, but we
have
backups!)
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference??? |
In general, "Certification" means that at some point the system passed
certain set of criteria and the design was frozen at that point. It won't
get any better unless something is found to be broken and has to be fixed,
otherwise it is a design frozen in time, like a Lycomming 0-360 or a Cessna
172. Sure, they change -but only in ways that won't make them go through
certification again.
I don't know about most of the great looking new low cost EFIS systems, but
I know for certain that my Bluemountain EFIS/one does not use a Windows
operating system, and I wouldn't veto a system that did. I have read that
Windows is very stable when it is used in a system that is isolated from
other software. An EFIS is not constantly being exposed to various other
programs, viruses and hackers like a PC is. It is isolated, or used with
limited and tested outside software.
The downside of most "certified" products is that they are the best that a
company could come up with and get through the tests and to market, at some
point in the past. If you feel the need for a certified engine, get one, but
I don't think your certified Lycoming is any more reliable than my
non-certified Superior. If you don't trust non-certified avionics, then pay
the price for the tried and tested and blessed, but don't expect to get if
for anything like the price of the non-certified, and don't expect to have
the advantages of the latest technology.
It would seem that many of those who fly big airplanes for a living tend not
to trust little airplanes anyway, especially the ones with only one engine
and certainly not the ones that don't have dual redundant certified IFR
avionics.
And if it wasn't built by "certified" A&P's in a "certified" shop, forget
about it!
Terry
RV-8A, Superior, True-Trak, Trio, Bluemountain, Airflow Performance -- all
uncertified
And none of it flying yet
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Pengilly
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:37 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
I know because most of it runs on a Windows based operating system, and
has not been designed from the start to comply with the relevant
standards (if it had Windows would not have been used). There is no way
that Windows anything will ever be compatible with a real time safety
critical system (because it wasn't designed from the outset for that
task). That's not to say it wont work just about all of the time, but do
you want to risk your life on it?
But that's not the point. The point is that you are taking a risk by
using 2 non certified systems to back each other up. Its difficult to
quantify that risk without in depth knowledge of how each system was
designed & built, and that information is difficult to come by. The fact
that Cheltons are so expensive illustrates the issue, very few people on
this list could afford one - come to that I suspect not many could
afford a Garmin G900!
I know that Trutrak makes very good equipment, there are also many other
companies that make rather poor stuff and its difficult to tell by
looking at the outside. Its not about meeting govt standards, industry
standards are just as strict. If it were easy to make a robust system
cheaply I suspect Garmin would be offering one, that their cheapest is
around $50K (I think) might be a hint as to the scale of the problem.
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Ricciotti" <gfr56(at)comcast.net> |
Greetings
I am wiring an RV-8 and have two dimmer controls one of which is for
back up instruments and a snake/map light. The wire from the back up
alt,airspeed and mag compass need to be extended to reach the dimmer
control and I want to know if I can connect them all together to one
20awg wire that goes to the dimmer control or should they be extended
separately to the dimmer control? (or does it make no difference)
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference??? |
I can see that I have not presented my thoughts very well. I am not
advocating certified over uncertified, but well designed products.
I would be very reticent in holding Blue Mountain up as an example of a
well designed system because of their unwillingness to discuss their
design and development process - at least when I have asked them.
To suggest that Windows is only stable when isolated from other software
makes it a completely useless product. The whole point of an operating
system is to act as an interface layer between an application (such as a
piece of EFIS software) and a host system. Windows is not designed as a
real time operating system, sure it can be used as such, but there are
better products available - at a price.
I don't fly large airplanes for a living, but I do design military
aircraft, in particular avionic architectures. I am suggesting that
devices that are required to function reliably should be designed (and
manufactured) in a demonstrably robust way. One way to show that is to
prove to a regulator by jumping through the certification hoops. There
are other ways, of course. As there is little service history for most
of these devices how can we, prospective customers, make an informed
decision as to which one to buy? Its rather difficult in my opinion as
most manufacturers don't make enough data available
The other option is to install a back-up that does have some kind of
provenance. Another EFIS doesn't provide sufficient redundancy for me.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Watson
Sent: 19 September 2007 23:45
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
In general, "Certification" means that at some point the system passed
certain set of criteria and the design was frozen at that point. It
won't
get any better unless something is found to be broken and has to be
fixed,
otherwise it is a design frozen in time, like a Lycomming 0-360 or a
Cessna
172. Sure, they change -but only in ways that won't make them go through
certification again.
I don't know about most of the great looking new low cost EFIS systems,
but
I know for certain that my Bluemountain EFIS/one does not use a Windows
operating system, and I wouldn't veto a system that did. I have read
that
Windows is very stable when it is used in a system that is isolated from
other software. An EFIS is not constantly being exposed to various other
programs, viruses and hackers like a PC is. It is isolated, or used with
limited and tested outside software.
The downside of most "certified" products is that they are the best that
a
company could come up with and get through the tests and to market, at
some
point in the past. If you feel the need for a certified engine, get one,
but
I don't think your certified Lycoming is any more reliable than my
non-certified Superior. If you don't trust non-certified avionics, then
pay
the price for the tried and tested and blessed, but don't expect to get
if
for anything like the price of the non-certified, and don't expect to
have
the advantages of the latest technology.
It would seem that many of those who fly big airplanes for a living tend
not
to trust little airplanes anyway, especially the ones with only one
engine
and certainly not the ones that don't have dual redundant certified IFR
avionics.
And if it wasn't built by "certified" A&P's in a "certified" shop,
forget
about it!
Terry
RV-8A, Superior, True-Trak, Trio, Bluemountain, Airflow Performance --
all
uncertified
And none of it flying yet
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Pengilly
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:37 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???
I know because most of it runs on a Windows based operating system, and
has not been designed from the start to comply with the relevant
standards (if it had Windows would not have been used). There is no way
that Windows anything will ever be compatible with a real time safety
critical system (because it wasn't designed from the outset for that
task). That's not to say it wont work just about all of the time, but do
you want to risk your life on it?
But that's not the point. The point is that you are taking a risk by
using 2 non certified systems to back each other up. Its difficult to
quantify that risk without in depth knowledge of how each system was
designed & built, and that information is difficult to come by. The fact
that Cheltons are so expensive illustrates the issue, very few people on
this list could afford one - come to that I suspect not many could
afford a Garmin G900!
I know that Trutrak makes very good equipment, there are also many other
companies that make rather poor stuff and its difficult to tell by
looking at the outside. Its not about meeting govt standards, industry
standards are just as strict. If it were easy to make a robust system
cheaply I suspect Garmin would be offering one, that their cheapest is
around $50K (I think) might be a hint as to the scale of the problem.
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dimmer question |
Electrically, it makes no difference, as long as the one wire is capable of
carrying the current for all 3 lights.
Dennis Glaeser
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: dimmer question
From: Jerry Ricciotti
Date: Thu Sep 20 - 7:33 AM
Greetings
I am wiring an RV-8 and have two dimmer controls one of which is for
back up instruments and a snake/map light. The wire from the back up
alt,airspeed and mag compass need to be extended to reach the dimmer
control and I want to know if I can connect them all together to one
20awg wire that goes to the dimmer control or should they be extended
separately to the dimmer control? (or does it make no difference)
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Icom A200 Dimmer |
It took a little experimentation, but I got it done and thought the
information might help someone else.
Dimming the backlight of the Icom A200:
The installation manual for the Icom A200 indicates a lead to supply
+12V for the panel backlight, and another for the backlight's ground.
Using an ohmeter, the indicated ground is tied to all the other
grounds. The backlight will work without that lead being grounded. At
least it did for me.
I passed the +12V through an ON-OFF-ON switch and then to a bus
controlled by the marker light switch. I tied the two ON contacts of
the switch together with a 15 ohm, 1/2 watt resistor. The backlight now
comes on with the marker lights (ie, at night), and is full bright with
the switch up. With the switch down, current has to pass through the
resistor and the backlight is about half as bright. I could have used
and ON-ON switch, but I didn't have one on the shelf. This way I have
more (albeit, useless) options. 8*)
Icom seems to have changed their backlighting scheme over time, but I
bought mine only a few weeks ago. As of August 2007, a 15ohm resistor
in series with the power supply is sufficient to drop the backlight to
half brightness.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dimmer question |
A further thought though Jerry is that if you ever want to add extra
dimmers or resistance to match the intensities of the various lights,
it might be handy to already have all the wires come back to the dimmer
depending on your layout.
Ken
glaesers wrote:
>
>Electrically, it makes no difference, as long as the one wire is capable of
>carrying the current for all 3 lights.
>
>Dennis Glaeser
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Subject: dimmer question
>From: Jerry Ricciotti
>Date: Thu Sep 20 - 7:33 AM
>
>Greetings
> I am wiring an RV-8 and have two dimmer controls one of which is for
>back up instruments and a snake/map light. The wire from the back up
>alt,airspeed and mag compass need to be extended to reach the dimmer
>control and I want to know if I can connect them all together to one
>20awg wire that goes to the dimmer control or should they be extended
>separately to the dimmer control? (or does it make no difference)
>
>Jerry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Keep alive power requirements |
| From: | lee.logan(at)gulfstream.com |
I used the search feature but if there is anything on the list already
about this specifically, I missed it. Does anyone happen to know off the
top of their head which panel mount avionics typically needs a "keep-alive"
power source? I have not provided such power from my battery and now
realize I may have to go back and do a little re-wiring. Here's my list:
Garmin GNC300XL GPS
Garmin GTX 327 Transponder
Garmin SL-30 VOR/VHF
PS Engineering PMA6000MC Audio panel/Intercom
AmeriKing AK 950 Annuciator
JPI EDM 900-6C Engine Monitor
Tru-Trak ADI Pilot II Autopilot
I know this is a longish list, but I'm without my manuals at the moment and
was hoping to be able to work this out fairly quickly.
Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide...
Lee...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry L. Tompkins, P.E." <tompkinsl(at)integra.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS |
as only reference???
Peter,
Can you advise which of the EFIS systems are Windows based and which are
not? I know from talking to the Dynon folks at EAA Arlington that they
write their own code.
I am particularly interested in the Tru-Trak EFIS. It seems like some
of the others have gotten in a "bells and whistles" contest and, for me
at least, are reaching the point of screen saturation. I also question
how well developed some of these products are when the development
process seems to be continuous. (Refer to lengthy diatribe below only
if you wish)
Background information.
There is one observation regarding the "certificated vs.
non-certificated" products that I would like to make based on my
long-time automotive engineering experience. When an automobile goes
into production, every component has been evaluated and its controlling
drawings have been signed off by a "release engineer." The pieces are
produced in accordance with drawing tolerance as best as machine tools
and human beings can make them. From my auto industry experience,
warranty claims during the late 70s and early 80s were less than 0.25%
(i.e., 1/4 of 1%) and are probably much lower today. For the auto
companies I worked for, a warranty claim rate of 1/4 of 1% was deemed a
serious problem and was sent to committees for root cause analysis and
correction. Yes, the design was really "chiseled in stone." Yes, the
design was definitely not "cutting edge." That trade-off was made so
that the design worked at least 99.75+% of the time.
Putting the cart before the horse
My worst auto industry war stories relate to those times when there were
MARKETING driven changes that were implemented without adequate testing.
"Everyone" thought they would work just fine and "were required to be
competitive." In many cases they were disasters and in a few cases they
were recalls.
How this relates to avionics
It is probably true that certificated avionics products are not "cutting
edge" because their certification process also "chisels the design in
stone."
Now think about the volume of avionics sold, the cost of testing, the
cost of updating and maintaining drawings to support a small number of
serial numbers that represent the length of a production run in a
certain configuration. One can see that these "bells and whistles" that
manufacturers think they have to have to compete in the market pose some
real issues regarding reliability. A manufacturer's opinion that his
product would pass certification tests is most likely just his own
opinion. For many of these products we are the BETA sites. I
personally subcribe to the philosphy that "one test is worth a thousand
opinions."
Summary
As we are all aware, aviation is all about risk management. Like
mountain climbing and auto racing, aviation can be especially
unforgiving of mistakes, but the experiential reward is tremendous. I
am not suggesting the purchase of only certificated avionics. I am
suggesting that purchasers of non-certificated avionics be less in love
with "bells and whistles" and really hold manufacturers accountable for
highly reliable products.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Component Enclosure Opinions wanted |
| From: | "mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com> |
Hi,
I am upgrading my tube/rag type aircraft electrical system to a Z-19. In doing
this I will need to mount components inside of some kind of enclosure near the
engine (vibration). There is no other room inside the aircraft for such.
Components include: main/eng battery contactors, main bat/eng bat/main power fuse
block bus, ground block, power diodes, OV module, Low voltage module). The
component weight comes to about 6 pounds including wire inside the enclosure.
My choices are narrowed down so far to two types:
1. Nema Fiberglass with see-through latch cover
pros: sturdy, easy to preflight, existing mounting holes, water/oil resistent
cons: heavy (4 lb)
2. Aluminum Chassis box
pros: light (40 oz), easy to preflight with clear lexan cover
cons: .050 thickness aluminum, will have to add sealant to get more waterproof-ness,
mounting a little trickier. Clear lexan cover not standard and removal with
screwdriver, Concern that it will not be sturdy enough.
Your opinions and suggestions are appreciated. Thanks,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=135652#135652
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Keep alive power requirements |
lee.logan(at)gulfstream.com a crit :
> which panel mount avionics typically needs a "keep-alive"
> power source?
>
> Garmin GNC300XL GPS
> Garmin GTX 327 Transponder
> Garmin SL-30 VOR/VHF
> PS Engineering PMA6000MC Audio panel/Intercom
> AmeriKing AK 950 Annuciator
> JPI EDM 900-6C Engine Monitor
> Tru-Trak ADI Pilot II Autopilot
>
Lee,
I may be wrong, but I don't see anything in your list needing a keep
alive connection.
In my experience a keep alive on the main battery is a sure way to run
the battery down when the airplane sits in the hangar for any length of
time.
So if one is really needed (clock, etc.), why not resort to a small
backup battery, or an internal one ?
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Keep alive power requirements |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
No keep alive for any of that stuff - I have the same list except for
the engine monitor (mine's a GRT). Unless the unit has a live clock,
like some EFIS's, it won't need any juice.
Dennis Glaeser
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
I used the search feature but if there is anything on the list already
about this specifically, I missed it. Does anyone happen to know off
the
top of their head which panel mount avionics typically needs a
"keep-alive"
power source? I have not provided such power from my battery and now
realize I may have to go back and do a little re-wiring. Here's my
list:
Garmin GNC300XL GPS
Garmin GTX 327 Transponder
Garmin SL-30 VOR/VHF
PS Engineering PMA6000MC Audio panel/Intercom
AmeriKing AK 950 Annuciator
JPI EDM 900-6C Engine Monitor
Tru-Trak ADI Pilot II Autopilot
I know this is a longish list, but I'm without my manuals at the moment
and
was hoping to be able to work this out fairly quickly.
Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide...
Lee...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS |
as only reference???
Larry,
I chose the Haltech ECU only because I was offered help from Helmut Frensch
(*retired chief applications engineer for Mitsubishi SA) who had already
pioneered the application and Helmut sent me the fuel maps he was running in
his J3300/Jabiru airframe. The latest Haltech software is Windows friendly.
Because I have a different prop and air frame (Quickie Q-200) and later
realized a different MAP pick up and also a different throttle body I had to
extensively modify the maps. In most cases I think there will always be a
need for final tuning and fortunately this can be done mostly on the ground
in the hangar. I cannot see the laptop screen out doors. My setup allows
manual control of mixture if required for final leaning off to cruise, or to
cool a high EGT in climb . A potentiometer overrides the fuel map.
The Haltech F10 ECU is for fuel only and Helmut decided based on discussions
with Jabiru engineers that there was very little if any advantage in
electronic control of the ignition by ECU except for slow idle and maybe
easier start. But there are advantages in replacing one of the magnetos with
a simple electronic ignition module of fixed timing triggered from the
flywheel. However this F10 fuel ECU has dozens of redundant features and is
far more complex than we need. Helmut's system requires only a trigger (HE
or magnetic), an air temp probe and a vacuum sensor. We are batch firing
into a throttle body, not multipoint delivery. The guiding principle in this
design is KIS.
Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning experience
for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot controls,
simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a few
less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company purpose
built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would also be
OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant.
I have not surveyed the automotive ECU market because of the reasons
outlined above but I think all of the automotive ECU have become way over
sophisticated for the aircraft application and you are paying a lot of
dollars for development and features that you will never use.
Larry you make some good points about the bells and whistles race. I am not
familiar with the Tru-Track and will take a look at it. I recommend you take
a look at the EC2 and the Megasquirt also.
Peter
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry L.
Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only
reference???EFIS as only reference???
Peter,
Can you advise which of the EFIS systems are Windows based and which are
not? I know from talking to the Dynon folks at EAA Arlington that they
write their own code.
I am particularly interested in the Tru-Trak EFIS. It seems like some of
the others have gotten in a "bells and whistles" contest and, for me at
least, are reaching the point of screen saturation. I also question how
well developed some of these products are when the development process seems
to be continuous. (Refer to lengthy diatribe below only if you wish)
Background information.
There is one observation regarding the "certificated vs. non-certificated"
products that I would like to make based on my long-time automotive
engineering experience. When an automobile goes into production, every
component has been evaluated and its controlling drawings have been signed
off by a "release engineer." The pieces are produced in accordance with
drawing tolerance as best as machine tools and human beings can make them.
>From my auto industry experience, warranty claims during the late 70s and
early 80s were less than 0.25% (i.e., 1/4 of 1%) and are probably much lower
today. For the auto companies I worked for, a warranty claim rate of 1/4 of
1% was deemed a serious problem and was sent to committees for root cause
analysis and correction. Yes, the design was really "chiseled in stone."
Yes, the design was definitely not "cutting edge." That trade-off was made
so that the design worked at least 99.75+% of the time.
Putting the cart before the horse
My worst auto industry war stories relate to those times when there were
MARKETING driven changes that were implemented without adequate testing.
"Everyone" thought they would work just fine and "were required to be
competitive." In many cases they were disasters and in a few cases they
were recalls.
How this relates to avionics
It is probably true that certificated avionics products are not "cutting
edge" because their certification process also "chisels the design in
stone."
Now think about the volume of avionics sold, the cost of testing, the cost
of updating and maintaining drawings to support a small number of serial
numbers that represent the length of a production run in a certain
configuration. One can see that these "bells and whistles" that
manufacturers think they have to have to compete in the market pose some
real issues regarding reliability. A manufacturer's opinion that his
product would pass certification tests is most likely just his own opinion.
For many of these products we are the BETA sites. I personally subcribe to
the philosphy that "one test is worth a thousand opinions."
Summary
As we are all aware, aviation is all about risk management. Like mountain
climbing and auto racing, aviation can be especially unforgiving of
mistakes, but the experiential reward is tremendous. I am not suggesting
the purchase of only certificated avionics. I am suggesting that purchasers
of non-certificated avionics be less in love with "bells and whistles" and
really hold manufacturers accountable for highly reliable products.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS |
as only reference???
Larry,
Apologies I see that we are talking about two different animals. The
Tru-Trak EFIS = Electronic Flight Instrumentation. My comments refer to
Electronic Fuel Injection.
Peter
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Harris
Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 7:55 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only
reference???EFIS as only reference???
Larry,
I chose the Haltech ECU only because I was offered help from Helmut Frensch
(*retired chief applications engineer for Mitsubishi SA) who had already
pioneered the application and Helmut sent me the fuel maps he was running in
his J3300/Jabiru airframe. The latest Haltech software is Windows friendly.
Because I have a different prop and air frame (Quickie Q-200) and later
realized a different MAP pick up and also a different throttle body I had to
extensively modify the maps. In most cases I think there will always be a
need for final tuning and fortunately this can be done mostly on the ground
in the hangar. I cannot see the laptop screen out doors. My setup allows
manual control of mixture if required for final leaning off to cruise, or to
cool a high EGT in climb . A potentiometer overrides the fuel map.
The Haltech F10 ECU is for fuel only and Helmut decided based on discussions
with Jabiru engineers that there was very little if any advantage in
electronic control of the ignition by ECU except for slow idle and maybe
easier start. But there are advantages in replacing one of the magnetos with
a simple electronic ignition module of fixed timing triggered from the
flywheel. However this F10 fuel ECU has dozens of redundant features and is
far more complex than we need. Helmut's system requires only a trigger (HE
or magnetic), an air temp probe and a vacuum sensor. We are batch firing
into a throttle body, not multipoint delivery. The guiding principle in this
design is KIS.
Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning experience
for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot controls,
simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a few
less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company purpose
built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would also be
OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant.
I have not surveyed the automotive ECU market because of the reasons
outlined above but I think all of the automotive ECU have become way over
sophisticated for the aircraft application and you are paying a lot of
dollars for development and features that you will never use.
Larry you make some good points about the bells and whistles race. I am not
familiar with the Tru-Track and will take a look at it. I recommend you take
a look at the EC2 and the Megasquirt also.
Peter
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry L.
Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only
reference???EFIS as only reference???
Peter,
Can you advise which of the EFIS systems are Windows based and which are
not? I know from talking to the Dynon folks at EAA Arlington that they
write their own code.
I am particularly interested in the Tru-Trak EFIS. It seems like some of
the others have gotten in a "bells and whistles" contest and, for me at
least, are reaching the point of screen saturation. I also question how
well developed some of these products are when the development process seems
to be continuous. (Refer to lengthy diatribe below only if you wish)
Background information.
There is one observation regarding the "certificated vs. non-certificated"
products that I would like to make based on my long-time automotive
engineering experience. When an automobile goes into production, every
component has been evaluated and its controlling drawings have been signed
off by a "release engineer." The pieces are produced in accordance with
drawing tolerance as best as machine tools and human beings can make them.
>From my auto industry experience, warranty claims during the late 70s and
early 80s were less than 0.25% (i.e., 1/4 of 1%) and are probably much lower
today. For the auto companies I worked for, a warranty claim rate of 1/4 of
1% was deemed a serious problem and was sent to committees for root cause
analysis and correction. Yes, the design was really "chiseled in stone."
Yes, the design was definitely not "cutting edge." That trade-off was made
so that the design worked at least 99.75+% of the time.
Putting the cart before the horse
My worst auto industry war stories relate to those times when there were
MARKETING driven changes that were implemented without adequate testing.
"Everyone" thought they would work just fine and "were required to be
competitive." In many cases they were disasters and in a few cases they
were recalls.
How this relates to avionics
It is probably true that certificated avionics products are not "cutting
edge" because their certification process also "chisels the design in
stone."
Now think about the volume of avionics sold, the cost of testing, the cost
of updating and maintaining drawings to support a small number of serial
numbers that represent the length of a production run in a certain
configuration. One can see that these "bells and whistles" that
manufacturers think they have to have to compete in the market pose some
real issues regarding reliability. A manufacturer's opinion that his
product would pass certification tests is most likely just his own opinion.
For many of these products we are the BETA sites. I personally subcribe to
the philosphy that "one test is worth a thousand opinions."
Summary
As we are all aware, aviation is all about risk management. Like mountain
climbing and auto racing, aviation can be especially unforgiving of
mistakes, but the experiential reward is tremendous. I am not suggesting
the purchase of only certificated avionics. I am suggesting that purchasers
of non-certificated avionics be less in love with "bells and whistles" and
really hold manufacturers accountable for highly reliable products.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS |
as only reference???
Peter Harris wrote:
> Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning experience
> for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot controls,
> simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a few
> less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company purpose
> built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would also be
> OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant.
>
>
Peter, I'm going through this exercise now, and I've settled on the
Megasquirt. The only thing that recommends it for me above the EC2 is
that I get to play with the source code. Not helpful unless you're a
software engineer.
The way I'm handling redundancy is that the Megasquirt will control fuel
injectors. If this fails, I will fall back to a manual valve that
meters fuel into the intake. The backup would be useless for starting
the engine on the ground, but from 6000ft it will keep the engine
running as long as I have fuel.
The ignition will be handled by two Ford EDIS ignition controllers that
are supplied with an input from the Megasquirt to control advance. I'm
going with a rotary, which has two plugs per chamber. If I loose the
Megasquirt, the EDIS modules will still supply spark with a set
advance. If I lose one EDIS, spark will be supplied to one plug per
chamber by the other.
I think the redundancy is as good as it gets in light aircraft.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS |
as only reference???
Ernest,
Your set up sounds good. I am interested in your manual valve back up and
would be happy for any details. I looked at the possibility of using a
carburetor as a throttle body but gave up with the aerocarb because it jams.
A suitable butterfly carb would be an option but I like your idea.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Christley
Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only
reference???EFIS as only reference???
Peter Harris wrote:
> Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning experience
> for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot
controls,
> simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a few
> less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company purpose
> built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would also
be
> OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant.
>
>
Peter, I'm going through this exercise now, and I've settled on the
Megasquirt. The only thing that recommends it for me above the EC2 is
that I get to play with the source code. Not helpful unless you're a
software engineer.
The way I'm handling redundancy is that the Megasquirt will control fuel
injectors. If this fails, I will fall back to a manual valve that
meters fuel into the intake. The backup would be useless for starting
the engine on the ground, but from 6000ft it will keep the engine
running as long as I have fuel.
The ignition will be handled by two Ford EDIS ignition controllers that
are supplied with an input from the Megasquirt to control advance. I'm
going with a rotary, which has two plugs per chamber. If I loose the
Megasquirt, the EDIS modules will still supply spark with a set
advance. If I lose one EDIS, spark will be supplied to one plug per
chamber by the other.
I think the redundancy is as good as it gets in light aircraft.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS... |
Good Evening Peter,
Once upon a time in a land far, far, away, I knew a fella that fitted a "T"
fitting in the outlet of his left fuel tank on a Cessna 170. From that
fitting he ran a one eighth inch hunk of brass tubing to a small needle valve
mounted on the instrument panel. From that valve to the throat of the stock
Marvel Schebler carburetor he ran another hunk of brass tubing. Not sure about
the
size of the tubing and fitting used here. That was inserted into a stock
fitting that was screwed into the side of the throat of the carburetor.
My recollection fails me here, but I believe he had bored a hole just above
the throttle valve plate to accommodate the fuel fitting. Not sure though.
In any case, he could turn the fuel valve to off, turn on the needle valve,
adjust the throttle plate and get a rather nice smooth running engine. He had
added that extra fuel source after having had a stock gascolator get plugged
with crud such that no fuel was available to the engine from either fuel
cell.
Strictly illegal, but pretty neat!
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 9/21/2007 6:23:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com writes:
Ernest,
Your set up sounds good. I am interested in your manual valve back up and
would be happy for any details. I looked at the possibility of using a
carburetor as a throttle body but gave up with the aerocarb because it jams.
A suitable butterfly carb would be an option but I like your idea.
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS |
as only reference???
Just curious, but why is it so important to have 2 plugs per cylinder? The
Lycosaurs and etc only have 2 per cylinder because of the jug size. One
plug alone in those engines is not enough to light the fuel evenly
regardless of swirl pattern so that's why they went to 2 per. My wife's
brand new motorcycle has 2 plugs per for the same reason: jug size. :)
David M.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only
reference???EFIS as only reference???
>
>
> Peter Harris wrote:
>> Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning
>> experience
>> for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot
>> controls,
>> simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a few
>> less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company purpose
>> built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would also
>> be
>> OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant.
>>
>>
>
> Peter, I'm going through this exercise now, and I've settled on the
> Megasquirt. The only thing that recommends it for me above the EC2 is
> that I get to play with the source code. Not helpful unless you're a
> software engineer.
>
> The way I'm handling redundancy is that the Megasquirt will control fuel
> injectors. If this fails, I will fall back to a manual valve that meters
> fuel into the intake. The backup would be useless for starting the engine
> on the ground, but from 6000ft it will keep the engine running as long as
> I have fuel.
>
> The ignition will be handled by two Ford EDIS ignition controllers that
> are supplied with an input from the Megasquirt to control advance. I'm
> going with a rotary, which has two plugs per chamber. If I loose the
> Megasquirt, the EDIS modules will still supply spark with a set advance.
> If I lose one EDIS, spark will be supplied to one plug per chamber by the
> other.
>
> I think the redundancy is as good as it gets in light aircraft.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS as only reference??? |
Hello Peter
> There is no way
> that Windows anything will ever be compatible with a real time safety
> critical system (because it wasn't designed from the outset for that
> task).
Windows with all the overhead I would agree, however the Kernel of it is
used in several certificated Avionics products, look once at the MX-20
when it is booting, it has a Windows 3.51 Kernel which is stable and
secure, just all the fancy tools on top make things complicated and
sometimes unstable.
However I agree I would and will not trust an EFIS on top of a standard
windows operating system.
Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | electric dependant engine configuration |
David M. wrote:
>
> Just curious, but why is it so important to have 2 plugs per
> cylinder? The Lycosaurs and etc only have 2 per cylinder because of
> the jug size. One plug alone in those engines is not enough to light
> the fuel evenly regardless of swirl pattern so that's why they went to
> 2 per. My wife's brand new motorcycle has 2 plugs per for the same
> reason: jug size. :)
>
Mainly because the rotary's chamber is not cylindrical. It more "moon"
shaped. The second plug was added by Mazda for emissions control at
idle. At speed, the engine will run on just the leading plug without a
noticeable change in performance. It will run on just the trailing with
a 30% decrease in performance and increase exhaust temperature. Mazda
did not mean for the engine to be run this way. Neither do I. But if I
have to some day, I'll be glad to have the option.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS... |
Peter, Bob just answered for me better than I ever could have.
For me, this provides redundancy where I loose the injectors, injector
controller or the electron pump. I will be able to switch off the fuel
pump (a 6A load) to conserve battery.
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Good Evening Peter,
>
> Once upon a time in a land far, far, away, I knew a fella that fitted a "T"
> fitting in the outlet of his left fuel tank on a Cessna 170. From that
> fitting he ran a one eighth inch hunk of brass tubing to a small needle valve
> mounted on the instrument panel. From that valve to the throat of the stock
> Marvel Schebler carburetor he ran another hunk of brass tubing. Not sure about
the
> size of the tubing and fitting used here. That was inserted into a stock
> fitting that was screwed into the side of the throat of the carburetor.
>
> My recollection fails me here, but I believe he had bored a hole just above
> the throttle valve plate to accommodate the fuel fitting. Not sure though.
>
> In any case, he could turn the fuel valve to off, turn on the needle valve,
> adjust the throttle plate and get a rather nice smooth running engine. He had
> added that extra fuel source after having had a stock gascolator get plugged
> with crud such that no fuel was available to the engine from either fuel
> cell.
>
> Strictly illegal, but pretty neat!
>
> 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 9/21/2007 6:23:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com writes:
>
> Ernest,
> Your set up sounds good. I am interested in your manual valve back up and
> would be happy for any details. I looked at the possibility of using a
> carburetor as a throttle body but gave up with the aerocarb because it jams.
> A suitable butterfly carb would be an option but I like your idea.
> Peter
>
>
>
--
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in
a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine in
the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
--Unknown
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS |
as only reference???
Peter Harris wrote:
>
> Ernest,
> Your set up sounds good. I am interested in your manual valve back up and
> would be happy for any details. I looked at the possibility of using a
> carburetor as a throttle body but gave up with the aerocarb because it jams.
> A suitable butterfly carb would be an option but I like your idea.
> Peter
>
>
Ebay is loaded with throttle bodies suitable for 150-200Hp for around
$20 each. Mine is from a BMW.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Goldsmith <jgold4747(at)yahoo.com> |
There was some discussion on this list while Bob was out of town in August about
the pros and cons of his wiring approach for P-mags (Figure Z-33) vs. the "factory"
approach. Bob, any comments on this matter? (I'm getting very close
to needing to make a final decision about this...)
John Goldsmith (RV-7A, serious panel planning starting)
---------------------------------
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag wiring |
John,
I would be surprised if this response doesn't get deleted. The last couple I have
submitted have not been posted. But:
Referencing P/E mags I would like to make a comment.
The following comments are my opinions.
The wiring diagrams in Bob's Z figures don't agree with the way the P/E mag
folks say to wire their products.
I think it is likely that some of the problems experienced with P/E mags is
because they were wired wrong.
I suggest that if your going to use P/E mags wire them like Emagair says and
follow their directions.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: John Goldsmith
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:25 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: P-mag wiring
There was some discussion on this list while Bob was out of town in August about
the pros and cons of his wiring approach for P-mags (Figure Z-33) vs. the
"factory" approach. Bob, any comments on this matter? (I'm getting very close
to needing to make a final decision about this...)
John Goldsmith (RV-7A, serious panel planning starting)
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Burch <mcb(at)sunflower.com> |
| Subject: | RV electrical system for review |
Hi all,
I've gotten far enough into the design of the electrical system for my
RV-7 that I feel like it's ready for others to take a look at it. It is a
fairly faithful adaptation of Figure Z-13/20, with a few changes. I've
combined the schematics with a writeup containing a high level description
of the architecture and design goals, and notes on specific choices I made
in laying it out, and posted it all as a PDF file on my website:
http://www.rv7blog.com/files/20070922_electrical_system.pdf
If any of you experts have a chance to look it over and offer any
comments or criticism, I'd sure appreciate it. If you see something that
doesn't make sense in the diagrams or description, let me know and I'll
try to explain what I was thinking.
thanks,
- Matt Burch
http://www.rv7blog.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | ectric-List:Dual ignition - was EFIS as only reference???EFIS |
as only reference???EFIS as only reference???
Probably because the average mag is horribly unreliable - so two
completely independent ignition systems are fitted to make sure you keep
cool. Now ignition systems are potentially much more reliable, however
dual ignition is still seen as "aviation standard".
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
M.
Sent: 22 September 2007 02:50
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only
reference???EFIS as only reference???
Just curious, but why is it so important to have 2 plugs per cylinder?
The
Lycosaurs and etc only have 2 per cylinder because of the jug size. One
plug alone in those engines is not enough to light the fuel evenly
regardless of swirl pattern so that's why they went to 2 per. My wife's
brand new motorcycle has 2 plugs per for the same reason: jug size. :)
David M.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only
reference???EFIS as only reference???
>
>
> Peter Harris wrote:
>> Now that I have been through the exercise (which was a learning
>> experience
>> for me) I would seriously consider the EC2 which has simple pilot
>> controls,
>> simple programming and it has the advantage of dual redundancy, for a
few
>> less dollars. It was developed and marketed by a family company
purpose
>> built for aircraft (although not certificated.) The Megasquirt would
also
>> be
>> OK if you want to save dollars and it could be made dual redundant.
>>
>>
>
> Peter, I'm going through this exercise now, and I've settled on the
> Megasquirt. The only thing that recommends it for me above the EC2 is
> that I get to play with the source code. Not helpful unless you're a
> software engineer.
>
> The way I'm handling redundancy is that the Megasquirt will control
fuel
> injectors. If this fails, I will fall back to a manual valve that
meters
> fuel into the intake. The backup would be useless for starting the
engine
> on the ground, but from 6000ft it will keep the engine running as long
as
> I have fuel.
>
> The ignition will be handled by two Ford EDIS ignition controllers
that
> are supplied with an input from the Megasquirt to control advance.
I'm
> going with a rotary, which has two plugs per chamber. If I loose the
> Megasquirt, the EDIS modules will still supply spark with a set
advance.
> If I lose one EDIS, spark will be supplied to one plug per chamber by
the
> other.
>
> I think the redundancy is as good as it gets in light aircraft.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only reference???EFIS |
as only reference???
Larry,
I know that GRT uses Windows CE and I believe Advanced does also, but I
also have heard that both are moving to different systems in their
latest offerings (don't know what). I guess the point is that both of
these systems provide some excellent functionality and are reasonably
reliable, but I would use a "steam" powered back-up if my life depended
on it.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
L. Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: 21 September 2007 16:52
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only
reference???EFIS as only reference???
Peter,
Can you advise which of the EFIS systems are Windows based and which are
not? I know from talking to the Dynon folks at EAA Arlington that they
write their own code.
I am particularly interested in the Tru-Trak EFIS. It seems like some
of the others have gotten in a "bells and whistles" contest and, for me
at least, are reaching the point of screen saturation. I also question
how well developed some of these products are when the development
process seems to be continuous. (Refer to lengthy diatribe below only
if you wish)
Background information.
There is one observation regarding the "certificated vs.
non-certificated" products that I would like to make based on my
long-time automotive engineering experience. When an automobile goes
into production, every component has been evaluated and its controlling
drawings have been signed off by a "release engineer." The pieces are
produced in accordance with drawing tolerance as best as machine tools
and human beings can make them. From my auto industry experience,
warranty claims during the late 70s and early 80s were less than 0.25%
(i.e., 1/4 of 1%) and are probably much lower today. For the auto
companies I worked for, a warranty claim rate of 1/4 of 1% was deemed a
serious problem and was sent to committees for root cause analysis and
correction. Yes, the design was really "chiseled in stone." Yes, the
design was definitely not "cutting edge." That trade-off was made so
that the design worked at least 99.75+% of the time.
Putting the cart before the horse
My worst auto industry war stories relate to those times when there were
MARKETING driven changes that were implemented without adequate testing.
"Everyone" thought they would work just fine and "were required to be
competitive." In many cases they were disasters and in a few cases they
were recalls.
How this relates to avionics
It is probably true that certificated avionics products are not "cutting
edge" because their certification process also "chisels the design in
stone."
Now think about the volume of avionics sold, the cost of testing, the
cost of updating and maintaining drawings to support a small number of
serial numbers that represent the length of a production run in a
certain configuration. One can see that these "bells and whistles" that
manufacturers think they have to have to compete in the market pose some
real issues regarding reliability. A manufacturer's opinion that his
product would pass certification tests is most likely just his own
opinion. For many of these products we are the BETA sites. I
personally subcribe to the philosphy that "one test is worth a thousand
opinions."
Summary
As we are all aware, aviation is all about risk management. Like
mountain climbing and auto racing, aviation can be especially
unforgiving of mistakes, but the experiential reward is tremendous. I
am not suggesting the purchase of only certificated avionics. I am
suggesting that purchasers of non-certificated avionics be less in love
with "bells and whistles" and really hold manufacturers accountable for
highly reliable products.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
Peter, Upon what data does your statement, "the average mag is horribly
unreliable", come from? Properly setup and serviced, quite the opposite is
true, in my experience. Also your statement that the dual ignition is
required by jug size is questionable, too.
Last year while in class to get my LSA repairman maintenance ticket I set
the up two Slick mags to go into an A75. I set the internal timing of the
mags so that it was dead on for both, and the engine timing the same. The
instructor was on the verge of accusing me of having OCD as I checked and
rechecked until I was satisfied it was as close as I could get it. When I
was finally satisfied, we pulled the plane out to the ramp and started it
up. After it was up to operating temp I did a mag check. It scared the wits
out of me when I got NO mag drop. Now the EIS installed on the plane only
read in 10 RPM increments, so there may have been some drop, but the
instrument didn't read it and I could neither hear it, nor feel it in the
seat of my pants. I thought sure I had installed the P leads improperly and
was ready to use the fuel valve to shut the engine down when the instructor
stepped in, checked all the connections and pronounced them good. I did a
second mag check, and still got no detectable drop. I pulled the throttle
back to idle, closed both mag switches and the engine died just as it
should. What gives, I always gotten some drop on every plane I've ever been
in. We pulled out the continuity checker and went over the P leads again.
Everything was as it should be. Restarted the engine, established 1700 RPM
and checked again. NO drop. Shut down the left mag, let the engine run for a
bit and shut down the right mag. The engine died. Restarted, shut down the
right mag and let the engine run. Again, NO mag drop. Killed the left mag,
engine died. I'm sure the WTFO expression on my face begged an explanation.
The instructor, whose list of certs look like alphabet soup gone mad, said
it's simple really. It's a very low time engine (his personal E-AB aircraft,
by the way) and the students in the class had set everything up as near
perfect as was humanly possible, hence no discernible mag drop. He recounted
how many a long faced pilot, discouraged by the $2000 quote for parts and
labor from another shop has become his loyal customer when a new set of
points and careful setting of internal mag timing and engine timing has
restored the mags to proper working order for less than a 1/4 of the
original estimate.
Now lets take the other end of the spectrum. I have and HKS700E engine on my
trike. It's got 40 hours on it. My OCD tendencies when it comes to engine
variables is as active as ever. It has dual CDI's for each of its two
diminutive 350cc cylinders. My first "mag" check was a real upholstery
clincher. I did the check at 3000 RPM and each system showed a 500 RPM drop.
Needless to say I was in a near panic getting to the manuals before I called
the importer. Under ignition check it said, "engine shouldn't die"! It's
taken a bit to get used to, but that's the way the little engine is
designed. It runs like the proverbial sewing machine, otherwise.
My point is, engine design, system integration, and proper setup has much
more to do with ignition system performance than reliance on OWT's about
"horribly unreliable" claims.
Rick
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List:Dual ignition |
Most OBAM aviation installs are somewhat custom with unique wiring or a
unique environment for the electronics. Therefore the reliablility
demonstrated by similar installations (or in an automobile) is probably
not applicable. And my observation is that when stressed electronic
components quit, they are more likely to do so without warning whereas a
mag might degrade slowly. So even though I don't normally run my dual
ignitions (single spark plug) simultaneously anymore, I take comfort in
having it available every time I learn of another related auto
conversion deadstick landing by someone. I have had cranksensor and
coil failures on my road vehicles.
One spark plug does not bother me at all, but if two were available it
would simplify a dual ignition setup that otherwise uses high voltage
coil joiner diodes. Dual ignition is rather pointless ;) to me if a
single component failure (shorted ignition coil) can take out both
systems. Coil joiners may not totally eliminate that risk but the
racing circles have proven that they can dramatically reduce it.
My memory is also trying to tell me that a few road vehicles resorted to
dual plugs for emissions purposes. Can't really remember but it might
have been for low power situations to reduce the risk of misfire and get
quicker flame propagation. My current car engines misfire surprisingly
often at idle power but the CAT converter keeps the emissions police
happy nowadays.
Dual plugs for large bore engines might reduce the need for igniton
advance but I'll leave that discussion for others...
Ken
Peter Pengilly wrote:
>
>Probably because the average mag is horribly unreliable - so two
>completely independent ignition systems are fitted to make sure you keep
>cool. Now ignition systems are potentially much more reliable, however
>dual ignition is still seen as "aviation standard".
>
>Peter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
>M.
>Sent: 22 September 2007 02:50
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS as only reference???EFIS as only
>reference???EFIS as only reference???
>
>
>Just curious, but why is it so important to have 2 plugs per cylinder?
>The
>Lycosaurs and etc only have 2 per cylinder because of the jug size. One
>
>plug alone in those engines is not enough to light the fuel evenly
>regardless of swirl pattern so that's why they went to 2 per. My wife's
>
>brand new motorcycle has 2 plugs per for the same reason: jug size. :)
>
>David M.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
Rick,
In my experience the unreliability of mags is no OWT - they are. In 1300
hrs of flight time I have had 2 mags fail outright (both coil failures),
a couple of spark plug failures and a harness break down giving a
misfire. To be more accurate I could have written 'the average ignition
system', but the sentiment is the same. In all cases the mags has been
serviced as required (eg within 500 hrs for slick mags). The reason we
have 2 ignitions is because on their own there are insufficiently
reliable to prevent aircraft dropping out of the sky at an unacceptable
rate. That we have to service the ignition system so often is another
indicator. Yes typical aero engines run better with 2 sparks, but I
don't think that is the primary reason.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Richard Girard
Sent: 23 September 2007 13:01
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Ignition
Peter, Upon what data does your statement, "the average mag is horribly
unreliable", come from? Properly setup and serviced, quite the opposite
is true, in my experience. Also your statement that the dual ignition is
required by jug size is questionable, too.
Last year while in class to get my LSA repairman maintenance ticket I
set the up two Slick mags to go into an A75. I set the internal timing
of the mags so that it was dead on for both, and the engine timing the
same. The instructor was on the verge of accusing me of having OCD as I
checked and rechecked until I was satisfied it was as close as I could
get it. When I was finally satisfied, we pulled the plane out to the
ramp and started it up. After it was up to operating temp I did a mag
check. It scared the wits out of me when I got NO mag drop. Now the EIS
installed on the plane only read in 10 RPM increments, so there may have
been some drop, but the instrument didn't read it and I could neither
hear it, nor feel it in the seat of my pants. I thought sure I had
installed the P leads improperly and was ready to use the fuel valve to
shut the engine down when the instructor stepped in, checked all the
connections and pronounced them good. I did a second mag check, and
still got no detectable drop. I pulled the throttle back to idle, closed
both mag switches and the engine died just as it should. What gives, I
always gotten some drop on every plane I've ever been in. We pulled out
the continuity checker and went over the P leads again. Everything was
as it should be. Restarted the engine, established 1700 RPM and checked
again. NO drop. Shut down the left mag, let the engine run for a bit and
shut down the right mag. The engine died. Restarted, shut down the right
mag and let the engine run. Again, NO mag drop. Killed the left mag,
engine died. I'm sure the WTFO expression on my face begged an
explanation. The instructor, whose list of certs look like alphabet soup
gone mad, said it's simple really. It's a very low time engine (his
personal E-AB aircraft, by the way) and the students in the class had
set everything up as near perfect as was humanly possible, hence no
discernible mag drop. He recounted how many a long faced pilot,
discouraged by the $2000 quote for parts and labor from another shop has
become his loyal customer when a new set of points and careful setting
of internal mag timing and engine timing has restored the mags to proper
working order for less than a 1/4 of the original estimate.
Now lets take the other end of the spectrum. I have and HKS700E engine
on my trike. It's got 40 hours on it. My OCD tendencies when it comes to
engine variables is as active as ever. It has dual CDI's for each of its
two diminutive 350cc cylinders. My first "mag" check was a real
upholstery clincher. I did the check at 3000 RPM and each system showed
a 500 RPM drop. Needless to say I was in a near panic getting to the
manuals before I called the importer. Under ignition check it said,
"engine shouldn't die"! It's taken a bit to get used to, but that's the
way the little engine is designed. It runs like the proverbial sewing
machine, otherwise.
My point is, engine design, system integration, and proper setup has
much more to do with ignition system performance than reliance on OWT's
about "horribly unreliable" claims.
Rick
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <ssamps(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag wiring |
I have been thinking about P-mag wiring recently since I will also be doing
it shortly. My instinct is to follow E-mag's wiring, however it does cause
more switches than I really want, to control them.
My thought was this. If you had a 2-50 switch wired so that:
- in the bottom position with the master on, the P-mag was powered, buty the
P-lead off.
- in the middle position (and this is the normal flying position) the power
and P-lead is on.
- in the top, momentary, position the power is cut. (To test the self
generation.)
This would appear to overcome what I percieve as e-mag's reservation. They
want power on the things before the P-lead is switched on, except for the
momentary test of the self generation.
Can anyone see a problem? It appears to me to provide for everything AND the
switching occur in the order E-mag want?
Thanks, Steve.
On 22/09/2007, Michael T. Ice wrote:
>
> *John,*
> **
> *I would be surprised if this response doesn't get deleted. The last
> couple I have submitted have not been posted. But:*
> **
> *Referencing P/E mags I would like to make a comment.*
> *The following comments are my opinions.*
> *
> The wiring diagrams in Bob's Z figures don't agree with the way the P/E
> mag
> folks say to wire their products.
>
> I think it is likely that some of the problems experienced with P/E mags
> is
> because they were wired wrong.
>
> I suggest that if your going to use P/E mags wire them like Emagair says
> and
> follow their directions.
>
> Mike
> *
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John Goldsmith
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:25 AM
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: P-mag wiring
>
>
> There was some discussion on this list while Bob was out of town in August
> about the pros and cons of his wiring approach for P-mags (Figure Z-33) vs.
> the "factory" approach. Bob, any comments on this matter? (I'm getting
> very close to needing to make a final decision about this...)
>
> John Goldsmith (RV-7A, serious panel planning starting)
>
>
> to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag wiring |
Steve
FWIW I consider it good cockpit design to have all non guarded switches
full up in the normal position. It may be asking for operator error to
expect one to discern the middle position especially at night or when
checking quickly by feel. So if this works electrically I'd suggest
adding guards that force the switch to the center position when closed.
Ken
Steve Sampson wrote:
> I have been thinking about P-mag wiring recently since I will also be
> doing it shortly. My instinct is to follow E-mag's wiring, however it
> does cause more switches than I really want, to control them.
>
> My thought was this. If you had a 2-50 switch wired so that:
>
> - in the bottom position with the master on, the P-mag was powered,
> buty the P-lead off.
> - in the middle position (and this is the normal flying position) the
> power and P-lead is on.
> - in the top, momentary, position the power is cut. (To test the self
> generation.)
>
> This would appear to overcome what I percieve as e-mag's reservation.
> They want power on the things before the P-lead is switched on, except
> for the momentary test of the self generation.
>
> Can anyone see a problem? It appears to me to provide for everything
> AND the switching occur in the order E-mag want?
>
> Thanks, Steve.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Ignition |
Richard, the fact that the mags require "regular maintenance" and
"proper setup" by someone stricken with OCD to work as you describe is
the classical definition of unreliable. You can't 'rely' on the average
hack with wet ink on his A&P license to set it correctly, and the fact
that it needs to be done so often means the hack will be doing it or you
will be. The electronic ignitions are not nearly as reliant on special
training or fine attention to installation and maintenance details. You
plug it in, and if it works, it works as designed.
The fact that the HKS700E was designed to have a significant drop on one
ignition is a red herring. That could have easily been designed in on
purpose so that you would have a definite reassurance that both are
working after the mag check.
The mag is a complicated electromechanical device that is a masterpiece
of engineering. But they are not reliable. Else, why do you carry two
of them around, and why do you check both of them just before takeoff on
every flight?
Richard Girard wrote:
> Peter, Upon what data does your statement, "the average mag is
> horribly unreliable", come from? Properly setup and serviced, quite
> the opposite is true, in my experience. Also your statement that the
> dual ignition is required by jug size is questionable, too.
> Last year while in class to get my LSA repairman maintenance ticket I
> set the up two Slick mags to go into an A75. I set the internal timing
> of the mags so that it was dead on for both, and the engine timing the
> same. The instructor was on the verge of accusing me of having OCD as
> I checked and rechecked until I was satisfied it was as close as I
> could get it. When I was finally satisfied, we pulled the plane out to
> the ramp and started it up. After it was up to operating temp I did a
> mag check. It scared the wits out of me when I got NO mag drop. Now
> the EIS installed on the plane only read in 10 RPM increments, so
> there may have been some drop, but the instrument didn't read it and I
> could neither hear it, nor feel it in the seat of my pants. I thought
> sure I had installed the P leads improperly and was ready to use the
> fuel valve to shut the engine down when the instructor stepped in,
> checked all the connections and pronounced them good. I did a second
> mag check, and still got no detectable drop. I pulled the throttle
> back to idle, closed both mag switches and the engine died just as it
> should. What gives, I always gotten some drop on every plane I've ever
> been in. We pulled out the continuity checker and went over the P
> leads again. Everything was as it should be. Restarted the engine,
> established 1700 RPM and checked again. NO drop. Shut down the left
> mag, let the engine run for a bit and shut down the right mag. The
> engine died. Restarted, shut down the right mag and let the engine
> run. Again, NO mag drop. Killed the left mag, engine died. I'm sure
> the WTFO expression on my face begged an explanation. The instructor,
> whose list of certs look like alphabet soup gone mad, said it's simple
> really. It's a very low time engine (his personal E-AB aircraft, by
> the way) and the students in the class had set everything up as near
> perfect as was humanly possible, hence no discernible mag drop. He
> recounted how many a long faced pilot, discouraged by the $2000 quote
> for parts and labor from another shop has become his loyal customer
> when a new set of points and careful setting of internal mag timing
> and engine timing has restored the mags to proper working order for
> less than a 1/4 of the original estimate.
> Now lets take the other end of the spectrum. I have and HKS700E engine
> on my trike. It's got 40 hours on it. My OCD tendencies when it comes
> to engine variables is as active as ever. It has dual CDI's for each
> of its two diminutive 350cc cylinders. My first "mag" check was a real
> upholstery clincher. I did the check at 3000 RPM and each system
> showed a 500 RPM drop. Needless to say I was in a near panic getting
> to the manuals before I called the importer. Under ignition check it
> said, "engine shouldn't die"! It's taken a bit to get used to, but
> that's the way the little engine is designed. It runs like the
> proverbial sewing machine, otherwise.
> My point is, engine design, system integration, and proper setup has
> much more to do with ignition system performance than reliance on
> OWT's about "horribly unreliable" claims.
>
> Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag wiring |
Steve,
I have a P-Mag and E-mag that I will be using in my Tailwind. This
summer I wired up (90%) my panel and after much consideration did the
following:
E-Mag power supplied by the EBUS -> circuit breaker -> E-Mag
P-Mag power supplied by the EBUS -> circuit breaker -> momentary off /
normally on SPDT switch (I can get the number if you need it) -> P-Mag
P leads to both units are connected to a "standard" key ignition switch
with the ground connection to one "mag" removed at the start position
(no need to have this with the E/P-Mags).
Of course with the EBUS alt feed switch "off", power is supplied to
anything on the EBUS when the master switch is on.
That's the way I am proceeding...
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Sampson
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: P-mag wiring
I have been thinking about P-mag wiring recently since I will also be
doing it shortly. My instinct is to follow E-mag's wiring, however it
does cause more switches than I really want, to control them.
My thought was this. If you had a 2-50 switch wired so that:
- in the bottom position with the master on, the P-mag was powered,
buty the P-lead off.
- in the middle position (and this is the normal flying position) the
power and P-lead is on.
- in the top, momentary, position the power is cut. (To test the self
generation.)
This would appear to overcome what I percieve as e-mag's reservation.
They want power on the things before the P-lead is switched on, except
for the momentary test of the self generation.
Can anyone see a problem? It appears to me to provide for everything
AND the switching occur in the order E-mag want?
Thanks, Steve.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <ssamps(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag wiring |
Ken, I see your point and would agree normally, but bearing in mind that I
was talking about a momentary switch where it only is full up while you hold
it there (to cut the power and test the self generation capability) and it
then returns to the middle, do you still see that as an objection? I plan to
tuck them in under the panel, its a -4, where nothing will fall down on
them, but well in line of sight.. Since they are on their own it will not be
visually odd. Thanks, Steve.
On 24/09/2007, Ken wrote:
>
>
> Steve
> FWIW I consider it good cockpit design to have all non guarded switches
> full up in the normal position. It may be asking for operator error to
> expect one to discern the middle position especially at night or when
> checking quickly by feel. So if this works electrically I'd suggest
> adding guards that force the switch to the center position when closed.
> Ken
>
> Steve Sampson wrote:
>
> > I have been thinking about P-mag wiring recently since I will also be
> > doing it shortly. My instinct is to follow E-mag's wiring, however it
> > does cause more switches than I really want, to control them.
> >
> > My thought was this. If you had a 2-50 switch wired so that:
> >
> > - in the bottom position with the master on, the P-mag was powered,
> > buty the P-lead off.
> > - in the middle position (and this is the normal flying position) the
> > power and P-lead is on.
> > - in the top, momentary, position the power is cut. (To test the self
> > generation.)
> >
> > This would appear to overcome what I percieve as e-mag's reservation.
> > They want power on the things before the P-lead is switched on, except
> > for the momentary test of the self generation.
> >
> > Can anyone see a problem? It appears to me to provide for everything
> > AND the switching occur in the order E-mag want?
> >
> > Thanks, Steve.
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andrew Butler" <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
| Subject: | Dual Electronic Ignition |
Hello,
I am an RV7 builder in Ireland and plan to install dual electronic
ignition. I was eyeing up a Split Bus config, but I think that is
overkill for a VFR machine. So I was looking to vary the Z14 design for
(40A main, 20A aux alts and 16AH main, 7.2AH aux batteries.
Then I saw the Z13/20 variant, All Electric Aeroplane with 20Amp eBus.
This looks perfect, albeit it has one battery. Is it feasible to add a
small battery to this design? If so where is the best to point to
connect?
What is the normal mode of Operation of this design and what is the main
alt out mode? Why is the eBus Alt Master a three position switch?
How would each Alt be tested during the pre-flight check listed?
Thanks for your help,
Andrew Butler.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag wiring |
Hi Steve
A momentary up position switch does sound a bit better if you can find
such a thing but personally I'd still consider such an arrangement to be
not the best. I'd pefer a flip up guard or a separate push to test
button if failure of a separate button would not fail the mag. Another
option that appeals to me would be a lift lock switch that acts like a
two position switch but has to be lifted or pulled to select the third
position. Those come in spring loaded versions as well but either way I
like some arrangement that still lets you confirm the normal on position
by touch alone. Maybe I'm silly but my experience is that we see what
we expect to see and sometimes actually touching and applying pressure
to a switch while checking it reveals that it wasn't where we thought it
was. Certainly the angle of view of the switch is a factor as well. It
is often easier to ascertain a switch positon on the far side of the
cockpit than for the switch directly in front of you. Many pilot errors
are a direct predictable result of poor cockpit design.
Ken
Steve Sampson wrote:
> Ken, I see your point and would agree normally, but bearing in mind
> that I was talking about a momentary switch where it only is full up
> while you hold it there (to cut the power and test the self generation
> capability) and it then returns to the middle, do you still see that
> as an objection? I plan to tuck them in under the panel, its a -4,
> where nothing will fall down on them, but well in line of sight..
> Since they are on their own it will not be visually odd. Thanks, Steve.
>
> On 24/09/2007, Ken > wrote:
>
> >
>
> Steve
> FWIW I consider it good cockpit design to have all non guarded
> switches
> full up in the normal position. It may be asking for operator
> error to
> expect one to discern the middle position especially at night or when
> checking quickly by feel. So if this works electrically I'd suggest
> adding guards that force the switch to the center position when
> closed.
> Ken
>
> Steve Sampson wrote:
>
> > I have been thinking about P-mag wiring recently since I will
> also be
> > doing it shortly. My instinct is to follow E-mag's wiring,
> however it
> > does cause more switches than I really want, to control them.
> >
> > My thought was this. If you had a 2-50 switch wired so that:
> >
> > - in the bottom position with the master on, the P-mag was powered,
> > buty the P-lead off.
> > - in the middle position (and this is the normal flying
> position) the
> > power and P-lead is on.
> > - in the top, momentary, position the power is cut. (To test the
> self
> > generation.)
> >
> > This would appear to overcome what I percieve as e-mag's
> reservation.
> > They want power on the things before the P-lead is switched on,
> except
> > for the momentary test of the self generation.
> >
> > Can anyone see a problem? It appears to me to provide for everything
> > AND the switching occur in the order E-mag want?
> >
> > Thanks, Steve.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition |
>Hello,
>
>I am an RV7 builder in Ireland and plan to install dual electronic
>ignition. I was eyeing up a Split Bus config, but I think that is overkill
>for a VFR machine. So I was looking to vary the Z14 design for (40A main,
>20A aux alts and 16AH main, 7.2AH aux batteries.
Also overkill.
>Then I saw the Z13/20 variant, All Electric Aeroplane with 20Amp eBus.
>This looks perfect, albeit it has one battery. Is it feasible to add a
>small battery to this design? If so where is the best to point to connect?
Why?
>What is the normal mode of Operation of this design and what is the main
>alt out mode?
Take a look at Z-13/8 and tell us where it falls short of
accommodating your plan-b for any single failure of the
electrical system.
> Why is the eBus Alt Master a three position switch?
OFF/BAT ONLY/BAT+ALT just like the split rocker switch
in the majority of TC single engine aircraft.
>How would each Alt be tested during the pre-flight check listed?
Run each alternator by itself and watch the bus voltage and/or
loadmeter.
The Z-13/20 was not well thought out when I crafted it
and it's going to be removed from future publications.
If Z-13/8 doesn't cut it for you (and it should for 95%
or more of all SE OBAM aircraft flying) then Z-14 is the
next step.
In fact, I just pulled that drawing from the Appendix Z
posting on the website. I cannot imagine a situation where
Z-13/8 won't cut it for you.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag wiring |
>Steve,
>
>I have a P-Mag and E-mag that I will be using in my Tailwind. This summer
>I wired up (90%) my panel and after much consideration did the following:
>
>E-Mag power supplied by the EBUS -> circuit breaker -> E-Mag
>
>P-Mag power supplied by the EBUS -> circuit breaker -> momentary off /
>normally on SPDT switch (I can get the number if you need it) -> P-Mag
Electrical items needed for operation of the engine should
be fed from a battery bus. If you have elctrical system problems
and need to shut the master OFF, then you don't want the engine
to stop.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry L. Tompkins, P.E." <tompkinsl(at)integra.net> |
Subsequent to my previous post, I contacted TruTrak. They confirmed
that the operating system for the EFIS SG is NOT Windows based. Rather
it is dedicated code written by their engineers in-house.
The TruTrak EFIS SG is attractive to me because it isn't overloaded with
the "bells and whistles" alluded to in my previous post.
Dynon also writes their own code.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Dual Electronic Ignition |
Hi Andrew
Sorry for not answering your questions, but I chimed him just to greet you
and to know about your engine.
After giving up the Subaru, with which engine did you go?
Carlos
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
Butler
Sent: segunda-feira, 24 de Setembro de 2007 15:22
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Ignition
Hello,
I am an RV7 builder in Ireland and plan to install dual electronic ignition.
I was eyeing up a Split Bus config, but I think that is overkill for a VFR
machine. So I was looking to vary the Z14 design for (40A main, 20A aux alts
and 16AH main, 7.2AH aux batteries.
Then I saw the Z13/20 variant, All Electric Aeroplane with 20Amp eBus. This
looks perfect, albeit it has one battery. Is it feasible to add a small
battery to this design? If so where is the best to point to connect?
What is the normal mode of Operation of this design and what is the main alt
out mode? Why is the eBus Alt Master a three position switch?
How would each Alt be tested during the pre-flight check listed?
Thanks for your help,
Andrew Butler.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
The other good thing about the Trutrak EFIS is that it frames much more
quickly than just about anything else on the market (at 60 Hz IIRC) -
that is probably 3 times faster than anything else at the moment.
>From a previous life I know that fast updates are really good news when
flying in IMC. Lags of > 100ms from the airplane moving to the motion
being shown on the display (either due to slow framing rate or poor
design) have a significant impact on the pilot's ability to fly well.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
L. Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: 24 September 2007 16:57
Subject: AeroElectric-List: TruTrak EFIS SG
Subsequent to my previous post, I contacted TruTrak. They confirmed
that the operating system for the EFIS SG is NOT Windows based. Rather
it is dedicated code written by their engineers in-house.
The TruTrak EFIS SG is attractive to me because it isn't overloaded with
the "bells and whistles" alluded to in my previous post.
Dynon also writes their own code.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Les Davis" <ldavis_pe(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag Wiring |
I'm also in the process of wiring up my dual p-mags. Given the concerns on
this thread and others I'm not comfortable with the best way to proceed.
I've generally followed the Z-11 architecture (batt bus, ebus and main bus)
and have the dual 2-10 and a 1-3 switches to install the pmag wiring per
Fig. Z-33 "Maintenance / Hand Prop Option for E-Mags / PMags".
I'm aware that Emagaire recommends a wiring diagram that seems quite
different than Fig. Z-33. I must admit I don't understand all of the issues
in wiring the manufacturer's way vs. that given in Fig. Z-33 and would
sincerely appreciate any help I can get on the single most important wiring
in my project.
Regards,
Les Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TruTrak EFIS SG |
Peter Pengilly wrote:
>
> The other good thing about the Trutrak EFIS is that it frames much
> more quickly than just about anything else on the market (at 60 Hz
> IIRC) that is probably 3 times faster than anything else at the moment.
>
> From a previous life I know that fast updates are really good news
> when flying in IMC. Lags of > 100ms from the airplane moving to the
> motion being shown on the display (either due to slow framing rate or
> poor design) have a significant impact on the pilots ability to fly
> well.
>
100ms update rate resolves to 10Hz. Is 60Hz a selling point when most
people can resolve more than about 20Hz? Not saying that it's bad to
update faster, just that it doesn't buy you anything.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Ice <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag Wiring |
Les,
Follow the folks that make them and use their wiring system. It is different then
the Z-11 & 33 but it's the way Emagair suggests. You can't go wrong using the
manufactures wiring diagram. Why do it differently when the Z-11 & 33 schematic
offer no advantage.
Mike ice
----- Original Message -----
From: Les Davis <ldavis_pe(at)cox.net>
Date: Monday, September 24, 2007 12:36 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: P-mag Wiring
>
>
> I'm also in the process of wiring up my dual p-mags. Given the
> concerns on
> this thread and others I'm not comfortable with the best way to
> proceed.I've generally followed the Z-11 architecture (batt bus,
> ebus and main bus)
> and have the dual 2-10 and a 1-3 switches to install the pmag
> wiring per
> Fig. Z-33 "Maintenance / Hand Prop Option for E-Mags / PMags".
>
> I'm aware that Emagaire recommends a wiring diagram that seems quite
> different than Fig. Z-33. I must admit I don't understand all of
> the issues
> in wiring the manufacturer's way vs. that given in Fig. Z-33 and
> wouldsincerely appreciate any help I can get on the single most
> important wiring
> in my project.
>
> Regards,
> Les Davis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Hmm...Never noticed that effect with my Dynon...It never seemed to lag
the real horizon no matter how bad the turbulence.
Frank RV 7a
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Pengilly
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 1:14 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: TruTrak EFIS SG
The other good thing about the Trutrak EFIS is that it frames much more
quickly than just about anything else on the market (at 60 Hz IIRC) -
that is probably 3 times faster than anything else at the moment.
>From a previous life I know that fast updates are really good news when
flying in IMC. Lags of > 100ms from the airplane moving to the motion
being shown on the display (either due to slow framing rate or poor
design) have a significant impact on the pilot's ability to fly well.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
L. Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: 24 September 2007 16:57
Subject: AeroElectric-List: TruTrak EFIS SG
Subsequent to my previous post, I contacted TruTrak. They confirmed
that the operating system for the EFIS SG is NOT Windows based. Rather
it is dedicated code written by their engineers in-house.
The TruTrak EFIS SG is attractive to me because it isn't overloaded with
the "bells and whistles" alluded to in my previous post.
Dynon also writes their own code.
Larry
- The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
--> http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: TruTrak EFIS SG |
Good Afternoon Echristley,
I know absolutely nothing about all of those numbers you are mentioning, but
a faster update rate buys you a LOT when you are using the instrument for
flight control.
How do your numbers compare to the Garmin 396 and the Garmin 496 numbers?
While it is possible to use the flight instrument screen on a Garmin 196,
296 or 396 as a back up set of flight instruments, the 496 has a five times
faster update rate than does the 396 and it is a LOT easier to fly.
The faster the update rate, the faster you can notice a turn. Stop the turn
and you will survive. Let the turn go for a few seconds and you will die.
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 9/24/2007 3:57:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
echristley(at)nc.rr.com writes:
100ms update rate resolves to 10Hz. Is 60Hz a selling point when most
people can resolve more than about 20Hz? Not saying that it's bad to
update faster, just that it doesn't buy you anything.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
true, but there is fast and really fast...If I roll my RV as fast it
will go the Dynon tracks the horizon all the way round...How fast do you
need?
Perfectly happy with both my Dynon and Trutrak pictorial pilot in horrid
turbulent IMC...They work great. hard for me to see the benefit of an
increased update rate over and above what I'm getting already.
frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: TruTrak EFIS SG
Good Afternoon Echristley,
I know absolutely nothing about all of those numbers you are mentioning,
but a faster update rate buys you a LOT when you are using the
instrument for flight control.
How do your numbers compare to the Garmin 396 and the Garmin 496
numbers?
While it is possible to use the flight instrument screen on a Garmin
196, 296 or 396 as a back up set of flight instruments, the 496 has a
five times faster update rate than does the 396 and it is a LOT easier
to fly.
The faster the update rate, the faster you can notice a turn. Stop the
turn and you will survive. Let the turn go for a few seconds and you
will die.
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 9/24/2007 3:57:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
echristley(at)nc.rr.com writes:
100ms update rate resolves to 10Hz. Is 60Hz a selling point when
most
people can resolve more than about 20Hz? Not saying that it's
bad to
update faster, just that it doesn't buy you anything.
________________________________
See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag wiring |
Bob,
Are you saying that WHILE YOU ARE IN FLIGHT the time it takes to switch off
master and switch on Ebus (less than 2 seconds - even with shaking hands -
the switches are next to each other), that the prop will stop before the
Emag will work??? ... and by the way, I'm using a P-Mag also - I believe
that will be happy without power as long as the engine is above low idle...
Seems OK to me... what am I missing??
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: P-mag wiring
>
>
>
>>Steve,
>>
>>I have a P-Mag and E-mag that I will be using in my Tailwind. This summer
>>I wired up (90%) my panel and after much consideration did the following:
>>
>>E-Mag power supplied by the EBUS -> circuit breaker -> E-Mag
>>
>>P-Mag power supplied by the EBUS -> circuit breaker -> momentary off /
>>normally on SPDT switch (I can get the number if you need it) -> P-Mag
>
> Electrical items needed for operation of the engine should
> be fed from a battery bus. If you have elctrical system problems
> and need to shut the master OFF, then you don't want the engine
> to stop.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag Wiring |
I hate to draw this out - but - according to the installation manual,
page 20, we are only talking about one +13.8vdc lead, a circuit breaker
and a test switch (for a PMag, none required for an EMag) plus the
necessary ground. That said, you will note that the manual schematic
shows the +13.8v dc lead coming from the battery contactor (main bus).
IF you ever have to shut down the main bus (disengage the contactor) and
you don't have an alternate source for EMag power... well, you get the
picture.... If you have 2 P-Mags and they are working - no need to be
concerned...
It really isn't THAT complicated an issue.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Ice
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: P-mag Wiring
Les,
Follow the folks that make them and use their wiring system. It is
different then the Z-11 & 33 but it's the way Emagair suggests. You
can't go wrong using the manufactures wiring diagram. Why do it
differently when the Z-11 & 33 schematic offer no advantage.
Mike ice
----- Original Message -----
From: Les Davis <ldavis_pe(at)cox.net>
Date: Monday, September 24, 2007 12:36 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: P-mag Wiring
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> I'm also in the process of wiring up my dual p-mags. Given the
> concerns on
> this thread and others I'm not comfortable with the best way to
> proceed.I've generally followed the Z-11 architecture (batt bus,
> ebus and main bus)
> and have the dual 2-10 and a 1-3 switches to install the pmag
> wiring per
> Fig. Z-33 "Maintenance / Hand Prop Option for E-Mags / PMags".
>
> I'm aware that Emagaire recommends a wiring diagram that seems quite
> different than Fig. Z-33. I must admit I don't understand all of
> the issues
> in wiring the manufacturer's way vs. that given in Fig. Z-33 and
> wouldsincerely appreciate any help I can get on the single most
> important wiring
> in my project.
>
> Regards,
> Les Davis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Ignition |
You are simply wrong about magnetos. They are one of the simplest
devices going. Yes, they need to be set up correctly, but that is
something than any fresh A&P should be able to do. They may not have the
training and jigs to do the internal overhaul work, but that isn't
needed more than once every 500 hours on all but the meanest
turbocharged beasts. In fact, most good mags will run 1000 hours with no
more than one or two tweaks of the timing, even though they should be
checked at 500. For something with points arcing multiple times a
revolution, that is pretty good. A new or freshly overhauled mag needs
no more than minor care to get installed at the right angle, quick
setting with a buzz box, and they are good for hundreds of hours. I'm
100% certain I can install both mags on an engine and have them ready to
go before you get your electronic gizmos hooked up. And the mags will
keep right on firing whether you have electrics or not, unlike a lot of
electronic systems. Yes, I know about the P-mag. How many 6 cylinder
copies are shipped at this point?
KM
A&P/IA
Ernest Christley wrote:
>
>
> Richard, the fact that the mags require "regular maintenance" and
> "proper setup" by someone stricken with OCD to work as you describe is
> the classical definition of unreliable. You can't 'rely' on the
> average hack with wet ink on his A&P license to set it correctly, and
> the fact that it needs to be done so often means the hack will be
> doing it or you will be. The electronic ignitions are not nearly as
> reliant on special training or fine attention to installation and
> maintenance details. You plug it in, and if it works, it works as
> designed.
>
> The fact that the HKS700E was designed to have a significant drop on
> one ignition is a red herring. That could have easily been designed
> in on purpose so that you would have a definite reassurance that both
> are working after the mag check.
>
> The mag is a complicated electromechanical device that is a
> masterpiece of engineering. But they are not reliable. Else, why do
> you carry two of them around, and why do you check both of them just
> before takeoff on every flight?
>
> Richard Girard wrote:
>> Peter, Upon what data does your statement, "the average mag is
>> horribly unreliable", come from? Properly setup and serviced, quite
>> the opposite is true, in my experience. Also your statement that the
>> dual ignition is required by jug size is questionable, too.
>> Last year while in class to get my LSA repairman maintenance ticket I
>> set the up two Slick mags to go into an A75. I set the internal
>> timing of the mags so that it was dead on for both, and the engine
>> timing the same. The instructor was on the verge of accusing me of
>> having OCD as I checked and rechecked until I was satisfied it was as
>> close as I could get it. When I was finally satisfied, we pulled the
>> plane out to the ramp and started it up. After it was up to operating
>> temp I did a mag check. It scared the wits out of me when I got NO
>> mag drop. Now the EIS installed on the plane only read in 10 RPM
>> increments, so there may have been some drop, but the instrument
>> didn't read it and I could neither hear it, nor feel it in the seat
>> of my pants. I thought sure I had installed the P leads improperly
>> and was ready to use the fuel valve to shut the engine down when the
>> instructor stepped in, checked all the connections and pronounced
>> them good. I did a second mag check, and still got no detectable
>> drop. I pulled the throttle back to idle, closed both mag switches
>> and the engine died just as it should. What gives, I always gotten
>> some drop on every plane I've ever been in. We pulled out the
>> continuity checker and went over the P leads again. Everything was as
>> it should be. Restarted the engine, established 1700 RPM and checked
>> again. NO drop. Shut down the left mag, let the engine run for a bit
>> and shut down the right mag. The engine died. Restarted, shut down
>> the right mag and let the engine run. Again, NO mag drop. Killed the
>> left mag, engine died. I'm sure the WTFO expression on my face begged
>> an explanation. The instructor, whose list of certs look like
>> alphabet soup gone mad, said it's simple really. It's a very low time
>> engine (his personal E-AB aircraft, by the way) and the students in
>> the class had set everything up as near perfect as was humanly
>> possible, hence no discernible mag drop. He recounted how many a long
>> faced pilot, discouraged by the $2000 quote for parts and labor from
>> another shop has become his loyal customer when a new set of points
>> and careful setting of internal mag timing and engine timing has
>> restored the mags to proper working order for less than a 1/4 of the
>> original estimate.
>> Now lets take the other end of the spectrum. I have and HKS700E
>> engine on my trike. It's got 40 hours on it. My OCD tendencies when
>> it comes to engine variables is as active as ever. It has dual CDI's
>> for each of its two diminutive 350cc cylinders. My first "mag" check
>> was a real upholstery clincher. I did the check at 3000 RPM and each
>> system showed a 500 RPM drop. Needless to say I was in a near panic
>> getting to the manuals before I called the importer. Under ignition
>> check it said, "engine shouldn't die"! It's taken a bit to get used
>> to, but that's the way the little engine is designed. It runs like
>> the proverbial sewing machine, otherwise.
>> My point is, engine design, system integration, and proper setup has
>> much more to do with ignition system performance than reliance on
>> OWT's about "horribly unreliable" claims.
>>
>> Rick
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Ignition |
I agree that individual magnetos are not that reliable, but when
installed in a pair they do provide a reliable source of ignition.
I'm aware of at least two cases where an aircraft with electronic
ignition systems had a forced landing due to loss of ignition, or
improper functioning of the ignition system. So much for modern,
more reliable ignition systems.
Can anyone point me at an occurence where an aircraft with dual
magnetos had a power loss due to ignition system problems?
Kevin Horton
On 24 Sep 2007, at 09:20, Ernest Christley wrote:
>
>
> Richard, the fact that the mags require "regular maintenance" and
> "proper setup" by someone stricken with OCD to work as you describe
> is the classical definition of unreliable. You can't 'rely' on the
> average hack with wet ink on his A&P license to set it correctly,
> and the fact that it needs to be done so often means the hack will
> be doing it or you will be. The electronic ignitions are not
> nearly as reliant on special training or fine attention to
> installation and maintenance details. You plug it in, and if it
> works, it works as designed.
>
> The fact that the HKS700E was designed to have a significant drop
> on one ignition is a red herring. That could have easily been
> designed in on purpose so that you would have a definite
> reassurance that both are working after the mag check.
>
> The mag is a complicated electromechanical device that is a
> masterpiece of engineering. But they are not reliable. Else, why
> do you carry two of them around, and why do you check both of them
> just before takeoff on every flight?
>
> Richard Girard wrote:
>> Peter, Upon what data does your statement, "the average mag is
>> horribly unreliable", come from? Properly setup and serviced,
>> quite the opposite is true, in my experience. Also your statement
>> that the dual ignition is required by jug size is questionable, too.
>> Last year while in class to get my LSA repairman maintenance
>> ticket I set the up two Slick mags to go into an A75. I set the
>> internal timing of the mags so that it was dead on for both, and
>> the engine timing the same. The instructor was on the verge of
>> accusing me of having OCD as I checked and rechecked until I was
>> satisfied it was as close as I could get it. When I was finally
>> satisfied, we pulled the plane out to the ramp and started it up.
>> After it was up to operating temp I did a mag check. It scared the
>> wits out of me when I got NO mag drop. Now the EIS installed on
>> the plane only read in 10 RPM increments, so there may have been
>> some drop, but the instrument didn't read it and I could neither
>> hear it, nor feel it in the seat of my pants. I thought sure I had
>> installed the P leads improperly and was ready to use the fuel
>> valve to shut the engine down when the instructor stepped in,
>> checked all the connections and pronounced them good. I did a
>> second mag check, and still got no detectable drop. I pulled the
>> throttle back to idle, closed both mag switches and the engine
>> died just as it should. What gives, I always gotten some drop on
>> every plane I've ever been in. We pulled out the continuity
>> checker and went over the P leads again. Everything was as it
>> should be. Restarted the engine, established 1700 RPM and checked
>> again. NO drop. Shut down the left mag, let the engine run for a
>> bit and shut down the right mag. The engine died. Restarted, shut
>> down the right mag and let the engine run. Again, NO mag drop.
>> Killed the left mag, engine died. I'm sure the WTFO expression on
>> my face begged an explanation. The instructor, whose list of certs
>> look like alphabet soup gone mad, said it's simple really. It's a
>> very low time engine (his personal E-AB aircraft, by the way) and
>> the students in the class had set everything up as near perfect as
>> was humanly possible, hence no discernible mag drop. He recounted
>> how many a long faced pilot, discouraged by the $2000 quote for
>> parts and labor from another shop has become his loyal customer
>> when a new set of points and careful setting of internal mag
>> timing and engine timing has restored the mags to proper working
>> order for less than a 1/4 of the original estimate.
>> Now lets take the other end of the spectrum. I have and HKS700E
>> engine on my trike. It's got 40 hours on it. My OCD tendencies
>> when it comes to engine variables is as active as ever. It has
>> dual CDI's for each of its two diminutive 350cc cylinders. My
>> first "mag" check was a real upholstery clincher. I did the check
>> at 3000 RPM and each system showed a 500 RPM drop. Needless to say
>> I was in a near panic getting to the manuals before I called the
>> importer. Under ignition check it said, "engine shouldn't die"!
>> It's taken a bit to get used to, but that's the way the little
>> engine is designed. It runs like the proverbial sewing machine,
>> otherwise.
>> My point is, engine design, system integration, and proper setup
>> has much more to do with ignition system performance than reliance
>> on OWT's about "horribly unreliable" claims.
>>
>> Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag wiring |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Are you saying that WHILE YOU ARE IN FLIGHT the time it takes to switch
>off master and switch on Ebus (less than 2 seconds - even with shaking
>hands - the switches are next to each other), that the prop will stop
>before the Emag will work??? ... and by the way, I'm using a P-Mag also -
>I believe that will be happy without power as long as the engine is above
>low idle...
>
>Seems OK to me... what am I missing??
>
>Dave
If you have smoke in the cockpit that "smells electrical" then
there's nothing to tell you that the smoke is NOT coming from an
e-bus powered accessory. The prudent thing is to remove ALL practical
power from the ship's systems . . . practical meaning that
electrically dependent engines should NOT be deprived of energy
when everything else is.
Once order is restored in the cockpit, the pilot is certainly
free to begin "troubleshooting". Turning things on one at
a time, etc. I strongly discourage this activity while
airborne. Get the stuff out of your flight bag (you DO
have good stuff in your flight bag . . . no?) and get on
the ground before you start investigating the source of the
smoke.
It's not a matter of being able to change configuration by
repositioning switches. It's a matter of getting ship's wires
to max cold and getting on the ground without breaking a
sweat. Therefor the recommendation is that any device the engine
depends on for operation (hence banned from the list of
candidates for practical shutdown) should be powered from an
always hot battery bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andrew Butler" <andrewbutler(at)ireland.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition |
Thanks Bob, appreciate the feedback.
Lets assume I go for the Z13/8, but replace the generic Ford regulator
with an LR3 regulator. This gives me my Low Volts/OV warning and tells me
when to switch to main Alt out mode.
I assume this involves opening the DC Master and closing the E-Bus
Alternate Feed. In this mode, how would I install a low voltage warning
light? Would repositioning the AEC9005 module to the Endurance Bus do it?
Do you supply these, as I couldn't find it on yours or BandC's website?
If I was compelled to add a second small battery for an aux battery bus
for the second ignition, where would I put it?
The reason I am veering towards overkill is because I need to get
approval from my engineer to install dual electonic ignition before order
my engine and this will be based on the "perceived" reliability of my
electical system. If I do dual e-ignition, I will be the first in Ireland
to do so on an IO360 homebuild. In fact, just over the Irish sea in the
UK, dual electronic ignition is not permitted on homebuilts at all. All G
registered homebuilts must keep at least one mag................
Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Ignition
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:01:37 -0600
> Hello,
>
> I am an RV7 builder in Ireland and plan to install dual electronic
ignition. I was eyeing up a
> Split Bus config, but I think that is overkill for a VFR machine.
So I was looking to vary the
> Z14 design for (40A main, 20A aux alts and 16AH main, 7.2AH aux
batteries.
Also overkill.
> Then I saw the Z13/20 variant, All Electric Aeroplane with 20Amp
eBus. This looks perfect,
> albeit it has one battery. Is it feasible to add a small battery to
this design? If so where
> is the best to point to connect?
Why?
> What is the normal mode of Operation of this design and what is the
main alt out mode?
Take a look at Z-13/8 and tell us where it falls short of
accommodating your plan-b for any single failure of the
electrical system.
> Why is the eBus Alt Master a three position switch?
OFF/BAT ONLY/BAT+ALT just like the split rocker switch
in the majority of TC single engine aircraft.
> How would each Alt be tested during the pre-flight check listed?
Run each alternator by itself and watch the bus voltage and/or
loadmeter.
The Z-13/20 was not well thought out when I crafted it
and it's going to be removed from future publications.
If Z-13/8 doesn't cut it for you (and it should for 95%
or more of all SE OBAM aircraft flying) then Z-14 is the
next step.
In fact, I just pulled that drawing from the Appendix Z
posting on the website. I cannot imagine a situation where
Z-13/8 won't cut it for you.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
===========
===========
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Harbor Freight AA cells on sale . . . |
I was in the local HF store last weekend to pick up some
tools for the 'Connection's west campus and spotted some
AA alkaline cells on sale in a 24 pak for $5 . . . about
21 cents per cell.
I picked up a package and stuck a couple of the cells on
my super-duper battery runnerdowner to see how much energy
they contained and compared them with a pair of Duracells.
The results of the test are shown here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/HF_aa_vs_Duracell.jpg
At a 300 mA discharge rate, the Duracells dropped below
1.0 volts right at 5 hours (1.5 a.h.) The HF cells tossed
in the towel at about 4 hours and 20 minutes. At this fairly
aggressive discharge rate, the el-cheeso HF cells proved
to be an excellent value at $.21 each.
If there's a Harbor Freight outlet near you, you might
want to pick up a pak or two. They have excellent shelf
life.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Problems are the price of progress. )
( Don't bring me anything but trouble. )
( Good news weakens me." )
( -Charles F. Kettering- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TruTrak EFIS SG |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Good Afternoon Echristley,
>
> I know absolutely nothing about all of those numbers you are mentioning, but
> a faster update rate buys you a LOT when you are using the instrument for
> flight control.
>
> How do your numbers compare to the Garmin 396 and the Garmin 496 numbers?
>
> While it is possible to use the flight instrument screen on a Garmin 196,
> 296 or 396 as a back up set of flight instruments, the 496 has a five times
> faster update rate than does the 396 and it is a LOT easier to fly.
>
> The faster the update rate, the faster you can notice a turn. Stop the turn
> and you will survive. Let the turn go for a few seconds and you will die.
>
>
Bob, if you update fast enough, all you notice is fluid motion. You
know your TV is really a series of still frames. At what point does the
moving picture go from being the flickering stop-motion that marked the
earliest years of the cinema, to the fluid life-like replica that is
modern cinema. It is right about 20 frames per second, 20Hz, for most
people. Some people can notice the flicker at that rate. Push it to
30Hz and no one can really tell.
So the advertisers say they can update the display at 60Hz, 60 times per
second, and this makes them better than the other guys that only update
at 20Hz. If you're bothered by the flickering in your TV that makes the
sports action jerky, I'd say the 60Hz is a selling point. Most of us
can get by with 20, though.
As a software engineer, the information does give some tantalizing clues
to the TruTrak's architecture vs other systems. An EFIS has to do 3
things. Collect some data, create a model of the world, and display a
picture. Designing the hardware for the system, you want to make $&(*
sure you have enough processing power to handle all three things. It
seems that TruTrak chose to write some tight code that runs in a loop.
Collect. Create. Display. Collect. Create. Display. This would make
for some clean, simple, linear code. I'd choose to have a safety factor
of 3 on the hardware, and 20Hz update rate is what's needed. So, the
60Hz result is about right.
Another way to set this up would be to maintain the model in memory.
You run one loop that constantly collects data an updates the model.
Another loop would create a picture from the model and display it. It
could possibly result in fewer hardware requirements, because you can
throttle back the picture drawing code to only what's necessary...20Hz.
Six of one. Half dozen of the other. I'm glad there's companies
approaching it from both directions, because in the end, we're the winners.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag wiring |
This is my very last comment on this matter.
Reading your last email kind of makes me sorry I ever went to the bother to
incorporate an EBus in my system. I made a mistake thinking it was to insure
you could continue the flight long enough to safely get on the ground.
According to this last response, that's not the reason.
I guess could have just stuck with switches for each item and eliminated the
extra components and complexity (like diode arrays, multiple bus "bars",
switches, etc.)
Too bad I didn't get involved with this discussion sooner.. like 6 months
ago...
Maybe it's not too late to redo the panel in a simpler version before
installation.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: P-mag wiring
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Bob,
>>
>>Are you saying that WHILE YOU ARE IN FLIGHT the time it takes to switch
>>off master and switch on Ebus (less than 2 seconds - even with shaking
>>hands - the switches are next to each other), that the prop will stop
>>before the Emag will work??? ... and by the way, I'm using a P-Mag also -
>>I believe that will be happy without power as long as the engine is above
>>low idle...
>>
>>Seems OK to me... what am I missing??
>>
>>Dave
>
> If you have smoke in the cockpit that "smells electrical" then
> there's nothing to tell you that the smoke is NOT coming from an
> e-bus powered accessory. The prudent thing is to remove ALL practical
> power from the ship's systems . . . practical meaning that
> electrically dependent engines should NOT be deprived of energy
> when everything else is.
>
> Once order is restored in the cockpit, the pilot is certainly
> free to begin "troubleshooting". Turning things on one at
> a time, etc. I strongly discourage this activity while
> airborne. Get the stuff out of your flight bag (you DO
> have good stuff in your flight bag . . . no?) and get on
> the ground before you start investigating the source of the
> smoke.
>
> It's not a matter of being able to change configuration by
> repositioning switches. It's a matter of getting ship's wires
> to max cold and getting on the ground without breaking a
> sweat. Therefor the recommendation is that any device the engine
> depends on for operation (hence banned from the list of
> candidates for practical shutdown) should be powered from an
> always hot battery bus.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag wiring |
>
>
>This is my very last comment on this matter.
>
>Reading your last email kind of makes me sorry I ever went to the bother
>to incorporate an EBus in my system. I made a mistake thinking it was to
>insure you could continue the flight long enough to safely get on the
>ground. According to this last response, that's not the reason.
>
>I guess could have just stuck with switches for each item and eliminated
>the extra components and complexity (like diode arrays, multiple bus
>"bars", switches, etc.)
>
>Too bad I didn't get involved with this discussion sooner.. like 6 months
>ago...
>
>Maybe it's not too late to redo the panel in a simpler version before
>installation.
>
>Dave
I'm sorry that you're disappointed but I'm mystified as
to why. The architectures offered in the Z-figures and
the rationale for what equipment items should drive from
which bus seems pretty straight-forward. You didn't not
mention which Z-figure you were incorporating. Z-13/8?
If it makes you feel better, put the emags on what ever
bus you like . . . it's your airplane. But I'd like to
understand how we failed to help you understand the functionality
of all the features within the z-figures. Have you
read chapter 17?
The e-bus was crafted to offer a minimum power consumption
dual power path mode for endurance . . . it has NOTHING to
do with getting safely on the ground. Getting safely on the
ground is the responsibility of the pilot knowing exactly what the
limits are for his/her options. Limits are determined by
hardware selection, architecture selection and most important,
preventative maintenance of the battery so that you can
confidently fly right up to those limits.
Smoke in the cockpit is rare and unique event that supercedes
wear-out failures in importance. The e-bus minimizes loads
for continued flight to airport of intended destination.
The procedure for dealing with smoke makes no pretenses
about continued flight. It's time to come down NOW and
with a minimum of electrical hardware powered up.
Drop the e-bus if you like. Drop the second alternator
if you find that too complex. But run your engine goodies
of the battery bus no matter which architecture you choose.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <ssamps(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag Wiring |
Dave, It is very simple, except Bob's proposed wiring, abuses one preference
"by the good folk at EW-magair". E-mag's preference is that the mag is
always powered (presumably the firmware initialised) BEFORE the P-lead is
opened. They presumably have knowledge of how they wrote the code and the
reason why they say this.
Bob on the other hand has never explained, to my very limited knowledge, how
he can ignore this preference, and how it interacts with the code
initialisation.. Bob?
It was for this reason that I asked if anyone could see a problem with a
2-50 type switch which I described before:
- in the bottom position with the master on, the P-mag was powered, but the
P-lead off.
- in the middle position (and this is the normal flying position) the power
and P-lead is on.
- in the top, momentary position, the power is cut. (To test the self
generation.) The P-lead remains on.
Operating this way the P-mag would see power once the master is on. It would
only loose power from the battery when the engine is running and you switch
to the self generation test. P-mag condone that.
The one important assumption I am making with my proposal, is that as you
move from the bottom to the midle position, the power cant 'flutter' for an
instant, and the P-lead connected, BEFORE the power connection is remade. I
presume with these switches the connection is not lost, however briefly?
Bob, if you are reading this can you confirm my understanding of how the
contacts move in these switvches?
Thanks, Steve.
On 25/09/2007, David & Elaine Lamphere wrote:
>
> I hate to draw this out - but - according to the installation manual,
> page 20, we are only talking about one +13.8vdc lead, a circuit breaker and
> a test switch (for a PMag, none required for an EMag) plus the necessary
> ground. That said, you will note that the manual schematic shows the +13.8v
> dc lead coming from the battery contactor (main bus). IF you ever have to
> shut down the main bus (disengage the contactor) and you don't have an
> alternate source for EMag power... well, you get the picture.... If you
> have 2 P-Mags and they are working - no need to be concerned...
>
> It really isn't THAT complicated an issue.
>
> Dave
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Michael Ice
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Monday, September 24, 2007 5:04 PM
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: P-mag Wiring
>
>
> Les,
>
> Follow the folks that make them and use their wiring system. It is
> different then the Z-11 & 33 but it's the way Emagair suggests. You can't go
> wrong using the manufactures wiring diagram. Why do it differently when the
> Z-11 & 33 schematic offer no advantage.
>
> Mike ice
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Les Davis <ldavis_pe(at)cox.net>
> Date: Monday, September 24, 2007 12:36 pm
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: P-mag Wiring
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
> >
> >
> > I'm also in the process of wiring up my dual p-mags. Given the
> > concerns on
> > this thread and others I'm not comfortable with the best way to
> > proceed.I've generally followed the Z-11 architecture (batt bus,
> > ebus and main bus)
> > and have the dual 2-10 and a 1-3 switches to install the pmag
> > wiring per
> > Fig. Z-33 "Maintenance / Hand Prop Option for E-Mags / PMags".
> >
> > I'm aware that Emagaire recommends a wiring diagram that seems quite
> > different than Fig. Z-33. I must admit I don't understand all of
> > the issues
> > in wiring the manufacturer's way vs. that given in Fig. Z-33 and
> > wouldsincerely appreciate any help I can get on the single most
> > important wiring
> > in my project.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Les Davis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag Wiring |
Steve,
Your idea seems good to me. But I wonder why do you want to use the 2-50 switch?
Why not just wire the mags the way the Emagair folks suggest?
One thing I like about the AeroElectric idea is the concept of reducing "parts
count". More parts equals more possible trouble. But in this instance either system
uses at least 2 switches for each P-mag, so it is a wash.
I understand the need for the switch to shut off the power to the P-mag so you
can check the internal alternator but why hide them? If you hide them will you
need a warning light to tell you they are in one position or another? I have
been thinking I might use a toggle switch with an LED light in the end of it.
The AeroElectric z-33 figure shows the 2-10 switch being hooked up to P-mags using
wire colors. I think that it would be better if the connector plug was numbered
on those drawings. The E/P mags don't have colored wires on them.
I agree, we should hope that Bob and Emag can get together and come up with a one
size fits all, with a reduced parts count, and doesn't cause damage to the
P-mags with and accidental push or flick of a switch.
I propose until this situation is sorted out by us, that those of us installing
and flying behind these E/P mags follow the manufacturers wiring diagrams.
I do like Bob's suggestion to wire the mags to the battery bus.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Sampson
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: P-mag Wiring
Dave, It is very simple, except Bob's proposed wiring, abuses one preference
"by the good folk at EW-magair". E-mag's preference is that the mag is always
powered (presumably the firmware initialised) BEFORE the P-lead is opened. They
presumably have knowledge of how they wrote the code and the reason why they
say this.
Bob on the other hand has never explained, to my very limited knowledge, how
he can ignore this preference, and how it interacts with the code initialisation..
Bob?
It was for this reason that I asked if anyone could see a problem with a 2-50
type switch which I described before:
- in the bottom position with the master on, the P-mag was powered, but the P-lead
off.
- in the middle position (and this is the normal flying position) the power and
P-lead is on.
- in the top, momentary position, the power is cut. (To test the self generation.)
The P-lead remains on.
Operating this way the P-mag would see power once the master is on. It would
only loose power from the battery when the engine is running and you switch to
the self generation test. P-mag condone that.
The one important assumption I am making with my proposal, is that as you move
from the bottom to the midle position, the power cant 'flutter' for an instant,
and the P-lead connected, BEFORE the power connection is remade. I presume
with these switches the connection is not lost, however briefly? Bob, if you
are reading this can you confirm my understanding of how the contacts move in
these switvches?
Thanks, Steve.
On 25/09/2007, David & Elaine Lamphere wrote:
I hate to draw this out - but - according to the installation manual, page
20, we are only talking about one +13.8vdc lead, a circuit breaker and a test
switch (for a PMag, none required for an EMag) plus the necessary ground. That
said, you will note that the manual schematic shows the +13.8v dc lead coming
from the battery contactor (main bus). IF you ever have to shut down the main
bus (disengage the contactor) and you don't have an alternate source for EMag
power... well, you get the picture.... If you have 2 P-Mags and they are working
- no need to be concerned...
It really isn't THAT complicated an issue.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Ice
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: P-mag Wiring
Les,
Follow the folks that make them and use their wiring system. It is different
then the Z-11 & 33 but it's the way Emagair suggests. You can't go wrong using
the manufactures wiring diagram. Why do it differently when the Z-11 & 33
schematic offer no advantage.
Mike ice
----- Original Message -----
From: Les Davis <ldavis_pe(at)cox.net>
Date: Monday, September 24, 2007 12:36 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: P-mag Wiring
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> I'm also in the process of wiring up my dual p-mags. Given the
> concerns on
> this thread and others I'm not comfortable with the best way to
> proceed.I've generally followed the Z-11 architecture (batt bus,
> ebus and main bus)
> and have the dual 2-10 and a 1-3 switches to install the pmag
> wiring per
> Fig. Z-33 "Maintenance / Hand Prop Option for E-Mags / PMags".
>
> I'm aware that Emagaire recommends a wiring diagram that seems quite
> different than Fig. Z-33. I must admit I don't understand all of
> the issues
> in wiring the manufacturer's way vs. that given in Fig. Z-33 and
> wouldsincerely appreciate any help I can get on the single most
> important wiring
> in my project.
>
> Regards,
> Les Davis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Does anyone know if the new EFIS will be integrated with any of their
autopilot options? It would make a nice combo package.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Ernest Christley
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: TruTrak EFIS SG
-->
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Good Afternoon Echristley,
>
> I know absolutely nothing about all of those numbers you are
> mentioning, but
> a faster update rate buys you a LOT when you are using the instrument
for
> flight control.
>
> How do your numbers compare to the Garmin 396 and the Garmin 496
> numbers?
>
> While it is possible to use the flight instrument screen on a Garmin
> 196,
> 296 or 396 as a back up set of flight instruments, the 496 has a five
times
> faster update rate than does the 396 and it is a LOT easier to fly.
>
> The faster the update rate, the faster you can notice a turn. Stop the
> turn
> and you will survive. Let the turn go for a few seconds and you will
die.
>
>
Bob, if you update fast enough, all you notice is fluid motion. You
know your TV is really a series of still frames. At what point does the
moving picture go from being the flickering stop-motion that marked the
earliest years of the cinema, to the fluid life-like replica that is
modern cinema. It is right about 20 frames per second, 20Hz, for most
people. Some people can notice the flicker at that rate. Push it to
30Hz and no one can really tell.
So the advertisers say they can update the display at 60Hz, 60 times per
second, and this makes them better than the other guys that only update
at 20Hz. If you're bothered by the flickering in your TV that makes the
sports action jerky, I'd say the 60Hz is a selling point. Most of us
can get by with 20, though.
As a software engineer, the information does give some tantalizing clues
to the TruTrak's architecture vs other systems. An EFIS has to do 3
things. Collect some data, create a model of the world, and display a
picture. Designing the hardware for the system, you want to make $&(*
sure you have enough processing power to handle all three things. It
seems that TruTrak chose to write some tight code that runs in a loop.
Collect. Create. Display. Collect. Create. Display. This would make
for some clean, simple, linear code. I'd choose to have a safety factor
of 3 on the hardware, and 20Hz update rate is what's needed. So, the
60Hz result is about right.
Another way to set this up would be to maintain the model in memory.
You run one loop that constantly collects data an updates the model.
Another loop would create a picture from the model and display it. It
could possibly result in fewer hardware requirements, because you can
throttle back the picture drawing code to only what's necessary...20Hz.
Six of one. Half dozen of the other. I'm glad there's companies
approaching it from both directions, because in the end, we're the
winners.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: E-MAG wiring |
Brad,
I note that it has been about 18 months since we last "talked".
I've been trying to plan a trip to your neck of the woods
so we can meet personally. I was at OSH this past year but
had to make it a quick in-and-out to support the forums I'd
signed up for . . . my dad was in his last days in Medicine Lodge,
KS and I didn't have time for socializing.
In any case, I'd like to take this opportunity to renew our
acquaintance to update myself on the progress of your efforts
over the past year and a half. I also need to expand
my understanding of your products so that I don't offer
poor advise when publishing words and drawings that speak
of e-Mag devices.
After adding e-Mag products to our electrical system architecture
drawings over a year ago, I put on my "systems integrator"
hat for certified aircraft and deduced that from the
pilot's perspective, it's useful to test the systems ability
to run self powered during preflight. From both a builder's
and pilot's perspectives, it's useful to minimize the number
of switches on the panel.
I crafted a suggested wiring diagram which was published
as our Figure Z-33 and excerpted in one or more of the
full-up aircraft drawings. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z33K.pdf
In this drawing you can see that three-position, progressive
transfer switches are incorporated to have an OFF position
that grounds the RED control lead and breaks power to the
ORN lead from the battery bus.
The mid position removes the ground from the control lead
but does not apply power. The upper position leaves the
control lead ungrounded and adds bus power to the system.
The thought was that by means of logical positioning of
switches a pilot could demonstrate that a P-Mag would run
self-powered during a preflight run-up.
A third maintenance switch was necessary to take advantage
of built-in timing functions. A switch under the cowl
would offer a means by which the e-mag/p-mag could be
powered up for timing leaving the rest of the aircraft
'cold'.
Here are the Figure Z-33 notes that accompany the wiring
diagram in the AeroElectric Connection.
--------begin excerpt-------
Figure Z-33 P-Mag Maintenance Mode and Hand
Propping Option. E-Mags and P-Mags are a unique
product in that as the factory points out, have TWO
switchable functionsPower and control. Their installation
manuals suggest separate switches but in a quest for the
minimalist panel, I crafted the drawing for P-Mags in Figure
Z-33 which is repeated in Figure Z-13/8.
. . . now, be aware that the sequence of switching functions
depicted have been commented on by the good folks at EMagair
suggesting that switch movements should bring
power on first followed by activating the magneto.
My wiring diagram shows the opposite sequence, ignition
"active" first followed by supporting power. The reason is
quite simple. There are separate but divergent interests in
the ownership and operation of the p-mag:
(1) When sitting at the end of the runway doing a pre-flight,
the PILOT'S interest is "are the built in alternators for each
P-Mag functioning?" By wiring as I've suggested, moving
the switch from full up to the mid position deprives a P-Mag
of electrical support and (if the run-up RPMS are high
enough), the ignition will not falter when dropped to the mid
position. Of course, the opposite ignition needs to be
completely OFF at this time.
Pre-flight test sequence would be:
RUN-UP RPM . . . . . Set
L-IGN Switch . . . . . . . OFF
R-IGN Switch . . . . . . . ON but no BAT (mid position)
Note engine does not falter
L-IGN Switch . . . . . . . ON but no BAT (mid position)
R-IGN Switch . . . . . . . OFF
Note engine does not falter
Both IGN Switches . . . . BAT
(2) A secondary interest is what might be called the
maintenance mode for ground ops where the mechanic
wants to have the systems powered but inactive for using a
P-mag's built-in timing features -OR- for hand propping the
engine where again, it's useful to be able to hear the timing
buzzer.
In this mode, you MUST have battery power available to the
P-Mags even when in the inactive state. The diagram
shows a third switch (accessible through the oil check/
filler door?) that places temporary power on both ignitions
while leaving absolute control over activity in the hands of
whoever has access to pilot's controls on the panel.
If one chooses this architecture, then a light on the panel
should be included to alert the pilot should the switch be left
in the maintenance position. Not a big risk from a fight
operations and safety perspective but it WOULD run the
battery down.
This figure adds a switch to allow powering up the e-Mag/p-Mag
product while leaving it de-activated. This feature
activates the built in aural timing buzzer needed for timing
the ignition system -AND- for proper pre-positioning the
prop for hand-propping the engine.
--- end of excerpt ----
I've been told via the 'grapevine' that operating the
p-Mag in the manner suggested has some issues with respect
to product performance. Specifically that if power is
removed from a p-Mag and then replaced that the processor
wanders into the weeds and upsets the system's timing.
Understand my friend that I was in no way trying to do
an end-run on you . . . it seemed that the wiring/operating
scheme I was suggesting covered some bases that I would
be required to address with systems wieners, test pilots
and DERs should I be tasked with qualifying your product
onto a type certificated aircraft.
If indeed it is a bad thing to remove and then replace
power on a p-Mag while it's operating, then I'm mystified.
Irrespective of the aircraft's electrical architecture,
DO-160 suggests we design our products to gracefully
recover from a power interruption . . . if the
'grapevine' stories are accurate, then the p-Mag would
not fair well in a DO-160 investigation.
If the internal alternator is poised to pick up the load
during a power outage I'm further mystified as to why
a p-Mag would even be aware of bus power interruptions.
The spirit and intent of the proposed pre-flight test
was to demonstrate that the p-Mag was ready, willing
and able to run if the bus goes down. I would expect
the processor in a running p-Mag to be oblivious
of whether or not bus power was present.
I confess that my assumptions about functionality
of your product were being filtered through the logic
used to craft products for the TC aircraft world and
I may have stubbed my toe by not clearing this idea
with you. I'd be pleased to understand the true
nature of the beast with a goal of offering our
collective customers the best we know how to do in
crafting an owner built and maintained aircraft.
I still want to visit your facilities. I also
need to drop into George Braley's place in
southern OK. I might just take a couple days pretty
soon and make this trip happen. I've been 'retired'
from Beech for about two months . . . I've done more
new design work the past 6 weeks than I've done the
past 6-years! Problem is that what I thought was going
to be a 20 hr/wk retirement activity has turned into
a more-than-full-time job. I've told my principal
that I can do this for awhile . . . but I've have
some fun things that need to happen pretty soon too.
It would also be helpful if you could give me a
engineer's narrative of field problems with e-mag
products in the field. Folks are asking me about them
and I have to confess ignorance in the matter. Further,
if there's anything in my bag-of-tricks that might
be helpful in your endeavors, I can make you a really
great deal. I've written several times that the e-Mag
products promise to be the next great thing in ignition
systems for light aircraft. I'd be pleased to be of
assistance for making that hopeful assertion a
demonstrable reality.
Kindest regards,
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag Wiring |
>Dave, It is very simple, except Bob's proposed wiring, abuses one
>preference "by the good folk at EW-magair". E-mag's preference is that the
>mag is always powered (presumably the firmware initialised) BEFORE the
>P-lead is opened. They presumably have knowledge of how they wrote the
>code and the reason why they say this.
>
>Bob on the other hand has never explained, to my very limited knowledge,
>how he can ignore this preference, and how it interacts with the code
>initialisation.. Bob?
I've crafted a note to Brad Demet with a goal
of repairing a demonstrable disconnect in my understanding
of e-Mag's functionality. I've posted a copy of my
note to the list.
Sorry to take so long to climb back into this particular
'stew pot' . . . I've had too much stuff piled onto my
plate over the past 6 months. I trust that Brad and
friends will contribute to our understanding of the
physics and their design goals in due course.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
I have been looking at the new ICOM A210. Has anyone any experience
with ICOM built in intercoms? I know the new A210 is not available
yet, but I'm trying to make a buying decision with little information.
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 76 hours
Luana, IA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. M. Haught Jr. " <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TruTrak EFIS SG |
Check out Page 63 in the Sept. "Sport Aviation", Paragraph 3 of the ad -
"This is also true when operating the optional built-in autopilot."
Also www.trutrakap.com -
Already offered.
M. Haught
longg(at)pjm.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if the new EFIS will be integrated with any of their
> autopilot options? It would make a nice combo package.
>
> -----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
Thank you Bob for addressing this issue. I eagerly await Brad's reply.
Meanwhile, I can share my recent interaction with Brad on this issue:
Some time ago, there was an issue with a customers pmags who had wired
them
per Bobs suggested method. The Emagair folks had a concern that the uni
t
MAY have lost its timing due to switching from the upper switch positio
n
(bus power provided) to the middle position (bus power removed) and the
n
back again to the upper postion at a time when the engine RPMs were not
sufficient to allow the ignition to generate a spark on its own (i.e.,
around 900 rpm or less). Due to the existing firmware, this action MAY
have resulted in the loss of the timing memory in the unit. As a resul
t,
the firmware was upgraded to prevent the timing memory loss from occurr
ing.
I told Brad that my dual pmags are wired per Bob's method, and his
recommendation was to get the firmware upgrade, but that it was NOT wor
th
the trouble of changing the wiring. Their only concern at this point w
ith
Bob's method is that this is not the same wiring configuration used whe
n
they do their testing of the units, and therefore there is always some
chance that test results may not be applicable under Bob's method or an
y
other alternative wiring method. At the time of my conversation with Br
ad,
provided the firmware upgrade was completed, there were no other known
drawbacks for using Bob's method.
This may be comments from the peanut gallery at this point. I am please
d to
have Bob interacting with Emagair to get to the bottom of it.
Erich Weaver
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you receive this
message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not reta
in,
distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should dest
roy
the e-mail and any attachments or copies.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Yes but you need to delve a little deeper to understand the situation
with the dual ignition. An unfortunate failure mode that happened on two
A/C appeared to be ONE of the ignitions losing its timing on a P
mag...I.e going waay too advanced.
When this happens the other ignition although firing normally will have
no effect, the effective timing will be very adavnced and the engine can
detonate as happened with the two RV's running Pmags (I know cus mine
was one of them). This is not a dual failure however and could be argued
the pilots should have shut one of the units down to bring the timing
back under control....Ok I'll remember next time.
Standard mags do not genearlly have this particular failure mode but my
instructor did tell me about one some years back when a mag slipped in
its housing.
It seems that Emagair have now resolved this problem.
As long as the EI's are wired independantly they should be more reliable
and longer lasting than mags. Certainly if you wire both EI's from a
single fuse then you might as well start playing Russian roulette, but I
think with the above two proviso's dual Eis are a pretty bullet proof
setup.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin
Horton
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Ignition
-->
I agree that individual magnetos are not that reliable, but when
installed in a pair they do provide a reliable source of ignition.
I'm aware of at least two cases where an aircraft with electronic
ignition systems had a forced landing due to loss of ignition, or
improper functioning of the ignition system. So much for modern, more
reliable ignition systems.
Can anyone point me at an occurence where an aircraft with dual magnetos
had a power loss due to ignition system problems?
Kevin Horton
On 24 Sep 2007, at 09:20, Ernest Christley wrote:
>
>
> Richard, the fact that the mags require "regular maintenance" and
> "proper setup" by someone stricken with OCD to work as you describe
> is the classical definition of unreliable. You can't 'rely' on the
> average hack with wet ink on his A&P license to set it correctly,
> and the fact that it needs to be done so often means the hack will
> be doing it or you will be. The electronic ignitions are not
> nearly as reliant on special training or fine attention to
> installation and maintenance details. You plug it in, and if it
> works, it works as designed.
>
> The fact that the HKS700E was designed to have a significant drop
> on one ignition is a red herring. That could have easily been
> designed in on purpose so that you would have a definite
> reassurance that both are working after the mag check.
>
> The mag is a complicated electromechanical device that is a
> masterpiece of engineering. But they are not reliable. Else, why
> do you carry two of them around, and why do you check both of them
> just before takeoff on every flight?
>
> Richard Girard wrote:
>> Peter, Upon what data does your statement, "the average mag is
>> horribly unreliable", come from? Properly setup and serviced,
>> quite the opposite is true, in my experience. Also your statement
>> that the dual ignition is required by jug size is questionable, too.
>> Last year while in class to get my LSA repairman maintenance
>> ticket I set the up two Slick mags to go into an A75. I set the
>> internal timing of the mags so that it was dead on for both, and
>> the engine timing the same. The instructor was on the verge of
>> accusing me of having OCD as I checked and rechecked until I was
>> satisfied it was as close as I could get it. When I was finally
>> satisfied, we pulled the plane out to the ramp and started it up.
>> After it was up to operating temp I did a mag check. It scared the
>> wits out of me when I got NO mag drop. Now the EIS installed on
>> the plane only read in 10 RPM increments, so there may have been
>> some drop, but the instrument didn't read it and I could neither
>> hear it, nor feel it in the seat of my pants. I thought sure I had
>> installed the P leads improperly and was ready to use the fuel
>> valve to shut the engine down when the instructor stepped in,
>> checked all the connections and pronounced them good. I did a
>> second mag check, and still got no detectable drop. I pulled the
>> throttle back to idle, closed both mag switches and the engine
>> died just as it should. What gives, I always gotten some drop on
>> every plane I've ever been in. We pulled out the continuity
>> checker and went over the P leads again. Everything was as it
>> should be. Restarted the engine, established 1700 RPM and checked
>> again. NO drop. Shut down the left mag, let the engine run for a
>> bit and shut down the right mag. The engine died. Restarted, shut
>> down the right mag and let the engine run. Again, NO mag drop.
>> Killed the left mag, engine died. I'm sure the WTFO expression on
>> my face begged an explanation. The instructor, whose list of certs
>> look like alphabet soup gone mad, said it's simple really. It's a
>> very low time engine (his personal E-AB aircraft, by the way) and
>> the students in the class had set everything up as near perfect as
>> was humanly possible, hence no discernible mag drop. He recounted
>> how many a long faced pilot, discouraged by the $2000 quote for
>> parts and labor from another shop has become his loyal customer
>> when a new set of points and careful setting of internal mag
>> timing and engine timing has restored the mags to proper working
>> order for less than a 1/4 of the original estimate.
>> Now lets take the other end of the spectrum. I have and HKS700E
September 02, 2007 - September 25, 2007
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-he