AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-hl
December 07, 2007 - December 19, 2007
A question I have is do I still need to do the 30-day accuracy checks on my
VOR receivers? I assume the answer is no unless I plan to use my VOR
receivers for navigation. I can't remember the last time I did that and have
no plans to do so in the future. I've always used the GPS even when flying
on airways. At Smyrna (MQY) it's not a big deal since there is a VOT on the
field and it's usually working. There are lots of airports though that don't
have a VOT and you can't receive the VOR on the ground. In that case you
can't launch into IMC unless you have done an accuracy check. Presumably I'm
now exempt from that if my GPS is functioning.
Anyone know the answer?"
Marty in Brentwood TN
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio question |
Bert,
The KX-125 has an audio mixer in it. You need to add a couple of Single
Pole Single Throw switches to select which receive audio's you want to
hear and a Double Pole Double Throw switch to select which radio the Mic
and PTT is hooked up to. You don't need any electronics outside what the
KX-125 already has.
You need the KX-125 install manual to see all the wiring.
- Bill
Bert Murillo wrote:
>
> Bob:
>
> I have tried to contact you thru this, but no luck. I guess i had the wrong
> e-mail? Some one fro the list gave me this one. Hope you receive it.
>
> I want to add a second radio to my rv6a, but because lack of space I cannot
> install an Audio panel.
> Question is, if I add another radio, I am thinking of the
> MicroAir...small and not
> too expensive) Is there any Switch or way that I cfould use both radios, that
is
> switch from one to another, just as when you have the Audio Panel??
>
> I have now the Kin's radio 125..
>
> Thanks for your reply
>
> Bert
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Good Afternoon Dj,
This will get us into semantics, but the WAAS equipped aircraft does not
receive data directly from any ground station. There are stations on the ground
that send corrections to the satellites for the WAAS receivers. Those
corrections are then sent back to the airplane, but the airplane equipment gets
all
of it's signal from the satellite.
Make any sense at all?
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 12/7/2007 12:54:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
deej(at)deej.net writes:
Doesn't the WAAS system have ground based transmitters in addition to
the satellite signal to give it the extra precision? If so, those may
count for this requirement.
-Dj
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Afternoon Dj,
>
> This will get us into semantics, but the WAAS equipped aircraft does
> not receive data directly from any ground station. There are stations
> on the ground that send corrections to the satellites for the WAAS
> receivers. Those corrections are then sent back to the airplane, but
> the airplane equipment gets all of it's signal from the satellite.
>
> Make any sense at all?
>
Yes, that is how I thought it worked. I found this on the Garmin site:
http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/waas.html
and this on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System
Since there are "ground facilities" that are a part of the WAAS
system, I wonder if it could be argued that a WAAS equipped aircraft
might meet the "navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities
to be used" part of 91.205. If nothing else, it adds another twist... :-)
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check question |
I don't see what the big deal is, if you have dual VOR receivers just run a
cross check between the 2 and record it along with the date and your
initials in a small note book you keep in the airplane. Something to occupy
your time on those long cross country flights.
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 Dj
Merrill
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Afternoon Dj,
>
> This will get us into semantics, but the WAAS equipped aircraft does
> not receive data directly from any ground station. There are stations
> on the ground that send corrections to the satellites for the WAAS
> receivers. Those corrections are then sent back to the airplane, but
> the airplane equipment gets all of it's signal from the satellite.
>
> Make any sense at all?
>
Yes, that is how I thought it worked. I found this on the Garmin site:
http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/waas.html
and this on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System
Since there are "ground facilities" that are a part of the WAAS
system, I wonder if it could be argued that a WAAS equipped aircraft
might meet the "navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities
to be used" part of 91.205. If nothing else, it adds another twist... :-)
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Hi Dj,
Here is my take.
As long as you have the latest software in your "W" receiver, it is approved
for sole means navigation.
The FEDs say we need "navigation equipment suitable for the ground
facilities to be used" in Part 91.205. Since we are using no ground facilities,
we
need no navigation equipment that uses it!
Whadda Ya think?
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 12/7/2007 2:57:36 P.M. Central Standard Time,
deej(at)deej.net writes:
Since there are "ground facilities" that are a part of the WAAS
system, I wonder if it could be argued that a WAAS equipped aircraft
might meet the "navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities
to be used" part of 91.205. If nothing else, it adds another twist... :-)
-Dj
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Good Afternoon Bruce,
Did I miss something? I thought the question was whether or not we need to
carry any VOR equipment.
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 12/7/2007 3:28:42 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
I don't see what the big deal is, if you have dual VOR receivers just run a
cross check between the 2 and record it along with the date and your
initials in a small note book you keep in the airplane. Something to occupy
your time on those long cross country flights.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check question |
I think your tilting at windmills. I for one, don't want to get into
that
kind of pissing contest with the Feds.
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
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
Hi Dj,
Here is my take.
As long as you have the latest software in your "W" receiver, it is
approved
for sole means navigation.
The FEDs say we need "navigation equipment suitable for the ground
facilities to be used" in Part 91.205. Since we are using no ground
facilities, we need no navigation equipment that uses it!
Whadda Ya think?
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 12/7/2007 2:57:36 P.M. Central Standard Time,
deej(at)deej.net writes:
Since there are "ground facilities" that are a part of the WAAS
system, I wonder if it could be argued that a WAAS equipped aircraft
might meet the "navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities
to be used" part of 91.205. If nothing else, it adds another twist...
:-)
-Dj
hottest products and top
<http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aolt
op000
30000000002> money wasters of 2007.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check question |
If it's in the airplane and you're on an IFR FP and are ramp checked,
the
FAA is going to ask for the VOR check log along with the other
paperwork.
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
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
Good Afternoon Bruce,
Did I miss something? I thought the question was whether or not we need
to
carry any VOR equipment.
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 12/7/2007 3:28:42 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
I don't see what the big deal is, if you have dual VOR receivers just
run a
cross check between the 2 and record it along with the date and your
initials in a small note book you keep in the airplane. Something to
occupy
your time on those long cross country flights.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
hottest products and top
<http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aolt
op000
30000000002> money wasters of 2007.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check question |
One other thing, the FAR's specifically require the log to be 'in the
airplane'.
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
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
Good Afternoon Bruce,
Did I miss something? I thought the question was whether or not we need
to
carry any VOR equipment.
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 12/7/2007 3:28:42 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
I don't see what the big deal is, if you have dual VOR receivers just
run a
cross check between the 2 and record it along with the date and your
initials in a small note book you keep in the airplane. Something to
occupy
your time on those long cross country flights.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
hottest products and top
<http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aolt
op000
30000000002> money wasters of 2007.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check question |
Not even that.
You can also use your W for en route flight with an expired database provid
ed you have verified the en-route waypoints.
I think that means you can use it but you can't shoot GPS approaches with a
n expired database.
presumably that means you can shppt VOR and ILS approaches with an expired
'base...But that is a little off topic to the original question.
Either way if you are using GPS (with or without an expired database) only
to navigate and you don't use VOR's then in theory you don't need to do the
accuracy checks.
For me personally I really can't justify the cost of the database upgrades
and so I use my buddy's month old chip and we rotate...I just don't do GPS
approaches with it.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
Hi Dj,
Here is my take.
As long as you have the latest software in your "W" receiver, it is approve
d for sole means navigation.
The FEDs say we need "navigation equipment suitable for the ground faciliti
es to be used" in Part 91.205. Since we are using no ground facilities, w
e need no navigation equipment that uses it!
Whadda Ya think?
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 12/7/2007 2:57:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, deej@deej.
net writes:
Since there are "ground facilities" that are a part of the WAAS
system, I wonder if it could be argued that a WAAS equipped aircraft
might meet the "navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities
to be used" part of 91.205. If nothing else, it adds another twist... :-)
-Dj
hottest products and top money wasters<http://money.aol.com/top5/general/wa
ys-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aoltop00030000000002> of 2007.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
That is the way I read the regs. The wording is quite simple, and
clear. If you don't plan to use VOR, then no cross check is required.
But, just to play devil's advocate, even though there is no regulatory
need to do this cross check, why not do it? That way, if the GPS ever
craps out on you, or WAAS is not available for some reason (a single
satellite failure could kill WAAS, depending on where you are), you
can legally use the VOR to get back home under IFR. If you haven't
done and logged the VOR checks, and the GPS dies, then you are
grounded until the weather allows VFR. If the VOR was not working
properly, I would want to know about it.
Kevin Horton
On 7-Dec-07, at 16:37 , BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hi Dj,
>
> Here is my take.
>
> As long as you have the latest software in your "W" receiver, it is
> approved for sole means navigation.
>
> The FEDs say we need "navigation equipment suitable for the ground
> facilities to be used" in Part 91.205. Since we are using no
> ground facilities, we need no navigation equipment that uses it!
>
> Whadda Ya think?
>
> 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 12/7/2007 2:57:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, deej(at)deej.net
> writes:
> Since there are "ground facilities" that are a part of the WAAS
> system, I wonder if it could be argued that a WAAS equipped aircraft
> might meet the "navigation equipment suitable for the ground
> facilities
> to be used" part of 91.205. If nothing else, it adds another
> twist... :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check |
question
Good Afternoon Again Bruce,
Where is the conflict and what windmills are being tilted at?
What do YOU think "sole means" refers to?
The FAA has been defining "sole means" and requiring equipment other than
GPS for about fifteen years telling us we need supplemental navigational
equipment until a system of "sole means" navigation was developed.
The FAA is now telling us that the WAAS corrected GPS is such a sole means
system.
Who is telling you that it is not?
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 12/7/2007 3:56:53 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
I think your tilting at windmills. I for one, don=99t want to get int
o that
kind of pissing contest with the Feds.
Bruce
_www.Glasair.org_ (http://www.glasair.org/)
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Bruce Gray wrote:
>
> I think your tilting at windmills. I for one, dont want to get into
> that kind of pissing contest with the Feds.
>
I'm merely interested because I am curious and want to learn. I really
don't see where there is any sort of "pissing contest" going on... :-)
As far as I can see we are just having a friendly discussion about the
FARs and topics relating to navigation equipment that can be used in
aircraft, and whether the rules would allow a WAAS GPS system to be used
as a primary source of navigation without a NAV radio installed.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check question |
Oh come on now, they write all the gargantuan rules and you don't want to h
ave fun finding a loophole in them?
Where's yer sense of adventure Bruce?...:)
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:52 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
I think your tilting at windmills. I for one, don't want to get into that k
ind of pissing contest with the Feds.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org<http://www.Glasair.org>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
Hi Dj,
Here is my take.
As long as you have the latest software in your "W" receiver, it is approve
d for sole means navigation.
The FEDs say we need "navigation equipment suitable for the ground faciliti
es to be used" in Part 91.205. Since we are using no ground facilities, w
e need no navigation equipment that uses it!
Whadda Ya think?
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 12/7/2007 2:57:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, deej@deej.
net writes:
Since there are "ground facilities" that are a part of the WAAS
system, I wonder if it could be argued that a WAAS equipped aircraft
might meet the "navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities
to be used" part of 91.205. If nothing else, it adds another twist... :-)
-Dj
hottest products and top money wasters<http://money.aol.com/top5/general/wa
ys-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aoltop00030000000002> of 2007.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Good Evening Bruce,
However, if your are on an IFR flight Plan and do not have any VOR equipmen
t
on board or if the VOR equipment you have is suitably configured and
placarded as in operative, you are still perfectly legal.
I think you are fighting a battle that does not exist.
If you really want to get into picking belly button lint, I don't think eve
n
an operative VOR has to have VOR check listed as long as you have not used
it for IFR flight and can show that you do not intend it to be used it for I
FR
flight.
I think doing so is about as dumb as getting into this argument, but if I
somehow found myself at a hearing on the subject, I'll bet a milk shake I wo
uld
win!
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 12/7/2007 4:03:22 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
If it=99s in the airplane and you=99re on an IFR FP and are ram
p checked, the
FAA is going to ask for the VOR check log along with the other paperwork.
Bruce
_www.Glasair.org_ (http://www.glasair.org/)
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Good Evening Frank,
The method you are using is probably correct. I say probably because there
is a chance that your individual FAA Approved Flight Manual Supplement may say
something different. If your's is a carbon copy of the 430W or 530W
Supplement, what you say is absolutely correct. If you have had an approval via
the
local approval process, there could be, but probably isn't, a catch.
Incidentally, there is a small possibility that you could use your out of
date card for some approaches. The language for that interpretation is currently
under a rewrite by the FAA so there really isn't much use of discussing it
now. If you can catch me at a flyin, I would be happy to discuss it more
thoroughly. In any case, it is primarily your individual Flight Manual Supplement
that determines what you can and cannot do with your set.
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 12/7/2007 4:07:21 P.M. Central Standard Time,
frank.hinde(at)hp.com writes:
For me personally I really can't justify the cost of the database upgrades
and so I use my buddy's month old chip and we rotate...I just don't do GPS
approaches with it.
Frank
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check question |
Dj,
I have several friends at the local FSDO. They all tell me that if they do a
ramp check and any paperwork is wrong or missing, they'll violate you. IIRC,
one of them even said that the VOR check log was a favorite of his. I don't
have any problem with discussing 'how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin', but I would advise anyone who flys IFR and has a VOR on board, even if
it's a redundant part of a GPS, to keep a VOR check log in the airplane.
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 Dj
Merrill
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
Bruce Gray wrote:
>
> I think your tilting at windmills. I for one, don't want to get into
> that kind of pissing contest with the Feds.
>
I'm merely interested because I am curious and want to learn. I really
don't see where there is any sort of "pissing contest" going on... :-)
As far as I can see we are just having a friendly discussion about the
FARs and topics relating to navigation equipment that can be used in
aircraft, and whether the rules would allow a WAAS GPS system to be used
as a primary source of navigation without a NAV radio installed.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Good Evening Kevin.
Without going back and reading all the garbage that I have already wasted on
this discussion, I do not believe I ever suggested that it be done any way
other than as you suggest.
I keep my datacards up to date and I make sure my VORs are ready to use. I
also properly maintain my ADF and DME even though I rarely, if ever, have any
use for them. The question asked was as to the legality of not having a VOR.
The new rule for the "W" receivers does allow flight using the "W" as the
primary sole means source. No VOR needed.
Incidentally, if you can find an airway that is based on NDB navigation, you
can fly that airway without any VOR. The ADF is qualified as a "Sole Means"
navigation source.
Incidentally, there are many places you can get a suitable VOR check on the
ground, so you would not necessarily be grounded until the weather got better.
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 12/7/2007 4:11:40 P.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01(at)rogers.com writes:
If you haven't
done and logged the VOR checks, and the GPS dies, then you are
grounded until the weather allows VFR. If the VOR was not working
properly, I would want to know about it.
Kevin Horton
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check question |
Thanks Bob.....
I have to ask...What flight manual suppliment?.....I am experimental is thi
s a document that is specific to certified birds, cus I'm not sure I have s
een mine.
I agree there is a question on some of the approaches, I mean even in a VOR
/DME approach the GPS is being used in lieu of the DME so in theory that ma
kes VOR/DME's illegal with an expried database.
Mind you is it really unsafe?..I mean all the data is right there on the pl
ate and the GPS is simply measuring the distance to the runway...So unless
they moved the runway in the last month it would presumably get you on the
ground in one piece..:)
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
Good Evening Frank,
The method you are using is probably correct. I say probably because there
is a chance that your individual FAA Approved Flight Manual Supplement may
say something different. If your's is a carbon copy of the 430W or 530W Sup
plement, what you say is absolutely correct. If you have had an approval vi
a the local approval process, there could be, but probably isn't, a catch.
Incidentally, there is a small possibility that you could use your out of d
ate card for some approaches. The language for that interpretation is curre
ntly under a rewrite by the FAA so there really isn't much use of discussin
g it now. If you can catch me at a flyin, I would be happy to discuss it mo
re thoroughly. In any case, it is primarily your individual Flight Manual S
upplement that determines what you can and cannot do with your set.
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 12/7/2007 4:07:21 P.M. Central Standard Time, frank.hind
e(at)hp.com writes:
For me personally I really can't justify the cost of the database upgrades
and so I use my buddy's month old chip and we rotate...I just don't do GPS
approaches with it.
Frank
hottest products and top money wasters<http://money.aol.com/top5/general/wa
ys-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aoltop00030000000002> of 2007.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Good Evening Bruce,
That does bring up a whole 'nother subject!
Most of the FAA inspectors that I have known were good guys and strong
aviation enthusiasts. However, just like in any other group of individuals, there
will always be a few bad apples. Your friend who delights in finding an out
of date VOR check list and delights in filing a violation is a very sick
individual.
If I was hit by someone that stupid, I would gladly fight him or her to the
full extent of the law so as be sure he/she learned his/her lesson. There is
no room in this industry for such individuals.
Now, that does not mean that I do not make mistakes, but if I were using a
VOR for IFR navigation, you can be sure there will be suitable record of it
having been checked as required. I doubt very much if your friend would
actually be so stupid as to file a violation in a situation where the check was
not
required so I doubt if there is any problem. As long as we are within the
rules, Stupid FED or Good FED, we do not need to be fearful of a ramp check.
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 12/7/2007 4:41:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
Dj,
I have several friends at the local FSDO. They all tell me that if they do a
ramp check and any paperwork is wrong or missing, they'll violate you. IIRC,
one of them even said that the VOR check log was a favorite of his. I don't
have any problem with discussing 'how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin', but I would advise anyone who flys IFR and has a VOR on board, even if
it's a redundant part of a GPS, to keep a VOR check log in the airplane.
Bruce
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
And what do we do if we have an amateur-built aircraft, and thus do
not have a flight manual supplement? It seems we fall back on the
info in the AIM.
Kevin Horton
On 7-Dec-07, at 17:30 , BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening Frank,
>
> The method you are using is probably correct. I say probably because
> there is a chance that your individual FAA Approved Flight Manual
> Supplement may say something different. If your's is a carbon copy
> of the 430W or 530W Supplement, what you say is absolutely correct.
> If you have had an approval via the local approval process, there
> could be, but probably isn't, a catch.
>
> Incidentally, there is a small possibility that you could use your
> out of date card for some approaches. The language for that
> interpretation is currently under a rewrite by the FAA so there
> really isn't much use of discussing it now. If you can catch me at a
> flyin, I would be happy to discuss it more thoroughly. In any case,
> it is primarily your individual Flight Manual Supplement that
> determines what you can and cannot do with your set.
>
> 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 12/7/2007 4:07:21 P.M. Central Standard Time, frank.hinde(at)hp.com
> writes:
> For me personally I really can't justify the cost of the database
> upgrades and so I use my buddy's month old chip and we rotate...I
> just don't do GPS approaches with it.
>
> Frank
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Good Evening Frank,
You have me there! I would have to research that a bit.
I am reasonably confident that you do not need the flight manual supplement,
but you may be required to operate via the language that has been suggested
by the manufacturer for that equipment.
My understanding is that experimental aircraft are required to be equipped
for IFR flight in the same manner as are certified airplanes, but that they do
not have to have as much documentation of the suitability of the equipment as
do certified airplanes.
I am confident of the legalities as I stated for certified airplanes and I
am certain that if you meet those standards, you would have no problems with
officialdom. However, exactly how much substantiation is required is something
of which I have no knowledge.
Off the top of my head, I would think you would be able to do a lot more
self verification of data, but you would want to be sure enough of your position
so that you would be comfortable substantiating your position at a hearing if
it ever came to that.
Interesting question.
You ask: "Mind you, is it really unsafe?"
I don't think so.
Personally. I would like to see us be able to self load waypoints so that no
datacard would be required. If we do a good job of self loading or data
verification, there is absolutely no question it is safe.
The problem is that everybody does make mistakes. I think you will find that
anyone who has used flight management computers of the type used by Korean
Airlines Flight 007 will admit to having made mistakes similar to the one they
made, but that they caught it before the mistake became a problem. The
current press of the FAA is to eliminate that sort of a mistake by requiring us
to
only be allowed to navigate via data that has been preloaded into our
navigational equipment via a datacard.
I don't like it, but it may be the better way, I really don't know!
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 12/7/2007 5:02:41 P.M. Central Standard Time,
frank.hinde(at)hp.com writes:
Thanks Bob.....
I have to ask...What flight manual supplement?.....I am experimental is this
a document that is specific to certified birds, cus I'm not sure I have seen
mine.
I agree there is a question on some of the approaches, I mean even in a
VOR/DME approach the GPS is being used in lieu of the DME so in theory that makes
VOR/DME's illegal with an expired database.
Mind you is it really unsafe?..I mean all the data is right there on the
plate and the GPS is simply measuring the distance to the runway...So unless
they moved the runway in the last month it would presumably get you on the
ground in one piece..:)
Frank
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Good Evening Kevin,
Very true and that section is currently under a rewrite.
It will be interesting to see what comes out!
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 12/7/2007 5:17:34 P.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01(at)rogers.com writes:
And what do we do if we have an amateur-built aircraft, and thus do
not have a flight manual supplement? It seems we fall back on the
info in the AIM.
Kevin Horton
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Another tangent:
I think I could come up with a way to satisfy myself that my single VOR
was accurate, even without tuning a VOT or going to a checkpoint - as long
as my GPS was working and set to navigate to the location of the station
and I could receive a solid VOR signal.. Would it satisfy the FAA? Can I
gauge the accuracy of a CDI driven by the VOR with one driven by a GPS?
Maybe the FAA hasn't approved this yet but I think it would be at least as
rigorous as comparing one VOR receiver against another...
Regards,
Matt-
> Good Evening Bruce,
>
> However, if your are on an IFR flight Plan and do not have any VOR
> equipment
> on board or if the VOR equipment you have is suitably configured and
> placarded as in operative, you are still perfectly legal.
>
> I think you are fighting a battle that does not exist.
>
> If you really want to get into picking belly button lint, I don't think
> even
> an operative VOR has to have VOR check listed as long as you have not used
> it for IFR flight and can show that you do not intend it to be used it for
> IFR
> flight.
>
> I think doing so is about as dumb as getting into this argument, but if I
> somehow found myself at a hearing on the subject, I'll bet a milk shake I
> would
> win!
>
> 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 12/7/2007 4:03:22 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
>
> If its in the airplane and youre on an IFR FP and are ramp checked,
> the
> FAA is going to ask for the VOR check log along with the other paperwork.
>
> Bruce
> _www.Glasair.org_ (http://www.glasair.org/)
>
>
> **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's
> hottest
> products.
> (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Good Evening Matt,
I don't have my IFRs with me just now and my memory of the fine points of
checking VORs is limited, but aren't we allowed to use a position over a known
point to verify the accuracy?
Since we have GPS signal that gives us a known position within about ten
feet, I would think that would serve as the known point for a VOR check.
What are your thoughts?
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 12/7/2007 6:13:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather(at)spro.net writes:
Another tangent:
I think I could come up with a way to satisfy myself that my single VOR
was accurate, even without tuning a VOT or going to a checkpoint - as long
as my GPS was working and set to navigate to the location of the station
and I could receive a solid VOR signal.. Would it satisfy the FAA? Can I
gauge the accuracy of a CDI driven by the VOR with one driven by a GPS?
Maybe the FAA hasn't approved this yet but I think it would be at least as
rigorous as comparing one VOR receiver against another...
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check question |
I gotta side with Bruce on this one.
Two years ago I was ramp checked after landing at CHA just after dark. I
was in a rented C172 building CC time with an inoperative and placarded NAV
radio. The inspector warned me that even with an INOP NAV I was required to
have the VOR Check Log... He suggested removing the radio to avoid the
violation.
Lesson: If you got it, you gotta log it.
Bret Smith
RV-9A N16BL
Blue Ridge, Ga
www.FlightInnovations.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
Hello Kevin
As I understand it you have a 55 amp alternator and a 60 amp ANL. Yes
the ANL is slow acting but I am not surprised that it would occasionally
blow under the circumstances you describe. After startup the 55 amp
nominal alternator could easilly be putting in excess of 60 amps when
connected to a battery that has been sitting idle for several weeks.
Personally I'd recommend the next size larger ANL.
Ken
Kevin Boddicker wrote:
>
> Kevin Boddicker
> Tri Q 200 N7868B hours
> Luana, IA.
>
>
> On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Matt Prather wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> It's an internally regulated alternator and you "excite the field".. By
>> what means? Are you just connecting the sense line?
>
>
> I have a split rocker "ala Cessna". After start up I "turn on"
> excite the field.
>
>>
>> Do you know that the ANL is blown before turning on the alternator? I
>> wonder if it's actually being blown out by a bad ground. I can't
>> visualize a conduction path at the moment, but possibly the b-lead
>> represents a ground path during starter operation?
>>
>> Another thought.. Are you sure it's actually a 55A alternator? Would a
>> 110A unit blow an ANL60? Maybe not given the long time constant of
>> ANL's,
>> and assuming a charged battery.
>
>
> It is a 55A DN alt. converted from a Geo Metro.
> I "think I have it figured out. Not sure yet. I think the B-lead at
> the alt contactor is so close to the alum sheet that covers the
> firewall, or may be touching. If that is so the current could be able
> to go to ground via the firewall, forrest of tabs, ground lug to
> engine. I thought this last summer when I had the trouble, but could
> not find any sign of an arc. The termination is covered with black
> shrink tube, but it has some cracks in it. I do remember it getting
> close to the firewall as I tightened it last Sunday night. I also
> recall moving it away from the FW last summer and not letting it get
> close this fall after engine reinstall. I will check it out ASAP and
> let the group know. May be a while it is snowing here, and the
> forecast calls for more.
> The runway has been close since Saturday due to ice.
> Any comments are welcome.
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator
>>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using
>>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
>>>> scheme?
>>>>
>>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes I do have the b-lead contactor in line after the ANL 60.
>>> I have had no trouble with the system other than this. Happened
>>> twice. Both times after engine removal. Seems odd.
>>> The first time I thought it was the alternator, so I took the engine
>>> back off and had it checked. The tests came out fine. I think he
>>> checked the diodes, then ran it up to check for output. Again fine.
>>> After I replaced the ANL 60 things were working smoothly. I did have
>>> the engine off during annual, and to trouble with that reinstall when
>>> I fired it up.
>>> Not so this time.
>>> Thanks for your help,
>>>
>>> Kevin Boddicker
>>> Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours
>>> Luana, IA.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 5, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bob,
>>>>> I have burned two ANL 60 series limiters in six months. I have no
>>>>> idea why.
>>>>> The circumstances were the same both times though. I had just put
>>>>> my engine back on the plane after some maintenance. After start up
>>>>> I excite the field. This has been my method to check that the
>>>>> alternator is working. Both times the LV light has remained on.
>>>>> With no indication of charging. I thought my battery might have
>>>>> been low, but putting on the charger this morning indicated not.
>>>>> Not a huge deal, but at $20 a copy it is getting old.
>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>> Using a 55 amp DN IR alt. with crowbar OV.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you have 70+ hours on the airplane, do I presume
>>>> correctly that the system HAS functioned most of
>>>> the time without blowing the limiter?
>>>>
>>>> Normally, there's but two things that will open
>>>> this limiter. (1) hard fault on the alternator
>>>> side of the limiter. I.e. shorted diodes in
>>>> alternator or shorted wiring between alternator
>>>> and b-lead terminal or (2) battery in backwards.
>>>> or external battery connected to system is
>>>> jumper cabled in backwards.
>>>>
>>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator
>>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using
>>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
>>>> scheme?
>>>>
>>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check question |
Good Evening Bret,
I would be happy to take that one to a hearing. There is nothing that says
you have to have the VOR check if you are not using it for IFR flight. That
is pretty well spelled put in the following:
Sec. 91.171 - VOR equipment check for IFR operations.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using the VOR system of
radio navigation unless the VOR equipment of that aircraft --
(1) Is maintained, checked, and inspected under an approved procedure; or
(2) Has been operationally checked within the preceding 30 days, and was
found to be within the limits of the permissible indicated bearing error set
forth in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
Did the FAA person tell you what regulation required the check he/she wanted
to see?
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 12/7/2007 6:58:26 P.M. Central Standard Time,
smithhb(at)tds.net writes:
I gotta side with Bruce on this one.
Two years ago I was ramp checked after landing at CHA just after dark. I
was in a rented C172 building CC time with an inoperative and placarded NAV
radio. The inspector warned me that even with an INOP NAV I was required to
have the VOR Check Log... He suggested removing the radio to avoid the
violation.
Lesson: If you got it, you gotta log it.
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check question |
Old Bob,
To be honest, it was a pretty rattling experience. We were in a rented
aircraft 50 miles from home, the FBO we rented the aircraft from was closed
and we were hustling to find the POH, W&B, etc. Heck, it took us a while to
even find the Registration. The whole experience was really a blur.
The only "violation" he discussed with me was the lack of the VOR Check Log
and the missing W&B. I never questioned him on the VOR log but did
challenge him that the W&B sheet did not need to be in the plane at all
times. He did not cite me for anything but boy, was I glad to leave
Chattanooga!
Bret Smith
RV-9A N16BL
Blue Ridge, Ga
www.FlightInnovations.com <http://www.flightinnovations.com/>
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 8:19 PM
Subject: Required VOR Check. Was: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check
question
Good Evening Bret,
I would be happy to take that one to a hearing. There is nothing that says
you have to have the VOR check if you are not using it for IFR flight. That
is pretty well spelled put in the following:
Sec. 91.171 - VOR equipment check for IFR operations.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using the VOR system of
radio navigation unless the VOR equipment of that aircraft --
(1) Is maintained, checked, and inspected under an approved procedure; or
(2) Has been operationally checked within the preceding 30 days, and was
found to be within the limits of the permissible indicated bearing error set
forth in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
Did the FAA person tell you what regulation required the check he/she wanted
to see?
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 12/7/2007 6:58:26 P.M. Central Standard Time,
smithhb(at)tds.net writes:
I gotta side with Bruce on this one.
Two years ago I was ramp checked after landing at CHA just after dark. I
was in a rented C172 building CC time with an inoperative and placarded NAV
radio. The inspector warned me that even with an INOP NAV I was required to
have the VOR Check Log... He suggested removing the radio to avoid the
violation.
Lesson: If you got it, you gotta log it.
_____
hottest products and top money wasters
<http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aoltop000
30000000002> of 2007.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Good Evening Bret,
Glad it all worked out OK..
The vast majority of the FEDs are real good folks. Once in a while they get
a bit mixed up as to what they think should be the norm and what the
regulations actually require. I can certainly understand the anxiety felt by young
folks during their early contacts with a FED. It can be very unnerving.
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 12/7/2007 8:23:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,
smithhb(at)tds.net writes:
The only "violation" he discussed with me was the lack of the VOR Check Log
and the missing W&B. I never questioned him on the VOR log but did challenge
him that the W&B sheet did not need to be in the plane at all times. He
did not cite me for anything but boy, was I glad to leave Chattanooga!
Bret Smith
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Your presumption is incorrect. VORs are only needed if you intend to use
them. You can fly most anywhere in Alaska with a good ADF, places and
airways that can't be flown with only VOR. Yes, they still have colored
airways, although may be phasing out for GPS. VOR couldn't handle the
distances and terrain in Alaska. Even some jet routes required ADF for
some segments.
Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
> Interesting question. SFAR 97 allows the exclusive use of GPS for IFR
> navigation in Alaska so if the person asking the question flies only
> in Alaska the answer would be obvious.
>
> You don't state if his airplane is certified or experimental. Most
> experimental aircraft come with operating limitations that
> specifically call out FAR 91.205 for IFR operations and FAR 91.205
> requires navigation equipment suitable for the ground facilities to be
> used. Many people read that as a requirement for VOR capability in
> the aircraft (including EAA, I believe).
>
> FAR 91.171 requires the VOR check every 30 days for "...aircraft under
> IFR using the VOR system of radio navigation....". No indication what
> you have to do if you don't use the VOR system of radio navigation.
>
> This is a case where the regulations need to catch up with the state
> of the art. It would appear VOR equipment is required but you don't
> have to check it unless you're going to use it.
>
> One question. What are you going to do if you get a RAIM message from
> your GPS system that you can't shoot the approach and then have to use
> VOR to complete the flight? In my opinion it would be worthwhile to
> keep the VOR checks up to date until the regulations catch up.
>
> Greg
>
el
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Hmm,.
Which FAR would that be Bruce? I don't see that language in 91.171 that
covers VOR checks, and it specifically says " shall enter the date,
place, bearing error, and sign the aircraft log or other record"
Now we all know that the aircraft log(s) specifically do NOT have to be
kept in the plane, nor do other aircraft records besides the
airworthiness, registration, (used to be radio license), operators
manual (POH or equiv) and weight and balance. The old ARROW acronym.
Perhaps there is some other FAR that I can't think of right now?
Kelly
Bruce Gray wrote:
>
> One other thing, the FARs specifically require the log to be in the
> airplane.
>
> Bruce
>
> www.Glasair.org <http://www.Glasair.org>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
Thanks Ken,
I was afraid to go much larger. Have no reason to have fear accept
for lack of knowledge on the subject. I too thought the battery was
low, but when I put the charger maintainer on it, the charged light
came on within thirty seconds.
I am rethinking the whole system at this time. I have what some
consider ancient tech. Long story, but the guys in the know don't
like the drive gear arrangement etc on the case mounted alt that I have.
I am looking at B&C or Plane Power as replacements.
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours
Luana, IA.
On Dec 7, 2007, at 7:02 PM, Ken wrote:
>
> Hello Kevin
> As I understand it you have a 55 amp alternator and a 60 amp ANL.
> Yes the ANL is slow acting but I am not surprised that it would
> occasionally blow under the circumstances you describe. After
> startup the 55 amp nominal alternator could easilly be putting in
> excess of 60 amps when connected to a battery that has been sitting
> idle for several weeks. Personally I'd recommend the next size
> larger ANL.
> Ken
>
> Kevin Boddicker wrote:
>
>>
>> Kevin Boddicker
>> Tri Q 200 N7868B hours
>> Luana, IA.
>>
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Matt Prather wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> It's an internally regulated alternator and you "excite the
>>> field".. By
>>> what means? Are you just connecting the sense line?
>>
>>
>> I have a split rocker "ala Cessna". After start up I "turn on"
>> excite the field.
>>
>>>
>>> Do you know that the ANL is blown before turning on the
>>> alternator? I
>>> wonder if it's actually being blown out by a bad ground. I can't
>>> visualize a conduction path at the moment, but possibly the b-lead
>>> represents a ground path during starter operation?
>>>
>>> Another thought.. Are you sure it's actually a 55A alternator?
>>> Would a
>>> 110A unit blow an ANL60? Maybe not given the long time constant
>>> of ANL's,
>>> and assuming a charged battery.
>>
>>
>> It is a 55A DN alt. converted from a Geo Metro.
>> I "think I have it figured out. Not sure yet. I think the B-lead
>> at the alt contactor is so close to the alum sheet that covers the
>> firewall, or may be touching. If that is so the current could be
>> able to go to ground via the firewall, forrest of tabs, ground lug
>> to engine. I thought this last summer when I had the trouble, but
>> could not find any sign of an arc. The termination is covered with
>> black shrink tube, but it has some cracks in it. I do remember it
>> getting close to the firewall as I tightened it last Sunday night.
>> I also recall moving it away from the FW last summer and not
>> letting it get close this fall after engine reinstall. I will
>> check it out ASAP and let the group know. May be a while it is
>> snowing here, and the forecast calls for more.
>> The runway has been close since Saturday due to ice. Any comments
>> are welcome. Thanks,
>> Kevin
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator
>>>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using
>>>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
>>>>> scheme?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes I do have the b-lead contactor in line after the ANL 60.
>>>> I have had no trouble with the system other than this. Happened
>>>> twice. Both times after engine removal. Seems odd.
>>>> The first time I thought it was the alternator, so I took the
>>>> engine
>>>> back off and had it checked. The tests came out fine. I think he
>>>> checked the diodes, then ran it up to check for output. Again fine.
>>>> After I replaced the ANL 60 things were working smoothly. I did
>>>> have
>>>> the engine off during annual, and to trouble with that reinstall
>>>> when
>>>> I fired it up.
>>>> Not so this time.
>>>> Thanks for your help,
>>>>
>>>> Kevin Boddicker
>>>> Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours
>>>> Luana, IA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 5, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>> I have burned two ANL 60 series limiters in six months. I have no
>>>>>> idea why.
>>>>>> The circumstances were the same both times though. I had just put
>>>>>> my engine back on the plane after some maintenance. After
>>>>>> start up
>>>>>> I excite the field. This has been my method to check that the
>>>>>> alternator is working. Both times the LV light has remained on.
>>>>>> With no indication of charging. I thought my battery might have
>>>>>> been low, but putting on the charger this morning indicated not.
>>>>>> Not a huge deal, but at $20 a copy it is getting old.
>>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>>> Using a 55 amp DN IR alt. with crowbar OV.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have 70+ hours on the airplane, do I presume
>>>>> correctly that the system HAS functioned most of
>>>>> the time without blowing the limiter?
>>>>>
>>>>> Normally, there's but two things that will open
>>>>> this limiter. (1) hard fault on the alternator
>>>>> side of the limiter. I.e. shorted diodes in
>>>>> alternator or shorted wiring between alternator
>>>>> and b-lead terminal or (2) battery in backwards.
>>>>> or external battery connected to system is
>>>>> jumper cabled in backwards.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have an internally regulated alternator
>>>>> do I also presume correctly that you're using
>>>>> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
>>>>> scheme?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob . . .
>>>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
Kevin
Well the thing is that the only purpose for the ANL is to prevent a fire
in the rare case of a short in the alternator or the heavy wire from the
alternator. The battery will normally supply enough current to blow a
fairly large ANL. So the only other consideration is the size of the
wire (the B lead) from the alternator. That wire is sized to handle the
current output of the alternator. A problem in the alternator or with
the wire is almost always a dead short that will flow much higher
current than the alternator could ever put out and therefore pop a large
ANL quite quickly before the wire gets hot. Generally the ANL or circuit
breaker or fuse on the B lead needs to be a bit larger than the
alternator can ever put out. Perhaps 20% higher than rated.
Even with a fully charged battery I would expect the regulator to
command max output for a few seconds after cranking. If the rpm
immediately goes high enough to actually produce max amperage you will
indeed get it. Keeping the rpm low for perhaps 20 seconds or so would
prevent tripping your ANL as the battery rapidly recovers from cranking,
but I think your symptoms are hinting that a larger ANL is a good idea.
Good luck with it.
Ken
Kevin Boddicker wrote:
> Thanks Ken,
> I was afraid to go much larger. Have no reason to have fear accept for
> lack of knowledge on the subject. I too thought the battery was low,
> but when I put the charger maintainer on it, the charged light came on
> within thirty seconds.
> I am rethinking the whole system at this time. I have what some
> consider ancient tech. Long story, but the guys in the know don't like
> the drive gear arrangement etc on the case mounted alt that I have.
> I am looking at B&C or Plane Power as replacements.
>
> Kevin Boddicker
> Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours
> Luana, IA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check question |
Data card have nothing to do with the FAA other then they be up to date
if used. Data cards are more about efficiency and making profits.
Their are many navigation computer still used today that do not use data
card and are still legal (and yes I know you can=92t use these for RNP
and
RNAV APP and DEP). If you could effectively operate a navigation unit
without the navdata cards people would be doing it. The problem is
there is just too much information that you have to be able to program
even for short flights in the IFR world.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
Good Evening Frank,
You have me there! I would have to research that a bit.
I am reasonably confident that you do not need the flight manual
supplement, but you may be required to operate via the language that has
been suggested by the manufacturer for that equipment.
My understanding is that experimental aircraft are required to be
equipped for IFR flight in the same manner as are certified airplanes,
but that they do not have to have as much documentation of the
suitability of the equipment as do certified airplanes.
I am confident of the legalities as I stated for certified airplanes and
I am certain that if you meet those standards, you would have no
problems with officialdom. However, exactly how much substantiation is
required is something of which I have no knowledge.
Off the top of my head, I would think you would be able to do a lot more
self verification of data, but you would want to be sure enough of your
position so that you would be comfortable substantiating your position
at a hearing if it ever came to that.
Interesting question.
You ask: "Mind you, is it really unsafe?"
I don't think so.
Personally. I would like to see us be able to self load waypoints so
that no datacard would be required. If we do a good job of self loading
or data verification, there is absolutely no question it is safe.
The problem is that everybody does make mistakes. I think you will find
that anyone who has used flight management computers of the type used by
Korean Airlines Flight 007 will admit to having made mistakes similar to
the one they made, but that they caught it before the mistake became a
problem. The current press of the FAA is to eliminate that sort of a
mistake by requiring us to only be allowed to navigate via data that has
been preloaded into our navigational equipment via a datacard.
I don't like it, but it may be the better way, I really don't know!
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 12/7/2007 5:02:41 P.M. Central Standard Time,
frank.hinde(at)hp.com writes:
Thanks Bob.....
I have to ask...What flight manual supplement?.....I am experimental is
this a document that is specific to certified birds, cus I'm not sure I
have seen mine.
I agree there is a question on some of the approaches, I mean even in a
VOR/DME approach the GPS is being used in lieu of the DME so in theory
that makes VOR/DME's illegal with an expired database.
Mind you is it really unsafe?..I mean all the data is right there on the
plate and the GPS is simply measuring the distance to the runway...So
unless they moved the runway in the last month it would presumably get
you on the ground in one piece..:)
Frank
hottest products and HYPERLINK
"http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aolt
o
p00030000000002" \ntop money wasters of 2007.
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | IFR instrument check question |
I would disagree with this position! If the item is placarded inop,
which means it is in effect not installed. Not to be confused with not
working. If an airplane does not have a legal MEL then all the required
equipment must be working. The exception would be equipment listed as
inoperative that is not parted of the TC listed as required equipment.
A log in this case would not be required or one could argue that the
inoperative sticker is effectively the VOR log stating that it does not
comply and does not meet the requirement for legal IFR flight. Remember
a VOR log is not defined, only what must be recorded if it has been
done.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bret
Smith
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR instrument check question
I gotta side with Bruce on this one.
Two years ago I was ramp checked after landing at CHA just after dark.
I
was in a rented C172 building CC time with an inoperative and placarded
NAV
radio. The inspector warned me that even with an INOP NAV I was
required to
have the VOR Check Log... He suggested removing the radio to avoid the
violation.
Lesson: If you got it, you gotta log it.
Bret Smith
RV-9A N16BL
Blue Ridge, Ga
www.FlightInnovations.com
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR instrument check question |
Good Afternoon Mike,
I am having a bit of a problem following your thought.
Are you stating that something I suggested is in error, or do you just wish
to point out that the data is not always easy to find?
The FAA has written many interpretations that the certificated folks need t
o
consider when flying IFR via GPS.
Some are pretty straight forward.
Others can be a bit obscure and open to further interpretation.
The current language of most approvals states quite clearly that the DATA
must always be current and that any waypoints used for an approach must be
retrieved from a fixed data base within the navigational unit and not from p
ilot
loaded data.
The DATA card has become the accepted method of updating the data for most
currently produced General Aviation units. There are some manufacturers wh
o
have gotten approval to use the data from an out of date card if that data
can
be verified by comparison with another current source. If the data is
current, it is usable. If it is not current, it is not usable.
Other certificated approvals have no allowance for pilot verification and
the only approved source of data is a current datacard. The language control
ling
such things is currently being rewritten by the FAA. It may change soon.
Which way it will go and whether or not it will affect the Experimental
crowd, we have no inkling at all.
If you can add any information to the mix, I would love to hear it.
If you know of a case where I am spreading false information, I am even mor
e
anxious to be apprised of that!
My belief is that such activity is what we have been discussing and it is
what I have attempted to explain. If anyone feels my thoughts are in error,
I
certainly hope they will explain why so that we can all gain a better
understanding of how to operate safely and legally within the system.
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 12/8/2007 12:41:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mlas(at)cox.net writes:
Data card have nothing to do with the FAA other then they be up to date if
used. Data cards are more about efficiency and making profits. Their are
many navigation computer still used today that do not use data card and are
still legal (and yes I know you can=99t use these for RNP and RNAV AP
P and DEP).
If you could effectively operate a navigation unit without the navdata card
s
people would be doing it. The problem is there is just too much informati
on
that you have to be able to program even for short flights in the IFR world
.
Mike
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "david stroud" <dstroud(at)storm.ca> |
| Subject: | Wiring diagram needed for homebuilt |
Lad...I'm getting short on time building this Fairchild project
and to be honest, I just don't want to put the time into developing
a wiring system / diagram for my project. I'm going thru enough
learning curves as it is. Blasphemy to some you may say...but is
there anyone on the list that might be willing to build me up a
wiring system for a price? The system is relatively simple...air
start solenoid for starter, one 70 amp alt, 28 volts with two
step down converters for a few 14 volt requirements, some
VFR only instruments, strobe and position lights etc.
If interested, please advise off list to dstroud(at)storm.ca
Thanks..
David Stroud Ottawa, Canada
C-FDWS Christavia
Fairchild 51 under construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: com antenna problem |
>
>
>Thank you Bob, Ralph & Bob F.,
>
>A few tests confirmed exactly what you said, Bob.
>Just moving my body while txmitting resulted in large
>needle deflections.
>As somebody mentioned, the RV is full metal.
>The ammeter is one that Vans sells : a 40A shunt model, -40/0/+40 scale.
>The coil is housed in an aluminum cylinder, inside the plastic instrument.
>There is a PCB with some resistors, transistors etc.
>The instrument itself is located in a centre console under the main instr
>panel.
>The voltmeters we used to play with during elec lessons were far less
>complicated...
>We measured 7mV over the shunt with all avionics turned on and when
>pressing the PTT it shot up to 12mV.
>My friend brought a handheld RX and our tx tested fine.
>
>Thanks a million for yr help.
Transistors are to radio frequency energy as
mobile homes are to tornados. It is all too
common in the OBAM aviation community that the
designers of electro-whizzies have not considered
the potential effects of radio frequency energy
coming from a perfectly normal comm transmitter
and antenna installation.
I looked at Van's listing for the -40/0/+40
instrument and it's not clear that this is
an "electronically enhanced" instrument. Other
than two wires from the shunt to the instrument,
are there any other wires that need connection
to say ship's power?
By the way, the amount of RF found in the cockpit
of an RV (due to proximity to a properly installed
comm antenna system) is no greater than what is
expected in light aircraft. It's an exceedingly
rare situation where an observed interference
between the comm transmitter and some piece of
panel mounted equipment is the fault of the
installer or serendipitous combination of conditions.
It's nearly always a shortcoming of the victim
system's design.
Do the installation instructions for this insrument
mention anything an installer should do to forestall
such interference?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
>
>Hello Kevin
>As I understand it you have a 55 amp alternator and a 60 amp ANL. Yes the
>ANL is slow acting but I am not surprised that it would occasionally blow
>under the circumstances you describe. After startup the 55 amp nominal
>alternator could easilly be putting in excess of 60 amps when connected to
>a battery that has been sitting idle for several weeks. Personally I'd
>recommend the next size larger ANL.
>Ken
ANL and ANN series devices are not called "fuses" for
a reason. The physics of their operation is described
at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ANL_Specs.pdf
Note that both of the ANL30 devices are infinite carry
time at 90 Amps! An ANL 60 is infinite carry time at
somewhere around 130 Amps. These devices are clearly
intended to avoid nuisance trips due to continuous
normal current at nameplate rating COMBINED with
the occasional bodacious inrush current or other
transient.
The problem Kevin is experiencing is certain to be
the result of some "hard" fault somewhere.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Erratic Alternator Control with LR3C-28 |
>I wonder if anyone else using the LR3C-28 and the Kelly Aerospace 100 A
>gear driven alternator (common on new TCM IO-550N) has experienced erratic
>overcharging when electrical load is low? Not enough overcharge to trip
>the over voltage circuit, but enough to cause the bus voltage to reach
>30.5 V in spikes from the normal 28.5 V. This erratic voltage surging
>only occurs at engine RPM over about 2100 and when electrical load is
>below about 10 A.
>
>
>Here s just a brief run-down of the couple things I ve looked at.
>
>
>I ve replaced ground wires, circuit breakers, re-crimped all ring
>terminals and measured voltages on the regulator during flight. In
>looking at the field terminal of the LR3C (pin 4) with an oscilloscope in
>flight, I see an average voltage of about 5 to 6 volts but I also see 25
>volt spikes occurring almost all the time with spacing anywhere from about
>10 milliseconds to about 100 milliseconds. These spikes go away when
>electrical load is increased and field voltage raises above 10 V.
>
>
>At low engine RPM, less than 1200, the charging system is stable
>independent of load.
>
>
>If this subtle electrical problem is familiar to you and you have an idea
>what might be going on, I d appreciate a reply.
I've never had occasion to run this regulator/alternator
combination. In fact, beyond the original bench testing we
did for 28V systems on MUCH smaller alternators back about
15 years ago, I don't think there's been any further IR&D
investigation of this regulator's dynamic performance.
I pretty sure B&C still runs each regulator on the test
stand with a real alternator and battery but it's a cursory
acceptance test. Being a linear regulator with some unforgiving
requirements for close loop voltage stability, it would
not surprise me if your particular combination exhibits
the characteristic you've observed. Sounds to me like some
"tweaking" of internal component values may be necessary
to bring this situation to heel.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring diagram needed for homebuilt |
>
>Lad...I'm getting short on time building this Fairchild project
>and to be honest, I just don't want to put the time into developing
>a wiring system / diagram for my project. I'm going thru enough
>learning curves as it is. Blasphemy to some you may say...but is
>there anyone on the list that might be willing to build me up a
>wiring system for a price? The system is relatively simple...air
>start solenoid for starter, one 70 amp alt, 28 volts with two
>step down converters for a few 14 volt requirements, some
>VFR only instruments, strobe and position lights etc.
>If interested, please advise off list to dstroud(at)storm.ca
>Thanks..
>
>David Stroud Ottawa, Canada
>C-FDWS Christavia
>Fairchild 51 under construction
Sorry. I've got about 300% more consulting tasks than I'd
planned to take on when I 'retired' last July. Have
you looked at Figure Z-11 in:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11K.pdf
Except for deciding which devices feed from
which busses, this drawing should get you a good
start.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lee Logan" <leeloganster(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 12/08/07 |
I was doing a little refresher reading the other day and though I don't have
it in front of me right now, I think some of what I read was pertinent to
the "IFR instrument check" question. If I am remembering correctly, the FAA
IFR Instrument manual contains a discussion of the issue and points out that
you might reasonably assume that a certified WAAS GPS could be used as a
sole navigation reference under all conditions, but that such was not the
case. The manual pointed out that when you file to an IFR destination you
may find your only suitable alternate requires VOR/ILS and has no GPS or GPS
overlay approach. That would suggest that your VOR would then require a
current accuracy check to be used, otherwise you could not legally file the
flight.
Not trying further complicate this clearly transitional issue, but I
*think*it even said you had to have an operating VOR/ILS to even file
an alternate
of any kind.
Maybe someone can clear this up as well.
Regards,
Lee...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 12/08/07 |
Good Morning Lee,
Having a VHF navigation capability will add flexibility, but it is not
required if you have a fully qualified TSO C146a box on board.
Obviously, if you have only the "Sole Means" GPS equipment available, you
cannot use, as an IFR alternate, an airport that has no GPS approach unless you
can arrive at the alternate in good VFR conditions.
There is NO need for any approach capability at the alternate if the weather
meets the following conditions.
>From the FARs:
-----------------------
(2) If no instrument approach procedure has been published in _part 97_
(http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/97-index.shtml) of this chapter and no special
instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the
operator, for the alternate airport, the ceiling and visibility minima are
those allowing descent from the MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR.
-----------------------
Unfortunately, an awful lot of so called experts tend to add their personal
operating procedures to the FARs when they tell others what to do. I suppose I
am guilty of that at times, but I sure try hard to really find out what the
rules are first.
As a good friend of mine has said. "If you do not know the rules, how ya
gonna cheat?"
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 12/9/2007 8:36:03 A.M. Central Standard Time,
leeloganster(at)gmail.com writes:
I was doing a little refresher reading the other day and though I don't have
it in front of me right now, I think some of what I read was pertinent to
the "IFR instrument check" question. If I am remembering correctly, the FAA
IFR Instrument manual contains a discussion of the issue and points out that
you might reasonably assume that a certified WAAS GPS could be used as a sole
navigation reference under all conditions, but that such was not the case.
The manual pointed out that when you file to an IFR destination you may find
your only suitable alternate requires VOR/ILS and has no GPS or GPS overlay
approach. That would suggest that your VOR would then require a current
accuracy check to be used, otherwise you could not legally file the flight.
Not trying further complicate this clearly transitional issue, but I think
it even said you had to have an operating VOR/ILS to even file an alternate of
any kind.
Maybe someone can clear this up as well.
Regards,
Lee...
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 12/08/07 |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Lee,
Yee gads, what kind of alternate is that that has only a VOR/ILS
approach and no GPS? And no, one of the advantages of the WAAS
certified GPS is you can file an alternate that still relies on a GPS
approach. With a non-certified GPS, the alternate must be with an
approach that does not rely on the GPS.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lee
Logan
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 9:31 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 10 Msgs -
12/08/07
I was doing a little refresher reading the other day and though I don't
have it in front of me right now, I think some of what I read was
pertinent to the "IFR instrument check" question. If I am remembering
correctly, the FAA IFR Instrument manual contains a discussion of the
issue and points out that you might reasonably assume that a certified
WAAS GPS could be used as a sole navigation reference under all
conditions, but that such was not the case. The manual pointed out that
when you file to an IFR destination you may find your only suitable
alternate requires VOR/ILS and has no GPS or GPS overlay approach. That
would suggest that your VOR would then require a current accuracy check
to be used, otherwise you could not legally file the flight.
Not trying further complicate this clearly transitional issue, but I
think it even said you had to have an operating VOR/ILS to even file an
alternate of any kind.
Maybe someone can clear this up as well.
Regards,
Lee...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring diagram needed for homebuilt |
David,
It occurs to me that there are any number of folks on the List
with the skills and perhaps the willingness to assist you. I will
suggest that anyone who would like to join David in getting his
project off the ground might write to him and negotiate. Keep
in mind that the data only needs to be clearly stated which
does NOT require tools like AutoCAD. The task would certainly
be easier if a reference designator list and bill of materials
were crafted in Excel.
Bottom line folks is that here's a free-market opportunity
for someone. What do you have to offer David that he is willing
to pay for where the outcome of the experience is pleasant
for both of you?
Further, consider that the materials you deliver need not be
the work product of you alone. I would hope that folks here
on the List are just as willing to help find answers to
your questions whether the end product goes on YOUR airplane
or somebody else's. I know I am.
Bob . . .
>>
>>Lad...I'm getting short on time building this Fairchild project
>>and to be honest, I just don't want to put the time into developing
>>a wiring system / diagram for my project. I'm going thru enough
>>learning curves as it is. Blasphemy to some you may say...but is
>>there anyone on the list that might be willing to build me up a
>>wiring system for a price? The system is relatively simple...air
>>start solenoid for starter, one 70 amp alt, 28 volts with two
>>step down converters for a few 14 volt requirements, some
>>VFR only instruments, strobe and position lights etc.
>>If interested, please advise off list to dstroud(at)storm.ca
>>Thanks..
>>
>>David Stroud Ottawa, Canada
>>C-FDWS Christavia
>>Fairchild 51 under construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-19/RB Eng Bat (2-10) switch unused in On postion? |
| From: | "n707sm" <mobrien02(at)comcast.net> |
I'm confused about the wiring for the "Eng Bat (2-10)" switch depicted in
the Z-19/RB architecture diagram. Please help me to understand.
Here is what I read this switch wiring to be:
Pin 1: Connected to Pin 5
Pin 2: Feed to energize Engine Battery contactor
Pin 3: Open
Pin 4: 12 volts input
Pin 5: Connected to Pin 1
Pin 6: Ground
I can see how the switch will provide 12 volts to the Engine Battery
Contactor in the up "Auto" position, but I don't understand how this switch
(in this wiring configuration) will provide 12 volts to the Engine Battery
contactor in the center "On" position.
To test, I have connected Pin 1 to Pin 5. Then with a continuity test
function on my Auto Ranging Multimeter, I test for continuity between Pin 4 and
Pin 2 with the switch in the center On position, and also in the up Auto position.
I only receive continuity in the up Auto position.
What am I missing?
Thanks in advance,
Michael
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=151331#151331
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19/RB Eng Bat (2-10) switch unused in On postion? |
>
>I'm confused about the wiring for the "Eng Bat (2-10)" switch depicted in
>the Z-19/RB architecture diagram. Please help me to understand.
>Here is what I read this switch wiring to be:
>
>Pin 1: Connected to Pin 5
>Pin 2: Feed to energize Engine Battery contactor
>Pin 3: Open
>Pin 4: 12 volts input
>Pin 5: Connected to Pin 1
>Pin 6: Ground
>
>I can see how the switch will provide 12 volts to the Engine Battery
>Contactor in the up "Auto" position, but I don't understand how this switch
>(in this wiring configuration) will provide 12 volts to the Engine Battery
>contactor in the center "On" position.
>
>To test, I have connected Pin 1 to Pin 5. Then with a continuity test
>function on my Auto Ranging Multimeter, I test for continuity between Pin
>4 and Pin 2 with the switch in the center On position, and also in the up
>Auto position. I only receive continuity in the up Auto position.
the 2-10 switch is a progressive transfer device
where with the switch full down connections are
2-3 and 5-6. When you move the switch to the mid
position, only one side changes to connect 2-1. The
other side is still 5-6. In the full up position,
the other switch moves to connect 5-4 with 2-1
still connected. So with 1 and 5 connected externally,
the 2-10 forms a single pole, three position switch
with the "COM"mon at terminal 2.
So, with the switch at OFF (full down) terminal
2 connects to 3 which is not connected, hence the
battery contactor is OFF. Moving to the mid position
connects 2-1, 5-6 thereby grounding the battery
contactor coil and manually energizing it. In the
full up position, connects 2-1, 5-4 which gives
control of the battery contactor over to the Aux
Battery Management Module. The ABMM will pull
terminal 4 to ground if and only if the bus
voltage is sustained above 13.0 volts, i.e.
the alternator is running.
If the alternator quits or is shut down for any
reason, the bus voltage quickly drops below 13.0
volts and the ABMM immediatly and automatically
opens the aux battery contactor thus isolating it
from the rest of the system. In this condition,
only those devices fed from the Aux Battery Bus
receive aux battery power.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stringham <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Z 13-8 P-mag wiring |
I am now to the point of wiring up my dual p-mags per Z 13-8. I am not qui
te sure of connection points P-Mag to the S700-2-10 switch. As viewed from
the screw side of the P-Mag plug they are numbered 1 through 6 Left to righ
t according to the P-Mag install manual. So my question is on the Z13-8 dia
gram the green/orange/red /black would correspond to which numbers on P-mag
install diagram. They have #1 black as the ground...#4 orange connects to
your ignition ON/OFF (ground) p-lead switch.....#5 red connects to your mai
n 12 volt aircraft buss through a dedicated circuit breaker (not provided)
using 18 gauge wire. E-MAGs should use a 5-amp
breaker, and P-MAGs should use a 3-amp switchable breaker.=946=94 green is
a courtesy (optional) connection to provide a digital tack signal.
So it appears to me the function/position of Z13-8 to P-Mag manual are the
same the question in my mind is are the numbers the same????? as the water
drips from behind my ear!!!!!!!
Also Bob is there any new info on the p-mag wiring potential changes......
..........
Thanks inadvance for your help.
Frank @ sgu RV7A light at the end of thwe tunnel...hopeing it isn't a bi
g ole train!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z 13-8 P-mag wiring |
Frank,
I wouldn't expect any answers back from Bob on this question but here is
the answer your looking for.
#'s 1 & 4 are both grounds. The #1 grounds to the panel, The #4 is the
ground (kill) for the mag.
#5 is the red wire that goes to power.
# 6 is the org wire that gores to the Tach.
BUT: I would suggest you don't follow the Z-13 in wiring the E/P mags.
The Emagair folks don't use that system why would you?
I started to use the Z figures to wire the E/P mags and changed my mind.
They are not wired the way the Emagair folks recommend if you wire them
that way. But it was hard to divert from using the Z figures as I was
attached to them But in this case the Z figure offers no advantage
versus using the Emagair system and is in fact more confusing, at least
to me. The Z figure uses the same parts count as the Emagair system and
doesn't require a "hidden" switch to disable the mags. The Emagair
system just uses on off toggles which are hard to screw up.
Mike Ice
baffles and cowling
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Stringham
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 3:25 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Z 13-8 P-mag wiring
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
I am now to the point of wiring up my dual p-mags per Z 13-8. I am
not quite sure of connection points P-Mag to the S700-2-10 switch. As
viewed from the screw side of the P-Mag plug they are numbered 1 through
6 Left to right according to the P-Mag install manual. So my question is
on the Z13-8 diagram the green/orange/red /black would correspond to
which numbers on P-mag install diagram. They have #1 black as the
ground...#4 orange connects to your ignition ON/OFF (ground) p-lead
switch.....#5 red connects to your main 12 volt aircraft buss through a
dedicated circuit breaker (not provided) using 18 gauge wire. E-MAGs
should use a 5-amp
breaker, and P-MAGs should use a 3-amp switchable breaker.=946=94
green is a courtesy (optional) connection to provide a digital tack
signal.
So it appears to me the function/position of Z13-8 to P-Mag manual are
the same the question in my mind is are the numbers the same????? as the
water drips from behind my ear!!!!!!!
Also Bob is there any new info on the p-mag wiring potential
changes................
Thanks inadvance for your help.
Frank @ sgu RV7A light at the end of thwe tunnel...hopeing it isn't
a big ole train!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Heffley <list(at)toddheffley.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio question |
Sir,
I would like to offer a different idea to adding a second com to your
airplane.
While the reply that the KX125 has audio amp capability may be true -
I have wired such an application my self - I would like to offer you
an alternative.
you might consider a hand held radio as a second com in a VFR installation.
Here is my thinking.
You can purchase a better radio for a lower price in the handheld
versions. Just simple economics. More demand for handhelds, better
competition in the market= more value.
A second com that is wired to "a few switches" is subject to the same
failures as the first com. Mic jack loose, stuck key line, depleted
battery, Over-voltage. screw loose on the what-ever-bus.....
For a second radio, a quality handheld, MOUNTED to the panel, with a
REAL antenna, a fresh set of batteries (or two), and a mic and phone
jack that are easy to get to, provides a more independent backup than
a second installed radio.
This idea is not helpful for a rusted heldheld radio with 5 loose
cables, dead batteries, rolling around in a pick-up back at the
airport.
And lastly, I am the poor slob (Avionics Technician) that ends up
troubleshooting "A few switches" with no prints.
Just something to consider, sorry about the rant.
todd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Electronic Auto Light Dimming Circuit |
Most Avionics items (Nav/Comm etc) come with a circuit that
automatically dims the "lights" as it gets darker using a light sensor.
I would like to employ such a device to auto dim the few lights in my
C/P that are not already auto dimmed. I have searched for such a device
with no luck. Does anyone know of such a device?
TIA
Mark Banus
G SIIS FT
N600
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Electronic Auto Light Dimming Circuit |
Mark,
This is what I used, Not flying yet so I don't have a long term
impression although is seems well designed. I am not using the auto dim
function although I could add it.
http://www.a-and-t-labs.com/K11_Dimmer/index.htm
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Z 13-8 P-mag wiring |
>
>----------
>
> I am now to the point of wiring up my dual p-mags per Z 13-8. I am not
> quite sure of connection points P-Mag to the S700-2-10 switch. As viewed
> from the screw side of the P-Mag plug they are numbered 1 through 6 Left
> to right according to the P-Mag install manual. So my question is on the
> Z13-8 diagram the green/orange/red /black would correspond to which
> numbers on P-mag install diagram. They have #1 black as the ground...#4
> orange connects to your ignition ON/OFF (ground) p-lead switch.....#5 red
> connects to your main 12 volt aircraft buss through a dedicated circuit
> breaker (not provided) using 18 gauge wire. E-MAGs should use a 5-amp
>
>breaker, and P-MAGs should use a 3-amp switchable breaker."6" green is a
>courtesy (optional) connection to provide a digital tack signal.
>
>
>So it appears to me the function/position of Z13-8 to P-Mag manual are the
>same the question in my mind is are the numbers the same????? as the water
>drips from behind my ear!!!!!!!
>
>
>Also Bob is there any new info on the p-mag wiring potential
>changes................
Figure Z-13/8 has been updated at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11L.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/Z13-8m.dwg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/Z13-8m.dwg
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19/RB Eng Bat (2-10) switch unused in On postion? |
| From: | "n707sm" <mobrien02(at)comcast.net> |
Bob,
Obviously I was confused. Makes perfect sense as described (of course!).
Thank you for clearing that up
:)
Michael
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=151410#151410
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
The only problem I see is the lower power output of the handheld (less
then 1 watt). If you're flying an airplane that flies slow and you
normally call the airport at 5-15 miles out, it should be fine. But I
find that trying to make transmissions at distances of more then 15
miles within 4000 feet of the ground are hit and miss. Just a thought!
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Todd
Heffley
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio question
Sir,
I would like to offer a different idea to adding a second com to your
airplane.
While the reply that the KX125 has audio amp capability may be true -
I have wired such an application my self - I would like to offer you
an alternative.
you might consider a hand held radio as a second com in a VFR
installation.
Here is my thinking.
You can purchase a better radio for a lower price in the handheld
versions. Just simple economics. More demand for handhelds, better
competition in the market= more value.
A second com that is wired to "a few switches" is subject to the same
failures as the first com. Mic jack loose, stuck key line, depleted
battery, Over-voltage. screw loose on the what-ever-bus.....
For a second radio, a quality handheld, MOUNTED to the panel, with a
REAL antenna, a fresh set of batteries (or two), and a mic and phone
jack that are easy to get to, provides a more independent backup than
a second installed radio.
This idea is not helpful for a rusted heldheld radio with 5 loose
cables, dead batteries, rolling around in a pick-up back at the
airport.
And lastly, I am the poor slob (Avionics Technician) that ends up
troubleshooting "A few switches" with no prints.
Just something to consider, sorry about the rant.
todd
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)MCHSI.COM> |
I am making my version of Z-19. As far as I can tell, the only difference
in the RB version is that it has different wire sizes for the starter. Is
this correct? I don't want to miss anything.
Thanks.
Sam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "david stroud" <dstroud(at)storm.ca> |
| Subject: | Joint use of two power converters |
Lads, thanks to Bob's lead to existing diagrams and timely input
from several listers, I've decided to forge ahead with my own
wiring diagram/system.
Due to equipment already on hand, I will be running 28v for most
requirements and power down to 14v via two Collins PWC 150
power converters to run the radio, transponder and turn coordinator.
These converters take in 28 v and output 14v 5amp and 2 amps
each. There's no handy way to mount a fuse between their outputs
and the end user and I do have two very nice auto style fuse holders
on hand that I was intending to use as a 28v and 14v bus bar. The
+ input on these fuse holders is a single item leading to all + sides
of the fuses. Therefore, the question is, does anyone know if both
outputs of both converters can be "ganged together" as a common
+ input to the 14v fuse holder/bus and collectively provide a 14 amp
service? This would simplify fusing the radio, tpdr and turn coordinator
and maybe even provide service for a spare.
I dragged the net but found no info on ganging together the outputs of
these converters.
Thanks.
David Stroud Ottawa, Canada
C-FDWS Christavia
Fairchild 51 under construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stringham <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Z 13-8 P-mag wiring |
Mike
Thanks for the info........
Frank @ SGU RV7A.................NDY................but real close!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:31:01 -0900From: aurbo(at)ak.netSubject: Re: AeroElec
tric-List: Z 13-8 P-mag wiringTo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Frank,
I wouldn't expect any answers back from Bob on this question but here is th
e answer your looking for.
#'s 1 & 4 are both grounds. The #1 grounds to the panel, The #4 is the grou
nd (kill) for the mag.
#5 is the red wire that goes to power.
# 6 is the org wire that gores to the Tach.
BUT: I would suggest you don't follow the Z-13 in wiring the E/P mags. The
Emagair folks don't use that system why would you?
I started to use the Z figures to wire the E/P mags and changed my mind. Th
ey are not wired the way the Emagair folks recommend if you wire them that
way. But it was hard to divert from using the Z figures as I was attached t
o them But in this case the Z figure offers no advantage versus using the E
magair system and is in fact more confusing, at least to me. The Z figure u
ses the same parts count as the Emagair system and doesn't require a "hidde
n" switch to disable the mags. The Emagair system just uses on off toggles
which are hard to screw up.
Mike Ice
baffles and cowling
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Stringham
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 3:25 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Z 13-8 P-mag wiring
I am now to the point of wiring up my dual p-mags per Z 13-8. I am not qui
te sure of connection points P-Mag to the S700-2-10 switch. As viewed from
the screw side of the P-Mag plug they are numbered 1 through 6 Left to righ
t according to the P-Mag install manual. So my question is on the Z13-8 dia
gram the green/orange/red /black would correspond to which numbers on P-mag
install diagram. They have #1 black as the ground...#4 orange connects to
your ignition ON/OFF (ground) p-lead switch.....#5 red connects to your mai
n 12 volt aircraft buss through a dedicated circuit breaker (not provided)
using 18 gauge wire. E-MAGs should use a 5-amp
breaker, and P-MAGs should use a 3-amp switchable breaker.=946=94 green is
a courtesy (optional) connection to provide a digital tack signal.
So it appears to me the function/position of Z13-8 to P-Mag manual are the
same the question in my mind is are the numbers the same????? as the water
drips from behind my ear!!!!!!!
Also Bob is there any new info on the p-mag wiring potential changes......
..........
Thanks inadvance for your help.
Frank @ sgu RV7A light at the end of thwe tunnel...hopeing it isn't a bi
g ole train!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stringham <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Z 13-8 P-mag wiring |
Thanks Bob........it looks like a pretty easy wiring exchange from the old
13/8 to the now acceptable scheme......Thanks for all your efforts in behal
f of we DIY guys and gals!!!!!!!
Frank @ SGU RV7A ...........NDY.........BUT REAL CLOSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 23:35:32 -0600> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> From: nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Z 13-8 P-mag
> > > >> >----------> >> > I am now to the point of wiring up my dual p-mag
s per Z 13-8. I am not > > quite sure of connection points P-Mag to the S70
0-2-10 switch. As viewed > > from the screw side of the P-Mag plug they are
numbered 1 through 6 Left > > to right according to the P-Mag install manu
al. So my question is on the > > Z13-8 diagram the green/orange/red /black
would correspond to which > > numbers on P-mag install diagram. They have #
1 black as the ground...#4 > > orange connects to your ignition ON/OFF (gro
und) p-lead switch.....#5 red > > connects to your main 12 volt aircraft bu
ss through a dedicated circuit > > breaker (not provided) using 18 gauge wi
re. E-MAGs should use a 5-amp> >> >breaker, and P-MAGs should use a 3-amp s
witchable breaker."6" green is a > >courtesy (optional) connection to provi
de a digital tack signal.> >> >> >> >So it appears to me the function/posit
ion of Z13-8 to P-Mag manual are the > >same the question in my mind is are
the numbers the same????? as the water > >drips from behind my ear!!!!!!!>
>> >> >> >Also Bob is there any new info on the p-mag wiring potential > >
changes................> > > Figure Z-13/8 has been updated at:> > http://a
eroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11L.pdf> > http://www.aeroelectric.com
/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/Z13-8m.dwg> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/A
CAD_Architecture_Dwgs/Z13-8m.dwg> > Bob . . .> > --------------------------
--------------)> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )> ( a thing wrong, g
ives it a superficial )> ( appearance of being right . . . )> ( )> ( -Thoma
===> > >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rouault, Jason (Security Management)" <jason.rouault(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | 20 Amp Solid State Relay usage |
Bob,
I am interested in the new 20 amp solid state relay shown on the Aeroelectr
ic site. Here is my application:
The switches I will be using in my panel will be Honeywell AML34 series. T
hese are 15 amp switches offered in single pole and dual pole but with only
2 positions. These will work great for the majority of my needs, but I do
want a couple 3 position switches for the fuel pump (off-on-auto) and land
ing lights (off-on-pulse). Honeywell offers a AML24 series (same physical
size and looks as the 34) switch that comes with 3 positions, however, the
amp rating is less than 5 amps. I have not been able to get good documenta
tion one the AML24 switch rating, but what I have seen is anywhere from 1 t
o 3 amps. So, I was wondering if using this switch with the 20 amp relay w
ould be a good match for what I want to achieve? Also, does a single relay
have the ability to work with more than one switch?
Thanks in advance for your help,
Jason
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Questions re: Z19 |
Bob,
1. What type of relay is depicted for the endurance bus alternate feed?
Does B & C carry?
2. Since Z19 is for an electrically dependent engine, it would be great
to see the required ignition power included.
3. Logic question. Why do you associate the main battery bus with the
aux/secondary power switch and the engine/aux battery bus with the
primary power switch? Somehow that logic seems awkward.
4. If one has independent control over FP #2, why not include the same
control over FP#1? Ok, #2 is supposed to be a backup, but if I want/need
to isolate #1, I would need to switch off both primary and secondary/aux
power thus loosing ecu power.
5. Again, adding the appropriate ignition power to the design changes
things as there can be no possibility for isolating power to the
ignition in flight (without restarting in flight).
This would apply not only to Subaru's but many other Aeromotive brands.
Also,
Do any of your diagrams provide a design for including a clearance
switch?
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Z 13-8 P-mag wiring |
>>Bob is there any new info on the p-mag wiring potential
>>changes................
>
>
> Figure Z-13/8 has been updated at:
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11L.pdf
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/Z13-8m.dwg
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/Z13-8m.dwg
>
>
Seems that 13/8 needed more attention than I was thinking
a midnight last night.
Z-13/8 has been further refined and the revision letter
has rolled to "N". Get the corrected drawings at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/Z13-8N.dwg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8N.pdf
Appendix Z was fixed also but the revision letter was
NOT rolled. If anyone downloaded Revision "L" before
reading this posting, I'll suggest that you do it again
to get the latest version.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Z 13-8 P-mag wiring |
>Thanks Bob........it looks like a pretty easy wiring exchange from the old
>13/8 to the now acceptable scheme......Thanks for all your efforts in
>behalf of we DIY guys and gals!!!!!!!
>
>Frank @ SGU RV7A ...........NDY.........BUT REAL CLOSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My pleasure sir. But know that last night's posting
was pre-mature. Too many beers with the chili!
Go back and get the latest drawings posted as of a
few minutes ago.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Bluetooth for the com radio |
Anybody know of a gadget for the com radio to allow use of a
bluetooth ear piece?
Sure, an intercom and headset is an option, but I like the idea on
just an earpiece.
Thanks, Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions re: Z19 |
>Bob,
>
>
>1. What type of relay is depicted for the endurance bus alternate feed?
>Does B & C carry?
Yes, S704-1. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Relays/s704-1l.jpg
I'll have a solid state version on the website
shortly
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/9030s.jpg
>2. Since Z19 is for an electrically dependent engine, it would be great to
>see the required ignition power included.
I'm not sure what data I was given when that
Z-figure was crafted. I'm thinking that the
redundant ignition (if any) was paired with the
redundant fuel management systems. If you've
data that suggests expanded attention for
the ignition system(s), I'd be pleased to add
the coverage.
>3. Logic question. Why do you associate the main battery bus with the
>aux/secondary power switch and the engine/aux battery bus with the primary
>power switch? Somehow that logic seems awkward.
Call them anything you wish. The goal is to eliminate
single points of failure for the engine.
>4. If one has independent control over FP #2, why not include the same
>control over FP#1? Ok, #2 is supposed to be a backup, but if I want/need
>to isolate #1, I would need to switch off both primary and secondary/aux
>power thus loosing ecu power.
#2 is a backup for #1. The goal was to offer the
simplest and most independent architecture to
back up a rare but important failure. Obviously,
one could put single, independent switches on
everything . . . if that more closely meets your
design goals, my all means.
>5. Again, adding the appropriate ignition power to the design changes
>things as there can be no possibility for isolating power to the ignition
>in flight (without restarting in flight).
>
>This would apply not only to Subaru's but many other Aeromotive brands.
This drawing was crafted based on a specific set
of installation instructions without attempting
to do a one-size-fits-all approach. If you have some
suggestions for a more generic approach, I'll suggest
you sketch it out, scan it and post to the List.
The Z-figures are not intended to be the gospel according
to Bob N but a compilation of the best we know how to
do for a broad spectrum of tasks and data sources.
>Also,
>Do any of your diagrams provide a design for including a clearance switch?
Talking about a ATC clearance? This is usually
taken care of by closing the e-bus alternate feed
switch and powering up only the limited number
of goodies on that bus . . . which generally
includes at least one comm transceiver.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 20 Amp Solid State Relay usage |
>Bob,
>
>
>I am interested in the new 20 amp solid state relay shown on the
>Aeroelectric site. Here is my application:
>
>
>The switches I will be using in my panel will be Honeywell AML34
>series. These are 15 amp switches offered in single pole and dual pole
>but with only 2 positions. These will work great for the majority of my
>needs, but I do want a couple 3 position switches for the fuel pump
>(off-on-auto) and landing lights (off-on-pulse). Honeywell offers a AML24
>series (same physical size and looks as the 34) switch that comes with 3
>positions, however, the amp rating is less than 5 amps. I have not been
>able to get good documentation one the AML24 switch rating, but what I
>have seen is anywhere from 1 to 3 amps.
Yes, I believe those are much more limited . . . and
yes, the AEC9030 was crafted specifically for "boosting"
those nifty but somewhat limited switches.
> So, I was wondering if using this switch with the 20 amp relay would be
> a good match for what I want to achieve?
I believe so.
> Also, does a single relay have the ability to work with more than one
> switch?
Not sure what you're asking. What's the application?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Joint use of two power converters |
>
>Lads, thanks to Bob's lead to existing diagrams and timely input
>from several listers, I've decided to forge ahead with my own
>wiring diagram/system.
>
>Due to equipment already on hand, I will be running 28v for most
>requirements and power down to 14v via two Collins PWC 150
>power converters to run the radio, transponder and turn coordinator.
>These converters take in 28 v and output 14v 5amp and 2 amps
>each. There's no handy way to mount a fuse between their outputs
>and the end user and I do have two very nice auto style fuse holders
>on hand that I was intending to use as a 28v and 14v bus bar. The
>+ input on these fuse holders is a single item leading to all + sides
>of the fuses. Therefore, the question is, does anyone know if both
>outputs of both converters can be "ganged together" as a common
>+ input to the 14v fuse holder/bus and collectively provide a 14 amp
>service? This would simplify fusing the radio, tpdr and turn coordinator
>and maybe even provide service for a spare.
>
>I dragged the net but found no info on ganging together the outputs of
>these converters.
What is the make and part number of these converters. Depending
on manufacturer's recommendations, they may not run well in
parallel. Also, consider that any single converter is a single
point of failure for all the devices that depend on its functionality.
You might want to consider a single converter for each device.
Let's see what devices you have in hand at the moment and
go from there.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Bluetooth for the com radio |
Paul,
Quick answer - I have not.
I agree, that would be very nice. Unfortunately store brand earpieces
will never filter out the noise in a typical cockpit. Additionally and
good bit of turbulence would send an earpiece flying. My father always
looses his hearing aid when we hit the bumps.
What we need is the blue tooth headset. Don't worry, Bose or somebody
like them is probably working on it. Unfortunately a Bose will also need
a Garmim/PMI to comply. I'm also quite sure both of them are working on
a blue tooth audio panel. How much you wanna bet one of these turns up
at Oshkosh next year?
If I could have the functionality of my BMW panel in my airplane (at 1/3
the price of the old stuff I'm using in the airplane) I'd be ecstatic.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of paul
wilson
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 10:21 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bluetooth for the com radio
Anybody know of a gadget for the com radio to allow use of a
bluetooth ear piece?
Sure, an intercom and headset is an option, but I like the idea on
just an earpiece.
Thanks, Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Joint use of two power converters |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Here's a high level description:
http://www.seaerospace.com/collins/pwc150.htm
Matt-
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Lads, thanks to Bob's lead to existing diagrams and timely input
>>from several listers, I've decided to forge ahead with my own
>>wiring diagram/system.
>>
>>Due to equipment already on hand, I will be running 28v for most
>>requirements and power down to 14v via two Collins PWC 150
>>power converters to run the radio, transponder and turn coordinator.
>>These converters take in 28 v and output 14v 5amp and 2 amps
>>each. There's no handy way to mount a fuse between their outputs
>>and the end user and I do have two very nice auto style fuse holders
>>on hand that I was intending to use as a 28v and 14v bus bar. The
>>+ input on these fuse holders is a single item leading to all + sides
>>of the fuses. Therefore, the question is, does anyone know if both
>>outputs of both converters can be "ganged together" as a common
>>+ input to the 14v fuse holder/bus and collectively provide a 14 amp
>>service? This would simplify fusing the radio, tpdr and turn coordinator
>>and maybe even provide service for a spare.
>>
>>I dragged the net but found no info on ganging together the outputs of
>>these converters.
>
> What is the make and part number of these converters. Depending
> on manufacturer's recommendations, they may not run well in
> parallel. Also, consider that any single converter is a single
> point of failure for all the devices that depend on its functionality.
>
> You might want to consider a single converter for each device.
> Let's see what devices you have in hand at the moment and
> go from there.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bluetooth for the com radio |
paul wilson wrote:
>
> Anybody know of a gadget for the com radio to allow use of a bluetooth
> ear piece?
> Sure, an intercom and headset is an option, but I like the idea on
> just an earpiece.
> Thanks, Paul
>
I seriously doubt it, and I've not heard of any products that are
specifically built for aviation...HOWEVER,
A quick search turned up the Logitech headset. Nothing special about
it, just the first thing to turn up in a Google search. It is composed
of a set of headphones and a small box that plugs into the sound
source. It will possibly work out of the box, connected straight to the
radio. It might require an impedance matching circuit. Either way, it
would be a one day , $100 experiment.
Give it a try, and be a pioneer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 & Z-19/RB |
>I am making my version of Z-19. As far as I can tell, the only difference
>in the RB version is that it has different wire sizes for the starter. Is
>this correct? I don't want to miss anything.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Sam
Generally, yes. When you remotely mount the batteries
the increased wire size goes along with relocation of
batteries, battery busses, and battery contactors.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z 13-8 P-mag wiring |
I think you've reversed the functionality of the E- and P- mags, Bob. P is
the self-powering type, and E is the externally-powered-only model, so they
appear to be reversed on Z-13/8 labels. That's the way I remember it,
anyway.
-Bill B
On Dec 10, 2007 10:37 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>
>
> >Thanks Bob........it looks like a pretty easy wiring exchange from the
> old
> >13/8 to the now acceptable scheme......Thanks for all your efforts in
> >behalf of we DIY guys and gals!!!!!!!
> >
> >Frank @ SGU RV7A ...........NDY.........BUT REAL CLOSE
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> My pleasure sir. But know that last night's posting
> was pre-mature. Too many beers with the chili!
>
> Go back and get the latest drawings posted as of a
> few minutes ago.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stringham <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Z 13-8 P-mag wiring |
Bob
To much Beer with Chili could make the mind a bit fuzzy I would suspect....
...I was given a wake up call at 2:00 AM sunday morning to bail my younges
t child (26 going on 15) out of the county pokkie for DUI/Speeding. Bookin
g Sarg's said he isn't drunk.........so why the citation. It is a great way
to keep those real Bad ?????? Saint George Kids out of Hurricane City late
at night. Ya and it will cost about $1000.00 to get the auto out of impoun
d/fight the DUI in court/and maybe my bail for killing the kid!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!So lets put this little mistake in perspective.
Bob, wiring my airplane, choosing instruments, wiring materials, and help w
ith my crazy ????????????????? was given by you....most times gently someti
mes with a douse of Hey Frank wake up and smell the coffee!!! So again THAN
KS
Frank @ SGU RV7A .....NDY........But CLOSE
> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:37:15 -0600> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.co
m> From: nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Z 13-8 P-mag
hanks Bob........it looks like a pretty easy wiring exchange from the old >
>13/8 to the now acceptable scheme......Thanks for all your efforts in > >
behalf of we DIY guys and gals!!!!!!!> >> >Frank @ SGU RV7A ...........NDY.
........BUT REAL CLOSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!> > My pleasure sir. But know that
last night's posting> was pre-mature. Too many beers with the chili!> > Go
back and get the latest drawings posted as of a> few minutes ago.> > Bob .
========> > >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <ssamps(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bluetooth for the com radio |
Is this what you want?
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/17/loprestis-clearblue-bluetooth-headset-for-pilots-roger-roger/
I thought a major company would have announced by now, but I dont think it
has happened.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Joint use of two power converters |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Follow-on question:
Would the outputs of these converters need to be fused? Since they are
regulated supplies, I'd guess that they probably have some sort of short
circuit protection built in. Worst case, if you fault the output, you'll
only get something not too much over the rated current. It's not like
faulting a connection to a battery.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Lads, thanks to Bob's lead to existing diagrams and timely input
>>from several listers, I've decided to forge ahead with my own
>>wiring diagram/system.
>>
>>Due to equipment already on hand, I will be running 28v for most
>>requirements and power down to 14v via two Collins PWC 150
>>power converters to run the radio, transponder and turn coordinator.
>>These converters take in 28 v and output 14v 5amp and 2 amps
>>each. There's no handy way to mount a fuse between their outputs
>>and the end user and I do have two very nice auto style fuse holders
>>on hand that I was intending to use as a 28v and 14v bus bar. The
>>+ input on these fuse holders is a single item leading to all + sides
>>of the fuses. Therefore, the question is, does anyone know if both
>>outputs of both converters can be "ganged together" as a common
>>+ input to the 14v fuse holder/bus and collectively provide a 14 amp
>>service? This would simplify fusing the radio, tpdr and turn coordinator
>>and maybe even provide service for a spare.
>>
>>I dragged the net but found no info on ganging together the outputs of
>>these converters.
>
> What is the make and part number of these converters. Depending
> on manufacturer's recommendations, they may not run well in
> parallel. Also, consider that any single converter is a single
> point of failure for all the devices that depend on its functionality.
>
> You might want to consider a single converter for each device.
> Let's see what devices you have in hand at the moment and
> go from there.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "david stroud" <dstroud(at)storm.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Joint use of two power converters |
Thank you, Bob. The converters are Collins PWC-150's,
both are model 622-2093-001's, serials 8590 and 20661
both with mods 1 &2.
The devices to run are a King KY97A radio, a Narco AT150
transponder and an Electric Gyro Corp turn and slip indicator.
David Stroud Ottawa, Canada
C-FDWS Christavia
Fairchild 51 under construction
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Joint use of two power converters
>
>
> >
> >Lads, thanks to Bob's lead to existing diagrams and timely input
> >from several listers, I've decided to forge ahead with my own
> >wiring diagram/system.
> >
> >Due to equipment already on hand, I will be running 28v for most
> >requirements and power down to 14v via two Collins PWC 150
> >power converters to run the radio, transponder and turn coordinator.
> >These converters take in 28 v and output 14v 5amp and 2 amps
> >each. There's no handy way to mount a fuse between their outputs
> >and the end user and I do have two very nice auto style fuse holders
> >on hand that I was intending to use as a 28v and 14v bus bar. The
> >+ input on these fuse holders is a single item leading to all + sides
> >of the fuses. Therefore, the question is, does anyone know if both
> >outputs of both converters can be "ganged together" as a common
> >+ input to the 14v fuse holder/bus and collectively provide a 14 amp
> >service? This would simplify fusing the radio, tpdr and turn coordinator
> >and maybe even provide service for a spare.
> >
> >I dragged the net but found no info on ganging together the outputs of
> >these converters.
>
> What is the make and part number of these converters. Depending
> on manufacturer's recommendations, they may not run well in
> parallel. Also, consider that any single converter is a single
> point of failure for all the devices that depend on its functionality.
>
> You might want to consider a single converter for each device.
> Let's see what devices you have in hand at the moment and
> go from there.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott R. Shook" <sshook(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | 20 Amp Solid State Relay usage |
I too am using the AML34 and AML24 switches in my panel. Pacific Coast
Avionics recommended using the Potter Brumfield VF4-65F11 relays for higher
loads.
Any thoughts on these relays Bob? Are they reliable enough?
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, 10 December, 2007 09:14
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 20 Amp Solid State Relay usage
>Bob,
>
>
>I am interested in the new 20 amp solid state relay shown on the
>Aeroelectric site. Here is my application:
>
>
>The switches I will be using in my panel will be Honeywell AML34
>series. These are 15 amp switches offered in single pole and dual pole
>but with only 2 positions. These will work great for the majority of my
>needs, but I do want a couple 3 position switches for the fuel pump
>(off-on-auto) and landing lights (off-on-pulse). Honeywell offers a AML24
>series (same physical size and looks as the 34) switch that comes with 3
>positions, however, the amp rating is less than 5 amps. I have not been
>able to get good documentation one the AML24 switch rating, but what I
>have seen is anywhere from 1 to 3 amps.
Yes, I believe those are much more limited . . . and
yes, the AEC9030 was crafted specifically for "boosting"
those nifty but somewhat limited switches.
> So, I was wondering if using this switch with the 20 amp relay would be
> a good match for what I want to achieve?
I believe so.
> Also, does a single relay have the ability to work with more than one
> switch?
Not sure what you're asking. What's the application?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Auto Light Dimming Circuit |
Manual light control is the way to go 90% of the time.
Technically its easy, practically not so much. In a Boeing 767 and 757 most cockpit
lights (all but one or two) are adjusted manually. The CDU (Control Display
Unit, a green monochromatic alpha/numeric CRT/keyboard down low in the isle-stand)
has a photocell. It also has a manual light adjust. Almost everything
or area on the overhead or panel has manual light control. There are probably
20 rheostats to adjust the lights (manually). In general they are set and remain
unchanged from pilot to pilot. Some pilots will turn them down during the
day.
The problem with a PHOTOCELL's in the cockpit of an airplane is where do you
put the photocell? You almost need one for each device due to local light. Most
important question is DO YOU NEED IT? Really we fly during the day or night.
You set your lights as need and fly. Sometimes when IFR, night, low visibility
approach, I might turn down cockpit lights, EFIS brightness, just to make sure
my eyes are dark adapted and to see the approach lights. I don't know if it
helps but I do that. If there is lightning I might turn them ALL to high. In
fact some airplanes have a swtich that turns ALL lights to high for that reason.
The high lights reflect off the windscreen and protect the eyes somewhat A
photocell will not help.
MANUAL control is the way to go in my opinion. The reason the little LED displays
on avionics have photocells is they are read during the day. Most EFIS or
what ever is usually full bright during the day. At night you turn them down.
The EFFORT to make that small adjustment from day to night is pretty small. How
much do you fly at night a year?
If you want to learn how to make a photocell switch or dimmer there are cool
electronic hobby kits that you can make. Google it. Personally I still have a
200 in ONE electronic kits that I play around with different project ideas, at
least to start. I also have a prototype board, but those "kids" electronic kits
are fun for kids and adults. Usually they all include a photocell project or
five. From there you can add on to an existing dimmer or make your own photocell
dimmer, if you decide to go that way. It sounds like you want to learn how
it work. They also have stand alone electronic kits, such as photo cell dimmers
and switches. Even if you don't do it, its fun to make those little kits.
They George
>From: "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electronic Auto Light Dimming Circuit
>
>Most Avionics items (Nav/Comm etc) come with a circuit that
>automatically dims the "lights" as it gets darker using a light sensor.
>
>I would like to employ such a device to auto dim the few lights in my
>C/P that are not already auto dimmed. I have searched for such a
>device with no luck. Does anyone know of such a device?
>
>TIA Mark Banus G SIIS FT
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "FLAGSTONE" <flagstone(at)cox.net> |
Hi:
I recently joined this group cuz I'm working on an aviation project and
have been reading the Aeroconnection manual. In past non aviation
projects I've bought switches from Radio Shack etc that I've used in 12v
systems. The rating on some of these switches only gave the AC rating
say 15A.125VAC. I always assumed that if it was good for 15amps at 125v
it was ok for the same amps at 12v. However, I'm trying to understand
how all this works now. So the question is, can you convert that AC
rating to DC and if so, how. I read in the manual where there was a
resistive, inductive and tungsten rating for switches but not a AC - DC
conversion. I also saw that V x A = W but that would give the switch
about a 156A rating which doesn't sound right. Sorry if this is a
stupid question or if its in the manual someplace and I've missed it.
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Auto Light Dimming Circuit |
Thanks guys, I now have the answer for either way I decide to go
Re: Electronic Auto Light Dimming Circuit
From:
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Date:
Mon Dec 10 - 2:20 PM
Manual light control is the way to go 90% of the time.
Technically its easy, practically not so much. In a Boeing 767 and 757
most cockpit
lights (all but one or two) are adjusted manually. The CDU (Control Display
Unit, a green monochromatic alpha/numeric CRT/keyboard down low in the
isle-stand)
has a photocell. It also has a manual light adjust. Almost everything
or area on the overhead or panel has manual light control. There are
probably
20 rheostats to adjust the lights (manually). In general they are set and
remain
unchanged from pilot to pilot. Some pilots will turn them down during the
day.
The problem with a PHOTOCELL's in the cockpit of an airplane is where do
you
put the photocell? You almost need one for each device due to local light.
Most
important question is DO YOU NEED IT? Really we fly during the day or night.
You set your lights as need and fly. Sometimes when IFR, night, low
visibility
approach, I might turn down cockpit lights, EFIS brightness, just to make
sure
my eyes are dark adapted and to see the approach lights. I don't know if it
helps but I do that. If there is lightning I might turn them ALL to high. In
fact some airplanes have a swtich that turns ALL lights to high for that
reason.
The high lights reflect off the windscreen and protect the eyes somewhat A
photocell will not help.
MANUAL control is the way to go in my opinion. The reason the little LED
displays
on avionics have photocells is they are read during the day. Most EFIS or
what ever is usually full bright during the day. At night you turn them
down.
The EFFORT to make that small adjustment from day to night is pretty small.
How
much do you fly at night a year?
If you want to learn how to make a photocell switch or dimmer there are
cool
electronic hobby kits that you can make. Google it. Personally I still have
a
200 in ONE electronic kits that I play around with different project ideas,
at
least to start. I also have a prototype board, but those "kids" electronic
kits
are fun for kids and adults. Usually they all include a photocell project or
five. From there you can add on to an existing dimmer or make your own
photocell
dimmer, if you decide to go that way. It sounds like you want to learn how
it work. They also have stand alone electronic kits, such as photo cell
dimmers
and switches. Even if you don't do it, its fun to make those little kits.
They George
>From: "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com
>
>Subject: Electronic Auto Light Dimming Circuit
>
>Most Avionics items (Nav/Comm etc) come with a circuit that
>automatically dims the "lights" as it gets darker using a light sensor.
>
>I would like to employ such a device to auto dim the few lights in my
>C/P that are not already auto dimmed. I have searched for such a
>device with no luck. Does anyone know of such a device?
>
>TIA Mark Banus G SIIS FT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Bluetooth for the com radio |
I thought such a device that grabbed the ear might have merit. My
daughter wears hers all the time and it does not fall off. But you
are correct that a plane is a different story. I just want to hear
the radio without a head set. There is also the kind that have a band
behind the head and two ear buds with a boom mike.
Paul
=================
At 08:49 AM 12/10/2007, you wrote:
>
>Paul,
>
>Quick answer - I have not.
>
>I agree, that would be very nice. Unfortunately store brand earpieces
>will never filter out the noise in a typical cockpit. Additionally and
>good bit of turbulence would send an earpiece flying. My father always
>looses his hearing aid when we hit the bumps.
>
>What we need is the blue tooth headset. Don't worry, Bose or somebody
>like them is probably working on it. Unfortunately a Bose will also need
>a Garmim/PMI to comply. I'm also quite sure both of them are working on
>a blue tooth audio panel. How much you wanna bet one of these turns up
>at Oshkosh next year?
>
>If I could have the functionality of my BMW panel in my airplane (at 1/3
>the price of the old stuff I'm using in the airplane) I'd be ecstatic.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of paul
>wilson
>Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 10:21 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bluetooth for the com radio
>
>
>Anybody know of a gadget for the com radio to allow use of a
>bluetooth ear piece?
>Sure, an intercom and headset is an option, but I like the idea on
>just an earpiece.
>Thanks, Paul
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bluetooth for the com radio |
Close but cold not find any sellers.
Paul
================
At 10:34 AM 12/10/2007, you wrote:
>Is this what you want?
>
><http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/17/loprestis-clearblue-bluetooth-headset-for-pilots-roger-roger/>http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/17/loprestis-clearblue-bluetooth-headset-for-pilots-roger-roger/
>
>I thought a major company would have announced by now, but I dont
>think it has happened.
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bluetooth for the com radio |
Pretty close. I bet it would work?
Paul
==========
At 10:34 AM 12/10/2007, you wrote:
>Is this what you want?
>
><http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/17/loprestis-clearblue-bluetooth-headset-for-pilots-roger-roger/>http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/17/loprestis-clearblue-bluetooth-headset-for-pilots-roger-roger/
>
>I thought a major company would have announced by now, but I dont
>think it has happened.
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Questions re: Z19 |
Hello Bob,
If I may offer some recent information regarding this question/answer:
Bob N. answered:
>>>>2. Since Z19 is for an electrically dependent engine, it
>>>would be great to
>>>>see the required ignition power included.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what data I was given when that
>>> Z-figure was crafted. I'm thinking that the
>>> redundant ignition (if any) was paired with the
>>> redundant fuel management systems. If you've
>>> data that suggests expanded attention for
>>> the ignition system(s), I'd be pleased to add
>>> the coverage.
Allen F. adds:
Latest manual for Eggenfellner 6 cyl. Subaru states:
=================================================================
QUOTE:
E6-Series Engine Wiring
1) RED - 20A EFI Power. This wire provides power for your
Electronic Fuel Injection system. This includes the ignition coils
and fuel injector coils.
This circuit is critical and must obtain power from the "Essential
Equipment Bus". In other words, no matter which battery is
supplying power, this circuit must remain powered.
Use a 20 Amp resetable, aircraft-quality circuit breaker.
Having said all this, it is not strictly necessary for this circuit
to be switched on and off along with the ignition switch at all. If
the ECU is powered down, then it will never trigger the coils and
this circuit will sit idle, consuming no power. However, most
builders will prefer to have this circuit "switched" in order to
minimize the number of "always hot" circuits in the aircraft. This
requires that whatever switch or relay is controlling this circuit,
be capable of reliably handling the 20 Amp load.
END QUOTE
QUOTE:
2) RED - 5A ECU Power. This wire provides power for the ECU, the
computer that controls your engine.
This circuit is critical and must obtain power from the "Essential
Equipment Bus". In other words, no matter which battery is supplying
power, this circuit must remain powered.
Use a 5 Amp resetable, aircraft-quality circuit breaker.
This circuit should be switched by your Ignition Switch. Turning
off this circuit effectively shuts down the engine.
END QUOTE
=================================================================
As I understand Z19RB design, it seeks to feed essential engine power from
whichever Battery Bus is "hot" through the Engine Primary and Engine
Secondary OFF/ON switches and the associated bridge rectifiers. With the
batteries in the back, the switches and rectifiers would be located on
and/or near the instrument panel. That takes care of the ECU and #1 Fuel
Pump but what about the ignition coils and fuel injectors which Eggenfellner
calls the "Electronic Fuel Injection System"?
I seem to remember that you do not recommend feeding any load greater than
10A from the Battery busses. Hence the question, how to feed the
"Electronic Fuel Injection system" from a specified 20A source? Do we want
a pair of Three Pole/DT switches and another bridge rectifier w/heat sink
for the 20A load? Or another pair of switches (Ignition Primary OFF/ON and
Ignition Secondary OFF/ON) and a bridge rectifier with appropriately sized
heat sink? Or do we need one or two relays at the batteries just for the
ignition power?
Thank,
Allen Fulmer
RV7 Wiring
Alexander City, AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Over voltage with Z13/8 |
I expect that typically Z13/8 is normally run in flight with the SD-8
alternator off.
If both alternators were on, I expect the current generated would be
dependent on which regulator is set to the slightly lower voltage. So
possibly the SD-8 would be at full output, with the main alternator
picking up the slack. Although undesirable, I expect it would not
actually damage anything. The opposite would be ideal really, with
the SD-8 producing current only if the main alternator was not.
My real question though is:
If an overvoltage spike occurs, would both overvoltage modules take
both alternators offline ?
I expect yes, and I do not see any way around it. To do otherwise,
would risk too long of a high voltage condition.
Should the maintenance switch option for the E-Mags that was
previously depicted in deleted Z33 be added to Z13/8 ?
Thanks !
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z 13-8 P-mag wiring |
>I think you've reversed the functionality of the E- and P- mags, Bob. P
>is the self-powering type, and E is the externally-powered-only model, so
>they appear to be reversed on Z-13/8 labels. That's the way I remember
>it, anyway.
>
>-Bill B
Actually, either Emag product can be wired either
way. If you power the device from a switched bus
(any bus but a battery bus) then you don't necessarily
need to shut off ship's power when the engine is stopped.
Current drain in the non-running state is tens of milliamps.
If you want to run the ignition from a battery bus (my
favorite source) then it's necessary to disconnect the
power source when the aircraft is powered down so that
you don't run the battery down.
My preference is to minimize total numbers of switches
so it seems most practical to use the 2-10 so that
both power and control of the ignition system can
be accomplished from the same device. If you run
the p-mag from a switched bus and control it with
a single pole switch, then the occasional test of
the internal power source can be accomplished by
momentarily powering down the bus that supplies
ship's power to the ignition system. Hence the
suggestion that the P-Mag be powered from the main
bus and the E-Mag be powered from the battery bus.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Joint use of two power converters |
An observation: From the pictures that are shown on the site that Matt
provided it looks like these are simple linear regulators, which means
that you will be dissipating the same amount of power that you are using
(28V @ 5A and 2A in give you 14V @ 5A and 2A out). So, at full load
power consumption you will be dissipating almost 100W in each of these
two regulators.
Regulators usually have some way of sensing the output voltage they are
regulating (unless it is a simple series voltage dropping setup). When
the regulator senses the output voltage, whether it is coming from it's
own internal circuitry or from the other regulator that is also
connected to the 14V bus, it "throttles back" and lowers the internal
regulator drive, essentially shutting down the output. What that means
is that the regulator with the highest output will supply all the
current your bus requires until it is overloaded. I don't know what
happens to these supplies at overload, but I suspect that they are an
unsophisticated design and probably just overheat if you try to draw
more than their rated current.
In other words, I strongly suspect that you cannot connect the outputs
unless all you want is redundant power for up to 7 amps. In which case,
you could connect both outputs through an isolating diode to your bus.
If one fails the other will take up the load - but only to 7A total.
If you need more than 7A, then you will have to feed individual outputs
to individual instruments.
Unless you already have these devices (and even if you do), you might
want to consider a good switching regulator to minimize the wasted power
and supply the current you need. You can certainly get one for the same
or less cost as these two linear supplies.
My $0.02.
Dick Tasker
david stroud wrote:
>
> Lads, thanks to Bob's lead to existing diagrams and timely input
> from several listers, I've decided to forge ahead with my own
> wiring diagram/system.
>
> Due to equipment already on hand, I will be running 28v for most
> requirements and power down to 14v via two Collins PWC 150
> power converters to run the radio, transponder and turn coordinator.
> These converters take in 28 v and output 14v 5amp and 2 amps
> each. There's no handy way to mount a fuse between their outputs
> and the end user and I do have two very nice auto style fuse holders
> on hand that I was intending to use as a 28v and 14v bus bar. The
> + input on these fuse holders is a single item leading to all + sides
> of the fuses. Therefore, the question is, does anyone know if both
> outputs of both converters can be "ganged together" as a common
> + input to the 14v fuse holder/bus and collectively provide a 14 amp
> service? This would simplify fusing the radio, tpdr and turn coordinator
> and maybe even provide service for a spare.
>
> I dragged the net but found no info on ganging together the outputs of
> these converters.
>
> Thanks.
>
> David Stroud Ottawa, Canada
> C-FDWS Christavia
> Fairchild 51 under construction
>
>
>
--
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch Rating |
>Hi:
>
>I recently joined this group cuz I'm working on an aviation project and
>have been reading the Aeroconnection manual. In past non aviation
>projects I've bought switches from Radio Shack etc that I've used in 12v
>systems. The rating on some of these switches only gave the AC rating say
>15A.125VAC. I always assumed that if it was good for 15amps at 125v it was
>ok for the same amps at 12v. However, I'm trying to understand how all
>this works now. So the question is, can you convert that AC rating to DC
>and if so, how. I read in the manual where there was a resistive,
>inductive and tungsten rating for switches but not a AC - DC
>conversion. I also saw that V x A = W but that would give the switch
>about a 156A rating which doesn't sound right. Sorry if this is a stupid
>question or if its in the manual someplace and I've missed it.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Switch_Ratings.pdf
If you're designing a failure tolerant system,
then switch replacement due to a lapse in
judicious selection is a maintenance issue,
not a safety issue.
Bottom line is that just about ANY switch you
choose to try in your airplane is unlikely to
die of old age as opposed to a ratings issue.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch Rating (clarification of syntax) |
>
>
>
>>Hi:
>>
>>I recently joined this group cuz I'm working on an aviation project and
>>have been reading the Aeroconnection manual. In past non aviation
>>projects I've bought switches from Radio Shack etc that I've used in 12v
>>systems. The rating on some of these switches only gave the AC rating
>>say 15A.125VAC. I always assumed that if it was good for 15amps at 125v
>>it was ok for the same amps at 12v. However, I'm trying to understand
>>how all this works now. So the question is, can you convert that AC
>>rating to DC and if so, how. I read in the manual where there was a
>>resistive, inductive and tungsten rating for switches but not a AC - DC
>>conversion. I also saw that V x A = W but that would give the switch
>>about a 156A rating which doesn't sound right. Sorry if this is a stupid
>>question or if its in the manual someplace and I've missed it.
>
> See:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Switch_Ratings.pdf
>
> If you're designing a failure tolerant system,
> then switch replacement due to a lapse in
> judicious selection is a maintenance issue,
> not a safety issue.
>
> Bottom line is that just about ANY switch you
> choose to try in your airplane is MOST likely to
> die of old age as opposed to a ratings issue.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Over voltage with Z13/8 |
>
>I expect that typically Z13/8 is normally run in flight with the SD-8
>alternator off.
yes
>If both alternators were on, I expect the current generated would be
>dependent on which regulator is set to the slightly lower voltage. So
>possibly the SD-8 would be at full output, with the main alternator
>picking up the slack. Although undesirable, I expect it would not
>actually damage anything. The opposite would be ideal really, with
>the SD-8 producing current only if the main alternator was not.
correct
>My real question though is:
>If an overvoltage spike occurs, would both overvoltage modules take
>both alternators offline ?
OV conditions are not properly described as spikes.
The term spike is used to describe fast risetime, short
duration, low energy events such as the transient that
develops in the magnetic field collapse within a
contactor coil.
>I expect yes, and I do not see any way around it. To do otherwise,
>would risk too long of a high voltage condition.
An OV condition is generated by loss of regulation in
a power generating device such as an alternator or
generator. In a OV runaway mode, the device goes into
a max effort attempt to push the bus voltage up.
If the bus is lightly loaded and there is no battery
present, then the resulting scenario can lift the
bus to some amazing and certainly damaging voltage
levels. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/When_is_110V_not_Over_Voltage.pdf
IF a battery is present and in good shape, the
battery will willingly attempt to soak up as
much of the excess energy as its physics will
allow. When a 60A alternator is launches
for the moon, the battery will willingly
accept 60+ amps of excess output but at a
slightly elevated voltage. For example, some
tests I ran and plotted a couple of years ago
showed that a 17 a.h. battery with a 20A
over charge rose fairly fast (10 mS or so)
to 16 volts and then more slowly taking perhaps
500 milliseconds to rise to 17 volts.
Obviously, the greater the overcharge current,
the greater will be rate of rise. I'm still
planning on doing the full scale runaway experiments
when I get my alternator drive stand running.
In the mean time, know that a runaway condition
from ANY size alternator is not a heart-stopping
event as long as the battery is there to mitigate
the results. An OV protection system for a 14
volt system is generally set for 16.2 to 16.5
volts. Between the battery's willingness to slow
the rate-of-rise and the OV protection module's
ability to sense and bring the event to heel in
tens of milliseconds takes all the bite out
of what could be a serious failure.
The voltage plot of an OV even is a long duration,
very high energy surge which is not a concern
in the well maintained system (good battery)
and artfully crafted OV protection system.
>Should the maintenance switch option for the E-Mags that was
>previously depicted in deleted Z33 be added to Z13/8 ?
No. With the configuration shown, the Emag
products are in the maintenance mode every time
the bus is hot but the control switch is in
the NON-running or OFF condition.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | =?iso-8859-1?Q?Th=E9o_Celis?= <theo.celis(at)skynet.be> |
| Subject: | Re: com antenna problem |
Connections on the ammeter: 4 studs (and 2 wires for the internal lt):
pwr, gnd, 2 from the shunt.
I reread the instructions (with diagram) and they refer to AC4313.13...
They mention the use of 18awg for all wires - exc the light.
Nothing is said about meter sensitivity or the use of shielded
wire.
I should mention that the checks were done in the workshop where
ceiling and floor contain rebars and the door is aluminum.
Reception of nearby Brussels app is excellent.
The tip-up canopy was removed for easy access.
Best regards,
Tho.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: com antenna problem
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Thank you Bob, Ralph & Bob F.,
>>
>>A few tests confirmed exactly what you said, Bob.
>>Just moving my body while txmitting resulted in large
>>needle deflections.
>>As somebody mentioned, the RV is full metal.
>>The ammeter is one that Vans sells : a 40A shunt model, -40/0/+40 scale.
>>The coil is housed in an aluminum cylinder, inside the plastic instrument.
>>There is a PCB with some resistors, transistors etc.
>>The instrument itself is located in a centre console under the main instr
>>panel.
>>The voltmeters we used to play with during elec lessons were far less
>>complicated...
>>We measured 7mV over the shunt with all avionics turned on and when
>>pressing the PTT it shot up to 12mV.
>>My friend brought a handheld RX and our tx tested fine.
>>
>>Thanks a million for yr help.
>
> Transistors are to radio frequency energy as
> mobile homes are to tornados. It is all too
> common in the OBAM aviation community that the
> designers of electro-whizzies have not considered
> the potential effects of radio frequency energy
> coming from a perfectly normal comm transmitter
> and antenna installation.
>
> I looked at Van's listing for the -40/0/+40
> instrument and it's not clear that this is
> an "electronically enhanced" instrument. Other
> than two wires from the shunt to the instrument,
> are there any other wires that need connection
> to say ship's power?
>
> By the way, the amount of RF found in the cockpit
> of an RV (due to proximity to a properly installed
> comm antenna system) is no greater than what is
> expected in light aircraft. It's an exceedingly
> rare situation where an observed interference
> between the comm transmitter and some piece of
> panel mounted equipment is the fault of the
> installer or serendipitous combination of conditions.
> It's nearly always a shortcoming of the victim
> system's design.
>
> Do the installation instructions for this insrument
> mention anything an installer should do to forestall
> such interference?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Jabiru 3300 Schematic |
| From: | "Terry Phillips" <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net> |
On another forum, I found a reference to schematic Z21A for A/C with the Jabiru
3300 engine. I found Z21A.pdf on aeroelectric.com, but I cannot find a Z21A.dwg.
Can anyone help me find the .dwg file?
Thanks.
--------
Terry Phillips
Corvallis, MT
ttp44<at>rkymtn.net
Zenith 601XL/Jab 3300 slow build kit - Rudder done--finally; working on the stab
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=151700#151700
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru 3300 Schematic |
>
>On another forum, I found a reference to schematic Z21A for A/C with the
>Jabiru 3300 engine. I found Z21A.pdf on aeroelectric.com, but I cannot
>find a Z21A.dwg. Can anyone help me find the .dwg file?
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/Z21A.dwg
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: com antenna problem |
>
>
>
>Connections on the ammeter: 4 studs (and 2 wires for the internal lt):
>pwr, gnd, 2 from the shunt.
>I reread the instructions (with diagram) and they refer to AC4313.13...
>They mention the use of 18awg for all wires - exc the light.
>Nothing is said about meter sensitivity or the use of shielded
>wire.
And it shouldn't. What you describe is the ordinary
signal-powered instrument designed to be used with
the conventional ammeter shunt. I can think of no
reason for this device to be sensitive to radio
frequency energy.
>I should mention that the checks were done in the workshop where
>ceiling and floor contain rebars and the door is aluminum.
>Reception of nearby Brussels app is excellent.
>The tip-up canopy was removed for easy access.
None of this is relevant. Without launching a
$time$ consuming research task to see why this
instrument seems to be affected, we're probably
not going to learn of the root cause and remedy.
Know that there are a number of similarly affected
displays on type certificated aircraft wherein the
crew are instructed to "disregard the perturbations
observed while transmitting."
It would be interesting to know why and perhaps
institute a fix . . . but it's not going to add
value to your finished product in proportion to
the cost of knowing what the fix is.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tony Gibson <umgibso1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | 20 Amp Solid State Relay usage |
Hi everyone, if applicable I'd also like to use this relay for switching an electric
heater... a 35A forced air infra-red quartz unit from Aircraft Spruce.
It says the contacts of the VF4-65F11 are rated for 40A?
http://www.chiptech.com/secondary/manu-prod_pdf/P/Potter&Brumfield.pdf
Since it's offered with quick connect terminals I'm assuming fast-ons would be
OK to use here? Thanx for any help,
Tony Gibson
Winnipeg, Manitoba
From: "Scott R. Shook" <sshook(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 20 Amp Solid State Relay usage
I too am using the AML34 and AML24 switches in my panel. Pacific Coast
Avionics recommended using the Potter Brumfield VF4-65F11 relays for
higher
loads.
Any thoughts on these relays Bob? Are they reliable enough?
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 20 Amp Solid State Relay usage |
> Hi everyone, if applicable I'd also like to use this relay for switching
> an electric heater... a 35A forced air infra-red quartz unit from Aircraft
> Spruce.
>
> It says the contacts of the VF4-65F11 are rated for 40A?
> http://www.chiptech.com/secondary/manu-prod_pdf/P/Potter&Brumfield.pdf
>
> Since it's offered with quick connect terminals I'm assuming fast-ons
> would be OK to use here? Thanx for any help,
>
> Tony Gibson
> Winnipeg, Manitoba
>
> From: "Scott R. Shook" <sshook(at)cox.net>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 20 Amp Solid State Relay usage
>
>
> I too am using the AML34 and AML24 switches in my panel. Pacific Coast
> Avionics recommended using the Potter Brumfield VF4-65F11 relays for
> higher
> loads.
>
> Any thoughts on these relays Bob? Are they reliable enough?
>
>
> Scott R. Shook
> RV-7A (Building)
> N696JS (Reserved)
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
That type of heater will likely be classified as a resistive load so you
should not have a problem if the relay was set to switch 40A loads.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Good deals on AMP T-head tools |
Check out these buy-it-now prices on
the king of PIDG terminal service tools.
I'm all fixed up with tools or I'd buy them.
http://ebay.com
Item 150193891967
Item 150193892277
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | PIDG .25" Fast-On terminals |
Also see this ebay offering for PIDG
fast-on terminals. AMP dwg:
http://tinyurl.com/2ws3ln
Ebay item:
120096613362
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | Good deals on AMP T-head tools |
I purchased one from the same individual last week for $121. He seems to
have quite a few of these. It's interesting that the purchase now prices
are different. I wonder if the differences are due to quality or shape of
the tools, or simply market demands. I guess I'll never know the answer to
that question.
One recommendation that I would make is to search the completed sales to see
what price the previous sales concluded with. Since Thanksgiving, this tool
has gone for as low as $52 to a high of $159. Hmmm, I wonder if the recent
price surge are those of us from the Columbus seminar bidding against each
other?
There also appears to be quite a few Daniels AFM8 available as well. I was
also able to pick one up with the K13 positioner too.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 1:50 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Good deals on AMP T-head tools
Check out these buy-it-now prices on
the king of PIDG terminal service tools.
I'm all fixed up with tools or I'd buy them.
http://ebay.com
Item 150193891967
Item 150193892277
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
__________ NOD32 2718 (20071212) Information __________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | 20 Amp Solid State Relay usage |
12/12/2007
Hello Tony, I have one of these units in my KIS TR-1 airplane.
http://www.dcthermal.qpg.com/
If you have not already purchased it you may want to reconsider.
Mine puts out about the same amount of heat as waving a lighted cigarette
around in the cockpit. It may help a bit if your cockpit is sealed really
tight against outside airflow -- not that easy to accomplish.
It also generates background static during radio receptions. I would not
purchase one again.
Instead I would consider either heated clothing or seats -- plenty of
options available there. Some examples:
http://www.gerbing.com/
http://www.heatedseatkits.com/heatedseatkits/index.html
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tony Gibson <umgibso1(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 20 Amp Solid State Relay usage
Hi everyone, if applicable I'd also like to use this relay for switching an
electric
heater... a 35A forced air infra-red quartz unit from Aircraft Spruce.
It says the contacts of the VF4-65F11 are rated for 40A?
http://www.chiptech.com/secondary/manu-prod_pdf/P/Potter&Brumfield.pdf
Since it's offered with quick connect terminals I'm assuming fast-ons
would be
OK to use here? Thanx for any help,
Tony Gibson
Winnipeg, Manitoba
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Good deals on AMP T-head tools |
>
>I purchased one from the same individual last week for $121. He seems to
>have quite a few of these. It's interesting that the purchase now prices
>are different. I wonder if the differences are due to quality or shape of
>the tools, or simply market demands. I guess I'll never know the answer to
>that question.
Given that the new price of this tool is on the order of
$600, anything substantially less is a deal. I paid $25
for the first one I bought in 1962 and paid $75 for AMP
to refurbish it. The last one I got off Ebay was $150
and I was very pleased to acquire it for that.
>One recommendation that I would make is to search the completed sales to see
>what price the previous sales concluded with. Since Thanksgiving, this tool
>has gone for as low as $52 to a high of $159. Hmmm, I wonder if the recent
>price surge are those of us from the Columbus seminar bidding against each
>other?
Could be. That's called a free-market, supplier-consumer relationship.
>There also appears to be quite a few Daniels AFM8 available as well. I was
>also able to pick one up with the K13 positioner too.
That's a premier tool for the task. I've not had occasion
to seek replacement for the machined pin application tools
I've had for a number of years . . . but the range of
going rates on ebay have been very attractive.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 20 Amp Solid State Relay usage |
>
>12/12/2007
>
>Hello Tony, I have one of these units in my KIS TR-1 airplane.
>
>http://www.dcthermal.qpg.com/
>
>If you have not already purchased it you may want to reconsider.
>
>Mine puts out about the same amount of heat as waving a lighted cigarette
>around in the cockpit. It may help a bit if your cockpit is sealed really
>tight against outside airflow -- not that easy to accomplish.
>
>It also generates background static during radio receptions. I would not
>purchase one again.
>
>Instead I would consider either heated clothing or seats -- plenty of
>options available there. Some examples:
>
>http://www.gerbing.com/
>
>http://www.heatedseatkits.com/heatedseatkits/index.html
>
>'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
>understand knowledge."
Agreed. The only 24V LongEz I've ever assisted with
had a 100A alternator on it. 3 amps to run the airplane,
97 amps to run the 2000W cabin heater. Yeah, it extended his
cold-weather flying season a few weeks in the fall and
opened it a few weeks earlier in the spring . . . but
it didn't do the back seater a bit of good and the
$time$ to acquire, install and carry this system around
in the airplane was SIGNIFICANT.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Piavis <jpiavis(at)microsoft.com> |
>From an operations procedure on Z-13, in the event of a alternator failure,
is the proper process:
1) Master - OFF
2) E-Buss - ON (feed E-Buss from Batt)
3) Stand-By Alt - ON
Does it really matter if the SD-8 is brought on line prior to the e-buss fe
ed?
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z13 Procedures |
> From an operations procedure on Z-13, in the event of a alternator
> failure, is the proper process:
>
>1) Master - OFF
>
>2) E-Buss ON (feed E-Buss from Batt)
>
>3) Stand-By Alt ON
>
>
>Does it really matter if the SD-8 is brought on line prior to the e-buss feed?
No, there is no risk to any equipment for "improper"
operation of the switches. You MIGHT have some
device on the e-bus that does a software reset
at power up. Therefore, consider adoption of
the following:
(1) Low Volts Warning - ON
(2) E-Bus Aternate Feed - ON
(3) Standby ALT - ON
(4) Battery/Master switch - OFF
However, one may consider any sequence
without risk to installed hardware. Existence
of the E-Bus and SD-8 makes it failure tolerant;
risk-free sequencing of switches makes it
goof tolerant.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | PIDG .25" Fast-On terminals |
Thanks Bob,
I bought a bunch of them BUT...
Buyers be warned. The shipping cost quoted is PER ITEM !!. That means my
shipping cost was originally billed to me at $675!!! It did come with a
almost-as-large discount but still, the shipping was going to be about $16.
Don't ask me how that was calculated. This is 200% more than I thought it
would be. I eventually got a final shipping cost of $4.50 total but had to
dialogue with the seller to get it. So be warned!!!
Bevan
RV7A wiring
-----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: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 10:54 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: PIDG .25" Fast-On terminals
-->
Also see this ebay offering for PIDG
fast-on terminals. AMP dwg:
http://tinyurl.com/2ws3ln
Ebay item:
120096613362
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z13 Procedures |
Bob, where do things stand R&D-wise with your proposed external OVP for the
IR automotive alternators? Haven't heard anything in awhile, and wondering
if I missed something lately.
-Bill B
On Dec 12, 2007 11:54 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>
>
> > From an operations procedure on Z-13, in the event of a alternator
> > failure, is the proper process:
> >
> >1) Master - OFF
> >
> >2) E-Buss ON (feed E-Buss from Batt)
> >
> >3) Stand-By Alt ON
> >
> >
> >
> >Does it really matter if the SD-8 is brought on line prior to the e-buss
> feed?
>
> No, there is no risk to any equipment for "improper"
> operation of the switches. You MIGHT have some
> device on the e-bus that does a software reset
> at power up. Therefore, consider adoption of
> the following:
>
> (1) Low Volts Warning - ON
>
> (2) E-Bus Aternate Feed - ON
>
> (3) Standby ALT - ON
>
> (4) Battery/Master switch - OFF
>
> However, one may consider any sequence
> without risk to installed hardware. Existence
> of the E-Bus and SD-8 makes it failure tolerant;
> risk-free sequencing of switches makes it
> goof tolerant.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PIDG .25" Fast-On terminals |
When all else fails, give Stein a call (www.steinair.com). He may not always have the lowest price, but he usually will have what you need at reasonable price.
>
> From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
> Date: 2007/12/12 Wed PM 12:44:43 EST
> To:
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: PIDG .25" Fast-On terminals
>
>
> Thanks Bob,
>
> I bought a bunch of them BUT...
>
> Buyers be warned. The shipping cost quoted is PER ITEM !!. That means my
> shipping cost was originally billed to me at $675!!! It did come with a
> almost-as-large discount but still, the shipping was going to be about $16.
> Don't ask me how that was calculated. This is 200% more than I thought it
> would be. I eventually got a final shipping cost of $4.50 total but had to
> dialogue with the seller to get it. So be warned!!!
>
> Bevan
> RV7A wiring
>
>
> -----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: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 10:54 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: PIDG .25" Fast-On terminals
>
> -->
>
> Also see this ebay offering for PIDG
> fast-on terminals. AMP dwg:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2ws3ln
>
> Ebay item:
>
> 120096613362
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gommone7(at)bellsouth.net |
| Subject: | Re: Hugo's antenna questions |
Good morning,I purchase yor electric book about a year ago,I was disappointed at
the time,because how technical was write ,I was expect a lot of pictures not
electric symbols,I want to build an airplane for my self ,not became a electronic
guru,but ,reading and reading ,now I;m start to understand and appreciate
the amount of information was in that little package,(and a low cost for the
info released),(still thinking need to be more pictorial,(I'm still don;t know
how a diode look like,and how need to be conected to the circuit,solder ,crimp
,or?
any way ,I have a dilema ,and until now no body satisfied me with a logical answer,if
its not to much a problem I like to ask you,reading yor book I fully understand
the work of a thermocouple,but,,, I need to know if the leads from the
instrument to the sensor can be cut to fit the rigth length,I mean, if the number
one cylinder lead can be longer then the number six,my dilema ,and I can
't found in your explanation ,its will be different or dealy time in the reading
,if the wires are different lengths?hope I was able to explain my question,wo
persons from the same company(EFIS) give me different answers.its this an
opinion or its a physical law apply?
Thanks for your time
Hugo Terrosa
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >Hi All,
> >I 'm installing a Comant antenna in the top cabin of my RV10(composite)it
> >is a VHF-GPS-Weather data, while I have no problem in doing so in the
> >metal part ,in the cabin(after I read Bob Nicklaus booK) it looks like I
> >must install a ground plane inside the cabin.
> >The book is very fast in explaining,(cut a one inch cooper and weld )
> >(call 3m for materials) and so on,it does not mention the lengths of each
> >leg nor the diameter of the round plate, does it need to be aluminum or
> >copper?
>
> Radials under an antenna should be the same length as the
> antenna itself. For example, If the comm antenna is
> 23" in height above the skin, the radials under it should
> describe a circle (or skeleton of a circle) that has
> a radius of 23". Therefore the disk may be of any size
> and the radials of any length as long as distance from
> tip of a radial measured to the center of the disk is
> the same as the height of the antenna.
>
> The disk serves two purposes: Provide a doubler under the
> antenna and an radio frequency ground for the antenna. You
> can make the disk and radials out of aluminum but you'd
> have to rivet the ends of the radials to the disk to get
> a good electrical connection. I prefer to use copper or brass.
> If you don't need to add structural doubler, the disk
> may be quite thin . . . .005" brass shim stock would
> work.
>
> When you use copper or brass and make the radials
> from copper or brass, one may attach the radials to
> the disk by soldering which provides an electrical
> connection with great longevity.
>
> In cases were the radials are short (2.6" under
> a transponder antenna) then the entire ground plane
> can be one solid disk. Here the disk may be aluminum,
> brass or copper.
>
> >Thanks
> >The book is very good ,but its still way beyoong me since I don't want to
> >became an electronic engineer before learning how to build an airplane,
> >I'm still thinking many builders want to learn how to build a panel
> >without the necessity of knowing how an alternator is built ,or how many
> >inches are the quarter wave(watever that means)I thinks the first
> >technician who will be able to show pictures at what a diode look like and
> >wich point needs to be solder ,will sale a tons of books,and don't try to
> >convert every body in master panel designers.
>
> The AeroElectric Connection is not an attempt to
> convert anyone to anything. It's simply a collection
> of simple ideas that offers more than the traditional
> "cook books" bur falls far short of making an engineer
> out of anyone.
>
> It was crafted with the idea that the informed builder
> is the most confident builder both in terms of building
> and operating his/her airplane. A great many of our
> fellow pilots operate their airplanes much as they do
> their cars. The machines are just appliances with knobs,
> levers, and fuel tanks. They are competent enough in
> operating the machine to get a license but have little
> if any knowledge about how it works (and perhaps don't
> care).
>
> >Its my personal opinion only.
>
> If you don't believe you received fair value for
> your purchase, just let me know and I'll refund your
> money.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I can't imagine anyone putting a radiant heater in an airplane.
Here in New England, we know that you can keep warm just by the power of imagination
alone. However, for those need more warmth see the 12V electric heater pads
and seat heaters at--
http://www.sportsimportsltd.com/12vocaborvor.html
LSA and powered ultralights tend to need INCREDIBLE amounts of heating. Someone
should sell a humongous 200 Amp alternator for the heaters in these.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=151923#151923
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple quesions. |
>
>Good morning,I purchase yor electric book about a year ago,I was
>disappointed at the time,because how technical was write ,I was expect a
>lot of pictures not electric symbols,I want to build an airplane for my
>self ,not became a electronic guru,but ,reading and reading ,now I;m start
>to understand and appreciate the amount of information was in that little
>package,(and a low cost for the info released),(still thinking need to be
>more pictorial,(I'm still don;t know how a diode look like,and how need to
>be conected to the circuit,solder ,crimp ,or?
Thank you for sharing your experience with us.
As you've discovered, the 'Connection is not
a cook-book. There are only rudimentary suggestions
of recipes for success in the form of the Z-figures.
My goals for this effort was not to be a competitor
of Tony Bingelis and others who have done a fine
job explaining the practice of assembling airplanes.
The 'Connection is intended for a small fraction of
the OBAM aircraft community with curiosity and
a desire to understand the simple-ideas that support
the practice.
>any way ,I have a dilema ,and until now no body satisfied me with a
>logical answer,if its not to much a problem I like to ask you,reading yor
>book I fully understand the work of a thermocouple,but,,, I need to know
>if the leads from the instrument to the sensor can be cut to fit the rigth
>length,I mean, if the number one cylinder lead can be longer then the
>number six,my dilema ,and I can 't found in your explanation ,its will be
>different or dealy time in the reading ,if the wires are different
>lengths?hope I was able to explain my question,wo persons from the same
>company(EFIS) give me different answers.its this an opinion or its a
>physical law apply?
About 60 years ago, it was not uncommon for
a thermocouple driven instrument to get all of
it's operating energy directly from the
thermocouple. A good example is this instrument
found on Ebay a few years ago:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/CHT%20Gauge.jpg
Note that in the lower right corner of the face
we see the notation "2 OHM I/C COUPLE". Further,
on the rear . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/CHT%20Gauge1.jpg
. . . there are only two terminals. I.e, no connections
to power or other electronics. THIS instrument's
calibration is accurate IF and ONLY IF the Iron-Constantan
thermocouple has a total loop resistance of exactly 2.0
ohms. These instruments are generally paired with a
specific thermocouple assembly having the necessary
characteristics and it cannot be altered either for
length or gage of wire.
The modern thermocouple instrument is assisted by
external power and the loop resistance of the thermocouple
is no longer critical. These devices are insensitive
to changes in length, wire gage or both. However,
they ARE still sensitive to poor joining techniques
that introduce parasitic thermocouples operating at
other temperatures causing the instrument to read
in error.
Short answer to your question is that you may alter
the length or gage of wire used as long as you
use good practice for splicing the segments.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hugo's antenna questions |
You can cut the thermocouple to any length you need. There is no
"delay" in any length since it is a static DC signal. The thermocouple
wire provides a voltage to the instrument that is proportional to the
difference in temperature over the length of the wire. A shorter wire
has a greater temperature gradient per foot but still the same
temperature difference from the source (EGT, CHT, etc.) to the
instrument, so the reading will be the same regardless of length. If
you want more information than you can handle, Google "thermocouple".
Dick Tasker
gommone7(at)bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> Good morning,I purchase yor electric book about a year ago,I was disappointed
at the time,because how technical was write ,I was expect a lot of pictures not
electric symbols,I want to build an airplane for my self ,not became a electronic
guru,but ,reading and reading ,now I;m start to understand and appreciate
the amount of information was in that little package,(and a low cost for the
info released),(still thinking need to be more pictorial,(I'm still don;t know
how a diode look like,and how need to be conected to the circuit,solder ,crimp
,or?
> any way ,I have a dilema ,and until now no body satisfied me with a logical answer,if
its not to much a problem I like to ask you,reading yor book I fully
understand the work of a thermocouple,but,,, I need to know if the leads from
the instrument to the sensor can be cut to fit the rigth length,I mean, if the
number one cylinder lead can be longer then the number six,my dilema ,and I can
't found in your explanation ,its will be different or dealy time in the reading
,if the wires are different lengths?hope I was able to explain my question,wo
persons from the same company(EFIS) give me different answers.its this
an opinion or its a physical law apply?
> Thanks for your time
> Hugo Terrosa
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>> I 'm installing a Comant antenna in the top cabin of my RV10(composite)it
>>> is a VHF-GPS-Weather data, while I have no problem in doing so in the
>>> metal part ,in the cabin(after I read Bob Nicklaus booK) it looks like I
>>> must install a ground plane inside the cabin.
>>> The book is very fast in explaining,(cut a one inch cooper and weld )
>>> (call 3m for materials) and so on,it does not mention the lengths of each
>>> leg nor the diameter of the round plate, does it need to be aluminum or
>>> copper?
>>>
>> Radials under an antenna should be the same length as the
>> antenna itself. For example, If the comm antenna is
>> 23" in height above the skin, the radials under it should
>> describe a circle (or skeleton of a circle) that has
>> a radius of 23". Therefore the disk may be of any size
>> and the radials of any length as long as distance from
>> tip of a radial measured to the center of the disk is
>> the same as the height of the antenna.
>>
>> The disk serves two purposes: Provide a doubler under the
>> antenna and an radio frequency ground for the antenna. You
>> can make the disk and radials out of aluminum but you'd
>> have to rivet the ends of the radials to the disk to get
>> a good electrical connection. I prefer to use copper or brass.
>> If you don't need to add structural doubler, the disk
>> may be quite thin . . . .005" brass shim stock would
>> work.
>>
>> When you use copper or brass and make the radials
>> from copper or brass, one may attach the radials to
>> the disk by soldering which provides an electrical
>> connection with great longevity.
>>
>> In cases were the radials are short (2.6" under
>> a transponder antenna) then the entire ground plane
>> can be one solid disk. Here the disk may be aluminum,
>> brass or copper.
>>
>>
>>> Thanks
>>> The book is very good ,but its still way beyoong me since I don't want to
>>> became an electronic engineer before learning how to build an airplane,
>>> I'm still thinking many builders want to learn how to build a panel
>>> without the necessity of knowing how an alternator is built ,or how many
>>> inches are the quarter wave(watever that means)I thinks the first
>>> technician who will be able to show pictures at what a diode look like and
>>> wich point needs to be solder ,will sale a tons of books,and don't try to
>>> convert every body in master panel designers.
>>>
>> The AeroElectric Connection is not an attempt to
>> convert anyone to anything. It's simply a collection
>> of simple ideas that offers more than the traditional
>> "cook books" bur falls far short of making an engineer
>> out of anyone.
>>
>> It was crafted with the idea that the informed builder
>> is the most confident builder both in terms of building
>> and operating his/her airplane. A great many of our
>> fellow pilots operate their airplanes much as they do
>> their cars. The machines are just appliances with knobs,
>> levers, and fuel tanks. They are competent enough in
>> operating the machine to get a license but have little
>> if any knowledge about how it works (and perhaps don't
>> care).
>>
>>
>>> Its my personal opinion only.
>>>
>> If you don't believe you received fair value for
>> your purchase, just let me know and I'll refund your
>> money.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z13 Procedures |
>Bob, where do things stand R&D-wise with your proposed external OVP for
>the IR automotive alternators? Haven't heard anything in awhile, and
>wondering if I missed something lately.
No, I THOUGHT when I retired from the OEM TC aircraft world
that I would have more time to expand my own activities
and in particular, get the alternator drive-stand running
so that the ideas in development can be proofed in actual
service.
Unfortunately, the folks I've been assisting for the
past 6 months are having trouble putting their arms
around what's necessary to add a capable electronics
activity to their already stellar mechanical capabilities.
What was supposed to be a 20 hr/wk activity on my
part has in fact been much more demanding. We're
having a meeting between my principal and one of my
favorite can-do electronics development, certification
and production houses here in Wichita next Monday.
If things go according to plans and best-wishes for
this venture, I'll be getting some relief in the
not too distant future. I have an experiment already
assembled that will test the validity of the proposed
design. It's just going to have to spend another
month or so on the back burners.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | PIDG .25" Fast-On terminals |
Also see this ebay offering for PIDG
fast-on terminals. AMP dwg:
http://tinyurl.com/2ws3ln
Ebay item:
120096613362
I've written to the seller on these terminals and
he's aware of the error in calculating shipping
charges. He apologizes and says folks that are
interested in this product enter their order for
what ever quantity they want and then WAIT for
an invoice to be emailed. To fix the error, he
needs to close the listing and create a new one.
He says he still has 800 terminals available.
$.10 each with a reasonable shipping charge makes
them an exceptional deal.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gaye and Vaughn" <vaughnray(at)bvunet.net> |
| Subject: | AEC9005-101 fuction |
I am in the process of using Z19M to do the schematic for my
Europa/UL260i combination and wish to ask some questions as they arise
in my head.
It is my understanding from reading the AEC9005 manual that when the ENG
BAT switch is in the up(AUTO) position, the AEC9005-101 module will keep
the engine Battery contactor closed as long as the alternator is
producing 13+ volts. This allows the engine battery to be charged.
Should the alternator fail, the AEC9005-101 makes the engine battery
contactor open and isolates the engine battery, so that it is only
supplying power to the engine. I am correct?
There will be more questions!
Vaughn Teegarden
Europa Mono/ UL260i
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AEC9005-101 fuction |
>I am in the process of using Z19M to do the schematic for my Europa/UL260i
>combination and wish to ask some questions as they arise in my head.
>
>It is my understanding from reading the AEC9005 manual that when the ENG
>BAT switch is in the up(AUTO) position, the AEC9005-101 module will keep
>the engine Battery contactor closed as long as the alternator is producing
>13+ volts. This allows the engine battery to be charged. Should the
>alternator fail, the AEC9005-101 makes the engine battery contactor open
>and isolates the engine battery, so that it is only supplying power to the
>engine. I am correct?
Yes. However, know that the AEC9005 is discontinued
and will be replaced with a new, totally enclosed
product that will offer the same functionality.
It will look like this:
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Products/A09_Package.jpg
But for planning purposes, you can drive ahead
with incorporating AEC9005 functionality
into your project.
By the way, if anyone is motivated to fabricate their
own AEC9005, the artwork for the boards has been
posted at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/9005-301-1C_Fab.pcb
Software to open the above file, modify as desired
and/or order boards can be acquired at:
http://web7.topchoice.com/%7Ereifel/ExpressPCBSetup.exe
There will be more questions!
That's what we're here for!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PIDG .25" Fast-On terminals |
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
> > Ebay item:
> >
> > 120096613362
> >
> > I've written to the seller on these terminals and
> > he's aware of the error in calculating shipping
> > charges. He apologizes and says folks that are
> > interested in this product enter their order for
> > what ever quantity they want and then WAIT for
> > an invoice to be emailed.
>
> I just ordered some, and he did exactly that.
>
> I'm also looking for a good source for quality 9 pin d-subs
>(solder-type), and 2, 3, and 4 pin molex connectors if you know of
>any... :-)
Why go soldered when it's so easy to go with
the REAL d-subs, those with machined, extractable
pins.
Which ever route you go, you can get the connectors
at:
http://tinyurl.com/2hlpko
http://tinyurl.com/25v5fj
http://tinyurl.com/2bbt3l
http://tinyurl.com/yrzrme
Molex makes a lot of 2, 3, and 4 pin connectors.
You'll need to be more specific.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Grounding |
Today I received my Comant CI-121 VHF Com antennas. They did not
include any installation instructions. There is some generic
installation instructions on their web site at:
http://www.comant.com/htmls/guide1.html
This indicates that the electical bonding to the aircraft ground is
important and can be accomplished by ensuring good metal-metal contact
with the aluminum skin, or with the mounting screws attaching to a
backing plate (not provided).
Included with the antenna is a cork gasket that will eliminate any
metal-metal contact. The screws appear to connect only with a
fiberglass outer shell. So there will be no ground connection except
through the coax cable.
How should this antenna really be installed on an aluminum aircraft ?
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PIDG .25" Fast-On terminals |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Why go soldered when it's so easy to go with
> the REAL d-subs, those with machined, extractable
> pins.
Thanks! Might be my imagination, but I was thinking the soldered ones
would have less chance of the pin coming loose from the housing, and
I've worked with the solder ones before. I'm thinking of using the heat
shrink and hot gun trick that you've published to make connections for
trim servos and such.
>
> Molex makes a lot of 2, 3, and 4 pin connectors.
> You'll need to be more specific.
Something like these:
<http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103448&cp 32058.2032231.2032286&parentPage=family>
<http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103293&cp 32058.2032231.2032286&parentPage=family>
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Grounding |
>
>Today I received my Comant CI-121 VHF Com antennas. They did not
>include any installation instructions. There is some generic
>installation instructions on their web site at:
>http://www.comant.com/htmls/guide1.html
>This indicates that the electical bonding to the aircraft ground is
>important and can be accomplished by ensuring good metal-metal contact
>with the aluminum skin, or with the mounting screws attaching to a
>backing plate (not provided).
>
>Included with the antenna is a cork gasket that will eliminate any
>metal-metal contact. The screws appear to connect only with a
>fiberglass outer shell. So there will be no ground connection except
>through the coax cable.
>
>How should this antenna really be installed on an aluminum aircraft ?
Pitch the gasket. Don't scrape your paint except in immediate
vicinity of mounting holes. These areas are marked (*) in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Antenna_Installation.gif
where you will take advantage of the clamp-up forces on
the mounting bolts. Sealing can be accomplished with a filet
of RTV around the finished installation.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aaron Gustafson" <agustafson(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
I have the AEC book but don't remember this. Can you clue me in
>>>heat shrink and hot gun trick that you've published to make connections
>>><<<
Aaron G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Grounding |
I'm curious ...
if the body of the antenna in question is non-conductive, what difference
does it make to use the gasket or not? Wouldn't the grounding of the
outside/shield of the bnc connector be the important connection (if there is
to be one) with respect to mounting?? And how would that be established??
Thanking you in advance for your experienced technical response,
Dave L.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Grounding
>
>
>
>>
>>Today I received my Comant CI-121 VHF Com antennas. They did not
>>include any installation instructions. There is some generic
>>installation instructions on their web site at:
>>http://www.comant.com/htmls/guide1.html
>>This indicates that the electical bonding to the aircraft ground is
>>important and can be accomplished by ensuring good metal-metal contact
>>with the aluminum skin, or with the mounting screws attaching to a
>>backing plate (not provided).
>>
>>Included with the antenna is a cork gasket that will eliminate any
>>metal-metal contact. The screws appear to connect only with a
>>fiberglass outer shell. So there will be no ground connection except
>>through the coax cable.
>>
>>How should this antenna really be installed on an aluminum aircraft ?
>
> Pitch the gasket. Don't scrape your paint except in immediate
> vicinity of mounting holes. These areas are marked (*) in
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/Antenna_Installation.gif
>
> where you will take advantage of the clamp-up forces on
> the mounting bolts. Sealing can be accomplished with a filet
> of RTV around the finished installation.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PIDG .25" Fast-On terminals |
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > Why go soldered when it's so easy to go with
> > the REAL d-subs, those with machined, extractable
> > pins.
>
>
> Thanks! Might be my imagination, but I was thinking the soldered
> ones
>would have less chance of the pin coming loose from the housing, and
>I've worked with the solder ones before. I'm thinking of using the heat
>shrink and hot gun trick that you've published to make connections for
>trim servos and such.
Certainly, use which ever technology is the most
comfortable for you and/or matches your tools set.
But the neat thing about crimped pin d-subs is that
the military spec pins . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_4-quad-crimp.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/D-Sub_Machined_Pins.jpg
will fit in the el-cheeso connectors. Retention
is not a concern given that it takes a special
tool and a bit of skill to get those puppies
out.
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/D-Sub_Pin/Pin-Extraction.html
The really cool thing about this technology is
that you can get mil-spec wiring from the
best-pins-we-know-how-to-build without having
to pay the best-we-know-how-to-do prices for
housings.
I know of no other combination of high-end,
low-end components with such a pleasing outcome.
Low cost crimp tools are readily available too . .
http://www.mpja.com/prodinfo.asp?number=15534+TL
you need these extraction tools too . . .
http://www.mpja.com/prodinfo.asp?number=17124+TL
or
http://tinyurl.com/2tgs5t
Bob . . .
> > Molex makes a lot of 2, 3, and 4 pin connectors.
> > You'll need to be more specific.
>
> Something like these:
><http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103448&cp 32058.2032231.2032286&parentPage=family>
><http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103293&cp 32058.2032231.2032286&parentPage=family>
Okay, I've not looked closely at those lately
but I think RS stocks the AMP Mate-n-Lock series
of nylon rectangular connectors. You may already
have found at least one practical source for these
products. I don't recall if RS has the proper tool
to install them. If RS doesn't have one in the
store, try this one . .
http://tinyurl.com/ytkq2v
I just received one of these for a client and
it's a true "multi-tool" amongst the "butt-cheeks"
style crimping tools. It features dies small
enough to install the 28AWG pins on Molex C-grid
connectors and large enough to put spark-plug
terminals on your spark plug wires. It's
rather well made too.
There are a bucket full of choices in the
rectangular connects with b-crimp pins. Here's
one suite of choices:
http://tinyurl.com/2f98rg
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swanson" <jswanson(at)jamadots.com> |
I need help in wiring a cessna style split Master Switch Batt/Alt
into Z16 Rotax system. I'm using a single buss.
Thanks
John S
CH701
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Aaron Gustafson wrote:
>
>
> I have the AEC book but don't remember this. Can you clue me in
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html>
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wing Wire Sizing and Installation |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Hello :-)
I could use some help sizing the wires for my metal Sonex wing. I plan to install
them before closing. I will have landing lights plus wingtip nav/strobe/pos
lights. All but strobes are currently available in LEDs. If a xenon strobe is
used, the power supplies would be mounted in the wingtips.
I spoke with a person at aveousa.net who said they will have an all LED nav/strobe/pos
unit in production soon. No power supply needed! They also plan on getting
out an LED landing light system. AeroLEDs.com already has a couple LED landing
lights available called aerosun.
Im not sure if I will want a taxi light (pros, cons?) in addition to the landing
lights. If I dont add the extra wires now and find I want the taxi light, Id
mount it on the cowl, I suppose.
Temperature correction
Using the formula L1/L2 = (234 + T2)/254 where T2 the temperature difference between
20C and the highest temp to be encountered. Using a max temp of 60C gives
T2 = 40C. So L1/L2 = 1.08.
My round trip circuit length is 40 ft. To compensate for high temps, I need to
increase the length by 8% when using the AC43.13 charts. That would give an adjusted
length of 43 ft.
Nowhere have I accounted for the resistance increases of wire connections. Detachable
wings and fuses may effect this.
Graphs
I was told my loads would be intermittent, so I used fig 11-3. To get the single
wire amp rating, I used fig 11-4b. Altitude derating from fig 11-6 is .95 for
10,000 ft. For the bundle derating from fig 11-5, I used 100% loading for 8
wires, even though it would be much less.
Calcs
Here is what I got using all this info:
light type, amps, awg fig 11-3, amp rating fig 11-4b, altitude fig 11-6, bundle
fig 11-5, max amp,
led landing light 2 20 17 0.95 0.5 8.075
55w landing light 4.5 16 28 0.95 0.5 13.3
led nav 0.5 22 14 0.95 0.5 6.65
led pos 0.5 22 14 0.95 0.5 6.65
xenon strobe 3.6 18 24 0.95 0.5 11.4
led strobe 2 18 24 0.95 0.5 11.4
max grd 9.1 10 65 0.95 0.5 30.875
Sorry, I don't know how to make it a nice table, but there should be 7 columns.
It looks like all of the max amp ratings are well above the actual loads.
Wires
Ive been told 20 awg should be used instead of 22 for convenience in handling.
There are also 2 more wires needed if I wanted wig wag function in the led landing
lights, so 2 more 20 awg wires would be needed. So my bundle would consist
of one 16 awg for the landing light, four 20 awg for the wig wag and nav/pos
lights, one 18 awg for the strobe, and a 10 awg for grounding all of this. 7
wires total.
Bundling and Installation
Havent gotten very far into the actual process of how to bundle and support these
wires. Aeroelectric.com has a pic of wires going through an opening secured
by adel clamps to an L-bracket. Im thinking of something similar, routing the
wires through the leading edge lightening holes and using padded adel clamps.
The ribs are 10 apart. I dont know if any other stuff (lacing or ty wraps) would
be needed.
I would leave the ends of the wires dangling out the wing tip. The nav/strobe/pos
light would mount to the tip rib, which I wont make for some time. The landing
light would require the leading edge to be cutout and a bracket installed
between the ribs. It would be easier to do this before riveting the wing shut,
but cheaper to wait 3 years or so until assemble is almost complete. Wouldnt
want lights sitting around that long getting outdated and having their warranties
expire.
Well, thats about it for now. Any insight is appreciated.
Take care! :D
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152152#152152
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru 3300 Schematic |
| From: | "Terry Phillips" <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net> |
The standard alternator for the Jabiru 3300 is rated at 20-amps.
Would a solid state relay, such as the AEC3030 or the Perhellion PowerLink Jr.
III 35A Solid-State Relay, perform satisfactorily as the main battery contactor
in the Z21A design?
Has anyone tried using a solid state relay as a battery contactor?
--------
Terry Phillips
Corvallis, MT
ttp44<at>rkymtn.net
Zenith 601XL/Jab 3300 slow build kit - Tail feathers done; working on the wings.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152213#152213
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wing Wiring Clamps and Brackets |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
I will be routing 7-10 wires through the lightening holes of the leading edge ribs
from the fuselage to the wingtip for landing (and maybe taxi) lights and nav/strobe/pos
lights. Gauges vary from 10-20, average size 18. Distance between
ribs is 10. The skins will be riveted shut after wiring installation. Terminal
connections are not an issue yet, since there will be no lights added until
the fuselage and rest of the plane near completion. Ill have a foot or so extra
dangling out the tip end, and maybe more in the fuselage for the detaching
wings of my Sonex.
The wires will stay more than 3/8 away from the edges of the lightening holes,
so no grommets will be needed. Attached is a pic from Aeroelectric.com that illustrates
this.
>From the pitot tube inward, these brackets will also support 2 nygon tubes for
the pitot tube. There will be a sag of In the wires with normal hand pressure
present between the rib mounted brackets. Padded Adel clamps MS-21919 will fasten
the wires to the bracket, tight enough to not allow the bundle to move through
the clamp when a slight axial pull is applied. Vinyl electrical tape could
be used between the bundle and clamp to achieve this fit, if necessary.
Tying or lacing seems unnecessary, since the supports are less than 12 inches apart.
But in another place in Chapter 11, AC43.13, it says ties should be installed
on service loop harnesses at 4 to 6-inch intervals. Im not sure what a
service loop harness is. The heading of this section looks like this: 10. SERVICE
LOOP HARNESSES (Plastic Tie Strips) Do I need a tie between the clamps, or
not? If ties are needed, would simply using short lengths of lacing tied in a
clove hitch and square knot be okay? Or would it have to be one continual length
of string?
Any suggestions appreciated!
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152230#152230
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/aeroelectriccom_pic_of_adel_clamped_bundle_through_hole_690.doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru 3300 Schematic |
When I raised exactly the same point a couple of months ago in re: the Rotax
20A alternator, I was quickly reminded that the starter current is a wee bit
more than the 20A that the SS relay can handle.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Irvine, California
Europa XS Tri-Gear
S/N A070
Airframe complete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Phillips
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Jabiru 3300 Schematic
The standard alternator for the Jabiru 3300 is rated at 20-amps.
Would a solid state relay, such as the AEC3030 or the Perhellion PowerLink
Jr. III 35A Solid-State Relay, perform satisfactorily as the main battery
contactor in the Z21A design?
Has anyone tried using a solid state relay as a battery contactor?
--------
Terry Phillips
Corvallis, MT
ttp44<at>rkymtn.net
Zenith 601XL/Jab 3300 slow build kit - Tail feathers done; working on the
wings.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152213#152213
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <psiegel(at)fuse.net> |
| Subject: | Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true? |
I'm finding it impossible to keep a vacuum driven artificial horizon healthy in
the panel of my 180 horse Super Cub. The new Aspen Avionics all electric Horizon/HSI
looks like a great alternative! And compared to other similar avionics
packages, it is very economical! Anybody have thoughts on the Aspen unit?
Speaking of economical...while looking at plasma TV's and HD video players the
other day, I discovered that they want over a hundred bucks just for the cable
that runs between the two units!!! Is that cable made of unobtainium or what?
I sense a consumer rip-off, but the nice salesperson assure me of the fact
that the quality of the picture is dependent on getting the ex$pensive cable!
And I thought avionics stuff was cost intensive!
Paul Siegel N4431Z
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true? |
| From: | "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
Paul,
I agree it looks really teriffic and their stated pricing is competetive with the
experimental stuff. Unfortunately they are not producing/shipping them so there
is no track record history. They certainly bear watching.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152308#152308
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Nelson <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true? |
Hi Paul,
I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express and I can't help with your artificial
horizon question. However, I may be able to shed of information on your HDMI
cable:
http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=ps3&message.id=828972#M828972
I've been told (haven't done it myself), that the following is a decent place
to get A/V/Computer cables, etc:
http://www.monoprice.com/
Regards,
/\/elson
RV-7A - Prepping for interior paint
Austin, TX
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, psiegel(at)fuse.net wrote:
>
> I'm finding it impossible to keep a vacuum driven artificial horizon healthy
> in the panel of my 180 horse Super Cub. The new Aspen Avionics all electric
> Horizon/HSI looks like a great alternative! And compared to other similar
> avionics packages, it is very economical! Anybody have thoughts on the Aspen
> unit?
>
> Speaking of economical...while looking at plasma TV's and HD video players
> the other day, I discovered that they want over a hundred bucks just for the
> cable that runs between the two units!!! Is that cable made of unobtainium
> or what? I sense a consumer rip-off, but the nice salesperson assure me of
> the fact that the quality of the picture is dependent on getting the
> ex$pensive cable! And I thought avionics stuff was cost intensive!
>
> Paul Siegel N4431Z
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aaron Gustafson" <agustafson(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true? |
>>>>Speaking of economical...while looking at plasma TV's and HD video
>>>>players the other day, I discovered that they want over a hundred bucks
>>>>just for the cable that runs between the two units!!! Is that cable
>>>>made of unobtainium or what? I sense a consumer rip-off, but the nice
>>>>salesperson assure me of the fact that the quality of the picture is
>>>>dependent on getting the ex$pensive cable! And I thought avionics stuff
>>>>was cost intensive!<<<<<
Just a look at an electronics supply catalog will convince you that cable
and wire are not cheap even the everyday common stuff. Specialty cables are
ridiculous.
Aaron G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lincoln Keill <airlincoln(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | help me choose my electric system |
I'm building an RV-7A which will have a one magneto and one Lightspeed CDI ignition
system. It will be certified initially as a VFR day/night aircraft with
bare bones instrumentation (one comm & xnpdr) but with the hope that someday I
can save enough $$$ to equip it with a Garmin GNS 430, Dynon D-180, TruTrak Pictorial
Pilot and turn it into an IFR machine. (I'm planning on installing all
necessary the antennas/wiring now to do that).
I'm soliciting opinions as to which electrical system would best suit this particular
approach. Reading through Bob's great book, I think either Z-11, Z-12
or Z-13/8 or Z-13/20 but I'd love to hear the opinion of anyone & everyone who
has gone through this selection process. Thanks.
Lincoln Keill
Sacramento, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Wiring Clamps and Brackets |
>
>I will be routing 7-10 wires through the lightening holes of the leading
>edge ribs from the fuselage to the wingtip for landing (and maybe taxi)
>lights and nav/strobe/pos lights. Gauges vary from 10-20, average size 18.
>Distance between ribs is 10. The skins will be riveted shut after
>wiring installation. Terminal connections are not an issue yet, since
>there will be no lights added until the fuselage and rest of the plane
>near completion. Ill have a foot or so extra dangling out the tip end,
>and maybe more in the fuselage for the detaching wings of my Sonex.
>
>The wires will stay more than 3/8 away from the edges of the lightening
>holes, so no grommets will be needed. Attached is a pic from
>Aeroelectric.com that illustrates this.
>
> >From the pitot tube inward, these brackets will also support 2 nygon
> tubes for the pitot tube. There will be a sag of In the wires with
> normal hand pressure present between the rib mounted brackets. Padded
> Adel clamps MS-21919 will fasten the wires to the bracket, tight enough
> to not allow the bundle to move through the clamp when a slight axial
> pull is applied. Vinyl electrical tape could be used between the bundle
> and clamp to achieve this fit, if necessary.
>
>Tying or lacing seems unnecessary, since the supports are less than 12
>inches apart. But in another place in Chapter 11, AC43.13, it says ties
>should be installed on service loop harnesses at 4 to 6-inch
>intervals. Im not sure what a service loop harness is. The
>heading of this section looks like this: 10. SERVICE LOOP HARNESSES
>(Plastic Tie Strips) Do I need a tie between the clamps, or not? If ties
>are needed, would simply using short lengths of lacing tied in a clove
>hitch and square knot be okay? Or would it have to be one continual length
>of string?
>
>Any suggestions appreciated!
None of the illustrations you've cited are a requirement
of any kind . . . nor are they intended to be any
sort of ordered good-better-best approach to keeping
bundles neat.
If your wires are adequately supported from coming
into contact with structure, then any form of bundling
between supports is up to you. Industry practices suggest
4-6" between ties but if you leave them off, there is
no hazard to the wires only to your aura of craftsmanship.
Chapter 11 of AC43-13 at . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/FAA/AC43.13-1B_Ch11_Electrical.pdf
speaks to industry standard practices.
I prefer string ties and would probably place them
at intervals not to exceed 6". Use this article
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/cable_lace/cable_lace.html
as a guide.
But even if you do no more than what you've described
in terms of bundle support, you're not going to find
yourself spiralling out of the sky trailing smoke
and wishing that you had put on one more string tie.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
>
>Aaron Gustafson wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have the AEC book but don't remember this. Can you clue me in
>
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html>
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
Don't know what your question is. The article cite
is but one of dozens of compact, low cost solutions for
(1) dealing with those pesky little wires that come out
of a MAC/RayAllen servo and (2) adding a convenient service
disconnect of the device from ship's wiring for maintenance.
If you're considering an alternative technology, it's probably
fine too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com> |
| Subject: | Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true? |
Paul,
If you are referring to an HDMI cable (or any other digital cable for that
matter) save your money. Try looking for generic ones on
http://www.newegg.com or some similar computer place. There was a good
article this month in Popular Mechanics that put several cables to the test.
One $15 cable and two $100-300 varieties. Nobody could tell a difference.
It is all sales hype (for digital signals at least).
Digital signals, such as those sent across HDMI cables, are a stream of
binary 1's and 0's across the cable. As long as the bits make it from one
end of the cable to the next and the 1's are still 1's and the 0's are still
0's you will get the exact same picture quality regardless of the cable
being used.
-Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
psiegel(at)fuse.net
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 4:12 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true?
I'm finding it impossible to keep a vacuum driven artificial horizon healthy
in the panel of my 180 horse Super Cub. The new Aspen Avionics all electric
Horizon/HSI looks like a great alternative! And compared to other similar
avionics packages, it is very economical! Anybody have thoughts on the
Aspen unit?
Speaking of economical...while looking at plasma TV's and HD video players
the other day, I discovered that they want over a hundred bucks just for the
cable that runs between the two units!!! Is that cable made of unobtainium
or what? I sense a consumer rip-off, but the nice salesperson assure me of
the fact that the quality of the picture is dependent on getting the
ex$pensive cable! And I thought avionics stuff was cost intensive!
Paul Siegel N4431Z
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lincoln Keill <airlincoln(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I'm starting the tenative steps towards figuring out which electrical system to
use on my RV-7A and can't find the Z-11 diagram (single-battery, single alternator
system) in the Aeroelectric Connection book. I actually have page Z-11
but it's not a schematic, just the text description of the notes on the other
schematics. I have revision zzJ (07/06). Anyone? Thanks.
Lincoln Keill
Sacramento, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Jabiru 3300 Schematic and "solid state contactors" |
There's another issue with respect to substituting the
silicon marvels for a metalic switching device as a battery
contactor . . . battery contactors are noted for their
ability to carry current equally well in BOTH directions.
I.e., the contactor must allow current FROM the battery
to start the engine and power useful goodies in case of
alternator failure. The contactor must also carry current
TO the battery to recharge it.
The present state of the art for solid state contactors
makes them VERY good substitutes for carrying current
one way (under 1 milliohm) but not good at going the
other way.
Bob . . .
>
>When I raised exactly the same point a couple of months ago in re: the Rotax
>20A alternator, I was quickly reminded that the starter current is a wee bit
>more than the 20A that the SS relay can handle.
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>Rob Housman
>
>
>The standard alternator for the Jabiru 3300 is rated at 20-amps.
>
>Would a solid state relay, such as the AEC3030 or the Perhellion PowerLink
>Jr. III 35A Solid-State Relay, perform satisfactorily as the main battery
>contactor in the Z21A design?
>
>Has anyone tried using a solid state relay as a battery contactor?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Master switch |
>I need help in wiring a cessna style split Master Switch Batt/Alt
>into Z16 Rotax system. I'm using a single buss.
Not sure how to answer this. The S700-2-10
switch shown in Z-16 emulates the functions
of a split-rocker switch. I.e. wiring diagrams
for both switches is identical.
You might check the panel of a Cessna but
the switch as-mounted uses the right side
rocker as the battery master and the left
side as the alternator. A check with your
ohmmeter would confirm that the battery side
can be ON without having the alternator
side ON too . . .
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
>
>
>I have the AEC book but don't remember this. Can you clue me in
>
>>>>heat shrink and hot gun trick that you've published to make connections <<<
>
>Aaron G.
Don't recognize the sentence. In what context was
it used? I.e., where did you see it published.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true? |
This is another cable that gets great reports and I will be using them in my
new HT setup. There is also a lot of info about HD, audio, etc on the site.
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/index.htm
Sam Chambers
Long-EZ N775AM
Glasgow, KY
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true?
>
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express and I can't help with your
> artificial horizon question. However, I may be able to shed of
> information on your HDMI cable:
>
> http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=ps3&message.id=828972#M828972
>
> I've been told (haven't done it myself), that the following is a decent
> place to get A/V/Computer cables, etc:
>
> http://www.monoprice.com/
>
> Regards,
> /\/elson
> RV-7A - Prepping for interior paint
> Austin, TX
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, psiegel(at)fuse.net wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm finding it impossible to keep a vacuum driven artificial horizon
>> healthy in the panel of my 180 horse Super Cub. The new Aspen Avionics
>> all electric Horizon/HSI looks like a great alternative! And compared to
>> other similar avionics packages, it is very economical! Anybody have
>> thoughts on the Aspen unit?
>>
>> Speaking of economical...while looking at plasma TV's and HD video
>> players the other day, I discovered that they want over a hundred bucks
>> just for the cable that runs between the two units!!! Is that cable made
>> of unobtainium or what? I sense a consumer rip-off, but the nice
>> salesperson assure me of the fact that the quality of the picture is
>> dependent on getting the ex$pensive cable! And I thought avionics stuff
>> was cost intensive!
>>
>> Paul Siegel N4431Z
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike humphrey" <mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true? |
Paul,
HDMI cables are outrageous in their price. Just got a new plasma and went
through the same disbelief. 1080i is to most lay people just as good as a
HD video player. Still need the HDMI cable though but I would hold off on
the HD video player until the prices become more reasonable. PS3 or Xbox
will play HD DVD's, if you have one.
Do you need a NIB Rapco Vac Kit for your Super Cub? Maybe that is the
culprit in killing off your AH. Have one if interested-never installed and
complete.
Mike H 9A/8A
----- Original Message -----
From: <psiegel(at)fuse.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:12 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true?
>
> I'm finding it impossible to keep a vacuum driven artificial horizon
> healthy in the panel of my 180 horse Super Cub. The new Aspen Avionics
> all electric Horizon/HSI looks like a great alternative! And compared to
> other similar avionics packages, it is very economical! Anybody have
> thoughts on the Aspen unit?
>
> Speaking of economical...while looking at plasma TV's and HD video players
> the other day, I discovered that they want over a hundred bucks just for
> the cable that runs between the two units!!! Is that cable made of
> unobtainium or what? I sense a consumer rip-off, but the nice salesperson
> assure me of the fact that the quality of the picture is dependent on
> getting the ex$pensive cable! And I thought avionics stuff was cost
> intensive!
>
> Paul Siegel N4431Z
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: where is Z-11? |
Lincoln,
Hmm! Interesting situation. Try going to Bob's web site and downloading the Z-11.
Mike Ice
Baffles and cowling
----- Original Message -----
From: Lincoln Keill
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 5:56 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: where is Z-11?
I'm starting the tenative steps towards figuring out which electrical system
to use on my RV-7A and can't find the Z-11 diagram (single-battery, single alternator
system) in the Aeroelectric Connection book. I actually have page Z-11
but it's not a schematic, just the text description of the notes on the other
schematics. I have revision zzJ (07/06). Anyone? Thanks.
Lincoln Keill
Sacramento, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swanson" <jswanson(at)jamadots.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Master switch |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Master switch
>
>
>
>>I need help in wiring a cessna style split Master Switch Batt/Alt
>>into Z16 Rotax system. I'm using a single buss.
>
> Not sure how to answer this. The S700-2-10
> switch shown in Z-16 emulates the functions
> of a split-rocker switch. I.e. wiring diagrams
> for both switches is identical.
>
> You might check the panel of a Cessna but
> the switch as-mounted uses the right side
> rocker as the battery master and the left
> side as the alternator. A check with your
> ohmmeter would confirm that the battery side
> can be ON without having the alternator
> side ON too . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
>That helps, i already had the split switch before i discovered Z-16
i'm going to wire the batt side direct to the hot side of the battery
contactor.
is that correct? i'm going with one buss .
Thanks
John S
CH701 rotax 912
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joemotis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true? |
More of the same hype concerns "Monster cables"
Monster is right in the amount of hype in my opinion.
Here is a quick cut and paste from Wiki so take it as you will...
[_edit_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monster_Cable_Products&action=edit§ion=2) ] Controversy
[_edit_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monster_Cable_Products&action=edit§ion=3) ] Quality and Pricing
Monster Cable and similar "boutique" cables are a main source of revenue for
retailers of electronics such as DVD players and TVs. While the margins of
DVD players and TVs are usually quite low, the high margins of Monster Cables
and similar products provide important revenue for these retailers. The heavy
marketing and corresponding bundling of Monster Cable and similar products
are de-facto procedures for employees at these resellers.
Whether Monster cables actually provide better quality sound or video than
generic cables is a highly debated topic among the audio and videophile
communities. Various reviews have reported that listeners and viewers are unable
to
tell a difference between substantially higher-priced Monster cables and
inexpensive cables
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Grounding |
>
>
>I'm curious ...
>
>if the body of the antenna in question is non-conductive, what difference
>does it make to use the gasket or not? Wouldn't the grounding of the
>outside/shield of the bnc connector be the important connection (if there
>is to be one) with respect to mounting?? And how would that be established??
>
>Thanking you in advance for your experienced technical response,
The outer shield of the coax wants to
become well connected to the aircraft skin.
This happens by virtue of good connections to
the outside shell of a BNC connector on the
coax which makes good connection with the
connector on the antenna's base plate which
in turn should be well connected to the skin.
This is why the areas marked (*) in photo cited
are critical both with respect to cleanliness
to bare metal but also clamp-up forces for the
purpose of attaining gas-tight joints.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Grounding |
Good Afternoon Bob,
I have seen references that suggested using Alodine 1001 or 1003 on the
areas that have been cleaned.
Any comment?
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 12/15/2007 1:55:52 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net writes:
The outer shield of the coax wants to
become well connected to the aircraft skin.
This happens by virtue of good connections to
the outside shell of a BNC connector on the
coax which makes good connection with the
connector on the antenna's base plate which
in turn should be well connected to the skin.
This is why the areas marked (*) in photo cited
are critical both with respect to cleanliness
to bare metal but also clamp-up forces for the
purpose of attaining gas-tight joints.
Bob . . .
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: where is Z-11? |
>I'm starting the tenative steps towards figuring out which electrical
>system to use on my RV-7A and can't find the Z-11 diagram (single-battery,
>single alternator system) in the Aeroelectric Connection book. I actually
>have page Z-11 but it's not a schematic, just the text description of the
>notes on the other schematics. I have revision zzJ (07/06). Anyone? Thanks.
Sorry 'bout that. The printer screwed up Appendix
Z in the last printing . . . but then, the printed
paper copies are probably obsolete before the ink
is dry on the paper.
For the latest versions, one is encouraged to keep
an eye on . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html
. . . for the latest iteration of this continuously
evolving information.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Ronco" <joe(at)halzel.com> |
Try this link:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/
Joe Ronco
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
T. Ice
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: where is Z-11?
Lincoln,
Hmm! Interesting situation. Try going to Bob's web site and downloading the
Z-11.
Mike Ice
Baffles and cowling
----- Original Message -----
From: Lincoln Keill <mailto:airlincoln(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 5:56 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: where is Z-11?
I'm starting the tenative steps towards figuring out which electrical system
to use on my RV-7A and can't find the Z-11 diagram (single-battery, single
alternator system) in the Aeroelectric Connection book. I actually have
page Z-11 but it's not a schematic, just the text description of the notes
on the other schematics. I have revision zzJ (07/06). Anyone? Thanks.
Lincoln Keill
Sacramento, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Grounding |
>Good Afternoon Bob,
>
>I have seen references that suggested using Alodine 1001 or 1003 on the
>areas that have been cleaned.
>
>Any comment?
Yeah, one can probably demonstrate a modicum of
"protection" for such chemically induced films.
Bottom line is that these ARE chemically induced
layers that are exceedingly thin. If one's airplane
is billeted in a salt-air or high humidity environment,
then the improvement for having taken prophylactic
measures such as brushed on films is difficult
to demonstrate.
Actually, a silicone grease is probably a better
bet. The compression strength of the grease is on
the order of .001 PSI while clamp-up forces in
the joint will me thousands of PSI. Any grease
in a potential metal-to-metal joint will be
extruded out . . . while voids in the finished
joint will still be filled with the grease.
I'd stand Dow Corning DC-4 up against Alodine
chem films in a heartbeat. On the other hand,
two surfaces clamped together in a gas-tight
bond, then NO additional corrosion proofing is
necessary or useful.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Ronco" <joe(at)halzel.com> |
Try this link:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/
Joe Ronco
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
T. Ice
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: where is Z-11?
Lincoln,
Hmm! Interesting situation. Try going to Bob's web site and downloading the
Z-11.
Mike Ice
Baffles and cowling
----- Original Message -----
From: Lincoln Keill <mailto:airlincoln(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 5:56 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: where is Z-11?
I'm starting the tenative steps towards figuring out which electrical system
to use on my RV-7A and can't find the Z-11 diagram (single-battery, single
alternator system) in the Aeroelectric Connection book. I actually have
page Z-11 but it's not a schematic, just the text description of the notes
on the other schematics. I have revision zzJ (07/06). Anyone? Thanks.
Lincoln Keill
Sacramento, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
For those interesting in experimenting with the newest and brightest LEDs, I just
ordered and received a pack of 228 Lumen 1A star LEDs that are tremendous.
Check these guys--
http://www.dealextreme.com/products.dx/category.917
Among the other astonishing parts is a 50W 1700 Lumen LEDs for $97.67 Free Shipping.
These guys are associated with Kaidoman.com and a couple other related companies,
but don't let that confuse you. These guys are a goldmine of cool parts, and
ridiculously easy to deal with.
RECOMMENDED
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152413#152413
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Wiring Clamps and Brackets |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks, Bob :-)
If I get the lacing string before buttoning up the wings, I'll prolly tie the bundle
in the middle of each bay. It sounds like the lacing string is easy to apply
and less hazardous than plastic cable ties, so I'll break down and pay the
$20 for a quarter mile of it.
Cheers,
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152417#152417
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Wiring Clamps and Brackets |
>
>Thanks, Bob :-)
>
>If I get the lacing string before buttoning up the wings, I'll prolly tie
>the bundle in the middle of each bay. It sounds like the lacing string is
>easy to apply and less hazardous than plastic cable ties, so I'll break
>down and pay the $20 for a quarter mile of it.
It's nice stuff . . . and after 40 years of
herding wire, it's still my favorite "lasso".
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
>Try this link:
>
>
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/>http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/
I checked that folder and found a couple of out-of-date
and missing drawings. The folder has just been updated
with a complete set of the latest drawings to bring it
into alignment with the posted version of Appendix Z.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>>>> heat shrink and hot gun trick that you've published to make
>>>>> connections <<<
>>
>
> Don't recognize the sentence. In what context was
> it used? I.e., where did you see it published.
>
Hi Bob,
It is published on your website at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Grounding |
Actually the bottom of the base is plated steel. The visible part of
the base, holding the antenna seems to be fiberglass. So the heads of
the screws hold onto fiberglass. The steel bottom of the antenna will
be touching the aluminum skin provided I do not install the cork
gasket. The BNC connector is on the bottom of course.
Jeff Page
> From: "David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Grounding
>
> I'm curious ...
>
> if the body of the antenna in question is non-conductive, what difference
> does it make to use the gasket or not? Wouldn't the grounding of the
> outside/shield of the bnc connector be the important connection (if there is
> to be one) with respect to mounting?? And how would that be established??
>
> Thanking you in advance for your experienced technical response,
>
> Dave L.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Wiring Clamps and Brackets |
messydeer wrote:
>
> Thanks, Bob :-)
>
> If I get the lacing string before buttoning up the wings, I'll prolly tie the
bundle in the middle of each bay. It sounds like the lacing string is easy to
apply and less hazardous than plastic cable ties, so I'll break down and pay
the $20 for
The hardware big-box stores carry rolls of velcro designed to hold wires
in bundles. The first rotation goes through a loop that locks the thing
together. Two rotations, and you can hang from it. It is as easy to
apply and as strong as zip-ties, but shouldn't erode steel tubes
(because you put the nice felt side against the tube).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: (HDMI Cables) Aspen Avionics panel |
Paul,
Several others have told you about the rip off schemes that retailers use to sell
you very expensive HDMI and other cables. Some of them have given you links
to places that have cheaper but just as good cables. Here is another one that
I use. Their product is outstanding and very inexpensive, thus debunking the
sales hype that expensive cables are needed to correctly pass digital HDMI
data:
http://www.mycablemart.com/
Good luck with your projects.
Henador Titzoff
Airplane Buff(er)
----- Original Message ----
From: "psiegel(at)fuse.net" <psiegel(at)fuse.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:12:13 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true?
I'm finding it impossible to keep a vacuum driven artificial horizon
healthy in the panel of my 180 horse Super Cub. The new Aspen Avionics
all electric Horizon/HSI looks like a great alternative! And compared
to other similar avionics packages, it is very economical! Anybody have
thoughts on the Aspen unit?
Speaking of economical...while looking at plasma TV's and HD video
players the other day, I discovered that they want over a hundred bucks
just for the cable that runs between the two units!!! Is that cable made
of unobtainium or what? I sense a consumer rip-off, but the nice
salesperson assure me of the fact that the quality of the picture is
dependent on getting the ex$pensive cable! And I thought avionics stuff was
cost intensive!
Paul Siegel N4431Z
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> >>>>> heat shrink and hot gun trick that you've published to make
> >>>>> connections <<<
> >>
>
> >
> > Don't recognize the sentence. In what context was
> > it used? I.e., where did you see it published.
> >
>
>Hi Bob,
> It is published on your website at
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
Okay, what is your question?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com> |
Hi all
I'm installing a Sigtronics SPA-400 intercom and need help on a couple of
questions.
First the intercomunit only has one ground connection rather than a separate
power ground and an avionics ground. The radio has both. My plan is to
create an avionics ground plane using a DSUB adjacent to the intercom, wire
this to the power ground and then terminate the intercom's only ground and
the radio avionics ground on this - does this make sense? What should I use
as the shield on the wires to the radio - a separate connections to the
avionics ground plane left unterminated at the radio?
Secondly, based on the Sigtronics wiring diagram, the headphone output from
the SPA-400 ties directly to the headphone output from the radio and all of
the headphone sockets hang off this conection. Every other intercom/audio
panel I've seen has the radio headphone output as an input and then has one
or more separate outputs for the phone sockets. How does this work ifor the
SPA-400? Is the SPA-400 making some assumptions about the electrical
characteristics of headphone output of the radio? It seems odd to be tying
two outputs together but since there are so many SPA-400's around I assume
its OK?
Any comments gratefully appreciated
Best Regards
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vernon Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
Hi Peter, the SPA-400 works fine as long as you follow their appnotes. Most
comm radios will require a resistor (500 ohms or so) in series with the
output in order to function properly. The Sigtronics intercoms use a
passive bus technique which has the advantage of working even with an
electrical failure in the intercom circuit. As with most intercoms, wiring
all of those shielded wires is a major pain.
You can check out the AMX-1A from Vx Aviation here: http://vx-aviation.com/
It solves all of the grounding and matching required to connect a number of
different audio sources, and makes shield connections simple. It' sold by
Aircraft Extras http://www.aircraftextras.com
Thanks,
Vern Little
RV-9A
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Mather
Sent: December 16, 2007 2:59 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: SPA-400 wiring
-->
Hi all
I'm installing a Sigtronics SPA-400 intercom and need help on a couple of
questions.
First the intercomunit only has one ground connection rather than a separate
power ground and an avionics ground. The radio has both. My plan is to
create an avionics ground plane using a DSUB adjacent to the intercom, wire
this to the power ground and then terminate the intercom's only ground and
the radio avionics ground on this - does this make sense? What should I use
as the shield on the wires to the radio - a separate connections to the
avionics ground plane left unterminated at the radio?
Secondly, based on the Sigtronics wiring diagram, the headphone output from
the SPA-400 ties directly to the headphone output from the radio and all of
the headphone sockets hang off this conection. Every other intercom/audio
panel I've seen has the radio headphone output as an input and then has one
or more separate outputs for the phone sockets. How does this work ifor the
SPA-400? Is the SPA-400 making some assumptions about the electrical
characteristics of headphone output of the radio? It seems odd to be tying
two outputs together but since there are so many SPA-400's around I assume
its OK?
Any comments gratefully appreciated
Best Regards
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> Hi Bob,
>> It is published on your website at
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
>
> Okay, what is your question?
>
> Bob . . .
A bit of confusion here I think... :-)
I mentioned using the heat shrink and glue approach using the 9 pin
D-subs in a post to you, and someone else asked where that information
was located since they could not find it in your book, and I replied
with the link to the website. You then asked where it was published, so
I just responded to your question...
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> >> Hi Bob,
> >> It is published on your website at
> >> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
> >
> > Okay, what is your question?
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
> A bit of confusion here I think... :-)
Yup, I can usually keep 3 or 4 balls in the air at
once but I think I dropped one this time. Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Wiring Clamps and Brackets |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I sell the Panduit LHMS "Lightening Hole Mounting Saddles" on my website to do
this wiring job. See:
http://www.periheliondesign.com/glastarparts.htm
I don't know who talked Panduit into making these-- they sell very few of these
per year. Panduit usually won't touch a part if they can't sell billions.
Free sample on prospect of selling a hundred or so.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152543#152543
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aaron Gustafson" <agustafson(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Thanks, Bob & Dj.
Aaron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dj Merrill" <deej(at)deej.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>>>>> heat shrink and hot gun trick that you've published to make
>>>>>> connections <<<
>> Don't recognize the sentence. In what context was
>> it used? I.e., where did you see it published.
> Hi Bob,
> It is published on your website at
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Proper Wire Size for 60 Amp Alt? Aeroelectric Discrepancy? |
| From: | "tx_jayhawk" <tx_jayhawk(at)excite.com> |
I'm assuming this is a misprint in the book, but the discrepancy is causing me
to pause and question...
What is the proper B-lead wire size for a 60 amp alt (assuming everything is mounted
FW forward and wire lengths are "std")?
My copy of AC 43.13 says 6 AWG should be protected by 80 amps on CB and 70 amps
on fuse, and it seems 6 should be appropriate.
My Aeroelectric book rev 10A (and several current downloadable drawings) shows
6 AWG on some drawings with 60 amp (ref Z-12) and 4 AWG on others (ref Z-13).
In fact, Z-14 shows 4 AWG with a 40 amp alternator.
Given we know alternators are current limited (don't go above their rating...SD-20
aside), what would be the purpose to have 4 AWG in the above cases? Or, am
I correct to assume they are misprints?
Thanks,
Scott
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152549#152549
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Wiring Clamps and Brackets |
| From: | "messydeer" <messydeer(at)yahoo.com> |
Looks interesting, Eric.
Does it provide the required 3/8" stand-off from the edge of the metal? I have
13 ribs per wing, so for the wires I'd only need 26. Maybe more if I could adapt
them to safely securing the 2 pitot tube lines. So 40 is the most I'd need
and would be happy with a sample.
Cheers,
Dan
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152556#152556
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Battery Question? |
Good Afternoon,
I am sure this information is available somewhere in 'Lectric Bob's
extensive library, but my searching skills are almost non existent.
I have the need for a twenty-eight volt battery set up for testing purposes.
I would imagine something that would supply ten to fifteen ampere hours
would be more than enough.
I do have several controllable bench power supplies to provide reasonable
amperage and voltage, but a couple of twelve volt units in parallel would give
me a nice stabilizing and cushioning device.
Could any one suggest a source of low cost batteries that might be suitable
for use with a bench power supply?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Question? |
Good Afternoon All,
Just as an addendum to my previous request, I did a google search and came
up with something I thought may work.
Interstate Batteries lists a Power Patrol battery that seems about the right
size. It is listed as being a 7.5 AH battery with a potential of handling 80
amps for up to five seconds and fifty amps continuously (For not long I would
suppose!)
They also have a nice, though more expensive, unit that has an 18 AH rating
and can handle 250 amps for five seconds, eighty amps continuously.
The big one would probably even handle a gear retraction or two!
I am leaning toward the purchase of a couple of the smaller ones. Any
comments at all?
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 12/16/2007 3:33:44 P.M. Central Standard Time,
BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes:
Could any one suggest a source of low cost batteries that might be suitable
for use with a bench power supply?
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Question? |
OOOPS!!
Should have said series as in:
"I do have several controllable bench power supplies to provide reasonable
amperage and voltage, but a couple of twelve volt units in series would give
me a nice stabilizing and cushioning device."
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 12/16/2007 3:33:44 P.M. Central Standard Time,
BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes:
I do have several controllable bench power supplies to provide reasonable
amperage and voltage, but a couple of twelve volt units in parallel would give
me a nice stabilizing and cushioning device.
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Wiring Clamps and Brackets |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
> Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: Re: Wing Wiring Clamps and
Brackets Looks interesting, Eric.
> So 40 is the most I'd need and would be happy with a sample.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
Dan, send address and email me offlist at emjones(at)charter.net
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152580#152580
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Battery Question? |
You can get 12V 7.5 Amp/Hour batteries in lots of places cheap.
They are used for:
Emergency Exit Signs and Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) for
computers.
Check at your local big box hardware store in the electrical department or a
local electrical or lighting supply house or check if there is a Batteries R
US (Or something like that) near you.
Series for big volts, parallel for big amps :-)
r.t.s.
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Question?
OOOPS!!
Should have said series as in:
"I do have several controllable bench power supplies to provide reasonable
amperage and voltage, but a couple of twelve volt units in series would give
me a nice stabilizing and cushioning device."
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 12/16/2007 3:33:44 P.M. Central Standard Time,
BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes:
I do have several controllable bench power supplies to provide reasonable
amperage and voltage, but a couple of twelve volt units in parallel would
give me a nice stabilizing and cushioning device.
_____
See AOL's top
<http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004> rated
recipes and easy
<http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003>
ways to stay in shape for winter.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Proper Wire Size for 60 Amp Alt? Aeroelectric |
Discrepancy?
>
>I'm assuming this is a misprint in the book, but the discrepancy is
>causing me to pause and question...
>
>What is the proper B-lead wire size for a 60 amp alt (assuming everything
>is mounted FW forward and wire lengths are "std")?
>
>My copy of AC 43.13 says 6 AWG should be protected by 80 amps on CB and 70
>amps on fuse, and it seems 6 should be appropriate.
>
>My Aeroelectric book rev 10A (and several current downloadable drawings)
>shows 6 AWG on some drawings with 60 amp (ref Z-12) and 4 AWG on others
>(ref Z-13). In fact, Z-14 shows 4 AWG with a 40 amp alternator.
>
>Given we know alternators are current limited (don't go above their
>rating...SD-20 aside), what would be the purpose to have 4 AWG in the
>above cases? Or, am I correct to assume they are misprints?
The Z-figures are ARCHITECTURE drawings and not
intended to specify the size of anything. Having
said that, I would wire with 4AWG for all fat wires
'cause it's easily acquired at the welding supply
store in nice, soft and easily worked wire. But
if it rings your chimes to chase down a piece of
6AWG for that short run of wire, that's certainly
okay too.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Question? |
>Good Afternoon All,
>
>Just as an addendum to my previous request, I did a google search and came
>up with something I thought may work.
>
>Interstate Batteries lists a Power Patrol battery that seems about the
>right size. It is listed as being a 7.5 AH battery with a potential of
>handling 80 amps for up to five seconds and fifty amps continuously (For
>not long I would suppose!)
>
>They also have a nice, though more expensive, unit that has an 18 AH
>rating and can handle 250 amps for five seconds, eighty amps continuously.
>
>The big one would probably even handle a gear retraction or two!
>
>I am leaning toward the purchase of a couple of the smaller ones. Any
>comments at all?
Can your power supplies be cranked up to 14.2 or thereabouts?
Also, you need to check and see how much (if any) current
flows back into the power supplies when they are powered-down
and still connected to batteries.
Using batteries to augment bench supplies is not an unreasonable
thing to consider. We used to do it in the two-way radio
business all the time. Most radios ran nicely in the receive
mode from a modest power supply but took 20+ Amps for
some of the big honkers. We would float a battery across
the power supply for temporary support of very intermittent
loads.
What kind of work are you wanting to accomplish with this
supply? If it's a relatively low priority, occasional kind
of activity, perhaps the batteries are your best bet . . .
but they are like houseplants . . . you gotta take care
of them.
How much current do you need at 28V . . . or would 24.0
do the job?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Question? |
>Good Afternoon All,
>
>Just as an addendum to my previous request, I did a google search and came
>up with something I thought may work.
>
>Interstate Batteries lists a Power Patrol battery that seems about the
>right size. It is listed as being a 7.5 AH battery with a potential of
>handling 80 amps for up to five seconds and fifty amps continuously (For
>not long I would suppose!)
>
>They also have a nice, though more expensive, unit that has an 18 AH
>rating and can handle 250 amps for five seconds, eighty amps continuously.
>
>The big one would probably even handle a gear retraction or two!
>
>I am leaning toward the purchase of a couple of the smaller ones. Any
>comments at all?
Toss this idea in the hat. Theres a power supply on
ebay right now at:
http://tinyurl.com/2mzrkk
For a total cost of about $50 you can have a power
supply that will support 15A indefinitely and it's
probably only a little more expensive than a pair
of 7.5AH batteries. The best thing is that you
don't have to water, fertilize or pray over it
either!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Question? |
Good Evening Bob,
"Can your power supplies be cranked up to 14.2 or thereabouts?
Also, you need to check and see how much (if any) current
flows back into the power supplies when they are powered-down
and still connected to batteries."
Darned if I know!
The primary one that I hope to use is a variable power supply that is
supposed to be capable of supplying up to 40 volts and 25 amperes. It is a
Hewlett-Packard 6438B which means absolutely nothing to me!
"What kind of work are you wanting to accomplish with this
supply? If it's a relatively low priority, occasional kind
of activity, perhaps the batteries are your best bet . . .
but they are like houseplants . . . you gotta take care
of them."
I would like to use it to check out the aircraft systems.
Primarily electronics, but also the flaps, lights and, maybe, even the
retractable landing gear. My intent is to hook the batteries to the airplane
in
lieu of the standard battery and power the whole thing with the power supply
set at twenty-eight volts.
I hadn't considered leaving the power supply hooked up when not in use, but
it would be interesting to know what would happen. I suppose I could hook an
ammeter inline to see if there is any back flow.
I really have no idea what the intermittent loads will be, but steady state
would rarely exceed fifteen amps. More often five to ten
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 12/16/2007 10:03:36 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net writes:
Using batteries to augment bench supplies is not an unreasonable
thing to consider. We used to do it in the two-way radio
business all the time. Most radios ran nicely in the receive
mode from a modest power supply but took 20+ Amps for
some of the big honkers. We would float a battery across
the power supply for temporary support of very intermittent
loads.
How much current do you need at 28V . . . or would 24.0
do the job?
Bob . . .
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Question? |
Good Evening Bob,
When using that address, I seem to be getting a 24 to 12 converter!
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 12/16/2007 10:12:03 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net writes:
Toss this idea in the hat. Theres a power supply on
ebay right now at:
http://tinyurl.com/2mzrkk
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Question? |
>Good Evening Bob,
>
>"Can your power supplies be cranked up to 14.2 or thereabouts?
> Also, you need to check and see how much (if any) current
> flows back into the power supplies when they are powered-down
> and still connected to batteries."
>
>Darned if I know!
>
>The primary one that I hope to use is a variable power supply that is
>supposed to be capable of supplying up to 40 volts and 25 amperes. It is a
>Hewlett-Packard 6438B which means absolutely nothing to me!
Aha! These supplies have a crowbar ov protection
system in them that triggers if you leave them
connected across a battery and remove the incoming
AC power.
>"What kind of work are you wanting to accomplish with this
> supply? If it's a relatively low priority, occasional kind
> of activity, perhaps the batteries are your best bet . . .
> but they are like houseplants . . . you gotta take care
> of them."
>I would like to use it to check out the aircraft systems.
>
>
>Primarily electronics, but also the flaps, lights and, maybe, even the
>retractable landing gear. My intent is to hook the batteries to the
>airplane in lieu of the standard battery and power the whole thing with
>the power supply set at twenty-eight volts.
>
>I hadn't considered leaving the power supply hooked up when not in use,
>but it would be interesting to know what would happen. I suppose I could
>hook an ammeter inline to see if there is any back flow.
>
>I really have no idea what the intermittent loads will be, but steady
>state would rarely exceed fifteen amps. More often five to ten
Okay, you need to build up a "shop power
cart" consisting of two 12v batteries + the
HP power supply. I had just such a critter
for 1K1 while we owned it.
I got a metal "projector cart" on wheels at
Sam's Club. Office supply stores have them
too. Or you can built it out of wood. I'll
suggest that the 18 a.h. RG batteries that
you mentioned would be MINIMUM. These will have
tabs you can bolt up to. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Batteries/Panasonic/17AH.gif
You'll also want to put some form of ON/OFF
control on the cart. If you know someone that
runs a TC aircraft bone yard, you can probably
get your hands on a 6041 series contactor out
of one of larger singles. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Contactors/Eaton_CH/6041SeriesPowerRelays.pdf
Needs to be a 28v, 200A or larger device. Alternatively,
you can use an el-cheeso White-Rogers device. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Contactors/Stancor-WhiteRogers/Stancor_70-Series.pdf
You'll need a 70-903 or 70-907. You can get
these from Allied Electronics at:
http://tinyurl.com/2rnz43
also a fat diode on a heatsink to isolate the
power supply from the battery to avoid the
"crowbar" nuisance trip I cited earlier. See:
http://www.vishay.com/docs/93162/93162ird.pdf
Digikey has the IRD3911 in stock for about $9
at:
http://tinyurl.com/yoqsn7
Nice fat heatsinks for these diodes are getting
hard to find. Drop me your address and I'll
mail you one.
You'll also need a hardware store toggle switch,
an ANL200 current limiter (don't leave this out!)
and a nice, bright red PWR ON light for the cart
to show when the output leads are hot. It would
also be nice to have a voltmeter. I can fix you
up with one.
In operation, the battery cannot be connected
to the airplane unless the HP supply is plugged
in and turned on. The diode prevents backfeed that
WILL damage your power supply. By the way, if you
want to use the full output capability of HP supply,
you'll need to wire it for 240 volts and run a 240
line cord to it. I have one of these on my bench
and it will pop a 20A breaker when operating from
120 VAC and I try to load it to full output.
You'll find this cart quite handy. In fact, with
some minor additions, you could make it a 14/28
volt cart by connecting the batteries in parallel,
changing the contactor to a 14v device and use
a resistor in series for 28v operation. The indicator
light is a little dim on 14v but if you've got
a really obnoxious light for 28v service, it will
be adequate at 14v.
I had just such a cart and used it a lot. I
had 12v car batteries instead of RG but otherwise
it was the same setup. Of course it would crank
an engine very smartly. My cart had "piper"
style ground power plug on the end of the service
output cord. I then fabricated some adapters
to let me plug into a mil-std jack or attach
directly to the b-lead of an alternator to emulate
a running engine/alternator.
This may seem like a lot of fuss . . . but you'll
be glad you did it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Question? |
ignore this and see earlier post . . .
>Good Evening Bob,
>
>When using that address, I seem to be getting a 24 to 12 converter!
>
>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 12/16/2007 10:12:03 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net writes:
>Toss this idea in the hat. Theres a power supply on
> ebay right now at:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/2mzrkk
>
>
>----------
>See AOL's
><http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004>top rated
>recipes and
><http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003>easy
> ways to stay in shape for winter.
>
> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
>incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Scott" <gregory.scott1(at)virgin.net> |
| Subject: | 2 comms 1 antenna |
Hi,
A newcomer to this list so forgive me if this question(or similar) has
been posed before. I am building an RV9 with 2 comm radio's, a Microair
M760 with an ICOM A210 and both thru a PM3000 Intercom. My plan is to
have a single Antenna and use a 4 pole 2 way switch, 3 poles to switch
the audio and the 3rd. to control a 50 Ohm Coax switching relay to
connect the antenna. Any forseen problems with this? if so should I use
2 Antenna? this I thought would risk damage to the receiver input of the
non transmitting Comm.
Greg Scott
RV4 G - RVIV
U.K.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true? |
In re: HDMI cable
I bought a short (1.5 ft) HDMI cable for US$5.25. Longer cables are similarly
inexpensive at http://www.mycablemart.com/
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Irvine, California
Europa XS Tri-Gear
S/N A070
Airframe complete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
psiegel(at)fuse.net
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 4:12 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true?
I'm finding it impossible to keep a vacuum driven artificial horizon healthy
in the panel of my 180 horse Super Cub. The new Aspen Avionics all electric
Horizon/HSI looks like a great alternative! And compared to other similar
avionics packages, it is very economical! Anybody have thoughts on the Aspen
unit?
Speaking of economical...while looking at plasma TV's and HD video players the
other day, I discovered that they want over a hundred bucks just for the cable
that runs between the two units!!! Is that cable made of unobtainium or what?
I sense a consumer rip-off, but the nice salesperson assure me of the fact
that the quality of the picture is dependent on getting the ex$pensive cable!
And I thought avionics stuff was cost intensive!
Paul Siegel N4431Z
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Karppinen" <noelk(at)pcug.org.au> |
| Subject: | Battery Contactors |
I have just started wiring up a Jabiru 3300 installation, which includes a
battery contactor. I wanted to test that the basic power wiring was OK
before going too far with the wiring, so I connected a bench power supply
to the input side of the contactor, and selected the battery position on
the master switch. Everything seemed to be working correctly, except that
the contactor became quite hot to touch once it had been on for a while.
(There was no load on the main bus at this stage, the only current through
the contactor was the coil current.) I removed it and replaced it with a
second borrowed contactor, with the same result. I also took the
contactors out of the aircraft, and checked them on the bench, and again,
they became quite hot. Both contactors drew a coil current of about 750
mA.
Is it normal for battery contactors to run hot, or have I encountered two
faulty contactors?
Noel Karppinen
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Contactors |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 16:59 12/17/2007, you wrote:
>Is it normal for battery contactors to run hot, or have I
>encountered two faulty contactors?
>
>Noel Karppinen
Do you perhaps have contactors rated for intermittent (starter)
service rather than continuous (battery) service?
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Battery Contactors |
It's normal for them to be a little too warm to touch.
The current is about right.
Look at this at a 10W heater. It will get warm!
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel
Karppinen
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 6:59 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactors
I have just started wiring up a Jabiru 3300 installation, which includes a
battery contactor. I wanted to test that the basic power wiring was OK
before going too far with the wiring, so I connected a bench power supply to
the input side of the contactor, and selected the battery position on the
master switch. Everything seemed to be working correctly, except that the
contactor became quite hot to touch once it had been on for a while. (There
was no load on the main bus at this stage, the only current through the
contactor was the coil current.) I removed it and replaced it with a second
borrowed contactor, with the same result. I also took the contactors out of
the aircraft, and checked them on the bench, and again, they became quite
hot. Both contactors drew a coil current of about 750 mA.
Is it normal for battery contactors to run hot, or have I encountered two
faulty contactors?
Noel Karppinen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Question? |
Good Evening Bob,
Wow!!
I had no idea it would take that much effort.
I do have a contactor that may work. It is a 6041H189 from a V35B.
I'll start gathering the rest of the needed materials. Thanks for all the
information.
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 12/16/2007 11:57:29 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net writes:
Okay, you need to build up a "shop power
cart" consisting of two 12v batteries + the
HP power supply. I had just such a critter
for 1K1 while we owned it.
I got a metal "projector cart" on wheels at
Sam's Club. Office supply stores have them
too. Or you can built it out of wood. I'll
suggest that the 18 a.h. RG batteries that
you mentioned would be MINIMUM. These will have
tabs you can bolt up to. See:
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
Bob and others that responded.
Today I was able to get the ANL 60 replaced, and checked the B lead
wire.
It was indeed touching the firewall and appeared to be grounding out
there. Via the aluminum sheet on the FW back to engine ground. I did
not fire it up, as it was dark by then and only 20=B0F. If I have
further trouble I will post again.
Thanks for all the replies.
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.6 hours
Luana, IA.
On Dec 5, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> Bob,
>> I have burned two ANL 60 series limiters in six months. I have no
>> idea why.
>> The circumstances were the same both times though. I had just put
>> my engine back on the plane after some maintenance. After start up
>> I excite the field. This has been my method to check that the
>> alternator is working. Both times the LV light has remained on.
>> With no indication of charging. I thought my battery might have
>> been low, but putting on the charger this morning indicated not.
>> Not a huge deal, but at $20 a copy it is getting old.
>> Any suggestions?
>> Using a 55 amp DN IR alt. with crowbar OV.
>
>
> If you have 70+ hours on the airplane, do I presume
> correctly that the system HAS functioned most of
> the time without blowing the limiter?
>
> Normally, there's but two things that will open
> this limiter. (1) hard fault on the alternator
> side of the limiter. I.e. shorted diodes in
> alternator or shorted wiring between alternator
> and b-lead terminal or (2) battery in backwards.
> or external battery connected to system is
> jumper cabled in backwards.
>
> If you have an internally regulated alternator
> do I also presume correctly that you're using
> Z-24 with b-lead contactor as the ov disconnect
> scheme?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Pereira <mjpnj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true? |
> Speaking of economical...while looking at plasma TV's and HD video players the
> other day, I discovered that they want over a hundred bucks just for the cable
> that runs between the two units!!! Is that cable made of unobtainium or what?
> I sense a consumer rip-off, but the nice salesperson assure me of the fact
> that the quality of the picture is dependent on getting the ex$pensive cable!
> And I thought avionics stuff was cost intensive!
Yeah well, the salesperson was just repeating what she was told. Since hdmi is
digital
the picture either works or it doesn't. I buy the cheapest hdmi and dvi cables
I can
find.
Fyi, sometimes you can walk over to the computer section of the store and find
the
same cable marketed as a monitor cable for much less money.
c'ya,
Mike
-----
mjpnj(at)yahoo.com
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P-Mag wiring |
>Hi Bob,
> I have wired the "P-Mag" system per your older drawings. With
>the new Z-13/8 drawings ver. 12/10/07 you have simplified the wiring. I
>think what has happened is I have "lost" the ability to check the self
>power check that was in the old switching.
No. Note that I've recommended that E-Mag power up from
the battery bus. This is in keeping with the philosophy of
running electrically dependent engine systems from an always
hot source.
The P-Mag runs from a switched bus. This means that you can
easily do a test of the P-Mag's internal alternator by
powering down the bus at some time after the engine is
running. Which (of course) won't effect the engine because
E-dependent systems are wired to the battery bus and you're
running the independent system from a switched bus for the
purposes of demonstrating independence.
This test need not be run often . . . certainly not as
a routine pre-flight test.
Not further that both products come up in the maintenance
mode without being active (p-lead grounded) as soon as
the switched bus is up for the P-Mag and as soon as the
switch is moved to BAT for the E-Mag.
This wiring change retains all the utility to the
owner/operator, reduces number of switches and covers
all versions of software that might be running loose
in the wild.
> Is it because Brad and crew
>need the 12 power applied first and keep it applied until you loose the
>main bus? Then the self powered function takes over? Is it because
>there might be a temporary loss of power while it is still running that
>might scramble the timing? Just trying to figure out the why's. Right
>now my power comes from the battery bus which is "good" until the battery
>goes TU. I'm just a bit confused. I think I will go into the bus at
>some place and pick up some power and change over the switches. Bummer
>as I have closed up the cowling and I will have to get on my back under
>the panel. Oh well, if I have done it right, I will be able to do it
>with minimal grunting and skinned fingers.
If your present Emagair products have the updated
software, it's my understanding that the switching
published earlier is okay. You don't need to change
anything. The changes currently published were done
to simplify the wiring and operation (one fewer switch)
and wire in a manner that would not cause the owner
of an older system to experience the loss of timing
issue with the old software.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: "Super" cables |
>
> > Speaking of economical...while looking at plasma TV's and HD video
> players the
> > other day, I discovered that they want over a hundred bucks just for
> the cable
> > that runs between the two units!!! Is that cable made of unobtainium
> or what?
> > I sense a consumer rip-off, but the nice salesperson assure me of the fact
> > that the quality of the picture is dependent on getting the ex$pensive
> cable!
> > And I thought avionics stuff was cost intensive!
>
>Yeah well, the salesperson was just repeating what she was told. Since
>hdmi is digital
>the picture either works or it doesn't. I buy the cheapest hdmi and dvi
>cables I can
>find.
>
>Fyi, sometimes you can walk over to the computer section of the store and
>find the
>same cable marketed as a monitor cable for much less money.
The great "gold-plated super-cable" phenomenon has
been discussed at length in various electronics
journals with the consensus being that there is no
foundation in the simple ideas of physics to support
claims of "higher quality" audio and/or video. The
few instances where materials and/or fabrication
techniques might account for a measurable difference
in the lab would produce no perceived difference to
the human ear or eye.
It's 99.999% horse hocky.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Question? |
>Good Evening Bob,
>
>Wow!!
>
>I had no idea it would take that much effort.
>
>I do have a contactor that may work. It is a 6041H189 from a V35B.
Shucks, that's usually the hard part
to find.
>
>I'll start gathering the rest of the needed materials. Thanks for all the
>information.
It doesn't HAVE to be that much. For
the occasional ground power task, I've
resorted many times to simple work-arounds.
But if you want to use the HP supply
in conjunction with batteries, you're
well advised to accommodate the
crowbar ov protection. I smoked one
of my venerable HP supplies some years
ago discovering this problem.
But I think you'll find that when
you have a robustly packaged, convenient
tool it will get used much more
often than you anticipate now. The
mechanics at our little airport did
a lot of ship's battery testing on customer
aircraft where the bus voltage low
(no alternator) and added wear and
tear to the battery. After I built
the cart, it got used several times
a week.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Question? |
Thanks Bob,
I am gathering the material and will lean on you for wiring advice when all
is in hand.
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 12/18/2007 7:56:31 A.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net writes:
But I think you'll find that when
you have a robustly packaged, convenient
tool it will get used much more
often than you anticipate now. The
mechanics at our little airport did
a lot of ship's battery testing on customer
aircraft where the bus voltage low
(no alternator) and added wear and
tear to the battery. After I built
the cart, it got used several times
a week.
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 comms 1 antenna |
>Hi,
>A newcomer to this list so forgive me if this question(or similar) has
>been posed before. I am building an RV9 with 2 comm radio's, a Microair
>M760 with an ICOM A210 and both thru a PM3000 Intercom. My plan is to
>have a single Antenna and use a 4 pole 2 way switch, 3 poles to switch the
>audio and the 3rd. to control a 50 Ohm Coax switching relay to connect the
>antenna. Any forseen problems with this? if so should I use 2 Antenna?
>this I thought would risk damage to the receiver input of the non
>transmitting Comm.
Most schemes to avoid dual antennas are
either cumbersome or hazardous to the
radios. Suggest you plan on dual antennas.
There's been a lot of discussion about
this on the List. You can search the archives
at:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/ws_script.cgi
Search the AeroElectric list for the word
"duplexer"
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Clearance/delivery switch |
| From: | John Mason <jmason(at)lightspeed.net> |
I am interested in wiring a Cl/Del switch into the system. I would like
to power up just a Comm. and EFIS and not have everything drawing
current. Am also, while dreaming, thinking that it would be nice to
have that circuit drop out when the master is switched on. I know that
this is not new as some certified aircraft have it. I just don't know
or have the knowledge to figure it out.
Thanks, John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Donald Harker" <dpharker(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Marker Beacon Diplexer Question |
I plan to have one marker beacon antenna feed two marker beacon receivers.
Comant makes a diplexer CI-509 that does this and it costs about $110.
Anybody see a problem with using a plain old VHF splitter for a TV set to do
this? It costs about $5 bucks and covers the frequency range. 75 Mhz
Thanks
Don Harker
RV7A Finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Clearance/delivery switch |
What is a C1/Del switch
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Mason" <jmason(at)lightspeed.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:15 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Clearance/delivery switch
>
>
> I am interested in wiring a Cl/Del switch into the system. I would like to
> power up just a Comm. and EFIS and not have everything drawing current.
> Am also, while dreaming, thinking that it would be nice to have that
> circuit drop out when the master is switched on. I know that this is not
> new as some certified aircraft have it. I just don't know or have the
> knowledge to figure it out.
>
> Thanks, John
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swanson" <jswanson(at)jamadots.com> |
| Subject: | Cesnna split switch |
Can someone help me find the information I need to wire a split switch
batt/
alt into Z16 Rotax 912. I only have one buss.
Thanks
John S
CH701 rotax
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Wiring Clamps and Brackets |
Conduit and pipe hanger
I used 1/2" CPVC and pipe hangers from the usual sources.
John Morgensen
RV-9A Fuselage
messydeer wrote:
>
> Looks interesting, Eric.
>
> Does it provide the required 3/8" stand-off from the edge of the metal? I have
13 ribs per wing, so for the wires I'd only need 26. Maybe more if I could adapt
them to safely securing the 2 pitot tube lines. So 40 is the most I'd need
and would be happy with a sample.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
>
> --------
> Dan
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152556#152556
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Pereira <mjpnj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aspen Avionics panel: Too good to be true? |
> PS3 or Xbox will play HD DVD's, if you have one.
They play different hd formats. PS3 at $399 is the cheapest blu-ray player.
You can buy an add on hd-dvd drive to the xbox 360 but cheap(er) dedicated
hd-dvd players are already available (around $150 I think).
-----
mjpnj(at)yahoo.com
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Clearance/delivery switch |
John,
The wrap I got from Bob on this same question last week was that this
should be designed into your endurance bus. Example I use is Z19 where
you have the alternate switch for the endurance buss. Since you have
followed good design you already have a minimum of equipment on that
bus. That equipment would include one radio.
So, switch on e-Bus, wow, you've fired up a whole 5-7 amps and key the
radio. Ready for clearance.
If you are a real die hard, buy another small fuse bus, a switch and
have a single radio tied to that bus. If you are a real cheapo, buy and
inline fuse and wire one of the radio power lines direct to a battery.
Of course you will always need to turn that on/off. That would be a
great excuse for a 3rd radio.
RV-7 heavy cleared to taxi.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Mason
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:16 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Clearance/delivery switch
-->
I am interested in wiring a Cl/Del switch into the system. I would like
to power up just a Comm. and EFIS and not have everything drawing
current. Am also, while dreaming, thinking that it would be nice to
have that circuit drop out when the master is switched on. I know that
this is not new as some certified aircraft have it. I just don't know
or have the knowledge to figure it out.
Thanks, John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Marker Beacon Diplexer Question |
>
>
>
>I plan to have one marker beacon antenna feed two marker beacon receivers.
>Comant makes a diplexer CI-509 that does this and it costs about $110.
>
>Anybody see a problem with using a plain old VHF splitter for a TV set to do
>this? It costs about $5 bucks and covers the frequency range. 75 Mhz
Marker transmitters are exceedingly strong for
the task . . . since you pass over them at or
below 1000'
A wet string will serve as an antenna on most
receivers. What kind of airplane are you building
and what kind of antenna have you installed. Also,
if you have a perception of increased system reliability
for having dual receivers, have you considered putting
the waypoints into your GPS for the markers and using
that as a back-up for the 75 Mhz receivers?
Finally, the TV couple will probably work fine too.
But carrying two MB receivers doubles the probability
of having to have an MB receiver repaired while
pressing a GPS receiver that's already in place into
backing up an MB receiver is a reduction in complexity,
weight, and cost of ownership.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
Bob and listers.
Flew today, after repositioning the B lead wire and replacing the ANL
60.
All systems worked normally!!!!
Thanks and Merry Christmas.
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 80.6 hours
Luana, IA.
On Dec 8, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Hello Kevin
>> As I understand it you have a 55 amp alternator and a 60 amp ANL.
>> Yes the ANL is slow acting but I am not surprised that it would
>> occasionally blow under the circumstances you describe. After
>> startup the 55 amp nominal alternator could easilly be putting in
>> excess of 60 amps when connected to a battery that has been
>> sitting idle for several weeks. Personally I'd recommend the next
>> size larger ANL.
>> Ken
>
> ANL and ANN series devices are not called "fuses" for
> a reason. The physics of their operation is described
> at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/
> Bussman/ANL_Specs.pdf
>
> Note that both of the ANL30 devices are infinite carry
> time at 90 Amps! An ANL 60 is infinite carry time at
> somewhere around 130 Amps. These devices are clearly
> intended to avoid nuisance trips due to continuous
> normal current at nameplate rating COMBINED with
> the occasional bodacious inrush current or other
> transient.
>
> The problem Kevin is experiencing is certain to be
> the result of some "hard" fault somewhere.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Marker Beacon Diplexer Question |
Good Evening Don,
I know this is rather late in the discussion, but do you really feel you
will need the marker beacons?
Fan markers are being phased out. If you have any IFR approved GPS, there is
a good chance, though not a certainty, that you will be able to use a GPS
position instead of a fan marker for any required waypoint identification.
While I would certainly spend a few bucks getting the marker beacons operating,
it would not be high on my list of things that were needed.
If you have not already purchased them, maybe you could eliminate some
weight and cost as well as free up some space that could be better used in another
manner.
Just a thought!
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 12/18/2007 11:51:45 A.M. Central Standard Time,
dpharker(at)worldnet.att.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Donald Harker"
I plan to have one marker beacon antenna feed two marker beacon receivers.
Comant makes a diplexer CI-509 that does this and it costs about $110.
Anybody see a problem with using a plain old VHF splitter for a TV set to do
this? It costs about $5 bucks and covers the frequency range. 75 Mhz
Thanks
Don Harker
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Clearance/delivery switch |
>
>I am interested in wiring a Cl/Del switch into the system. I would like to
>power up just a Comm. and EFIS and not have everything drawing current.
>Am also, while dreaming, thinking that it would be nice to have that
>circuit drop out when the master is switched on. I know that this is not
>new as some certified aircraft have it. I just don't know or have the
>knowledge to figure it out.
Do you plan to have an E-bus? The clearance delivery
switch was concocted for TC aircraft that do not
and probably never will have an e-bus. The e-bus
was crafted specifically for non-TC aircraft that
need a dual-path, frugal use of energy mod for
accomplishing HOURS of en-route flight battery-only.
So, if you plan to have an e-bus, then powering up
the e-bus a couple of minutes for ATIS and a clearance
represents only a tiny fraction of the battery's total
energy content.
Making an clearance delivery function drop
automatically is an interesting gee-whizz . . . but
how about powering your comm transceiver from
the battery bus and just making sure it's on
your checklist for post flight power down?
See option A on
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Clearance_Delivery_A.pdf
Option B adds a switch to select either Battery
or E-bus for powering the radio.
On this drawing . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Clearance_Delivery_B.pdf
Option C shows one of several ways to get an
auto-canceling transfer of comm radio power
from the e-bus to the battery bus. . . adds
a lot of "monkey motion" to the radio's power
path.
Better yet, how about using your hand-held for getting
clearance . . . this provides for pre-flight
verification of the hand-held's functionality.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Karppinen" <noelk(at)pcug.org.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Contactors |
At 16:59 12/17/2007, you wrote:
>>Is it normal for battery contactors to run hot, or have I
>>encountered two faulty contactors?
>>
>>Noel Karppinen
>
> Do you perhaps have contactors rated for intermittent (starter)
>service rather than continuous (battery) service?
>
>Ron Q.
Hi Ron
The original contactor came from Aircraft Spruce, and is one of their
master relays, rated for continuous use. The other came fom a local LAME
(or A&P, I believe, for all you guys in the US). Since I asked for a
battery contactor, I'm pretty sure that would also be for continuous use.
Noel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Karppinen" <noelk(at)pcug.org.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Contactors |
"Richard T. Schaefer" <schaefer@rts-services.com> wrote:
>It's normal for them to be a little too warm to touch. The current is
about right. Look at this at a 10W heater. It will get warm!
_____
December 07, 2007 - December 19, 2007
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-hl