AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-hq
February 13, 2008 - March 04, 2008
which routes energy out the tail. It requires a new paint job when added
as it must be bonded to the skin. It is basically uses thin copper
material bonded to the skin with whips on the tail or elevator.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:08 AM
To: walter.fellows(at)gmail.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: External antennas on composite plane
(was Alternator article)
Walter three or four things:
External antennas are better performing in general, even
on a fiberglass plane.
Cost to bond in antennas is more than off the shelf
antennas that bolt on (externally). All they have to do is
put a metal ground plane (the size of a large round or
square serving plate) under the antenna. Done.
Last, some one told me (I don't know this for sure) the
Columbia has some kind of lighting protection in the
layup, to route a lightning strike through and out the
plane. I have not confirmed this, but this would make
internal antennas as impractical as they are in metal
planes.
In the area of pure gussing, it might also be a certification
issue, meaning its easier and cheaper to use exisiting
products. It is a fact that the DRAG from an antenna or
two is small. Why bother? George
>On an unrelated matter, I notice that most of the type
>certified composite aircraft (columbia, cirrus and diamond)
>have external antennas. Do you know if this is a requirement
>for certification? Is there any reason that blind antennas
>cannot be just as effective as external antennas?
>Best Regards
>Walter Fellows
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: External antennas on composite plane (was |
Alternator article)
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
> Walter three or four things:
>
> External antennas are better performing in general, even
> on a fiberglass plane.
snip
> products. It is a fact that the DRAG from an antenna or
> two is small. Why bother? George
>
snip
Drag is a relative thing. One or two antennas on a big 4 seater that
won't go 200kts down low is one thing. As the airframe gets smaller
(lower airframe flat-plate area) and the speed goes up, antenna drag
becomes less trivial.. Plus, antennas are ugly. But, I agree that for
most airplanes external antennas make sense unless you're looking to be
experimental.
Regards,
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi,
I know I have seen suggested material thickness - for creating circuit breaker
bus bars, and the suggested material is brass. I am wondering how one calculates
the width, thickness required? Also can someone explain the benefits of brass?
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Buy them from 'Aircraft Spruce' already made up: and move on
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/bussbars.php
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Tvedte" <johnt@comp-sol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:56 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: bus bars
>
> Hi,
>
> I know I have seen suggested material thickness - for creating circuit
> breaker bus bars, and the suggested material is brass. I am wondering how
> one calculates the width, thickness required? Also can someone explain
> the benefits of brass?
>
> John
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
You can get brass bars from your local hobby/craft store that has one of
those K&D hobby metal displays. I got .062x.5x12 brass bars for ~$1.90 each.
Regards,
Greg Young
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of JOHN TIPTON
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:43 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: bus bars
>
> -->
>
> Buy them from 'Aircraft Spruce' already made up: and move on
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/bussbars.php
>
> John
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Tvedte" <johnt@comp-sol.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:56 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: bus bars
>
>
> <johnt@comp-sol.com>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I know I have seen suggested material thickness - for
> creating circuit
> > breaker bus bars, and the suggested material is brass. I
> am wondering how
> > one calculates the width, thickness required? Also can
> someone explain
> > the benefits of brass?
> >
> > John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Links to Appendix Z ? |
Bob and all,
I was about to post a link to your site on a Jabiru List, when I noticed
that your links to the Appendix Z seem to be out of order.
Or did I miss the obvious ?
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
>
>You can get brass bars from your local hobby/craft store that has one of
>those K&D hobby metal displays. I got .062x.5x12 brass bars for ~$1.90 each.
This would have been my suggestion. Brass is preferable to
copper for machinability . . . it's much easier to drill
clean, round holes in brass than copper. Aluminum is
electrically and mechanically attractive but less friendly
in terms of creating high quality, corrosion free, gas
tight, long lived connections under the small fasteners
(6-32).
Thickness is not critical. A flat sheet of material
has excellent heat rejection qualities compared to
round wires under insulation. A bus fabricated from
.025" brass will be just fine . . . especially if you
bring the bus feeder into the center of the bus.
Use internal tooth lockwashers under the screws and
torque to 80% of rated limits at final assembly.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Ruse <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
| Subject: | Why can't the tower hear me? |
I fly an open cockpit experimental (Pietenpol). My radio is a Vertex
Standard VXA-150 (handheld), powered by an external 8AH/12v battery.
I have an antenna mounted on a ground plane on the belly, in front of
the gear. I have no problems communicating air to air with other
planes, I have actually maintained contact air-air with friends at
distances over 125NM. My calls were reported as loud and clear. I
was based at a class D airport (KFTW) for about one year, and never
had trouble with the tower there.
Two years ago, I moved to a new area, near a class D airport that I
occasionally go to (KOUN in Norman, OK). I often have trouble being
understood by the tower, even though all pilots indicate that my
transmissions are loud and clear. Last weekend I tried to enter the
class D, but both times I called, the tower responded saying that my
transmissions were "scratchy and unintelligable". I was about 6NM
away and could actually see the tower. I immediately switched to
another frequency, and heard traffic on the CTAF at KGYI, about 95NM
away. I called them and asked for a radio check. That pilot replied
that I was loud and clear. Not wanting to bother the tower or cause
trouble in their airspace, I turned away before entering.
I am baffled by this. What would cause me to be unintelligable to the
KOUN tower repeatedly, when no one else has trouble understanding me,
even at long distances? I was on a heading for the tower, and I know
my transmission strength in that direction (forward) is good. AND it
was only six miles away.
My only theory is that the tower doesn't like the wind noise in my
mic...but I have a noise cancelling mic, with a leather wind-blocking
mic cover, AND other pilots report my transmissions as clear.
Any thoughts on what might cause this would be appreciated. It is
difficult to trouble shoot because I have to bother the tower to
replicate the problem.
Steve Ruse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. M. Haught Jr. " <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Why can't the tower hear me? |
Steve -
This is strange! I fly into KOUN regularly. When I fly in, I'm
communicating with flight following with no problems, and transfer off
to KOUN okay. The next day, sitting on the ramp, radio cold, they tell
me that my radio is unreadable. I've had the radio checked out
throughly by two different radio shops now 4 times. Now it is starting
to happen at another airport KSAG. Yet, I taxi across the field at
KASG, the radio shop does a check, call up tower, and everything is
normal. Makes no sense and I think something is wrong with THEIR
radios. And no, it isn't wind noise. I've tried everything, even my
handheld, and at KOUN, they say they cannot understand it either,
although at KASG, the handheld usually works. I keep telling them that
they have something wrong with their system, which has now made me
almost persona non grata at their facility. I'm using an ICOM radio and
have had absolutely no problems with anyone else reading me other than
those two places, and was all over California, Texas, New Mexico, and
Arizona with it last December and January, with no problems whatsoever.
I use flight following on every flight, and occasionally someone will
tell me my radio has some background noise, but I've gotten in the habit
of asking for radio checks and always get a good report. The only
places I have problems is KOUN and KASG, and usually only on initial
call up. Once I'm airborne, they can generally hear me fine.
I'd say we have a similar problem - let's stay in touch until we find
some way to resolve it.
M. Haught
Steve Ruse wrote:
>
>
> I fly an open cockpit experimental (Pietenpol). My radio is a Vertex
> Standard VXA-150 (handheld), powered by an external 8AH/12v battery.
> I have an antenna mounted on a ground plane on the belly, in front of
> the gear. I have no problems communicating air to air with other
> planes, I have actually maintained contact air-air with friends at
> distances over 125NM. My calls were reported as loud and clear. I
> was based at a class D airport (KFTW) for about one year, and never
> had trouble with the tower there.
>
> Two years ago, I moved to a new area, near a class D airport that I
> occasionally go to (KOUN in Norman, OK). I often have trouble being
> understood by the tower, even though all pilots indicate that my
> transmissions are loud and clear. Last weekend I tried to enter the
> class D, but both times I called, the tower responded saying that my
> transmissions were "scratchy and unintelligable". I was about 6NM
> away and could actually see the tower. I immediately switched to
> another frequency, and heard traffic on the CTAF at KGYI, about 95NM
> away. I called them and asked for a radio check. That pilot replied
> that I was loud and clear. Not wanting to bother the tower or cause
> trouble in their airspace, I turned away before entering.
>
> I am baffled by this. What would cause me to be unintelligable to the
> KOUN tower repeatedly, when no one else has trouble understanding me,
> even at long distances? I was on a heading for the tower, and I know
> my transmission strength in that direction (forward) is good. AND it
> was only six miles away.
>
> My only theory is that the tower doesn't like the wind noise in my
> mic...but I have a noise cancelling mic, with a leather wind-blocking
> mic cover, AND other pilots report my transmissions as clear.
>
> Any thoughts on what might cause this would be appreciated. It is
> difficult to trouble shoot because I have to bother the tower to
> replicate the problem.
>
> Steve Ruse
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchronousdesign.com> |
| Subject: | Why can't the tower hear me? |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Ruse
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 7:39 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Why can't the tower hear me?
I fly an open cockpit experimental (Pietenpol). My radio is a Vertex
Standard VXA-150 (handheld), powered by an external 8AH/12v battery.
I have an antenna mounted on a ground plane on the belly, in front of
the gear. I have no problems communicating air to air with other
planes, I have actually maintained contact air-air with friends at
distances over 125NM. My calls were reported as loud and clear. I
was based at a class D airport (KFTW) for about one year, and never
had trouble with the tower there.
Two years ago, I moved to a new area, near a class D airport that I
occasionally go to (KOUN in Norman, OK). I often have trouble being
understood by the tower, even though all pilots indicate that my
transmissions are loud and clear. Last weekend I tried to enter the
class D, but both times I called, the tower responded saying that my
transmissions were "scratchy and unintelligable". I was about 6NM
away and could actually see the tower. I immediately switched to
another frequency, and heard traffic on the CTAF at KGYI, about 95NM
away. I called them and asked for a radio check. That pilot replied
that I was loud and clear. Not wanting to bother the tower or cause
trouble in their airspace, I turned away before entering.
I am baffled by this. What would cause me to be unintelligable to the
KOUN tower repeatedly, when no one else has trouble understanding me,
even at long distances? I was on a heading for the tower, and I know
my transmission strength in that direction (forward) is good. AND it
was only six miles away.
My only theory is that the tower doesn't like the wind noise in my
mic...but I have a noise cancelling mic, with a leather wind-blocking
mic cover, AND other pilots report my transmissions as clear.
Any thoughts on what might cause this would be appreciated. It is
difficult to trouble shoot because I have to bother the tower to
replicate the problem.
Steve Ruse
Very interesting, Steve. Can you please identify the frequencies you were
using?
Thanks.
Simon
Copyright C 2008
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why can't the tower hear me? |
I suspect it is the tower radios. I believe that many still use vaccum tubes
- Jurassic radios I used to play with in the 60s as a ham! Anyway, I suspect
the govt is wasting out precious airport tax monies (yes they collect taxes
on every airline flight we make).... on programs other than aviation safety
and upgrades. That's what will happen if the put further tax on GA as well.
I frequently have problems with ARTCC in my glastar and a GX65 radio.. not
them hearing me - but me hearing them. their transmission are so weak and
unreadable
bobf
On 2/13/08, Steve Ruse wrote:
>
> steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
>
> I fly an open cockpit experimental (Pietenpol). My radio is a Vertex
> Standard VXA-150 (handheld), powered by an external 8AH/12v battery.
> I have an antenna mounted on a ground plane on the belly, in front of
> the gear. I have no problems communicating air to air with other
> planes, I have actually maintained contact air-air with friends at
> distances over 125NM. My calls were reported as loud and clear. I
> was based at a class D airport (KFTW) for about one year, and never
> had trouble with the tower there.
>
> Two years ago, I moved to a new area, near a class D airport that I
> occasionally go to (KOUN in Norman, OK). I often have trouble being
> understood by the tower, even though all pilots indicate that my
> transmissions are loud and clear. Last weekend I tried to enter the
> class D, but both times I called, the tower responded saying that my
> transmissions were "scratchy and unintelligable". I was about 6NM
> away and could actually see the tower. I immediately switched to
> another frequency, and heard traffic on the CTAF at KGYI, about 95NM
> away. I called them and asked for a radio check. That pilot replied
> that I was loud and clear. Not wanting to bother the tower or cause
> trouble in their airspace, I turned away before entering.
>
> I am baffled by this. What would cause me to be unintelligable to the
> KOUN tower repeatedly, when no one else has trouble understanding me,
> even at long distances? I was on a heading for the tower, and I know
> my transmission strength in that direction (forward) is good. AND it
> was only six miles away.
>
> My only theory is that the tower doesn't like the wind noise in my
> mic...but I have a noise cancelling mic, with a leather wind-blocking
> mic cover, AND other pilots report my transmissions as clear.
>
> Any thoughts on what might cause this would be appreciated. It is
> difficult to trouble shoot because I have to bother the tower to
> replicate the problem.
>
> Steve Ruse
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: External antennas on composite plane |
Flat plate area of the airframe has nothing to do with it,
speed does. The B757 and B767 is a big plane but goes
460 kts.
bent whip Com @ 200 kts about 0.25 to 0.30 mph drag
transponder @ 200 kts about/less than 0.10 mph drag
VOR whiskers @ 200 kts double the Com antenna)
So for all three you are looking at 1 mph at 200 kts.
>Subject: Re: External antennas on composite plane (was Alternator article)
>From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
>Drag is a relative thing. One or two antennas on a big 4 seater that
>won't go 200kts down low is one thing. As the airframe gets smaller
>(lower airframe flat-plate area) and the speed goes up, antenna drag
>becomes less trivial.. Plus, antennas are ugly. But, I agree that for
?most airplanes external antennas make sense unless you're looking to be
>experimental. Regards, Matt-
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
Hi All-
Sounds like perhaps it's time for phone calls to the tower chief to make
sure that he/she knows of the issue. If that gets no results, a letter to
the regional office. Make sure to delineate all the steps you guys have
taken to verify your own equipment ops.
You can also call them to let them on the phone to coordinate a NORDO
arrival. Just be sure to review the light gun signals. Also, remember to
keep you Piet under 200 KIAS ;-)
As an aside, I've a good friend who is a controller who has provided me
with various insights. Included in those were that although they can't
upgrade equipment, they do get new leather furniture. Makes one proud of
the system.
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: External antennas on composite plane |
460 kts TAS not indicated. The indicated speed of a 757 or 767 is
360kias.
Think about it,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 6:01 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: External antennas on composite plane
Flat plate area of the airframe has nothing to do with it,
speed does. The B757 and B767 is a big plane but goes
460 kts.
bent whip Com @ 200 kts about 0.25 to 0.30 mph drag
transponder @ 200 kts about/less than 0.10 mph drag
VOR whiskers @ 200 kts double the Com antenna)
So for all three you are looking at 1 mph at 200 kts.
>Subject: Re: External antennas on composite plane (was Alternator
article)
>From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
>Drag is a relative thing. One or two antennas on a big 4 seater that
>won't go 200kts down low is one thing. As the airframe gets smaller
>(lower airframe flat-plate area) and the speed goes up, antenna drag
>becomes less trivial.. Plus, antennas are ugly. But, I agree that for
?most airplanes external antennas make sense unless you're looking to be
>experimental. Regards, Matt-
_____
Be a better friend, newshound, and
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. M. Haught Jr. " <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
Steve -
If you decide to call the tower chief, contact me off line and I will
provide my info and approximate dates. It is probably better for one of
us rather than both to contact them, but I will be glad to provide
support.
M. Haught
glen matejcek wrote:
>
> Hi All-
>
> Sounds like perhaps it's time for phone calls to the tower chief to make
> sure that he/she knows of the issue. If that gets no results, a letter to
> the regional office. Make sure to delineate all the steps you guys have
> taken to verify your own equipment ops.
>
> You can also call them to let them on the phone to coordinate a NORDO
> arrival. Just be sure to review the light gun signals. Also, remember to
> keep you Piet under 200 KIAS ;-)
>
> As an aside, I've a good friend who is a controller who has provided me
> with various insights. Included in those were that although they can't
> upgrade equipment, they do get new leather furniture. Makes one proud of
> the system.
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Why can't the tower hear me? |
Cheers,
A few emails indicated unfamiliarity with radio transmission and
reception.
I ain't no expert, but Ham radio has useful lessons:
[1] A message not acknowledged was not received;
[2] A message not received was never sent;
[3] Radios are actually two units, a receiver and a transmitter, seldom
on at once.
The site of under-belly antenna might indicate a strange receiver
antenna site at the offending airfield. There are peculiar beliefs
amongst installers when it comes to siting. The site of the tower
antenna farm might just satisfy needs when the aircraft antenna is 8 feet
above ground, but not when within inches of the earth. Also, tower
folk ON OCCASION assume the qualities of a dish- washer salesman -
vast knowledge, centuries-old experience and an assumption that
pilots are new and vulnerable.
Plus, those tower antennas are out in the weather a thousand or more
times than aircraft ones, and probably get one thousandth the attention.
It might be that these two airfields share equal histories.
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
I've called our tower a couple of times and found them to be very cordial
and very much interested to hear from pilots. If the chief/supv is not on
then ask for the controller in charge. It's amazing what you can learn and
what they are already aware of. I called about a "trainee" who after at
least a year on duty totally lost track of only 3 airplanes (I was one of
them) while working ground. Turns out that what everyone thought was a
trainee is a burn-out 2 weeks away from mandatory retirement. They were well
aware of the problem and keeping him on duties where he couldn't hurt
anyone. Yup, makes one proud of the system.
Regards,
Greg Young
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of glen matejcek
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 7:39 AM
> To: AeroElectric-List Digest Server
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
>
> -->
>
> Hi All-
>
> Sounds like perhaps it's time for phone calls to the tower
> chief to make sure that he/she knows of the issue. If that
> gets no results, a letter to the regional office. Make sure
> to delineate all the steps you guys have taken to verify your
> own equipment ops.
>
> You can also call them to let them on the phone to coordinate
> a NORDO arrival. Just be sure to review the light gun
> signals. Also, remember to keep you Piet under 200 KIAS ;-)
>
> As an aside, I've a good friend who is a controller who has
> provided me with various insights. Included in those were
> that although they can't upgrade equipment, they do get new
> leather furniture. Makes one proud of the system.
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternator 30Amps |
| From: | "kakydanou" <daniel.gallaz(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi guys,
Good news: B&C are shipping again their 30amps gear driven alternator! Mine should
be on its way to Switzerland soon, great!
Dan
www.hb-sop.ch
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164009#164009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. M. Haught Jr. " <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
Cordiality wasn't in evidence at KOUN. I was told in no uncertain terms
that it wasn't their fault that my radio was junk, but they would give
me light signals to get me out. I tried to explain that I've had the
radio worked on a number of times and their facility was the only place
I was having any trouble, which was true at the time, and got the reply
- "If you want light signals to get out, then tell me, but don't blame
our equipment for your radio problems." I was on a telephone talking to
them from the service office - wouldn't see me face to face. They see
lots of high power stuff and cater to it - my old ratty looking Pacer
was consider "junk". I took the light signals and the radio was working
fine by the time I got to the end of the taxiway. Called up OK City
immediately after leaving the pattern, had radio check and was told
"five x five". Next time I go in, (I've got my hand held set up on an
external antenna as a backup radio ), as soon as I power down, I'm going
to call up tower for radio check on the Icom, and then do the same thing
with the handheld on rubber ducky antenna. Next day, if I have
problems, I'll try the rubber ducky antenna again, as using the external
antenna on the hand held also resulted in unreadable transmissions.
Just doesn't make sense that two different radios are having the same
problem on the same day.
M. Haught
Greg Young wrote:
>
> I've called our tower a couple of times and found them to be very cordial
> and very much interested to hear from pilots. If the chief/supv is not on
> then ask for the controller in charge. It's amazing what you can learn and
> what they are already aware of. I called about a "trainee" who after at
> least a year on duty totally lost track of only 3 airplanes (I was one of
> them) while working ground. Turns out that what everyone thought was a
> trainee is a burn-out 2 weeks away from mandatory retirement. They were well
> aware of the problem and keeping him on duties where he couldn't hurt
> anyone. Yup, makes one proud of the system.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Young
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
>> Behalf Of glen matejcek
>> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 7:39 AM
>> To: AeroElectric-List Digest Server
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
>>
>> -->
>>
>> Hi All-
>>
>> Sounds like perhaps it's time for phone calls to the tower
>> chief to make sure that he/she knows of the issue. If that
>> gets no results, a letter to the regional office. Make sure
>> to delineate all the steps you guys have taken to verify your
>> own equipment ops.
>>
>> You can also call them to let them on the phone to coordinate
>> a NORDO arrival. Just be sure to review the light gun
>> signals. Also, remember to keep you Piet under 200 KIAS ;-)
>>
>> As an aside, I've a good friend who is a controller who has
>> provided me with various insights. Included in those were
>> that although they can't upgrade equipment, they do get new
>> leather furniture. Makes one proud of the system.
>>
>> glen matejcek
>> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
H. M. Haught Jr. wrote:
> Just doesn't make sense that two different radios are having the same
> problem on the same day.
At KLEB I can't talk to the tower on any radio if I am in front of
the big hangar. If I taxi out 20-30 feet then it is a clear signal.
You might both be correct - it is neither your radios or the tower
radios, but simply a "radio dead zone" on one part of the taxiway on the
ground due to interference of some sort. Radio wave propagation can be
an interesting beast.
-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: | "Rob Turk" <matronics(at)rtist.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: Why can't the tower hear me? |
Just a thought on this.. Maybe your radio is actually transmitting a bit off
frequency. Most radio's including those of other pilots are designed to
operate at 25kHz channel space. If you are off by a few kHz they will still
hear you load and clear.
However, the tower might already be equipped with 8.33kHz radio's. They use
narrow channels to accomodate more frequencies, but this also means that a
few kHz off really puts you near the edge of their channel. This can result
in a situation where everyone with 25kHz equipment hears you just fine, but
those with newer 8.33kHz radios can hardly hear you.
Have your radio checked out for frequency accuracy, every maintenance shop
with a decent freqency counter can tell you if this is the issue.
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:39 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Why can't the tower hear me?
>
>
> I fly an open cockpit experimental (Pietenpol). My radio is a Vertex
> Standard VXA-150 (handheld), powered by an external 8AH/12v battery. I
> have an antenna mounted on a ground plane on the belly, in front of the
> gear. I have no problems communicating air to air with other planes, I
> have actually maintained contact air-air with friends at distances over
> 125NM. My calls were reported as loud and clear. I was based at a class
> D airport (KFTW) for about one year, and never had trouble with the tower
> there.
>
> Two years ago, I moved to a new area, near a class D airport that I
> occasionally go to (KOUN in Norman, OK). I often have trouble being
> understood by the tower, even though all pilots indicate that my
> transmissions are loud and clear. Last weekend I tried to enter the
> class D, but both times I called, the tower responded saying that my
> transmissions were "scratchy and unintelligable". I was about 6NM away
> and could actually see the tower. I immediately switched to another
> frequency, and heard traffic on the CTAF at KGYI, about 95NM away. I
> called them and asked for a radio check. That pilot replied that I was
> loud and clear. Not wanting to bother the tower or cause trouble in
> their airspace, I turned away before entering.
>
> I am baffled by this. What would cause me to be unintelligable to the
> KOUN tower repeatedly, when no one else has trouble understanding me,
> even at long distances? I was on a heading for the tower, and I know my
> transmission strength in that direction (forward) is good. AND it was
> only six miles away.
>
> My only theory is that the tower doesn't like the wind noise in my
> mic...but I have a noise cancelling mic, with a leather wind-blocking mic
> cover, AND other pilots report my transmissions as clear.
>
> Any thoughts on what might cause this would be appreciated. It is
> difficult to trouble shoot because I have to bother the tower to
> replicate the problem.
>
> Steve Ruse
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. M. Haught Jr. " <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Why can't the tower hear me? |
Rob - This isn't Steve, but I've had problems with KOUN too, as I've
posted here.
Last week a local radio tech and I checked nearly every frequency with a
counter - checked from each extreme range, in the center, and then on
either side of the two frequencies that were giving me problems. Radio
was right on frequency with practically no deviation. Even checked my
handheld, both with rubber duckie antenna and the external mounted
antenna. All of them were right on spec. Planning a trip back to KOUN
in a couple of weeks, and intend to be ready for them!! I just cannot
find a single thing wrong with either of my radios. But if there is
something there, I want to correct the problem.
M. Haught
Rob Turk wrote:
>
> Just a thought on this.. Maybe your radio is actually transmitting a
> bit off frequency. Most radio's including those of other pilots are
> designed to operate at 25kHz channel space. If you are off by a few
> kHz they will still hear you load and clear.
>
> However, the tower might already be equipped with 8.33kHz radio's.
> They use narrow channels to accomodate more frequencies, but this also
> means that a few kHz off really puts you near the edge of their
> channel. This can result in a situation where everyone with 25kHz
> equipment hears you just fine, but those with newer 8.33kHz radios can
> hardly hear you.
>
> Have your radio checked out for frequency accuracy, every maintenance
> shop with a decent freqency counter can tell you if this is the issue.
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Ruse"
>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:39 AM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Why can't the tower hear me?
>
>
>>
>>
>> I fly an open cockpit experimental (Pietenpol). My radio is a Vertex
>> Standard VXA-150 (handheld), powered by an external 8AH/12v
>> battery. I have an antenna mounted on a ground plane on the belly,
>> in front of the gear. I have no problems communicating air to air
>> with other planes, I have actually maintained contact air-air with
>> friends at distances over 125NM. My calls were reported as loud and
>> clear. I was based at a class D airport (KFTW) for about one year,
>> and never had trouble with the tower there.
>>
>> Two years ago, I moved to a new area, near a class D airport that I
>> occasionally go to (KOUN in Norman, OK). I often have trouble being
>> understood by the tower, even though all pilots indicate that my
>> transmissions are loud and clear. Last weekend I tried to enter the
>> class D, but both times I called, the tower responded saying that my
>> transmissions were "scratchy and unintelligable". I was about 6NM
>> away and could actually see the tower. I immediately switched to
>> another frequency, and heard traffic on the CTAF at KGYI, about 95NM
>> away. I called them and asked for a radio check. That pilot
>> replied that I was loud and clear. Not wanting to bother the tower
>> or cause trouble in their airspace, I turned away before entering.
>>
>> I am baffled by this. What would cause me to be unintelligable to
>> the KOUN tower repeatedly, when no one else has trouble understanding
>> me, even at long distances? I was on a heading for the tower, and I
>> know my transmission strength in that direction (forward) is good.
>> AND it was only six miles away.
>>
>> My only theory is that the tower doesn't like the wind noise in my
>> mic...but I have a noise cancelling mic, with a leather
>> wind-blocking mic cover, AND other pilots report my transmissions as
>> clear.
>>
>> Any thoughts on what might cause this would be appreciated. It is
>> difficult to trouble shoot because I have to bother the tower to
>> replicate the problem.
>>
>> Steve Ruse
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Why can't the tower hear me? |
Sounds to me like the tower controller and the radio shop repairman have
quite a gimmick going ;)
Bret Smith
ASN 1A3
Blue Ridge, Ga
www.FlightInnovations.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of H. M.
Haught Jr.
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Why can't the tower hear me?
-->
Rob - This isn't Steve, but I've had problems with KOUN too, as I've posted
here.
Last week a local radio tech and I checked nearly every frequency with a
counter - checked from each extreme range, in the center, and then on
either side of the two frequencies that were giving me problems. Radio was
right on frequency with practically no deviation. Even checked my handheld,
both with rubber duckie antenna and the external mounted antenna. All of
them were right on spec. Planning a trip back to KOUN in a couple of weeks,
and intend to be ready for them!! I just cannot find a single thing wrong
with either of my radios. But if there is something there, I want to
correct the problem.
M. Haught
Rob Turk wrote:
> -->
>
> Just a thought on this.. Maybe your radio is actually transmitting a
> bit off frequency. Most radio's including those of other pilots are
> designed to operate at 25kHz channel space. If you are off by a few
> kHz they will still hear you load and clear.
>
> However, the tower might already be equipped with 8.33kHz radio's.
> They use narrow channels to accomodate more frequencies, but this also
> means that a few kHz off really puts you near the edge of their
> channel. This can result in a situation where everyone with 25kHz
> equipment hears you just fine, but those with newer 8.33kHz radios can
> hardly hear you.
>
> Have your radio checked out for frequency accuracy, every maintenance
> shop with a decent freqency counter can tell you if this is the issue.
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Ruse"
>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:39 AM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Why can't the tower hear me?
>
>
>>
>>
>> I fly an open cockpit experimental (Pietenpol). My radio is a Vertex
>> Standard VXA-150 (handheld), powered by an external 8AH/12v
>> battery. I have an antenna mounted on a ground plane on the belly,
>> in front of the gear. I have no problems communicating air to air
>> with other planes, I have actually maintained contact air-air with
>> friends at distances over 125NM. My calls were reported as loud and
>> clear. I was based at a class D airport (KFTW) for about one year,
>> and never had trouble with the tower there.
>>
>> Two years ago, I moved to a new area, near a class D airport that I
>> occasionally go to (KOUN in Norman, OK). I often have trouble being
>> understood by the tower, even though all pilots indicate that my
>> transmissions are loud and clear. Last weekend I tried to enter the
>> class D, but both times I called, the tower responded saying that my
>> transmissions were "scratchy and unintelligable". I was about 6NM
>> away and could actually see the tower. I immediately switched to
>> another frequency, and heard traffic on the CTAF at KGYI, about 95NM
>> away. I called them and asked for a radio check. That pilot replied
>> that I was loud and clear. Not wanting to bother the tower or cause
>> trouble in their airspace, I turned away before entering.
>>
>> I am baffled by this. What would cause me to be unintelligable to
>> the KOUN tower repeatedly, when no one else has trouble understanding
>> me, even at long distances? I was on a heading for the tower, and I
>> know my transmission strength in that direction (forward) is good.
>> AND it was only six miles away.
>>
>> My only theory is that the tower doesn't like the wind noise in my
>> mic...but I have a noise cancelling mic, with a leather wind-blocking
>> mic cover, AND other pilots report my transmissions as clear.
>>
>> Any thoughts on what might cause this would be appreciated. It is
>> difficult to trouble shoot because I have to bother the tower to
>> replicate the problem.
>>
>> Steve Ruse
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Curry" <currydon(at)bellsouth.net> |
Many believe Loran is dead technology, but I'm not one of them. Old, yes;
stale, yes; but dead, no! In fact, I'm including a KLN-88 in a panel
project on a Tiger. Which brings me to my question. I have room in my
wingtips for the KA-84 antenna, but I'm concerned about reception. Is
"ground plane" an issue with Loran? If so, would the wingtip location
provide sufficient ground plane? Are there any other reasons to NOT
consider the wingtips as a location for the antenna? Also, while I don't
currently have strobe lights in my wingtips, I would like to retain the
option of installing them in the future. Since I'm certain that strobe
lights would interfere with Loran reception, is there some type of shielding
that I could install along with the strobes to prevent the interference?
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) |
Mike:
Not sure what your talking about, but I wrote or
should have wrote 460kt (true).
I fly both the 757/767.
I never do more than 250kias below FL100.
We usually climb at about 280-320 kias to FL250.
Than we go to Mach above approx FL270.
Normal econ cruise is about mach 0.82.
Mach 0.82 = about 280 kias, 450 ktas @ FL350.
Indicated a/s depends on altitude.
Red line, Vmo/Mmo is a moving target.
Max Vmo/Mmo is no longer a Boeing Limit
to memorize, because it moves around and
its always displayed on both the mechanical
airspeed indicator and the speed tape on the
EFIS. Off the top of my head @ sea level its
approx 350 kias/M.86 range for the B757. The
limit is the lower of the two limits, Vmo/Mmo.
Kts are for lower altitudes and Mach for higher
altitudes above FL270. Of course we don't do
350 kts on the deck, but it would be fun.
During a pilot oral exam there is no Vmo/Mmo
to remember. You don't have to memorize stuff
that is right in front of you. Good thing, less to
memorize. Other speeds are in the checklist.
My point is the antenna does not care what size
plane it is on. Drag is drag.
Think about it, Mike
Cheers George ATP/757/757/CE500
>From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
>Subject: Re: External antennas on composite plane
>460 kts TAS not indicated. The indicated speed of a
>757 or 767 is 360kias.
>Think about it, Mike
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Loran Antenna |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Loran IS dead, but still walking.
The sizing mechanics of VLF antenna is completely different than
VHF (com/nav) or Microwave (GPS). In the latter two, a ground plane
should be in the range of 1/4-1/2 wavelength radius , depending on
config of antenna.
In VLF, wavelength may be 100-1000x size of your Tiger.
Best Loran antenna is a trailing wire 1 half mile long ;-) No ground
required!
I have an uninstalled 618, can I sell it to you? Nice paperweight!
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164186#164186
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
Comments/Questions: How many terminals would you say is the max on
the hot side of a batt contactor?(4?)
Ideally, just one. There are two considerations for
stacking things on the single stud.:
(a) the more wires . . . presumably most of them
'fat' wires . . . the greater the torque-moments
that tend to unwind the nut. Obviously, if
the installer makes a considered effort to
insure integrity of the join (thread locker,
locking nut, making up the joint to the
max recommended torque value for the
materials, etc) the lower the probability
of in-service loosening.
Of course, supporting the exiting wires
soon after they depart the nut will reduce
the free-mass waving in the breeze and
reacting on the join.
(b) thread length of the exposed terminal is
an obvious mechanical limit. The books
tell us that we should drive for a minimum
headroom of 1.5 exposed threads sticking
out of the nut when we're finished. Quite
often, this is the biggest limiting factor
for how many terminals get stacked on the
stud.
Stud length can vary significantly between
brands for similar devices. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/stud_length.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/strtrctr.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/6041_Contactor.jpg
There is no industry-wide practice for
setting limits on how much 'stuff' you
stack on these studs. It's up to the
designer/installer to be cognizant of
the conditions that tend to undo the
design and exercise due diligence
in crafting the joint.
Where can I find the appendix for suppliers?
On the 'net. In early issues of the 'Connection
I offered a listing of handy suppliers for
tools, materials and parts useful to the
OBAM aircraft community. That was an
exceedingly difficult list to keep up to
date so, as the first paragraph of Appendix
Z points out, we deleted appendices A,
C and K in favor of offering those coverages
on the 'net.
And finally, is there a chart of recommended circuit breakers for a specific
AWG, you say 5 amp for 22awg, what are other recommendations?
Breakers protect wires . . . period. Maximum
recommended loads on any given wire are NOT
based on danger to the wire (copper) but to
the insulation. For example, in this slide
taken from my weekend seminar presentation . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wire/22AWG_20A.pdf
we see a 22AWG wire loaded to 20A on the
bench. The insulation temperature isn't even
close to being over-stressed. It's got another
40C to go! At the other end of the spectrum,
cross country power lines that make up the
nation's distribution grid are oft cited as
being 'dangerously overloaded'. Are they
at risk for parting the line due to melting?
No, their temperature rise is so high that
coefficient of expansion effects are causing
the wires to sag into trees. The risk is
for tripping the line off when system arcs
to ground through a tree. I'm recalling that
the great Northeast Blackout a few years ago
was triggered by a power line dropping into
a tree up in Canada.
Yes, there's a VERY conservative wire rating
table in the book and repeated here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wire/Wire_Table.jpg
Here we see that the 22AWG wire is industry
rated (or perhaps de-rated?) to 5A capacity.
This isn't a 'rule of thumb'. It's the product
of a process that says based on our experience
(airplanes with environments that range from
-55C to 100C) and bundles of perhaps hundreds
of wires, running no more than 5A through a
22AWG wire offers a 99.999% degree of confidence
for satisfactory-lifetime-of-the-airframe-performance
(SLOTAP).
Should you choose to tailor your own use
of 22AWG wire, there are innumerable tutorials
on how this is accomplished . . . but I'll
suggest your time is better spent getting
all the rivet heads smooth and the upholstery
seams straight.
Further to this, if I have a 2 amp load on a 22AWG, do I still need
5 amp CB to protect it, or is it OK if the breaker doesn't exceed
5 amps, but is lets say, 3 amps?
As discussed above, you can do about anything
you want in terms of protecting any give
chunk of wire. And based on your considered
analysis of how the wire is used in YOUR airplane,
the breaker might be anything from 1 to 10 amps!
But breakers below 5A are more expensive and
breakers above 5A start pushing out into the
corners of the performance envelope that reduce
your SLOTAP confidence.
Love the book, learned more than in 2 years at college!
I'm pleased that you're getting a good return
on your investment.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) |
George,
I only pointed it out because I assumed that you were trying to
illustrate the speed effect of a higher speed aircraft on an antenna and
its relationship to drag/speed. You wrote 460 knots. I was just trying
to point out that as it relates to the antenna drag, you use indicated
speed not True Airspeed in that speed range (not true for high mach
numbers). I then pointed out that the 757 only does 350=92ish Knots
Indicated.
Mike
The dark side (Airbus)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 7:02 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External
antennas)
Mike:
Not sure what your talking about, but I wrote or
should have wrote 460kt (true).
I fly both the 757/767.
I never do more than 250kias below FL100.
We usually climb at about 280-320 kias to FL250.
Than we go to Mach above approx FL270.
Normal econ cruise is about mach 0.82.
Mach 0.82 = about 280 kias, 450 ktas @ FL350.
Indicated a/s depends on altitude.
Red line, Vmo/Mmo is a moving target.
Max Vmo/Mmo is no longer a Boeing Limit
to memorize, because it moves around and
its always displayed on both the mechanical
airspeed indicator and the speed tape on the
EFIS. Off the top of my head @ sea level its
approx 350 kias/M.86 range for the B757. The
limit is the lower of the two limits, Vmo/Mmo.
Kts are for lower altitudes and Mach for higher
altitudes above FL270. Of course we don't do
350 kts on the deck, but it would be fun.
During a pilot oral exam there is no Vmo/Mmo
to remember. You don't have to memorize stuff
that is right in front of you. Good thing, less to
memorize. Other speeds are in the checklist.
My point is the antenna does not care what size
plane it is on. Drag is drag.
Think about it, Mike
Cheers George ATP/757/757/CE500
>From: "Mike" <HYPERLINK "mailto:mlas(at)cox.net"mlas(at)cox.net>
>Subject: Re: External antennas on composite plane
>460 kts TAS not indicated. The indicated speed of a
>757 or 767 is 360kias.
>Think about it, Mike
_____
Be a better friend, newshound, and
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
Don,
A more constructive response would have been something like this, nice
multi-chain (KLN-88) Loran and it works well. Because of the FREQ range
that system works in it is highly susceptible to poor gain and
interference with the short antennas required for aircraft. Many Lorans
require an amplifier/processor to enhance the signal to make it usable
in aircraft. Most of the hard core Loran users have experienced
reception problems with loran in clouds, prcip, ect. I have not seen,
installed, or tested an internally mounted Loran antenna but my Guess is
the performance would be reduced, possibly to less then acceptable.
Mike
And like you I like a GOOD Loran (unlike the 614) for area navigation.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don
Curry
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:36 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Loran Antenna
Many believe Loran is dead technology, but I'm not one of them. Old,
yes;
stale, yes; but dead, no! In fact, I'm including a KLN-88 in a panel
project on a Tiger. Which brings me to my question. I have room in my
wingtips for the KA-84 antenna, but I'm concerned about reception. Is
"ground plane" an issue with Loran? If so, would the wingtip location
provide sufficient ground plane? Are there any other reasons to NOT
consider the wingtips as a location for the antenna? Also, while I
don't
currently have strobe lights in my wingtips, I would like to retain the
option of installing them in the future. Since I'm certain that strobe
lights would interfere with Loran reception, is there some type of
shielding
that I could install along with the strobes to prevent the interference?
Don
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) |
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> My point is the antenna does not care what size
> plane it is on. Drag is drag.
>
>
Drag is drag, and planes are planes; but the relative importance of a
quantity of drag varies from plane to plane.
A Cozy or Quickie can do 150mph to 200mph with 100Hp or less, because
everything imaginable has been done to drop the drag. The drag of the
antennae is no more than it would be on the same 90mph Pietenpol, but it
is a much more significant portion of the entire airplane's drag.
You can't take an antennae and say that it will have a specific speed
penalty. You take the antennae and say how much power will be required
to push it through the air at a specific speed. You have a power budget
set by the engine. Any of that budget spent pushing antennaes through
the air will not be available for pushing the airframe through the air.
It is up to the builder to decide if spending a piece of that limited
budget is worth the effort or degraded performance associated with not
spending it.
A 757 has a rather large power budget (compared to a Quickie). Sticking
another antennae on is unlikely to even register, no matter what speed
the airplane is going. I just isn't worth much effort to try to get it
out of the airstream. Other configurations will differ.
In my case, I know that I tend to be a heavy-handed klutz. No matter
how hard I try, I know I'll break off an antennae every time I was the
plane. My push to clean up my airframe has more to do with what I know
will be a maintenance headache.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Think about it George,
The antenna doesn't care what size airplane it's on, but different sized
(flat plate drag) airplanes use differing amounts of thrust force to go
the same speed. The thrust-drag balance determines speed. If you add 5
lbs of drag to an airplane that only makes 10lbs of thrust you change the
cruise speed more than you would for an airplane that makes 500lbs of
thrust to go the same speed. A 757 would care not about one more comm
antenna when running 200kts (indicated), but a Lancair Legacy would notice
it quite a bit. It's all about the relative drag vs. thrust balance.
Cheers,
Matt-
Or is that Cheers Matt (to me)?
> Mike:
>
> Not sure what your talking about, but I wrote or
> should have wrote 460kt (true).
>
snip
> My point is the antenna does not care what size
> plane it is on. Drag is drag.
>
> Think about it, Mike
>
> Cheers George ATP/757/757/CE500
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)MCHSI.COM> |
| Subject: | Tefzel dielectric strength |
I am installing a strobe system with a 50 watt power supply from Nova.
The system comes with a fairly heavy shielded 3-wire 18AWG cable that
has 300V printed on the jacket. It does not appear to be tefzell
coated. (I think it is mostly used in automotive applications, such
as police and fire vehicles).
Due to space constraints, I am unable the pass this thick cable
through the openings in my wing. However, the shielded 3-wire 22AWG,
from B&C will do the trick.
What is my risk for using the 22AWG vs. the 18 AWG?
Thanks
Sam Hoskins Quickie Q-200
Murphysboro, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel dielectric strength |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
Sam, I would like to try to answer your question, but I am not sure
I understand it. What does dielectric strength have to do it.
Gauge size of wire determines voltage drop across its length
Splicing in a short run of 22g will introduce 6 extra connections to reduce
reliability (but for a strobe, realistically, who cares!)
Is this cable, I presume the hot side of the strobe power, i.e., so the voltage
is 500-1000 or so. Most insulation would be just fine. Dielectric
puncture is not only dependent on the material constant be also the thickness
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164258#164258
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Buckaroo Banzai <ornerycuss2001(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
You might try filing an ASRS. NASA will follow up with the FAA which might get
a real technician out there to check the tower's radios and maybe any dead spots
on the field.
Greg
"H. M. Haught Jr. " wrote: Cordiality wasn't
in evidence at KOUN. I was told in no uncertain terms that it wasn't their
fault that my radio was junk, but they would give me light signals to get me out.
I tried to explain that I've had the radio worked on a number of times and
their facility was the only place I was having any trouble, which was true at
the time, and got the reply - "If you want light signals to get out, then tell
me, but don't blame our equipment for your radio problems." I was on a telephone
talking to them from the service office - wouldn't see me face to face.
They see lots of high power stuff and cater to it - my old ratty looking Pacer
was consider "junk". I took the light signals and the radio was working fine
by the time I got to the end of the taxiway. Called up OK City immediately
after leaving the pattern, had radio check and was told "five x five". Next
time I go in, (I've got my hand held set up on an
external antenna as a backup radio ), as soon as I power down, I'm going to call
up tower for radio check on the Icom, and then do the same thing with the handheld
on rubber ducky antenna. Next day, if I have problems, I'll try the rubber
ducky antenna again, as using the external antenna on the hand held also
resulted in unreadable transmissions. Just doesn't make sense that two different
radios are having the same problem on the same day.
M. Haught
Greg Young wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
Behalf Of glen matejcek
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 7:39 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
--> Hi All- Sounds like perhaps it's time for phone
calls to the tower chief to make sure that he/she knows of the issue. If that
gets no results, a letter to the regional office. Make sure to delineate
all the steps you guys have taken to verify your own equipment ops. You can
also call them to let them on the phone to coordinate a NORDO arrival. Just
be sure to review the light gun signals. Also, remember to keep you Piet
under 200 KIAS ;-) As an aside, I've a good friend who is a controller who has
provided me with various insights. Included in those were that although
they can't upgrade equipment, they do get new leather furniture. Makes one proud
of the system. glen matejcek aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel dielectric strength |
>
>I am installing a strobe system with a 50 watt power supply from Nova.
> The system comes with a fairly heavy shielded 3-wire 18AWG cable that
>has 300V printed on the jacket. It does not appear to be tefzell
>coated. (I think it is mostly used in automotive applications, such
>as police and fire vehicles).
>
>Due to space constraints, I am unable the pass this thick cable
>through the openings in my wing. However, the shielded 3-wire 22AWG,
>from B&C will do the trick.
>
>What is my risk for using the 22AWG vs. the 18 AWG?
The wire supplied with strobe kits is "Beldfoil" shielded
trio of PVC insulated wires. This is a grand-fathered wire
that was the best we could buy in 1967. Indeed, it's
quite suitable for this task and should not be held a
arm's length just because someone holds their nose over
it.
We did some calculations several years ago about the
potential for reduced light output for having switched
to 22AWG wires. It may have been so long ago that the
discussion was pre-matronics . . . on Compuserve's
AVSIG bulletin board!
The consensus was that it would probably be difficult
to measure the difference and you probably wouldn't "see"
it.
I think several folks tried it and reported satisfactory
performance. It would be REALLY interesting to wire up
a kit of strobes with the heads separated by a distance
of 30 feet or so. Wire the right side with 18AWG and
the other with 22AWG. Stand off about a mile and see
if the observer can perceive any difference in the two
flashes.
If someone would loan me their kit of strobe goodies,
I'll go do the experiment. I'll get a group of observers
unaware of which side is small wire to tell me if they
think one is noticeably different from the other.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Tefzel dielectric strength |
| From: | "George, Neal E Capt MIL USAF 605TES/TSI" <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil> |
Bob -
You can use mine, if they ever come back from Whelen.
Neal
If someone would loan me their kit of strobe goodies,
I'll go do the experiment. I'll get a group of observers
unaware of which side is small wire to tell me if they
think one is noticeably different from the other.
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: | Tefzel dielectric strength |
>605TES/TSI"
>
>Bob -
>
>You can use mine, if they ever come back from Whelen.
>
>Neal
Okay, let's plan on it. It would be a short evening
of fun work to do the experiment. I'm only a few miles
from quiet country roads. No hurry . . .it's not going
to be warm enough to be enjoyable for a few more
weeks.
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)MCHSI.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel dielectric strength |
That sounds like logical information. What about the 300V rating on
the wire? Would the tefzel be similar? Here is the wire at B&C:
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?8X358218#s906-3-22
Sam
On Feb 15, 2008 12:49 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I am installing a strobe system with a 50 watt power supply from Nova.
> > The system comes with a fairly heavy shielded 3-wire 18AWG cable that
> >has 300V printed on the jacket. It does not appear to be tefzell
> >coated. (I think it is mostly used in automotive applications, such
> >as police and fire vehicles).
> >
> >Due to space constraints, I am unable the pass this thick cable
> >through the openings in my wing. However, the shielded 3-wire 22AWG,
> >from B&C will do the trick.
> >
> >What is my risk for using the 22AWG vs. the 18 AWG?
>
> The wire supplied with strobe kits is "Beldfoil" shielded
> trio of PVC insulated wires. This is a grand-fathered wire
> that was the best we could buy in 1967. Indeed, it's
> quite suitable for this task and should not be held a
> arm's length just because someone holds their nose over
> it.
>
> We did some calculations several years ago about the
> potential for reduced light output for having switched
> to 22AWG wires. It may have been so long ago that the
> discussion was pre-matronics . . . on Compuserve's
> AVSIG bulletin board!
>
> The consensus was that it would probably be difficult
> to measure the difference and you probably wouldn't "see"
> it.
>
> I think several folks tried it and reported satisfactory
> performance. It would be REALLY interesting to wire up
> a kit of strobes with the heads separated by a distance
> of 30 feet or so. Wire the right side with 18AWG and
> the other with 22AWG. Stand off about a mile and see
> if the observer can perceive any difference in the two
> flashes.
>
> If someone would loan me their kit of strobe goodies,
> I'll go do the experiment. I'll get a group of observers
> unaware of which side is small wire to tell me if they
> think one is noticeably different from the other.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel dielectric strength |
| From: | "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> |
OK Bob,
Just remember that the human optical receiver system uses a log-sensitive
scale, so even a doubling of intensity (double the number of photons)
would be imperceptible. It would probably be easier to just measure the voltage
spike on scope with the appropriate probe (admittedly not as much
fun)
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164332#164332
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
Filing the NASA safety form is the BEST idea you can do. I'd also make a
copy and send it to the closest Fed Communication Commision (FCC) field
office. Just cause they are both fed gov't doesn't necessarily mean they
will "cover" for each other. A bad transmitter is a bad transmitter. FCC
might jack 'em up a notch or two - at least make them uncofmortable in the
new leather chairs as they talk on their vaccuum tube jurassic radios.
I'm not kiddin.
bobf
On 2/14/08, glen matejcek wrote:
>
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
>
> Hi All-
>
> Sounds like perhaps it's time for phone calls to the tower chief to make
> sure that he/she knows of the issue. If that gets no results, a letter to
> the regional office. Make sure to delineate all the steps you guys have
> taken to verify your own equipment ops.
>
> You can also call them to let them on the phone to coordinate a NORDO
> arrival. Just be sure to review the light gun signals. Also, remember to
> keep you Piet under 200 KIAS ;-)
>
> As an aside, I've a good friend who is a controller who has provided me
> with various insights. Included in those were that although they can't
> upgrade equipment, they do get new leather furniture. Makes one proud of
> the system.
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) |
Ernest Christley a crit :
> Drag is drag, and planes are planes; but the relative importance of a
> quantity of drag varies from plane to plane.
>
> A Cozy or Quickie can do 150mph to 200mph with 100Hp or less, because
> everything imaginable has been done to drop the drag. The drag of the
> antennae is no more than it would be on the same 90mph Pietenpol, but
> it is a much more significant portion of the entire airplane's drag.
> You can't take an antennae and say that it will have a specific speed
> penalty. You take the antennae and say how much power will be
> required to push it through the air at a specific speed. You have a
> power budget set by the engine. Any of that budget spent pushing
> antennaes through the air will not be available for pushing the
> airframe through the air. It is up to the builder to decide if
> spending a piece of that limited budget is worth the effort or
> degraded performance associated with not spending it.
Ernest, Matt,
Couldn't agree more with you. I built a low drag airplane (MCR four
seater), and indeed, hiding the antennas made quite a difference. The
present cruise is 130-1135 kt on 100 hp with four on board at low
altitude. We still have some cleaning to perform on the airframe.
I remember having a long discussion with George on this issue some
months ago.
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) |
Gilles Thesee a crit :
> The present cruise is 130-1135 kt
130-135 kt would more accurate ;-)
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel dielectric strength |
>
>OK Bob,
>
>Just remember that the human optical receiver system uses a log-sensitive
>scale, so even a doubling of intensity (double the number of photons)
>would be imperceptible. It would probably be easier to just measure the
>voltage spike on scope with the appropriate probe (admittedly not as much
>fun)
But the 'real' question is not wether some techno-wienie can
measure the differences on a visual attention-getting/warning
system . . . but whether the guy expected to see and react
to it can see a difference. I plan to do both.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel dielectric strength |
>
>That sounds like logical information. What about the 300V rating on
>the wire? Would the tefzel be similar? Here is the wire at B&C:
>http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?8X358218#s906-3-22
I don't recall any of the tefzel wires being rated at less
than 600v. You can check through the listings for 22759 in
ETFE in the catalog at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Wire/Standard_Wire_and_Cable/Std_Wire_Cable.pdf
I suspect B&C's shielded trio is 22759/16 or 22759/34
both of which are 600v insulations.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) |
Gilles Thesee wrote:
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Gilles Thesee a crit :
>> The present cruise is 130-1135 kt
>
> 130-135 kt would more accurate ;-)
>
> Best regards,
Dang-it!!
I was about to send a request for a set of plans. 8*)
--
http://www.ronpaultimeline.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)MCHSI.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel dielectric strength |
Sounds great, Bob. Big help! Thanks!
Sam Hoskins
Murphysboro, IL
On Feb 15, 2008 9:29 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> >
> >That sounds like logical information. What about the 300V rating on
> >the wire? Would the tefzel be similar? Here is the wire at B&C:
> >http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?8X358218#s906-3-22
>
> I don't recall any of the tefzel wires being rated at less
> than 600v. You can check through the listings for 22759 in
> ETFE in the catalog at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Wire/Standard_Wire_and_Cable/Std_Wire_Cable.pdf
>
> I suspect B&C's shielded trio is 22759/16 or 22759/34
> both of which are 600v insulations.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Markey <markeypilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 18 Msgs - 02/13/08 |
Two other items to check:
1. intermittent problem with the microphone on your headset, especially if it is
an electric ANR type set. I had a similar issue with GYY tower - drove us all
nuts. I only had this problem on first flight from the tower [moisture condensing
on the mike?]. have two Lightspeed headsets, and I only had this issue
with the primary set - a 20 series. No issue with the 15-series unit as long as
it has good batteries in it. The unit gets goofy right before the batteries
become too weak to drive the ANR.
Just 2 weeks ago I sent my primary unit back to Lighspeed for a checkup. They replaced
the mike [for free] to correct an "intermittent feedback" between the
microphone and the electronics.
2. If you are using an ANR set, check if your auto squelch on the radio is interfering
with the headset. Again, I had a friend who wrassled with this last summer,
only to discover the auto function on his radio was fighting the headset.
He shut the function off, and all was fine with the tower.
Finally: a Pirep from a friend who has owned a Lightspeed ZULU for 3 months. He
loves it. Very light, very quiet, and it has an MP3 jack feeding his player into
it, with auto volume reduction during all incoming/outgoing radio calls. It
also accepts bluetooth from a player or phone. I'm buying one to greatly simplify
my audio plans!
Good luck,
John
From: "H. M. Haught Jr. "
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Why can't the tower hear me?
Steve -
This is strange! I fly into KOUN regularly. When I fly in, I'm
communicating with flight following with no problems, and transfer off
to KOUN okay. The next day, sitting on the ramp, radio cold, they tell
me that my radio is unreadable. I've had the radio checked out
throughly by two different radio shops now 4 times. Now it is starting
to happen at another airport KSAG. Yet, I taxi across the field at
KASG, the radio shop does a check, call up tower, and everything is
normal. Makes no sense and I think something is wrong with THEIR
radios. And no, it isn't wind noise. I've tried everything, even my
handheld, and at KOUN, they say they cannot understand it either,
although at KASG, the handheld usually works. I keep telling them that
they have something wrong with their system, which has now made me
almost persona non grata at their facility. I'm using an ICOM radio and
have had absolutely no problems with anyone else reading me other than
those two places, and was all over California, Texas, New Mexico, and
Arizona with it last December and January, with no problems whatsoever.
I use flight following on every flight, and occasionally someone will
tell me my radio has some background noise, but I've gotten in the habit
of asking for radio checks and always get a good report. The only
places I have problems is KOUN and KASG, and usually only on initial
call up. Once I'm airborne, they can generally hear me fine.
I'd say we have a similar problem - let's stay in touch until we find
some way to resolve it.
M. Haught
Steve Ruse wrote:
>
>
> I fly an open cockpit experimental (Pietenpol). My radio is a Vertex
> Standard VXA-150 (handheld), powered by an external 8AH/12v battery.
> I have an antenna mounted on a ground plane on the belly, in front of
> the gear. I have no problems communicating air to air with other
> planes, I have actually maintained contact air-air with friends at
> distances over 125NM. My calls were reported as loud and clear. I
> was based at a class D airport (KFTW) for about one year, and never
> had trouble with the tower there.
>
> Two years ago, I moved to a new area, near a class D airport that I
> occasionally go to (KOUN in Norman, OK). I often have trouble being
> understood by the tower, even though all pilots indicate that my
> transmissions are loud and clear. Last weekend I tried to enter the
> class D, but both times I called, the tower responded saying that my
> transmissions were "scratchy and unintelligable". I was about 6NM
> away and could actually see the tower. I immediately switched to
> another frequency, and heard traffic on the CTAF at KGYI, about 95NM
> away. I called them and asked for a radio check. That pilot replied
> that I was loud and clear. Not wanting to bother the tower or cause
> trouble in their airspace, I turned away before entering.
>
> I am baffled by this. What would cause me to be unintelligable to the
> KOUN tower repeatedly, when no one else has trouble understanding me,
> even at long distances? I was on a heading for the tower, and I know
> my transmission strength in that direction (forward) is good. AND it
> was only six miles away.
>
> My only theory is that the tower doesn't like the wind noise in my
> mic...but I have a noise cancelling mic, with a leather wind-blocking
> mic cover, AND other pilots report my transmissions as clear.
>
> Any thoughts on what might cause this would be appreciated. It is
> difficult to trouble shoot because I have to bother the tower to
> replicate the problem.
>
> Steve Ruse
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny
over the mind of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. M. Haught Jr. " <handainc(at)madisoncounty.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 18 Msgs - 02/13/08 |
Thanks John -
I use a regular David Clark 10.13 Headset and with M-7a noise canceling
mic. If there are problems again, I will check the placement of the
mic. I keep it just off my lips, as per instructions, but there could
be some interference. thanks for the tip. I also have a pair of
Lightspeeds I bought from my neighbor, but have never used them.
M. Haught
John Markey wrote:
> Two other items to check:
>
> 1. intermittent problem with the microphone on your headset,
> especially if it is an electric ANR type set. I had a similar issue
> with GYY tower - drove us all nuts. I only had this problem on first
> flight from the tower [moisture condensing on the mike?]. have two
> Lightspeed headsets, and I only had this issue with the primary set -
> a 20 series. No issue with the 15-series unit as long as it has good
> batteries in it. The unit gets goofy right before the batteries become
> too weak to drive the ANR.
>
> Just 2 weeks ago I sent my primary unit back to Lighspeed for a
> checkup. They replaced the mike [for free] to correct an "intermittent
> feedback" between the microphone and the electronics.
>
> 2. If you are using an ANR set, check if your auto squelch on the
> radio is interfering with the headset. Again, I had a friend who
> wrassled with this last summer, only to discover the auto function on
> his radio was fighting the headset. He shut the function off, and all
> was fine with the tower.
>
>
> Finally: a Pirep from a friend who has owned a Lightspeed ZULU for 3
> months. He loves it. Very light, very quiet, and it has an MP3 jack
> feeding his player into it, with auto volume reduction during all
> incoming/outgoing radio calls. It also accepts bluetooth from a player
> or phone. I'm buying one to greatly simplify my audio plans!
>
> Good luck,
>
> John
>
> From: "H. M. Haught Jr. "
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Why can't the tower hear me?
>
>
> Steve -
>
> This is strange! I fly into KOUN regularly. When I fly in, I'm
> communicating with flight following with no problems, and transfer
> off
> to KOUN okay. The next day, sitting on the ramp, radio cold, they
> tell
> me that my radio is unreadable. I've had the radio checked out
> throughly by two different radio shops now 4 times. Now it is
> starting
> to happen at another airport KSAG. Yet, I taxi across the field at
> KASG, the radio shop does a check, call up tower, and everything is
> normal. Makes no sense and I think something is wrong with THEIR
> radios. And no, it isn't wind noise. I've tried everything, even my
> handheld, and at KOUN, they say they cannot understand it either,
> although at KASG, the handheld usually works. I keep telling them
> that
> they have something wrong with their system, which has now made me
> almost persona non grata at their facility. I'm using an ICOM
> radio and
> have had absolutely no problems with anyone else reading me other
> than
> those two places, and was all over California, Texas, New Mexico, and
> Arizona with it last December and January, with no problems
> whatsoever.
> I use flight following on every flight, and occasionally someone will
> tell me my radio has some background noise, but I've gotten in the
> habit
> of asking for radio checks and always get a good report. The only
> places I have problems is KOUN and KASG, and usually only on initial
> call up. Once I'm airborne, they can generally hear me fine.
>
> I'd say we have a similar problem - let's stay in touch until we find
> some way to resolve it.
>
> M. Haught
>
> Steve Ruse wrote:
> >
> >
> > I fly an open cockpit experimental (Pietenpol). My radio is a
> Vertex
> > Standard VXA-150 (handheld), powered by an external 8AH/12v
> battery.
> > I have an antenna mounted on a ground plane on the belly, in
> front of
> > the gear. I have no problems communicating air to air with other
> > planes, I have actually maintained contact air-air with friends at
> > distances over 125NM. My calls were reported as loud and clear. I
> > was based at a class D airport (KFTW) for about one year, and never
> > had trouble with the tower there.
> >
> > Two years ago, I moved to a new area, near a class D airport that I
> > occasionally go to (KOUN in Norman, OK). I often have trouble being
> > understood by the tower, even though all pilots indicate that my
> > transmissions are loud and clear. Last weekend I tried to enter the
> > class D, but both times I called, the tower responded saying
> that my
> > transmissions were "scratchy and unintelligable". I was about 6NM
> > away and could actually see the tower. I immediately switched to
> > another frequency, and heard traffic on the CTAF at KGYI, about
> 95NM
> > away. I called them and asked for a radio check. That pilot replied
> > that I was loud and clear. Not wanting to bother the tower or cause
> > trouble in their airspace, I turned away before entering.
> >
> > I am baffled by this. What would cause me to be unintelligable
> to the
> > KOUN tower repeatedly, when no one else has trouble
> understanding me,
> > even at long distances? I was on a heading for the tower, and I
> know
> > my transmission strength in that direction (forward) is good.
> AND it
> > was only six miles away.
> >
> > My only theory is that the tower doesn't like the wind noise in my
> > mic...but I have a noise cancelling mic, with a leather
> wind-blocking
> > mic cover, AND other pilots report my transmissions as clear.
> >
> > Any thoughts on what might cause this would be appreciated. It is
> > difficult to trouble shoot because I have to bother the tower to
> > replicate the problem.
> >
> > Steve Ruse
>
>
> "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
> form of tyranny over the mind of man."
> -- /Thomas Jefferson/
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.beaver(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Motor sizing study |
The motor sizing document is up to revision -C- at:
http://tinyurl.com/yp4kx9
Bob . . .
|-----------------------------------------------------|
| "There is a great difference between knowing and |
| understanding: you can know a lot about something |
| and not really understand it" |
| -Charles F Kettering |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) |
>Re: Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas)
Matt and Mike, you are both right, thanks for keeping
me honest.
Where I'm are coming from is the KISS principle, antenna
drag is small even on a fast homebuilt, relevant to the
effort and the performance, especially on a metal plane.
Also there's nothing like a good external 1/4 wave dipole.
Fiberglass plane? Have at it. Personally when I "Race", I
take the Com antenna off and connect it to a temp internal
antenna in the cockpit. When I had a VOR antenna, I
took that off as well. So I can be picky about a few drag
clicks, but for daily flying, not so much. 1/4th of a mph
is not going to make much of a difference. Also running
extra coax around, cost weight, money and radio perf.
Cheers, thanks guys, fly safe.
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel dielectric strength |
rampil wrote:
>
> OK Bob,
>
> Just remember that the human optical receiver system uses a log-sensitive
> scale, so even a doubling of intensity (double the number of photons)
> would be imperceptible. It would probably be easier to just measure the voltage
spike on scope with the appropriate probe (admittedly not as much
> fun)
>
> --------
> Ira N224XS
And if you can't see the difference, why not go 'lighter'?
It would be advisable for builders to remember the same thing when they
get all over stimulated by the thought of going from a 50W halogen to a
75W halogen for their landing lights, etc etc etc.
Charlie
:-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Motor sizing study (oops!) |
>
>
>The motor sizing document is up to revision -C- at:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/yp4kx9
>
>
> Bob . . .
This was a posting intended for another list-server (I
juggling three different ones right now. The document
cited is for a client and not intended for general
public access. I've changed the link parameters on
the server to keep this thing from getting out into
the wild in great numbers. If anyone on the list has
downloaded it, I'd appreciate it if you destroy it
and wipe the .pdf file from your HD.
Not a big deal . . . in fact, if you want to read
it for a peek through the keyhole into a product
development task, be my guest. There is no real
risk to my client's interests if we published
everything . . . but their lawyers are paid to
worry about everything . . . and demand to
have control over what's proprietary and what's
public. Given that they don't have enough helpful
things to do, the best approach is to brand everything
proprietary. Last thing I want to do is get a
lawyer upset with me!
Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lights . . . how big do they really need to be? |
>
>
>rampil wrote:
>>
>>OK Bob,
>>
>>Just remember that the human optical receiver system uses a log-sensitive
>>scale, so even a doubling of intensity (double the number of photons)
>>would be imperceptible. It would probably be easier to just measure the
>>voltage spike on scope with the appropriate probe (admittedly not as much
>>fun)
>>
>>--------
>>Ira N224XS
>And if you can't see the difference, why not go 'lighter'?
>
>It would be advisable for builders to remember the same thing when they
>get all over stimulated by the thought of going from a 50W halogen to a
>75W halogen for their landing lights, etc etc etc.
Absolutely! I once took a guy for a ride after dark in
the 1K1 J-3 using only a hand-held fisherman's lantern
(6v, .5A 3 watts) as an aid to landing. I let him sit in
the front seat and operate the manually retracting landing
light. We stuck it out the open door and found that it
provided plenty of light to effect graceful arrival with
the earth.
We had an adjacent lighted runway just in case but
the lantern allowed us to use the grass with no
problems.
Years ago, we had a discussion on the 'net about
landing lights for a Rotax powered Kitfox. From the
time you throttle back for approach to landing to
the time you apply full throttle for the next takeoff,
your electrical system is essentially battery-only.
A builder who was wanting to operate occasionally
from a lighted field was considering a 100W landing/
taxi light installation. I was remembering my first
night dual where the instructor never let me turn
the landing light on. After a half dozen or so touch
and goes, I began to realize that my ability to sense
height above the ground was enhanced a great deal by
the perception of texture in the surface under the
airplane that I could see every time the strobes flashed.
This brought forth the idea of mounting small 12v
halogen store spots on each wing tip and pointed
mostly down but a bit forward and outboard. The
goal was to increase the accuracy of height perception
by illuminating the surface under the wing tips and
visible in peripheral vision during the flare.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/20W_Halogen_Spot_2.JPG
The builder installed the lights and operated them
with a push-button on the stick grip. A second set
of lights in tips pointed forward for taxi assist.
By pushing the right button only when the light was
needed reduced his energy consumption to a tiny
fraction of that needed to power up more conventional
lighting products.
Here's the cowl installation of a 55w miniature reflector
spot in a Quickie. The owner reports very satisfactory
performance after more than 5 years of service and
frequent night flights.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/MVC-007W.JPG
Bottom line is that the quest for klieg-light
performance in our landing/taxi/warning systems
has a diminishing return on investment after a
certain useful threshold has been reached.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | TurboCAD Learning Edition (it's free!) |
I stumbled across this while poking around the web.
Regards,
Jay
http://www.freecad.com/dcd/CAD_Programs____PCs/index-4.html
TurboCAD Learning Edition, is a comprehensive, fully functional
2D CAD software product. It is the ideal vehicle for new users to learn
how to use and discover the concepts behind CAD software. In addition
it is a viable product for producing professional 2D CAD drawings. The
software includes the very informative "Complete Guide to Learning CAD"
by Randall Newton and Robert Berry (271 pages), the useful crossover
guide "TurboCAD for Users" (144 pages) and a full multimedia Quick
Tour. This will reduce the learning curve and provide easier
accessibility to the software for the entry-level user.Complements existing CAD
seats within a design environment.Powerful enough to be used by dedicated CAD
specialists.Easy enough to use by non-dedicated, occasional users.Customizable
User Interface.Compatible with MS Office and other productivity applications.OLE:
Drag and Drop drawings into any OLE compliant application.Easy to Learn
and UseSetup wizards using real world input.Templates for every discipline and
measurement system.Extensive multimedia tutorial.Handle based editing with the
precision of CAD.Context sensitive Edit Bar with constraints.Context sensitive
local menus. IMSI
is making its Learning Edition available for free with the firm belief
that users will learn to love the TurboCAD product and will want to
upgrade to our latest 2D/3D versions. Research has shown that CAD users
typically remain with the CAD software they learn first, favoring
techniques and procedures that they are already familiar with.
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Lights . . . how big do they really need to be? |
> > Just remember that the human optical receiver system uses a
log-sensitive
> > scale, so even a doubling of intensity (double the number of photons)
> > would be imperceptible. It would probably be easier to just measure
the voltage
> spike on scope with the appropriate probe (admittedly not as much
> > fun)
This is all true, but we also need to not confuse the lab with the real
world. If you are in a dark room with two point sources of light that are
of a whole order of magnitude of brightness different, and they are
illuminated individually and alternately, you would likely have a hard time
telling which was which. This is due to the adaptability of your eye. If
you had a constantly lit background and did the same test, one source could
well be distinguishable while the other was lost in the background.
Now consider flying near dusk and it's right about 3 miles vis in haze. A
more powerful strobe will be visible while the weaker may not, although
there may be zero practical difference at midnight in a cold, clear, winter
sky.
I used the most powerful strobes I could.
FWIW-
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Corey Crawford" <corey.crawford(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Z-19 and multiple busses |
Hello,
I'm looking to use the Z-19 drawings to create the electrical system to
power my electrically-dependent Subaru engine and had a question:
Is there a reason I shouldn't go with a single engine bus that's fed by both
batteries, with diodes to prevent a bad battery from sucking in all the
juice?
The Z-19's show one bus per battery and then using a diode bridge for each
component - this would move the diodes between the battery and the bus,
instead of being placed between the bus(ses) and the individual components.
Comments?
--
Corey Crawford
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TurboCAD format files |
>
>Using v14.2, this scenario was very repeatable on my WinXP machine. Open
>up the seminar.dwg from AEC11.
>
>Make a change, save (as .dwg format) and then close the file. Do this
>until the file gets to be ~1.5MB. At this point, opening the .dwg file
>takes longer and longer. Sometimes the file opens after a really long
>time, but usually the program just hangs forever. Now your data is "gone"
>and the file is corrupted... Look at the running application when this
>happens using Task Mgr. You will see that TurboCAD consumed memory size
>just keeps growing and growing as there's a memory leak. More annoying is
>the occasional program faults seen during cut+paste or save operations.
>
>TurboCAD support confirmed the above as a known bug when using .dwg
>AutoCAD formatted files. The fix is only available in v15 - you get to buy
>it again (not!).
>
>No issues where seen doing the above steps after saving the AutoCAD format
>seminar.dwg file as a TurboCAD format .tcw file.
Don't save as .dwg
If TurboCAD is your vehicle of choice, there's
no value in causing it to open work product in
one language, interpret its native language for
editing and then converting back to the source
language for storage.
Use the .dwg files as a one-time source and
let TurboCAD do what it does best after that.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 and multiple busses |
>Hello,
>
>I'm looking to use the Z-19 drawings to create the electrical system to
>power my electrically-dependent Subaru engine and had a question:
>
>Is there a reason I shouldn't go with a single engine bus that's fed by
>both batteries, with diodes to prevent a bad battery from sucking in all
>the juice?
Batteries don't go bad in ways that "suck juice".
I presume that since your airplane is decidedly
dependent on 100.0% availability of power, you'll
not only use modern, RG batteries . . . you'll make
at least some effort to see that they're discarded
for lack of capacity . . . which will happen long
before they don't crank the engine.
>The Z-19's show one bus per battery and then using a diode bridge for each
>component - this would move the diodes between the battery and the bus,
>instead of being placed between the bus(ses) and the individual components.
The dual diodes are intended to isolate a battery
with higher state of charge from being tapped by
the equipment that has reduced the other battery
to a lower state of charge. It's not batteries that
are the energy thieves . . . it's stuff you have
turned on.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Corey Crawford" <corey.crawford(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 and multiple busses |
On Feb 18, 2008 6:32 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
> The dual diodes are intended to isolate a battery
> with higher state of charge from being tapped by
> the equipment that has reduced the other battery
> to a lower state of charge. It's not batteries that
> are the energy thieves . . . it's stuff you have
> turned on.
>
I think I got it .. the diodes prevent the Main Battery from being used by
components on the Engine Bus and vise versa. If the two busses would feed
the exact same components, is there any reason to separate them? The only
thing I'd lose is not being able to isolate a battery, or am I missing
something? (I'm not sure being able to isolate a single battery is very
helpful in this scenario - the whole engine can be isolated with the dc
power switch if needed).
Thanks! :)
--
Corey Crawford
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vince-Himsl" <vhimsl(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Dynon d-180 audio alarm output to King aux audio in |
Hello,
I have a King KY96A comm/receiver and a Dynon D-180.
The Dynon has two audio alarm out wires that I tie together and feed to a
10kohm pot. The center tap is in turn fed to an 'intercom' which I don't
have.
But I have noticed that on the schematic for the King KY96a there are three
'aux audio in' connection inputs.
Can one just connect the dynon alarm inputs (via the pot) to one of these?
Or more to the point, does anyone know exactly what those 'aux audio in'
inputs do?
Thanks,
Vince H.
RV8-wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 and multiple busses |
>On Feb 18, 2008 6:32 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
><nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote:
>> The dual diodes are intended to isolate a battery
>> with higher state of charge from being tapped by
>> the equipment that has reduced the other battery
>> to a lower state of charge. It's not batteries that
>> are the energy thieves . . . it's stuff you have
>> turned on.
>
>I think I got it .. the diodes prevent the Main Battery from being used by
>components on the Engine Bus and vise versa. If the two busses would feed
>the exact same components, is there any reason to separate them? The only
>thing I'd lose is not being able to isolate a battery, or am I missing
>something? (I'm not sure being able to isolate a single battery is very
>helpful in this scenario - the whole engine can be isolated with the dc
>power switch if needed).
I'm not sure about your desire to "isolate a
battery". When the alternator quits, the
energy available is finite and contained totally
within the battery(ies).
When the low volts warning light comes on, wiring
per Z-19 requires no action on the part of the
pilot except to close the endurance bus alternate
feed switch and open both battery master switches.
Then make preparations for a no-alternator
en-route phase of flight followed by approach to
comfortable landing. Once your comfortable landing
is assured (short final over the numbers) close
the master relays and run as much "stuff" as you
like to complete the flight.
Normal operations are with the primary engine
power switch ON and the secondary switch off.
Assuming you've done your homework and have
a considered preventative maintenance program
for batteries, then you KNOW how long you
can operate battery only in the endurance
mode. If you have not done your homework and
find that the engine is not running well for
as long as you anticipated, you may have
to close the secondary power switch to allow
the main battery to support the engine. If
the engine battery's lack of capacity proves
to be a surprise, then the main battery's true
condition is probably a mystery too . . . it's
time to call it an emergency.
The design goal is to minimize in-flight
diagnostics, switch flipping and other
distractions that prevent you from doing
your best as a pilot. With a modicum of
planning it's a no-sweat deal.
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: Dynon d-180 audio alarm output to King aux audio |
in
>
>Hello,
>I have a King KY96A comm/receiver and a Dynon D-180.
>
>The Dynon has two audio alarm out wires that I tie together and feed to a
>10kohm pot. The center tap is in turn fed to an 'intercom' which I don't
>have.
>
>But I have noticed that on the schematic for the King KY96a there are three
>'aux audio in' connection inputs.
>
>Can one just connect the dynon alarm inputs (via the pot) to one of these?
>
>Or more to the point, does anyone know exactly what those 'aux audio in'
>inputs do?
Just what you want. Run your alarm tones to these inputs
through gain control potentiometers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bouguy" <boullu.guy(at)libertysurf.fr> |
Hi ,
i have a quite new Bendix starting vibrator 10-176487-241B and
i would like to know if it is possible to use it with the 6393 left SLICK magneto
of the IO540C4B5 of my Barracuda .
thanks for reply ,
Boullu guy .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164978#164978
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-19 and multiple busses |
Bob, if I "open both battery master switches" which carry my EFI, ECU
and primary fuel pump, my engine will go putt-putt and die. On the other
hand closing the #2 fuel pump switch will provide power to the #2 fuel
pump from the main bus for my non-running engine. I'm sure you were
referring to a standard aircraft engine and not an electrically
dependent one. For Z-19 to be effective, the EFI/ECU/FP require at least
1 live feed. That source is not provided on the e-bus.
-----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, February 18, 2008 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-19 and multiple busses
-->
>On Feb 18, 2008 6:32 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
><nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote:
>> The dual diodes are intended to isolate a battery
>> with higher state of charge from being tapped by
>> the equipment that has reduced the other battery
>> to a lower state of charge. It's not batteries that
>> are the energy thieves . . . it's stuff you have
>> turned on.
>
>I think I got it .. the diodes prevent the Main Battery from being used
>by
>components on the Engine Bus and vise versa. If the two busses would
feed
>the exact same components, is there any reason to separate them? The
only
>thing I'd lose is not being able to isolate a battery, or am I missing
>something? (I'm not sure being able to isolate a single battery is very
>helpful in this scenario - the whole engine can be isolated with the dc
>power switch if needed).
I'm not sure about your desire to "isolate a
battery". When the alternator quits, the
energy available is finite and contained totally
within the battery(ies).
When the low volts warning light comes on, wiring
per Z-19 requires no action on the part of the
pilot except to close the endurance bus alternate
feed switch and open both battery master switches.
Then make preparations for a no-alternator
en-route phase of flight followed by approach to
comfortable landing. Once your comfortable landing
is assured (short final over the numbers) close
the master relays and run as much "stuff" as you
like to complete the flight.
Normal operations are with the primary engine
power switch ON and the secondary switch off.
Assuming you've done your homework and have
a considered preventative maintenance program
for batteries, then you KNOW how long you
can operate battery only in the endurance
mode. If you have not done your homework and
find that the engine is not running well for
as long as you anticipated, you may have
to close the secondary power switch to allow
the main battery to support the engine. If
the engine battery's lack of capacity proves
to be a surprise, then the main battery's true
condition is probably a mystery too . . . it's
time to call it an emergency.
The design goal is to minimize in-flight
diagnostics, switch flipping and other
distractions that prevent you from doing
your best as a pilot. With a modicum of
planning it's a no-sweat deal.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Corey Crawford" <corey.crawford(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 and multiple busses |
Thanks for setting me straight. I was under the impression that normal
operation would see both engine power switches on.
- Corey
On Feb 18, 2008 9:00 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>
>
> >On Feb 18, 2008 6:32 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> ><nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> wrote:
> >> The dual diodes are intended to isolate a battery
> >> with higher state of charge from being tapped by
> >> the equipment that has reduced the other battery
> >> to a lower state of charge. It's not batteries that
> >> are the energy thieves . . . it's stuff you have
> >> turned on.
> >
> >I think I got it .. the diodes prevent the Main Battery from being used
> by
> >components on the Engine Bus and vise versa. If the two busses would feed
> >the exact same components, is there any reason to separate them? The only
> >thing I'd lose is not being able to isolate a battery, or am I missing
> >something? (I'm not sure being able to isolate a single battery is very
> >helpful in this scenario - the whole engine can be isolated with the dc
> >power switch if needed).
>
> I'm not sure about your desire to "isolate a
> battery". When the alternator quits, the
> energy available is finite and contained totally
> within the battery(ies).
>
> When the low volts warning light comes on, wiring
> per Z-19 requires no action on the part of the
> pilot except to close the endurance bus alternate
> feed switch and open both battery master switches.
> Then make preparations for a no-alternator
> en-route phase of flight followed by approach to
> comfortable landing. Once your comfortable landing
> is assured (short final over the numbers) close
> the master relays and run as much "stuff" as you
> like to complete the flight.
>
> Normal operations are with the primary engine
> power switch ON and the secondary switch off.
> Assuming you've done your homework and have
> a considered preventative maintenance program
> for batteries, then you KNOW how long you
> can operate battery only in the endurance
> mode. If you have not done your homework and
> find that the engine is not running well for
> as long as you anticipated, you may have
> to close the secondary power switch to allow
> the main battery to support the engine. If
> the engine battery's lack of capacity proves
> to be a surprise, then the main battery's true
> condition is probably a mystery too . . . it's
> time to call it an emergency.
>
> The design goal is to minimize in-flight
> diagnostics, switch flipping and other
> distractions that prevent you from doing
> your best as a pilot. With a modicum of
> planning it's a no-sweat deal.
>
> Bob . . .
>
--
Corey Crawford
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Z-19 and multiple busses |
>
>Bob, if I "open both battery master switches" which carry my EFI, ECU
>and primary fuel pump, my engine will go putt-putt and die. On the other
>hand closing the #2 fuel pump switch will provide power to the #2 fuel
>pump from the main bus for my non-running engine. I'm sure you were
>referring to a standard aircraft engine and not an electrically
>dependent one. For Z-19 to be effective, the EFI/ECU/FP require at least
>1 live feed. That source is not provided on the e-bus.
Your electrically dependent engine accessories should
run from always hot battery busses as illustrated in
Z-19 and recommended for ALL the Z-figures. If you've
got bad smells in the cockpit you should be able to
open all the battery switches and kill the alternator
and NOT have the engine stop.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 and multiple busses |
>Thanks for setting me straight. I was under the impression that normal
>operation would see both engine power switches on.
The system would "function" with both switches ON. But
the purpose for batteries is to have TWO, KNOWN sources
of stored energy, one for the engine, one for other stuff.
If you do your homework, you never have to close the second
engine power switch except during a pre-flight test.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net> |
I'm having trouble with my EIS 6000. Thinking about changing the 27k
resistor, but I can't find one. My question is, can I put a 22k and a
5.5k in series instead?
Thanks,
Sam Marlow
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EIS resistor |
>I'm having trouble with my EIS 6000. Thinking about changing the 27k
>resistor, but I can't find one. My question is, can I put a 22k and a 5.5k
>in series instead?
>Thanks,
>Sam Marlow
Sure . . . Or even consider
a 50K potentiometer so that you
can adjust it to exactly what's needed.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EIS resistor |
Can I get one at a local Radio Shack, and what exactly do I ask for?
Thanks,
Sam
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>> I'm having trouble with my EIS 6000. Thinking about changing the 27k
>> resistor, but I can't find one. My question is, can I put a 22k and a
>> 5.5k in series instead?
>> Thanks,
>> Sam Marlow
>
> Sure . . . Or even consider
> a 50K potentiometer so that you
> can adjust it to exactly what's needed.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cassius Smith <cassius(at)cassius.org> |
| Subject: | NEARLY ready for first flight |
Hello all,
I'm new to the Matronics list. My son is building an RV7-A, and we used
the Aero Electric Connection figure Z-11 with very few modifications
(added an SPST switch in front of the Alt. Hold; that was about all). We
are using the B&C LR-3 alternator controller, and we used an LED in the
panel for the low voltage indicator.
My son cranked the engine the first time and just let it idle a couple
of minutes. Voltage was indicated on the Dynon EMS-10 as 12.1V, which
I'm told is low. We asked around and were told by a couple of folks that
12.1V is normal for idle speeds; it will pick up at higher RPM runups.
The low volt indicator was flashing the whole time.
Today, we're about ready for first flight. My son did a 1600 RPM runup
to check mags, oil pressure, stuff like that. HOWEVER the low voltage
light never stopped blinking. He didn't notice the exact voltage
reading. When he turned on all the lights, the current draw went into
the red.
Here's my question - how do I start trying to debug this problem? Do I
suspect the alternator, the LR-3, or what? It was about 30 degrees at
the hangar when he shut the engine down, so I haven't had the chance to
check the wiring connectivity yet, and I know that's the first step.
The EMS is connected to the main power bus, so it's not behind the
bridge diode that protects the E-bus.
Any suggestions?
Cassius Smith
-----------------
"With the possible exception of the equator, everything begins
somewhere."
C. S. Lewis
-----------------
"With the possible exception of the equator, everything begins
somewhere."
C. S. Lewis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NEARLY ready for first flight |
Check the B&C web site. They have a troubleshooting guide for the LR-3.
Print it out and follow it. I had roughly the same problem when I first
tried my electrical system with the alternator and using the guide I found I
had made a bad crimp connection. Easy fix. Good luck.
Bill
Glasair SIIS-FT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cassius Smith" <cassius(at)cassius.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:16 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: NEARLY ready for first flight
>
>
> Hello all,
> I'm new to the Matronics list. My son is building an RV7-A, and we used
> the Aero Electric Connection figure Z-11 with very few modifications
> (added an SPST switch in front of the Alt. Hold; that was about all). We
> are using the B&C LR-3 alternator controller, and we used an LED in the
> panel for the low voltage indicator.
>
> My son cranked the engine the first time and just let it idle a couple
> of minutes. Voltage was indicated on the Dynon EMS-10 as 12.1V, which
> I'm told is low. We asked around and were told by a couple of folks that
> 12.1V is normal for idle speeds; it will pick up at higher RPM runups.
> The low volt indicator was flashing the whole time.
>
> Today, we're about ready for first flight. My son did a 1600 RPM runup
> to check mags, oil pressure, stuff like that. HOWEVER the low voltage
> light never stopped blinking. He didn't notice the exact voltage
> reading. When he turned on all the lights, the current draw went into
> the red.
>
> Here's my question - how do I start trying to debug this problem? Do I
> suspect the alternator, the LR-3, or what? It was about 30 degrees at
> the hangar when he shut the engine down, so I haven't had the chance to
> check the wiring connectivity yet, and I know that's the first step.
>
> The EMS is connected to the main power bus, so it's not behind the
> bridge diode that protects the E-bus.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Cassius Smith
>
> -----------------
> "With the possible exception of the equator, everything begins
> somewhere."
> C. S. Lewis
> -----------------
> "With the possible exception of the equator, everything begins
> somewhere."
> C. S. Lewis
>
>
> --
> 10:55 AM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NEARLY ready for first flight |
>
>Hello all,
>I'm new to the Matronics list. My son is building an RV7-A, and we used
>the Aero Electric Connection figure Z-11 with very few modifications
>(added an SPST switch in front of the Alt. Hold; that was about all). We
>are using the B&C LR-3 alternator controller, and we used an LED in the
>panel for the low voltage indicator.
>
>My son cranked the engine the first time and just let it idle a couple
>of minutes. Voltage was indicated on the Dynon EMS-10 as 12.1V, which
>I'm told is low. We asked around and were told by a couple of folks that
>12.1V is normal for idle speeds; it will pick up at higher RPM runups.
>The low volt indicator was flashing the whole time.
>
>Today, we're about ready for first flight. My son did a 1600 RPM runup
>to check mags, oil pressure, stuff like that. HOWEVER the low voltage
>light never stopped blinking. He didn't notice the exact voltage
>reading. When he turned on all the lights, the current draw went into
>the red.
>
>Here's my question - how do I start trying to debug this problem? Do I
>suspect the alternator, the LR-3, or what? It was about 30 degrees at
>the hangar when he shut the engine down, so I haven't had the chance to
>check the wiring connectivity yet, and I know that's the first step.
>
>The EMS is connected to the main power bus, so it's not behind the
>bridge diode that protects the E-bus.
>
>Any suggestions?
>
>Cassius Smith
There's a troubleshooting procedure for the LR-3 published
at:
http://bandc.biz/Downloads.html
Pick the one appropriate to the model you have.
There's a general troubleshooting guide for
externally regulated alternators in Appendix
Z to the AeroElectric Connection which you
can download at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11M.pdf
See Note 8 on Page Z-7.
Let us know what you find.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
2/20/2008
Bon jour, Buoguy, My Slick manual L-1363 shows the 6393 as having a second
set of points. This would be the retard breaker points making the magneto
suitable for using a starting vibrator.
I am not familiar with the Bendix starting vibrator 10-176487-241B and do
not have any Bendix magneto or vibrator manuals, but I see no reason why it
would not be suitable.
If you would like further confirmation you might email:
john(at)sacskyranch.com
and ask John.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slick 6393
From: "bouguy" <boullu.guy(at)libertysurf.fr>
Hi ,
i have a quite new Bendix starting vibrator 10-176487-241B and
i would like to know if it is possible to use it with the 6393 left SLICK
magneto
of the IO540C4B5 of my Barracuda .
thanks for reply ,
Boullu guy .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
Sam,
What is the problem you are having with your EIS 6000? If it is with
the RPM indication, are you driving the RPM from the P-lead? If so what
resistor value are you currently using? If you are using a resistor in
the range required and it is not working you should call Grand Rapids.
There is a mod that is required on some 6000=92s which calls for the
removal of a resister internally. It is a simple process and they can
walk you through it or you could send it back assuming this is the
issue.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Marlow
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:58 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EIS resistor
I'm having trouble with my EIS 6000. Thinking about changing the 27k
resistor, but I can't find one. My question is, can I put a 22k and a
5.5k in series instead?
Thanks,
Sam Marlow
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EIS resistor |
It's puzzling, because it worked fine for 6 months, then the mag died.
When I reinstalled the repaired mag, the tach started wondering, mostly
at higher RPMs.
It's the 27k resistor, supplied by Grand Rapids. I sent a Demo log to
G/R this morning, hope to here something soon.
I did the mod on the circuit board, before first flight, if that's the
one your referring to.
Mike wrote:
>
> Sam,
>
>
>
> What is the problem you are having with your EIS 6000? If it is with
> the RPM indication, are you driving the RPM from the P-lead? If so
> what resistor value are you currently using? If you are using a
> resistor in the range required and it is not working you should call
> Grand Rapids. There is a mod that is required on some 6000s which
> calls for the removal of a resister internally. It is a simple
> process and they can walk you through it or you could send it back
> assuming this is the issue.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Sam Marlow
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:58 AM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: EIS resistor
>
>
>
> I'm having trouble with my EIS 6000. Thinking about changing the 27k
> resistor, but I can't find one. My question is, can I put a 22k and a
> 5.5k in series instead?
> Thanks,
> Sam Marlow
>
> * *
> * *
> **
> * - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -*
> **
> **
> **
> **
> * --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
> **
> * - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -*
> **
> * --> http://forums.matronics.com*
> **
> * - List Contribution Web Site -*
> * Thank you for your generous support!*
> * -Matt Dralle, List Admin.*
> * --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> **
> * *
>
> 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
>
> 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cassius Smith <cassius(at)cassius.org> |
| Subject: | NEARLY ready for first flight |
OK - here's what we did...
I looked carefully at the installation and troubleshooting guides which
were pointed out to me (THANKS) and I realized that we may not have been
connecting the ALT Field. AEC Z-11 plan for BAT/ALT MASTER switch is a
B&C 2-10 switch with two distinct positions - 1/2 way up is battery on,
full up is battery and alt field on. When I looked through the inst and
t/shooting guides, they mention making sure you have voltage on pin 6
within 0.5V of the bus voltage. When I looked at the diagram (see
attached) I realized that the pilot may not have been throwing the
switch all the way up after engine start.
We gave this a try and presto - 14.1-14.2V. Low Voltage stopped
flashing.
HOWEVER the low voltage lamp stayed LIT at 1600RPM - does this mean I
may have a bad crimp? Or do I just need to adjust it down on the LR3C?
Cassius Smith
-----------------
"With the possible exception of the equator, everything begins
somewhere."
C. S. Lewis
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: NEARLY ready for first flight
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
> Date: Tue, February 19, 2008 11:00 pm
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>
>
> >
> >Hello all,
> >I'm new to the Matronics list. My son is building an RV7-A, and we used
> >the Aero Electric Connection figure Z-11 with very few modifications
> >(added an SPST switch in front of the Alt. Hold; that was about all). We
> >are using the B&C LR-3 alternator controller, and we used an LED in the
> >panel for the low voltage indicator.
> >
> >My son cranked the engine the first time and just let it idle a couple
> >of minutes. Voltage was indicated on the Dynon EMS-10 as 12.1V, which
> >I'm told is low. We asked around and were told by a couple of folks that
> >12.1V is normal for idle speeds; it will pick up at higher RPM runups.
> >The low volt indicator was flashing the whole time.
> >
> >Today, we're about ready for first flight. My son did a 1600 RPM runup
> >to check mags, oil pressure, stuff like that. HOWEVER the low voltage
> >light never stopped blinking. He didn't notice the exact voltage
> >reading. When he turned on all the lights, the current draw went into
> >the red.
> >
> >Here's my question - how do I start trying to debug this problem? Do I
> >suspect the alternator, the LR-3, or what? It was about 30 degrees at
> >the hangar when he shut the engine down, so I haven't had the chance to
> >check the wiring connectivity yet, and I know that's the first step.
> >
> >The EMS is connected to the main power bus, so it's not behind the
> >bridge diode that protects the E-bus.
> >
> >Any suggestions?
> >
> >Cassius Smith
>
> There's a troubleshooting procedure for the LR-3 published
> at:
>
> http://bandc.biz/Downloads.html
>
> Pick the one appropriate to the model you have.
>
> There's a general troubleshooting guide for
> externally regulated alternators in Appendix
> Z to the AeroElectric Connection which you
> can download at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11M.pdf
>
> See Note 8 on Page Z-7.
>
> Let us know what you find.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cassius Smith <cassius(at)cassius.org> |
| Subject: | NEARLY ready for first flight |
And HERE's the attachment - sorry everyone!
-----------------
"With the possible exception of the equator, everything begins
somewhere."
C. S. Lewis
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: NEARLY ready for first flight
> From: Cassius Smith <cassius(at)cassius.org>
> Date: Wed, February 20, 2008 1:02 pm
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Cc: tvrvbg(at)yahoogroups.com
>
>
> OK - here's what we did...
> I looked carefully at the installation and troubleshooting guides which
> were pointed out to me (THANKS) and I realized that we may not have been
> connecting the ALT Field. AEC Z-11 plan for BAT/ALT MASTER switch is a
> B&C 2-10 switch with two distinct positions - 1/2 way up is battery on,
> full up is battery and alt field on. When I looked through the inst and
> t/shooting guides, they mention making sure you have voltage on pin 6
> within 0.5V of the bus voltage. When I looked at the diagram (see
> attached) I realized that the pilot may not have been throwing the
> switch all the way up after engine start.
>
> We gave this a try and presto - 14.1-14.2V. Low Voltage stopped
> flashing.
>
> HOWEVER the low voltage lamp stayed LIT at 1600RPM - does this mean I
> may have a bad crimp? Or do I just need to adjust it down on the LR3C?
>
> Cassius Smith
>
> -----------------
> "With the possible exception of the equator, everything begins
> somewhere."
> C. S. Lewis
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: NEARLY ready for first flight
> > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
> > Date: Tue, February 19, 2008 11:00 pm
> > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Hello all,
> > >I'm new to the Matronics list. My son is building an RV7-A, and we used
> > >the Aero Electric Connection figure Z-11 with very few modifications
> > >(added an SPST switch in front of the Alt. Hold; that was about all). We
> > >are using the B&C LR-3 alternator controller, and we used an LED in the
> > >panel for the low voltage indicator.
> > >
> > >My son cranked the engine the first time and just let it idle a couple
> > >of minutes. Voltage was indicated on the Dynon EMS-10 as 12.1V, which
> > >I'm told is low. We asked around and were told by a couple of folks that
> > >12.1V is normal for idle speeds; it will pick up at higher RPM runups.
> > >The low volt indicator was flashing the whole time.
> > >
> > >Today, we're about ready for first flight. My son did a 1600 RPM runup
> > >to check mags, oil pressure, stuff like that. HOWEVER the low voltage
> > >light never stopped blinking. He didn't notice the exact voltage
> > >reading. When he turned on all the lights, the current draw went into
> > >the red.
> > >
> > >Here's my question - how do I start trying to debug this problem? Do I
> > >suspect the alternator, the LR-3, or what? It was about 30 degrees at
> > >the hangar when he shut the engine down, so I haven't had the chance to
> > >check the wiring connectivity yet, and I know that's the first step.
> > >
> > >The EMS is connected to the main power bus, so it's not behind the
> > >bridge diode that protects the E-bus.
> > >
> > >Any suggestions?
> > >
> > >Cassius Smith
> >
> > There's a troubleshooting procedure for the LR-3 published
> > at:
> >
> > http://bandc.biz/Downloads.html
> >
> > Pick the one appropriate to the model you have.
> >
> > There's a general troubleshooting guide for
> > externally regulated alternators in Appendix
> > Z to the AeroElectric Connection which you
> > can download at:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11M.pdf
> >
> > See Note 8 on Page Z-7.
> >
> > Let us know what you find.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> > ----------------------------------------)
> > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> > ( appearance of being right . . . )
> > ( )
> > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> > ----------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
Sam,
Yes that=92sthe mod I was talking about. Let me know what GRT says.
Mike
mlas(at)cox.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Marlow
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EIS resistor
It's puzzling, because it worked fine for 6 months, then the mag died.
When I reinstalled the repaired mag, the tach started wondering, mostly
at higher RPMs.
It's the 27k resistor, supplied by Grand Rapids. I sent a Demo log to
G/R this morning, hope to here something soon.
I did the mod on the circuit board, before first flight, if that's the
one your referring to.
Mike wrote:
Sam,
What is the problem you are having with your EIS 6000? If it is with
the RPM indication, are you driving the RPM from the P-lead? If so what
resistor value are you currently using? If you are using a resistor in
the range required and it is not working you should call Grand Rapids.
There is a mod that is required on some 6000=92s which calls for the
removal of a resister internally. It is a simple process and they can
walk you through it or you could send it back assuming this is the
issue.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: HYPERLINK
"mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com"owner-aeroelectric-
list-server(at)matronics.com [HYPERLINK
"mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com"mailto:owner-aeroel
ectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Marlow
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:58 AM
"mailto:aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com"aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EIS resistor
I'm having trouble with my EIS 6000. Thinking about changing the 27k
resistor, but I can't find one. My question is, can I put a 22k and a
5.5k in series instead?
Thanks,
Sam Marlow
- The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
--> HYPERLINK
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
--> HYPERLINK
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
--> HYPERLINK
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
o
ntribution
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rveighta <rveighta(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Noisy Turn Coordinator |
I recently did some taxi testing of my RV8 and discovered I have a problem with
a noisy turn coordinator causing my radio to be amost useless. I also have a
flying RV8A which had the same problem, but was cured by fabricating and installing
Bob's noise choke (Radio Shack 270-030).
Unfortunately, this Radio Shack part along with the two alternative ones listed
by Bob are no available from the Shack. Does anyone have an idea where I can
get a noise filter similar to the ones formerly carried by RS?
Thanks......
Walt Shipley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Garmin396/SL40 interface |
I have been considering wiring my Garmin 396 GPS to the SL40 COM for
frequency loading into the COM and wondering if it is worthwhile doing.
I do not understand what action loads the com list for an airport from
the GPS to the Com. Have study both the GPS and SL40 manuals but my old
brain isn't getting it. When the Com tab is selected on the airport page
in the GPS, does that automatically send the list to the COM?
What am I missing?
Dale Ensing
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nanchang CJ6 Overvoltage Protector |
| From: | "Craig Winkelmann, CFI" <capav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Bob:
Looking for the overvoltage protector designed for the CJ. How do I get one?
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=165319#165319
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NEARLY ready for first flight |
Cassius,
I used an LED also and it is always lit. It flashes for low volt. Bob
published, somewhere on his website, a diagram for adding a couple of
resistors to make it not glow all the time, but I have not got around to
doing the fix. I guess I just got used to thinking of it as a low volt
sensor armed light.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Cassius Smith wrote:
>
> OK - here's what we did...
> I looked carefully at the installation and troubleshooting guides which
> were pointed out to me (THANKS) and I realized that we may not have been
> connecting the ALT Field. AEC Z-11 plan for BAT/ALT MASTER switch is a
> B&C 2-10 switch with two distinct positions - 1/2 way up is battery on,
> full up is battery and alt field on. When I looked through the inst and
> t/shooting guides, they mention making sure you have voltage on pin 6
> within 0.5V of the bus voltage. When I looked at the diagram (see
> attached) I realized that the pilot may not have been throwing the
> switch all the way up after engine start.
>
> We gave this a try and presto - 14.1-14.2V. Low Voltage stopped
> flashing.
>
> HOWEVER the low voltage lamp stayed LIT at 1600RPM - does this mean I
> may have a bad crimp? Or do I just need to adjust it down on the LR3C?
>
> Cassius Smith
>
> -----------------
> "With the possible exception of the equator, everything begins
> somewhere."
> C. S. Lewis
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: NEARLY ready for first flight
>> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>> Date: Tue, February 19, 2008 11:00 pm
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>> I'm new to the Matronics list. My son is building an RV7-A, and we used
>>> the Aero Electric Connection figure Z-11 with very few modifications
>>> (added an SPST switch in front of the Alt. Hold; that was about all). We
>>> are using the B&C LR-3 alternator controller, and we used an LED in the
>>> panel for the low voltage indicator.
>>>
>>> My son cranked the engine the first time and just let it idle a couple
>>> of minutes. Voltage was indicated on the Dynon EMS-10 as 12.1V, which
>>> I'm told is low. We asked around and were told by a couple of folks that
>>> 12.1V is normal for idle speeds; it will pick up at higher RPM runups.
>>> The low volt indicator was flashing the whole time.
>>>
>>> Today, we're about ready for first flight. My son did a 1600 RPM runup
>>> to check mags, oil pressure, stuff like that. HOWEVER the low voltage
>>> light never stopped blinking. He didn't notice the exact voltage
>>> reading. When he turned on all the lights, the current draw went into
>>> the red.
>>>
>>> Here's my question - how do I start trying to debug this problem? Do I
>>> suspect the alternator, the LR-3, or what? It was about 30 degrees at
>>> the hangar when he shut the engine down, so I haven't had the chance to
>>> check the wiring connectivity yet, and I know that's the first step.
>>>
>>> The EMS is connected to the main power bus, so it's not behind the
>>> bridge diode that protects the E-bus.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions?
>>>
>>> Cassius Smith
>>>
>> There's a troubleshooting procedure for the LR-3 published
>> at:
>>
>> http://bandc.biz/Downloads.html
>>
>> Pick the one appropriate to the model you have.
>>
>> There's a general troubleshooting guide for
>> externally regulated alternators in Appendix
>> Z to the AeroElectric Connection which you
>> can download at:
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11M.pdf
>>
>> See Note 8 on Page Z-7.
>>
>> Let us know what you find.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> ----------------------------------------)
>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>> ( appearance of being right . . . )
>> ( )
>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NEARLY ready for first flight |
Here is a previous response to the LED glowing all the time:
________________
I would like to subsitute an LED for the Low Voltage bulb that came
with the B&C LR3C-14 . I posed the question to Tim Hedding @ B&C and
received this in response.
If you use an LED instead of an incandescent lamp, install a 470 - 510
Ohm,
1/2 Watt, resistor between terminals 3 and 5 of the LR3C-14 (or the
SB1B-14)
so that the LED does not glow dimly all of the time.
Deems Davis # 406
Engine / Wiring and Panel Stuff
http://deemsrv10.com/
On Feb 20, 2008, at 10:22 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote:
> >
>
> Cassius,
>
> I used an LED also and it is always lit. It flashes for low volt.
> Bob published, somewhere on his website, a diagram for adding a
> couple of resistors to make it not glow all the time, but I have not
> got around to doing the fix. I guess I just got used to thinking of
> it as a low volt sensor armed light.
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
> Cassius Smith wrote:
>> >
>>
>> OK - here's what we did...
>> I looked carefully at the installation and troubleshooting guides
>> which
>> were pointed out to me (THANKS) and I realized that we may not have
>> been
>> connecting the ALT Field. AEC Z-11 plan for BAT/ALT MASTER switch
>> is a
>> B&C 2-10 switch with two distinct positions - 1/2 way up is battery
>> on,
>> full up is battery and alt field on. When I looked through the inst
>> and
>> t/shooting guides, they mention making sure you have voltage on pin 6
>> within 0.5V of the bus voltage. When I looked at the diagram (see
>> attached) I realized that the pilot may not have been throwing the
>> switch all the way up after engine start.
>>
>> We gave this a try and presto - 14.1-14.2V. Low Voltage stopped
>> flashing.
>>
>> HOWEVER the low voltage lamp stayed LIT at 1600RPM - does this mean I
>> may have a bad crimp? Or do I just need to adjust it down on the
>> LR3C?
>>
>> Cassius Smith
>>
>> -----------------
>> "With the possible exception of the equator, everything begins
>> somewhere."
>> C. S. Lewis
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: NEARLY ready for first flight
>>> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>>> Date: Tue, February 19, 2008 11:00 pm
>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>> I'm new to the Matronics list. My son is building an RV7-A, and
>>>> we used
>>>> the Aero Electric Connection figure Z-11 with very few
>>>> modifications
>>>> (added an SPST switch in front of the Alt. Hold; that was about
>>>> all). We
>>>> are using the B&C LR-3 alternator controller, and we used an LED
>>>> in the
>>>> panel for the low voltage indicator.
>>>>
>>>> My son cranked the engine the first time and just let it idle a
>>>> couple
>>>> of minutes. Voltage was indicated on the Dynon EMS-10 as 12.1V,
>>>> which
>>>> I'm told is low. We asked around and were told by a couple of
>>>> folks that
>>>> 12.1V is normal for idle speeds; it will pick up at higher RPM
>>>> runups.
>>>> The low volt indicator was flashing the whole time.
>>>>
>>>> Today, we're about ready for first flight. My son did a 1600 RPM
>>>> runup
>>>> to check mags, oil pressure, stuff like that. HOWEVER the low
>>>> voltage
>>>> light never stopped blinking. He didn't notice the exact voltage
>>>> reading. When he turned on all the lights, the current draw went
>>>> into
>>>> the red.
>>>>
>>>> Here's my question - how do I start trying to debug this problem?
>>>> Do I
>>>> suspect the alternator, the LR-3, or what? It was about 30
>>>> degrees at
>>>> the hangar when he shut the engine down, so I haven't had the
>>>> chance to
>>>> check the wiring connectivity yet, and I know that's the first
>>>> step.
>>>>
>>>> The EMS is connected to the main power bus, so it's not behind the
>>>> bridge diode that protects the E-bus.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>
>>>> Cassius Smith
>>>>
>>> There's a troubleshooting procedure for the LR-3 published
>>> at:
>>>
>>> http://bandc.biz/Downloads.html
>>>
>>> Pick the one appropriate to the model you have.
>>>
>>> There's a general troubleshooting guide for
>>> externally regulated alternators in Appendix
>>> Z to the AeroElectric Connection which you
>>> can download at:
>>>
>>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11M.pdf
>>>
>>> See Note 8 on Page Z-7.
>>>
>>> Let us know what you find.
>>>
>>> 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: Nanchang CJ6 Overvoltage Protector |
>
>
>Bob:
>
>Looking for the overvoltage protector designed for the CJ. How do I get one?
>
>Craig
I've been snowed with other tasks. I'll have to see if
we can get some of these built. The preliminary data
package has been published at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vernon Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin396/SL40 interface |
The 396 also sends the frequencies of the nearest airport automatically to
the Com. Or if you are in a programmed route, the frequency of the next
airport waypoint is sent. You can also send manually as you have noted.
Very handy.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Ensing
Sent: February 20, 2008 5:52 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
I have been considering wiring my Garmin 396 GPS to the SL40 COM for
frequency loading into the COM and wondering if it is worthwhile doing.
I do not understand what action loads the com list for an airport from the
GPS to the Com. Have study both the GPS and SL40 manuals but my old brain
isn't getting it. When the Com tab is selected on the airport page in the
GPS, does that automatically send the list to the COM?
What am I missing?
Dale Ensing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bouguy" <boullu.guy(at)libertysurf.fr> |
i think also , but i would like to be sure ......
thanks for your reply ,
Boullu guy .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=165413#165413
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin396/SL40 interface |
Does anybody know if this feature also applies to the the 296?
Bevan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vernon
Little
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:39 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
The 396 also sends the frequencies of the nearest airport automatically to
the Com. Or if you are in a programmed route, the frequency of the next
airport waypoint is sent. You can also send manually as you have noted.
Very handy.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Ensing
Sent: February 20, 2008 5:52 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
I have been considering wiring my Garmin 396 GPS to the SL40 COM for
frequency loading into the COM and wondering if it is worthwhile doing.
I do not understand what action loads the com list for an airport from the
GPS to the Com. Have study both the GPS and SL40 manuals but my old brain
isn't getting it. When the Com tab is selected on the airport page in the
GPS, does that automatically send the list to the COM?
What am I missing?
Dale Ensing
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Turn Coordinator |
Good Afternoon Walt,
What about repairing or replacing the turn coordinator?
There is no reason that a good unit should be noisy!
In fact, I highly recommend that the Turn Coordinator be scrapped in lieu of
a Turn Needle, but that is another subject!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 2/20/2008 7:40:20 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rveighta(at)earthlink.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rveighta
I recently did some taxi testing of my RV8 and discovered I have a problem
with a noisy turn coordinator causing my radio to be almost useless. I also
have a flying RV8A which had the same problem, but was cured by fabricating and
installing Bob's noise choke (Radio Shack 270-030).
Unfortunately, this Radio Shack part along with the two alternative ones
listed by Bob are no available from the Shack. Does anyone have an idea where
I
can get a noise filter similar to the ones formerly carried by RS?
Thanks......
Walt Shipley
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin396/SL40 interface |
MessageNo, the 296 does not have the VHF Com feature. I recently
replaced my 296 with a 396 to get the XM weather.
Now I wish I had put the interface wire on the SL40 for possible future
up grade of the GPS when I installed the radio. This is not going to be
fun under the panel.
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: B Tomm
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
Does anybody know if this feature also applies to the the 296?
Bevan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Vernon Little
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:39 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
The 396 also sends the frequencies of the nearest airport
automatically to the Com. Or if you are in a programmed route, the
frequency of the next airport waypoint is sent. You can also send
manually as you have noted.
Very handy.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Ensing
Sent: February 20, 2008 5:52 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
I have been considering wiring my Garmin 396 GPS to the SL40 COM for
frequency loading into the COM and wondering if it is worthwhile doing.
I do not understand what action loads the com list for an airport
from the GPS to the Com. Have study both the GPS and SL40 manuals but my
old brain isn't getting it. When the Com tab is selected on the airport
page in the GPS, does that automatically send the list to the COM?
What am I missing?
Dale Ensing
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vernon Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin396/SL40 interface |
Actually, this is the operation of my 296. 396 is the same.
Vern
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B
Tomm
Sent: February 21, 2008 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
Does anybody know if this feature also applies to the the 296?
Bevan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Vernon
Little
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:39 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
The 396 also sends the frequencies of the nearest airport automatically
to
the Com. Or if you are in a programmed route, the frequency of the next
airport waypoint is sent. You can also send manually as you have noted.
Very handy.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Ensing
Sent: February 20, 2008 5:52 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
I have been considering wiring my Garmin 396 GPS to the SL40 COM for
frequency loading into the COM and wondering if it is worthwhile doing.
I do not understand what action loads the com list for an airport from
the
GPS to the Com. Have study both the GPS and SL40 manuals but my old
brain
isn't getting it. When the Com tab is selected on the airport page in
the
GPS, does that automatically send the list to the COM?
What am I missing?
Dale Ensing
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin396/SL40 interface |
MessageVern, you must have a different version of the 296 then mine. I
still have my 296 and just checked the book. It says nothing about this
function. Or, it this a well kept secret by Garmin?
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: Vernon Little
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:07 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
Actually, this is the operation of my 296. 396 is the same.
Vern
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B
Tomm
Sent: February 21, 2008 10:56 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
Does anybody know if this feature also applies to the the 296?
Bevan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Vernon Little
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:39 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
The 396 also sends the frequencies of the nearest airport
automatically to the Com. Or if you are in a programmed route, the
frequency of the next airport waypoint is sent. You can also send
manually as you have noted.
Very handy.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Ensing
Sent: February 20, 2008 5:52 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
I have been considering wiring my Garmin 396 GPS to the SL40 COM
for frequency loading into the COM and wondering if it is worthwhile
doing.
I do not understand what action loads the com list for an airport
from the GPS to the Com. Have study both the GPS and SL40 manuals but my
old brain isn't getting it. When the Com tab is selected on the airport
page in the GPS, does that automatically send the list to the COM?
What am I missing?
Dale Ensing
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Garmin396/SL40 interface |
| From: | "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au> |
I have a 296 and mine does it.
Allan
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Ensing
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2008 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
Vern, you must have a different version of the 296 then mine. I still
have my 296 and just checked the book. It says nothing about this
function. Or, it this a well kept secret by Garmin?
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: Vernon Little <mailto:rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:07 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
Actually, this is the operation of my 296. 396 is the same.
Vern
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B
Tomm
Sent: February 21, 2008 10:56 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
Does anybody know if this feature also applies to the
the 296?
Bevan
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Vernon Little
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:39 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
The 396 also sends the frequencies of the nearest
airport automatically to the Com. Or if you are in a programmed route,
the frequency of the next airport waypoint is sent. You can also send
manually as you have noted.
Very handy.
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Ensing
Sent: February 20, 2008 5:52 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40
interface
I have been considering wiring my Garmin 396 GPS
to the SL40 COM for frequency loading into the COM and wondering if it
is worthwhile doing.
I do not understand what action loads the com
list for an airport from the GPS to the Com. Have study both the GPS and
SL40 manuals but my old brain isn't getting it. When the Com tab is
selected on the airport page in the GPS, does that automatically send
the list to the COM?
What am I missing?
Dale Ensing
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NEARLY ready for first flight |
>
>Cassius,
>
>I used an LED also and it is always lit. It flashes for low volt. Bob
>published, somewhere on his website, a diagram for adding a couple of
>resistors to make it not glow all the time, but I have not got around to
>doing the fix. I guess I just got used to thinking of it as a low volt
>sensor armed light.
LEDs and incandescent lamps are not directly interchangeable
in this application. You need to add a resistor to the LR-3
terminals to get the LED to masquerade as an incandescent
device. I think 470 ohm, 1/2 watt between terminals 3 and
5 of the LR3. This applies to LEDs with built in resistors
that turn them into 12v devices.
If you're assembling your own LED indicator from scratch
then you need both a series AND a parallel resistor. Here's
one of several approaches that would work:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/LV_Led.jpg
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vernon Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin396/SL40 interface |
Two things:
1) Garmin's documentation leaves a lot to be desired. Check online for a
new
Pilot's Guide
2) In order to get this function to work, you need recent software and
must
configure the RS-232 output to NMEA/VHF Out
Of course, you need the RS-232 connected to the SL40.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Ensing
Sent: February 21, 2008 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
Vern, you must have a different version of the 296 then mine. I still
have
my 296 and just checked the book. It says nothing about this function.
Or,
it this a well kept secret by Garmin?
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: Vernon <mailto:rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> Little
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:07 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
Actually, this is the operation of my 296. 396 is the same.
Vern
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B
Tomm
Sent: February 21, 2008 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
Does anybody know if this feature also applies to the the 296?
Bevan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Vernon
Little
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:39 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
The 396 also sends the frequencies of the nearest airport automatically
to
the Com. Or if you are in a programmed route, the frequency of the next
airport waypoint is sent. You can also send manually as you have noted.
Very handy.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Ensing
Sent: February 20, 2008 5:52 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
I have been considering wiring my Garmin 396 GPS to the SL40 COM for
frequency loading into the COM and wondering if it is worthwhile doing.
I do not understand what action loads the com list for an airport from
the
GPS to the Com. Have study both the GPS and SL40 manuals but my old
brain
isn't getting it. When the Com tab is selected on the airport page in
the
GPS, does that automatically send the list to the COM?
What am I missing?
Dale Ensing
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nanchang CJ6 Overvoltage Protector |
| From: | "Craig Winkelmann, CFI" <capav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Bob:
With many of us upgrading to EFIS units in our CJs, this item is really needed
as there is no overvoltage protection on the CJ in its stock configuration.
Thanks!
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=165500#165500
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin396/SL40 interface |
MessageMust be the recent software as I do not have a 'NMEA / VHF out'
option for the Com tabs on my 296. It is a year and a half old.
----- Original Message -----
From: Vernon Little
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:57 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
Two things:
1) Garmin's documentation leaves a lot to be desired. Check online for
a new Pilot's Guide
2) In order to get this function to work, you need recent software and
must configure the RS-232 output to NMEA/VHF Out
Of course, you need the RS-232 connected to the SL40.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Ensing
Sent: February 21, 2008 2:22 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
Vern, you must have a different version of the 296 then mine. I
still have my 296 and just checked the book. It says nothing about this
function. Or, it this a well kept secret by Garmin?
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: Vernon Little
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:07 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
Actually, this is the operation of my 296. 396 is the same.
Vern
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B
Tomm
Sent: February 21, 2008 10:56 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
Does anybody know if this feature also applies to the the 296?
Bevan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Vernon Little
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:39 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
The 396 also sends the frequencies of the nearest airport
automatically to the Com. Or if you are in a programmed route, the
frequency of the next airport waypoint is sent. You can also send
manually as you have noted.
Very handy.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Ensing
Sent: February 20, 2008 5:52 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
I have been considering wiring my Garmin 396 GPS to the SL40
COM for frequency loading into the COM and wondering if it is worthwhile
doing.
I do not understand what action loads the com list for an
airport from the GPS to the Com. Have study both the GPS and SL40
manuals but my old brain isn't getting it. When the Com tab is selected
on the airport page in the GPS, does that automatically send the list to
the COM?
What am I missing?
Dale Ensing
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nanchang CJ6 Overvoltage Protector |
>
>
>Bob:
>
>With many of us upgrading to EFIS units in our CJs, this item is really
>needed as there is no overvoltage protection on the CJ in its stock
>configuration.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Craig
Understand. Tomorrow is the first day for my
new (and only) employee. She's going to get
up to speed on order fulfillment first and
then we'll get her acquainted with the
business end of a soldering iron.
She also happens to be mother to my newest
grandson and we're both interested in getting
her things to do that won't get in the way
of her of first being a good mom.
I've got all the parts on hand to assemble
a dozen or so . . . we'll get started on them
this weekend.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jack.byrne(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | AUX BAttery Charging |
All.
I have a 4AMP/HR battery as an AUX battery for my EFIS.
I am charging it via the main bus.
Bus-5amp fuse-diode-aux bat. 18G wire
The Diode has the #'s 339 and IN5400 on it.
The 5 amp fuse blows!
How can I get around this. I am assuming the AUX bat is drawing a greater current
if it gets depleted a resonable amount and this is blowing th fuse.
Do I need to increase the size of the wire and fuse?
What is the max AMPs that will be drawn by the AUX bat?
Thanks
Chris Byrne
SYDNEY
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nanchang CJ6 Overvoltage Protector |
| From: | "Craig Winkelmann, CFI" <capav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Bob:
THANKS!! Any idea what the price will be? I'll make a post on the Yak list that
they will be available soon and the price. Then, how do we order them?
I have a 2 1/2 year old so I do understand the need to be a mom (or dad) FIRST!!
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=165554#165554
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AUX BAttery Charging |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
That sounds like a decent mix of components to get the job done. What's
the voltage on the aux battery?
The max amps will depend on the state of charge and the internal
resistance of the battery and the voltage drop across the diode. I would
have guessed that 5A would be plenty.
Is this diode a two-lead device (anode and cathode only - I see that it's
listed as a rectifier diode)? Do you only have two of the leads
connected?
I assume you have it wired like this:
main_bus --> 5A fuse --> diode --> +lead on aux battery
What model/brand/specs is the aux battery?
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> All.
>
> I have a 4AMP/HR battery as an AUX battery for my EFIS.
> I am charging it via the main bus.
>
> Bus-5amp fuse-diode-aux bat. 18G wire
> The Diode has the #'s 339 and IN5400 on it.
>
> The 5 amp fuse blows!
>
> How can I get around this. I am assuming the AUX bat is drawing a greater
> current if it gets depleted a resonable amount and this is blowing th
> fuse.
>
> Do I need to increase the size of the wire and fuse?
> What is the max AMPs that will be drawn by the AUX bat?
>
> Thanks
> Chris Byrne
> SYDNEY
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [OT] boat wiring specificity |
Bob and all,
A buddy just asked me some advice about the electrical circuit of the 22
ft sailing boat he is building for a transatlantic race this summer.
He intends to use lithium batteries and fuel cells to power a navigation
unit, autopilot, LED navigation lights, one VHF, SSB and a basic GPS.
As several listers here may have experience with ocean racing, would
anyone give opinions as to the main differences with aviation wiring
techniques ?
Any input appreciated.
Thanks in advance
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AUX BAttery Charging |
>
>
>All.
>
>I have a 4AMP/HR battery as an AUX battery for my EFIS.
>I am charging it via the main bus.
>
>Bus-5amp fuse-diode-aux bat. 18G wire
>The Diode has the #'s 339 and IN5400 on it.
>
>The 5 amp fuse blows!
>
>How can I get around this. I am assuming the AUX bat is drawing a greater
>current if it gets depleted a resonable amount and this is blowing th fuse.
>
>Do I need to increase the size of the wire and fuse?
>What is the max AMPs that will be drawn by the AUX bat?
>
>Thanks
>Chris Byrne
>SYDNEY
What you're experiencing is one of several reasons
I crafted the aux battery management module some
years ago. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bat_iso2.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/9005-701B.pdf
The AEC9005 product has been discontinued and
will be replaced by a newer design. In the mean
time, there's no reason that folks can craft a
similar device themselves.
However, understand that it's real easy to get
wrapped around the "aux battery isolation" axle.
Whether your system has two or ten batteries
in the system, the generalized operating scenario
says for normal operations, ALL batteries can
be hard-connected to the charging system. By
"hard" I'm saying closed contacts of a switch
or relay.
When and if the low volts warning light comes
on, we now have the task of SEPARATING each
of the batteries into it's unique duties for
mitigating the effects of alternator failure.
The time that a pilot has to effect this
separation IS NOT a tense, borderline emergency
situation demanding millisecond response.
It's perfectly okay if battery isolation is
immediate and automatic by means of diodes
and/or aux battery management systems . . .
but if the pilot decided to finish a cup
of coffee or fold some maps before manually
opening the connection pathways that isolate
various batteries, the outcome of the flight
would not be measurably different.
The sum total of energy on the batteries
needs to be a known quantity, part of your
plan-B for dealing with alternator failure.
It's my fondest wish that everyone who reads
these words is PLANNING, DESIGNING, and
MAINTAINING their battery management philosophy
for HOURS of no-sweat, alternator failure-management
flight. This is diametrically opposed to the
FAA blessed notion of carrying a minimum of
30-minutes of EMERGENCY operation.
So, it's a perfectly okay thing if your aux battery
charging path were simply replaced with a switch
as opposed to the diode mentioned. It's also
perfectly okay that the aux battery charging
feeder be some kind of boss-hog conductor. Say
14AWG and 15A fuse. Now, keep in mind that there
are huge current sources at BOTH ends of this feeder
so BOTH ends should be fused if the feeders are
of significant length.
No doubt what you've observed is a demonstration
of the capability for even a very small battery
to ACCEPT charging currents at rates much higher
than the anticipated loads on the battery itself.
This is why I like to place ALL batteries close
together, tie them together in a cluster with
hard contacts and short, fat wires. This is why
you don't see any fuses or long feeders in the
Z-figures to wire multiple batteries.
When the various and sundry manufacturer's
of products recommend some itty-bitty "back
up" battery to support their customer's desire
to keep the product working, the dirty little
details of the physics for making seamless
installation the battery can start jumping
up to nibble at your heels.
If your airplane's electrical system will
benefit from multiple power sources over
and above the classic single-battery/single-
alternator architecture, first add the second
alternator if you can (Z-13/8). If a second
battery is your only viable option, then consider
a REAL battery sitting right next to the
MAIN battery and connected to the system
by a fat wire and hard switched contactor.
In your particular case, it may be that you're
too far down the path of adding an itty-bitty
backup battery to the system so consider
first upsizing the feeders and their protection
levels. If the wires either side of the diode
are relatively short, say 6-12" you can leave
the fuses out entirely. I'd upsize the diode
to one leg of a more robust device like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/diode_wiring.jpg
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Shunt Psychology |
Pilots of the electric internet,
The shunt I'm connecting has four nuts and four lock washers - two on each
stud. Hmmm ... this is starting to sound more like anatomy than psychology.
Anyway, why are there two nuts on each stud? Oh boy, that's going to get a
lot of responses, isn't it?
Stan Sutterfield
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shunt Psychology |
Speedy11(at)aol.com wrote:
> Pilots of the electric internet,
> The shunt I'm connecting has four nuts and four lock washers - two on each
> stud. Hmmm ... this is starting to sound more like anatomy than psychology.
> Anyway, why are there two nuts on each stud? Oh boy, that's going to get a
> lot of responses, isn't it?
> Stan Sutterfield
>
>
Hi Stan,
Not so complicated, one nut and one washer makes sure the stud stay
connected to the shunt. The second nut and lock washer makes sure the
terminal stays connected to the stud.
Bob W.
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/cables/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brooke Wolf" <bwolf1(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Shunt Psychology |
Hi Stan
I used to know a Stan Sutterfield who was an IP at Vance AFB. That
wouldn't be you would it?
Brooke Wolf
----- Original Message -----
From: Speedy11(at)aol.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 3:54 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shunt Psychology
Pilots of the electric internet,
The shunt I'm connecting has four nuts and four lock washers - two on
each stud. Hmmm ... this is starting to sound more like anatomy than
psychology.
Anyway, why are there two nuts on each stud? Oh boy, that's going to
get a lot of responses, isn't it?
Stan Sutterfield
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL
Living.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Danielson" <johnd(at)wlcwyo.com> |
| Subject: | 220 VOLT COMPRESSOR |
Bob,
I had a 120 volt air compressor and change to a 220 volt model thinking I
would save some on my electrical bill.
I was under the impression that the amp's being drawn would be cut in half
when going to 220V.
A friend says the 220 v motor will still draw the same amps. That each leg
of the 220 v will draw half the amp's but the combined draw is still the
full draw of the 110 v.
I told him that hat is correct but that one leg of the 220 v line will be
out of phase with the other, so only half the amps are being required.
Is this correct?
Thanks
John L. Danielson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jack.byrne(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AUX BAttery Charging |
Thanks to Bob, Matt and Max for your replies.
Bob the AUX Batt is just being used to power the EFIS during engine cranking. I
lose the EFIS initialization and have to sit in the one spot for 2 mins after
engine start for the GYRO's to align. It is also a last ditch power source for
the SBY ADI (TRUTRACK) in case every thing turns to poo.
I have the Z13/8. One main batt and 35 AMP ALT and the B & C 8 AMP ALT.
I think I will try and optimise the setup I have. The wires to and from the diode
are less than 12 inches. I had see your AUX BATT drawing but wanted to try
and keep this as simple as possible, providing it works of course.
THanks again guys.
Chris Byrne
SYDNEY
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 220 VOLT COMPRESSOR |
"John Danielson" wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I had a 120 volt air compressor and change to a 220 volt model thinking I
> would save some on my electrical bill.
>
> I was under the impression that the amp's being drawn would be cut in half
> when going to 220V.
>
> A friend says the 220 v motor will still draw the same amps. That each leg
> of the 220 v will draw half the amp's but the combined draw is still the
> full draw of the 110 v.
>
> I told him that hat is correct but that one leg of the 220 v line will be
> out of phase with the other, so only half the amps are being required.
>
> Is this correct?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> John L. Danielson
>
In a word, no, it is not correct. You are going to need a certain
amount of power depending on the HP rating of your electric motor.
Maybe the 220V motor is a little more efficient, but I don't think
much. You do get some benefit from lower losses in the 220V circuit
because of the lower current. If you need a really big compressor (big
motor) you might need to go to 220V because you can't deliver enough
current at 120V. For the record, both 120 and 220 circuits are single
phase. The current in the common between the two phases is zero, but
all the current you are using is flowing in the hot wires.
All said, there are advantages to going to 220V, but you won't be
saving 1/2 the power when running the same size compressor.
Bob W.
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/cables/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shunt Psychology |
The leads connected to the shunt are tightened between the nuts/lock
washers on each stud. That way you do not torque on the stud mounting in
the shunt.
----- Original Message -----
From: Speedy11(at)aol.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 3:54 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shunt Psychology
Pilots of the electric internet,
The shunt I'm connecting has four nuts and four lock washers - two on
each stud. Hmmm ... this is starting to sound more like anatomy than
psychology.
Anyway, why are there two nuts on each stud? Oh boy, that's going to
get a lot of responses, isn't it?
Stan Sutterfield
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL
Living.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Ronco" <joe(at)halzel.com> |
| Subject: | 220 VOLT COMPRESSOR |
JOHN: From my limited electrical knowledge, HP = Watts (746 watts = 1 HP).
Watts = Volts x Amps. Your power bill is paid on the number of Watts used.
For a given HP motor the Watts is the fixed, so at 220 Volts you will have
the same Watts but half the Amps that you would have with 110 Volt power
supply. Therefore your power bill will not change.
Hope this makes sense.
Joe Ronco.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Danielson
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 4:47 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 220 VOLT COMPRESSOR
Bob,
I had a 120 volt air compressor and change to a 220 volt model thinking I
would save some on my electrical bill.
I was under the impression that the amp's being drawn would be cut in half
when going to 220V.
A friend says the 220 v motor will still draw the same amps. That each leg
of the 220 v will draw half the amp's but the combined draw is still the
full draw of the 110 v.
I told him that hat is correct but that one leg of the 220 v line will be
out of phase with the other, so only half the amps are being required.
Is this correct?
Thanks
John L. Danielson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vernon Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | 220 VOLT COMPRESSOR |
> Bob,
>
> I had a 120 volt air compressor and change to a 220 volt model
> thinking I would save some on my electrical bill.
>
> I was under the impression that the amp's being drawn would be cut in
> half when going to 220V.
>
> A friend says the 220 v motor will still draw the same amps. That each
> leg of the 220 v will draw half the amp's but the combined draw is
> still the full draw of the 110 v.
>
> I told him that hat is correct but that one leg of the 220 v line will
> be out of phase with the other, so only half the amps are being
> required.
>
> Is this correct?
>
Theoretically, if you are consuming the same volume of air at a given
pressure, a 110 and 220 compressor will consume the same energy and the
average powers will be the same. (other than slight differences between
compressor types and design).
Vern
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 220 VOLT COMPRESSOR |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
John,
Your are paying for power. 1 kw is still 1 kw whether you do it
with lower voltage and higher current or higher voltage and lower
current. It all comes out the same. The real advantage with the 220v
system is you can use smaller wire in setting up the system. The losses
in the system are smaller with the higher voltage. Not enough to matter
in this case. I run my compressor off my dryer circuit which is a 30a
circuit. Since I went with gas for drying, that circuit was available
with just a plug and a bit of wire to a manual disconnect at the
compressor.. (you need that).
Jim
off to the painter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 220 VOLT COMPRESSOR |
John:
You did the right thing but.... not to save money.
Unless you are running a factory with hundreds of
AC motors money saving on the electrical bill is
not the issue.
Some synchronous AC motors have a leading power
factor (look it up) and thus exploit how the utility
companies charge you. However a compressor
duty is pretty small and again we are talking about
once relatively small compressor.
Get a 220 Compressor, not to save electricity but to
have more power to make more air. The 220 volt motor
is more efficient for the job and you may save some
electricity, if comparing HP to HP, but the issue is
getting enough HP with 110 volts to drive a compressor
that is large enough to make enough volume of air fast
enough for the application. Air tools and Pro painting is
very air intensive applications. The surge current to start
a large compressor is huge and you need a 220 v motor
to get a bigger compressor going at all. If all you do is
fill some tires or beach balls, than 110 v is OK.
The small effort to wire in a 220 plug is small.
HOWEVER BE Careful, electricity can kill you. If in
doubt get a Pro and spend the money, or get help.
Yes house current is 220 Volt AC, 60 Hrz, with two hots
and one neutral.
-Any / either hot to neutral is 110 Volt.
-Hot to Hot is 220 volts.
-If you do any wiring than TURN off all electricity and BE
-very very careful.
-The ground is ground for 110 or 220 volt.
Just be careful. If anyone is going to rivet a RV together
or paint anything, get 220 V. Get a REAL compressor
not a Sears 110 v oil less toy compressor.
If you want to learn about AC motors single phase or
multi phase check the Google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_motor
There is a thing called the "power factor" and it is how
the utility company chargers you. AC electrical power
engineering has terms like "real pwr", "apparent pwr"
and "reactive power". Google this for an explanation.
Again one little compressor for a hobby? No big deal.
George
PS if you do the wiring write me I can help you.
>From: "John Danielson" <johnd(at)wlcwyo.com>
>Subject: 220 VOLT COMPRESSOR
Bob,
I had a 120 volt air compressor and change to a 220
volt model thinking I would save some on my
electrical bill.I was under the impression that the
amp's being drawn would be cut in half when
going to 220V.
A friend says the 220 v motor will still draw the
same amps. That each leg of the 220 v will draw
half the amp's but the combined draw is still
the full draw of the 110 v.
I told him that hat is correct but that one leg of the
220 v line will be out of phase with the other, so
only half the amps are being required. Is this
correct?
Thanks John L. Danielson
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim McBurney" <jmcburney(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin396/SL40 interface |
Dale,
the output you're loking for isn't a VHF signal. The GPS is sending a data
signal to the receiver to tell it what freq. to tune. Probably a serial
data port.
Blue skies and tailwinds
Jim
CH-801
DeltaHawk diesel
Augusta GA
90% done, 90% left
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Millner [OAK]" <paulmillner(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Batteries in Series |
Hi Bob,
I enjoyed reading your recent discussion of paralleling batteries.
Instead, I'm wondering about converting one of my two alternators to 24
volt (28 volt, whatever nominal voltage you prefer!) to charge two 12
volt batteries in series. That will allow me to install the air
conditioner (!) I want, which only comes in a 24 volt version. I'd
leave the ship at 12 volts, and power those loads from the inter-battery
connection.
I'd connect the remaining 12 volt alternator to that "lower" battery as
well.
Let's say the 12 volt battery is offline and the 28 volt alternator is
cranking away... the "upper" battery will eventually get fully
charged... the upper batter will then just be a wet piece of wire (kind
of) to the 12 volt load? Or would there be a problem with the lower
battery not getting charged enough, or the upper batter overcharged?
Paul, making my head hurt mode
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allan Aaron" <aaaron(at)tvp.com.au> |
| Subject: | Garmin396/SL40 interface |
That correct.I tink you set it as garmin protocol but I'm not certain.
allan
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jim McBurney" <jmcburney(at)pobox.com>
Sent: 24/02/08 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
Dale,
the output you're loking for isn't a VHF signal. The GPS is sending a data
signal to the receiver to tell it what freq. to tune. Probably a serial
data port.
Blue skies and tailwinds
Jim
CH-801
DeltaHawk diesel
Augusta GA
90% done, 90% left
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator for LR3 |
My notes from talking with someone at B&C is that pin 5 is a FET
output protected by a 1N4752 zener (which is 33V). Where does the
leakage come from ?
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: NEARLY ready for first flight
> LEDs and incandescent lamps are not directly interchangeable
> in this application. You need to add a resistor to the LR-3
> terminals to get the LED to masquerade as an incandescent
> device. I think 470 ohm, 1/2 watt between terminals 3 and
> 5 of the LR3. This applies to LEDs with built in resistors
> that turn them into 12v devices.
>
> If you're assembling your own LED indicator from scratch
> then you need both a series AND a parallel resistor. Here's
> one of several approaches that would work:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/LV_Led.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator for LR3 |
>
>My notes from talking with someone at B&C is that pin 5 is a FET
>output protected by a 1N4752 zener (which is 33V). Where does the
>leakage come from ?
>Jeff Page
>Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
If you study the schematic cited below, you'll see a resistor
connected from collector to base (or drain to gate if fet)
that generates an artificial leakage.
This leakage is overcome by the hard pull-down on the
LV warn comparator but insufficient to illuminate an
incandescent lamp. The purpose of that leakage is to
cause a steady illumination of the LV warn lamp should
power to the LV warn circuitry within the LR-3 be lost.
The leakage will partially bias the lamp drive and cause
the lamp to glow steady.
This design goal gets in the way of allowing an LED
to go completely dark. The tiny leakage current that
produced no light on an incandescent lamp produces
significant light in the LED. Hence, the load resistor
to make an LED look like an incandescent.
Bob . . .
>>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: NEARLY ready for first flight
>> LEDs and incandescent lamps are not directly interchangeable
>> in this application. You need to add a resistor to the LR-3
>> terminals to get the LED to masquerade as an incandescent
>> device. I think 470 ohm, 1/2 watt between terminals 3 and
>> 5 of the LR3. This applies to LEDs with built in resistors
>> that turn them into 12v devices.
>>
>> If you're assembling your own LED indicator from scratch
>> then you need both a series AND a parallel resistor. Here's
>> one of several approaches that would work:
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/LV_Led.jpg
>
>
>--
>269.20.9/1294 - Release Date: 2/22/2008 6:39 PM
>
>
>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: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin396/SL40 interface |
Yes, I know it is not literally a VHF transmission, (poor choice of word by
me) but Garmin uses that terminology in their setup page.....at least in
the 396.
I am going to load the latest Garmin software into the 296 today as Vernon
Little suggest.
BTW since I asked the original question about the value of loading the VHF
frequencies from the GPS to the Com, I have completed the wiring in my 6A.
It works and I think I am going to love it.
Dale Ensing
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim McBurney" <jmcburney(at)pobox.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin396/SL40 interface
>
>
> Dale,
>
> the output you're loking for isn't a VHF signal. The GPS is sending a
> data
> signal to the receiver to tell it what freq. to tune. Probably a serial
> data port.
>
> Blue skies and tailwinds
>
> Jim
> CH-801
> DeltaHawk diesel
> Augusta GA
> 90% done, 90% left
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Batteries in Series |
Air conditioning!
Wuss.
Rick Lindstrom
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Paul Millner [OAK]" <paulmillner(at)compuserve.com>
>Sent: Feb 23, 2008 3:38 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Batteries in Series
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I enjoyed reading your recent discussion of paralleling batteries.
>
>Instead, I'm wondering about converting one of my two alternators to 24
>volt (28 volt, whatever nominal voltage you prefer!) to charge two 12
>volt batteries in series. That will allow me to install the air
>conditioner (!) I want, which only comes in a 24 volt version. I'd
>leave the ship at 12 volts, and power those loads from the inter-battery
>connection.
>
>I'd connect the remaining 12 volt alternator to that "lower" battery as
>well.
>
>Let's say the 12 volt battery is offline and the 28 volt alternator is
>cranking away... the "upper" battery will eventually get fully
>charged... the upper batter will then just be a wet piece of wire (kind
>of) to the 12 volt load? Or would there be a problem with the lower
>battery not getting charged enough, or the upper batter overcharged?
>
>Paul, making my head hurt mode
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Batteries in Series |
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I enjoyed reading your recent discussion of paralleling batteries.
>
>Instead, I'm wondering about converting one of my two alternators to 24
>volt (28 volt, whatever nominal voltage you prefer!) to charge two 12 volt
>batteries in series. That will allow me to install the air conditioner
>(!) I want, which only comes in a 24 volt version. I'd leave the ship at
>12 volts, and power those loads from the inter-battery connection.
>
>I'd connect the remaining 12 volt alternator to that "lower" battery as well.
>
>Let's say the 12 volt battery is offline and the 28 volt alternator is
>cranking away... the "upper" battery will eventually get fully charged...
>the upper batter will then just be a wet piece of wire (kind of) to the 12
>volt load? Or would there be a problem with the lower battery not getting
>charged enough, or the upper batter overcharged?
>
>Paul, making my head hurt mode
This is an intuitively attractive idea but
fraught with many potholes in the physics
of implementation.
The only time that a battery benefits the
operation of the 28v system is to support
inrush currents for getting the compressor
motor going. If the 28v alternator only
runs the AC compressor motor, then I'm thinking
you could craft a controller/regulator that would
let the alternator drive the motor directly without
a battery. This pre-supposes that the compressor
motor will soft-start at torque levels that
do not exceed the upper limits of the alternator's
magnetics.
I think this is the case. It would be relatively
easy to demonstrate on a drive stand before
going after the controller/regulator design.
Given that you have a mechanical connection
to the engine to drive a dedicated alternator,
the obvious elegant solution is to drive the
compressor from this location and eliminate
an alternator, a regulator/controller, a
compressor drive motor and possibly a second
battery.
Believe me, we pondered this question multiple
times at Beech for about 40 years . . . and
the slickest way to do it is put the compressor
right on the engine.
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: AUX BAttery Charging |
>
>Thanks to Bob, Matt and Max for your replies.
>
>Bob the AUX Batt is just being used to power the EFIS during engine
>cranking. I lose the EFIS initialization and have to sit in the one spot
>for 2 mins after engine start for the GYRO's to align. It is also a last
>ditch power source for the SBY ADI (TRUTRACK) in case every thing turns to poo.
>
>I have the Z13/8. One main batt and 35 AMP ALT and the B & C 8 AMP ALT.
Then your concerns for supporting the ADI with
a second battery are overkill. 13/8 is exceedingly
unlikely to leave you with a dark panel.
>I think I will try and optimise the setup I have. The wires to and from
>the diode are less than 12 inches. I had see your AUX BATT drawing but
>wanted to try and keep this as simple as possible, providing it works of
>course.
Then parallel a second, small battery with the main
battery a-la Z-35 . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z35A.pdf
Power your protected electro-whizzies from
the Aux Battery Bus. Leave it's master switch
OFF until after the engine is started. The
S704-1 relay is only a 100 mA load and not
a major no-value-added load during alternator
out operations . . . which you're not going to
experience anyway with two alternators. Dump
the diode and fuse.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: [OT] boat wiring specificity |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Bob and all,
>
>A buddy just asked me some advice about the electrical circuit of the 22
>ft sailing boat he is building for a transatlantic race this summer.
>He intends to use lithium batteries and fuel cells to power a navigation
>unit, autopilot, LED navigation lights, one VHF, SSB and a basic GPS.
>As several listers here may have experience with ocean racing, would
>anyone give opinions as to the main differences with aviation wiring
>techniques ?
Energy management tasks for either environment are
the same. Materials used might benefit from
judicious selection to accommodate the wet and salty
environment. Obviously, things not yet blessed
by the aviation community for use aboard a/c could
be considered aboard a boat . . . with reservations.
Yeah, there's plenty of water around to fight fires
and yeah, temporary distractions of the pilot due
to systems crises is perhaps lower risk.
But in my own mind, being hundreds to thousands of
miles from terrafirm on water is no less hazardous
than being 1000 feet above terrafirma on air.
I think I would treat the two design tasks with
similar caution, quest for robustness, and requirements
for failure tolerance.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim McBurney" <jmcburney(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Batteries in Series |
Paul (and List),
Drawing 12v from the center of a 12+12v string won't work, at least not for
long. We tried that on an MCI bus at our church -- a small 12v load
FLATTENED the battery it was connected across, even though the 28v regulator
was holding solid and the other battery was fully charged. We finally found
a battery equalizer from MCI and it solved the problem. See
http://www.powerdesigners.com/powercheq.htm for an equalizer suitable for a
plane.
Blue skies and tailwinds
Jim
CH-801
DeltaHawk diesel
Augusta GA
90% done, 90% left
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Batteries in Series |
| From: | "paulmillner" <paulmillner(at)COMPUSERVE.COM> |
>> fraught with many potholes in the physics of implementation
Bob,
I see Jim's note about the failure of a series battery loaded at the center tap.
What are the physics that allow the series to appear to have 28 volts while
the lower battery is flat?
Paul
--------
Paul Millner, Berkeley CA [OAK]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=165980#165980
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Batteries in Series |
| From: | "paulmillner" <paulmillner(at)COMPUSERVE.COM> |
>> We finally found a battery equalizer from MCI and it solved the problem.
Not sure what an MCI bus is, Jim, but thanks for the data point and the point out
of the equalizer site. Looks like the equalizer can handle 2 amps, so if your
tiny load is that or less, on average, the lower battery can stay charged...
but I'm not sure I understand how the series battery could appear to be charged
to 24 volts with the lower battery flat?
Paul
--------
Paul Millner, Berkeley CA [OAK]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=165982#165982
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | AUX BAttery Charging |
This is a function of the internal resistance of the battery.
A good battery will draw more current.
This is a bad idea to charge this in this manner.
It's OK to use this to maintain the battery. But if you use the battery you
should remove it and charge it on a regular charger and then re-install it
to the circuit.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jack.byrne(at)bigpond.com
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 12:26 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: AUX BAttery Charging
All.
I have a 4AMP/HR battery as an AUX battery for my EFIS.
I am charging it via the main bus.
Bus-5amp fuse-diode-aux bat. 18G wire
The Diode has the #'s 339 and IN5400 on it.
The 5 amp fuse blows!
How can I get around this. I am assuming the AUX bat is drawing a greater
current if it gets depleted a resonable amount and this is blowing th fuse.
Do I need to increase the size of the wire and fuse?
What is the max AMPs that will be drawn by the AUX bat?
Thanks
Chris Byrne
SYDNEY
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Batteries in Series |
As a battery get's old it's internal resistance increases.
The bad battery is just going to get warm when you apply the 28 volt across
both batteries. It will drop the voltage as an I*R loss.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
paulmillner
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:53 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Batteries in Series
>> We finally found a battery equalizer from MCI and it solved the problem.
Not sure what an MCI bus is, Jim, but thanks for the data point and the
point out of the equalizer site. Looks like the equalizer can handle 2
amps, so if your tiny load is that or less, on average, the lower battery
can stay charged... but I'm not sure I understand how the series battery
could appear to be charged to 24 volts with the lower battery flat?
Paul
--------
Paul Millner, Berkeley CA [OAK]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=165982#165982
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator for LR3 |
Hmmm. I am planning a circuit that will light that same LED when the
master or auxiliary contactor is engaged when the engine isn't running
(eg. left on after flight). They neglected to mention this bias
resistor when I called to ask about the circuitry inside. This will
change my design somewhat.
Do you know what the resistor value is ?
Thanks !
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>> My notes from talking with someone at B&C is that pin 5 is a FET
>> output protected by a 1N4752 zener (which is 33V). Where does the
>> leakage come from ?
>> Jeff Page
>> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
> If you study the schematic cited below, you'll see a resistor
> connected from collector to base (or drain to gate if fet)
> that generates an artificial leakage.
>
> This leakage is overcome by the hard pull-down on the
> LV warn comparator but insufficient to illuminate an
> incandescent lamp. The purpose of that leakage is to
> cause a steady illumination of the LV warn lamp should
> power to the LV warn circuitry within the LR-3 be lost.
> The leakage will partially bias the lamp drive and cause
> the lamp to glow steady.
>
> This design goal gets in the way of allowing an LED
> to go completely dark. The tiny leakage current that
> produced no light on an incandescent lamp produces
> significant light in the LED. Hence, the load resistor
> to make an LED look like an incandescent.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Batteries in Series |
| From: | "paulmillner" <paulmillner(at)compuserve.com> |
>> As a battery gets old its internal resistance increases.
The bad battery is just going to get warm when you apply the 28 volt across both
batteries. It will drop the voltage as an I*R loss.
Isn't that EXACTLY what you want to see happen? Drop 12 volts across the "upper"
battery to impose 12 volts on the lower battery that's feeding a 12 volt load.
Is it your position, then, that this would work with new batteries but not with
old batteries? That doesn't seem intuitive.
Paul
--------
Paul Millner, Berkeley CA [OAK]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166019#166019
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cassius Smith <cassius(at)cassius.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator for LR3 |
I used a 470 ohm 1/2 W resistor (5 for $0.99 at Radio Shack) for our
installation.
Works great. LED is off most of the time; flashes when battery is
initially turned on.
-----------------
"With the possible exception of the equator, everything begins
somewhere."
C. S. Lewis
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Low voltage indicator for LR3
> From: Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com>
> Date: Sun, February 24, 2008 5:46 pm
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>
> Hmmm. I am planning a circuit that will light that same LED when the
> master or auxiliary contactor is engaged when the engine isn't running
> (eg. left on after flight). They neglected to mention this bias
> resistor when I called to ask about the circuitry inside. This will
> change my design somewhat.
> Do you know what the resistor value is ?
> Thanks !
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
> >> My notes from talking with someone at B&C is that pin 5 is a FET
> >> output protected by a 1N4752 zener (which is 33V). Where does the
> >> leakage come from ?
> >> Jeff Page
> >> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
> >
> > If you study the schematic cited below, you'll see a resistor
> > connected from collector to base (or drain to gate if fet)
> > that generates an artificial leakage.
> >
> > This leakage is overcome by the hard pull-down on the
> > LV warn comparator but insufficient to illuminate an
> > incandescent lamp. The purpose of that leakage is to
> > cause a steady illumination of the LV warn lamp should
> > power to the LV warn circuitry within the LR-3 be lost.
> > The leakage will partially bias the lamp drive and cause
> > the lamp to glow steady.
> >
> > This design goal gets in the way of allowing an LED
> > to go completely dark. The tiny leakage current that
> > produced no light on an incandescent lamp produces
> > significant light in the LED. Hence, the load resistor
> > to make an LED look like an incandescent.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cassius Smith <cassius(at)cassius.org> |
| Subject: | NEARLY ready for first flight |
470 ohms 1/2 W resistor between pins 3 and 5, heat shrink insulated,
that did the trick.
My son's project is now flying off the Phase I hours; LED low voltage
indicator works great.
THANKS ALL!
-----------------
"With the possible exception of the equator, everything begins
somewhere."
C. S. Lewis
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: NEARLY ready for first flight
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net>
> Date: Thu, February 21, 2008 5:40 pm
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>
>
> >
> >Cassius,
> >
> >I used an LED also and it is always lit. It flashes for low volt. Bob
> >published, somewhere on his website, a diagram for adding a couple of
> >resistors to make it not glow all the time, but I have not got around to
> >doing the fix. I guess I just got used to thinking of it as a low volt
> >sensor armed light.
>
> LEDs and incandescent lamps are not directly interchangeable
> in this application. You need to add a resistor to the LR-3
> terminals to get the LED to masquerade as an incandescent
> device. I think 470 ohm, 1/2 watt between terminals 3 and
> 5 of the LR3. This applies to LEDs with built in resistors
> that turn them into 12v devices.
>
> If you're assembling your own LED indicator from scratch
> then you need both a series AND a parallel resistor. Here's
> one of several approaches that would work:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/LV_Led.jpg
>
> Bob. . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Batteries in Series |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 15:38 2/23/2008, you wrote:
>Let's say the 12 volt battery is offline and the 28 volt alternator
>is cranking away... the "upper" battery will eventually get fully
>charged... the upper batter will then just be a wet piece of wire
>(kind of) to the 12 volt load? Or would there be a problem with the
>lower battery not getting charged enough, or the upper batter overcharged?
I'm not sure I've seen mentioned just what type battery is in use.
But I suggest, at least for a flooded cell battery, that each cell is
isolated from it's neighbors, that is it is a single ~1.5 volt
unit. If that premise is accurate, just how is a charging system to
know the physical packaging of the 12 cells it is charging? One
package x 12 or two packages x 6 each... Dead, weak or otherwise
'different' cells are just that, no matter where in the series of
cells they occur, and the charging system couldn't care less.
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Batteries in Series |
| From: | "paulmillner" <paulmillner(at)COMPUSERVE.COM> |
>> Dead, weak or otherwise 'different' cells are just that, no matter where in
the series of cells they occur, and the charging system couldn't care less.
The difference, Ron, is that we're serving some 12 volt load from the "middle"
of the battery... which is a bit of a cell equalization challenge.
Paul
--------
Paul Millner, Berkeley CA [OAK]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166052#166052
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Batteries in Series |
When every you try to charge two batteries in series that are not similar
(Size, Capacity, Discharge State, Overall Condition ... all the same) you
often get improper charging. This is because the current needed to charge
each battery to the charged level is different, but since they are in series
they will be getting the same current. As you try to pump more current
through the good battery you get a full 12V from the good battery plus it's
IR loss which will cause a lower than needed voltage on the battery that
needs to be charged. Hence it will deteriorate over time.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
paulmillner
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 6:47 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Batteries in Series
>> As a battery gets old its internal resistance increases.
The bad battery is just going to get warm when you apply the 28 volt across
both batteries. It will drop the voltage as an I*R loss.
Isn't that EXACTLY what you want to see happen? Drop 12 volts across the
"upper" battery to impose 12 volts on the lower battery that's feeding a 12
volt load.
Is it your position, then, that this would work with new batteries but not
with old batteries? That doesn't seem intuitive.
Paul
--------
Paul Millner, Berkeley CA [OAK]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166019#166019
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob,
A couple questions concerning wire sizing.
Given: Aeroelectric FAQ, it was mentioned that typical field current draw for Alternators
(20, 40, 60A) is 1 to 1.5A, with 3A max...
What is the design Vd for Alternator field wiring?
What is the design I for the Alternator B lead? i.e. SD-20, L-40, L-60?
In Z14, 10 awg is suggested for the Aux alternator, and while fine Ampacity wise,
I am wondering about voltage drop meeting 2% -
Given a rated power output of 20A (SD-20), a 2% Vd - wire length allowed is approx.
5.5 ft (one way) if 10 awg was used throughout...however, as the return path
is a 2 awg suggested wire....??
FAA AC 43-13-1B on page 11-21 Par 11-66
"b. Voltage Drop in Wires. The voltage
drop in the main power wires from the generation
source or the battery to the bus should not
exceed 2 percent of the regulated voltage when
the generator is carrying rated current or the
battery is being discharged at the 5-minute
rate. The tabulation shown in table 11-6 defines
the maximum acceptable voltage drop in
the load circuits between the bus and the utilization
equipment ground."
Also - on Z14, 4awg is suggested for the Aux battery - can you provide some insight
into that suggestion?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Alternators are often grounded to the engine case. From there they are
grounded to the battery with a cable large enough to support starting
loads (hundreds of amps). So, I don't think you have to worry about
round-trip wiring length.
If the one-way wire run from the aux alternator to its buss is
significantly greater than 5.5ft, I'd up-rate the wire one size.
I believe the components listed on the Z-diagrams are suggestions for
architecture layout based on a large set of assumptions. If the circuit
appropriate for your particular airplane requires something different,
deviation from the Z-diagrams makes sense.
Regards,
Matt-
>
> Bob,
>
> A couple questions concerning wire sizing.
>
> Given: Aeroelectric FAQ, it was mentioned that typical field current draw
> for Alternators (20, 40, 60A) is 1 to 1.5A, with 3A max...
>
> What is the design Vd for Alternator field wiring?
>
> What is the design I for the Alternator B lead? i.e. SD-20, L-40, L-60?
>
> In Z14, 10 awg is suggested for the Aux alternator, and while fine
> Ampacity wise, I am wondering about voltage drop meeting 2% -
>
> Given a rated power output of 20A (SD-20), a 2% Vd - wire length allowed
> is approx. 5.5 ft (one way) if 10 awg was used throughout...however, as
> the return path is a 2 awg suggested wire....??
>
> FAA AC 43-13-1B on page 11-21 Par 11-66
>
> "b. Voltage Drop in Wires. The voltage
> drop in the main power wires from the generation
> source or the battery to the bus should not
> exceed 2 percent of the regulated voltage when
> the generator is carrying rated current or the
> battery is being discharged at the 5-minute
> rate. The tabulation shown in table 11-6 defines
> the maximum acceptable voltage drop in
> the load circuits between the bus and the utilization
> equipment ground."
>
> Also - on Z14, 4awg is suggested for the Aux battery - can you provide
> some insight into that suggestion?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob,
>
>A couple questions concerning wire sizing.
>
>Given: Aeroelectric FAQ, it was mentioned that typical field current draw
>for Alternators (20, 40, 60A) is 1 to 1.5A, with 3A max...
>
>What is the design Vd for Alternator field wiring?
It depends. If your regulator has a separate bus
sense lead like the later LR series regulators
from B&C, then you can practically downsize the
field current feeder to 22AWG for most installations.
HOWEVER: if your regulator's field supply input
-AND- bus voltage sense share the same wire, then
VERY SMALL (order of 0.3 volts) of drop in this lead
combined with fluctuations of field current in response
to loads and rpms can cause alternator system instability.
This is common on many spam cans and produces the
"galloping ammeter" effect.
This is why the Z-figures show 20AWG in feeders
from bus to the alternator regulator. If you dropped
to 18AWG, it wouldn't give me any heartburn.
>What is the design I for the Alternator B lead? i.e. SD-20, L-40, L-60?
20, 40 and 60 Amps . . .
>In Z14, 10 awg is suggested for the Aux alternator, and while fine
>Ampacity wise, I am wondering about voltage drop meeting 2% -
>
>Given a rated power output of 20A (SD-20), a 2% Vd - wire length allowed
>is approx. 5.5 ft (one way) if 10 awg was used throughout...however, as
>the return path is a 2 awg suggested wire....??
>
>FAA AC 43-13-1B on page 11-21 Par 11-66
>
>"b. Voltage Drop in Wires. The voltage
>drop in the main power wires from the generation
>source or the battery to the bus should not
>exceed 2 percent of the regulated voltage when
>the generator is carrying rated current or the
>battery is being discharged at the 5-minute
>rate. The tabulation shown in table 11-6 defines
>the maximum acceptable voltage drop in
>the load circuits between the bus and the utilization
>equipment ground."
>
>Also - on Z14, 4awg is suggested for the Aux battery - can you provide
>some insight into that suggestion?
I would caution you and all OBAM aircraft builders
to approach AC43.13 with caution. It's more of an
engineering document than a cookbook. To make matters
worse, it was not crafted by individuals with a wide
range of practical experience that talked to each other
will writing their respective sections.
Unfortunately, folks charged showing us how much
more they know about airplanes that we do will snatch
things out of AC43.13 and flog the unwary designer
with it. Unless you plan to take up a career in
getting your handiwork certified, I'll suggest your
time is better spent doing a nice job on your
canopy installation or upholstery than slogging
your way through AC43.13.
Now to your question. If you size wires per the
suggestions in Figure 8.3 of the 'Connection
(See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Wire_Chart.pdf )
. . . then you'll be fine. But know also that these
ratings are VERY conservative and sized for relatively
long runs where voltage drop MIGHT become an issue.
These ratings do not apply to FAT wires subject to
intermittent heavy loads. These would include battery,
starter and ground leads.
I show 4AWG for all these leads which are good values
if you're building a tractor a/c with battery
within 5 ft or so of engine. If you're building a
canard pusher with battery on other end of airplane,
a large composite a/c with aft mounted battery, or
a seaplane with 30 foot battery feeders, then the 4AWG
will serve you well.
Which, if any, wire sizes suggested in the z-figures
are of concern to you based on the special cases
cited above?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator for LR3 |
>
>Hmmm. I am planning a circuit that will light that same LED when the
>master or auxiliary contactor is engaged when the engine isn't running
>(eg. left on after flight). They neglected to mention this bias
>resistor when I called to ask about the circuitry inside. This will
>change my design somewhat.
>Do you know what the resistor value is ?
It's big . . . but keep in mind that the current
through the resistor is multiplied by the gain
of the transistor.
If the LR-3 is getting its power from the main bus
the light will flash any time any battery is feeding
the bus -AND- the alternator is off. What's the need
for alternative "design"?
Bob . . .
>Thanks !
>Jeff Page
>Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
>>>My notes from talking with someone at B&C is that pin 5 is a FET
>>>output protected by a 1N4752 zener (which is 33V). Where does the
>>>leakage come from ?
>>>Jeff Page
>>>Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>>
>> If you study the schematic cited below, you'll see a resistor
>> connected from collector to base (or drain to gate if fet)
>> that generates an artificial leakage.
>>
>> This leakage is overcome by the hard pull-down on the
>> LV warn comparator but insufficient to illuminate an
>> incandescent lamp. The purpose of that leakage is to
>> cause a steady illumination of the LV warn lamp should
>> power to the LV warn circuitry within the LR-3 be lost.
>> The leakage will partially bias the lamp drive and cause
>> the lamp to glow steady.
>>
>> This design goal gets in the way of allowing an LED
>> to go completely dark. The tiny leakage current that
>> produced no light on an incandescent lamp produces
>> significant light in the LED. Hence, the load resistor
>> to make an LED look like an incandescent.
>
>
>--
>269.20.9/1295 - Release Date: 2/23/2008 9:35 PM
>
>
>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- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: [OT] boat wiring specificity |
| From: | "h&jeuropa" <butcher43(at)att.net> |
I've been considering switching to RG batteries in my sailboat. Batteries are
used for all power and the engine isn't run very often. There is a power charger
used in harbor. The lead acid batteries go 3-4 days without recharge. Would
RG do better? The conventional batteries are just auto batteries - supposedly
deep cycle. Would I need the same size RG batteries?
Thoughts, opinions, experiences?
Jim Butcher
Europa XS N241BW
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166316#166316
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com> |
| Subject: | voltage drop calulations |
When computing the voltage drop for items grounded locally to the airframe
on a metal airplane what length of wire do you use? Do you add any
additional length to the wire for the ground wire? Does the chassis provide
a measurable amount of resistance? Example. Let's say I am grounding my
wingtip nav lights locally to the airframe. The hot wire is 20ft in total
with 1 ft wire grounding to the airframe. Do you use 21ft as your length
value when calculating voltage drop? If you did have to account for the
return through the chassis how would you decide on an ohm/ft value?
Sorry if this seems basic but I have never run across specifics of this in
all my readings.
Ben Westfall
RV-10
________________________________________________________________________________
>> Which, if any, wire sizes suggested in the z-figures
are of concern to you based on the special cases
cited above?
I am interested in sizing the B-leads for the alternators.
I am building a Velocity XL-FG. I will be using an L-40, and an SD-20 alte
rnator. The distance from the SD-20 to the battery box is 18.67 feet, and
the contactor will be within 6" of the battery. I will use 2 awg from the
battery to the firewall - and 2 awg eq. bonding straps to the engine (Gnd).
If the design I for the SD-20 Alternator B lead is 20A, we must still decid
e upon a Vd to size the wire. As you know, Figure 8-3 in Chapter 8 of your
book shows the Ampacity of the wire. This is chosen for safety, not Vd.
I have chosen 2% bus feed loss, and 3% device feed loss (5% max loss from d
evice to battery) as a design goal.
Calculating awg required for a 2% loss @ 18.67 feet = 4.85 awg, so 4 awg
would be suggested - however, we have a 2 awg return path. This suggests d
ownsizing to a 6 awg or possibly 8 awg - - I am unsure how to calculate awg
required when multiple awg's are used.
With the L-40, the distance is 19.33 feet. @ 40A 2% Vd, awg required is 1.
7 - using 2 awg throughout, we should be about 2.15% Vd.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: voltage drop calulations |
>When computing the voltage drop for items grounded locally to the airframe
>on a metal airplane what length of wire do you use?
What ever that length is. The airframe adds a negligible
amount of resistance to the total.
> Do you add any additional length to the wire for the ground wire? Does
> the chassis provide a measurable amount of resistance?
No.
> Example& Let s say I am grounding my wingtip nav lights locally to the
> airframe. The hot wire is 20ft in total with 1 ft wire grounding to the
> airframe. Do you use 21ft as your length value when calculating voltage
> drop? If you did have to account for the return through the chassis how
> would you decide on an ohm/ft value?
If you really want a value, use .002 ohms as a
ballpark.
>
>
>Sorry if this seems basic but I have never run across specifics of this in
>all my readings.
This is because we generally don't have to worry about voltage
drop. Our airplanes are small. Even when figuring the round-trip
drop for feeder and ground in a composite airframe, the
suggested wire sizes in the tables are conservative enough
to accept at face value.
It's an interesting academic exercise but not very
fruitful in practice. If I were working on very long
runs of wire in a 767 or B52, I'd have to get out
the calculator and consider the need for up-sizing
a wire for voltage drop considerations.
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: [OT] boat wiring specificity |
>
>I've been considering switching to RG batteries in my sailboat. Batteries
>are used for all power and the engine isn't run very often. There is a
>power charger used in harbor.
Is it a "smart" charger? Know when to quit
charging and hold the batteries at their
appropriate float voltage?
>The lead acid batteries go 3-4 days without recharge. Would RG do better?
Capacity is capacity is capacity . . . irrespective
of the technology wherein that energy is stored.
Unless you change technologies, i.e. swap out
lead-acid for lithium-ion, then the amount of energy
store per pound our cubic foot of battery isn't
going to improve much by swapping out flooded
batteries in favor of RG batteries.
> The conventional batteries are just auto batteries
> - supposedly deep cycle. Would I need the same size RG batteries?
If it's time to replace your existing batteries,
an set of RG batteries might offer a bit more capacity
for the weight and size but not much. They are safer
in closed spaces. Flooded batteries ALWAYS out-gas
during charging. Battery spaces aboard boats and airplanes
for flooded batteries need deliberate attention to
venting.
RG batteries may be a bit cleaner. Being sealed
the tend not to grow ugly fuzz on the terminals.
But for deep cycle service, you're probably going
to get a better return on investment on batteries
intended for deep cycle service like wheelchair
and golf-cart batteries.
RG batteries are the obvious choice for aircraft
for weight reduction and better cranking performance
at low temperatures. Unlike batteries in your boat,
the aircraft battery may run for years never being
called upon to support a deep-cycle load. I'm not
sure I can recommend you go out and replace your
existing set of batteries with RG devices. If you
perceive a good return on investment for the batteries
you've been using, you may want to stay with them.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
> >> Which, if any, wire sizes suggested in the z-figures
> are of concern to you based on the special cases
> cited above?
>I am interested in sizing the B-leads for the alternators.
>
>I am building a Velocity XL-FG. I will be using an L-40, and an SD-20
>alternator. The distance from the SD-20 to the battery box is 18.67 feet,
>and the contactor will be within 6" of the battery. I will use 2 awg from
>the battery to the firewall - and 2 awg eq. bonding straps to the engine (Gnd).
>
>If the design I for the SD-20 Alternator B lead is 20A, we must still
>decide upon a Vd to size the wire. As you know, Figure 8-3 in Chapter 8
>of your book shows the Ampacity of the wire. This is chosen for safety,
>not Vd.
>
>I have chosen 2% bus feed loss, and 3% device feed loss (5% max loss from
>device to battery) as a design goal.
>
>Calculating awg required for a 2% loss @ 18.67 feet = 4.85 awg, so 4 awg
>would be suggested - however, we have a 2 awg return path. This suggests
>downsizing to a 6 awg or possibly 8 awg - - I am unsure how to calculate
>awg required when multiple awg's are used.
>
>With the L-40, the distance is 19.33 feet. @ 40A 2% Vd, awg required is
>1.7 - using 2 awg throughout, we should be about 2.15% Vd.
Consider Z-12 and feed both the L-40 and SD-20 into
the system at the starter contactor on the firewall.
Now you get to use 2AWG starter and ground feeders
as feeders for the alternators as well. Your small
wires from the b-leads are only a few feet long
and drops are insignificant.
Further, voltage drops in alternator output leads
do not fall into the 5% rule of thumb for drops
that feed loads. Consider the fact that your
alternator's REGULATOR adjusts field votlage
in the alternator such that the BUS is maintained
at the desired setpoint.
If the drops in alternator leads exceeds 5%,
the airplane never knows it . . . because the
regulator will cause your alternator to put out
15 or more volts as needed to accommodate the
desire for a 14.2 volt bus.
But if it were my airplane, I'd take advantage
of those two FAT wires that have to be there
already to accommodate the starter.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Quillin" <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: voltage drop calulations (academic exercise) |
Because the load 'sees' the supply voltage referenced to it's, the
load's, local ground. If the local ground isn't really 'ground', that
there is a voltage differential between 'true' ground and local ground
caused by ground currents, the local ground is offset by that voltage
from the true supply ground. So the actual supply voltage the load
sees is reduced by the voltage in the return path and the load doesn't
really see the full supply voltage, as it is reduced by losses in both
the supply and return wiring. It's all just like a resistor in series
with the supply, be it in either conductor.
> Why does the resistance in the return path (assuming DC and resistive load
> element) affect the voltage seen by the element being provided power? Or am
> I thinking '60 British (positive ground).
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "raymondj" <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: voltage drop calulations (academic exercise) |
Ron,
So, the circuit is functionally 3 resistors in series and the middle
resistor (load) can only see the voltage drop across it as part of the total
voltage drop in the entire circuit. If that's correct than I understand.
Thanks for the explanation.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"Hope for the best,
but prepare for the worst."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Quillin" <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: voltage drop calulations (academic exercise)
>
>
> Because the load 'sees' the supply voltage referenced to it's, the
> load's, local ground. If the local ground isn't really 'ground', that
> there is a voltage differential between 'true' ground and local ground
> caused by ground currents, the local ground is offset by that voltage
> from the true supply ground. So the actual supply voltage the load
> sees is reduced by the voltage in the return path and the load doesn't
> really see the full supply voltage, as it is reduced by losses in both
> the supply and return wiring. It's all just like a resistor in series
> with the supply, be it in either conductor.
>
>> Why does the resistance in the return path (assuming DC and resistive
>> load
>> element) affect the voltage seen by the element being provided power?
>> Or am
>> I thinking '60 British (positive ground).
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: voltage drop calulations (academic exercise) |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
Exactly.
At 23:41 2/26/2008, you wrote:
>Ron,
>
> So, the circuit is functionally 3 resistors in series and the
> middle resistor (load) can only see the voltage drop across it as
> part of the total voltage drop in the entire circuit. If that's
> correct than I understand.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: voltage drop calulations (academic exercise) |
>
>Ron,
>
> So, the circuit is functionally 3 resistors in series and the middle
> resistor (load) can only see the voltage drop across it as part of the
> total voltage drop in the entire circuit. If that's correct than I understand.
>
>Thanks for the explanation.
>Raymond Julian
>Kettle River, MN
Getting closer. There are LOTS of resistors. EVERY conductor
(including the aiframe), every compoent (terminals, studs,
contacts) and every joint between those conductors cannot
have zero resistance. We'll, we could wish for a super-
conducting system but it won't happen in our lifetimes.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Voltage_Drop_Study_1.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Voltage_Drop_Study_2.pdf
These are two studies of total resistance voltage drop
in exemplar situations. In both cases, the lower
conductor in the figure could be a wire (composite
airframe) or it could be the airframe itself. No matter
how the loop is closed to keep all the electrons moving
there will be some losses. Fortunately, most metalic
airframes are pretty good conductors. I think a Beechjet
offers something like 0.001 ohms from nose to tail.
Being a "good" conductor might allow us to ignore
the effects as tiny compared to the other conductors
but "good" is never zero.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: [OT] boat wiring specificity |
| From: | "frazitl" <fraziernv(at)earthlink.net> |
On 2-26 you wrote:
"I've been considering switching to RG batteries in my sailboat. Batteries are
used for all power and the engine isn't run very often. There is a power charger
used in harbor. The lead acid batteries go 3-4 days without recharge. Would
RG do better? The conventional batteries are just auto batteries - supposedly
deep cycle. Would I need the same size RG batteries?"
I have no experience with sail boats. but lots of motor home experience. The hot
set-up for motorhomes is AGM battery technology. About twice as expensive,
but no fumes, no mess, better deep cycle performance, and about twice the life.
I'm about to buy new batteries for my motorhome and am going with AGMs
--------
Terry Frazier
RV7A
Finishing
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166598#166598
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McMahon" <blackoaks(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Turn Coordinator |
Hi 'Old Bob",
I chuckle every time you get this in! I to, am a firm proponent of the turn
needle! To me it is a direct reading instrument whereas every time I fly
with a turn coordinator I have to convert everything its trying to tell me!
Could be a function of our age.... Aviation Cadet 60B......
Old John
In fact, I highly recommend that the Turn Coordinator be scrapped in
> lieu of a Turn Needle, but that is another subject!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
>
--
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, S/N 170, N9637M (Reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Lamb" <n254bl(at)cfl.rr.com> |
Talk about a bored chef!
Pretty amazing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
2/27/2008
Hello Fellow Builders, The certificated airplane community has been hit with
a series of TVS failures. Several different manufacturer's airplanes have
been affected.
Copied below is just one of the SAIB's that the FAA has issued on this
subject.
If your project includes TVS' you may want to further investigate -- the
same TVS manufacturer seems to be involved in all failures.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
-----------------------------------------------------
FAA
Aircraft Certification Service
SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS
INFORMATION BULLETIN
SUBJ: Electrical Power
SAIB: CE-08-12
Date: February 27, 2008
This is information only. Recommendations aren't mandatory.
Introduction
This Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) advises you of an
airworthiness concern on
Cirrus Design Corporation (CDC) Models SR20 and SR22 airplanes where
possible failure of a
transient voltage suppressor (TVS) may result in an increase in workload for
the pilot.
This airworthiness action has been taken after consideration of the
responses from CDC as well as
airplane owners/ operators through relevant associations and type clubs,
using the procedures found
in the Small Airplane Directorate Airworthiness Directives Manual Supplement
(Airworthiness
Concern Process Guide).
At this time, this airworthiness concern is not considered an unsafe
condition that would warrant an
airworthiness directive (AD) action under Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR part
39).
Background
CDC notified the Federal Aviation Administration of the failure of a TVS on
a CDC Model SR22
airplane, which resulted in loss of NAV/COM1 functionality and some smoke
and fumes within the
cockpit. Since that time, 14 other TVS's have failed on CDC airplanes in the
field.
Other airplanes equipped with TVSs from the same manufacturer have recently
experienced failures.
Our findings thus far, show that the electronic component itself is the
primary suspect for a cause of
the failures. To date, no specific reason has been positively identified for
the failures although several
companies are working on the problem.
As previously mentioned, no other functionality other than the NAV/COMM 1
has been lost on a
CDC airplane. All CDC airplanes have redundancy with a NAV/COMM 2 available.
Also, in all
known occurrences of TVS failures, the smoke and fumes have been noted to be
of short duration and
not sufficient to impede the pilots visibility, or toxic such that the pilot's
ability to operate the
airplane is impaired.
Recommendations
We recommend that all CDC airplane owner/operators thoroughly read Cirrus
service advisory SA
07-17, dated September 11, 2007. The service advisory provides good
information on what to expect
should a TVS failure occur and what actions should be taken by the pilot.
For Further Information Contact
Wesley Rouse, Aerospace Engineer, FAA Chicago Aircraft Certification, 2300
E. Devon, Des
Plaines, IL 60018; phone: (847) 294-8113; email: wess.rouse(at)faa.gov
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TVS Failures |
Bob,
Without calling the FAA, you wouldn't happen to know how to get the failed TVS
vendor's name, would you? The CDC website of course has no bad news in it. I'm
sure the vendor isn't advertising it, either.
Thanks,
Henador Titzof
----- Original Message ----
From: "bakerocb(at)cox.net" <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:49:42 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: TVS Failures
2/27/2008
Hello Fellow Builders, The certificated airplane community has been hit with
a series of TVS failures. Several different manufacturer's airplanes have
been affected.
Copied below is just one of the SAIB's that the FAA has issued on this
subject.
If your project includes TVS' you may want to further investigate -- the
same TVS manufacturer seems to be involved in all failures.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neil Clayton <harvey4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Question about panel light dimmers |
The panel dimmer I selected can handle 1.5 amps.
I have 9 gauges needing 0.2 amps each.
So at max dimming, the dimmer is being asked to dissipate (0.2 x 9 =)
1.8 amps - a bit more than it's rated capacity.
I figured that was close enough - until I realized I forgot to
include the radio back light, which takes me WAY over the 1.5 amp capacity.
Theory; this humble M.Eng assumed the dimmer uses a
silicon-controlled rectifier that gets hotter the more it's being
asked to dim (so that for zero dimming = full brightness, there's no
heat being dissipated by the SCR's heat sink). But then I recalled
that SCR's work by clipping the tops of the current wave - except we
use 12v DC. No current curve to clip. So much for that theory!
So....how does a DC dimmer work?
Can I safely go over the rated capacity of my dimmer with no
expectation of disaster?
If a disaster were to occur, what form would it take?
Many thanks to any EE who'll take a moment to set this tyro straight.
Neil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TVS Failures |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Without calling the FAA, you wouldn't happen to know how to get the failed
>TVS vendor's name, would you? The CDC website of course has no bad news
>in it. I'm sure the vendor isn't advertising it, either.
>
>Thanks,
>Henador Titzof
It's just a guess at this stage of the game but
I'll bet that the "problem" has more to do with
how the devices were incorporated into the system
along with sizes selected than it has to do with
quality issues for the manufacturer of the devices.
These are legacy products now . . . i.e. 20+ years
old. The manufacturer has made millions of these things
for industrial and consumer applications and is now
probably lamenting the fact that some "kind soul"
included a part of their manufacture on the BOM
of a T/C aircraft.
I won't endeavor to sell to T/C aviation and it
has nothing to do with my willingness or ability
to deliver product that meets the data sheets.
It's cases like this where a hand full of jelly-bean
parts are named participants in a "official
investigation". NOBODY wins in these things, even
if the TVS manufacturer is found blameless.
I'll see if I can find out more details. I'm
involved in some development programs for the
OEM and have some friendly contacts. In the mean
time, don't get excited about purging your
airframe of "bad parts" until we know the
physics of the matter.
Oh yeah, I'll mention in passing that my drawings
seldom if ever show a TVS as part of ship's
wiring. These things belong inside an appliance
designed and tested to meed DO-160 cert levels.
Once the appliances are pronounced golden, there's
little if any need for the wire-slingers to add
them to the system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Question about panel light dimmers |
Some DC Dimmers are pulse width modulators. So the transistors are used in
the switching mode witch makes them quite efficient. (i.e. not much heat
in normal operation). They do not dissipate the load current, they switches
it. But internal losses increase as the load current increases.
The percentage of "ON" to "OFF" determines the brightness of the lights.
The MAX current rating is likely to be limited my the maximum current the
transistor can pass. Applying more current can cause thermal run away at the
Junction ... then it will die. The transistor junction will cool during the
Off cycle. So the worst case is when you have full brightness.
r.t.s
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Neil
Clayton
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:19 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Question about panel light dimmers
The panel dimmer I selected can handle 1.5 amps.
I have 9 gauges needing 0.2 amps each.
So at max dimming, the dimmer is being asked to dissipate (0.2 x 9 =)
1.8 amps - a bit more than it's rated capacity.
I figured that was close enough - until I realized I forgot to
include the radio back light, which takes me WAY over the 1.5 amp capacity.
Theory; this humble M.Eng assumed the dimmer uses a
silicon-controlled rectifier that gets hotter the more it's being
asked to dim (so that for zero dimming = full brightness, there's no
heat being dissipated by the SCR's heat sink). But then I recalled
that SCR's work by clipping the tops of the current wave - except we
use 12v DC. No current curve to clip. So much for that theory!
So....how does a DC dimmer work?
Can I safely go over the rated capacity of my dimmer with no
expectation of disaster?
If a disaster were to occur, what form would it take?
Many thanks to any EE who'll take a moment to set this tyro straight.
Neil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about panel light dimmers |
Neil Clayton wrote:
>
>
> The panel dimmer I selected can handle 1.5 amps.
> I have 9 gauges needing 0.2 amps each.
> So at max dimming, the dimmer is being asked to dissipate (0.2 x 9 =)
> 1.8 amps - a bit more than it's rated capacity.
>
> I figured that was close enough - until I realized I forgot to include
> the radio back light, which takes me WAY over the 1.5 amp capacity.
>
> Theory; this humble M.Eng assumed the dimmer uses a silicon-controlled
> rectifier that gets hotter the more it's being asked to dim (so that
> for zero dimming = full brightness, there's no heat being dissipated
> by the SCR's heat sink). But then I recalled that SCR's work by
> clipping the tops of the current wave - except we use 12v DC. No
> current curve to clip. So much for that theory!
>
> So....how does a DC dimmer work?
> Can I safely go over the rated capacity of my dimmer with no
> expectation of disaster?
> If a disaster were to occur, what form would it take?
>
The dimmer I have works by switching the DC off and on at about 4kHz.
Way faster than your eye could ever detect. With it off, there is not
current flow...hence, no heat. When it is on, the transistor is in a
very low resistance state...hence, very little heat.
If yours works this way, overloading it may make the switcher stop
switching, or the "very little heat" when it is on may turn into "too
much heat" and then it just goes off and stays there.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vernon Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Question about panel light dimmers |
Hi Neil. From the specs you gave, I am assuming that your dimmer is using a
common LM317 regulator.
This regulator has a built in current limiter that will (normally) prevent
it from being damaged from overload, but it will not perform properly in
your application with much larger loading. Typical of this type of dimmer
is the Van's dimmer module.
In addition to the maximum current limit, the LM317 has a thermal operating
limit (for reliability). The power dissipation of the device is equal to
the voltage drop times the load current. The maximum power dissipation
occurs at less than full brightness.
In my case, my maximum current load was 0.9 amps (measured at full
brightness, 11 volts output), but peak power dissipation of 5.1 Watts was
when the output was about 5 volts.
Based on this number (5.1 Watts), I decided to install a much larger heat
sink on the Van's module in order to keep the maximum junction temperature
of the regulator below 125 degrees C (with a 40C ambient).
What does this all mean? My recommendation is that the Van's dimmer
(unmodified), should only be used with about 700 mA of full-intensity load.
Higher loads need bigger heatsinks. There are other dimmer modules out
there that can be used, or you can split the load using multiple regulators.
Thanks, Vern Little.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Neil
Clayton
Sent: February 27, 2008 6:19 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Question about panel light dimmers
-->
The panel dimmer I selected can handle 1.5 amps.
I have 9 gauges needing 0.2 amps each.
So at max dimming, the dimmer is being asked to dissipate (0.2 x 9 =)
1.8 amps - a bit more than it's rated capacity.
I figured that was close enough - until I realized I forgot to
include the radio back light, which takes me WAY over the 1.5 amp capacity.
Theory; this humble M.Eng assumed the dimmer uses a
silicon-controlled rectifier that gets hotter the more it's being
asked to dim (so that for zero dimming = full brightness, there's no
heat being dissipated by the SCR's heat sink). But then I recalled
that SCR's work by clipping the tops of the current wave - except we
use 12v DC. No current curve to clip. So much for that theory!
So....how does a DC dimmer work?
Can I safely go over the rated capacity of my dimmer with no
expectation of disaster?
If a disaster were to occur, what form would it take?
Many thanks to any EE who'll take a moment to set this tyro straight.
Neil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator for LR3 |
> Hmmm. I am planning a circuit that will light that same LED when the
> master or auxiliary contactor is engaged when the engine isn't running
> (eg. left on after flight). They neglected to mention this bias
> resistor when I called to ask about the circuitry inside. This will
> change my design somewhat.
> Do you know what the resistor value is ?
It's big . . . but keep in mind that the current
through the resistor is multiplied by the gain
of the transistor.
If the LR-3 is getting its power from the main bus
the light will flash any time any battery is feeding
the bus -AND- the alternator is off. What's the need
for alternative "design"?
Bob . . .
I am wiring per Z-13/8.
If I have a main alternator failure, the LR-3 indicator will tell me.
I switch on the Endurance bus and switch off the main bus, the
indicator will go out, since there is no power there at all.
At this point, I need to switch on the aux alternator. As drawn,
there is no low voltage indicator to show if this alternator is
working. In an emergency, I might forget to do this. I usually good
with checklists, but an indicator would be helpful.
This also means there are 3 switches I could accidentally leave on
after a flight or maintenance that would ensure a depleted battery
before the next flight.
I could have 3 indicators for the switches and 2 low voltage
indicators. However, I really only need 1 indicator that indicates
low voltage in flight while running on either alternator, acting as an
idiot light after shutdown.
By adding another pole to the endurance bus and aux alternator
switches (main bus already has a usable switched to ground pole on its
switch), I can easily sense the switch positions. However, to avoid
an indicator continuously lit in flight, these contacts need to
activate a low voltage detector with a threshold abow the normal
battery voltage, but below the charging voltage.
So depending on the value of the internal resistor driving the gate of
the FET, it could turn on my LED, which is essentially pulled to
ground from battery voltage through a 680 ohm resistor.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question about panel light dimmers |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
A very good explanation of how voltage regulators, both switching and linear, work
is contained in:
http://www.national.com/appinfo/power/files/f4.pdf
But it should be said that 1.5A does not mean there is any margin above than at
all--NONE. Otherwise it would be called a 1.6 Amp (or whatever)regulator. There
are protection circuits onboard, but they DO DEPEND on some operating conditions
being met. This is not always clear to the designer.
I sell tons of 1.5A LM317-based voltage regulators (EGPAVR) on my website. I have
also made these in slightly larger 2A and 3A versions.
Above a few amps the game goes to switching regulators. BUT!!, in my humble opinion,
there is a large zone where a larger, heavier, linear regulator is still
preferable, since it is more reliable AND is electrically quiet. I have abandoned
the use of switching regulators in some of my applications for this reason.
Yes, squelching the RFI/EMI is possible, but why bother?
I have seen some LED dimmers that are just horrendous. They use switching regulators
with variable frequencies. They are guaranteed to induce wild hallucinatory
visions in high-vibration environments.... Like chewing on hard candy while
looking at a computer monitor.
--------
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=166909#166909
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator for LR3 |
>
>I am wiring per Z-13/8.
>
>If I have a main alternator failure, the LR-3 indicator will tell me.
>I switch on the Endurance bus and switch off the main bus, the
>indicator will go out, since there is no power there at all.
Yes, but this is a plan-B activity that is only expected to
be implemented in case of a rare event . . . failure of the
main alternator.
>At this point, I need to switch on the aux alternator. As drawn,
>there is no low voltage indicator to show if this alternator is
>working. In an emergency, I might forget to do this.
Failure of the main alternator is not an emergency. It's
an emergency only if you have no alternatives i.e, you
have no back up engine driven power source and you haven't
the foggiest notion of how long your battery will run goodies
in the endurance mode.
> I usually good
>with checklists, but an indicator would be helpful.
How about a voltmeter. Does one of your relatively low
power digital panel-wiggets have a voltmeter function?
>This also means there are 3 switches I could accidentally leave on
>after a flight or maintenance that would ensure a depleted battery
>before the next flight.
Are there no electro-whizzies on the panel that stay
lit up when the endurance bus is hot? . . . and three
switches? What's going to stay on un-annunciated besides
the e-bus alternate feed switch? Oh, yeah, the aux alternator
switch being left on would leave a hundred+ millamps of draw
on the battery.
>I could have 3 indicators for the switches and 2 low voltage
>indicators. However, I really only need 1 indicator that indicates
>low voltage in flight while running on either alternator, acting as an
>idiot light after shutdown.
>By adding another pole to the endurance bus and aux alternator
>switches (main bus already has a usable switched to ground pole on its
>switch), I can easily sense the switch positions. However, to avoid
>an indicator continuously lit in flight, these contacts need to
>activate a low voltage detector with a threshold abow the normal
>battery voltage, but below the charging voltage.
>
>So depending on the value of the internal resistor driving the gate of
>the FET, it could turn on my LED, which is essentially pulled to
>ground from battery voltage through a 680 ohm resistor.
I think you're making this more complicated than
it needs to be. If the scenario that creates the situation
you're guarding against happens every fifth flight, there's
a significant human factors consideration for adding the
extra indication/warning features. But your adding "stuff"
to a system to remind you that you've just experienced
a main alternator failure. Therefore, in addition a need for
getting out the toolbox after you land, you need additional
reminding to shut off the aux alternator and e-bus alternate
feed switches?
I considered low voltage warning lights for the e-bus architecture
some years ago but decided against it. Flying on the e-bus only
whether supported by the SD-8 or not is an extra-ordinary happening.
An event that should cause give the pilot a heightened awareness
of protocols for a sweat-free termination of the flight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | New toy in the AEC shop . . . |
Since I no longer enjoy access to the labs at H-B,
I've been gathering some useful tools up to enhance
our development in the 'Connection's shops. I picked
this temperature chamber up off Ebay a few weeks ago for
$150 and paid another $150 to have it shipped!
It's a little bigger brother to the very first
chamber I bought at Electro-Mech about 30 years
ago! Had to do a some work with door seals,
CO2 plumbing and much scrubbing with 409 and
acetone but it cleaned up pretty well. Just
got it operational and tested. Gets down
to -60C in about 20 minutes, back up to 80C
in under 15 minutes and controls to within
2 degrees C.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Temperature_Chamber_2.jpg
I think it will do for the moment to get some
work out for a customer this weekend. I've found
a modern digital device to replace the analog
heating/cooling controller. I'll replace the Fluke
portable thermocouple readout with a permanent digital
display and selector switch for about 5 channels of
thermocouple. I need to build a CO2 valve-open
timer so that I tell when a bottle is about to
go empty. This thing uses the liquid CO2 from bottles
with dip tubes. They're essentially constant pressure
until the liquid runs out whereupon you loose cooling
very quickly. But by monitoring total valve-open time
I can get a pretty good calibration on pounds of
CO2 consumed.
Hmmmm . . . wonder if I need to hit up Mr. Gore
for some carbon-credits. I'm going to dump about
100# of CO2 this weekend. Maybe I'd better get
him to plant some trees for me or something.
I'd forgotten how heavy those bottles are! I
think I'll run a hard line from the garage down
to the basement shop so I don't have to lug them
on the stairs! I'm getting too old for that kind
of work!
You can even warm TV dinners in it!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | New toy in the AEC shop . . . |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Bob,
I'm sure you are providing proper ventilation for the CO2 that
leaks out. I'm not sure but the CO2 may be heavier than regular air and
thus puddle in low places (basements). Don't need you to be room temp
for any time soon. We need your wit and knowledge to help us battle the
electrons and keep them in their place.
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Boddicker <trumanst(at)netins.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New toy in the AEC shop . . . |
"Carbon Credits" wish I would have thought of that fleece!!!!!
Damn the luck.
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 82.3 hours
Luana, IA.
On Mar 1, 2008, at 1:00 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> Since I no longer enjoy access to the labs at H-B,
> I've been gathering some useful tools up to enhance
> our development in the 'Connection's shops. I picked
> this temperature chamber up off Ebay a few weeks ago for
> $150 and paid another $150 to have it shipped!
>
> It's a little bigger brother to the very first
> chamber I bought at Electro-Mech about 30 years
> ago! Had to do a some work with door seals,
> CO2 plumbing and much scrubbing with 409 and
> acetone but it cleaned up pretty well. Just
> got it operational and tested. Gets down
> to -60C in about 20 minutes, back up to 80C
> in under 15 minutes and controls to within
> 2 degrees C.
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Temperature_Chamber_2.jpg
>
> I think it will do for the moment to get some
> work out for a customer this weekend. I've found
> a modern digital device to replace the analog
> heating/cooling controller. I'll replace the Fluke
> portable thermocouple readout with a permanent digital
> display and selector switch for about 5 channels of
> thermocouple. I need to build a CO2 valve-open
> timer so that I tell when a bottle is about to
> go empty. This thing uses the liquid CO2 from bottles
> with dip tubes. They're essentially constant pressure
> until the liquid runs out whereupon you loose cooling
> very quickly. But by monitoring total valve-open time
> I can get a pretty good calibration on pounds of
> CO2 consumed.
>
> Hmmmm . . . wonder if I need to hit up Mr. Gore
> for some carbon-credits. I'm going to dump about
> 100# of CO2 this weekend. Maybe I'd better get
> him to plant some trees for me or something.
>
> I'd forgotten how heavy those bottles are! I
> think I'll run a hard line from the garage down
> to the basement shop so I don't have to lug them
> on the stairs! I'm getting too old for that kind
> of work!
>
> You can even warm TV dinners in it!
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New toy in the AEC shop . . . |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
> Hmmmm . . . wonder if I need to hit up Mr. Gore
> for some carbon-credits. I'm going to dump about
> 100# of CO2 this weekend. Maybe I'd better get
> him to plant some trees for me or something.
>
If planting a young tree earns carbon credits, then not cutting down an
old tree should be worth even more credits. I have a few thousand pine
trees that I promise not to cut down. You are welcome to apply those
credits to your temperature chamber.
johninreno
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net> |
| Subject: | New toy in the AEC shop . . . |
Now if you really need to cool down your beer in a hurry you could try this
New Zealand "bloke's" approach http://www.asciimation.co.nz/beer/. It's a
little noisy (125db) but seems to work quite well !!
Cheers.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Morgensen
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: New toy in the AEC shop . . .
-->
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
> Hmmmm . . . wonder if I need to hit up Mr. Gore
> for some carbon-credits. I'm going to dump about
> 100# of CO2 this weekend. Maybe I'd better get
> him to plant some trees for me or something.
>
If planting a young tree earns carbon credits, then not cutting down an
old tree should be worth even more credits. I have a few thousand pine
trees that I promise not to cut down. You are welcome to apply those
credits to your temperature chamber.
johninreno
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | New toy in the AEC shop . . . |
>Sounds like you can quick cool a few brews when your done eating as well.
Hmmmm . . . I'll throw a thermocoupled can
in the next low temp run and see how cold it
gets. Typically, we drop to -60C and soak until
surface of test article gets to -55C. Most
of the gizmos I test will get down there in
30 minutes or so. The atmosphere in the chamber
is stirred with a fan so a room temp beer just
might get pretty frosty in that time.
Dr. Dee likes her beer with ice crystals in
it. It takes 45 minutes to an hour to arrive
at her favorite condition in a -10C freezer.
I'll conduct the experiment, record the results
and report on the findings.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New toy in the AEC shop . . . |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Hmmmm . . . wonder if I need to hit up Mr. Gore
> for some carbon-credits. I'm going to dump about
> 100# of CO2 this weekend. Maybe I'd better get
> him to plant some trees for me or something.
You are dumping pre-existing CO2 - not making more of it. Carbon
credits apply to a process that creates CO2 from a source where carbon
is previously trapped, chemically or otherwise. Granted, compressing it
does take energy, but probably not any more than using a refrigerated
environmental chamber rather than one cooled by CO2.
> I'd forgotten how heavy those bottles are! I
> think I'll run a hard line from the garage down
> to the basement shop so I don't have to lug them
> on the stairs! I'm getting too old for that kind
> of work!
Please be very careful of using CO2 for cooling in a basement shop
unless it has a floor level access to the outside to allow the CO2 to
escape. CO2 is heavier than air and will collect in the basement otherwise.
--
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: New toy in the AEC shop . . . |
>
>Bob,
> I'm sure you are providing proper ventilation for the CO2 that
>leaks out. I'm not sure but the CO2 may be heavier than regular air and
>thus puddle in low places (basements). Don't need you to be room temp
>for any time soon. We need your wit and knowledge to help us battle the
>electrons and keep them in their place.
Yeah. I run the fan to stir the shop air and
spread it out . . . A typical test cycle of
an hour of cooling takes about 10 pounds of
CO2 and that's pretty well stirred up as we
go.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Pereira" <mjpereira68(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New toy in the AEC shop . . . |
> > Hmmmm . . . wonder if I need to hit up Mr. Gore
> > for some carbon-credits. I'm going to dump about
> > 100# of CO2 this weekend. Maybe I'd better get
> > him to plant some trees for me or something.
> >
>
> If planting a young tree earns carbon credits, then not cutting down an
> old tree should be worth even more credits. I have a few thousand pine
> trees that I promise not to cut down. You are welcome to apply those
> credits to your temperature chamber.
I'll just promise not to exhale on alternate breaths. If that doesn't work,
well, reduce co2, kill a mammal.
c'ya,
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New toy in the AEC shop . . . |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
We once developed a device that had designers in Switzerland and the US. Whenever
the power supply in the device was tested in Switzerland it passed all tests
in the environmental chamber. When tested in the US it flunked due to a load
resistor that would overheat an output filter capacitor in a purchased UL/CSA/IEC/TUV
power supply. The prototypes seemed to be in Fedex transit permanently
and accusation flew, and schedules flew too...out the window. The Swiss environmental
chamber was super-high tech and had powerful mixing fans to make sure
that nothing in the chamber deviated from anything else by more than 1/10 degree.
The power supply worked very well inside the chamber. But no place else.
--------
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=167238#167238
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New toy in the AEC shop . . . |
>
>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>Hmmmm . . . wonder if I need to hit up Mr. Gore
>>for some carbon-credits. I'm going to dump about
>>100# of CO2 this weekend. Maybe I'd better get
>>him to plant some trees for me or something.
>You are dumping pre-existing CO2 - not making more of it. Carbon credits
>apply to a process that creates CO2 from a source where carbon is
>previously trapped, chemically or otherwise. Granted, compressing it does
>take energy, but probably not any more than using a refrigerated
>environmental chamber rather than one cooled by CO2.
Good point.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net> |
Can anyone point me to a link wha I can find this service bulletin (acs
sb92-01) Thanks Bill S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)MCHSI.COM> |
Just plug it into Google.
*Sam Hoskins
Murphysboro, IL
Quickie Blog <http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com>
Quickie Website <http://home.mchsi.com/%7Eshoskins/index.htm>
**On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Bill and Marsha
wrote:
*
>
> * Can anyone point me to a link wha I can find this service bulletin (acs
> sb92-01) Thanks Bill S.*
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Leo Davies" <leo(at)icn.usyd.edu.au> |
| Subject: | Ignition control in a dual alternator dual bus system |
Dear List,
I am currently designing the electrical system for my "all-electric" RV
10. I have been very happy with Bob's architecture for my RV6A which
worked beautifully the day my alternator died in the clouds.
I am looking at the Z-14 schematic which involves two batteries, two
alternators and a cross feed for starting and for electron sharing in
failure mode.
I note that there are no switching diagrams for mags or other ignition
systems on this diagram. I wondered what the implications for mag
switching were in this setup. Should they just have simple switches but
only turn on the impulse coupled mag for a start? If so, how serious are
the implications if the non-coupled mag is accidentally enabled at
startup? If I ran an electronic system on the left would you only turn
this on after start and again stick with impulse coupling on the
standard mag for the start.
I would be pleased to hear from anyone who has used this schematic as
the basis for their electrical system as to how they had handled the
ignition switching.
Thanks for your help.
Leo Davies
--
A/Prof Leo Davies,
Sub-Dean, Head of Assessment,
Faculty of Medicine,
Edward Ford Building,
University of Sydney 2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition control in a dual alternator dual bus |
system
>
>
>Dear List,
>
>I am currently designing the electrical system for my "all-electric" RV
>10. I have been very happy with Bob's architecture for my RV6A which
>worked beautifully the day my alternator died in the clouds.
>
>I am looking at the Z-14 schematic which involves two batteries, two
>alternators and a cross feed for starting and for electron sharing in
>failure mode.
>
>I note that there are no switching diagrams for mags or other ignition
>systems on this diagram. I wondered what the implications for mag
>switching were in this setup. Should they just have simple switches but
>only turn on the impulse coupled mag for a start? If so, how serious are
>the implications if the non-coupled mag is accidentally enabled at
>startup? If I ran an electronic system on the left would you only turn
>this on after start and again stick with impulse coupling on the standard
>mag for the start.
>
>I would be pleased to hear from anyone who has used this schematic as the
>basis for their electrical system as to how they had handled the ignition
>switching.
>
>Thanks for your help.
Leo, Why such a heavy, complex, expensive electrical system?
How about going with Z-13/8 and use the money you saved to
put at least one E-Mag on? Leave your impulse coupled mag in
place and replace the non-coupled with an E or better yet,
a P-Mag. Then, both ignitions can be ON for cranking. If
you ever have the coupled-mag crap, you can put the non-
coupled back on and wire it like Z-27. Make both ignition
switches a DPDT ON-ON (S702-3 or equal) from the get-go.
This will produce an exceedingly reliable system with
a minimum of cost and get you a really nice sparking
ignition for cranking.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Leo Davies" <leo(at)icn.usyd.edu.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition control in a dual alternator dual bus |
system
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Dear List,
>>
>> I am currently designing the electrical system for my "all-electric"
>> RV 10. I have been very happy with Bob's architecture for my RV6A
>> which worked beautifully the day my alternator died in the clouds.
>>
>> I am looking at the Z-14 schematic which involves two batteries, two
>> alternators and a cross feed for starting and for electron sharing in
>> failure mode.
>>
>> I note that there are no switching diagrams for mags or other
>> ignition systems on this diagram. I wondered what the implications
>> for mag switching were in this setup. Should they just have simple
>> switches but only turn on the impulse coupled mag for a start? If so,
>> how serious are the implications if the non-coupled mag is
>> accidentally enabled at startup? If I ran an electronic system on the
>> left would you only turn this on after start and again stick with
>> impulse coupling on the standard mag for the start.
>>
>> I would be pleased to hear from anyone who has used this schematic as
>> the basis for their electrical system as to how they had handled the
>> ignition switching.
>>
>> Thanks for your help.
>
>
> Leo, Why such a heavy, complex, expensive electrical system?
>
> How about going with Z-13/8 and use the money you saved to
> put at least one E-Mag on? Leave your impulse coupled mag in
> place and replace the non-coupled with an E or better yet,
> a P-Mag. Then, both ignitions can be ON for cranking. If
> you ever have the coupled-mag crap, you can put the non-
> coupled back on and wire it like Z-27. Make both ignition
> switches a DPDT ON-ON (S702-3 or equal) from the get-go.
>
> This will produce an exceedingly reliable system with
> a minimum of cost and get you a really nice sparking
> ignition for cranking.
>
> Bob . . .
>
Bob,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
The thing that had primarily motivated me towards the Z-14 was the fact
that I am planning to install a Garmin G900X. The specs for this
nominate a current draw of 16-28 amps!
With this mighty beast sucking electrons I was moved towards the B&C 20
amp alternator as a backup and the added reserve of two PC680 batteries
to provide some buffer, as well as additional cranking power for that
big 6 cylinder engine.
I have, as stated above, been very happy with the performance of your
architecture in my current plane so am not inclined to ignore your
suggestions. Having said that, the B&C alternator and regulator have
performed so nicely I was quite looking forward to having two of
them.... ;-)
Do you think the Z 13/8 would carry the Garmin? I sure hate to turn off
all that good stuff just cause an alternator has gone belly up.
Thanks again,
Leo
>
>
> !DSPAM:47cb911624381654078673!
--
A/Prof Leo Davies,
Sub-Dean, Head of Assessment,
Faculty of Medicine,
Edward Ford Building,
University of Sydney 2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Ignition control in a dual alternator dual bus |
system
Leo,
I just wanted to respond to the ignition issues you raised. First if
you use an impulse coupling then you should inhibit the non-impulse mag
during the start. If you go with an electronic system with variable
timing then you should start with both systems on. When using an
ignition system with variable timing you should run two, not one mag and
one electronic system. The only exception to the mag vs. electronic is
if the maximum advance on the electronic is the same at the mag. This
will enable you to gain the highest horse power at the highest power
setting. The idea behind having an electronic ignition system is to
have variable timing and a hotter spark. The problem with one mag vs.
one electronic is you give up horsepower and fuel efficiency when the
timing is different. The unit that has the most advance will fire first
thus starting the combustion cycle early as it compares to the other.
In most cases the mag will be the first to fire at lower power setting
thus eliminating a retarded timing giving you better idle and starting.
At takeoff power the electronic system will in most cases advance beyond
the mag causing you the loss of power gained from the mag system during
that period.
Something to think about,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dr.
Leo Davies
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 7:30 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ignition control in a dual alternator dual
bus system
Dear List,
I am currently designing the electrical system for my "all-electric" RV
10. I have been very happy with Bob's architecture for my RV6A which
worked beautifully the day my alternator died in the clouds.
I am looking at the Z-14 schematic which involves two batteries, two
alternators and a cross feed for starting and for electron sharing in
failure mode.
I note that there are no switching diagrams for mags or other ignition
systems on this diagram. I wondered what the implications for mag
switching were in this setup. Should they just have simple switches but
only turn on the impulse coupled mag for a start? If so, how serious are
the implications if the non-coupled mag is accidentally enabled at
startup? If I ran an electronic system on the left would you only turn
this on after start and again stick with impulse coupling on the
standard mag for the start.
I would be pleased to hear from anyone who has used this schematic as
the basis for their electrical system as to how they had handled the
ignition switching.
Thanks for your help.
Leo Davies
--
A/Prof Leo Davies,
Sub-Dean, Head of Assessment,
Faculty of Medicine,
Edward Ford Building,
University of Sydney 2006
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition control in a dual alternator dual bus |
system
I think you've misinterpreted something. I can't believe there are any
electronic ignitions that advance so far as to reduce power and
efficiency at any power setting when one or two of them is installed. If
that were true then having two electronic ignitions would be worse than
one. By all accounts one EI and one mag gives most of the benefit
available from EI and is a winning combination.
Ken
>snip
> The problem with one mag vs.
> one electronic is you give up horsepower and fuel efficiency when the
> timing is different. The unit that has the most advance will fire first
> thus starting the combustion cycle early as it compares to the other.
> In most cases the mag will be the first to fire at lower power setting
> thus eliminating a retarded timing giving you better idle and starting.
> At takeoff power the electronic system will in most cases advance beyond
> the mag causing you the loss of power gained from the mag system during
> that period.
>
> Something to think about,
>
> Mike
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Ignition control in a dual alternator dual bus |
system
Eh?....I think you might be missing each others point...
First off, there is no loss of power/efficiency with a single EI and mag...there
is a reduction of fuel burned and probably a small power increase if you go
from a dual mag to a single EI/mag.
At low manifold pressure (high altitude) the advance will go beyond what a normal
mag will do (which is fixed at 25 deg)...up to 40 deg or so of advance. This
enables the thinned out mixture to make more power for a specific fuel consumption
because it is lighting the fire earlier...as the thinned out mixture takes
longer to burn this maximises the efficiency because max cylinder pressure
is produced (hopefully) at the optimum point i.e 11 deg or so AFTER TDC
It is possible to run into problems (destructive detonation is one of the worst
things) if the fuel octane is too low and the advance too great...
Anyway, yes if the advance is operating at 40 deg and the mag is fixed at 25 then
it takes longer for the flame to spread across the cylinder which effectively
retards the timing a little compared to if you have dual EI's...So for sure
in terms of fuel economy adding a single EI gives the most benefit...adding a
second gives a little more, but not as much as the first.
Best thing to do for starting/idling is to start on the EI for smoothest running/easiest
starting.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ignition control in a dual alternator dual bus
system
I think you've misinterpreted something. I can't believe there are any electronic
ignitions that advance so far as to reduce power and efficiency at any power
setting when one or two of them is installed. If that were true then having
two electronic ignitions would be worse than one. By all accounts one EI and one
mag gives most of the benefit available from EI and is a winning combination.
Ken
>snip
> The problem with one mag vs.
> one electronic is you give up horsepower and fuel efficiency when the
> timing is different. The unit that has the most advance will fire
> first thus starting the combustion cycle early as it compares to the other.
> In most cases the mag will be the first to fire at lower power setting
> thus eliminating a retarded timing giving you better idle and starting.
> At takeoff power the electronic system will in most cases advance
> beyond the mag causing you the loss of power gained from the mag
> system during that period.
>
> Something to think about,
>
> Mike
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Ignition control in a dual alternator dual bus |
system
Electronic ignition systems will not cause a loss of power at takeoff power
settings, as they advance the timing at lower manifold pressure cruise
conditions, just like the vacuum advance mechanism did in automobile
distributors of days gone by. Fixed magneto timing is set for the worst case
situation - WOT. The engine will run much more efficiently with the timing
advancing incrementally as the manifold pressure (and thus BMEP) declines.
William
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ignition control in a dual alternator dual
bus system
I think you've misinterpreted something. I can't believe there are any
electronic ignitions that advance so far as to reduce power and
efficiency at any power setting when one or two of them is installed. If
that were true then having two electronic ignitions would be worse than
one. By all accounts one EI and one mag gives most of the benefit
available from EI and is a winning combination.
Ken
>snip
> The problem with one mag vs.
> one electronic is you give up horsepower and fuel efficiency when the
> timing is different. The unit that has the most advance will fire first
> thus starting the combustion cycle early as it compares to the other.
> In most cases the mag will be the first to fire at lower power setting
> thus eliminating a retarded timing giving you better idle and starting.
> At takeoff power the electronic system will in most cases advance beyond
> the mag causing you the loss of power gained from the mag system during
> that period.
>
> Something to think about,
>
> Mike
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition control in a dual alternator dual bus |
system
Noticed there's a lot of dialog about electronic ignitions. My engine
builder runs all of their engines on a fully instrumented dyno for 1 1/2
hours and records all of the data at 1 minute intervals as RPMs increase
to max. Their experience is that EI's show a decrease in HP as compared
to mags, in fact they will no longer build an engine with EI. Obviously
they can't simulate changes in altitude with their dyno set up. And the
actual results @ altitude may be different, Thie was certainly
counterintuitive, but it is a data point that is worthy of
consideration, and is backed up with instrumented dyno runs. I was all
set to go with EI until I learned this and I've backed off to mags
until the emag/pmag 6 cyl version is out and has a LOT of experience
behind it.
I'm not trying to start an EI/MAG war here, and I'm certainly no
engine/electron expert, so don't shoot the messenger, I'm just trying to
share some additional information that seems the have a basis in fact
and experience.
Deems Davis # 406
'Its all done....Its just not put together'
http://deemsrv10.com/
William Slaughter wrote:
>
> Electronic ignition systems will not cause a loss of power at takeoff power
> settings, as they advance the timing at lower manifold pressure cruise
> conditions, just like the vacuum advance mechanism did in automobile
> distributors of days gone by. Fixed magneto timing is set for the worst case
> situation - WOT. The engine will run much more efficiently with the timing
> advancing incrementally as the manifold pressure (and thus BMEP) declines.
>
> William
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:21 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ignition control in a dual alternator dual
> bus system
>
>
> I think you've misinterpreted something. I can't believe there are any
> electronic ignitions that advance so far as to reduce power and
> efficiency at any power setting when one or two of them is installed. If
> that were true then having two electronic ignitions would be worse than
> one. By all accounts one EI and one mag gives most of the benefit
> available from EI and is a winning combination.
> Ken
>
> >snip
> > The problem with one mag vs.
>
>> one electronic is you give up horsepower and fuel efficiency when the
>> timing is different. The unit that has the most advance will fire first
>> thus starting the combustion cycle early as it compares to the other.
>> In most cases the mag will be the first to fire at lower power setting
>> thus eliminating a retarded timing giving you better idle and starting.
>> At takeoff power the electronic system will in most cases advance beyond
>> the mag causing you the loss of power gained from the mag system during
>> that period.
>>
>> Something to think about,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Ignition control in a dual alternator dual bus |
system
Frank,
For the most part I agree. The points that I was trying to make were
small. The main reason for using EI (order not important) is to improve
the starting, overall HP, fuel specifics, and general smoother running
throughout the range of operation. I didn't want to confuse rated
operation to improved operation. The general point is, if your going to
run a mix of EI and MAG why bother, your not going to see much gain
unless you run both systems at the same timing point.
MIke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:01 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ignition control in a dual alternator
dual bus system
(Corvallis)"
Eh?....I think you might be missing each others point...
First off, there is no loss of power/efficiency with a single EI and
mag...there is a reduction of fuel burned and probably a small power
increase if you go from a dual mag to a single EI/mag.
At low manifold pressure (high altitude) the advance will go beyond what
a normal mag will do (which is fixed at 25 deg)...up to 40 deg or so of
advance. This enables the thinned out mixture to make more power for a
specific fuel consumption because it is lighting the fire earlier...as
the thinned out mixture takes longer to burn this maximises the
efficiency because max cylinder pressure is produced (hopefully) at the
optimum point i.e 11 deg or so AFTER TDC
It is possible to run into problems (destructive detonation is one of
the worst things) if the fuel octane is too low and the advance too
great...
Anyway, yes if the advance is operating at 40 deg and the mag is fixed
at 25 then it takes longer for the flame to spread across the cylinder
which effectively retards the timing a little compared to if you have
dual EI's...So for sure in terms of fuel economy adding a single EI
gives the most benefit...adding a second gives a little more, but not as
much as the first.
Best thing to do for starting/idling is to start on the EI for smoothest
running/easiest starting.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ignition control in a dual alternator
dual bus system
I think you've misinterpreted something. I can't believe there are any
electronic ignitions that advance so far as to reduce power and
efficiency at any power setting when one or two of them is installed. If
that were true then having two electronic ignitions would be worse than
one. By all accounts one EI and one mag gives most of the benefit
available from EI and is a winning combination.
Ken
>snip
> The problem with one mag vs.
> one electronic is you give up horsepower and fuel efficiency when the
> timing is different. The unit that has the most advance will fire
> first thus starting the combustion cycle early as it compares to the
other.
> In most cases the mag will be the first to fire at lower power setting
> thus eliminating a retarded timing giving you better idle and
starting.
> At takeoff power the electronic system will in most cases advance
> beyond the mag causing you the loss of power gained from the mag
> system during that period.
>
> Something to think about,
>
> Mike
>
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Ignition control in a dual alternator dual bus |
system
I can't speak for the Emag Pmag system, but we have Dyno data that shows
the opposite with the Light Speed systems on 6cyl engines. Depending on
power settings, data shows as much as 10% hp gain with high compression
pistons.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems
Davis
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ignition control in a dual alternator
dual bus system
Noticed there's a lot of dialog about electronic ignitions. My engine
builder runs all of their engines on a fully instrumented dyno for 1 1/2
hours and records all of the data at 1 minute intervals as RPMs increase
to max. Their experience is that EI's show a decrease in HP as compared
to mags, in fact they will no longer build an engine with EI. Obviously
they can't simulate changes in altitude with their dyno set up. And the
actual results @ altitude may be different, Thie was certainly
counterintuitive, but it is a data point that is worthy of
consideration, and is backed up with instrumented dyno runs. I was all
set to go with EI until I learned this and I've backed off to mags
until the emag/pmag 6 cyl version is out and has a LOT of experience
behind it.
I'm not trying to start an EI/MAG war here, and I'm certainly no
engine/electron expert, so don't shoot the messenger, I'm just trying to
share some additional information that seems the have a basis in fact
and experience.
Deems Davis # 406
'Its all done....Its just not put together'
http://deemsrv10.com/
William Slaughter wrote:
>
> Electronic ignition systems will not cause a loss of power at takeoff
power
> settings, as they advance the timing at lower manifold pressure cruise
> conditions, just like the vacuum advance mechanism did in automobile
> distributors of days gone by. Fixed magneto timing is set for the
worst case
> situation - WOT. The engine will run much more efficiently with the
timing
> advancing incrementally as the manifold pressure (and thus BMEP)
declines.
>
> William
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:21 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ignition control in a dual alternator
dual
> bus system
>
>
> I think you've misinterpreted something. I can't believe there are any
> electronic ignitions that advance so far as to reduce power and
> efficiency at any power setting when one or two of them is installed.
If
> that were true then having two electronic ignitions would be worse
than
> one. By all accounts one EI and one mag gives most of the benefit
> available from EI and is a winning combination.
> Ken
>
> >snip
> > The problem with one mag vs.
>
>> one electronic is you give up horsepower and fuel efficiency when the
>> timing is different. The unit that has the most advance will fire
first
>> thus starting the combustion cycle early as it compares to the other.
>> In most cases the mag will be the first to fire at lower power
setting
>> thus eliminating a retarded timing giving you better idle and
starting.
>> At takeoff power the electronic system will in most cases advance
beyond
>> the mag causing you the loss of power gained from the mag system
during
>> that period.
>>
>> Something to think about,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>
>
>
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition control in a dual alternator dual bus |
system
The only explanation that I can think of is miss tuning of the advance
curve either by the supplier, or by the installer. With a dyno they
should be able to get it optimum. After all isn't the main advantage of
EI to have the advance optimized 100% of the time. Performance
automotive tuning typically involves a two dimensional map (lookup
table) of manifold pressure and rpm. One map for ignition and another
for fuel. That lets you set the ignition and mixture pretty much anywhere.
Ken
Deems Davis wrote:
>
> Noticed there's a lot of dialog about electronic ignitions. My engine
> builder runs all of their engines on a fully instrumented dyno for 1 1/2
> hours and records all of the data at 1 minute intervals as RPMs increase
> to max. Their experience is that EI's show a decrease in HP as compared
> to mags, in fact they will no longer build an engine with EI. Obviously
> they can't simulate changes in altitude with their dyno set up. And the
> actual results @ altitude may be different, Thie was certainly
> counterintuitive, but it is a data point that is worthy of
> consideration, and is backed up with instrumented dyno runs. I was all
> set to go with EI until I learned this and I've backed off to mags
> until the emag/pmag 6 cyl version is out and has a LOT of experience
> behind it.
> I'm not trying to start an EI/MAG war here, and I'm certainly no
> engine/electron expert, so don't shoot the messenger, I'm just trying to
> share some additional information that seems the have a basis in fact
> and experience.
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> 'Its all done....Its just not put together'
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Ignition control in a dual alternator dual |
bus system
>
>Frank,
>
>For the most part I agree. The points that I was trying to make were
>small. The main reason for using EI (order not important) is to improve
>the starting, overall HP, fuel specifics, and general smoother running
>throughout the range of operation. I didn't want to confuse rated
>operation to improved operation. The general point is, if your going to
>run a mix of EI and MAG why bother, your not going to see much gain
>unless you run both systems at the same timing point.
>
>MIke
Most folks running a mix of technologies are hedging their
bets. After all, EI is the "new kid" on the block although
work by Lightspeed and ElectoAir now goes back over 20 years.
The other factor is that I'm aware of no engine suppliers
that will offer you a discount equal to the cost of the
magneto ignition system for leaving it off the delivered
engine. The last point is that the vast majority of your
gains for running EI come with addition of the first system.
So, consider the cost of ownership: Take off one mag and
leave the other on to back up a EI system that's going to
do all the work. When and if the first mag craps, put the
removed one back on and get your investment back out of it.
When and if the second one craps, one would hope that the
first EI system is still going strong . . . so putting the
second brand-new EI system on gives you one old one, one
new one. You've maintained redundancy throughout the
exercise and not wasted any money on hardware while enjoying
the vast majority of what an EI system can deliver.
Most folks I've talked to running EI had yet to see
an ROI on fuel savings . . . although when it gets to
$5/gallon, that may change quickly. Most were very pleased
with starting performance and the ability to use automotive
plugs.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | New EMAG and PMAG Wiring question |
Bob, I just looked at the new?? fig 13-8 and I have a few questions. The
Pmag wiring shown would require you to turn off the main bus to test the
PMAG self power. Is this your intention? Would another method such as
using the Emag method shown with the addition of a switch between the bat
bus and the S700 2 10 switch also work. If so do you see any problems with
this set up? Thanks. Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)Qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low voltage indicator for LR3 |
> Failure of the main alternator is not an emergency. It's
> an emergency only if you have no alternatives i.e, you
> have no back up engine driven power source and you haven't
> the foggiest notion of how long your battery will run goodies
> in the endurance mode.
I can turn it into an emergency by thinking the aux alternator is
maintaining the battery when I have not remembered to turn it on.
> How about a voltmeter. Does one of your relatively low
> power digital panel-wiggets have a voltmeter function?
I will likely have a Dynon product, so yeah, it will have a low
voltage alarm, but idiot lights are still useful sometimes.
>> This also means there are 3 switches I could accidentally leave on
>> after a flight or maintenance that would ensure a depleted battery
>> before the next flight.
>
> Are there no electro-whizzies on the panel that stay
> lit up when the endurance bus is hot? . . . and three
> switches? What's going to stay on un-annunciated besides
> the e-bus alternate feed switch? Oh, yeah, the aux alternator
> switch being left on would leave a hundred+ millamps of draw
> on the battery.
Yeah, the Dynon being lit up might be a good clue :-)
> I think you're making this more complicated than
> it needs to be. If the scenario that creates the situation
> you're guarding against happens every fifth flight, there's
> a significant human factors consideration for adding the
> extra indication/warning features. But your adding "stuff"
> to a system to remind you that you've just experienced
> a main alternator failure. Therefore, in addition a need for
> getting out the toolbox after you land, you need additional
> reminding to shut off the aux alternator and e-bus alternate
> feed switches?
Far more likely that I bump a switch accidentally and don't notice it
is on. With the Dynon lit up, then I suppose the only switch that
requires an indicator is the aux alternator.
> I considered low voltage warning lights for the e-bus architecture
> some years ago but decided against it. Flying on the e-bus only
> whether supported by the SD-8 or not is an extra-ordinary happening.
> An event that should cause give the pilot a heightened awareness
> of protocols for a sweat-free termination of the flight.
Unfortunately, the low voltage indicator in my Cessna is the radios
going out after the battery is mostly discharged. The slight
difference between a little charge and a little discharge on a small
gauge in front of the passenger is insufficient. I do not anticipate
a engine failure, but I have had an alternator failure already in my
short flying career and one in pretty much every car I have owned. So
I would like something better in my Tundra.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New EMAG and PMAG Wiring question |
>
>
>Bob, I just looked at the new?? fig 13-8 and I have a few questions. The
>Pmag wiring shown would require you to turn off the main bus to test the
>PMAG self power.
Yup. You don't need to test it every flight.
> Is this your intention?
Yes. This is Emagair's recommendation.
> Would another method such as
>using the Emag method shown with the addition of a switch between the bat
>bus and the S700 2 10 switch also work. If so do you see any problems with
>this set up? Thanks. Don
No . . . except it complicates the system by adding
a function that is seldom needed and easily accommodated
by killing the main bus . . . like you COULD test the alternate
feed switch at every pre-flight during an ignition test.
Depends on how often you believe it's useful.
The design goal was to accommodate needed functionality
with a minimum of parts count and pilot workload.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | New EMAG and PMAG Wiring question |
Thanks Bob. I forgot to mention that I have 2 PMAGS and like the idea of
running them from the always hot battery bus.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: New EMAG and PMAG Wiring question
>
>
>Bob, I just looked at the new?? fig 13-8 and I have a few questions. The
>Pmag wiring shown would require you to turn off the main bus to test the
>PMAG self power.
Yup. You don't need to test it every flight.
> Is this your intention?
Yes. This is Emagair's recommendation.
> Would another method such as
>using the Emag method shown with the addition of a switch between the bat
>bus and the S700 2 10 switch also work. If so do you see any problems with
>this set up? Thanks. Don
No . . . except it complicates the system by adding
a function that is seldom needed and easily accommodated
by killing the main bus . . . like you COULD test the alternate
feed switch at every pre-flight during an ignition test.
Depends on how often you believe it's useful.
The design goal was to accommodate needed functionality
with a minimum of parts count and pilot workload.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)MCHSI.COM> |
| Subject: | EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators |
All,
I have a 1,600 hr. Q-200 that I am retrofitting to be an all electric
airplane. Chucked all the steam gauges for a Dynon Flightdeck D-180 and I
am going with a RWS <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html> all
electronic fuel injection and ignition system. I have a Continental O-200
with B&C 30a alternator installed on the rear of the engine. With the EFI &
fuel pump, my normal operation current needs will be about 8 amps.
I am in in the decision process for two batteries, vs. two alternators. I
may have room for the B&C standby alternator on the vacuum pad, but I'm not
100% sure.
Since the G.W of this plane is only 1,100 lbs, I really need to keep the
weight down (favors the alternator). On the other hand, the alternator
costs three or four times that of a second battery. On the other hand, It
may be difficult to find room for a second battery.
What say you all?
*Sam Hoskins
Quickie Blog <http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com>
Quickie Website <http://home.mchsi.com/%7Eshoskins/index.htm>
*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators |
| From: | jon(at)finleyweb.net |
=0AHi Sam!=0A=0A =0A=0AIt is very kewl to see all the work you are doing (Q
-Talk)!=0A=0A =0A=0AI think it is important to define/select the mission th
at you want your airplane to accomplish. If it is to finish the planned x-
c flight (as Bob has discussed) then a standby alternator is likely to be y
our best option. If it is to catch the "problem" and terminate the flight
uneventfully but soon, then you may arrive at a different decision. Knowin
g your history (coast to coast in a single day, multi-hour races, many long
x-c), I would suggest that your best bet is a small backup battery (8-ish
amps) and the backup alternator.=0A=0A =0A=0AJon=0A=0A=0A-----Original Mess
age-----=0AFrom: Sam Hoskins <shoskins(at)MCHSI.COM>=0ASent: Tuesday, March 4,
2008 8:21am=0ATo: Aerolectric List =0ASub
ject: AeroElectric-List: EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators=0A=0AAll,
=0A=0AI have a 1,600 hr. Q-200 that I am retrofitting to be an all electric
airplane. Chucked all the steam gauges for a Dynon Flightdeck D-180 and I
am going with a [http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html] RWS all elect
ronic fuel injection and ignition system. I have a Continental O-200 with
B&C 30a alternator installed on the rear of the engine. With the EFI & fue
l pump, my normal operation current needs will be about 8 amps. =0A=0AI am
in in the decision process for two batteries, vs. two alternators. I may
have room for the B&C standby alternator on the vacuum pad, but I'm not 100
% sure. =0A=0ASince the G.W of this plane is only 1,100 lbs, I really need
to keep the weight down (favors the alternator). On the other hand, the a
lternator costs three or four times that of a second battery. On the other
hand, It may be difficult to find room for a second battery.=0A=0AWhat say
you all?=0A=0A=0ASam Hoskins=0A[http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com/] Quick
ie Blog=0A[http://home.mchsi.com/~shoskins/index.htm] Quickie Website=0A=0A
===0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | New EMAG and PMAG Wiring question |
>
>Thanks Bob. I forgot to mention that I have 2 PMAGS and like the idea of
>running them from the always hot battery bus.
It's your airplane. I'm only echoing a design philosophy
that's recommended by the manufacturer supported by
a elegant assemblage of simple-ideas. You'll need to
do something different with respect to the switching.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators |
>All,
>
>I have a 1,600 hr. Q-200 that I am retrofitting to be an all electric
>airplane. Chucked all the steam gauges for a Dynon Flightdeck D-180 and I
>am going with a <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html>RWS all
>electronic fuel injection and ignition system. I have a Continental O-200
>with B&C 30a alternator installed on the rear of the engine. With the EFI
>& fuel pump, my normal operation current needs will be about 8 amps.
>
>I am in in the decision process for two batteries, vs. two alternators. I
>may have room for the B&C standby alternator on the vacuum pad, but I'm
>not 100% sure.
>
>Since the G.W of this plane is only 1,100 lbs, I really need to keep the
>weight down (favors the alternator). On the other hand, the alternator
>costs three or four times that of a second battery. On the other hand, It
>may be difficult to find room for a second battery.
>
>What say you all?
What are you design goals for endurance? If
8A is your running loads and you have a well
maintained 17 a.h. battery, then assuming you
cannot do any judicious load shedding for
and endurance mode, then according to
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/17AH_12V_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
your 8A load will run you about 90 minutes.
3X the "faa blessed" battery-only ops minimums.
If you carry hand-helds and a flashlight
like I do, then perhaps your endurance load
shedding can extend this time out further.
Throwing a question like this out to the
List will get you a host of responses that
tend to describe the worst fears of those who
choose to respond . . . NONE of which will
be based on a considered analysis for
the size and kind of hardware you need to
meet your mission profile and performance
goals.
You are the very best individual to make this
assessment based on the support of simple-
ideas that go into the crafting of your
final invention.
We've got a bucket full of ideas, tell us how
they might serve you?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neal George" <n8zg(at)MCHSI.COM> |
| Subject: | EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators |
Sam -
The SD-8 is smaller, lighter, has zero maintenance cost, will deliver it's
promised 8 amps indefinitely, and you should only need to buy one.
How often will you replace the $125 second battery, and how long will it
take you to spend more on batteries than the "expensive" SD-8?
I'd mount the SD-8. You'll get a few extra pounds of usable payload, lower
true cost of ownership, and if the main alternator ever quits making
electrons, you'll never have to wonder if the battery will last long enough
to get you to your intended destination comfortably.
Neal
RV-7 N8ZG (baffles)
Z-13/8
All,
I have a 1,600 hr. Q-200 that I am retrofitting to be an all electric
airplane. Chucked all the steam gauges for a Dynon Flightdeck D-180 and I
am going with a RWS <http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html> all
electronic fuel injection and ignition system. I have a Continental O-200
with B&C 30a alternator installed on the rear of the engine. With the EFI &
fuel pump, my normal operation current needs will be about 8 amps.
I am in in the decision process for two batteries, vs. two alternators. I
may have room for the B&C standby alternator on the vacuum pad, but I'm not
100% sure.
Since the G.W of this plane is only 1,100 lbs, I really need to keep the
weight down (favors the alternator). On the other hand, the alternator
costs three or four times that of a second battery. On the other hand, It
may be difficult to find room for a second battery.
What say you all?
Sam Hoskins
Quickie <http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com> Blog
Quickie Website <http://home.mchsi.com/%7Eshoskins/index.htm>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Ignition control in a dual alternator dual |
bus system
Bob,
One engine builder that offers EI as an option to Mags is Performance
Engines of California. I would think that Lycon and BPE may also do the
same.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ignition control in a dual alternator
dual bus system
>
>Frank,
>
>For the most part I agree. The points that I was trying to make were
>small. The main reason for using EI (order not important) is to
improve
>the starting, overall HP, fuel specifics, and general smoother running
>throughout the range of operation. I didn't want to confuse rated
>operation to improved operation. The general point is, if your going
to
>run a mix of EI and MAG why bother, your not going to see much gain
>unless you run both systems at the same timing point.
>
>MIke
Most folks running a mix of technologies are hedging their
bets. After all, EI is the "new kid" on the block although
work by Lightspeed and ElectoAir now goes back over 20 years.
The other factor is that I'm aware of no engine suppliers
that will offer you a discount equal to the cost of the
magneto ignition system for leaving it off the delivered
engine. The last point is that the vast majority of your
gains for running EI come with addition of the first system.
So, consider the cost of ownership: Take off one mag and
leave the other on to back up a EI system that's going to
do all the work. When and if the first mag craps, put the
removed one back on and get your investment back out of it.
When and if the second one craps, one would hope that the
first EI system is still going strong . . . so putting the
second brand-new EI system on gives you one old one, one
new one. You've maintained redundancy throughout the
exercise and not wasted any money on hardware while enjoying
the vast majority of what an EI system can deliver.
Most folks I've talked to running EI had yet to see
an ROI on fuel savings . . . although when it gets to
$5/gallon, that may change quickly. Most were very pleased
with starting performance and the ability to use automotive
plugs.
Bob . . .
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Ignition control in a dual alternator dual |
bus system
Bob,
A side not to my last post: Most of the folks on this site are 4
cylinder operators and tend to follow the money trail of low cost (a
great thing). The 6 cylinder folks don't have as many options and tend
to deal with the race side of the house and the people engaged in
maximum performance who have spent the time looking for power
advantages.
Mike
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators |
Hi Sam
Flying an "all electric" aircraft myself for the past 10 years, I'd like
to provide you my viewpoint (and that is all it is). I first started
out with 1 alternator and two 22 lb 25 AH Concord RCG batteries for a
total of 44 lbs of battery power. After carrying that weigh around for
a couple years, I replaced them with two 14 lb 17 AH Odyssey batteries
shedding quite a bit of weight. After flying a couple more years with
the two Odyssey and never in all those years having need for the standby
battery (I did use it to aid starting on cold mornings), I removed one
and now fly with the single 17 AH 14 lb Odyssey which I swap out every
2nd year.
With battery technology improving, I may in the future add a small 7 AH
battery as an emergency back up, but given the lesser load capability of
your platform, you may want to give more study and thought to your basic
electrical power concept. As someone else has already mentioned, it
needs to fit your typical flight profile.
FWIW
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Hoskins
To: Aerolectric List
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:21 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFI- two batteries vs. two alternators
All,
I have a 1,600 hr. Q-200 that I am retrofitting to be an all electric
airplane. Chucked all the steam gauges for a Dynon Flightdeck D-180 and
I am going with a RWS all electronic fuel injection and ignition system.
I have a Continental O-200 with B&C 30a alternator installed on the
rear of the engine. With the EFI & fuel pump, my normal operation
current needs will be about 8 amps.
I am in in the decision process for two batteries, vs. two
alternators. I may have room for the B&C standby alternator on the
vacuum pad, but I'm not 100% sure.
Since the G.W of this plane is only 1,100 lbs, I really need to keep
the weight down (favors the alternator). On the other hand, the
alternator costs three or four times that of a second battery. On the
other hand, It may be difficult to find room for a second battery.
What say you all?
Sam Hoskins
Quickie Blog
Quickie Website
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | Z-19 Series Architecture |
Bob,
On the Z-19 rev M and Z-19/RB rev A drawings the E-BUS normal feed is from
the Main PWR Dist block thru a 7A breaker and diode.
February 13, 2008 - March 04, 2008
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-hq